276–277
Stranger
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.
Younger Socrates
Y. Soc. What are they?
Stranger
Str. There is one by which we might have divided the divine shepherd from the human caretaker.
Younger Socrates
Y. Soc. Quite right.
15
Stranger
Str. And again it was essential that the art of caretaking thus isolated and assigned to man be divided into two parts.
Younger Socrates
Y. Soc. On what line of division?
Stranger
Str. On that of compulsory and voluntary.
Younger Socrates
Y. Soc. Why is that?
Stranger
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.
20
Younger Socrates
Y. Soc. True.
Stranger
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?
Younger Socrates
Y. Soc. By all means.
Stranger
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?
Younger Socrates
Y. Soc. Well, Stranger, it looks as though our account of the statesman were complete now.
