STATESMAN [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

Who is he?
Str.

The chief of Sophists and most accomplished of wizards, who
must at any cost be separated from the true king or Statesman, if we
are ever to see daylight in the present enquirY.
Y. Soc.

That is a hope not lightly to be renounced.

Str.

Never, if I can help it; and, first, let me ask you a question.

Y. Soc.

What?
Str.

Is not monarchy a recognized form of government?
Y. Soc.

Yes.

Str.

And, after monarchy, next in order comes the government of
the few?
Y. Soc.

Of course.

Str.

Is not the third form of government the rule of the
multitude, which is called by the name of democracy?
Y. Soc.

CertainlY.
Str.

And do not these three expand in a manner into five,
producing out of themselves two other names Y. Soc.

What are they?
Y. Soc.

What are they?
Str.

There is a criterion of voluntary and involuntary, poverty
and riches, law and the absence of law, which men now-a-days apply
to them; the two first they subdivide accordingly, and ascribe to
monarchy two forms and two corresponding names, royalty and tyrannY.
Y. Soc.

Very true.

Str.

And the government of the few they distinguish by the names
of aristocracy and oligarchY.
Y. Soc.

CertainlY.
Str.

Democracy alone, whether rigidly observing the laws or not, and
whether the multitude rule over the men of property with their consent
or against their consent, always in ordinary language has the same
name.

Y. Soc.

True.

Str.

But do you suppose that any form of government which is defined
by these characteristics of the one, the few, or the many, of
poverty or wealth, of voluntary or compulsory submission, of written
law or the absence of law, can be a right one?
Y. Soc.

Why not?
Str.

Reflect; and follow me.

Y. Soc.

In what direction?
Str.

Shall we abide by what we said at first, or shall we retract
our words?
Y. Soc.

To what do you refer?
Str.

If I am not mistaken, we said that royal power was a science?
Y. Soc.

Yes.

Str.

And a science of a peculiar kind, which was selected out of the
rest as having a character which is at once judicial and
authoritative?
Y. Soc.

Yes.

Str.

And there was one kind of authority over lifeless things and
another other living animals; and so we proceeded in the division step
by step up to this point, not losing the idea of science, but unable
as yet to determine the nature of the particular science?
Y. Soc.

True.

Str.

Hence we are led to observe that the distinguishing principle
of the State cannot be the few or many, the voluntary or
involuntary, poverty or riches; but some notion of science must
enter into it, if we are to be consistent with what has preceded.

Y. Soc.

And we must be consistent.

Str.

Well, then, in which of these various forms of States may the
science of government, which is among the greatest of all sciences and
most difficult to acquire, be supposed to reside? That we must
discover, and then we shall see who are the false politicians who
pretend to be politicians but are not, although they persuade many,
and shall separate them from the wise king.

Y. Soc.

That, as the argument has already intimated, will be our
dutY.
Str.

Do you think that the multitude in a State can attain political
science?
Y. Soc.

Impossible.

Str.

But, perhaps, in a city of a thousand men, there would be a
hundred, or say fifty, who could?
Y. Soc.

In that case political science would certainly be the
easiest of all sciences; there could not be found in a city of that
number as many really first-rate draught-players, if judged by the
standard of the rest of Hellas, and there would certainly not be as
many kings.

For kings we may truly call those who possess royal
science, whether they rule or not, as was shown in the previous
argument.

Str.

Thank you for reminding me; and the consequence is that any
true form of government can only be supposed to be the government of
one, two, or, at any rate, of a few.

Y. Soc.

CertainlY.
Str.

And these, whether they rule with the will, or against the will
of their subjects, with written laws or.

without written laws, and
whether they are poor or rich, and whatever be the nature of their
rule, must be supposed, according to our present view, to rule on some
scientific principle; just as the physician, whether he cures us
against our will or with our will, and whatever be his mode of
treatment-incision, burning, or the infliction of some other
pain-whether he practises out of a book or not out of a book, and
whether he be rich or poor, whether he purges or reduces in some other
way, or even fattens his patients, is a physician all the same, so
long as he exercises authority over them according to rules of art, if
he only does them good and heals and saves them.

And this we lay
down to be the only proper test of the art of medicine, or of any
other art of command.

Y. Soc.

Quite true.

Str.

Then that can be the only true form of government in which
the governors are really found to possess science, and are not mere
pretenders, whether they rule according to law or without law,
over-willing or unwilling subjects, and are rich or poor
themselves-none of these things can with any propriety be included
in the notion of the ruler.

Y. Soc.

True.

Str.

And whether with a view to the public good they purge the State
by killing some, or exiling some; whether they reduce the size of
the body corporate by sending out from the hive swarms of citizens,
or, by introducing persons from without, increase it; while they act
according to the rules of wisdom and justice, and use their power with
a view to the general security and improvement, the city over which
they rule, and which has these characteristics, may be described as
the only true State.

All other governments are not genuine or real;
but only imitations of this, and some of them are better and some of
them are worse; the better are said to be well governed, but they
are mere imitations like the others.

Y. Soc.

I agree, Stranger, in the greater part of what you say;
but as to their ruling without laws-the expression has a harsh sound.

Str.

You have been too quick for me, Socrates; I was just going to
ask you whether you objected to any of my statements.

And now I see
that we shall have to consider this notion of there being good
government without laws.

Y. Soc.

CertainlY.
Str.

There can be no doubt that legislation is in a manner the
business of a king, and yet the best thing of all is not that the
law should rule, but that a man should rule, supposing him to have
wisdom and royal power.

Do you see why this is?
Y. Soc.

Why?
Str.

Because the law does not perfectly comprehend what is noblest
and most just for all and therefore cannot enforce what is best.

The
differences of men and actions, and the endless irregular movements of
human things, do not admit of -any universal and simple rule.

And no
art whatsoever can lay down a rule which will last for all time.

Y. Soc.

Of course not.

Str.

But the law is always striving to make one;-like an obstinate
and ignorant tyrant, who will not allow anything to be done contrary
to his appointment, or any question to be asked-not even in sudden
changes of circumstances, when something happens to be better than
what he commanded for some one.

Y. Soc.

Certainly; the law treats us all precisely in the manner
which you describe.

Str.

A perfectly simple principle can never be applied to a state of
things which is the reverse of simple.

Y. Soc.

True.

Str.

Then if the law is not the perfection of right, why are we
compelled to make laws at all? The reason of this has next to be
investigated.

Y. Soc.

CertainlY.
Str.

Let me ask, whether you have not meetings for gymnastic
contests in your city, such as there are in other cities, at which men
compete in running, wrestling, and the like?
Y. Soc.

Yes; they are very common among us.

Str.