按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
fellow…worker； Athene； seeds and plants by others。 From these is
derived all that has helped to frame human life； since the
care of the
Gods； as I was saying； had now failed men； and they had to
order their
course of life for themselves； and were their own masters； just like
the universal creature whom they imitate and follow； ever
changing； as
he changes； and ever living and growing； at one time in one manner；
and at another time in another。 Enough of the story； which may be of
use in showing us how greatly we erred in the delineation of the
king and the statesman in our previous discourse。
Y。 Soc。 What was this great error of which you speak？
Str。 There were two； the first a lesser one； the other was an
error on a much larger and grander scale。
Y。 Soc。 What do you mean？
Str。 I mean to say that when we were asked about a king and
statesman of the present； and generation； we told of a shepherd of a
human flock who belonged to the other cycle； and of one who was a
god when he ought to have been a man； and this a great error。 Again；
we declared him to be； the ruler of the entire State； without；
explaining how： this was not the whole truth； nor very intelligible；
but still it was true； and therefore the second error was not so；
great as the first。
Y Soc。 Very good。
Str。 Before we can expect to have a perfect description of the
statesman we must define the nature of his office。
Y。 Soc。 Certainly。
Str。 And the myth was introduced in order to show； not
only that all
others are rivals of true shepherd who is the object of our search；
but in order that we might have a clearer view of him who is alone
worthy to receive this appellation； because； he alone of
shepherds and
herdsmen； according to the image which we have employed； has the
care of human beings。
Y。 Soc。 Very true。
Str。 And I cannot help thinking； Socrates； that the form of the
divine shepherd is even higher than that of a king； whereas the
statesmen who are now on earth seem to be much more like their
subjects in character； and which more nearly to partake of their
breeding and education。
Y。 Soc。 Certainly。
Str。 Still they must be investigated all the same； to see whether；
like the divine shepherd； they are above their subjects or on a
level with them。
Y。 Soc。 Of course。
Str。 To resume：…Do you remember that we spoke of a
command…for…self exercised over animals； not singly but
collectively； which we called the art of rearing a herd？
Y。 Soc。 Yes； I remember。
Str。 There； somewhere； lay our error； for we never included or
mentioned the Statesman； and we did not observe that he had no place
in our nomenclature。
Y。 Soc。 How was that？
Str。 All other herdsmen 〃rear〃 their herds； but this is not a
suitable term to apply to the Statesman； we should use a
name which is
common to them all。
Y。 Soc。 True； if there be such a name。
Str。 Why； is not 〃care〃 of herds applicable to all？ For
this implies
no feeding； or any special duty； if we say either 〃tending〃
the herds；
or 〃managing〃 the herds； or 〃having the care〃 of them； the same word
will include all； and then we may wrap up the Statesman with
the rest；
as the argument seems to require。
Y。 Soc。 Quite right； but how shall we take the…next step in the
division？
Str。 As before we divided the art of 〃rearing〃 herds accordingly
as they were land or water herds； winged and wingless； mixing or not
mixing the breed； horned and hornless； so we may divide by these
same differences the 〃teading〃 of herds； comprehending in our
definition the kingship of to…day and the rule of Cronos。
Y。 Soc。 That is clear； but I still ask； what is to follow。
Str。 If the word had been 〃managing〃 herds； instead of feeding or
rearing them； no one would have argued that there was no care of men
in the case of the politician； although it was justly contended；
that there was no human art of feeding them which was worthy of the
name； or at least； if there were； many a man had a prior and greater
right to share in such an art than any king。
Y。 Soc。 True。
Str。 But no other art or science will have a prior or better right
than the royal science to care for human society and to rule over
men in general。
Y。 Soc。 Quite true。
Str。 In the next place； Socrates； we must surely notice
that a great
error was committed at the end of our analysis。
Y。 Soc。 What was it？
Str。 Why； supposing we were ever so sure that there is such an art
as the art of rearing or feeding bipeds； there was no reason why we
should call this the royal or political art； as though there were no
more to be said。
Y。 Soc。 Certainly not。
Str。 Our first duty； as we were saying； was to remodel the name；
so as to have the notion of care rather than of feeding； and then to
divide； for there may be still considerable divisions。
Y。 Soc。 How can they be made？
Str。 First； by separating the divine shepherd from the human
guardian or manager。
Y。 Soc。 True。
Str。 And the art of management which is assigned to man would
again have to be subdivided。
Y。 Soc。 On what principle？
Str。 On the principle of voluntary and compulsory。
Y。 Soc。 Why？
Str。 Because； if I am not mistaken； there has been an error here；
for our simplicity led us to rank king and tyrant together； whereas
they are utterly distinct； like their modes of government。
Y。 Soc。 True。
Str。 Then； now； as I said； let us make the correction and divide
human care into two parts； on the principle of voluntary and
compulsory。
Y。 Soc。 Certainly。
Str。 And if we call the management of violent rulers tyranny； and
the voluntary management of herds of voluntary bipeds
politics； may we
not further assert that he who has this latter art of management is
the true king and statesman？
Y。 Soc。 I think； Stranger； that we have now completed the
account of
the Statesman。
Str。 Would that we had Socrates； but I have to satisfy myself as
well as you； and in my judgment the figure of the king is not yet
perfected； like statuaries who； in their too great haste； having
overdone the several parts of their work； lose time in cutting them
down； so too we； partly out of haste； partly out of haste； partly
out of a magnanimous desire to expose our former error； and also
because we imagined that a king required grand illustrations； have
taken up a marvellous lump of fable； and have been obliged
to use more
than was necessary。 This made us discourse at large； and；
nevertheless； the story never came to an end。 And our
discussion might
be compared to a picture of some living being which had been fairly
drawn in outline； but had not yet attained the life and clearness
which is given by the blending of colours。 Now to intelligent
persons a living being had better be delineated by language and
discourse than by any painting or work of art： to the duller sort by
works of art。
Y。 Soc。 Very true； but what is the imperfection which
still remains？
I wish that you would tell me。
Str。 The higher ideas； my dear friend； can hardly b