judges? Y. Soc.
I should think so.
Str.
And when men have anything to do in common, that they should be of one mind is surely a desirable thing? Y. Soc.
Very true.
Str.
Then while we are at unity among ourselves, we need not mind about the fancies of others? Y. Soc.
Certainly not.
Str.
And now, in which of these divisions shall we place the king?-Is he a judge and a kind of spectator? Or shall we assign to him the art of command-for he is a ruler? Y. Soc.
The latter, clearlY. Str.
Then we must see whether there is any mark of division in the art of command too.
I am inclined to think that there is a distinction similar to that of manufacturer and retail dealer, which parts off the king from the herald.
Y. Soc.
How is this? Str.
Why, does not the retailer receive and sell over again the productions of others, which have been sold before? Y. Soc.
Certainly he does.
Str.
And is not the herald under command, and does he not receive orders, and in his turn give them to others? Y. Soc.
Very true.
Str.
Then shall we mingle the kingly art in the same class with the art of the herald, the interpreter, the boatswain, the prophet, and the numerous kindred arts which exercise command; or, as in the preceding comparison we spoke of manufacturers, or sellers for themselves, and of retailers,-seeing, too, that the class of supreme rulers, or rulers for themselves, is almost nameless-shall we make a word following the same analogy, and refer kings to a supreme or ruling-for-self science, leaving the rest to receive a name from some one else? For we are seeking the ruler; and our enquiry is not concerned with him who is not a ruler.
Y. Soc.
Very good.
Str.
Thus a very fair distinction has been attained between the man who gives his own commands, and him who gives another's.
And now let us see if the supreme power allows of any further division.
Y. Soc.
By all means.
Str.
I think that it does; and please to assist me in making the division.
Y. Soc.
At what point? Str.
May not all rulers be supposed to command for the sake of producing something? Y. Soc.
CertainlY. Str.
Nor is there any difficulty in dividing the things produced into two classes.
Y. Soc.
How would you divide them? Str.
Of the whole class some have life and some are without life.
Y. Soc.
True.
Str.
And by the help of this distinction we may make, if we please, a subdivision of the section of knowledge which commands.
Y. Soc.
At what point? Str.
One part may be set over the production of lifeless, the other of living objects; and in this way the whole will be divided.
Y. Soc.
CertainlY. Str.
That division, then, is complete; and now we may leave one half, and take up the other; which may also be divided into two.
Y. Soc.
Which of the two halves do you men? Str.
Of course that which exercises command about animals.
For, surely, the royal science is not like that of a master-workman, a science presiding over lifeless objects;-the king has a nobler function, which is the management and control of living beings.
Y. Soc.
True.
Str.
And the breeding and tending of living beings may be observed to be sometimes a tending of the individual; in other cases, a common care of creatures in flocks? Y. Soc.
True.
Str.
But the statesman is not a tender of individuals-not like the driver or groom of a single ox or horse; he is rather to be compared with the keeper of a drove of horses or oxen.
Y. Soc.
Yes, I see, thanks to you.
Str.
Shall we call this art of tending many animals together, the art of managing a herd, or the art of collective management? Y. Soc.
No matter;-Whichever suggests itself to us in the course of conversation.
Str.
Very good, Socrates; and, if you continue to be not too particular about names, you will be all the richer in wisdom when you are an old man.
And now, as you say, leaving the discussion of the name, -can you see a way in which a person, by showing the art of herding to be of two kinds, may cause that which is now sought amongst twice the number of things, to be then sought amongst half that number? Y. Soc.
I will try;-there appears to me to be one management of men and another of beasts.
Str.
You have certainly divided them in a most straightforward and manly style; but you have fallen into an error which hereafter I think that we had better avoid.
Y. Soc.
What is the error? Str.
I think that we had better not cut off a single small portion which is not a species, from many larger portions; the part should be a species.
To separate off at once the subject of investigation, is a most excellent plan, if only the separation be rightly made; and you were under the impression that you were right, because you saw that you would come to man; and this led you to hasten the steps.
But you should not chip off too small a piece, my friend; the safer way is to cut through the middle; which is also the more likely way of finding classes.
Attention to this principle makes all the difference in a process of enquirY. Y. Soc.
What do you mean, Stranger? Str.
I will endeavour to speak more plainly out of love to your good parts, Socrates; and, although I cannot at present entirely explain myself, I will try, as we proceed, to make my meaning a little clearer.
Y. Soc.
What was the error of which, as you say, we were guilty in our recent division? Str.
The error was just as if some one who wanted to divide the human race, were to divide them after the fashion which prevails in this part of the world; here they cut off the Hellenes as one species, and all the other species of mankind, which are innumerable, and have no ties or common language, they include under the single name of "barbarians," and because they have one name they are supposed to be of one species also.
Or suppose that in dividing numbers you were to cut off ten thousand from all the rest, and make of it one species, comprehending the first under another separate name, you might say that here too was a single class, because you had given it a single name.
Whereas you would make a much better and more equal and logical classification of numbers, if you divided them into odd and even; or of the human species, if you divided them into male and female; and only separated off Lydians or Phrygians, or any other tribe, and arrayed them against the rest of the world, when you could no longer make a division into parts which were also classes.
Y. Soc.
Very true; but I wish that this distinction between a part and a class could still be made somewhat plainer.
Str.
O Socrates, best of men, you are imposing upon me a very difficult task.
We have already digressed further from our original intention than we ought, and you would have us wander still further awaY. But we must now return to our subject; and hereafter, when there is a leisure hour, we will follow up the other track; at the same time I wish you to guard against imagining that you ever heard me declare- Y. Soc.
What? Str.
That a class and a part are distinct.
Y. Soc.
What did I hear, then? Str.
That a class is necessarily a part, but there is no similar necessity that a part should be a dass; that is the view which I should always wish you to attribute to me, Socrates.
Y. Soc.
So be it.
Str.
There is another thing which I should like to know.
Y. Soc.
What is it? Str.
The point at which we digressed; for, if I am not mistaken, the exact place was at the question, Where you would divide the management of herds.
To this you appeared rather too ready to answer that them were two species of animals; man being one, and all brutes making up the other.
Y. Soc.
True.
Str.
I thought that in taking away a part you imagined that the remainder formed a class, because you were able to call them by the common name of brutes.
Y. Soc.
That again is true.
Str.
Suppose now, O most courageous of dialecticians, that some wise and understanding creature, such as a crane is reputed to be, were, in