The Republic is a story. Plato is not writing nonfiction but fiction.

 

The story is Socrates’ recollection of what happened the day before, much as Scott Fitzgerald, the author, has his character, Nick Carraway, recount his past encounter with a group of people.

 

So Plato has written a story about a man who is telling others about what happened to him and his companion the day before. Now, of course, if we take Socrates to be a real person, then Plato is potentially writing down what Socrates has actually told him in the past. But the fact that Socrates and the others are introduced as characters, “dramatis personae,” implies that this is a work of fiction, a comedy.

 

Socrates tells us that he went to a festival with Glaucon. His main companion is Glaucon. There are two reasons he went. One, to pray to the goddess, that is, for religious or spiritual reasons. And, two, to observe a novel festival. That is, to learn something. Socrates is introduced as a character who is both pious and studious.

 

After leaving the festival to return home, Socrates and Glaucon are intercepted by some old friends. There is a weird exchange in which his friends essentially try to force him to come with him, suggesting that since there are so many of them, they will be able to impose their will. Socrates asks if there isn’t another way for him to win his freedom, that of persuasion, introducing the idea that arguments may be able to overcome force. But his friends say that that would be useless if they won’t listen, to which Glaucon agrees. Argument is only effective where people are willing to listen to arguments.

 

At this point, one of the friends tries to persuade Socrates by appealing to his interests, telling Socrates that there is a novel race in honor of the goddess, appealing to both his piety and interest in learning. Furthermore, he says that there will be lots of young men with which to talk. In other words, people willing to listen to arguments. This is a wet dream for a man like Socrates. At this, Glaucon says they “must” stay, which is still the language of force. Does he use it to make the others feel like they have won with strength? For he could have said, “we will stay,” or “we’d be happy to stay,” which would imply that he has been won over by what interests him, not force.

 

At this, Socrates says that if it has been “resolved,” then that is how they “must” act. The use of “resolved” seems to imply that Socrates sees the situation as having been agreed upon after group discussion. The group has discussed a resolution and the group has voted to go ahead. In which case, a person “must” abide by that. He will not abide by force willingly, but he will cede to argument and group will. Alternatively, “resolved” could mean that a firm decision has been made and, consequently, he has to go along with it, for there is no more point in arguing once a firm decision is made. Though he does qualify his use of “resolved” by saying “if” it is so resolved. This would lead one to believe that he’s not sure that it really has been settled, but is willing to play along. One would likely have to know the greek in order to settle this. And, luckily for us, Bloom has provided interpretive assistance for us, saying that “resolved” in this instance is like a resolution that the Athenians would have made. So, indeed, Socrates is willing to bend to the political decision of the group.

 

Heading into Polemarchus’ home, they come across Polemarchus’ father (who has just been making a sacrifice), who Socrates notes is very old. Socrates later tells Polemarchus that he is, as the poets say, at “the threshold of old age.” This is the first use of and reference to the poets (novelists, storytellers and movie-makers in our day), and what they say. This is the first of very many uses like this. In fact, a good portion of The Republic is spent arguing whether or not the poets are useful guides in life. Cephalus immediately references “the old proverb.” Socrates is curious to learn from Polemarchus what it is like when one gets old, in order to see whether one ought to live differently in order to have a good life in old age.

 

This is the beginning of the exploration of what a good life is. He is sitting with young men asking an old man about his experience so that they can learn from it. It’s interesting to think about the end of the book, in which Socrates relates the myth of Er. The myth shows the consequences of living different types of lives. Plato seems to have foreshadowed much of what happens later in the book. For here Plato uses the story of an old man to teach us about the consequences of living a certain type of life, just as later, Socrates uses the story of Er to teach us about the consequences of certain types of life.

 

Cephalus gives his opinion about old age. Unlike many, who miss the pleasures of the body, Cephalus is happy to be rid of this influence in his life, describing it as “very many mad masters,” implying that he didn’t have full control over himself, foreshadowing later discussion about ruling oneself to live a good life. He attributes his happiness in old age to his character, and says that this is what affects happiness even in young people. Old age does not make life unhappy, but rather having a bad character, according to Cephalus. Socrates is excited with this answer and wishes to hear more. He goads him on by playing the devil’s advocate, suggesting that Cephalus is happy not because of his character, but because he has more money than others, which makes life easier. Cephalus partly agrees with Socrates and refers to poets to make the point that riches certainly make it easier to be happy, but they will not make a person of poor character happy.

 

At this point, Socrates asks an interesting, if not impolite, question of Cephalus.

 

See “Post 2” in this series for more.