Mr. Peter Awn, Mr. James Frankel
Colloquium F2001x
Assignment #3
Plato’s Republic contains one of the most famous descriptions of an ideal government that is ruled by a philosopher king. A formula for a perfect king is not unique to the Greeks however, because the Hindu Artha also contains specific guidelines for how a king should act. In the Republic, Plato spends much of the book building an ideal city-state by describing the characteristics of its rulers, first the guardians and then the king, who is essentially the best guardian (Plato: 412a). This focus on the city’s ruler rather than its subjects seems to imply that the character of the king will determine the character of the city. Likewise, “ancient Indian polity does not treat specifically of the rights and the privileges of the subject but leaves them to be inferred from the duties and the responsibilities of the king, with which it deals at some length” (Artha commentary: 242). There are remarkable similarities between the ideal king that each text prescribes.
A Hindu king, according to the Artha, must be energetically active in performing his duties in order to inspire his subjects (Artha: 242, 244). A king must be “born of a high family [and] religious” as well as valorous, dexterous, and agile (245). A king should also possess profound knowledge and be “endowed with strong memory, cogitative faculty, and physical strength” (245). “Inquiry, study, perception, retention, analytical knowledge, critical acumen, and keenness for the realization of reality are the qualities of the [king’s] intellect” (245). Most importantly, a king should be “free from passion, anger, greed, obstinacy, fickleness, heat, and calumny” (245). Nevertheless, even though a king must be free from greed, he should “act up to the precepts of the science of material gain”, since material prosperity is evidence of successful works (244).
A Hindu king is not a self-serving tyrant, however. A Hindu king should not only attend to the affairs of brahmans and the upper classes, but “also to those of minors, the aged, the sick, those in difficulty, the helpless, and women” (Artha: 243). The happiness and welfare of the king’s subjects are what determines his own happiness and welfare, since the king’s highest duty is in the fulfillment of what is most dear to his subjects rather than what is most dear to him (244).
The Hindu king was not a sole ruler however. “In ancient India, the sovereign power was never concentrated in the person or the office of the monarch alone” (Artha commentary: 244). Other constituents of the state included “the ministers, the country, the forts, the treasury, the army, and the allies” (Artha: 244). Nonetheless, the king was the highest ruler and was responsible for judging the competence of all his officers and was instructed never to make his officers more powerful than himself (251).
In the Republic, Plato describes an ideal ruler with a similar background. Socrates advocates selecting for a ruler a guardian who is “the most stable, the most courageous, and as far as possible, the most gracious” (Plato: 535b). Further, this king should “have a noble and tough character” and be someone who “has got a good memory, is persistent, and is in every way a lover of hard work” (535c). Indeed, the king ought to be “the person who achieves the finest blend of music and physical training” (412a) and who has proved himself to be the best in both philosophy and war (543a). Nevertheless, even though a king has been extensively and strenuously trained in argument and philosophy (539d), he must be pragmatic and “labor in politics and rule for the city’s sake” (540b).
Like the kings described in the Artha, Plato’s kings “must always do what they believe to be best for the city” (Plato: 413c). They have to be knowledgeable and capable, and use these qualities to care for the city (412c). Also, just as the Hindu kings are to be free of greed, the kings in the Republic are true philosophers because they consider self-serving honors “slavish and worthless” and instead prize what is right and just. They “regard justice as the most important and most essential thing, serving it and increasing it as they set their city in order” (540d, 540e).
The ideal kings described in the Artha have surprising similarities with the philosopher-kings that Plato describes in the Republic. In fact, one of the few significant areas they seem to differ in is the treatment of property for the king: while the Artha condones material prosperity for the king, the Republic states that rulers should not possess “any private property beyond what is wholly necessary” (Plato: 416e). The other significant difference is that Plato’s kings are not selected by high birth but rather are chosen purely by merit, since all children in his ideal city are anonymously raised by the community (455). Still, the many similarities are striking enough that one might wonder whether either author was aware of the other text. More likely, this common emphasis on a just leader who serves his people is probably an indication of evolving political thought in the ancient world.