statesman-第2节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


concerned　with　him　who　is　not　a　ruler。

　　Y。　Soc。　Very　good。

　　Str。　Thus　a　very　fair　distinction　has　been　attained　between　the

man　who　gives　his　own　commands；　and　him　who　gives　another's。　And　now

let　us　see　if　the　supreme　power　allows　of　any　further　division。

　　Y。　Soc。　By　all　means。

　　Str。　I　think　that　it　does；　and　please　to　assist　me　in　making　the

division。

　　Y。　Soc。　At　what　point？

　　Str。　May　not　all　rulers　be　supposed　to　command　for　the　sake　of

producing　something？

　　Y。　Soc。　Certainly。

　　Str。　Nor　is　there　any　difficulty　in　dividing　the　things　produced

into　two　classes。

　　Y。　Soc。　How　would　you　divide　them？

　　Str。　Of　the　whole　class　some　have　life　and　some　are　without　life。

　　Y。　Soc。　True。

　　Str。　And　by　the　help　of　this　distinction　we　may　make；　if　we

please；　a　subdivision　of　the　section　of　knowledge　which　commands。

　　Y。　Soc。　At　what　point？

　　Str。　One　part　may　be　set　over　the　production　of　lifeless；　the

other　of　living　objects；　and　in　this　way　the　whole　will　be　divided。

　　Y。　Soc。　Certainly。

　　Str。　That　division；　then；　is　complete；　and　now　we　may　leave　one

half；　and　take　up　the　other；　which　may　also　be　divided　into　two。

　　Y。　Soc。　Which　of　the　two　halves　do　you　men？

　　Str。　Of　course　that　which　exercises　command　about　animals。　For；

surely；　the　royal　science　is　not　like　that　of　a　master…workman；　a

science　presiding　over　lifeless　objects；…the　king　has　a　nobler

function；　which　is　the　management　and　control　of　living　beings。

　　Y。　Soc。　True。

　　Str。　And　the　breeding　and　tending　of　living　beings　may　be　observed

to　be　sometimes　a　tending　of　the　individual；　in　other　cases；　a

common　care　of　creatures　in　flocks？

　　Y。　Soc。　True。

　　Str。　But　the　statesman　is　not　a　tender　of　individuals…not　like　the

driver　or　groom　of　a　single　ox　or　horse；　he　is　rather　to　be　compared

with　the　keeper　of　a　drove　of　horses　or　oxen。

　　Y。　Soc。　Yes；　I　see；　thanks　to　you。

　　Str。　Shall　we　call　this　art　of　tending　many　animals　together；　the

art　of　managing　a　herd；　or　the　art　of　collective　management？

　　Y。　Soc。　No　matter；…Whichever　suggests　itself　to　us　in　the　course

of　conversation。

　　Str。　Very　good；　Socrates；　and；　if　you　continue　to　be　not　too

particular　about　names；　you　will　be　all　the　richer　in　wisdom　when

you　are　an　old　man。　And　now；　as　you　say；　leaving　the　

discussion　of　the

name；　…can　you　see　a　way　in　which　a　person；　by　showing　the　art　of

herding　to　be　of　two　kinds；　may　cause　that　which　is　now　

sought　amongst

twice　the　number　of　things；　to　be　then　sought　amongst　half　that

number？

　　Y。　Soc。　I　will　try；…there　appears　to　me　to　be　one　management　of

men　and　another　of　beasts。

　　Str。　You　have　certainly　divided　them　in　a　most　straightforward　and

manly　style；　but　you　have　fallen　into　an　error　which　

hereafter　I　think

that　we　had　better　avoid。

　　Y。　Soc。　What　is　the　error？

　　Str。　I　think　that　we　had　better　not　cut　off　a　single　small　portion

which　is　not　a　species；　from　many　larger　portions；　the　part　should

be　a　species。　To　separate　off　at　once　the　subject　of　

investigation；　is

a　most　excellent　plan；　if　only　the　separation　be　rightly　

made；　and　you

were　under　the　impression　that　you　were　right；　because　you　saw　that

you　would　come　to　man；　and　this　led　you　to　hasten　the　steps。　But　you

should　not　chip　off　too　small　a　piece；　my　friend；　the　safer　way　is

to　cut　through　the　middle；　which　is　also　the　more　likely　way　of

finding　classes。　Attention　to　this　principle　makes　all　the

difference　in　a　process　of　enquiry。

　　Y。　Soc。　What　do　you　mean；　Stranger？

　　Str。　I　will　endeavour　to　speak　more　plainly　out　of　love　to　

your　good

parts；　Socrates；　and；　although　I　cannot　at　present　entirely　explain

myself；　I　will　try；　as　we　proceed；　to　make　my　meaning　a　little

clearer。

　　Y。　Soc。　What　was　the　error　of　which；　as　you　say；　we　were　guilty　in

our　recent　division？

　　Str。　The　error　was　just　as　if　some　one　who　wanted　to　divide　the

human　race；　were　to　divide　them　after　the　fashion　which　prevails　in

this　part　of　the　world；　here　they　cut　off　the　Hellenes　as　

one　species；

and　all　the　other　species　of　mankind；　which　are　innumerable；　and

have　no　ties　or　common　language；　they　include　under　the　

single　name　of

〃barbarians；〃　and　because　they　have　one　name　they　are　supposed　to　be

of　one　species　also。　Or　suppose　that　in　dividing　numbers　you　were　to

cut　off　ten　thousand　from　all　the　rest；　and　make　of　it　one　species；

comprehending　the　first　under　another　separate　name；　you　might　say

that　here　too　was　a　single　class；　because　you　had　given　it　a　single

name。　Whereas　you　would　make　a　much　better　and　more　equal　and

logical　classification　of　numbers；　if　you　divided　them　into　odd　and

even；　or　of　the　human　species；　if　you　divided　them　into　male　and

female；　and　only　separated　off　Lydians　or　Phrygians；　or　any　other

tribe；　and　arrayed　them　against　the　rest　of　the　world；　when　you

could　no　longer　make　a　division　into　parts　which　were　also　classes。

　　Y。　Soc。　Very　true；　but　I　wish　that　this　distinction　between　a　part

and　a　class　could　still　be　made　somewhat　plainer。

　　Str。　O　Socrates；　best　of　men；　you　are　imposing　upon　me　a　very

difficult　task。　We　have　already　digressed　further　from　our　original

intention　than　we　ought；　and　you　would　have　us　wander　still　further

away。　But　we　must　now　return　to　our　subject；　and　hereafter；　

when　there

is　a　leisure　hour；　we　will　follow　up　the　other　track；　at　the　

same　time

I　wish　you　to　guard　against　imagining　that　you　ever　heard　me　declare…

　　Y。　Soc。　What？

　　Str。　That　a　class　and　a　part　are　distinct。

　　Y。　Soc。　What　did　I　hear；　then？

　　Str。　That　a　class　is　necessarily　a　part；　but　there　is　no　similar

necessity　that　a　part　should　be　a　dass；　that　is　the　view　which　I

should　always　wish　you　to　attribute　to　me；　Socrates。

　　Y。　Soc。　So　be　it。

　　Str。　There　is　another　thing　which　I　should　like　to　know。

　　Y。　Soc。　What　is　it？

　　Str。　The　point　at　which　we　digressed；　for；　if　I　am　not　

mistaken；　the

exact　place　was　at　the　question；　Where　you　would　divide　the　

management

of　herds。　To　this　you　appeared　rather　too　ready　to　answer　that　them

were　two　species　of　animals；　man　being　one；　and　all　brutes　making　up

the　other。

　　Y。　Soc。　True。

　　Str。　I　thought　that　in　taking　away　a　part　you　imagined　that　the

remainder　formed　a　class；　because　you　were　able　to　call　them　by　the

common　name　of　brutes。

　　Y。　Soc。　That　again　is　true。

　　Str。　Suppose　now；　O　most　courageous　of　dialecticians；　that　

some　wise

and　understanding　creature；　such　as　a　crane　is　reputed　to　

be；　were；　in

imitation　of　you；　to　make　a　similar　division；　and　set　up　cranes

against　all　other　animals　to　their　own　special　glorification；　at　the

same　time　jumbling　together　all　the　others；　including　man；　under　the

appellation　of　brutes；…here　would　be　the　sort　of　error　which　we　must

try　to　avoid。

　　Y。　Soc。　How　can　we　be　safe？

　　Str。　If　we　do　not　divide　the　whole　class　of　animals；　we　shall　be

less　likely　to　fall　into　that　error。

　　Y。　Soc。　We　had　better　not　take　the　whole？

　　Str。　Yes；　there　lay　the　source　of　error　in　our　former　division。

　　Y。　Soc。　How？

　　Str。　You　remember　how　that　part　of　the　art　of　knowledge　which　was

concerned　with　command；　had　to　do　with　the　rearing　of　living

creatures；…I　mean；　with　animals　in　herds？

　　Y。　Soc。　Yes。

　　Str。　In　that　case；　there　was　already　implied　a　division　of　all

animals　into　tame　and　wild；　those　whose　nature　can　be　tamed　

are　called

tame；　and　those　which　cannot　be　tamed　are　called　wild。

　　Y。　Soc。　True。

　　Str。　And　the　political　science　of　which　we　are　in　search；　is　and

ever　was　concerned　with　tame　animals；　and　is　also　confined　to

gregarious　animals。

　　Y。　Soc。　Yes。

　　Str。　But　then　ought　not　to　divide；　as　we　did；　taking　the　

whole　class

at　once。　Neither　let　us　be　in　too　great　haste　to　arrive　

quickly　at　the

political　science；　for　this　mistake　has　already　brought　upon　us　the

misfortune　of　which　the　proverb　speaks。

　　Y。　Soc。　What　misfortune？

　　Str。　The　misfortune　of　too　much　haste；　which　is　too　little　speed。

　　Y。　Soc。　And　all　the　better；　Stranger；…we　got　what　we　deserved。

　　Str。　Very　well：　Let　us　then　begin　again；　and　endeavour　to　

divide　the

collective　rearing　of　animals；　for　probably　the　completion　of　the

argument　will　best　show　what　you　are　so　anxious　to　know。　Tell　me；

then…

　　Y。　Soc。　What？

　　Str。　Have　you　ever　heard；　as　you　very　likely　may…for　I　do　not

suppose　that　you　ever　actually　visited　them…of　the　preserves　

of　fishes

in　the　Nile；　and　in　the　ponds　of　the　Great　King；　or　you　may　have

seen　similar　preserves　in　wells　at　home？

　　Y。　Soc。　Yes；　to　be　sure；　I　have　seen　them；　and　I　have　often　heard

the　others　described。

　　Str。　And　you　may　have　heard　also；　and　may　have　been…assured　by

report；　although　you　have　not　travelled　in　those　regions；　of　

nurseries

of　geese　and　cranes　in　the　plains　of　Thessaly？

　　Y。　Soc。　Certainly。

　　Str。　I　asked　you；　because　here　is　a　new　division　of　the　management

of　herds；　into　the　management　of　land　and　of　water　herds。

　　Y。　Soc。　There　is。

　　Str。　And　do　you　agree　that　we　ought　to　divide　the　

collective　rearing

of　herds　into　two　corresponding　parts；　the　one　the　rearing