very unfair, and especially to Plato. Such extreme assertions as the following are frequent: “They [the masses] are of no account altogether.” Plato in the Republic “voue à l’ignominie, au mépris, à la misère, à la servitude éternelle la classe des ouvriers.” “Für die des Erwerb obliegenden Personen bedarf es keiner Erziehung.” “Plato, in treating of the ideal state, deems it not worth while to concern himself with the trading and artisan classes.” “Und im übrigen will er sie [the masses], wie es scheint, durchaus sich selbst überlassen.”
To be sure, as above admitted, the interest of Greek thinkers was not marked by the modern sentiment of sympathy for the laborer. Their writings are characterized by a certain aristocratic feeling, and they do not emphasize the worth or importance of the masses. Yet they are far from being indifferent or hostile to them.
Aristotle himself was the first to make this false criticism of Plato.265 But the author of the Republic foresaw that he might be misinterpreted, and excused himself for his indefiniteness in the details of the ideal state.266 Moreover, Aristotle’s criticism is not borne out by a study of the Republic. Plato implies with sufficient clearness that his communistic regulations are limited to the two upper classes.267 It is not true either, as Aristotle asserts,268 that there is a rigid caste system in the Republic. The very opposite principle is laid down.269 The myth of the three metals presents an aristocracy based strictly on intellectual and moral excellence. No arbitrary obstacle hinders either the degradation or the rise of any individual from