What is to be done then? I said; how shall we find a gentle nature which has also a great spirit, for the one is the contradiction of the other? True. [Sidenote: The guardian must unite the opposite qualities of gentleness and spirit.] He will not be a good guardian who is wanting in either of these two qualities; and yet the combination of them *375D* appears to be impossible; and hence we must infer that to be a good guardian is impossible. I am afraid that what you say is true, he replied. Here feeling perplexed I began to think over what had preceded.--My friend, I said, no wonder that we are in a perplexity; for we have lost sight of the image which we had before us. What do you mean? he said. I mean to say that there do exist natures gifted with those opposite qualities. And where do you find them? [Sidenote: Such a combination may be observed in the dog.] Many animals, I replied, furnish examples of them; our *375E* friend the dog is a very good one: you know that well-bred dogs are perfectly gentle to their familiars and acquaintances, and the reverse to strangers. Yes, I know. Then there is nothing impossible or out of the order of nature in our finding a guardian who has a similar combination of qualities? Certainly not. Would not he who is fitted to be a guardian, besides the spirited nature, need to have the qualities of a philosopher? I do not apprehend your meaning. *376A* The trait of which I am speaking, I replied, may be also seen in the dog, and is remarkable in the animal. What trait? [Sidenote: The dog distinguishes friend and enemy by the criterion of knowing and not knowing:] Why, a dog, whenever he sees a stranger, is angry; when an acquaintance, he welcomes him, although the one has {58} never done him any harm, nor the other any good. Did this never strike you as curious? The matter never struck me before; but I quite recognise the truth of your remark. And surely this instinct of the dog is very charming;-- *376B* your dog is a true philosopher. Why? Why, because he distinguishes the face of a friend and of an enemy only by the criterion of knowing and not knowing. And must not an animal be a lover of learning who determines what he likes and dislikes by the test of knowledge and ignorance? Most assuredly. [Sidenote: whereby he is shown to be a philosopher.] And is not the love of learning the love of wisdom, which is philosophy? They are the same, he replied. And may we not say confidently of man also, that he who *376C* is likely to be gentle to his friends and acquaintances, must by nature be a lover of wisdom and knowledge? That we may safely affirm. Then he who is to be a really good and noble guardian of the State will require to unite in himself philosophy and spirit and swiftness and strength? Undoubtedly. [Sidenote: How are our citizens to be reared and educated?]