It must be affirmed, however, that the whole subject of the improvement of the race was dealt with by Plato, and, indeed, by the ancients generally, in a very crude and superficial manner. This has been well pointed out by Professor B. Jowett in the Introduction to his translation of Plato's "Republic." Professor Jowett objects generally that the great error in the speculations of Plato and others on the improvement of the race is, "that the difference between men and the animals is forgotten in them." The human being is regarded with the eye of a dog or bird fancier, or at best of a slave owner; the higher or human qualities are left out. The breeder of animals aims chiefly at size or speed or strength; in a few cases, at courage and temper; most often the fitness of the animal for food is the greatest desideratum. But mankind are not bred to be eaten, nor yet for their superiority in fighting or in running or in drawing carts. Nor does the improvement of the human race consist merely in the increase of the bones and flesh, but in the growth and enlightenment of the mind. Hence there must be a marriage of true minds as well as of bodies; of imagination and reason as well as of lusts and instincts. Men and women without feeling or imagination are justly called brutes; yet Plato takes away these qualities and puts nothing in their place, not even the desire of a noble offspring, since parents are not to know their own children. The most important transaction of social life he who is the idealist philosopher converts into the most brutal. For the pair are to have no relation to each other but at the hymeneal festival; their children are not theirs, but the State's; nor is any tie of affection to unite them. Yet the analogy of the animals might have saved Plato from a gigantic error if he had not lost sight of his own illustration! For the "nobler sort of birds and beasts" nourish and protect their offspring and are faithful to one another! It is certainly surprising, as Jowett says, that the greatest of ancient philosophers should, in his marriage regulations, have fallen into the error of separating body and mind. He did so probably through a false notion of the antagonism between the family and the State, and hence, as Lycurgus did not aim at destroying family life he escaped that error.