"It is, indeed," he said. "Is not the logical first step towards such an agreement to ask ourselves what we could name as the greatest good for the constitution of a state and the proper aim of a lawgiver in his legislation, and what would be the greatest evil, and then to consider whether the proposals we have just set forth fit into the footprints*We may perhaps infer from the more explicit reference in Theaetetus 193 C that Plato is thinking of the "recognition" by footprints in Aeschylus Choeph.205-210. of the good and do not suit those of the evil?" "By all means," he said. "Do we know of any greater evil for a state than the thing that distracts it and makes it many instead of one, or a greater good than that which binds it together and makes it one?" "We do not." "Is not, then, the community of pleasure and pain the tie that binds, when, so far as may be, all the citizens rejoice and grieve alike at the same births and deaths?" "By all means," he said. "But the individualization of these feelings is a dissolvent, when some grieve exceedingly and others rejoice at the same happenings to the city and its inhabitants?" "Of course." "And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as "mine" and "not mine," and similarly with regard to the word "alien"?"*Cf. 423 B, Aristotle Politics 1261 b 16 ff., "Plato’s Laws and the Unity of Plato’s Thought," Class. Phil. ix. (
"It is time," I said, "to return to our city and observe whether it, rather than any other, embodies the qualities agreed upon in our argument.*For these further confirmations of an established thesis cf. on 442-443." "We must," he said.