Str. Just as the captain of a ship keeps watch for what is at any moment for the good of the vessel and the sailors,
 not by writing rules, but by making his science his law, and thus preserves his fellow voyagers, so may not a right government be established in the same way by men who could rule by this principle, making science more powerful than the laws? And whatever the wise rulers do, they can commit no error, so long as they maintain one great principle and by always dispensing absolute justice to them
 with wisdom and science are able to preserve the citizens and make them better than they were, so far as that is possible. Is not this true? Y. Soc. There is no denying the truth of what you have just said. Str. And those other statements cannot be denied, either. Y. Soc. What statements? Str. That no great number of men, whoever they may be, could ever acquire political science and be able to administer a state with wisdom,
 but our one right form of government must be sought in some small number or one person, and all other forms are merely, as we said before, more or less successful imitations of that. Y. Soc. What do you mean by that? I did not understand about the imitations a little while ago, either. Str. And yet it is quite a serious matter if after stirring up this question we drop it and do not go on and show the error
 which is committed in relation to it nowadays. Y. Soc. What is the error? Str. I will tell you what we must investigate; it is not at all familiar or easy to see, but let us try to grasp it nevertheless. Tell me this: Assuming that the form of government we have described is the only right form, don’t you see that the other forms must employ its written laws if they are to be preserved by doing that which is approved of nowadays, although it is not perfectly right? Y. Soc. What is not perfectly right? Str. That no citizen shall dare to do anything contrary to the laws, and that he who does shall be punished by death
 and the most extreme penalties. And this is perfectly right and good as a second choice, as soon as you depart from the first form of which we were just speaking. Now let us tell in some detail how this which we called the second choice comes about. Shall we do so? Y. Soc. By all means. Str. Let us return once more to the images which we always have to use in portraying kingly rulers. Y. Soc. What images? Str. The noble captain of a ship and the physician who is worth as much as many others. Cf. Hom. Il. 12.514 : ἰητρὸς γὰρ ἀνὴρ πολλῶν ἀντάξιος ἄλλων. The image of the physician was used above, 293. The image of the captain (for the Greek κυβερνήτης had an importance commensurate with that of the captain, rather than of the pilot, in modern times) has just been used. See also Plat. Rep. 6.488 A ; Plat. Laws 12.963 B . Let us make a simile of them and use it to help us to discover something. Y. Soc. What is your simile? Str. Something of this sort: Imagine that we all thought in regard to captains and physicians: We are most abominably treated by them. For whomsoever of us either of them wishes to save, he saves, one of them just like the other, and whomsoever he wishes to maltreat, he maltreats. They cut us up and burn us and order us to bring them payments of money, as if they were exacting tribute, of which they spend little or nothing for their patients; they themselves and their servants use the rest.
 And finally they are bribed by the patient’s relatives or enemies and actually bring about his death. And as for the captains, they commit countless other misdeeds they make plots and leave us deserted ashore when they put out to sea, they bring on mishaps at sea and so cast us into the water, and are guilty of other wrong-doings. Now suppose, with these thoughts in mind, we deliberated about them and decided that we would no longer allow either of these arts to rule without control over slaves or free men, but that we would call an assembly either of all the people or of the rich only, and that anyone, whether he were engaged in some other form of skilled labor or were without any special qualifications, should be free to offer an opinion about navigation and diseases, how drugs and surgical or medical instruments should be applied to the patients, and how
 ships and nautical instruments should be used for navigation and in meeting dangers, not only those of winds and sea that affect the voyage itself, but also those met in encounters with pirates, and if battles have to be fought between ships of war; and that whatever the majority decided about these matters, whether any physicians or ship captains or merely unskilled persons took part in the deliberations, should be inscribed upon tablets and slabs
 or in some instances should be adopted as unwritten ancestral customs, and that henceforth forever navigation and the care of the sick should be conducted in accordance with these provisions. Y. Soc. That is a most absurd state of things that you have described. Str. And suppose that rulers of the people are set up annually, whether from the rich or from the whole people, on the principle that whoever is chosen by lot should rule, and that these rulers exercise their authority in commanding the ships or treating the sick in accordance with the written rules. Y. Soc. That is still harder to imagine. Str. Now consider what comes next. When the year of office has passed for each set of rulers, there will have to be sessions of courts in which the judges are chosen by lot
 either from a selected list of the rich or from the whole people, and the rulers will have to be brought before these courts and examined as to their conduct in office, and anyone who pleases can bring against the captains an accusation for failure to command the ships during the year in accordance with the written laws or the ancestral customs, and similarly against the physicians for their treatment of the sick; and if any of them is found guilty, the court shall decide what his punishment or his fine shall be. Y. Soc. Surely anyone who consents voluntarily
 to hold office under such conditions would richly deserve any penalty or fine that might be imposed. Str. And then, in addition to all this, there will have to be a law that if anyone is found to be investigating the art of pilotage or navigation or the subject of health and true medical doctrine about winds and things hot and cold, contrary to the written rules, or to be indulging in any speculation whatsoever on such matters, he shall in the first place not be called a physician or a ship captain, but a star-gazer, This passage obviously refers to the trial of Socrates. The word μετέωρα was used by those who made all sorts of general accusations against Socrates (see Plat. Apol. 18 B , 19 B, with its reference to the Clouds of Aristophanes), and the reference of the words διαφθείροντα ἄλλους νεωτέρους to the accusation brought against him by Miletus, Anytus, and Lycon ( Plat. Apol. 24 C : φησὶ γὰρ δὴ τοὺς νέους ἀδικεῖν με διαφθείροντα ) is perfectly plain. a kind of loquacious sophist, and secondly anyone who is properly qualified may bring an accusation against him and hale him into court for corrupting the young and persuading them
 to attack the arts of navigation and medicine in opposition to the laws and to govern the ships and the sick according to their own will; and if he is found to be so persuading either young or old contrary to the laws and written rules, he shall suffer the most extreme penalties. Nothing, they say, ought to be wiser than the laws; for no one is ignorant of medicine and the laws of health or of the pilot’s art and navigation, since anyone who pleases can learn the existing written rules and ancestral customs. Now if these regulations which I speak of were to be applied to these sciences, Socrates, and to strategy and every part of the entire art of hunting and to painting or every kind of imitation and to carpentry including every kind of utensil-making, or even to husbandry and all the art that is concerned with plants, or if we were to see an art of horse-breeding conducted by written rules, or herdsmanship in general or prophecy or everything that is included in the art of serving,
 or draught-playing or the whole science of number, whether arithmetic or plane geometry or solid geometry or problems of motion—what would you think of carrying on all these in such a way, by written rules and not by knowledge? Y. Soc. Clearly all the arts would be utterly ruined, nor could they ever rise again, through the operation of the law prohibiting investigation; and so life, which is hard enough now,
 would then become absolutely unendurable. Str. Here is a further point. If we ordained that each of the aforesaid arts must be carried on by written rules and that the observance of our written rules be under the charge of the man who is elected or chosen by lot, but he should disregard the written rules and for the sake of some gain or to do a favor to some one should try to act contrary to them, without possessing any knowledge, would not this be a greater evil than the former? Y. Soc. Most assuredly. Str. Since the laws are made after long experience and after commissioners of some kind have carefully considered each detail with delicate skill and have persuaded the people to pass them, anyone, I fancy, who ventured to violate them would be involved in error many times greater than the first, and would cause even greater ruin than the written laws to all kinds of transactions. Y. Soc. Of course he would. Str. Therefore the next best course for those who make laws or
 written rules about anything whatsoever is to prohibit any violation of them whatsoever, either by one person or by a greater number. Y. Soc. Right. Str. These laws, then, written by men who know in so far as knowledge is possible, are imitations in each instance of some part of truth? Y. Soc. Of course. Str. And yet we said, if we remember, that the man of knowledge, the real statesman, would by his art make many changes in his practice without regard to his writings, when he thought another course was better though it violated the rules he had written
 and sent to his absent subjects. See 295 E. Y. Soc. Yes, we did say that. Str. But is it not true that any man or any number of men whatsoever who have written laws, if they undertake to make any change in those laws, thinking it is all improvement, are doing, to the best of their ability, the same thing which our true statesman does? Y. Soc. Certainly. Str. If, then, they were to do this without science, however, imitate badly in every case;
 but if they were scientific, then it would no longer be imitation, but the actual perfect reality of which we spoke? Y. Soc. Yes, assuredly. Str. And yet we agreed definitely a while ago that no multitude is able to acquire any art whatsoever. Y. Soc. Yes, that is definitely agreed. Str. Then if there is a kingly See 292 E. art, neither the collective body of the wealthy nor the whole people could ever acquire this science of statesmanship. Y. Soc. No; certainly not. Str. Such states, then, it seems, if they are to imitate well, so far as possible, that true form of government— by a single ruler who rules with science—must never do anything in contravention of their existing written laws and ancestral customs. Y. Soc. You are quite right. Str. Then whenever the rich imitate this government, we call such a state an aristocracy; and when they disregard the laws, we call it an oligarchy. Y. Soc. Yes, I think we do. Str. And again, when one man rules according to laws
 and imitates the scientific ruler, we call him a king, making no distinction in name between the single ruler who rules by science and him who rules by opinion if they both rule in accordance with laws. Y. Soc. Yes, I think we do. Str. Accordingly, if one man who is really scientific rules, he will assuredly be called by the same name, king, and by no other; and so the five names of what are now called the forms of government have become only one. What are called five distinct forms of government are resolved into one—the one right form of which all others are imitations (297 C). This is to be sought in some small number or one person (ibid.). We have found it in the really scientific monarchy, and the other so-called forms of government, being merely imitations of this, require no names of their own. Y. Soc. So it seems, at least. Str. But when a single ruler acts in accordance with neither laws nor customs, but claims,
 in imitation of the scientific ruler, that whatever is best must be done, even though it be contrary to the written laws, and this imitation is inspired by desire and ignorance, is not such a ruler to be called in every instance a tyrant? Y. Soc. Certainly. Str. Thus, we say, the tyrant has arisen, and the king and oligarchy and aristocracy and democracy, because men are not contented with that one perfect ruler, and do not believe that there could ever be any one worthy of such power or
 willing and able by ruling with virtue and knowledge to dispense justice and equity rightly to all, but that he will harm and kill and injure any one of us whom he chooses on any occasion, since they admit that if such a man as we describe should really arise, he would be welcomed and would continue to dwell among them, directing to their weal as sole ruler a perfectly right form of government. Y. Soc. Certainly. Str. But, as the case now stands, since, as we claim, no king is produced in our states who is, like the ruler of the bees in their hives, by birth pre-eminently fitted from the beginning
 in body and mind, we are obliged, as it seems, to follow in the track of the perfect and true form of government by coming together and making written laws. Y. Soc. Yes, I suppose we are.