<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg008.perseus-eng2:297-306</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg008.perseus-eng2:297-306</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg008.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="297"><p><said who="#Stranger" rend="merge"><label>Str.</label> Just as the captain of a ship keeps watch for what is at any moment for the good of the vessel and the sailors,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="297"/> <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="297a"/> not by writing rules, but by making his science his law, and thus preserves his fellow voyagers, so may not a right government be established in the same way by men who could rule by this principle, making science more powerful than the laws?  And whatever the wise rulers do, they can commit no error, so long as they maintain one great principle and by always dispensing absolute justice to them
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="297b"/> with wisdom and science are able to preserve the citizens and make them better than they were, so far as that is possible.  Is not this true?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> There is no denying the truth of what you have just said.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And those other statements cannot be denied, either.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What statements?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> That no great number of men, whoever they may be, could ever acquire political science and be able to administer a state with wisdom,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="297c"/> but our one right form of government must be sought in some small number or one person, and all other forms are merely, as we said before, more or less successful imitations of that.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What do you mean by that?  I did not understand about the imitations a little while ago, either.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And yet it is quite a serious matter if after stirring up this question we drop it and do not go on and show the error
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="297d"/> which is committed in relation to it nowadays.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What is the error?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> I will tell you what we must investigate;  it is not at all familiar or easy to see, but let us try to grasp it nevertheless.  Tell me this:  Assuming that the form of government we have described is the only right form, don’t you see that the other forms must employ its written laws if they are to be preserved by doing that which is approved of nowadays, although it is not perfectly right?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What is not perfectly right?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> That no citizen shall dare to do anything contrary to the laws, and that he who does shall be punished by death
    <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="297e"/> and the most extreme penalties.  And this is perfectly right and good as a second choice, as soon as you depart from the first form of which we were just speaking.  Now let us tell in some detail how this which we called the second choice comes about.  Shall we do so?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> By all means.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Let us return once more to the images which we always have to use in portraying kingly rulers.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What images?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> The noble captain of a ship and the <q type="emph">physician who is worth as much as many others.</q> <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">Cf. <bibl n="Hom. Il. 12.514">Hom. Il. 12.514</bibl>: <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἰητρὸς γὰρ ἀνὴρ πολλῶν ἀντάξιος ἄλλων.</foreign> The image of the physician was used above, 293.  The image of the captain (for the Greek <foreign xml:lang="grc">κυβερνήτης</foreign> had an importance commensurate with that of the captain, rather than of the pilot, in modern times) has just been used.  See also <bibl n="Plat. Rep. 6.488a">Plat. Rep. 6.488 A</bibl>; <bibl n="Plat. Laws 12.963b">Plat. Laws 12.963 B</bibl>.</note>  Let us make a simile of them and use it to help us to discover something.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What is your simile?</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="298"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="298"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="298a"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Something of this sort:  Imagine that we all thought in regard to captains and physicians:  <q type="thought">We are most abominably treated by them.  For whomsoever of us either of them wishes to save, he saves, one of them just like the other, and whomsoever he wishes to maltreat, he maltreats.  They cut us up and burn us and order us to bring them payments of money, as if they were exacting tribute, of which they spend little or nothing for their patients;  they themselves and their servants use the rest.
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="298b"/> And finally they are bribed by the patient’s relatives or enemies and actually bring about his death.  And as for the captains, they commit countless other misdeeds they make plots and leave us deserted ashore when they put out to sea, they bring on mishaps at sea and so cast us into the water, and are guilty of other wrong-doings.</q>  Now suppose, with these thoughts in mind, we deliberated about them <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="298c"/> and decided that we would no longer allow either of these arts to rule without control over slaves or free men, but that we would call an assembly either of all the people or of the rich only, and that anyone, whether he were engaged in some other form of skilled labor or were without any special qualifications, should be free to offer an opinion about navigation and diseases, how drugs and surgical or medical instruments should be applied to the patients, and how
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="298d"/> ships and nautical instruments should be used for navigation and in meeting dangers, not only those of winds and sea that affect the voyage itself, but also those met in encounters with pirates, and if battles have to be fought between ships of war;  and that whatever the majority decided about these matters, whether any physicians or ship captains or merely unskilled persons took part in the deliberations, should be inscribed upon tablets and slabs
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="298e"/> or in some instances should be adopted as unwritten ancestral customs, and that henceforth forever navigation and the care of the sick should be conducted in accordance with these provisions.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> That is a most absurd state of things that you have described.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And suppose that rulers of the people are set up annually, whether from the rich or from the whole people, on the principle that whoever is chosen by lot should rule, and that these rulers exercise their authority in commanding the ships or treating the sick in accordance with the written rules.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> That is still harder to imagine.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="299"><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Now consider what comes next.  When the year of office has passed for each set of rulers, there will have to be sessions of courts in which the judges are chosen by lot
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="299"/> <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="299a"/> either from a selected list of the rich or from the whole people, and the rulers will have to be brought before these courts and examined as to their conduct in office, and anyone who pleases can bring against the captains an accusation for failure to command the ships during the year in accordance with the written laws or the ancestral customs, and similarly against the physicians for their treatment of the sick;  and if any of them is found guilty, the court shall decide what his punishment or his fine shall be.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Surely anyone who consents voluntarily
    <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="299b"/> to hold office under such conditions would richly deserve any penalty or fine that might be imposed.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And then, in addition to all this, there will have to be a law that if anyone is found to be investigating the art of pilotage or navigation or the subject of health and true medical doctrine about winds and things hot and cold, contrary to the written rules, or to be indulging in any speculation whatsoever on such matters, he shall in the first place not be called a physician or a ship captain, but a star-gazer, <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">This passage obviously refers to the trial of Socrates.  The word <foreign xml:lang="grc">μετέωρα</foreign> was used by those who made all sorts of general accusations against Socrates (see <bibl n="Plat. Apol. 18b">Plat. Apol. 18 B</bibl>, 19 B, with its reference to the <title>Clouds</title> of Aristophanes), and the reference of the words <foreign xml:lang="grc">διαφθείροντα ἄλλους νεωτέρους</foreign> to the accusation brought against him by Miletus, Anytus, and Lycon (<bibl n="Plat. Apol. 24c">Plat. Apol. 24 C</bibl>: <foreign xml:lang="grc">φησὶ γὰρ δὴ τοὺς νέους ἀδικεῖν με διαφθείροντα</foreign>) is perfectly plain.</note> a kind of loquacious sophist, and secondly anyone who is properly qualified may bring an accusation against him and hale him into court for corrupting the young and persuading them
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="299c"/> to attack the arts of navigation and medicine in opposition to the laws and to govern the ships and the sick according to their own will;  and if he is found to be so persuading either young or old contrary to the laws and written rules, he shall suffer the most extreme penalties.  Nothing, they say, ought to be wiser than the laws;  for no one is ignorant of medicine and the laws of health or of the pilot’s art and navigation, since anyone who pleases can learn <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="299d"/> the existing written rules and ancestral customs.  Now if these regulations which I speak of were to be applied to these sciences, Socrates, and to strategy and every part of the entire art of hunting and to painting or every kind of imitation and to carpentry including every kind of utensil-making, or even to husbandry and all the art that is concerned with plants, or if we were to see an art of horse-breeding conducted by written rules, or herdsmanship in general or prophecy or everything that is included in the art of serving,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="299e"/> or draught-playing or the whole science of number, whether arithmetic or plane geometry or solid geometry or problems of motion—what would you think of carrying on all these in such a way, by written rules and not by knowledge?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Clearly all the arts would be utterly ruined, nor could they ever rise again, through the operation of the law prohibiting investigation;  and so life, which is hard enough now,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="300"/> <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="300a"/> would then become absolutely unendurable.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="300"><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Here is a further point.  If we ordained that each of the aforesaid arts must be carried on by written rules and that the observance of our written rules be under the charge of the man who is elected or chosen by lot, but he should disregard the written rules and for the sake of some gain or to do a favor to some one should try to act contrary to them, without possessing any knowledge, would not this be a greater evil than the former?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Most assuredly.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="300b"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Since the laws are made after long experience and after commissioners of some kind have carefully considered each detail with delicate skill and have persuaded the people to pass them, anyone, I fancy, who ventured to violate them would be involved in error many times greater than the first, and would cause even greater ruin than the written laws to all kinds of transactions.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Of course he would.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Therefore the next best course for those who make laws or
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="300c"/> written rules about anything whatsoever is to prohibit any violation of them whatsoever, either by one person or by a greater number.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Right.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> These laws, then, written by men who know in so far as knowledge is possible, are imitations in each instance of some part of truth?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And yet we said, if we remember, that the man of knowledge, the real statesman, would by his art make many changes in his practice without regard to his writings, when he thought another course was better though it violated the rules he had written
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="300d"/> and sent to his absent subjects. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">See 295 E.</note></said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, we did say that.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> But is it not true that any man or any number of men whatsoever who have written laws, if they undertake to make any change in those laws, thinking it is all improvement, are doing, to the best of their ability, the same thing which our true statesman does?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> If, then, they were to do this without science, however, imitate badly in every case;
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="300e"/>  but if they were scientific, then it would no longer be imitation, but the actual perfect reality of which we spoke?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, assuredly.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And yet we agreed definitely a while ago that no multitude is able to acquire any art whatsoever.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, that is definitely agreed.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Then if there is a kingly <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">See 292 E.</note> art, neither the collective body of the wealthy nor the whole people could ever acquire this science of statesmanship.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> No;  certainly not.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="301"><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Such states, then, it seems, if they are to imitate well, so far as possible, that true form of government— <milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="301"/> <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="301a"/> by a single ruler who rules with science—must never do anything in contravention of their existing written laws and ancestral customs.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> You are quite right.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Then whenever the rich imitate this government, we call such a state an aristocracy;  and when they disregard the laws, we call it an oligarchy.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, I think we do.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And again, when one man rules according to laws
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="301b"/> and imitates the scientific ruler, we call him a king, making no distinction in name between the single ruler who rules by science and him who rules by opinion if they both rule in accordance with laws.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, I think we do.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Accordingly, if one man who is really scientific rules, he will assuredly be called by the same name, king, and by no other;  and so the five names of what are now called the forms of government have become only one. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">What are called five distinct forms of government are resolved into one—the one right form of which all others are imitations (297 C).  This is to be sought in some small number or one person (ibid.).  We have found it in the really scientific monarchy, and the other so-called forms of government, being merely imitations of this, require no names of their own.</note></said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> So it seems, at least.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> But when a single ruler acts in accordance with neither laws nor customs, but claims,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="301c"/> in imitation of the scientific ruler, that whatever is best must be done, even though it be contrary to the written laws, and this imitation is inspired by desire and ignorance, is not such a ruler to be called in every instance a tyrant?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Thus, we say, the tyrant has arisen, and the king and oligarchy and aristocracy and democracy, because men are not contented with that one perfect ruler, and do not believe that there could ever be any one worthy of such power or
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="301d"/> willing and able by ruling with virtue and knowledge to dispense justice and equity rightly to all, but that he will harm and kill and injure any one of us whom he chooses on any occasion, since they admit that if such a man as we describe should really arise, he would be welcomed and would continue to dwell among them, directing to their weal as sole ruler a perfectly right form of government.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> But, as the case now stands, since, as we claim, no king is produced in our states who is, like the ruler of the bees in their hives, by birth pre-eminently fitted from the beginning
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="301e"/> in body and mind, we are obliged, as it seems, to follow in the track of the perfect and true form of government by coming together and making written laws.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, I suppose we are.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="302"><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Can we wonder, then, Socrates, at all the evils that arise and are destined to arise in such kinds of government, when they are based upon such a foundation, and must conduct their affairs in accordance with written laws and with customs, without knowledge? <milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="302"/> <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="302a"/> For every one can see that any other art built upon such a foundation would ruin all its works that are so produced.  Ought we not rather to wonder at the stability that inheres in the state?  For states have labored under such conditions for countless ages, nevertheless some of them are lasting and are not overthrown.  Many, to be sure, like ships that founder at sea, are destroyed, have been destroyed, and will be destroyed hereafter, through the worthlessness of their captains and crews who have the greatest ignorance of the greatest things,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="302b"/> men who have no knowledge of statesmanship, but think they have in every respect most perfect knowledge of this above all other sciences.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Very true.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Is it, then, our duty to see which of these not right forms of government is the least difficult to live with, though all are difficult, and which is the most oppressive, although this is somewhat aside from the subject we had proposed for ourselves?  On the whole, however, perhaps all of us have some such motive in mind in all that we are doing.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, it is our duty, of course.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="302c"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Well then, you may say that of the three forms, the same is both the hardest and the easiest.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What do you mean?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Just this:  I mean that there are three forms of government, as we said at the beginning of the discussion which has now flowed in upon us—monarchy, the rule of the few, and the rule of the many.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, there were those three.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Let us, then, by dividing each of these into two parts, make six, and by distinguishing the right government from these, a seventh.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> How shall we make the division?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="302d"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> We said that monarchy comprised royalty and tyranny, and the rule of the few comprised aristocracy, which has a name of good omen, and oligarchy;  but to the rule of the many we gave then only a single name, democracy;  now, however, that also must be divided.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> How?  On what principle shall we divide that?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> On the same that we used for the others, though the name of this form is already twofold in meaning. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">The name is said to be twofold in meaning, probably because it was applied in cases in which there was a regularly constituted popular government and also in cases of mob rule.</note> At any rate, the distinction between ruling according to law
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="302e"/> and without law applies alike to this and the rest.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, it does.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Before, when we were in search of the right government, this division was of no use, as we showed at the time but now that we have set that apart and have decided that the others are the only available forms of government, the principle of lawfulness and lawlessness bisects each of them.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> So it seems, from what has been said.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Monarchy, then, when bound by good written rules, which we call laws, is the best of all the six;  but without law it is hard and most oppressive to live with.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="303"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="303"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="303a"/><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> I fancy it is.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> But just as few is intermediate between one and a multitude, so the government of the few must be considered intermediate, both in good and in evil.  But the government of the multitude is weak in all respects and able to do nothing great, either good or bad, when compared with the other forms of government, because in this the powers of government are distributed in small shares among many men;  therefore of all these governments when they are lawful, this is the worst, and when they are all lawless it is the best;
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="303b"/> and if they are all without restraint, life is most desirable in a democracy, but if they are orderly, that is the worst to live in;  but life in the first kind of state is by far the first and best, with the exception of the seventh, for that must be set apart from all the others, as God is set apart from men. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">The concentration of power in the hands of one man makes monarchy most efficient, but, since no human monarch is perfect, monarchy must be regulated by laws.  Its efficiency makes it under such conditions the best government to live under.  But without restraint of law monarchy becomes tyranny—the worst kind of oppression.  Oligarchy occupies a position intermediate between monarchy and democracy—less efficient than the one and more efficient than the other, because power is distributed among a small number of persons—and is, therefore, when lawful less good, and when lawless less bad, than monarchy.  Democracy, in turn, since power is too greatly subdivided, is inefficient, either for good or evil, and is, therefore, when lawful less good, and when lawless less bad, than either of the others.</note></said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> That statement appears to be true to the facts, and we must do as you say.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Then those who participate in all those governments with the exception of the scientific one—are to be eliminated
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="303c"/> as not being statesmen, but partisans and since they preside over the greatest counterfeits, they are themselves counterfeits, and since they are the greatest of imitators and cheats, they are the greatest of all sophists.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> This term <q type="emph">sophist</q> seems to have come round quite rightly to the so-called statesmen.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Well, this part has been exactly like a play.  Just as we remarked a moment ago, <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">291 A.</note> a festive troop of centaurs or satyrs was coming into view, which we had to separate from the art of statesmanship;
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="303d"/> and now we have succeeded in doing this, though it has been very difficult.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> So it seems.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> But another group remains, which is still more difficult to separate, because it is more closely akin to the kingly class and is also harder to recognize.  I think we are in somewhat the same position as refiners of gold.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> How so?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Why, the refiners first remove earth and stones and all that sort of thing;
    <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="303e"/> and after that there remain the precious substances which are mixed with the gold and akin to it and can be removed only by fire—copper and silver and sometimes adamant. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb"><bibl n="Plat. Tim. 59b">Plat. Tim. 59 B</bibl>, defines adamant as <foreign xml:lang="grc">χρυσοῦ ὄζος</foreign><gloss>a branch of gold.</gloss>  It was, then, a substance akin to gold.  Platinum has been suggested.</note> These are removed by the difficult processes of smelting and tests, leaving before our eyes what is called unalloyed gold in all its purity.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, that is said, at least, to be the process.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="304"><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> By the same method I think all that is different and alien and incompatible has now been eliminated by us from the science of statesmanship, and what is precious and akin to it is left.  Herein are included the arts
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="304"/> <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="304a"/> of the general and of the judge and that kind of oratory which partakes of the kingly art because it persuades men to justice and thereby helps to steer the ship of state.  Now in what way shall we most easily eliminate these and show him whom we seek alone by himself and undisguised?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Clearly we must do this somehow.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Then if it is a question of trying, he will be shown.  But I think we had better try to disclose him by means of music.  Please answer my question.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What is it?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="304b"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Shall we agree that there is such a thing as learning music and the sciences of handicraft in general?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> There is.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And how about this?  Shall we say that there is another science connected with those, which tells whether we ought or ought not to learn any one of then?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, we shall say that there is.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And shall we agree that this is different from those?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And shall we say that none of them ought to have control of any other,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="304c"/> or that those sciences should control this one, or that this should control and rule all the others?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> This should control those others.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> You mean that the science which decides whether we ought to learn or not should control the science which is learnt or teaches?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Emphatically.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And the science which decides whether to persuade or not should control that which can persuade?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Well, then, to what science shall we assign the power of persuading a multitude or a mob by telling edifying stories,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="304d"/> not by teaching?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> It is, I think, clear that this must be added to rhetoric.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> But the power of deciding whether some action, no matter what, should be taken, either by persuasion or by some exercise of force, in relation to any person, or whether to take no action at all—to what science is that to be assigned?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> To the science which controls the sciences of persuasion and speech.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And that would, I think, be no other than the function of the statesman.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> A most excellent conclusion.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> So rhetoric also seems to have been quickly separated from statesmanship <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">Cf. 303 C.</note>
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="304e"/> as a different species, subservient to the other.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Here is another function or power; what are we to think about it?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What is it?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> The power of determining how war shall be waged against those upon whom we have declared war, whether we are to call this a science or not a science?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> How could we think it is not a science, when generalship and all military activity practise it?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And the power which is able and knows how to deliberate and decide whether to make war or peace, shall we assume that it is the same as this or different?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> If we are consistent, we must assume that it is different.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="305"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="305"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="305a"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Shall we, then, assume that it controls the other, if we are to agree with our views in the former examples?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And what other art shall we make bold to declare is mistress of that great and terrible art, the art of war as a whole, except the truly kingly art?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> No other.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> We shall, then, not call the art of the generals statesmanship, since it is subservient.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> No;  that would not be reasonable.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="305b"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Now let us examine the function of the righteous judges.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Has it any power beyond that of judging men’s contracts with one another, pronouncing them right or wrong by the standard of the existing laws which it has received from the king and law-giver;  showing its own peculiar virtue in that it is not so perverted by any bribes, or fears, or pity, <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="305c"/> or enmity, or friendship, as ever to consent to decide the lawsuits of men with each other contrary to the enactments of the lawgiver?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> No;  the business of this power is about as you have described it.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Then we find that the strength of judges is not kingly, but is guardian of laws and a servant of the kingly power.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> So it appears.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> The consideration of all these arts which have been mentioned leads to the conclusion that none of them is the art of the statesman.  For the art that is truly kingly ought not to act itself,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="305d"/> but should rule over the arts that have the power of action;  it should decide upon the right or wrong time for the initiation of the most important measures in the state, and the other arts should perform its behests.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Right.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Therefore those arts which we have just described, as they control neither one another nor themselves, but have each its own peculiar sphere of action, are quite properly called by special names corresponding to those special actions.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="305e"/><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> That appears, at least, to be the case.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> But the art which holds sway over them all and watches over the laws and all things in the state, weaving them all most perfectly together, we may, I think, by giving to its function a designation which indicates its power over the community, with full propriety call <q type="emph">statecraft.</q></said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Most assuredly.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Shall we then proceed to discuss it after the model supplied by weaving, <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">See 287-290, 303-305.</note> now that all the classes in the state have been made plain to us?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> By all means.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="306"><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Then the kingly process of weaving must be described,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="306"/> <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="306a"/> its nature, the manner in which it combines the threads, and the kind of web it produces.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Evidently.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> It has, apparently, become necessary, after all, to explain a difficult matter.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> But certainly the explanation must be made.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> It is difficult, for the assertion that one part of virtue is in a way at variance with another sort of virtue may very easily be assailed by those who appeal to popular opinion in contentious arguments.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> I do not understand.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> I will say it again in another way.  I suppose you believe
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="306b"/> that courage <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">The word <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀνδρεία</foreign> has a much wider meaning than the English <gloss>courage.</gloss>  Like the Latin <foreign xml:lang="lat">virtus,</foreign> it embraces all qualities which are desirable in a perfect man, especially the more active and positive virtues.  When applied to one particular kind of virtue it is applied to courage, but throughout this discussion it is used in the wider sense, for which there is no single English equivalent.</note> is one part of virtue.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And, of course, that self-restraint is different from courage, but is also a part of virtue of which courage is a part.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Now I must venture to utter a strange doctrine about them.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What is it?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> That, in a way, they are in a condition of great hostility and opposition to each other in many beings.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What do you mean?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Something quite unusual;  for, you know, all the parts of virtue
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="306c"/> are usually said to be friendly to one another.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Now shall we pay careful attention and see whether this is so simple, or, quite the contrary, there is in some respects a variance between them and their kin?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes;  please tell how we shall investigate the question.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Among all the parts we must look for those which we call excellent but place in two opposite classes.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Say more clearly what you mean.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Acuteness and quickness, whether in body or
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="306d"/> soul or vocal utterance, whether they are real or exist in such likenesses as music and graphic art produce in imitation of them—have you never yourself praised one of them or heard them praised by others?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And do you remember in what way they praise them as occasion offers?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Not in the least.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> I wonder if I can express to you in words what I have in mind.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="306e"/><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Why not?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> You seem to think that is an easy thing to do.  However, let us consider the matter as it appears in the opposite classes.  For example, when we admire, as we frequently do in many actions, quickness and energy and acuteness of mind or body or even of voice, we express our praise of them by one word, courage.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> How so?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> We say acute and courageous in the first instance, also quick and courageous, and energetic and courageous;  and when we apply this word as a common term applicable to all persons and actions of this class, we praise them.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, we do.</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>