others?

  Y. Soc. Yes.

  Str. And ought the other sciences to be superior to this, or no
single science to any other? Or ought this science to be the
overseer and governor of all the others?

  Y. Soc. The latter.

  Str. You mean to say that the science which judges whether we
ought to learn or not, must be superior to the science which is
learned or which teaches?

  Y. Soc. Far superior.

  Str. And the science which determines whether we ought to persuade
or not, must be superior to the science which is able to persuade?

  Y. Soc. Of course.

  Str. Very good; and to what science do we assign the power of
persuading a multitude by a pleasing tale and not by teaching?

  Y. Soc. That power, I think, must clearly be assigned to rhetoric.

  Str. And to what science do we give the power of determining whether
we are to employ persuasion or force towards any one, or to refrain
altogether?

  Y. Soc. To that science which governs the arts of speech and
persuasion.

  Str. Which, if I am not mistaken, will be politics?

  Y. Soc. Very good.

  Str. Rhetoric seems to be quickly distinguished from politics, being
a different species, yet ministering to it.

  Y. Soc. Yes.

  Str. But what would you think of another sort of power or science?

  Y. Soc. What science?

  Str. The science which has to do with military operations against
our enemies-is that to be regarded as a science or not?

  Y. Soc. How can generalship and military tactics be regarded as
other than a science?

  Str. And is the art which is able and knows how to advise when we
are to go to war, or to make peace, the same as this or different?

  Y. Soc. If we are to be consistent, we must say different.

  Str. And we must also suppose that this rules the other, if we are
not to give up our former notion?

  Y. Soc. True.

  Str. And, considering how great and terrible the whole art of war
is, can we imagine any which is superior to it but the truly royal?

  Y. Soc. No other.

  Str. The art of the general is only ministerial, and therefore not
political?

  Y. Soc. Exactly.

  Str. Once more let us consider the nature of the righteous judge.

  Y. Soc. Very good.

  Str. Does he do anything but decide the dealings of men with one
another to be just or unjust in accordance with the standard which
he receives from the king and legislator-showing his own peculiar
virtue only in this, that he is not perverted by gifts, or fears, or
pity, or by any sort of favour or enmity, into deciding the suits of
men with one another contrary to the appointment of the legislator?

  Y. Soc. No; his office is such as you describe.

  Str. Then the inference is that the power of the judge is not royal,
but only the power of a guardian of the law which ministers to the
royal power?

  Y. Soc. True.

  Str. The review of all these sciences shows that none of them is
political or royal. For the truly royal ought not itself to act, but
to rule over those who are able to act; the king ought to know what is
and what is not a fitting opportunity for taking the initiative in
matters of the greatest importance, whilst others, should execute
his orders.

  Y. Soc. True.