(2) A pious man who was on the true path saw Sultan Mahmud in a dream and said to him: 'O auspicious King, how are things in the Kingdom of Eternity?' The Sultan replied:

' Strike my body if you wish but leave my soul alone. Say nothing, and depart, for here one does not speak of royalty. My power was only vanity and self-pride, conceit and error. Can sovereignty exalt a handful of earth? Sovereignty belongs to God, the Master of the Universe. Now that I have seen my weaknesses and my impotence, I am ashamed of my royalty. If you wish to give me a title, give me that of "the afflicted one". God is the King of Nature, so do not call me king. Empire belongs to him; and I would be happy now to be a simple dervish on earth. Would to God he had a hundred weUs to put me in so that I had not been a ruler. Rather would I have been a gleaner in the cornfields. Call Mahmud a slave. Give my blessings to my son Masud, and say to him: " If you would have understanding take warning from your father's state. May the wings and the feathers wither of that Humay which cast its shadow upon me!"'

(577) a like request, that I should have a judge whose mind can enter into and see through human nature? he must not be like a child who looks at the outside and is dazzled at the pompous aspect which the tyrannical nature assumes to the beholder, but let him be one who has a clear insight. May I suppose that the judgment is given in the hearing of us all by one who is able to judge, and has dwelt in the same place with him, and been present at his dally life and known him in his family relations, where he may be seen stripped of his tragedy attire, and again in the hour of public danger—he shall tell us about the happiness and misery of the tyrant when compared with other men? That again, he said, is a very fair proposal. Shall I assume that we ourselves are able and experienced judges and have before now met with such a person? We shall then have some one who will answer our enquiries. By all means. Let me ask you not to forget the parallel of the individual and the State; bearing this in mind, and glancing in turn from one to the other of them, will you tell me their respective conditions? What do you mean? he asked. Beginning with the State, I replied, would you say that a city which is governed by a tyrant is free or enslaved? No city, he said, can be more completely enslaved. And yet, as you see, there are freemen as well as masters in such a State? Yes, he said, I see that there are—a few; but the people, speaking generally, and the best of them are miserably degraded and enslaved.

(6) Thus it is demonstrated that to capture a man it is not sufficient to enslave his body--it is necessary to enlist his reason; that to free a man it is not enough to strike the shackles from his limbs--his mind must be liberated from bondage to his own ignorance. Physical conquest must ever fail, for, generating hatred and dissension, it spurs the mind to the avenging of an outraged body; but all men are bound whether willingly or unwillingly to obey that intellect in which they recognize qualities and virtues superior to their own.

(578) Reflecting upon these and similar evils, you held the tyrannical State to be the most miserable of States? And I was right, he said. Certainly, I said. And when you see the same evils in the tyrannical man, what do you say of him? I say that he is by far the most miserable of all men. There, I said, I think that you are beginning to go wrong. What do you mean? I do not think that he has as yet reached the utmost extreme of misery. Then who is more miserable? One of whom I am about to speak. Who is that? He who is of a tyrannical nature, and instead of leading a private life has been cursed with the further misfortune of being a public tyrant. From what has been said, I gather that you are right. Yes, I replied, but in this high argument you should be a little more certain, and should not conjecture only; for of all questions, this respecting good and evil is the greatest. Very true, he said. Let me then offer you an illustration, which may, I think, throw a light upon this subject. What is your illustration? The case of rich individuals in cities who possess many slaves: from them you may form an idea of the tyrant’s condition, for they both have slaves; the only difference is that he has more slaves. Yes, that is the difference. You know that they live securely and have nothing to apprehend from their servants? What should they fear? Nothing. But do you observe the reason of this? Yes; the reason is, that the whole city is leagued together for the protection of each individual.

(578) Very true, I said. But imagine one of these owners, the master say of some fifty slaves, together with his family and property and slaves, carried off by a god into the wilderness, where there are no freemen to help him—will he not be in an agony of fear lest he and his wife and children should be put to death by his slaves? Yes, he said, he will be in the utmost fear. The time has arrived when he will be compelled to flatter divers of his slaves, and make many promises to them of freedom and other things, much against his will—he will have to cajole his own servants. Yes, he said, that will be the only way of saving himself. And suppose the same god, who carried him away, to surround him with neighbours who will not suffer one man to be the master of another, and who, if they could catch the offender, would take his life? His case will be still worse, if you suppose him to be everywhere surrounded and watched by enemies. And is not this the sort of prison in which the tyrant will be bound—he who being by nature such as we have described, is full of all sorts of fears and lusts? His soul is dainty and greedy, and yet alone, of all men in the city, he is never allowed to go on a journey, or to see the things which other freemen desire to see, but he lives in his hole like a woman

(4) One day, Mahmud called his favourite to him and gave him his crown and made him sit on his throne, and said to him: 'Ayaz, I give you my kingdom and my army. Reign, for this country is yours; and I now wish you to take my place and throw your ear-ring of slavery to the Moon and the Fish.'

When the officers and courtiers heard about it their eves went black from jealousy and they said: 'Never in the world has a king given so much honour to a slave/ But Ay' wept, and they said to him: 'Have you lost your senses? You are no longer a slave but of the royalty. Why do you weep? Be contented!' Ay' replied: 'You do not see things as they are, you do not understand that the Sultan of this great countty has exiled me from his presence. He wishes me to rule his kingdom, but I do not wish to be separated from him. I wish to obey him but not to leave him. What have I to do with government and royalty? My happiness is in seeing his face.'

Learn from Ayaz how to sere God, you who remain idle day and night, occupied with cheap and 'ulgar pleasures. Ay' descends from the summit of power, but you do not stir from where you are, neither have you any wish to change yourself. To whom will you at last be able to tell your sorrows? So long as you depend on paradise and hell, how will you be able to understand the secret which I wish to reveal to you; but when you no longer depend on those to the dawn of the mystety will lift itself from the night. The garden of paradise moreover is not for the indifferent; and the empyrean is only for the men of heart.

(4) Lokman of Sarkhasi said: 'O God, I am old, and my mind is troubled; I have strayed from the Way. To an old slave they give a certificate of freedom. In your service, O my King, my black hair has become white as snow. I am a slave, cast down; give me now the certificate of freedom.'

A voice from the inner world replied: 'You, who have been specially admitted to the sanctuar}', know that he who wishes for release from slavery must discard his reason, and not occupy himself with cares and anxieties.'

Lokman said: 'O my God, I desire only you, and I know 'that I must not give way to imagination or care and anxiety.' When Lokman had renounced these things, he said: 'Now I do not know what I am. I am not a slave, but what am I? My slavery is ended, but my freedom has not taken place: in my heart is neither joy nor sadness. I am without quality, yet I am not deprived of it. I am a contemplative, yet I do not possess contemplation. I do not know if Thou art I or I am Thou; I have been reduced to nothing in Thee and duality has been lost.'

(577) Then if the man is like the State, I said, must not the same rule prevail? his soul is full of meanness and vulgarity—the best elements in him are enslaved; and there is a small ruling part, which is also the worst and maddest. Inevitably. And would you say that the soul of such an one is the soul of a freeman, or of a slave? He has the soul of a slave, in my opinion. And the State which is enslaved under a tyrant is utterly incapable of acting voluntarily? Utterly incapable. And also the soul which is under a tyrant (I am speaking of the soul taken as a whole) is least capable of doing what she desires; there is a gadfly which goads her, and she is full of trouble and remorse? Certainly. And is the city which is under a tyrant rich or poor? Poor. And the tyrannical soul must be always poor and insatiable? True. And must not such a State and such a man be always full of fear? Yes, indeed. Is there any State in which you will find more of lamentation and sorrow and groaning and pain? Certainly not. And is there any man in whom you will find more of this sort of misery than in the tyrannical man, who is in a fury of passions and desires? Impossible.

(1) For it was ludicrous. It is I who bear witness that it was ludicrous, since the rulers do not know that this is an ineffable union of undefiled truth, as exists among the children of light, of which they made an imitation, having proclaimed a doctrine of a dead man and lies so as to resemble the freedom and purity of the perfect assembly, and having joined themselves in their doctrine to fear and slavery, worldly cares, and abandoned worship, being small and ignorant, since they do not contain the nobility of the truth. For they hate the one in whom they are and love the one in whom they are not. For they did not know the knowledge of the greatness that it is from above and from a fountain of truth and not from slavery and jealousy, fear, and love of worldly matter. For that which is not theirs and that which is theirs they use fearlessly and freely. They do not desire because they have authority, and they have a law from themselves over whatever they will wish.

(431) worse—in this case he is blamed and is called the slave of self and unprincipled. Yes, there is reason in that. And now, I said, look at our newly-created State, and there you will find one of these two conditions realized; for the State, as you will acknowledge, may be justly called master of itself, if the words ‘temperance’ and ‘self-mastery’ truly express the rule of the better part over the worse. Yes, he said, I see that what you say is true. Let me further note that the manifold and complex pleasures and desires and pains are generally found in children and women and servants, and in the freemen so called who are of the lowest and more numerous class. Certainly, he said. Whereas the simple and moderate desires which follow reason, and are under the guidance of mind and true opinion, are to be found only in a few, and those the best born and best educated. Very true. These two, as you may perceive, have a place in our State; and the meaner desires of the many are held down by the virtuous desires and wisdom of the few. That I perceive, he said. Then if there be any city which may be described as master of its own pleasures and desires, and master of itself, ours may claim such a designation? Certainly, he replied. It may also be called temperate, and for the same reasons? Yes. And if there be any State in which rulers and subjects will

(44) But if he turns Tyrant, and does nothing but devour the Bread of his Subjects, and only adorns his State and Dignity in Pride, to the Oppression of the Needy, and hunts after nothing but Covetousness, accounting the Needy to be but his Dogs, and places his Office only in Voluptuousness, and will not hear the Oppressed, then he is an insulting, tormenting Prince and Ruler in the Kingdom of Antichrist, and is of the Number of the Tyrants, and he rides upon Antichrist' Horse.

(576) be also the most miserable? and he who has tyrannized longest and most, most continually and truly miserable; although this may not be the opinion of men in general? Yes, he said, inevitably. And must not the tyrannical man be like the tyrannical State, and the democratical man like the democratical State; and the same of the others? Certainly. And as State is to State in virtue and happiness, so is man in relation to man? To be sure. Then comparing our original city, which was under a king, and the city which is under a tyrant, how do they stand as to virtue? They are the opposite extremes, he said, for one is the very best and the other is the very worst. There can be no mistake, I said, as to which is which, and therefore I will at once enquire whether you would arrive at a similar decision about their relative happiness and misery. And here we must not allow ourselves to be panic-stricken at the apparition of the tyrant, who is only a unit and may perhaps have a few retainers about him; but let us go as we ought into every corner of the city and look all about, and then we will give our opinion. A fair invitation, he replied; and I see, as every one must, that a tyranny is the wretchedest form of government, and the rule of a king the happiest. And in estimating the men too, may I not fairly make

(35) But what will the Spirit of this Kingdom say? Art thou not shining in Splendor? Hast thou not taken Possession of all? Hast thou not the Earth in Possession freely as God gave it thee? Dost thou not right? Dost thou not punish the Wicked, and look to it, where the Enemy breaks it? Dost thou not defend thy Country? Art thou not a Light to the Blind, and appointest Teachers for them, which drive them to Patience? The Kingdom is thine indeed, thou hast purchased it; the Poor is thy Servant indeed, that [in thy Opinion] cannot fail [but be right.]

(560) advising or rebuking him, then there arises in his soul a faction and an opposite faction, and he goes to war with himself. It must be so. And there are times when the democratical principle gives way to the oligarchical, and some of his desires die, and others are banished; a spirit of reverence enters into the young man’s soul and order is restored. Yes, he said, that sometimes happens. And then, again, after the old desires have been driven out, fresh ones spring up, which are akin to them, and because he their father does not know how to educate them, wax fierce and numerous. Yes, he said, that is apt to be the way. They draw him to his old associates, and holding secret intercourse with them, breed and multiply in him. Very true. At length they seize upon the citadel of the young man’s soul, which they perceive to be void of all accomplishments and fair pursuits and true words, which make their abode in the minds of men who are dear to the gods, and are their best guardians and sentinels. None better. False and boastful conceits and phrases mount upwards and take their place. They are certain to do so. And so the young man returns into the country of the lotus-eaters, and takes up his dwelling there in the face of all men; and if any help be sent by his friends to the oligarchical part of him, the aforesaid vain conceits shut the gate of the king’s fastness; and they will neither allow the embassy itself to enter, nor if private advisers offer the fatherly counsel of the aged will they listen to them or receive them.

(548) execution was not required, for a sketch is enough to show the type of the most perfectly just and most perfectly unjust; and to go through all the States and all the characters of men, omitting none of them, would be an interminable labour. Very true, he replied. Now what man answers to this form of government—how did he come into being, and what is he like? I think, said Adeimantus, that in the spirit of contention which characterises him, he is not unlike our friend Glaucon. Perhaps, I said, he may be like him in that one point; but there are other respects in which he is very different. In what respects? He should have more of self-assertion and be less cultivated, and yet a friend of culture; and he should be a good listener, but no speaker. Such a person is apt to be rough with slaves, unlike the educated man, who is too proud for that; and he will also be courteous to freemen, and remarkably obedient to authority; he is a lover of power and a lover of honour; claiming to be a ruler, not because he is eloquent, or on any ground of that sort, but because he is a soldier and has performed feats of arms; he is also a lover of gymnastic exercises and of the chase. Yes, that is the type of character which answers to timocracy. Such an one will despise riches only when he is young;

(6) It is related that once Farouk and Masoud were present at a review of Mahmud's army, which consisted of innumerable

elephants, horses and troops, so that the earth was as though covered with ants and locusts. Ayaz and Hassan accompanied Mahmud who was seated on a high place.

As the immense army marched past them the great monarch unloosed his tongue and said to Ayaz: 'My son, all these elephants and horses and men of mine are now yours, for my love for you is such that I look on you as king.' Although these words were said by the renowned Mahmud, Ayaz appeared indifferent and unmoved; he neither thanked the king nor commented. Hassan, astonished, said to him: 'Ayaz, a King has honoured you, a simple slave, and you show not the least sign of gratitude; you neither bow nor prostrate yourself in token of respect.' Ayaz thought a little and then said: 'I must give two answers to your reproach: the first is that if I, who have neither stability nor position, wish to show my devotion to the King, I can only fall in the dust before him in a sort of humiliation or else sing his praises in a whining voice. Between doing too much or too little it is better to do nothing. The slave is the King's, and his respect for the King is taken for granted. As for the honour this fortunate monarch has done me, if the two worlds should proclaim his praises their testimony would not be equal to his merit. If I do not behave ostentatiously and protest my fidelity it is because I feel I am not worthy to do so.'

Hassan said: 'O Ayaz, I see now that you are grateful, and I give you credit for being worthy of a hundred favours.' Then he added, 'Now give me the second answer.' But Ayaz said, ' I cannot speak freely before you, I can only do so if I am alone with the King. You are not Mahram of the secret.' So the king asked Hassan to leave them, and when there was neither 'we' nor 'I' Ayaz said: 'When the King deigns to cast his eyes on me he annihilates my existence by the brightness of his rays. Since in the light of his glorious

(" 9)

sun I no longer exist, how shall I prostrate myself? Ayaz is his shadow, lost in the sun of his face.'

(561) Yes, he replied, he is all liberty and equality. Yes, I said; his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many;—he answers to the State which we described as fair and spangled. And many a man and many a woman will take him for their pattern, and many a constitution and many an example of manners is contained in him. Just so. Let him then be set over against democracy; he may truly be called the democratic man. Let that be his place, he said. Last of all comes the most beautiful of all, man and State alike, tyranny and the tyrant; these we have now to consider. Quite true, he said. Say then, my friend, In what manner does tyranny arise?—that it has a democratic origin is evident. Clearly. And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy—I mean, after a sort? How? The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which it was maintained was excess of wealth—am I not right? Yes. And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy? True. And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution? What good? Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy,

(8) When this torch of kings left Gazna to make war on the Hindus and encountered their mighty army, he was cast down, and he made a vow to the King of Justice that if he were victorious he would give all the booty that fell into his hands to the dervdshes. He gained the victory, and his army collected an enormous amount of treasure. When the black-faces had retreated leaving the plunder, Mahmud said:

' Send this to the dervishes, for I have promised God to do so, and I must keep my vow.' Then his officers protested and said: 'Why give so much silver and gold to a handful of men who do not fight! Why not give it to the army which has borne the brunt of the battle, or, at least, put it in the treasury?'

The Sultan hesitated between his vow and the protests of his army. Meanwhile, Bu Hassein, an idiot of God, who was intelligent but uneducated, passed along that way. Mahmud seeing him in the distance said: 'Call that idiot; tell him to come here and say what ought to be done, and I will act accordingly; since he fears neither the Sultan nor the army he will give an impartial opinion.' When the Sultan had put the case to Bu Hassein, the latter said: 'Sire, it is a question of two obols, but if you wish to act becomingly towards God, think no more, O my dear, about these two obols; and if you win another victory by his grace, be ashamed to hold back two obols. Since God has given you the victory, can that which belongs to God belong to you?'

Mahmud thereupon gave the treasure to the dervishes, and became a great monarch.

(589) the lion-like qualities, but to starve and weaken the man, who is consequently liable to be dragged about at the mercy of either of the other two; and he is not to attempt to familiarize or harmonize them with one another—he ought rather to suffer them to fight and bite and devour one another. Certainly, he said; that is what the approver of injustice says. To him the supporter of justice makes answer that he should ever so speak and act as to give the man within him in some way or other the most complete mastery over the entire human creature. He should watch over the many-headed monster like a good husbandman, fostering and cultivating the gentle qualities, and preventing the wild ones from growing; he should be making the lion-heart his ally, and in common care of them all should be uniting the several parts with one another and with himself. Yes, he said, that is quite what the maintainer of justice say. And so from every point of view, whether of pleasure, honour, or advantage, the approver of justice is right and speaks the truth, and the disapprover is wrong and false and ignorant? Yes, from every point of view. Come, now, and let us gently reason with the unjust, who is not intentionally in error. ‘Sweet Sir,’ we will say to him, ‘what think you of things esteemed noble and ignoble?

(3) A king gave a robe of honour to a slave, who went away very pleased with himself. As he walked along, the dust of the street settled on him, and he thoughtlessly wiped his face with the sleeve of the robe. One who was jealous of him

lost no time in informing the king, who, indignant at this breach of good manners, had him impaled.

He who dishonours himself by unseemly conduct is not worthy to wait on the carpet of a king.