statesman we must define the nature of his office.

  Y. Soc. Certainly.

  Str. And the myth was introduced in order to show, not only that all
others 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 alone
worthy to receive this appellation, because, he alone of shepherds and
herdsmen, according to the image which we have employed, has the
care of human beings.

  Y. Soc. Very true.

  Str. And I cannot help thinking, Socrates, that the form of the
divine shepherd is even higher than that of a king; whereas the
statesmen who are now on earth seem to be much more like their
subjects in character, and which more nearly to partake of their
breeding 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 a
level with them.

  Y. Soc. Of course.

  Str. To resume:-Do you remember that we spoke of a
command-for-self exercised over animals, not singly but
collectively, which we called the art of rearing a herd?

  Y. Soc. Yes, I remember.

  Str. There, somewhere, lay our error; for we never included or
mentioned the Statesman; and we did not observe that he had no place
in our nomenclature.

  Y. Soc. How was that?

  Str. All other herdsmen "rear" their herds, but this is not a
suitable term to apply to the Statesman; we should use a name which is
common to them all.

  Y. Soc. True, if there be such a name.

  Str. Why, is not "care" of herds applicable to all? For this implies
no feeding, or any special duty; if we say either "tending" the herds,
or "managing" the herds, or "having the care" of them, the same word
will 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 the
division?

  Str. As before we divided the art of "rearing" herds accordingly
as they were land or water herds, winged and wingless, mixing or not
mixing the breed, horned and hornless, so we may divide by these
same differences the "teading" of herds, comprehending in our
definition 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 or
rearing them, no one would have argued that there was no care of men
in the case of the politician, although it was justly contended,
that there was no human art of feeding them which was worthy of the
name, or at least, if there were, many a man had a prior and greater
right 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 right
than the royal science to care for human society and to rule over
men in general.

  Y. Soc. Quite true.

  Str. In the next place, Socrates, we must surely notice that a great
error 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 art
as the art of rearing or feeding bipeds, there was no reason why we
should call this the royal or political art, as though there were no
more 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 to
divide, for there may be still considerable divisions.

  Y. Soc. How can they be made?

  Str. First, by separating the divine shepherd from the human
guardian or manager.

  Y. Soc. True.