Chapter III. Further on the Same Subject From the Second Book of the Republic; Also That God is Not the Cause of Evils

[PLATO] ‘IN the greater fables, said I, we shall discern the lesser also: for the general character and the effect of both the greater and the less must be the same. Do you not think so? Yes, I do, said he: but I do not even understand which you call the greater. Those, said I, which Hesiod and Homer and the other poets used to tell us. For they, I suppose, used to compose and tell, and do still tell, false stories to mankind.

‘What kind of stories do you mean, said he, and what fault do you find with them?

‘The fault, said I, which before and above all we ought to reprove, especially if the falsehood is unseemly.

‘What is this fault?

‘When a man in his discourse concerning gods and heroes misrepresents their nature, as when an artist paints what is not at all like the things which he may wish to imitate.

‘Yes indeed, said he, it is right to condemn such things: but how. and what kind of faults do we mean?

‘In the first place then, said I, it was an unseemly lie that was told by the author of that greatest fiction about the greatest gods, how Uranus wrought what Hesiod says he did, and how Kronos took revenge upon him. Again, the doings of Kronos and his treatment by his son, even if they were true, ought not, I should have thought, to have been thus lightly mentioned before young and silly persons, but, best of all, to have been buried in silence; or, if there were any necessity to tell them, then as few as possible should have heard them in secret, after sacrificing no mere pig, but some great and scarce victim, so that very few might have had a chance of hearing them.

‘Yes indeed, said he, these stories are mischievous. Aye, said I, and they must not be told in our city, Adeimantus; nor must a young hearer be told, that he would be doing nothing extraordinary in committing the worst crimes, nor on the other hand in inflicting every kind of punishment upon his father if he did wrong, but would be doing what the first and greatest of the gods did.

‘Certainly not, nor in my own opinion are such stories fit to be told.

‘Nor yet, said I, about gods going to war with gods, and plotting against each other and fighting (untrue as such things are), ought anything to be said, if the future guardians of our city are to think it most disgraceful to be quarrelling lightly one with another. Far less ought we to tell them in fables and on tapestry about wars of the giants and many other quarrels of all kinds between gods and heroes and their own kinsmen and relations: but if we could in any way persuade them, that no citizen was ever at enmity with a fellow citizen, and that such a thing was unholy, these are the kind of tales that ought rather to be told to children from the first by old men and old women and by those who are growing elderly, and the poets should be compelled to make their tales like these.

‘The chaining too of Hera by her son, and the hurling of Hephaestus out of heaven by his father, when he was going to defend his mother from a beating, and all the battles of the gods that Homer has invented, must not be admitted into the city, whether they are composed with or without allegorical meanings.

‘For the youth is not able to judge what is allegory and what is not: but whatever opinions he accepts at such an age are wont to become indelible and unalterable: and on this account perhaps we ought to regard it of the highest importance, that the tales which they first hear “should be adapted in the most perfect manner to the promotion of virtue.” [1]

‘Yes, that is reasonable, said he: but if any one were to ask us again which these fictions are, and what fables we mean, which should we mention? Then said I: My dear Adeimantus, you and I are not speaking at present as poets, but as founders of a state: and founders of a state ought to know the moulds in which poets should cast their fictions, and from which they must not be permitted to deviate, nor must they invent the fables themselves.

‘Quite right, said he: but that is the very point, what would be the proper models in the case of theology?

‘Some such as the following, said I; God must of course always be represented as He really is, whether a poet describes Him in epic verse, or in lyrics, or in tragedy.

‘Yes, that must be so.

‘Is not God then really good, and to be so described?

‘Of course.

‘But surely nothing good is hurtful? Is it?

‘I think not.

‘Does then that which is not hurtful do hurt?

‘Of course not.

‘And does that which hurts not, do any evil?

‘No, again.

‘Neither can that which does no evil be the cause of any evil?

‘How could it?

‘Well then, is the good beneficial?

‘Yes.

‘It is the cause then of well-being?

‘Yes.

‘The good then is not the cause of all things, but only of what is right, and not the cause of evils.

‘Quite so, said he.

‘Neither then, said I, can God, since He is good, be the cause of all things, as the many say, but of few things that happen to men He is the cause, and of many things He is not the cause: for our good things are far fewer than the evil. And of the good we must assign no other cause than God, but of the evil we must seek the causes in other things, but not in God.

‘I think, said he, you speak most truly.

‘We must not then, said I, allow either Homer or any other poet foolishly to commit such an offence as this against the gods, and to say that

“ Two coffers lie beside the door of Zeus, With gifts for man; one good, the other ill.” [2]

‘And to whom Zeus give a mixture of the two,

“Him sometimes evil, sometimes good befalls”; [3]

‘And to whom he gives no mixture, but the ill alone,

“Him ravenous hunger o’er God’s earth pursues.” [4]

‘Nor must we admit that Zeus is to us

“The sole dispenser both of weal and woe.” [5]

‘And if any one say that the violation of oaths and treaties wrought by Pandarus was brought about by Athene and Zeus,[6] we shall not approve: nor that the strife and contest of the gods was caused by Themis and Zeus:[7] nor again must we permit our young men to hear how Aeschylus says that

“ God plants in mortal breasts the cause of sin, When He would utterly destroy a house.” [8]

‘But if any one writes a poem, in which these iambics are found, about the sorrows of Niobe, or the calamities of “Pelops’ line,” or the “tale of Troy,” or any other such events, either we must forbid him to call them the work of a god, or, if of a god, then he must invent some such explanation for them as we are now seeking, and must say that God did what was just and good, and the others were the better for being chastised. But we must not permit the poet to say that those who suffered punishment were miserable, and that this was God’s doing.

‘If, however, they would say that the wicked were miserable because they needed punishment, but were benefited by being punished by God, that we must approve.

‘But as to saying that God, who is good, becomes the author of evil to any, we must by all possible means contend that no one shall make such statements in his own city, if it is to be governed by good laws, nor any one either young or old listen to his tales whether in verse or prose, as such statements if tittered would be impious, and neither profitable to us, nor consistent with themselves.

‘I vote with you, said he, for this law, and am pleased with it.

‘This then, said I, will be one of the laws and moulds in which our speakers must speak concerning God, and our poets write, That God is not the cause of all things, but only of the good.

‘That is quite satisfactory, said he.

‘And what then of this second? Do you suppose God to be a sorcerer, and of a nature to show Himself craftily now in one form and now in another, at one time actually becoming what He seems, and changing His own proper form into various shapes, and at another deceiving us, and making us imagine such transformations in Him; or do you think that He is a simple essence, and most unlikely to go out of His own proper form?

‘I am not able, said he, to answer now off-hand.

‘Well, what do you say to this? If anything were to change from its own proper form, must it not be changed either by itself or by some other?

‘It must.

‘Are not then the things which are in the best condition least liable to be altered or moved by another? As for example when a body is affected by meats and drinks and labours, and every plant by sunshine and winds and other such influences, is it not the healthiest and the most perfect that is altered least?

‘Of course it is.

‘And would not the bravest and wisest soul be least disturbed and altered by any influence from without?

‘Yes.

‘Moreover I suppose that, on the same principle, among all manufactured things, furniture, buildings, and clothes, those that are well made and in good condition suffer the least alteration from time and other influences?

‘It is so.

‘Everything then which is well constituted either by nature or art, or both, admits the least alteration by any other?

‘So it seems.

‘But surely God, and the things of God, are in every way most excellent?

‘Of course.

‘In this way then God is most unlikely to take many shapes.

‘Most unlikely indeed.

‘But would He change and alter Himself?

‘Evidently, said he, if He is changed at all.

‘Does He then change Himself into what is better and more beautiful, or into what is worse and less beautiful than Himself?

‘It must be into what is worse than Himself, if He is changed at all: for surely we shall not say that God is imperfect in beauty or goodness.

‘You are quite right, said I. And this being so, do you think, Adeimantus, that any one, whether god or man, would willingly make himself worse in any way?

‘Impossible, said he.

‘It is also impossible then, said I, that a god should be willing to change himself, but each one of them, as it seems, being as perfect as possible in beauty and goodness, remains ever absolutely in his own form.

‘It seems to me quite certain, said he.

‘Then, my good friend, said I, let none of the poets tell us that

“ Gods, in the guise of strangers from afar, Wander in various forms from state to state.” [9]

‘Nor let any one slander Proteus and Thetis, nor introduce Hera in tragedies nor in any other poems transformed as a priestess begging alms

“For Inachus the Argive river-god’s Life-giving daughters.” [10]

‘These and many other such falsehoods let them cease to invent. Neither let our mothers be persuaded by these poets to terrify their children by the tales which they wickedly tell them, that certain gods forsooth wander about by night in the likeness of many animals of different kinds, lest they be both guilty of blasphemy against the gods, and at the same time make their children more cowardly.

‘Let them beware, said he.

‘But then, said I, do the gods, though they are not capable of actual change, make us imagine, by their deception and magic, that they appear in various forms?

‘Perhaps, said he.

‘Well then, said I, would a god be willing to lie either by word or by deed, in putting phantoms before us?

‘I do not know, said he.

‘Do you not know, said I, that the true lie, if one may so speak, is hated by all both gods and men?

‘How do you mean? said he.

‘You know, of course, said I, that no one willingly consents to lie to the highest and chiefest part of himself, and concerning matters of the highest importance, but every one fears above all to harbour a lie there.

‘No, I do not even now understand you, said he.

‘Because, said I, you think I have some grand meaning: but I only mean that to lie to the soul about realities, and to be deceived and ignorant, and to have and to hold the falsehood there, is what all men would most dislike, and what in that part of them they utterly detest.

‘Yes, utterly, said he.

‘But surely, as I was saying just now, this is what might most rightly be called “a true lie,” this ignorance in the soul of the deceived: since the lie in words is a sort of imitation of the affection in the soul, and an image produced afterwards, not at all a pure unmixed lie. Is it not so?

‘Yes, certainly.

‘The real lie then is hated not only by gods, but also by men?

‘I think so.

‘Well then? When and in what case is the lie in words useful, and so not deserving to be hated? Is it not in dealing with enemies, and when any of those who are called our friends from madness or any kind of folly attempt to do some mischief, it then becomes useful as a remedy to turn them from their purpose?

‘Also in those mythical tales of which we were speaking just now, because we know not how the truth stands about ancient events, do we not make the falsehood as much like truth as possible, and so make it useful?

‘It certainly is so, said he.

‘For which of these reasons then is falsehood useful to God? Would He lie from ignorance of ancient events by trying to make them like the truth?

‘Nay, that would be ridiculous.

‘There is nothing of the lying poet then in God?

‘I think not.

‘But would He lie through fear of His enemies?

‘Far from it.

‘Or because His friends are foolish or mad?

‘Nay, said he, no fool or madman is a friend of God.

‘There is no motive then for a god to lie?

‘There is none.

‘The nature then of gods and demi-gods is quite incapable of falsehood?

‘Yes, utterly so.

‘God then is perfectly simple and true both in deed and word, and neither changes in Himself, nor deceives others, either in apparitions, or by words, or by sending signs, either in dream or waking vision.

‘I too think it is just as you say.

‘You agree then, said I, that this is a second mould in which speech or poetry about the gods must be cast, that they neither are wizards who transform themselves nor mislead us by falsehoods either in word or in deed?

‘I do agree.

‘While therefore we commend many other things in Homer, we shall not commend this, the sending of the dream by Zeus to Agamemnon;[11] nor the passage of Aeschylus, in which Thetis says that Apollo, singing at her marriage,

“Dwelt on my happy motherhood, The life from sickness free and lengthened years; Then all-inclusively he blest my lot, Favoured of heaven, in strains that cheered my soul. And I too fondly deemed those lips divine Sacred to truth, fraught with prophetic skill; But he himself who sang, the marriage-guest Himself, who spake all this, ‘twas even he That slew my son.” [12]

‘When a poet says such things as these about gods, we shall be angry, and refuse him a chorus; neither shall we allow our teachers to use them for the education of the young, if our guardians are to grow up devout and godlike, as far as it is possible for man to be.

‘I entirely assent, said he, to these principles, and would adopt them as laws.’

Thus speaks Plato: and you would find that the Hebrew Scripture does not contain disgraceful tales about the God of the universe, nor yet about the heavenly angels around Him, nor even about the men who are beloved of God, in any like manner to the Greek theologies; but it contains the model put forth by Plato, that God is good, and all things done by Him are of the same character.

Therefore after each of the works of creation that admirable man Moses adds,[13] And God saw that it was good: and at the end of all he sums up his account of the whole and says,[14] And God saw all things that He had made, and, behold, they were very good. It is also a doctrine of the Hebrews that God is not the author of evils, inasmuch as God made not death, neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living:[15] for He created all things that they might have being, and the generative powers of the world are healthful; but by the envy of the devil death entered into the world.[16]

Wherefore by the prophet also God is introduced as saying to the man who from his own choice had become evil, Yet I had planted thee a fruitful vine: how wast thou turned back into the strange vine? [17] And if it should anywhere be said that evils happen to the wicked from God, it must be understood as an accidental coincidence of name, this name being given to the chastisements which God in His goodness is said to send not for the hurt of those who are chastised, but for their benefit and profit: just as a physician to save the sick might be thought to apply bad things in his painful and bitter remedies.

Wherefore in the sacred Scripture also, where it is said that evils are brought upon men by God, we must apply the saying of Plato, ‘that God did what was just and good,’ even when He was inflicting stern treatment and what men think evils upon those who so deserved, and that ‘they were the better for being chastised,’ not only according to the philosopher but also according to the Hebrew Scripture which says,[18] For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.

‘But we must not permit the poet to say that they who were punished were miserable, and that this was God’s doing; if, however, they would say that the wicked were miserable because they needed chastisement, but were benefited by being punished by God, that we must approve. But as to saying that God, who is good, becomes the author of evil to any, we must by all possible means contend against it.’ [19]

Moreover on the point that God is not subject to change, the Hebrew prophecy teaches as follows, speaking in the person of God: For I am the Lord your God, and I change not.[20] David also, in his description of God, cries aloud saying: They all shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt Thou roll them up, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.[21]

Wherever the Hebrew writings introduce the Word of God as appearing in form and fashion of man, we must remark that they do not represent Him as appearing to men in the same manner as Proteus and Thetis and Hera, according to the Greek legends, nor as the gods who wander about at night in the likeness of animals of many various kinds; but He came, as Plato himself says is sometimes necessary, for the benefit of friends: ‘when through madness or some kind of folly they attempt to do mischief, then as a remedy to turn them from their purpose’ [22] the advent of God among men is useful.

Now no species of living creatures on earth is dearer to God than man, a species which is of the kindred and family of the Word of God, by whom also man was made rational in the nature of his soul; with good reason therefore they say that the heavenly Word, in His care for a living creature whom He loved, came for the healing of the whole race, which had become subject to disease and a strange kind of madness, so that they knew neither God their Father, nor the proper essence of their own spiritual nature, nor yet God’s providence which preserves the universe, but had almost come into the degenerate state of an irrational animal.

And on this account, they say, the Saviour and Physician at His advent departed not from His own proper nature, nor yet deceived those who saw Him, but preserved the truth of both natures, the invisible and the visible. For in one way He was seen as true man, and in another way He was the true Word of God, not by witchcraft nor by deluding the spectators; for even Plato thought that the divine nature was rightly free from falsehood.

‘Therefore God the Word, being perfectly simple and true both in deed and in word, neither changed Himself, nor deceived others, either by apparitions or by words, or by sending signs, either in dream or waking vision.’ [23]For all such actions He performed, as became a Physician of reasonable souls, for the salvation of the whole human race, in reality and not in mere seeming, by means of the human nature which He assumed; and thus He bestowed on all of us reconciliation and friendship with His Father through that knowledge of God and true religion which was announced by Him.

Such then are our doctrines: and with those who say otherwise ‘we shall be angry, and refuse them a chorus, neither shall we allow our teachers to use their sayings for the education of the young, if our guardians are to grow up devout and godlike,’ [24] as our philosopher also thought to be best.