STATESMAN [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

STATESMAN

by Plato

translated by Benjamin Jowett
STATESMAN
PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE: THEODORUS; SOCRATES; THE ELEATIC STRANGER;
THE YOUNGER SOCRATES
Socrates.

I owe you many thanks, indeed, Theodorus, for the
acquaintance both of Theaetetus and of the Stranger.

Theodorus.

And in a little while, Socrates, you will owe me three
times as many, when they have completed for you the delineation of the
Statesman and of the Philosopher, as well as of the Sophist.

Soc.

Sophist, statesman, philosopher! O my dear Theodorus, do my
ears truly witness that this is the estimate formed of them by the
great calculator and geometrician?
Theod.

What do you mean, Socrates?
Soc.

I mean that you rate them all at the same value, whereas they
are really separated by an interval, which no geometrical ratio can
express.

Theod.

By Ammon, the god of Cyrene, Socrates, that is a very fair
hit; and shows that you have not forgotten your geometrY. I will
retaliate on you at some other time, but I must now ask the
Stranger, who will not, I hope, tire of his goodness to us, to proceed
either with the Statesman or with the Philosopher, whichever he
prefers.

Stranger.

That is my duty, Theodorus; having begun I must go on, and
not leave the work unfinished.

But what shall be done with Theaetetus?
Theod.

In what respect?
Str.

Shall we relieve him, and take his companion, the Young
Socrates, instead of him? What do you advise?
Theod.

Yes, give the other a turn, as you propose.

The young
always do better when they have intervals of rest.

Soc.

I think, Stranger, that both of them may be said to be in
some way related to me; for the one, as you affirm, has the cut of
my ugly face, the other is called by my name.

And we should always
be on the look-out to recognize a kinsman by the style of his
conversation.

I myself was discoursing with Theaetetus yesterday,
and I have just been listening to his answers; my namesake I have
not yet examined, but I must.

Another time will, do for me; to-day let
him answer you.

Str.

Very good.

Young Socrates, do you hear what the elder
Socrates is proposing?
Young Socrates.

I do.

Str.

And do you agree to his proposal?
Y. Soc.

CertainlY.
Str.

As you do not object, still less can I.

After the Sophist,
then, I think that the Statesman naturally follows next in the order
of enquirY. And please to say, whether he, too, should be ranked among
those who have science.

Y. Soc.

Yes.

Str.

Then the sciences must be divided as before?
Y. Soc.

I dare saY.
Str.

But yet the division will not be the same?
Y. Soc.

How then?
Str.

They will be divided at some other point.

Y. Soc.

Yes.

Str.

Where shall we discover the path of the Statesman? We must find
and separate off, and set our seal upon this, and we will set the mark
of another class upon all diverging paths.

Thus the soul will conceive
of ail kinds of knowledge under two classes.

Y. Soc.

To find the path is your business, Stranger, and not mine.

Str.

Yes, Socrates, but the discovery, when once made, must be yours
as well as mine.

Y. Soc.

Very good.

Str.

Well, and are not arithmetic and certain other kindred arts,
merely abstract knowledge, wholly separated from action?
Y. Soc.

True.

Str.

But in the art of carpentering and all other handicrafts, the
knowledge of the workman is merged in his work; he not only knows, but
he also makes things which previously did not exist.

Y. Soc.

CertainlY.
Str.

Then let us divide sciences in general into those which are
practical and those which are-purely intellectual.

Y. Soc.

Let us assume these two divisions of science, which is one
whole.

Str.

And are "statesman," "king," "master," or "householder," one
and the same; or is there a science or art answering to each of
these names? Or rather, allow me to put the matter in another waY.
Y. Soc.

Let me hear.

Str.

If any one who is in a private station has the skill to
advise one of the public physicians, must not he also be called a
physician?
Y. Soc.

Yes.

Str.

And if any one who is in a private station is able to advise
the ruler of a country, may not he be said to have the knowledge which
the ruler himself ought to have?
Y. Soc.

True.

Str.

But, surely the science of a true king is royal science?
Y. Soc.

Yes.

Str.

And will not he who possesses this knowledge, whether he
happens to be a ruler or a private man, when regarded only in
reference to his art, be truly called "royal"?
Y. Soc.

He certainly ought to be.

Str.

And the householder and master are the same?
Y. Soc.

Of course.

Str.

Again, a large household may be compared to a small state:-will
they differ at all, as far as government is concerned?
Y. Soc.

They will not.

Str.

Then, returning to the point which we were just now discussing,
do we not clearly see that there is one science of all of them; and
this science may be called either royal or political or economical; we
will not quarrel with any one about the name.

Y. Soc.

Certainly not.

Str.

This too, is evident, that the king cannot do much with his
hands, or with his whole body, towards the maintenance of his
empire, compared with what he does by the intelligence and strength of
his mind.

Y. Soc.

Clearly not.

Str.

Then, shall we say that the king has a greater affinity to
knowledge than to manual arts and to practical life in general?
Y. Soc.

Certainly he has.

Str.

Then we may put all together as one and the
same-statesmanship and the statesman-the kingly science and the king.

Y. Soc.

ClearlY.
Str.

And now we shall only be proceeding in due order if we go on to
divide the sphere of knowledge?
Y. Soc.

Very good.

Str.

Think whether you can find any joint or parting in knowledge.

Y. Soc.

Tell me of what sort.

Str.

Such as this: You may remember that we made an art of
calculation?
Y. Soc.

Yes.

Str.

Which was, unmistakably, one of the arts of knowledge?
Y. Soc.

CertainlY.
Str.

And to this art of calculation which discerns the differences
of numbers shall we assign any other function except to pass
judgment on their differences?
Y. Soc.

How could we?
Str.

You know that the master-builder does not work himself, but
is the ruler of workmen?
Y. Soc.

Yes.

Str.

He contributes knowledge, not manual labour?
Y. Soc.

True.

Str.

And may therefore be justly said to share in theoretical
science?
Y. Soc.

Quite true.

Str.

But he ought not, like the calculator, to regard his
functions as at and when he has formed a judgment;-he must assign to
the individual workmen their appropriate task until they have
completed the work.

Y. Soc.

True.

Str.

Are not all such sciences, no less than arithmetic and the
like, subjects of pure knowledge; and is not the difference between
the two classes, that the one sort has the power of judging only,
and the other of ruling as well?
Y. Soc.

That is evident.

Str.

May we not very properly say, that of all knowledge, there
are there are two divisions-one which rules, and the other which