The larger portion of the treatise is doubtless employed in expounding the generation of a commonwealth generally: from whence the author passes insensibly to the delineation of a Model-Commonwealth--enumerating the conditions of aptitude for its governors and guardian-soldiers, estimating the obstacles which prevent it from appearing in the full type of goodness--and pointing out the steps whereby, even if fully realised, it is likely to be brought to perversion and degeneracy. Nevertheless the avowed purpose of the treatise is, not to depict the ideal of a commonwealth, but to solve the questions, What is Justice? What is Injustice? Does Justice, in itself and by its own intrinsic working, make the just man happy, apart from all consequences, even though he is not known to be just, and is even treated as unjust, either by Gods or men? Does Injustice, under the like hypothesis, (_i.e._ leaving out all consideration of consequences either from Gods or from men), make the unjust man miserable? The reasonings respecting the best polity, are means to this end--intermediate steps to the settlement of this problem. We must recollect that Plato insists strongly on the parallelism between the individual and the state: he talks of "the polity" or Republic in each man's mind, as of that in the entire city.[2] [Footnote 2: Plato, Repub. ix. p. 591 E. [Greek: a)poble/pôn pro\s tê\n e)n au(tô=| politei/an.] x. p. 608 B: [Greek: peri\ tê=s e)n au(tô=| politei/as dedio/ti], &c.] [Side-note: Parallelism between the Commonwealth and the Individual.]