275
Y. Soc. Yes.
275
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.
275
Y. Soc. How so?
275
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.
275
Y. Soc. True, if there were such a name.
275
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.
276
Y. Soc. Quite right; but how would the next division be made?
276
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.
276
Y. Soc. Evidently; but again I wonder what the next step is.
276
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.
276
Y. Soc. Quite right.
276
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.
276
Y. Soc. You are right.
276
Str. And after all this, Socrates, do we see that another great error was committed at the very end?
276
Y. Soc. What was it?
