ΞΕ. ὅτι μὲν ἐρωτώμενοι τὸν ἐκ τῆς νῦν περιφορᾶς καὶ γενέσεως βασιλέα καὶ πολιτικὸν τὸν ἐκ τῆς ἐναντίας περιόδου ποιμένα τῆς τότε ἀνθρωπίνης ἀγέλης εἴπομεν, καὶ ταῦτα θεὸν ἀντὶ θνητοῦ, ταύτῃ μὲν πάμπολυ παρηνέχθημεν· ὅτι δὲ συμπάσης τῆς πόλεως ἄρχοντα αὐτὸν ἀπεφήναμεν, ὅντινα δὲ τρόπον οὐ διείπομεν, ταύτῃ δὲ αὖ τὸ μὲν λεχθὲν ἀληθές, οὐ μὴν ὅλον γε οὐδὲ σαφὲς ἐρρήθη, διὸ καὶ βραχύτερον ἢ κατʼ ἐκεῖνο ἡμαρτήκαμεν.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. ἀληθῆ.
ΞΕ. δεῖ τοίνυν τὸν τρόπον, ὡς ἔοικε, διορίσαντας τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς πόλεως οὕτω τελέως τὸν πολιτικὸν ἡμῖν εἰρῆσθαι προσδοκᾶν.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. καλῶς.
ΞΕ. διὰ ταῦτα μὴν καὶ τὸν μῦθον παρεθέμεθα, ἵνα ἐνδείξαιτο περὶ τῆς ἀγελαιοτροφίας μὴ μόνον ὡς πάντες αὐτῆς ἀμφισβητοῦσι τῷ ζητουμένῳ τὰ νῦν, ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖνον αὐτὸν ἐναργέστερον ἴδοιμεν, ὃν προσήκει μόνον κατὰ τὸ παράδειγμα ποιμένων τε καὶ βουκόλων τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἐπιμέλειαν ἔχοντα τροφῆς τούτου μόνον ἀξιωθῆναι τοῦ προσρήματος.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. ὀρθῶς.
ΞΕ. οἶμαι δέ γʼ, ὦ Σώκρατες, τοῦτο μὲν ἔτι μεῖζον ἢ κατὰ βασιλέα εἶναι τὸ σχῆμα τὸ τοῦ θείου νομέως, τοὺς δʼ ἐνθάδε νῦν ὄντας πολιτικοὺς τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ὁμοίους τε εἶναι μᾶλλον πολὺ τὰς φύσεις καὶ παραπλησιαίτερον παιδείας μετειληφέναι καὶ τροφῆς.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. πάντως που.
ΞΕ. ζητητέοι γε μὴν οὐδὲν ἂν εἴησαν οὔθʼ ἧττον οὔτε μᾶλλον, εἴθʼ οὕτως εἴτʼ ἐκείνως πεφύκασιν.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. πῶς γὰρ οὔ;
ΞΕ. τῇδε δὴ πάλιν ἐπανέλθωμεν. ἣν γὰρ ἔφαμεν αὐτεπιτακτικὴν μὲν εἶναι τέχνην ἐπὶ ζῴοις, οὐ μὴν ἰδίᾳ γε ἀλλὰ κοινῇ τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἔχουσαν, καὶ προσείπομεν δὴ τότε εὐθὺς ἀγελαιοτροφικήν—μέμνησαι γάρ;
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. ναί.
ΞΕ. ταύτης τοίνυν πῃ διημαρτάνομεν. τὸν γὰρ πολιτικὸν οὐδαμοῦ συνελάβομεν οὐδʼ ὠνομάσαμεν, ἀλλʼ ἡμᾶς ἔλαθεν κατὰ τὴν ὀνομασίαν ἐκφυγών.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. πῶς;
ΞΕ. τοῦ τὰς ἀγέλας ἑκάστας τρέφειν τοῖς μὲν ἄλλοις που πᾶσι μέτεστι νομεῦσι, τῷ πολιτικῷ δὲ οὐ μετὸν ἐπηνέγκαμεν τοὔνομα, δέον τῶν κοινῶν ἐπενεγκεῖν τι σύμπασιν.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. ἀληθῆ λέγεις, εἴπερ ἐτύγχανέ γε ὄν.
ΞΕ. πῶς δʼ οὐκ ἦν τό γε θεραπεύειν που πᾶσι κοινόν, μηδὲν διορισθείσης τροφῆς μηδέ τινος ἄλλης πραγματείας; ἀλλʼ ἤ τινα ἀγελαιοκομικὴν ἢ θεραπευτικὴν ἢ καί τινα ἐπιμελητικὴν αὐτὴν ὀνομάσασιν ὡς κατὰ πάντων ἐξῆν περικαλύπτειν καὶ τὸν πολιτικὸν ἅμα τοῖς ἄλλοις, ἐπειδὴ δεῖν τοῦτʼ ἐσήμαινεν ὁ λόγος.
Str. When we were asked about the king and the statesman of the present movement of the world and mode of generation, we told of the shepherd of the human flock in the time of the reverse movement, and he was a god, not a man, besides. That was a very great error. Then when we declared that he was ruler of the whole state, but did not fully tell in what manner he ruled, what we said was true, though it was not complete nor clear, and therefore our error was less in this case than in the other.
Y. Soc. True.
Str. Apparently, then, we must expect a complete description of the statesman only when we have defined the manner of his rule over the state.
Y. Soc. Very good.
Str. And this is why I introduced the myth, not only in order to show that all men compete for the care of the flock with him whom we are now seeking, but also that we may more clearly see him who alone ought to have the care of human beings as shepherds and neatherds care for their flocks and herds, and therefore alone deserves to be honored with that appellation.
Y. Soc. Quite right.
Str. I think, Socrates, that the form of the divine shepherd is greater than that of the king, whereas the statesmen who now exist here are by nature much more like their subjects, with whom they share much more nearly the same breeding and education.
Y. Soc. Certainly.
Str. And yet they would have to be investigated with precisely the same care, whether their nature be like that of their subjects or like that of the divine shepherd.
Y. Soc. Of course.
Str. Then let us go back to this point: the art which we said gave its own orders and had to do with living beings, but had charge of them not singly but in common, and which we at once called the art of the herdsman,—do you remember?
Y. Soc. Yes.
Str. Well, it was in connection with that, somewhere, that we made our mistake; for we never included or named the statesman; unobserved by us he slipped out of our nomenclature.
Y. Soc. How so?
Str. All the other herdsmen have this in common that they feed their respective herds; but the statesman does not, yet we gave him the name of herdsman, when we ought to have given him one which is common to them all.
Y. Soc. True, if there were such a name.
Str. Is not caring for herds common to them all, with no especial mention of feeding or any other activity? If we called it an art of tending herds or caring for them or managing them, as all herdsmen do, we could wrap up the statesman with the rest, since the argument showed that we ought to do so.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. ὀρθῶς. ἀλλʼ ἡ μετὰ τοῦτο διαίρεσις αὖ τίνα τρόπον ἐγίγνετʼ ἄν;
ΞΕ. κατὰ ταὐτὰ καθʼ ἅπερ ἔμπροσθεν διῃρούμεθα τὴν ἀγελαιοτροφικὴν πεζοῖς τε καὶ ἀπτῆσι, καὶ ἀμείκτοις τε καὶ ἀκεράτοις, τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἄν που τούτοις διαιρούμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀγελαιοκομικὴν τήν τε νῦν καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ Κρόνου βασιλείαν περιειληφότες ἂν ἦμεν ὁμοίως ἐν τῷ λόγῳ.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. φαίνεται· ζητῶ δὲ αὖ τί τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο.
ΞΕ. δῆλον ὅτι λεχθέντος οὕτω τοῦ τῆς ἀγελαιοκομικῆς ὀνόματος οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐγένεθʼ ἡμῖν τό τινας ἀμφισβητεῖν ὡς οὐδʼ ἐπιμέλεια τὸ παράπαν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ τότε δικαίως ἠμφεσβητήθη μηδεμίαν εἶναι τέχνην ἐν ἡμῖν ἀξίαν τούτου τοῦ θρεπτικοῦ προσρήματος, εἰ δʼ οὖν τις εἴη, πολλοῖς πρότερον αὐτῆς καὶ μᾶλλον προσήκειν ἤ τινι τῶν βασιλέων.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. ὀρθῶς.
ΞΕ. ἐπιμέλεια δέ γε ἀνθρωπίνης συμπάσης κοινωνίας οὐδεμία ἂν ἐθελήσειεν ἑτέρα μᾶλλον καὶ προτέρα τῆς βασιλικῆς φάναι καὶ κατὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἀρχῆς εἶναι τέχνη.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. λέγεις ὀρθῶς.
ΞΕ. μετὰ ταῦτα δέ γε, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἆρʼ ἐννοοῦμεν ὅτι πρὸς αὐτῷ δὴ τῷ τέλει συχνὸν αὖ διημαρτάνετο;
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. τὸ ποῖον;
ΞΕ. τόδε, ὡς ἄρʼ εἰ καὶ διενοήθημεν ὅτι μάλιστα τῆς δίποδος ἀγέλης εἶναί τινα θρεπτικὴν τέχνην, οὐδέν τι μᾶλλον ἡμᾶς ἔδει βασιλικὴν αὐτὴν εὐθὺς καὶ πολιτικὴν ὡς ἀποτετελεσμένην προσαγορεύειν.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. τί μήν;
ΞΕ. πρῶτον μέν, ὃ λέγομεν, τοὔνομα μετασκευωρήσασθαι, πρὸς τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν μᾶλλον προσαγαγόντας ἢ τὴν τροφήν, ἔπειτα ταύτην τέμνειν· οὐ γὰρ σμικρὰς ἂν ἔχοι τμήσεις ἔτι.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. ποίας;
ΞΕ. ἧι τε τὸν θεῖον ἄν που διειλόμεθα νομέα χωρὶς καὶ τὸν ἀνθρώπινον ἐπιμελητήν.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. ὀρθῶς.
ΞΕ. αὖθις δέ γε τὴν ἀπονεμηθεῖσαν ἐπιμελητικὴν δίχα τέμνειν ἀναγκαῖον ἦν.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. τίνι;
ΞΕ. τῷ βιαίῳ τε καὶ ἑκουσίῳ.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. τί δή;
ΞΕ. καὶ ταύτῃ που τὸ πρότερον ἁμαρτάνοντες εὐηθέστερα τοῦ δέοντος εἰς ταὐτὸν βασιλέα καὶ τύραννον συνέθεμεν, ἀνομοιοτάτους ὄντας αὐτούς τε καὶ τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς ἑκατέρου τρόπον.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. ἀληθῆ.
ΞΕ. νῦν δέ γε πάλιν ἐπανορθούμενοι, καθάπερ εἶπον, τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐπιμελητικὴν δίχα διαιρώμεθα, τῷ βιαίῳ τε καὶ ἑκουσίῳ;
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. πάνυ μὲν οὖν.
ΞΕ. καὶ τὴν μέν γέ που τῶν βιαίων τυραννικήν, τὴν δὲ ἑκούσιον καὶ ἑκουσίων διπόδων ἀγελαιοκομικὴν ζῴων προσειπόντες πολιτικήν, τὸν ἔχοντα αὖ τέχνην ταύτην καὶ ἐπιμέλειαν ὄντως ὄντα βασιλέα καὶ πολιτικὸν ἀποφαινώμεθα;
Y. Soc. Quite right; but how would the next division be made?
Str. Just as we divided the art of feeding herds before by distinguishing between those that go on foot and the winged, and the unmixed breeds and the hornless, we might divide the art of tending herds by these same distinctions, embracing in the word both the kingship of the present time and that of the time of Cronus.
Y. Soc. Evidently; but again I wonder what the next step is.
Str. It Is clear that if we had used the word “tending” herds, we should never have met with the contention that there is no caring for them at all in statesmanship, though the earlier contention was justified that there is no art in the case of human beings that deserves the name of feeding, and if there be such an art, it belongs much more to many others than to the king.
Y. Soc. Quite right.
Str. But no other art would advance a stronger claim than that of kingship to be the art of caring for the whole human community and ruling all mankind.
Y. Soc. You are right.
Str. And after all this, Socrates, do we see that another great error was committed at the very end?
Y. Soc. What was it?
Str. Why, it was this: No matter how strong our belief that there was an art of feeding the biped herd, we ought not to have called it kingship and statecraft on the spot, as if it were all quite settled.
Y. Soc. What ought we to have done, then?
Str. In the first place, as we said, we ought to have remodelled the name, making it denote care, rather than feeding, and then we ought to have divided the art, for it may still admit of not unimportant divisions.
Y. Soc. What are they?
Str. There is one by which we might have divided the divine shepherd from the human caretaker.
Y. Soc. Quite right.
Str. And again it was essential that the art of caretaking thus isolated and assigned to man be divided into two parts.
Y. Soc. On what line of division?
Str. On that of compulsory and voluntary.
Y. Soc. Why is that?
Str. Because this was about the point at which we made our mistake before; we were more simple-minded than we should have been, and we put the king and the tyrant together, whereas they and their respective modes of ruling are quite unlike.
Y. Soc. True.
Str. But now shall we, as I said, correct ourselves and divide the care of humanity into two parts, by the criterion of the compulsory and the voluntary?
Y. Soc. By all means.
Str. And if we call the art of those who use compulsion tyrannical or something of the sort and the voluntary care of voluntary bipeds political, may we not declare that he who possesses this latter art of caretaking is really the true king and statesman?
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. καὶ κινδυνεύει γε, ὦ ξένε, τελέως ἂν ἡμῖν οὕτως ἔχειν ἡ περὶ τὸν πολιτικὸν ἀπόδειξις.
ΞΕ. καλῶς ἄν, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἡμῖν ἔχοι. δεῖ δὲ μὴ σοὶ μόνῳ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ κἀμοὶ μετὰ σοῦ κοινῇ συνδοκεῖν. νῦν δὲ κατά γε τὴν ἐμὴν οὔπω φαίνεται τέλεον ὁ βασιλεὺς ἡμῖν σχῆμα ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καθάπερ ἀνδριαντοποιοὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἐνίοτε σπεύδοντες πλείω καὶ μείζω τοῦ δέοντος ἕκαστα τῶν ἔργων ἐπεμβαλλόμενοι βραδύνουσι, καὶ νῦν ἡμεῖς, ἵνα δὴ πρὸς τῷ ταχὺ καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῶς δηλώσαιμεν τὸ τῆς ἔμπροσθεν ἁμάρτημα διεξόδου, τῷ βασιλεῖ νομίσαντες πρέπειν μεγάλα παραδείγματα ποιεῖσθαι, θαυμαστὸν ὄγκον ἀράμενοι τοῦ μύθου, μείζονι τοῦ δέοντος ἠναγκάσθημεν αὐτοῦ μέρει προσχρήσασθαι· διὸ μακροτέραν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν πεποιήκαμεν καὶ πάντως τῷ μύθῳ τέλος οὐκ ἐπέθεμεν, ἀλλʼ ἀτεχνῶς ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν ὥσπερ ζῷον τὴν ἔξωθεν μὲν περιγραφὴν ἔοικεν ἱκανῶς ἔχειν, τὴν δὲ οἷον τοῖς φαρμάκοις καὶ τῇ συγκράσει τῶν χρωμάτων ἐνάργειαν οὐκ ἀπειληφέναι πω. γραφῆς δὲ καὶ συμπάσης χειρουργίας λέξει καὶ λόγῳ δηλοῦν πᾶν ζῷον μᾶλλον πρέπει τοῖς δυναμένοις ἕπεσθαι· τοῖς δʼ ἄλλοις διὰ χειρουργιῶν.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. τοῦτο μὲν ὀρθῶς· ὅπῃ δὲ ἡμῖν οὔπω φῂς ἱκανῶς εἰρῆσθαι δήλωσον.
ΞΕ. χαλεπόν, ὦ δαιμόνιε, μὴ παραδείγμασι χρώμενον ἱκανῶς ἐνδείκνυσθαί τι τῶν μειζόνων. κινδυνεύει γὰρ ἡμῶν ἕκαστος οἷον ὄναρ εἰδὼς ἅπαντα πάντʼ αὖ πάλιν ὥσπερ ὕπαρ ἀγνοεῖν.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. πῶς τοῦτʼ εἶπες;
ΞΕ. καὶ μάλʼ ἀτόπως ἔοικά γε ἐν τῷ παρόντι κινήσας τὸ περὶ τῆς ἐπιστήμης πάθος ἐν ἡμῖν.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. τί δή;
ΞΕ. παραδείγματος, ὦ μακάριε, αὖ μοι καὶ τὸ παράδειγμα αὐτὸ δεδέηκεν.
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. τί οὖν; λέγε μηδὲν ἐμοῦ γε ἕνεκα ἀποκνῶν.
ΞΕ. λεκτέον ἐπειδὴ καὶ σύ γε ἕτοιμος ἀκολουθεῖν. τοὺς γάρ που παῖδας ἴσμεν, ὅταν ἄρτι γραμμάτων ἔμπειροι γίγνωνται—
ΝΕ. ΣΩ. τὸ ποῖον;
ΞΕ. ὅτι τῶν στοιχείων ἕκαστον ἐν ταῖς βραχυτάταις καὶ ῥᾴσταις τῶν συλλαβῶν ἱκανῶς διαισθάνονται, καὶ τἀληθῆ φράζειν περὶ ἐκεῖνα δυνατοὶ γίγνονται.
Y. Soc. Well, Stranger, it looks as though our account of the statesman were complete now.
Str. That would be a fine thing for us, Socrates. But not you alone must think so; I must think so, too, in agreement with you. As a matter of fact, however, in my opinion our figure of the king is not yet perfect, but like statue-makers who sometimes in their misapplied enthusiasm make too numerous and too large additions and thus delay the completion of their several works, we too, at this time, wishing to make quick progress, and also to make clear in a grand style the error of our previous course, and, moreover, fancying that the use of great illustrations was proper in the case of a king, have taken up a marvellous mass of myth and have consequently been obliged to use a greater part of it than we should. So we have made our discourse too long and after all have never made an end of the tale, but our talk, just like a picture of a living creature, seems to have a good enough outline, but not yet to have received the clearness that comes from pigments and the blending of colors. And yet it is more fitting to portray any living being by speech and argument than by painting or any handicraft whatsoever to persons who are able to follow argument; but to others it is better to do it by means of works of craftsmanship.
Y. Soc. That is true; but explain wherein you think our exposition is still deficient.
Str. It is difficult, my dear fellow, to set forth any of the greater ideas, except by the use of examples; for it would seem that each of us knows everything that he knows as if in a dream and then again, when he is as it were awake, knows nothing of it all.
Y. Soc. What do you mean by that?
Str. I seem at present in absurd fashion to have touched upon our experience in regard to knowledge.
Y. Soc. In what respect?
Str. Why, my friend, the very example I employ requires another example.
Y. Soc. Indeed? What is it? Don’t hesitate to tell on my account.
Str. I will tell, since you on your part are prepared to listen. We know that children, when they are just getting some knowledge of letters—
Y. Soc. Well?
Str. Recognize the several letters well enough in the short and easy syllables, and can make correct statements about them.
Y. Soc. Yes, of course.
Cite This Text