his class. It depends entirely upon the possession of the gold of character and mentality, for which all may strive. Moreover, the life of the so-called first caste is literally dedicated to the best service of the rest. If this be aristocracy, we cannot have too much of it.270
Neither is Aristotle’s criticism warranted, that Plato makes the happiness of the whole state something different from the sum of its parts.271
He merely states the principle, universally true, that no class has a right to expect to be happy at the expense of the whole state, and that, in the long run, the prosperity of each is bound up in the prosperity of all. Indeed, he puts the very objections of Aristotle and Grote into the mouth of Adeimantus, and answers them satisfactorily, in his illustration of the painted statue.272
There could hardly be a better example of Plato’s lofty ideal, that each part is to contribute its share toward the utility, beauty, and happiness of the whole, and that through this cooperation each realizes the highest quantum of happiness for himself.
This doctrine of mutual interdependence is the basal principle of Christianity, taught by Jesus and Paul in a strikingly similar figure of the body and its members,273 though naturally Plato’s idea of brotherhood is narrower in scope.
The common assertion that Plato has no regard for the artisan class, then, is unwarranted.274 The entire Republic is built upon the opposite principle, to prevent exploitation of the lower by the upper classes; and his comparison of good and evil rulers to shepherd dogs and wolves275 is a precursor of the famous passages of Milton and Ruskin on the same theme.