in their mode of conception and generation and nurture; for no animal;was any longer allowed to come into being in the earth through theagency of other creative beings, but as the world was ordained to bethe lord of his own progress, in like manner the parts were ordainedto grow and generate and give nourishment, as far as they could, ofthemselves, impelled by a similar movement.
And so we have arrivedat the real end of this discourse; for although there might be much totell of the lower animals, and of the condition out of which theychanged and of the causes of the change, about men there is notmuch, and that little is more to the purpose.
Deprived of the careof God, who had possessed and tended them, they were left helpless anddefenceless, and were torn in pieces by the beasts, who werenaturally fierce and had now grown wild.
And in the first ages theywere still without skill or resource; the food which once grewspontaneously had failed, and as yet they knew not how to procureit, because they-had never felt the pressure of necessitY. For allthese reasons they were in a great strait; wherefore also the giftsspoken of in the old tradition were imparted to man by the gods,together with so much teaching and education as was indispensable;fire was given to them by Prometheus, the arts by Hephaestus and hisfellow-worker, Athene, seeds and plants by others.
From these isderived all that has helped to frame human life; since the care of theGods, as I was saying, had now failed men, and they had to order theircourse of life for themselves, and were their own masters, just likethe universal creature whom they imitate and follow, ever changing, ashe 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 ofuse in showing us how greatly we erred in the delineation of theking 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 anerror 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 andstatesman of the present; and generation, we told of a shepherd of ahuman flock who belonged to the other cycle, and of one who was agod 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 thestatesman we must define the nature of his office.
Y. Soc.
CertainlY. Str.
And the myth was introduced in order to show, not only that allothers 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 aloneworthy to receive this appellation, because, he alone of shepherds andherdsmen, according to the image which we have employed, has thecare of human beings.
Y. Soc.
Very true.
Str.
And I cannot help thinking, Socrates, that the form of thedivine shepherd is even higher than that of a king; whereas thestatesmen who are now on earth seem to be much more like theirsubjects in character, and which more nearly to partake of theirbreeding 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 alevel with them.
Y. Soc.
Of course.
Str.
To resume:-Do you remember that we spoke of acommand-for-self exercised over animals, not singly butcollectively, which we called the art of rearing a herd? Y. Soc.
Yes, I remember.
Str.
There, somewhere, lay our error; for we never included ormentioned the Statesman; and we did not observe that he had no placein our nomenclature.
Y. Soc.
How was that? Str.
All other herdsmen "rear" their herds, but this is not asuitable term to apply to the Statesman; we should use a name which iscommon to them all.
Y. Soc.
True, if there be such a name.
Str.
Why, is not "care" of herds applicable to all? For this impliesno feeding, or any special duty; if we say either "tending" the herds,or "managing" the herds, or "having the care" of them, the same wordwill 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 thedivision? Str.
As before we divided the art of "rearing" herds accordinglyas they were land or water herds, winged and wingless, mixing or notmixing the breed, horned and hornless, so we may divide by thesesame differences the "teading" of herds, comprehending in ourdefinition 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 orrearing them, no one would have argued that there was no care of menin the case of the politician, although it was justly contended,that there was no human art of feeding them which was worthy of thename, or at least, if there were, many a man had a prior and greaterright 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 rightthan the royal science to care for human society and to rule overmen in general.
Y. Soc.
Quite true.
Str.
In the next place, Socrates, we must surely notice that a greaterror 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 artas the art of rearing or feeding bipeds, there was no reason why weshould call this the royal or political art, as though there were nomore 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 todivide, for there may be still considerable divisions.
Y. Soc.
How can they be made? Str.
First, by separating the divine shepherd from the humanguardian or manager.
Y. Soc.
True.
Str.
And the art of management which is assigned to man wouldagain 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, whereasthey are utterly distinct, like their modes of government.
Y. Soc.
True.
Str.
Then, now, as I said, let us make the correction and dividehuman care into two parts, on the principle of voluntary andcompulsorY. Y. Soc.
CertainlY. Str.
And if we call the management of violent rulers tyranny, andthe voluntary management of herds of voluntary bipeds politics, may wenot further assert that he who has this latter art of management isthe true king and statesman? Y. Soc.
I think, Stranger, that we have now completed the account ofthe Statesman.
Str.
Would that we had Socrates, but I have to satisfy myself aswell as you; and in my judgment the figure of the king is not yetperfected; like statuaries who, in their too great haste, havingoverdone the several parts of their work, lose time in cutting themdown, so too we, partly out of haste, partly out of haste, partlyout of a magnanimous desire to expose our former error, and alsobecause we imagined that a king required grand illustrations, havetaken up a marvellous lump of fable, and have been obliged to use morethan was necessarY. This made us discourse at large, and,nevertheless, the story never came to an end.
And our discussion mightbe compared to a picture of some living being which had been fairlydrawn in outline, but had not yet attained the life and clearnesswhich is given by the blending of colours.
Now to intelligentpersons a living being had better be delineated by language anddiscourse than by any painting or work of art: to the duller sort byworks of art.
Y. Soc.
Very true; but what is the imperfection which still remains?I wish that you would tell me.