snk
ak Thies .
etetetahetetatet staat tata tatatatat att oh atonal tana ta at naan at Sra Ru or a a ck ec Toa as dl wal Uc Decl Vcd! Vad! Decal We! Ud! Pe Ved Ue Pe Ul Well Cel Pll Ul cd Wed UN OE Dee Oe Vel VS
Veuve Ue ec
non iy ty.
fo (Efe Efe’ alps
euen Aonionionion
“PLATO i
ue THEAETETUS SOPHIST
Sy
i= ot ant, ‘=
AF REAR
HMO Le Meee ie
Uo pelalpigiP=
Translated by - H. N. FOWLER
nemmen SAU S ee
a Printed in Great Britain
Soy
VOLUMES PUBLISHED
_ ACHILLES TATIUS ; ‘ *
AELIAN: ON ANIMALS. 3 vo E AENEAS TACTICUS. ASCLEPIODOTUS. ONASANDER AESCHINES | AESCHYLUS. 2 vols. / ALCIPHRON. AELIAN. PHILOSTRATUS: THE LETTERS 1 | ANTIPHON and ANDOCIDES, APOLLODORUS. 2 vols. | APOLLONIUS RHODIUS THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 2 vols. APPIAN: ROMAN HISTORY. 4 vols. ARISTOPHANES. 3 vols. ‘ : ARISTOTLE: ART OF RHETORIC | ARISTOTLE: ATHENIAN CONSTITUTION, EUDEMIAN ETHICS , | ARISTOTLE: GENERATION OF ANIMALS
see MINOR ATTIC ORATORS |
ARISTOTLE: ARISTOTLE: ARISTOTLE:
METAPHYSICS. 2 vols. METEOROLOGIA MINOR WORKS
ARISTOTLE: ARISTOTLE: ARISTOTLE: ARISTOTLE: ARISTOTLE: - ARISTOTLE: ARISTOTLE: ARISTOTLE:
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS
OECONOMICA, MAGNA MORALIA (with METAPHYSICS .
ON THE HEAVENS Vol. ID.
ON THE SOUL, PARVA NATURALIA, ON BREATH.
CATEGORIES, ON INTERPRETATION, PRIOR ANALYTICS. 4
POSTERIOR ANALYTICS, TOPICS
ON SOPHISTICAL REFUTATIONS, and others.
PARTS, MOVEMENT, PROGRESSION OF ANIMALS
- ARISTOTLE: pnysics. 2 vols.
ARISTOTLE: poetics. LONGINUS: ON THE SUBLIME DEMETRIUS: ON STYLE
ARISTOTLE: POLITic¢s +
ARISTOTLE: PROBLEMS. 2 vols.
ARISTOTLE: RHETORICA AD ALEXANDRUM (with Problems, Vol. IT)
ARRIAN: HISTORY OF ALEXANDER AND INDICA. 2 vols.
ATHENAEUS: THE DEIPNOSOPHISTS. 7 vols. |
ST. BASIL: LetTrers. 4 vols.
-CALLIMACHUS: FRAGMENTS
CALLIMACHUS. HYMNS, EPIGRAMS. LYCOPHRON. ARATUS
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
DEMOSTHENES I: OLYNTHIACS, ORATIONS: I-X VII and XX
DEMOSTHENES II: DE CORONA and DE FALSA LEGATIONE
DEMOSTHENES III: MEIDIAS, _ ANDROTION, ARISTOCRATES, TIMOCRATES and ARISTOGEITON, I and II
DEMOSTHENES IV-VI: PRIVATE ORATIONS and IN NEAERAM
DEMOSTHENES VII: FUNERAL SPEECH, EROTIC ESSAY, EXOEDIA and LETTERS
’ DIO CASSIUS. 9 vols. '
DIO CHRYSOSTOM. 5 vols.
DIODORUS SICULUS. 12 vols. Vols. I-VII, IX, X, XI
DIOGENES LAERTIUS. 2 vols.
DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS: ROMAN ANTIQUITIES. 7 vols.
EPICTETUS. 2 vols.
EURIPIDES. 4 vols.
EUSEBIUS: ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 2 vols.
GALEN: ON THE NATURE FACULTIES
THE GREEK ANTHOLOGY. 5 vols.
THE GREEK BUCOLIC POETS:
PHILIPPICS and MINOR
THEOCRITUS, BION,
MOSCHUS | 25s net GREEK ELEGY and IAMBUS with the ANACREONTEA. 2 vols. ~ GREEK ee ee WORKS. 2 vols.
HERODOTUS. 4 vols A Bes. HESIOD and the HOMERIC HYMNS EYOQeLiGd HIPPOCRATES. 4 vols. | ¢
HOMER: itp. 2 vols. | 94.00 Se ODYSSEY. 2 vols. |
ISAEUS NA AWA NA A ISOCRATES. 3 vols. | Seer mat rN ST. JOHN DAMASCENE: BARLAAM AND IOASAPH SAME SESE SE JOSEPHUS. 9 vols. Vols. I-ViI yx 5 a ry oe! LONGUS: DAPHNIS AND CHLOE. FARTBENIUS + SELECTIONS. }) 5 a LUCIAN. 8 vols. Vols. I-VI eS eee x
Za >
TOO HOSS / 18h Plato S 58778 Theaetetus and Sophist
1 .00
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation
https://archive.org/details/theaetetusandsopOOplat
| Office of A THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY. “"7!°°*
FOUNDED BY JAMES LOEB, LL.D. lic Library EDITED BY Tr. . PAGE, 04.,. LITT.D: + E. CAPPS, PuH.p., LL.D. + W. H. D. ROUSE, tirt.p.
L. A. POST, t.u.p. E. H. WARMINGTON, M.aA., F.R.HIST.SOO.
PLATO
THEAETETUS SOPHIST
BOOK POOL DISCUSSION PROGRAM OAS - CN
imate Revs ce Meters 2.6 CO
PLATO
WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION |
THEAETETUS «| SOPHIST ] : t |
BY HAROLD NORTH FOWLER
OF WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD
MCMLXI
First printed 1921 Reprinted 1928, 1942, 1952, 1961
Printed in Great Britain
PREFACE.
THEAETETUS
SOPHIST .
CONTENTS
PREFACE
Tue Greek text in this volume is based upon the Codex Clarkianus and the Codex Venetus. Devia- tions from the readings of these manuscripts are noted in the margin at the foot of the page. In most instances disagreement between these two manu- scripts, and occasionally readings found in inferio. manuscripts or in ancient quotations, as well as emendations offered by modern scholars, are noted, even when they have not affected the text chosen. The following abbreviations are employed :
B = Codex Clarkianus or Bodleianus, written a.p. 895.
_ T=Codex Venetus, Append. class. 4, cod. 1; twelfth century.
W =Codex Vindobonensis 54, Suppl. graec. 7.
D = Codex Venetus 185.
G = Codex Venetus, Append. class 4, cod. 54,
btw=later hands of BT W.
The brief introductions aim merely at supplying such information as may aid the reader to appreciate
these particular dialogues. Haroitp N. Fow er
vil
ie er ogee ‘buna & ae ie ‘ot ded, died ant ee waist shed ant bie, epsaideel) xofo%
ne Cle aghast seat en wgathasn sat ‘ont usaig, |
| en ‘uel Yo: 300 US Se atguacn S49 a bosch
oe te avd Gest ees wanted Aeibteenney Hith 2ocmetarii Jeni
Wilegiad at awe igathade liniotemon bon minis. Ae Tew. ad) eniiintoup tneineR nd Yo stephanie Jkisot otk miptieloe atahaad yd. Rewiite atotisharcns 2 rows. tent ods Tatas. am. greed pod nail nos
> Goxoleces ae mmoltetysathils gitiwollot oT eka asics eunstalboll a abmebhakd xobod ~ & ; canned Seis aera ek irene
noe tae a asnedobnl oe bet dion ee d af ae 9 aa ee pune Kobold
eid ih ee tora ws wd + ‘
ne Ae LEE US
ie
ra
‘ : ae. ane : on . } : ; a BN ae a oF mr a a I 7: : ; aly, - a een ewes 24)
es hi ; she
aks . pay aT A iit i Nr ae ? S A am aay) ot
F am ye Patin pity a al = a Pree, f i | Pie. ciel Woe - " UK ae iy sa : oe i: Te ] i te ; on an PLU al rn ee Mae Gavi | ‘ae oo” en oe A a Peed SUL a UY ob . ane maa Py: ae " ‘1 a aM are . i" ye ug a fe aaa . : Le MR? les: ty ' 7 Te _ ro ' a | = es: eet \ ae
ao, ihe Par: ee =] Ge ii ee ; ve Dw Pol
ig oe ~ ® ia bed } _ Ad a » Loe t far: 7} [ ’ 7 ty : > vas f 0 mn — i s7
; - | ie . aes,
i ie Dr
INTRODUCTION TO THE THEAETETUS
In the Theaetetus Kucleides the Megarian repeats to his friend Terpsion a conversation between Socrates, the mathematician Theodorus, and the youth Theae- tetus, who was himself a mathematician of note. The subject is the nature of knowledge, and the discussion is interrupted and furthered by two digressions, one concerning midwives, in which Socrates likens his method of investigation to the activities of the midwife, the other contrasting the lawyer and the philosopher.
The definition of knowledge is hard to attain, and is, in fact, not attained in this dialogue. The con- fusion between knowledge and various kinds or applications of knowledge is first cleared up, and then the discussion centres upon three definitions : (1) Knowledge is sensible perception ; (2) Knowledge is true opinion; (3) Knowledge is true opinion with reasoned explanation.
one of its most important parts the refutation of the doctrine of Protagoras that “man is the measure of all things”; but it includes also a discussion of the doctrine of Heracleitus, that all things are always in
3
INTRODUCTION TO THE THEAETETUS
motion. Here Plato distinguishes two kinds of motion—movement in space and change of quality— and asserts that constant motion of the first kind must be accompanied by change, because otherwise the same things would be at the same time both in motion and at rest. This obvious fallacy Plato appears to ascribe to Heracleitus and his school. The result of this discussion is that if nothing is at rest, every answer on whatever subject is equally correct.
The possibility of false opinion is discussed in connexion with the second definition. This part of the dialogue contains many subtle distinctions and interesting comparisons. The errors of memory are illustrated by the wax tablets which, on account of their imperfections, fail to receive and preserve clear impressions from sensible objects, and the con- fusion of our recollections by the aviary, the possessor of which takes in his hand one bird when he wishes to take another, though all the birds have previously been caught and imprisoned by him.
The third definition is explained in various ways, none of which is found to be satisfactory, and the dialogue closes with its avowed purpose—the com- plete definition of knowledge — unaccomplished, Nevertheless the rejection of the definitions pro- posed is a gain in itself, and the dialogue may be said to prepare the way for the acceptance of the theory of ideas. It serves also as an example of the importance of the dialectic method, and shows Plato’s interest in combating the theories of other philosophers.
The TYheaetetus contains many interesting similes and comparisons, and is, like the Sophist and the
&
INTRODUCTION TO THE THEAETETUS
Statesman, pervaded by a subtle and at the same time ponderous kind of humour which is rather irritating to some, at least, among modern readers. The reasoning is careful and accurate, but the exposition is somewhat too prolix for modern taste.
The date of the Theaetetus is uncertain, but it cannot be one of the early dialogues. The mention of the Athenian army at Corinth makes any date much earlier than 390 impossible. At the very end the reader is prepared for a continuation of the con- versation, and this takes place in the Sophist, but that dialogue and the Statesman may very well have been written some years later than the Theaetetus, from which they differ considerably in style.
There are separate editions of the Theaetetus by Lewis Campbell (Oxford, 1861 and 1883) and B. H. Kennedy (Cambridge, 1881 and 1894), both with translation and notes.
OEAITHTOS
[H MEPI EMISTHMHS, MEIPASTIKOS]
&t. I TA TOT AIAAOTOT IIPOZQITA . 142 4 EYKAEIAHS, TEPVION, SQKPATHS, QOEOAQNPOS, OEAITHTOS
A .. er. "Apt, & Teppiwv, 7 madar €€ dypov; TEP. *Ezveux@s mada. Kal o€ ye ébytovy Kat’ ayopav Kat eOavpalov ott ody olds 7° H edpeiv. sr. Od yap 4% Kata modu. TEP. [lod py; >) rg / /, they 4 er. Eis Ayéva xataBaivwv Oearritw évérvyov up ? / > A A / > le dhepomevw ex KopivOov amo tod orpatrorédov *Ab7- vale. A ba / TEP. Z@vre 7 TetehevTnKOTe 5 ;
BEY. ZO Ovre Kat pra pores yadetOs pev yap Exel Kal U70 Tpavpdroy TWO”, padov Env avrov aipet TO yeyovos voonua ev TH OTpaTEvpaTe.
TEP. Mav % dvcevrnpia; Er. Nav. TEP. Oiov avdpa réyets ev Kwdvvw etvar. / \ > / Ss / b) , er. KaAdv te kal ayabdv, & Tepiiwv, eet tor
6
THEA EhELUS [or ON KNOWLEDGE, TENTATIVE]
CHARACTERS
Eucieipes, Terpsion, Socrates, THEopoRus, THEAETETUS
Eu. Just in from the country, Terpsion, or did you come some time ago?
TERP. Quite a while ago; and I was looking for you in the market-place and wondering that I could not find you.
Eu. Well, you see, I was not in the city.
rerP. Where then?
ru. As I was going down to the harbour I met Theaetetus being carried to Athens from the camp at Corinth.
trerp. Alive or dead?
Eu. Just barely alive; for he is suffering severely from wounds, and, worse than that, he has been taken with the sickness that has broken out in the army.
TERP. You mean the dysentery ?
Eu. Yes.
verp. What a man he is who you say is in danger!
ru. A noble man, Terpsion, and indeed just now I
7
PLATO
Achat tay , , 9 , 7 4 Kal viv qKovey Tww pdda eyxwpalovrwy adrov meEpl THY LAaxnV.
TEP. Kat ovdev v aTOTIOV, ara Kat moAv Oav- pacrorepor, el fk) TOLOUTOS HV. aTap THs ovK C adrod Meyapot KatéAvev ; te A Weahas A ri ty) / \ EY. “Haelyeto olkade: émet eywy ededunv Kal , ) > 3 ” A ~ , ovveBovrevor, ddA otk 7Oerev. Kal Ofjra TpOTre[L- ras adrov, amy mahw aveuvnoOny Kat eBavpaca LwxKparous, WS pravTuKds aAAa TE o7) elie Kal Trept TovTov. doKet ydp por dAiyov mpo Tod Bavdrov evTvyety atT@ peipaki@ OvTt, Kal ouyyevojevds re Kal dtadeybeis wavy ayaoOnva. adbrod tH , / ? / >AAn , Ao “a pvow. Kal oe eAOovre jvatle Tous Te Adyous obs D SueAex On are Sunyyoaro, Kal pada. afious aKojs, elmé Te, ore mao avayKn €in Todrov &€AAdyysov Pencabe. elrep eis HAtKiay €ADou. TEP. Kat adn OH ve, Ws €oiKkev, el7ev. aTap tives TOaV ot Adoyou; Exous av Sunyjoacbar; Er. Od ped tov Aia, ovKouv OUTW ye a0 oTd-
143 paros: aAN’ éypaydyny ToT €vOds oiKad” eww Sropvnpara, DoTEpov be Kara, oxoAny avayiyuvyn- oKOMEVOS eypagor, Kat doaKus AOjvale apucotuny, eTavnpwTwY TOV LwKpaTn 6 pa EMELVHUNV, Kal debpo eADanv emnvopSovpny: WOTE [Lol ayEddV Tu 7as 6 Adyos yeypanrar.
TEP. "AdnO%: Koved cov Kat mpdTepov, Kal
fe JN é- VA > A , pevror det pwedAAwy Kedevoew émidetEar Svatérpida dedp0. aAXa Ti KwAVEr viv Huds SieADetv; TavTws éywye Kat avatavoac0ar déoua, ws e€€ aypod
B er. “AAG pev 6) Kal adros pexpe “Epwot
THEAETETUS
heard some people praising him highly for his conduct in the battle.
TERP. That is not at all strange; it would have been much more remarkable if he had not so con- ducted himself. But why did he not stop here in Megara?
EU. He was in a hurry to get home; for I begged and advised him to stop, but he would not. So I went along with him, and as I was coming back I thought of Socrates and wondered at his prophetic gift, especially in what he said about him. For I think he met him a little before his own death, when Theaetetus was a mere boy, and as a result of acquaintance and conversation with him, he greatly admired his qualities. When I went to Athens he related to me the conversation he had with him, which was well worth hearing, and he said he would surely become a notable man if he lived.
TeRP. And he was right, apparently. But what was the talk? Could you relate it?
EU. No, by Zeus, at least not offhand. But I made notes at the time as soon as I reached home, then afterwards at my leisure, as I recalled things, I wrote them down, and whenever I went to Athens I used to ask Socrates about what I could not re- member, and then I came here and made corrections; so that I have pretty much the whole talk written down.
TERP. That is true. I heard you say so before ; and really I have been waiting about here all along intending to ask you to show it tome. What hinders us from reading it now? Certainly I need to rest, since I have come from the country.
Eu. And I myself went with Theaetetus as far as
,
PLATO
/ o A OcaitnTov mpovreuipa, wate ovK av andads ava- , > >” Nia, A mavoynv. add’ twpev, Kat Nuty aLa avaTravojLevots ¢€ lal © Tals avayvwceTal. > ~ TEP. “Opfds Aéyets. \ S\ , EY. To pev 87) BiBriov, & Tepiwv, torre: > / \ \ ¢€ \ \ / >) b) \ eypayapnv Se 2) otTwot Tov Adyov, ovK euol LwKpaTyn dinyovpevov ws dinyetro, adda dia- / e ” ~ ” \ A Aeyopevov ots edbn dtadexOjvar. edn Sé€ TH Te yewueTpy Ocoddpw Kat TO Ocait7Tw. wa obdv > “a ~ Ce 7H ypadh pr) mapéxouev mpdypata at petakv Tov Oywv Sinynoets TEpl adTOD Te OmdTE AEyot O LwKpdtys, olov, Kal éyw edynv 7) Kat éyw etmov, 7] ad TEpt TOO amoKpwopevov, OTL ovvedy 7) ody wuoddyer, TOUTWY Evexa ws adbTov abrots diadeyo- pevov eypaya, e€eAwy Ta rovadra. TEP. Kat otd&v ye amo tpdmov, @ KdKaAcidn. EY. “AAAd, zai, AaBé 76 BiBAlov Kai réEye. D 2. 30. Ei pev tdv ev Kuphvn paddov éxn- > a \ \ , dopnv, @ Meddwpe, TA Exel dv GE KAL TEpL EKEiVwY dv Hpwrev, el Twes avToOe TEpl yewmeTpiav 7 Twa a” / TaN nn 4 >? / , GAAnv didocodiav eloi THv véwy EeTiyweAccav TroLov- os a oS / ~ pevow’ viv b€ ATTOv yap éexelvous 7 Tovade Pia, ~ ~ ¢ a ~ kat pwaAXAov émibuu@d eidévar tives yiv TOV vewv A ~ \ , emidofou yevécOar éemeikets: Taira 52 avrds Te lal \ > ~ cxo7® Kal’ Goov Svvapat, Kat Tods aAAovs epwrd ~ Li ots dv 6p@ tots véous &€BéAovtas ovyyiyvecba. \ \ 2 3\ 7 / \ ) / cot 87 ovK dAlyvoror TAnoLdCovalt, Kal duKaiws: BA A , + A / a 3 KE déwos yap Ta Te GAAa Kal yewpeTplas Eveka, et
10
THEAETETUS
Erineum,! so I also should not be sorry to take a rest. Come, let us go, and while we.are resting, the boy shall read to us.
TERP. Very well.
Eu. Here is the book, Terpsion. Now this is the way I wrote the conversation: I did not represent Socrates relating it to me, as he did, but conversing with those with whom he told me he conversed. And he told me they were the geometrician Theodorus and Theaetetus. Now in order that the explanatory words between the speeches might not be annoying in the written account, such as “and I said” or “and I remarked,’ whenever Socrates spoke, or “he agreed” or “he did not agree,” in the case of the interlocutor, I omitted all that sort of thing and represented Socrates himself as talking with them.
TERP. That is quite fitting, EKucleides.
Eu. Come, boy, take the book and read.
soc. If I cared more for Cyrene and its affairs, Theodorus, I should ask you about things there and about the people, whether any of the young men there are devoting themselves to geometry or any other form of philosophy; but as it is, since I care less for those people than for the people here, I am more eager to know which of our own young men are likely to gain reputation. These are the things I myself investigate, so far as I can, and about which I question those others with whom I see that the young men like to associate. Now a great many of them come to you, and rightly, for you deserve it on account of your geometry, not to speak of other
1 Krineum was between Eleusis and Athens, near the
Cephissus. Apparently Eucleides had walked some thirty miles.
1]
144
C
PLATO
67 ody Tu éevetvxes a€iw Adyov, Hdéws av mv- Boinnv.
OO. Kat py, @ LeoKpares, ejuol Te eimety Kal ool axoboa mavy a€vov, olw opie TY TodTev weipaKkia evTeTUXIKG. Kal €t pev nv Kands, epoBovpynv av opodpa Adyew, [7 Kat Tw 06€w &v emBupiig avToo eivat: viv bé—Kat pen juou dx Bou— ovK éort Kaos, Tpoo€ouKe d€ ool THY Te omornra Kal TO €€w TOV Ouparov' WTTOv de a ov abr EXEL. ddeds 67) Ady. e0 yap tof ore av 87 MWTOTE EveTVXOV—Kal TavU TrOAXOIs TETANGiaKa— ovdeva mw jabdunv ovTw Bavpacta@s «<b meduKora. To yap evualh dvTa, ws ddAAw yaderov, mpdov ab eiva dtadepovTws, Kal él ToUTOLs avdpetov wap’ ovTwobv, eyw pev ovr’ av wopunv yevéoba ore Op® yryvopevovt: add’ of te o€ets wamep obdtos Kal ayxivou Kal pvnoves ws Ta. moAAa Kal mpos Tas opyas o€vpporrot elol, KL GATTOVTES Pepovrat Bomep TA GVEp|LATLOTA mota, Kal [LavuKcTEpor 7 avdpedrepor ptovTat, of Te ad euPprOéorepor vabpoi TMWs amavr@or mpos tas pabijces Kat Anns VEHLOVTES. 6 6€ ovTw Actos TE KaL amraiarws Kal avuciums epyeTrar emt Tas poabijoets Te Kal CytiGELs [ETO moAAijs TPLOTHTOS, otov éAatov pedpa. aibopyrt péovros, wote Oavydoa To THAL- KOUTOV OVTA OUTWS raira Svampdrreobar.
Et ayyéAvews. Tivos dé Kal ore taeV Hea.
eEO. "AxyjKoa pev Tovvoua, pvnuovedw dé ov. ada ydp é€ore THVSe TOV TpociwvTwY 6 &v TO
1 syvouevov T ut videtur, Burnet; yyvouévous B, Berol.
12
THEAETETUS
reasons. So if you have met with any young man who is worth mentioning, I should like to hear about him. THEO. Truly, Socrates, it is well worth while for me to talk and for you to hear about a splendid young fellow, one of your fellow-citizens, whom I have met. Now if he were handsome, I should be very much afraid to speak, lest someone should think I was in love with him. But the fact is—now don’t be angry with me—he is not handsome, but is like you in his snub nose and protruding eyes, only those features are less marked in him than in you. You see I speak fearlessly. But I assure you that among all the young men I have ever met—and I have had to do with a great many—I never yet found one of such ‘marvel- lously fine qualities. He is quick to learn, beyond almost anyone else, yet exceptionally gentle, and moreover brave beyond any other; I should not have supposed such a combination existed, and I do not see it elsewhere. On the contrary, those who, like him, have quick, sharp minds and good memories, have usually also quick tempers; they dart off and are swept away, like ships without ballast; they are ex- citable rather than courageous; those, on the other hand, who are steadier are somewhat dull when brought face to face with learning, and are very forgetful. But this boy advances toward learning and investigation smoothly and surely and success- fully, with perfect gentleness, like a stream of oil that flows without a sound, so that one marvels how he accomplishes all this at his age. soc. That is good news; but which of our citizens is his father ? THEO. I have heard the name, but do not remember it. However, it does not matter, for the youth is 13
PLATO
péow. apre yap ev TQ €&w Spope Tcipovro ETaAlpol TE TLVES ODTOL atrob Kat avros, vov b€ [Lou doxotow areuvfduevor deSpo iévar. aAAd oKo7eL, el ylryvwmoKets avTov. e lot sa. Tiyvaokw: 06 tot Yovrdws Evddpoviov , > / > \ a €oTiv, Kal mavu ye, @ dire, avdpos otov Kal od A aA \ tobrov dunyet, Kat adAws eddokipov, Kal pévTot \ +) / / \ / A 3 av Kat ovaoiav pada moAAnv Karédimev. To 8 Gvoua ~ / ovdk 0l0a TOU peLpakiov. / > 7 ld + D £0. OcaiznTos, & LUaKpates, TO ye Ovoua: Tv pevto. ovoiav SoKovol frou emitpomol tives > ¢ ~ duefpbapKévars adr’ Guws Kal mpos THY TeV > > xpnpatwv eAevdepidtyn7Ta Oavpacros, @ UwKpares. 3a. Devuxov déyers tov dvdpa. Kai por KéAeve b) \ > VA / avrov evOdde Tmapakalilecba. ~ / ~ @EO. “"Eorar tatrta. Weairnre, Seipo mapa LwKparn. Ld \\ Ss > / ef b) 4A > =o. Ilavu pev ody, & WeaitynTe, wa Kaya éuav- > A TOV dvacKepupar, mrotov TL exo TO Tpoowrov. E dno yap O<ddwpos Exew [Le ool Gpovov. aTap et v@v exovTow EKaTEpOU Avpav eby avras nppoaba Omolws, TOTEpOV evdds dy ETLOTEVOMEV 7) ETTECKE- paul av, el wovoikds av Aéyer; > vA 2) sf @EAI. “Ezeoxerssape?” dy. b) ~ ~ \ e / > / >] sa. Odxody tovtrov pév evpovtes érevOducd av, djovoov Od, nmoTobpev; oral. “Ady G7. ~ / > io ww , ¢ ~A ~ nw 3a. Néiv dé y’, oiwar, ef te weAder Hutv THS TOV 145 mpocwmwv opourTnros, oKeTTEov, EL ypadiKos WY
a
Ayer 7H ov.
14
THEAETETUS
the middle one of those who are now coming towara us. He and those friends of his were anointing them- selves in the outer course,! and now they seem to have finished and to be coming here. See if you recognize him.
soc. Yes, I do. He is the son of Euphronius of Sunium, who is a man of just the sort you describe, and of good repute in other respects; moreover he left a very large property. But the youth’s name | do not know.
THEO. Theaetetus is his name, Socrates; but I believe the property was squandered by trustees. Nevertheless, Socrates, he is remarkably liberal with his money, too.
soc. It is a noble man that you describe. Now please tell him to come here and sit by us.
THEO. I will. Theaetetus, come here to Socrates.
soc. Yes, do so, Theaetetus, that I may look at myself and see what sort of a face I have; for Theo- dorus says it is like yours. Now if we each had a lyre, and he said we had tuned them to the same key, should we take his word for it without more ado, or should we inquire first whether he who said it was a musician ?
THEAET. We should inquire.
soc. Then if we found that he was a musician, we should believe him, but if not, we should refuse to take his word?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. But now, if we are concerned about the like- ness of our faces, we must consider whether he who speaks is a painter, or not.
1 The scene is evidently laid in a gymnasium ; the young men have been exercising.
15
B
PLATO
eral. Aoxet pou.
sa. *H odv Corypapucos @eddwpos;
OFAI. Ov, Ooov ye pe etdevan.
sa. *“Ap’ otd€ yewpertpiKes;
/ / on 7
@FAI. [ldvtws dymov, & UwKpares.
sa. 7H Kal dorpovoyukos Kat AoyroriKds Te Kal fovotkos Kal Ooa matdelas exeTaL;
@EAI. "Epouye Ooxel.
zo. Ke pev dpa Tpeais Tou ouparos TL omotous pyotv elvar erawwav 7 7 Peywv, od mavu adT@ akvov TOV vovyv mpocexew.
@EAl. “lows ov.
/ >
>So tans Waar en et TOTEpoU THY, puxny evrawvot mpos apeT ny Te Kal oodiav; dp ovK ag vov TO peev akovoavte mpolvupetobar dvacKepacbar TOV ETaLveE- Oévra, TH S€ trpoftuws Eéavtov éemdeckvivar;
, TO Se mpoldp
@EAI. Ilavu pev otv, & LedKpares.
3. 20. “Opa toivev, d dire Oeairnre, cot pev > / >? \ \ a ¢ Yl Sw: av emiderkvUvar, eol d€ oKomretabar: ws «vd tat ore ®eddwpos moAAods 87) mpds pe emawveoas Eévous TE Kal GoTOvS OVdEVA TW ETTIVEGEV WS GE Viv O71.
> NN ” > 7 >) > ¢ A
@EAI. Ed av éyor, @ ULwxKpates: aArX’ cpa py mailwy <édeyev.
=0. Odx o0TOS O TpdTrOS Oeodapov- aAAa pn avadvov Ta cpohoyipeva, OKNTTOMLEVOS mailovra. Aéyew Tovoe, iva poy Kal avayKacbA pLapTupety: TavTws yap eee emokijper adT@. adda Oappav ELLLEVE TH opodoyia.
oral. “AAAd ypr) Tabdta movetv, ef col doxel.
/ / / \ / sa. Aéye 57) prow pavOdvers mov mapa Oeodwpou yewpeTpias atta;
OFAL. “Kywye.
16
THEAETETUS
THEAET, I think we must.
soc. Well, is Theodorus a painter ?
THEAET. Not so far as I know.
soc. Nor a geometrician, either?
THEAET. Oh yes, decidedly, Socrates,
soc. And an astronomer, and an arithmetician, and a musician, and in general an educated man ?
TuearT. I think so.
soc. Well then, if he says, either in praise or blame, that we have some physical resemblance, it is not especially worth while to pay attention to him.
THEAET. Perhaps not.
soc. But what if he should praise the soul of one of us for virtue and wisdom? Is it not worth while for the one who hears to examine eagerly the one who is praised, and for that one to exhibit his qualities with eagerness ?
THEAET. Certainly, Socrates.
soc. Then, my dear Theaetetus, this is just the time for you to exhibit your qualities and for me to examine them; for I assure you that Theodorus, though he has praised many foreigners and citizens to me, never praised anyone as he praised you just now.
THEAET. A good idea, Socrates; but make sure that he was not speaking in jest.
soc. That is not Theodorus’s way. But do not seek to draw back from your agreement on the pretext that he is jesting, or he will be forced to testify under oath; for certainly no one will accuse him of perjury. Come, be courageous and hold to the agreement.
THEAET. [ suppose I must, if you say so.
soc. Now tell me; I suppose you learn some geometry from Theodorus?
THEAET. Yes.
17
D
146
PLATO
A A \ 3 / A ¢ [i sa. Kat r&v wept aorpovopiav Te Kal appovias / Kal Aoyrapovs ; @EAI. MH pobupobuat ye 07. =a. Kai yap eye, @® Tat, Tapa ye Tovrou Kal map adrXAwy, ovs av otwpal Te TOUTWY ématew. aX’ \ Guws Ta prev dAdAa €xw Trepi adta weTpiws, apLuKpov d€ TL aGmop@, 6 peta oob TE Kal TMVOE CKETTEOV. CO \ Kat pou Aye: Gp od TO wavOdvew eotiv TO coduwre- pov ylyveo0at wept 6 pavOdver tis; @EAI. Il@s yap ov; 30a. Lodia dé y’, ofwat, copol of codoi. @FAl. Nat. 3a. Todro d€ wav duaddpe te émoriuns; @eEAI. To zotov; € / a” b) WA b] / lot Saiaint copia. 1) OVX AEP ETTLOTYLOVES, TAVTA , Kal cool; ; , , @FAI. [ce pv; » > sa. Tatrov dpa émoripn Kal codia; @EAI. Nat. a 3 b) A / > \ a“ > ~ \ b) xo. Todr’ adro roivur cor 6 amopd Kal ob dvvapat AaBetv LKAVOS Trap Epeau7®, emoTnLn 6 Tl more Tuyxdver ov. dp" obv 87) EXOmEV Adyew aro ; Tt pare; Tis dy py, mpaTos ElmToL; © d€ duapTwr, Kal ds av del apaprarn, palceer- LA \ ¢€ A e / cA Tal, woTep pacly ot Tatdes of odatpilovTes, dvos: > 6s 8 av mepryévntat davapdprntos, Bacwdevoer y “~ \ > / iA av“ / 3 / nov Kat emiza€er 6 Te av BovAntat amroxpivecbar. a a cy 7 S , 3 Ne NK TL ovyGTE; ov Ti TOV, @ Meddwpe, eae pidro- Aoyias dypouxilojuar, 7pobrpovjsevos 1 mpas * Tolnoat diaréyecbar Kat didovs te Kal mpoonydpovs aAXy- Aos yiyvecba; ? judas] buds T. 18
THEAETETUS
soc. And astronomy and harmony and arithmetic ?
THEAET. I try hard to do so.
soc. And so do I, my boy, from him and from any others who I think know anything about these things. But nevertheless, although in other respects I get on fairly well in them, yet I am in doubt about one little matter, which should be investigated with your help and that of these others. Tell me, is not learning growing wiser about that which one learns ?
THEAET. Of course.
soc. And the wise, I suppose, are wise by wisdom.
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And does this differ at all from knowledge ?
THEAET. Does what differ?
soc. Wisdom. Or are not people wise in that of which they have knowledge?
THEAET. Of course.
soc. Then knowledge and wisdom are the same thing ?
THEAET. YES.
soc. Well, it is just this that I am in doubt about and cannot fully grasp by my own efforts—what know- ledge really is. Can wetell that? Whatdo you say? Who of us will speak first? And he who fails, and whoever fails in turn, shall go and sit down and be donkey, as the children say when they play ball; and whoever gets through without failing shall be our king and shall order us to answer any questions he pleases. Why are you silent? I hope, Theo- dorus, I am not rude, through my love of discus- sion and my eagerness to make us converse and show ourselves friends and ready to talk to one another.
19
B
)
E
PLATO
@E0. “Hxvora pév, & Lod«pares, TO Tovwodrov dv ein aypotxov, arra Tov perparcteny Tt Kéheve col dmoxpiveoBau eyo pev yap an Ons THs TovavTns dtad€KTov, Kal ovd ad ouveblilecbar nAukiav €xw- totode dé TMpEeTroL Te av TobTo Kal mod mA€ov emdi0otev" T@ yap OvT 7 veorns els Tay émidoaw éxer. add’, worrep npEw, un adieco Tob MeartyTov, aad’ ene
50: “Axovers O79, @ @ Ocairnre, a a Aéyer Ocddwpos, @ arreDetv, ws eyo olpac, ovTE ov _Bedjoes, ovre Oéuis mEpt Ta ToLabTa avdpt cop@ € EMUTATTOVTL vewtepov ameleiv. add’ ed Kal yevvaiws eizmé: Ti cou Soke? eivar EMLOTHLLN 5
@FAI. ‘AMA Xp}; @ LaKpares, emelOnmrEp dpeis KeAeveTE. TaVTWS yap, av TL Kal apapTw, emav- opJweaere.
4. 3x0. Have peev ovv, av 7rép YE olot TE ev.
@EAI. Aoxet Toivyy por Kal & mapa’ Oeodapov ay TIS pedBor ETLOTH LAL civan, VEwMEeTpia TE Kal as vov 8%) od dunddes, Kai ad onan ee TE Kal at TOv aAAwy Snpwouvpya@v téyvat, maoai Te Kal EKAOTH TOUTWY, OVK GAAO TL ETTLOTHUN €lvat.
sa. Tewaiws ye Kat dirodapws, d dire, & aityfeis mora Sidws Kat mouxida av’ amdod.
eEAI. Ils ti TobTo A€yets, @ UadKpares ;
sa. “lows péev ovdev: 6 pévTor ola, dopdow. otav A€yns oKuTiKiv, pn TL GAAO Ppalers 7 é€r- OTHpLNY UTOOnUdTwWY Epyactas ;
@EAI. Ovdder.
so. Ti 8’, Grav rexrovKynv; pn te aGAXo F emioTHny Ths TOV Evdivwv oKevdav epyacias;
1 dredetv W; amorety BT; diedOet al, 20
THEAETETUS
THEO. That sort of thing would not be at all rude, Socrates; but tell one of the youths to answer your questions; for I am unused to such conversation and, moreover, I am not of an age to accustom myself to it. But that would be fitting for these young men, and they would improve much more than I; for the fact is, youth admits of im- provement in every way. Come, question Theaetetus as you began to do, and do not let him off.
soc. Well, Theaetetus, you hear what Theodorus says, and I think you will not wish to disobey him, nor is it right for a young person to disobey a wise man when he gives instructions about such matters. Come, speak up well and nobly. What do you think knowledge is?
THEAET. Well, Socrates, I must, since you bid me. For if I make a mistake, yow are sure to set me right.
soc. Certainly, if we can.
THEAET. Well then, I think the things one might learn from Theodorus are knowledge—geometry and all the things you spoke of just now—and also cobblery and the other craftsmen’s arts; each and all of these are nothing else but knowledge.
soc. You are noble and generous, my friend, for when you are asked for one thing you give many, and a variety of things instead of a simple answer.
THEAET. What do you mean by that, Socrates?
soc. Nothing, perhaps; but I will tell you what I think Imean. When you say “cobblery” you speak of nothing else than the art of making shoes, do you?
THEAET. Nothing else.
soc. And when you say “carpentry”? Do you mean anything else than the art of making wooden furnishings ?
21
14
lod
PLATO
@EAI. Ovde rodTo.
32. Odxodv &v audoiv, od éexatépa emoryun, TobTo opites;
@EAI. Nai.
> sehen bie O€ 1g epuTn bev, ® Weairnre, od Tobro ae TivwV 1 eMLOTHUN ovoe Omdca Ties: ov yap apiuncar adras BovAdpevor npopeba., aAAa yavar emoTH UNV avTO 6 TL TOT eoTIV. 7 OvdEV eyo;
ekAL. Idvu prev otv dpbds.
0; Uefa 7) Kal TOOE. €l Ts mas TOV patio Te Kal Tmpoxetpwv EpolTo, Olov Tmept m7Aob, 6 Tl ToT €o7ly, et dmroxpwaieBa avTa mnddos 6 TOV xuTpéwv Kal myAds O THY invomAabav Kat myros 6 TOV 7AWPovpyav, ovK av yeAotou ciwev;
@FAI. “lows.
S02. IIp@rov pev ye OU oldjuevor ovvievae eK Tis HILEeTEpAsS amoKpicews TOV €pwTavTa, OTav elev mds, elTe 0 T@V KopoTrAabav mpoatevres ETE adc eovTwavoby Onjuoupyav. H, oleL, Ths TL ovvinaly Twos dvoy.a, 6 py oldev Ti €oTW;
@EAI. Ovdayds.
sn. Ovd dpa éemornuny brodyydtwv ovvinow © ETLOTHUNV [7 ELOWs.
oEAI. OB yap.
30. Lkvtiknv dpa ov ovvinow os av émoriuyy ayvoh, ovdé Twa GAAnv Téxvnv.
@EAI. "Horw ouTwS.
20. Tedoia a apa 7 amoK pots TO epwrnbervte € em emp n Ti é€oTW, OTav amoKpivyTa. TéxVysS Twos
1 70 6é 7 épwrnfév Burnet ; 7d dé ye épwrndév W, Berol.; 7d & érepwrndév BT.
22
THEAETETUS
THEAET. Nothing else by that, either.
soc. Then in both cases you define that to which each form of knowledge belongs?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. But the question, Theaetetus, was not to what knowledge belongs, nor how many the forms of knowledge are; for we did not wish to number them, but to find out what knowledge itself really is. Or is there nothing in what I say?
THEAET, Nay, you are quite right.
soc. Take this example. If anyone should ask us about some common everyday thing, for instance, what clay is, and we should reply that it is the potters’ clay and the oven-makers’ clay and the brickmakers’ clay, should we not be ridiculous?
THEAET. Perhaps.
soc. Yes; in the first place for assuming that the questioner can understand from our answer what clay is, when we say “clay,” no matter whether we add “the image-makers’”’ or any other craftsmen’s, Or does anyone, do you think, understand the name of anything when he does not know what the thing is?
THEAET. By no means.
soc. Then he does not understand knowledge of shoes if he does not know knowledge.
THEAET. No.
soc. Then he who is ignorant of knowledge does not understand cobblery or any other art.
THEAET. That is true.
soc. Then it is a ridiculous answer to the question “what is knowledge?” when we give the name of
23
PLATO
? / > / -~ 3 C 6voxa. Tivos yap émLoTHUNY arroKptveTaL OV TOOT / epwrnbeis. wv @EAI. “Howxev. A A sa. "Eme:ta yé mov é€ov davAws kat Bpayéws 2 e amoxpivac8at meptepxeTat amépavtov odor. otov onl ~ ~ ~ ‘ Kal €v TH TOO mnAov epwrncer hadArAdv mov Kal ~ A ~ ~ A A bd) amAoby eimety ote yh byp@ pupabetoa mydAos av Eln, TO 8 OTov Edy yaipeu. € / f 5) / A ¢ 5. @EFAI. “Padiov, & Lwxpates, viv ye ovTw A eo A daiverar' atap Kwoduvevets epwrav otov Kat b) A Cc a ” IA / > , avtots uty evayyos elonAde diadeyomevois, €jol D te Kal TO O@ Opwvtw TovTwW UwKparer. xa. To rofov 67, & Ocairnte; oFAI. Ilepit duvayedv te uty Weddwpos dd¢€ a \ Zypadhe, THS TE Tpim0d0s Tépt Kal meEVvTETOdOS
179 / 2 , a § , OTL L7KEL OV GUMLMLETPOL TY TFOOLALA,
aTropaivwy
Kal OUTW KATA pLlav EKAOTHY TpPOaLpOUpLEVvOS [EXPL
THS éemTaKal0eKaTodos" ev O€ TAUTN TWS EVETXETO.
nptv obv etonAPé te Tovotrov, éerrevd1) azreipou TO
mAHOos at Suvapers ehaivovto, treipabjvar ovAAaPetv Ecis &, 6tw tdoas tTavTas mpocayopevcouev Tas
duvamets.
1 dropalywvy om. T; Burnet brackets.
1 A simple form of the first statement would be: The square roots of 3, 5, etc., are irrational numbers or surds. The word dvvayus has not the meaning which we give in English to ‘‘ power,” namely the result of multiplication of a number by itself, but that which we give to * root,” i.e. the number which, when multiplied by itself, produces a given result. Here Theaetetus is speaking of square roots only ; and when he speaks of numbers and of equal factors
24
THEAETETUS
some art; for we give in our answer something that knowledge belongs to, when that was not what we were asked.
THEAET. So it seems.
soc. Secondly, when we might have given a short, everyday answer, we go an interminable distance round ; for instance, in the question about clay, the everyday, simple thing would be to say “clay is earth mixed with moisture”’ without regard to whose clay it is.
THEAET. It seems easy just now, Socrates, as you put it; but you are probably asking the kind of thing that came up among us lately when your namesake, Socrates here, and I were talking together.
soc. What kind of thing was that, Theaetetus ?
THEAET. Theodorus here was drawing some figures for us in illustration of roots, showing that squares containing three square feet and five square feet are not commensurable in length with the unit of the foot, and so, selecting each one in its turn up to the square containing seventeen square feet ; and at that he stopped. Now it occurred to us, since the number of roots appeared to be infinite, to try to collect them under one name, by which we could henceforth call all the roots.!
he evidently thinks of rational whole numbers only, not of irrational numbers or fractions. He is not giving an exhaustive presentation of his investigation, but merely a brief sketch of it to illustrate his understanding of the purpose of Socrates. Toward the end of this sketch the word dvvauis is limited to the square roots of ‘‘ oblong” numbers, z.e. to surds. The modern reader may be some- what confused because Theaetetus seems to speak of arithmetical facts in geometrical terms. (Cf. Gow, Short History of Greek Mathematics, p. 85.)
B 25
148
B
PLATO
S A id i, ~~ sa. "H Kai nuperé tt Towodrov; ” nw , \ A ‘2 OFA. "Euouye doxotpev: okozret 5¢ Kat ov. xo. Aéye. A , @FAI. Tov apiOuov mavra diva deAdBopev: Tov lev Ouvdevov tcov lodKis yliyvecba TH TeTpayave nn , TO OXHUA amTErKdoavTEes TETPAYwWVOV TE Kal iodo- mAevpov mpoceimopev. so. Kai ed ye. A / A , eo A AY eEAI. Tov towvv petaéd tovtov, @v Kal Ta tTpia Kal Ta mévTE Kal Tas Os advvaTos tcos > vA , b ] 2) vA , ’ 72 vA ioakis yevéobar, add’ 7) mAciwy édatTovdKis 7 >) / 4 / / A A ’ , ehattwv TAcovaKis ylyvetar, weilCwv dé Kal eAaTTwY A ~ det mAeupa adtov meptAapBaver, TH mpouyjKer ad 5 , OXNUATL ameiKdoavtTes TpopnKn apiOuov exaré- cape. soa. KaddAdAtora. adda Ti To [LETQ TOUTO; x A >] @EAI. “Ocar pev ypappat tov todmAevpov Kal tf ~ emimedov apiOuov tetpaywvilovar, pnkKos wpiod- ef \ NY e / / e / ucba, doa Sé TOV ETEpourKy, Suvapets, WS LLNKEL A > pev od Evppétpous ékeivats, Tots 6 eEmumTedois a A ~ dvvavTal. Kal mEpl TA aTEped AAAo ToLODTOV. + vA > 35 4 > ~ iv4 sa. “Apiotad y avOpwTwv, @ mTaides: wore aw ¢ / 3 ” A pot Soke? 6 Meddwpos ovK Evoxos Tots Wevdouap- Tupiois eccobar. @EAI. Kat uv, @ LMwKpates, 6 ye EpwTa t >) 3 M1) ; , G -— Y P 7? “a oars +} 3 emloTHNS, OUK av Suvainy azoKpivacbaL, warrep A A ~ , TEpt TOO pinKovs Kal THs Suvdwews. KaiToL Gv aA ~ nan LA / s yé pro. Ookets ToLodrév Te CnTetv: wate madw ad , \ Re daiverar pevdis 6 Oeddwpos. 26
THEAETETUS
soc. And did you find such a name?
THEAET. I think we did. But see if you agree.
soc. Speak on.
THEAET. We divided all number into two classes. The one, the numbers which can be formed by multiplying equal factors, we represented by the shape of the square and called square or equilateral numbers.
soc. Well done!
THEAET. The numbers between these, such as three and five and all numbers which cannot be formed by multiplying equal factors, but only by multiplying a greater by a less or a less by a greater, and are therefore always contained in unequal sides, we represented by the shape of the oblong rectangle and called oblong numbers.
soc. Very good ; and what next?
THEAET. All the lines which form the four sides of the equilateral or square numbers we called lengths, and those which form the oblong numbers we called surds, because they are not commensurable with the others in length, but only in the areas of the planes which they have the power to form. And similarly in the case of solids.!
soc. Most excellent, my boys! I think Theo- dorus will not be found liable to an action for false witness.
THEAET. But really, Socrates, I cannot answer that question of yours about knowledge, as we answered the question about length and square roots. And yet you seem to me to want some- thing of that kind. So Theodorus appears to be a false witness after all.
1 That is, cubes and cube roots.
27
PLATO
C 30. Te. d€3i set sae Tos SpojLov emrawav pndevi OUTW OpopeKke edn TOV véwy evTeTvYnKEVat, €iTa diabewy Tob axpalovros Kal TaxioTou 7TTHONSs, TTOV TL AV oie aAnOH Tovd’ émawéoa;
@EAI. OvxK EyWYe.
so. “AdXa THY eMLOTHLLNY, womTrep viv 57) eye edeyov, opuKpov wt oleu elvan eEevpety Kal od TOV TaVvTN cicpenv 5
@£AI. Ni tov A’? eywye Kai pdda ye THY aKkpo- TATWY.
s2. Odppec tolvyy mepi cavT@ Kat Ti otov
D Oecdwpov Aéyew, mpobuunOyre Sé mavtl Tpomw TOV TE addwv mépt Kal emoTHns AaBetv Adyov, Ti TOTE TUYXAVEL OV.
eEAI. II po8upias pev evexa, @ UodKpates, pa- veiTau.
OO) =H. "T0e d7j—KarGs yap. apt. wdnynow— TELpO poyLovpevos TH Tepl Tav Suvdwecwy amr - Kptow, womrep Tavras mrohAas ovoas ev eleu mepteAaBes, oUTw Kal Tas ToA\ds emLoTHMAs EVt oyw mpocerTetv.
E ocar. "AM’ €& taht, & Ladxpates, oAAdKis 57 avTO emEexeipnoa oxebacbar, aKovwY Tas Tapa cob amopepopevas EpuTnaers” ard yap our avros dvvapiae TEtoal €fLavTOV ws icavas Te déyw, ovt dAdov axobdcar A€éyovtos oUTwWs ws av diake- Never: od pev 87) av oud" as eli Tob peAew}
32, Odivets yep, a hide Oeaitnte, dia TO py Kevos add’ eyKUpowv elvat.
@FAI. Ovdx ofda, @ LwKpates: O pévToe 7éTrOVOa Aéyw.
1 wédev B, Berol. et yp. W (and Burnet); ué\d\ev T; edpetv W. 28
THEAETETUS
soc. Nonsense! If he were praising your running and said he had never met any young man who was so good a runner, and then you were beaten in a race by a full grown man who held the record, do you think his praise would be any less truthful ?
THEAET, Why, no.
soc. And do you think that the discovery of knowledge, as I was just now saying, is a small matter and not a task for the very ablest men?
THEAET. By Zeus, I think it is a task for the very ablest.
soc. Then you must have confidence in yourself, and believe that Theodorus is right, and try earnestly in every way to gain an understanding of the nature of knowledge as well as of other things.
THEAET. If it is a question of earnestness, Socrates, the truth will come to light.
soc. Well then—for you pointed out the way admirably just now—take your answer about the roots as a model, and just as you embraced them all in one class, though they were many, try to designate the many forms of knowledge by one definition.
THEAET. But I assure you, Socrates, I have often tried to work that out, when I heard reports of the questions that you asked, but I can neither persuade myself that I have any satisfactory answer, nor can I find anyone else who gives the kind of answer you insist upon; and yet, on the other hand, | cannot get rid of a feeling of concern about the matter.
soc. Yes, you are suffering the pangs of labour, Theaetetus, because you are not empty, but pregnant.
THEAET. I do not know, Socrates; I merely tell you what I feel.
29
PLATO
> p> 3 {A e 149 so. Eira, @® xatayédaoTe, odK akyKoasS, ws ey) etut bos paias pada yevvaias Te Kal Brooupas, Dawapérys ; ” ~ / ” @EAI. "Hd TodrTo ye nNKovoa. > , oe >? iA \ 22 N / sa. “Apa kal, ore emitydedw THY adtiV TEXVHY, aKijKOGS ; @EAI. Ovdapds. > > 7; 4 n> 4 , , sa. “AAW €d tof Ste put) pevTor ov KaTeEtTns \ \ ” / iA > ¢ a / ‘ mpos Tovs dAXouvs. AéAnfa yap, @ Eraipe, TadTynv e ~ exwv thy téxvnv: ot dé, ate ovK ElddTES, TOdTO prev od A€yovot Trept ewod, OTe Sé ATOTWTATOS ELL Kal mow Tovs avOpwrmovs amopeiy. 7 Kat TOTO akyKoas ; ” BofA. “Eywye. =a. Ei odv cot To aitiov; @FAI. Ilavu pev ovr. > / \ \ A \ / LA e sa. “Evvdnoov 57) To mept Tas patas amayv ws ” A ta / “A / Ss y, €xet, Kal pdov pabljoes 6 BovrAoua. olcfa yap mov ws ovoeuia avt@v étt att? KvuioKopevn TE \ / Ed / 3 > C .-9/, > (Z kal TiKTovoa aAAas paeverat, aAN’ at 75n advvaror / TIKTEW. / \ Ss @EAI. Ilavu pev odv. v =o. Airiay dé ve TOUTOU dao elvar THY Ap- TELL, ore dAoxos otoa Thv Aoxelav €tAnye. orept- C das pev otv apa ovK edwKe poareveobar, ore 7 avOpwrivyn dicts acbeveotépa 7 AaBetvy téxvyv @v dv th adaewpos: tats de dv HAtKiay aroKots mpoceTake TYLMoa THV AVTHS OpoldTyTA. @EAI. Ecos. b) ~ A / > / A > aA sa. Ovxodv Kai rdd€ elkds TE Kal avayKator,
0
THEAETETUS
soc. Have you then not heard, you absurd boy, that I am the son of a noble and burly midwife, Phaenarete ?
THEAET. Yes, I have heard that.
soc. And have you also heard that I practise the same art?
THEAET. No, never.
soc. But I assure you it is true; only do not tell on me to the others; for it is not known that I possess this art. But other people, since they do not know it, do not say this of me, but say that I am a most eccentric person and drive men to dis- traction. Have you heard that also?
THEAET. Yes, I have.
soc. Shall I tell you the reason then?
THEAET. Oh yes, do.
soc. Just take into consideration the whole business of the midwives, and you will understand more easily what I mean. For you know, I suppose, that no one of them attends other women while she is still capable of conceiving and bearing, but only those do so who have become too old to bear.
THEAET. Yes, certainly.
soc. They say the cause of this is Artemis, because she, a childless goddess, has had childbirth allotted to her as her special province. Now it would seem she did not allow barren women to be midwives, because human nature is too weak to acquire an art which deals with matters of which it has no experience, but she gave the office to those who on account of age were not bearing children, honouring them for their likeness to herself.
THEAET, Very likely.
soc. Is it not, then, also likely and even necessary,
31
PLATO
Tas Kvovoas Kal 1) yrypooKkeabat waAdAov tao tev paddy 7 Tov drAdkwv;
@EAI. Ildvu ye.
sa. Kat pny Kat dd0dc0al ye ai pata dappakia
D kat émddovoa dvvavrat éyeipew Te Tas Wdivas Kal padbaxwrépas, av BovAwvrar, Tovetv, Kal TiKTEW te 61) Tas dvaToKovcas, Kal eav veov dv} dd&y apPAtoKew, aSAicKovow;
@EAI. “Eore tadra.
20. “Ap” ovv eTL Kal Tobe adT@v HoOynoat, Ort Kal Tpopvynjarpuat Elou deworarat, ws maacogor ovoat mepl Tob yudvar Toiav xpi) molw avopl ouvotcayv ws apiotous maidas TIKTELW;
@EAI. Ov mdvu tobro oida.
20. "ANN’ icf 6ti emi TovTw petlov doovotow
E 7 emt Th oppadnropia. evvoet yap: THs avris 7 ar 7S oteL TEXYNNS eivau Depametav TE Kal ovyKo- pony TOV ek yhs KapTO@v Kal ad TO yryvwoKew els molav yhv motov dutov Te Kal onépua KataPAnréov;
@FAI. OvK, GAAa Tis adris.
xo. Kis yuvatca dé, & dire, addAnv pev oter Tob to.ovTov, dAAnv dé avyKopidys;
@EAI. Ovxouv elkds ye.
150 sa. OF yap. adda Gia THY ddiKdv TE Kal ATEXVOV ovuvayeyny avopos Kal yovauKds, 7 ” 67) Tpoayuryta OvojLa., pevyovor Kal THV TpPopynoreKyy dre cepvat obaae at pata, doBovpevar pr els exeivynv tH aitiav dua tTavrnv eumécwow eéret
1 yéov dv of the mss. is impossible; Schanz suggests
vouuov * lawful,” Adam vnddv **the womb.” Possibly Plato wrote dveréoy ** permissible.”
32
THEAETETUS
that midwives should know better than anyone else who are pregnant and who are not?
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. And furthermore, the midwives, by means of drugs and incantations, are able to arouse the pangs of labour and, if they wish, to make them milder, and to cause those to bear who have difficulty in bearing; and they cause miscarriages if they think them desirable.
THEAET. That is true.
soc. Well, have you noticed this also about them, that they are the most skilful of matchmakers, since they are very wise in knowing what union of man and woman will produce the best possible children?
THEAET. I do not know that at all.
soc. But be assured that they are prouder of this than of their skill in cutting the umbilical cord. Just consider. Do you think the knowledge of what soil is best for each plant or seed belongs to the same art as the tending and harvesting of the fruits of the earth, or to another ?
THEAET. To the same art.
soc. And in the case of a woman, do you think, my friend, that there is one art for the sowing and another for the harvesting?
THEAET. It is not likely.
soc. No; but because there is a wrongful and un- scientific way of bringing men and women together, which is called pandering, the midwives, since they are women of dignity and worth, avoid match-making, through fear of falling under the charge of pander-
BQ 33
PLATO
A wv / /
Tats ye OvTWS palals fLovaLs TOV TpocHKEL Kal mpouvncacbar dpbdas.
@EAI. Daiverar.
\ \ / a ~ ~ ”
so. To pev tolvuy t&v patdyv tooobrov, éAatTov d€ 700 euod Spdpatos. ov yap mpdceote yuvaréiv ek \ w / ” > i > / eviore prev elOwAda TikTew, e€att 8 Gre adAnOwa, TobTo O€ px) pdd.ov eivae Svayvavar. et yap Tpoony, peyvorov Te Kat KadA\voTov epyov iy dv Tats joatats TO Kpiveww TO aAnODes TE Kal pH 7 ovK oleL;
”
@EAI. "“Hywye.
7 30. TH b€ y EA TEXVY THS joavedoews Ta prev adda dmdpxet doa exelvats, diadéeper dé TO Te avdpas adAAa py) yvvatkas prareveo$ar Kal TO
A lan a)
Tas pues avray TUKTOVGAS emuoKoTre tv ara pe) TO, owpara. péyiaTov de Tobr’ vt TH nILETEpA texvn, PBacavilew Suvarov elvan TavTt TpOTr, mOTEpov e€idwAov Kal webdos amoTikTet TOD véov 7 dudvora 7) yovysdv Te Kal aAnflés. eet TOdE ye
\ b A A Kal €[LOl UmdpXel, omEp Tats palats' ayovds ete co¢gias, Kal O7eEp iy moAAot jot aveldioay, os TOUS [ev dAAous epwT®, avros dé ovdev amroKpt- vomat epi ovdevos Sid TO pindev Exew oder, > \ 3 / A \ yA Ls / aAnfes overdifovow. To dé aitiov TovToOUV TddeE:
Yh A / e \ > / lan be > / prarevec¥at pre 6 Geds avayKdle, yevvay de ameKw- Avoev. eit 57) obv atros pev od Tavu Tis codes, ovde TL LoL éorw eUpnua TowodTov yeyovos Tijs ELLs buxfs EK'YOVOV" ot 5° €uol ouyyryvojrevoe TO [Lev TP@TOV paivovrar ¢ EVLOL JLEV Kal TaVvv dyrabets, mavrTes 5é€ mpotovons THs ovvovaias, olomep av oO
A feos mapetkn, Oavpactov daov emid.iddvTes, ws
34
THEAETETUS
ing. And yet the true midwife is the only proper match-maker.
THEAET. It seems so,
soc. So great, then, is the importance of mid- wives; but their function is less important than mine. For women do not, like my patients, bring forth at one time real children and at another mere images which it is difficult to distinguish from the real. For if they did, the greatest and noblest part of the work of the midwives would be in distinguish- ing between the real and the false. Do you not think so?
THEAET. Yes, I do.
soc. All that is true of their art of midwifery is true also of mine, but mine differs from theirs in being practised upon men, not women, and in tending their souls in labour, not their bodies. But the greatest thing about my art is this, that it can test in every way whether the mind of the young man is bringing forth a mere image, an imposture, or a real and genuine offspring. For I have this in common with the midwives: I am sterile in point of wisdom, and the reproach which has often been brought against me, that I question others but make no reply myself about anything, because I have no wisdom in me, is a true reproach; and the reason of it is this: the god compels me to act as midwife, but has never allowed me to bring forth. I am, then, not at all a wise person myself, nor have I any wise invention, the offspring born of my own soul; but those who associate with me, although at first some of them seem very ignorant, yet, as our acquaintance advances, all of them to whom the god is gracious make wonderful progress, not only
35
PLATO
e aA A a y ~ A A abrois te Kat Tois aAAous SoKovcLt’ Kat TOUTC >) A \ , evapyes ore Trap” E00 ovoev TuTOTE pabovres, arn’ avrou Tap: a mo\Na Kat kaha evpovres Te Kal TeKovtes. Tis pévTot patelas 6 Oeds Wer oat ” @ \ ~ oo» Te Kal e€yw aitios. woe dé SHAOV: ToAAOL Oy ~ >] A e A >) ~ E To0To ayvojcavTes Kal EaUTOVS aiTLAGdpEVOL, EOS \ 2 a“ >) VW e >] ” , d€ KaTappovyicarvtes, 7 adToL 7) U7’ GAAwY Tevobev- 5 ~~ ~ tes amnAov mpwaitepov tod déovros, amedOovres A , A >) fe \ \ / de Ta TE AoiTTa CEjUBAWoaY Sia TOVNpav GvVOVGIAP A A 3 > ~ ~ Kal Ta Um eod parevlevTa KaK@s TpéovTes 5 rd ~ A ” \ / Pe amwAeoarv, pevdh Kal €ldwAa mepi 7AcLovos ToLnad= ~ ~ ~ A 4 prevot TOD GAnOods, TeAcvTavTes 5° adTtots Te Kal A ” ” > A > cee e / Tots aAXos cdokav apyabets elvar. dv els yéyovev > 151 “Aptoreténs 6 Avowyudyou Kat adddou mavu moAdot: ois, orav mddAw €Pwor Sedjevor THS euhs ovv- / ~ ovolas Kat Bavyacta dSpO@vres, eviois ev TO yt- yvopevov Loe Sayioviov amoKwAver ovvetvat, éviots \ A a de €G, Kal mdAw obror® émdiddacr. maayovor Sé \ A A A 67) of €uol ovyyryvopevor Kal TodTo Tavrov Tats ié TUKTOVCaLS* Wwodivovor yap Kal amoplas éuTip- ~ n”~ mAavTat vUKTas Te Kal auepas TroAD padAdov 7 >] A A ~A \ exetvar®- ravtyv Oé€ THY Wodiva eyelpew TE Kal amoTravew 7 e417 TEXVN SUVaTAL. Kal OUTOL [EV B ry \ iA See 4 8 4 s if a yy A nN ovTws. eviois4 dé, w Weaitnre, of av joe fy ue oy dd€wot mus eyKUpoves elvat, yvods OTL ovdev > ~ i, ~ ~ Euod d€ovTat, Tavu cdmevOs Tpopvamuar Kal, adv 1 Kal rexdvtes W, Berol.; xaréyovres BT. 2 otro T; ad’rolt B.
3 éxewar B; ceva T.
4 évios Berol., Burnet; éviore BT; &con W.
86
THEAETETUS
in their own opinion, but in that of others as well. And it is clear that they do this, not because they have ever learned anything from me, but because they have found in themselves many fair things and have brought them forth. But the delivery is due to the god and me. And the proof of it is this: many before now, being ignorant of this fact and thinking that they were themselves the cause of their success, but despising me, have gone away from me sooner than they ought, whether of their own accord or because others persuaded them to do -so. Then, after they have gone away, they have miscarried thenceforth on account of evil companion- ship, and the offspring which they had brought forth through my assistance they have reared so badly that they have lost it; they have considered im- postures and images of more importance than the truth, and at last it was evident to themselves, as well as to others, that they were ignorant. One of these was Aristeides, the son of Lysimachus, and there are very many more. When such men come back and beg me, as they do, with wonderful eager- ness to let them join me again, the spiritual monitor that comes to me forbids me to associate with some of them, but allows me to converse with others, and these again make progress. Now those who associate with me are in this matter also like women in childbirth; they are in pain and are full of trouble night and day, much more than are the women ; and my art can arouse this pain and cause it to cease. Well, that is what happens to them. But in some cases, Theaetetus, when they do not seem to me to be exactly pregnant, since I see that they have no need of me, I act with perfect goodwill
37
PLATO
A a , € A ry. r Oe eimetv, mavu tkav@s tomdlw ols dv ovy- / ” e \ A \ +e / yevomevor ovawTo: @v moAdovs pev 67) e€€dwKa ITpodixw, moddods b€ addXots codois te Kat Oeo- meclots avopact. an / > a 4 ~A ] / Taira 5% cor, ® aprore, Evexa TOvSE EyKUVA, tromtTevwv! oe, WomTEp Kal avTOS OleL, WOLVEW TL KvobvTa Evdov. mpoadepov ovv mpds LE WS TPOS C patas dov Kat adrov pwaevTiKdv, Kal & av épwr ~ e > > > mpolvjot émws olds 7 ef ovTws amoxpivacbat: Kal €av dpa oxomovpevos TL Ov av A€yys yhow- w \ \ iA Ad > e Y ~ \ pra €lO0wAov Kal pn adnbes, era brreEarp@uar Kal amoBahha, 2 1 aypiatve aamep at TPwWTOTOKOL mepl TO. TmaLola.. moAAot yap 7100, a) Gavpdore, Tpos pe ove dueTeOnoav, worTe drexvars daKvew EToy“oL elval, emeday twa Ajpov atrav ad- aip@mar, Kal ovK OlovTai pe edvoia TobTO TroLEtV; / + ~ > , LA ? \ \ 4 D moppw dvres Tob cidévar ti ovdels Deds Svavous > / 9Q> 2 \ / ~ > \ ~ avOpwrots, 005’ éyw duvavoia Tovotrov obdév dpa, > 4 lo / i “a \ 3 \ ahid por peidos Te ovyxwpioa Kat adn Bes adavioat ovdapds Gepus. maw 57) obv e€ apxyis, ® Ocairyre, 0 tt mor” eorly ETLOTHILN, TELP@ Aéyew: ws 8 ovx olds T,( Eby pderor elrns. eav yap Oeds efeAn Kat avdpitn, olds T €oe. 8. kal. “AAAa pévTor, @ LwKpares, | goo ve OUTW mapaxehevopevov jaioxpov py ov Tavtt E tpome mpobupetobar é Ti Tus exer A€yew. Soxet obv por oO ETLOTUJLEVOS Te alcbdvecbar tobTo é emloTaTat, Kal ws ye vuvit daiverat, odK dAdo Ti €oTw emoTHn 7 atobnoats.
1 brortetwv B; wromret’w al.
2 droBdd\dkw T; troBdrtw B; dmoBddrw W.
38
THEAETETUS
as match-maker and, under God, I guess very success- fully with whom they can associate profitably, and I have handed over many of them to Prodicus, and many to other wise and inspired men.
Now I have said all this to you at such length, my dear boy, because I suspect that you, as you your- self believe, are in pain because you are pregnant with something within you. Apply, then, to me, remembering that I am the son of a midwife and have myself a midwife’s gifts, and do your best to answer the questions I ask as I ask them. And if, when I have examined any of the things you say, it should prove that I think it is a mere image and not real, and therefore quietly take it from you and throw it away, do not be angry as women are when they are deprived of their first offspring. For many, my dear friend, before this have got into such a state of mind towards me that they are actually ready to bite me, if I take some foolish notion away from them, and they do not believe that I do this in kindness, since they are far from knowing that no god is unkind to mortals, and that I do nothing of this sort from unkindness, either, and that it is quite out of the question for me to allow an imposture or to destroy the true. And so, Theaetetus, begin again and try to tell us what knowledge is. And never say that you are unable to do so; for if God wills it and gives you courage, you will be able.
THEAET. Well then, Socrates, since you are so urgent it would be disgraceful for anyone not to exert himself in every way to say what he can. I think, then, that. he who knows anything perceives that which he knows, and, as it appears at present, knowledge is nothing else than perception.
39
PLATO
Ge x A zo. Ed ye Kal yevvaiws, ® mat: xp) yap e 3 , , 3 A / \ b) : ovTws atrodawopevov Aéyew. adAa dépe 81) adr Kowy oKewpela, yovyrov 7 aveutatoy tuyydver , ov. alobnos, pys, emvoTHUN; oral. Nat. , ~ x0. Kuvdvvevers pevtor Adyov od daddov eipy- \ > / > > \ ih 152 Kévat wept éemotypns, add’ dv eAeye Kat Ipwr- ayopas. Tpomov d€ twa adAdXov ecipnKe Ta ara ~ \ / TatTa. dyol yap Tov mavTwWY xpHnudTwy péTpov avOpwrov eivar, THY ev OvTwWY, ws EoTL, THY OE Ud p41) OvTwr, Ws ovK EOTW. aveéyvwKas yap TOV; ezAlL. “AvéyvwKa Kat moddkis. ’ ~ 4 / e e \ ov sa. Odxotv ovtw mws Aéyer, Ws ofa pév exa- ora €uol daiverat, Toradra pcv coTw epoi, ota de ~ A ay / x Goi, ToLatTa S€ av aot: dvOpwiros d€ ov TE KAYO; egal. Aéyeu yap ouv ouTw.
B x0. Hikos pevrou OopuV dvdpa pr) Anpeiv: én - axorovPjowpiev otv avTa. dp’ ovK evloTE mVEov- Tos ave“ov TOD avrod 6 pev HUY pryot, 6 8 ov
A e A > / e be if) 4 Kal 6 pev pena, 0 de adodpa; \ 4 @EAI. Kat pada. , Ss 4 ? A 27? ¢€ ~l1 A sa. Ilotepov otv tore adto ef’ éavtod} ro a | > \ , n , mvedua yvxpov 7) od yuxpov djcomev; 7 mrecodpeba ~ /} fA ~ \ ¢ ~ / Ua t@ IIpwraydpa ort TH pev pryodvre puxpov, TO A ” dé 7) OV; ow @EAI. “Kouxev. el] ~ . / 4 e / sa. Odxoty kal daiverar ovTw ExaTéepw;
ezal. Nai. 1 gauvrod W, Berol. ; éav7d BT. 40
THEAETETUS
soc. Good! Excellent, my boy! That is the way one ought to speak out. But come now, let us examine your utterance together, and see whether it is a real offspring or a mere wind-egg. Perception, you say, is knowledge ?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And, indeed, if I may venture to say so, it is not a bad description of knowledge that you have given, but one which Protagoras also used to give. Only, he has said the same thing in a different way For he says somewhere that man is “the measure of all things, of the existence of the things that are and the non-existence of the things that are not.” You have read that, I suppose?
THEAET. Yes, I have read it often.
soc. Well, is not this about what he means, that individual things are for me such as they appear to me, and for you in turn such as they appear to you —you and I being “man”?
THEAET. Yes, that is what he says.
soc. It is likely that a wise man is not talking nonsense ; so let us follow after him. Is it not true that sometimes, when the same wind blows, one of us feels cold, and the other does not? or one feels slightly and the other exceedingly cold?
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. Then in that case, shall we say that the wind is in itself cold or not cold ; or shall we accept Prota- goras’s saying that it is cold for him who feels cold and not for him who does not?
THEAET. Apparently we shall accept that.
soc. Then it also seems cold, or not, to each of the two?
. THEAET. Yes.
41
PLATO
/ iA sa. To dé ye daiverar alcbdavecbai eoriv; / @EAI. "“Eotw yap. / A \ ” b) \ v C x0. Davracia dpa Kat ato@yos tabrov & Te Oepots Kal m&at Tots TovovTOLs. ota yap aicbave- ti ~ \ > Tal EKAOTOS, TOLADTA EKdoTW Kal KLWduVEvEL cival. @EAI. ”Houxev. ” + ~ yy > oe > \ sa. Aiofnows dpa tot dvtos del éoTw Kal id > ayevdes ws EmLoTHLN Ovoa. @EAI. Daiverac. sa. “Ap otv zpos Xapitwy mdacoodds tis Hv 6 IIpwraydpas, Kat totro wiv pev jvigato TH TOAAD aupheTa@, Tots d€ palyrats ev amoppytw Thv adjOevav Edeyev; ~ / Ss 4 ~ / D oFAI. [lds 57, & Led«pates, TodTo A€yets; > A 3. ~ A o~re >) ~ / e =a. “Kyw ep® kat pad’ od datdAov Adyov, ws ” a \ > \ > ¢€ A ? / >? SIN) | ie. apa €v ev atTo Kal” atro ovdev eotw, 00d? av TL / > ~ 9Q> ¢ ~ > > 3A ¢€ mpooettos op0ds ovd’ d7ovovoby Tt, add’, édv ws peya mpooayopevns, Kal opiKpov davetrar, Kai ~ , 7 eav Bapv, Koddhov, EvuTravTa Te OVTWS, WS UNdEVOS OVTOS EVOS [LTE TWOS [LTE OTOLOVOdY: eK Oe 57) lo \ gopas Te Kal KWHoEwWS Kal Kpdoews mpos GAAnAa yiyverau TavTa a& OH gapev elvat, odK Oopbds > mpooayopevovTes* EaTL [Lev yap ovdéTroT OvSEeV, GEL E 6€ yiyverar. Kat wept TovTov mavres €EHs of Godot Anv II f6) zo8wv, II ) mAnv Ilappevidov cvpdepécbwv,t Ipwraydpas rte ~ \ ~ Kat “Hpdakdeutos kat “KumedoxAjs, Kat tv mroun- TOV Ol AkKpoL THs Tojoews ExaTépas, KwUWwdlas A mG / Yh be 70) a“ 2 > \ pev “Ezrixappos, tpaywdias dé “Opnpos, ds 2 etav > I 4 A / \ / 7 Oxeavev Te Oedv yeveow Kai untépa Trbdv
1 guudepéoOwv B (ut videtur), Burnet; cuudépecbOov TW, Berol., Eus.; cunpépovra Stobaeus. * 6s add. Heindorf.
42
THEAETETUS
soc. But “seems” denotes perceiving ?
THEAET. It does.
soc. Then seeming and perception are the same thing in matters of warmth and everything of that sort. For as each person perceives things, such they are to each person.
THEAET. Apparently.
soc. Perception, then, is always of that which exists and, since it is knowledge, cannot be false.
THEAET. So it seems.
soc. By the Graces! I wonder if Protagoras, who was a very wise man, did not utter this dark saying to the common herd like ourselves, and tell the truth ! in secret to his pupils.
THEAET. Why, Socrates, what do you mean by that?
soc. I will tell you and it is not a bad description, either, that nothing is one and invariable, and you could not rightly ascribe any quality whatsoever to anything, but if you call it large it will also appear to be small, and light if you call it heavy, and every- thing else in the same way, since nothing whatever is one, either a particular thing or of a particular quality ; but it is out of movement and motion and mixture with one another that all those things become which we wrongly say “are’’—wrongly, because nothing ever is, but is always becoming. And on this subject all the philosophers, except Parmenides, may be marshalled in one line—Protagoras and Hera- cleitus and Empedocles—and the chief poets in the two kinds of poetry, Epicharmus, in comedy, and in tragedy, Homer, who, in the line Oceanus the origin of the gods, and Tethys their mother?
1 An allusion to the title of Protagoras’s book, Truth.
2 Homer, Iliad, xiv. 201, 302. 43
PLATO
onl A / a mavTa elpnkev Ekyova pons TE Kal KWHTEwWS* F ov doxet Totto Aéyew; @EAI. “Epocye. / > vv ” id lot 9. x2. Tis otv av €rt mpos ye TooodTov 153 otparorredov kal otpatyyov “Opnpov dvvaito apdioBytioas p17) 00+ KatayéAactos yevécbar; @eEAI. Od pddiov, © LaKpares. > ne Ss / b) \ \ f ~ 20. On yap, @ Ocairnte. emel Kal Tae TO Aoyw onpeta ixavd, OTL TO yey elvau SoKody Kal TO yiyvecbat Kivnous TAPEXEL, TO O€ py civau Kal dnddAvobat yovxla* TO yap Oeppov TE Kad mop, 0 01) Kal Tarra yevvd, ica ETLTpOTEVEL, AUTO yevva- TOL eK popas Kal Tplibews: ToUTw* dé KuwyoEL. N ovx adrau yevéoets TrUpOs ; Borat. Adrau pev odv. \ \ / ~ , / > ~ sa. Kai piv 76 ye tev Caw yevos ex TOV avta@v tovTwr pverat. ~ > + eEAI. [lds 8’ ov; ~ , A ¢e sa. Ti d€; 7) TOV cwpdtwv e&is ody bo jov- / \ Hi b) / / ¢ \ , \ xlas pev Kal apylas di0AAvTaL, bro yupuvaciwy de : i Kal KWwroewv emt TO TOAD? cwleTat; @EAI. Nai. =a. ‘H & ev Th PoxH e€is odxX U0 pabioews plev Kal ped€rns, KW} TEV ovTwy,* KTGTAL TE pabyuata Kat owlerar Kal yiyverar BeATiwr, d70 2) A la 8 Hovylas, djreAernolas te Kat apabias ovons, a S) / C otre te pavOdaver d te dv pabn emAavOdvera;
1 un od W, Eus., Stobaeus; uh BT.
2 roi7Tw B2W, Berol. ; rodro BT, Stobaeus.
8 éri 7d todd B, Stobaeus; ws éml wodvd T (ds above the line); ét zodd Burnet.
4 kwihcewy odcay Stobaeus; xivyolow dvrov Buttmann.
44.
THEAETETUS
has said that all things are the offspring of flow and motion ; or don’t you think he means that?
THEAET. I think he does.
soc. Then who could still contend with such a great host, led by Homer as general, and not make himself ridiculous ?
THEAET. It is not easy, Socrates.
soc. No, Theaetetus, it is not. For the doctrine is amply proved by this, namely, that motion is the cause of that which passes for existence, that is, of becoming, whereas rest is the cause of non-existence and destruction; for warmth or fire, which, you know, is the parent and preserver of all other things, is itself the offspring of movement and friction, and these two are forms of motion. Or are not these the source of fire ?
THEAET. Yes, they are.
soc. And furthermore, the animal kingdom is sprung from these same sources.
THEAET. Of course.
soc. Well, then, is not the bodily habit destroyed by rest and idleness, and preserved, generally speak- ing, by gymnastic exercises and motions?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And what of the habit of the soul? Does not the soul acquire information and is it not pre- served and made better through learning and practice, which are motions, whereas through rest, which is want of practice and of study, it learns nothing and forgets what it has learned ?
45
PLATO
eral. Kai pada. le A za. To pev dpa ayabov Kivnow Kata te puynv A 4 ~ Kal KaTa o@pa, TO b€ Totvavtiov; @EAI. “Eouxev. ” > , A / sa. “Eri otv cot A€yw vnvepias Te Kal yaAnvas \ ~ A Kal Coa ToladrTa, OTL at pev HovYlaL orjToVOL Kat > / A > / Aree te bis | 7 A atoAAvact, Ta 8° ETEpa owlet; Kal emt TOUTOLS TOV ~ \ ~ Kodofava avaykalw mpoofibalwv tiv xpvaojv \ e > A y+ a“ A av @ / geipav ws ovdev ddrAo 7 Tov Avov “Opnpos réEyex, \ a @ wd \ nv € wa) / D Kat SnAoi Ste Ews pev av 7 Tepipopa 7 KWoupevy \ ¢€ a / ” \ 1h Sd \ > A Kal 0 Atos, mavTa E€oTL Kal owlerar Ta ev Deois \ 3 / > \ / A LA / Te Kat avOpwrrous, ef 5€ Tain TOOTO Wo7ep Seber, / / > A / \ / > vv \ mavTa xpypuat av SiadOapein Kat yevowt’ av TO Aeyomevov avw KaTW TaVvTA; A > ~ @EAI. “AXN euorye Soxe?, ® Udxpates, Tatra dnAoby, amep Héyets. ) 10. x0, “YaddAaBe towvv, @ apiote, odTwot: \ \ ~ \ a A KaTa Ta Oppata mpa@tov, 6 61) Kadrels xpOpua AevKov, pi) elvae adto erepov tt e€w TOV oav > “ > oN OppaTwv pnd ev Tots oupact' pndé TW ad’Ta@ E / 3 LE 4 5) A av” ” PS) / 2 b] ; xXwWpav anoTtaéns’ 75n yap av ein Te dyTov? & 3 kal oUK av ev yeveoet YiyvotTo. > ~ eFAl. “AAAa 70s;
Z \ / Ta€eu Kal Levov
1 dvayxafw mpocBiBdfwv TW, Berol. ; dvaykdfw rpoBi8dtwr B, Stobaeus ; rpocBiBafw (omitting avayxatw) Cobet, followed by Burnet. Possibly avaypigw mpocBiBagwvr.
2 6ynmov Schanz; &v mov BT.
3 xaluévoy Stobaeus; xeiwevo pr. B (corr. kat uévor); xeluevov T,
46
THEAETETUS
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. Then the good, both for the soul and for the body, is motion, and rest is the opposite ?
THEAET. Apparently.
soc. Now shall I go on and mention to you also windless air, calm sea, and all that sort of thing, and say that stillness causes decay and destruction and that the opposite brings preservation? And shall I add to this the all-compelling and crowning argu- ment that Homer by “the golden chain”! refers to nothing else than the sun, and means that so long as the heavens and the sun go round everything exists and is preserved, among both gods and men, but if the motion should stop, as if bound fast, everything would be destroyed and would, as the saying is, be turned upside down?
THEAET. Yes, Socrates, I think he means what you say he does.
soc. Then, my friend, you must apply the doctrine in this way: first as concerns vision, the colour that you call white is not to be taken as something separate outside of your eyes, nor yet as something inside of them; and you must not assign any place to it, for then it would at once be in a definite position and stationary and would have no part in the process of becoming.
THEAET. But what do you mean?
1 Homer, Iliad, viii. 18 ff., especially 26. In this passage Zeus declares that all the gods and goddesses together could not, with a golden chain, drag him from on high, but that if he pulled, he would drag them, with earth and sea, would then bind the chain round the summit of Olympus, and all the rest would hang aloft. This ‘“‘ crowning argument” is a reductio ad absurdum of the habit of using texts from Homer in support of all kinds of doctrine.
47
154
B
PLATO
e iA ~ A 3-48 3 202. ‘Ezwpeba 73 apte Aoyw, pndév adro Kal e Neen ” / A e A 4 / \ auTo ev ov 7iévTes* Kal Huty ovTw péAaV TE Kat \ \ ¢ ~ a ~ “a AevKov Kai dTLoby aAXo ypOpua ek THs mpooBorjAs ~ > / \ TOV OMpaTwY mpos THY TpoonKovoav dopav A \ \ 7 > / pavetrar yeyevnpévov, Kal 6 8&1) éKaoTov eivat ~ \ /, - A papev yp@ua, ovte tO mpooBadrAov ovtTe TO / yA > Ni / ¢ / mpooPaddojevov eotar, adAAd prera€¥ Te éxdoTw Ui y a Lvov yeyovds' 7 od Sucxupicato av ws, olov \ @ ~ ~ A \ Goi daivetat ExacTov yp@uo, TowdTov Kab KUVL \ ~ Kat oTwobv Caw; @EAI. Ma Ad’ otk éywye. U / > Sie \ \ sa. Te d€; adAw avopa7w dp’ opovov Kal cot / ¢ A i ~ ~ nn \ daivetar oTiobv; exes TovTo loxup@s, 7) 7oAd ~ Ld > \ \ b) ~ >) \ \ \ / paAdAov, OTe o8dé Gol abt@ Tabrov dua TO wyndéeTOTE ¢ \ A Omolws avToVv ceavTa@ €xew; @EAI. Todro waAddv por Soke? 7 exetvo.
1 tapapeTpovpeda I ob
sa. Ovxcotv ef pev @ > / / nv \ “ \ OY > av ehamTouela, péya 7 AevKov 7 Oeppov Hv, odK av 4 \ a nv > / b eee 4 mote d\Aw mpoomecov dAdo av éeyeyovet, adTo ye \ ie ? A Coy \ / pndev jreraBadrAov: ei dé ad To Trapaperpovpevov n epanmtépevoy Exaotov Hv TovTwv, ovK av at ” \O/ ” / oN \ aAAov mpoceASovtos q Te mabovTos atro pdev \ ” 1 > 7 > \ = > / mafov aXdo av eyéveto. emer viv ye, @ dire, \ a ~ Oavpasctd te Kal yedoia edyep@s TwWSs avayKa- / 4 ¢e / an / \ CoueBa A€yew, ws dain av Ilpwrayopas Te Kal mas 0 Ta avTa eKelve emLye_p@v Aéyew.
1 ¢ mss. ; 6 Cornarius,
48
THEAETETUS
soc. Let us stick close to the statement we made a moment ago, and assume that nothing exists by itself as invariably one: then it will be apparent that black or white or any other colour whatsoever is the result of the impact of the eye upon the appropriate motion, and therefore that which we call colour will be in each instance neither that which impinges nor that which is impinged upon, but something between, which has occurred, peculiar to each individual. Or would you maintain that each colour appears to a dog, or any other animal you please, just as it does to you?
THEAET. No, by Zeus, I wouldn’t.
soc. Well, does anything whatsoever appear the same to any other man as to you? Are you sure of this? Or are you not much more convinced that nothing appears the same even to you, because you yourself are never exactly the same?
THEAET. Yes, | am much more convinced of the last.
soc. Then, if that with which I compare myself in size, or which I touch, were really large or white or hot, it would never have become different by coming in contact with something different, without itself changing ; and if, on the other hand, that which did the comparing or the touching were really large or white or hot, it would not have become different when something different approached it or was affected in some way by it, without being affected in some way itself. For nowadays, my friend, we find ourselves rather easily forced to make extra- ordinary and absurd statements, as Protagoras and everyone who undertakes to agree with him would say.
49
C
E
PLATO
~ A A A @EAl. Is 87) Kat mota Aéyeus; A
sa. Xpixpov AaBe mapddevypa, Kal wavra yA “a 4 2) / /, @ “v eloer & BovAopat. aorpaydAouvs yap mov €&, av pev TéTTapas avTots mpoceveyKys, mAElouvs papev civat TMV TeTTApwWY Kal HLLOrLoOUS, éav Sé SWdEeKa, > / A e / A >} A b) A BA eAattous Kal aloes: Kal ovdé avextov dAAws déyew: 7 od aveEa;
@EAI. UOdK éywye.
xa. Ti otv; av ce Ipwraydpas epnrar 7 tis + Ss / ” a A B) , ddXdos: & Ocairnre, €o0 Srws te petlov 7 mA€ov , v a >) Ad / > an ylyverar dAAws 7 ad&yOév; Ti amoKpwet;
@eFAl. “Hay pev, ® LwKpates, TO SoKody pds Tv viv epwTnow amoKpivajat, OTe ovK €oTW.
, €av d€ mpos THY TpoTepav, PvddtTwv pH éevayria Elmw, OTL EOTW. > \ >
sa. Ed ye vy thy “Hpav, @ dire, Kal Detws. > 2 e v S:N a / @ v >} / aTap, Ws eoukev, eav amoxpivn oT eat, Edpumi-
€ ~
devov Te EvppPyoerar’ 4 ev yap yA@rra avéAeyKtos
A =) Hiv €ora, y Se Ppynv odK avédeyKTos.
> ~
@EAI. “AAn O74.
sa. Odxoiv ef pév deol Kat codot eyud Te Kat ov Huey, TavTa TA TOV ppevav eEntaKkdTes, Hn av 70 AowTov €x Treptovatas aAAT}AWY arroTreipwLEvoL, ouveOovtes codioTiK@s els wayyy ToLavTHY, aAAy - Awv tovs Adyous Tots Adyots EeKpovouev: viv dé ¢ >} an ~ , / +) A ate isidtar mp@tov BovAnoducba Oeaoacbar adra mMpos avTd, Ti ToT eoTiv a dSiavoovpeba, TdTEpoY ¢ A 5 4 rN al sa. € ~ Hiv arArjAous Evppwvet q 00d OmwaTLOdY.
50
THEAETETUS
THEAET. What do you mean? What statements?
soc. Take a little example and you will know all I have in mind. Given six dice, for instance, if you compare four with them, we say that they are more than the four, half as many again, but if you compare twelve with them, we say they are less, half as many; and any other statement would be inadmiss- ible ; or would you admit any other?
THEAET. Not I.
soc. Well then, if Protagoras, or anyone else, ask you, “ Theaetetus, can anything become greater or more in any other way than by being increased ?” what reply will you make ?
THEAET. If I am to say what I think, Socrates, with reference to the present question, I should say “no,” but if I consider the earlier question, I should say “ yes,” for fear of contradicting myself
soc. Good, by Hera! Excellent, my friend! But apparently, if you answer “yes” it will be in the Euripidean spirit; for our tongue will be un- convinced, but not our mind.
THEAET. True.
soc. Well, if you and I were clever and wise and had found out everything about the mind, we should henceforth spend the rest of our time testing each other out of the fulness of our wisdom, rushing together like sophists in a sophistical combat, batter- ing each other’s arguments with counter arguments. But, as it is, since we are ordinary people, we shall wish in the first place to look into the real essence of our thoughts and see whether they harmonize with one another or not at all.
1 Kurip. Hippol. 612, 7) yao’ dudpyox’, 5€ ppiy avwporos, ‘my tongue has sworn, but my mind is unsworn.”
51
PLATO
eEAI. Idavu peév ov eyurye Tor av Bovroiuny.
II. 30. Kat pay eye. ote 8 ovTws éyet, GAXo Te} Npeua, Ws Tavu TodAA}V cxXoAjy dyovTes, madw eéravackeydueba, od dSvcKodAaivovtes, aAAa TH OvTe Has adtovs e€eTalovtTes, ATTa ToT é€oTt TatTa Ta Pdopata ev Huiv; @v mp@tov emoKo- mobvTes pyoomev, ws eyw olpar, pnd€rroTe pedev av jreilov pode édarrov yeveotar perjre ore [LTE apibud, €ws icov ein avTo éavT@. ody ovTws;
@EAI. Nat.
30. Aevrepov dé ye, @ pyte mpootBotro pare aparpotro, TOUTO pare avédveobai mote pyre PUivew, act d€ t icov civae.
OFAI. Kopid7) jeev ovv.
soa. *Ap’ ody od Kal Tpitov, a) pea TpOTEpov ve totepov adda} tobro elvar avev Tod yevéoOar Kal ylyvecOar advvatov;
@EAI. Aoxe? ye 07). )
39. Tatra Oy, oipan, opohoynpara Tpla payerar avTa avTois ev TH TLETEpa pvx7, 6 oray Ta. TEept TOV aotpaydAwy rAéywpev, H OTav Papev ewe THALKOVSE ovTa, pyTE av&yYevta yjTE TovvavTiov TabovTa, €v EvLAUT@ Gov TOD véov viv pev peilw eivar, VoTEpov dé €AdtTw, pndév Tod e100 oyicov apatpebevros ard oo0 aveybevros. elpul yap oH) vorepov é TPOTEPOV OVK 7}, OD yEevopEvos: avev yap Tob yee yreotae yeveobau advvatov, pndev bé dmroNds TOO OyKoU ovK ay TOTE eyeyvouny eAdrrev. Kat aAXa 67) upia el pruplois oUTWs Exel, elmep Kal TadTa
1 torepov adda BT (schol. 6 IpdxXos 76 adda mapedKewy Néyely
i.e. add is transposed to the second place); d\\d torepor Stephanus et al.
52
THEAETETUS
THEAET. Certainly that is what I should like.
soc. And so should I. But since this is the case, and we have plenty of time, shall we not quietly, without any impatience, but truly examining our- selves, consider again the nature of these appearances within us? And as we consider them, I shall say, I think, first, that nothing can ever become more or less in size or number, so long as it remains equal to itself. Is it not so?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And secondly, that anything to which nothing is added and from which nothing is subtracted, is neither increased nor diminished, but is always equal.
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. And should we not say thirdly, that what was not previously could not afterwards be without becoming and having become ?
THEAET. Yes, I agree.
soc. These three assumptions contend with one another in our minds when we talk about the dice, or when we say that I, who do not, at my age, either increase in size or diminish, am in the course of a year first larger than you, who are young, and afterwards smaller, when nothing has been taken from my size, but you have grown. For I am, it seems, afterwards what I was not before, and I have not become so ; for it is impossible to have become without becoming, and without losing anything of my size I could not become smaller. And there are countless myriads of such contradictions, if we are to accept these that I have mentioned. You follow
53
PLATO
, A 4 of / Ss , mapade€oucOa. emrert ydp mov, @® Qecairnre: Soxets yobv ot odK aATretpos THY TOLOVTWwY EivaL.
@EAI. Kat 1) Tovs Oeovs ye, & Lodkpates, trrep- dvds ws Oavydlw ti mor éoti ratra, Kat éviote (s > ~ / > b) A ~ ws adnfds BrErawv els adra OKOTOOWLO.
DP) 220: Oddwpos yap, @ dire, daivera ov KAK@S Tomrateu mept Tijs dvoews cov. pddra yap pidro- ocdov TovTo TO maBos, TO avped lew ov yap adAn apx7) pirocodias Q avUTyN, Kal €oKev O TV *Tpuv Oavpavros exyovov dijoas ov Kak@s ‘yeveo.- doyetv. adda motepov pavOavers 7dn dv 6 Tabra Towatr éotw e€ wv tov IIpwraydpay dapev déyew, H ovTw;
@EAI. Ova pou doKd.
30. Xdpw ody poe etoer, edv cou avdpos, par-
E Aov dé avdpay 6 OVOMAGTOV THS Suavoias THv aAjbevav amoKeKpuLLevny avve€epevynowpat adTav;
@EAI. [lds yap ovK eioomuat, Kal mavu ye TOAAHV;
12. x0. “AOper 57) mepioxoTadvy pn tis TaV > / > ce eye aN A & ¢€ 9OA wv aQuunTwV éemaKovyn. elaw dé odToL of otdév aXXo oldjrevoe Elva 7) 00 av OvvwVYTaL ampl— Toiv yepoty AaBéobar, mpdkeis dé Kal yeveoets Kal av TO adpa- TOV OVK aTrOSEXOpEVOL WS ev OVOlAS [éEpEL.
\ \ / > / if
@EAI. Kai pev 57, & UwKpares, oKAnpovs ye
156 Adyets Kal avrittous avOpumovs.
> | / Ss aA 43 > EJ +
30. Kiowv ydp, @ mat, udd’ ed auovaor- dAdou d€ moAv Kopsporepor, Ov A) gol Ta pLvoTHpLA Agyew. px dé, €€ "8 Kal a vov 8H ehéyopev mdvra pTyTat, 98¢ avT@v, ws TO Wav Kiv7aus Hv kat aAAo Tapa TotTo ovdev, THs Sé KWHGEws SVoO
1 érec Heindorf ; eiaré BT. 2 é& is W°b; e&7s BIW. 54
THEAETETUS
me, [ take it, Theaetetus, for I think you are not new at such things.
THEAET. By the gods, Socrates, I am lost in wonder when I think of all these things, and sometimes when I regard them it really makes my head swim.
soc. Theodorus seems to be a pretty good guesser about your nature. For this feeling of wonder shows that you are a philosopher, since wonder is the only beginning of philosophy, and he who said that Iris was the child of Thaumas! made a good genealogy. But do you begin to understand why these things are so, according to the doctrine we attribute to Protagoras, or do you not as yet?
THEAET. Not yet, I think.
soc. And will you be grateful to me if I help you to search out the hidden truth of the thought of a famous man or, I should say, of famous men?
THEAET. Of course I shall be grateful, very grateful.
soc. Look round and see that none of the un- initiated is listening. The uninitiated are those who think nothing is except what they can grasp firmly with their hands, and who deny the existence of actions and generation and all that is invisible.
THEAET. Truly, Socrates, those you speak of are very stubborn and perverse mortals.
soc. So they are, my boy, quite without culture. But others are more clever, whose secret doctrines I am going to disclose to you. For them the beginning, upon which all the things we were just now speak- ing of depend, is the assumption that everything is really motion and that there is nothing besides this,
1 Hes. Theog. 780. Iris is the messenger of heaven, and Plato interprets the name of her father as ‘‘ Wonder” (@adua),
55
PLATO
rh) r AG) A x” ¢e UA 8 fd PS) \ 4 €l07, mAnfer pév azeipov exatepov, Svvapw dé 76d ral ~ 4 jlev trovety Exov, TO b€ maayew. é€K Oé THS TOVTwWY G / \ / \ + , Ouidias TE Kal Tpiifews mpos adAAnAa yiyverat EK'YOVa mA Gee prev amretpa, Sidupa dé, TO peev / B aicOyrov, TO de atobjats, Get ouvexminrovea Kat yevvapevn feta TOU aicOynrob. at pev obv aichy- a \ Gels TA TOLAOE FULtY EXOVOLY OVvopaTa, OYeLs TE KAL \ / aKkoal Kal oodpjces Kat pers Te Kal Kavoets Nie , Q\ Nis wes ’ Nee, Kal 7O0Val ‘ye o7] KaL Adrraw KaL emBupuiar Kal foot KeKAnevat Kal dda, dmépavrou pev ab avewvujLot, mapmAnfets dé at wvopacpéva: TO 8 ad alcOnrov , yevos TOUTWY EKdOTAaLS OfLOyovoV, Oxeor EV YPW- para mavTodamals TavTodamd, akoals d€ waavTws / \ A y b) , \ BA > \ CO pwvat, Kat Tats aAXats aigbjcect Ta. aAXa atobnra Boyes yeyvopeva. Tt On obv mpty BovAerou obros 0 p.000s,.@ Ocairntre, mpos TA TpdTEpa; dpa EVVoEts ; @EAI. OU mavu, @ LwKpates. > > a 4 39. AXA abper, eav mos amoreeaO Bovrerat yap on) Aéyew Ws TadTA TaVTA pLeEV, OoTep déyopev, Kwetrat, TaXOs d€ Kal Bpadurns | EV TH KW}TEL \ avT@v. Ogov pev ovv Bpadd, év TH ad’T@ Kal mpos Ta TAnoidlovra THY Kivnow toxer Kal ovTw dy D yervd, Ta O€ yervdpeva ovTw 67 OdtTw éoTiv. épeTar yap Kal ev dopa abta@v 7 Kivnots mépuxev. eTeloav ovv oupa Kat adA\o te Tv TovTw Evp- LeTpwv mAnoiacay yevvyon THY AevKOTHTA TE Kal atoOnow attH EvuduTov, a ovK av moTEe eyéveTo e / > ae \ + >? / / 4 exaTépov ekelvwy mpos aAdo eAbovtos, ToTE 07
peTtakd hepouevwv Ths pwev dyews mpos TOV 6dOadA-
na
56
THEAETETUS
but that there are two kinds of motion, each infinite in the number of its manifestations, and of these kinds one has an active, the other a passive force. From the union and friction of these two are born offspring, infinite in number, but always twins, the object of sense and the sense which is always born and brought forth together with the object of sense. Now we give the senses names like these: sight and hearing and smell, and the sense of cold and of heat, and pleasures and pains and desires and fears and so forth. Those that have names are very numerous, and those that are unnamed are innumer- able. Now the class of objects of sense is akin to each of these; all sorts of colours are akin to all sorts of acts of vision, and in the same way sounds to acts of hearing, and the other objects of sense spring forth akin to the other senses. What does this tale mean for us, Theaetetus, with reference to what was said before? Do you see? THEAET. Not quite, Socrates. soc. Just listen; perhaps we can finish the tale. It means, of course, that all these things are, as we were saying, in motion, and their motion has in it either swiftness or slowness. Now the slow element keeps its motion in the same place and directed towards such things as draw near it, and indeed it is in this way that it begets. But the things begotten in this way are quicker; for they move from one place to another, and their motion is naturally from one place to another. Now when the eye and some appropriate object which approaches beget whiteness and the corresponding perception—which could never have been produced by either of them going to any- thing else—then, while sight from the eye and white- € 57
PLATO
E pov, 7s de AcvKornTos T™pos Tod OUVATOTIKTOVTOS TO xpGpa, re) bev opbady.os apa oipews epttAews eyeveTo Kal ops. 57 TOTE KaL €yeveTo OU TL oyfus add’ ofbaduos op@v, To dé Suyyevvoav TO Xp@pea AevKoTnTOS mepreTrAnGOy Kal € EyeveTo ov AcvKorns av aAAa AevKov, eae EvAov etre Aios cite OTovoby 1 EuveBy xpapa? ypwobivar TH TovovTw Xpaparte. Kat TaAAa 67) ovTw, okAnpov Kat beppov Kal TaVTO, Tov avTov Tpotrov brodnrréov, avTO Lev Kal? avTo
157 pe dev civat, 0 O17) Kal tote €Aéyomev, ev dé TH Tm™pos ina Sudo mavTO. yeyveoBae Kal mavTota azo Tijs KU}TEWS, emet Kal TO moody elvat TL Kal TO TaoxXOV avTaY él Evds vonoat, ws hac, ovK elvat Tayiws. ovTe yap ToLloty é€oTi TL, Tply av TO TacxovT. auvveA0yn, ovTEe TAaaxov, mpW av TO movoovTe’ TO Té TWe ovveADov Kai movobvy addAAw av mpoorrecov TATXOV avepavn. ware ef dmdvrwy ToUTwV, orep e€ apyis edeyouer, ovoev civ EV aUTO Kal’ avdto, adAd tur Ge: ytyveoBar, TOO elvan
B eee eey e€aipeTéov, ody OTL YWEts TOAAA Kal apTe nvayKdopneda bo ovvnfelas Kal aveTLoTn{LO- avvns xpnola att. To 8 ov Set, ws O THY acdav Adyos, ovTe TL cuyywpely oUTE ToU ovT ELL00 OUTE TOE OUT eKeEivo OUTE GAAO OvdEeV GvOLA 6 Tt av toTH, GAAG Kata piow PbéyyecIar yryvopeva Kal Trovovpeva Kal azoAAvpeva Kat aAdAovovpeva: Ws edv TL Tis oTHON TO Adyw, edéAeyKTOS 6 TObTO
1 6rovoby Schanz; érov ofy BT; 6rwodv Campbell; oricir
vulg., Burnet. 2 xpaua BT ; xphua Heindorf, Burnet ; cxfua Schanz.
58
THEAETETUS
ness from that which helps to produce the colour are moving from one to the other, the eye becomes full of sight and so begins at that moment to see, and becomes, certainly not sight, but a seeing eye, and the object which joined in begetting the colour is filled with whiteness and becomes in its turn, not whiteness, but white, whether it be a stick or a stone, or whatever it be the hue of which is so coloured. And all the rest—hard and hot and so forth—must be regarded in the same way: we must assume, we said before, that nothing exists in itself, but all things of all sorts arise out of motion by intercourse with each other; for it is, as they say, impossible to form a firm conception of the active or the passive element as being anything separately ; for there is no active element until there is a union with the passive element, nor is there a_ passive element until there is a union with the active; and that which unites with one thing is active and appears again as passive when it comes in contact with something else. And so it results from all this, as we said in the beginning, that nothing exists as invariably one, itself by itself, but everything is always becoming in relation to something, and “being” should be altogether abolished, though we have often—and even just now—been compelled by custom and ignorance to use the word. But we ought not, the wise men say, to permit the use of “something ’”’ or “ somebody’s”’ or “ mine” or “ this” or “that” or any other word that implies making things stand still, but in accordance with nature we should speak of things as “becoming” and “ being made” and “being destroyed” and “changing” ; for anyone who by his mode of speech makes things
59
PLATO
~ A ‘\ A A 4 4 , q moiav. Set d€ Kal Kata pépos otTw Aéyew Kal \ A ¢ , e \ G , mept moAAd@v alpoicbévTwv, @ 67 aOpoiopatt ” , , \ , . ee ay C avOpwrdv te TifevTar Kat AiBov Kal EKAOTOV C@dv TE KQL clos. Taira Om}, @ Ocairyre, ap 70€a doket cou elvat, Kal yevoro av atTa@v ws apec-
KOVTWV ; >) Ss A s if \ A @EAI. Ovdx oida eywye, ® UdKpates: Kal yap A wn ~ ~ ovde TEpL God OUVapat KaTavojaaL, TOTEpa SoKobVTA cou A€yers ad7a 7 euod azromreipa. > , > , “eo aeLAN \ ” 9 =a. O8 prvnpovedets, @ dire, ore eyw péev ovT olda ovTE ToLoduar THY ToLoUTwWY OvdEeV Euov, GAN’ > \ ~ EljLL AUTHV ayovos, oe dé prareVopat Kal TOUTOU EvEeKa > ~ ~ eTmdow Te Kal TapaTiOnus ExdoTwV THY Gop@v atro- 77 7 a“ > nw A A / D yevoac0a, Ews av eis dds TO cov Soypa Evv- > / A vant) ” 4 w..9 Eaydyw e€ay0evros b€ TOT dn oKéopar EiT aveutatoy elite yovy.ov avadavycerat. anvAa \ a > Oapp&v Kat Kaptep@v ed Kal avdpeiws amoKpivov a av paivnrat GOL Tepe @V av EpwTa. @EAI. “Epwra 67. 5 13. 30. Aéye towvv madw, et oor apéoKet A , Ss 5 A / = eo} > \ \\ TO py Te evar aAAa yiyvecBar aet ayalov Kal Kkadrcv! Kat mavTa a apte dupev. > >] ” >) AY ~ 5 / iv4 @kal. “AAA’ euouye, émevd7) cot aKkovw ovTw / ducEdvtos, Javpaciws daiverar ws exyew Adyov Kat broAnmréov Fmep dueAjAvOas. E xo. My tolvwv amoXimwyev scoov éAdetrov ~ / avtov. Aeimetar S€ evuTViwy TE TépL Kal Voowr, T@v Te addAwy Kal pavias, doa TE TapaKoveL Bi A ” ” / / ) mapopav 4 Te aAAo mapatobdvecbar Héyeras.
1 @yaéov kal kadov Mss.; secl. Ast.
60
THEAETETUS
stand still is easily refuted. And we must use such expressions in relation both to particular objects and collective designations, among which are “ mankind ”’ and “‘stone’’ and the names of every animal and class. Do these doctrines seem pleasant to you, Theaetetus, and do you find their taste agreeable ?
THEAET. I don’t know, Socrates; besides, I can’t tell about you, either, whether you are preaching them because you believe them or to test me.
soc. You forget, my friend, that I myself know nothing about such things, and claim none of them as mine, but am incapable of bearing them and am merely acting as a midwife to you, and for that reason am uttering incantations and giving you a taste of each of the philosophical theories, until I may help to bring your own opinion to light. And when it is brought to light, I will examine it and see whether it is a mere wind-egg or a real offspring. So be brave and patient, and in good and manly fashion tell what you think in reply to my questions.
THEAET. Very well; ask them.
soc. Then say once more whether the doctrine pleases you that nothing is, but is always becoming —good or beautiful or any of the other qualities we were just enumerating.
THEAET. Why, when I hear you telling about it as you did, it seems to me that it is wonderfully reasonable and ought to be accepted as you have presented it.
soc. Let us, then, not neglect a point in which it is defective. The defect is found in connexion with dreams and diseases, including insanity, and everything else that is said to cause illusions of sight and hearing and the other senses. For of course
61
PLATO
olofa yap mov ore ev maoe TOUTOLS oporoyoupevens eréyxeobar doKkel ov apte Oufjwev Adyov, ws TavTos 158 padov 7 netv pevdets ala0yceus €v avro ts yeyvopevas, Kat moAXob det! Ta pawopeva. ExdoT@ TabTa Kal elvar, GAAd wav Todvayriov odSev dv daiverat elvar. > / / > 7 okAl. “AArvOéotata Aéyers, @ LwKpares. / \ oO > A ve if ~ \ =0.. Lis xy obv, @ mai, Acimrerau Aoyos T@ TH aicnow ETLOTHLLTY TUcpeveyy Kal Ta pawvopeva ExdoTw Tadra Kal elvar TOUT@ @ paiverar; oral. "Eyd per, & Ud«pates, dKvO eimetv Sr ) ” / / / ~ Nh , ’ , ovK exw Ti Aéyw, didTt roe viv bn errémrAn€as EtmrovTe Batro. ere ws adnOds ye ovK av duvainy audio- Bnrijcar ws ot pravdpevor 7 Of OvetpwTTovTes od ~ 4 4 e \ \ e ~ ww pevdn So€alovow, dtav of pev Deol adrav olwvrat eivat, of O€ TTHVOL TE KAL WS TETOMEVOL EV TO UTVW dvavo@vra. =2. “Ap” obv ovd€ TO ToLdVdE dpuproBnrnpa. év- voeis Tept adtav, udAvoTa dé mept TOD Ovap TE Kai Urap; @EAI. To zrotov; a sa. “O modAdKts ce ofat aknKo€vat epwrwvrTw, Ti av Tis ExoL TEKpLNpLoV amrodet~aL, EL TLS EpoLTO ~ af ~ vov ovTws ev T@ TapovTt, TOTEpov KaleVSomev Kai mavTa a diavoovpela overpwrropev, 7 eypnydopapev A iv 4 3 / / Cte Kat vmap adAjAots diadreyopeba. \ De > / A , if @EAI. Kat piv, & La«pares, amopov ye oTw \ : A xpn 2 emdei eat TeKpnply Tara yap G@omep avriotpopa Ta avTa mapaKxodovbel. a Te yap vuvi dietrAeypcba, ovdev Kwdver Kal ev TH Urvw Sdoxeiv
1 de¢ mss.; detv Heindorf, followed by Schanz and Wohlrab. 2 xpn TW; xpbrvw xp B; ypewv Hultsch.
62
THEAETETUS
you know that in all these the doctrine we were just presenting seems admittedly to be refuted, because in them we certainly have false perceptions, and it is by no means true that everything is to each man which appears to him; on the contrary, nothing is which appears.
THEAET. What you say is very true, Socrates.
soc. What argument is left, then, my boy, for the man who says that perception is knowledge and that in each case the things which appear are to the one to whom they appear?
THEAET. I hesitate to say, Socrates, that I have no reply to make, because you scolded me just now when I said that. But really | cannot dis- pute that those who are insane or dreaming have false opinions, when some of them think they are gods and others fancy in their sleep that they have wings and are flying.
soc. Don’t you remember, either, the similar dis- pute about these errors, especially about sleeping and waking?
THEAET. What dispute ?
soc. One which I fancy you have often heard. The question is asked, what proof you could give if anyone should ask us now, at the present moment, whether we are asleep and our thoughts are a dream, or whether we are awake and talking with each other in a waking condition. 7
THEAET. Really, Socrates, I don’t see what proof can be given; for there is an exact correspondence in all particulars, as between the strophe and anti- strophe of a choral song. Take, for instance, the conversation we have just had: there is nothing to prevent us from imagining in our sleep also that we
63
PLATO
aAAnAots Siadéyecbar: Kal dtuv 81) dvap dveipata doxGpev dunyetobar, drotos 1 oOpoidtns TovTwWY EKElVvols.
sa. ‘Opds obv 6tt 76 ye audicByrHoat od yare- TOV, OTE Kal TOTEPOV eoTLWW Uap 7 dvap apdioPy-
D retrat, Kat 51) taov dvtos Tob ypdvou dv Kabevdopev
@ eypnyvopapev, ev exatépw diapdyetar WUdV 1) yuxn Ta ael TapovTa SdypaTa TravTOs maAAov etvar dAnOA, wate icov pev xpovov Tade hapev ovTa eivar, toov dé exelva, Kal opoiws éf éxaTépots ducxupilopcba.
@EAI. Ilavrdzrace pev odv.
sa. Odxoty Kal mept voowy Te Kal pavidy 6 avtos Adyos, 7Ajv TOD xpdvou Ott ovyt isos;
@FAI. “Opbds.
sa. Ti odv; mAnber ypdvov Kal dAvyotnTe TO aAnbés oprobjcerar;
IE cat. TedAotov pévr’ av etn moAdayn.
sa. “AdAAd te GAXo Exers cadés evdeiEaobar, omota ToUTwy THY So€acpatwv adnO7;
@EAI. OU pot Soke.
14. 30. “Euod roivuy adkove ofa mepi adrav av Aéyouev of Ta det SoKobvTa Opilopevor TO SoKobyTe elvat adAyOn. Aéyovor dé, Ws eyw olpat, ovTwS epwr@vtes: ““@& Mecaitnte, 6 av ETepov 7 TavTa- Tacw, pH 77 Twa Svvapw THY adtiv Ee€er TO ETepw; Kal py v7roAdBwpev TH pev Tadbrov elvac © epwrdmev, TH O€ ETEpov, aAN’ GAws ETEpov.”
@EAl. “Advvatav roivuy tavTov Te exew 7) ev
64.
THEAETETUS
are carrying on this conversation with each other, and when in a dream we imagine that we are relating _dreams, the likeness between the one talk and the other is remarkable.
soc. So you see it is not hard to dispute the point, since it is even open to dispute whether we are awake or in a dream. Now since the time during which we are asleep is equal to that during which we are awake,.in each state our spirit contends that the semblances that appear to it at any time are cer- tainly true, so that for half the time we say that this is true, and for half the time the other, and we maintain each with equal confidence.
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. And may not, then, the same be said about insanity and the other diseases, except that the time is not equal ?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. Well, then, shall truth be determined by the length or shortness of time ?
THEAET. That would be absurd in many ways.
soc. But can you show clearly in any other way which of the two sets of opinions is true ?
THEAET. I do not think I can.
soc. Listen, then, while I tell you what would be said about them by those who maintain that what appears at any time is true for him to whom it appears. They begin, I imagine, by asking this question: “'Theaetetus, can that which is wholly other have in any way the same quality as its alter- native? And we must not assume that the thing in question is partially the same and partially other, but wholly other.”
THEAET. It is impossible for it to be the same in
2 65
PLATO
, n r) ” e a o > QA 159 Suvdper 7 ev aAAw oTwotv, dTavy 4H Kopudy ETEPOV. “> 2 x b) A 5, / 3 A A sa. *Ap’ odv od Kal avdpowov avayKaiov To TowovTov opodoyetv; @EAI. “Epouye doxe?. > + / ¢e f} , sa. Ei apa zt oupBaiver Opowov Tw yiyveoBae 7 avopo.ov, elite eavT@ cite addw, OpLovovpLevov prev tadtov Pycopev yiyvecbar, avoporotpevov Sé ETEPOV; oFAl. “AvayKn. ~ A xa. Odxodv mpocbev édéyopev ws moAAa pev A ~ A 4 €ln TA TOLODVTGA Kal aTreLpa, WaaTws SE ye TA TA- oxXovTa; / egal. Nav. 20. Kat pny ore ye aAAo aAAw CUpLpLyVUpLEvov Kal dAAw ov Tavra ard’ Erepa yevvnoet; Borat. Idvu prev ovr. io vo xo. Adywpyev 8) eué te Kal oé Kat Tada 75y A A \ KaTa Tov avTov Adyov, LwKpaTn vytaivovTa Kat 5- ~ a >? LwKpatn av aolevodvta. mdTEepov opovoy TodT exelvw 7) avopotov dnoopev ;
x \ > A , ¢ eFAl. “Apa tov dobevotbvra Lwxpatn, odAov ~ ~ /
totTo Adyeis OAw exelvw, TO VytaivovTe UwKpare; xa. KdAdtora trédaBes: adrto Tobdro éyw. @EAI. “Avojotov dyzrov.
A Ue. a” 4 a > ld =a. Kat €tepov apa ovTws womrep avop.o.ov; @FAI. “Avayrn ~ A xo. Kai xafevdovra 67) Kal TavTa a voV 57) ] / e 4 C dujADopev, Woattws dyoets ;
1 yov 6 Heindorf; viv BT.
66
THEAETETUS
anything, either in quality or in any other respect whatsoever, when it is wholly other.
soc. Must we not, then, necessarily agree that such a thing is also unlike?
THEAET. It seems so to me.
soc. Then if anything happens to become like or unlike anything—either itself or anything else— we shall say that when it becomes like it becomes the same, and when it becomes unlike it becomes other?
THEAET. We must.
soc. Well, we said before, did we not, that the active elements were many—infinite in fact—and likewise the passive elements ?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And furthermore, that any given element, by uniting at different times with different partners, will beget, not the same, but other results?
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. Well, then, let us take me, or you, or any- thing else at hand, and apply the same principle— say Socrates in health and Socrates in illness. Shall we say the one is like the other, or unlike?
THEAET. When you say “Socrates in illness’’ do you mean to compare that Socrates as a whole with Socrates in health as a whole?
soc. You understand perfectly ; that is just what [ mean.
THEAET. Unlike, I imagine.
soc. And therefore other, inasmuch as unlike?
THEAET. Necessarily.
soc. And you would say the same of Socrates asleep or in any of the other states we enumerated just now?
67
PLATO
wv @EAl. “Eywye. 30. “Exaorov 67) Tv meduKoTwy TL Tovety dAXo 4 \ / ¢€ / 2 ¢ ¢e / TL, oTav prev AdBy dyratvovTa LVwKpaTyn, Ws ETEpw jroe xprnoeTat, OTav O€ acblevobvTa, ws ETEPw; @EAI. Tv 8’ od pédAder; sa. Kai €repa 67) éf’ Exarépov yevvijcopev eyo TE O TAGXWVY Kal EKELVO TO TrOLODV; @EAI. Te pv; sa. “Orav 87) olvov tivw tytaivwv, HdVs jLot daiverar Kal yAvKus; egal. Nai. > \ ~ x0. “Kyévvyce yap 67 €k TOV TpowpodAoynneve TO TE TOLODVY Kal TO TAaXOV yAUKUTHTA TE Kal ai- A / > / V8 \ ” abnow, apa pepopeva auddtepa, Kal 1) Lev atabyats mpos TOO TAaxXOVTOS Ovo alcfavoperny THY yAOTTAV ameupyacato, y dé yAuvKUTYS Tpos TOD olvoU TeEpL avtov depopevn yAvKdy Tov olvoy TH Byrawovoy yAwtTn emoincev Kal etvar Kat daiveobar. @kAI. Ilavu pév ody Ta mpdTepa uiv ovTWS wpodoynTo. sa. “Orav b€ acbevotvra, aAAo Te mp@Tov ev nw =) / b) \ ) \ ” b) / \ \ Th adAnleia od Tov adrov EhaBev; avopsoiw yap o7 mpoondlev. oral. Nal. ¢ \ ets , ¢ = sa. “Evepa 517 at éeyevvnoatyy oO TE ToLovTos XweKparns Kal 7) TOO olvov moats, TEpt ev THY lol \ tL) yA@trav atobnow muKpoTnTos, epi de Tov olvov
68
THEAETETUS
THEAET. Yes.
soc. Then each of those sleninite which by the law of their nature act upon something else, will, when it gets hold of Socrates in health, find me one object to act upon, and when it gets hold of me in illness, ‘another ?
THEAET. How can it help it?
soc. And so, in the two cases, that active element and I, who am the passive element, shall each pro- duce a different object ?
THEAET. Of course.
soc. So, then, when I am in health and drink wine, it seems pleasant and sweet to me?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. The reason is, in fact, that according to the principles we accepted a while ago, the active and passive elements produce sweetness and perception, both of which are simultaneously moving from one place to another, and the perception, which comes from the passive element, makes the tongue per- ceptive, and the sweetness, which comes from the wine and pervades it, passes over and makes the wine both to be and to seem sweet to the tongue that is in health.
THEAET. Certainly, such are the principles we accepted a while ago.
soc. But when it gets hold of me in illness, in the first place, it really doesn’t get hold of the same man, does it? For he to whom it comes is certainly unlike.
THEAET. True.
soc. Therefore the union of the Socrates who is ill and the draught of wine produces other results: in the tongue the sensation or perception of bitter-
69
160
PLATO
A a yryvonernvy Kal depoevynv miKpoTHTA, Kal TOV [eV > , > \ , SN \ > ” ov muKpoTnTa aAAa muKpov, Eee 5é€ OVK ataPnow > > >’ 4 aAd’ aicbavopevor ; @EAI. Kopud7 pev ovr. ” > LA ] A A A , xa. OvKouv ey te oddev addo more yeryjoojmat ¢ ’ / ~ \ + + ” oUtws alafavopevos: Tot yap aAXov adAn atcByots, \ > A A A aA A ? / kat daAdoiov Kat aXdXov trovet Tov aicbavopevov: ” 3 > A \ ~ > \ / > + A ovr é€keivo TO ToLoby ee punmoTt GAAw ovvedOov TaUTOV Yyevvynoay TowovToy yevnTaL’ amo yap dAAov adXo yevvjcay addotov yevyicerat. @EAI. "Kort Tatra. Ovde \ ” bd] ~ A bd Cee 2 sa. Ovde pv eywye euavT® tovodtos, éxeivo ~ A / TE €QUT@ TOLODTOY yevTjoETAL. \ Je @EAI. OU yap ovr. > , / > , A / ° sa. “Avayknn dé ye eve Te Tiwvds ylyvecBat, drav aiobavopevos ylyvwpat: aicbavopevoy ydp, wnde- vos d€ aloPavopmevov advvatov yiyvecba: éxeivo Té TUL ylyveobat, OTav yAvKY 7 TLKPOV 4 TL TOLOD- , \ if \ \ \ > / Tov yiyvnta.: yAvKd yap, pndevi dé yAvKd advva- tov yeveobar. / \ > @EAI. Ilavrazaci pev ovv. / e A 3 xa. Aecimerar 5%, oluar, nuiv addAjdAos, eir’ €opev, eivar, cite yryvouela, yiyvecbar, émeimep HOV W avayKn THY ovoiay ovvdet pév, GuVde7 dé 3 \ ~ a 2Q9 Peay a ) aA > , ovdevt TOV GAAwv, 08d ad Nutv adtois. adAArjAois \ , , e ” mee ke. 67) Acimetar ovvdedécbar- wore cite Tis elval Tu 9 Nps x 1 oN , € a ovoualer, TWt elvar 7 TWOS 7 TPOS TL PyTEoV adT@,
70
THEAETETUS
ness, and in the wine—a bitterness which is engen- dered there and passes over into the other; the wine is made, not bitterness, but bitter, and I am made, not perception, but perceptive.
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. ‘Then I shall never have this perception of any other thing; for a perception of another thing is another perception, and makes the percipient different and other: nor can that which acts on me ever by union with another produce the same result or become the same in kind; for by producing another result from another passive element it will become different in kind.
THEAET. That is true.
soc. And neither shall I, furthermore, ever again become the same as I am, nor will that ever become the same as it is.
THEAET. No.
soc. And yet, when I become percipient, I must necessarily become percipient of something, for it is impossible to become percipient and _ perceive nothing ; and that which is perceived must become so to someone, when it becomes sweet or bitter or the like; for to become sweet, but sweet to no one, is impossible.
THEAET. Perfectly true.
soc. The result, then, I think, is that we (the active and the passive elements) are or become, whichever is the case, in relation to one another, since we are bound to one another by the inevitable law of our being, but to nothing else, not even to ourselves. The result, then, is that we are bound to one another; and so if a man says anything “is,” he must say it is to or of or in relation to something,
71
PLATO
ww f > \ \ bay ee) ¢e ~ a nN ” eire yiyveoBar: adro de ef attod tm 7 dv 7; / av > la / Hd if /
C yryvopevov ote atT7® Aexréov ovr’ ddAov AEyovTos > / e ¢ A / a PS) r AVA 7 amodekTéov, ws 6 Adyos ov direAnAVOapev onpaiver.
eFAI. [lavrdzact pev ov, © UaKpares. ) ~ 4 \ \ > \ ~ bd] / > 30. Odxoty ote 67) TO ewe mowoby enol éeorw \ ) a” >? \ \ >] / b) ~ y+ Kal ovK aAAw, eyw Kat atobavosat attob, aAdos 6° ov; ~ \ ” ozal. [lds yap ov; =2. “Adn fis dpa ELol 7) cy atobnars: Tis yap euns ovalas ael e€oTw: Kal ey KpuTns KaTa TOV I[pwraydpav Tay Te OvTWY Emol, Ws EoTL, Kal TOY 7) OvTWY, Ws OVK EOTLY. @EAI. “Kouxev. ~ oe \ .) D 15. 30. Ils av odv arevdjs wv Kal pi) lon N » ) mTaiwy TH Svavoia mepl TA OVTA 7H ylyvoueva OvK ) ” eS ETLOTHLWY AV Elnv WvTEp alobyTiHs ; @EAI. Ovdapds o7ws ov. sa. IlayxdAws dpa cou eipntar dre émorHy otk aAXo Ti eat 7 alabnots, Kal els TadTOV CUp- 7 \ méntTwKev, KaTA bev “Opunpov Kat “HpakdAertov Kat mav TO TolotTov PiAov olov pevpata KwetcBar Ta \ \ mavra, Kata de IIpwraydpay tov codatatov TavTwY xpyudTtwv avOpwrov pétpov e€ivat, Kara 7 Ed5é€ Oeairntov tovtwy ovtws exydvtwyv alobnow / ss / Ss / A emoTHunv ylyvecba. 4H yap, ® Mcaityte; d&pev ToUTo cov pev elvat olov veoyevés mradiov, éeuov / av ~ d€ paievpa; 7 mas A€yes; 4 SPs, Ls / @EAI. Ovtws avaykyn, © UwdxKpates. ae lot \ } / ¢€ ” SA A bd] 30. Totro pev 57, ws €ouxev, odus mote eyev-
72
THEAETETUS
and similarly if he says it “becomes”’; but he must not say it is or becomes absolutely, nor can he accept such a statement from anyone else. That is the meaning of the doctrine we have been describing.
THEAET. Yes, quite so, Socrates.
soc. Then, since that which acts on me is to me and to me only, it is also the case that I perceive it, and I only?
THEAET. Of course.
soc. Then to me my perception is true; for in each case it is always part of my being; and I am, as Protagoras says, the judge of the existence of the things that are to me and of the non-existence of those that are not to me.
THEAET. So it seems.
soc. How, then, if I am an infallible judge and my mind never stumbles in regard to the things that are or that become, can I fail to know that which I perceive ?
THEAET. You cannot possibly fail.
soc. Therefore you were quite right in saying that knowledge is nothing else than perception, and there is complete identity between the doctrine of Homer and Heracleitus and all their followers— that all things are in motion, like streams—the doctrine of the great philosopher Protagoras that man is the measure of all things—and the doctrine of Theaetetus that, since these things are true, perception is knowledge. Eh, Theaetetus? Shall we say that this is, so to speak, your new-born child and the result of my midwifery ? Or what shall we say?
THEAET. We must say that, Socrates.
soc. Well, we have at last managed to bring this
73
161
PLATO
le J , v4 wv A A A vycauev, O Te OH TOTE TUYYavEL OV. pLeTAa OE TOP / AY > - > ~ e > wn 9 4 TOKOV Ta apd.idpdpuia adtod ws adnOds év KvKrAw mepipextéov TH Adyw, oKoTrovpevovs pH AdOn e w~ ’ y+ nv ~ A 4 > A nuas ovK a€tov dv tpodis TO yryvomevov, adda > A ~ 9 ey A avewwatov Te Kal Webdos. 7) od oler mavTwWs Seiv , A Ue A \ 3 4 a“ A 5 4 TO ye oov Tpépew Kal py) amroTidvar, H Kal aveter eAcyyopevov op@v, Kal ov apddpa yadreraveis, €av Tis Gov ws TpwToToKov avTo tparph : @£EO. “Avefetar, & Lw@Kpates, Meairntos: ovda- ~ A , > A A A > , > > pas yap dvoKxodos. adda mpds Oedv eizé, H ad iv 4 OVX OUTWS EXEL; > ~ > xa. Dircdroyos y’ ef atexyvas Kai ypnords, @ , ¢ ” , taney: , \ Ocddwpe, OTe we oler Adywv Twa civar OUAakov Kal ¢ , > , Sonn € > = ¢ A padiws e€eAdvta epeiv ws odk ab exer oUTW TabTa:
\ \ / > >? A if > \ ~ Bro d6€ yuyvopevov otdK évvoeis, OTL ovdEels THY
C
/ ? / > > ae, > SPN \ (We i 2 \ Aoywr €E€pyetat tap’ euot add’ del mapa Tob ewoi / >? A \ >] \ > / /, mpoodiadeyomevov, eyw de ovdev emiotauar A€ov \ / Ld / > e 4 ~ mAnv Bpaxéos, daov Adyov map’ érépov caodod A > ~ A AaBeiv Kat amodéEacbar petpiws. Kat viv todro Tapa TOUOE TELpaoopaL, OU TL AUTOS El7TELY. > A @EO. Ld KddAdov, © LwKpates, A€yets: Kal MOlEL OUTWS. > oP x 16. 30. Otic ofr, & Oeddwpe, 6 Oavydalw tov é€raipov cov IIpwraydpov; e£O. To zotov; 1 The rite called amphidromia took place a few days
after the birth of a child. After some ceremonies of purifica- tion the nurse, in the presence of the family, carried the
74
THEAETETUS
forth, whatever it turns out to be; and now that it is born, we must in very truth perform the rite of running round with it in a circle !—the circle of our argument—and see whether it may not turn out to be after all not worth rearing, but only a wind-egg, an imposture. But, perhaps, you think that any offspring of yours ought to be cared for and not put away; or will you bear to see it examined and not get angry if it is taken away from you, though it is your first-born ?
THEO. Theaetetus will bear it, Socrates, for he is not at all ill-tempered. But for heaven’s sake, Socrates, tell me, is all this wrong after all ?
soc. You are truly fond of argument, Theodorus, and a very good fellow to think that I am a sort of bag full of arguments and can easily pull one out and say that after all the other one was wrong ; but you do not understand what is going on: none of the arguments comes from me, but always from him who is talking with me. I myself know nothing, except just a little, enough to extract an argument from another man who is wise and to receive it fairly. And now I will try to extract this thought from Theaetetus, but not to say anything myself.
THEO. That is the better way, Socrates; do as you say.
soc. Do you know, then, Theodorus, what amazes me in your friend Protagoras ?
THEO. What is it ? infant rapidly about the family hearth, thereby introducing him, as it were, to the family and the family deities. At this time the father decided whether to bring up the child or to expose it. Sometimes, perhaps, the child was named on
this occasion. In the evening relatives assembled for a feast at which shell-fish were eaten.
75
PLATO
so?) Ta pev ava j10U mave 78€ws cipyKev, ws TO doKobY ExdoTW TODTO Kal eorw" Thy 8 apxnv Tou Adyou reBavpara, OTL ovK eliev apxopevos Tis ah betas OTe mavToV Xpnpedtov }eTpov EOTLV bs ro Kuvoreparos 7 tt aAdo aromusT€pov Tov exovTwv alofyow, wa peyaAompeT@s Kal mavu KaTappovnTiK@s mpEaro 1 ype A€yewv, eVOELKVUILEVOS OTL Tpets py avrov WOTTEp Oeov _ avpdlopev emt codia, 6 5’ dpa eTuyxavev QV ets Ppovnow ovdev D BeAtiov Barpaxou yupivou, Ha] ott adAdov Tov av Operon. TOS Aéyeper," ® Ocddwpe; ei yap 67) Exdotw adnbeés EoTat 6 av du’ aicbijcews SoEaly, Kal pyte TO GAAov Tafos aAAos PéATLov diaxpwe?,? pre THY ddgav KUPLUITEPOS EOTAL emoxepacbau ETEpOS THY €TEpov, ohn) 7 y) pevdrs, add’ 6 7roAAdKts elpyra, avros TA avTOU EKaoTOS [0v0s dogacet, tabta dé mavrTa op0a Kai adnO7, ti 54 Tote, @ etatpe, IIpwraydpas péev codds, wate Kat drdAwv E diddaxahos a€votoba. ducaiws pera peydhov | put olay, jpets de dprabeorepot TE Kal pournréov mp Wy Trop: eEKELVOV, eT PD ovre avT@® €eKdoTW THS avTou oogias ; TatTa 7Hs pe) dae Snpovprevov A€yew TOV ITpwraydpay ; TO O€ 07) €[L0v TE KQL THs ens Téxvns THs povevTuKijs aya, Ogov ydrura odAtoKavopev* oipar be Kal fvpuTraca. y) Tov diaréyecbar mpaypateia. TO yap emioKo7ety Kal emtyeipetv? edéyyew tas addAjAwy davracias te Kat dd€as, opJas ExdoTov ovoas, od pakpa 1 Néywuev BT; Aéyouey vulg.
2 Scaxpwe? most editors ; diaxpivy B (emendation) T. 3 émixeperv TW ; om. B.
76
THEAETETUS
soc. In general I like his doctrine that what appears to each one is to him, but I am amazed by the beginning of his book. I don’t see why he does not say in the beginning of his Truth! that a pig or a dog-faced baboon or some still stranger creature of those that have sensations is the measure of all things. Then he might have begun to speak to us very imposingly and condescendingly, showing that while we were honouring him like a god for his wisdom, he was after all no better in intellect than any other man, or, for that matter, than a tadpole. What alternative is there, Theodorus? For if that opinion is true to each person which he acquires through sensation, and no one man can _ discern another’s condition better than he himself, and one man has no better right to investigate whether another’s opinion is true or false than he himself, but, as we have said several times, each man is to form his own opinions by himself, and these opinions are always right and true, why in the world, my friend, was Protagoras wise, so that he could rightly be thought worthy to be the teacher of other men and to be well paid, and why were we ignorant creatures and obliged to go to school to him, if each person is the measure of his own wisdom? Must we not believe that Protageras was “playing to the gallery” in saying this? I say nothing of the ridicule that I and my science of midwifery deserve in that case,—and, I should say, the whole practice of dialectics, too. For would not the investigation of one another’s fancies and opinions, and the attempt to refute them, when each man’s must be
1 Truth was apparently the title, or part of the title, of Protagoras’s book. reg
PLATO
162 pev Kal dwwvytos prvapia, el adn Ons uy aAnbeva IIpwraydpov, adda py} mrailovoa ek tod ddvTov ths BiBrov efbéyEato;
@£E0. °"Q Lwxepates, pidos avnp, Womep od viv 67) «€lzes. ovK av obv deEaiunv bu eH08 oporo- yobvtos edéyxeobat Hpwrayopay, ov’ ad col Tapa
dogav avruretvew. Tov ovv Weaitntov madw AaBe- mavTws Kat vov 57 pad’ eupeAds aor éedpaiveto UraKkovew.
sa. “Apa kav eis Aaxedaipova eAddv, d Oco-
Bdwpe, mpos tas madaiotpas avis dv ddAdous fewpevos yupvovs, evious davdAous, adtos p17) avT- ETLOELKVUVaL TO €lO0S TTApaTOdUCpEVOS;
@£EO. “AAXa ti pry Soxets, eizep péAdorev prot emiTpepew Kal Tretocolar; womep viv olua buds Teioew ewe ev edv Yedobar Kal fr) €AKewW Tpos TO yupvaciov okAnpov 76n dvTa, TH S€ 517) vewrépw TE Kal VypoTépw ovTL TpoomadAatew.
bt pees “AWW El ovTws, @ Weddwpe, aol
C didov, 085’ pol ex9pov, gpacw ot i mapoysalopevor. maAw 1 ody emt Tov copov Oeairyrov ¢ iréov. Aéye o7), ® Weairnrte, APO ov, prev a viv 67 dujAPoper, dpa ov ovvOavpalets 1 €t i eaidviys ovUTWwS avapayncet
pundev Xetpov els oo tav oTovoby avOputranv 7 y) Kal Decay; n arrov Te otet TO IIpwraydpevov pétpov ets Deovs 7) els avOpusrous AéyeoBau;
OEAI, Mea Ad’ ovK eywye: Kal O7TEp ye epwras, mavu Bavpale. nvika yap Oujmev ov _Tpomrov
D A€yorev 70 Soxoby exadoT@ Totro Kat elvar TH SoKobvrt, mave frou €v edaivero Aeyesbar: viv Se TovvavTiov TAXA MEeTATETTwWKEV.
1 guvOaupdges BT 3 od Oavpdters W. 78
THEAETETUS
right, be tedious and blatant folly, if the Truth of Protagoras is true and he was not jesting when he uttered his oracles from the shrine of his book ?
THEO. Socrates, the man was my friend, as you just remarked. So I should hate to bring about the refutation of Protagoras by agreeing with you, and I should hate also to oppose you contrary to my real convictions. So take Theaetetus again; especially as he seemed just now to follow your suggestions very carefully.
soc. If you went to Sparta, Theodorus, and visited the wrestling-schools, would you think it fair to look on at other people naked, some of whom were of poor physique, without stripping and showing your own form, too?
THEO. Why not, if I could persuade them to allow me to do so? So now I think I shall persuade you to let me be a spectator, and not to drag me into the ring, since I am old and stiff, but to take the younger and nimbler man as your antagonist.
soc. Well, Theodorus, if that pleases you, it does not displease me, as the saying is. So I must attack the wise Theaetetus again. Tell me, Theaetetus, referring to the doctrine we have just expounded, do you not share my amazement at being suddenly exalted to an equality with the wisest man, or even god? Or do you think Protagoras’s “ measure”’ applies any less to gods than to men?
THEAET. By no means; and I am amazed that you ask such a question at all; for when we were dis- cussing the meaning of the doctrine that whatever appears to each one really is to him, I thought it was good; but now it has suddenly changed to the opposite.
79
163
B
PLATO
\ > > A sa. Neos yap ef, @ dire zat: TiS ovv onpnyo- pias c&éws Urraxovers Kat 7reiBet. Tos yap TavTa Epet Ipwraydpas q Tus dAAos bmep avToo: w& yevvato. maidés TE Kal YEpovTes, Onunyopetre ovyKabelopevor, Qeovs Te els TO péoov ayovTes, ous eyo EK Te 708 Aeyew Kal Too ypadew Trepl \ avT@v, ws elolv 7) Ws ovK eElaiv, eEaip@, Kal a OL moAdol dv amodéxowTo akovovtes, AéyeTe Tatra, ws Sewov et pndev doicer els copiav EexacTos THY avOpminwv Booxypatos dtovoty: amddeEw de \ b) A *Q> ¢ ~ / > \ ~ > / Kal avayKnv ovd yvrTwodv AéyeTe, GAAa TH ELKOTL ~ a 2 a / / A oe ~ xpijobe, @ et eOéAot Meddwpos y) aAXos Tis TOV yew- 5) > peTpa@v XpapLevos yewpeTpety, agvos ovo «vos pLovov! av ein. oKo7retTe ovv av TE Kal Geddepos, et anmodeEeabe mibavodoyia te Kal elkdot mTepi TynAKovTwv ® Aeyopévous Adyous. > > 5) @cAI. “AXX’ od dikatov, ® LwKpates, ovTE ov ouTe av ruels pater. ¢ \ sa. "AAAn 51) oxemréov, Ws EoLKev, WS O TE OO; kat 0 Weodapov Aoyos. ecal. Ilavu pev ovv addy. an \ ~ : > + > a > , sa. THde 51) oxom@pev ef apa eotiv emioTHuy Te Kal alaOynats TavTov 7 ETEpov. Eis yap ToT mov 74s 6 Adyos mp éTewev, Kal TOUTOV Yap Ta moAAd Kal atToTra rabra exw] TOpLEV ov yap; OFAI. Tavtamact jeev OUV. O “A lanl : ers > so. 7H otv opodoynoopev, & TH pav atoba- vopeBa 7) T@ akovew, TAavTa rabra Ope Kal emloTa- cba ; olov Trav BapBapwv mpl pabety thy havi aig od djoopev axovew, dtav PleyywvrTat, 7
1 ydvov] Adam, Class. Rev. iv. p. 103, suggests vépou, Sa coin, a copper.” 2 ryixovTwv 'T; rovtwy B.
80
THEAETETUS
soc. You are young, my dear boy; so you are quickly moved and swayed by popular oratory. For in reply to what I have said, Protagoras, or someone speaking for him, will say, “ Excellent boys and old men, there you sit together declaiming to the people, and you bring in the gods, the question of whose existence or non-existence I exclude from oral and written discussion, and you say the sort of thing that the crowd would readily accept—that it is a terrible thing if every man is to be no better than any beast in point of wisdom; but you do not advance any cogent proof whatsoever; you base your statements on probability. If Theodorus, or any other geo- metrician, should base his geometry on probability, he would be of no account at all. So you and Theodorus had better consider whether you will accept arguments founded on plausibility and _pro- babilities in such important matters.
THEAET. That would not be right, Socrates ; neither you nor we would think so.
soc. Apparently, then, you and Theodorus mean we must look at the matter in a different way.
THEAFT. Yes, certainly in a different way.
soc. Well, then, let us look at it in this way, rais- ing the question whether knowledge is after all the same as perception, or different. For that is the object of all our discussion, and it was to answer that question that we stirred up all these strange doctrines, was it not?
THEAET. Most assuredly.
soc. Shall we then agree that all that we per- ceive by sight or hearing we know? For instance, shall we say that before having learned the language of foreigners we do not hear them when they speak,
8i
PLATO
> vA A b] , a“ 4 \ 3 aKovew re Kal eémiotacbar a Aéyovat; Kat ad ypdupata py emotdpevor, BA€rovtes eis atta ~ / » ~ mOTEpov ody Opav 7 emioTtacbat cimep Cp@pev bi- coxupiovpca ; ? , = / A ’ ~ eral. Adto ye, Ww LwxKpates, TobTo avtav, ~ > OTTEp OP@pLev TE KAL AKovVOopeEY, ETiaoTaGIaL djcoper: ~ ~ \ \ ~ a TOV [Lev yap TO OXHMA Kal TO yp@ua opav Te Kal ey ~ \ \ > 7, \ ,
C émiotacba, Tav de rHv o€’TyTa Kai BaprynTa aKovew Te Gua Kal eidévar: a O€ ol TE ypapatt- GTal TeEpt avT@v Kal ot épunvets SuddoKovow, ovUTE alcbavecbar TH opav 7 axovew ovTe émiotacbat.
” / > s / \ >
18. so. "“Apiora y’, ® Qcairnre, Kal ovK A / A ~ > on a \ b) / aé.ov cor Tpos TabTa audioPythoat, va Kat av&davy, > >, 7 \ \ / a” / \ / ~ GAN’ Gpa 61) Kat Tbe GAAO TpoatdY, Kal OKdTEL TH avTo diwwodpeba.
A A /
@EAI. To zotov 57;
so. To rowvde: et tis eporto, “‘ dpa duvaror, OTOU TLS EMLOTHMWY YyevoiTO OTE, ETL ExXOVTA
D pvipnv atrtob tovtov Kat owlduevov, ToTE OTE
peuvntar fur eTiotacbat avTo TobTO O péuvyTat ;”’ A / ¢€ ” / >? / 3 pakporoy® dé, ws €orxe, BovdAdpevos epéoba, ef pabdy tis Te wevnpevos py olde. @FAI. Kai mas, ® LwKpates; Tépas yap av ein 6 rAéyeus. sa. M1) ody éyw Anpd; ode dé. dpa To ec oa > > / bs \ \ yx w” opav ovK aicbdveobar A€yers Kat THY OyLv atcOynow; @EAIL. “Eywye. b) ~ eae z > 4 > / / 30. Odxodr o iduv Te emLaTH Uw ExElvou yéyover S % / E 6 cidev Kata Tov apte Adyov; 82
THEAETETUS
or that we both hear and know what they say? And again, if we do not know the letters, shall we maintain that we do not see them when we look at them or that if we really see them we know them ?
THEAET. We shall say, Socrates, that we know just so much of them as we hear or see: in the case of the letters, we both see and know the form and colour, and in the spoken language we both hear and at the same time know the higher and lower notes of the voice; but we do not perceive through sight or hearing, and we do not know, what the grammarians and interpreters teach about them.
soc. First-rate, Theaetetus! and it is a pity to dispute that, for I want you to grow. But look out for another trouble that is yonder coming towards us, and see how we can repel it.
THEAET. What is it?
soc. It is like this: If anyone should ask, “Is it possible, if a man has ever known a thing and still has and preserves a memory of that thing, that he does not, at the time when he remembers, know that very thing which he remembers?” I seem to be pretty long winded; but I merely want to ask if a man who has learned a thing does not know it when he remembers it.
THEAET. Of course he does, Socrates; for what you suggest would be monstrous.
soc. Am I crazy, then? Look here. Do you not say that seeing is perceiving and that sight is per- ception ?
THEAET. I do.
soc. Then, according to what we have just said, the man who has seen a thing has acquired know- ledge of that which he has seen?
83
PLATO
f esa. Nav. / , i¢ > / la sa. Ti dé; pvipny od A€yets wévrou te eFaAl. Nae. , b) \ aD) / sa. Ildrepov oddevos 7 TwWds; @EAI. Tuvos d7j7r0v. >? ~ re 7 \ e / sa. Odtxoty av quale Kat dv nobeto, ToL1ov- TW TWOV; / / @EAI. Te pv; “A \ SQ / , / pda sa. “O 87) cld€ Tis, weéuvynrat ov éviore; @EAI. Méuvyrac. > \ , n a , > / so. "H Kat pvoas; 7 TodTo dpacas émeAabeto; > \ / > / PR ich. egal. “AAAa dSewov, ® LwKpates, TobiTd ye pavar. A / > fie 164 x2. Aet ye pevTror, et cwoopmev Aoyov: ef d€ fx}, OlyeTaL. \ > / x \ / ¢ / > \ @EAL. Kai eyw, vy tov Ata, bromTevw, od} pny ikava@s ye ovvvoa GAN’ ete 77 =O: Tyee: O pev opay EMLOTH LO, paper, TOU- TOU yeyovey odmEep opadv: dys yap Kat atoPyats Kal emoTnhun TavToV wuoddynTat. oEAI. Lavy ye. 2a. ‘0 d€ Ye opav Kal ETLOT ILO yeyovers. ov ewpa, €av pvon, pmeuvyTat prev, OVX Opa Sé advro. hydps oral. Nav. B juza. To dé ye oux Opa ovK émloratai éo7W, Elmep Kal TO Opa émioTaTaL.
eral. *AXnO7.
/ 7 «& > / > / =a. LvpPaiver apa, ob Tus EeTLoTHUWY eyévEeToO,
\ 1 tov mpoobe
1 gwcomev Dissen; cwoomer BT.
84
THEAETETUS
TUEAET. Yes.
soc. Well, then, do you not admit that there is such a thing as memory
THEAET. Yes.
soc. Memory of nothing or of something?
THEAET. Of something, surely.
soc. Of things he has learned and perceived — that sort of things?
THEAET. Of course.
soc. A man sometimes remembers what he has seen, does he not ?
THEAET. He does.
soc. Even when he shuts his eyes, or does he forget if he does that ?
THEAET. It would be absurd to say that, Socrates.
soc. We must, though, if we are to maintain our previous argument; otherwise, it is all up with it.
THEAET. I too, by Zeus, have my suspicions, but I don’t fully understand you. Tell me how it is.
soc. This is how it is: he who sees has acquired knowledge, we say, of that which he has seen; for it is agreed that sight and perception and knowledge are all the same.
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. But he who has seen and has acquired know- ledge of what he saw, if he shuts his eyes, remembers it, but does not see it. Is that right?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. But “does not see” is the same as “ does not know,’ if it is true that seeing is knowing.
THEAET. True.
soc. Then this is our result. When a man has acquired knowledge of a thing and still remembers
85
PLATO
ert juepvnpLevov avrov Pa emiatao0at, emrEeLo7) OVX opa: oO Tépas ehapev av elvar el yiyvo.ro.
okAl. “AAnbéarata Aé€yets.
30. Tav aduvatov On Te oupBatvew paiverat, €dv TUS eTLOT TN Kat atobnow tavTov py etvat.
@EAI. ”Kouxev.
sa. "Ado dpa éxdrepov datéov.
@FAI. Kuvduvever.
@ so. De ctv, 077. av.vety emioTnun; mdAw e€ apyns, ws €ouev, Aextéov. Kaitou Tt ToTe péAdo- prev, @ Deaitnre, Spar;
@EAI. Tivos zépt;
32. Dawopefa pou adrextpvovos ayevvods ditKnv Tpw veviknkévat atomyndnoavtes amo Tov Adyou Qoew.
@FAI. Ids 57;
30. ’"Avrioyik@s e€olikapev mpos Tas TOV ovo- pedro opodoyias dvoporoynadpevor Kal TowovT@ Twi tepuyevopevot ToD Adyou ayamav, Kal ov dackovtes aywrviotal adda dirdccodor etvat Aav-
D @avopev tabTa éxelvois Tots Sewots avdpdow TOLOUVTES.
OFAI. Otrw pavOdvw omws Aéyets.
sa. *AAN’ éyw Tmetpacopar dyAGoar mepl avrav 6 ye 37) voe. 71p0peBa yap oy, € wabev Kat pep pevos Tis Te pay emiorarat, Kal TOV (SovTa Kal pvoavTa peuvnpévov op@vta de ov amrodetéartes, ovK €ld0TAa amredeiEayev Kal aya peuvnpevov: tTobro & etvar advvatov. Kal ovTw 87 pdbos amwaAeto 6 Ilpwraydpeios, Kal 6 Gos dua O THs emLoTHUNS Kal alicOjcews, OTL TAUTOV EOTW.
86
_ THEAETETUS
it, he does not know it, since he does not see it; but we said that would be a monstrous conclusion.
THEAET. Very true.
soc. So, evidently, we reach an impossible result if we say that knowledge and perception are the same.
THEAET. So it seems.
soc. Then we must say they are different.
THEAET. I suppose so.
soc. Then what can knowledge be? We must, apparently, begin our discussion all over again. And yet, Theaetetus, what are we on the point of doing ?
THEAET. About what ?
soc. It seems to me that we are behaving like a worthless game-cock ; before winning the victory we have leapt away from our argument and begun to crow.
THEAET. How so?
soc. We seem to be acting like professional debaters; we have based our agreements on the mere similarity of words and are satisfied to have got the better of the argument in such a way, and we do not see that we, who claim to be, not con- testants for a prize, but lovers of wisdom, are doing just what those ingenious persons do.
THEAET. I do not yet understand what you mean.
soc. Well, I will try to make my thought clear. We asked, you recollect, whether a man who has learned something and remembers it does not know it. We showed first that the one who has seen and then shuts his eyes remembers, although he does not see, and then we showed that he does not know, although at the same time he remembers; but this, we said, was impossible. And so the Protagorean tale was brought to naught, and yours also about the identity of knowledge and perception.
87
PLATO
E o£Al. Qaiverat. , > € \ 30a. Ov ve av, otuar, @ dire, eimep ye 6 TaTHpP A ¢€ b) Tob eTépov pv0ov éln, adAa modda! ay yore’ w~ aA A vov de dpdavov adrov nets mpomnAakilopev. Kat \ > yap od’ of émitpotrot, ots Hpwraydpas KaréAuev, a a mS > \ Bonbeiv e6éXovoew, dv Oeddwpos eis? dde. adda \ A > ~ 07 avTol Kwdvvevoouev TOO SiKaiov evex avT@ Bonbetv. > \ las e£0. Od yap éyd, & Uaxpates, adda padAov , A /
165 KadXias 6 ‘Inmovicou tadv éxelvou émitpotos: ¢ A , ~ > ~ ~ / \ nets S€ ws Oatrov ex tTaV Adv Adywv Tpos
\ THV yewpeTpiay amevevoapev. ydpw ye EvToL \ 3 ¢ oN b) ~ ~ got ® e€opev, eav atT@ BonOijs. 32. Kars dAdyers, © Ocddwpe. cxear odv / > > \ / ~ \ y+ / THY y eurnv BonPevav. TOV yap dpte Seworepa av Tis opodoyrnoetev fur) Tmpocéxwv Tols pract Tov voov, TO TOAD e€iOiopeba pddvar TE Kal ar- A \ / ¢ a“ / apvetoBar. aot Aéyw orn, 7) Oeat7Tw; > \ \ \ SY > / \ e @£0. Els ro Kowov pev otv, amoxpwéctw dé 6 Bvewtepos: odaXeis yap irrov aoyynpovycer. 19. zo. Aéyw 67 7o Sewcratov éepwrnpa: / s > e eoTt O€, Oluat, ToLdvde TL: dpa oldv Te TOV adTov 2d 7 A “A > \ 290 7 €l0dTa TL TOOTO 6 oldev py €ldeval; @£O. Ti 57 otv amoxpwovpeba, & Meairnrte; egal. “Addvvatov mov, oiwar éywye. + >) A CLA > / Ie U sa. OtvK, ef To opav ye emiotacbat Ojoes. Ti
1 toda om. T. 2 els om. T. 3 gol om. B.
88
THEAETETUS
THEAET. Evidently.
soc. It would not be so, I fancy, my friend, if the father of the first of the two tales were alive; he would have had a good deal to say in its defence. But he is dead, and we are abusing the orphan. Why, even the guardians whom Protagoras left— one of whom is Theodorus here—are unwilling to come to the child’s assistance. So it seems that we shall have to do it ourselves, assisting him in the name of justice.
THEO. Do so, for it is not I, Socrates, but rather Callias the son of Hipponicus, who is the guardian of his children. As for me, I turned rather too soon from abstract speculations to geometry. However, I shall be grateful to you if you come to his assistance.
soc. Good, Theodorus! Now see how I shall help him; for a man might find himself involved in still worse inconsistencies than those in which we found ourselves just now, if he did not pay attention to the terms which we generally use in assent and denial. Shall I explain this to you, or only to Theaetetus ?
THEO. To both of us, but let the younger answer; for he will be less disgraced if he is discomfited.
soc. Very well; now I am going to ask the most frightfully difficult question of all. It runs, I believe, something like this: Is it possible for a person, if he knows a thing, at the same time not to know that which he knows?
THEO. Now, then, what shall we answer, Theae- tetus?
THEAET. It is impossible, I should think.
soc. Not if you make seeing and knowing identical.
D 89
Cc
E
PLATO
A 4 > 4 > , A A , 9 yap xpjoe. apvKTwm epwrnpatt, TO Aeyopevov Ev dpéat. ovvexopevos,! orav epwr& avexmAnktos > / A B A ~ A ~ A LA par sp avnp, KaTaAaBwv TH XELpt God TOV ETEpoOV O [LOV,
~ A ¢ / ~ El Opds TO tudTiov TH KaTEtAnpypLevy ;
eFAI. Od dijow, oiuar, TovTw ye, TH pevTos
ETEPW. ~ ~ A cia 4
sa. Odxodv opds Te kat ody Opds apa Tadrov;
@EAI. Ovrw yé zrws.
sa. Ovdev eyw, dice, Totro ovTE TaTTW OvT’ >) a \ ¢ AAG > “A > / ~ A NpoUNv TO OTTWS, a €l O EmloTacal, TOUTO Kal ovK emlotaca. viv 8 6 ody opds opadv daiver. € A A / A ¢ ~ > / A wrodroynkws Se Tuyyavets TO opav emiotacbar Kal
A A ¢€ ~ \ >’ / > 4) /, /
TO [L1) Opav ju1 ETriatacIar. e€€ ody ToVTwWY Aoyilou, Tl Gol ovpPaiver. okAI. “AXdXa Aoyilouar ott TavavTia ois tre- , Oeuny. / > , / > , > a“ ~ x0. "lows 6€ y’, & Oavpaote, TAciw av ToLad7’ emalles, el Tis Ge mpoonpwra, el emiotacbar éaore
\ >} 4 ” A > 4 V3: / \ >] / prev o€U, EoTe O€ au PAV, Kat eyyvOev ev érictacba,
/ A / \ / \ b] i? A 3 , moppwlev dé un, Kal odddpa Kal Hpéua TO ado,
\ LAA / a“ >A ~ - “ Xr A e) A Kat adda pupia, a ed\Aoya@v? av weATAGTLKOS aV}p >] e fee eee pualopopos ev Adyots Epopevos, NViK ETLOTHUNY Kal atoOnow tadtov eGov, euBarwv av eis TO aKovew Kal oodpaivecbar Kat tas Tovav’Tas alcbyoes, nAeyxev av éméxwy Kal odK aviels mplv Bavuacas Tv moAvdpatov codiay avveTrodicbyns bm’ adrod,
e \\ ’
od 6) Ge xXElpwodpevds TE Kal auvdijoas 75n av 1 guvexduevos Bs; cvoxdpevos BT,
2 €\doxav bt; évroxav BT.
90
THEAETETUS
For what will you do with a question from which there is no escape, by which you are, as the saying is, caught in a pit, when your adversary, unabashed, puts his hand over one of your eyes and asks if you see his cloak with the eye that is covered ?
THEAET. I shall say, I think, “ Not with that eye, but with the other.”
soc. Then you see and do not see the same thing at the same time?
THEAET. After a fashion.
soc. “That,” he will reply, “is not at all what I want, and I did not ask about the fashion, but whether you both know and do not know the same thing. Now manifestly you see that which you do not see. But you have agreed that seeing is know- ing and not seeing is not knowing. Very well; from all this, reckon out what the result is.”
THEAET. Well, I reckon out that the result is the contrary of my hypothesis.
soc. And perhaps, my fine fellow, more troubles of the same sort might have come upon you, if any- one asked you further questions—whether it is possible to know the same thing both sharply and dully, to know close at hand but not at a distance, to know both violently and gently, and countless other questions, such as a nimble fighter, fighting for pay in the war of words, might have lain in wait and asked you, when you said that knowledge and perception were the same thing; he would have charged down upon hearing and smelling and such senses, and would have argued persistently and un- ceasingly until you were filled with admiration of his greatly desired wisdom and were taken in his toils, and then, after subduing and binding you he would
91
PLATO
fo > / U / > fA Tote €AUTpov xpHudTwY dowv aol ye KaKeww b] / (oe) Ss AN ¢ / / a” ” eddxer. TW’ obdv 61) 6 pwraydpas, pains av tows, A ~ ~ i Aoyov émixovpov tots avtob épet; aAdo Tt TeEt- pwpeba A€yew; @EAI. Ildvu pev odv. lot \ / / e A > 20. x0. Tatra te 54 mavta ooa nets ema- ~ \ / > vA 166 pvvovtes adT@ Aé€yomev, Kal Oudce, oluar, Ywp7- lat ~ \ / ce e \ cetat Katappovav yudv Kat A€ywv: “ od7os 87 \ ~ , 6 LwKpatys 6 xpynoTos, émed1) a’T@ mratdiov Tt e \ \ \ epwrylev edevcev €f olov Te Tov avTOoVv TO avTO lant v4 \ \ > / \ a > / pepvyjolar dua Kal pur) €idévar, Kat detoav améepynoev ~ MN \ dua TO p71) SVvacbar mpoopav, yeAwra 57 Tov EueE ? A / > / \ / > ¢ , év Tots Adyots amédeEev. TO dé, @ palvpotate Wee AQ? »” ov ~ > ~ } 2S) / MwKpates, THO EXEL’ OTaV TL TMV EUd@V OL EepwTy- GEews oKoTHS, Edy ev 6 EpwTnfeis oldmep av eyw > / > if. / > \ >? / aToKpwaiuny amroKpwaevos opadAAntat, eyw éer€y- > \ > a > \ ¢ > / > / B yopar, e¢ d€ addota, adtos 0 epwrnleis. adtixa yap SoKxets Twd cor ovyxwpycecbar pin mTapeival Tw Ov erable, TorwodTdv TL ovcav mabos e / ~ olov OTe €macye, pnkéTe macxovTt; moAdod ye A > ~ e > def. 7) ad amoxvicew opodoyetv otdv 7 elvat > / \ \ >? / \ b) \ \ >) / NSE 9 2 e(Oevat Kat p7) €(O€vaL TOV AUTOV TO AUTO; 7 EaVTTEp a , \ \ \ in TobTo Selon, Swoew mote Tov avTov elivat Tov ~ \ > ~ ~ avopoLovpevov TH Tmplv avojorodabar ovtTt; padAdov > > \ / \ dé tov elvat twa, add’ odbyi Tov’s, Kal TovToUs / 2 YlyvojLevous amrEetpous, EaVTEP Avopoiwats ylyvyTat, >) \ > / / / A C «i 57) dvoudtwy ye dence. Onpevoers dvevAaBetobau
92
THEAETETUS
at once proceed to bargain with you for such ransom as might be agreed upon between you. What argu- ment, then, you might ask, will Protagoras produce to strengthen his forces? Shall we try to carry on the discussion ?
THEAET. By all means.
soc. He will, I fancy, say all that we have said in his defence and then will close with us, saying con- temptuously, “Our estimable Socrates here frightened a little boy by asking if it was possible for one and the same person to remember and at the same time not to know one and the same thing, and when the child in his fright said ‘no, because he could not foresee what would result, Socrates made poor me a laughing-stock in his talk. But, you slovenly Socrates, the facts stand thus: when you examine any doctrine of mine by the method of questioning, if the person who is questioned makes such replies as I should make and comes to grief, then I am refuted, but if his replies are quite different, then the person questioned is refuted, not I. Take this example. Do you suppose you could get anybody to admit that the memory a man has of a past feeling he no longer feels is anything like the feeling at the time when he was feeling it? Far from it. Or that he would refuse to admit that it is possible for one and the same person to know and not to know one and the same thing? Or if he were afraid to admit this, would he ever admit that a person who has become unlike is the same as before he became unlike? In fact, if we are to be on our guard against such verbal entanglements, would he admit that a person is one at all, and not many, who become infinite in number, if the process of becoming
93
PLATO
3 / > > s ce ,
aAAjAwY; GAN, d pakapre,”’ dyoer, “ yevvarore- > pws em atro ebay 6 Aéyw, ef S¥vaca, e&édeyEov ¢€ \ ~ Ws ovxi tdtat aicOyoes ExdoTw Uudv ylyvovTat, n” ¢€ 207 / > / A ~ \ 7 ws idiwy yryvouévwv odvdév tr av pwadAdov To / Ss a dawopevov povw éxelvw ylyvoito, 7 €t eivau del > , w e / * \ A \
ovopalew, ein w@mep patverar: bs dé 51) Kal KuVo- / / b) / > A e A > \ \ Kedarovs A€ywv od povov adtos byveis, aAAa Kat Tovs akoUvovTas ToUTO Spay els Ta ovyypaupaTa D pov avareifers, 08 KarAds ToLdv. éeyw yap dnt
\ \ > Ue ” e / / A prev THhv adArnfevav exyew Ws yéypapa: péTpov yap EKaOTOV HU@V elvat TOV TE OVTWY Kal [A}* pLUplov prevror Staddpew ETepov Eetépov av’T@ TovTw, OTL T@ prev aGAAa €ore Te Kal daiverar, TH SE GAda. Kat oodiav Kat codov avdpa moAAod db€w TO 1)
, > > > > \ = ‘ , , davat etvat, aA’ adrov totrov Kai Aéyw ooddor,
= a \ oo» ,
Os av TW HOV, @ haiverar Kal EoTL Kaka, pETa- , , > \ , , \ > BadAwv croijon ayaa daivecbat te Kai elvan.
Ss A A / / > E tov 5é Adyov ab uy 7TH pratt pov SiwKe, add’ a ” / , ’ , e \ ? de ett cadéotepov pale ti Aeyw. olov yap ev tots mpoolev édéyeto avapvyoOntt, 6Te TH pev > A \ / “A >? / \ ” ~ aolevotvT. muxkpa daiverar a eobicu Kal €oTt, TO \ d€ UylaivovTt TavavTia €oTl Kal Paivetar. oodwre- pov pev ovv TovTwy ovdéTEepov Set TroLHoar—ovde \ u 3sQO\ / e ¢€ \ 7
167 yap Suvatdv—ovde KaTHyopyTéov ws O meV KdpLVwY > \ a ~ / ¢ Ao pe / \ apabns ote ToradrTa So€dler, 6 de byraivwv codos ott aAXota: petaBAntéov 8 emt Odtepa: apeivwy
94
THEAETETUS
different continues? But, my dear fellow,” he will say, “attack my real doctrines in a more generous manner, and prove, if you can, that perceptions, when they come, or become, to each of us, are not individual, or that, if they are individual, what appears to each one would not, for all that, become to that one alone—or, if you prefer to say ‘be,’ would not be—to whom it appears. But when you talk of pigs and dog-faced baboons, you not only act like a pig yourself, but you persuade your hearers to act so toward my writings, and that is not right. For I maintain that the truth is as I have written; each one of us is the measure of the things that are and those that are not; but each person differs immeasurably from every other in just this, that to one person some things appear and are, and to another person other things. And I do not by any means say that wisdom and the wise man do not exist; on the contrary, I say that if bad things appear and are to any one of us, precisely that man is wise who causes a change and makes good things appear and be to him. And, moreover, do not lay too much stress upon the words of my argument, but get a clearer understanding of my meaning from what I am going to say. Recall to your mind what was said before, that his food appears and is bitter to the sick man, but appears and is the opposite of bitter to the man in health. Now neither of these two is to be made wiser than he is—that is not possible—nor should the claim be made that the sick man is ignorant because his opinions are ignorant, or the healthy man wise because his are different; but a change must be made from the one condition to
95
PLATO
4 MI Wey) a Uy 3 X yap n é€Tépa efus. ovTw dé Kal ev TH TaLdeia amd > > éTépas. efews eml THY aLelvn peetaBAyréov: aAA Oo pev latpos pappdious preraBardrer, 6 dé copio77)s \ovyous.. eel ov ti ye pevdh dofalovrd tis Twa totepov adnOA emolnoe So€alew. otTe yap Ta \ + A iA y EA > a nv pn ovta dvvatov dofdcat, ovte dAAa Tap a ay / ~ de ees | LA An. LAA’ 1 macxy TavTa de aet adnO7. a otpan, OES B puxijs e€et do€dlovra ® ovyyevi} eauTas © xpnoT1) ETOLNOE Sofdoa ETEPO. To.adTa, a Oo TwWes TA davrdopata v7o arreipias aAnOA Kadotow, eyw \ / \ \ LA ~ ¢e / > / de BeATiw pev Ta ETEepa THV Etépwv, adnléoTepa \ ? / \ \ / Ss / / dé otdev. Kal tods caodots, ® dite LUdxKpares, ~ / iA / > \ A \ moA\Aot déw Patpayous rAéyew, adda Kata jev owpara taTpovs Aéyo, Kata O€ pura yewpyous. gyi yap Kal TovTovs Tots duTots avtTt Tovypa@v aicbjcewy, OTav TL adr ay aoveva XpnoTas Kal C dyrewas aicbyoces te Kat adnbets * eumrorety, Tovs d€ ye dodovs ve Kal ayabods pyTopas Tats mAEct TA XpnoTa avtTl TOV Tovnp@v Sixara SoKety etvar qovetv. emet oid y av exdoTn mode dSikara Kal kaka doxj, tabrta Kal eivar attH, ews av atta > ~ A vouily arr’ 6 codos avrt Trovnpav ovTwr avTots eK doTwV xXpnora eoinoev elvau Kal doxetv. KaTa de Tov avrov AOyov Kal 6 codioTis TOvS TaLOEvOME- vous oUTw duvdpevos Traldaywyely codpds TE Kal A ~ A A D d&vos to\AGv ypnudtwv tots mawevfetow: Kal / ty OUTW Gopwrepol Té Elaw ETEpoL ETépwV Kal OvdeEls 1 rovnpa Aldina ; rovnpas BT. 2 dofdfovra Th; dogdfovras B.
8 éauriis BT ; a’rfs some mss. and editors, 4 adnfeis BT ; adnOelas Schleiermacher.
THEAETETUS
the other, for the other is better. So, too, in educa- tion a change has to be made from a worse to a better condition ; but the physician causes the change by means of drugs, and the teacher of wisdom by means of words. And yet, in fact, no one ever made anyone think truly who previously thought falsely, since it is impossible to think that which is not or to think any other things than those which one feels; and these are always true. But I believe that a man who, on account of a bad condition of soul, thinks thoughts akin to that condition, is made by a good condition of soul to think corres- pondingly good thoughts; and some men, through inexperience, call these appearances true, whereas I call them better than the others, but in no wise truer. And the wise, my dear Socrates, I do not by any means call tadpoles; when they have to do with the human body, I call them physicians, and when they have to do with plants, husbandmen; for I assert that these latter, when plants are sickly, instil into them good and healthy sensations, and true ones instead of bad sensations, and that the wise and good orators make the good, instead of the evil, seem to be right to their states. For I claim that whatever seems right and honourable to a state is really right and honourable to it, so long as it believes it to be so; but the wise man causes the good, instead of that which is evil to them in each instance, to be and seem right and honourable. And on the same principle the teacher who is able to train his pupils in this manner is not only wise but is also entitled to receive high pay from them when their education is finished. And in this sense it is true that some men are wiser than others, and that
D2 Q7
168
PLATO
aA / A , ee, i ety 2 , pevdH SofdLer, Kal gol, edy Te Bovhn edy TE p7), QVEKTEOV OVTL LEeTPW* OwleTaL yap ev ToOUTOLS O
b a 2 in Adyos odtos. @ od ef prev Evers CE apyfs auduo- aA > / / > \ Byretv, apdroByrer Adyw avridieEeAOwv: et dé P) > / / > > / ’ \ NX du epwrjnoewv BovAc, du’ epwricewv: ovdée yap ~ / > A / / / totTo devxtéov, adda mavTwv pddtota SiwKréov T@ voodv ExovTt. Toler EevTor OUTWOL* pT GAOdLKEL ev TH epwradv: Kat yap moAAy adoyia apeTis 4 > A \ > > a“ > ~ ddokovTa emyedActobar pndév add’ 7 adiKodvTa > / ~ > A pee} \ > ~ / ev Adyous StateAciv. adikety 8° eotlv ev TH ToLwovTw, \ \ > A OTav TIS P) Ywpis pev ws aywrildpevos Tas duatpibas mounrar, ywpis dé duadeyopevos, Kal ev \ ~ / \ / 2 27, a“ 4 prev T@ Trailyn Te Kat obddAdAyn Kal’ dcov av dvvyTat, > \ ~ 0: / \ > A ev d€ TH Siaréyecbar orovdaly Te Kai émravopHot TOV Tpocdladeyopevov, EKEetva ova avT@ evdetkv- \ is “A >’ \ e > ¢ ~ A pevos Ta oddAuata, a adtos bd’ EéavTod Kat T@V TPOTEpwY GUVOVOLMV TApPEKEKPOVGTO* GV [LEV yap OUTW OLAS, EAVTOUS ALTLAGOVTAL OL TpocdLa- tTpiBovrés cor Ths avTa@v Tapayfs Kat azropias, 3 > ) / \ \ \ / \ / aA’ od o€, Kal o€ prev SidEovTar Kal diAyjcovow, ¢ \ \ / \ if > > ¢€ ~ > adTovs dé puoyjcovot Kal pevEovTar ad’ éavTa@v eis ff aed + / > ~ ~ diAocodiay, wv’ addAow yevopevor atradAayaor TaV of mpoTepov joav: eav dé Tavavtia TovTwy Spas vv e / > / 7 / \ wotep ot moXXoi, tavavtia EvpBHoeTai cor Kal Tovs ovvevtas avtt dirooddwv pucotytras TobTo TO mpaypa amodpavets, emevdav mpeoBUTEpor yévwr- Tal. €av ovv euoi mretOyn, 6 Kat TpoTEpov eppyOn, ? ~ > \ ~ > Sere ~A , od dvopevds ovde payynTiKas, aAd’ thew 7H Siavoia ~ , ovykaleis ws adAnfds oxéfer ti mote Aéyoper,
98
THEAETETUS
no one thinks falsely, and that you, whether you will or no, must endure to be a measure. Upon these positions my doctrine stands firm; and if you can dispute it in principle, dispute it by bringing an opposing doctrine against it; or if you prefer the method of questions, ask questions ; for an intelligent person ought not to reject this method, on the con- trary, he should choose it before all others. How- ever, let me make a suggestion: do not be unfair in your questioning; it is very inconsistent for a man who asserts that he cares for virtue to be con- stantly unfair in discussion; and it is unfair in discussion when a man makes no distinction between merely trying to make points and carrying on a real argument. In the former he may jest and try to trip up his opponent as much as he can, but in real argument he must be in earnest and must set his interlocutor on his feet, pointing out to him those slips only which are due to himself and his previous associations. For if you act in this way, those who debate with you will cast the blame for their confusion and perplexity upon themselves, not upon you; they will run after you and love you, and they will hate themselves and run away from them- selves, taking refuge in philosophy, that they may escape from their former selves by becoming different. But if you act in the opposite way, as most teachers do, you will produce the opposite result, and instead of making your young associates philosophers, you will make them hate philosophy when they grow older. If, therefore, you will accept the suggestion which I made before, you will avoid a hostile and combative attitude and in a gracious spirit will enter the lists with me and inquire what we really mean
99
PLATO
A , > , ~ Kwetobat Te arrodawvopevor TA TAVTA, TO TE SOKODY € / ~ > \ EKaOTW TOUTO Kal €ivat LOLwTH TE Kal OAEL. Kat bd , > €x TOUTwY emoKeer, Elte TavTOV ElTe Kal GAAO 2 , \ ” > > b) ? ” > EmMLOTHUN Kal atabyno.s, add’ ody, WoTEp apTL, EK
/ & “a ¢ \
C ovvyPeias pyyatwv Te Kal dvoudtwv, a ot 7roXXot ¢ nv / o > , > te
omy av TUXYwow €AKovTEs amropias aXAjAots TavTO-
\ ~ > ~
datas mapéxovat.”’ radra, & Oeddwpe, TO ETAalpw > / > / gov ets Borfevav mpoonpEdpnv Kar’ eunv dvvamw, A > \ ~ l4 OpiKpa aro opiKp@v: ef & adrtos ely, meyadeo- nn A ¢€ ee) / Tepov av Tots avTov ePonOycev. > , \ 21. o£0. Ilailers, & UwKpates: mavy yap veaviK@s TH avdpt BeBovOykas. sa. Ed Adyeis, @ éraipe. Kati pou eimé- evevon- / / ” ~ / AYE: " ads mov A€yovtos adptt Tob Ipwraydpov Kat dvedt- A , D Covros rjuiv 6te mpos tadiov Ttods Adyous mrovov- ~ ~ >] A [Levoe TH TOD Travdos Pow aywriloucla’ ets Ta ¢ ~ a > €auTOv, Kal yapLevTLopLOY Tiva aTroKaA@y, aTrocEL- 4 / e a vive d€ TO TdVTWY péTpOV, aTOVdacaL MGS 5 / \ \ e ~ i vexeAevoaTo Trept TOV avToo Adyor; @£0. lds yap ovK evevdnoa, & LaKpates; sa. Ti otv; Kedcvers meiPecbar at7@; @£0. Udddpa ye. > > / s s x0. ‘Opds odv éte Tad€ mavTa mAjVY cob TaLdia 9 ’ > > , Zz 5) , Sy ry \ €oTlv. €¢ ovv Trevcducba TH avdpl, ewe Kal ae
1 dywfdueda Bs aywrtolucda T. 100
THEAETETUS
when we declare that all things are in motion and that whatever seems is to each individual, whether man or state. And on the basis of that you will consider the question whether knowledge and _ per- ception are the same or different, instead of doing as you did a while ago, using as your basis the ordinary meaning of names and words, which most people pervert in haphazard ways and thereby cause all sorts of perplexity in one another.” Such, Theo- dorus, is the help I have furnished your friend to the best of my ability—not much, for my resources are small; but if he were living himself he would have helped his offspring in a fashion more magnificent.
THEO. You are joking, Socrates, for you have come to the man’s assistance with all the valour of youth.
soc. Thank you, my friend. Tell me, did you observe just now that Protagoras reproached us for addressing our words to a boy, and said that we made the boy’s timidity aid us in our argument against his doctrine, and that he called our procedure a mere display of wit, solemnly insisting upon the importance of “the measure of all things,’ and urging us to treat his doctrine seriously ?
tHEo. Of course I observed it, Socrates.
soc. Well then, shall we do as he says?
THEO. By all means.
soc. Now you see that all those present, except you and myself, are boys. So if we are to do as
101
PLATO
E det epwrdvrds te Kal amoKxpwopevovs aAdAndors
169
/ b] ~ \ \ / @ Sf. a7ovddcat avtot wept tov Adyov, wa pH ToL a fs ” > val TovTo ye! éxyn eyKadeiv, ws mailovtes pods iy PS) JA Q’ > aA A 2 / peipakia Steokerssdpel’ adrod tov Adyov. / > ~ o£0. Ti 3’; od modAAdv Tou Meaitnros peydadAous TWYWVAS EXOVTWY ApEeLvov av eTaKoAovOrjaeLe Adyw SrepevvywpLevy ; ry > / a > sa. “AX ov tt aot ye, @ Meddwpe, dpeuvovr. ju) OdV OLOV ELE EV TH O@ ETaipw TeTeAcvTHKOTL A \ / bd] / \ \ / > > deity TavTi TpoTW Emapvvelv, oe Sé pndevi, adr UX, @ apiote, oAiyov émiomov, péxpt TOUTOV avToo ews av elo@pev cite apa ae det dtaypappdtrwr / Tépl [LeTpoV Elval, ElTE TAVTES Opoiws Gol iKavol €auvtois els Te aoTpovouiay Kat TaAAa dv 57) od mépt aitiayv exes duadépew. > C2 7s: / \ /, @EO. Od pdd.ov, ® LwxKpates, coi tapaxaby- A / ie > >) > \ ” ‘a prevov p17) Siddvat Adyov, GAN’ eyw apTe TapeAnpnoa \ > ddoKkwy oe emitpeperv ro 7) aTodVEedAaL, Kal ovyt avaykacew Kabdarep Aakedayidviot- od dé jor A / A SoKkeis mpos TOV Ukipwrva padAdov teivew. Aaxe-
, A \ p) , Ais , , B Sayovior péev yap amvevat 7) amrodvecIar KeXevovor,
A uA ~ A a
av d€ Kat’ ’Avraidv Ti prot waAdAov Soxets TO Spaua
~ / J SV, Spav: Tov yap mpoceAPdvta ovK avins mpw av>
> A / A avayKdons amrodvaas ev Tois Adyos tpoomaAatoat. S / \ i? sa. "Apiora ye, © Meddwpe, THY vdcov pou am7- / 3 \ 3 /
Kacas' lOYUPLKWTEPOS [LEVTOL EYW EKEiVWY. [LUpLOL
1 ro. ro0Td ye B; rou Toye T 3; Totréd ye W.
2 a’rod rov apogr. Coislinianum 155; ad rot rov B; ad rovrov Tov T.
3 pw av Heindorf; rpw BT. 102
THEAETETUS
the man asks, you and I must question each other and make reply in order to show our serious attitude towards his doctrine; then he cannot, at any rate, find fault with us on the ground that we examined his doctrine in a spirit of levity with mere boys.
THEO. Why is this? Would not Theaetetus follow an investigation better than many a man with a long beard ?
soc. Yes, but not better than you, Theodorus. So you must not imagine that I have to defend your deceased friend by any and every means, while you do nothing at all; but come, my good man, follow the discussion a little way, just until we can see whether, after all, you must be a measure in respect to diagrams, or whether all men are as sufficient unto themselves as you are in astronomy and the other sciences in which you are alleged to be superior.
THEO. It is not easy, Socrates, for anyone to sit beside you and not be forced to give an account of himself and it was foolish of me just now to say you would excuse me and would not oblige me, as the Lacedaemonians do, to strip; you seem to me to take rather after Sciron.! For the Lacedaemonians tell people to go away or else strip, but you seem to me to play rather the rédle of Antaeus; for you do not let anyone go who approaches you until you have forced him to strip and wrestle with you in argument.
soc. Your comparison with Sciron and Antaeus pictures my complaint admirably ; only I am a more
1 Sciron was a mighty man who attacked all who came near him and threw them from a cliff. He was overcome by Theseus. Antaeus, a terrible giant, forced all passers- by to wrestle with him. He was invincible until Heracles crushed him in his arms.
103
PLATO
yap 7707), [Lou ‘Hpaxdées TE Kal Onoges € evTvxovtes } KapTepol * mpos TO A€yew par’ €d SuyKexopacw, GAN éyw odvdev Tt pGAAov adioraar: ovTw TIS
C cpus dewvos evdeduKe THS TEepl TabTa yvpvacias. [7 obv pnde av Plovians TpocavaTtpiysd|Levos GavTOV TE aja Kat Ee Ovnoa.
@£O. Oddev ete av7ireyw, arr’ dye dry BéAes: TAaVTWS THY TEept TadTa elwappevyvy nv av? ad emuxAwons det avarAjvau eAeyxopevor. ov [EevToL TEpauTEpw ye Gv mpoTieca oids T €oowat Tapa- oyeiv €uwavTov aot.
30. “AM apKet Kal BEXpL TOUTWY. Kal pot TAVU TIPE TO TOLOVOE, a Tov TaLOuKov TL Adbapev
D eidos TOv Noywv Trovovjpmevor, Kal Tis maAW Tiv avTo oveldicn.
oro. “AAAa 87) Treipdoopat ye Kal” Gaov av bv- VO[LAL.
22. 30. Totde row mp@tov madw avtira- Bupe0a ottep TO mpdoTEpov, Kal Owuev dpOGs 7 ovK opIas edvoxepaivoper ETLTULEOVTES TO oyw ore avTapKn EKAOTOV els dpovyow émroleu: Kal Hcy ouvexwpnoev 6 Ipwraydpas Tepe Te 700 dyLetvovos Kal xELpovos Stadepew Twds, ovs 57) Kal eivat codovs. ody;
e£0. Nav.
sa. Ei pev toivuy atdros mapwv apodrdyer, adda
E px) Hyets Bonfotvres b7ép adrod ovvexwproapev, ovoev av madw ede éemavadaBdvras BeBatotcbat: vov d€ Tay’ av Tis Huds aKUpous Tein THs Brép €xeivou opmodroyias. 610 KaddALdvws exer oadé-
1 évruxdvtes T ; évTuyxdvovres B. 2 xaptepol B; xparepol T. 3 qv av W ; tw BT. 104
THEAETETUS
stubborn combatant than they ; for many a Heracles and many a Theseus, strong men of words, have fallen in with me and he peered me mightily, but still I do not desist, such a terrible love of this kind of exercise has taken hold on me. So, now that it is your turn, do not refuse to try a bout with me; it will be good for both of us.
THEO. I say no more. Lead on as you like. Most assuredly I must endure whatsoever fate you spin for me, and submit to interrogation. However, I shall not be able to leave myself in your hands beyond the point you propose.
soc. Even that is enough. And _ please be especially careful that we do not inadvertently give a playful turn to our argument and somebody reproach us again for it.
THEO. Rest assured that I will try so far as in me lies.
soc. Let us, therefore, first take up the same question as before, and let us see whether we were right or wrong in being displeased and finding fault with the doctrine because it made each individual self-sufficient in wisdom. Protagoras granted that some persons excelled others in respect to the better and the worse, and these he said were wise, did he not?
THEO. Yes.
soc. Now if he himself were present and could agree to this, instead of our making the concession for him in our effort to help him, there would be no need of taking up the question again or of reinforcing his argument. But, as it is, perhaps it might be said that we have no authority to make the agree- ment for him; therefore it is better to make the
105
PLATO
GTEpov mept TovUTOV avTod diopodAoynoacbat> od yap Tt opikpov TapadAdrTet odTwWs Exov 7) GAAws. @£0. Aédyeis adn. =a. My roivuy 8°? dAAwy add’ ex Tod éxeivou 170 Adyou ws Sia Bpaxyvtarwv AdBwpev THY 6podoyiav. ezO. Ids; sa. Otrwoi- 7d doxoby éxdoTw TotTo Kal elvai dyot mov @ Soxel; @EO. Dyoi yap odv. =a. Odxodv, & IIpwraydpa, Kat pets avOpu- mov, .aAdov d€ mavtwy avbpwrwv dd€as Aéyopev, kai dapev oddéva Gvtwa ov Ta pev adTov nyetoBat tov dd\Awy coduwtepov, Ta 5é aAAoUS EavToOb, Kal év ye Tots preylotois Kwdvvols, OTaV ev OTpaTEiats H vooos 7 ev Oaddtrn yeysdlwvrar, Womep pos feovs Exew Tovs ev EKdOTOLS ApYoVTas, GWTHpas Bodav mpocdokarvtas, otk addAw Tw diadépovras 9 T@ €ldevary Kal mavTa Tov peoTa TavOparmuva Cntrovvtwy didacKdAovs Te Kal apxYovTas éavTa@v Te Kal TOV ddAwy Cawv THV TE epyaoidv, oloévev TE av ikavav pev diddoKeL, (Kava@v Sé dpyew eivar. Kal ev TovToLs amact Tt GAAo dycopev 7 adtovs tTovs avOpwmovs nyetobar codiay Kat dapabliav elvar mapa odiow; @£0. Odvddev dAdo. sa. Odxody thy pev aodlay adnO4 Ssudvorav nyobvra, THY Se apabiay pevdq dd€av; C oro. Ti piv; xa. Ti otv, d Ipwraydpa, xpnoducta TH Adyw; 106
THEAETETUS
agreement still clearer on this particular point; for it makes a good deal of difference whether it is so or not.
THEO. That is true.
soc. Let us then get the agreement in as concise a form as possible, not through others, but from his own statement.
THEO. How?
soc. In this way: He says, does he not? “ that which appears to each person really is to him to whom it appears.”
THEO. Yes, that is what he says.
soc. Well then, Protagoras, we also utter the opinions of a man, or rather, of all men, and we say that there is no one who does not think himself wiser than others in some respects and others wiser than himself in other respects; for instance, in times of greatest danger, when people are distressed in war or by diseases or at sea, they regard their commanders as gods and expect them to be their saviours, though they excel them in nothing except knowledge. And all the world of men is, I dare say, full of people seeking teachers and rulers for themselves and the animals and for human activities, and, on the other hand, of people who consider themselves qualified to teach and qualified to rule. And in all these instances we must say that men themselves believe that wisdom and ignorance exist in the world of men, must we not?
THEO. Yes, we must.
soc. And therefore they think that wisdom is true thinking and ignorance false opinion, do they not?
THEO. Of course.
soc. Well then, Protagoras, what. shall we do
107
PLATO
motepov aAnOA dPadmev aet Tovs avOpwmrovs So€dlev, ’ A A b} ~ A A ~ > >) / 7) mote pev aAyOyn, mote Se Pevdq; e& apdotépwv if / \\ bi KY > ~ 5 >] 5 / ydp mov ovpPaiver py aet adAnbA arr’ apdotepa >) \4 / if if > / 3 avtovs Sdo€dlew. oxomer yap, @ Weddwpe, Et >) / y+ ~ > A / Vv \ >} A e0éAou dv tis TOV audi IIpwraydpay 7 od adros dtapdyecbar ws ovdeis yyetrar EeTEpos ETEpOV apabh te elvar Kat pevdh doEalew. ero. “AXXN’ dmotov, & LaKpates. D xo. Kai pry els tobTd ye avadykns 6 Adyos HKEL O TAVTWY XpnUaTwY jLeTpov aVvOpwrrov Aéywv. @£0. IIds 57; @ \ , A ~ / sa. “Orav ov kpivas Tt mapa cavTe® mpds pe amodaivn mepi Twos dd€av, col pev 57) TOTO KaTa A >) ip. / 3 \ ” e aw \ A A Tov ekeivov Aoyov adnOés EoTw, Hutv 5é 57 Tots dAAots TEpt THs ons Kploews TOTEpoVv ovK EOTW ~ tA nv > \ A / b) ~ 4 Kpitats yevéobar, 7) det co Kpivopev GAO So€alew; peuploe EKaOTOTE GoL paxovTa. avTioo€dlovtes, nyovpevot wevdn Kpivew Te Kal oleoOa;
E oro. N17 tov Ata, & UwKpates, para pvpior djtTa, dyow “Opnpos, ot yé wou ta &€ avOpdrwv Tpay|LaTa Tapexovow.
sa. Tt ov; Bovrer Aéywpev ws od TéTE GavT@ pev adnOA So€ales, Tots d€ upiots pevdn; @EO. “Koucev ex ye Tob Adyou avayKy etvat. sa. Tt d€ at7® IIpwraydpa; dp’ odyi avayKy, el prev puyde avTos weTo pétpov eivar avOpwrov \ € / ee +) \ ” A \ unde ot modXol, womep ode olovTar, pyndevi 81) 4 A > 4 a“ ’ aA ” >] elvar TavTyv THY aAjOeLay jv eKeivos eypaisev; €i 108
THEAETETUS
about the doctrine? Shail we say that the opinions which men have are always true, or sometimes true and sometimes false? For the result of either statement is that their opinions are not always true, but may be either true or false. Just think, Theodorus; would any follower of Protagoras, or you yourself, care to contend that no person thinks that another is ignorant and has false opinions?
THEO. No, that is incredible, Socrates.
soc. And yet this is the predicament to which the doctrine that man is the measure of all things inevitably leads.
THEO. How so?
soc. When you have come to a decision in your own mind about something, and declare your opinion to me, this opinion is, according to his doctrine, true to you; let us grant that; but may not the rest of us sit in judgement on your decision, or do we always judge that your opinion is true? Do not myriads of men on each occasion oppose their opinions to yours, believing that your judgement and belief are false ?
THEO. Yes, by Zeus, Socrates, countless myriads in truth, as Homer! says, and they give me all the trouble in the world.
soc. Well then, shall we say that in such a case your opinion is true to you but false to the myriads?
THEO. That seems to be the inevitable deduction.
soc. And what of Protagoras himself? If neither he himself thought, nor people in general think, as indeed they do not, that man is the measure of all things, is it not inevitable that the “truth” which he wrote is true to no one? But if he himself thought
1 Homer, Odyssey, xvi. 121, xvii. 432, xix. 78. 109
PLATO
171 5€ adros pev WeTo, TO 5é TAHOIOS pr ovvoierat, ota? ote mp@tov ev Gow TAciovs ots 7) SoKeEt 7 ois doKet, ToooUTW aAAov odK EoTW 7H EOTLW.
> / yA > (y / / e£O. “Avaynyn, elmep ye Kal? éxdornv dd€av €OTAL KaL OUK EOTAL. wv ig a > l4 > A =a. Erewra ye Tobr exer Kopiporarov: EKELVOS pev Tepl THs avTou olnoews THhv TOV avTibo£alovTwy oinow, 7 €Ketvov yobvrat pevdeobar, Evyywpet Tov adAnOA elvar opodoyav ta dvta dof€alew amavras. 4 A an
e£O. IIdavu pev ovv.
B 30. Ovdxoiv tiv atrod av evd_ ovyywpot, et THY TOV Hyoupevwy adbrov pevdecIar opodoyet aAnbA eiva;
> /
e£O. “Avayrn.
sa. Of dé y’ dAdo 08 ovyxwpotow Eavtois pev- decbar;
@£O. Ov yap ovr.
sa. ‘O dé y’ ad opodoyet Kai tavrnv adnbH rHVv ddfav €& dv yéeypade.
@EO. Daiverar.
30. "EE amdvrwy dpa amo Ipwrayopov dpfa- peeve dpproBytncerar, p-adov d€ Umd ye éKeivou opooyicerat, OTav TH Tavavrio Aéyovre ovyxwpn adn Oh avTov Sofdlew, TOTE Kal 0 Ilpwrayopas
C avros OvyKwpyceTat pajre KvVa [LITE Tov em TUXOVTO dvOpwrov j2€Tpov elvar nde rept €vos ov av pn udbn. ody oUTwWSs;
@EO. Ovtws.
30. Odxoby émevd7) apdioBnretra b7o mavTwr,
b) a) Sh wv € 4 CESs2 / 2) > / ovoevi av ein 7 Lpwraydpou “‘ adAjfeva’’ adnOris, oure TW GAAw ovT atT@ exetww.
110
THEAETETUS
it was true, and people in general do not agree with him, in the first place you know that it is just so much more false than true as the number of those who do not believe it is greater than the number of those who do.
THEO. Necessarily, if it is to be true or false according to each individual opinion.
soc. Secondly, it involves this, which is a very pretty result; he concedes about his own opinion the truth of the opinion of those who disagree with him and think that his opinion is false, since he grants that the opinions of all men are true.
THEO. Certainly.
soc. Then would he not be conceding that his own opinion is false, if he grants that the opinion of those who think he is in error is true?
THEO. Necessarily.
soc. But the others do not concede that they are in error, do they?
THEO. No, they do not.
soc. And he, in turn, according to his writings, grants that this opinion also is true.
THEO. Evidently.
soc. Then all men, beginning with Protagoras, will dispute—or rather, he will grant, after he once concedes that the opinion of the man who holds the opposite view is true—even Protagoras himself, I say, will concede that neither a dog nor any casual man is a measure of anything whatsoever that he has not learned. Is not that the case?
THEO. Yes.
soc. Then since the “truth” of Protagoras is disputed by all, it would be true to nobody, neither to anyone else nor to him,
Lil
=~!
bo
PLATO
” > , Q e eed: erO. “Ayav, @ Lwepates, Tov ETaipov pov Kataléopev.
S02. “ANd TOL, @ pire, adyov el Kal Trapa- Oéopev To opbov. elkos ve apa exetvov mpeoBvrepov oVvTa GOpwTEpoV 7L@v eivat: Kat El avrira ev- Teb0ev avakvere expt TOO adyévos, moAAa av ewe
~ ¢e
TE eheyfas Anpobvra, WS TO Etkos, Kal oe opL0No- yoovra, KaTadvs ay oixouTo amoTpeXwv. ard’ jpty avayKn, oipar, xphola. Huiv adrots, orrotot TWES €opev, Kal TA OoKODVTA ael TATA Adyew. Kal d7TA Kat vov dAdo tt P@pev Cpodoyetv av TOTO ye ~ > a ovtwobv, TO elvac copwrepov eTEpov ETépou, €lvat dé Kal aualéorepor ;
@EO. *Epot yoby doxet.
23. 30. "H Kal tauTn av padvora totacbat tov Adyov, te jets dey paxpaprev BonPobvres Hpwraydpe, ws Ta pev ToAAa 7) SoxKel, TAUTy Kal €OTW eKAOTW, Depa, Enpa, yAuKéa, mavTo. ooa rob tUmov TovTov: «i 8d TOU ev TLoL OVYX WPI TETAL diadépew dAdov aAdov, mepl TO byvewa Kal voowoy eOcAjjoa, av davat pn wav ydvavov Kal matdiov, Kat Onptov dé, tkavov elvar (ac0a adto yeyy@oKov G an \ ¢€ / 3 \ > ~ A BA EA eauT® To vyewov, aAAa evtabOa 57) dAXov aAAoU diadépenv, eimep Tov;
” A 4
@£E0. “Huovye Soke? ovTws.
2) ~ \ \ ~ A A \
=a. Ovxoby Kal mepl mohuriKav, Kada prev Kal atoxpa. Kal dikata Kal dduKa Kal dota Kal Ly, ola av Exdorn mods otnOeioa Oijrae vojyea avrh, Tatra Kat evar TH aAnOeia ExdoTy, Kal év TOUTOLS
\ >) \ / + > / 3 / wv pev ovdev codurtepov oUTe idiwTnv idiwToU oUTE ToAw moAews eivaty ev bd€ TH GUUdepovta éauTH
112
THEAETETUS
THEO. I think, Socrates, we are running my friend too hard.
soc. But, my dear man, I do not see that we are running beyond what is right. Most likely, though, he, being older, is wiser than we, and if, for example, he should emerge from the ground, here at our feet, if only as far as the neck, he would prove abundantly that I was making a fool of myself by my talk, in all probability, and you by agreeing with me; then he would sink down and be off at a run. But we, I suppose, must depend on ourselves, such as we are, and must say just what we think. And so now must we not say that everybody would agree that some men are wiser and some more ignorant than others?
THEO. Yes, I think at least we-must.
soc. And do you think his doctrine might stand most firmly in the form in which we sketched it when defending Protagoras, that most things—hot, dry, sweet, and everything of that sort—are to each person as they appear to him, and if Protagoras is to concede that there are cases in which one person excels another, he might be willing to say that in matters of health and disease not every woman or child—or beast, for that matter—knows what is wholesome for it and is able to cure itself, but in this point, if in any, one person excels another?
THEO. Yes, I think that is correct.
soc. And likewise in affairs of state, the honourable and disgraceful, the just and unjust, the pious and its opposite, are in truth to each state such as it thinks they are and as it enacts into law for itself, and in these matters no citizen and no state is wiser than another; but in making laws that are advan-
113
PLATO
” \ ’ t ) AQ? ” 2 } pn ovudepovta Tilecba, evradl’, eimep mov, ad oporoyncet ovpBovadv TE _oupBovrov Sy ieh Kal moXews dogay ETépav érépas mpos aAnevav, Brat ovK av mavu Todujcete dijon, a av Onrat m0Ats ovpepepovra olnfetoa avrh, _TAVTOS p-ahov TavTA Kal ovvoicey: aAd’ Exel ob A€yu, ev Tots duxatols Kal adikots+ Kai daiots Kal avooiots, b] / >? / ¢ >) ww 4 ? ~ eOéAovow icxupilecbar ws ovK €oTe dvoe adbtav ? \ 2) / ¢ ~ yy > \ \ ~ / ovdev ovoiavy éavtod éxov adda TO Kown dd€av tobTo ylyvetar adnfés tore Otay dd€y Kal Gaov av doKH xpovov' Kal daor ye 67? px TavTdact \ II / Ao Aé 3 BYS) / \ tov IIpwraydpov Adyov Xéyovow,? @dé Tws THY / A / \ ¢€ ~ > LAN >? codiav ayovot. Adyos bé€ Huds, © Ocddwpe, ex / / ? > / / C Adyou peilwy e€ eAdrrovos KatadapPaver. @E0. Odxodv cyodjy dyouev, & XMWkKpates; / \ , / / a 30. Dawdpueba. Kat moAAdKis pev ye 54, @ dayudve, Kal adAdoTE KaTEevonoa, aTap Kal Vvov, ws eikoTws ot ev tats dirAocodiats aoddv xpovov duatpibavres els Ta SiKaoTHpia tovtes ‘yeAotou paivovrat prTopes. @£0. las 57) oty Aéyeus; / ¢€ BI , \ aA 30a. Kwévvevovow ot év dukacrnpiots Kal Tots TolovTots ek véwy KuAWwdotpevor mpds Tods ev A A la ~ D dirocodia Kat TH Tordde SiatpiBH TePpappevovs ¢€ > / A aN Aé @ / Q 4 ws oikérat pos eAcvbépous TeOpadbar. ozo. II7 5%; e A \ ~ a \ > Joa / xa. “He rots pév tobro 6 od eimes del mapeote, oxoAy, Kal tovs Acyous ev cipyvn emt axodAjs TowobvTar’ womep jets vuvi tpitov dyn Adyov 1 Kai ddlkous W; om. BT. 2 6) BT; av Schanz,
3 \éyovow Naber, with inferior mss. ; NEywou BE; * reOpapda W 5 rerpapda BT.
114
THEAETETUS
tageous to the state, or the reverse, Protagoras again will agree that one counsellor is better than another, and the opinion of one state better than that of another as regards the truth, and he would by no means dare to affirm that whatsoever laws a state makes in the belief that they will be advantageous to itself are perfectly sure to prove advantageous. But in the other class of things—I mean just and unjust, pious and impious—they are willing to say with confidence that no one of them possesses by nature an existence of its own; on the contrary, that the common opinion becomes true at the time when it is adopted and remains true as long as it is held; this is substantially the theory of those who do not altogether affirm the doctrine of Protagoras. But, Theodorus, argument after argument, a greater one after a lesser, is overtaking us.
THEO. Well, Socrates, we have plenty of leisure, have we not?
soc. Apparently we have. And that makes me think, my friend, as I have often done before, how natural it is that those who have spent a long time in the study of philosophy appear ridiculous when they enter the courts of law as speakers.
THEO. What do you mean?
soc. Those who have knocked about in courts and the like from their youth up seem to me, when compared with those who have been brought up in philosophy and similar pursuits, to be as slaves in breeding compared with freemen.
THEO. In what way is this the case?
soc. In this way: the latter always have that which you just spoke of, leisure, and they talk at their leisure in peace; just as we are now taking up
115
173
PLATO
? / ‘ / 4 > A 3A éx Adyouv petarapPavopev, ovTw KaKetvot, éav avrovs 6 e7eAD@v Tob mpoKepevov uaAAov Kabarep ¢ ~ > / \ \ ~ av / / neds dpéon Kat diva paxpa@v 7 Bpayéwy pédec ovdev A€yewv, av povov TUYWat TOD GVTOS* ot dé eV > , SEN , , \ ” cp aoyoXla Te aet Aéyovot—Karemretyer yap Vdwp péov —kal odk é€yywpel mept od av emiOuprowor Tods , ms 5) ee, ” ens / Adyous movetaIa, add’ avayKnv exwv 6 avTid.Kos \ edéoTnkev Kat Umoypadyy TapavayryvwoKoperyy, @v e€KTOS Ov pyTEeoV: HY avTwpooiay Kadodaw! ot d€ Adyor aet rept OpodovAov mpos Seazd- 2 / / Thv Kabypevov, ev xeipt Twa SdiKynv EyovTa, Kal of ay@ves ovd€émote THY dAAws GAN’ cei THY TeEpt lo \ ~ avtob: moAAdKis d€ Kal epi puyns 6 Spdpos: ° > ) oy , ” A e wor e& amdvrwy TovTwY EvTovor Kal Spurets ylyvovTal, emioTdevot Tov deotdTnv XAOyw Te Owmedoa Kal epyw xaptoacbat,” opixpol dé Kal \ / A \ ovK opfot tas puxas. THY yap avEnv Kal TO €dOV (3 bd Te Kal TO eAcVOepov 3 7) Ex véewv Sovdcia adypytar, > / , d , ON ? avayKalovoa mpaTrew oKorid, peyddAous Kwdv- \ / ih ¢ A A vous Kat doBous Ett atradais puyats émBddXovoa, a > 5 , ‘ a 5 , ers x ovs od dvvdpevor feTa TOG diKatov Kal aAnbods dropEepenv, evlds emt TO Petdds TE Kal Td aAArjAoUs avTadiKety TpeTomevot TroAAA KaTTOVTAL Kal
1 jv dvTwuoociay Kahodow Mss.; om. Abresch et al. 2 yapicacbac BT ; bredOetv Cobet from Themistius, 3 7d éXedOepov BT ; 7d édevdépiov Themistius,
116
THEAETETUS
argument after argument, already beginning a third, so can they, if, as in our case, the new one pleases them better than that in which they are engaged ; and they do not care at all whether their talk is long or short, if only they attain the truth. But the men of the other sort are always in a hurry—for the water flowing through the water-clock urges them on—and the other party in the suit does not permit them to talk about anything they please, but stands over them exercising the law’s compulsion by reading the brief, from which no deviation is allowed (this is called the affidavit);! and their discourse is always about a fellow slave and is addressed to a master who sits there holding some case or other in his hands; and the contests never run an indefinite course, but are always directed to the point at issue, and often the race is for the defendant’s life. As a result of all this, the speakers become tense and shrewd; they know how to wheedle their master with words and gain his favour by acts; but in their souls they become small and warped. For they have been deprived of growth and _ straightforwardness and independence by the slavery they have endured from their youth up, for this forces them to do crooked acts by putting a great burden of fears and dangers upon their souls while these are still tender; and since they cannot bear this burden with uprightness and truth, they turn forthwith to deceit and to requiting wrong with wrong, so that they become
1 In Athenian legal procedure each party to a suit presented a written statement—the charge and the reply— at a preliminary hearing. These statements were subse- quently confirmed by oath, and the sworn statement was called diwuocta or dvrwuocia, which is rendered above by ‘* affidavit ” as the nearest English equivalent.
ay
PLATO
A ef ne, A b) A ” aA , B ovykAdvrat, wo8 tyres oddev Exovtes THs Sravotas 2 ~ \ eis avopas €k peipakiwy TeAevT@or, Sewol TE Kat a \ cool yeyovotes, Ws olovTar. Kal odToL pev 97) ToLovToL, W Meddwpe* Tods Sé TOD HEeTEpov Yopod / 4 / av cbt / Sami motepov BovAc SueAPdvtes 7 edoavtes mad emt A / , a \ LT EK ~ VO NEL Tov Aovyov TpeTwjEOa, iva 17) Kal, 6 viv 67 eAéyomer, / A ~ > / \ / A / Aiav odd 7H eAcvOepia Kal peTadjiper TOV Adywv KkaTaxpwpeba ; @EO. Mydapds, @ LesKpares, aAAd. dveABovres. / A Cravv yap «bd TobTo elpykas, OTL ovx Hyueets ol ev TO TOUDOE xopevovres TOV oye dmmperar, aAd’ of Abyou neeTepor | worep olKerat, Kal EKAOTOS vray TEpPULEVvEL amoreheoOiivat orav Het Ooh ovte yap SixaotIs ovte Beats worTep Tointats >? A A ETITULNTWY TE KAL apEwv emLOTATEL Tap LIV. / / e yA > \ / 24. 30. Aéywuev 67, ws Eoixev, emret col ye dokel, TEepl TOV Kopupatov: Tl yap av Tis TOUS Ye pavrws dvatpiBovras € ev prooodia. A€you; : obToL O€ bd / A Tov €k vewy mpaTov pev els a dyopav ovK tcact THY D odor, ovde O7ov OdikaoTypiov 1 BovdAevTipiov 7 TL ouvov dAdo Tis méAews ouvedpLov™ VOHLOUS oe tL Ynpiopara. Acyopeva 7 Yeypappeva ove e Spou ovre dcovova: o7rovoal be eTarpi@v en apxas Kal avvodo. Kal detmva Kat adv avAntpior ~ \ Yj A K@L01, ovoe eu mparrew TpootoTarat avrois. ev de 7 Kak@s TIs 2 yéyovev ev monet, 7 Ti TW KaKov ip eoTW €k mpoyovasy yeyoves n pos” avipav 7 yuvatkov, paMov avrov Achn bev 7 7 ot Tis Oaddrrns E XAeyopevot Roses Kat TadTa mavr ovd OTL ovK
1 juérepor W 3 oi juérepo BT. 2 rs W, Iambl., Clem. ; 7 BT.
118
THEAETETUS
greatly bent and stunted. Consequently they pass from youth to manhood with no soundness of mind in them, but they think they have become clever and wise. So much for them, Theodorus. Shall we describe those who belong to our band, or shall we let that go and return to the argument, in order to avoid abuse of that freedom and variety of discourse, of which we were speaking just now ?
THEO. By all means, Socrates, describe them ; for I like your saying that we who belong to this band are not the servants of our arguments, but the arguments are, as it were, our servants, and each of them must await our pleasure to be finished; for we have neither judge, nor, as the poets have, any spectator set over us to censure and rule us.
soc. Very well, that is quite appropriate, since it is your wish ; and let us speak of the leaders; for why should anyone talk about the inferior philosophers? The leaders, in the first place, from their youth up, remain ignorant of the way to the agora, do not even know where the court-room is, or the senate- house, or any other public place of assembly ; as for laws and decrees, they neither hear the debates upon them nor see them when they are published ; and the strivings of political clubs after public offices, and meetings, and banquets, and revellings with chorus girls—it never occurs to them even in their dreams to indulge in such things. And whether anyone in the city is of high or low birth, or what evil has been inherited by anyone from his ancestors, male or female, are matters to which they pay no more attention than to the number of pints in the sea, as the saying is. And all these things the philosopher does not even know that he does not
119
174
PLATO
78 td 4 30e \ ? ~ 3 2. a io} oldev, oidev? ovde yap av’Tav améyerat Tod evdo- A > \ ~ \ ~ / ~ Ky.ety yapw, adAAa TH OvTL TO GHpa povov ev TH / aA 2. ~ \ > a ¢€ \ / moder Ketrat avTod Kal émidynet, 7 Sé Sdidvora, ~ \ > / TAOTA TAVTA NYHoapEevyn CpiKpa Kat OvdEV, ATIYLA-
1 kata Ilivéapov, “ tas?
Gaca TavTayn pEepeTar te yds brévepfe’’ Kat Ta émimeda yewpetpotoa, ~ lon \ a “otpavod Te Umep’’ aoTpovofotcoa, Kal mTacav , ~ e / mav7n pvow Eepevvapevn TOV OVTWY EKAOTOV oAov, eis TOV eyyds ovdEev adTHV ovyKabletaa. @E0. Ids todro réyets, W UKpares; ~ ~ > , sa. “Qomep cai Madfv aorpovopotyTa, @& Meo- oe 4 /, / > / ~ , dwpe, Kal avw PAétovTa, TecovTa ets Ppeap, Oparra \ > aA Tis ejyreAns Kal yapicooa Oepatrawwis atrookaipat A€yeTat, Ws TA pev ev oUpave mpoOvjotro eidévat, \ > ” >? ~ \ \ / 4 Ta 8 e€trpoobev abtob Kal mapa mddas Aavavor aA ~ \ avrov. tavtov d€ apKel oK@upa emt mavTas Coot >’ / / ~ NY y+ \ ~ ev diAooodia Sidyovot. TH yap ovTt TOV ToLovToV e \ / \ e / / b] / ao 0 prev mAnotov Kat oO yeitwv r€éAnfev, od} povov 6 Tt / > > ry Y A > ” / > ” mpatret, add’ oAtyov Kat ef avOpwrds €oTw 7 TE + / f} / > b] \ EA \ / aAAo Opeupa: tt d€ oT eaTiv avOpwros Kat TI A 4 / / Z, ~ wy TH TovavTn doer mpoorjKer diahopov TaV adrAAwv A / val Touivy 7 macyew Cyntel te Kal mpdypar éexer ‘2 duepevvwpevos. jravidvers ydp mov, ® Weddwpe.
@£E0. "Eywye: Kat adnOA réyers. sa. Tovydpro., & dire, dia Te cvyyryvomevos 6
1 péperac BT; mwérerac B?W, Iambl., Clem., Euseb., 2 ras Campbell from Clement ; 7r&é C; 7a T.
120
THEAETETUS
know ; for he does not keep aloof from them for the sake of gaining reputation, but really it is only his body that has its place and home in the city; his mind, considering all these things petty and of no account, disdains them and is borne in all directions, as Pindar! says, “both below the earth,” and measuring the surface of the earth, and “ above the sky,” study- ing the stars, and investigating the universal nature of every thing that is, each in its entirety, never lowering itself to anything close at hand.
THEO. What do you mean by this, Socrates ?
soc. Why, take the case of Thales, Theodorus, While he was studying the stars and looking upwards, he fell into a pit, and a neat, witty Thracian servant girl jeered at him, they say, because he was so eager to know the things in the sky that he could not see what was there before him at his very feet. The same jest applies to all who pass their lives in philosophy. For really such a man pays no attention to his next door neighbour; he is not only ignorant of what he is doing, but he hardly knows whether he is a human being or some other kind of a creature ; but what a human being is and what is proper for such a nature to do or bear different from any other, this he inquires and exerts himself to find out. Do you understand, Theodorus, or not?
THEO. Yes, I do; you are right.
soc. Hence it is, my friend, such a man, both in
1 This may refer to Nem. x. 87 f.— Husou pév ke mvéos yalas umévepbev éwr, jutov 8 ovpavod év xpvoéos Sépuoow, **Thou (Polydeuces) shalt live being half the time under the earth and half the time in the golden dwellings of heaven,” but it may be a quotation from one of the lost poems of Pindar.
E 121
\
5
PLATO
~ e / \ > / TOLOUTOS EKaOTW Kal OyMOGla, OTEP ApPYOpLEVOS ” iA b] ff 7 ” > éXeyov, oTav ev dukaoTnpiw 7% mov aAAob avayKa- ~ \ ~ . ~ A of) mept THY Tapa Todas Kar TOV ev odbadmois / / / a) / / duareyecbar, yéeAwra Tapéyer od povoy Oparrais > A \A ~ y ” ? iz op A A adda Kat TH GAAw oyAw, els dpéaTa TE KaL TAGav > / aTopiav eumintwy UT aTrELpias, Kal 7) GoXNMLOOUVY dew, Sd€av aBeAtepias mapeyouevyn? €v TE yap A ib, wv ” ’ \ ? / ~ Tats Aovdoplats tdvov exer oddev ovdeva AoLdopeiv, a. ’ > nS \ > \ b) A > ~ \ aT ovK €Eldws KakoV ovdeév ovdEVOS eK TOD pT ~ > a ” pewedeTnKevar. amopav otv yedotos datverar. €v TE TOls ETTAiVvoLs Kal Tals TOV dAAWY peyadavyiats, ’ 7 b) \ A y+ ~ ” ov mpoomointws, adAa TH OvtTe yeAdv EvdyAos yeyvopmevos Anpwodyns SoKxe? ecivar. TUpavvov Te yap 7 Baotréa eyKapialopevoy eva TOV vopewr, olov ovBurnv 7 Toyreva 4 Twa BovKoddAov, ryetraL axovew evdayovilopevov todd PdadXovta: dvc0- ee \ 2. / a \ > th KoAwTepov Se exeivwy C@ov Kat émiBovdAdtepov t / \ / / > / ” ToyLaive Te Kat PoaAAEw vopiler adtovs, dypoKov d€ Kal amaidevTov bo ‘aoxyoAlas oddev FTTOV TAY vopewy TOV ToLOdTOY avayKatov ylyvecBat, onKov ev oper TO Tetxos mrepiPeBAnuevov. ys dé Grav b) > LA pupia mA€Opa 7 Ett TAciw aKkovon ws Tis apa KexTyLevos Javpaota mAnGer KEKTNTAL, TAVOpLLKpA dokel aKovew els amacay ciwhas THY yhv Brérew. Ta O€ 67 yevn vpvovvTwY, Ws yevvatds TIS EmTA mammous mAovolovs exwv aTopyvar, Tmavtamacw GpBrAds Kal él opiKpov opwrTwv ryettar Tov / €mawov, v70 amadevoias ov duvayévwy eis TO
L22
THEAETETUS
private, when he meets with individuals, and in public, as I said in the beginning, when he is obliged to speak in court or elsewhere about the things at his feet and before his eyes, is a laughing-stock not only to Thracian girls but to the multitude in general, for he falls into pits and all sorts of perplexities through inexperience, and his awkwardness is terrible, making him seem a fool; for when it comes to abusing people he has no personal abuse to offer against anyone, because he knows no evil of any man, never having cared for such things; so his perplexity makes him appear ridiculous; and as to laudatory speeches and the boastings of others, it becomes manifest that he is laughing at them—not pretending to laugh, but really laughing—and so he is thought to be a fool. When he hears a panegyric of a despot or a king he fancies he is listening to the praises of some herdsman—a swineherd, a shepherd, or a neatherd, for instance—who gets much milk from his beasts; but he thinks that the ruler tends and milks a more perverse and treacherous creature than the herdsmen, and that he must grow coarse and un- civilized, no less than they, for he has no leisure and lives surrounded by a wall, as the herdsmen live in their mountain pens. And when he hears that someone is amazingly rich, because he owns ten thousand acres of land or more, to him, accustomed as he is to think of the whole earth, this seems very little. And when people sing the praises of lineage and say someone is of noble birth, because he can show seven wealthy ancestors, he thinks that such praises betray an altogether dull and narrow vision on the part of those who utter them; because of lack of education they cannot keep their eyes fixed
123
PLATO
~ Se | mav aet PBAerew ovde€ Aoyilecbar ote mamTUWY Kal Tpoyovwy jLupiddes EKdOTW yeyovacolw avapt- Onto, ev ais mAovovot Kal TTwxOL Kat Bactr€ts Kal dotAo. BapBapot te Kat “EAAnves mroAAakis puptou yeyovaow oTwotv: aAd’ emi mévTe Kal elkoot Kataddyw mpoydovwy cEeuvuvoxevwy Kal 4 3° ¢€ je A > 4 avadhepovTwy eis “Hpakdéa tov “Apditptwvos atoma avT@ KaTadaiverat Tis opixpodroyias, OTL Bde o aa ‘Ap putpdavos els TO dv TEVTEK AL €LKOOTOS TowobTos Wy ola ovveBawvev avT@ TUYN, Kal 6 TEVTNKOOTOS am avTod, yeAg od Suvapevwv doyt- Ceabai re kal yavvornra avornrov uy is amadAatrew. €v a7ract 57) ToUToLs 0 TOLOUTOS b7r0 TOV TOAA@V katayeharar, Ta pev drrepypavans EXO”, ws doKel, Ta 0 év TOGW ayvo@y Te Kal ev exdoTots amTopav. eco. Ilavtdmace ta yryvopeva Aé€yers, @ LwKpates. ¢ , , > 25. 30. Orav d€ ye Twa autos, @ pire, C eAxvon avo, Kad eleAjon Tus avre ex Piva eK w~ a >> Tob “‘Ti €yw oe adLK@ 7 ov Epes els oxepy adths Sukawoovvyns TE Kal ad.iKlas, TL TE EKATEPOV >) aA \ if ~ vA Vv 5 4 / avToiv Kal Tt TOV TavTwY 7) aAAjAwY SiadépeTor, H ex TOD “et Baaideds evdaiuwr,” ‘ KeKTHWEVOS > Ss A it / >) / , A >} tT av Todd! ypvaiov,” Baoireias mépt Kat avOpw- 4 7 ’ / A >) , >) A mins OdAws evdayovias Kat abdAvoTnTos em oKefw, Tolw TE TWE EOTOV Kal TiWa TpOTOV 4 4A avOpwmov vce mpooynKer TO prev KTHoacbar” aA A >) A avroiv, TO b€ amoduyetv —mept ToUTwWY amdvTwY D 6rav av den Aoyov OLOoval TOV O}LLK pov €KELVOV A A A > Tv buxnv Kat dpyidv Kat ducavikdv, 7aAw avd Ta 1 zodv Euseb., Iamb.; om. BT. 2 xkrjcacba B, lamb., Euseb. ; xrycecba BT, 124
THEAETETUS
upon the whole and are unable to calculate that every man has had countless thousands of ancestors and progenitors, among whom have been in any instance rich and poor, kings and slaves, barbarians and Greeks. And when people pride themselves on a list of twenty-five ancestors and trace their pedigree back to Heracles, the son of Amphitryon, the petti- ness of their ideas seems absurd to him; he laughs at them because they cannot free their silly minds of vanity by calculating that Amphitryon’s twenty-fifth ancestor was such as fortune happened to make him, and the fiftieth for that matter. In all these cases the philosopher is derided by the common herd, partly because he seems to be contemptuous, partly because he is ignorant of common things and is
always in perplexity. THEO. That all happens just as you say, Socrates. soc. But when, my friend, he draws a man up- wards and the other is willing to rise with him above the level of “ What wrong have I done you or you me?” to the investigation of abstract right and wrong, to inquire what each of them is and wherein they differ from each other and from all other things, or above the level of “Is a king happy?”’ or, on the other hand, “Has he great wealth?” to the investigation of royalty and of human happiness and wretchedness in general, to see what the nature of each is and in what way man is naturally fitted to gain the one and escape the other—when that man of small and sharp and pettifogging mind is com- pelled in his turn to give an account of all these 125
l
6
PLATO
3 , > ~ > 4 al avtiotpopa amodidwaw: iAuyyidv te amo tinAod \ \ / / LA ¢ \ Kpewacbeis Kat Bremwv pretéwpos avwlev t70 > / > ~ ~ anletas adnpovay Te Kal amop@v Kat Batrapilwy | aN 7 \ > / %9Q? ” > yedwra Opdtras prev od mrapexer 00d’ adAw azrat- devTw ovdEeVi, OV yap aicBdvovTaL, Tots 5° evavTiws a ¢ > / A 7 9 *e \ ] Ws avdparodois tpadetow amacww.? ovdtos 87) ¢e > ~ EKATEpoV TpOTTOs, W Heddwpe, 6 pev TH OvTe Ev ° / A ~ / a \ eXevlepia te Kal oxoAH TeOpaypévov, dv 87 , x a 9 , 27 a \ giAccodov Kareis, @ aveeontov evyfer SoKety Kat > MN > 4 ? \ > VA / ovoevt eivar OTav eis dovAtKka e€uméon diakovypaTa, olov oTpwaTddeopov py) emloTapéevov avoKeua- cacbar pndé dysov 7dbvat 7 Odrras Adyous: o6 8 * av Ta prev ToLadTa mavTa Suvapevov Topas TE Kal o€€ws diaxovety, avaBadrrecbar S€ odK emtoTapéevou emdeEva eAcvbépws 4 otd€ y> appoviay Adywr AaBovtos opbds tyvica Oedv Te Kat avdpav evoay.ovwr Biov adybn® @£O. Ki mavras, & Lwxpates, weiBors a A€yets @ > / i vn > / \ \ >? / womrep ee, mAEiwy av eipyvn Kal Kaka €AdTTw Kat avOpartrous €tn. za. "AAN ott’ amodAéoba Ta Kaka dSvuvatov, Ww Ocddwpe* strevavtiov yap Tt TH ayala@ ae eivar > / ” 3 > A > \ ¢ lon A \ avayKyn ovr ev Geots atta tdptofa, tiv de \ vf \ / \ , ~ > Gvntiv dvow Kat Tovde Tov Tomov mepiToXet &€& 1 Barrapifwy Themistius ; BapBapifwy BT. 2 rpagetow dracw B; tpadetor. raow T, lamb., Euseb. 3. O40. alamibe: sovso> bik.
4 éXevOépws BT; éXevbepiws Athenaeus, 5 d\n67 om. Athenaeus.
126
THEAETETUS
things, then the tables are turned; dizzied by the new experience of hanging at such a height, he gazes downward from the air in dismay and _ per- plexity ; he stammers and becomes ridiculous, not in the eyes of Thracian girls or other uneducated persons, for they have no perception of it, but in those of all men who have been brought up as free men, not as slaves. Such is the character of each of the two classes, Theodorus, of the man who has truly been brought up in freedom and leisure, whom you call a philosopher—who may without censure appear foolish and good for nothing when he is involved in menial services, if, for instance, he does not know how to pack up his bedding, much less to put the proper sweetening into a sauce or a fawn- ing speech—and of the other, who can perform all such services smartly and quickly, but does not know how to wear his cloak as a freeman should, properly draped,! still less to acquire the true harmony of speech and hymn aright the praises of the true life of gods and blessed men.
THEO. If, Socrates, you could persuade all men of the truth of what you say as you do me, there would be more peace and fewer evils among mankind.
soc. But it is impossible that evils should be done away with, Theodorus, for there must. always be something opposed to the good; and they cannot have their place among the gods, but must inevitably hover about mortal nature and this earth. Therefore
1 The Athenians regarded the proper draping of the cloak as a sign of good breeding. The well-bred Athenian first threw his cloak over the left shoulder, then passed it round the back to the right side, then either above or below
the right arm, and finally over the left arm or shoulder. See Aristophanes, Birds, 1567 f., with Blaydes’s notes.
Nai
PLATO
3 , 8 4 A aA ia] A bd Ad 5 > A avayKns. 610 Kal mrepaacbar ypr evOcvde exetoe / e 4 \ A ¢€ , ~ B devyew Ort tTaxroTa. gvy7y Se opoiwors Ged KaTa TO OuvaToV: Opolwais dé Sikalov Kal SovoV \ d / / @ iAAG / > + peta Ppovycews yeveobar. adda ydp, @® apiote, / Ys a e€ + > e tA e od mavu! pdd.ov 7etcar ws apa ovx WY EveKa OF / a , \ , > \ \ mceAdoi fact Setv movnpiay prev hevyew, apeTny de OLWKELV, TOUTWY YApLW TO pLEV EmTLTNOEUTEOV, TOO OU, iva pn? Kakos Kat va ayalos dokh eivat: tadra yap e€oTw 0 Acyopevos ypadv vOAos, ws epoi C d / R \ be LA Qe BY) rNé Q \ aweTar TO de adnles woe Aéywpmev. Oeds > ~ ) ~ A > > ¢e Oh, / ovoayh ovdauds adikos, add’ ws oidv Te diKaLd- TaTOS, Kal OUK EoTW avT@ OpoLdTEepov ovdEev 7) Os av nu@v av yévntar Ort SuKavoTaTos. Tept TOTO * \ ¢e ¢€ > ~ / > A \ b) / Kal 7 Ws adAnfads dewdrns avdpos Kal oddevia Te Kal avavopia. 1 bev yap ToUTOU yvaats codia Kal 3 \ > / ¢ A y+ > / A / apeTn adAnOfuy, 7 dé ayvora apyabia Kat Kakia b] / € > ” / / “A \ evapy7s* at 0 adda dewdrntés te SoKotca Kat codiat ev prev TroAuTiKals SvvacTelais ypuyvowevat goptixat, ev d€ Téxyvais Bdvavoor. TH ovdv ade- ~ \ > / / zm! i“ ~ D KobvTt Kal avoova Aéyovtt 7 mpatrovTe paKp@ b) ” A A ~ ¢e \ aploT EXEL TO 47) OvYYwpety Sew bro Travoupytas evar: aydAdovTat yap T@ dveider Kal olovTas > 4 4 b) lod / > ~ A a b] > akovew OTL ov AApoi ctor, ys aAAws axOn, adrA avopes olous det ev moAe Tods awlycopevovs. / oe > / o 4 ~ / > Nextéov ovv Tadnbés, 6tt TocotTw paddOVv eiow olor ovK olovTaL, OTL OVX OlovTaL’ ayvoobor yap / > A a Cyuiav ddicias, 6 det yKiota ayvoety. ov yap 1 wavy Bs; wavu 1 T. 2 wa un B; iva by wh T. 3 ro0ro Euseb., Iamb., Stob. ; rovrov BT. 128
THEAETETUS
we ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the gods as quickly as we can; and to escape is to become like God, so far as this is possible; and to become like God is to become righteous and holy and wise. But, indeed, my good friend, it is not at all easy to persuade people that the reason generally advanced for the pursuit of virtue and the avoidance of vice—namely, in order that a man may not seem bad and may seem good—is not the reason why the one should be practised and the other not; that, I think, is merely old wives’ chatter, as the saying is. Let us give the true reason. God is in no wise and in no manner unrighteous, but utterly and perfectly righteous, and there is nothing so like him as that one of us who in turn becomes most nearly perfect in righteousness. It is herein that the true cleverness of a man is found and also his worthlessness and cowardice; for the knowledge of this is wisdom or true virtue, and ignorance of it is folly or manifest wickedness ; and all the other kinds of seeming cleverness and wisdom are paltry when they appear in public affairs and vfilgar in the arts. Therefore by far the best thing for the unrighteous man and the man whose words or deeds are impious is not to grant that he is clever through knavery ; for such men glory in that reproach, and think it means that they are not triflers, “useless burdens upon the earth,’ ! but such as men should be who are to live safely in a state. So we must tell them the truth—that just because they do not think they are such as they are, they are so all the more truly ; for they do not know the penalty of unrighteousness, which is the thing they most ought to know. For 1 Homer, Iliad, xviii. 104; Odyssey, xx. 379. E 2 129
I
(
7
B
PLATO
> a ~ Ul \ / e Ls €oTw Hv Soxotot, tAnyal Te Kal OavaTtou, dv eviore
~ > > macyovaw ovdev adiKotvTes, aAAa HY advvarov expvyety.
e£O. Tiva 81) Aé€yers;
sa. Ilapaderypdtwv, d dire, ev T@ OvTL éaTw- Twv, TOO pev Oeiov evdayoveatatov, Tob dé aléov aOAwratov, ovx Op@vTes OTL oUTwWS EXEL, U7 nABLoTHTOS TE Kal THS eaxaTns avoias AavOavovar T@ pev opocovjrevoe Sia Tas adiKovs mpakets, TD d€ avopocovjrevor. o0 01) Tivovor Sikny Cavres TOV eikoTa Biov @ opovotvtat: éav O° elmwpev O71, av py atadAay@ou ths dewdtyTos, Kat TeAcvTHGAVTAS avTovs eKElvos jLEV O Ta KOKO kallapos TOTTOS OU d<€eTat, evOde de TV abrois OpLoLoTnT a. THS Svaywyhs det efouvor, KaKol Kaxots GUVOVTES, TavTa 67 Kal TaVvTAaTAOW Ws Sewol Kal Travodpyot avonTwy TWaV aKovacovTat.
@£O. Kai pada 67, & Laxpares.
> {} . Gy: ¢ ~ A xo. Oldd rot; d Eraipe. ev pévTor te adrois , arr’. 1 af A oe 5S AS \ oupPeBnkev’ dotav! idia Adyov Sé€yn Sobval Te Kat / \ ® / : A a) 17 > defacbar wept dv Yéyovar, Kat eOeAjowow av- dpiuk@s troAdy xpdvov tropetvar Kal p71) avavdpws duyety,” TOTE ATOTWS, @ Sayuwovie, TeAcEUT@VTES OK > / \ A e \ ¢ apéokovow avTot avtots mrept wv X€yovor, Kal 7 ¢ PYTOPLKY) EKElvy TwWS dmropapaiver at, wore Tatowy pndev « doKetv Ovapepew. TeEpt Lev ov TOUTWY, emre.d) Kal Tapepya Tuyxaver deyopeva, dmooT@juev—el be
C un, mAciw aet emippéovta KaTaxywoe WUdv TOV
ér’ dv W, Iamb. ; érc ay BT. 2 eee W; AGEs BT, lamb.
130
THEAETETUS
it is not what they think it is—scourgings and death, which they sometimes escape entirely when they have done wrong—but a penalty which it is impossible to escape.
THEO. What penalty do you mean?
soc. Two patterns, my friend, are set up in the world, the divine, which is most blessed, and the godless, which is most wretched. But these men do not see that this is the case, and their silliness and extreme foolishness blind them to the fact that through their unrighteous acts they are made like the one and unlike the other. They therefore pay the penalty for this by living a life that con- forms to the pattern they resemble; and if we tell them that, unless they depart from their “ cleverness,’ the blessed place that is pure of all things evil will not receive them after death, and here on earth they will always live the life like themselves—evil men associating with evil—when they hear this, they will be so confident in their un- scrupulous cleverness that they will think our words the talk of fools.
THEO. Very true, Socrates.
soc. Yes, my friend, I know. However, there is one thing that has happened to them: whenever they have to car ry on a personal argument about the doctrines to which they object, if they are willing to stand their ground for a while like men and do not run away like cowards, then, my friend, they at last become strangely dissatisfied with themselves and their arguments; their brilliant rhetoric withers away, so that they seem no better than children. But this is a digression. Let us turn away from these matters—if we do not, they will come on like
131
PLATO
> > ~ / inet A Net e: ” > A e€ apyfs Aoyov—emi b€é Ta EuTrpoobev iwpev, Ef Kat gol dokel. > A A A ~ i , +) @EO. “Knol pev ta Tovatra, @ UwKpares, ovK anoéoTepa akovew' pdw yap THAK@dE ovTt emakoAovieiv: ei pévtoe doKet, maAw emraviwpev. ~ ~ > A , 26. x0. Ovdxoty éevraifa mov Hyev tod Ao- o / you, ev @ edapev Tovs THY hepowevyny odaiav éyov- A ~ \ Ls Tas, Kal TO Gael doKObY EKdoTW TOUTO Kal E€ivaL , a ra aD \ ee rae $1717 , ToUTW @ SoKel, ev ev Tots aAXous EHeAEw Sucxupt- A D feoba, kal ody Kota wept Ta Sikata, WS TAVTOS lat a ON aA , / CA ~ \ paAddov a av OATar mOAs Sd€avTa abTH, TabTa Kat U4 ~ A €oTt dixata TH Oewevn, Eworep av KEeNnTaL’ TeEpt so > rf) cal 2 sa 7 ns = 7—? ¢ > e tayalot! otdéva avdpetov €8’ ovtws «iva, ef ~ / ¢ \ “ a“ >] / wate ToAUav Svapdxeobae OTL Kal a av wheAipa oinbetoa moles éauTi Ojra, Kal €ore TooobTov Xpovov Goov av KenTar aogeha, Any El TLS TO ovojia. déyou- TobTo dé ov okay’ av eln pos 6 Adyomev. ovyi; e£O. Ilavu ye. A ~ E x0. My yap Aeyérw 70 dvopa, aAAa TO Tpadypa \ > TO ovopalopevov Oewpeitw.* e£O. M7 yap. > 5) A / / sa. “AAA 6 av totto dvoudly, TovTov Syzrov {2 oToxyalerat vopoleToupévy, Kal TaVTAs TOUS VojLoOUS, kal? Goov oleTat Te Kal SUVaTaL, Ws WheAYLWTaTOUS ¢€ a / av \ a” / €auTH TiMeTar: 1 mpos adXo tt BA€zovea vouole- TELTQL;
1 réya000 BW?; rayada TW.
2 7d dvouatiuevoy Oewpeirw W3; 8 dvonatduevoy Oewpetra B; Neyérw . . . wi) yap om. T. 132
THEAETETUS
an ever-rising flood and bury in silt our original argument—and let us, if you please, proceed.
THEO. To me, Socrates, such digressions are quite as agreeable as the argument ; for they are easier for a man of my age to follow. However, if you prefer, let us return to our argument.
soc. Very well. We were at about the point in our argument where we said that those who declare that only motion is reality, and that whatever seems to each man really is to him to whom it seems, are willing to maintain their position in regard to other matters and to maintain especially in regard to justice that whatever laws a state makes, because they seem to it just, are just to the state that made them, as long as they remain in force ; but as regards the good, that nobody has the courage to go on and contend that whatever laws a state passes thinking them advantageous to it are really advantageous as long as they remain in force, unless what he means is merely the name “advantageous”!; and that would be making a joke of our argument. Am I right?
THEO. Certainly.
soc. Yes; for he must not mean merely the name, but the thing named must be the object of his attention.
THEO. True.
soc. But the state, in making laws, aims, of course, at advantage, whatever the name it gives it, and makes all its laws as advantageous as possible to itself, to the extent of its belief and ability; or has it in making laws anything else in view?
1 The legislator may call his laws advantageous, and that
name, if it is given them when they are enacted, will belong to them, whatever their character may be.
133
178
B
PLATO
0£0. Ovdapds. > > a \ \ za. 7H odv Kat tvyydver del, 7 ToAAa Kat dta- / ¢€ Le paptaver exaoTy | > ¢ /
@FO. Olnar eywye Kal apaptavew.
so. "Ere toivvy éevOévde av paddov mas tts e lot \ / ~ opmoroyyoeev TAUTA TATA, EL MEPL TAVTOS TLS TOD
e / Eldous epwruwyn, ev @ Kal TO WheAyov TUyXaveEL \ ov: €oTt O€ wou Kal Trept Tov preAAOVTA xpovor. /
oTav yap vosobeTupeba, ws eaouevouvs wheAiLous Tovs vojous TLO€ucba els TOV ETTELTA XpovoV’ TOTO be “rr 3) > AG eh Ae
€ é€AAov? opbds av rA&éyoipev.
ero. Ilavu ye.
”
30. 16 oy}, ovTwat epwT@pev ITpwrayopay n dAAov TWa TOV exeivyp TO avra Aeyouray: TavTwv pétpov avOpwrds eatw, ws date, ® I pwraydpa, Aevkav, Bapéwv, Kxovdwv, oddevos otov od TeV TOLOvTWY: eExwY yap avTa@v TO KpiTipLov Ev avTA, ola mdacyer Towadta olduevos, adnbH TE oleTar avT® Kal OvTa. ov OUTW;
iy EO. OvTw.
30. °H kai t&v pedAdovtwr Eceobar, Pyjsopev, @ Ilpwraydpa, eye TO KpiTHpiov ev atvT@, Kal ola av oinby éocoba, tadTa Kal ylyveTar exeww TH oinbévt.; otov Oepud, dp otav tis otnOH idvadTys avTov mupetov Arjiecbar Kat eceobar TavTHY THv Oepporyra, Kal ETEpOS, tapos dé, avrToinOA, Kata THY TOTEPOV dofav Pa@mwev TO peeMov amoprcecbat ; q KaTa THY audoTépwv, Kal TH prev latp@ ov
1 éxdorn W; éxdoryn BT. 2 wédrov W ; pwaddov BT. 134
THEAETETUS
THEO. Certainly not.
soc. And does it always hit the mark, or does every state often miss it ?
THEO. I should say they do often miss it!
soc. Continuing, then, and proceeding from this point, every one would more readily agree to this assertion, if the question were asked concerning the whole class to which the advantageous belongs ; and that whole class, it would seem, pertains to the future. For when we make laws, we make them with the idea that they will be advantageous in after time ; and this is rightly called the future.
THEO. Certainly.
soc. Come then, on this assumption, let us ques- tion Protagoras or someone of those who agree with him. Man is the measure of all things, as your school says, Protagoras, of the white, the heavy, the light, everything of that sort without exception ; for he possesses within himself the standard by which to judge them, and when his thoughts about them coincide with his sensations, he thinks what to him is true and really is. Is not that what they say?
THEO. Yes.
soc. Does he, then, also, Protagoras, we shall say, possess within himself the standard by which to judge of the things which are yet to be, and do those things which he thinks will be actually come to pass for him who thought them? ‘Take, for instance, heat; if some ordinary man thinks he is going to take a fever, that is to say, that this particular heat will be, and some other man, who is a _ physician, thinks the contrary, whose opinion shall we expect the future to prove right? Or perhaps the opinion
135
PLATO
\ b) A / / e ~ A > , Oepuos odd€ TUpeTTWY yevyoeTal, EavT@ 5é audo- Tepa;
@£O. Tedotov evr’ av ein. sa. “AXX’, ofa, wept owvov yAvKUTyTOSs Kal D advornpotntos peAAovons Ececbar 1) Too yewpyob / > > =) ¢ ~ “A / dd€a, add’ ody 7) TOO KLapioTob Kupia. ozo. Tt py; #99 a“ s A > / \ > sa. Ovd’ av ad wept avapyootov Te Kal evap- / > jf / an“ / / p.doTov eaopevov mraidoTpipys av BéATiov dSo€dcevev ~ am | \ ” > ~ 5 / / povaikod, 6} Kat éeverta adT@ madotpiBn dd€et evdppooTtov «€ivar.
@£O. Ovdapds.
32. Odxodv Kat tod pédAovtos éotidcecbau p11) payeipiKod ovTos, oKevalomevyns Gowns, axupotépa % Kplois THs TOD oYoToLloH TEpt THs eaopéevns
E ndovis. mept pev yap Tod On dvtos éxaoTw
nd€os 7) yeyovdTos pyndév TH TH Adyw Siapayw-
3 \ \ ~ / ¢e Va \ /
pcOa, addAa wept TOD péANOVTOS ExaoTw Kal dd€ew
Kat eoeofar TOoTEpov avTos atTm adpioTos KpiTHs,
b , > II / / 2 \ Ao A \
ot, ® IIpwraydpa, 76 ye? epi Adyous miBavov
EKCOTW HUY €adjmevov eis SiKacTHpLov PBéATLOV av mpodokdcas 7 THY (OtwT@v Coticobv;
\ / > , ee! 4
ero. Kat pada, @ LwdKpates, TobdTd ye
/ ¢e A / f b] he
opddpa tmeaxvetto mavtwy diadépew adros.
sa. N1 Ata, d pede: 7 ovdeis y’ av atta die-
/ \ \ > / >? s\ A ,
179 Aéyero Sid0vs odd apyvpiov, et 7 Tovs GUVdVTAas
érevlev OTL Kal TO péAXov eoecbal Te Kai Sogew 1 § om. T. 2 76 ye W; Tore BT. 136
THEAETETUS
of both, and the man will become, not hot or feverish to the physician, but to himself both ?
THEO. No, that would be ridiculous.
soc. But, I imagine, in regard to the sweetness or dryness which will be in a wine, the opinion of the husbandman, not that of the lyre-player, will be valid.
THEO. Of course.
soc. And again, in a matter of discord or tuneful- ness in music that has never been played, a gymnastic teacher could not judge better than a musician what will, when performed, seem tuneful even to a gymnastic teacher himself.
THEO. Certainly not.
soc. Then, too, when a banquet is in preparation the opinion of him who is to be a guest, unless he has training in cookery, is of less value concerning the pleasure that will be derived from the viands than that of the cook. For we need not yet argue about that which already is or has been pleasant to each one; but concerning that which will in the future seem and be pleasant to each one, is he himself the best judge for himself, or would you, Protagoras—at least as regards the arguments which will be persuasive in court to each of us—be able to give an opinion beforehand better than anyone whatsoever who has no especial training ?
THEO. Certainly, Socrates, in this, at any rate, he used to declare emphatically that he himself excelled everyone.
soc. Yes, my friend, he certainly did; otherwise nobody would have paid him a high fee for his conversations, if he had not made his pupils believe that neither a prophet nor anyone else could judge
137
PLATO
bd , v ” + / A av oUTE pdvTis oUTe Tis GAAos apewov Kpivetey av 7 autos.!
e£bO. “AArbéctara.
~ A A 3a. Odxoty kal ai vopobeciar Kat TO wPhéApwov ~ ) ¢e A
Tept TO péArov €ori, Kal mas av oporoyot _vopobe - TOUpEVaY moAw moh\axs d avayKyy eiva TOD wheA- [WTATOV aTOTUYXAVEW ;
£0. Mada ye.
=; Merpiws dpa apy ™pos tov 8iddoKaAdv
B cov elpijcerat, OTL avdyKn avTa opohoyetv copa
tepov te adAXov addXov ecivat Kal Tov [Lev TOLODTOV
[eTpov elvan, €ol Oe TO dveTLoTnpove pede
OmwarTLooy avayKnv eivau petTpw ylyvecbar, ws
GpTt pe jayralev 0 orep €xeivou Adyos, €iT eBovAduny etre uy, ToLodTov elvat.
P) , = > , , @EO. “Exeivn pou Soxe?, @ Lwxpates, wadtora adioxeabar 6 Adyos, GAvcKdpevos Kal TaUTY, 7) TAS ~ + / / A e A > if tav adAwy dd€as Kuplas Trovet, adTau dé Epavycay Tous ekeivov Adyous ovdaph adnOets 7yovpevar. = > y ,
C xo. IloAAay7, & Ocddwpe, cat arAAn av TO ye Tovodrov dAoin pn macav mavtos adyOy dd€av eivat’ mept dé TO Tapoyv ExdoTw Talos, €€ dy at alcOyoes Kal ai Kata Tavtas dd€au ylyvovTal,
/ ic A e > > ~ a” \ xarerwtepov €édctv ws ovK adnfets. tows dé b] \ / > / / + et > / \ ovdev A€yw: avadrdwto. yap, et ETvyoV, Eloiv, Kal ot dackortes avTas evapyets Te Elvar Kal EmLOTHUAS Taya av ovra Aéyouev, Kal Ocairntos d0e ovK azo oKo700 elpnkev atoGnow Kal emLOT TY TavrTov
D Oé€uevos. Tpooureov ovv eyyuTépw, ws 6 Umép
1 qgirds atm Mss.; avt@ om. Schleiermacher. 138
THEAETETUS
better than himself what was in the future to be and seem.
THEO. Very true.
soc. Both lawmaking, then, and the advantageous are concerned with the future, and everyone would agree that a state in making laws must often fail to attain the greatest advantage ?
THEO. Assuredly.
soc. Then it will be a fair answer if we say to your master that he is obliged to agree that one man is wiser than another, and that such a wise man is a measure, but that I, who am without knowledge, am not in the least obliged to become a measure, as the argument in his behalf just now tried to oblige me to be, whether I would or no.
THEO. In that respect, Socrates, I think that the argument is most clearly proved to be wrong, and it is proved wrong in this also, in that it declares the opinions of others to be valid, whereas it was shown that they do not consider his arguments true at all.
soc. In many other respects, Theodorus, it could be proved that not every opinion of every person is true, at any rate in matters of that kind; but it is more difficult to prove that opinions are not true in regard to the momentary states of feeling of each person, from which our perceptions and the opinions concerning them arise. But perhaps I am quite wrong; for it may be impossible to prove that they are not true, and those who say that they are manifest and are forms of knowledge may perhaps be right, and Theaetetus here was not far from the mark in saying that perception and knowledge are identical. So we must, as the argument in behalf of
139
180
PLATO
IIpwraydpov Adyos énératte, Kal oKemTéov TV
epomevnv TavTnv ovolay diakpovovTa,! eite byves elite cabpov dbéyyerar: pdxyn 5° obv Trept avTAs ov g~avAn ovd’ dAiyos yéyovev.
27. FO. Ilo\Aob Kai det davdAn eivar, adda mept pev THY “Iwviay Kal emdidwot maptroAv. oF yap tod “HpakdAeitov éraipot yopnyoto. tovTov tov Adyou pada éeppwpyevus.
sa. Td tor, d dire Oeddwpe, paGdAAov oKeTTé0v Kat e€ apyns, Womep adtol vmoTelvovTat.
@EO. Hovrdrrace pev ovv. Kal yap, @ LeKpares, Tept ToUTwWY TV ‘HpaxdAeretov “iP aomep ov Aéyers, ‘Opmpetov Kal ett TradaoTépwv, adtois pev tots mept tHv “Edeoov, dcot mpoomrovobyTat eumrerpou elvar,” ovdev padAdov ofdv Te dadrexOjvac 7) Tots OloTpPHow. aTEXVas yap KaTA TA ovyypap- pata dépovrar, TO 8 emetvar emt Aoyw Kal EPWTHMATL KAaL TNovylws ev pepeL amroKpivacbat Kal epeoba Hrrov avTois Ev 7 TO pndev: paAAov de bmepPdAAer TO odd’ OddSEV POS TO LASE OpLLKPOV eveiva TOUS avopaow ouxtas. aA av twa TI €pn, womTrep ex papéeTpas pyyarionea alviypLaTwon avaonavres amorofevouot, Kav TOUTOU cyrijs Adyov AaPety ti cipnkev, ETépw memAnEEL Kawas perT- WVOMAGLEVW. TEpavets dé ovdemore ovdev pos ovdeva adraiv: ovde ye eketvot avrot mpos aXdAn-
B Aous, aA’ ed mavy dvdAatrovar To pndev BéBarov
1 Scaxpovovra TW ; dxovovra B.
2 €umerpor etvac Vindob. 21; gumepo BT, Euseb. 140
THEAETETUS
Protagoras! enjoined upon us, come up closer and examine this doctrine of motion as the fundamental essence, rapping on it to see whether it rings sound or unsound. As you know, a strife has arisen about it, no mean one, either, and waged by not a few combatants.
THEO. Yes, far from mean, and it is spreading far and wide all over Ionia; for the disciples of Hera- cleitus are supporting this doctrine very vigorously.
soc. Therefore, my dear Theodorus, we must all the more examine it from the beginning as they themselves present it.
THEO. Certainly we must. For it is no more possible, Socrates, to discuss these doctrines of Hera- cleitus (or, as you say, of Homer or even earlier sages) with the Ephesians themselves—those, at least, who profess to be familiar with them—than with madmen. For they are, quite in accordance with their text-books, in perpetual motion; but as for keeping to an argument or a question and quietly answering and asking in turn, their power of doing that is less than nothing; or rather the words “nothing at all” fail to express the absence from these fellows of even the slightest particle of rest. But if you ask one of them a question, he pulls out puzzling little phrases, like arrows from a quiver, and shoots them off; and if you try to get hold of an explanation of what he has said, you will be struck with another phrase of novel and distorted wording, and you never make any progress whatso- ever with any of them, nor do they themselves with one another, for that matter, but they take very good care to allow nothing to be settled either
1 See 168 zB. 141
PLATO
dA (oo el) / 2259 39 A e a A eav elvar uyr’ ev Oyw jt’ ev Tats atdradv pvyxats, e€ A > yyovpevor, ws enol dSoxe?t, adTo ordowov etvat: 4 , ~ ToUTW dé TaVU TOAELODGW, Kal Kal’ Goov S¥vavTaL / > i mavrayobev €xBaAdovow. Loe A + x02. "lows, & Meddwpe, Tods dvdpas paxojevous e \ ewpakas, elpyvevovow de ov avyyéeyovas’ ov yap Gol eratpol «low: add’, oiwat, ta Toradra Tots A Dae oN ~ / “A an“ / pabnrats emt ayoAns dpalovaw, ovs av BovAwvrat ¢ A ~ Opolovs avTois ToLnoa. A Ss 4 \ ‘ @£0. Ilolows pabnrats, & Saydve; ovd€ yi- A > > C yverat THv Tovovtwy Eerepos étépov palyriHs, arr abropato. avadvovtar, omdbev av t’yy EKaaTOS ~ \ ¢€ \ atvta@v évOovaidoas, Kal TOV ETEpov 6 ETEpos ovdEV nyetrar €ldévar. Tapa pev ovv ToUTwWY, OTEP Ha > A >) + / / ” e / Mad €p@v, ovK av mote AdBous Adyov ovTE EKOVTWY OUT A LA aKovtwy: avtovs d€ Set mapadraPdovras wor7rep ? A mpoPpAnpwa emoKomTretabat. \ / \ xa. Kal petpiws ye Aéyers. Td ye 57) mpoBAnpwa aAAo Tt mraperAndapev Tapa ev TOV Gpyaiwv jpeTa ¢ D moujcews éemixpuTTopevwv tovs moAdovs, ws 7 / ~ A / 4@) / A ay Ay yeveots THY GAAwy tavtTwy “Qreavos Te Kat Tr fds pevpata Tuyyaver Kal ovdev EaTHKE, Tapa de TAY voTépwv ate codwrépwv avadhavdoyv amrodeckvupe- vwv, Wa Kal of oKUTOTO6poL avT@v THY scodiav ’ udbwow aKxovoavtes Kal TtavaowvTar HALGiws otd- pevol TA Lev EoTavat, TA O€ KivEetoPat THY OVTWY, pabovtes Sé€ OTe mavTa Kwetrar TYLWow adTovs; > ¢ 7 or‘you dé émeAabouny, @ Ocddwpe, ort addAoe ad / Tavavtia TovUTOLs aTrepyvavTo, 142
THEAETETUS
in an argument or in their own minds, thinking, I suppose, that this is being stationary; but they wage bitter war against the stationary, and, so far as they can, they banish it altogether.
soc. Perhaps, Theodorus, you have seen the men when they are fighting, but have not been with them when they are at peace; for they are no friends of yours; but I fancy they utter such peaceful doctrines at leisure to those pupils whom they wish to make like themselves.
THEO. What pupils, my good man? Such people do not become pupils of one another, but they grow up of themselves, each one getting his in- spiration from any chance source, and each thinks the other knows nothing. From these people, then, as I was going to say, you would never get an argument either with their will or against it; but we must ourselves take over the question and investigate it as if it were a problem of mathe- matics.
soc. Yes, what you say is reasonable. Now as for the problem, have we not heard from the ancients, who concealed their meaning from the multitude by their poetry, that the origin of all things is Oceanus and Tethys, flowing streams, and that nothing is at rest; and likewise from the moderns, who, since they are wiser, declare their meaning openly, in order that even cobblers may hear and know their wisdom and may cease from the silly be- lief that some things are at rest and others in motion, and, after learning that everything is in motion, may honour their teachers? But, Theodorus, I almost forgot that others teach the opposite of this,
143
E
181
PLATO ofov axivntov TeAcOev! w mdvr dvop eivat,
4 lj > J 5 éXcoot te Kal Iappevi kat adAXa doa MéXo II dar evav- , ~ iA TLOVJLEVOL TAaGL TOUTOLS SucyUpilovTaL, Ws EV TE / ? \ \ ~ b) 7 TAVTA E€OTL Kal EaTHKEY AUTO ev ADT OVK EXOV Ld ? e aA , > > e ~ ~ Xwpav ev 7 KiWEetTAaL. ToUTOLS OvV, W ETAtpE, AOL U , \ \ \ oe / / Ti xpnooucba; Kata opuKpov yap mpotovres AeAy > iD, > / \ Oayev apdotépwv els TO wécov meTTWKOTES, KAL an /, > / / / / av LH 7 apvvopevor Siadvywpev, Sikny Swcopev a ¢e b] A ? \ -~ womep ot ev tais madaliotpas dia ypaupys / ¢ Nye 2 a matlovtes, OTav Um’ audotéepwy Andbevtes EAKwvTaL p) > ae , els TavavTia. SoKet obv fot TODS ETEpoUS TPOTEPOV / 337i: 7 \ cv oKeTTEOV, Eh OVOTEP WPLAGapEV, TOUS pEeovTas’ Ni Fe IN / > Kat eav ev Te haivwyrat Aéyovtes, avveAEopev [LET ? ~ ¢ a A / avTa@v nuds abtovs, Tovs éTépous exduyety TrELipw- prevot’ eav d€ of Tob GAov oTaci@tar adnféaTrepa déyew dSoxdat, devEoucd > abdtovs am’ ad TOV? y ; ucla tap avtovs am at TwV N > > ~ Ta akWyTA KWovVTwY. auddTtepor 5 av dave \ / / ~ > / ¢ / pndev petprov Aéyovtes, yeAotor eaopreOa yyovpcvor e ~ / A nas juev Te A€yew havAovs dvTas, 7raptraAalous de A u > Kal Tacoopous avopas amrodedoKiyakoTes. Opa ovr, > > A ~ af @ Oecddwpe, ef AvowreAct Els ToGotTov 7poievat KWWOUVOV. > > A @EO. Oddév pev oby avextov, @ UoKpates, 7 > PS) / { / ¢ / ~ > ~ ov diackefacbar ti A€yovow ExdTepor TOV avdpov. 1 reXéOew Stallbaum ; red\éGec BT. 2 rap attods dm’ abi tav Schleiermacher; wap’ a’ro’s az’ aitav Trav W; an’ abr&v rév rap airods B; Trav map’ avrovs am airav T.
144
THEAETETUS
So that it is motionless, the name of which is the All,!
and all the other doctrines maintained by Melissus and Parmenides and the rest, in opposition to all these ; they maintain that everything is one and is — stationary within itself, having no place in which to move. What shall we do with all these people, my friend? For, advancing little by little, we have un- wittingly fallen between the two parties, and, unless we protect ourselves and escape somehow, we shall pay the penalty, like those in the palaestra, who in playing on the line are caught by both sides and dragged in opposite directions.? I think, then, we had better examine first the one party, those whom we originally set out to join, the flowing ones, and if we find their arguments sound, we will help them to pull us over, trying thus to escape the others; but if we find that the partisans of “the whole” seem to have truer doctrines, we will take refuge with them from those who would move what is motionless. But if we find that neither party has anything reasonable to say, we shall be ridiculous if we think that we, who are of no account, can say anything worth while after having rejected the doctrines of very ancient and very wise men. Therefore, Theo- dorus, see whether it is desirable to go forward into so great a danger.
THEO. Oh, it would be unendurable, Socrates, not to examine thoroughly the doctrines of both parties.
1 Parmenides, line 98 (ed. Mullach). In its context the infinitive is necessary ; but Plato may have quoted carelessly and may have used the indicative.
2 In the game referred to (called dcehkvorivda by Pollux, ix. 112) the players were divided into two parties, each of which tried to drag its opponents over a line drawn across the palaestra.
145
PLATO
28. 20. UKemréov av ely ood ye ovTw mpobu- Houpevou. Soxet obv jou apx7) elvan THs oKebews C KWI}GEWS mépt, Totdv TL OTE apa Aéyovrés pact TA TAVTO kuvetoOan. BovAopau dé Aéyew TO ToLvoE moTEpov Ev TL Eldos adthns A€yovow FY, WoTrEp Epmol paiverat, SVo; p71) pLévToL pLovoy Epoi doKeiTw, aAAa ovuppeTexe Kal ov, Wa KoWwh Tacxwpev, av Te Kal d€y. Kal por Aéye: dpa Kuwetofa Kareis, OTayv TL ywpav ek ywpas petaBadAn 7) Kal Ev TH avT@® oTpédytar; @LO. “Eywye. sa. Todto peév toivuy év éotw eidos. dtav be D a prev ev TH ado, ynpaoky d€, 7 peda ex AevKob 7 oKAnpov éK eae yeynr ar, 7H Twa adrXnv adAoiwow adrAowTar, dpa odK a€sov Eetepov etdos pavar Kwiyoews ; @£EO. “Epouye doxet.t sa. *Avayxatov pev obv.2 dvo 8) A€yw TovTW Elon KWHjGEws, dAAoiwoaw, THY dé dopav.? @EO. “Opbds ye A&€ywr. 30a. Totoro roivuy ottTw dreAdpevor SiadeyapreBa 707 Tots Ta mavTa pacxovow Kiveto0ar Kal €pw- T@LEV* TOTEpov mav pate dpuporepars Kwetobat, E PepopLevov TE read aAAotovpevov, 7) TO [eV TL dpdo- Tépws, TOO ETEPWS; @EO. ‘AMa pa A’ éywye otk exw eimety: oluar 8° av davat apporepus. 3a. Ei dé ye uy, & Eratpe, Kwovpeva Te avdtois 4
1 Euovye doxet om. Stobaeus. 2 dvayxkaiov pev otv given to Theodorus by B. 3 gopav W ; repipopdy BT, Stobaeus. 4 a’rots W ; éavro’s BT.
146
THEAETETUS
sov. Then they must be examined, since you are so urgent. Now I think the starting-point of our examination of the doctrine of motion is this: Ex- actly what do they mean, after all, when they say that all things are in motion? What I wish to ask is this: Do they mean to say that there is only one kind of motion or, as I believe, two? But it must not be my belief alone ; you must share it also, that if anything happens to us we may suffer it in common. Tell me, do you call it motion when a thing changes its place or turns round in the same place ?
THEO. Yes.
soc. Let this, then, be one kind of motion. Now when a thing remains in the same place, but grows old, or becomes black instead of white, or hard instead of soft, or undergoes any other kind of alteration, is it not proper to say that this is another kind of motion?
THEO. I think so.
soc. Nay, it must be true. So I say that there are these two kinds of motion: “ alteration,’ and “motion in space.”
THEO. And you are right.
soc. Now that we have made this distinction, let us at once converse with those who say that all things are in motion, and let us ask them, “ Do you mean that everything moves in both ways, moving in space and undergoing alteration, or one thing in both ways and another in one of the two ways only ?”’
THEO. By Zeus, I cannot tell! But I think they would say that everything moves in both ways.
soc. Yes; otherwise, my friend, they will find that things in motion are also things at rest, and it will
147
PLATO
~ A A > ~ id
Kal €oT@ta havetrat, Kal ovdev paAXov opOds Eee
elmety OTL KLVEtTaL TA TAVTA 7} OTL EOTHKEV.
> / Me @£0. “AdAnféotata déyets. ~ A a A \ 2a. OdKobv eretd7) eee atta det, TO dé / / \ ~ He) Kwetobar pen evetva! undevi, 7avTa 51 macav 182 Kivnow adel Kiweira. e£O. “AvayKn. =n. UKor7ree én [Lou TO0E avrav THS feppotntos H AevKOTHTOS 7 7) oTovoby yeveow ovxY OUTW ws éne- yoev ddvat avtouvs, Pépecbar ExaoTov TovTWwWY dpa aicOnoe peTa€vd Tob moLobyTOs TE Kal TAOXOVTOS, \ \ Ni / > a] \ 9 tAA? b) ” Q 38 Kal TO ev Tacyov alabytiKov? ard’ ovK atcbnow ylyvecOar, TO S€ rovotv trovdv Te aAN’ od TroLoTHTA; laws ovv 7 mowTns aa aAAdKoTov Te hativerat dvopya Kat o¥ pavlavers abpoov Aeyouevov: Kata
B pepn odv dkove. TO yap trotody ovTe OBepyorns ovte AevKoTNs, Oepprov dé Kal AevKOV ylyveTat, Kal Tarra ovr: pLeuvnoat yap | Tov Kal ev TOUS mpoatev OTL OUTWS eAcyouev, Ev pendev atvto Kal? avTo elvat, pnd av TO ToLobY 7 TAOXOV, ann’ e€ dipporépay mpos aAAnra ovyyLyvopevwy Tas atcOnoers Kal Ta aicnra QTOTLKTOVTA TA [ev mo.a * arta yiyveoba, Ta Sé aicbavopeva.
@LO. Méuvnpa amas 8° ov; A A / ” / Cs ” sa. Ta pev towvy adda xaipew edowper, ete w+ v iv / e ae oe, /
C a\Aws eite ovVtTws A€yovow: ob 8 evexa A€yoper, TovTo povov dvdAatTwpev, épwrdvTes: KivelTar Kal pet, ws Pate, TA TAVTA; 7) yap;
1 évewar W; év civac BT. 2 aic@nrixdvy Burnet; aicdynrov BT; aicénryv Buttmann;
alcOavéuevoy Heindorf. 3 aisdnow W ; aicOnow én BT. 4 rod bt; ma BT.
148
THEAETETUS
be no more correct to say that all things are in motion than that all things are at rest.
THEO. What you say is very true.
soc. Then since they must be in motion, and since absence of motion must be impossible for any- thing, all things are always in all kinds of motion.
THEO. Necessarily.
soc. Then just examine this point of their doctrine. Did we not find that they say that heat or whiteness or anything you please arises in some such way as this, namely that each of these moves simultaneously with perception between the active and the passive element, and the passive becomes percipient, but not perception, and the active becomes, not a quality, but endowed with a quality? Now perhaps quality seems an extraordinary word, and you do not under- stand it when used with general application, so let me give particular examples. For the active element becomes neither heat nor whiteness, but hot or white, and other things in the same way; you probably remember that this was what we said earlier in our discourse, that nothing is in itself un- varyingly one, neither the active nor the passive, but from the union of the two with one another the per- ceptions and the perceived give birth and the latter become things endowed with some quality while the former become percipient.
THEO. I remember, of course.
soc. Let us then pay no attention to other matters, whether they teach one thing or another ; but let us attend strictly to this only, which is the object of our discussion. Let us ask them, “ Are all things, according to your doctrine, in motion and flux?” Is that so?
149
PLATO
e£0. Nat.
32. Odxotv apudorépas as drecAcucba Kujoets, depopeva Te Kal addorovpeva; :
@£O. [las 8° ov; etimep ye 8% TeAdws KUWH- OeTaL.
22. Ei pev TOLVUV epepeTo jovov, 7)Aovobro dé LA7), elxopiev av 7ov eimetvy ola atta pet Ta Pepo- preva’ 1 7@s Aéywpev};
@EO. Odtus.
D 3x0. *Ezed) 5€ otd€ Todto pévet, TO AEevKOV pet TO peov, aAAd peTaBader, wore Kal avToU TovTou elvat por, THs AevxdryTOos, Kal peraBoAnjy els any xpoav, wa pn arA®d TaUTy prevov, apa moTe olov TEé TL TpooEiTEty yp@ua, woTe Kal opbas mpooayopever ;
e£EO. Kai tis pnxavy, o Lwxpates; 7 addo ye Te TOV TOLOUTU, elep ae A€yovtos bmeképyeTat, ave 67) péov;
sa. Ti dé wept aic8ycews epodsuev omoracoby, olov Ths TOD Opav 7 aKovew; peévew Tote ev adT@
E7@ opav 4 axoveww;
@EO. Ovxour de? ye, elmep mavTa KWeiTaL.
sa. Ovre dpa Opav Tpoopntéov Tt paiov 7 n ity opav, ovde TW * ahAny atcOnow padXov 7 wh, TaVTwV ye TaVTWS KLVOUpLEVWY.
£0. Od yap ouv.
32. Kai pny atobyais ye émoriun, ws paper €yw Te Kal Ocairyros.
e£O. *Hy radra.
1 Ndywuev Bs Néyouer T. 150
THEAETETUS
THEO. Yes. F
soc. Have they then both kinds of motion which we distinguished? Are they moving in space and also undergoing alteration ?
THEO. Of course; that is, if they are to be in perfect motion.
soc. Then if they moved only in space, but did not undergo alteration, we could perhaps say what qualities belong to those moving things which are in flux, could we not?
THEO. That is right.
soc. But since not even this remains fixed—that the thing in flux flows white, but changes, so that there is a flux of the very whiteness, and a change of colour, that it may not in that way be convicted of remaining fixed, is it possible to give any name to a colour, and yet to speak accurately ?
THEO. How can it be possible, Socrates, or to give a name to anything else of this sort, if while we are speaking it always evades us, being, as it is, in flux ?
soc. But what shall we say of any of the percep- tions, such as seeing or hearing? Does it perhaps remain fixed in the condition of seeing or hearing ?
THEO. It must be impossible, if all things are in motion.
soc. Then we must not speak of seeing more than not-seeing, or of any other perception more than of non-perception, if all things are in all kinds of motion.
THEO. No, we must not.
soc. And yet perception is knowledge, as Theaetetus and I said.
THEO. Yes, you did say that.
151
PLATO
30a. Ovddev apa eTLOTHLNY padMov 7 n py) emLoT 7 - Env amexpiajreOa epwrwevol 6 Ti eoTw eTLOTHUN. 183 £0. *Eotkate. sa. Kadov av ayiv cvpBaivor ro érravophwua Ths amoKpioews, mpoOupnfetow arodeiEar ott mavTa Kuwetra, Wa 81) exelvy % amroKptots dp0r pavy. To 5’, ws €oxev, edavn, el mavTa KwWetTaL, T4GQ GmOKpLOLs, Tepl OTOV av TLS amoKpiVyTaL, opoiws opbr civat, ovTw 7 exew Pdvat Kal [7 ovTw, ef d€ BovrAan, ylyvecba, va pn oTHOwpeEV avtovs T@ Adyw. @EO. “Opbds réyets. sa. IlAnv ye, & Oeddape, dtu “ ovTw ”’ TE Efzrov
\ ce 2) 4 ” a \ > A ~ €¢ ¢ , Kat ““ovx ovUTw. det dé ovdE TotTO “ ovTw Be . se A nn ” aA ce 4 Aa >> éyew* ovoe yap av ett KWwoito “ ovTw'’: ov av “un ovTw’’s ode yap ‘ TobTo’’ Kuwnots:
adrd tw’ adrAAnv dwviv Oeréov Tots Tov Adyov TobTov Aéyovow, ws viv ye mpos Thy abT@v b7dbeow odvK w eae > A yw A a9 > i 1 €xovor pryy.aTa, ef pun apa TO “‘ovd O7ws. peddtora 5° ottTws? av attots apyorroL, a7retpov Aeyopevov. “d / ~ / 4 ° A
@EO. OlKevordtn yobv diaXextos avrn adtois.
=a. Odxody, w Ocodwpe, TOU TE Gov €raipov dm AAdyu<Ba., Kal OUTTW ovyxwpodjiev avTa mayer avopa mavTwv Xpneatov [LET pov elvau, av pn
C dpoviuds tes ih eTLOTHLNV TE atobnow ob ovyyw-
pacaiete KaTa ye THV TOD TavTa KwWetabat €Jodor, el uy *® Ti ms GAAws Meaitntos ode réyet.
@E0. “Apior’ elpykas, @ LweKpates: TovTwv
A / \ > \ A > / yap tmepavOdvtwy Kal eue det amndAdAadyGar oo.
1 6rws BT; ottrws W.
2 8 otrws om. W. 3 ei un W; Hef uy BT.
152
THEAETETUS :
soc. Then when we were asked “what is know- ledge?” we answered no more what knowledge is than what not-knowledge is.
THEO. So it seems.
soc. This would be a fine result of the correction of our answer, when we were so eager to show that all things are in motion, just for the purpose of making that answer prove to be correct. But this, I think, did prove to be true, that if all things are in motion, every answer to any question whatsoever is equally correct, and we may say it is thus or not thus—or, if you prefer, “becomes thus,” to avoid giving them fixity by using the word “is.”
THEO. You are right.
soc. Except, Theodorus, that I said “thus,” and “not thus’; but we ought not even to say “thus” ; for “thus” would no longer be in motion; nor, again, “not thus.” For there is no motion in “ this”’ either; but some other expression must be supplied for those who maintain this doctrine, since now they have, according to their own hypothesis, no words, unless it be perhaps the word “nohow.”’ That might be most fitting for them, since it is indefinite.
THEO. At any rate that is the most appropriate form of speech for them.
soc. So, Theodorus, we have got rid of your friend, and we do not yet concede to him that every man is a measure of all things, unless he be a sensible man; and we are not going to concede that know- ledge is perception, at least not by the theory of universal motion, unless Theaetetus here has some- thing different to say.
THEO. An excellent idea, Socrates; for now that this matter is settled, I too should be rid of the duty
F 153
PLATO
A A amoKplwwopevov Kata Tas ovvOyjKas, emELd7y TO TeEpt tod IIpwraydpov Aoyou TéAos oxotn. > s 29. oFal. My, mpw vy av, & Occdwpe, Lw- D Kparns Te Kal od Tovs ddoKovtas ab TO may EoTa- / LA ” / vat dueAOnte, Womep apTe Tpovlecbe. / wv Ss / \ / ez0. Neos wv, & Mcaitytre, Tods mpeaButépovs a / aoucety SidaoKets Omodoyias mapaPaivovtas; aAAa mapackevdlov omws Tadv emdAocimwy LwKpdarer dwaets Adyov. @EAI. "Eavrep ye BovdAnrar. yovora pévT’ av qKovoa Trept wy Aéyw. ¢ / > / A is y) @EO. ‘Iméas els mediov mpokaXet Lwparn eis Adyous mpoxadrovpevos: epwTa obv Kat aKovces. sa. "Ad por d0Kd, @ Ocddwpe, wept ye adv E xedever Oeaitntos od mreicecBar atT@. / \ (oe b] , @EO. Ti 81) otv od metcecba; sa. MédAcocov pév Kat tovs adAdous, of €v éatos ~ / ~ Aéyovat TO TAv, aloxuvouevos pun PopTiKas oKo- ~ e / nv T@LEV, HTTOV atoxvvonar 7 eva ovTa Ilapuevidnv. / / / A lon ¢€ / Ilappevidns 5€ por dawerat, TO Tod “Opnpou, ce > al / ”) > AA cé / ”» aldotds Té Lou” eivar aya ‘‘ dewds Te.” oupTTpoc- , ‘ \ AS \ y , , , éurga yap 51) TH avdpt mavu véos wavy mpeoPvrn, / a Kat por epavn Pdbos tu €xew TavTdmac. yevvaiov. i > \ by MA , ~ 4 184 doBotwar otv py ovte Ta Aeyopeva Evvidmev, Ti Te Stavoovpevos elme oA TA€ov AeiTwWpmeOa, Kat BSE, 4 TO peyiaTov, 00 Eveka 6 AOyos WpENTaL, ETLOTHUNS / > > ~ mépt, TL WoT EOTWW, GoKETTOV yEevnTal UO TaV
154
THEAETETUS
of answering your questions according to our agree- ment, since the argument about Protagoras is ended.
THEAET. No, Theodorus, not until you and Socrates have discussed those who say all things are at rest, as you proposed just now.
THEO. A young man like you, Theaetetus, teach- ing your elders to do wrong by breaking their agree- ments! No; prepare to answer Socrates yourself for the rest of the argument.
THEAET. I will if he wishes it. But I should have liked best to hear about the doctrine I mentioned.
THEO. Calling Socrates to an argument is calling cavalry into an open plain.! Just ask him a question and you shall hear.
soc. Still I think, Theodorus, I shall not comply with the request of Theaetetus.
THEO. Why will you not comply with it?
soc. Because I have a reverential fear of examining in a flippant manner Melissus and the others who teach that the universe is one and motionless, and because I reverence still more one man, Parmenides. Parmenides seems to me to be, in Homer’s words, “one to be venerated”’ and also “awful.”2 For I met him when I was very young and he was very old, and he appeared to me to possess an absolutely noble depth of mind. So I am afraid we may not understand his words and may be still farther from understanding what he meant by them; but my chief fear is that the question with which we started, about the nature of knowledge, may fail to be mvestigated, because of the disorderly crowd of
1 A proverbial expression. An open plain is just what cavalry desires. 2 Iliad, iii. 172 ; Odyssey, viii. 22; xiv. 234. 155
PLATO
émevoxwmpalovTa Aoyav, el Tis avtots setoeTau
dws Te Kal Ov viv éyeipojev mA Get dyinxavov,
cite Tus év Trapepyw oneperar, dvage’ dv 7dr,
elite tkav@s, pyKkuvoplevos TO THS emLoT HHS
apaveet bet be ovd€eTEpa, dda Ocairyrov av B Kvel mepl emoTypns Tetpac0ar quads TH parevTiKh
Téxvn amodoar.
oro. “AAAa xp7, et doKet, oVTW TroLeEty.
za. “Ere toivuy, & Ocairnre, Toodvoe Trepl Tey elpyeevesy emloxeyar. atabynow yap 57 émorHuny amekpivw 7 yap;
eral. Nat.
20. Ee odv is ce WO epworen: “r@ Ta. Acuna Kal peAava Opa dvOpurros Kat T® Ta o€€a Kat
a” Bapéa aucover ; elmots av, ola, “ Oupacl Te Kal wor.”
@EAI. oe C =a. To de edxeEpes TOV OVOLATWY TE Kal pq- pdtwv Kal pay Ou axpupelas eSeralojevov TQ pev mToAAa ovK ayevves, dAAa waAXov TO TOUTOU évavTiov dvedcvfepor, €oTt 5€ OTE avayKaiov, olov Kal vov dvdyKn emAaBéabar Tis dmoxpioews nv dzoxpivet,
=
% ovK op87. OKOTEL yap, amdKptots TOTEpa. opforépa., a3) Opapev, ToOTO elvae opbadwovs, 4 ou ob op@mev, Kal @ akovouev, WTa, H Sv aKovopev ;
*=
oral. Av’ dv Exacta aicbavopeba, Ewouye Soxel,
@® Lao«pates, wardov 7 ois.
D xo. Aewov ydp mov, & mat, ef modAai twes ev yLtv, womep ev Sovpeios immois, aicOyoets 156
THEAETETUS
arguments which will burst in upon us if we let them in; especially as the argument we are now proposing is of vast extent, and would not receive its deserts if we treated it as a side issue, and if we treat it as it deserves, it will take so long as to do away with the discussion about knowledge. Neither of these things ought to happen, but we ought to try by the science of midwifery to deliver Theaetetus of the thoughts about knowledge with which he is pregnant.
THEO. Yes, if that is your opinion, we ought to do so.
soc. Consider, then, Theaetetus, this further point about what has been said. Now you answered that perception is knowledge, did you not?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. If, then, anyone should ask you, “ By what does a man see white and black colours and by what does he hear high and low tones?” you would, I fancy, say, “‘ By his eyes and ears.”
THEAET. Yes, I should.
soc. The easy use of words and phrases and the avoidance of strict precision is in general a sign of good breeding ; indeed, the opposite is hardly worthy of a gentleman, but sometimes it is necessary, as now it is necessary to object to your answer, in so far as it is incorrect. Just consider; which answer is more correct, that our eyes are that by which we see or that through which we see, and our ears that by which or that through which we hear?
THEAET. I think, Socrates, we perceive through, rather than by them, in each case.
soc. Yes, for it would be strange indeed, my boy, if there are many senses ensconced within us, as if
157
PLATO
9 / > A A ’ / 4 >] , ww eyxdbnvrar, GAAd pr) eis pilav tia idéav, etre guyny etre 6 Te Set KaAciv, mavTa Tadta Evvreiver, e PS) A id a > , >) , @ % Sia TovTwy olov opydvwv atcbavducba soa aicOnrda. egal. “AAAd pou Soke? ovTw aGAXov 7) exeivws. sa. Toidé tor e&vexa atdra oor draxpiBotuar, ” ¢€ ~ a > ~ ~ a >) ~ PS) A \ IbO x ~ el tue Hudv adtav TH atbT@ dia prev ofParuav edixvovpicba AcvKav Te Kal peAdvwv, dia Sé THY E dd\Awv érépwv ad twOv, Kal e€ers epwrwpevos mavTa Ta TOLAdTA Eels TO OHpa avadepew. tows \ v4 \ / ’ A > i) ~ dé BéAtiov oé A€yew adra amoKpwopevov adAov ) ewe vrép cod modumpaypovety. Kat por r€&ye- A A A A ~ A a >] a Bepua Kat oxAnpa Kat Kodda Kat yrAvKéa bv dv aidbdver, dpa od To owuatos Exacta TiOyns; 7 »” / aAAov Tivos; @EAI. Oddevos adAov. sa. 7H Kai eOeAjcers dporoyetv, a du’ ETépas 185 Suvdpews aicbaver, advvatov eivat dv adAAys a5 > r PS a 3.5 a >» n oA ratr aicbécba, oiov ad du” axons, du opews, 7 a Sar oe >] 5 nw du’ dvews, Ou akojs; aw A >] > , eral. Ids yap ovK eBedrjow; ” ” \ b) / aA >) “a sa. Ei 7 dpa mepi audorépwv Siavoet, odk av Sua ye To E€TEpov dpyavov, ovd avd dua Tov ETépov \ >) , 3 in -) A mept adotépwv atcbavou av. @EAI. Od yap odv. a ~ A sa. Ilepi 57) dwvis Kat wept xpoas mp@rov pev 158
THEAETETUS
we were so many wooden horses of Troy, and they do not all unite in one power, whether we should call it soul or something else, by which we per- ceive through these as instruments the objects of perception.
THEAET. I think what you suggest is more likely than the other way.
soc. Now the reason why I am so precise about the matter is this: I want to know whether there is some one and the same power within ourselves by which we perceive black and white through the eyes, and again other qualities through the other organs, and whether you will be able, if asked, to refer all such activities to the body. But perhaps it is better that you make the statement in answer to a question than that I should take all the trouble for you. So tell me: do you not think that all the organs through which you perceive hot and hard and light and sweet are parts of the body? Or are they parts of something else ?
THEAET. Of nothing else.
soc. And will you also be ready to agree that it is impossible to perceive through one sense what you perceive through another; for instance, to perceive through sight what you perceive through hearing, or through hearing what you perceive through sight?
THEAET. Of course I shall.
soc. Then if you have any thought about both of these together, you would not have perception about both together either through one organ or through the other.
THEAET. No.
soc. Now in regard to sound and colour, you have,
159
B
PLATO
9. = AAS: , > a, > , adTo TOOTO TrEpt aupoTéepwv 7 Sravoet, OTL aupoTépw €aTovV; ” @EAI. "Eywrye. b) ~ A eo e / e / =a. Odxody Kai Ort éxdtepov ExaTépov ev ETEpov, EavT@ Se TavTov; / / @EAI. Te pv; ee > so. Kat 67 audotépw duo, éxarepov 5é €v; eral. Kat rodro. 3 lol \ ” a / wv e / 3 / sa. Odxobiy Kat elite avopoiw eite Opuoiw addX7- \ Ss 9 / Now, Suvaros ef emicxeacbar; @FAl. “lows. lot \ / A A so. Tatra 51) wdavrta dia Tivos wept atroiv da- 74 ” \ > 1D A ” >» ar \ voel; oUTEe yap du aKkons ouTe du’ dsews oldv TE TO \ / A >] ~ ” A A / Kkowov AapPavew epi avTadv. Ett 5€ Kal TddE \ e ’ TEKpLNpLov mept od A€yomev: et yap Suvarov ety 3 / / Ss 9 b) A ¢ \ a” 7 audotépw oxKeiacbar, dp eotov dAuvpw 7H ov, > p> ¢ ¢ sme a 9 , \ A ” oia@ ott €€eus eimetvy @ émioKéeyser, Kal TOOTO oOvTE dys oUTE ako? Paiverat, AAAd Te aANo. > A lant oral. Tt 8° od pédAdear; 7 ye dua THs pAdTTys dvvaus. ~ e A A A sa. Kadds Adyers. 7 5é 57) dua Tivos Sdvayus TOT emi mot KoWwOoV Kal TO emt ToUTOLS SyAoz Got, e \ co ”) >] /, \ A ce P) ” »” @ 70 “ é€otw’’ éemovoudlers Kat To “ ovK €oTt, A ~ A ~ ~ Kal & viv 67) HpwrGpev Tept adta@v; TovTos waar mota amodwoes opyava du wy aicbdverar Hudv TO alofavopevoy exaoTa;
AV >) / UA \ \ \ > Nie 4 @EAI. Ovatay A€yers Kal TO pi) elvaL, Kal Opoud=
160
THEAETETUS
in the first place, this thought about both of them, that they both exist ?
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. And that each is different from the other and the same as itself?
THEAET. Of course.
soc. And that both together are two and each separately is one?
THEAET. Yes, that also.
soc. And are you able also to observe whether they are like or unlike each other?
THEAET. May be.
soc. Now through what organ do you think all this about them? For it is impossible to grasp that which is common to them both either through hearing or through sight. Here is further evidence for the point I am trying to make: if it were possible to investigate the question whether the two, sound and colour, are bitter or not, you know that you will be able to tell by what faculty you will investigate it, and that is clearly neither hearing nor sight, but something else.
THEAET. Of course it is,—the faculty exerted through the tongue.
soc. Very good. But through what organ is the faculty exerted which makes known to you that which is common to all things, as well as to these of which we are speaking—that which you call being and not-being, and the other attributes of things, about which we were asking just now? What organs will you assign for all these, through which that part of us which perceives gains perception of each and all of them?
THEAET. You mean being and not-being, and like-
F2 161
PLATO
A A A , .} .] THTA KAL GvojLoLOTHTA, KaL TO TAaUTOV TE Kal TO o ” \ o \ \ yy 5 A A D érepov, étt 5€ Ev TE Kal Tov aXdAov apiOuov rept avta@v. ShAov Sé ote Kal dptidv TE Kal TEpITTOV epwrds, Kal TaAXa Goa TovToLs EmeTat, Sia Tivos ToTEe TOV TOO GwpaTos TH WuxyH atcbavopucba. > A A la sa. ‘Yaepev, & Ocaitynte, axodovdeis, Kat €oTw d €pwr atta taba. > A @kAI. “AXA pa Ala, & UaKpates, eywye ovK \ A >] A \ > \ av €xoyne eivetv, mAnY y’? OTe roe SoKet THY apxTV > > nn + U ovo eivat Towobtrov ovdev To’ToLs Opyavoy td.LoVv a >] / > > ’ x > ¢ ~ e A s womep ékelvois, aA’ adr de atrHs 7 Yvx7) Ta E kowd pou haivetat mept wavTwv emioKoTrety. me , =a. Karos yap ef, & Oeaitnte, Kai ody, ws wv / > , ¢€ A ~ , edeye Meddwpos, aicypds: 6 yap Kadds rEéywv kaNds Te Kal ayablds. mpos 5TH KaA® ed ETroinads / ~ / > / bg oy ep, / pe dda ovxvot Adyou amadAd€as, ei daiveral cor A ~ nw Ta prev av77 du adTHs 7 Wuvy7) émioKoTetv, Ta dé A A ~ ~ S dua TOV TOO cwpaTos Suvdpewv. TodTO yap Hv a“ A :) ~ >) / >] / yi A \ Oo Kat avdT@ por eddKet, EBovAdunv dé Kal col dd€au. 186 ora. “AAAa pv daiveral ye. = \ ~ 30. 30. Ilorépwv otv zifys tHv odciav; todTo A yap padwoTa él mavTwy mapémera. > «a A >) @EAL. “Eyw pev dv att?) 7 pvxyn Kal? adrHyv > ETTOPEYETAL. > A A @ A A 5 / A A so. °H Kat To Opotov Kat TO avdpotov Kal TO TavTov Kal ETEpoV;
eral. Nat. / A \ sa. Ti d€; Kxadrdv kai aicypov Kal ayalov Kat KaKov;
egal. Kai rovtwy proc Soxet ev tots padwora \ + A A b) / > mpos adAnda oxomeicbar tiv ovoiav, dvadop- 162
THEAETETUS
ness and unlikeness, and identity and difference, and also unity and plurality as applied to them. And you are evidently asking also through what bodily organs we perceive by our soul the odd and the even and everything else that is in the same category.
soc. Bravo, Theaetetus! you follow me exactly ; that is just what I mean by my question.
THEAET. By Zeus, Socrates, I cannot answer, except that I think there is no special organ at all for these notions, as there are for those others; but it appears to me that the soul views by itself directly what all things have in common.
soc. Why, you are beautiful, Theaetetus, and not, as Theodorus said, ugly ; for he who speaks beauti- fully is beautiful and good. But besides being beautiful, you have done me a favour by relieving me from a long discussion, if you think that the soul views some things by itself directly and others through the bodily faculties; for that was my own opinion, and I wanted you to agree.
THEAET. Well, I do think so.
soc. To which class, then, do you assign being; for this, more than anything else, belongs to all things ?
THEAET. I assign them to the class of notions which the soul grasps by itself directly.
soc. And also likeness and unlikeness and identity and difference?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And how about beautiful and ugly, and good and bad?
THEAET. I think that these also are among the things the essence of which the soul most certainly
163
PLATO
> e ~ \ ‘ \ Copeévn ev eavTH TA yeyovdTa Kal TA TrapdovTa B zpos Ta péAdovrTa. sa. "Eye 57° addo te Tob prev oxdAnpod rH oKAnpoTnTa d1a THs éemadhs aloOjoetar, Kal Tab padakod THY wadaKdTyTA WaavTws ; oral. Nat. \ / > / A ia > A A A =a. Tv d€ ye ovoiav Kat 6 Te €aTOV Kal THY > , A > 4 A \ 3 , > ~ evavT.oTnTa mpos aAAjAw Kat TiVv odaiay ad THs EVAVTLOTHTOS avT?) 7 Yux) ETaviodca Kat ovpPadr- Aovoa mpos aAAnAa Kpivew meiparat npLtv. ecAl. Ilavu peev ovUv. > ~ A \ >) \ / lf sa. Ovxotv ta pev etlvs yevomévois mapeori C dice aicbdvecbar avOpumois te Kat Onpiois, doa d1a TOD owpatos mabijpuata emt Thy uy Telver- Ta d€ TEpt ToOUTwWY avadoyiopata Tpds TE OvGIaY A 3 / / \ > / \ ~ Kai whedcray poyis Kal ev xpdvw 1a TOAAGY Trpay- pidtwv Kal maidelas mapaylyverat ols av Kal mapaylyvyTar; @EAI. [lavtamace pev ody. za. Olid re obv adnfeias tvyetv, & pnb ovoias; @eFAl. *“Advvarov. sa. Ob dé adnfelas tis atvyjoer, moTé TOUTOU ’ ETLOTHILWY EOTAL; Doral. Kat 7&s adv, & Uw«partes; > A + an / ’ ” > sa. “Ev pév dpa tots mabjuacw otvK eve emt- oTnun, ev O€ TH Tept exeivwy oavdAdAoyiopa: ovolas yap Kat adAnfelas evraida pév, ws Eorxe, dvvarov apacba, exe? dé advvatov. @EAI. Daiverar. > oF > \ > Cet \ ~ rt A A zo. 7H odv tatdrov éxeivo Te Kat TotTo ! KaXets, Tooavtas diapopas ExXoVTE;
1 todo] Traits T; rat’rdv B.
164
THEAETETUS
views in their relations to one another, refiecting within itself upon the past and present in relation to the future.
soc. Stop there. Does it not perceive the hard- ness of the hard through touch, and likewise the softness of the soft?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. But their essential nature and the fact that they exist, and their opposition to one another, and, in turn, the essential nature of this opposition, the soul itself tries to determine for us by reverting to them and comparing them with one another.
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. Is it not true, then, that all sensations which reach the soul through the body, can be perceived by human beings, and also by animals, from the moment of birth; whereas reflections about these, with reference to their being and usefulness, are acquired, if at all, with difficulty and slowly, through many troubles, in other words, through education ?
THEAET. Assuredly.
soc. Is it, then, possible for one to attain “truth” who cannot even get as far as “ being’?
THEAET. No.
soc. And will a man ever have knowledge of anything the truth of which he fails to attain?
THEAET. How can he, Socrates ?
soc. Then knowledge is not in the sensations, but in the process of reasoning about them; for it is possible, apparently, to apprehend being and truth by reasoning, but not by sensation.
THEAET. So it seems.
soc. Then will you call the two by the same name, when there are so great differences between them?
165
PLATO
eEAI. Ovxovy 67) dikaudv ye.
22. Ti obv 81) éexeivw amodidws dvopa, TH opav, aKOvELY, ooppaivectac, pbyeobau, Beppaiverbar; ;
E EAI. Aicbaveobat eyuye Ti yap aAdo;
02. Huptav dp’ avto Kadets atobnow;
@cAI. “Avdyxn.
sa. “Ou ye, dapev, od péereotw adnoetas aipa- aba: ovde yap ovoias.
@EAI. Ov yap ovr.
sa. Odd’ dp’ éemoriys.
@EAI. Od yap.
=a. Od dp’ av ein Tote, & Ocaitynte, aicfynais
\ >? / ] /
TE Kal éemoTHUN TAavTOV.
oFAl. Od daiverar, ® UwKpates. Kat pdadvora ye vov katadavéotatov yéyovev adXo dv aicbycews ETLOTHILN«
187 20." AAX oust pev o7) TOUTOU ye everca T)PX9- peDa Siareyopevor, t iva eUpepLev Ti 7OT OUK €oT emioTyn, GAAa Ti €oTW. Opuws dE ToTODTOY ye mpoBeByjkapev, WoTe pi7) CyTtetv adtnv ev atcbycet TO Taparay, aAd’ ev exelvp TO ovopare, 6 Tt mor’ Exel 7 pox7, 6 OTaV avT? Kab” AUTHVY TpAyLaTEvHTAL TEpl TA OVTA.
@Fal. “AAA pv ToT ye KaXetraL, d LwdKpates, ws ey@par, Sogdlew. =O. ‘Op9Gs- yap olen, @ pide. Kat dpa dy viv Baddw é€ apyfs, mavta Ta Tpdabev eEadeipas, et tt wardAov Kabopas, émevd7) evradda mpoeAndAvias. Kai A€ye adfus Ti mor’ Eat emLoTHUN. 31. ocat. Adgay pev mdoav eimetv, © La-
166
THEAETETUS
THEAET. No, that would certainly not be right.
soc. What name will you give, then, to the one which includes seeing, hearing, smelling, being cold, and being hot?
THEAET. Perceiving. What other name can I give it?
soc. Collectively you call it, then, perception ?
THEAET. Of course.
soc. By which, we say, we are quite unable to apprehend truth, since we cannot apprehend being, either.
THEAET. No; certainly not.
soc. Nor knowledge either, then.
THEAET. No.
soc. Then, Theaetetus, perception and knowledge could never be the same.
THEAET. Evidently not, Socrates; and indeed now at last it has been made perfectly clear that know- ledge is something different from perception.
soc. But surely we did not begin our conversation in order to find out what knowledge is not, but what it is. However, we have progressed so far, at least, as not to seek for knowledge in perception at all, but in some function of the soul, whatever name is given to it when it alone and by itself is engaged directly with realities.
THEAET. That, Socrates, is, I suppose, called having opinion.
soc. You suppose rightly, my friend. Now begin again at the beginning. Wipe out all we said before, and see if you have any clearer vision, now that you have advanced to this point. Say once more what knowledge is.
THEAET. To say that all opinion is knowledge is
107
PLATO
> \ A Kpates, advvatov, ezerd7) Kat evdys éott dd€a: / \ ¢€ > \ / b] / > , Kuwovvever b€ 7 GAnOys Sd€a emoriun etvat, Kai feo. ToOTO amoKeKpiobw. é€av yap pr davy mpo- iotow, worep TO vov, adXo Te TEtpacdpeba éyew. 30a. Ovrw pevtor xp7, @ Ocaityte, A€yew mpobu- lat ~ y pws padAdov, 7 Ws TO TpPHTov wKvers amroxpivecBar. Eav yap ouTw dpapev, duoiv Patepa, 7 edprcopev PL IHNEN, VS / nr 3 6 > / “A ~ C éd’ 6 epyopeba, 7 HrTov oinadpeba €idévar 6 wndapy toplev* KaiToL OvK av Ely pLeuTTOS juLabOs 6 ToLOD- A \ A ~ / / A x b) , Tos. Kal 67 Kal viv Ti dijs; Svoty dvrow e€idéow / ~ A 3 ~ ~ \ lon Cee, dd€ys, TOD pev aAnOwod, evdots 5é Tob érépov, \ > ~ / > / e / Tv adnO7 do€av emuatiuny opicer; @EAL. “Eywye: tobtro yap ad viv wou daivera. > > ” 9 \ A sa. *Ap’ ody er ak&iov mepi d0€ns davadaBeiv ma\w—; @EAI. To zofov 57 Adyes; 32. Oparrer wé mws viv Te Kat Grote 51) moA- > > ~ D Adkis, Wor €v amopia moAAR mpos ewavTov Kal mpos aAXov yeyovevat, odK EXovTa Elmeiv TL TOT A \ / > a A €oTt TovTo To malos map Auly Kal Tiva TpoTOV / ey yryvomevov. \ A / e£Al. To zotov 5%; / ~ A so. To dogalew twa pevdq. oKom® 8) Kal ~ 4 b) vov ért dioTalwy, 7oTEpov edowpev adro 7) émicKe- , EA ie >! x\7 / ywpre8a adAov Tporov 7) dAiyov mpdTepov. / s okal. ‘Te nv, & LewKpartes, eimep ye Kal omy- A , A v lon tiobv! daiverar deiv; dpte yap od Kakas ye od
1 Oryriodvy Burnet ; oryyotv B; brn yotv W ; dryodv Ty
168
THEAETETUS
impossible, Socrates, for there is also false opinion ; but true opinion probably is knowledge. Let that be my answer. For if it is proved to be wrong as we proceed, I will try to give another, just as I have given this.
soc. That is the right way, Theaetetus. It is better to speak up boldly than to hesitate about answering, as you did at first. For if we act in this way, one of two things will happen: either we shall find what we are after, or we shall be less inclined to think we know what we do not know at all; and surely even that would be a recompense not to be despised. Well, then, what do you say now? As- suming that there are two kinds of opinion, one true and the other false, do you define knowledge as the true opinion ?
THEAET. Yes. That now seems to me to be correct.
soc. Is it, then, still worth while, in regard to opinion, to take up again—?
THEAET. What point do you refer to?
soc. Somehow I am troubled now and have often been troubled before, so that I have been much perplexed in my own reflections and in talking with others, because I cannot tell what this experience is which we human beings have, and how it comes about.
THEAET. What experience ?
soc. That anyone has false opinions. And so I am considering and am still in doubt whether we had better let it go or examine it by another method than the one we followed a while ago.
THEAET. Why not, Socrates, if there seems to be the least need of it? For just now, in talking about
169
PLATO
a / 3 / ~ /, ¢€ ) \ 3 Kat Meddwpos ér€yere axoAns mépt, Ws ovdev ev Tots ToLotade KaTETELYyEL.
E 30. ’Op0&s tméuvnoas. tows yap ovK amo Kkatpod mdAw womep ixvos peteAetv. KpetrTov yap mov optkpov €b 7 TOAD a7) tkavs Trepavar.
@EAL. Tt pv;
x0. [lds obv; ti 87) Kal A€yopev; Pevdp dapev e+ > , , Clie tm , exdoTote civar ddgav, Kal Twa judy do€aleuw
~ \ > Ss 93 ~ € / WA a /
pevd7n, Tov 8 ad adnOA, ws dvoe oUTws exovTwr;
@EAI. Dayev yap 57.
188 302. Odxotv rdd¢ y €o8 yutv wept mavta Kal
; >, @ ” >’ / an“ \ 299 7 / Kal’ Exaorov, HToL eldévar 7 py) €ldevar; pavOavew
A A b / \ 4 ¢ + yap Kal éemAavOavecbar petraEd TovTwWY ws oVTA xaipew Adyw ev TH Tapovte: vov yap Huitv mpos Adyov é€otlv ovdev.
@eFAI. “AAa pv, @ Udkpares, addro y’ oddev x / Niner \ 2) / av \ } 7
ElTETAL TrEpL EKAOTOV TAY Eldevar 7 [Ly ELdEVAaL.
x0. Odxotv 7dn avayKkn Tov do€alovra do€alew H wv te oldev 7 py) older;
egal. “Avdyky.
\ \ 90 7 \ QO 7 A 3 Ne A sa. Kat pry eiddta ye pr) eidévar To adto 7 py
B elddTa eldévar advvarov.
@EAI. IIs 8 ov;
sn. *Ap’ ody 6 Ta Pevdh SoEdlwr, a olde, Tatra
” b a S > Ges ” a to olerar ov Tabra elvar adda erepa atta wy oide,
A > / > A > Aue? / Kal apddtepa eldws ayvoet auporepa;
170
THEAETETUS
leisure, you and Theodorus said very truly that there is no hurry in discussions of this sort.
soc. Youare right inreminding me. For perhaps this is a good time to retrace our steps. For it is better to finish a little task well than a great deal imperfectly.
THEAET. Of course.
soc. How, then, shall we set about it? What is it that we do say? Do we say that in every case of opinion there is a false opinion, and one of us has a false, and another a true opinion, because, as we believe, it is in the nature of things that this should be so?
THEAET. Yes, we do.
soc. Then this, at any rate, is possible for us, is it not, regarding all things collectively and each thing separately, either to know or not to know them? For learning and forgetting, as intermediate stages, I leave out of account for the present, for just now they have no bearing upon our argument.
THEAET. Certainly, Socrates, nothing is left in any particular case except knowing or not knowing it.
soc. Then he who forms opinion must form opinion either about what he knows or about what he does not know?
THEAET. Necessarily.
soc. And it is surely impossible that one who knows a thing does not know it, or that one who does not know it knows it.
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. Then does he who forms false opinions think that the things which he knows are not these things, but some others of the things he knows, and so, knowing both, is he ignorant of both?
171
PLATO
&) > FD > eral. “AXX’ ddvvatov, d Uebkpartes. 5) > 5 a Ai) oF sa. “AA dpa, & p17) oldev, Hyetrar adra elvat C4 v ® 5 ~ ~ JZ ETEPA ATTA Gv py olde, Kal TOOT EoTL TH TE / 4, Wcaitnrov unre LweKpaty €lddte ets THY Sidvorav A A e ¢€ / , nv ¢ / aBetv ws 6 Xwxpatns Oeaitytos 7) 6 Oeairnros LwKparns ; C rat. Kat wis av; > 3 4 / a sa. “AXN’ od py, & yé Tis oldev, oleTat Tov a \ > “> > 5 > Ln oldev attra eivar, oS’ ad & py older, & older. @EAI. Tépas yap éora. A > aA > A sa. lds obv av ere evdq do€doevev; exTOos \ fe b) 4 / / > / “ 3 yap TovTwy advvatov mov dSo€dalew, emeitep TAT \ oF BY b) ” b) \ 4 b) A , 1 lopev 7) OvK Lopev, ev S€ TOUTOLS OVOALOD PatveTaL } A ~ / vvatov wevdh do€doar. @EAI. “A hy Oéarata. Ss > est “a lo xo. *Ap’ odv od tavtn oKemtéov 6 Cntobpev, A A ? / \ \ >) / pA b) A \ KaTa TO €idévar Kal pr) €ldévas tovtas, aAAa Kara \ > \ , D 70 eivar Kal py; @EAI. Ids Adyers; \ ¢ ~ > & e A A + A ¢ x0. My azdAodv 7 ott 6 Ta py OVTA TEpL OTOU- ~ A / \ oby do€alwy odk éo8 ws od pevdh So€dcer, Kav ¢€ ~ » ~ o7wootv ad\Aws Ta THS Siavoias Exn. @EAI. Hixds y’ ad, & Ledxpares. a > a > , 7 so. [lds otv; ti epotpev, & Ocaitynte, eav tis e€ ~ 3 / ce A x e ~ a“ te Nas avakpivy: dvvatov d€ oTwobyv 6 Héyerat, fe 2) / \ \ “ 4, ” A Kai tis avOpmmwy TO ph Ov do€daoe, EiTE TrEpi aA A A t&v dvtwv Tov elite adto Kal” avtd”’; Kat Mets
172
THEAETETUS
THEAET. That is impossible, Socrates.
soc. Well then, does he think that the things he does not know are other things which he does not know—which is as if a man who knows neither Theaetetus nor Socrates should conceive the idea that Socrates is Theaetetus or Theaetetus Socrates?
THEAET. That is impossible.
soc. But surely a man does not think that the things he knows are the things he does not know, or again that the things he does not know are the things he knows.
THEAET. That would be a monstrous absurdity.
soc. Then how could he still form false opinions ? For inasmuch as all things are either known or unknown to us, it is impossible, I imagine, to form opinions outside of these alternatives, and within them it is clear that there is no place for false opinion.
THEAET. Very true.
soc. Had we, then, better look for what we are seeking, not by this method of knowing and not knowing, but by that of being and not being ?
THEAET. What do you mean?
soc. We may simply assert that he who on any subject holds opinions which are not, will certainly think falsely, no matter what the condition of his mind may be in other respects.
THEAET. That, again, is likely, Socrates.
soc. Well then, what shall we say, Theaetetus, if anyone asks us, “Is that which is assumed in common speech possible at all, and can any human being hold an opinion which is not, whether it be concerned with any of the things which are, or be entirely independent of them?” We, I fancy, shall
173
PLATO
& , e ” A ~ / ce? E07, ws €otkev, mpos tadTa dyocopev: oTav YE
189
A > ~ ” bee ” an ~ 2 ~ pn adnOh oinrat oldpevos:”” 7) TOs epodpuev;
@EAI. Ourws.
=o. 7H ody kai aAAofi tov To Tovobrov eoTw; EAI. To zotov;
za. Ei tis op& pev tt, dpa Sé ovdev.
@EAI. Kat was;
sa. “Ada pry ei ev yé Te Opa, TOV dvTwv Tt
can \ LY yy A a a A \ 5 Ss Opa. 7 GU Otel TOTE TO EV EV TOLS Ly) OVOLW Elval;
°’ yy
@EAI. OvK eywye. =n 10) + LA / ¢ ~ A e ~
: apa ev ye TL Op@v Ov TL Opa.
/ @EAL Daiverat. A e ” -) , v4 , = 4 AD OR
sa. Kat 6 dpa tt axovwv ev yé Te aKovEt Kal OV
> , QAKOVEL.
ecAI. Nat. sa. Kai 6 amropevos 54 Tov, évds yé Tov amte-
A y+ ” ¢e / TAL KQL OVTOS, ElTEP EVOS;
@EAI. Kai todro.
=a. “O dé 57) d0€alwv ody &v Tu} S0€ala;
@EAI. “Avayry.
sa. ‘O08 & we d0€dlwy ovK dv 7;
@®EAI. Luyywpda.
sa. “O dpa pr) ov S0€dlwv ovdev d0€aler.
@EAI. Ov datverac.
sa. “Ada pi o ye undev do€alwy To mapdamay
ovoe do€aler.
eral. AfAov, ws coker. léyr BT; & yé mm W.
174
THEAETETUS
reply, “ Yes, when, in thinking, he thinks what is not true,” shall we not?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And is the same sort of thing possible in any other field ?
THEAET. What sort of thing ?
soc. For instance, that a man sees something, but sees nothing.
THEAET. How can he?
soc. Yet surely if a man sees any one thing, he sees something that is. Or do you, perhaps, think “one” is among the things that are not?
THEAET. No, I do not.
soc. Then he who sees any one thing, sees some- thing that is.
THEAET. That is clear.
soc. And therefore he who hears anything, hears some one thing and therefore hears what is.
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And he who touches anything, touches some one thing, which is, since it is one?
THEAET. That also is true.
soc. So, then, does not he who holds an opinion hold an opinion of some one thing ?
THEAET. He must do so.
soc. And does not he who holds an opinion of some one thing hold an opinion of something that is?
THEAET. I agree.
soc. Then he who holds an opinion of what is not hoids an opinion of nothing.
THEAET. Evidently.
soc. Well then, he who holds an opinion of noth- ing, holds no opinion at all.
THEAET. That is plain, apparently.
175
PLATO
B 39. Ovx« dpa oidv re To pr dv S0€alew, ode TEept TOV OvTwy ovTe avTo Kal?” adto. @EAI. Ov daiverac. sa. "AAAo te dp’ eott Td PevdH So€dlew rob Ta pn OvTa SoEdlew. eral. “AAAo €ouxev. =) \ 4 ” e »\/ if, sa. Od yap ovTws ovTEe ws OAlyov mpdTeEpoVv > ~ / > / b) ¢€ ~ €oxoTobpev, evdys eotr Sd€a ev ryiv. @EAI. Od yap ody 57. 32. x0. “AAV dpa wdde yryvdpevov TodTo Mpooayopevojiev ; eEAI. Ids; sa. “AAAodo€iav twa otoav pevd dapev eivar C d0€av, 6tav tis Te T@v GvtTwv GAXo ad T&v dvTwv avraA\agdpevos TH Siavoia dH elvar. ovTw yap t 7 c “A \ Sma 4 td \ > > e / \ ov pev act do€dler, erepov dé avi’ érépov, Kat apaptadvewv o0 éaKkd7e: Sixaiws av KaXotro pevd7 do€alwv. 3 / / aA A > / a @EAI. "OpOdtara por viv Soxkets elpnKevat. OTav yap Tis avti KaXob aicypov 7 avti aicxpod KaXov do0€alyn, Tote Ws adnOds SoEale pevd7. sa. Aros ef, ® Geaitnte, Katappovev pov Kal ov SEdLws. @EAI. Ti uadvota; 3a. Odx av, ofuat, col Sox Tob adnbds pev- D dovs avriraBéobar, éepdpevos et oldv Te Taxd / a’ a / Av ” > / \ Bpadéws 7 Kotdov Bapéws 7 aAAo Te evavTiov py KaTa THY adTod dvow adda KaTa THY TOD éevayTiov 1 7.0m. BT.
176
THEAETETUS
soc. Then it is impossible to hold an opinion of that which is not, either in relation to things that are, or independently of them.
THEAET. Evidently.
soc. Then holding false opinion is something different from holding an opinion of that which is not.
THEAET. So it seems.
soc. Then false opinion is not found to exist in us either by this method or by that which we followed a little while ago.
THEAET. No, it certainly is not.
soc. But does not that which we call by that name arise after the following manner?
THEAET. After what manner ?
soc. We say that false opinion is a kind of inter- changed opinion, when a person makes an exchange in his mind and says that one thing which exists is another thing which exists. For in this way he always holds an opinion of what exists, but of one thing instead of another; so he misses the object he was aiming at in his thought and might fairly be said to hold a false opinion.
THEAET. Now you seem to me to have said what is perfectly right. For when a man, in forming an opinion, puts ugly instead of beautiful, or beautiful instead of ugly, he does truly hold a false opinion.
soc. Evidently, Theaetetus, you feel contempt of me, and not fear.
THEAET, Why in the world do you say that?
soc. You think, I fancy, that I would not attack your “truly false” by asking whether it is possible for a thing to become slowly quick or heavily light, or any other opposite, by a process opposite to itself, in accordance, not with its own nature, but with that
177
PLATO
ylyvecBar éavtd evavtiws. todto pév ovdv, twa \ 4 / > / b] / / e / un watynv Oapprjons, afin. apéoxer dé, ws dys, \ ~ A Ss To Ta evdy do€dlew adAodo€eiv civar; @EAI. "Ejuovye. xo. “Eorw dpa kata tiv ony dd€av Erepov Tt Ws ETEpov Kal 17) Ws exelvo TH Savoia TiMeotat. @EAIL. "Eore pevtoc.
=A. “Orav ouv Too” 1) Sudvoud TOU Opa, od Kal E dvdyxn adr jou me ras TO €Tepov dia- voetola;
@FAI. “AvayKn péev obv' nro. dua ye 7 Ev repel. sa. Kdddtota. 7d 8é Stavoeicbar dp’ ozrep éyw Kadeis ; ozAl. Ti xarov; x0. Aoyov 6 ov avTn mpos avriy 7 wvy7 duel p- XETAL TTEPL WY GV OKO}. Ws ye pn €ldWs Got a7ro- daivoua. Tobto yap po ivddAdeTar diavooupery ovk GAXo Tt H diadéyecOat, adr éavTnv Eepwrdoa 190 Kat admoxpwopevn, Kat ddoKovoa Kal ov PacKovoa. oTav de opioaca, cite Bpaddrepov clre Kal O€UTEpPoV emd£aca., TO avTo 7107 of Kal fa dvordly, doar TavTny TiOepnev adrijs. WoT éywye TO dofdalew Agyew Kah) Kal THY dd€av Adyov etpnfLevov, ov peVTOU mpos dow ovdé dwvA, aAdAad ory mpos
avrov: av O€ Tl;
@EAI. Raya:
=2. “Oray a apa TLS TO ETE pov ET Epov dofaly, Kal dyoiv, ws €orke, TO ETEpoV ETEpoV Elvat POS EavTOV.
B_ okaAl. Ti piv; 178
THEAETETUS
of its opposite. But I let this pass, that your courage may not fail. You are satisfied, you say, that false opinion is interchanged opinion ?
THEAET. I am.
soc. It is, then, in your opinion, possible for the mind to regard one thing as another and not as what it is.
THEAET. Yes, it is.
soc. Now when one’s mind does this, does it not necessarily have a thought either of both things together or of one or the other of them ?
THEAET. Yes, it must; either of both at the same time or in succession.
soc. Excellent. And do you define thought as I do?
THEAET. How do you define it?
soc. As the talk which the soul has with itself about any subjects which it considers. You must not suppose that I know this that I am declaring to you. But the soul, as the image presents itself to me, when it thinks, is merely conversing with itself, asking itself questions and answering, affirming and denying. When it has arrived at a decision, whether slowly or with a sudden bound, and is at last agreed, and is not in doubt, we call that its opinion; and so I define forming opinion as talking and opinion as talk which has been held, not with someone else, nor yet aloud, but in silence with oneself. How do you define it?
THEAET. In the same way.
soc. Then whenever a man has an opinion that one thing is another, he says to himself, we believe, that the one thing is the other.
THEAET. Certainly.
179
PLATO
sa. “AvayusvyoKou 57 €f mumor’ eles mpos geavTov OTe TavTos paAXov 76 ToL KaXov aicypov EOTW 7 TO dducov Sicauov, 7) Kal, TO TavT ov Keda- Aaov, oKoTreEL €l 70T emexetpnoas O€QAUTOV metBew os TAVTOS pahov 70 eTEpov ETEpOV EOTW, 7), Tav TovvayTiov OVO ev UTVW TwWTOTE Sob jones el7rety ™pos CEavTov WS TAaVTaTACW apa Ta TEpLTTA ApTid eoTw 7 Tt dAXo ToLodTov.
oral. “AAnOA dréEyets.
C xo. “AXdov dé Twa ole Dyvaivovra 7 pave - [LEVOV ToAuHoae omovo7} m™pOs €auToV etrrety dva- metBovra avrov, ws avayKn tov Boty tmmov eivat
7 Ta Ovo ev;
@FAI. Ma Ad’ otk éeywye. sa. Odxoty ef To Adyew mpds éavtov S0€alew
EoTiv, ovdels aupdotepa ye déywr Kat do€dlwv Kat 3 epanréyievos apupoty TH pox elmou av Kal do€d- cevev ws TO ETEpov ETE POV €oTw. e€atéov be Kal Gol TO phua® wept Tod ETEpou. Aéyon yap avro THOE, pndeva dofdlew Ws TO alaxpov Kaddov 7
D @dXo Te TOV TOLOUTW.
oral. “AXN’, @ Lwdk«pates, €@ TE Kai poe SoKe? ws éyets.
sa. "Audw péev dpa do€alovra advvatov To
3 Erepov etepov So€dlew.
@EAI. ”Eouxev.
sa. “AAAa pv To EeTEpov ye povov do€alwy, To
2 xotom. .:
2 After piua B adds él rap év udper, ered 7d pha €repov TG
érTépw KaTa pjua Tairdév éorw, applied to things in succession,
since the word ‘‘ one” is, as a word, the same as *‘ other”
(a. e. the Greek uses erepov for ‘‘one”’ and “ other ”). 76 ye Heindorf; rire B; 76 xe T.
180
YE
THEAETETUS
soc. Now call to mind whether you have ever said to yourself that the beautiful is most assuredly ugly, or the wrong right, or—and this is the sum of the whole matter—consider whether you have ever tried to persuade yourself that one thing is most assuredly another, or whether quite the contrary is the case, and you have never ventured, even in sleep, to say to yourself that the odd is, after all, certainly even, or anything of that sort.
THEAET. You are right.
soc. Do you imagine that anyone else, sane or insane, ever ventured to say to himself seriously and try to persuade himself that the ox must necessarily be a horse, or two one?
THEAET. No, by Zeus, I do not.
soc. Then if forming opinion is talking to oneself, no one who talks and forms opinion of two objects and apprehends them both with his soul, could say and have the opinion that one is the other. But you will also have to give up the expression “ one and other.”’ This is what I mean, that nobody holds the opinion that the ugly is beautiful, or anything of that sort.
THEAET. Well, Socrates, I do give it up; and I agree with you in what you say.
soc. You agree, therefore, that he who holds an opinion of both things cannot hold the opinion that cne is the other.
THEAET. So it seems.
soc. But surely he who holds an opinion of one
181
PLATO
>) \ ¢ 8 ~ iT) / 5 TA A @ € ETEepov pndapn, ovdeToTe So€dcer TO ETEpoV ETEpoV €ival. oEAl. “AAnOA Adyers: avayKdloiro yap ay > / \ & \ Us epamrecbar Kat ob 7) do€aler. 3a. Our’ ap’ auddtepa ore TO ETepov So€dLlovte E eyywpet aAdodo€geiv. wor el tis dpietrar do€av > ~ \ ¢e a >) \ av / #9 eivar wevdh TO eTEpodokeiv, ovdev av A€you: ovT apa TavTn ovTE KaTAa TA mpOTEpa pativeTat Yevd7)s ev Hiv ovoa dc&a. @EAI. Ovx €orxev. 33. x0. “AAAa pevror, & Weaitnte, ef TobTo \ / yy \ > / e uy pavycetar ov, Toda avayKaclynoopela opo- Aoyetvy Kal atoma. @EAI. Ta zota 67; sa. OvK ép@ cor mpiv av mavtayh meipabd oKo- TOV. aloxvvoiiny yap av virEep NU@V, ev @ arro- poder, avaykalouevwv opodroyetv ofa Aéyw. adr 191 ea evpwpev Kat eAeVOepor yevweDa, TdT’ dy TeEpl Tov dAAwy epotuev ws TacyovTwy atta éKTOsS Tob yedoiov €oT@tes* av 5€ TaVvTN ATOpHowpeV, Tamrewwlevtes, olpar, TH Adyw mapéeEopev ws VaUTL@VTES TATE TE KAL ypHobaL 6 TL av BovAnTat. 7) OUV ETL TOPOV TWA Edpiokw TOD CyTHLaTOS HUI, aKOveE. /, / @EAI. Aéye povov. e ~ > ~ ¢€ A sa. Od djow ads dpbds spodroyjaa, hvika ¢€ / ¢ “yh > / 4 “a \ wporoynaapev & Tis oldev, advvaTov do€acat a [7 B oidev efvae atta Kai evobjvar: addAd my Svva- TOV. 182
THEAETETUS
only, and not of the other at all, will never hold the opinion that one is the other.
THEAET. You are right; for he would be forced to apprehend also that of which he holds no opinion.
soc. Then neither he who holds opinion of both nor he who holds it of one can hold the opinion that a thing is something else. And so anyone who sets out to define false opinion as interchanged opinion would be talking nonsense. Then neither by this method nor by our previous methods is false opinion found to exist in us.
THEAET. Apparently not.
soc. But yet, Theaetetus, if this is found not to exist, we shall be forced to admit many absurdities.
THEAET. What absurdities?
soc. I will not tell you until I have tried to consider the matter in every way. For I should be ashamed of us, if, in our perplexity, we were forced to make such admissions as those to which I refer. But if we find the object of our quest, and are set free from perplexity, then, and not before, we will speak of others as involved in those absurdities, and we ourselves shall stand free from ridicule. But if we find no escape from our perplexity, we shall, I fancy, become low-spirited, like seasick people, and shall allow the argument to trample on us and do to us anything it pleases. Hear, then, by what means I still see a prospect of success for our quest.
THEAET. Do speak.
soc. I shall deny that we were right when we agreed that it is impossible for a man to have opinion that the things he does not know are the things which he knows, and thus to be deceived. But there is a way in which it is possible.
183
PLATO
> , “A \ > \ / e / @EAI. "Apa Aé€yers O Kal eyw TéTE brwmTEVOA, jvik avto éhapev ToLodTov etvat, TL evioT éyw , / he i be Ca LAA yyvwokwy LwKpdtyn, moppwlev dé opa@v aAdov ov ov yryvwoKw, @nOnv eivac LwKpdtyn ov oida; ylyvetar yap 61 €v TH TovovTw otov A€yeus. ~ A U a ”
30. Ovdxotvy amnéotnyuev attod, oT a topev ETOLEL NLAS ELOOTAS [Ln ELOEVAL;
oral. Ildvu pev ovr.
20. My yap ovTw TG pWev, adn’ @oe* laws ™ mpi ovyXwWpngET aL, tows be dvrurevel. aAAa yap ev TovovTw exopeba, Ev @ dvayKen mavTo peTa- oTpepovra Aeyov Bacavitew. OKOTEL ou eu Tt Néyw. dpa €orw pr) €iddta TL mpoTEpov VaTEpov pabetv;
” / @EAI. “Kore pevro.. >? ~ A oO 4 AY et,
so. Odxotv kat atOis erepov Kat ETEpov;
@EAI. Ti 5° ov;
=0. Oés O7] iii Adyou eveka,.ev Tats puxats nEL@V evov KnpLVOV expayetov, T@ jev petlov, TO 8 2rarrov, kal TH pev Kabapwrépov Knpod, TO
\ de Kompewdeorepon, Kat oxnporepov, éviors Se Uypotépov, eat 6 ols peTpiws EXOVTOS. @EAI. TiOne. wn / > A ~ Ss ~ ~ =a. Ad@pov Towuy adro paper elvan THS TOV Movody [unTtpos Mrjpoovrys, Kal és TovTO, 6 TL ay Hen BES pvnpovedoar wy av iScoprev 2 7) dicovawjey * 7 avrot EVVOTJTWILEV, UrreXovTas avTo , Tais aic@yceou Kal evvoiats, amoTuTota0a, WomTEp dakTvAiwy onueta evonuwaivomeévovs' Kal 6 pev
1 eidduev B. 2 dxovwuev BT. 184
THEAETETUS
THEAET. Do you mean what I myself suspected when we made the statement to which you refer, that sometimes I, though I know Socrates, saw at a distance someone whom I did not know, and thought it was Socrates whom I do know? In such a case false opinion does arise.
soc. But did not we reject that, because it resulted in our knowing and not knowing the things which we know?
THEAET. Certainly we did.
soc. Let us, then, not make that assumption, but another ; perhaps it will turn out well for us, perhaps the opposite. But we are in such straits that we must turn every argument round and test it from all sides. Now see if this is sensible: Can a man who did not know a thing at one time learn it later?
THEAET. To be sure he can.
soc. Again, then, can he learn one thing after another ?
THEAET. Why not?
soc. Please assume, then, for the sake of argu- ment, that there is in our souls a block of wax, in one case larger, in another smaller, in one case the wax is purer, in another more impure and harder, in some cases softer, and in some of proper quality.
THEAET. I assume all that.
soc. Let us, then, say that this is the gift of Memory, the mother of the Muses, and that when- ever we wish to remember anything we see or hear or think of in our own minds, we hold this wax under the perceptions and thoughts and imprint them upon it, just as we make impressions from seal rings ;
G 185
PLATO
~ \ av eKLayh, pivynpoveve TE Kal emioTacBar ews 5) a » ~ a“ > ~ av evy TO €ldwdov adtod: 6 8 av} eEadedbA 7 > e ~ > ~ E py otdv re yévntar éexpaynvat, emAeAjcbai re Kal un emioracla. @EAI. “Eotw ovtTws. € / > 4 A b) 4 ~ sa. ‘O toivuy éemiordpevos pev atta, oKxoTa@v e ~ ey, an d€ Te Wy Opa 7 akover, AOper Et dpa Tormde TpdTTw yevdh av do€dcar. / / @EAI. [loiw 67 Tu; > > \ > za. “A oidev, oinfeis elvar toTé pev a olde, lon \ > A ~ Tote O€ Gyn. TadvTa yap ev Tots 7pdobev od KaAds e ~ > wpodroynoapev opodoyobvtes advvata. ekal. Nov dé mas Adyes; 192 xo. Act dde Adyecbar mepi adrav &e& apyis u > A diopilomevous, OTL O prev Tis oldev aoywv? adtod A ~ ~ > pvynpetov ev tH wuxn, atobaverar dé adro py, ~ > ~ ¢ e > tobto * oinfjvar etepov Te wv oldev, ExovTa Kal / exeivou TUov, atobavdpevov d€ jun, advvaToV. Kal O i oldev at, otnfjvar etvar 6 py olde pnd \ = = Exet avToo oppayida: Kal O [Ln OldEV, O p47) OldEV avd‘ Kal 6 per) oidev, 6 oide* Kat 6 alcbaverat ye, eTepov Tt Wv alobdverar oinfjvar eivar: Kat 6 atcOdverat, @v te pn atcbaverary Kal Oo py e x atcGaverar, wy pn atobdverary Kal 6 py B ; rf) , e b) a] , 4 \ ” ay e atoOaverat, @v atobaverar.s Kat ett ye ad wv oide Kat atofaverar Kat exer TO ONpEtov KATA THY 166 dv B°?W; drav B$ drav oe T. 2 cxav BT; éxwv W. 3 rotro B; om. al, kai. . . @y aigOdvera om. B.
186
THEAETETUS
and whatever is imprinted we remember and know as long as its image lasts, but whatever is rubbed out or cannot be imprinted we forget and do not know.
THEAET. Let us assume that.
soc. Now take a man who knows the things which he sees and hears, and is considering some one of them; observe whether he may not gain a false opinion in the following manner.
THEAET. In what manner?
soc. By thinking that the things which he knows are sometimes things which he knows and sometimes things which he does not know. For we were wrong before in agreeing that this is impossible.
THEAET. What do you say about it now ?
soc. We must begin our discussion of the matter by making the following distinctions: It is impossible for anyone to think that one thing which he knows and of which he has received a memorial imprint in his soul, but which he does not perceive, is another thing which he knows and of which also he has an imprint, and which he does not perceive. And, again, he cannot think that what he knows is that which he does not know and of which he has no seal; nor that what he does not know is another thing which he does not know; nor that what he does not know is what he knows; nor can he think that what he perceives is something else which he perceives; nor that what he perceives is something which he does not perceive ; nor that what he does not perceive is something else which he does not perceive ; nor that what he does not perceive is something which he perceives. And, again, it is still more impossible, if that can be, to think that a thing which he knows and perceives and of which he has an imprint which accords
187
PLATO
” >) ~ Ss a 4 e > \ alobnow, oinPhvar ad erepov Tt @v olde Kal > f “ aicOdverat Kai éyet ad Kal eKxelvou TO onpLeEtov Kata THv alobynow, advvatudtepov ETL ekelvwy, El er Xen > it > , ” \ oidv Te. Kal 6 olde Kal}! aicbaverar exw TO aA > ~ “a 4 >] wn > fd pevnpetov opbds, 6 oldev atnOjvat addvvatov: \ “a > \ >’ / ” : \ >) , a“ Kal 0 ol0e Kal alcOdverar Exwv~ Kata TavTa, O > / A cs) a A > \ > 7 alcOaverar' Kat 6 av py) olde pndé aiobaverat, a \ 5 \ > / \ “a \ Ss \ 6 pn olde pnde alcfaverat* Kal 6 py olde pnde P) / “a \ S Nie x Ss A > tA aicOaverat, 6 47) olde* Kal 6 py olde nde aicba- “ A > @ / os /, ~ e / verat, © un atofdaverar®: mavtTa tadrTa vrepPdArer advvayia Tod ev avtots Pevdh Twa dSo€daa. Aet- \ bd] aA A ” 4 A meTau 01) €v Tots ToLwotade, etmep Trov ado, TO Totobrov yevéeobar. @EAI. “Ev tiow 54; éav apa é€ adra@v te addov udbw: viv pev yap ovy ezropat. 3 e > >} A ) A ¢ ~ + sa. “Ev ofs oidev, olnPjvat attra erep’ arra . a 5 \ CEom ay? ~ @ NENA Roe elva @v olde Kai aicbaverary 7 wv pn older, > vA 4 nv a Ss A >) , a aicbaverar d€- 1 Wy olde Kat atolaveTar, wv oidev ad Kat atcbavetar. @EAI. Nov odd wAgov azeAcipOnv 7 Tote. GhGES exe} *O Se 87) avaTaAw akove. eyw ELOWS Ocddwpov Kat ev euavT@ pevnpévos olds éore, \ / 4 > / ” tS. \ e A Kal Oeaitntov Kata tavTa, ddXo Te evioTe ev Op® avtous, €viote d€ Ov, Kal amToai mor avTav, 1 After xai the mss. read 6, expunged by Bonitz.
2 rd uvynuciov . . . éxwy om. BT; add. B*T in marg. 3 8 uh olde . . « by aicbavera om. B.
188
THEAETETUS
with the perception is another thing which he knows and perceives and of which he has an imprint which accords with the perception. And he cannot think that what he knows and perceives and of which he has a correct memorial imprint is another thing which he knows; nor that a thing which he knows and perceives and of which he has such an imprint is another thing which he perceives; nor again that a thing which he neither knows nor perceives is another thing which he neither knows nor perceives; nor that a thing which he neither knows nor perceives is another thing which he does not know; nor that a thing which he neither knows nor perceives is another thing which he does not perceive. In all these cases it is impossible beyond everything for false opinion to arise in the mind of anyone. The possi- bility that it may arise remains, if anywhere, in the following cases.
THEAET. What cases are they? I hope they may help me to understand better; for now I cannot follow you.
soc. The cases in which he may think that things which he knows are some other things which he knows and perceives; or which he does not know, but perceives; or that things which he knows and perceives are other things which he knows and perceives.
THEAET. Now I am even more out of the running than before.
soc. Then let me repeat it in a different way. I know Theodorus and remember within myself what sort of a person he is, and just so I know Theaetetus, but sometimes I see them, and sometimes I do not,
189
PLATO
A e) 4 \ > i/ La + ”
Tote 0 ov, Kal axkovw 4 Twa GAAnY alcAnow ? te \ > ” \ b) / ” aicbdvopat, ToTE 6 atchnow puev ovdemiay exw TEpt bay, peprnpeat de vuds ovdey FArTov Kal
EmloTapar avTos ev EmavT@; E ocal. JIdavu pev odv. ~ 7 ~ / ae / sa. Toito tolvyy mp@tov pale dv BovdAopae aA e ” \ “a Ss \ ’ / ” 1 dynA@oar, ws €or pev a olde fur) aicbavecbar, Eort d€ alobavecbar.
@EAI. “Ad7O7.
x0. Odxodv cat & pur) olde, TrodAAdKis péev eore
\ > / / \ > A re / pnde aicbdvecbar, modAdKis 5€ aicPavecbar dvov;
@EAI. “Eorte Kat TodTOo.
sa. “dé 81) édv te paGAdov viv emiomyn. UwKpa-
> / 2 (+) 5) \ 3) / C Lam 193 rns ef yryvwoKer” Mcddwpov Kat Ocaitnrov, opa dé pend€repov, pende addy ataOnous avT@ mapeore mept avTav, ovK av ToTE €v €avT@ Soédaever ws 6 Ocairntds €ott Oeddwpos. eyo TL i) OVOEV; oral. Nai, adn OA ye.
30a. Todto pev towuv exeivwy mpOtov Hv av edeyov.
@EAI. “Hv yap.
/ / 4 A A /
30. Aevrepov Towuv, OTL TOV EV YyryvadoKwy tu@v, Tov be ay yeyvooKey, aicbavopevos dé pn d€rEpor, ovK av ToTE av oinJeiny dv olda elvaL Ov p47) fda.
@EAI. “Oplds.
sa. Tpitov dé, pndétepov yryvddoKwy pndé
B aicbavopevos ovK av oinfeinv dv pr) olda €repov Tw elvar wv pn olda. Kat TaAAa Ta mpdTEpa
/ R) le a / / > / ? e > / 3
mave’ é€js vole maAw axnkoévar, év ols o¥d€r0T Léori. . . unde aicOdverbar below om. B, 2 ef yeyvaoke W 3 émeyryvooxe BT,
190
THEAETETUS
sometimes I touch them, sometimes not, sometimes I hear them or perceive them through some other sense, and sometimes I have no perception of you at all, but I remember you none the less and know you in my own mind. Is it not so?
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. This, then, is the first of the points which I wish to make clear. Note that one may perceive or not perceive that which one knows.
THEAET. That is true.
soc. So, too, with that which he does not know— he may often not even perceive it, and often he may merely perceive it?
THEAET. That too is possible.
soc. See if you follow me better now. If Socrates knows Theodorus and Theactetus, but sees neither of them and has no other perception of them, he never could have the opinion within him- self that Theaetetus is Theodorus. Am I right or wrong ?
THEAET. You are right.
soc. Now that was the first of the cases of which I spoke.
THEAET. Yes, it was.
soc. The second is this: knowing one of you and not knowing the other, and not perceiving either of you, I never could think that the one whom I know is the one whom I do not know.
THEAET. Right.
soc. And this is the third case: not knowing and not perceiving either of you, | could not think that he whom I do not know is someone else whom I do not know. And imagine that you have heard all the other cases again in succession, in which I
191
PLATO
A ~ \ ~ éya mept cod Kal Weodwpov ra Pevdj So0€dow, OUTE yryvwoKWwY ovTE ayvodv audw, ovTE TOV [LeV, Tov 0 ov ytyyvwoKwy: Kal Tepi alcbjcewv Kata TAaUTA, El Apa ETEL. a @EAI. “Ezopat. / / \ lod ~ so. Acimetat towvy Ta pevdq So€doa ev THOde, 4 / A \\ jd \ v > OTav yiyvwoKwy oé Kal Meddwpov, Kal éxwv ev >? / ~ / LA PS) Ni. ~ b) aA exelvw TH KNpivwW WoTep SaxtvAiwy oddv apdotv a ~ \ ~ ~ TA onpeta, dua pakpod Kal 1 tKav@s op@v audw an) A A a mpolupn0@, TO oiketov éxaTépov onetov azrodovs ~ > / + > LA / Pd] \ Th oikela oper, eupiBaoas mpocapudca eis TO ~ > EauTHns ixvos, wa yevnTar avayvwpiots, elra TOvU- TWY ATOTVYWV Kal WoTrEp OL ETraAW vrodovpevor / 4, \ ¢e / ” A \ mapadAdéas mpoofdAw tiv éExatépou oy mpos TO A ) \ e > A aAAdTpLov onetov, 7) Kal ofa Ta ev TOls KATOMTPOLS nw 4 / \ > > A / Ths opews 7aOn, deEva els apiorepa peTappeovons, b) \ \ / if \ / tavTov ma0wv diapaptw: Tote 87 ovpPaiver H éTepodokia Kal TO Wevdy dSo€aleu. a” / aN / / @EAI. "Kouxe ydp, @® Lowxpates: Gavpaciws e / \ ~ / / ws Ayers TO THs 5dEns Tabos. vw / \ Ld > / i¢ so. "Ere roiwvy Kat dtav apdotépovs yuyve- akwv TOV pev Tpos TH yryvwoKew aicbdvwpar, tov O€ LH, THY O€ yYOow Tod ETEpov fy) KATA THY wv wv ee J A / 4 ” 4 atcbnow exw, 6 ev Tots mpdcbev ovTWws Edeyov Kat bd 4 Lov TOTE OvK EuavOares.
192
THEAETETUS
could never form false opinions about you and Theodorus, either when I know or do not know both of you, or when I know one and not the other; and the same is true if we say “perceive” instead of “know.” Do you follow me?
THEAET. I follow you.
soc. Then the possibility of forming false opinion remains in the following case: when, for example, knowing you and Theodorus, and having on that block of wax the imprint of both of you, as if you were signet-rings, but seeing you both at a distance and indistinctly, I hasten to assign the proper im- print of each of you to the proper vision, and to make it fit, as it were, its own footprint, with the purpose of causing recognition;! but I may fail in this by interchanging them, and put the vision of one upon the imprint of the other, as people put a shoe on the wrong foot; or, again, I may be affected as the sight is affected when we use a mirror and the sight as it flows makes a change from right to left, and thus make a mistake ; it is in such cases, then, that interchanged opinion occurs and the forming of false opinion arises.
THEAET. I think it does, Socrates. You describe what happens to opinion marvellously well.
soc. There is still the further case, when, knowing both of you, I perceive one in addition to knowing ‘him, but do not perceive the other, and the knowledge which I have of that other is not in accord with my perception. This is the case I described in this way before, and at that time you did not understand me.
1 Aeschylus, Choeph. 197 ff., makes Electra recognize the presence of her brother Orestes by the likeness of his foot- prints to her own.
G2 193
PLATO
@EAI. Od yap odv. so. Todto piv édeyov, ott yuyvioKwy Tov E érepov Kat aicbavopevos, Kal THY yvOow Kata THY aicbnow avrod EXWY, ovdemore olnoerat €ivat avrov érepov Twa. Ov yeyveoker TE kal aicbdverau Kal 77 y@ow ad Kal ékeivov €xyee KaTa TH aicbnow. Hv yap TotT0;
ozal. Nai.
20. IlapeActrero d€ yé mov To viv Acyopevov, év @ 5 papev TH pevdh dogav yiyveoBau TO appw yeyvesaKovra. Kat aud opavra 7 TWO aAny
194 atcbnow €xovra. apdoty Ta onuetw > py Kara Tv avtoo atobnow éxatepov éxew, GAN’ ofov tofoTnv datrov tévta mapadAdEar tod oKomod Kal apaptetv, 6 57) Kal peddos dpa WvdpuaoTat.
@EAI. Eixdtws ye.
sa. Kai drav roivuy TO prev taph alobnats Tov onpetw, T@ O€ LH, TO dé THs dmovons aicbycews Th mapovon TMpooapL.oon, mavry TOUTY pevdeTau 7 Sudvora. Kal €vi oye, Trepl Cv pev pe) olde TLS
Bypyde jnobero* mumote, odK EeoTW, Ws EoLKEV, ovre pevdeo0ar ovte Wevdis dd€a, et Te viv aWLECS Dyes Acyopev: Tepe d€ Wy topev TE Kal aicbave- pela, € €v avtots ToUTOoUS oTpepeTau Kal eXirrerat 7 boga. pevdis Kal adn Ons yeyvouevn, KaTOvTUKpU peev Kal KaTa TO evOd Ta olKela ovvayouoa daro~ TUTWpATA Kal TUTOUS aAnOjs, els TAdyLa 5é Kal aKor.a evdrs.
@EAI. Ovdxodv kadds, @ LwKpates, Aéyerau;
1 +H onueiw al. Heusde; 7 onuelw TW? ; 7d onuectov BW.
se unde jobero TW; pnd érreibero éwjabero Bs und’ éryaGero
194
THEAETETUS
THEAET. No, I did not.
soc. This is what I meant, that if anyone knows and perceives one of you, and has knowledge of him which accords with the perception, he will never think that he is someone else whom he knows and perceives and his knowledge of whom accords with the perception. ‘That was the case, was it not ?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. But we omitted, I believe, the case of which I am speaking now—the case in which we say the false opinion arises: when a man knows both and sees both (or has some other perception of them), but fails to hold the two imprints each under its proper perception; like a bad archer he shoots beside the mark and misses it; and it is just this which is called error or deception.
THEAET. And properly so.
soc. Now when perception is present to one of the imprints but not to the other, and the mind applies the imprint of the absent perception to the perception which is present, the mind is deceived in every such instance. In a word, if our present view is sound, false opinion or deception seems to be impossible in relation to things which one does not know and has never perceived ; but it is precisely in relation to things which we know and perceive that opinion turns and twists, becoming false and true— true when it puts the proper imprints and seals fairly and squarely upon one another, and false when it applies them sideways and aslant. THEAET, Well, then, Socrates, is that view not a good one? 195
PLATO
C x0. "Er roivuy Kat tTad€ axovcas paddov adro > aA A A epets. TO ev yap Tadnbés So€alew Kxadrov, To de pevdec0a aicypov.
eEAI. [Ids 38’ ov; sa. Tatra toivuey daciv eévlévde yiyvecBar. Lu A ¢ / 2) ~ ~ / ‘ oTav fev O Kypds Tov ev TH vyH Babs TE Kat modvds Kal relos Kal peTpiws Wpyacpevos! F, Ta b) ~ ~ iovTa dia TV aicbjcewv, evonpaiwopeva els TOOTO A ~ ~ /, a“ ” 4 2) /, To THs Wuxjs Kéap, 0 edn “Ounpos aivitTopevos \ ~ ~ THY TOU KnpOd opoLoTHTA, TOTE LEV KaL TOUTOLS D kafapa ta onpeta eyyryvopeva Kal ikava@s Tod A fdbovs exovra modvypovd te yiyverar Kal elow Ol ToLoODTOL TpPATov prev evpallets, E7TELTA [LVTMLOVES, eita o8 mapadAdtrovor THY alcbijcewv Ta onpeta adAa dSo€alovow adrnOn. cadh yap Kat ev edpv- Xwpla ovTa Tayd Siavemovaw emi TA adTaV ExaoTa > nw “a A + A ‘ \ \ e expayeta, & 61) dvTa KadetTaL, Kal Godot 57) OdTOL KadobvTat. 7 od doKet cot; e ~ \ Sy @EAI. “Yaeppuds pev ovv.
E 3x0. “Orav toivuy Adowdv Tov 7o* Kéap F, 6 87) emjveoev © TAVTA Gopos TroLnTHS, N OTAV KOT*PMdES Kat pun Kalapod Tod Knpot, 7 vypov adddpa 7 okAnpov, dv ev dypov, edpwabets rev, EemLAropL0VvES
A , «e \ y)\ ld > / e de o7; dé ylyvovta, wv de oxAnpov, TavavTia. ot de d7 Adcwov Kai Tpaxd AEAdes TL 7) ys 7) KOTpoU oUp-
1 ®pyacuévos Suidas, Timaeus ; elpyacpuévos BT. 2 rou To] Tovro 76 B.
196
THEAETETUS
soc. After you have heard the rest, you will be still more inclined to say so. For to hold a true opinion is a good thing, but to be deceived is a disgrace.
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. They say the cause of these variations is as follows: When the wax in the soul of a man is deep and abundant and smooth and properly kneaded, the images that come through the perceptions are imprinted upon this heart of the soul—as Homer calls it in allusion to its similarity to wax1—; when this is the case, and in such men, the imprints, being clear and of sufficient depth, are also lasting. And men of this kind are in the first place quick to learn, and secondly they have retentive memories, and moreover they do not interchange the imprints of their perceptions, but they have true opinions. For the imprints are clear and have plenty of room, so that such men quickly assign them to their several moulds, which are called realities; and these men, then, are called wise. Or do you not agree?
THEAET. Most emphatically.
soc. Now when the heart of anyone is shaggy (a condition which the all-wise poet commends), or when it is unclean or of impure wax, or very soft or hard, those whose wax is soft are quick to learn, but forgetful, and those in whom it is hard are the reverse. But those in whom it is shaggy and rough and stony, infected with earth or dung which is mixed
1 The similarity is in the Greek words xéap or xp, heart, and xnpés, wax. ‘The shaggy heart is mentioned in the liad, ii. 851 ; xvi. 554. The citation of Homer, here and below, is probably sarcastic—in reference to the practice of some
of the sophists who used and perverted his words in support of their doctrines,
197
195
B
C
PLATO
> n~ aA puyelons eumAcwy cxovTes acadh Ta expayeta '” > = \ \ € ‘ , 7 toxovow. aoapy oe Kal ol Ta oKAypa: Palos yap ovK ev. acahh de Kal ot Ta bypa: bao yap Too ovyxetabau TAXD ylyverar apvdpa. eav de ™m™pos maou ToUToLs em aAAnAwv OUETETTWKOTE 4 b70 oTevoywplas, edv Tov opLuK pov WTO yuxaprov, ETL doapéorepa EKELVWY. Tmavres obv obrou ylyvov- Tau olou Sof dlew ypevd7. oTav yap TL opw@oww 7 dcovwow 7 emwo@ow, exaorta } arrovepew TAXV ExdaTtols ov duvduevor Bpadets TE elot Kat addo- TplovojLobvTes TapopHai Te Kal TapaKovovat Kal mapavootot mAcioTta, Kal Kadodvrat ad ovTot exsevopevor TE 1) TOV OVTWY Kal apabets. > / > / / > /
@£AI. “OpOotata avOpdmwv Héyers, @ UodxKpa- TES.
sa. Dapev dpa ev jyiv pevdets Sd€as elvar;
@EAI. Ldddpa ye.
xa. Kail adnbeis 57;
@kAI. Kai adnfeis.
soa. "Hdn ody olducba ikavas apodroyijobar ore
\ ~ > A > / 4, \ /
mavTos waAXov éorov audotépa TovTwW Tw Sofa;
@EAI. ‘Ymephuds pev ovv.
35. xa. Aewdv te, & Weairnre, ws adnbds
/ A > \ > > A > /
Kwouvever Kal andés elvan avnp ador€oyys.
@EAI. Ti 5€; mpos ti Tobr’ eimes;
\ >’ A , / A so. Thy euavtod dvopabiay dvcxepavas Kat e > ~ > / / \ + by A ws adAnf&s adoAcoxlav. ti yap av tis aAdo Geitro Ovopia, OTav avw KaTW Tovs Adyous EAKN TLS B70 / > / ~ \ s if
vwleias od duvduevos trecobjvar, Kal 4% Svoamad- AaKktos af’ éExdotov Adyou;
@EAI. Ld dé 57) Ti dvcyepaives;
1 éxacra] éxacro BT.
198
THEAETETUS
in it, receive indistinct imprints from the moulds. So also do those whose wax is hard; for the imprints lack depth. And imprints in soft wax are also indistinct, because they melt together and quickly become blurred; but if besides all this they are crowded upon one another through lack of room, in some mean little soul, they are still more indistinct. So all these men are likely to have false opinions. For when they see or hear or think of anything, they cannot quickly assign things to the right imprints, but are slow about it, and because they assign them wrongly they usually see and hear and think amiss. These men, in turn, are accordingly said to be deceived about realities and ignorant.
THEAET. You are right as right could be, Socrates.
soc. Shall we, then, say that false opinions exist in us?
THEAET. Assuredly.
soc. And true opinions, no doubt ?
THEAET. And true ones also.
soc. Then now at last we think we have reached a valid agreement, that these two kinds of opinion incontestably exist ?
THEAET. Most emphatically.
soc. Truly, Theatetus, a garrulous man is a strange and unpleasant creature!
THEAET. Eh? What makes you say that?
soc. Vexation at my own stupidity and genuine garrulity. For what else could you call it when a man drags his arguments up and down because he is so stupid that he cannot be convinced, and is hardly to be induced to give up any one of them ?
THEAET, But you, why are you vexed?
199
PLATO
A sa. Od dvoxepaivw povov, aAAa Kat dédorKka, O TL aTroKpwobuat, av Tis epytat pe: “ w Lwxpa- ° \ ~ / a ” > A tes, nupynKas 61) wevd dc€av, ote ovTe ev Tats > / / > \ > 7% OF D9, A / aloOnaeatv éott mpos aAAjAas ovT’ Ev Tats dtavoiats, > > > ~ Lf > i“ \ / a) dAN év TH ovvaiser aicbicews mpos dravovay ; > a dijow dé éyu, olwar, KaAAwmilopevos ws Te NUpHKO- Twv Hua@v Kadov. wv a > iv b] > A @EAI. “Epouye Soxet, @ LwKpates, OVK altaxpov Elva TO vov amodcdetypevor. 0h iro Ovcobr, APACE Aéyets | OTL av TOV avopwrov, ov dcavoovpeba povor, op@pev e ov, immov ouK av mote olnfeinwev etvar, ov av ovTe op@pev ovte anmtoucba, Sravoovpea &: JLOvOV Kal ” > > \ > / \ > ~ ) ~ aAN ovdév aticbavouefa mepi avrod; TavTa, olwar, pjow rEyew. OFA. Kat opbas ye.
Be lgeaey salu tou, dana: Ta, evoeKa, a pnoev
196
aAXo 7 7 duavoetrat Tis, aAXo Tt ek TovTov Tob Aoyou OUK GV TOTE oun Gein dwdena elvat, & pLovov av dtavoetrar;’” Oe odv by, od azroKpivov. > > > ~ iA ¢ ~ A + @EAI. “AAA droKpwodpat, OTL op@y pev av Tus 7 epanropevos oinBetn Ta evoeKa dwdeKa elvan, a HEVTOL ev Th Ovavoia € EXEL, OVK AV TOTE TEPL avT@V TavTa do€acevev ovTWS. sa. Tt otv; olev twa mwmote attov ev av’Ta@ / \ e / / ‘5 \ > / e \ mA meévTe Kal entda, A€yw dé 7) avOpurrous ETTA Kal ~ >) » ~ mévte mpoleuevov cKotety pind ado To.odTov, aAN’ atta mevTe Kal EemTd, a hapev Exel pvneta a s ~ > A ev TO expayeiw elvar Kat wevdh ev avtois ovK > / A B} > 5) eivat do€doa, tadra atta «et Tis avOpwrwy dn
1 @hoec Stephanus; ¢4s B; gyno Burnet. 200
THEAETETUS
soc. I am not merely vexed, I am actually afraid ; for I do not know what answer to make if anyone asks me: “Socrates, have you found out, I wonder, that false opinion exists neither in the relations of the perceptions to one another nor in the thoughts, but in the combination of perception with thought?” I shall say “yes,” I suppose, and put on airs, as if we had made a fine discovery.
THEAET. It seems to me, Socrates, that the result we have now brought out is not half bad.
soc. “Do you go on and assert, then,’ he will say, “that we never could imagine that the man whom we merely think of, but do not see, is a horse which also we do not see or touch or perceive by any other sense, but merely think of?” I suppose I shall say that I do make that assertion.
THEAET. Yes, and you will be right.
soc. “ Then,’ he will say, “according to that, could we ever imagine that the number eleven which is merely thought of, is the number twelve which also is merely thought of ?”’ Come now, it is for you to answer.
THEAET. Well, my answer will be that a man might imagine the eleven that he sees or touches to be twelve, but that he could never have that opinion concerning the eleven that he has in his mind.
soc. Well, then, do you think that anyone ever considered in his own mind five and seven,—I do not mean by setting before his eyes seven men and five men and considering them, or anything of that sort, but seven and five in the abstract, which we say are imprints in the block of wax, and in regard to which we deny the possibility of forming false opinions—taking these by themselves, do you imagine
201
PLATO
muwmote eokepato Aéywv mpos abtov Kal epwrdv 700a TOT EaTiv, Kal O pLév TLS Elmev oinbels Evdeka avTa elvat, 0 d€ dWdeKa, 7) TavTes Aéyoval TE Kal OlovTat dddeKa avra eiva; @EAI, Ov pea. TOV Ata, Fn, ea eo 67) Kal ev- Béexa: éav dé ye &v metonn aprOud Tis OKoMHTAL, paAXov odadrrerar. ofuat yap oe TeEpt mavTos paAAov } apibuos Aéyew. 3a. "Opbds yap oteu Kal evOupob pe Tm TOTE yiyvetat dAdo 7 adra Ta SWSEeKa TA ev TH EKayetw EvoeKa oin Ova. @EAI. “Kouxd ve =0. Ovxobv els TOUS mpeoTous maw avircer Adyous; 6 yap TOvTO mabey, 0 oldev, ETEpOV avro OleTaL elvau @v av oldev: 6 epayrev Sip car Kal C rovrw ave jvayralopev pn elvar bevdh dogav, iva 7) Ta avTa 6 adTos avayKaloiTo €idws 1) eld€vat apa. ezAI. “AAnféorarta. sa. Odxoiy adn’ oTLObV bet atopaivew TO Ta pevd7} Sogalew 7 7 Ovavotas T™pos atobnow mrapa)ha,- yay. el yap Tovr Hv, ovK dy ToTE €v avrots Tots dvavonpacw epevdopeba. viv dé 7TOU ovK EoTe pevdrjs b0ga, 7 a Tes oldev, oldv TE 47) €ld€var. Kal TOUTWY TOTEPA 3 aipet; @EAI. “Amropov aipeow mpotilys, & LdKpates. D frenr “AMa HEVTOL dyuporepa ye Kuwvdvvever 6 Aoyos ovK Edoew. Ops d€, mavTa yap ToAunTéor, Tl El ETLYELPHOAYLEY AVALOXUVTELW; ezal. Ilds;
1 uaddov om. W. 2 rére W; rove BI. 3 aérepa W ; morépay BT.
2
202
THEAETETUS
that anybody in the world has ever considered them, talking to himself and asking himself what their sum is, and that one person has said and thought eleven, and another twelve, or do all say and think that it is twelve?
THEAET. No, by Zeus; many say eleven, and if you take a larger number for consideration, there is greater likelihood of error. For I suppose you are speaking of any number rather than of these only.
soc. You are right in supposing so; and consider whether in that instance the abstract twelve in the block of wax is not itself imagined to be eleven.
THEAET. It seems so.
soc. Have we not, then, come back again to the beginning of our talk? For the man who is affected in this way imagines that one thing which he knows is another thing which he knows. This we said was impossible, and by this very argument we were forcing false opinion out of existence, that the same man might not be forced to know and not know the same things at the same time.
THEAET. Very true.
soc. Then we must show that forming false opinion is something or other different from the interchange of thought and perception. For if it were that, we should never be deceived in abstract thoughts. But as the case now stands, either there is no false opinion or it is possible for a man not to know that which he knows. Which alternative will you choose?
THEAET. There is no possible choice, Socrates.
soc. And yet the argument is not likely to admit both. But still, since we must not shrink from any risk, what if we should try to do a shameless deed ?
THEAET. What is it?
203
197
B
PLATO
30. *EdeAnoavtes elmetv trotdv ti mor’ éort To émlotacbat.
@EAI. Kai ti totto avatcxuvtov;
sa. "Koucas od évvoeiv ott mas nuty e€ apyns 0 Aoyos Cytnos yéyovev emLaTHUNS, Ws OVK ELdoaL Ti TOT €oTIV.
@EAI. “Evvo® pev ovv.
sa. “Emer” ode avadés doxet, pr) eiddtas émt- oTnunv amodpaivecbar TO émiotacbat olov eoTw; aAAa yap, ® QWeairynte, maAat eopev avamAew TOO 17) kalapas duadeyeoban. pupuanis yap <tpy}- Kaplev TO “ yeyvaoKopiev ” Kat “ov yLyvOokopev, Kai “‘émuotducla’’ Kat “ovK émuotapcba,” ws TL OUVLEVTES ar Aco ev @ ETL emoT nny ayvootpev el de Bovrex, Kal vov ev TO Tapovre Kexpnued av TD “ ayvoety”’ TE Kal ‘ ‘ ovvievae, if ws T™poonKov avTois xypjola, eimep oTepoucla Emory.
EAI. “AMa tiva tpomov darter, @ UKpates, TOUTWY GTTEXOLEVOS ;
sa. Ovdeva wy ye Os eipi: ed pévto Hv avTe- Aoytkds, ofos avipp ef Kal viv Taphv, ToUTwY T av egy améxeo0ar Kal met opddp: av a& eya Aéyw émémAnt TeV. €rreud7) ovv eopev dadror, BovAcc ToALHoW etrrety otdv €oTt To eriotacbar; dhatveTat yap jor mpoupyov Tt av yevéobar.
@EAI. Todua toivuy vi) Ala. tovtwy dé pr amexonevw aor ota TOAAn ovyyvwpy.
36. sa. “Axyjkoas otv 6 viv Héyovaw To émiaracba;
@EAI. “lows: ov pévroe &v ye TH TapovTe pyn-
4
JLOVevW.
sa. 'Emvotiuns mov e€w daoly atro eivat. 204
THEAETETUS
soc. To undertake to tell what it really is to know.
THEAET. And why is that shameless ?
soc. You seem not to remember that our whole talk from the beginning has been a search for know- ledge, because we did not know what it is.
THEAET. Qh yes, I remember.
soc. Then is it not shameless to proclaim what it is to know, when we are ignorant of knowledge? But really, Theaetetus, our talk has been badly tainted with unclearness all along ; for we have said over and over again “we know” and “we do not know” and “we have knowledge”’ and “we have no knowledge,” as if we could understand each other, while we were still ignorant of knowledge ; and at this very moment, if you please, we have again used the terms “be ignorant’’ and “ under- stand,” as though we had any right to use them if we are deprived of knowledge.
THEAET. But how will you converse, Socrates, if you refrain from these words?
soc. Not at all, being the man I am; but I might if I were a real reasoner; if such a man were present at this moment he would tell us to refrain from these terms, and would criticize my talk scathingly. But since we are poor creatures, shall I venture to say what the nature of knowing is? For it seems to me that would be of some advantage.
THEAET. Venture it then, by Zeus. You shall have full pardon for not refraining from those terms.
soc. Have you heard what they say nowadays that knowing is?
THEAET. Perhaps; however, I don’t remember just at this moment.
soc. They say it is having knowledge.
205
PLATO
p) ~ eral. “Adv Ob. sa. “Hyets totvuy opixpov petabducba Kai ELTTWLEV ETLOTHLNS KTHOW. / SY \ / ~ > / / @EAI. Ti ody 57) dijceis TobTO exeivov Siadepew; ” \ 207 a ao = eS , =o. “lows pev otdév: 6 8° obvy doKet, akovoas ovvookipuale. > Uj a? 3° 4 @EAI. ‘Haviep ye olds T O. =a. Od Toivuy por tadrov daiverat TH KEKTH- ofa TO EXEW. olov ei 1 (udTLov TpUc{LEvOS TUS Kal eyKparns av pr popot,” exew pev ovK av adtov avTo, KekTHobat ye pnv? datpev. @EAI. “Opbds ye.
C 20) St Xe) , E) § A Cy 20. pa ON Kal ETLOTNUNVY EL OVVATOV OUTW / A ” > > a ” vy KEKTNULEVOY pun exe, GAA’ woamep et Tis opvifas ayplas, mepiotepas 7% Tt GAAo, Onpevaas otKor KATACKEVAGGLEVOS TEploTEepe@va Tpépor. TpoTroVv Lev yap av mov twa datev adtov avras adel exeL,
ort 1) KEKTYHTAL. yap; @EAI. Nat. > sa. Tpdmov dé y’ addov ovdenlav exew, adda dvvayw pev avT@ Tept advras mapayeyovevat, 2 eTelo7) ev olketw TrepiBoAw moyxeEplous €7roLy- D caro, AaBety Kat oyxeiv, émevdav BovAnrar, Onpev- / “A nn 2h MA > / \ / > / \ capevw nv av act €béAn, Kat maAw adievar’ Kat TovTo e€eivat Tovetv, OToGdKLs av SoKH avTa. @EAI. “Kore radra. =a. I[dAw 54, womep ev tots mpdcbev Kypwov b) A A s.
Te ev Tats puyats Kateoxevalouev ovK old 6 TL TAacua, viv ad ev éxaoTn vy Tomjowpev ' e vulg. ex emend. apogr. P; om. BTW.
2 popot vulg.; dopav b; popd B; pope TW.
3 ve uy W; ye 5) Bs ye T; bé ye vulg.
206
THEAETETUS
THEAET. True.
soc. Let us make a slight change and say possess- ing knowledge.
THEAET. Why, how will you claim that the one differs from the other ?
soc. Perhaps it doesn’t; but first hear how it seems to me to differ, and then help me to test my view.
THEAET. [| will if I can.
soc. Well, then, having does not seem to me the same as possessing. For instance, if a man bought a cloak and had it under his control, but did not wear it, we should certainly say, not that he had it, but that he possessed it.
THEAET. And rightly.
soc. Now see whether it is possible in the same way for one who possesses knowledge not to have it, as, for instance, if a man should catch wild birds —pigeons or the like—and should arrange an aviary at home and keep them in it, we might in a way assert that he always has them because he possesses them, might we not?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And yet in another way that he has none of them, but that he has acquired power over them, since he has brought them under his control in his own enclosure, to take them and hold them when- ever he likes, by catching whichever bird he pleases, and to let them go again; and he can do this as often as he sees fit.
THEAET. That is true.
soc. Once more, then, just as a while ago we contrived some sort of a waxen figment in the soul, so now let us make in each soul an aviary stocked
207
PLATO
TepLoTepe@va, TW mavrodam Ov opvibeov, TAS pee Kar ayéAas ovoas Xwpis TOV dur, Tas d€ Kat’ oAlyas, évias d€ ovas dia Tac omy av TUXWOL TETOMEVAS. E ocat. Ilezoujo8w 57. adda ti TobvTedbev;
sa. Iladiov pev dvrwy davar xp7 eivar TodTo TO _ayyetov KEvOV, drt bé TOV opvideav ETLOTHILAS vorjaas: nv & av éemoTHunv KTNOGLEVOS kabetpen ets Tov meptBorov, pavar avTov pepadnxevar 7 nopnKevar TO mpayya od HV avTN 7) emOTHUN, Kat TO emioTac0a Tobr’ eivar.
@EAI. "Kor.
198 xa. To rolvuy madw jv av BovAnra tdv ém- oTnua@v Onpevew Kat AaBovta ioyew Kat adOus adévar, oxomer Tivwv Setrau ovoyaTwr, elTe TAV avT&v dv TO mp@Tov OTe €xTaro cite ETEpwv. pabjce 8° evbévde ! cadéotepov ti A€yw. aprOun- TUK prev yap A€yets TéEXVYV;
ozal. Nat.
=a. Tavrny 57) broAaBe Onpav éemoTnudv ap- Tiov TE Kal TEpiTTOU TravTos.
@EAI. ‘VroAapBaven.
>to Tavrn Oy, olpat, TH Téxvn avTos Te U70-
B yeupious tas eTLOTHHLOS Tov apiOuav ever Kal
aAAw trapadidiwow 6 mrapad.dovs.
oral. Nai.
sa. Kat xadotudv ye mapadidovra pev 6.0d- okew, taparauBdavovta dé pavOaverv, EXOVTO d€ O7) 7 Kextnola ev T@ Teprotepedve exeivy éricracbau.
1 évOévie] évretdev B. 208 :
THEAETETUS
with all sorts of birds, some in flocks apart from the rest, others in small groups, and some solitary, flying hither and thither among them all.
THEAET. Consider it done. What next?
soc. We must assume that while we are children this receptacle is empty, and we must understand that the birds represent the varieties of knowledge. And whatsoever kind of knowledge a person acquires and shuts up in the enclosure, we must say that he has learned or discovered the thing of which this is the knowledge, and that just this is knowing.
THEAET. So be it.
soc. Consider then what expressions are needed for the process of recapturing and taking and holding and letting go again whichever he please of the kinds of knowledge, whether they are the same expressions as those needed for the original acquisi- tion, or others. But you will understand better by an illustration. You admit that there is an art of arithmetic ?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. Now suppose this to be a hunt after the kinds of knowledge, or sciences, of all odd and even numbers.
THEAET. I do so.
soc. Now it is by this art, I imagine, that a man has the sciences of numbers under his own control and also that any man who transmits them to another does this.
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And we say that when anyone transmits them he teaches, and when anyone receives them he learns, and when anyone, by having acquired them, has them in that aviary of ours, he knows them.
209
PLATO
@eFAI. Ilavu prev odv. ~ ~ A ~ xo. Te dé 57 evredbev 707 Tpoaoxes TOV voov. dpiOpnrixds yap Ov Ted€ws aAAo Tt mdvras dprBods emiorarat; > mavTwy yap apiluadv eiow atta ev TH Puy emoTHar. @EAI. Te pyr; > > e A > AY Oo” / A C x0. *H ody 6 Towtros apiOuot av moTé Tt 7 ’ \ \ ¢€ \ > AD MY Oe, ~ ” iA ” avTos mpos adTov adta 7 dAdo Tt THY €Ew Goa ExeL > apiOpov ; @EAI. IIs yap ov; zo. To dé apuOwety ye ovK addo Te Ojoopev Tob oxoreto0a mda0s Tis apiOuos TUyxXavEL wv. @EAI. Ovrtws. a“ * 9 a, , / sa. “O dpa eémiotatat, oKomovpevos dpatverat A Ws ovK €ldws, Ov wpmodroyynKapev amavTa apiOwov eld€var. aKovels yap Tov Tas ToLavTas apdioPy- THOELS. a” @EAI “Eywye. 37. 30. Odxodv jets amealovres TH TaV D mepiorepa@v KTyjoe Te Kal Onpa epotpev ote dut77) jv 7 Onpa, » pev mpl éextinoba Tod KexTHabau EVEKQ" 7 Oe KEKTHILEVW) TOU AaBeiv Kal exew ev tats Xepow a maa EKEKTIITO. ovTws Oé€ Kal cv mdaAau eMLOT HAL joav avT@ pabovre Kat } qm otato at’td, mdédw ore KatapavOdvew tadrd Tatra avadauBavovta tiv émoTipyny EeKkdoToU Kal loxovTa, nv eKeKTHTO pev TdaAQL, mMpoxXELpoV 5° ovk elye TH Siavoia; oral. “AXnO7. ~ \ ” > iA id A A =a. Totro 67 apte npwTwv, ows xpn Tots
L ywabbyre kat W 3 waddvTe BT. 210
THEAETETUS
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. Now pay attention to what follows from this. Does not the perfect arithmetician understand all numbers; for he has the sciences of all numbers in his mind ?
THEAET. To be sure.
soc. Then would such a man ever count anything —either any abstract numbers in his head, or any such external objects as possess number?
THEAET. Of course.
soc. But we shall affirm that counting is the same thing as considering how great any number in question is.
THEAET. We shall.
soc. Then he who by our previous admission knows all number is found to be considering that which he knows as if he did not know it. You have doubtless heard of such ambiguities.
THEAET. Yes, I have.
soc. Continuing, then, our comparison with the acquisition and hunting of the pigeons, we shall say that the hunting is of two kinds, one before the acquisition for the sake of possessing, the other carried on by the possessor for the sake of taking and holding in his hands what he had acquired long before. And just so when a man long since by learning came to possess knowledge of certain things, and knew them, he may have these very things afresh by taking up again the knowledge of each of them separately and holding it—the knowlege which he had acquired long before, but had not at hand in his mind?
THEAET. That is true.
soc. This, then, was my question just now: How
211
PLATO
dvopace XpwpLevov Aéyew TEpl ava, orav apOur - ow in o > dpubunruKos 7) HTL dvayvaaopevos 6 ypappa- TUCOS, WS emLOTAPLEVvos dpa ev TO Tovovrw maw EpyeTar pabyodjevos Tap €avTod a eriaTaTal; @zAl. *AAA’ dtomov, ® UwKpates. sa. “AAV a ovk eriotatar Pdpev atrov ava- yroscectat Kal dppunoer, dcdwkoTes alT@ TavTA pev ypappara., mavTO. de _ apuB prov éniotracbat; 199 @Ear. “AAG Kai Todb7’ dAoyov. sa. BovdAer oty rAéywpev OTe TOV ev ovopatav ovdev Huty péAEt, Ory TLs Xalper EAKWY TO emtora- obae Kat pavOaveww, emreub7) d€ prodpeba ETEpOV pev TU 70 KexThoau THY ETLOTHELNY eTepov b€ TO EXeW, O [ev TIS EKTNTAL [L7) KexTobar GQOUVaTOV apLev elvar, WOTE ovdemore oupPaiver ¢ ro) Tes oidev pun eldévar, evdh pevtor Sd€av ofdv 7 elvat zrept B adrob AaPeiv; pr) yap exew THY emvoTHNv TovTOV oldv te, GAN’ érépay avr’ exeivys, dtav Onpevwv Twa Tov tot + émorTHpny StateTopevwy av? ETépas €Tépav apaptwv AGBy, TOTE * Apa Ta EvdeKa dwdeka win elvar, THY TOV EvdeKA ETLOTH UHV avTt THs TOV Swdeka AaPwy THY Ev EavT@ olov hatrav avTi Tepiotepas. @EAI. “Eye yap ovv Aoyov. sani [Onay b€ ye! nv emxerpet AaBetv AaB, dipevdetv TE KQL TO evra do€alew TOTE, kal ovUTw 57) eivar adnOA Te Kat Pevd7 Sd€av, Kat av ev Tots C mpoatev evo xepaivopey ovdev _eEpeTooey ylyve- afar; tows ody pou cvupdrjceis’ 7 THs Towjoes ;
ve
1 gov mor W; az’ a’tod BT. 2 tére W: bre BT. B12
THEAETETUS
should we express ourselves in speaking about them when an arithmetician undertakes to count or a man of letters to read something? In such a case shall we say that although he knows he sets himself to learn again from himself that which he knows ?
THEAET. But that is extraordinary, Socrates.
soc. But shall we say that he is going to read or count that which he does not know, when we have granted that he knows all letters and all numbers?
THEAET. But that too is absurd.
soc. Shall we then say that words are nothing to us, if it amuses anyone to drag the expressions “know” and “learn”? one way and another, but since we set up the distinction that it is one thing to possess knowledge and another thing to have it, we affirm that it is impossible not to possess what one possesses, so that it never happens that a man does not know that which he knows, but that it is possible to conceive a false opinion about it? For it is possible to have not the knowledge of this thing, but some other knowledge instead, when in hunting for some one kind of knowledge, as the various kinds fly about, he makes a mistake and catches one instead of another; so in one example he thought eleven was twelve, because he caught the knowledge of twelve, which was within him, instead of that of eleven, caught a ringdove, as it were, instead of a pigeon.
THEAET. Yes, that is reasonable.
soc. But when he catches the knowledge he intends to catch, he is not deceived and has true opinion, and so true and false opinion exist and none of the things which formerly annoyed us interferes ? Perhaps you will agree to this; or what will you do?
213
PLATO
hd @EAI. Ovtws. \ \ A A “A >? , \ tea so. Kal yap trod pev a@ emioravrat py emt- > / “a \ , \ otac8a: amndAddypcbay a yap KexTHpeba py ~ la a_/ KexTHobar ovdapo eT. auPaiver, ovTe Pevobeiot TWos oUTE pn. SewdTepov pévTo. mdafos dAXo Tmapadaivecbat pou Soxet. @EAI. To zrofov; a ~ 4 \ so. Ei 4 t&v emornudv petadAayh evdr)s yevnoetal mote d0€a. eEAI. I1as 57; A \ / ” > /
D xo. IIparov pev ro twos Exyovta emorThnv TotTo av7To ayvoetv, pn ayvwpoctvn adda TH €avTod émioTHyn emeita ETEepov av TobTo do€d- lew, To 8 €tepov totto, mHs od moAX} adoyia, ETLOTHULNS Tapayevouerns yv@var ev tHv puynv pndév, ayvojoar d€ mavta; eK yap TovTov Tov Acoyovu KwAver ovdev Kal ayvoltay Tapayevomevny yvOvat Te mowjoar Kat tuddAdtynta ideiv, eElmep KQL ETLOTHLN AyVvOHoal TOTE TWA TrOLHCEL.
E ofall. “lows yap, ® LwKpates, od Kad@s Tas 7 ys >? / / fe »” opvibas érifewev emioTipas povov TiOevTes, edet d€ Kal avemioTypoovvas TiWévar ood ovvéd.aTe- Tomevas ev TH uxyH, Kal Tov Onpevovta ToTE bev emioTHnv AapPdavovta, Tote 5 avemoTnuoavyny Tob avrob mrepe Pevdh pev So€dlew TH aveTioTnpo- ovvn, adnOy Se TH emioTHLN.
> Ce, / > / \ > A 30. Ov pddidv ye, & Oecaitnre, wn emauweiv ce: x ? 6 pevro. eimes maAw emioxear. eoTw pev yap
214
THEAETETUS
THEAET. I will agree.
soc. Yes, for we have got rid of our difficulty about men not knowing that which they know; for we no longer find ourselves not possessing that which we possess, whether we are deceived about anything or not. However, another more dreadful disaster seems to be coming in sight.
THEAET. What disaster ?
soc. If the interchange of kinds of knowledge should ever turn out to be false opinion.
THEAET. How so?
soc. Is it not the height of absurdity, in the first place for one who has knowledge of something to be ignorant of this very thing, not through ignorance but through his knowledge ; secondly, for him to be of opinion that this thing is something else and something else is this thing—for the soul, when knowledge has come to it, to know nothing and be ignorant of all things? For by this argument there is nothing to prevent ignorance from coming to us and making us know something and blindness from making us see, if knowledge is ever to make us ignorant.
THEAET. Perhaps, Socrates, we were not right in making the birds represent kinds of knowledge only, but we ought to have imagined kinds of ignorance also flying about in the soul with the others; then the hunter would catch sometimes knowledge and sometimes ignorance of the same thing, and through the ignorance he would have false, but through the knowledge true opinion.
soc. It is not easy, Theaetetus, to refrain from praising you. However, examine your suggestion once more. Let it be as you say: the man who
215
PLATO
200 ws A€yers: 6 Se 8) THY avemioTnpootyvnv AaBawv wevdh pev, dis, So€doa. HF yap; ezaAl. Naw. so. Od dyz0v Kal Hyjnoetai ye fevdh So€alew. eral. Ids yap; so. “AA adnOH ye, Kal ws eidws dSiaKketoeTar Tept wv exsevoTar. @EAI. Tt perv; sa. “Emotnpnv dpa oinoetar TeOnpevKws Exe, GAN’ odK aveTioTnLoovVyy. @EAI. A7ndov. xa. Odxoiv paxpav mepteABdvtes madw emi THY TpPWTHVY TAapEecpEV GTropiav. oO yap eAcyKTLKOS Bexeivos yeAdoas dryoe “ motepov, @ PeATLoTOL, appotepas Tis €ldwWs, emLoTHNVY TE KAL aveTLOTH- poovvnv, nv oldev, érépav atrnv oleTat Twa elvat av oldev; 7 ovdeTepay adroiv} eidds, Hv p7) olde, do€aler érépay dv ovK oldev; 7) THY pev €ldas, tiv 8 ov, hv oldev, HY py older; 7) Hv pa older, nv oldev Hyettar; 7 maAw ad pou epetre OTL TOV ETLOTHU@V Kal avEeTLOTHLOOUVaYV Elo ad eTmLOTHMAL, ds 0 KeKTNMEeVvos ev ETEpos TLL yeAoloLs TEpLOTE- C pe@ow 7 Kypivois mAdopact KabeipEas, Ewormep QV KEKTHTAL emloTaTaL, Kal Eav [1] mpoxXElpous é€xyn ev TH wuyn; Kal ovTw 67 avayKaoby- ceable els TavTov TrepiTpéxewv pLupidKis OVdEeV TA€oV mo.wobvtes;’’ Ti mpos Tadtra, w@ Weairnre, amo- Kpwovpeda ; 1 qurow] aitiv BT; om. W.
216
THEAETETUS
catches the ignorance will, you say, have false opinion. Is that it?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. But surely he will not also think that he has false opinion.
THEAET. Certainly not.
soc. No, but true opinion, and will have the attitude of knowing that about which he is deceived.
THEAET. Of course.
soc. Hence he will fancy that he has caught, and has, knowledge, not ignorance.
THEAET. Evidently.
soc. Then, after our long wanderings, we have come round again to our first difficulty. For the real reasoner will laugh and say, “ Most excellent Sirs, does a man who knows both knowledge and ignorance think that one of them, which he knows, is another thing which he knows; or, knowing neither of them, is he of opinion that one, which he does not know, is another thing which he does not know; or, knowing one and not the other, does he think that the one he does not know is the one he knows; or that the one he knows is the one he does not know? Or will you go on and tell me that there are kinds of know- ledge of the kinds of knowledge and of ignorance, and that he who possesses these kinds of knowledge and has enclosed them in some sort of other ridiculous aviaries or waxen figments, knows them, so long as he possesses them, even if he has them not at hand in his soul? And in this fashion are you going to be compelled to trot about endlessly in the same circle without making any progress?’’ What shall we reply to this, Theaetetus ?
H 217
PLATO
eral. “AAAa pa A’, & Lod«pates, eywye ovK €xyw Ti xp7 Aéyew. > > > Cana Ss a ~ e / > xa. *Ap’ otv ypiv, @ mat, KaAds 6 Adyos em- / A > / (v4 >) > ~ ~ mAnTTel, Kal evdeiKvuTat OTL ovK opOds evd7 ~ / dd€av mpotépav Cyntodpev emotiuns, ekelvnv ad- D évres; tO 8’ €or advvatov yrGvat, mpiv av Tis >) A ¢ ~ / , > >) / emoTnuny tkavas AaByn Ti ToT Eat. egal. “Avdyxkn, @ LaKpares, ev TH TapovTt ws Aé€yers oteoa. 38. 3x0. Ti odv tis épet madw &€ apyfs émorn- penv; ov yap Tov aTrEpoupev Ye Tw; @FAIL. “Hxwora, edviep fr) ov ye atrayopevns. , , / nv ’ A / >) / sa. Aéye 67, Ti av atro pdadvoTta eimovtes > ~ A A HKLOT av nt adrots evavTiwbetpev ; E oral. “Ozep émexeipotuev, © LwKpates, év ~ tA >! A ” ” + b>] , T® pdoabev: ov yap exw eywye ado ovdev. xa. To zotov; ~ >] @EAI. TH adnd7A d0€av ETMLOTH UNV €lval. ava- / , 4 4 > A , 5 ~ A 4 piapTyntov yé mov é€oTw To do€alew adnO7, Kal Ta t7 attod yyvoueva mavta Kada Kat ayala ylyveTaL. e \ A , * sa. ‘O rov totanov Kabyyovpevos, & Ocairnre, ” yy / ~) / A ~ LAN +7 édy dpa dei€ew adtd- Kal totro éav idvtes ~ / > “A >) Epevv@pev, TAX GV EpTrOoLOY yevopevov avTo A ~ 201 dyverev TO Cntovpevov, jrevovar dé SHAov oddev. >] ~ / 3 >) av / \ @EAI. "OpOds Eyes: GAN’ iwpev ye Kal oKo- TI @jLEV.
218
THEAETETUS
THEAET. By Zeus, Socrates, I don’t know what to say.
soc. Then, my boy, is the argument right in re- buking us and in pointing out that we were wrong to abandon knowledge and seek first for false opinion ? It is impossible to know the latter until we have adequately comprehended the nature of knowledge.
THEAET. As the case now stands, Socrates, we cannot help thinking as you say.
soc. To begin, then, at the beginning once more, what shall we say knowledge is? For surely we are not going to give it up yet, are we?
THEAET. Not by any means, unless, that is, you give it up.
soc. Tell us, then, what definition will make us contradict ourselves least.
THEAET. The one we tried before, Socrates; at any rate, I have nothing else to offer.
soc. What one?
THEAET. That knowledge is true opinion; for true opinion is surely free from error and all its results are fine and good.
soc. The man who was leading the way through the river,! Theaetetus, said: “ The result itself will show;” and so in this matter, if we go on with our search, perhaps the thing will turn up in our path and of itself reveal the object of our search; but if we stay still, we shall discover nothing.
THEAET. You are right; let us go on with our investigation.
1 A man who was leading the way through a river was asked if the water was deep. He replied avro dette, ** the event itself will show” (i.e. you can find out by trying). The expression became proverbial.
219
PLATO
22. Odxodv totre ye Bpaxeias oxepews: téxvn
“ > yap cot oAn onpaiver pur) elvor emLoTHNV avTo.
@EAI. IIs 67; Kal tis avrn;
20. “H trav peyiorwyr eis codiav, ots 81) Kadod- ow prTopds Te Kal diKaviKOUs. OTOL yap TOU TH e ~ / / > / > \ EauT@v Téexvn retVovow ov diddoKovTes, aAAa
/ ~ “a nv 7 nn A Ww do€alew mowodvtes a av BovAwvrar. 7 od ole dewvovs TiWas oUTW dLdacKaAoUs eEivat, WaTE ols
By) mapeyevovTd Twes amootepovpevors xpyHwara BA + Qe , l / \ y Tt GAXo Bialopevors, tovtos! dvvacbat pods Vdwp aptKpov didd€ar ixavOs TOV yevopevwy THY aAnGevav ; ~ if > > A A @EAI. Ovdapds eywye otuar, aAAa metoar pev. \ A > SN / / ~A xa. To metoa 5° odyt do€daca A€yers TorAoa; / / @EAI. Tt pq; >} ~ tA , ~ A za. Ovdxotdv otav dixaiws mevobOow diKxacrai
A e fs) / 2 / ” ae) /, y+ \ / mept wv iddvTe” povov Eat €ldévar, dAAws S€ Uy,
~ 3 > ~ = Tatra tote €€ aKojs Kpivovtes, adnb_ do€av
/ 4 > / ” > \ /
C AaBovres, dvev emuoTHns Expwayr, op0a mreobevtes, Elmep €0 EdiKacaV;
eFAI. Ilavtazaoe pev odv.
xa. Ovx av, ® dire, et ye tadrov Av dd€a TE iA Ay. \ 3 } / 4 \ > ti > Q / aAnOns KaTa*® diukactypia* Kat emuoTHun, opba mot av duxacTns axpos edogaley dvev emoTHuns* viv dé €ouxev GAXo Tt ExaTEpov eivar.
1 rovtos| rovrous T. 2 (6vrt] eidov 7h Bs e€fd67u W. 3 xara Jowett; cai mss. ; om. Heindorf. 4 Sixaorypia] duxacryjpoy T ; om. Heindorf.
220
THEAETETUS
soc. Well, then, this at least calls for slight investigation ; for you have a whole profession which declares that true opinion is not knowledge.
THEAET. How so? What profession is it ?
soc. The profession of those who are greatest in wisdom, who are called orators and lawyers ; for they persuade men by the art which they possess, not teaching them, but making them have whatever opinion they like. Or do you think there are any teachers so clever as to be able, in the short time allowed by the water-clock,! satisfactorily to teach the judges the truth about what happened to people who have been robbed of their money or have suffered other acts of violence, when there were no eyewitnesses ?
THEAET. I certainly do not think so; but I think they can persuade them.
soc. And persuading them is making them have an opinion, is it not?
THEAET. Of course.
soc. Then when judges are justly persuaded about matters which one can know only by having seen them and in no other way, in such a case, judging of them from hearsay, having acquired a true opinion of them, they have judged without knowledge, though they are rightly persuaded, if the judgement they have passed is correct, have they not?
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. But, my friend, if true opinion and knowledge were the same thing in law courts, the best of judges could never have true opinion without knowledge; in fact, however, it appears that the two are different.
1 The length of speeches in the Athenian law courts was limited by a water-clock,
221
PLATO
@ > , > i > , oral. “O ye eyw, © LawKpates, elmovtos Tov > / tJ / ~ > b] ~ v \ \ akovoas emeAcAjouny, viv & evvod: Edy dé TH \ A , : ~ , > , > pev preta Adyou adnOy dSd€av emorypnv eivat, D tiv de addoyov exTos emioTHNS* Kal WY pev py eoTt Adyos, ovK ETLOTHTA Elva, OUTWOL Kal Ovoma- > Cwv, ao exer, emoTnTa. so. "H Kadds rAé€yers. ta 5é 8x) emoTyTA Tatra Kal py 7H Suyper, A€ye, ef Apa Kata TavTa av Te KaYW akynKOapeV. @FAI. “AXN’ otk olda ei eLevpyjow: éyovtTos f ed eas Cd, < e 2 ee > r Ax) pee | pevt’ av éTépov, ws ey@pat, axoAovdyjcay. av. ” \ + > \ - / > \ 39. xa. “Akove 57) Ovap avti oveipatos. éyw E yap ad eddxovv akovew Twav OTL TA bev TPATA olovmepel aToryeta, e€ Wy Hels TE OvyKEipcfa Kal > , > ” Ske N p) eles TaAAa, Adyov odK Exot. a’To yap Kal’ atro Exa- OTOv oVvoudcat povov ein, mpocerety dé ovdeV Vv / a ¢e ” 41? e ? ” aAAo duvarov, ov’ ws eoTw, ovf ws ovK eoTwW: ” \ nv“ >) / vn“ A > / > ~ / 202 46 yap av ovaiav 7 7) OVaiav avT@ TpoaTiBecBa, deiv d€ ovdev Tpoadépe, eltrep adTO eKEivo [OvoV ] A > A >) WS 6 ar x > shee de) > \ § -.GGis9 a a? Tis epel. emret ovde TO “‘avTo’’ ovde TO “ ExEtVvo 9Q\ A coe ” QA \ ce Le ” IQA ovee TO “‘Exaotov’’ ovdé TO “pdovov’’ ovde c¢ ~ ” / 2Q9> BA \ ~ tobto’”’ mpocototéov od adda zoAAa Tovatra: TabTa pev yap mepitpexovta Taat mpoodhépeoba, eTepa OvTa ekelvwy ots mpooribera, dew Se, elmep Hv Suvatov adTo Aéyecbar Kat cixyev otKetov ¢ lo / yy ~ A ¢ / / avtod Adyov, avev T@V GAAwY aravtwv éyeoOar. vov d€ advvatov eivar oTLoby THY TpwTwY pyOHvaL
1 dxorovdjoay dv Schanz ; dxodov@noaiuny BT 3 dxodoven- cau al,
222
THEAETETUS
THEAET. Oh yes, I remember now, Socrates, having heard someone make the distinction, but I had forgotten it. He said that knowledge was true opinion accompanied by reason, but that unreasoning true opinion was outside of the sphere of knowledge ; and matters of which there is not a rational explana- tion are unknowable—yes, that is what he called them—and those of which there is are knowable.
soc. I am glad you mentioned that. But tell us how he distinguished between the knowable and the unknowable, that we may see whether the accounts that you and I have heard agree.
THEAET. But I do not know whether I can think it out; but if someone else were to make the state- ment of it, I think I could follow.
soc. Listen then, while I relate it to you—“a dream for a dream.”’ I in turn used to imagine that I heard certain persons say that the primary elements of which we and all else are composed admit of no rational explanation; for each alone by itself can only be named, and no qualification can be added, neither that it is nor that it is not, for that would at once be adding to it existence or non-existence, whereas we must add nothing to it, if we are to speak of that itself alone. Indeed, not even “itself ori that: Vor each’: or Salone or this'# or anything else of the sort, of which there are many, must be added; for these are prevalent terms which are added to all things indiscriminately and are different from the things to which they are added ; but if it were possible to explain an element, and it admitted of a rational explanation of its own, it would have to be explained apart from everything else. But in fact none of the primal elements can be ex-
223
PLATO
BAdyw: od yap elvar adtd adr H dvopdlecBar
4 + A , ” A A >] / pLovov: dvoua yap pLovoy exe: Ta dé €x TOUTWY 70n ovyKeiweva, wWomep atta meémAeKTaL, oOUTw Kal Ta OvopmaTa avT@v oupTAaKkévta Adyov yeyo- vevat' ovoudTwv yap avptAoKny evar Adyou ovaiav. ovTw 61) Ta pev oTotyeta ddoya Kal ayvwoTa eivat, aicbnta dé- Tas dé ovdAdaBas yowotds Te Kal pynTas Kal adAnbet ddEn So€acrds. oe \ > + , \ > ~ / , oTay prev ovv avev Aoyou THY aAnOA ddEav Tivds tis Aan, aAnfevew pev adtod thy puynv Tept
>) avTo, yryvywoKkew 5 ov* Tov yap pn Suvdapevov dobvai Te Kai dé€acbar Adyov avemoripova eivat mept TovTov: mpoodAaPdvTa dé Adyov Suvardv Te Tara TdvTa yeyovevar Kal Teciws Tmpds emLOTHLNV
@)
” 4 \ \ dnl a” y > ie EXEL. OUTWS OV TO EvUTTVLOV 7) GAAWS aKyKOAS; @EAI. Ovrw pev otv Tmavtamacw. sa. “Apécxe: odv ce Kat Tifecas ta’tyn, dogav aAnO7 peta AOyou emoTHHV eva; @EAI. KopudH pev odv. Ss > > / ~ iA ~ ~ D 2x0. *Ap’, & QOecairnre, viv ottw THde TH ic / > / “A / A \ A ~ neepa etAjpayev 6 mada Kat toAAol THY coddv Cntobvres mp edpety KaTeyrpacar; @EAI. “Enot yotv doxet, @ Lwxpates, Kadds Aéyeobar To viv pnbev. \ ) / ) \ ~ Ld ” , sa. Kat etkds ye adto totTo ottws exew: Tis 5) \ Yd > A yap av Kal ETL ETLOTHUN Ein XwWpis TOD Adyovu Te Kat opOjs do€ns; ev pevTou Ti pe TOV pyOevTwr amrapéoKel. @EAI. To zotov 573 224
THEAETETUS
pressed by reason; they can only be named, for they have only a name; but the things composed of these are themselves complex, and so their names are complex and form a rational explanation; for the combination of names is the essence of reasoning. Thus the elements are not objects of reason or of knowledge, but only of perception, whereas the combinations of them are objects of knowledge and expression and true opinion. When therefore a man acquires without reasoning the true opinion about anything, his mind has the truth about it, but has no knowledge; for he who cannot give and receive a rational explanation of a thing is without know- ledge of it; but when he has acquired also a rational explanation he may possibly have become all that I have said and may now be perfect in knowledge. Is that the version of the dream you have heard, or is it different ?
THEAET. That was it exactly.
soc. Are you satisfied, then, and do you state it in this way, that true opinion accompanied by reason is knowledge?
THEAET. Precisely.
soc. Can it be, Theaetetus, that we now, in this casual manner, have found out on this day what many wise men have long been seeking and have grown grey in the search?
THEAET. I, at any rate, Socrates, think our present statement is good.
soc. Probably this particular statement is so; for what knowledge could there still be apart from reason and right opinion? One point, however, in what has been said is unsatisfactory to me.
THEAET. What point ?
H 2 225
PLATO
a A 32. “O Kat doxet rA€yeoAar Kopydotata, ws TA \ A ~ ~ fev oro.xeta ayvworta, TO d€ THV avdA\aBav yévos E yvworov. @EAI. Odxobv opbds; =| 4 Q Lae tA A ¢e Vg 22. LOTEOV O7) WOTTEp Yap OfL7)/povsS EXOLEV ~ / e Tob Aoyou Ta Tapadelypata, ofs ypwpevos eime TavTa TAOTA. @EAI. Ilota 57; \ ~ / al A sa. Ta tv ypapypdtwr otoryeia Te Kal ovdAda- D. a” yA + / / ~ > aA Bas. 7 otet addoc€ mou BA€movta tatra eimetv Tov elimovTa & A€éyomev; ” 3 > >) ~ @EAI. OvxK, add’ eis tadTa.
203 40. 30. Bacavilwperv 57) atta avadayBavortes, padrrov S€ Huds adtovs, ovTws 7) ody OUTWS ypap- pata eudboyev. dépe mp@tov: dp’ at pev ovdada- Bat Adyov Eyovot, Ta S€é oToryeta adoya;
@EAI. “lows. > 4 sa. Ildvu pév odv Kai euoi daiverar. Lwxpa- Tous yoov el Tis €poito THY mpaTyv ovddabyv ovtwat: ““@® @eairntre, Adye Ti e€oTt aw; Ti amroKpuvet; e a » WRRIG 3 @EAI. “Ore ofypa Kat wd. 3a. Ovdxotv tobtov éxers Adyov THs avAAabAs; @FAl. "Eywye. wv / LA >? A \ 4 ~ A B xo. “0c 54, ovTws ele Kat Tov Tod ciypa Aoyov. eral. Kat mas tod atorxelov Tis Epet aTo.xeta; Ss a ~ 3 tA Kat yap 87, @ UwKpates, TO TE Otypa TOV adwraw
226
THEAETETUS
soc. Just that which seems to be the cleverest ; the assertion that the elements are unknowable and the class of combinations is knowable.
THEAET. Is that not right?
soc. We are sure to find out, for we have as hostages the examples which he who said all this used in his argument.
THEAET. What examples?
soc. The elements in writing, the letters of the alphabet, and their combinations, the syllables! ; or do you think the author of the statements we are discussing had something else in view ?
THEAET. No; those are what he had in view.
soc. Let us, then, take them up and examine them, or rather, let us examine ourselves and see whether it was in accordance with this theory, or not, that we learned letters. First then, the syllables have a rational explanation, but the letters have not?
THEAET. I suppose so.
soc. I think so, too, decidedly. Now if anyone should ask about the first syllable of Socrates ; ‘ Theaetetus, tell me, what is SO?” What would you reply?
THEAET. I should say “S and O.”
soc. This, then, is your explanation of the syllable ?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. Come now, in the same manner give me the explanation of the S.
THEAET. How can one give any elements of an element? For really, Socrates, the S is a voiceless
1 Lrovxetov and ovddaBy, originally general terms for
element and combination, became the common words for letter and syllable.
227
C
D
PLATO
b] / , / e , A 7 Eat, Yodpos Tis dvov, olov aupitrovons THs yAwT- T™ns' Tot 8 abd Pita ote dwv7) ovTe ddos, ovdE TOV TAclioTwWY OTOLYElwY' WoTE TaVU ED EXEL TO y e AéyeoOar attra dAoya, dv ye Ta evapyéorata avra \ e \ A / + / A SINS 2 A Ta ETTA Hwvyny ovov exer, Adyov dé ovd OVTLWOdY. =o. Tovri péev dpa, @ éralpe, Katwp0uwKapev A MEPL ETMLOTHLNS. @FAI. Dawopeba. A A sa. Tt d€; To 1 yuworov elvar TO oTotxetov. > 5 9 nw adda tiv avAdAaBiv Gp’ opO@s amrodedelypcba; @EAI. Hikds ye. 3a. Dépe 57, tHv ovdAdaBiv modtepov Aéywpev | \oe , a 1 SIN , DON , \ Ta audotepa oTo.yeta, Kal eav TrAciw 7 7) SVo, Ta mavTa, 7 play Twa (ddav yeyovutay ovvTebévTwr QuTov; A oe ” lol @EAI. Ta azavra eporye Soxodpev. A SN a aA > , =0. “Opa 51) emt duoty, olypLa Kal @. ap.poTepa b e , \ ~ ? ve ee ae + eoTW 7 7mpwTn avddAaf7 rob é€uod Gvdpatos. aAAo ¢ TLO yryywoKwy adTny Ta audoTepa yryvwoKel; @EAl. Te pv; A ~ A A > + / zo. To otypa Kat TO ® apa yryvwoket. ezal. Nav. / > e 4 > A sa. Ti 8°; €xdtepov dp’ ayvoet, Kat oddérepov eldws apddtepa yryvwoxKer; egal. “AAAa dewvov Kat adoyov, ® Lw«partes. > \ / 7 > / e , / za. “Ada pevtou et ye avayKn Exdtepov yryvew- U > / 4 OKELWW, ELTTEP AULPOTEPA Tis YYWOETAL, TpOyLyVwWoKEW
1 Adywuev B; dAé-youer T et al. 228
THEAETETUS
letter, a mere noise, as of the tongue hissing; B again has neither voice nor noise, nor have most of the other letters; and so it is quite right to say that they have no explanation, seeing that the most distinct of them, the seven vowels, have only voice, but no explanation whatsoever.
soc. In this point, then, my friend, it would seem that we have reached a right conclusion about knowledge.
THEAET. I think we have.
soc. But have we been right in laying down the principle that whereas the letter is unknowable, yet the syllable is knowable ?
THEAET. Probably.
soc. Well then, shall we say that the syllable is the two letters, or, if there be more than two, all of them, or is it a single concept that has arisen from their combination ?
THEAET. I think we mean all the letters it contains.
soc. Now take the case of two,S and O. The two together are the first syllable of my name. He who knows it knows the two letters, does he not?
THEAET. Of course.
soc. He knows, that is, the S and the O.
THEAET. Yes.
soc. How is that? He is ignorant of each, and knowing neither of them he knows them both ?
THEAET. That is monstrous and absurd, Socrates.
soc. And yet if a knowledge of each letter is necessary before one can know both, he who is
1 The distinction here made is that which we make
between vowels and consonants. The seven Greek vowels are a, €, 7, t, 0, v, w, Called gwvjevra.
229
PLATO
Ta oToLyeia amaca avaykn TO péAdovTi Tote yrwoecbar ovdAaByv, Kai otTws jpiv 6 Kados Adyos amrodedpakws olyyceTat.
E orat. Kai pdda ye e€aidvns.
20. Od yap KarA@s avrov puddrropev. xeqv yap tows THY ovAMaBry TiVecBau pn) TO orotxeta, arn’ ef exeiveov ev TL yeyovos eldos, idéav pilav avTo avTob Exov, eTepov Sé THY aToLYElwV.
e£Al. IIdvu peév otv: Kal taya y av padAdov OUTWS 7 “KElVwS ExXOL.
30. LKemtéov Kal ov mpodotéov ovTws av- avopws péyav Te Kal ceuvov Adyov.
@EAI. Od yap ovv.
204 20. "Exerw 67) ws vov dapev, pia idéa e€& exdoTeov TOV ovvapjLOTTOVT@V oToLxelonv yuyvo- per n ovMaBn, Omolws év TE ypdppace Kal ev Tots dAXos a dmact.
@EAI. [ldvu prev ovv.
=a. Ovdxotv pépn adris od Set civac.
ecal. Ti 07) :
20. “Ore ob apy a HEpNs TO ddov dvayKn TO. mavra, pepn elvan. 7) Kal TO OAov eK TOY pep@v héyers yeyovos ev Tu eldos ETEpoy THY TaVTwWY [Lep@v ;
@EAIL "Eywye.
sa. To dé 81) wav Kai 76 OAov métEpov TadTov
B xaXets 7) Erepov Exatepov;
OFAI. "Exyw prev ovdev oadés, dtu Sé Kedcvers mpolvuws amoxpivacba, mapaKiwdvuvevwv héyw ort ETEpov.
=a. ‘H bev mpobupia, @ Ocaityte, opOy- Ee d€ Kal 7) amoKplols, GKETTEoV.
230
THEAETETUS
ever to know a syllable must certainly know the letters first, and so our fine theory will have run away and vanished!
THEAET. And very suddenly, too.
soc. Yes, for we are not watching it carefully. Perhaps we ought to have said that the syllable is not the letters, but a single concept that has arisen from them, having a single form of its own, different from the letters.
THEAET. Certainly; and perhaps that will be better than the other way.
soc. Let us look into that ; we must not give up in such unmanly fashion a great and impressive theory.
THEAET, No, we must not.
soc. Let it be, then, as we say now, that the syllable or combination is a single form arising out of the several conjoined elements, and that it is the same in words and in all other things.
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. Therefore there must be no parts of it.
THEAET. How so?
soc. Because if there are parts of anything, the whole must inevitably be all the parts; or do you assert also that the whole that has arisen out of the parts is a single concept different from all the parts?
THEAET. Yes, I do.
soc. Do you then say that all and the whole are the same, or that each of the two is different from the other ?
THEAET. I am not sure; but you tell me to answer boldly, so I take the risk and say that they are different.
soc. Your boldness, Theaetetus, is right; but whether your answer is so remains to be seen.
231
PLATO
@EAI. Ae? d€ ye 57.)
At. sa. Odxotv diaddpor av td OddAov Tod TavTos, ws 0 viv royos;
ekal. Nat.
Sa O€ 57; Ta TATA Kal TO TaV eof CO TL
, e > \ , oy , !
duadeper; olov emevdav A€ywuev Ev, Svo, Tpla,
/ / e \ SUX \ / “ \ /
C rérrapa, mévte, €€, Kal av dis Tpia 7) Tptis dvo
H TéTTApa TE Kal OVO 7 Tpla Kal SVO Kal EV, TOTEPOV €v 70 TOUTOLS TO AUTO 7) ETEpoV A€yomeVv;
@EAI. To adro.
zo. “Ap aAdo re 7 €€;
@EAI. Ovder.
sa. Odxotv éf’ Exdotns AeLews TavTa Ta” Ef elpyKapev ; ekcAl. Nai.
sa. Iladw 8 ody ev? Adyomev 7a wavra A€yovtes ; @EAI. “Avdykn. sa. *H dAdo we 7 Ta €€; @EAI. Ovder.
D xa. Tatrov dpa &v ye tots doa €€ apiOpot
€OTL, TO TE TAY TPOTAyopEeVOLEV KAL TA ATTAVTA;
@EAI. Doiverau. sa. ‘Ode 5 epi adradv A€éywpev. 6 Tod TAé€-
> >
Opov apifuos Kal TO wA€fpov tadTov: 7% yap;
ezal. Nat. sa. Kai 6 Tob oradiov 67) woavtws. ezal. Nat.
\ \ \ ¢ ~ / \ \ xo. Kal piv Kal 6 Tod otpatomédou ye Kal TO
1 5é ye 64 BT; ye 57 W.
2 rdvra Ta BT; ravra W.
3 rddw 6 od7x év Hermann; rddw 8 otdév BT; ray & ovdev Burnet, after Campbell.
232
THEAETETUS
THEAET. Yes, certainly, we must see about that.
soc. The whole, then, according to our present view, would differ from all?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. How about this? Is there any difference between all in the plural and all in the singular? For instance, if we say one, two, three, four, five, six, or twice three, or three times two, or four and two, or three and two and one, are we in all these forms speaking of the same or of different numbers ?
THEAET. Of the same.
soc. That is, of six ?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. Then in each form of speech we have spoken of all the six?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And again do we not speak of one thing when we speak of them all?
THEAET. Assuredly.
soc. That is, of six?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. Then in all things that are made up of number, we apply the same term to all in the plural and all in the singular?
THEAET. Apparently.
soc. Here is another way of approaching the matter. The number of the fathom and the fathom are the same, are they not?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And of the furlong likewise.
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And the number of the army is the same
233
PLATO
oTpatomedoy, Kai mavra Ta TowatTa pots ; 6 yap apiOuos mas TO ov av Exactov adbtav éctw. @EAI. Naw. 29. a dé exdoTwyv apifucs pdv ad\o tu 7) pep €oTiv; @EAI. Ovder. sa. “Oca dpa exer pep, ex wep@v av ely; @EAI. WMaiverac. sa. Ta d€ ye mavta pépn TO av elvar wuodd- ynrat,' eizep Kal 6 as aptOuos TO may €oTac. @EAI. Ovras. =a. To dAov dp’ otk éotw ek pepav. may yap av ein TA TavTA OV [Lépy. @EAI. Ovdx éouxev. sa. Mépos 8° é€c8’ drov dXXov éotiv 6rep eotiv 7 Tod OAov; @EAI. Tot mavrds ye. 205 xo. ’Avdpixds ye, & Oecairntre, pdyer. 70 mav dé ody OTaV pLndev aH, avTO TOOTO Tay eoTW; @EAI. “Avdykn. =a. “Odor de ov TAUTOV TodTo eora, ov av peN- oa pndev dmoorars ; ob oe ay a7roo TAT; ove ohov ovTe may, Gua yevdopevov ek TOO atTovd TO avro ; @EAI. Aoket pot viv ovdev Sdiaddpew mav Te kai Odor. sa. Odxoty éAéyouev ort ob av pépn 4H, TO GAov TE Kal TAY Ta TaVTA pépn €oTAL; @EAI. Ilavu ye.
E
2)
1 @uoroynrac T; duoroyetrac B.
234
THEAETETUS
as the army, and all such cases are alike? In each of them all the number is all the thing.
THEAET. Yes.
soc. And is the number of each anything but the parts of each?
THEAET. No.
soc. Everything that has parts, accordingly, consists of parts, does it not?
THEAET. Evidently.
soc. But we are agreed that the all must be all the parts if all the number is to be the all.
THEAET. Yes.
soc. Then the whole does not consist of parts, for if it consisted of all the parts it would be the all.
THEAET. That seems to be true.
soc. But is a part a part of anything in the world but the whole?
THEAET. Yes, of the all.
soc. You are putting upa brave fight, Theaetetus. But is not the all precisely that of which nothing is wanting ?
THEAET. Necessarily.
soc. And is not just this same thing, from which nothing whatsoever’ is lacking, a whole? For that from which anything is lacking is neither a whole nor all, which have become identical simultaneously and for the same reason.
THEAET. I think now that there is no difference between all and whole.
soc. We were saying, were we not, that if there are parts of anything, the whole and all of it will be all the parts ?
THEAET. Certainly.
1 Cf. 204 B, 235
PLATO
so. Tad Oy, 6 Orrep cpre ETE XELPOUY, ovkK, elmrep > > a] ovA\ai) pay Ta orowxetd €or, dvayKn avray
B pe ws Hep exew éauTas TO orouxeta, 1) TAVTOV ovoav avtois djLoiws eKxelvols yyworTny elvat;
@EAI. Ovrus.
b) ~ ~ ¢ \ / 4 b) sa. Ovxody tottTo wa pn yéevynTat, ETEpov av- Tov avTryy eOéucba;
ezal. Nac.
=a. Te Oe el ruin Te orowxeta vais HEpn €oTiv, EXELS GAN’ aTTa etrrety é Een fev €OTL ov ears. ov pLevTot orotxeid A EKELVNS ;
@FAI. ees el yap, @ LwKpares, pope’ aTTA avris » ovyxwpoiny, yedotdv mov Ta oToLyeta adévra em” aAda leva.
ue , A A
C xo. Ilavrazace 57, & Deaitnte, Kata Tov
~ f , 3 / > / Sr al Ly viv Adyov pia tis id€a apéptotos ovAAafy av etn.
@EAI. “Kouxev.
> > 7 > =
sa. Méuvnoa otv, d dire, ote dXriyov ev TO
, 5 , € , S , eo
mpoabev amedexoucla ryyovpevor €b A&yecBat ort
TOV TpwWTWY OK Ein Adyos €€ Mv TaAXA OVyKELTAL,
didtt atdto Kal? atto €xaotov etn dovvOerov, Kal
> \ WV GE > ”) \ > ~ > ~ vy /
ovoe TO “ eivar’’ rept adtod dpbds Eexou mpocde-
> A b) \ 66 ~ ” € 7 Ares rv /
povra eimety, ovde “‘ ToUTO,” ws ETEpa Kat aAAdTpLa
Aeyopeva, Kal avtn 67) % aitia aAoydv Te Kal ayvworTov avTo ToLot;
@EAI. Mepvnpas.
D_ =a. oH ov oy TLS 7) AUT uy) airta Tob Hovo- ewes me Kal apépiatov avTo elvar; éyw pev yap ovy op® adAnv.
1 udpe drra avris W3; udpa ravrys BY. 2 ve W inras. B; 1 T.
236
THEAETETUS
soc. Once more, then, as I was trying to say just now, if the syllable is not the letters, does it not follow necessarily that it contains the letters, not as parts of it, or else that being the same as the letters, it is equally knowable with them?
THEAET. It does.
soc. And it was in order to avoid this that we assumed that it was different from them ?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. Well then, if the letters are not parts of the syllable, can you mention any other things which are parts of it, but are not the letters! of it?
THEAET. Certainly not. For if I grant that there are parts of the syllable, it would be ridiculous to give up the letters and look for other things as parts.
soc. Without question, then, Theaetetus, the syllable would be, according to our present view, some indivisible concept.
THEAET. I agree.
soc. Do you remember, then, my friend, that we admitted a little while ago, on what we considered good grounds, that there can be no rational explana- tion of the primary elements of which other things are composed, because each of them, when taken by itself, is not composite, and we could not properly apply to such an element even the expression “ be”’ or “ this,’ because these terms are different and alien, and for this reason it is irrational and unknowable ?
THEAET. I remember.
soc. And is not this the sole reason why it is single in form and indivisible? I can see no other.
1 The reader is reminded that the words oroxetov and gv\\a 87 have the meanings ‘‘ element” and ‘* combination ” as well as ‘‘ letter” and ‘‘ syllable.”
237
PLATO
@EAI. Od yap ovv o7) paiverar.
30. Odxodv els Tavrov cpLTEMT KEV v) ova Br) eldos exeivw, elmep wéepn Te 1) €xeu Kal pia éoriv idéa;
@FAI. Havraract Lev ovv.
22. Ei prev apa moAAa oTotxeto 7 ovary € eoTw Kal OAov TL, HEpn, 5 avrijs ta0Ta., opoteas at TE ovMaBai ywworat Kal pyrat Kal Ta o7TOLXEIa, ETTELTTIEP TA TAVTA Lepyn TH OAw TavTov épavy.
E ocal. Kat pda.
=o.) Ke d€ ve ev TE Kal dyLepes, opolws pev ovAda By, aoavros dé oroLxetov dAoyov TE Kab ayvwotov: 1 yap advt? aitia moujoet adTa ToLabTa.
@EAI. Ovx exe aus el7retv.
32. Todro pev dpa p1) dmodexcipea, 6 os av rEeyn ovAda Biv fev yrwotov+ Kai pntov, atoryetov de Tovvavtiov.
@EAI. My yap, eimep TD Aoyw Tefopeba.
206 50. Te Oe Us robvavriov Aé€yovtos dp ov HaMov ¢ av dmobeE ato e€ av avtos atvoio8a cavT@ €v TH TOV ypapdr ov pabjoe;
@EAI. To zoiov;
20; ‘Qs eudey aAAo pavbavwr dueTeAeoas H To orouxeto, ev Te? TH ower SvayryvooKew TELPU[LEVOS Kal ev TH dco7 av7o Kal” ado € EKQOTOY, va L1) 7 Oéois oe Tapdrrou Aeyomevav Te Kal ypapopevwr.
egal. “AAnOéorata Aéyets.
=a. “Ey d€ KGaprorod Ter€ws pepabnévan pLO@v
Badio m1 jv 7 TO TH POdyyw éxdotwm Svvacbau
1 aywortdy W 3 dyvworor pr. BT. 2 re W; om. BT.
238
THEAETETUS
THEAET. There is no other to be seen.
soc. Then the syllable falls into the same class with the letter, if it has no parts and is a single form ?
THEAET. Yes, unquestionably.
soc. If, then, the syllable is a plurality of letters and is a whole of which the letters are parts, the syllables and the letters are equally knowable and expressible, if all the parts were found to be the same as the whole.
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. But if one and indivisible, then syllable and likewise letter are equally irrational and unknowable ; for the same cause will make them so.
THEAET. [ cannot dispute it.
soc. Then we must not accept the statement of any one who says that the syllable is knowable and expressible, but the letter is not.
THEAET. No, not if we are convinced by our argument.
soc. But would you not rather accept the opposite belief, judging by your own experience when you were learning to read?
THEAET. What experience?
soc. In learning, you were merely constantly trying to distinguish between the letters both by sight and by hearing, keeping each of them distinct from the rest, that you might not be disturbed by their sequence when they were spoken or written.
THEAET. That is very true.
soc. And in the music school was not perfect attainment the ability to follow each note and tell
239
PLATO
bd A , lanl W a \ aA émaxoNovbeiv, moias yopdfs etn: a& 51) oTotxeta mas av opodroyijcee ovoikhs A€yecOa ; @EAI. Ovdev addo. oR \ teed b) oa Uae, [ sa. *Qv peév dp’ adrot Eumerpol eopev oToryetwv Kat ovAAaBdv, ef Set amo TovTwy TeKpatpecbar Kal eis Ta GAAa, Todd TO THY oTOLYELwY ‘yevos evapyeoteépav Te THvy yu@ow éxew droowev Kat Kupiwtepav THs avAdAaBHs mpos To Aafetv Tedéws EKAOTOV paOnpa., Kat €av tis OF ovMaBiy pev yvworor, ayvworov bé TEePVKEVAL OTOLXYEloV, EKOVTA 7 axovra Trailew Hynooped” avTov. @FAI. Koudh [Lev Ovv. C 42. x0. ’AMa &} TovTov pev ert Kav adda davetev amodelEets, ws euol SoKet? TO dé TpoKEl- A > / > ) \ ? ~ oe / feevov pur) emrrAabajreBa Sv” adra idetv, 6 Te Oy) TroTE \ / \ \ / > ~ / Kal Aéyetau To peta Sd€ns adnfods Adyov mpoo- yevopmevov Tv Tedewrdryy ETLOTHILNV yEeyovevat. @EAI. Ovdxodv xen opav. xa. Dépe On, Tl Tore BovAerau Tov Adyov jyty onuaive; tpidv yap €v tt pot Soke? A€yew. @EAI. Tire Ons D> sau Te sev m™p@Tov eln av TO THY avrod dud- vovay eupary Tove ty dua pois pLeTO pndtav TE \ Kal ovopdTay, WOTTEp ets KaTOTT pov 7) vdwp TH dogay EKTUTOULEVOV ets THY dua TOO OTOpLaATOS pony. 7 od doKxet goL TO TOLOUTOV Aoyos eivat; @EFAI. “Ewouye. tov yodv! atto dpavta A€éyew paev. b) A ree 2 ~ ~ \ los sa. Odxotv toiré ye mas Trovety Suvatos BarTov “A / er) / / aA A. Jc / } oxoAairepov, TO cvdetEacOar Ti doKet TEpt EKaoTOU
1 yoov W; otv BT. 240
THEAETETUS
which string produced it; and everyone would agree that the notes are the elements of music?
THEAET. Yes, that is all true.
soc. Then if we are to argue from the elements and combinations in which we ourselves have ex- perience to other things in general, we shall say that the elements as a class admit of a much clearer know- ledge than the compounds and of a knowledge that is much more important for the complete attainment of each branch of learning, and if anyone says that the compound is by its nature knowable and the element unknowable, we shall consider that he is, intentionally or unintentionally, joking.
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. Still other proofs of this might be brought out, I think; but let us not on that account lose sight of the question before us, which is: What is meant by the doctrine that the most perfect know- ledge arises from the addition of rational explanation to true opinion ?
THEAET. No, we must not.
soc. Now what are we intended to understand by “rational explanation’? I think it means one of three things.
THEAET. What are they ?
soc. The first would be making one’s own thought clear through speech by means of verbs and nouns, imaging the opinion in the stream that flows through the lips, as in a mirror or water. Do you not think the rational explanation is something of that sort?
THEAET. Yes, 1 do. At any rate, we say that he who does that speaks or explains.
soc. Well, that is a thing that anyone can do sooner or later; he can show what he thinks about
241
PLATO
3 ~ e A > A *” \ ie et) ~ A 4 avT@, O 1 EvEeds KWHOS aT apyns' Kal OUTWS 7 > \ / / > \ A /
E coor tt 6pOov d0€dlovar, mavtes atto peta Aoyov davotvrar €xovtes, Kal ovdapod ete opr dd€a Xwpis emLoTHLNS yevycEeTAaL.
> ~ @£AI. “AdnO7. \ / e Ul / 4 sa. M7 tow padiws KatayryywoKwuev TO pndev eipnkévat Tov amodynvayevov emioTHunv 6 vov oxoTrobpev. tows yap 6 Aéywv od TobTO EXeyev, bd] A A > / 0 ee, A Ss A adda TO épwryfévta ti Exactov Suvatov eivat THY b) ~ ~ ~ 207 amdxpiow dia THY oToLyeiwy atrodobvat TH Epo- pLeva. @EAI. Olov ri Adyeis, & LodKpares; A =a. Oliov kai ‘Holodos mept audéns réyer To ce \ , / arte / ” A FEN \ ’ exatov 5€ Te Sovpal” apdéns.’ a eyw pev ovK n” / > a > \ 201 , > 3°33 av duvaipny etreiv, otar d€ ovdé at: GAA’ aya- ~ ’ > lj TOpev av epwrnbevtes 6 Ti CoTW auaka, El EXOLWLEV > A » fe elzetv Tpoxol, d€wv, treptepia,) avruyes, Cuyov.
@EAI. Ilavu pev ovv.
> € A @ a“ 4
sa. ‘O 6€ ye tows olor’ av juds, wo7rep av TO
a\
cov ovoa épwrnfévtas Kal amoKpivojevous KaTa ~ /
B ovMaByv, yedotous eivar, opO&s pev do€alovras
\ kat rA€yovtas a A€yopev, olomevous SE ypapLaTiKoUsS ~ A elvat Kal é€yew Te Kal A€yew ypapypaTiK@s Tov A \ > b) Ss Tod WeaityjTov cvouatos Adyov: TO dO ovK eEivat A ~ emioTyLovws ovdev A€yew, mply av dia TMV OTOL- ~ A / xelwy peta THs aAnBods dd€yns ExacTov TEpawy aA b) / Tis, OTEp Kal ev TOis mpdaUe Tov EppyOn.
1 §reprepla Kuhn; breprnpla Bs irepripia T. 242
THEAETETUS.
anything, unless he is deaf or dumb from the first ; and so all who have any right opinion will be found to have it with the addition of rational explanation, and there will henceforth be no possibility of right opinion apart from knowledge.
THEAET. True.
soc. Let us not, therefore, carelessly accuse him of talking nonsense who gave the definition of know- ledge which we are now considering; for perhaps that is not what he meant. He may have meant that each person if asked about anything must be able in reply to give his questioner an account of it in terms of its elements.
THEAET. As for example, Socrates?
soc. As, for example, Hesiod, speaking of a wagon, says, “a hundred pieces of wood in a wagon.” ! Now I could not name the pieces, nor, I fancy, could you; but if we were asked what a wagon is, we should be satisfied if we could say “wheels, axle, body, rims, yoke.”
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. But he, perhaps, would think we were ridiculous, just as he would if, on being asked about your name, we should reply by telling the syllables, holding a right opinion and expressing correctly what we have to say, but should think we were gram- marians and as such both possessed and were ex- pressing as grammarians would the rational explana- tion of the name Theaetetus. He would say that it is impossible for anyone to give a rational explana- tion of anything with knowledge, until he gives a complete enumeration of the elements, combined with true opinion. That, I believe, is what was said before.
1 Works and Days, 456 (454). 243
PLATO
@FAI. "Eppy On yap.
sa. Otrw tolvuv Kal rept dpuaéns Has ev opOnv exew dd€av, Tov dé dia THV Exarov exeivwv C duvdpevov dueAety attis tHv odciay, mpooha.- Bovra TobT0, Aoyov TE mpooerAnpevau TH adn bei d0€) Kal avTi Sofaorucod TEXVUKOV Te Kal emLoT 7} - pova Tmepl dyudéns ovolas yeyovevat, dia oToLyelwy TO OAov TrepavavTd.
A > ,
@EAI. Odxodv €t Soke? cor, @ LewxKpates;
sa. Ei cot, & €raipe, doxe?, Kat amodéxyer TH dua aTovyelouv due€odov epi Exdotov Adyov eivat,
\ \ \ \ nn \ \ A wv mhv b€ Kata avdAd\aBas 7 Kat Kata petlov ere
D adoyiay, tobT6 po A€éye, WW” adTo émoKxomapev.
ocal. “AAAa mavy amod€eXopar.
a. Ilorepov Hyoupevos Emo n[LOva. elvau ovTw- obv orovody, Oray To adTo Tore 1 pev rob avTou d0KH atT@ clvar, ToTE dé ETepov, 7 Kal 6Tav TOO
>? . ~ iN \ oe \ ee Gd / avrTod ToTE prev ETEpoV, ToTE Se ETEpov SoEdln;
egal. Ma Ad’ otk éeywrye.
> > ~ > ~ ~ /
=n. Kira cuvnpovets ev TH TOY ypappatwv palace KaT apxas cavTov Te Kat ToUs aAAous dpavras avTa;
@EAI. “Apa Adyeus THs avris ovAdaBijs TOTE pev
E eTEpor, Tote Oe eTEpov ayyoupevous ypappa, Kal
TO QUTO TOTE [EV Els TI)V TpOGHKOVOGaY, TOTE dE > yy / be els dAAnv TiPevtas ovAAafiv;
so. Tatra Aéyw.
oecaAl. Ma AV od Tolvuy apvnpovd, ovdé yé Tw Wyovpat emiotacbar Tovs oUTwWS ExoVTAS.
1 roré] tore W; bre BT. 244
THEAETETUS
THEAET. Yes, it was.
soc. So, too, he would say that we have right opinion about a wagon, but that he who can give an account of its essential nature in terms of those one hundred parts has by this addition added rational explanation to true opinion and has acquired technical knowledge of the essential nature of a wagon, in place of mere opinion, by describing the whole in terms of its elements.
THEAET. Do you agree to that, Socrates?
soc. If you, my friend, agree to it and accept the view that orderly description in terins of its elements is a rational account of anything, but that description in terms of syllables or still larger units is irrational, tell me so, that we may examine the question.
THEAET. Certainly I accept it.
soc. Do you accept it in the belief that anyone has knowledge of anything when he thinks that the same element is a part sometimes of one thing and sometimes of another or when he is of opinion that the same thing has as a part of it sometimes one thing and sometimes another?
THEAET. Not at all, by Zeus.
soc. Then do you forget that when you began to learn to read you and the others did just that ?
THEAET. Do you mean when we thought that some- times one letter and sometimes another belonged to the same syllable, and when we put the same letter sometimes into the proper syllable and sometimes into another ?
soc. That is what I mean.
THEAET. By Zeus, I do not forget, nor do I think that those have knowledge who are in that condition.
245
PLATO
/ oO Lud > ~ / m~ 66 , so. Ti otv; orav ev T@ TovovTw Kaip@ “ Oeat- THTOV ” ypagov Tts Ora. Kat ef olntat te deiv 208 ypdpew Kal ypu, Kat av é Oeddwpov ” eml- Xeipav ypagew Tab Kal ef olntai! Te deiv ypapew kat ypdaiyn, dp émictacbar diyjoopev adrov THV TpwTHY TOV buEeTepwv cvoudTtwv ovrdaByVv; > > + e / \ 4
@EAI. “AAA? dpte wpodroyjoapev Tov ovTws EXOVTA pm €idevar.
So. Kadver ovv TL Kal mept THY devTépay ovA- AaBav Kal TpiTnv Kal TeTaPTHVY OUTWS EXEW TOV avrov;
@EAI. Ovdev ye.
sa. “Ap” obtv rote tiv dua oToLxetov Sbr€Eodor'
ce / ”) \ > ~ / exw ypaper “‘ @eairntov’’ petra opbis S0€ns, orav effs ypady ;
@EAI. A7Aov 67).
B Ovxodv ETL avemioTiuwy av, opba de Soden ws hapev; eEAI. Nat.
30. Adyov ye exe pera. opOis Sdéns" TI yap dua Tob otovyetov ddov éexwv eypadev, nv 57) Adyov cpohoyjaaper.
@EAI. “Ady A.
=a. "Eorw apa, @ eTatpe, peta Adyou opbr d6€a, Hv ovtw Set emiotipnv Kareiv.
@EAI. Kuvdvvever.
ABs Sa. “Ovap 67, ws couKer, emAouTnoape oinbevres ¢ exe TOV aAdnfecratov € eTLOT HENS Acyov. ] pymTw KaTyyopOpev; tows yap ov TodTd Tts
1 oinra| olerar BT.
246
THEAETETUS
soc. Take an example: When at such a stage in his progress a person in writing “ Theaetetus”’ thinks he ought to write, and actually does write, TH and EK, and again in trying to write “ Theodorus” thinks he ought to write, and does write, T and E, shall we say that he knows the first syllable of your names ?
THEAET. No, we just now agreed that a person in such a condition has not yet gained knowledge.
soc. Then there is nothing to prevent the same person from being in that condition with respect to the second and third and fourth syllables ?
THEAET. No, nothing.
soc. Then, in that case, he has in mind the orderly description in terms of letters, and will write «“Theaetetus” with right opinion, when he writes the letters in order ?
THEAET. Evidently.
soc. But he is still, as we say, without knowledge, though he has right opinion ?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. Yes, but with his opinion he has rational ex- planation ; for he wrote with the method in terms of letters in his mind, and we agreed that that was rational explanation.
THEAET. True.
soc. There is, then, my friend, a combination of right opinion with rational explanation, which cannot as yet properly be called knowledge?
THEAET. There is not much doubt about it.
soc. So it seems that the perfectly true definition of knowledge, which we thought we had, was but a golden dream. Or _ shall we wait a bit before we condemn it? Perhaps the definition to be adopted
247
PLATO
b] 4 A ~ aA C adrov opietrat, aAAa TO Aoirov eldos THY TpLOv, <2 4 , v , , \ b , wv ev ye Tt Ehapev Aoyov Orjocobfar Tov EemaTHENV Cs opilopevov dd€av etvar opOiv peta Adyou. @EAI. "OpOds tréuvnoas: ete yap €v outov. \ \ \ > , > EG ” TO fev yap jv dwavoias ev dPwvyn warep €idwdov, \ To 8 dpte AexPev dia oToryetov odds emt TO GAoV: A To dé 67 TpiTov Ti rA€yets; sa. “Ozep av of moAAol etmovev, TO Exew TL ON- aA PY A a A eu Le , , 9 , pretov elrrety © TOV ardavtwv diadeper TO epwrnbev. e , t ” , > A @EAI. Olov tiva Tivos exes roe Adyov eEtzeEtv; D_ soa. Oiov, ef BovAe, AAliov mépc tkavov olpat > > , e \ , , > cou evar amodeEacbar, ort TO AapTpdTaToV EoTL TOV KATA TOV Ovpavoy iovTwWY TEpL YHV. / \ ey eEAI. Ilavu pev ovv. sa. AaBé 8) 05 ydpw eipnrar. eoTe S€ OmeEp M” 7 / ¢ a” \ A e / a dpt eA€yomev, ws apa TV diahopay EkdoTov av eo ~ oe AapBavns 4 TOv GArAwv dSiadeper, Adyov, ws gaat , 7 > n ~ > 4 twes, Anes Ews 5 av Kowot Twos Eepanrn, > / / ” e / e “ ¢ , > eKEelvwY Trépt Got EaTat O Adyos WY av 7 KOWOTYS 7). E orat. Marvéavw: Kai por doxet Kadds exeuw Adyov TO ToLwobTov Kadetv. ) ~ A A sa. “Os 8 av pez’ opOAs ddEns mepit stovoby
Tay ovtwy THY dSiapopay Tav adAwy zpoodAdfn,
248
THEAETETUS
is not this, but the remaining one of the three possi- bilities one of which we said must be affirmed by anyone who asserts that knowledge is right opinion combined with rational explanation.
THEAET. I am glad you called that to mind. For there is still one left. The first was a kind of vocal image of the thought, the second the orderly approach to the whole through the elements, which we have just been discussing, and what is the third ?
soc. It is just the definition which most people would give, that knowledge is the ability to tell some characteristic by which the object in question differs from all others.
THEAET. As an example of the method, what ex- planation can you give me, and of what thing?
soc. As an example, if you like, take the sun: I think it is enough for you to be told that it is the brightest of the heavenly bodies that revolve about the earth.
THEAET. Certainly.
soc. Understand why I say this. It is because, as we were just saying, if you get hold of the distin- guishing characteristic by which a given thing differs from the rest, you will, as some say, get hold of the definition or explanation of it; but so long as you cling to some common quality, your explanation will pertain to all those objects to which the common quality belongs.
THEAET. I understand ; and it seems to me that it is quite right to call that kind a rational explanation or definition.
soc. Then he who possesses right opinion about anything and adds thereto a comprehension of the difference which distinguishes it from other things
I 249
PLATO
avToU emloTHUWwY yeyovws eaTaL, OU mpdTEpoV HY dofaorTns.
@FAI. Dapev ye pny ovTw.
=o. Nov dfra, @® Weaityre, Tavrdmaow eyuye,! EmELOT) eyy0s WoaTrEp oKiaypadrparos yéyova Tou Aeyonevov, Evvinut obd€ apiKpov' Ews dé afeotHKy moppwlev, ehaiveto Ti por AéyecPat.
@eEAI. Ils ti tobTO;
209 xa. Ppaow, €av olos Te vyevwpa. opOnv eye 2 éywv dd€av mepl ood, eav pLev mpooAdBu Tov cov Adyov, yryvwoKkw by ce, et dé uy, SoEalw [Lovov.
egal. Nat.
xa. Adyos dé ye Hv 9 THs ans SiapopdtyTos Epunveia.
@EAI. Ourus.
xa. ‘Hvik’ otv edd€alov povov, addo Te & TOV adAwv diadepets, TovTwv ovdevos YTTOMNV TH dvavola.;
@EAI. Ovx eouxev.
xo. Tav Kowadv te dpa duevoovunv, wv ovdev av paddov 7 Tis aAdos Exet.
B_ ocat. “Avayrn.
=a. Dépe 57) mpos Atos: amas Tote &Y TH Tovovrwp aé paddov eddgalov 7 a\ov ovtivobv; bes yep pe Stavoovpevov ws coTw odros OcaitynTos, os av i) TE avOpw7os Kal eXN. pwa Kal ofbadwovs Kal OTOa Kal oUTwW 41 ev EKaOTOV TOV peddv. avTn ovv 7 didvora €o8’ 6 TL wGAAov ToijoeEL peE
1
1 ravtdmaow éywye W ; mavrdraci ye eyo T. 2 éywye W; eyw T.
250
THEAETETUS
will have acquired knowledge of that thing of which he previously had only opinion.
THEAET. That is what we affirm.
soc. Theaetetus, now that I have come closer to our statement, I do not understand it at all. It is like coming close to a scene-painting.! While I stood off at a distance, I thought there was some- thing in it.
THEAET. What do you mean?
soc. I will tell you if Ican. Assume that I have right opinion about you; if I add the explanation or definition of you, then I have knowledge of you, otherwise I have merely opinion.
THEAET. Yes.
soc. But explanation was, we agreed, the inter- pretation of your difference.
THEAET. It was.
soc. Then so long as I had merely opinion, I did not grasp in my thought any of the points in which you differ from others?
THEAET. Apparently not.
soc. Therefore I was thinking of some one of the common traits which you possess no more than other men.
THEAET. You must have been.
soc. For heaven’s sake! How in the world could I in that case have any opinion about you more than about anyone else? Suppose that I thought “ That is Theaetetus which is a man and has nose and eyes and mouth” and so forth, mentioning all the parts. Can this thought make me think of Theaetetus any
1 In which perspective is the main thing.
251
PLATO
Ocaitnrov 7 Weddwpov Sdiavoeitoba, 7 Tav Aeyo- pevwv Mvody tov €oxartov;
@EAI. Ti yap;
xa. *AXN’ éav 67) 7) ovov Tov ExovTa piva Kat
C édOaruods SvavonO@, adAdAd Kal Tov cysov Te Kal
e€dopbadpov, uy Te o€ ad wGAdov do€dow 7) éuavtov } Ooo. ToLwodToL;
@EAI. Ovdder.
xa. *AAX’ od mpdtepdv ye, oluar, Meaitntos év ewot SokacbyjceTar, mp av 7 oyLoTns avTn TOV x / e > A Ee / / GAAwy cyLoTiTwY av eyw éwpaka diddopov Tt pivnetov map ejwoi evonunvayevn KaTdbnTa, Kal
BAA 4 ? e > 4 ay 2 Tall Ni oN ” TaAAa ovTw €€ wy ef av: 7 Eeud, Kal éav avprov > / > / A / > \ / aTaVvTHOW, avauvyce. Kat toijoe. opla do€alew mept cov.
ezal. “AAnOéorara.
D xo. Ilept ryv duadopornra dpa Kat 4 opOr
dd€a av ein EKaoTOU TeEpt.
@EAI. Daivetai ye.
sa. To odv mpoodafetv Adyov 7H 6pOA S0En ti Nae ” SUN \ , , a f av €TL Ein; El wev yap Tpocdogacat A€yet 7) Stadhéper tt TOV dAAwy, ave yedroia yiyverat 4 émitaégts.
ekaAl. Ilds;
sa. ‘Ov dpOnv dd€av exopev 4 THv dAAwv d1a- déper, TovTwv mpoodAaBeiv Kedever Huds dpOyv
5 a = ” , \ ° ¢ \ Sdfav 7 THV aAAwy diad€per. Kat oUTwWs 7) bev
1 ef ot* } éué Wohlrab ; ef od* 4 we W (but 4 added later) ; el od €ué B; cioe: eve T.
252
THEAETETUS
more than of Theodorus or of the meanest of the Mysians,! as the saying is?
THEAET. Of course not.
soc. But if I think not only of a man with nose and eyes, but of one with snub nose and _ protruding eyes, shall I then have an opinion of you any more than of myself and all others like me?
THEAET. Not at all.
soc. No; I fancy Theaetetus will not be the object of opinion in me until this snubnosedness of yours has stamped and deposited in my mind a memorial different from those of the other ex- amples of snubnosedness that I have seen, and the other traits that make up your personality have done the like. Then that memorial, if I meet you again tomorrow, will awaken my memory and make me have right opinion about you.
THEAET. Very true.
soc. Then right opinion also would have to do with differences in any given instance ?
THEAET. At any rate, it seems so.
soc. Then what becomes of the addition of reason or explanation to right opinion? For if it is defined as the addition of an opinion of the way in which a given thing differs from the rest, it is an utterly absurd injunction.
THEAET. How so?
soc. When we have a right opinion of the way in which certain things differ from other things, we are told to acquire a right opinion of the way in which those same things differ from other things! On this
1 The Mysians were despised as especially effeminate and worthless.
253
PLATO
4, ba! e / vn o& A , \ akuTdaAns 7 Umépov 7 OTov bn A€yeTat TEpiTpoTT \ i'd \ ’ / > A av / ~ mpos TavTyv TH emitakw ovdev av A€you, Tvdr0d d€ mapakéAevois av Kadoiro dikaidtepov: od / “a ” ~ A / @ yap, &@ €xyouev, tadta mpoodafetv Kedcvew, wa / “a / / / ” rd) pdbwpev & do€dlopev, ave yevvaiws €o.Kev €oKo- TWLEVW. @EAI. Eizé 87) 1 ri viv 87) ws épdv éemvOov; sa. Ei ro doyov, & mat, mpoodaBety yrdvac KeAever, adda px) So€acar THY SiahopoTnTa, dv xph’ av ein tod KadXotov Ta&v TeEpli emaTHpys Aoyov. TO yap yravat emoTHunv tov AaPeiv €oTw: 7 yap; egal. Naw. ? ~ ) / e ” , t) bd sa. Odxoty epwrnfeis, ws Eouke, Ti eoTw ém- OTH, amoKpwetrat OTe dd€a Oph) pera emvoTHUNS , / \ / a 3 av” diadopétntos. Acoyou yap mpdcdAnyus todr’ av €ln KaT €keivov. Mv @EAI. “Houxev. \ / / 4 a] id e ~ za. Kail wavtamaai ye evnbes, Cntovvtwrv Hudv 9 , / / > A > re / emioTypny, So€av davar opOyv etvar wet? emroTHuns ” / wv e ~ ” a wv etre Stadhopdtytos Elite OTOVoby. oUTE apa aicby- > , ” , > \ ” > ois, @ QWeaitnre, ovte dd€a adnOyjs ovre pet > A / / / > / aAnBots Sd€ns Adyos mpooyrtyvopevos EemoTHU av etn. > ” @EAI. OvxK €orxev.
1 elré 5n T (and W in marg.); e ye 6n B; ef ye 6) B?W. 254
THEAETETUS
plan the twirling of a scytale! or a pestle or any- thing of the sort would be as nothing compared with this injunction. It might more justly be called a blind man’s giving directions ; for to command us to acquire that which we already have, in order to learn that of which we already have opinion, is very like a man whose sight is mightily darkened.
THEAET. Tell me now, what did you intend lo say when you asked the question a while ago?
soc. If, my boy, the command to add reason or explanation means learning to know and not merely getting an opinion about the difference, our splendid definition of knowledge would be a fine affair! For learning to know is acquiring knowledge, is it not?
THEAET. Yes.
soc. Then, it seems, if asked, “ What is know- ledge?” our leader will reply that it is right opinion with the addition of a knowledge of difference ; for that would, according to him, be the addition of reason or explanation.
THEAET. So it seems.
soc. And it is utterly silly, when we are looking for a definition of knowledge, to say that it is right opinion with knowledge, whether of difference or of anything else whatsoever. So neither perception, Theaetetus, nor true opinion, nor reason or ex- planation combined with true opinion could be knowledge.
THEAET. Apparently not.
1 A oxurd\n was a staff, especially a staff about which a strip of leather was rolled, on which dispatches were so written that when unrolled they were illegible until rolled again upon another staff of the same size and shape.
255
PLATO
sa. *H ody ere kvotuev Te Kal Wdivopev, @ dire, TEPL ETLOTHULNS, 7) TAVTA EKTETOKAMLEV;
eFAI. Kai vai wa A’? éywye mrciw 7 Goa efyov ev euavT@ Sia oe elpyia.
30. Odxodv Tabra bev TavTa 7 peavevTurt) jpetv Téexyn dvewiata pyow yeyevnobar Kai ovK ava Tpopijs ;
e£AI. Ilavrdzaoct pev odv.
44. 29. *Eav toivuy aAAwy peta tabta éy- KUL ETLYELPTS yeyvecBan, a) Ocairyre, eavTe
C yin, Bedrvoveny € Eoet mArjpyjs dua THY vov eferaow, edvre Kevos HS, ITTOV €ceEL sapds tots ouvotau Kal TILEPOTEPOS, owdpoves ovK olopevos: eidévat ad pn olc0a. tocobttov yap povov 7 7) TéeXvn dvvarat, mA€ov be ovdev, oBOE TL OLA @ cov ot aAAou, dcou peydror Kal Barjucdovor avOpes etal TE Kal yeyovact. Thy d€ patelav ravryy eyes TE Kal 7 pajrnp eK Beod eAdyouer, n peev TOV yuvarkar, eya) O€ TOV Vewy TE Kal yevvatey Kal doot Kadol.
D_ Nov pev ody aravtyréov prot ets THY TOD Bactréws otoav emt Tv MeAjrov ypadny, nv me yéypamras ewlerv S€, © Ocddwpe, dedpo waAw amavT@pev.
256
THEAETETUS
soc. Are we then, my friend, still pregnant and * in travail with knowledge, or have we brought forth everything ?
THEAET. Yes, we have, and, by Zeus, Socrates, with your help I have already said more than there was in me.
soc. Then does our art of midwifery declare to us| that all the offspring that have been born are mere wind-eggs and not worth rearing?
THEAET. It does, decidedly.
soc. If after this you ever undertake to conceive other thoughts, ‘Mheaetetus, and do conceive, you will be pregnant with better thoughts than these by reason of the present search, and if you remain barren, you will be less harsh and gentler to your associates, for you will have the wisdom not to think you know that which you do not know. So much and no more my art can accomplish; nor do I know aught of the things that are known by others, the great and wonderful men who are to-day and have been in the past. This art, however, both my mother and I received from God, she for women and I for young and noble men and for all who are fair.
And now I must go to the Porch of the King, to answer to the suit which Meletus! has brought against me. But in the morning, Theodorus, let us meet here again.
1 Meletus was one of those who brought the suit which led to the condemnation and death of Socrates.
12 257
severally ar tidak Tolan ies RGA Ria ea = Sealine etl a ae a, eee ey < | | Be wor fo fia ri Tikit PP nce ge
th vsitn ten Layla nee iting pratie tras oven lel unitqafo sii fin todd
Permian one 0 : ue Taplin WAG loc ban a Eaghg ; BGs. Pe Ne BSS 266BSL ¥5 : ea Syne Gb wi dade hing erty no aid) ety HE: aes es ae ye) oy ae ea keris teteate es ye Pade ynirky sthite i dvinestts iaptth , stead) ottails ivr’ Denaro : naa eh tk: free: show Jaman ve Sukh to caeembet rane Lb teltin ay: bes shen aeol oth iw) doy ential $08 totgenohai wads wee, lie site WO eh aponge oy as plat i ODO sai peslt #rowal pay Eee. | i ayy zi in me rh jai Inds ; ea HOD rth 1 Terie ae wel ‘poe hol, nae Sig ai ahd vin ir rie ar Ne re ae i fae as De i w Sal odious kee nae ee ddlysioadd ancl ‘ankle Hotdwy ding otft od ecw eicochacsl (inte piece meine thd ott tut, . 201 Bi Md sh) stadia dew Bilis vik cae . suka tammmiras Crammcti-ass
re
ao
THE SOPHISE
INTRODUCTION TO THE SOPHIST
In The Sophist Theodorus and Theaetetus meet Socrates in accordance with the agreement made in the final paragraph of the Theaetetus. They bring with them an Eleatic Stranger, who presently agrees to undertake, with the aid of Theaetetus, the definition of the Philosopher, the Statesman, and the Sophist. Thereupon, after selecting the Sophist as the first of the three to be defined, he proceeds to illustrate his method by defining the angler, on the ground that the Sophist is a difficult subject and that practice on an easier and slighter matter is desirable. The method employed in defining first the angler and then the Sophist is that of comparison and division successively into two parts. This method was probably, at the time when this dialogue was written, something of a novelty, and is employed also in The Statesman, which is closely connected with The Sophist both in form and substance. It must be admitted that the process of dichotomy becomes very tedious, which may possibly be one of Plato’s reasons for making the Stranger, not Socrates, the chief speaker in these two dialogues. The definition of the Sophist—the avowed purpose of the dialogue—is
261
INTRODUCTION TO THE SOPHIST
carried on in a satirical and polemic spirit which is abundantly evident even when it is no longer pos- sible to name the particular persons against whom the attack is directed.
But all this occupies only the opening and con- cluding passages. It is interrupted by what is in form a long digression, but is really the most serious and important part of the whole. In this (236 p— 264B) the method of dichotomy is given up and abstract questions are treated in a quite different manner. The Sophist has been found to be a juggler and deceiver, and the question arises whether decep- tion or falsehood does not involve the assumption of Not-Being, which was persistently opposed by Parmenides and the Eleatic philosophers in general. Plato refutes the doctrine that Not-Being cannot exist by showing that it has a relative existence— that in each particular instance it denotes a difference or condition of being other than that in connexion with which it is said to exist. It is not mere negation—the opposite of Being—but becomes the positive notion of Difference. This is the most important doctrine promulgated in this dialogue.
Hereupon follows the discussion of the nature of Being, and the conclusion is reached that everything which possesses any power, either to produce a change or to be affected by a cause, has existence (247 p), 2.e., that power—whether active or passive— is Being.
The problem of predication—of the possibility of assertion—is solved by making the distinction be- tween verbs and nouns and defining the sentence as a combination of those two. If that combination corresponds to reality, the assertion is true, if not, it 262
INTRODUCTION TO THE SOPHIST
is false. How far this is original with Plato is difficult to determine. Other subjects discussed in this dialogue are the theory of knowledge, the relation between reality and appearance, and that between the one and the many. The introduction of the five “forms” or categories—Being, Motion, Rest, Same and Other—is an interesting feature which may be interpreted as marking a stage in the development of the theory of ideas. This dialogue is important in content, though not especially attractive in form.
The date of The Sophist cannot be earlier, and may be considerably later, than that of the Theaetetus.
There is an edition of The Sophist and Politicus, api ae notes, by Lewis Campbell (Oxford, 18604).
2638
St. I p. 216
B
SO*ISTHS
[H MEPI TOY ONTOS* AOTIKO3]
TAsTOY (AlAAOTOY TPO 20 Ex
@OEOANPOS, SQKPATHS, Z=ENOS EAEATH2, OEAITHTOS
I. @£0. Kara tH xfés ouodoyiav, & UwKpares, / , A iA HKOMEVY AUVTOL TE KOO[LIWs Kal TOovde TLVa E&é€voV yy” A \ 4 ’ "EAS ¢€ A be ~ ayomwev, TO pev yevos €€ €as, €Tatpov d€ TeV A Ya appt Ilappevidny Kat Zivwva,) pada de avdpa diAdcogovr. > > > = “ sa. *"Ap’ odv, & Mcddwpe, od E€vov adAAa Twa A + \ A ¢€ te HA he @ deov aywv Kata Tov “Opurjpov Adyov A€AnBas; os A e , gdynow addovs te Geos tots avOpumots o7rdc0L petéyovow atdods dikaias, Kal 67) Kal Tov &éyov ovx nKLoTa Oeov cuvoTadoy yryvopevov UBpeis TE ~ ~ > Kal evvopias THVv avOpwmwv Kabopav. tay’ odv an A e ~ av Kat Got Tis OdTOS TMV KpELTTOVWY GUVETOLTO, / qn A gavrovs Huds ovtas év Tots Adyous ézroysopeves >} Te Kat edeyEwv, Yeds wy tis eheyKTUKOs. >) *e € / Ss vA ~ @EO. Ody otros 6 tpdm0s, @ LwxKpates, Tob 1 Zjveva éralpwv mss. ; éraipwy om. Upton.
264
THE SOPHIST [or ON BEING: oaicat]
CHARACTERS
THeEoporus, Socrates, AN ELEaAN STRANGER, THEAETETUS
rHeo. According to our yesterday’s agreement, Socrates, we have come ourselves, as we were bound to do, and we bring also this man with us; he is a stranger from Elea, one of the followers of Parmenides and Zeno, and a real philosopher.
soc. Are you not unwittingly bringing, as Homer says, some god, and no mere stranger, Theodorus ? He says that the gods, and especially the god of strangers, enter into companionship with men who have a share of due reverence! and that they behold the deeds, both violent and righteous,! of mankind. So perhaps this companion of yours may be one of the higher powers, who comes to watch over and refute us because we are worthless in argument—a kind of god of refutation.
THEO. No, Socrates, that is not the stranger's
1 A modified quotation from Odyssey, ix. 2713; xvii. 485-7. 265
PLATO
&évov, adda petpidtepos TOV epi Tas Eplidoas €oTovdeakoTwV. Kat pot SoKet Beds pev avip C ovdauds civar, Oetos pyjv: mavtas yap éyw Tovs diAooddous ToLovtTous Tpocayopevw. sa. Kadds ye, d hire. totro pévrou Kwdvvevet TO yévos ov ToAv TL paov, Ws Eos Elmetv, Eivat duaxpivew 7 TO TOO Deod: mavu yap avdpes * obTou mavtoto. davralopevor dia THY THV adAAwWY ayvorav eTLoTpwPHHaL TOANAS, OF [L7) mAaoras aA’ OvTWS pirdoogor, kabopavres vpobev TOV TOV KATW Biov, Kail tots pev Soxodow eivar Tod pndevos Tiplol, tots 8 a&vou Tob TavTos: Kal TOTE pev ToATUKOL D davralovra, troté d5€ coduiotal, toté 8 éoTw ots dd€av mapdcyowTo av ws TavTdmacw ExovTes poavikds. Tod péevtoe E€vov nuiv ndé€ws av muvOa- voiunv, et dirov atta, Ti TabO” of mept Tov éxei 217 tomov nyobvTo Kal wvdopalov. @e£O. Ta zota 57; =a. Lodiotyv, woAutikov, diAdccodgov. @£0O. Ti dé uwadtora Kal To mrotdv Tt Trepi adTav dvamropnbets epeaau Svevon Ons ; =0. Tcde- TOTEpOV év mavTO Tatra evopurCov 7 Ovo, 7 Ka0damep Ta ovomata Tpia, Tpia Kal yév7n Statpovpevor Kal” ev Gvowa yévos ExdoTwW Tpoc- HMTOV; @EO. ‘AM’ ovdeis, ws éeydua, pbovos ad7@ dueADety attra: 7 mas, @ E€ve, AEywper; B zE. Ovrws, @& Ocddwpe. p0ovos bev _yap ovdeis ovde yaderrov eimeiy OTL ye Tpl HyobvTo-
1 avnp Bekker; dvnp BT. 2 dvdpes Bekker ; dvdpes BT. 266
THE SOPHIST
character; he is more reasonable than those who devote themselves to disputation. And though I do not think he is a god at all, I certainly do think he is divine, for I give that epithet to all philosophers.
soc. And rightly, my friend. However, I fancy it is not much easier, if I may say so, to recognize this class, than that of the gods. For these men—I mean those who are not feignedly but really philosophers—appear disguised in all sorts of shapes,! thanks to the ignorance of the rest of mankind, and visit the cities,! beholding from above the life of those below, and they seem to some to be of no worth and to others to be worth everything. And sometimes they appear disguised as statesmen and sometimes as sophists, and sometimes they may give some people the impression that they are altogether mad. But I should like to ask our stranger here, if agreeable to him, what people in his country thought about these matters, and what names they used.
THEO. What matters do you mean?
soc. Sophist, statesman, philosopher.
THEO. What particular difficulty and what kind of difficulty in regard to them is it about which you had in mind to ask ?
soc. It is this: Did they consider all these one, or two, or, as there are three names, did they divide them into three classes and ascribe to each a class, corresponding to a single name?
THEO. I think he has no objection to talking about them. What do you say, stranger?
str. Just what you did, Theodorus; for I have no objection, and it is not difficult to say that they
1 Of, Od. xvii. 485-7. 267
PLATO
Ka?’ éxaotov pv dwopicacba. cad@s Ti ToT €oTw, ov O}LUK pov ovoe pqdvov Epyov.
060. Kai pev 89 Kara tvynv ye, @ Ledkpares, Adyev émreAd Bou TapamAnotoy @v Kal mpl judas d<ip eAGety SuepwrtavTes avTov _eTuyXavopiev: 6 de tabra dimrep. ™mpos oé viv, Kal TOTE eoKI/TTETO mpos mas: evel SiaKknKoevat ye Pynow iKavas Kal OUK dyvnpovety.
Cie: 20. My Tour, @ E€ve, HU@V THY ye T™pw- THY airnodvrey xdpu amapvnbels evn, Toaovde 8 my ppate: moTepov elwlas 7d10v avTos emt cavTod paxpa@ Aoyw Suef revo A€yo TobTo 6 ay evdeiEacdat tw BovdnOjs, 7 Sv €pwTncewy, oldv MOTE Kal Tlappevidy Xpopeven Kal Suefvovre Aoyous mayKddous Tapeyevopny e€yw véos WV, €KElvou pada 57) TOTE ovTos mpeaButou;
BE. TO pe, @ LwKpares, addres Te kal
D edyviws mpoodiareyouevep pov oUTw, TO Tpos aAAov: «i d€ 1%, TO Kal? adrov.
so. “E€eore toivuv Tov TapovT av ov av Bov- AnBis éxAcEacbar: mdvres yap bmTaKovaovTat gout ™pdws: ovpBovrAw pny €pot Xpwpevos TOV vewV Twa. | atpncet, Ocairnrov Tovoe, ) Kal TOV aAAwY
\ €l Tis Gow KaTa vodby.
HE. "Q Xebxpates, aldws tis pm’ Exeu TO vov TpOTov ovyyevopevov Biv n KaTa opiKpov Ee70s ™pos em0s mrovetoOau THY ovvovoiay, add’ €KTEL- vavro, dmropnrbvew Adyov ees KaT’ ewaurov,
E cize Kat mpos €rEpor, otov * emiderg TOLOU[LEVOV* T@ yap ove TO vov prbev ovxy Ccov de epwTnbev eAmiccey dv adro elval tis, dAAG tvyxaver Aoyou
1 ofov Ast; dcov BT. 268
THE SOPHIST
considered them three. But it is no small or easy task to define clearly the nature of each.
THEO. The fact is, Socrates, that by chance you have hit upon a question very like what we happened to be asking him before we came here; and he made excuses to us then, as he does now to you ; though he admits that he has heard it thoroughly discussed and remembers what he heard.
soc. In that case, stranger, do not refuse us the first favour we have asked; but just tell us this: Do you generally prefer to expound in a long un- interrupted speech of your own whatever you wish to explain to anyone, or do you prefer the method of questions? I was present once when Parmenides em- ployed the latter method and carried on a splendid dis- cussion. Iwasa young man then, and he was very old.
str. The method of dialogue, Socrates, is easier with an interlocutor who is tractable and gives no trouble; but otherwise I prefer the continuous speech by one person.
soc. Well, you may choose whomever you please of those present; they will all respond pleasantly to you; but if you take my advice you will choose one of the young fellows, Theaetetus here, or any of the others who suits you.
sTR. Socrates, this is the first time I have come among you, and I am somewhat ashamed, instead of carrying on the discussion by merely giving brief replies to your questions, to deliver an extended, long drawn out speech, either as an address of my own or in reply to another, as if I were giving an exhibition ; but I must, for really the present subject is not what one might expect from the form of the question, but is a matter for very long speech. On
269
PLATO
, wv A de > A A / @ ‘ Taupunkous ov. TO d€ aU Got LH xapilecGar Kat A ” A A / e s Totade, GAAws Te Kat cov A€Eavtos ws eizes,
+ >] N dgevov tL Katadaiveral proc Kat aypiov. e7rel - 218 Qeaityntov ye Tov mpocdiareyopevov eivar déxopar e ip mavranacw e& dv avtos TE TpdTEpov SdtetAcypat Kal od Ta viv pot duakeAcvet. Ss / > 4 Lf A , oral. “Apa toivuv, @ E€ve, ovTW Kal KaQazrep
Ss ~ UY eizve LwKpatys maou Kexapropevos Ecet;
— 2: A \ ~ , \ v ,
=E. Kuwodvvever zpos pev tadta ovdev ett AeKTEov
Ss / A A A ” Ai A w~ eivat, Oeairnte: mpos dé ce 4dn TO peTA TOUTO,
) >] w~ Ws €oiKe, ylyvoito av 6 Adyos. av & apa Te TO
4 wn y+ a] \ 3 A b>) nw a / iAAG pnKer TovOv ayn, pr) ewe aitrdaba. TouvTwr, adda TOUGOE TOUS GOUS ETALpoUS.
~ > Borat. *AAA’ ofuar pev 57 viv ovTws ovK ar-
aw w~ ,
epetv' av 8 dpa tt Tovodrov yiyvnTar, Kat TOvde , / A , A
mapadnoueba Lwkpdtn, Tov LwKpatovs pev
€
Ouwvepov, emov dé HALKLWTHY Kal oVyyUELVACTHYV,
w ovuvoLtamrove ty per €/L00 Ta TOAAa OvK anles.
3. =E. Hd déyers, Kal Tadra pv (dia Bovdcdoe mpoiovros Tob Adyov: Kown dé peT Eod aot GUGKETTEOV ApxYoLLevw TPA@Tov, ws epol Patvetar, vov amo TOU cod.oTod, Cyntobvte KGL eupavilovte
> ~ CAdyw ti mor éott. viv yap 8) od Kayw TovTov la ~ Tépt Tovvopa povoy éxouev Kowh: TO Se Epyov >) > ~ ¢ / 4 >) nv“ ° , > e aA ed Kadotpwev éxdtepos Tax av idia map yt A / A w~ avtots é€xourev’ Set d€ del TavTds Tépt TO TPAy~a avTo waAAov 1a Adywv 7) TOvVo“Aa dovov avVOLO- aN / Q \ Ao aN AY DA. a nw > oynoacbar ywpis Adyov. To dé PidAov 6 viv em- wn ~ aA A /, vooduev Cnteiv od mdvtwy pdotov ovAdafPeiv ti 270
oe)
THE SOPHIST
the other hand it seems unfriendly and discourteous to refuse a favour to you and these gentlemen, especially when you have spoken as you did. As for Theaetetus I accept him most willingly as inter- locutor in view of my previous conversation with him and of your present recommendation.
THEAET. But, stranger, by taking this course and following Socrates’s suggestion will you please the others too?
str. I am afraid there is nothing more to be said about that, Theaetetus; but from now on, my talk will, I fancy, be addressed to you. And if you get tired and are bored by the length of the talk, do not blame me, but these friends of yours.
THEAET. Oh, no, I do not think I shall get tired of it so easily, but if such a thing does happen, we will call in this Socrates, the namesake of the other Socrates; he is of my own age and my companion in the gymnasium, and is in the habit of working with me in almost everything.
str. Very well; you will follow your own devices about that as the discussion proceeds; but now you and I must investigate in common, beginning first, as it seems to me, with the sophist, and must search out and make plain by argument what he is. For as yet you and I have nothing in common about him but the name; but as to the thing to which we give the name, we may perhaps each have a conception of it in our own minds; however, we ought always in every instance to come to agreement about the thing itself by argument rather than about the mere name without argument. But the tribe which we now intend to search for, the sophist, is not the easiest thing in the world to catch and define, and
271
PLATO
mor €aTw, 6 aodioTys: daa 8 ad Thv peyadAwv det Statrovetabar KaAds, TEpt TOV TOLOUTWY d€d0K- Tal maow Kal mdAac TO mpdoTepov ev optkpots D kai paoow attra Seiv pederav, mpiv ev adbtots Tots peyiorots. viv ovv, @ Ocairnre, eywye Kal v@v ouTw ovpBovrcvw, XaAerov KaL Svabipevtov ny" capevous eivat TO TOU copiorod yevos TpOTEpov ev GAAw pdove thy péeodov atrod mpopedeTav, et py) ot 700ev edrreteotépay Exets eizrety GAAnY dov.
@kAI. “AAA’ otk exw.
ZE. BovAe 47a epi twos TOV havAwv weTLoVvTEs mepatduev mapaderypa adTo Oéo8ar Tob peiCovos ;
E oeat. Nat.
zE. Tt d97a mpota€aipel” av eUyVWOTOV ev Kal OLLLKpOV, Adyov d€ pundevos éAdrrova EXOV TOV preclovenv ; olov aomahevTis* dp ov mGat Te yvuwpyLov Kal omovdns ov mavu TL moAARS Twos ema&.ov ;
@EAI. Outws.
219 ze. Me@odov pny atrov éAmilw Kai Adyov ovK avEeTITHOELOV Hiv Exe Tpos 6 BovrdpeOa.
@EAI. Kadds av exo.
4. EE. Dépe Om, | THOE apxwpeba avrod. Kal prot A€ye: mdTEpov os TexviTnv avTov 7 TWA ATEX- vov, aAny dé SUvapw € exovTa Ojoopev;
@FAI. “Hecvora ye Grexvov.
zE. "Ada pny tov ye Texvav Tac@v oaxedov €lon vo.
eEAI. Ids;
EE. Dewpyia pev Kal don mept 70 Ovnrov mav copa Ocpareia, TO TE av rept To ovvieTov Kal
B wrAacrov, 6 61) oxetos WvopudKapev, | TE LYLNTLKT, 272
THE SOPHIST 5
everyone has agreed long ago that if investigations of great matters are to be properly worked out we ought to practise them on small and easier matters before attacking the very greatest. So now, Theaetetus, this is my advice to ourselves, since we think the family of sophists is troublesome and hard to catch, that we first practise the method of hunting in something easier, unless you perhaps have some simpler way to suggest.
THEAET. I have not.
str. Then shall we take some lesser thing and try to use it as a pattern for the greater ?
THEAET. Yes.
str. Well, then, what example can we set before us which is well known and small, but no less capable of definition than any of the greater things ? Say an angler; is he not known to all and unworthy of any great interest ?
THEAET. Yes.
str. But I hope he offers us a method and is capable of a definition not unsuitable to our purpose.
THEAET. That would be good.
str. Come now; let us begin with him in this way: Tell me, shall we say that he is a man with an art, or one without an art, but having some other power?
THEAET. Certainly not one without an art.
str. But of all arts there are, speaking generally, two kinds?
THEAET. How so?
str. Agriculture and all kinds of care of any living beings, and that which has to do with things which are put together or moulded (utensils we call
273
PLATO
vperavra tabra ducatorat avi évi mpocayo- pevour av ovopare.
@FAI. Ilas Kal TiN;
EE. lav Orep av p21) TpoTepov TLS ov VoTEpov els ovalav ayn, TOV pe ayovTa Toveiv, TO b€ ayo- fLevov trovetobai trod dapev.
@EAI. “Opbds.
BE. Ta d¢ ye viv 81) a? diunAPopev dravra etyev els TOOTO THY avray ovvapty. .
oral. Eiye yap ovv.
EE. Tlountucny Toivuy avTa ovyKeparawodevot TpooEiTULev.
C ora. “Korw.
zE. To d€ palnuatixov ad peta totto eldos éAov Kal TO Tijs yvwpicews TO TE XpNWaTLOTLKOV Kal deywvioTuKov Kal Onpevtucoy, €7T€L07) Onpuvoupyet pev ovoev ToUTwWY, TA S€ OVTA Kal yeyovera, Ta peev yxeupotrar Adyois Kat mpaéeor, Ta S€é Totss xXEipovpevots ovK emiTpeTreL, edAvtoT dv mov dea Tatra €uvdnavTa Ta pépn TEXVN TIS KTHTLK? AexPeioa av diamrperecev.
@EAI. Nai: zpémou yap dy.
5+ EE. Kryrucis 5 Kal TOUnTUKtis EvpTrac@v
D otodv trav texvav ev motépa THY aomahevTiKHy, @ Ocairynre, TU Gpev;
@FAI. “Ev xtytiKy mov diAov.
BE. Krytixijs d6€ dp od dvo edn; TO pev EKov- TwVv Tpos EkdvtTas peTaPAnTiKOY dv dia Te SwpEev kat puclwdocewr Kal ayopdcewv, TO dé AouTov F
1 Stxardrar’ dv BT; dixacérara W, Stobaeus. 2ao0m. BIW.
274
THE SOPHIST
~ them), and the art of imitation—all these might properly be called by one name.
THEAET. How so, and what is the name?
str. When anyone brings into being something which did not previously exist, we say that he who brings it into being produces it and that which is brought into being is produced.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Now all the arts which we have just men- tioned direct their energy to production.
THEAET. Yes, they do.
str. Let us, then, call these collectively the pro- ductive art.
THEAET. Agreed.
str. And after this comes the whole class of learning and that of acquiring knowledge, and money making, and fighting, and hunting. None of these is creative, but they are all engaged in poercing, by deeds or words, things which already exist and have been produced, or in preventing others from coercing them; therefore all these divisions together might very properly be called acquisitive art.
THEAET. Yes, that would be proper.
str. Then since acquisitive and productive art comprise all the arts, in which, Theaetetus, shall we place the art of angling?
THEAET. In acquisitive art, clearly.
str. And are there not two classes of acquisitive art—one the class of exchange between voluntary agents by means of gifts and wages and purchases, and the other, which comprises all the rest of
275
PLATO
Kat epya 7 Kata Adyous yxetpovpevov Edurrav XElpwTLKOV av Ein;
@EAI. Daivetar yodv ex THv eipnucvw.
BE. Ti d€; tHv yetpwrixhy dp’ od dxf TunTéovr;
@FAI. ITj;
BE. To pev dvagavdov oAov aywvioTikov OBévtas,
E76 8€ xpudaiov attis mav Onpevtikov.
@EAI. Nai.
BE. Tov dé ye pv Onpevtixyy ddoyov TO py) ov TEepvew OLYy.
@EAI. Aéye 677.
ZE. To pev arstyou yévous dueAopévous, TO 5 epibvyou.
oka. Ti pry; elmep Eotov ye dudw.
920 HE. II@s d5€ odK Eotov; Kal det ye Huds TO pev TOV apvywv, dvesvupov ov * mAqv Kar’ Evia, THs KodupBytucis aTTa LED Kat Towadr aAAa paxéa, yaipew edoa, To dé, TOV eupdtywv Cowv ovoav Onpav, mpoceutretv Gholapiait
@EAI. “Kotw.
EE. Zwolnpicjs 5é ap’ ov duAobv eidos av Xé- youro ev dikn, TO pev Treo yévous, TroAdois etdecr Kal ovopact dunpypevov, meCobynpixov, To 8 etEpov vevoTiKod Cwov mrav evuypobnpiKov ;
@kAI. Ilavu ye.
B ze. Nevorixod piv To pev mTynvov PodAov opa- fev, TO S€ Evvdpov;
eEAI. IIds 8’ ov;
BE. Kai tod mrnvot piv yévouvs maoa jyiv 7 Ornpa A€yerai ov Tis dpvilevTiKy.
1 @évras Stobaeus ; 6évres BT. 2 gv Heindorf; éév BTW.
276
THE SOPHIST
acquisitive art, and, since it coerces either by word or deed, might be called coercive ?
THEAET. It appears so, at any rate, from what you have said.
str. Well then, shall we not divide coercive art into two parts ?
THEAET. In what way?
str. By calling all the open part of it fighting and all the secret part hunting.
THEAET. Yes.
str. But it would be unreasonable not to divide hunting into two parts.
THEAET. Say how it can be done.
str. By dividing it into the hunting of the lifeless and of the living.
THEAET. Certainly, if both exist.
str. Of course they exist. And we must pass over the hunting of lifeless things, which has no name, with the exception of some kinds of diving and the like, which are of little importance ; but the hunt- ing of living things we will call animal-hunting.
THEAET. Very well. :
str. And two classes of animal-hunting might properly be made, one (and this is divided ander many classes and names) the hunting of creatures that go on their feet, land-animal hunting, and the other that of swimming creatures, to be called, as a whole, water-animal hunting ?
THEAET. Certainly.
str. And of swimming creatures we see that one tribe is winged and the other is in the water?
THEAET. Of course.
str. And the hunting of winged creatures is called, as a whole, fowling.
277
PLATO
eral. Aeyerar yap obv. ~ Nie aah A 8 , ¢ la
EE. Tod dé evidpou axedov TO avvoAov aAeuTiKh.
ozal. Nat.
/ / / iO \ / S 9 > vv zE. Ti d€; tavrynv ad tHv Oypav dp ovK av Kata peytota pépyn dvo dieAoinv; ‘
@EAI. Karta zota;
a > a \ \ e Cyane/s 1 a
zE. Kal’ & tro pev epxeow at7odev! movetrar tv Onpav, To dé 7AnY i
OEAI. Ilas Aéyets, KaL 7H Svarpovpevos € EKATEPOV;
zE. To per, OTL TaV Ooov dv evexa KwAvoews
C eipyn Te meprexov, Epkos eckos ovoualew.
@EAI. Ilavu pev ov.
ie / \ / A
HE. Kuptous 67) Kat Siktva Kat Bpdxovs Kat TopKouvs Kal Ta ToLatTa pav aAXo TL TAnY EpKH Xp?) Tpocayopevew;
@EAI. Ovder.
oo ~ A y e A ~ ” A
zE. Totro pev apa épKolnpixov THs aypas TO Lepos dyjcopev YH Tt ToLooToV.
eEAI. Nai.
ZE. To 6€ aykiotpots Kat tpiddovor mAnyh ylyvoprevov ETEpov rev eKelvov, TAnKTLKHVY Sé TWa Orjpav uds mpocetetv evi AOyw viv xpewv: 7H Tt Tis av, Meaityre, elmo. KdAAOV;
@EAI. “ApeA@pev Tob dvojatos: apkel yap Kal TOUTO.
EE. Tijs Towuv TAnKTURAS TO pev. VUKTEpLVOY, oiuar, mpos mupos Pas yeyvopevov tm’ ab’t@v Tov Tept THY Oypav mupevtiKryy pyOnvar cupBEeBykev.
@EAI. Ilavu ye.
EE. To 6é ve peOnpepwov, ws €XOvTO ev dkpots ayKLOTpAa Kal TOV TpLodovTwY, TEV ayKLOTPEUTLKOV. 1 qirédev al. 3 avr6@ BT.
278
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. It is.
str. And the hunting of water creatures goes by the general name of fishing.
THEAET. Yes.
str. And might I not divide this kind of hunting into two principal divisions ?
THEAET. What divisions?
str. The one carries on the hunt by means of enclosures merely, the other by a blow.
THEAET. What do you mean, and how do you distinguish the two?
str. As regards the first, because whatever surrounds anything and encloses it so as to constrain it is properly called an enclosure.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. May not, then, wicker baskets and seines and snares and nets and the like be called enclosures ?
THEAET. Assuredly.
str. Then we will call this division hunting by enclosures, or something of that sort.
THEAET. Yes.
str. And the other, which is done with a blow, by means of hooks and three pronged spears, we must now—to name it with a single word—call striking ; or could a better name be found, Theaetetus?
THEAET. Never mind the name; that will do well enough.
str. Then the kind of striking which takes place at night by the light of a fire is, I suppose, called by the hunters themselves fire-hunting.
THEAET. To be sure.
str. And that which belongs to the daytime is, as a whole, barb-hunting, since the spears, as well as the hooks, are tipped with barbs.
279
E
221
PLATO
oFAI. Aéyerou yap odv.
6. =zE. Tod toivuy ayKiotpevtiKot THs mAnKTt- Kis TO pev avwbev els TO KATW yryvopevov Sia TO Tots Tpiddovow ovUTw pdrALvoTa xpHabat TpLodovTia Tis, olwar, KeKANTAL.
@EAI. Daol yodv tives.
EE. To dé ye Aowmdv é€otw Ev ETL Ldvov ws elmetv eldos.
oral. To Totov ;
EE. To THS evayTias TAUTY mnyis, dyKtoTpw TE _yeyvopeevov Kal TOV ixPbov obxY 4 Tis av TUXN Tob OW|LATOS, @omep Tots Tpiddovow, aAAa Trept thv Kehadnv Kal TO oTdpa TOO OnpevbévTos EKa- oToTe, Kal KdTwlev eis Todvavtiov avw paBdos Kal KaAdpois avaomwpevov: ob Ti dhoopev, @ Ocairnre, Setv Tovvopra AéyecBar;
@FAI. Aok® pév, Omep adpte mpovléueba Sdetv efeupetv, Tobr adto viv amoteteAdoba.
7. zE. Nov dpa ths domaXevtiKns mépt ov } TE Kayo ovvapohoynKapev ov pLovov TOUVOLLG, ara Kal Tov Adyov Trepl avro Tobpyov ethnpaprev ixavas. Suymaons yap TEXVNS TO pev HPLLoV jLépos KTYTLKOV HY, KTNTUKOD d€ YELpwTLKOY, Xetpe- tukov O€ OnpevtiKov, TOD Sé OnpevtiKod Cwobnpikov, Cwobypixod Sé evuypoOnpixov, evuypoOnpixod dé TO KaTwOEY TAWA CAoV aALeUTLKOV, aGALeUTIKAS 5é TAnKTiKOV, TANKTLKAS S5€ ayKLOTpEUTLKOV* TOUTOU d€ TO Tept THY KaTwWHEY dvw TANYHY avaoTMpEeryy,
1 ot Heindorf; 03 ct BT.
1 Plato’s etymology —doradeuvrixy from dvacracba:c—is hardly less absurd than that suggested in the translation.
280
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Yes, it is so called.
str. Then of striking which belongs to barb- hunting, that part which proceeds downward from above, is called, because tridents are chiefly used in it, tridentry, I suppose.
THEAET. Yes, some people, at any rate, call it so.
str. Then there still remains, I may say, only one further kind.
THEAET. What is that?
str. The kind that is characterized by the opposite sort of blow, which is practised with a hook and strikes, not any chance part of the body of the fishes, as tridents do, but only the head and mouth of the fish caught, and proceeds from below upwards, being pulled up by twigs and rods. By what name, Theaetetus, shall we say this ought to be called ?
THEAET. I think our search is now ended and we have found the very thing we set before us a while ago as necessary to find.
str. Now, then, you and I are not only agreed about the name of angling, but we have acquired also a satisfactory definition of the thing itself. For of art as a whole, half was acquisitive, and of the acquisitive, half was coercive, and of the coercive, half was hunting, and of hunting, half was animal hunting, and of animal hunting, half was water hunting, and, taken as a whole, of water hunting the lower part was fishing, and of fishing, half was striking, and of striking, half was barb-hunting, and of this the part in which the blow is pulled from below upwards at an angle! has a name in the very The words at an angle are inserted merely to give a reason in English for the words which follow them.
K 281
PLATO
b) b] b ~ / 3 \ 7 € Can’ atriis tis mpakews adpopowwbev TOUVOLA, 1) vov gomaAevtiKy Cn7betoa emicAqy yeyovev.
oFAI. Ilavramaou prev otv tobTO ye ikava@s de- d7jAwTa.
8. =E. Dépe Oy, KaTa TOUTO TO TapadevyLa. Kal Tov acodpioTyny emyeip@pev evpetv, O TL TOT €o7Tw.
~ \ >
@EFAI. Kopud7 peev ovv.
EE. Kat pv EKetvo y hv TO CyTnpa m™p@rov, TOTEpOV isuwTynv 7 Twa TéxVvyV exovta Beréov civat Tov aomaAevTHy.
egal. Naw.
zE. Kali viv 67) todrov idsiwitnv Onooper, @
/ an / ¢ > ~ / D Ocaitynte, 7 TavTatacw ws adynfas copuoT yy ;
OEAI. Ovoapas iOusTny: pavOaven yap ro) A€yets, ws mavtos Set Tovodtos 1 civar TO ye Gvopa TobTO EXwv.
Ff > , , oN CBee A ¢
zE. “AAAd twa téyvynv atrov yuiv exovrTa, wes €ouxe, Jeréov.
/ > > \ 4
@EAl. Tiva mor’ ovv 67 tavTnv;
rs > SaaS \ A > , > \ \
zE. “Ap @ mpos Jey HyvorjKapev Tavdpos Tov avdpa ovra Evyyevy;
@EAL. Tiva 70d;
mu \ > \ ~ ~
BE. Tov aozaXevtiv Tob cod.otod.
ezaAl. I[17;
= / , ”
EE. Onpevta tie katadaiveocbov audw por.
E cal. Tivos Oyjpas adtepos; Tov pev yap €TEpov elmopev.
zE. Atya zov viv 67? dvetdouev THY aypav ma@oav, vevoTiKod prepous, TO O€ mELOD Téuvortes.
1 ravros det Torwo0ros Winckelmann; rdvtws det tootros B; mavTws Set Toodrov T. 2 pov 6) T; viv B.
282
THE SOPHIST
likeness of the act and is called angling, which was the object of our present search.
THEAET. That at all events has been made perfectly clear.
sTR. Come, then, let us use this as a pattern and try to find out what a sophist is.
THEAET. By all means.
str. Well, then, the first question we asked was whether we must assume that the angler was just a man or was a man with an art.
THEAET. Yes.
str. Now take this man of ours, Theaetetus. Shall we assume that he is just a man, or by all means really a man of wisdom?
THEAET. Certainly not just a man; for I catch your meaning that he is very far from being wise, although his name implies wisdom.
str. But we must, it seems, assume that he has an art of some kind.
THEAET. Well, then, what in the world is this art that he has?
str. Good gracious! Have we failed to notice that the man is akin to the other man?
THEAET. Who is akin to whom?
str. The angler to the sophist.
THEAET. How so?
str. They both seem clearly to me to be a sort of hunters.
THEAET. What is the hunting of the second? We have spoken about the first.
str. We just now divided hunting as a whole into two classes, and made one division that of swimming creatures and the other that of land- hunting.
283
PLATO
eral. Nat.
\ A \ / ¢ A A
zE. Kal to pev di7APopev, Ooov mept Ta vev- OTLKG TOV Evvopwr' TO € TECOV EldaaueV ATXLOTOV, elmovTes OTL TOAVELOES ELD.
922 kal. Ildvu ye. / \ / ? ~ ¢ ,
zE. Méype pev toivuy evtat0a 6 oodiotys Te Kal 6 domaAeuTIs Ga amo THS KTNTLKHS TEXVNS mopeveator.
@EAI. ‘Eotkatov yoov.
BE. “Exzperecbov d€ ye amo Tis CwoOnpuchs, 6 pev em OddAatTav Tov Kal ToTapovs Kat Aipvas, tav Tovtos Cada Onpevodevos.
oral. Te pees
EE. ‘O 0€ ye emt THY yay Kal ToTaJLOvs €TEpous av Twas, movrou Kal veoTntos otov Aeyuwadvas adbQovovs, Tav TovTo.s Opéupara Yeipwoopevos.
Bogart. I@s Aéyets; ~ ~ / / / ,
zE. Tis melis Ojpas ytyvecfov dvo peyioTw
TWe [LEpy. a“ ¢ iA
@EAI. Ilotov <xaTepov;
\ \ ~ ¢ / \ \ ~ b] U
BE. To pev Tov TLEPOV, TO d€ Ta aypiov.
9. oFal. Kir’ €oTL tis Onjpa TOV TIPLEPOov 5
BE. Ktvep ye eoTw avOpwrros TIL-€pov C@ov. Oés dé Ory yxalpers, elite ndev Tels TEpov, ETE dAdo ev Hepov TL, TOV de avOpwrov aypLov, EtTE nLepov prev Adyers avd Tov avOpwrov, avOpwmwy d€ pundepiav yet Ojpav: TOUTE OTOTEp av NYT ptAov etpHobai cot, TOUTO mew Ovopicov.
C oat. “AX HUGs Te TPLEpoV, ® Eve, Wyovpmas Cdov, Onpav te avOpwrwv eivar rAEyw.
284
THE? SOPHIST
THEAET. Yes.
str. And the one we discussed, so far as the swim- ming creatures that live in the water are concerned ; but we left the land-hunting undivided, merely remarking that it has many forms.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Now up to that point the sophist and the angler proceed together from the starting-point of acquisitive art.
THEAET. I think they do.
str. But they separate at the point of animal- hunting, where the one turns to the sea and rivers and lakes to hunt the animals in those.
THEAET. To be sure.
str. But the other turns toward the land and to rivers of a different kind—rivers of wealth and youth, bounteous meadows, as it were—and he intends to coerce the creatures in them.
THEAET, What do you mean?
str. Of land-hunting there are two chief divisions.
THEAET. What are they?
str. One is the hunting of tame, the other of wild creatures.
THEAET. Is there, then, a hunting of tame creatures ?
str. Yes, if man is a tame animal; but make any assumption you like, that there is no tame animal, or that some other tame animal exists but man is a wild one or that man is tame but there is no hunting of man. For the purpose of our definition choose whichever of these statements you think is satisfactory to you.
THEAET. Why, Stranger, I think we are a tame animal, and I agree that there is a hunting of man.
285
PLATO
ge. Aurriy toivey Kal Tv Au<epoOnpiKny eimwmpev. @eFAl. Kara ti A€yovtes; ‘i \ \ \ > \ \ BE. Trv pev AnotiKyy Kat avdparrod.otiKyy Kal TupavviKyy Kat EvuTracayv THY TOACULKHY, Ev TaVTA Biatov Oypav opiodpevor. @EAI. Kadds. \ / \ yi \ \ zE. Try dé ye duxavixyny Kat dnpnyopixny Kai TpoooiAntikny, Ev avd TO EvvoAov, TUbavoupyiKHy D Tiva pilav TéexvynV TpoceEtTOVTEs. @EAI. “Opbdds. a \ ~ \ / / BE. Ts 67) milavoupyixjs dutta A€ywpev yevn. ecaAl. Ilota; \ \ 7 907 \ \ , / BE. To pev €repov idia, TO O€ Sypocia yryvope- vov. yf A Ss s ¢ 4, @EAl. [iyveofov yap odv eidos Exatepov. EE. Ovdxotv at tis iduobnpevtiKis TO pev 8 / it > A be PS) / z pucbapyyntiKov } €ott, TO dé SwpopopiKor; ekAI. Od pavbavw. ~ ~ > / uA \ ~ e ” zE. TH Ta&v epwvtwv Or\pa Tov vodv, ws Eotkas, OUTW TmpocEeoxes. @EAI. Tod zépu; E zE. “Oru tots Onpevbetor Spa mpocemd.ddacw. @zaAl. *AAnOéorata Xéyets. zE. Toiro pev toivuy epwrikns téxvns €oTw eldos. / @EAI. IIdvu ye. ZE. Tod dé ye pucbapyntixod TO pev mpocop- ~ \ / \ ; / > e ~ A Aoby dia yapitos Kal mavtamac. du’ dovqs TO déAcap memoinpévov Kal Tov pobov mpatTdpevov tpopiv é€avT@ .ovoyv KodakiKyVy, Ws ey@par, 1 wobapynrixdy Heindorf; pucdapvevrixdy BTW (so alse below). 286
THE SOPHIST
str. Let us, then, say that the hunting of tame animals is also of two kinds.
THEAET. How do we justify that assertion ?
str. By defining piracy, man-stealing, tyranny, and the whole art of war all collectively as hunting by force.
THEAET. Excellent.
str. And by giving the art of the law courts, of the public platform, and of conversation also a single name and calling them all collectively an art of persuasion.
THEAET. Correct.
str. Now let us say that there are two kinds of persuasion.
THEAET. What kinds?
str. The one has to do with private persons, the other with the community.
THEAET. Granted ; each of them does form a class.
str. Then again of the hunting of private persons one kind receives pay, and the other brings gifts, does it not?
THEAET. I do not understand.
str. Apparently you have never yet paid attention to the lovers’ method of hunting.
THEAET. In what respect?
str. That in addition to their other efforts they give presents to those whom they hunt.
THEAET. You are quite right.
str. Let us, then, call this the amatory art.
THEAET. Agreed.
str. But that part of the paid kind which con- verses to furnish gratification and makes pleasure exclusively its bait and demands as its pay only maintenance, we might all agree, if I am not mis-
287
PLATO
, A nv a ab TP) / fs 923 mavtes hatwev av 1 ovvTiKny Twa TEXVHY elvat. A \ + eEAI. [lds yap ov; \ \ ? / \ ¢ > A 4
zE. To dé emayyeA)opLevov Hev Ws apeThs evera Tas opuhias TOLOUHEVOV, proBov d€ VOpLopLA Tparro- jlevov, dpa ov TodTO TO yévos ETEpw TpocetTEty aévov ovopatt;
A A Ld
eFAl. Ids yap ov;
zE. Ti 51 tovTw; meup@ déyew.
EAI. Ajjiov On" TOV yap copuoTny [Lou Soxoduev dvnupnKevar. TOOT ov eywye elmwv TO TpOoHKOV ovom” av nyodjat Kaheiv avTov.
B 20.: ee. Kara ou) TOV vov, @ Ocairyre, Adoyov, Ws €OLKEV, 7) TEXVNS OlKELWTLKHS, XELPWTLKTS,” “a ¢ ~ Onpevtixys, CwoOnpias,®? xepaaias, twepoOnpirys, avOpwrobnpias, idvobnpias, prabapveras, VO_LoLE- ToTwAUKAS; SoforadevTixijs, veéwv ovate Kal evdofnv yeyvopern Orjpa mpoopytéov, ws 6 viv Aoyos uty cvpPatver, GOpLoTuKy. @EAI. Iovrdmace Lev Ovv. EE. "Eve d€ KaL | THOSE iocoprev*- od yap Te pavAns C HeTOXOV €oTt TEexvns TO vov CyTovpevor, add’ ev para moukiAns. Kab yap ovv ev Tots mpoabev etpnpLevors padvTacpa TOpEXET AL, py TovTo 6 viv avTo Hers Payev aAN’ Erepov elval TL yevos.
oral. I1A dy;
zE. To ths KtytiuKhs téxvns SdurAotv jv e€tdds Tov, TO Lev OnpevTiKov pépos Exov, TO dé GAAaKTIKOV.
1 4 Heindorf; 7 om. mss.
2 xepwrixfs add. Aldina; xryrixijs mss.; secl. Schleier- macher.
3 GwoOnpias mefoOnplas Mss.; mefoOnplas secl. Schleiermacher. 4 idwuev W3 cldduer BT.
288
THE SOPHIST
taken, to call the art of flattery or of making things pleasant.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. But the class which proposes to carry on its conversations for the sake of virtue and demands its pay in cash—does not this deserve to be called by another name?
THEAET. Of course.
str. And what is that name? Try to tell
THEAET. It is obvious; for I think we have dis- covered the sophist. And therefore by uttering that word I think I should give him the right name.
str. Then, as it seems, according to our present reasoning, Theaetetus, the part of appropriative, coercive, hunting art which hunts animals, land animals, tame animals, man, privately, for pay, is paid in cash, claims to give education, and is a hunt after rich and promising youths, must—so our present argument concludes—be called sophistry.
THEAET. Most assuredly.
str. But let us look at it in still another way ; for the class we are now examining partakes of no mean art, but of a very many-sided one. And we must indeed do so, for in our previous talk it presents an appearance of being, not what we now say it is, but another class.
THEAET. How so?
str. The acquisitive art was of two sorts, the one the division of hunting, the other that of exchange.
K 2 289
PLATO
eral. "Hy yap odv. BE. Ts tolvuy aAdaxtixfs SUo €ldn Adywper, TO [Lev OwWPNTLKOV, TO OE ETEPOV GyopaoTLKOV; @EAIL. Eiprjobw. Ae \ \ ov / > A PS) ~ / EE. Kat pry ad dyjcouev ayopaotikny oux7 TEé- peveoOar. Dora. If; \ A lanl b) ~ ’ \ zE. Try pev tav adroupyOv abroTtwdAucny dvac- / \ \ \ > / ” NA / povpevot, THY dé TA aAASTpLA Epya peTaPadAopEevnv preraPAnriKny. eEAl. Ilavu ye. zE. Tt d€; 7s wetaBAntikhs od~x 4 pev KaTa modw addayy, axedov adTHs Hpcv Epos Ov, KaTrN- Auxy) 1 mpooayopevetar; eral. Nac. zE. To dé ye €€ aXdXns els GAAnv modAw d1aAAart- TOmEvov * Wr Kal TpaceEL euTrOpLKT; @EAI. Ti 6° ov; EE. Tis 8° eumopicfqs dp’ odk nobjue0a Ste TO Epev dcos To o@pa tpéderar Kat yxpHrat,® ro dé 74 e \ ~ \ / > / oaots 7 vx) TwWAdY d1a vopiopatos aAAaTTETAL; @EAI. IIMs totro Aéyets; w \ NageeN eee > 2 bd cismetys BE. To zepi tHv puynv tows ayvoobmev, eet TO ye €Tepov mov Evvieuev. eral. Nai. 224 BE. Movoixyy re tow Evvaracav Aéywpev,
1 xarndcxh bt; Kal rnrixn BT. 2 S:aratrouevoy| duadarrouévwv BT ; duaddrrov W. 3 kcal xpjrac Heindorf; xéxpnra BT.
290 ‘
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Yes, it was. str. Now shall we say that there are two sorts of exchange, the one by gift, the other by sale? THEAET. So be it. str. And we shall say further that exchange by sale is divided into two parts. THEAET. How so? str. We make this distinction—calling the part which sells a man’s own productions the selling of one’s own, and the other, which exchanges the works of others, exchange. THEAET. Certainly. str. Well, then, that part of exchange which is carried on in the city, amounting to about half of it, is called retailing, is it not? THEAET. Yes. str. And that which exchanges goods from city to city by purchase and sale is called merchandising ? THEAET. Certainly. str. And have we not observed that one part of merchandising sells and exchanges for cash whatever serves the body for its support and needs, and the other whatever serves the soul ? THEAET. What do you mean by that? str. Perhaps we do not know about the part that has to do with the soul; though I fancy we do under- stand the other division. THEAET. Yes. str. Take, therefore, the liberal arts! in general 1 The word povoixy, here rendered ‘‘ liberal arts,” is much more inclusive than the English word ‘‘ music,” designating, as it does, nearly all education and culture except the purely physical. In the Athens of Socrates’ day many, possibly
most, of the teachers of music in this larger sense were foreigners, Greeks, of course, but not Athenians.
291
PLATO
ex moAews ExdaTore eis TOAW evOev pev Wrnfetaar, eTépwoe S€ ayouevny Kal mumMpacKopevny, Kal ypaducny Kat OavyatotouKny Kat modAd €eTEpa THs Wuyns, TA ev mapapvOias, Ta S€ Kal oTrOVd;S xapw axbevra Kat muAovpeva, TOV dyovra Kat muodobyra pander 7} HrTov THs Tay oiTiwy Kal TOTaV Tmpacews EuTopov dpbds av Aeyopmevov mapacyetv.
OEFAI. “Adnfeorara Aéyets.
BE. Odxoov Kat Tov pabijuara Evveovovpevoy moAw TE ex moAEws vopicpatos apeiBovta TavTov Mpocepets ovoy.a;
@EAI. Ldddpa ye.
IT. &E. Tis 87) ye LTOPLKTS TavTNS dp. ov TO [Lev emuBeuKT UT) duKaloTaTa Aéyour’ av, To bé€ yeAotov peev ovx Hrrov Tob mpoobev, Guws dé pb - jearoov ovoay m™paaw avriy abASD TWe THS Tpa- £ews dvopate mpooeumety avayKn ;
ekAI. IIdvu peev ovr.
eee Tavrns TOLVUV THS pealnpatotrmAucis TO
C jeev Tept 7a, TOV ddAwv Texvav pabyuata EeTEpw, TO O€ TrEpl TO Tijs dpeThs aAAw mpoapyTtéov.
@EAI. II1@s yap ov;
EE. TexvortwAucov pny TO YE mepl TaAAa av GppLorroL TO O€ mept Tadta od mpobvunOyte Néyew dvopa.
@EAI. Kai ri tus av aXXo Gvopa etm ovK av TrAnupedAoin tAjv tO viv Cntovpevov adbro elvar TO codioTiKoV yévos;
EE. Ovdev aAAo. Oe 67 viv ovvaydywpev avTo ROrIES Ws TO KTNTIKHS, petaBAnTiKAs,”
1 i Be BT (5% above the line T); i@ 67 W.
2 weraBdntixhs] meraBdAynrixdev BT, 292
THE SOPHIST
that constantly go about from city to city, bought in one place and carried to another and sold—painting, and conjuring, and the many other things that affect the soul, which are imported and sold partly for its entertainment and partly for its serious needs; we cannot deny that he who carries these about and sells them constitutes a merchant properly so called, no less than he whose business is the sale of food and drink.
THEAET. Very true.
str. Then will you give the same name to him who buys up knowledge and goes about from city to city exchanging his wares for money ?
THEAET. Certainly.
str. One part of this soul-merchandising might very properly be called the art of display, might it not? But since the other part, though no less ridiculous than the first, is nevertheless a traffic in knowledge, must we not call it by some name akin to its business ?
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Now of this merchandising in knowledge the part which has to do with the knowledge of the other arts should be called by one name, and that which has to do with virtue by another.
THEAET. Of course.
str. The name of art-merchant would fit the one who trades in the other arts, and now do you be so good as to tell the name of him who trades in virtue.
THEAET. And what other name could one give, without making a mistake, than that which is the object of our present investigation—the sophist ?
str. No other. Come then, let us now summarize the matter by saying that sophistry has appeared a
293
PLATO
Da dyopacTixijs, epTropuijs,} puxepTopuctis mepl do- yous Kal pabyuata, aperas mwAntikov SevTepov avepavn cop.oTikn.
eral. Mada ye.
ze. Tpirov d€ y’ olual oe, Kav el tis adroo Kabidpupéevos ev moder, TA prev wWvovpevos, Ta Se€ Kal TexTawdopevos atTos pabyuata mept TA adTa TatTa Kal mwAdv ex tovtov To Cav mpovtdgéarto, Karety odev ado Any Omep viv 57.
@kaAl. Te 8 ov peo ;
zE. Kat to KTNTURHS apa peTaPAntiKov, ayopa-
E OTLKOV, Kam Aucov clre avtoTwruKov, appotépws, OTUTEp av 7 mept Ta ToLabTa pabyuwatomwALKov yévos, del OV mpocepets, ws Paiver, codioTiKov.
egal. “Avayxen: 7@ yap Aoyw del ovvaxodov- Ociv.
T2, aE: “Ene On OKOTTMEV, EL Te TOL@OE MpoceolkKEV Apa TO VOV LETAdLWKO[LEVOV evos.
225 oka. Iloiw 57;
EE. Ts KTNTUCHS AYWVLOTLKH TL Lepos Huty Hv.
ezal. “Hy yap ovv.
EE. Ovdx amo tpdmov towvv €ott diaipeiy adrip dixa.
@EAIl. Ka” ozota déye.
BE. To pev apuAAntixov adris tiWWévtas, To dé PLAXNTLKOV.
oEAI. “Kor.
Tis toivuy payntikis TH pev owpare 1 dumopixjs] éumopixod BT.
294
THE SOPHIST
second time as that part of acquisitive art, art of exchange, of trafficking, of merchandising, of soul- merchandising which deals in words and knowledge, and trades in virtue.
THEAET. Very well.
str. But there is a third case: If a man settled down here in town and proposed to make his living by selling these same wares of knowledge, buying some of them and making others himself, you would, I fancy, not call him by any other name than that which you used a moment ago.
THEAET. Certainly not.
str. Then also that part of acquisitive art which proceeds by exchange, and by sale, whether as mere retail trade or the sale of one’s own productions, no matter which, so long as it is of the class of mer- chandising in knowledge, you will always, apparently, call sophistry.
THEAET. [ must do so, for I have to follow where the argument leads.
str. Let us examine further and see if the class we are now pursuing has still another aspect, of similar nature.
THEAET. Of what nature ?
str. We agreed that fighting was a division of acquisitive art.
THEAET. Yes, we did.
str. Then it is quite fitting to divide it into two parts.
THEAET. Tell what the parts are.
str. Let us call one part of it the competitive and the other the pugnacious.
THEAET. Agreed.
str. Then it is reasonable and fitting to give to
295
PLATO
mpos CWLATA yuyvowevep oxedov ElKOS Kal mpemor évopa A€yewv TL TOLodTOV TWEpEVvovs oiov BracTiKOV. oral. Nat. zE. T@ dé Adyous mpos Adyous Ti Tis, @ Meai- Bryne, Go elm mri adroByrynTuKdv 3; @EAI. Oudev. A > la ze. To O€ ye mept tas apdioPytices Oeréov durrov. oral. Il; Aaa A \ A / , / \ zE. Kal’ ocov pev yap yryverat pnKeot TE TpOS evavtia pykn Adywv Kal Tepl Ta? Sikala Kal doiuca Oynpocia, SuKaviKdv. eEAI. Nai. \ 3 ’ 9Q7/ > \ / Fes lod év idiots ad Kal KaTaKEKepparicpevov EpwTnoect Tmpos amoKkpicers u@v eifiopeba Kadeiv aAXo mAnv avtiAoytKov ; @EAI. Ovder. ~ \ > ~ A \ id \ \ ZE. Tod d€ avtiAoyiKod To pev Ooov Tepl 7a C Sup Boraa dyuproPyretrar ev, ety} dé Kal aré- xvws Trepl avTo mparrerat, tabra * Oeréov peev eldos, emeimep avTO O1eyywKeV Ws ETEpov ov 6 Adyos, aTap émwvupias ovl’ bro Tay eumpoobev Eetvyxev ovte viv bd HUdv TvXEtV aELov. > ~ \ A \ / \ @gAl. “AXdnf7- Kata opixpa yap Atay Kal Tavrooama Siunpnrar. is \ / ” \ \ / 2A HE. To O€ ye evrexvov, Kat mept diuxaiwy adrav Nis, \ \ ~ LA ¢ > ~ Kal Gdikwy Kal TEpt THV GAAwY 6Aws apdioByTodr, dp ovdK é€protixov ad Aéyew eibioneba; eEAI. I1ds yap ov;
1d peo Bar ariKdy Stephanus ; dupa Byrixéy BTW. 2 ra om. TW. * radra BT; rotro al. é
296
THE SOPHIST
that part of the pugnacious which consists of bodily contests some such name as violent.
THEAET. Yes.
str. And what other name than controversy shall we give to the contests of words?
THEAET. No other.
str. But controversy must be divided into two kinds.
THEAET. How?
str. Whenever long speeches are opposed by long speeches on questions of justice and injustice in public, that is forensic controversy.
THEAET. Yes.
str. But that which is carried on among private persons and is cut up into little bits by means of questions and their answers, we are accustomed to call argumentation, are we not?
THEAET. We are.
str. And that part of argumentation which deals with business contracts, in which there is contro- versy, to be sure, but it is carried on informally and without rules of art—all that must be considered a distinct class, now that our argument has recog- nized it as different from the rest, but it received no name from our predecessors, nor does it now deserve to receive one from us.
THEAET. True; for the divisions into which it falls are too small and too miscellaneous.
str. But that which possesses rules of art and carries on controversy about abstract justice and in- justice and the rest in general terms, we are accus- tomed to call disputation, are we not?
THEAET. Certainly.
297
PLATO
D EE. Tod pen EptaTucod TO peev Xpnpatogbo- pikov, TO d€ xpNaTioTiKOY Ov TUyXavEL.
@FAlI. ILavrdmact YE:
zE. Tyv erwvuplay toivuv, nv ێKxatepov det KaXeiv avtav, treipabG@pev eizretv.
@EAI. Ovxodyv yp7
zE. Aokd pri To ye} Ov HdovaV THs TEpt TadTa diatpiBns dpedés TOV oikeiwy yuyvdomevov, TeEpt de THY A€Ew Tots morXOts THY akovovtTwy od pel” nOoVvAS akovopevov Karceicbar KaTa yvopnv THY Eunv ovdx ETEpov adorcaxLKod.
@£aAl. Aé€yetau yap ovv ovTw Tws.
E ze. Tovrov roivuy rovvaytiov, amo T&v iduwtt- K@V Eepidwy xpnuaTilopevov, ev TH peper av TrELpw viv eimety.
OEAl. Kat ri? tus av ad eimamy éetepov ouK e€- apudpTor _TAqy ve TOV Oavjraorov maAw éketvov TKEW avd viv téraptov Tov peTadiwKopevov vp’ HuaY copioTiy;
226 = EE. Ovdev aan’ i TO XpnparroTuKov yévos, ws EOLKEV, EPLOTLKTS OV _TEXVNS, Tis avrdoyucijs, THs dpproByrnTucis,* THs paxytuchs, THs dywviore- KAS, THS KTNTUKAS €oTw, ws 6 Adyos ad peunvuKe viv, 0 cogioTys.
@EAI. Kopid7 pev odv.
13. EE. “Opds otv ws adAnOA réyerar TO Trot- Kirov eivat todtTo TO Onpiov Kal TO Aeyopevov ov TH é€Tépa AnnTov4;
@EAI. Odxodv apdotv yp7.
1 76 ye vulg. ; rd5e BT; 7d de W. 2 rt add. Heindorf.
3 dugicByryrixjs| dudisByrexjs BTW. 4 Anrrov W; Antréov BT.
298
THE SOPHIST
str. Well, of disputation, one sort wastes money, the other makes money.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Then let us try to tell the name by which we must call each of these.
THEAET. Yes, we must do so.
str. Presumably the kind which causes a man to neglect his own affairs for the pleasure of engaging in it, but the style of which causes no pleasure to most of his hearers, is, in my opinion, called by no other name than garrulity.
THEAET. Yes, that is about what it is called.
str. Then the opposite of this, the kind which makes money from private disputes—try now, for it is your turn, to give its name.
THEAET. What other answer could one give without making a mistake, than that now again for the fourth time that wonderful being whom we have so long been pursuing has turned up—the sophist !
str. Yes, and the sophist is nothing else, apparently, than the money-making class of the dis- putatious, argumentative, controversial, pugnacious, combative, acquisitive art, as our argument has now again stated.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Do you see the truth of the statement that this creature is many-sided and, as the saying is, not to be caught with one hand?
THEAET. Then we must catch him with both.
299
PLATO
HE. Xpi) yap ovv, Kal Kata Svvapiv ye ovTw
B zowynréov, tovde tue prerabéovras ixyvos advrod.
Kat roe A€ye* THY OlKETLK@V OvoaTwY KaAoBpeEV GTTA TOV;
@EAI. Kat aoAAd: arap rota 8) t&v oAAdv muviaver;
HE. Ta towdde, olov diunfety re €yomev Kat duatTav Kat Bpdrrew Kal dvaxpivew.t
@EAI. Tt puny;
BE. Kail mpds ye tovrous ere Eaivew, Kardyew, Keprilew, Kat pupia €v Tats texvats adda ToLatTa evovTa emorapieba. 7 yap;
oFAI. Td motov attdv mépi Bovdnfeis dnAdoat
C mapadeiypata mpolets Tatra Kata mdavTwVv jpov;
BE. Avaupetiuxd mov Ta AexOevta elpytar Evp- Tara.
@EAI. Nat.
BE. Kara tov euov toivuy Adyov ws mept Tatra juiav oveay év amaot Téxvnv évds dvomatos a&id-
b) is cowev avrHv.
@EAI. Tiva mpoceirovtes;
BE. Ataxpitixiy.
@EAI. “KoTw.
EE. Ladzee 67) Tavrns ad dvo dv mn Svvmpcba KaTLoety €t07.
@EAI. Taxetav Os €uol oKebw emTATTELS.
D “He. Kat pay ev ye Tats elpyevats Staxpicect TO pev xe tpov amo BeXriovos amoxwpilew Hv, TO 5° dpovov ad’ dpoiov.
1 diaxpivev] many emendations have been suggested, noné entirely satisfactory, and all probably unnecessary.
300
THE SOPHIST
str. Yes, we must, and must go at it with all our might, by following another track of his—in this way. Tell me; of the expressions connected with menial occupations some are in common use, are they not?
THEAET, Yes, many. But to which of the many does your question refer?
str. To such as these: we say “sift” and “strain” and “ winnow’”’ and “separate.” 4
THEAET. Certainly.
str. And besides these there are “card” and “comb” and “beat the web” and countless other technical terms which we know. Is it not so?
THEAET, Why do you use these as examples and ask about them all? What do you wish to show in regard to them?
str. All those that I have mentioned imply a notion of division.
THEAET. Yes.
str. Then since there is, according to my reckon- ing, one art involved in all of these operations, let us give it one name.
THEAET. What shall we call it?
str. The art of discrimination.
THEAET. Very well.
str. Now see if we can discover two divisions of this.
THEAET. You demand quick thinking, for a boy like me.
str. And yet, in the instance of discrimination just mentioned there was, first, the separation of worse from better, and, secondly, of like from like.
1 Apparently a term descriptive of some part of the pro- cess of weaving; cf. Cratylus, 338 B.
301
227
PLATO
@EAI. Lyedov ovtw viv AcxOev daiverar. lon \ / v b) wv ,
BE. THs pev tolvuy dvoya ovK exw eyopevov'
~ be x , \ \ /N. 8 fh THs d€ KataXevrovons pev To BéATLov diaKkpicews,
A \ A“ > he ”
TO de xelpov amoBaddovons exw.
okAI. Aéye Tl.
= Ila G fe PS) , ¢ > \ é ~
BE. Ildoa 7 TovavtTy dSudKpiois, Ws eyw Evvvod, Aێyerat Tapa TmavtTwy Kabapyos Tis.
@EAI. Adyerau yap ody.
ZE. Odxoiv to ye Kabaprixov eldos ad dimAobv Ov mas av tdo.;
N / \ 2 / ” > \ ”
@EAI. Nai, cata oxoAnv ye tows: ov pv eywye Kabop® viv.
A
14. zE. Kai pv ta epi ta owpata todda
” / Lan A > / / elon Kabdpoewy Evi meptAafBetv ovopate Tpoo7KeEl.
@EAI. Ilota Kai rin;
aa , A , ¢? aN , eelas
BE. Ta te tv Cwwy, doa EevTos GwULaTwWY ITO yupvaoTikhns latpikns te op0@s diaxpwopeva KaQaiperar Kal wept taxtos,) eimety pev adda, doa PadavevtiKy) mapéxeTary Kal Tov aypdywv CWLATWY, MV yvadhevTiKn Kal EVpTrAcA KOOL YTLK? Thv eTyser\ccavy mapexomevn KaTa opiKpa TroAAa Kal yeAota SoxobvtTa Gvdpara eayev.
4
@EAI. Mada ye.
BE. Ilavrdzaot pev odv, & Oeairnte. adda yap TH TOV Adywv pcOddm oroyyroTiKhs 7 PappaKko- Toolas ovdev ATTOV OvdE TL ULGAAOV TYyYaVveEL Edo,
? \ \ 4 \ \ / ¢€ ~ > A ~ el TO prev opKpa, TO Oe peydra judas wperet Kabait-
1 repl raxrés] mepiraxtés B; ra mepl ra éxros a T.
302
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Yes, as you now express it, that is pretty clear.
str. Now I know no common name for the second kind of discrimination; but I do know the name of the kind which retains the better and throws away the worse.
THEAET. What is it?
str. Every such discrimination, as I think, is uni- versally called a sort of purification.
THEAET. Yes, so it is.
str. And could not anyone see that purification is of two kinds?
THEAET. Yes, perhaps, in time ; but still I do not see it now.
str. Still there are many kinds of purifications of bodies, and they may all properly be included under one name.
THEAET. What are they and what is the name ?
str. The purification of living creatures, having to do with impurities within the body, such as are successfully discriminated by gymnastics and medi- cine, and with those outside of the body, not nice to speak of, such as are attended to by the bath-keeper’s art; and the purification of inanimate bodies, which is the special care of the fuller’s art and in general of the art of exterior decoration ; this, with its petty subdivisions, has taken on many names which seem ridiculous.
THEAET. Very.
str. Certainly they do, Theaetetus. However, the method of argument is neither more nor less concerned with the art of medicine than with that of sponging, but is indifferent if the one benefits us little, the other greatly by its purifying. It en-
303
PLATO
B pov. tod Krjcacbat yap evexa voy macadv Texvav TO Evyyeves «al TO a guyyeves Katavoety qmet- papery) TULA. Tpos: TobTo €F i toov macas, Kal Odrepa TOV €ETépwv Kara TV OpLovoTnTa. ovdev iyetrat yeAowdrepa, ceuvotepov dé Te Tov dia oTparnyurcts
7) POetproructis dnAobvra Onpevtucny ovdev VEVOLLUKED, on ws TO moNd Xavvorepor. Ka t 67) Kal vov, OTEp pov, TL mpocepoduev dvopa EvpTracas
~ ” a Ouvdpets, Coat o@ma elte Eursvyov etre ayuyov ~ / al elAnyactt Kabaipew, oddev atTH Stoicet, motov TL ° /
C rexfev edaperéotatov civar dd€eu prdvov exéTw Xwpis TOV THS vyTs kabdpoewy mavTa Evvdjoay, daa aAdo TH Kkabaiper. TOV yap Tept THY Sudvovay KaBappov a7r0 Tov ddAwy emuxexeipnkev apopioa- ofa Ta viv, et ye omep BovAeTar wavOavopev.
> \ / \ ~ Ld A okal. “AAAa peudOnxa, Kal ovyxopa dvo ev uy eld kabdpaews, € Ev O€ TO mepl Thy iuxnv €ldos elvar, Tob Tepl TO GHpa ywpls ov. \ ~
ZE. Ilavrwy xkaddora. Kai pow TO peta TOTO ) Ss ~
D emakove Tretpwevos ad TO AeyOev diy TEmvewv.
> ard» a
@EAI. Kal’ omot’ av thynyh meipdcopat cou ovv- TELVELW.
15. =E. I[lovypiav érepov apetris ev puyH rA€&yo- pev Th;
lanl \ ”
@EAI. IIlHs yap ov;
ol \ \ A = A ’
BE. Kat pav Kabapucs fv to Acimew A isp F b) LAA PS) eZ a“ > he rv a
atepov, exPdAAew dé daov av 7 Tov Tt dAadpov.
@EAI. “Hy yap ovv.
BE Kat ob lon ” — ¢ vA Cth
; L yvxjs dpa, Kal’ doov av evpiokwev
\ 2 ev
1 eidjyaoe W 3; eiAjdacor BT. . 2 rXelmeww Heindorf; dAcretvy BT. 304
THE SOPHIST
deavours to understand what is related and what is not related in all arts, for the purpose of acquiring intelligence; and therefore it honours them all equally and does not in making comparisons think one more ridiculous than another, and does not con- sider him who employs, as his example of hunting, the art of generalship, any more dignified than him who employs the art of louse-catching, but only, for the most part, as more pretentious. And now as to your question, what name we shall give to all the activities whose function it is to purify the body, whether animate or inanimate, it will not matter at all to our method what name sounds finest; it cares only to unite under one name all purifications of everything else and to keep them separate from the purification of the soul. For it has in our present discussion been trying to separate this purifica- tion definitely from the rest, if we understand its desire.
THEAET. But I do understand and I agree that there are two kinds of purification and that one kind is the purification of the soul, which is separate from that of the body.
str. Most excellent. Now pay attention to the next point and try again to divide the term.
THEAET. In whatever way you suggest, I will try to help you in making the division.
str. Do we say that wickedness is distinct from virtue in the soul ?
THEAET. Of course.
str. And purification was retaining the one and throwing out whatever is bad anywhere?
THEAET. Yes, it was.
str. Hence whenever we find any removal of evil
505
PLATO
s > / , \ i ae | / > Kaklas apaipeoiy Twa, Kabappov adrov A€yovtes év peace pbeyEopneba.
@FAI. Kat pdda ye. / \ ” / \ \ ¢ 4 EE. Avo pev eidn Kakias mrept uy pyréov. eEAl. Ilota; 298 zr. To pev ofov vocov év owpatt, To 5” oiov alayos eyytyvojevov. @EAI. Ov« eprafor. , wv \ / b) Ty ES / eE. Nooov tows kal ordow ov Tavrov vevouKas ; @EAI. Oud’ ad mpds TobTo exw TL ypy we aTroKpl- vacbat. / LA fa ¢€ (4 BD! A ~ zE. IIdtepov dAdo Tt oTadow yyovpevos 7 THY TOO / ~ ” ~ / 1 dvoe Evyyevots Ex Twos diaplopas dvadopav}; @EAI. Oddev. zE. "AAN’ alicyos ado tt mAnv TO THS apeTplas mavtayod Succes evov® yevos; B_ ofa. Ovdap@ds addo. cE. Ti d€; ev duyn dd€as éembvpiats Kal Ovjcv ¢ aA \ / / \ Lé > / ~ noovais Kat Adyov Avrais Kal TavTa aAAjAots TabTa ~ / >? / > ] / 4 tov pravpws exovtTwy odK HoOnpcla Siadhepdpeva; eEAI. Kai odddpa ye. EE. Huyyern ye pny e€ avaykns E€vpurravta yeyovev. A \ wv eEAI. Ids yap ov; / ” \ / “~ ~ / EE. Ltdow dpa Kat vdoov THs puyhs movnpiav A€éyovtes Opbas Epodpev. @EAI. "OpOotata pev obdv. Bo / > Cet) Aa aS} / / A C ze. Ti 8’; oo av? Kujoews petracydvTa Kai oxorov twa Odueva treipwmpevat TovTov TUyXYavEL 1 S.apBopas Suapopdv Galen; diapopas SuapOopav BT, Stobaeus.
2 évov Schleiermacher ; év dv Stobaeus; év dv t; dv BT. 3 60’ av Cobet; dca BT.
306
THE SOPHIST
from the soul, we shall be speaking properly if we call that a purification.
THEAET. Very properly.
str. We must say that there are two kinds of evil in the soul.
THEAET. What kinds?
str. The one is comparable to a disease in the body, the other to a deformity.
THEAET. I do not understand.
str. Perhaps you have not considered that disease and discord are the same thing?
THEAET. I do not know what reply I ought to make to this, either.
str. Is that because you think discord is anything else than the disagreement of the naturally related, brought about by some corruption ?
THEAET. No; I think it is nothing else.
str. But is deformity anything else than the presence of the quality of disproportion, which is always ugly?
THEAET. Nothing else at all.
str. Well then; do we not see that in the souls of worthless men opinions are opposed to desires, anger to pleasures, reason to pain, and all such things to one another?
THEAET. Yes, they are, decidedly.
str. Yet they must all be naturally related.
THEAET. Of course.
str. Then we shall be right if we say that wickedness is a discord and disease of the soul.
THEAET. Yes, quite right.
str. But if things which partake of motion and aim at some particular mark pass beside the mark
€ repmdmeva T, Galen, Stobaeus; re:piueba Ws; om. B.
307
PLATO
a C5 2. € \ , 9 am Be 1 iY Kal’ Exdorny opyryv tapadopa avrod yiyvyntat! Kat /
amoTuyyavyn,” mOTEpov avdTa PyjcoLEV UTO OVLLETPLAS
lod / \
Ths mpos GAAnAa 7 TovvayTiov bird aeTptas avTa maoXEW;
nn e ¢€ A > /
e£AI. AfjAov ws tro apmetpias.
re; > \ \ /, wv ow lan lod
HE. “AAAa prj buyjy ye topev akovoay Tacav Tay ayvootcav.
@EAI. Udddpa ye.
/ \ > A ’ Sane) 9) / e BE. To ye piv ayvoety éotw én’ adjPeray oppw- D pévyns wvyfs, mapaddpov ovvécews yryvoperns, ovoev aAAo rAjv Tapadpootvy. @EAI. Ildvu prev ovv. \ ” as, > \ \ ”
BE. Vuyyv dpa avontov aloxypav Kat aeTpov Oeréov.
@EAI. ”Kouxev.
BE. “Eore 57) dUo tadta, ws dalverar, KaK@v ev avTH yévn, TO pev movnpia Kadovpevov Bro THV ToAADV, vdaos avtis cap€otara ov.
oral. Nat.
EE. To dé ye dyvoray pev Kadobor, Kakiay dé av7To ev wuyh povov yryvdpevov ovK €léAovow oporoyetv.
E o£Al. Kopud} ovyywpntéov, 6 viv 8 AdEavtos Hpeyvoynad cov, TO dvo etvar yévyn Kakias ev pvy7,
\ / \ Nie 3 / A / /
Kal detAiay rev Kal akoAaciay Kal adiKiav EvpTravTa NYNTEOV Vooov Ev Hiv, TO Sé THS TOAARS Kal TavTO- dams ayvoias 7abos atayos Beréov.
1 yiyynrat BT 3 yiyverac al.
2 dmoruyxavy Ts amorvyxdve B et al.
308
THE SOPHIST
and miss it on every occasion when they try to hit it, shall we say that this happens to them through right proportion to one another or, on the contrary, through disproportion ?!
THEAET. Evidently through disproportion.
str. But yet we know that every soul, if ignorant of anything, is ignorant against its will.
THEAET. Very much so.
str. Now being ignorant is nothing else than the aberration of a soul that aims at truth, when the understanding passes beside the mark.
THEAET. Very true.
str. Then we must regard a foolish soul as deformed and ill-proportioned.
THEAET. So it seems.
str. Then there are, it appears, these two kinds of evils in the soul, one, which people call wickedness, which is very clearly a disease.
THEAET. Yes.
str. And the other they call ignorance, but they are not willing to acknowledge that it is vice, when it arises only in the soul.
THEAET. It must certainly be admitted, though I disputed it when you said it just now, that there are two kinds of vice in the soul, and that cowardice, intemperance, and injustice must all alike be con- sidered a disease in us, and the widespread and various condition of ignorance must be regarded as a deformity.
1 The connexion between disproportion and missing the mark is not obvious. The explanation that a missile (e.g. an arrow) which is not evenly balanced will not fly straight, fails to take account of the words pds &\\nd\a. The idea
seems rather to be that moving objects of various sizes, shapes, and rates of speed must interfere with each other.
309
PLATO
16. =E. Odxotv ev cwpati ye rept dv0 mabjpare Tovtw dvo Téxva Twe eyeveoOnv; @EAI. Tive tovTw; \ \ io / \ \ / 229 =«oE. Ilepi EV ALOXOS YUPVAOTLKY), EPL dé vocov laTpiK7. @EAI. Daiveofov. ey hairs \ \ er ae, 4S , \ =E. Ovxoty kai mepi wev UBpw Kal aductay Kat / ¢ \ / ~ / \ detAtav 7) KoAaarucr) ge TexvOv pdadvota 87 TACOV TpoonKovea Aixn *; @EAI. 10 yodbv eikds, ws eimetv Kata THY avOpw- mn doar. BE. Tv dé; mept Evumacav ayvovav pov addAnv TWA 7 SidacKadAtKyy opOdTEpov EtroL TIS av; @FAI. Ovdemiar. EE. Ddpe 84: SidacKadixfs 5¢ dpa €v povov , , 5 a , , i 2A B yévos daréov eivar 7 aAciw, dvo b€ TwWe adTys elvae eyloTW, OKOTTEL. @EAI. LKo7a. a fi A ~ ” 4 e ~ BE. Kai pou doxotpev THO av 7 TAXLOTA EvpEtv. ezAI. I17; ies i; “y 7 or ‘ , eon 3 BE. Ij dyvovay idovTes el my Kara meoov avris TOpIY xel Twd. durrAh yap avrTn yeyvoevn O7jAov ore Kal THY dvdacKaAucny dUo avayKdler wopia Exeuv, ev ed vl yever TOV adTis ExaTépw. / ay / / \ ~ , oEAI. Ti otv; Katadaves 7} Gou 70 vov Cntovpevov; > ~ A C zE. ’Ayvoias yoo * peeve. Tt pou d0K@ Kal xaAerov dpeopiopevov 6 opav eldos, maar Tots aAdots avuTHs avrtiotalov pépeow. @EAI. Ilotov 57); ZE. To py xatevdora te Soxety etdevar: 8’ ob
1 Aixn Cobet; dixn BT, Stobaeus. 2 aitis W3 ad’ris BI. 3 yoiv W; 8 ofv BT. 310
THE SOPHIST
str. In the case of the body there are two arts which have to do with these two evil conditions, are there not?
THEAET. What are they ?
str. For deformity there is gymnastics, and for disease medicine.
THEAET. ‘That is clear.
str. Hence for insolence and injustice and cowardice is not the corrective art the one of all arts most closely related to Justice ?
THEAET. Probably it is, at least according to the judgement of mankind.
str. And for all sorts of ignorance is there any art it would be more correct to suggest than that of instruction ?
THEAET. No, none.
str. Come now, think. Shall we say that there is only one kind of instruction, or that there are more and that two are the most important ?
THEAET. I am thinking.
str. I think we can find out most quickly in this way.
THEAET. In what way?
str. By seeing whether ignorance admits of being cut in two in the middle; for if ignorance turns out to be twofold, it is clear that instruction must also consist of two parts, one for each part of ignorance.
THEAET. Well, can you see what you are now looking for?
str. I at any rate think I do see one large and grievous kind of ignorance, separate from the rest, and as weighty as all the other parts put together.
THEAET. What is it?
str. Thinking that one knows a thing when one
311
PLATO
/ , Kwovvevet TaVTA OGa tavoia opadAcpucBa yiyvecBat maoW. > a okAl. “AAnO7. ie 1 Q\ \ , 5 , Poe: , EE. Kat 67) Kal TovTw ye otpat povw THs ayvotas dpabiav Tovvop.a tmpoopyOjvac. eEAI. Ildvu ye. zE. Ti dé 617) T@ THs SiwWacKkaAiKhs apa pepe. TO tovTo amaAAarrovTe AEKTEoV; sy i Cp \ \ D orat. Ofuar pev otv, & Eve, TO pev ado MS / ~ \ b 4, Snpoupyikas SiacKaXrias, totro dé evddde ye > lon ~ mavdelav du nudv KexAnobar. a \ \ / > ’ 5) = eE. Kat yap oxedov, @ Ocairnre, ev maow “EAqow. aAAd yap nev ETL Kal TOUTO OKETITEOY, el dTopov 4Oy eoTi Tay 7 Twa €xov Siaipeow akiav eTmwvupias. 9EAI. Ovdxodv xp7) oKoz7ety. 17. =E. Aoxe? tolvuy pow Kal TotTo Ere m7 oxileoba. \ / @EAI. Kara 7; EE. Tis ev tots Adyous didacKkaduKyAs 7 pev » 5 > E7paxyutépa tis €ouxev odds elvat, TO 8° €TEpov avTns LopLov Acsrepov. ozAI. To mrotov 57) TOUT ex dTEpov Acyaper; EE. To jrev apyavompemés Te TaTploy, @ Tmpos \ rods vieis pdduor’ expavrd Te Kal ert moAAo! ypav- Tal TA VoV, OTaV avTois eEapapTdvwot TL, TA [LEV / \ \ / / 230 xyaXerraivovtes, Ta 5€ padPakwrépws trapapvbov- > > > pevor’ 70 6 odv Evutrav adto opOdrata Eto TIS av vovlleryntTiKiHV. @FAI. "Korw ovtws. aE. To dé ye, et€aci! twes ad Aoyov éavtois 1 citact BT, Stobaeus; ws eitaot vulg. 312
THE SOPHIST
does not know it. Through this, I believe, all the mistakes of the mind are caused in all of us.
THEAET. True.
str. And furthermore to this kind of ignorance alone the name of stupidity is given.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Now what name is to be given to that part of instruction which gets rid of this?
THEAET. I think, Stranger, that the other part is called instruction in handicraft, and that this part is here at Athens through our influence called education.
str. And so it is, Theaetetus, among nearly all the Hellenes. But we must examine further and see whether it is one and indivisible or still admits of division important enough to have a name.
THEAET. Yes, we must see about that.
str. I think there is still a way in which this also may be divided.
THEAET. On what principle?
srr. Of instruction in arguments one method seems to be rougher, and the other section smoother.
THEAET. What shall we call each of these?
str. The venerable method of our fathers, which they generally employed towards their sons, and which many still employ, of sometimes showing anger at their errors and sometimes more gently exhorting them—that would most properly be called as a whole admonition.
THEAET, That is true.
str. On the other hand, some appear to have con-
L 313
PLATO
dovtes Hryijcac8a macav axovavov apabiav elvat, Kai pabety ovdev mot’ av eléAew Tov oldjevov etvat codov ToUTwWY Gv OloLTO Trépt Sewos Etvar, meTa SE moAdob movov TO vovbeTrnTiKOV €ldos THS TraLdElas OLLLKpOV avUTEW.
@EAI. “Op0ds ye vomilovres.
B =zE. T@ tou tavtys Tis Sd€ns emt exBoAnv addAw Tpomw oTéAXovTaL.
@EAI. Tire 67;
BE. Avepwrdow av ay olnTal Tis TL TrEpL déyew Aéeyov pndev: €i8? dre TAaveevov Tas ddfas padiws eferalovon, Kal ouvdyovres 57) Tots Adyous eis tavtov TiWéacr Trop” aAAjras, tiWévtes dé emidoetKyUovoW avTas avTats 1 dua mepl TOV adrav mMpos TA AUTA KATA TAUTA EvavTias: ot 5° Opa@vtTeEs €avtots pev yaXemaivovot, mpos d€ Tovds dAXous npepobvrar, Kal TovTw 61) TH TpdOTM THY Tept
C adtovs peydAwy Kat onAnpav d0fOv dmadAdrrovrat mraccy * atraAAayav acoder Te 1OloTHY Kal T@ mAoXOVTL BeBadrara yuyvopLevny. vopilovres yap, @ mat pire, ot kabaipovres avrovs, womep ob mept TA CWMATA LATPOL VEvopLiKacL [L7) TIPOTEPOV av Tis Tpoopepojiev7|s tpodhs amoAavew dvvacbat capa, mply a av Ta. eumooilovra ev aire TLS exBary, TAUTOV Kal rept puxijs duevonOnoav éekeivot, [7 TpOoTepov avriy Sew TOV Tpoopepojeveny palmate 6 ovnow,
D mpw av edéyywv tis Tov eAeyxopevov eis alaytvyy KaTaoTHoas, Tas Tots wabruaow eprodious dd€as e€ehuv, Kabapov amopivn Kal Tatra yovpevov, amep oldev, eidevar ova, mAciw dé 7.
1 abrais] a’rats BT.
2 racav Stobaeus; macdv te BT.
314
THE SOPHIST
vinced themselves that all ignorance is involuntary, and that he who thinks himself wise would never be willing to learn any of those things in which he believes he is clever, and that the admonitory kind of education takes a deal of trouble and accomplishes little.
THEAET. They are quite right.
str. So they set themselves to cast out the conceit of cleverness in another way.
THEAET. In what way?
str. They question a man about the things about which he thinks he is talking sense when he is talking nonsense ; then they easily discover that his opinions are like those of men who wander, and in their discussions they collect those opinions and compare them with one another, and by the com- parison they show that they contradict one another about the same things, in relation to the same things and in respect to the same things. But those who see this grow angry with themselves and gentle towards others, and this is the way in which they are freed from their high and obstinate opinions about themselves. The process of freeing them, moreover, affords the greatest pleasure to the listeners and the most lasting benefit to him who is subjected to it. For just as physicians who care for the body believe that the body cannot get benefit from any food offered to it until all obstructions are removed, so, my boy, those who purge the soul believe that the soul can receive no benefit from any teachings offered to it until someone by cross -questioning reduces him who is cross-questioned to an attitude of modesty, by removing the opinions that obstruct the teachings, and thus purges him and makes him think that he knows only what he knows, and no more.
315
231
PLATO
, A Q , A
@EAI. BeAtiotn yotv Kat owdpoveotatn tov e€ewv avrn.
\ ~ \ , e A coe / \
BE. Ava tatra 57) BREE NW, W Ocairnre, oor Tov €Aeyyov AeKTéov Ws apa peylorn Kal Kupiordry TOV Kkabldpoewy €oTl, Kal TOV dvedeyrerov aw vomlaTéov, av Kal Tuyxavn Baotreds 6 péyas wr, Ta, peyvoro. dicdDaprov OVTA, AMALOEUTOV TE Kal alaypov yeyoveva Tabra, a kalaputarov Kal KdAdoTov EmpeTe TOY OVTWS EoopEvoy EdOatpova elvau.
/ \ >
eFAI. Iavtamaou pev odv.
18. ze. Ti dé; rods ravrn xpwuevous TH TéExvn tivas dyoopev; eyw pev yap doBotuar ocodioras pavar.
@EAI. Tt 57;
5 \ a al tn , ,
zE. My petlov atrots mpocarTwpev yépas.
> lo
@EAI. “A\Aa pv mpocéoike ToLlovT@ TWi TA VoV elpyeva.
PS, A A A / > Up ¢ U4
zE. Kat yap xuvi AvKos, aypiwtatov HLEepwraTw.
A \ > ~ ~ 4 iP \ \ e / Tov d¢€ aodadAy Set ravtwy udAvoTa mept TAs OpL0L0- THTAS ae TrovetoOa THY dvraKyy- ohaOnporarov yap TO yevos. Opuws d€ EoTwoav: od yap Tepi CULKP@V Opwy THY approPyTHGLW olopLaL yevnocoOaL TOTE OTTOTAV ikavas pvrdaTTwow.
@EAI. OUvKouv TO ye elkos.
zE. "Eorw 67) _ Svapiruciis TEXVS KabapTiKy, kabaprurijs de TO mept wuy7v pépos adwpicba, tovtou Oe didacKkaNiKy, didacKaAtKhs dé madevTUKT* THs de TALOEUTLKTS O met THY patavov do€ocodiav yuyvopevos édeyxos ev T@ viv Aoye Tapapavevre
pendev aA’ nety €ivat Aeyécbw TAnv 7} yever yevvata GoPpLoTLKyH.
316
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. That is surely the best and most reason- able state of mind.
str. For all these reasons, Theaetetus, we must assert that cross-questioning is the greatest and most efficacious of all purifications, and that he who is not cross-questioned, even though he be the Great King, has not been purified of the greatest taints, and is therefore uneducated and deformed in those things in which he who is to be truly happy ought to be most pure and beautiful.
THEAET. Perfectly true.
str. Well then, who are those who practise this art? I am afraid to say the sophists.
THEAET. Why so?
str. Lest we grant them too high a meed of honour.
THEAET. But the description you have just given is very like someone of that sort.
str. Yes, and a wolf is very like a dog, the wildest like the tamest of animals. But the cautious man must be especially on his guard in the matter of resemblances, for they are very slippery things. However, let us agree that they are the sophists ; for I think the strife will not be about petty discrimina- tions when people are sufficiently on their guard.
THEAET. No, probably not.
str. Then let it be agreed that part of the dis- criminating art is purification, and as part of purifi- cation let that which is concerned with the soul be separated off, and as part of this, instruction, and as part of instruction, education ; and let us agree that the cross-questioning of empty conceit of wisdom, which has come to light in our present discussion, is nothing else than the true-born art of sophistry.
317
PLATO
OFAI. Aeyéobw per amopa dé eywye dn da C 70 mroMa mepavOar, Tl Xe? more ws adn OA Aéyovra Kal Oucxuprlojevov etrrety ovTws elvar TOV copuotiy. EE. Hixdras ye ov dmopav. adAa TOU Kaceivov nyetobar xe), vov 75) ofddpa a amopety om more ere Svadvoerau Tov Adyov: opb7 yap 7 Trapoynie., TO Tas amdoas 47) pad.ov elvar duadevyew. viv ody Kal udXAora émferéov atta. @EAI. Kadds Aéyeis. 19. ZE. II prov 51) ordvtes olov eEavarvetaw- Lev, Kal 7pos mpas avrovs diaroyowpreBa apa. ava- D TOVOMEVOL, épe, 0 o71000. mp 6 codiorns mepavTa. doK® pev yap, ro mpa@tov nopéOn véwy Kai mAovoiwy eupcbos OnpevTis. @zAl. Nat. BE. To dé ye Sevrepov eumopds Tis Trepl TA THs doyjs palypwara. @FAI. Ila ye. BE. Tpitov d€ dpa ov rept tatTa tadra KamnAos avedavy ; @EAI. Nai, Kat TETOPTOY ye adtomwAns mept Ta palnparo. ypety je ZE. “Op0ds eV NOVEVoAS . Te[TTOV 5° eye Teypdoopiae pvnovedew: Tis. yap dywmvoTuKis K zrept Adyous jv tis alAntHs, THY EproTucHny TEXVYV dpupiop.evos. egal. “Hy yap oty. zE. To ye pa EKTOV dyuproByr Hoyo pLev, Owes 8 epev are ovyXWpHoaVTES dof Ov EpTroOlLwv pabipace rept puyiy Kabapriy avrov eivar. ekAI. Ilavtdzace pev ovv. 1 yap W3; yap dv BT. 2 #v add. Heindorf. 318
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Let us agree to all that; but the sophist has by this time appeared to be so many things that I am at a loss to know what in the world to say he really is, with any assurance that I am speaking the truth.
str. No wonder you are at a loss. But it is fair to suppose that by this time he is still more at a loss to know how he can any longer elude our argument ; for the proverb is right which says it is not easy to escape all the wrestler’s grips. So now we must attack him with redoubled vigour.
THEAET. You are right.
str. First, then, let us stop to take breath and while we are resting let us count up the number of forms in which the sophist has appeared to us. First, I believe, he was found to be a paid hunter after the young and wealthy.
THEAET. Yes.
str. And secondly a kind of merchant in articles of knowledge for the soul.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. And thirdly did he not turn up as a retailer of these same articles of knowledge ?
THEAET. Yes, and fourthly we found he was a seller of his own productions of knowledge.
str. Your memory is good; but I will try to recall the fifth case myself. He was an athlete in contests of words, who had taken for his own the art of disputation.
THEAET. Yes, he was.
str. The sixth case was doubtful, but nevertheless we agreed to consider him a purger of souls, who removes opinions that obstruct learning.
THEAET. Very true.
319
PLATO
3 x > a ¢ > , 932 ze. “Ap otv evvoets, OTav emoTiuwy Tis ToAAdv haivntar, pds de Téxvys ovdpate mpoo- ~ > ayopevUnTat, TO PavTacpa TOUTO ws ovK eal” Byiés, lant \ aAAa SHAov ws 6 TAacywv abTO pds TWA TEXVHV Od a a ~ > dvvatat KaTieiy exeivo atthns els 6 TavTAa Ta / ~ / \ \ aA Lt pabruata tatra BArémer, d10 Kat moAXots Gvopacow av?’ évos Tov €xovta avTa mpooayopever ; @EAI. Kuvdvvever trotto TavTyn 7 padvoTa Tredv- KEVQL. a \ / chen an 9-25 Ss a , B au EE. My TOU Ee VE GUTO cy ay CyTjo«t du apylav madcywpev, adr’ avadAdBuyev mparov Te TOV TEpt TOV GodioTHY EipnLevwY. EV yap Ti jot pdadwora Katepavyn adrov pyviov. @EAI. To zoiov; - 2 \ STAN or ey, BE. “Avtidoyixov adrov edapev eivai zrov. @EAI. Nav. > ~ » ~ zE. Tid’; ov Kal Tv aAAwv adrod TovTov b1da- okadov yiyvecba; @EAI. Ti prjv; aA / \ / a A \ ¢ EE. Uko7@pev 51, wept Tivos apa Kal dacw ot A ~ ¢€ A ToLlovToL TroLety avTirAoyiKoUs. 1 dé oKeyus Hiv €& > ~ ~ ~ Capyns €oTw THoé my. epe, TEept TOV ODeiwr, da adavy tots moAXots, dp’ tkavovs movotat TodTO dpav; aN , AL PS) \ \ > ~ lo @EAI. Adyerar yobv 1 8 rept adt&v tadta. 2. 1.36 ~ \ ~ EE. Ti 5° doa davepa ys Te Kat ovpavod Kat TOV TEpL TA TOLADTA; ozal. Ti yap; as 2 \ \ ” Os, , BE. “AAAa pv €v ye tais idiats ovvovaiats, ¢ A / omOTaV yevéoews TE Kal OvOias TépL KATA TAVTWY
1 yodv W; ot BT. 320
THE SOPHIST
str. Then do you see that when a man appears to know many things, but is called by the name of a single art, there is something wrong about this impression, and that, in fact, the person who labours under this impression in connexion with any art is clearly unable to see the common principle of the art, to which all these kinds of knowledge pertain, so that he calls him who possesses them by many names instead of one?
THEAET. Something like that is very likely to be the case.
str. We must not let that happen to us in our search through lack of diligence. So let us first take up again one of our statements about the sophist. For there is one of them which seemed to me to designate him most plainly.
THEAET. Which was it?
str. I think we said he was a disputer.
THEAET. Yes.
str. And did we not also say that he taught this same art of disputing to others?
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Now let us examine and see what the subjects are about which such men say they make their pupils able to dispute. Let us begin our examination at the beginning with this question: -Is it about divine things which are invisible to others that they make people able to dispute ?
THEAET. That is their reputation, at any rate.
str. And how about the visible things of earth and heaven and the like?
THEAET. Those are included, of course.
str. And furthermore in private conversations, when the talk is about generation and being in
ee 321
PLATO
Réynrat m1, Evviapev ws adtol Te avrevmeiv Sewot tous Te GAAous OTL TOLobow amep adTol duvaTous; o£aAl. Llavrdaci ye.
D ze. Ti 8 ad wept vopwv Kat EvutavtTwy Tov ToATiKaY, dp ody bmicyvobvra Tovety aydioPy- TyTUKOUs 1
@EAI. Ovdeis yap av atrois, ws €mos etzety, dueA€yeto pur) ToOTO bmioyvoupevots.
BE. Tad ye pnv mept mac@v te Kal Kata play ExdoTyny Téxvynv, ad Set mpos ExaoTov avTov TOV Onpstoupyov dvrevmety, dednuooiwpreva Tov KaTaPeE- BAnrat yeypaypeva 7@ Bovropéevw pabeiv.
OEAI. Ta IIpwrayoperd prot hatver wept Te maAns
Exat t&v aAAwy Texvev EtpnKevae.
EE. Kat wodAdav ye, @ paxdpre, eTEpwV. aTap 57) TO Tis dvrdoyucis Téxvns ap’ ovK ev Kkehadaiw Tmept TaVTwWVY Tmpos audioPHTnow tkavy Tus SUvapus €ouK €lvar;
@EAI. Daiveta yobdv ayedov ovdév broAuretv.
EE. Lv 67 mpos Jedv, & mat, dvvarov yyet TobT0; TAXA ‘yap dy dpets puev 0€UTEpoV Ot véoL 7pds avTO Br€roure, Tets de dBAvTEpov.
233 OEFAl. To zoiov, Kat mpos Ti L ddvora, déyets; od yap 7™w KaTavo® TO viv épwraevov.
BE. Et awdvra emiotacdal twa avOpmimwv é€oti duvatov.
OFAI. Maxdpwov pevr’ dv yudv, @ Eve, Hv TO yevos.
EE. Ids obv av more TUS m™pos ye TOV emoTa- JLevov avros avET LOTT LEY av dvvait’? av vytés Te Aeywv avreimetv;
1 duit Bytytikovs] dudisByntios T. 322
THE SOPHIST
general, we know (do we not?) that they are clever disputants themselves and impart equal ability to others.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. And how about laws and public affairs in general? Do they not promise to make men able to argue about those ?
THEAET. Yes, for nobody, to speak broadly, would attend their classes if they did not make that promise.
str. However in all arts jointly and severally what the professional ought to answer to every opponent is written down somewhere and published that he who will may learn.
THEAET. You seem to refer to the text-books of Protagoras on wrestling and the other arts.
str. Yes, my friend, and to those of many other authors. But is not the art of disputation, in a word, a trained ability for arguing about all things?
THEAET. Well, at any rate, it does not seem to leave much out.
str. For heaven’s sake, my boy, do you think that is possible? For perhaps you young people may look at the matter with sharper vision than our duller sight.
THEAET. What do you mean and just what do you refer to? I do not yet understand your question.
str. I ask whether it is possible for a man to know all things.
THEAET. If that were possible, Stranger, ours would indeed be a blessed race.
str. How, then, can one who is himself ignorant say anything worth while in arguing with one who knows?
323
B
C
PLATO
@EAI. Ovdapds.
5 , > > A ” 5) a a 5 ,
zE. Ti zor’ ovv av eln 70 THs coduotiKhs Suva- pews Oabpa;
@EAI. Tot 61) 7épt;
> oe Z A \ a zE. Kafl? 6v twa tpdmov moté Suvatoi Tots 4 veots dd€av mapackevalew, ws Elot TaVvTA TAVT@V > A 4 ~ \ ¢€ > / > / avtoi codwrator. ShAov yap ws et wynTE avTeAeyov op0ds pyre exeivois epatvovto, pawvopevot TE Et pndev ad wadAdAov eddKovy d1a THY apdroBytyow > ~ ~ +] eivar dpovysot, TO Gov+ b17 TodTO, axoAH mor av avtots Tis ypyyata didods 7OcAev av ToVTWY adTaY pabytns yiyvecba. ~ / > wv @EAI. LyoAR pévT’ av. A &) EE. Niv d€ y’ €0édovow; oFAI. Kai pada. ~ / > ~
zE. Aoxotot yap, olwat, mpos taira émorn- pLovas EXEL avTOL TPOS aTrEp avTiAéyovow.
@EAI. [1s yap ov;
Re A DL a eG ,
zE. Apdat dé ye Todto mpos dmavTa, dapev;
oral. Nat.
/ 4 ~ aA
BE. Ilavra apa codot tots pabytats datvovrat.
@EAL. Tt pry;
a b} + > 7 A ~ / ’ ,
BE. Ovx ovtes yer advvatov yap TobT6 ye édavn.
@£AI. IIl@s yap odK« advvatov;
21. zE. Ao€aotikyy dpa Twa mept mavTwv > / ¢ \ ¢€ aA > 3 2 > / ETLOTHUNVY 0 aopioTns juiv, ad’ odK adAnOevav Exwv avatrépavra.
1 7 cov] rocov BTW.
324
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. He cannot at all.
str. Then what in the world can the magical power of the sophistical art be?
THEAET. Magical power in what respect?
str. In the way in which they are able to make young men think that they themselves are in all matters the wisest of men. For it is clear that if they neither disputed correctly nor seemed to the young men to do so, or again if they did seem to dispute rightly but were not considered wiser on that account, nobody, to quote from you,’ would care to pay them money to become their pupil in these subjects.
THEAET. Certainly not.
str. But now people do care to do so?
THEAET. Very much.
str. Yes, for they are supposed, I fancy, to have knowledge themselves of the things about which they dispute.
THEAET. Of course.
str. And they do that about all things, do they not?
THEAET. Yes.
str. Then they appear to their pupils to be wise in all things.
THEAET. To be sure.
str. Though they are not; for that was shown to be impossible.
THEAET. Of course it is impossible.
str. Then it is a sort of knowledge based upon mere opinion that the sophist has been shown to possess about all things, not true knowledge.
i Cf. 232 p. 325
PLATO
/ © oy A / D ocal. Ilavrdzace prev ody, Kal Kuwdvuvever ye 70 viv eipnevov opOdtata wept adTav eiphabar. HE. AdBwyuev towvv cadéotepov Te Trapddevypa TEpl TOUTWV. \ A / @£AI. Td zotov 57; / , A , A lot > BE. Todde. Kat pou 7eip® mpooéywv Tov vodv eb para amroKpivacba. e£AI. To zotov; aE. Hi ses pain pea Aéyew pnd’ dyridéyer, adda movety Kal Opav ud Téxvn Evvdtravta émiota- ofa mpaypata. E @FAI. [las mavra eimes; zE. Tov px Too pndevros ov y je evOds ayvoets+ Ta yap EvpurravTa, ws eouxas, od pavOa- vels. @EAI. Ov yap odv. / , A \ ae ~ , \ gE. Aéyw towvy oé Kal eye TOV TavTWY Kal \ ¢e A Gc) ~ \ / mpos atv TAAAa CHa Kal dévdpa. @FAI. Ids Aéyers; HE. Et tis eué Kat oé Kal taAX\a duta mavra mowjoae 1 hain. OEAI. Tova 57) Aéywv TH mroinow ; ov yap 57) 234 yewpydov ye epeis Twar Kal yap Cawy adrov elzes TOUT HV. = @ / A / 0 >" / A a 2 A BE. Dypi, Kat mpos ye Oadrdtrns Kal ys? Kat otvpavod Kat Oedv kai THv GAAwy EvuTravtwv: Kai Tolvuy Kal TaXv Toijoas al’T@v exaoTa mavu Op.Kpov vopLicpatos a7rodidoTaL. @EAI. Iladcav A€yers tid. BE. Ti 6€; tv Tob Aéyovros tt mavrTa olde Kal
1 rojoev W; romow BT. 3 kal yjs W; om. BT. 326
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Certainly ; and I shouldn’t be surprised if that were the most accurate statement we have made about him so far.
str. Let us then take a clearer example to explain this.
THEAET. What sort of an example?
str. This one; and try to pay attention and to give a very careful answer to my question.
THEAET. What is the question ?
str. If anyone should say that by virtue of a single art he knew how, not to assert or dispute, but to do and make all things—
THEAET. What do you mean by all things?
str. You fail to grasp the very beginning of what I said; for apparently you do not understand the word “all.”
THEAET. No, I do not.
str. I mean you and me among the “all,” and the other animals besides, and the trees,
THEAET. What do you mean?
str. If one should say that he would make you and me and all other created beings.
THEAET. What would he mean by “making”? Evidently you will not say that he means a husband- man ; for you said he was a maker of animals also.
str. Yes, and of sea and earth and heaven and gods and everything else besides ; and, moreover, he makes them all quickly and sells them for very little.
THEAET. This is some joke of yours.
str. Yes? And when a man says that he knows all things and can teach them to another for a small
327
PLATO
TavTa eTepov av diddéevev GALyou Kat ev drjiyw xpovw, POv ov maLdiay vop.toTEeov;
ezAI. Ilavrws Tov.
BEE. Tlavduas Se exets q Te TEXVUCOITEPOV 7 Kal xaptéorepov eidos 7) TO PYLNTUKOY ;
@EAI. Ovdapds: amdpmodAv yap eipyKas eldos els ev travtTa EvdrdraBwv Kat oxedov TrotKtAwTartov.
22. zE. Ovdxody tov y’ tricyvotpevov Suvarov elvat ud Téxvyn TaVvTA TroLEty yryvwoKo[eEV TOU TOUTO, OTL PUyLnMaTA Kal OmwVvUsLA TOV OVvTWY amepyalouevos TH ypadicn téxvyn Suvatos eorau Tovs avorntous TOV véwy Taidwy, moppwlev Ta yeypappeva emodexvis, AavOdvew ws OTiTEep av BovAnO4 Spav, rodto tkavwratos @v amoteXeiv Epyo.
C oat. lds yap ov;
Brule de 8n; Tept TOUS Aoyous dp’ ov ™poo- Soxdpev elvai Two. aAAny TEXVNY, 7) av Suvarov ¢ ov TuyXaveEL 1 rods véous Kal ETL TOppw TOV TpaypaTov THs aAnfeias afeot@ras dia TOV atwv Tots Adyots yonTevew, SexvivTas €lowAa Aeyopeva TEpl TAVTWY, wote trovety aAnOh doKeiv AéyeoOar Kat Tov A€éyovra 67) cofwtatov mavTwv amavT eiva;
D oat. Ti yap otk av eln adAdAn Tis ToLadTn
/,
TEXVN);
ZE. Tods moAdods otv, @ Meaitnte, THY TdTE aKovdvTwY Gp ovK avdyKn ypovov Te émeADdvTOs avTois tkavod Kal mpotovons 1AuKias Tots TE ovat mpoonimrovras eyyvbev Kai 61a TAaOnLdTwY avayKa- Copevouvs evapy@s éedamrecbar THv ovTwv, peTa-
17 av Suvardyv dv tvyxdvee Burnet; 7 (9 T) od duvardy ab tuyxdvew BT; 7 dv duvardy ab rvyxdve. Madvig.
328
THE SOPHIST
price in a little time, must we not consider that a joke?
THEAET. Surely we must.
str. And is there any more artistic or charming kind of joke than the imitative kind ?
THEAET. Certainly not; for it is of very frequent occurrence and, if I may say so, most diverse. Your expression is very comprehensive.
str. And so we recognize that he who professes to be able by virtue of a single art to make all things will be able by virtue of the painter’s art, to make imitations which have the same names as the real things, and by showing the pictures at a distance will be able to deceive the duller ones among young children into the belief that he is perfectly able to accomplish in fact whatever he wishes to do.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Well then, may we not expect to find that there is another art which has to do with words, by virtue of which it is possible to bewitch the young through their ears with words while they are still standing at a distance from the realities of truth, by exhibiting to them spoken images of all things, so as to make it seem that they are true and that the speaker is the wisest of all men in all things?
THEAET. Why should there not be such another art?
str. Now most of the hearers, Theaetetus, when they have lived longer and grown older, will per- force come closer to realities and will be forced by sad experience ! openly to lay hold on realities ; they
1 Apparently a reference to a proverbial expression. Cf. Hesiod, Works, 216 éyyw mwadwy; Herodotus, i. 207 ra TadnuaTa padnuara.
329
E
B
PLATO
BaMew Tas TOTE yevopévas dd€as, dare opuuKpa pev paiveoBar Ta peydAa, xahema dé Ta padia., Kal mdvTa mavTn avatetpad0ar ta ev Tots Adyors davtadopata v7o Tav ev Tais mpakgeow Epywv TAPAyEVvojLevanv ;
@EAI. ‘Os yotv euol TnAuK@de OvrTe Kpivar. oipat d€ Kal ee TOV ETL TOppwHev adeoTynKdTWwY e€ivat.
ZE. Tovyapody els ce olde mavtes Teipacducba Kal vov Teipwpcba ws éyy¥Tata avev THY TaOnudTwv mpooayew. epi & ovv tot codioTod TddE pou Aéye> mdTEpov 75n TobTO cadés, OTL THV yornTwv eoTt TIS, peyntns Q@v TOV OVTWY, 7 dvoralomev ETL [47) arept OOWVTEpP av7iAéyew doxet dvvatos elvan, TeEpt ToooUTwy Kal Tas éemorTHuas aAnOds exwv TVYX VEL;
@FAI. Kat m@s av, & E€ve; adda oyedov 757 cades ek TOV Elpyuevwv, OTL TOV THS TrALOLAS PET- EXOVTWY EaTl TLS €is.t
zE. [Tonra pev 67) Kal pupntnvy dpa Oeréov
b) / avTov Twa.
eFAl. IIs yap od Deréov ;
23. EE. “Aye 6, vov 7}. €pov epyov 70 TOV Ojpa pner’ avetvat’ oayedov yap avrov mepterhy) -
aplev ev dupeBAnor pice Tue TOY ev yrats Adyots TEpt Ta ToLadTa dpydvav, WoTe ovKEeT * ExhevEeTaL TOOE Ye.
@EAI. To? zotov;
1 rs els Heusde; ris pepav els BT (giving els to the stranger) ; Tus wep@y els
2 obxér’ W 3; ovk ére B3 ovx T.
376 W; om. BT.
330
THE SOPHIST
will have to change the opinions which they had at first accepted, so that what was great will appear small and what was easy, difficult, and all the apparent truths in arguments will be turned topsy-turvy by the facts that have come upon them in real life. Is not this true?
THEAET. Yes, at least so far as one of my age can judge. But I imagine I am one of those who are still standing at a distance.
str. Therefore all of us elders here will try, and are now trying, to bring you as near as possible without the sad experience. So answer this question about the sophist: Is this now clear, that he is a kind of a juggler, an imitator of realities, or are we still uncertain whether he may not truly possess the knowledge of all the things about which he seems to be able to argue?
THEAET. How could that be, my dear sir? Surely it is pretty clear by this time from what has been said that he is one of those whose business is enter- tainment.
str. That is to say, he must be classed as a juggler and imitator.
THEAET. Of course he must.
str. Look sharp, then; it is now our business not to let the beast get away again, for we have almost got him into a kind of encircling net of the devices we employ in arguments about such subjects, so that he will not now escape the next thing.
THEAET, What next thing?
331
PLATO
zE. To pa] od Tob yévous elvat Tob TOV Bavpato- Tow Tis ets.
@EAI. Kajol tobt6 ye ovTw epi adbtod Evvdoket.
cE. Acdoxtat! toivuy 6tt TaxLoTa Suaipety THY elOwdomouKny Téxvnv, Kal KaTaBavTas els adTnHy, eav ev nuas evOds 6 codioTis Umopelvn, cvAAaBetv avTov Kara, Ta emeoTa\ueva ro TOU Baothucob
C Aoyou, KGKELVO) Tapadovras amopivat THY adypav: eav 0 dpa Kata Epy TiS pUNTUKTS dUnTat 77, Evvaroovbety avTa Ovapodvras Gael TV b7r08€Xo- perny QvTov potpay, eEworrep av Ano. TAaVTWS OUTE OUTOS ovTe aAXo yevos ovdeV Ly) TOTE EKpUYOV emevey Tat THY Tov ouTw duvapevwy peTievar Kal? EKGOTA TE Kal ETL mayTo. peBodov. @EAI. Ayes ed, Kal TAaOTA TAUTY TOUnTEoV. zE. Kara o) TOV mapehnAvbora TpoTrov Tihs D S.raipécews eywye fou Kal viv daivopat vo kaflopay elon THs pysnTucts” _THV be CyToupevny id€av, ev Omotépw Tol” Het ovoa TuyxXavel, KaTO- pabety oddémw jot SoKe vov duvatos elvan.
@EAI. Lv 6° add’ eimé mp@rov Kat diede Hiv,
ve Ta So réEyeus.
ZE. Miov pev tiv elkaoriKyy opa@v ev adTh TEXVIV cote 8 ary pahora, omroray Kara Tas TOU Tmapadelyparos oupLeTpias TLS év pacer Kal mAdTEL Kal Baber, Kal T™pos TOUTOLS a Xpwpara
K amobidods TA TMpoorjkKovTa EkdoTOLS,2 THY TOO [LULL LATOS yeveow amepyalyrar.
@EAl. Ti 8’; od mavres of pyovpevot te TOOT
emixyepovor dSpav;
1 6€doxrar] dédecxrac BT ; Sedecxrar W. 2 éxdoros Stobaeus, W 3 éxdoras BT.
332
THE SOPHIST
str. The conclusion that he belongs to the class of conjurers.
THEAET. I agree to that opinion of him, too.
str. It is decided, then, that we will as quickly as possible divide the image-making art and go down into it, and if the sophist stands his ground against us at first, we will seize him by the orders of reason, our king, then deliver him up to the king and display his capture. But if he tries to take cover in any of the various sections of the imitative art, we must follow him, always dividing the section into which he has retreated, until he is caught. For assuredly neither he nor any other creature will ever boast of having escaped from pursuers who are able to follow up the pursuit in detail and everywhere in this methodical way.
THEAET. Youareright. That is what we must do.
str. To return, then, to our previous method of division, I think I see this time also two classes of mitation, but I do not yet seem to be able to make out in which of them the form we are seeking is to be found.
THEAET. Please first make the division and tell us what two classes you mean.
str. I see the likeness-making art as one part of imitation. This is met with, as a rule, whenever anyone produces the imitation by following the proportions of the original in length, breadth, and depth, and giving, besides, the appropriate colours to each part.
THEAET. Yes, but do not all imitators try to do
this ?
333
PLATO
ZE. Ovxovv dco ye TOV preydAwy tov Tt mAaTTOU- ow Epywv 7 ypadovaw. Et yap arrod.dotey Thy TOV KaAav adnBuwyv cuppetpiav, otof ot. opiKpdotepa
236 wev tod SéovTos Ta avw, peilw dé Ta KaTw daivo.r ay dua TO Ta Lev TOppwlev, TA 8 eyyvOev th Hua opacba.
@FAI. Tave pev ovv 1
eE. “Ap” ovv od Xaipew TO aAnfes €aoavtTes of Onpuoupyor vov od Tas ovaas ovppeTplas, aAAd Tas dofovaas elvat KaAas Tots etdwAots evarrepyalovTat;
@zAI. Ilavu pev ovv
ZE. To pcv dpa érepov od dtxatov, elkds ye ov, elKova KaAEtV;
oral. Nai.
BE. Kai THs YE pyyTucijs TO €mt Tour }Hépos KAnTéov, OmEp ElTojev ev TH TpPdOUeEV, ElkacTLKNV;
@EAI. KAnréov.
BE. Tt d€; To hawodpevov pev dua THY ovK eK Kadob Dea EOLK EVAL TH KAA®, dvvapew dé el TUS AdBou Ta. THAuKabra tKAVO@S opay, pnd elkos @ dnow couceva, TL Kahobper ; dp ovK, émeimep paiverat prev, Eorke O€ Ov, davTacpa;
@EAI. Tt perv;
BE. Odxoby mayuTrohv Kab KATA THD Cwypadpiay
C totro 70 pépos €oTl Kal KaTa EVuTTAGAY LYyLNTUKND ;
@EAI. Ids 8° ov;
zE. [jv ey pavracpa ° adn’ odK elkova dmepya.- Couevynv téxvynv dp od davtacrikyy dpOdrar av TMpooayopevolpter ;
1 rdavu pev odv T, Stobaeus; om. B.
2 wavu pev ody BT; ravrdmaci ye W. 3 davracua W; davrdopara BT.
334
THE SOPHIST
str. Not those who produce some large work of sculpture or painting. For if they reproduced the true proportions of beautiful forms, the upper parts, you know, would seem smaller and the lower parts larger than they ought, because we see the former from a distance, the latter from near at hand.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. So the artists abandon the truth and give their figures not the actual proportions but those which seem to be beautiful, do they not ?
THEAET. Certainly.
str. That, then, which is other, but like, we may fairly call a likeness, may we not?
THEAET. Yes.
str. And the part of imitation which is concerned with such things, is to be called, as we called it before, likeness-making ?
THEAET. It is to be so called.
str. Now then, what shall we call that which appears, because it is seen from an unfavourable position, to be like the beautiful, but which would not even be likely to resemble that which it claims to be like, if a person were able to see such large works adequately? Shall we not call it, since it appears, but is not like, an appearance ?
THEAET. Certainly.
str. And this is very common in painting and in all imitation?
THEAET. Of course.
str. And to the art which produces appearance, but not likeness, the most correct name we could give would be “ fantastic art,” would it not?
335
237
PLATO
@£AI. IloAv ye.
EE. Tovrw ToLvUuv TW Svo EXeyov €ldn THs €tdwAo- TOUKTS, el QOT URRY Kal pavTaoTiKkyy.
@EAI. “Opbas.
EE. “O 6€ ye Kal To7’ Tpeyvoory, € ev! trotepa? Tov codioTny Oeréov, ode viv Tw vvapar Oe cla. cadds, arn’ ovTws Oavpacros avnp* Kal KaTLoeEty mayxdNemos, evel Kal vov pada «bd Kal Kopisas els amopov eidos Stepevvyjcacbar Kara- mépevyev.
@EAI. "Kouxev.
zE. “Ap otv atTo yuyvwokwv Evpudys, 7 OE olov Pe TUS bro 708 Aoyou cuvetOiojevov auverre- omdacato* mpos TO TAXD Supgijoa;
eEAI. Ids Kat mpos tt> TovTO elpnkas ;
24 EES Oprais, a paxdpre, €ojiev ev TavTd.- TAL xarer A oxerper. TO yap paivecba ToOTO Kat TO Ooxely, elvan de LN, Kal TO Aéyew peev drra, dAnOA Sé un, mavTa Tabrd éote weoTa amropias det ev T Tpdobev ypovw Kal viv. Omws yap elmovTa xXp7) Wevdh A€yew 7 do€alew ovTws elvar, Kal TOUTO pleyEdpevov evavtioroyia py ovvexecOoar, mravTa- Tacw, ® Wecaitnte, yaderov.
oral. Ti 57;
BE. TeroAunkev o Aoyos obros drrobecbat TO 7) ov elvat: ipedOos yap ovK av addws eylyveTo ov. Ilappevidns b€ 6 péyas, @ mal, Tao Hut otow
1
1 éy add. Bessarionis liber. 2 motépa B; mérepa TW. 3 avnp Bekker; davip BT. 4 gwenecrdcato W ; viv érecrdacato BT.
5 ri W; brn BT. 336
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. By all means.
str. These, then, are the two forms of the image- making art that I meant, the likeness-making and the fantastic.
THEAET. You are right.
str. But I was uncertain before in which of the two the sophist should be placed, and even now I cannot see clearly. The fellow is really wonderful and very difficult to keep in sight, for once more, in the very cleverest manner he has withdrawn into a bafiling classification where it is hard to track him.
THEAET. So it seems.
str. Do you assent because you recognize the fact, or did the force of habit hurry you along to a speedy assent ?
THEAET. What do you mean, and why did you say that ?
str. We are really, my dear friend, engaged in a very difficult investigation; for the matter of appearing and seeming, but not being, and of saying things, but not true ones—all this is now and always has been very perplexing. You see, Theaetetus, it is extremely difficult to understand how a man is to say or think that falsehood really exists and in saying this not be involved in contradiction.
THEAET. Why?
str. This statement involves the bold assumption that not-being exists, for otherwise falsehood could not come into existence. But the great Parmenides, my boy, from the time when we were children to
337
PLATO
GpYomevos TE Kal dua TeAovs TobTo dmepapTupato, mel Te Woe ExdoToTE A€ywr Kal ETA METPWV"
b) \ / ~ PS) a1 / > Nis ee, ov yap fy ToTEe TOUTO Sapuy,! Pyotr, eivar py eovTa:
GArAd ad Thad ad’ 6606 Silijpevos * eipye vonua.
Tap excelvou TE OvV Bupmu eos Kal pdadora ye O71) mdvTwv Oo Aoyos avros * av dyAcoeve peTpia Bacaviobels. todto obv abro mp@tTov Veaowpeba, el py Ti cot diadéper. \ \ > \ Ld if / A \ @kAI. To prev emov omy Bovrer TiBeoo, Tov O€ Aoyov 7 BeArvoro. dueLerou oKoT@y avtos te i Kale KATO Tavrny THY OdoV G dye. °AdAd ) f déeye: 25. HE. a xp7 Spav rabra. Kat pou Aéye ~ A ~ TO pndap@s ov ToAua@pev tov Pbéyyecbar; ~ 4 eEAI. [Ids yap ov; / li A zE. M1 rolvuy epidos evexa pndé mradids, aN el omovdn* dé0. ovvvoyjcavTa Twa amoxpivacba TOV akpoaTa@v tot xp7 Tovvoy’ emup€epew TovTO TO pt) Ov TL® SoKodpev av eis Ti Kal emt Totov adbTov Te Kataypnoacban Kat TH TUVOavojevw SerkVvUvat; @EAI. XaAemrov ypov Kal oyedov elmetvy ow ye €u“ol TavTaTacw amopov. zE. “AM ovv totré ye ShAov, OTe THY ovTwY émt Tu ® TO put) Ov OUK OlOTEOV. eral. [las yap av; ee b) A > / b) CA | A + 9Q9> SEN \ =E. Odxoty émeimep ovK én TO dv, 00d Emi TO ti depwv opbads av tis Pépor. 1 zo0To dauy Simplicius; rob7’ ovdauy BT. 2 Sufjuevos BTW (digjovos 258 D). 3 aitos W; otros BT.
4 G\N ei crovdn Bekker 3 G&Adys 70d 6) B; add} orovdy T. 5 rl} ore TW. 8 +.om. BT.
338
THE SOPHIST
the end of his life, always protested against this and constantly repeated both in prose and in verse :
Never let this thought prevail, saith he, that not-being is ; But keep your mind from this way of investigation.
So that is his testimony, and a reasonable examina- tion of the statement itself would make it most absolutely clear. Let us then consider this matter first, if it’s all the same to you.
THEAET. Assume my consent to anything you wish. Consider only the argument, how it may best be pursued; follow your own course, and take me along with you.
str. Very well, then. Now tell me; do we venture to use the phrase absolute not-being?
THEAET. Of course.
str. If, then, not merely for the sake of discussion or as a joke, but seriously, one of his pupils were asked to consider and answer the question “To what is the designation ‘not-being’ to be applied ?” how do we think he would reply to his questioner, and how would he apply the term, for what purpose, and to what object ?
THEAET. That is a difficult question; I may say that for a fellow like me it is unanswerable.
str. But this is clear, anyhow, that the term “not-being ” cannot be applied to any being.
THEAET. Of course not.
str. And if not to being, then it could not properly be applied to something, either.
339
PLATO
@kAI. I1ds 57;
D ze. Kai totro yuiv ov davepov, ws Kal TO is Tl i‘ ToUTo payee em OvTt A€yopev. EKAOTOTE™ pLovov yap adro Aéyew, WoTep ‘yupvov Kal aarnpnpen- feevov amo TOV OvTwWY aTdvTWwY, adUVaTOV: 7% yap;
egal. “Advvatov.
> mn = , ad sae ,
zE. “Apa ride oxoTaev Evpdns Ws avdyKn Tov Tt Aéyovra ev yé tu r€yew;
@EAI. Outws.
ind ¢ \ \ \ / \ 99 , A
HE. “Evos yap 57 76 ye “7” dioers onpetov eivat, TO d€ “ TwWe’”” dSvoty, TO dE “ TWes’””’ TOAADY.
eEAI. II1@s yap ov;
E ze. Tov 6é O7) py TL A€yovTa avayKaoTatov, Ws €0LKE, TrAaVTaTTAGL pendev Aéyew.
@FAI. “AvayKaroratov pev ovr.
zE. “Ap ovv ovdé TodTo ovyywpnTtéov, TO TOV
~ A / / ak py / / 8 , LAN’
Toodrov AEeyew pv, A€yew pévror pyndev, a
xO / / Ld > aN 2 ond Oy / ovoe A€yew Patéov, os y’ av emiyeiph p71) Ov POey- yeoba;
@EAI. Tédos yotv ay dzropias ) Adyos € EXOU.
238 (203 EE. Mira pey elms” ETL yep, @ pa- Kdpte, eo, KQL tabrd ye TOV _ drropuav 7 peylory Kal mpory. TEpt yap adTnv avTobd THY apxiV ovca TVYXAVEL.
@FAI. las Piss déye Kal pndev aToKVHOYS.
HE. Té fev OVTL TOU mpooyevolT av TE TOV OVTWwY ETEpPOV;
~ A ”
@EAI. Il@s yap ov;
= \ + PS) / 2 ~ + > / @
BE. My) ovre b€ 7? TH OvTwv dpa Tpoayiyvecbas dycouev Suvarov etvar;
t udy r. BT; re om. Schieiermacher, 2 dvre 6€ Ti] bv 66 Te B3 dvre Se T.
it
340
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. How could it?
_ str. And this is plain to us, that we always use the word “something” of some being, for to speak of “something”’ in the abstract, naked, as it were, and disconnected from all beings is impossible, is it not?
THEAET. Yes, it is.
str. You assent because you recognize that he who says something must say some one thing?
THEAET. Yes.
str. And you will agree that “something” or “some” in the singular is the sign of one, in the dual of two, and in the plural of many.
THEAET. Of course.
str. And he who says not something, must quite necessarily say absolutely nothing.
THEAET. Quite necessarily.
str. Then we cannot even concede that such a person speaks, but says nothing? We must even declare that he who undertakes to say “ not-being”’ does not speak at all?
THEAET. The argument could go no further in perplexity.
str. Boast not too soon! For there still remains, my friend, the first and greatest of perplexities. It affects the very beginning of the matter.
THEAET. What do you mean? Do not hesitate to speak.
str. To that which is may be added or attributed some other thing which is?
THEAET. Of course.
str. But shall we assert that to that which is not anything which is can be attributed ?
341
PLATO
@EAI. Kal mas; > \ \ A lf ~~ + , EE. “ApiOuov 67 tov Edurravra TOV ovrwv TiDenev. OEAI. Kizrep ye Kal dMo tu Oetéov ws ov. HE. My Tolvuy bee ETN ELPA LEV apibod pyre mAnG0s pte TO év T™pos TO py OV mpoopepew. @EAI. OvKovy av oplds ye, ws eoukev, emyet- potev, ws dynow o Adyos. zE. [ids ovv dv 7) dia Tob ordpatos PbéyEaito dy TUS. 7 Kal TH dvavotg TO Tapdmav AdBou Ta pH OVTa 7) TO [7) OV Xwpis apiOuod; @FAI. Aeye Hs a 2 \ / Dy ’ A ZE. My) ovra prev erecdav Aéywpev, Gpa od 7AnGos emiyetpovpev apiOuod mpooriléva; @FAI. Tt uy; zE. Mz ov d€, dpa ov To &v ad; @EAI. Laddorara ye. PS, \ \ a / / a 3 / zE. Kai pry ovre Sixaidv ye ovte opldv dapev OV eETLYELpEtV 47) OVTL TPOGApELOTTELW. @EAI. Adyeis adnOéorara. ZE. Luvvoets otv ws ovte PléyEacbar Suvarov opOds ovr’ eimety ovTE SiavonOAvar TO pu) Ov adbTo > ¢e / > > ” > / / \ x Kal’ atto, ad €oTw advavdéntov Te Kal appyTov Kat apleyxtov Kat adoyov; @EAI. [lavramace prev Ovv. EE. “Ap” oy eevoduny apre éywv THY peyl- oTHY aTropiav Soe avToo TmEpLs EAI. Tod de * €ru petCw Twa Aéyew ddAqy € EXOMLEV 5 BE. Ti 62,2 & Oavpdote; odK evvoets adbtots Tots
1 rod 6¢ in marg. T; 7éde BT; 76 6¢ W3 ri 6é in marg. al.; To dé (ri dé) . . . €xouey attributed to the Stranger by Winckelmann ‘and others.
vi 6€ B; rl dat T; riva 67 Winckelmann and others.
342
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Certainly not.
str. Now we assume that all number is among the things which are.
THEAET. Yes, if anything can be assumed to be.
str. Then let us not even undertake to attribute either the singular or the plural of number to not- being.
THEAET. We should, apparently, not be right in undertaking that, as our argument shows.
str. How then could a man either utter in speech or even so much as conceive in his mind things which are not, or not-being, apart from number ?
THEAET. Tell me how number is involved in such conceptions.
str. When we say “things which are not,” do we not attribute plurality to them?
THEAET. Certainly.
str. And in saying “a thing which is not,” do we not equally attribute the singular number ?
THEAET. Obviously.
str. And yet we assert that it is neither right nor fair to undertake to attribute being to nee bee:
THEAET. Very true.
str. Do you see, then, that it is oe rightly to utter or to say or to think of not-being without any attribute, but it is a thing inconceivable, inex- pressible, unspeakable, irrational ?
THEAET. Absolutely.
str. Then was I mistaken just now in saying that the difficulty I was going to speak of was the greatest in our subject ?
THEAET. But is there a still greater one that we can mention?
str. Why, my dear fellow, don’t you see, by the
343
PLATO
A ¢ A \ ° / ’ > / , AexPeiow ott Kai Tov éA€yyovTa eis amropiav Kabl- OTHGL TO [Ln Ov OUTWS, WOTE, OTOTAV AUTO ETLYELPT
~ A A tis ede€yyew, evavTia adTov atT@ epi ekeivo avaykalecbar Aéyew;
@EAI. I1ds dis; etme Ett cadéotepov.
ie 2O\ A \ , 5) 5) \ ~
ZE. Ovdev det to cadéotepov ev emot oKo7etv.
la ~
Eéeyw pev yap t7o0duevos ovte evos ovTe TAY ~ A A ~ ToAA@Y TO pn Ov SEety peTexXELV, ApTL TE KaL VoV
7 » / / oUTwWs Ev AUTO ElpnKa: TO [1 Ov yap dnt. Evvins TOL;
eEAI. Nat.
EE. Kat pny ad Kai opixpov eumpoober adbey- KTOV TE AUTO Kal appyTov Kal dAoyov Eedyy eivat. €vvéere;
@EAI. Huveéropa. m&s yap ov;
~ Ss ,
EE. Ovxodv 76 ye eivar mpooamrew Teipwevos ’ , A / ”
939 evavTta TOLS mpoobev eAeyov 5
EAI. DMaiver.
eS / / ~ / 0) e ee
zE. Ti d€; toiro mpocantwy ody wes evi SueAe-
A YOR;
eral. Nat.
ie \ \ ” / , Cbey \
EE. Kat pyv adoydov te A€ywv Kal appyTov Kat apleyKTov ws ye pos Ev TOV Adyov EmoLovpny.
eEAI. II1ds 8’ ov;
EE. Dapev dé ye dei, eltep dp0ds tis AcE,
/ € a“ / e \ / >) ji XN \ PTE Ws Ev NTE ws TOoAAG Siopilew adro, unde TO
A A A mapamav avTo KaAdetv: ێvos yap eldeL Kal KaTa TAUTYV AV THY TpoOapyoWw TpocayopEvatTo.
@EAI. Ilavrdzaoi ye.
344
THE SOPHIST
very arguments we have used, that not-being reduces him who would refute it to such difficulties that when he attempts to refute it he is forced to contradict himself ?
THEAET. What do you mean? Speak still more clearly.
str. You must not look for more clearness in me; for although I maintained that not-being could have nothing to do with either the singular or the plural number, I spoke of it just now, and am still speaking of it, as one; for I say “that which is not.” You understand surely ?
THEAET. Yes.
str. And again a little while ago I said it was inexpressible, unspeakable, irrational. Do you follow me?
THEAET. Yes, of course.
str. Then when I[ undertook to attach the verb “to be’ to not-being I was contradicting what I said before.
THEAET. Evidently.
str. Well, then; when I attached this verb to it, did I not address it in the singular?
THEAET. Yes.
str. And when I called it irrational, inexpressible, and unspeakable, I addressed my speech to it as singular.
THEAET. Of course you did.
str. But we say that, if one is to speak correctly, one must not define it as either singular or plural, and must not even call it “it” at all; for even by this manner of referring to it one would be giving it the form of the singular.
THEAET. Certainly.
M 345
PLATO
B 27. se. Tov prev toivwv éuéd y érw ti tis} av A€éyou; Kat yap mdAat Kal Ta viv ATTHWEvov av ev pou Tepl TOV TOU pa) OVTOS édeyxov. WOTE ev euouye A€yovtt, Kabdmrep elmov, pe GROneaprey THY Teed TEept TO py OV, GAN’ eta ® b7) viv ev Goi oKepopcba.
oral. Has gus:
eE. "IO. Hytv ed Kat yervaiws, ATE veos wv, ore pdrdvora dvvacat ovvTetvas TreipdOyte, urjTE ovatav purjre TO év pyre mAjOos apibuod mpoorets TO [L1) ovtt, KaTa TO OpOov® dbéyEacbai tt Tept adrod.
C EAI. IfoAAn evr” av pe Kal dromos EXOL Tpo- Oupia THS ETLXELPITEWS, ei oé towadl? dpav TaoXOVTA avros emxepoiny.
EE. “AN el Ookel, o€ ev Kal ejue Yatpew eOpev: ews 5 av TWt Suvaperey dpav TobTo evTuyXdVeLEY, pexpt TOUTOU Adywpev ws TavTos LaAXov tavotpyws els dmopov 6 aodioTys TOTOV KaTAdéduKeEV.
@EAI. Kai dda 67) daiverac.
zE. Tovyapodv et twa Pycopev adrov exew dav-
D taorikyny Téxvnv, padiws eK Tav’TYNS THs . xpelas tov rAOywv OIE nL@V els TobvayTiov dmoaTpexfer * TOUS Adyous, oTav edwAorro.ov avTov KaA@pev, dvepwT av Tt ToTE TO Tapdmay <ldwov Aéyopev. oxkorretv otv, ® Wecaityte, ypH, Ti Tus
~ / A NA) , > A T@ VEAVIA TIPOS TO EPWTWLLEVOV aTTOKpLWEtTaL.
@EAI. AxAov ore dijocopev Ta TE ev Tots Vdact Kal KaToTTpols elowda, ETL Kal Ta yeypaypmeva Kal Ta TeTUTMpEVA Kal TAAAa Goa Tov ToLadT eof? ETEpA..
l dud y’ ru ri Tis] eué Te Te Ths Bs eué ye @re rus T3 ewe @ru rh TES We 2 eia Bessarion’s copy ; éa BT.
346
THE SOPHIST
str. But poor me, what can anyone say of me any longer? For you would find me now, as always before, defeated in the refutation of not-being. So, as I said before, we must not look to me for correct- ness of speech about not-being. But come now, let us look to you for it.
THEAET. What do you mean?
str. Come, I beg of you, make a sturdy effort, young man as you are, and try with might and main to say something correctly about not-being, without attributing to it either existence or unity or plurality.
THEAET. But I should be possessed of great and absurd eagerness for the attempt, if I were to undertake it with your experience before my eyes.
str. Well, if you like, let us say no more of you and me; but until we find someone who can accomplish this, let us confess that the sophist has in most rascally fashion hidden himself in a place we cannot explore.
THEAET. That seems to be decidedly the case.
str. And so, if we say he has an art, as it were, of making appearances, he will easily take advantage of our poverty of terms to make a counter attack, twisting our words to the opposite meaning; when we call him an image-maker, he will ask us what we mean by “image,” exactly. So, Theaetetus, we must see what reply is to be made to the young man’s question.
THEAET. Obviously we shall reply that we mean the images in water and in mirrors, and those in paintings, too, and sculptures, and all the other things of the same sort.
3 7d é6p0dv B; rdv dpOdv Adyov T. * doorpé pe corr. T; drorpévec BTW. 347
PLATO
Ss , E 28. zE. Davepds, & @eairnte, ef codiorny oby Ewpakus. oral. Te 57; / f av / > ” zE. Ad&er cor pew TavTaTacw ovK exew OUpLara. eFAI. Ilds; A > / ef Ld >] ~ ~ oA zE. Tv amoxptow oTav ottTws atT@ dbid@s éav €v KaTOTTpoLs 7) TAGOpacL Aéyys TL, KaTayeAdGETAl cov tav Adywv, dTav ws PrEmovt. éEyns atta, 240 mpoomo.ovpevos oUTE KATOTTpA OUTE VOaTAa ‘yLyVvad- okew oUTE TO Tapamay ow, TO O° Ex TOV Adywr EpwTHTE GE [LOVoV. eEAI. Llotov; \ \ / / “A \ > \ zE. To ua mdvrwv TovTaV 4 moAAa e€tmev 7gtwoas € Ev mpooeurety Ovopare pleyEdpevos €low- Aov emi maow ws ev ov. Héye odv Kal autvov pndev tmoxwp@v Tov avdpa. oFAl. Ti dfjTa, & Eeve, cidwdAov av daipnev eivar mAnv ye TO TpOs TAAUOWov apwpowwpevov ETEpoV TOLOUTOD ; BE. “Erepov de Aeyers To.otrov aAnfuev, 7) émt Bri TO Towotrov eEtzes; @EAI. Ovdapds adndiov ye, add’ eouxos wey. > V3 \ ” n , EE. “Apa 70 aAndwov dvtws ov éywv; @EAI. Outws. EE. Ti dé; 70 px) adAnOwov dp’ evarvriov adnbods; @EAI. Ti pv; — ’ y+ 1 nN 2 ” / \ b] / ” zE. Ovdx ovtws} dv? dpa r€yets TO E€oLKOS, EtzTEp avTo ye pn aAnOwov épets.
1 tytws W; dvtwv B; om. Ty 2 ov T; ovxdv B; ovx dv WL
348
THE SOPHIST
str. It is evident, Theaetetus, that you never saw a sophist.
THEAET. Why?
str. He will make you think his eyes are shut or he has none at all.
THEAET. How so?
str. When you give this answer, if you speak of something in mirrors or works of art, he will laugh at your words, when you talk to him as if he could see. He will feign ignorance of mirrors and water and of sight altogether, and will question you only about that which is deduced from your words.
THEAET. What is that?
str. That which exists throughout all these things which you say are many but which you saw fit to call by one name, when you said “image” of them all, as if they were all one thing. So speak and defend yourself. Do not give way to the man at all.
THEAET. Why, Stranger, what can we say an image is, except another such thing fashioned in the likeness of the true one?
str. Do you mean another such true one, or in what sense did you say “such”’?
THEAET. Not a true one by any means, but only one like the true.
srr. And by the true you mean that which really is?
THEAET. Exactly.
str. And the not true is the opposite of the true ?
THEAET. Of course.
str. That which is like, then, you say does not really exist, if you say it is not true.
349
PLATO
eral. "A\’ eore ye ujv ws} EE. Ovxovv? adndas Ve, Pus. @EAI. Ov Yop, ovv: qv y etkeoy ovTws. EE. Ovdx ov? apa * dvtws eotiv d6vTws Hv réyoper ’ / e(kova;
C oFal. Kuvduvever toradrny twa memAéyOar ovp-
mAoK}V TO [7) OV TO GvTL, Kal dda aToTOV.
zE. I1@s yap ovK« atomov; opas yobv drt Kat viv Oud Ths emadAdfews TAvTNS fe} tohucepados copiers qydy Karey nLas TO [1 OV OvX EKdVTAS OpodoyetY elval Trws.
@EAI. “Op® kat pada.
BE. Ti d€ 5; tiv téxyvyv atrod tiva adopi- caves Hiv abtots cvupdwvetv olol Te EadpcOa;
egal. Il Kat ro motdv te hoBovpevos ovTw déyets ;
D ze. “Orav zepi to davracpa atrov anata POpev Kal Thy TEXVHV Eelval TWA ararnTeKyy avdrod, TOTE TOT Epov pevd4 Sofdlew THV foxy TLV pycopev b7r0 THs exeivou TEXVIS, 7 Tl TOT Epovpev;
@EAI. Totro: ti yap av aAdo eimaev;
zE. Vevdns 8° ad dd€a €orat tavavtia Tots ovat dofalovaa, 7 THs;
@EAl. Tavartia.
zE. Aéyeis dpa Ta pr) ovta So€dlew THv Pevdh dd€av;
@kAl. “Avayry.
E ze. IIdrepov pr) etvar Ta, pn ovta do€dlovaar, H TwWs evar TA pNdapas ovTa;
1 rws Hermann; 7s; BT (the previous words being given to the stranger). 2 otkouv W; ovxotv T; ovxoy B.
350
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. But it does exist, in a way.
str. But not truly, you mean.
THEAET. No, except that it is really a likeness.
str. Then what we call a likeness, though not really existing, really does exist?
THEAET. Not-being does seem to have got into some such entanglement with being, and it is very absurd.
str. Of course it is absurd. You see, at any rate, how by this interchange of words the many-headed sophist has once more forced us against our will to admit that not-being exists in a way.
THEAET. Yes, I see that very well.
str. Well then, how can we define his art without contradicting ourselves ?
THEAET. Why do you say that? What are you afraid of ?
str. When, in talking about appearance, we say that he deceives and that his art is an art of decep- tion, shall we say that our mind is misled by his art to hold a false opinion, or what shall we say?
THEAET. We shall say that. What else could we say?
str. But, again, false opinion will be that which thinks the opposite of reality, will it not?
THEAET. Yes.
str. You mean, then, that false opinion thinks things which are not ?
THEAET. Necessarily.
str. Does it think that things which are not, are not, or that things which are not at all, in some sense are?
3 odk by] obxdv B3 ovbx ody T. 4 doa Badham; dpa ovx BT. 351
PLATO
@FAl. Etat WS Ta, [7) Ovta Set ye, eimep Wev- GETAL TOTE TiS Tu Kal KaTO Bpaxy.
zE. Tid’; ov Kai undapds etvar Ta TaVTWs dvTa do€alerar;
/
@caAl. Nae.
wE. Kat todro 81) peddos;
@EAI. Kat todrto.
zE. Kat Adyos, ofwar, fevdis ovTw Kata TadTa 3
24] vop.cOyjoeTa Ta Te OvTA A€ywv py Elva Kal TA p11) ovra elvat. ~ A vA ” 2 ~ vA
@eEAI. Ils yap av addws ® TowodTos yévorto;
\ ’ a > \ A e A
BE. Lyedov otdayds: adda Tatra 6 coders ov doe. 7) Tis pnXYavn ovyxwpely Twa THY ra) dpovovvtwy, otav adleyKta Kat appyra Kal Groya Kal aodvavonta mpodwwpodAoyneva 3 yi) Ta 7790 TovTwv opodoynbevta; pavOavouev, & Mcairyre, a rA€yer*
w~ A b) / Lid > Ul
@EAI. Ids yap ov pavOavojev OTL TavavTia prjoer Aéyew mpas Tots viv 67), pevd7 Tohunoavras etrreiy ws éoTw €v So§ats Te KaL Kara Adyous ; TO
Byap p12) vt. TO ov mTpocamrTeL pas modes dvayxaleabar, doporAoyynoapéevous viv 57 mov TobTo elval TavTwY advvaTwTaToV.
29. #ZE. “Optas dire npovevoas. aAd’ cpa S oy BovretoacBa ° Tt xp?) dpav Tob copuaToo Tepe Tas yap avr iArifers Kal azropias, eav adrov dte- pevvOpev ev TH TOV PevdoupyOv Kat yontwv Téxvn tWevtes, Opas ws EVTopoL Kat TroAAat.
1 ratra Stobaeus ; radra radta B; radra T3 ravra radra W.
2 &dws W, Stobaeus; d&ddos BT.
3 rpodiwuoroynudva T 3 mpocdiwuoroynucva B; dpbeyxta... ad.avénra om. Madvig, Schanz, Burnet.
352
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. It must think that things which are not in some sense are—that is, if anyone is ever to think falsely at all, even in a slight degree.
str. And does it not also think that things which certainly are, are not at all?
THEAET. Yes.
str. And this too is falsehood ?
THEAET. Yes, it is.
str. And therefore a statement will likewise be considered false, if it declares that things which are, are not, or that things which are not, are.
THEAET. In what other way could a statement be made false ?
str. Virtually in no other way; but the sophist will not assent to this. Or how can any reasonable man assent to it, when the expressions we just agreed upon were previously agreed to be inexpressible, unspeakable, irrational, and inconceivable? Do we understand his meaning, Theaetetus ?
THEAET. Of course we understand that he will say we are contradicting our recent statements, since we dare to say that falsehood exists in opinions and words; for he will say that we are thus forced repeatedly to attribute being to not-being, although we agreed a while ago that nothing could be more impossible than that.
str. You are quite right to remind me. But I think it is high time to consider what ought to be done about the sophist ; for you see how easily and repeatedly he can raise objections and difficulties, if we conduct our search by putting him in the guild of false-workers and jugglers.
4 Névye] Nevers BT. 5 &pa] dpa BT. § Bovrtedoacba T; Bovr\everOac B; om. Burnet. M 2 353
PLATO
A eFAl. Kat pada. ~ 4 zE. Muxpov pépos toivev adrdv SdreAndAvbaper, C otoa@v ws Eros elmetv amrepavTwv. sh / / > EA 1 €. v ” A @EAI. “Advvatov y av, ws Eeoikev, €ln TOV aA ~ ‘4 lj codiotiy éActv, €f TadTa oUTWS EXEL. / > > / A / eE. Tl ody; damootynodpucba viv padOaxiobertes ; A \
@EAI. OvKovy éywyd dnt Seiv, ef Kal KaTa opt- Kpov olol T° emAaBeoba 7 Tavdpos eopev.
EE. “Egeus ovv ouyyvapny Kal Kabamep viv elzres dyamrcets éav 7 Kal Kata Bpayd mapacracwpeba. ovTws tayupod Adyou;
a“ \ > 4
@EAI. I1ds yap oby cEw;
= / / ” a ~ ‘
D zE. Tdde toivuy ért 2GAAov Trapaitobpai ce. eEAI. To olor;
= , e , € , / A
EE. M7 pe otov tratpadoiay tbaoAdBns yiyve o8ai twa.
@gal. Ti 57;
~ > BE. Tov tod matpos Ilappevidov Adyov avay- Katov nuiv apuvvopevors €otar Bacavilew, Kat 5) \ Bidleobat To TE p47) Ov Ws EoTL KaTA TL Kal TO OV av maAW ws OUK EOTL 77. ~ > A
@EAI. WDaiverar TO Towobrov diaprayynTeov ev Tots
Adyous. ~ \ ,
BE. IIl@s yap ov paiverat Kal To Aeyopevov
87) TobTo TUPAD; TovtTwv yap pyre ereyxIevtw
E penre oporoynfévtwy axoAn mor€ TLS olds TE €OTAL mepl Aoyav pevdav A€yeov 7 dd€s, Eire €lOwAwv E€lTE etkoveny ELTE peynpateov ETE povTacpdrey avray, H Kal Trept TeXv@v Tov doa T€plt TATE EloL, py KatayéAaotos elvat Ta evavTia avayKaldopevos avT@ Aéyew.
1 4 &v Burnet; ydp BT; a&p’ W; yap dv al.
354
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Very true.
str. Yes, we have gone through only a small part of them, and they are, if I may say so, infinite.
THEAET. It would, apparently, be impossible to catch the sophist, if that is the case.
str. Well, then, shall we weaken and give up the struggle now?
THEAET. No, I say; we must not do that, if we can in any way get the slightest hold of the fellow.
str. Will you then pardon me, and, as your words imply, be content if I somehow withdraw just for a short distance from this strong argument of his?
THEAET. Of course I will.
str. I have another still more urgent request to make of you. _ THEAET. What is it?
str. Do not assume that I am becoming a sort of parricide.
THEAET. What do you mean?
str. In defending myself I shall have to test the theory of my father Parmenides, and contend forcibly that after a fashion not-being is and on the other hand in a sense being is not.
THEAET. It is plain that some such contention is necessary.
str. Yes, plain even to a blind man, as they say; for unless these statements are either disproved or accepted, no one who speaks about false words, or false opinion—whether images or likenesses or imitations or appearances—or about the arts which have to do with them, can ever help being forced to contradict himself and make himself ridiculous.
355
42
PLATO
eral. “AArOéorara.
ze. Ata tadra pévtoe todAuntéov émtifecbat T® TraTpik@ Adyw viv, 7 TO Tapatav earéov, Et TOTO TIS elpyet Opav OKVOS.
eral. AA)’ mpas TOUTS ‘ye uyndev paps elp§y.
zE. Tpitov roivuy é€Te oe opiKpov TL TapatTr- copa.
@EAI. Aéye povov.
eE. Eimov mov viv 84 Aéywv ws mpos Tov Tepi Tatr €deyyov del TE aTELpHKwWS eyw TYYXaVW Kal 67) Kal Ta Vov.
@EAI. Hézes.
EE. Pofovpat 67) TA elpnpuevar, pn tote Sta Tatra oo poavucos elva d0€w mapa moa pretaBadwy €jsauTov avw Kal KaTW. ony yap 61 xapw edéyxeuv TOV Aoyov emOjoopeDa., edvmep edéyywpev.
@FAI. “Qs Tolvuv Ejouye pnoayy bogev pen dev TAnupedety, av émt Tov edeyxov ToOTov Kal T7V ancoeEw ins, Oappa@v i tovrov ye evexa.
30. EE. Dépe 51, tiva apyjv Tus ay dp§auro TOpaKwovvevTLKod Aoyou; boxe peev yap TiVO’, @ Tat, THY Odov avayKaLoTaTHY TLIV EivaL Tebasiec.
@FAl. Lloiay 57;
zE. Toa Soxobvra vov evapy@s exew emoxepacbat TpTov, Ey mn TETApayjLEevor ev cpev * mepl Tatra, padiws 8 adArjrous podoyapev ws edKpwads EXOVTES.
@eEAl. Aéye oadéotepov 6 Aéyets.
EE. EdicoAws pot Soxet Tlapjrevidns mpi dve-
AéyOat KaL Tas OoTts TWTOTE emt Kptow WpULyncE
1 nev Guev W 3 pévwuev BT. 356
cys THE SOPHIST
A THEAET. Very true.
str. And so we must take courage and attack our father’s theory here and now, or else, if any scruples prevent us from doing this, we must give the whole thing up.
THEAET. But nothing in the world must prevent us.
str. Then I have a third little request to make of you.
THEAET. You have only to utter it.
str. I said a while ago that I always have been too faint-hearted for the refutation of this theory, and so I am now.
THEAET, Yes, so you did.
str. I am afraid that on account of what I have said you will think I am mad because I have at once reversed my position. You see it is for your sake that I am going to undertake the refutation, if I succeed in it.
THEAET. I certainly shall not think you are doing anything improper if you proceed to your refutation and proof; so go ahead boldly, so far as that is concerned.
str. Well, what would be a good beginning of a perilous argument? Ah, my boy, I believe the way we certainly must take is this.
THEAET. What way?
str. We must first examine the points which now seem clear, lest we may have fallen into some con- fusion about them and may therefore carelessly agree with one another, thinking that we are judging correctly.
THEAET. Express your meaning more clearly.
str. It seems to me that Parmenides and all who ever undertook a critical definition of the number
357
PLATO
A A ” / , \ al Tob Ta Oovta dtopicacbar mooa Te Kal Tota €oTw.
ezal. II7;
EE. Méodov twa éxaotos daiveral por dunyetobat
A 5S A V4 TaLoWw ws ovow nhuiv, 6 fev ws Tpla Ta OoVvTa, A ~ \ \ ToAepet S€ GAAjAots eviore adtav atta m7, ToTE SE
\ / \
Dat dita yiyvopeva ydpous te Kal TOKoUs Kal
A ~ Ld Tpopas Tay exyovwv mapéxerar: Svo dé €TEpos ew; x elTwv, Vypov Kal Enpov 7 Oepuov Kal pvypov, ovv-
/ ba Niece? / \ Se Clive bal Cate | oiler Te avTA Kal exdidwor: TO dé Tap LY "EA \ 7 as bes! , \ ”
eatikov e€Ovos, amo Hevoddvouvs TE Kal ETL
/ > A / mpoobev apEdpevov, ws évos bvtos TOV TavTWwV
rv / ” / a / > f3) Kadovupévwv ovtTw die€épyeTat Tots pvOos. “lades be \ S, r U 4 M ~ Lé 2 € Kat LuKkeAat tTwes votepov Modcoa Evvevdnoav Li / b] / > / A /
E ore ovprrAékew acdhadéoratov audotepa Kat Aéyeuw e A “ , Wi aGe 3 ” A A t ws TO Ov TOAAG TE Kal ev eat, €xOpa 5é Kal PiArta
/ / \ ot AN / \ auvexeTar. Sdiadepdopevov yap del Evppéperar, Pac € A ~ alt auvtovwtepar THY Movodv: at dé padakwTepar A ~ TO fev Gel TADTA OUTWS exe exdAracav, ev péper SE
\ A “a > / A ~ \ / e€ %'9 (9
TOTE jLev EV Elvai haot TO Trav Kal didov tm’ >Adpo-
/ A \
243 dirys, Tore Sé TroAAA Kal moAduov atTo atta dua veikos Tt. Tatra dé mavTa ef prev adnfas tis 7
\ Ln TovTwY elpyKe, xaAerrov Kal mAnWpEAes OVTW
/ A A a
peeyada KXewots Kat maXdaots avdpaow émutyav: > A A > / > / exetvo de averidbovov amodyvacbar.
@EAI. To zotov;
~ ~ ~ / BE. “Oze Alay tev moAAdGY Ud dtrepiddvtTes
1 yutv al. Eusebius; 7uav BTW. 2 tuvevdnoay 'T, Eusebius, Simplicius ; évvvevojxacw B.
358
THE SOPHIST
and nature of realities have talked to us rather carelessly.
THEAET. How so?
str. Every one of them seems to tell us a story, as if we were children. One says there are three principles, that some of them are sometimes waging a sort of war with each other, and sometimes become friends and marry and have children and bring them up; and another says there are two, wet and dry or hot and cold, which he settles together and unites in marriage.! And the Eleatic sect in our region, beginning with Xenophanes and even earlier, have their story that all things, as they are called, are really one. Then some Ionian? and later some Sicilian Muses reflected that it was safest to combine the two tales and to say that being is many and one, and is (or are) held together by enmity and friendship. For the more strenuous Muses say it is always simultaneously coming together and separating; but the gentler ones relaxed the strictness of the doctrine of perpetual strife ; they say that the all is sometimes one and friendly, under the influence of Aphrodite, and sometimes many and at variance with itself by reason of some sort of strife. Now whether any of them spoke the truth in all this, or not, it is harsh and improper to impute to famous men of old such a great wrong as falsehood. But one assertion can be made without offence.
THEAET. What is that?
str. That they paid too little attention and con-
1 This refers apparently to Pherecydes and the early lonians.
2 Heracleitus and his followers.
3 Empedocles and his disciples.
359
PEAEO
>) fa ioe A / 029 > Oywpnoav: ovdev yap Ppovticavtes ett ér- axoAovlobpev attots Aéyovow eite amoAeutopcba, B zepaivovot 70 odétepov ab’t@v ExaorTou. @EAI. I1ds Aéyecs; eE. “Orav tis attaov dbéyEnra rAéywv ws €oTw n , n , DOE vn ain SH ) Q ‘ yeéyovev 7 ylyvetat ToAAa 7 Ev 7 Svo, Kal Beppov ad wuyp@ ovyKepavvijprevov, aAAoOi wy Svakpicets Kal ovyKpioets v7oTeis, tovTwv, © Meairnre, éxdoToTe aU Tt Tpos Gedy Evvins 6 Tt A€yovaw; eyo ¢ cy ~ ~ pev yap OTe prev TY vewTEpos, TOOTS TE TO VvoV amopovjLevov OTFOTE TLS ElTOL, TO [7 OV, aKpLBOs aA \ Cc aA > ~ @pnv Evvievar. viv d€ opds ww eopev adrobd mépu Ths atropias. ¢€ aA Coca. “Opa. / , yw 9 e A A an eE. Taya toivuy tows ody WTTov KaTa TO Ov sat 8 i , ) / > A A \ tavtov Todto md0os eiAnddtes ev TH ux wept pev TOOTO evTropety dapev Kat pavOdvew OmdTay tts 3 A / \ \ /, ” \ > yA avrTo pbéyEnrat, mept de Odrepov ov, mpos auddtepa Opoiws exovTes. @EAI. “lows. Ay \ A ~ ” A ~ , BE. Kai wept tOv ddAwy 87) TOV Tpoeipnpévwy Hiv tadrov TodTo «ipjolw. o£AI. Ilavu ye. 31. zE. Tav pev tow moddAGv répt Kai ‘ ~ , > n , \ \ a D peta totTo oKepopucl’, av dd€y, mept S€ Tob , pare) an ~ pleylorov TE Kal apyynyou mpuwrTov viv oKxemTéov. @EAI. Tivos 67 A€yers; 7 OHAov ote TO dv dis mpatov deity dSuepevvicacbat ti of? of éyovtes ~ ¢€ ~ avTo dyAoby yyobvTa; 360
THE SOPHIST
sideration to the mass of people like ourselves. For they go on to the end, each in his own way, without caring whether their arguments carry us along with them, or whether we are left behind.
THEAET. What do you mean?
str. When one of them says in his talk that many, or one, or two are, or have become, or are becoming, and again speaks of hot mingling with cold, and in some other part of his discourse suggests separations and combinations, for heaven’s sake, Theaetetus, do you ever understand what they mean by any of these things? I used to think, when I was younger, that I understood perfectly whenever anyone used this term “not-being,’ which now perplexes us. But you see what a slough of perplexity we are in about it now.
THEAET. Yes, I see.
str. And perhaps our minds are in this same condition as regards being also; we may think that it is plain sailing and that we understand when the word is used, though we are in difficulties about not- being, whereas really we understand equally little of both.
THEAET. Perhaps.
str. And we may say the same of all the subjects about which we have been speaking.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. We will consider most of them later, if you please, but now the greatest and foremost chief of them must be considered.
THEAET. What do you mean? Or, obviously, do you mean that we must first investigate the term “being,’ and see what those who use it think it signifies ?
361
PLATO
EE. Kara 7708a. 3 ye, @ Ocairnre, trréAaBes.
Agyoo yap 51) Tavry dely movetobar tiv jéVodov nds, otov avrav TapovTay davamuvbavopevous woe- Pepe, omrocot Depyov Kal ux pov n Tue dvo TOLOUTW TA TAVT Eval Pate, TL TOTE dpa Toor’ em
E dupoty pleyyeobe, déyovtes Gppor Kat exdTEpov
244
elvae; | Tah TO ela TovTO broddBupev Opa 3 TOT EpOV Tpitov Tapa Ta dvo exetva, Kal Tpia TO TAY aAAa py) dvo ete Kal” tuds TIOGpmEv; od yap mov Tot ye dvotv Kadobytes Odtepov dv auddtrepa opoiws elvar
/ \ \ nn > Fi Ld > ? ? , AéyeTe* axedov yap av audotépws ev, add’ od dvo EiTnV.
2 ogal. “AAnO7 déyes.
zE. “AA dpa 7a dudw BovrAecbe Kadetv ov; @EAI. ‘lows.
EE. “AM, ® didrot, pjoope, Kav ovTw Ta dvo
déyour’ 8 av capeotara € ev.
@EAIL. ’Opbdrata eltpyKas. iS 5) \ , ¢ atts , e A SHUN BE. °Ezrevd1) Toivuv qpets nropyKkapev, vets ava
qty eupavilere t UKAV@S TL OTE Bovreobe onpaivew OTrOT AV ov Pleyynabe. OjjAov yap ws bets pev TatTa mada yuyvaoxere, nets Se 7™po_ Too _pev woucla, viv & hropikapev. diddoKere odv Tp@Tov TooT avTo Huds, wa pr dSo€alwpev pavOave pev Ta Aeyopeva trap’ budv, TO Sé ToUTOV ylyvnTar TAY
> / ~~ A / / \ > ~ B tovvavtiov. tadra 57 A€yovrés te Kal a€.obytes
/ / \ \ ~ y+ 7 A Tapa TE TOUTWY Kal Tapa TOV aAAwV, Gaot 7rActov Coan A ~ Ss ~ Ss A evos X€yovot TO av elval, UOV, @ Tat, TL TAnp-
peArjoopev ;
1 1éda T (emend. ) W3; woddd B pr. T. eirny W; ei tiv BT. 3 réyor’] eile B; dAdyere T; Adyer’ W.
362
THE SOPHIST
str. You have caught my meaning at once, Theaetetus. For I certainly do mean that this is the best method for us to use, by questioning them directly, as if they were present in person; so here goes: Come now, all you who say that hot and cold or any two such principles are the universe, what is this that you attribute to both of them when you say that both and each are? What are we to understand by ‘this:\“being *~ (or “ are”) of yours’. Is' this a third principle besides those two others, and shall we suppose that the universe is three, and not two any longer, according to your doctrine? For surely when you call one only of the two “being” you do not mean that both of them equally are; for in both cases! they would pretty certainly be one and not two.
THEAET. True.
str. Well, then, do you wish to call both of them together being?
THEAET. Perhaps.
str. But, friends, we will say, even in that way you would very clearly be saying that the two are one.
THEAET. You are perfectly right.
str. Then since we are in perplexity, do you tell us plainly what you wish to designate when you say “being.” For it is clear that you have known this all along, whereas we formerly thought we knew, but are now perplexed. So first give us this informa- tion, that we may not think we understand what you say, when the exact opposite is the case.—If we speak in this way and make this request of them and of all who say that the universe is more than one, shall we, my boy, be doing anything improper ?
1 «*In both cases,” i.e. whether you say that one only is or that both are, they would both be one, namely being.
363
PLATO
tA ,
@FAI. “Hxworad ye.
32. zE. Ti d€; mapa r&v év to may deyov- Twv ap ov mevoTéov eis SUvapw TL mote A€yovat TO ov;
~ \ 4
@EAI. Ilds yap ov;
zE. Tdde roivuy amoxpwéobwv & mov date povov civar; hapyev yap, dycovow. H yap;
/
@EAI. Nai. eE. Tu dé; ov Kadeire tt; egal. Nat.
Rs / Ld 7” ee | ~ (ey , C ze. Ildrepov omep ev, emt TH atbTd mpooxpa- prevor Ovotv dvopacw, 7 THs; , 5 Py ime \ A Ue , ey @EAl. Tis otv atbtots 1) weta TobT’, @ E€ve, amo- Kplots ; ps ~ > / ° ~ / \ td / BE. AjjAov, & Ocaitynte, OTe TH TavTHY THY b7d- Oeow trofenevas pos TO viv épwrnfév Kal mpos aAAo dé OTL0by od TaVvTWwY PdoToV amoKpivacbaL. eEAI. I[I[ds; zE. Td te dvo ovopata opodoyeiv eivar pydev Oéuevov mAjv év KatayédAaorov Tov. eEAI. IIs 5’ ov; ps, K \ A / > 8 /, a] / 2 zE. Kat to aapamav ye amodéexyeobai Tov y ’ D Xéyovros ws EoTw 6voud TL, Adyov ovK av Exov. ezal. I17; ay } ” A , ¢ , ZE. Tufeis re Tovvop.a Tob mpaypwatos ETepov Svo Aéyeu mov Tue. / egal. Nai. ca \ \ sy 2 +s 2A = ” BE. Kai pay av tatrov ye att® 7109 Tovvoma, 1 droxpwécOwv Simplicius ; dmroxpwécOwoay BTW. 2 rov Hermann; rod BT.
364
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Not in the least.
str. Well then, must we not, so far as we can, try to learn from those who say that the universe is one! what they mean when they say “ being” ?
THEAET. Of course we must.
str. Then let them answer this question: Do you say that one only is? We do, they will say; will they not?
THEAET. Yes.
str. Well then, do you give the name of being to anything?
THEAET. Yes.
str. Is it what you call “one,” using two names for the same thing, or how is this?
THEAET. What is their next answer, Stranger ?
str. It is plain, Theaetetus, that he who maintains their theory will not find it the easiest thing in the world to reply to our present question or to any other.
THEAET. Why not?
str. It is rather ridiculous to assert that two names exist when you assert that nothing exists but unity.
THEAET. Of course it is.
str. And in general there would be no sense in accepting the statement that a name has any existence.
THEAET. Why?
str. Because he who asserts that the name is other than the thing, says that there are two entities.
THEAET. Yes.
str. And further, if he asserts that the name is
1 The Eleatic Zeno and his school. 365
PLATO
A A x 3 , A , Nee. } endevos dvoxa avayKacbyncerat A€yeww, et SE TLVOS adTo dro, ovpPyceTaL TO Ovowa OCVvdpmaTos Ovopa pLovov, aAAov dé oddevos Ov. @EAI. Ovrws. \ \ 4 Cras ” ba 1 A ~ BE. Kat to ev ye, €vos ovoyna ov! Kat Tod ovopatos av To® ev ov. @FAI. “Avdyxn. ee / / Ae, td ~ en N av ? BE. Tv dé; 70 dAov Erepov Tov ovTos evos 7 TAU- A Tov dycovat TOUTW; E ocat. [lds yap od djoovai te Kat paciv; te 5) / ¢ yey, ¢ \ ! zE. Ei roivuv odov éoriv, womep Kai Llapyevidns déyer,
2
mavrobev evKvKAov odaipns 4 evadiykiov 6 OyKw, pecoo0ev isomradés mavTn* TO yap ovUTE Te petlov ovte Tu Bardtepov meA€var xpedv cote TH 7 TH;
To.ovrov ye Ov TO dv jéoov TE Kal eaxara exen,® Tatra dé €yov maca avayKn pépn exew* 7 THs; @EAI. Ovtws.
245 EE. “Ada pay TO Ye [LejLeptopLevov ma0os bev Tov €VvosS EXEL emt Tos [€peor macw ovdev a7ro- Kwdver, Kal TAUTY 87) TGV TE OV Kal Odo EV elvat.
@EAI. Ti 8 ov;
ZE. Tod dé memovOos tatita dp’ ovK advvaTov avTo ye TO Ev avTo elvar;
eEAI. I[Ilds;
1 8voua dv Apelt ; év bv udvov B; by udvoy T. tod BW ; rovro T. 3 ad 7d Schleiermacher ; ai7d BTW. 4 ggalons Simplicius; spalpas BT. 5 éyex] éxew al. 366
THE SOPHIST
the same as the thing, he will be obliged to say that it is the name of nothing, or if he says it is the name of something, the name will turn out to be the name of a name merely and of nothing else.
THEAET. True.
str. And the one will turn out to be the name of one and also the one of the name.!
THEAET. Necessarily.
str. And will they say that the whole is other than the one which exists or the same with it?
THEAET. Of course they will and do say it is the same.
str. If then the whole is, as Parmenides says,
On all sides like the mass of a well-rounded sphere, equally weighted in every direction from the middle ; for neither greater nor less must needs be on this or that,
then being, being such as he describes it, has a centre and extremes, and, having these, must cer- tainly have parts, must it not?
THEAET. Certainly.
str. But yet nothing hinders that which has parts from possessing the attribute of unity in all its parts and being in this way one, since it is all and whole.
THEAET. Very true.
str. But is it not impossible for that which is in this condition to be itself absolute unity?
THEAET. Why?
1 In other words, ‘‘ one,” considered as a word, will be the name of unity, but considered as a reality, it will be the unity of which the word ‘‘one” is the name. ‘The sentence is made somewhat difficult of comprehension, doubtless for the purpose of indicating the confusion caused by the identi- fication of the name with the thing.
367
PLATO
A ~ l4 > ~ EE. “Apepes Onmouv det mavTeAds TO ye adAnbds é€v KaTQ TOV opBov Acyov etpjolar. @FAI. Ae? yap odv. B zr. To dé ye towdrov ex moAAdv pepdv dv od ouppwrvioe TO AOyw.t eEAI. Mavéavw. / \ Z ” A an“ a CA eh v4 zE. Ild6repov 61) wafos e€xov TO dv Tob Evds ov- TWS EV TE EOTAL Kal OAOV, 7) TaVTaTact [7 Aéywmev OAov elvar TO ov ?; @FAI. Xademijv mpoBeBAnkas aipeoww. nt F) , 7 , , \ HE. “AAnPéorata pevro Aéyers. eTovOds TE yap TO Ov Ev Elva TwS, od TavToV Ov TO Evt davetrar§ kai 7A€ova 67 TA TaVvTA Evos EoTAL. ekAI. Nat. a \ zE. Kai pw pay edv ve TO OV Le) oAov Oud TO C merrovOevat TO on exeivou 7a00s, 7) d€ adTo TO OAo?, evoees TO Ov é€avTod EvyBaiver. o£al. Ilavu ye. S \ A a Vrate / e a , EE. Kat cata totrov 81) Tov Adyov Eavtob atepo- fevov OUK OV €OTaL TO OV. @EAI. Otrtws. Wi '¢ / > , \ , , ~ BE. Kat evds ye ad mAciw Ta mavta ylyvetat, Tob Te OVTOS Kal TOD CAoV ywpis idtav Exatépov dow eiAndportos. a eEAI. Nav. \ + / A , a & ’ , =E. My ovTos dé ye 70 mapamav Tob oAov, Tabrd TE rabra UTapyet TO ovre KQaL Tpos T@ pun elvar D pd” av yevécOa Tore ov.
1 +9 déyw Simplicius (codd. EF); 7g dw Adyy B; zq Ady~ bAw T, Simpl. (cod. D).
2 dv Schleiermacher; édov BT.
3 gaveirac Simplicius; galverac BT.
368
THE SOPHIST
str. Why surely that which is really one must, according to right reason, be affirmed to be absolutely without parts.
THEAET. Yes, it must.
str. But such a unity consisting of many parts will not harmonize with reason.
THEAET. I understand.
str. Then shall we agree that being is one and a whole because it has the attribute of unity, or shall we deny that being is a whole at all?
THEAET. It is a hard choice that you offer me.
str. That is very true; for being, having in a way had unity imposed upon it, will evidently not be the same as unity, and the all will be more than one.
THEAET. Yes.
str. And further, if being is not a whole through having had the attribute of unity imposed upon it, and the absolute whole exists, then it turns out that being lacks something of being.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. And so, by this reasoning, since being is deprived of being, it will be not-being.
THEAET. So it will.
str. And again the all becomes more than the one, since being and the whole have acquired each its own nature.
THEAET. Yes.
str. But if the whole does not exist at all, being is involved in the same difficulties as before, and besides not existing it could not even have ever come into existence,
869
246
PLATO
oral. Tt 57;
ey \ t SipaN , ¢ C) ”
zE. To yevouevov aet yéyovev odov: wate ouTE
ou A tA ovclay ovUTe yéveow ws ovoav det mpooayopevew to OAov} ev Tots odor py TévTa.
okAl. Ilavtamacw €oixe Tab’ ovTws Exew.
p= A A 999 ¢ A A \ A ee
ZE. Kai pay otd° omocovoby Tt def TO pL GAov > io ~~ ‘A elvau' moody TL yap OV, O7rdGoV av 7, TODOUTOV OAov > A > avayKatov avo * eivat.
@EAI. Kopud7 ye.
— \ / ” , > 4 5 /
zE. Kal roivuy ddAda pupia amepavtous amoptas 7 >) \ aA ~ A nN ww / \ Exaotov €iAndos daveirat TH TO Ov eEite OVO TwWeE elite ev ovov eivar Aéyovte.
~ \ A A ~ ¢ , egal. Ando? oxeddov Kai ta viv trodaivovta: / A ov ’ + lf A ouvamtetar yap etepov €€ aAXov, pellw Kal xade- ~ A mwtépav hépov mept TOV eutrpocbev act pylevtwy mAavyy.
33. HE. Tods peév rtoivuy diaxpiBoAoyoujevous + 4 A A if 3 \ O 8 x r 0 OvTOS TE TéepL Kal uy) TavTas® ev od SreAnAVOapeEV, tvs A ¢ ~~ >] , WN »,\ + ;d Ouws b€ tkav@s é€xyétw: Tovs d€ ddAAws €yovTas
> > ~ a ad Jeatéov, WwW’ ex mavTwv €id@mev OTL TO OV TOD j41) ovTos oddeV EVTOPWTEpOV EimEtY 6 TL TOT EOTW.
@EAI. Odxobv mopevecbar xpi) Kat emi TovTOUS.
zE. Kat pry eoue ye ev adrois oiov yyavto-
/ Ss 5 A ”" paxia tis elvar dia THY aydioPyTnow TEpt Tis ovolas mpos aAAnAovs.
ezAl. Ilds;
1 7d Sov Bekker 3 7d év 4 76 SXov BT. 2 aird W, Simplicius; om. BT. 8 rdvras Kusebius; mavu BT.
370
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. What do you mean?
str. That which comes into existence always comes into existence asa whole. Therefore no one who does not reckon the whole among things that are can speak of existence or generation as being.
THEAET. That certainly seems to be true.
str. And moreover, that which is not a whole cannot have any quantity at all; for if it has any quantity, whatever that quantity may be, it must necessarily be of that quantity as a whole.
THEAET. Precisely.
str. And so countless other problems, each one involving infinite difficulties, will confront him who says that being is, whether it be two or only one.
THEAET. The problems now in sight make that pretty clear; for each leads up to another which brings greater and more grievous wandering in connexion with whatever has previously been said.
str. Now we have not discussed all those who treat accurately of being and not-being!; however, let this suffice. But we must turn our eyes to those whose doctrines are less precise, that we may know from all sources that it is no easier to define the nature of being than that of not-being.
THEAET. Very well, then, we must proceed towards those others also.
str. And indeed there seems to be a battle like that of the gods and the giants going on among them, because of their disagreement about existence.
THEAET. How so?
1 The Ionic philosophers, the Eleatics, Heracleitus, Em- pedocles, the Megarians, Gorgias, Protagoras, and Anti- sthenes all discussed the problem of being and not-being.
371
PLATO
e A > ~ bd ? A A a 3 , BE. Of pev eis yqv e€ odpavod Kal Tob aopatou mavTa €AKovol, Tats xepolw atexvds méTpas Kal Spits mepiAapBavovtes. TV yap Tovo’tTwy epamTo- plevor TravTwv SucxupiCovrat TodTo elvat povov 6 mapéxet mpocBorAny Kat eradrv twa, TadTov cOua B kai ovolav opilopevor, TOV Sé arAAwV Et Tis Tit ~ ” Ss “A dyno? pr odjia €xov elvat, Katappovobytes TO wD, \ p) \ 2 / ” > / Tapamav Kal ovdev €0édovres adAO axovew. > \ ” ” ” A \ @FAI. *H Sdewods elpneas avdpas: dn yap Kal éya) ToUTwWY aUXVOts TpOGEeTUYXOV. — ~ ¢€ \ ? \ > ~ EE. Touyapodv of mpos atrovs aydiaBytobvtes / 7, ~ ” A b) 2) 7 \ > / pdra edtrAaBds dvwhev e€ aopatov Tobey apvvovrar, \ wv \ > / ” / \ vonTa aTTa Kal aowpata elon Pralopevoe TH b) \ b] / > \ MW / / \ aAnOuiv odvotav eivary Ta de exeivwv capata Kal \ , e 9 J aA ON? \ 4 Thv Aeyowevny tr ad’r@v adjylevay Kata opuiKpa C duaBpavovres ev Tots Adyois yeéveow avr odcias PEepomevynv TWa Tpocayopevovow. EV Leow Se TrEpL ~ b) > > TaOTa amAETOS GPoTEpwr Aaxn Tis, W Oeairnre, aet Evvéornkev. oral. “AdnO9. Yue ne) A / A A zE. Ilap’ audotv toivuy rotv yevoty Kata mépos 7 / ¢€ \ ee / ~ >) / AdBwpev Aoyov diep Hs TiWevTar THS odsias. oEAI. Ids ody 67 Aniopeba; = \ \ “~ ? ” b) \ / zE. Ilapa pev Tav ev cideow adryy TWEUevwr
Dials Onley Pyle, 2 gjoe B, Eusebius; g@no T.
THE SOPHIST
str. Some of them! drag down everything from heaven and the invisible to earth, actually grasping rocks and trees with their hands; for they lay their hands on all such things and maintain stoutly that that alone exists which can be touched and handled ; for they define existence and body, or matter, as identical, and if anyone says that anything else, which has no body, exists, they despise him utterly, and will not listen to any other theory than their own.
THEAET. Terrible men they are of whom you speak. I myself have met with many of them.
str. Therefore those who contend against them defend themselves very cautiously with weapons derived from the invisible world above, maintaining forcibly that real existence consists of certain ideas which are only conceived by the mind and have no body. But the bodies of their opponents, and that which is called by them truth, they break up into small fragments in their arguments, calling them, not existence, but a kind of generation combined with motion. There is always, Theaetetus, a tremendous battle being fought about these questions between the two parties.
THEAET. True.
str. Let us, therefore, get from each party in turn a statement in defence of that which they regard as being.
THEAET. How shall we get it?
str. It is comparatively easy to get it from those
1 The atomists (Leucippus, Democritus, and their fol- lowers), who taught that nothing exists except atoms and the void. Possibly there is a covert reference to Aristippus who was, like Plato, a pupil of Socrates.
378
PLATO
padov: mmepwrepor yap: mapa bé THv eis odpa
Daavra éAxdvrwv Bia yxadreTuTEpov, tows Sé Kal ay<edov advvatov. add’ dé pou Setv SoKet TeEpt avtav dpav.
eEAI. IIds;
HE. MdAtora pév, et mn Suvarov ay, Epyw BedA- Tiovs avTovs Toveitv: ef d€ TodTO py eyxXwpeEl, Aoyw Trodpev, UrotiOgwevor vojyswtepov adtovs 7 viv eOéAovtas av amoxpivacbar. TO yap opuodo- ynbev mapa BeATivwy mov KUpLWTEpov 7 TO Tapa
/ e A A > / / > \ Yelpovwv: Auets 5€ od TovTwv dpovTiloyer, adda Tadnbes Cnrobpev.
E ofat. *OpOorara.
34. EE. Kédeve 81) tTods BeAtiovs yeyovdras > , ‘ \ \ A > ) ~ > amroxpivacbai cor, Kal TO AexPev map’ adtav adep- [LVEVE.
oe ed
@EAl. Tadér’ éorau.
zE. Aeyovtwy 67) Ovntov Cov et dacw eclvat 71.
eFAI. II1ds 8’ ov;
cE. Todro dé od c@pa euisvyov ouodoyodow ;
oFAl. Ilavu ye.
sE. Tilévres te THY OvtTwy oy;
247 oral. Nai.
ee. Ti d€; uy od tHv pev dixatav, tHv be + U s \ \ A / \ \ ddiukov daow elvar, Kat THY pev Ppovipov, THV Se agpova;
, ,
oFAI. Te py;
ze. AAA’ od dixavootvvns e€er Kal Tapovaia ToL- 874
THE SOPHIST
who say that it consists in ideas, for they are peace- ful folk; but from those who violently drag down everything into matter, it is more difficult, perhaps even almost impossible, to get it. However, this is the way I think we must deal with them.
THEAET. What way?
str. Our first duty would be to make them really better, if it were in any way possible; but if this cannot be done, let us pretend that they are better, by assuming that they would be willing to answer more in accordance with the rules of dialectic than they actually are. For the acknowledgement of anything by better men is more valid than if made by worse men. But it is not these men that we care about; we merely seek the truth.
THEAET. Quite right.
str. Now tell them, assuming that they have become better, to answer you, and do you interpret what they say.
THEAET. I will do so.
str. Let them tell whether they say there is such a thing as a mortal animal.
THEAET. Of course they do.
str. And they agree that this is a body with a soul in it, do they not ?
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Giving to soul a place among things which exist ?
THEAET. Yes.
str. Well then, do they not say that one soul is just and another unjust, one wise and another foolish ?
THEAET. Of course.
str. And do they not say that each soul becomes just by the possession and presence of justice, and
375
PLATO
auTyy avTav éexdoTny ylyvecOar, Kal THY évavTiwv \ bd] / TV evavtiav;
oral. Nai, Kat Tatra Evppacw.
EE. "AMa ph 76 yé Ouvarov Tw mrapaylyvecBae Kal dmoyiyvecBar mavTws eivat Te prjcovow.
@EAI. Dai pev odv.
B Ver: Ovons oov Sucaroovvns Kat ppovijcews Kal
Ths aXhns aperijs Kal TOV evavTiwy, Kat on) Kat
bux As ev i) Tatra eyylyveTan, TOTEPOV OpaTov Kal amToV Eval pact TL avTaV yD) TavTa a dopara ;
@EAI. Lyedov ovdev TovTWY ye CpaTov.
zE. Ti 6€ r@v tovwovTwv; u@v odpua te A€yovow toxew ;
EAI. Totro ovKere Kara Tara dmoKplivovTau mav, addAa THY bev puynv adray doKetv opior cpa Tt KexrHoOar, ppovnow Se Kat TOV ddr € EKQOTOV cv nparnKas, avoxvvovTat TO TtoAuay 4 3 punoev TOV
C ovrwy atta opodoyety 7) mavt’ elvat owpata a
EE. Lapas yap mp, @® eaityntre, BeAtiovs yeyovacw dav pes ne emel TOUTW ove av év emavoxuvletev of ye avr av omapTot Te Kal avTo- xOoves, aAAa OvareivowT’ dy may © 7) duvarol Tats Xepot Eupmeelew eloiv, ws dpa TovTO ovdev TO Tapa- mav é€otiv.
@EAI. Lyedov ola Stavoobvrat Aéyets.
EE. IdAw Tolvuv avEpwr Opev avtous: €l yap Ti Kal opixpov eOédovar THY OvTwY GvyxwpEtV aow-
2
1 tw] 7@ BT; 7d W. 2 ratra] ra atta W; Tatra BT.
3 dvdpes Bekker; dvdpes BT.
376
THE SOPHIST
the opposite by the possession and presence of the opposite ?
THEAET. Yes, they agree to this also.
str. But surely they will say that that which is capable of becoming present or absent exists.
THEAET. Yes, they say that.
str. Granting, then, that justice and wisdom and virtue in general and their opposites exist, and also, of course, the soul in which they become present, do they say that any of these is visible and tangible, or that they are all invisible ?
THEAET. That none of them is visible, or pretty nearly that.
str. Now here are some other questions. De they say they possess any body?
THEAET. They no longer answer the whole of that question in the same way. They say they believe the soul itself has a sort of body, but as to wisdom and the other several qualities about which you ask, they have not the face either to confess that they have no existence or to assert that they are all bodies.
str. It is clear, Theaetetus, that our men have grown better; for the aboriginal sons of the dragon’s teeth ! among them would not shrink from any such utterance ; they would maintain that nothing which they cannot squeeze with their hands has any exist- ence at all.
THEAET. That is pretty nearly what they believe.
str. Then let us question them further; for if they are willing to admit that any existence, no
1 This refers to the story of Cadmus, who killed a dragon and then sowed its teeth, from which sprang fierce warriors to be his companions. Born of the dragon’s teeth and of earth, they would naturally be of the earth, earthy.
N 377
PLATO
>? ~ A \ > / , a 1 D patov, eEapxet. To yap €ml TE TovTOLS dua Kal
248
’ > ? / v4 ” “ \ Vi ’ “a én’ exelvois daa exer oHua Evppves yeyovos, ets 6 BAésrovtes apdotepa <ivar Aéyovat, TodTo avtots pytéov. Tax’ otv tows av amopotev' et On TL ~ / (3 ~ ToLovToV TeTOVOAGL, UKOTTEL, TPOTELVOJLEVWY NULOV, Se bP) / nv / \ e ~ / > Gp €Oédovev dv déxecbar Kat ouodoyetv tovovd eival TO OV. TA a / / \ / b] / @EAI. 10 motov 67; A€ye, Kat Taya etooueBa. sE. Aéyw 81) TO Kal Omoltavody Twa KEKTHLEVOV SUvapu eit eis 1 TO ToLety ETEpoV oTLobV TredbuKOS 9 A \ ~~ clr els TO mabety Kal cptiKpotatov bo TOD dav- / > a lan ~ + dordrov, Kav ef povov els amak, mav ToUTO GvTws > N 4 Casi? We 2 etvau TiOear yap opov opilew Ta ovTa, Ws EaTW > +” \ / ovK aAdo Te ATV SvVapLS. > > > ff >’ / >) ” b) ~ egal. "AAN emeimep adrot ye odK Exyovow ev TH mapovte TovTOU PeATLov A€yewv, SéxovTaL TODTO. ~ \ a“ iA A ze. Kadds: lows yap av els voTepov nuiv Te “ a , \ zy" Kal TOUTOLS ETEpoV AY Pavelyn. TpOs jLev ODV TOUTOUS TobTo Huty evTadda preveTw EvvopodoyyGev. oral. Mever. | A \ \ e Yu 35. zE. IIpos 81) Tods Erépovs twuev, Tovs ~ IQA / AY cd ks A \ A \ / TOV cld@v didovs: odd Huy Kal TA Tapa TOUTWY > apepunveve. ae ene 4 oEAI. Tair’ eorau. if X \ b] / / , zE. Téveow, tiv 5é ovoiav ywpis tov dieAdpevor a / déyete; 4 yap; 1 cir’ cis W3 ef ris BT.
~ 1 4.¢., between the process of coming into existence and existence itself. It is difficult to determine exactly who the idealists are whose doctrines are here discussed. Possibly
378
THE SOPHIST
matter how small, is incorporeal, that is enough. They will then have to tell what that is which is inherent in the incorporeal and the corporeal alike, and which they have in mind when they say that both exist. Perhaps they would be at a loss for an answer ; and if they are in that condition, consider whether they might not accept a suggestion if we offered it, and might not agree that the nature of being is as follows.
THEAET. What is it? Speak, and we shall soon know.
str. I suggest that everything which possesses any power of any kind, either to produce a change in anything of any nature or to be affected even in the least degree by the slightest cause, though it be only on one occasion, has real existence. For I
set up as a definition which defines being, that it is
nothing else than power.
THEAET. Well, since they have at the moment nothing better of their own to offer, they accept this.
str. Good; for perhaps later something else may occur both to them and to us. As between them and us, then, let us assume that this is for the present agreed upon and settled.
THEAET. It is settled.
str. Then let us go to the others, the friends of ideas; and do you interpret for us their doctrines also.
THEAET. [| will.
str. You distinguish in your speech between generation and being, do you not?!
Plato is restating or amending some of his own earlier beliefs.
379
PLATO
eFAI. Nat.
\ / \ € aA , > 3 ,
EE. Kai cwpare pev nds yevecer bu atcbicews Kowwvey, dua Aoyropi08 | be poxF m™pos: THY OVTWS ovoiay, qv del kata TavTa woatTws exew pate, yeveow de addoTte GMus.
B ecal. Dapev yap odv.
EE. To dé a) Kowwvely, @ TavTwWY dpiaroL, Tt To0e” Dyas em apdotv Aéyew Papev; dp’ od To viv 53) map nuadv pydev;
@EAI. TO zotov;
ik , ” , 2 , , Spleen
HE. Id@qpo. 7 Toinpua ek Suvduecds TWOS G70 T@V TpOos ddAnha Suviovrev yuyvopevov. (Tax: ovr, @ Ocairnre, avrav Thy mpos TabTA aTOKpLOW Ov ev ov KaTaKovels, eyw de tows dia cuvnbeav.
@EAI. Tiv’ ody 7) A€yovor Aoyov ;
C EE. Od ovyxwpodow qty To vov 81) pyev mpos Tovs ynyevels ovalas mépt. @EAI. To zotov; ¢ \ ” iA ~ wv oe
ZE. ‘Ikavov efeyev opov trov THY OvTwY, OTAV TW
Taph 7) TOO TAagXELW 7) OpGv Kal TpOs TO OfLLKPOTATOV UVOJLLS §
egal. Nat.
& A \ a / t ¢ ,
zE. IIpds 57) tatta téd€ A€yovow, OTe yeveoet pev jueTEaTL TOD TAaOXELW Kal TroLEtY SuVdpLEews, TPOS d€ ovaiay ToUTwWY OvdEeTEpoU THY SUVAapLY apLoTTEW paciv.
eEAI. Odxotv A€yovol 71;
no Ne , Co ltae / 5)
BE. IIpos 6 ye Aexréov yyiv tt Sedpuefa map
Datrav et mvbécbat caddéotepov et mpocopodo- yotou Thy ev woynv yryvwoKkew, THY 8 ovdciav yyvwoKeobau.
380
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Yes, we do.
str. And you say that with the body, by means of perception, we participate in generation, and with the soul, by means of thought, we participate in real being, which last is always unchanged and the same, whereas generation is different at different times.
THEAET. Yes, that is what we say.
str. But, most excellent men, how shall we define this participation which you attribute to both? Is it not that of which we were just speaking ?
THEAET. What is that?
str. A passive or active condition arising out of some power which is derived from a combination of elements. Possibly, Theaetetus, you do not hear their reply to this, but I hear it, perhaps, because I am used to them.
THEAET. What is it, then, that they say?
str. They do not concede to us what we said just now to the aboriginal giants about being.
THEAET. What was it?
str. We set up as a satisfactory sort of definition of being, the presence of the power to act or be acted upon in even the slightest degree.
THEAET. Yes.
str. It is in reply to this that they say generation participates in the power of acting and of being acted upon, but that neither power is connected with being.
THEAET. And is there not something in that?
str. Yes, something to which we must reply that we still need to learn more clearly from them whether they agree that the soul knows and that being is known.
381
PLATO
@EAI. Daol pv TobTO ye.
EE. Te dé; 70 yuyvooKkew H TO yeyvdoneoBat pare TroinpLo. H mados 7 duporepor ; TO pev
mana, TO dé Odtepov; 7 mavTamacw ot'déTEpov ovdeTépou TOUTWY preTaAapPavew ;
EAL. Ajjrov ws ovdéTEpov ovdETEpoV' TavavTia yap av Tots eumpoober Aeyouer
EE. Mav6ave- TOOE YE,” WS TO yeyvaboKew
E elrrep €oTau Tovety Th, TO yuyvwakdpevoy a dvayKatov av SvpBaiver TAGYELW. TV ovotay oy) Kara TOV Adyov ToUTOV ylyvwoKoerny t70 Tis yrooews, Kal? Goov yuyvioKeTat, KaTA ToGodTOY Kweiobat dua TO Taoxew, 6 d% dayev odK av yevéabar TrEpL TO 7pEepwoov.
@FAI. “Opids.
BE. Ti de mpos Atés; ws adAnfds Know Kal Coony KaL i puyyy Kal i ppovnow n liao mrevoncopeba T@ TAVTEADS GVTL pa) mapetva, punoe oqv avTo pede
249 dpoveiv, ara Ge LLvov Kal ay.ov, vodv ovK €xor,
; aKivyTov €oTOS elvan;
@EAI. Aewov pévt’ av, & E€ve, Aoyov ovyywpot- ev.
zE. “AAAa voiy pev exew, Conv dé wn ddpev;
@eEAIL. Kal was;
zE. “AAAa tabra pev aupotepa evoyt’ attra A€yopev, od pry ev poyn ye droowev adro exew
: avTa;
oFAI. Kat tiv’ av €repov €xou Tpdmov;
gE. “Adda dfTa votiy péev Kat Cwnv Kal boyy
1 6fr\ov . . . A€youev first attributed to Theaetetus by Heindorf.
2 rdde ye] 7d 5€ ye T3 70 5é B. 382
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. They certainly assent to that.
str. Well then, do you say that knowing or being known is an active or passive condition, or both? Or that one is passive and the other active? Or that neither has any share at all in either of the two?
THEAET. Clearly they would say that neither has any share in either; for otherwise they would be contradicting themselves.
str. I understand; this at least is true, that if to know is active, to be known must in turn be passive. Now being, since it is, according to this theory, known by the intelligence, in so far as it is known, is moved, since it is acted upon, which we say cannot be the case with that which is in a state of rest.
THEAET. Right.
str. But for heaven’s sake, shall we let ourselves easily be persuaded that motion and life and soul and mind are really not present to absolute being, that it neither lives nor thinks, but awful and holy, devoid of mind, is fixed and immovable ?
THEAET. That would be a shocking admission to make, Stranger.
str. But shall we say that it has mind, but not life ?
THEAET. How can we?
str. But do we say that both of these exist in it, and yet go on to say that it does not possess them in a soul?
THEAET. But how else can it possess them?
str. Then shall we say that it has mind and
383
PLATO
” 1 Ie / A fe ” bal éyew,! axivntov pevtot TO Trapdmrav Eprbvyov ov EOTAVAL; a > > / B oral. Ilavra euovye dAoya tabr’ eivar daivetac. \ /
HE. Kal 70 Kwovpevov 67) Kal Kivnow ovyxwpy- TEOV WS OVTA.
eEAI. [lds 8’ ov;
EE. HupPaiver 8° obdv, @ Meaitynre, axuwyTwv TE GvTwV vobV pNdEVL TrEpL yNdSEVOS Elvar ULNdapLOd.
@EAI. Kowid7 ev odv.
es \ \ 2\ > / \ ,
HE. Kat pnv cav ad depdpmeva Kat Kwovpeva mavT elvat ovyywp@pev, Kal TovTw TH Adyw TAVTOV TOUTO EK THY OVTWY eLaLpTcOpLEV.
eEAI. IIds;
x \ \ BN Nicaae / \ \ \
zE. To xata tatvTa Kal woavTws Kal TEpL TO
C adro doxe? cou ywpis ordcews yevéobar ToT av;
@EAI. Ovddapds.
a / > BA / ~ ~ y+ i)
HE. Ti 0°; dvev tovtTwv votv Kafopds ovta 7 YEVvopLevov av Kal O7OVvOdV;
@EAI. “Hxwora.
\ \ / ~ \ / /
BE. Kal piv mpés ye TotTov mavTi Adyw paxeréov, a“ av >? / BD / av A > / ds av emorTHuny 7 Pppovyow y vobdv adavilwr loxupifnrar mrept Twos OTNOdV.
@EAI. Udddpa ye.
BE. To 57 dirdooddw Kat tabra wdAvoTa TYUL@vTe maoa, Ws coixev, avayKyn dia TabTa pyte TOV ev aA \ AY AAG LO A / \ ~ ¢€ \ } Kal ta moAAa cidn AcyovTwy TO TaVv EéoTHKOS
D dmodéyecOar, THv Te av TavTAayH TO Ov KLVOUYTwWY
1 ye add. Schleiermacher. 384
THE SOPHIST
life and soul, but, although endowed with soul, is absolutely immovable ?
THEAET. All those things seem to me absurd.
str. And it must be conceded that motion and that which is moved exist.
THEAET. Of course.
str. Then the result is, Theaetetus, that if there is no motion, there is no mind in anyone about anything anywhere.
THEAET. Exactly.
str. And on the other hand, if we admit that all things are in flux and motion, we shall remove mind itself from the number of existing things by this theory also.
THEAET. How so?
str. Do you think that sameness of quality or nature or relations could ever come into existence without the state of rest?
THEAET. Not at all.
str. What then? Without these can you see how mind could exist or come into existence any- where?
THEAET. By no means.
str. And yet we certainly must contend by every argument against him who does away with knowledge or reason or mind and then makes any dogmatic assertion about anything.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Then the philosopher, who pays the highest honour to these things, must necessarily, as it seems, because of them refuse to accept the theory of those who say the universe is at rest, whether as a unity or in many forms, and must also refuse utterly to listen to those who say that being is universal
N 2 385
PLATO
A 4 i > / > \ LY A A pndé TO mapdmav axovew, aAAd Kata THY TOV As Talowy edyynV, 60a GKIVNTA Kal KEKLVNLEva, TO OV \ ~ Te Kal TO Tay Evvaypotepa A€yew. @EAI. “AAnOéoraTa. > a fa f 36. ze. Ti odv; dp’ odk émetk@s dn fawo- / ~ / A Gee pela treprecAndevar TH AOYw TO OV; @FAI. [Idvu prev odv. 3 ow FE. BaBai pévr’ av dpa, ® MecaityTe, ws pot ol ~ lo A / Soxobuev viv adtod yvwoecOar wept THY amropiav THs oKepeuws. ~ > a 3 E ocat. [ls ad Kal ti Tod7’ eipynKas; i a A > EE. “OQ paxdpte, ovK évvoets OTe viv eopev ev 3 / ~ / \ 9 ~ , / ayvola TH mAcioTn wept adtod, dawopeba Sé TH déyew Hiv adrots; @EAI. "Kyol yobv: én 8 ad AeA7jPapev ovTws €xovres, o0 mavy Evvint. ay / \ / > ~ ~ EE. Leomer 61) cadéotepov, ef tatta viv Evv- 250 omoAoyobvres Sikatws av emepwryfetuev amep b] ~ \ lan avTol TOTE HpwWTapEev Todvs A€yovTas eivar TO TEV Beppov Kat vypov. eEAl. Ilota; dopurvynody pe. \ ey A BE. IIdvu pev ody: Kal meipdoopat ye dpav ToUTO, épwrav oé Kabamep exelvous TOTE, Wa apa TL Kal TpOtaev. @EAI. “Opbds. pes > , , \ , a's ty > BE. Elev 67, kivyow Kal oraow dp ovK evav- , tA > , tiatata Ayers aAAjAors; eFAl. Ids yap ov; 386
THE SOPHIST
motion ; he must quote the children’s prayer,! “all things immovable and in motion,” and must say that being and the universe consist of both.
THEAET. Very true.
str. Do we not, then, seem to have attained at last a pretty good definition of being ?
THEAET. Certainly.
str. But dear me, Theaetetus! I think we are now going to discover the difficulty of the inquiry about being.
THEAET. Whatis this again? What do you mean?
str. My dear fellow, don’t you see that we are now densely ignorant about it, but think that we are saying something worth while ?
THEAET. I think so, at any rate, and I do not at all understand what hidden error we have fallen into.
str. Then watch more closely and see whether, if we make these admissions, we may not justly be asked the same questions we asked a while ago of those who said the universe was hot and cold.?
THEAET. What questions? Remind me.
str. Certainly; and I will try to do this by questioning you, as we questioned them at the time. I hope we shall at the same time make a little progress.
THEAET. That is right.
str. Very well, then; you say that motion and rest are most directly opposed to each other, do you not?
THEAET. Of course.
1 Nothing further seems to be known about this prayer. Stallbaum thought the reference was to a game in which the children said éca dkivyra «al Kexwnuéva ely, ** may all unmoved things be moved.”
2 Cf. 242 p above.
387
PLATO
zE. Kal py elval ye ouoiws dis auddtepa atra Kal EKATEpOV ;
Borat. Dy yap obdv.
EE. “Apa Kwetobar Aéywv audotepa Kal ExaTEpor, OTav €lvar ovyxwpis;
@FAI. Odtdapds.
zE. "AXA’ é€ordvar onuatvers Aéywv adra apdo- Tepa Elva;
CFA. Kat wads;
EE. Tptrov dpa Tt Tapa Tabra, TO év ev TH oxi Tets, ws bm éxelvov THY TE oTdow Kal THY Kivnow TE pLeXOMEV IV, ovAdaBav Kal i amrud@v bray Tpos- TV THs ovolas Kowwviav, ovTws elvat mpocetmes ap.potepa;
C ora. Kwduvevonev ws adAnO@s Tpitov amo- pavrevecbal TL TO Gv, GTayv Kivnow Kal oTdow e€ivat Aéywpev.
HE. Ovx dpa xKivnois Kal ordow éott fuv- ap.poTepov TO ov, GAN’ ETEpov Oy TL TOUTWY.
@EAI. “Kouxev.
zE. Kararnv abtod dvow apa To ov ovTE EaTNKEV OUTE KLVECTAL.
@EAI. Lyeddov.
BE. Ilot 5% ypy rH Sudvovav eTL TpéTrew TOV BovAduevov evapyes Te Tept adtob map’ ceavT@ BeBardoacba;
eEAI. Iloz yap;
EE. Oipae poev ovdapdce & ETL Pao.ov. el yap Tt
D py KiveiTal, 7S ovx EOTHKEY 5 7) TO pndapas eT ds T@s odK ab KweiTar; TO S€ dv Hutv viv ExTOos TOUTWY GaUPpoTepwr Poneman % =Svvatov ovv TOUTO;
388
THE SOPHIST
str. And yet you say that both and each of them equally exist ?
THEAET. Yes, I do.
str. And in granting that they exist, do you mean to say that both and each are in motion ?
THEAET. By no means.
str. But do you mean that they are at rest, when you say that both exist ?
THEAET. Of course not.
str. Being, then, you consider to be something else in the soul, a third in addition to these two, inasmuch as you think rest and motion are embraced by it; and since you comprehend and observe that they participate in existence, you therefore said that they are. Eh?
THEAET. We really do seem to have a vague vision of being as some third thing, when we say that motion and rest are.
str. Then being is not motion and rest in com- bination, but something else, different from them.
THEAET. Apparently.
str. According to its own nature, then, being is neither at rest nor in motion.
THEAET. You are about right.
str. What is there left, then, to which a man ean still turn his mind who wishes to establish within himself any clear conception of being ?
THEAET. What indeed?
str. There is nothing left, I think, to which he can turn easily. For if a thing is not in motion, it must surely be at rest ; and again, what is not at rest, must surely be in motion. But now we find that being has emerged outside of both these classes. Is that possible, then?
389
PLATO
@EAI. Ilavrwy pev ody aduvatwrarov.
zE. Todd rotvuv uvnojvat dicasov emt Tovrous.
@EAI. To motor;
¢ ~ \ a” > / ” Ses! gE. “Ore Tod px) OvTos Epwrnbevtes TovvoLa éd A / ) tt mote Set Pepew, Ta07n ouvecxdpefa azropia. pLéuvnoar;
ecaAl. [lds yap ov;
/ lo > 3 /
BE. Mav ovv ev eAdTTOV TWL VoOV eopev arropia
E wept To ov;
@EAI. ine pév, @ Edve, ef Svvarov eimetv, ev
mAeiov. hawwopeba. eas \ / b A ,
EE. Toito pev Towvy evrab0a Ketobw SunTropy - pevov" erevd7) O€ E€ iaov TO TE OV Kal TO pay ov dirr0 - pias perevAyparor, vov éAmis 7787) Kal? dmep av avta@v Jarepov cite dvdporepov elite cadéotepov dvagpaivyT a, Kal Oatepov ovTwWs dvapaivesBar- Kal
251 éav at pndérepov idetv duvipueba, Tov yobv Adyov omprep av oiot Te wpev edapeTéatata Siwodpcba ovTws apdoty dpa.
@EAI. Kadds.
/ \ > 7 lA / A
BE. Adywpev 67 Kal’ ovtia Tote TpdTOV TrOAXOts Gvdpact TAVTOV TOOTO EKAOTOTE TPOGayopEvopLEV.
ms \ @EAI. Oiov 517) Ti; wapdderypa eizé.
37. =zE. Aéyowev dvOpootrov 6% mou 70AX’ arra
uA emovoualovTEs, Td TE Xpopara emupepovres avra
\ Kat 74 oxXnpara Kat weyeUn kal Kkakias Kal apeTas, B év ofs waav Kat erépors puptots od provov avOpwrov
3 \ > / > \ \ > \ \ 4 avrov civai dayev, adda Kat ayalov Kal erepa dmeupa, Kal TaAAa 67) Kata Tov adtov Adyor oUTwWS a @ e / / b) \ iN A A €v ExaoTov vrro0Eepevot TAAL AaBTO TOAAG Kal TOAXOtS dvopac A€yomev.
390
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. No, nothing could be more impossible.
str. Then there is this further thing which we ought to remember.
THEAET. What is it?
stk. That when we were asked to what the appellation of not-being should be applied, we were in the greatest perplexity. Do you remember?
THEAET. Of course I do.
str. Well, then, are we now in any less perplexity about being ?
THEAET. It seems to me, stranger, that we are, if possible, in even greater.
str. This point, then, let us put down definitely as one of complete perplexity. But since being and not-being participate equally in the perplexity, there is now at last some hope that as either of them emerges more dimly or more clearly, so also will the other emerge. If, however, we are able to see neither of them, we will at any rate push our discussion through between both of them at once as creditably as we can.
THEAET. Good.
str. Let us, then, explain how we come to be constantly calling this same thing by many names.
THEAET. What, for instance? Please give an example.
str. We speak of man, you know, and give him many additional designations; we attribute to him colours and forms and sizes and vices and virtues, and in all these cases and countless others we say not only that he is man, but we say he is good and numberless other things. So in the same way every single thing which we supposed to be one, we treat as many and call by many names.
391
PLATO
eral. “AAnOA A?Yyets. ah LA > aA / \ ~ / BE. “Odev ye, ota, Tots Te véows Kal THY YEepov- aA > / / id ’ \ Twv Tots osyrabéor Goivnv mapeckevdKapev? etOds A 3 / \ / ¢ > / , yap av7iAaBéobar wav7i mpdyetpov ws advvarov Ta te moAAa év Kai TO Ev TodAa civat, Kal 7 TOV / > dA > 9 \ \ / 4 yatpovow odk é@vTes ayatov Aéyew avOpwrov, aA\ad TO ev ayalov ayalov, tov dé avépwrrov + > / if on / ¢ avOpwrov. evtvyxavers yap, © Oecaityte, ws > — / \ ~ > / ae, ey@puat, 7oAAdKis TA TOLADTA eoTrovdaKoowW, evioTE /, > Sr. \ Ci A / ~ \ mpeoButepas avOpwrrois, Kal Ud mEvias THS Tept dpovynow KTHGEws TA ToLadTa TeHavpakdat, Kal 5% Tl KaL TAGCOPpoOV Olomevols TOHTO avTO avnUpHKeval. @EAI. Ilavu pev odv. a @ / A @ ¢ A €. / > HE. “Iva towvy pos admavras nuiv 6 ASyos H \ 4 \ b} / A e ~ / TOUS TWITOTE TEP. OVOias Kat OTLODY diadcyOevTas, yA \ \ id \ \ A BA €oTw Kal mpos tTovTovs Kal mpos Tovs aAdXovs, A wv / \ ~ ¢€ > bd , daots EpTrpoober Sierréypcba, TA viv Ws ev epwrrjaer AexOnoopeva. @EAI. Ta zota 67; HE. [ldrepov prjre tiv otoiav Kwroet Kal oTdoeL mpocamTwpev uynTe GAAo aAAw pndév pndevi, GAN’ e + + Nie 4 ie > 4, WS GUUKTA OvTA Kat advvaTov peTaAapBdvew aAXj- Awy ottTws abra év Tots Tap’ Hiv ASyots TIPGpEV; nn / ) b) \ 4 e \ b] mavra eis TadTov Evydywuev ws SvvaTa éemKoL-
>
a 8 , 1 \ , \ \ D , 5 vovety adAjdous; 7 TA ev, TA OE pe}; TOUTWY, @ 392
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. True.
str. And it is in this way, I fancy, that we have provided a fine feast for youngsters and for old men whose learning has come to them late in life; for example, it is easy enough for anyone to grasp the notion that the many cannot possibly be one, nor the one many, and so, apparently, they take pleasure in saying that we must not call a man good, but must call the good good, and a man man. I fancy, Theaetetus, you often run across people who take such matters seriously ; sometimes they are elderly men whose poverty of intellect makes them admire such quibbles, and who think this is a perfect mine of wisdom they have discovered.!
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Then, to include in our discussion all those who have ever engaged in any talk whatsoever about being, let us address our present arguments to these men as well as to all those with whom we were conversing before, and let us employ the form of questions.
THEAET. What are the arguments ?
str. Shall we attribute neither being to rest and motion, nor any attribute to anything, but shall we in our discussions assume that they do not mingle and cannot participate in one another? Or shall we gather all things together, believing that they are capable of combining with one another? Or are some capable of it and others not? Which of these
1 Those are here satirized who deny the possibility of all except identical predication. Such were Antisthenes, Euthydemus, and Dionysodorus. The two last are prob- ay those referred to as old men whose learning came late in life.
393
PLATO
/, / >) a“ 3 \ aA , E Qeaitynte, ti mot’ av advrovs mpoatpetobat 7- CAUyLev; > A A e \ P) ~ ’ \\ ” \
@FAI. “Eyw prev tmép adr@v oddev exw mpos
~ >) fe Tatra amoxpwaclar.
/ on >] Deen 5 , >) 3 ¢ Vk zE. Td odv od Kal” év azoxpwopevos ef’ ExaaTOU A / ’ / af: Ta EvuBaivovta éoxepu ; oEAI. Kadds déyers.? ~ A > 4 zE. Kal riddpuev ye atdrovs Aéyew, et Bovrcr,
~~ vv mp@rov pndevi pyndév prydeutav Svvayw exeu
, ~ a \ vA Kowwvias els wNndév. ovKOBY KIVNGIs TE KAL GTAOLS ovdapn peleEetov ovcias;
252 Fal. Od yap ot.
4: PIR 0 4 / urs S07, \
BE. Tidé€; €ora: métepov adr&yv ovatas p71) Tpoa- Kowvwvoor 3;
>] ”
@EAI. Ovx éorar.
EE. Taxyd 57) tavrTn ye ™ ovvopodoyia mdvra avacTaTa yeyover, ws ¢ EOUKEV, Gpa TE Tov TO may KWOUVYTWY KOL TOV ws ev taTavTwWY Kal GOGOL KAT
/ A ld \\ la > / €l0y Ta OvTa KaTa TatTa woa’Tws ExovTa e€ivai
Se. a > pucw ae’ mavTes yap obto. TO ye elvat 7poc- / e A la A e A dmTovaw, ot ev OvTws Kwetabar A€yovTes, ot Sé OVTWS EGTNKOT Elva.
@EAL. Kod pwev ody.
Ay \ elite sa A A \ i)
B =E. Kat pny Kat doo toré péev EvvtiOdaor 7a
/ \ ~ ) ¢ mavTa, ToTe dé Statpobow, etre eis Ev Kal e€ Evos y+ Va ~ ATELPA ELTE Els TEPas EXOVTA OTOLYEla StatpovmEvot
A >] VA Kal ex TOUTWY ovVTLOeVTES, OolwWs eV eaV eV JLEpEL
w~ ~ ON > / TovTo TWWdat yryvopevov, Ouoiws Sé Kal éeav ae,
1 ri ov . . . oxeyw; attributed to the Stranger by Badham.
3 Kadis éyers attributed to Theaetetus by Badham,
3 rpocxowwvodv W ; mpocxowwveiv BT.
394
THE SOPHIST
alternatives, Theaetetus, should we say is their choice ?
THEAET. I cannot answer these questions for them.
str. Then why did you not answer each separately and see what the result was in each case ?
THEAET. A good suggestion.
str. And let us, if you please, assume that they say first that nothing has any power to combine with anything else. Then motion and rest will have no share in being, will they ?
THEAET. No.
str. Well, then, will either of them be, if it has no share in being?
THEAET. It will not.
str. See how by this admission everything is overturned at once, as it seems—the doctrine of those who advocate universal motion, that of the partisans of unity and rest, and that of the men who teach that all existing things are distributed into invariable and everlasting kinds. For all of these make use of being as an attribute. One party says that the universe “is’’ in motion, another that it “is” at rest.
THEAET. Exactly.
str. And further, all who teach that things com- bine at one time and separate at another, whether infinite elements combine in unity and are derived from unity or finite elements separate and then unite, regardless of whether they say that these changes take place successively or without interrup-
395
PLATO
x U4 ~ Z nv b) , ” / Kata tavta Tata A€youev av ovder, elmep undepia €ote EvppirEts.
@EAI. “Oplds.
ae ” / 5) Siamkrens / /
BE. "Ev Tolwwy av adrot mdvrcov KaTayeAaaro- TATA jeertouey 1 tov Adyov of yndev € eGvTes Kowwvia Tabxnatos éTépou Jatepov mpooayopevew.
Coral. Ids; fal A C99 Nis > ,
EE. TO Te “ elvat ” mov mepl mavTa avayKacovrar
A ~ 99 xpHoba Kal TH “ xwpis ” Kal TH “ Tav dAAwy ”
¢ e Kal Tans cal? ait” Kat fuuplots €Tépols, WV akpatets ovtes cipyeoar Kal ur) suvdaTew €v TOFS
/ > ” / Pa / > \ Adyous ok GAAwY Eéovtar THV eEcreyovTwr, aAAA TO Aeyomevov oixobev TOV TroA€LLOV Kat evayTLe- oojevov EXOVTES, EVTOS dropbeyyouevoy o aomep TOV atotrov KdpuxAdéa TEpupeporTes & Gel TopevovTa.
D_oEAl. Kopud4 A€yeus 6 O[LOLOV TE Kal ahy bes.
EE. Te Oo; dy mavta ardAjAous eOpev Stvapw
EXEL emucowaveas ; eN7 > \ /
@EAI. Totdro peév olds te kaya diadvew.
EE. Ilds;
OFAI. “Ore Kuots TE avrT) TavTr dT aow toraer’ av Kal oTdows av maAw abt?) KwotTo, eimep emuyt- yvoicbnv em’ adAjAow.
pes > \ \ Peele / A / > /
BE. “AAAa pry TobT6 yé Tov Tals weylotats avay-
> Kats advvatov, Kivyol te lotacbac Kai ordow Kiwvetobar;
@EAI. Ilas yap ov;
BE. To tpitov 57) pdvov Aourov.
ezal. Nav.
3
1 perlovev| weriomev BTW, 2 ray &\\wy B; &A\wv Tr 3 re] ye BTW.
396
THE SOPHIST
tion, would be talking nonsense in all these doctrines, if there is no intermingling.
THEAET. Quite right.
str. Then, too, the very men who forbid us to eall anything by another name because it partici- pates in the effect produced by another, would be made most especially ridiculous by this doctrine.
THEAET. How so?
str. Because they are obliged in speaking of any- thing to use the expressions “ to be,” “ apart,” “ from the rest,” “by itself,’ and countless others; they are powerless to keep away from them or avoid working them into their discourse; and therefore there is no need of others to refute them, but, as the saying goes, their enemy and future opponent is of their own household whom they always carry about with them as they go, giving forth speech from within them, like the wonderful Eurycles.!
THEAET. That isa remarkably accurate illustration.
str. But what if we ascribe to all things the power of participation in one another ?
THEAET. Even I can dispose of that assumption.
str. How?
THEAET. Because motion itself would be wholly at rest, and rest in turn would itself be in motion, if these two could be joined with one another.
str. But surely this at least is most absolutely impossible, that motion be at rest and rest be in motion ?
THEAET. Of course.
str. Then only the third possibility is left.
THEAET. Yes.
1 Kurycles was a ventriloquist and soothsayer of the fifth century, ¢f. Aristophanes, Wasps, 1019.
397
PLATO
E 38. ze. Kot piv & yé te TovTwY avay- aA a / bh) \ BD \ \ > , A \ A Kalov, } mavTa 7 pndev 7 Ta prev EOeAEw, TA d€ 7 oupptyvucbac. a \ ” @FAI. las yap ov; zE. Kal uray ta ye dv0 advvatov edpebn. eEAI. Nat. zE. [las dpa 6 BovAdpevos dps azoxpivecbar TO Aowncv TOY TpL@v Onoer. @FAI. Kopid9 pev ovv. 4 aA A 4 > BE. “Ore 57) ta prev eéder TobTO dpav, Ta 8 ov, e ’ \ 953 axed0v ofov Ta ypdppata memovOdr’ av ein. Kat yap éxeivwv Ta Uev avappootel Tov mpos aAdyAa, Ta O€ EvvapjioTTet. ~ > ” @eEAI. Ilwds 6° ov; zE. Ta d€ ye dwrijevta duadepovt7ws TOV adAAwY olov Seapos 61a TaVTWY KEXWPHKEV, WOTE dvEev TWOS abtav advvatov apudttew Kal Tv aAAwy €ETEpov ETEPY. @EAI. Kai pada ye. ~~ A > > (2 A e€ /, A zk. [las otv ofdev Omota O7rolots SuvaTa KOLWW- A an“ A lot nn lot vetv, 7) TexVys Set TO weAAOvT Spay txavas aura; @kAl. Téyvys. x / zE. Ilovas; @EAL. Ts ypappatiKis. Ss , , \ \ A .e 7 \ t zE. Ti dé; mept trols tav d€é€wv Kat Bapéwv B floyyous dp’ ody ovTws; 6 wev TOvS GUyKEpavyU- A jévous TE Kal A) TEYVNV EXWY YLYVUWOKEW [LOVGLKOS, 6 dé py) Evyiets dpwovagos; @EAI. Odrws.
1 ebpé0y. val Heindorf; edpedjvar BT; etpeOfvar* val W.
398
THE SOPHIST
str. And certainly one of these three must be true; either all things will mingle with one another, or none will do so, or some will and others will not.
THEAET. Of course.
str. And certainly the first two were found to be impossible.
THEAET. Yes.
str. Then everybody who wishes to answer correctly will adopt the remaining one of the three possibilities.
THEAET. Precisely.
str. Now since some things will commingle and others will not, they are in much the same condition as the letters of the alphabet; for some of these do not fit each other, and others do.
THEAET. Of course.
str. And the vowels, to a greater degree than the others, run through them all as a bond, so that without one of the vowels the other letters cannot be joined one to another.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Now does everybody know which letters can join with which others? Or does he who is to join them properly have need of art?
THEAET. He has need of art.
str. What art?
THEAET. The art of grammar.
str. And is not the same true in connexion with high and low sounds? Is not he who has the art to know the sounds which mingle and those which do not, musical, and he who does not know un- musical ?
THEAET. Yes.
399
PLATO
zE. Kai cata r&v dddwy 87 Texvav Kal aTeXVLcDD To.adrTa evpicopev ETEpa.
eEAI. [las 5° ov;
rope WATS emetd1) KaL TA YEVN TpOS aAAnAa Kara Tara nies eXEW cporoyy Kaper, dp ov per eTLoTHIUNS Twos avayKatov da TOV Adywv Tmopeve- oOat ov opbas peMovra deifew Tota mrolous oupparvet ray yevar Kal mote adAnra ov O€NETAL;
C Kat On) sea Oud mavTwy Eb UvEXOVT” arr aur } coTw, WOTE oupepLty iyvvobac ouvara evar, Kal moAw ev Tats duatpéoeaw, et du OAwy erepa THs Siaipé- Gews alta;
OEAI. las yap ovK éemariuns Set, Kal ayedov ye lows THs eylorns 5
39. EE. Ti otv ad mpocepotpev, @ Mecat- THTE, TAUT ys 7) ampos Atos eAdBopev els THY TOV eAevilépwy é€ eLTEGOVTES ETLOTHNY KaL KwOvvevojey (nrobvres TOv GodioTiy mpoTepov avnupynKevat TOV diAdcodov ;
eEAI. [Ids Aéyeus 5
DZ. To KaTa yevn Svarpetoba Kal bare TAUTOV elOos € ETEpov nyyoacVat LATE (€TEpov av TadTov Lav od Ths SuadeKtiKs Pijcomev emLoTHuNs €lvat;
ozal. Nai, proper.
EE. Odxoby 6 é ye TobTO Suvaros Spav puiay idéav dua moAAOv, € €v0S EKAOTOU KELJLEVOU XwWPpLS, TavTy OvareTapevny icavas Stacobdverat, Kat 7roAAas erépas addr Ac bmO pds efwbey TEPLEXOMEVAS, Kal pav ad d.” GAwv woAAMy ev Evi Evvynupernv, Kat
1 cuvéxovr’ dtr’ atr’ Wagner; auvvéxovra ratr’ BIW.
400
THE SOPHIST
str. And we shall find similar conditions, then, in all the other arts and processes which are devoid of art?
THEAET. Of course.
str. Now since we have agreed that the classes or genera also commingle with one another, or do not commingle, in the same way, must not he possess some science and proceed by the processes of reason who is to show correctly which of the classes harmonize with which, and which reject one another, -and also if he is to show whether there are some elements extending through all and holding them together so that they can mingle, and again, when they separate, whether there are other universal causes of separation ?
THEAET. Certainly he needs science, and perhaps even the greatest of sciences.
str. Then, Theaetetus, what name shall we give to this science? Or, by Zeus, have we unwittingly stumbled upon the science that belongs to free men and perhaps found the philosopher while we were looking for the sophist ?
THEAET, What do you mean?
str. Shall we not say that the division of things by classes and the avoidance of the belief that the same class is another, or another the same, belongs to the science of dialectic?
THEAET. Yes, we shall.
str. Then he who is able to do this has a clear perception of one form or idea extending entirely through many individuals each of which lies apart, and of many forms differing from one another but included in one greater form, and again of one form evolved by the union of many wholes, and of many
401
PEATO
E moAAds ywplis mavtn Siwpropévas: todto 8 éarw, } TE KoWwwveiy Exacta SvvaTat Kal 67 [A1), dvakpivew Kata yévos émtoTtacbat.
o£AI. Llavrdzace pév ody.
zE. “AdAa pny To ye dtadextiKov otk GAAw da)- Geis, ws eydpmat, TAHY TH Kabap@s Te Kal duKxaiws diArovofotvte.
eEAI. Ids yap av ddAw doin ts;
BE. Tov pev 51) diAcoodov ev Towovtw Twi Tome Kal vov Kal éverTa aveuphooper, eav Cnt@pev, idetv
254 wev xademov evapyads Kat Toé&rov, ETE POV pen
TpoTrov 7) TE TOU GopioTos xademoTns 7 TE TOUTOV.
ecAlL. Ilds;
EE. ‘O pev arodubdpacKwy els THY TOO f1) OVTOS GkOTELVOTHTA, TPLBH TMpocaTTOpeEVvos adTHs, dia TO
Ge
OKOTELWOY TOU TOTOU KATAVOnGaL xaAeETIOS* nH yap; @EAI. ”Kouxev. e a A HE. ‘O 6€ ye dirAdcodos, TH Tob dvTos det did a A [om A Aoytopua@v Tpookeipevos (déa, dia TO AapTrpov ad THIS A A ~ an aw xXwpas ovdauds edrreTHs OfOHval’ Ta yap THs TOV B 7oAAdy puyijs Oummata KapTepety mpos TO Veto ad- opw@vrTa aovuvaTa. \ ~ >] A >] * >) / oe @EAI. Kati tadra elkos ody HrTOV exeivwY OUTWS EXEL. >) A \ A 4 \ te >) , EE. Odxodv mepi wev TovTov Kal Taxa emake - , av ” 5 ip e A Ss i ucOa cadéatepov, av evr BovdAopevois uty He epi de TOD cogioTod Tov OjAOV ws OvK aveTéov, TpLY AV iKav@s avTov feaodpeba. 402
THE SOPHIST
forms entirely apart and separate. This is the knowledge and ability to distinguish by classes how individual things can or cannot be associated with one another.
THEAET. Certainly it is.
str. But you surely, I suppose, will not grant the art of dialectic to any but the man who pursues philosophy in purity and righteousness.
THEAET. How could it be granted to anyone else?
str. Then it is in some region like this that we shall always, both now and hereafter, discover the philosopher, if we look for him; he also is hard to see clearly, but the difficulty is not the same in his case and that of the sophist.
THEAET. How do they differ?
str. The sophist runs away into the darkness of not-being, feeling his way in it by practice,! and is hard to discern on account of the darkness of the place. Don’t you think so?
THEAET. It seems likely.
str. But the philosopher, always devoting himself through reason to the idea of being, is also very difficult to see on account of the brilliant light of the place; for the eyes of the soul of the multitude are not strong enough to endure the sight of the divine.
THEAET. This also seems no less true than what you said about the sophist.
str. Now we will make more accurate investiga- tions about the philosopher hereafter, if we still care to do so; but as to the sophist, it is clear that we must not relax our efforts until we have a satis- factory view of him.
1 By practice, i.¢., by empirical knowledge as opposed to reason.
403
C
D
PLATO
@FAI. Kadds «izes. nae a > > \ \ \ (pear) A ~ e
40. ZE. “O7’ oty 57) Ta pev Huty TOV yevOv wyo-
/ a > / > / A A / \ Aoyyntrat Kowwveiv eHérew GAAHAOLsS, TA SE fu7}, Kat
\ A oder) >\/ \ 3 b] \ ta \ \ \ \ Ta jev em? CAlyov, Ta 8 emi moAAG, Ta SE Kal dia mavT oy ovdev KwAvew Tots maat KEKOWWVTKEVAL, TO 07 pera TobTo Suver vaTrese Ba, TO Ady THe GKOTODVTES, [L7) TEPL TAVTwWY THY ciSav, tva [ey
/ > a > A / ~
TapatTtupeba é€v moAAcis, aAAa mpocAdpmevon TOV jeyloroy Acyojreveny dtTa., Tp@Tov yey mote EKaOTA coTU, emecTa Kowavlas a\AnAwy TOS Exel Suvduews, wa 7d TE Ov Kal pr) OV Et pr) aon cadnveia Suvapcfa AaBetv, add’ obdv Adyou ve evOceis pLydev yuyvopeba, rept avTav, Kal? OooV O TpOTOS ee Tis vov oxeyfews, € éay dpa. ypety ™) maperxay * TO pn Ov A€yovaw ws EOTLW OYTWS M7 ov abdwous amadAarrew.
@EAI. Odxody Xp?
EE. Meéeyiora pny Tov yevav, a viv 87 dujpev, TO TE OV AUTO KaL OTAOLS Kal KiVyOLS.
@EAI. IloAv ye.
ia \ \ , , \ GY agen SthIg7
BE. Kai oN Tw ye dVo dapev adtoty autkTw mpos ardAjAw.
@EAI. Udddpa ye.
A / vv \ > A > \ \
zE. To dé ye dv puxrov audoty: e€arov yap GfLpw Tov.
eFAl. [Ids 8” ov;
/ \ {? ~
zE. Tpia 7) ylyvetat TadTa.
@EAl. Td pen 5
EE. Odor avr ay EKAOTOV Totv ev Svoty ETEpov éoTw, adto 8 éavt@ tatvrov.
1 rapexd0n Boeckh ; rapecxac67 BT.
404
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. You are right.
str. Since, therefore, we are agreed that some of the classes will mingle with one another, and others will not, and some will mingle with few and others with many, and that there is nothing to hinder some from mingling universally with all, let us next proceed with our discussion by investigating, not all the forms or ideas, lest we become confused among so many, but some only, selecting them from those that are considered the most important; let us first consider their several natures, then what their power of mingling with one another is, and so, if we cannot grasp being and not-being with perfect clearness, we shall at any rate not fail to reason fully about them, so far as the method of our present inquiry permits. Let us in this way see whether it is, after all, permitted us to say that not-being really is, although not being, and,yet come off unscathed.
THEAET. Yes; that is the proper thing for us to do.
str. The most important, surely, of the classes or genera are those which we just mentioned; being itself and rest and motion.
THEAET. Yes, by far.
str. And further, two of them, we say, cannot mingle with each other.
THEAET. Decidedly not.
str. But being can mingle with both of them, for they both are.
THEAET. Of course.
str. Then these prove to be three.
THEAET. To be sure.
str. Each of them is, then, other than the remain- ing two, but the same as itself.
405
255
PLATO
id @EAI. Ourws. es , 3 sae as ° ye , SpiaN zE. Ti zor’ av viv ovrws elpijKapev TO Te TAVTOV A / aA \ Kat Oatepov; moTepa dvo yévyn TWEe adTw,! TOY ev ~ > t > 4 Tpr@v GAAw, Evpuvyvupevw penv exeivors &€ avayxys > ~ » adel, Kal mept TéevTe GAN’ od TeEpt TpL@Y Ws BVT avT@V OKETTEOV, 7) TO TE TAVTOY TObTO Kal OaTEpov > / ¢€ a ws ekelwv TL mpooayopevovTes AavOadvouev Huds avTous ; @EAI. “lows. es > 3) ney \ , ’ \ , *A> BE. “AAXN’ od Te py Kivynots ye Kat otdots ovO v 4 ETEPOV OUTE TAUTOV EoTL. ezAl. IIds; a a a“ ~ , / A BE. “Orivep av Kowh mpoceimmmev Kivnow Kab / ~ “ e Ss oTaow, TOUTO OvdEeTEpoV avToty oidV TE Elvat. ogal. Ti 87; PS K , / / \ / on A / BE. Kovnots te orjoerar Kal ordous at xunby- ceTal' mepi yap auddrepa Odarepov omroTepovoby / yeyvopevov avTotv dvayKdoes petaBahhew av Oc.- TEepov emi TovvavtTiov THs avToo dUcews, ATE \ SN: 42 peTaaxov Tob évavtiov. @EAI. Kopid9 ye. a / x a ae \ , BE. Meréyerov nv dudw rattob Kat Oarépov. oEAI. Nai. BE. My) rotvuv Adyeopuev Knol y’ evar tadTov Odrepov, pnd” av oTaow. @EAI. M7 yap. — > s zE. “AAN’ dpa 70 dv Kal TO TadTOV ws Ev TL Sia- / a VOnTEOV Hutv; ” @EAI. “lows. > Me BE. “AXA ef 70 dv Kal To TadTov pndev Sidhopov / > / > / onatverov, Kivnow at mdAw Kal ordow appoTepa
rig
1 giro] avrod B; adroo T.
406
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Yes.
str. But what do we mean by these words, “the same” and “other,” which we have just used? Are they two new classes, different from the other three, but always of necessity mingled with them, and must we conduct our inquiry on the assumption that there are five classes, not three, or are we un- consciously speaking of one of those three when we say “the same” or “other” ?
THEAET. Perhaps.
str. But certainly motion and rest are neither other nor the same.
THEAET. How so?
str. Whatever term we apply to rest and motion in common cannot be either of those two.
THEAET. Why not?
str. Because motion would be at rest and rest would be in motion; in respect of both, for which- ever of the two became “other’’ would force the other to change its nature into that of its opposite, since it would participate in its opposite.
THEAET. Exactly so.
str. Both certainly partake of the same and the other.
THEAET. Yes.
str. Then we must not say that motion, or rest either, is the same or other.
THEAET. No.
str. But should we conceive of “ being ” and “ the same” as one?
THEAET. Perhaps.
str. But if “being” and “the same” have no difference of meaning, then when we go on and say
1 ¢,¢., sameness and difference can be predicated of both.
407
PLATO
> / > , 4 ed \ 9 \ ¢€ elvat Aé€yovtes auddtepa ovTws atTa TadvTov ws C ovra Mpooepodjiev. oral. “AAAG pony TOOTS ye advvarov. HE. “Advvarov dpa tavTov Kal TO Ov ev elvat. @EAI. Lyedov. » fi iy o7, ‘ a \ 5 1 \ zE. Téraptov 67) mpos Tots tpiow evdeor* To ravtov Taper; @FAI. [Idvu peév odv. % 1s ,Q/ 5 Coats , , zE. Tidé; 70 Odtepov dpa yy tv AeKTéov 7éuTTOV | n a AjotaN NE | ne 7 Doh So can / 7 TOOTO Kal TO OV ws OV aTTa dvomata ep’ Evi yevet dvavoetabat der; / > ” @EAI. Tay av. = > > > , A ~ 4 \ A zE. “AAQ’ ofual oe ovyywpety TOV OvTwWY TA BEV b) \ Q’ ¢€ y \ de \ LAA 0) aoe! r / Q avTa Kal’ atta, Ta Sé mpos adda ? act AéyecGar. @EAI. Te 5’ ov; sd ,ao¢ > \ Nae = , D £E. To 5’ €repov aet mpos Erepov: 4 yap; @EAI. Ovrws. © > ” ” Qo \ \ , f) HE. Ovx dv, et ye TO Ov Kal TO Odtepov py / Q , mapumoXv Oueeperny: aad’ eurep, Odrepov dyipotv peeTetxe TOW eloolv & @omep TO ov, Hy av TOTE TL Kal TOV ETE pew eTEpov ot Tpos ETepov: voy O€ a aTEXvas meer, OruTEp dy ETEPOV 7%, oupBeBncer e€ avayKns eTépov TovTO Omep eoTly eivas. @EAI. Aéyeis Kabamep EXEL. BE. Heparrov 61) THY Oarépov dvow rextéov év E tots eideacw otoav, év ois mpoatpovjeba. ozAI. Nat. a \ A , Sy Nes ,
BE. Kai dca mavtwy ye adtyv at7av Pryjcopev eivar SteAnAvOviav: év exacrov yap eTEpov civas 1 cideo. BT; ecideow eidos W.
2 édda TW ; &d\d\nda B.
408
THE SOPHIST
that both rest and motion are, we shall be saying that they are both the same, since they are.
THEAET. But surely that is impossible.
str. Then it is impossible for being and the same to be one.
THEAET. Pretty nearly.
str. So we shall consider “the same” a fourth class in addition to the other three ?
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Then shall we call “the other” a fifth class? Or must we conceive of this and “being” as two names for one class ?
THEAET. May be.
str. But I fancy you admit that among the entities some are always conceived as absolute, and some as relative.
THEAET. Of course.
str. And other is always relative to other, is it not?
THEAET. Yes.
str. It would not be so, if being and the other were not utterly different. If the other, like being, partook of both absolute and relative existence, there would be also among the others that exist another not in relation to any other; but as it is, we find that whatever is other is just what it is through com- pulsion of some other.
THEAET. The facts are as you say.
str. Then we must place the nature of “the other” as a fifth among the classes in which we select our examples.
THEAET. Yes.
str. And we shall say that it permeates them all; for each of them is other than the rest, not by reason
oO 409
PLATO
trav ddAwy od dia THY adtob dvaw, adda Sia TO peTexe THs todas THs Oargpov. @FAI. KowudH pev ov. AI. =E. “Ode 5%) Adywuev emi Ta&V mévTE Kal” ev avaAaBavovtes. ecAlI. Lids; EE. I[paz ov wev Know, WS €oTL TAVYTaTACW ETEpov oTacews. 7 THs A€ywpev; @EAI. Ovrws. b) / Aes J > / BE. Ov otdots ap €o7TlV. @EAI. Ovdapds. 256 HEE. “Koti d€ ye dua TO peTéxew TOO OvTOS. @EAI. "“Hotuv. oO \ / ( ? Ld b) ~ ? BE. Adis 87) wadw 7 Kivijats ETepov TAVTOU EoTLW. @EAI. Lyedor. > > \ v7 bl / zE. Ov tadrov apa €OTlV. @EAI. OU yap odv. 7 >) \ \ a 2) 3) ? \ \ A , ze. “AAG pry avtn y’ Hv Tavrov dia TO meTEXELY avd mavtT avdtoo. @EAI. Kai pada. zE. Tv Kivnow 07) TavTOV TE Elvat Kal pn TavTOV dpodoynréor Kal ov OvoxepavTeov. ov yap oray elarenpuev adTnVy TABTOV Kal a) TavTOV, Opoiws ecpnicapev, GAN’ omroTay psy TAUTOV, OLd TV peDesuv B ravrob T™pos eauTqy oure Aéyouer,! oTav 0€ pn TavTov, dua TV Kowaviay av Oarépov, du nv dmoxwpiloper TatvTod yeyovev ovK exetvo aan’ ETEPOV, WOTE dplads ad A€yerar TAA ov TAvTOV. @EAI. [avy pev odv. ? ~ “ ” Ld FN ZE. Ovxotv kav et mn peteAduPaver avTy 1 Néyouev W; rAEywuey BT.
410
THE SOPHIST
of its own nature, but because it partakes of the idea of the other.
THEAET. Exactly.
str. Let us now state our conclusions, taking up the five classes one at a time.
THEAET. How?
str. Take motion first; we say that it is entirely other than rest, do we not?
THEAET. We do.
str. Then it is not rest.
THEAET. Not at all.
str. But it exists, by reason of its participation in being.
THEAET. Yes, it exists.
str. Now motion again is other than the same.
THEAET. You're about right.
str. Therefore it is not the same.
THEAET. No, it is not.
str. But yet we found it was the same, because all things partake of the same.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Then we must admit that motion is the same and is not the same, and we must not be disturbed thereby; for when we say it is the same and not the same, we do not use the words alike. When we call it the same, we do so because it partakes of the same in relation to itself, and when we call it not the same, we do so on account of its participation in the other, by which it is separated from the same and becomes not that but other, so that it is correctly spoken of in turn as not the same.
THEAET. Yes, certainly.
str. Then even if absolute motion partook in
411
PLATO
Kivnols aoTdcews, ovdcy av aTOTOV HY aTaoYLOY avTiV mpocayopevew ;
@FAI, ‘Opborara ye, elmep TOY yevav ovyxw- pnaoeBa TQ [Lev aA AoLs eOdrew piyvvoba, Ta O€ [L7).
\ \ >? / \ / / > /
EE. Kat pv em ye THv TovTOU mpoTEpoV azro- Gere n TOV viv aducdue0a, eA€yyovtes ws EaTt KaTa pvow TAUTY .
@EAI. II1@s yap ov
e / / > er
HE. Adywuev 67) ae n KiVyOls EOTLW ETEPOV Tob érépov, Kabdmep tavTod Te jv addo Kal THs OTAGEWS ;
> A
@EAI. “AvayKaiov.
? LA vy > 9 / WG \ ‘
EE. Ody €repov ap’ €oTt 7 Kul ETEpOV KATA TOV vov 57 Adyov.
@EAI. “AAnO7.
at ee \ \ A a Sees ae
zE. Ti ody 57) To peta TobTO; dp ad! tay peév TpLay eTepov adTny dyaojev elvat, Too O€ retdptou Pay POLE, oporoynoavres avra elvas mévTe, Trept «vy Kal ev ots mpovdesreba, oKoTEt ;
eFAI. Kaimads; advvarov yap ovyywpetv éAdtTw Tov aptOov Tod viv dn pavevTos.
BE. “Ade®s apa zyv Kivnow EeTepov elvat Tod ovTos Stupayopuevor Adywmev;
@EAI. “AdeeoTaTa pev ovv.
2 ’ A \ A ¢ , ” > ”
zE. Otxoty 57) cada@s 7 Kivnots OvTws ovK OV > : a €OTL Kal OV, emeimEp TOD OVTOS METEXEL;
@EAI. Nadéorard yee
zE. “Horw a dpa e€ avayKns TO fn) Ov emi Te KW} GEws etva KaL KATA mdvro TO. very. KaTa TavTa Eyap 7 Qardpov dvois Eerepov amepyalouevy Tov 1 ad Heindorf; od BT.
1
412
THE SOPHIST
any way of rest, it would not be absurd to say it was at rest?
THEAET. It would be perfectly right, if we are to admit that some of the classes will mingle with one another, and others will not.
str. And surely we demonstrated that before we took up our present points; we proved that it was according to nature.!
THEAET. Yes, of course.
str. Then let us recapitulate: Motion is other than the other, just as we found it to be other than the same and than rest. Is that true?
THEAET. Inevitably.
str. Then it is in a sense not other and also other, according to our present reasoning.
THEAET. True.
str. Now how about the next point? Shall we say next that motion is other than the three, but not other than the fourth,—that is, if we have agreed that the classes about which and within which we undertook to carry on our inquiry are five in number ?
THEAET. How can we say that? For we cannot admit that the number is less than was shown just now.
str. Then we may fearlessly persist in contending that motion is other than being ?
THEAET. Yes, most fearlessly.
str. It is clear, then, that motion really is not, and also that it is, since it partakes of being?
THEAET. That is perfectly clear.
str. In relation to motion, then, not-being is That is inevitable. And this extends to all the classes; for in all of them the nature of other so operates as to make each one other than being, and
1 See 251 & ff. 413
PLATO
a id >) nv ~ A ef A WV OVTOS EKaGTOV OUK OV TroLEL, Kal EVuTravTa O17) KATA b) AY 4 ~ > A A / TavTa ovTWS OvK GvTa dpIDs epotwev, Kal wadAw,
7 / A es OTL METEXEL TOD OVTOS, Elval TE Kal OVTA. @EAI. Kuvdvvever. = Ne fey. ” ~ 2d aA \ , b] BE. Ilepi €xaorov dpa T&v €iddv TOAD ev EcTe A 5g Ld \ / \ Ni EW: TO OV, amretpov dé TAnOEL TO 17) OV. @EAI. ”Eouxev. . om. ~ ~ lj : 257 gE. Odxoty kal To Ov ad’to T&v GAdwy ETEpoV eivat AeKTEov. > 4 @EAI. “Avdyk7. as \ Nes Cole PEED nO Re e , 2 Sy zE. Kat ro ov dp’ Hiv, doamép éott ta aAda, \ ~ A \ i a“ kata TooattTa ovK E€oTW: éeKEelva yap ovK OV EV \ b) / > > / \ \ > A s fev avTo cot, amépavta bé Tov apiOuocv TaAda ovK E€oTW av. SY ry A ° @EAI. Lyedov ovTws. és b) a \ \ ~ 9 /, > at BE. Odxodv 67) Kal ratra od duayepavTéop, e7et- ” / 3 / ¢€ ~ “aA 4 3 Tep exer Kowwwviav arAjAous 7) TOV yevav @~vous. €b A ¢ ~ \ d€ Tis TadTa p12 ovyxwpet, melsas oe TOUS eumpoolev Adyous ovrw melérw Ta ETA TAT @EAI. Atkaidtata eipnKas. ld B gE. “[dwpev} 57) Kal Tdde. @EAI. To TOLOV ; : zE. ‘“Ozdray 70 p17) ov Adympev, ws couKer, ovK evavriov Tt Aéyomev TOO OvTos, GAA’ ETEpov povov. eEAl. IIds;
1 f6wuev W; cldducy B; cidwuev T.
1 Being is many, for each and every thing in all the classes is; but not-being is infinite, for not only is it true that every thing in each of the classes is not, but not-being extends also to all conceptions which do not and cannot have any reality.
414
THE SOPHIST
therefore not-being. So we may, from this point of view, rightly say of all of them alike that they are not; and again, since they partake of being, that they are and have being.
THEAET. Yes, I suppose so.
str. And so, in relation to each of the classes, being is many, and not-being is infinite in number.!
THEAET. So it seems.
str. Then being itself must also be said to be other than all other things.
THEAET. Yes, it must.
str. And we conclude that whatever the number of other things is, just that is the number of the things in relation to which being is not; for not being those things, it is itself one, and again, those other things are not unlimited in number.
THEAET. That is not far from the truth.
str. Then we must not be disturbed by this either, since by their nature the classes have participation in one another. But if anyone refuses to accept our present results, let him reckon with our previous arguments and then proceed to reckon with the next step.?
THEAET. That is very fair.
str. Then here is a point to consider.
THEAET. What is it?
str. When we say not-being, we speak, | think, not of something that is the opposite of being, but only of something different.
THEAET. What do you mean?
2 7.¢., if he will not accept our proof that being is not, etc., he must disprove our arguments respecting the partici- pation of ideas in one another, and then proceed to draw his inference.
415
PLATO
e o ” / \ / / A / ze. Ofov édrav elmmpev Te py péya, TOTE GAXOv \ aN ae ~ ~ ri cou hawdpeba TO opuKpov 7 TO taov dndoby TH es prpare; \ aA eEAI. Kat mas; 4 ? py) b] / i > , / zE. Ovdx dp’, evavtiov dray andfacis déynras onuaive, cvyywpynodpela, Tooodrov dé povoy, Ort Ae \ / \ \ Ni AENESE aah) TOV dAAwv TL pnvvEr TO M7 KAL TO OV mporeweva Crav émdvtwy dvopdatwr, waAdrov dé TOV TpAyya- Tw Tept arr av Kenta Ta emipJeyyopeva VaTEpov Ths aTtopacews ovomLaTa. oral. !lavrdmaoe pev otv. 42. HE. Todd 5é diavonfapev, ef Kal cou §vv- doKet. \ ca @EAI. To motor; os € / , ! zE. ‘H Oarépouv pou dvots haweTar KaTaKkeKep- paricba Kabdrep emvoTHun. ekaAl. Ilds; ae MV / / > , \ > / 1 A 5° bd] / ze. Mia pév eott wou Kat exeivy,’ TO 0 Em TW yuyvdjevov pepos adtis Exaotov adopratey éw- D vupiay toxyer twa éavrys idiav: bio woAdat Téxvar lat? Neyomevat Kat ETLOTH UAL. oral. IIdvy pev otv. Ss > ~ \ \ a / , Q zE. Odxodv cat Ta THs Oatépov dvcews popia pas ovons TavTov méT0Vie TOUTO. AP (eae) + A LAA’ 7 Poy 3 rv / @EAI. Tay’ av: add’ omy 07° Aeyoperv. a ” ~ n~ 4 / / > / ze. “Eote T@ Kad@ te Oarépov pdpiov avritibe- Wevov; wv @EAIL. “Korw. a a? Ss > / b] ~ ” ; ” zE. Totr’ otv avwvupov epotev n TW EXOV ETwMVvUpiay ; 1 éxelyvn W3 éxeivy BT. 2 ré ecu W; telor T3 Tiow B. 3 Gd’ dan Oh W3 GN wy T; Addo 77 B. 416
THE SOPHIST
str. For instance, when we speak of a thing as not great, do we seem to you to mean by the expression what is small any more than what is of middle size?
THEAET. No, of course not.
str. Then when we are told that the negative signifies the opposite, we shall not admit it; we shall admit only that the particle “ not’! indicates some- thing different from the words to which it is prefixed, or rather from the things denoted by the words that follow the negative.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Let us consider another point and see if you agree with me.
THEAET. What is it?
str. It seems to me that the nature of the other is all cut up into little bits, like knowledge.
THEAET. What do you mean?
str. Knowledge, like other, is one, but each separate part of it which applies to some particular subject has a name of its own; hence there are many arts, as they are called, and kinds of knowledge, or sciences.
THEAET. Yes, certainly.
str. And the same is true, by their nature, of the parts of the other, though it also is one concept.
THEAET. Perhaps; but let us discuss the matter and see how it comes about.
str. Is there a part of the other which is opposed to the beautiful ?
THEAET. There is.
str. Shall we say that this is nameless or that it has a name?
1 The two particles od and v7 in Greek. 02 417
PLATO
@FAI. “Exov: 6 yap pm) Kadov EKaOTOTE pbey- yopeba, TovTo ovK aAXov TIWds ETEPOV EOTW 7} TIS Tob Kadob dicews.
BE. “I vuv tdde pou A€ye.
E o£a1. To zotov;
ae AN A x b] LY, | , 1
EE. 0 TL TOV OVTWY TIWOS EVOS ‘yEevous 3 \ \ , bee op, > , > \ adoprobev Kat mpos Te TeV OvT@V ad madw avtitebev ovtw EvuBeBnkev evar? To px) KaAcv;
egal. Ovrws.
es ” \ yy Swab? e ” p)
zE. "Ovros 67) mpos dv? avrTifecis, Ws Eo’,
t / 4 U A AY Ao elvai tis * ouuBaiver 76 xr) KaAdv.
@EAI. ‘Opherara.
EE. Ti ovv; Kara, TOOTOV TOV Aoyov a dpa padiov [fev TO KadOv Hy eaoTe THY OvTWY, ATTOV SE TO [1) KaAov ;
@EAI. Ovdev.
258 zr. ‘Opoiws dpa TO pw) péya Kal TO péya avTo
: oiws dip y pey le eivat Aextéor;
@EAI. ‘Opotws.
= 0 TA \ \ \ , = , \
BE. Odxoiv kal To pu Sikatov TH Sikaitw Kata
3 A / \ \ / A Ss , TavTa Yeréov pos TO uendev Te waAAov eivar Barepov daréoov;
@caAlL. Te pny;
zE. Kat ria 51) TAVTY A€fopev, émetirep 7 Oarépov duious epavy Tov ovTey ovoa, exelvns de ovons avayKy 67) Kal TA “opLa aUTHS wNSEVOS HTTOV ovtTa TiOévac.
A \ ”
@EAI. [las yap ov;
B zE. Ovdxodv, ws oixev, 4 THS Oarépov jropiov
{2 \ ~ aA x > fvcews Kal THs Tob é6vTos mpos aAAnAa avtt-
3
1 évds yévous T; yévous B. 2 Eup BeBnxev elvar Stephanus ; fuuB_eBnxéva BT.
418
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. That it has one; for that which in each case we call not-beautiful is surely the other of the nature of the beautiful and of nothing else.
str. Now, then, tell me something more.
THEAET. What?
str. Does it not result from this that the not- beautiful is a distinct part of some one class of being and also, again, opposed to some class of being?
THEAET. Yes.
str. Then, apparently, it follows that the not- beautiful is a contrast of being with being.
THEAET. Quite right.
str. Can we, then, in that case, say that the beautiful is more and the not-beautiful less a part of being?
THEAET. Not at all.
str. Hence the not-great must be said to be no less truly than the great?
THEAET. No less truly.
str. And so we must recognize the same relation between the just and the not-just, in so far as neither has any more being than the other?
THEAET. Of course.
str. And we shall, then, say the same of other things, since the nature of the other is proved to possess real being; and if it has being, we must necessarily ascribe being in no less degree to its parts also.
THEAET. Of course.
str. Then, as it seems, the opposition of the nature of a part of the other, and of the nature of being, when they are opposed to one another, is no
3 a D; dv BT. ® ms Apelt; 7 BT. 419
PLATO
, > iy > \ < ? / >? a Keyeveoy avTifeots ovdev ATTOV, Et Oepus eEtzretr, avtob Tob évTos ovaia eoTiv, ovK evavTiov eKeEiva
\ land / ty > / onjaivovea, aAAa TocobTov povor, ETEpov EKElvov. @EAIl Laddorata ye. , sy zE. Tiv’ otv adtiv mpooeinwpev; ~ LA A \ a” “A \ 4 \ oral. A7jAov 67 TO 7) Ov, 6 Sia TOV GodioTHy
~ / A
eCntobuev, avTo €oTt TOTO. Er, / > e 5 ” > \ zE. IIdrepov otv, womep cies, Eotw oddevos A Ed ? / > / \ A ~ tav aAdwv ovotas eMeuropevor, Kal bet Jappobyra Hon A€yew OTL TO [L1) ov BeBatws eoTl TY avtoo LA C puow € EXOV, WorrEp TO peya nv peya weal TO KaAov ye KaAov Kal TO [11) wey pen) jeeya l Kal TO pen) Kanov Ley) Kahov,* ourw oe KQL TO [L7) OV KATA TABTOV Hv Te Kal €ort Ha ov, evdprOov TOV TOG ovTw i eldos € ev; 4 Twa €Tt Tpos avTO, W Wecaitnte, a- MloTiayv €xopev; ? u @EAI. Ovdeuiav. > > ou U / 43. ZE. Oioé’ otv éte Uappevidn paxpotépws lanl > > THS ATOPPHCEWS NTLOTHKAPEV; @EAI. Te 57; =~ A nn 3 A > A A e a ’ BE. I]Aciov 7 ’Ketvos ametme oxomety, nets Ets A ld , > ~ TO mpoobey eve CynTHoavtes amredeiEapev avT@. eEAI. Ilas; , ¢ 4 D ze. “Ore 6 pev mov dnou,
b) AS , ~ 5 Lond 3 Ss A 57. 4 OU yap [47 WOTE TOVTO AUN, Elvat 7) €oVTa,
add ad THOS ad’ od06 dSiCyotos ® efpye vonua. @EAl. A€yer yap ody ovTws. 1 uh wéya add. Boeckh. 2 uh kadév add. Boeckh. ® rodro é6auy Simplicius ; rod7’ otdaun BT. 4 é6vra Aristot.; év7a BT. 5 dignovos BT (cf. 237 a).
420
THE SOPHIST
less truly existence than is being itself, if it is not wrong for me to say so, for it signifies not the opposite of being, but only the other of being, and nothing more. |
THEAET. That is perfectly clear.
str. Then what shall we call this?
THEAET. Evidently this is precisely not-being, which we were looking for because of the sophist.
str. And is this, as you were saying, as fully endowed with being as anything else, and shall we henceforth say with confidence that not-being has an assured existence and a nature of its own? Just as we found that the great was great and the beautiful was beautiful, the not-great was not-great and the not-beautiful was not-beautiful, shall we in the same way say that not-being was and is not-being, to be counted as one class among the many classes of being? Or have we, Theaetetus, any remaining distrust about the matter?
THEAET. None whatever.
str. Do you observe, then, that we have gone farther in our distrust of Parmenides than the limit set by his prohibition ?
THEAET. What do you mean?
str. We have proceeded farther in our investiga- tion and have shown him more than that which he forbade us to examine.
THEAET. How so?
str. Because he says somewhere!:
Never shall this thought prevail, that not-being is ; Nay, keep your mind from this path of investigation. THEAET. Yes, that is what he says. 1 Parmenides, 52 f., ed. Mullach. 421
PLATO
€ A id >) / e ” 4 \ + zE. ‘“Hpeits dé ye ov jidvov ws €oTt TA fy) OVTA > t€é LAAG \ \ id “a / wv ~ dmedeiLopev, GAAa Kal TO eldos 6 TUyXavEL OV TOD A yx a > i A 2 \ \ @ if 4 ut dvtos anedyvayeba: tHv yap Barépov vow > \ dmobdelEavtes otcdv Te Kal KaTAKEKEpmaTLOpErny en / A + \ ” \ 4 Sp aN Eéml mavra ta dvta pos GAAnAa, TO TpOs TO OV n~ = éxactov! pdpiov abtis avritiléwevov eroAunoapev eimely Ws avdTO TOUTS EoTW OVTWS TO [7 OV. A / / on / > / 4 ezal. Kai mavramaci ye, @ Edve, adnbéorata pot Soxodpev eipynKévar. ¢€ ~ b) lol zE. M> roivuv 7ds ely Tus 67L TOvvavTiov Tob évTos TO pn) Ov aTrodatvopevor TOALGpEv Aéyew as aA A ~ €oTw. Tels yap mept pev evavtiov Twos avTa / , fd wv 9 yA ” / / yaipew maAdau Aéyouev, ett” EoTw etre py, Adyov ” wn A / y a“ \ ~ ’ 7 259 €xov 7) Kal mavrdamacw adoyov: 6 dé viv EipnKapev & av (7 ~ elvat TO £11) OV, 1) TELadTW TLS Ws od KaAds A€yomev av > a eréyEas, ) wexXpiTep av advvaTh, AeKTéov Kal Exeivw Kabdrep Hwets A€yomev, OTL GulyvuTat Te aAAr- \ \ / nv Nous Ta yevn Kal TO Te dv Kal Odtepov dia mavTwY A > > / / \ A 4 A Kat Ov’ aAAjAwY SteAnAvOoTa TO LEV ETEPOV ETAT YXOV lol \ Tod évTos €aTe pev dia. TaVTHY THY wEéDeEW, od pV a e 32 2 ~ exeivd ye ob petéaxev add’ Erepov, ETEpov de TOD Ui b) s évtos Ov €aTt cadéotata e& avayKys eivat p17) OV" Bro S€é dv ad Oarépouv pererAndos ETEpov TOV GAAwY av ein yevOv, erepov 8° exewwwv andvtwv ov ovK Ww id > ~ b) \ , A + \ éoTw exaorov avtav ovde EVuTravta TA GAAa TARY @ A > > avTd, WOTE TO OV avaupioPynTHTWS ad pupia Emi , b) o \ Oy ; \ 2 7 ? puplots odK €oTL, Kal TaAAa 57) Kab’ ExacTov OvTw A / “a \ 7 A ) > Kal €vuravta ToAAaxH pev €or, ToAAaxH 8° ovK 4 €oTL.
eral. *AAnO7. 1 gxacrov Simplicius ; éxdorov BT.
4:22
THE SOPHIST
str. But we have not only pointed out that things which are not exist, but we have even shown what the form or class of not-being is; for we have pointed out that the nature of the other exists and is distri- buted in small bits throughout all existing things in their relations to one another, and we have ventured to say that each part of the other which is contrasted with being, really is exactly not-being.
THEAET. And certainly, Stranger, I think that what we have said is perfectly true.
str. Then let not anyone assert that we declare that not-being is the opposite of being, and hence are so rash as to say that not-being exists. For we long ago gave up speaking of any opposite of being, whether it exists or not and is capable or totally incapable of definition. But as for our present definition of not-being, a man must either refute us and show that we are wrong, or, so long as he cannot do that, he too must say, as we do, that the classes mingle with one another, and being and the other permeate all things, including each other, and the other, since it participates in being, is, by reason of this participation, yet is not that in which it participates, but other, and since it is other than being, must inevitably be not-being. But being, in turn, participates in the other and is therefore other than the rest of the classes, and since it is other than all of them, it is not each one of them or all the rest, but only itself; there is therefore no doubt that there are thousands and thousands of things which being is not, and just so all other things, both individually and collectively, in many relations are, and in many are not.
THEAET. True.
423
PLATO
\ , \ A ° , 4 > zE. Kat ravrais 67) Tats evavTimoeow EiTE arre- OTEl Tis, OKETTEOY ALT@ Kat Aextéov PéATLOv Te TAY ~ ey) \ C viv eipnévwr: elite ws Te yaderov KaTavevonkus / yatper Tore prev emt Odrepa Tore O° emt Oatepa Tovs Aoyous EAxwv, odK GEta TOAATS arovdis EaTrovdaKev, ~ ~ \ ” ws ot viv Adyo. daci. TobTo pev yap ovTEe TL A ” \ e lal b] A > ”v \ Kopisov ovte xyaAemov evpeiv, exetvo 8° dn Kai A xaremov dua Kat KaAov. @EAI. To zotov; a \ / ” A ~ ee gE. “O xat mpdabev etpytat, TO TabtTa eacavTa a er aS 2 ws Suvata} tots Aeyouevors oidv 7 ecivar Kab A / Exactov é€A€yxovra émakorovietv, oTav Té Tis > = \ oe Ve ETepov ov 7 TavTov civar dy} KaL OTA TAUTOV OV \ >) ~ D €repov, éxeitvy Kal Kat exeivo 6 dyot TOUTWY Te- > / movOévar TOTEpOV. TO Sé TavTOV ETEPOV aTropaiveLy A \ \ aun yé my Kal To Odtepov TavTov Kat TO péya GpLKpov Kal TO GpoLloy avdmoLOV, KAL Yalpew OVTW b) A ravavtTia del mpod<povta ev Tots Adyots, OUTE TLS e ro » \ éXeyxyos otTos aAnOwos dpte Te TOY OvTWY TWOS ~ ww édamtopevou otjAos veoyer7s wv. @EAI. Kod prev ovr. ay 4 , p) , , A 5. ty 44. =zE. Kat yap, dyaléd, To ye av amo mav- A 2, A 3 / + b) > A TOs emxyetpety aTroxwpilew arAlws Te odK Eppedres A le \ Exal 67) Kal mavtdtacw apovaou Twos Kat adtdo- cogou. , , oral. Ti 57; aad ? , , SEEN SepeZ, BE. Tedewrarn mavtrwv Adywv éeotw addviors \ / \ To dtadvew ExaoTov amo mavTwv: dia yap THY
1 §Suvara BTW; Suvardtara Schanz; dvjvvra Badham; duvardv uddtota Campbell; déov atra? Apelt.; duvara is cer- tainly wrong. Possibly ov« évra or ovx« diva (the interpreta- tion adopted in the translation).
424
THE SOPHIST
str. And if any man has doubts about these oppositions, he must make investigations and advance better doctrines than these of ours; or if he finds pleasure in dragging words about and applying them to different things at different times, with the notion that he has invented something difficult to explain, our present argument asserts that he has taken up seriously matters which are not worth serious atten- tion; for this process is neither clever nor difficult, whereas here now is something both difficult and beautiful.
THEAET. What is it?
str. What I have spoken of before—the ability to let those quibbles go as of no account and to follow and refute in detail the arguments of a man who says that other is in a sense the same, or that the same is other, and to do this from that point of view and with regard for those relations which he pre- supposes for either of these conditions. But to show that in some sort of fashion the same is the other, and the other the same, and the great small, and the like unlike, and to take pleasure in thus always bringing forward opposites in the argument,—all that is no true refutation, but is plainly the newborn offspring of some brain that has just on to lay hold upon the problem of realities.
THEAET. Exactly so.
str. For certainly, my friend, the attempt to separate everything from everything else is not only not in good taste but also shows that a man is utterly uncultivated and unphilosophical.
THEAET. Why so?
str. The complete separation of each thing from all is the utterly final obliteration of all discourse.
4.25
260
PLATO
aA A \ aAAjAwy tdv €id@v ovpTroKi}v 6 Adyos yéyover npetv. @EAI. “AAnO7. <4 , , e bd] ~ ~ A a EE. Lkomer Towvy ws ev Katp@ viv 81) Tots TovovTots SiepayopeOa Kal mpoonvayKdalopev eav ETEpov eTépw ptyvvolar. \ \ / @EAI. II pos 67) 7; Il \ \ \ 1 A / ¢€ aA A 4 LA BE. II pos 76 Tov! Adyov Huiv TOv ovTwy ev Te yevav eivat. tovtTov yap otepnbévtes, TO pev t , 1 ! A ” 29 A peytotov, dirAocodias av orepnbetwev, ete 5° ev TO mapovtTt det Adyov HUds SioporAoyyoacbat Ti ToT’ EOTU, El O€ adypeOnpev adTo und Elva TO TapaTray, 9O\ n ” , or > > > , ovoev av ett rou A€yew ofot 7 Huev: adypeOnpev
Bo av, et ouveywprnoapev pndepiav elvar piéw
pndevi mpos pndev.
@EAI. "Opbds totTd ye: Adyov dé bv 6 Te viv dtoporoynréov odK aor.
ZE. “AAX’ tows 778° Emrdtevos paar’ av pabots.
ezAl. II7;
BE. To peév 8) py) ov Huty ev te TOV adAwv yeévos ov avehavn, KATA TAVTE TA OVTA OLEDTIAPLLEVOV.
@EAI. Ourws.
zE. Ovdxoty To peta TobTO oKeTTéov ei S0En TE Kal Adyw plyvuTa.
oral. Ti 37;
1 rev Ws om. BT.
1 The denial, that is to say, of all interrelations of ideas leads to purely negative results. Examples of this are the exclusive antithesis of being and not-being and the mutual exclusion of rest and motion. The difficulty is solved at
426
THE SOPHIST
For our power of discourse is derived from the inter- weaving of the classes or ideas with one another.!
THEAET. True.
str. Observe, then, that we have now been just in time in carrying our point against the supporters of such doctrine, and in forcing them to admit that one thing mingles with another.
THEAET, What was our object?
str. Our object was to establish discourse as one of our classes of being. For if we were deprived of this, we should be deprived of philosophy, which would be the greatest calamity ; moreover, we must at the present moment come to an agreement about the nature of discourse, and if we were robbed of it by its absolute non-existence, we could no longer dis- course; and we should be robbed of it if we agreed that there is no mixture of anything with anything.
THEAET, That is true enough; but I do not under- stand why we must come to an agreement about discourse just now.
str. Perhaps the easiest way for you to understand is by following this line of argument.
THEAET. What line?
str. We found that not-being was one of the classes of being, permeating all being.
THEAET. Yes,
str. So the next thing is to inquire whether it mingles with opinion and speech
THEAET. Why?
once when we recognize that positive and negative are necessarily interwoven in the nature of things, that the negative has only a relative existence and is not the opposite of the positive, but only different from it.
427
PLATO
zE. My) puyvopevov pév adrtob rovrois dvay-
C xatov aAnby wév7’ civat, pryvupéevov dé dd€a Te
yrevdrs ylyvetat Kal Adyos: TO yap Ta py) OVTA
do€alew 7) A€yew, Tobr’ Eott Tov TO eddos ev diavoia Te Kal Adyous yryvopevov.
@EAI, Ovrws.
BE. “Ovtos dé ye Wevdous EoTw andy.
egal. Nav.
BE. Kai puny ardrys ovons eid@Awv Te Kal €iKd- vwv on Kal PavTacias mavTa avayKn peoTa eivat.
eEAI. Ilds yap ov;
BE. Tov dé ye! codioriy efapev ev tovT@ Tov
D7 to7w KataTedevyevar ev, eEapvov dé yEyove- vat TO Tapamav pd elvar eddos: TO yap pe) ov ovTE dtavoetabai Twa oUTEe Agyeww: ovoias yap ovdev ovdauH TO [L7) OV pweTexeW.
@FAl. “Hy tatra.
HE. Nov d€ ye TovTo bev epary pLeTeXOV Tob ovTos, ware TAUTY) puev tows ouK av pdxouro € ere Taxa os dy pain TOV eloOv Ta pev peréxew Too 7) ovTos, Ta 8° ov, Kal Adyov 67) Kat dd€av elva TOV ov HETEXOVTOV, WOTE THY etowAorousayy Kal pav-
E raorucny, ev 7 papev avrov eivat, Suapayour dv amdAw ws TAaVvTaTAoW ouK eoTU, Ses dogo Kal Aoyos ov Kowwvel 708 ay évTos: eBdos yap TO Tmapdmay ovK eivat TavTns [7) ovvioTapLevns THs Kowwvias. 61a Tabr obv Adyov mp@tov Kat dd€av Kat pavraciay Stepevyntéov 6 TL mor éoTw, wa
1 6éye W; dé BT.
1 The English word ‘‘ fancy,” though etymologically identical with the Greek ¢avracia, has lost the close con-
428
THE SOPHIST
str. Ifit does not mingle with them, the necessary result is that all things are true, but if it does, then false opinion and false discourse come into being ; for to think or say what is not—that is, I suppose, falsehood arising in mind or in words.
THEAET. So it is.
str. But if falsehood exists, deceit exists.
THEAET. Yes.
str. And if deceit exists, all things must be henceforth full of images and likenesses and fancies.
THEAET. Of course.
str. But we said that the sophist had taken refuge in this region and had absolutely denied the existence of falsehood: for he said that not-being could be neither conceived nor uttered, since not-being did not in any way participate in being.
THEAET. Yes, so it was.
str. But now not-being has been found to partake of being, and so, perhaps, he would no longer keep up the fight in this direction; but he might say that some ideas partake of not-being and some do not, and that speech and opinion are among those which do not; and he would therefore again contend that the image-making and fantastic art, in which we placed him, has absolutely no existence, since opinion and speech have no participation in not-being ; for false- hood cannot possibly exist unless such participation takes place. For this reason we must first inquire into the nature of speech and opinion and fancy,! in order that when they are made clear we may perceive nexion with ‘‘ seeming ” (¢aivec@ac) which the Greek retains. The Greek word is therefore more comprehensive than the
English, denoting that which appears to be, whether as the result of imagination or of sensation. Cf. 235 p ff.
429
PLATO
, A wn wy davévtwy Kat Tv Kowwviay adtdv TO pn Ovtt 261 katiSwuev, KaTidovtes S€ Td petdos dv amodet- Ewuev, amode(Eavtes 5é€ TOV Gof.oTiy Eis avTo? evdrjowpev, cimep Evoxos eoTW, 7 Kal amodvoavTeEs ev dddw yéver CnTapev. K 8H 2 > he ” iA Ge > @EAI. K\Oploy YE,” W féve, E€OLKEV aAnUes EVAL A x A A > > \ 4 iv 4 / TO Trept TOV GodiaTiy Kat’ apyas AexOEv, 6Tt Sv0by- peutoveintoyevos. paiverar yap obv mpoPAnuatwv vewew, wv emercav Te mpoPddn, TodTo mpoTEpov dvayxatov Svapcyecbar mpl en adtov €éxeivov aduxéobar. viv yap pdyis perv TO py OV Ws OvK y Béort mpoBAnbev dievepacapev, eTepov dé mpoPeE- \ A ~ ” \ A / Anta, Kai Set 81) Pebdos ws EaTe Kat Tept Aoyov Kal mept Sd€av amTooelal, KAL peTa TOOTO Lows Erepov, Kat é7 GAXo pet” exeivo: Kal Tépas, ws / €ouxev, ovdev havyceTal ToOTE. A > LZ BE. Oappetv, @ Oealrynte, xpt) TOV Kat opLKpoOV tu Suvdpevov €is TO mpdabev det Mpot€var. Ti yap Gd > eee) ~ > / / vn ’ + i) A y abupadyv év tovTots Spacerev av ev dAXows, 7 pndev €v exeivols avitwv 1) Kal maAw eis Tovmobev ar- a , wabeis; oxyoAW mov, TO KaTa THY Tapommiav AEyo- a lot ~ > ( pevov, 6 ye Totodros dv mote EAou mdAw. viv 6 > / ~ éxel, wyabé, TobTo 6 Adyeis SiaTreT@epavTat, TO TOL /, ~ an :) By \ wéyotov yLiv Tetxos ypHpevoy av ein, TA 8 GAA if 707 paw Kal OULKpOTEpa. @EAI. Kadds eizes. A /, 45. =E. Adyov 51) mp&tov Kat dd€av, cabarep > , lol / 4, a > / > épp70n viv dy, AdBwpev, Wa evapy€éotepov amo- ~ “ Aoytowpc0a® wétTEpov adta@v AmteTat TO 7) OV Ff 1 qivéd W; adrov BT. 2ye TW; 6 ye B. 8 drodoyiowueba Heindorf; drodoynodueda BT. 430
THE SOPHIST
that they participate in not-being, and when we have perceived that, may prove the existence of falsehood, and after proving that, may imprison the sophist therein, if he can be held on that charge, and if not, may set him free and seek him in another class.
THEAET. It certainly seems, Stranger, that what you said at first about the sophist—that he was a hard kind of creature to catch—is true; for he seems to have no end of defences,! and when he throws one of them up, his opponent has first to fight through it before he can reach the man himself; for now, you see, we have barely passed through the non-existence of being, which was his first prepared line of defence, when we find another line ready; and so we must prove that falsehood exists in relation to opinion and to speech; and after this, perhaps, there will be another line, and still another after that; and it seems no end will ever appear.
str. No one should be discouraged, Theaetetus, who can make constant progress, even though it be slow. For if a man is discouraged under these conditions, what would he do under others—if he did not get ahead at all or were even pressed back ? It would be a long time, as the saying is, before such a man would ever take a city. But now, my friend, since we have passed the line you speak of, the main defences would surely be in our hands, and the rest will now be smaller and easier to take.
THEAET. Good.
str. First, then, let us take up speech and opinion, as I said just now, in order to come to a clearer understanding whether not-being touches
1 Perhaps a sort of pun is intended, for 7pé8\nua was already beginning to have the meaning of ‘‘ problem.”
431
PLATO
mavtamacw dadAnOA per eotw apyddotepa Tatra peBdos S€ o¥dETrOTE OVSETEpOV.
@EAI. “Opbds.
D ze. Dépe 5%, Kabdrep meol THV ciddv Kal THv ypappatwv éeAéyouev, Tept TOV ovopaTtwy méALW woavTws emoKkepwpeda. haiverar yap my TavTy TO vov Cyrovpevov.
eEAI. To wotov obtv 87) wept THY dvopdtwv br- QKOUVOTEOV;
EE. Kite TavTO. adArAows Evvappo7tet 1 etre pndev, elite Ta pev denex, 7a, de pe.
OEAl. AjjAov tobrd ye, ott Ta prev eOdAcL, Ta 5” ov.
HE. To towdvde Ayers tows, ote TA pev epekts
E Aeyopeva Kat OnAobvra ti EvvappoTter, TA O€ TH auvexela punodev onpaivovra avaplLooret.
@EAI. I[]@s tt tob7’ eizes;
EE. “Ozrep_ w7nOnv troAafovra oe TmpooopoAoyety. €oTt yap Hiv mov TOV 7H pwvh wepl THY odoiay dnAwpdtwrv dittov yévos.
eEAI. Ids;
262 zE. To peév ovouata, To dé pyyata KAnbev.
@EAI. Elmé éxdrepov.
HE. To pev emi tats mpd€eow ov SyAwpa pha mou Aéyopev.
@EAI. Nai.
1 Evvapudrre. W ; Evvapporrew BT.
1 The science of language, in all its branches, was young in the time of Plato. Words of general meaning were necessarily used in a technical sense. So here évoua and pia are used as parts of grammatical terminology in the
43
THE SOPHIST
them, or they are both entirely true, and neither is ever false.
THEAET. Very well.
str. Then let us now investigate names, just as we spoke a while ago about ideas and letters ; for in that direction the object of our present search is coming in sight.
THEAET. What do we need to understand about names?
str. Whether they all unite with one another, or none of them, or some will and some will not.
THEAET. Evidently the last; some will and some will not.
str. This, perhaps, is what you mean, that those which are spoken in order and mean something do unite, but those that mean nothing in their sequence do not unite.
THEAET. How so, and what do you mean by that?
str. What I supposed you had in mind when you assented ; for we have two kinds of vocal indications of being.
THEAET. How so?
str. One called nouns, the other verbs.!
THEAET. Define each of them.
str. The indication which relates to action we may call a verb.
THEAET. Yes. sense of ‘‘verb” and ‘‘noun,” though Plato elsewhere employs them with their ordinary meanings. Similarly the distinction between vowels and consonants (Theaetetus, 203 ; cf. The Sophist, 253) was at least relatively new, as was that between the active and the passive voice. How important
Plato’s part was in the development of linguistic study can no longer be accurately determined.
433
PLATO
zE. To 8é y’ én’ adtots tots 1 éxetva mparrovat anjetov THs Pwvis emiteBev ovoma.
@EAI. Kod4 ev odv.
EE. Ovxotv &€ dvoudtwy péev povwv ovvex@s Acyouevwr odk att ToTE Adyos, 00d’ ad pnyaTtwv ywplis ovonatwv rexbevTwv.
@EAIl. Tadr’ ouK euabov.
B- ze. AjAov yap ws mpos eT Epov TL Brera apr Evvwpohoyers * emel TOUT avTo éBovropny elev, OTe ouvex@s We Acyopeva Tabra ovK EoTt Adyos.
ezal. IIs;
EE. Ofov “ Badiler,” “ Tpexet,”” Kabevoet,” kat TadA\a ooo mpageus onuaiver pyyata, Kav mavTa Tis edeéhs att’ elm, Adyov ovdev Tt wadAdor amepyaleTac.
ozAI. Ids yap;
zE. Ovxodv Kal maAw drav réynrar “ Adwv,” ‘é\adhos,” “ inmos,” doa TE Ovopata THY TAS mpaters av TpatTovT ew wvodobn, Kal Kata
C ravryy 81) TH ovvexerav ovdeis mo Evvéatn Adyos: ovdeiav yap ovTE ovTws OUT exeivns mpatw ovo: ampatiav ovd€ ovdatav dvTos odd py) OvTOS SyAot TA dwrvnlévra, mpiv adv Tis Tots dvdpace TA pHLaTa Kkepaon’ ToTe O Npuooev te Kal Adyos eyéeveTo ev0ds 7) mpwTN ovpTrAOKyH, ayedov TAY Adywv oO mMp@Tos TE Kal? OpLKpoTaTos.
ezAI. Ids dip” Woe Aeyets ;
BE. “Orav ein tis: “ dvOpwros _pavdver,”
Aoyov civa gis Tobrov éAdyiaTov Te Kal TPHTOV; D orat. "Eywye.
1 airots Tots B, Stobaeus ; av’rots T.
= re cai W, Stobaeus; ei cai T; xal B. 434
THE SOPHIST
str. And the vocal sign applied to those who perform the actions in question we call a noun.
THEAET. Exactly.
str. Hence discourse is never composed of nours alone spoken in succession, nor of verbs spoken without nouns.
THEAET. I do not understand that.
str. I see; you evidently had something else in mind when you assented just now ; for what I wished to say was just this, that verbs and nouns do not make discourse if spoken successively in this way.
THEAET. In what way?
str. For instance, “walks,’ “runs,” “sleeps”’ and the other verbs which denote actions, even if you utter all there are of them in succession, do not make discourse for all that.
THEAET. No, of course not.
str. And again, when “lion,” “stag,” “horse,” and all other names of those who perform these actions are uttered, such a succession of words does not yet make discourse ; for in neither case do the words uttered indicate action or inaction or existence of anything that exists or does not exist, until the verbs are mingled with the nouns; then the words fit, and their first combination is a sentence, about the first and shortest form of discourse.
THEAET. What do you mean by that ?
str. When one says “a man learns,” you agree that this is the least and first of sentences, do you not?
THEAET. Yes.
435
PLATO
A De A A “fs De \ ~ + aA BE. Ando? yap 75 mou ToTE rept THY ovTaY 7 / a“ S yuyvopevwy 7) yeyovotwy 7 peAAovTwV, Kal ovK évoundtler povov, GAAd TL Tepaiver, cuuTAEKwY TA e/ ~ > / \ / > A > > 3 pi.aTa Tos dvopact. do A€yew Te adrov aAX’ ov A ~ povov dvoudlew elzouev,) Kat 57) Kat TO mAEypate rouTw TO dvopa epbeyEduea Adyov. @FAIL. “Opdas. = oe \\ /, A / \ 46. =E. Ottw 8) Kabdmep ta mpaypata* Ta A > , iA \ >] y+ A A A ~ pev GAAnAoLS TppoTTE, TA O° OV, KAL TEPL TA TIS duvis ad onjeta Ta pev odx apydtTeL, TA dE E dppottovta atta&v Adyov aeipydoato. @EAI. Ilavrdmace prev ovv. gE. "Ere 81) optxpov TOdde. @EAI. To zrotov; mi , > A ¢ a A s , zE. Adyov avayKaiov, 6tavmep 7, TWos etvat Ao- yov, p17) O€ Twos advvaTov. @EAI. Ouvtws. os > A \ , Seen > a zE. Odxoby Kal mo.wv twa avdrov eva de7; eral. Ids 5’ ov; fe / A \ ~ ¢€ A ) A zE. IIpoodywpev 67 Tov votv uty avrtots. egal. Act yoov. / / / \ an / zE. AéEw roivuv cot Adyov ovveis mpaypa mpa- > > V6 A cas. tv4 3 “v e / Ee 8’ dvduatos Kal priuatos: dtou 6° av 6 Adyos 4, ov por ppacew. ret aA A 4 963 EAI. Tadr €orat Kata Svvapwy. EE. @eairntos KabnTrar. pov pq paKpos oO Aoyos ; @EAI. Ovx, aGAdAa pérptos. = ‘ ” \ / A e > b] 4 \ zE. Lov épyov 67 dpdlew mept ob T €oTL Kal OTOU. ~ iA \ > ~ \ > / oral. AfAov ote epi eod TE Kal Epos. 1 eirouev Stobaeus; elromev BT.
2
436
THE SOPHIST
str. For when he says that, he makes a statement about that which is or is becoming or has become or is to be; he does not merely give names, but he reaches a conclusion by combining verbs with nouns. That is why we said that he discourses and does not merely give names, and therefore we gave to this combination the name of discourse.
THEAET. That was right.
str. So, then, just as of things some fit each other and some do not, so too some vocal signs do not fit, but some of them do fit and form discourse.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Now there is another little point.
THEAET. What is it?
str. A sentence, if it is to be a sentence, must have a subject; without a subject it is impossible.
THEAET. True.
stk. And it must also be of some quality, must it not?
THEAET. Of course.
str. Now let us pay attention to each other.
THEAET. Yes, at any rate we ought to do so.
str. Now, then, I will speak a sentence to you in which an action and the result of action are combined by means of a noun and a verb, and whatever the subject of the sentence is do you tell me.
THEAET. I will, to the best of my ability.
str. “ Theaetetus sits.” It isn’t a long sentence, is it?
THEAET. No, it is fairly short.
str. Now it is for you to say what it is about and what its subject is.
THEAET. Clearly it is about me, and I am its subject.
2 apdyyara BTW ; ypduuara, letters, Bury (cf. 253).
437
B
C
PLATO
EE. Tt d¢€ 60 ad;
@EAI. [lotos;
BE. Qeairntos, @ viv éya diadéyouat, wéteTaL. @FAI. Kat totrov 00d’ av eis addAws etzot TAY
b) \ \ > ~ €ov TE Kal TrEpl ELod.
ae \ , / 4 > A ? zE. Ilovy dé yé twa dapev avayKaiov ExaoTor
eivar TOV Adywv.
eEAI. Nat.
zE. Tovtwy 67 motov twa éexdtepov daréov elvar; @EAI. Tov péev evdh mov, tov d€ adnf7.
i , \ Sin € \ > \ Ney ¢ HE. Adyer d€ adt@v 6 pev adnfijs Ta OvTa ws
v A A €OTl TEPl GOV.
okal. Ti pjv;
se. ‘O 6c 87) ysevd7)s ETEPA TOV OVTWY.
ezal. Nat.
oe A 4 + >] + ¢ y+ /
EE. Ta py) ovt apa ws ovrTa réyet.
@EAI. Lyedov.
zE. "Ovtwy 1 dé ye ovta €repa trept cod. moda
\ A ” y+ Ve GY > / AA A Lev yap Epapev OvTa TEpt ExaoTov Eivat Tov, ToAAa dé OUK OTA.
A \ >
oFAI. Koptdq pév odv. a ° A / ” \ A zE. “Ov tortepov 47 Adyov eipnKa mepi aod,
~ /, b] e e / , > eA / mp@Tov pev, €€ @v wptodjieOa Ti ToT’ Eat Adyos, / 3 A tA ~ , “a avayKaloTaTov QUTOV €VA TWV BpaxvTdtwy €ivat.
oEAIL. Nov 8) yodv tavrn Evvwpodroynjoapev.
aE. “Ezerta 6€ ye Tivos.
OFAI. Ovrws.
BE. Ei dé ju7) €ote ods, odK GAAov ye ovdevds. 1 gvrwv Cornarius ; dvTws BT,
438
THE SOPHIST
str. And how about this sentence ?
THEAET. What one?
str. “ Theaetetus, with whom I am now talking, flies.”
THEAET. Livery one would agree that this also is about me and [ am its subject.
str. But we agree that every sentence must have some quality.
THEAET. Yes.
str. Now what quality shall be ascribed to each of these sentences?
THEAET. One is false, I suppose, the other true
str. The true one states facts as they are about you.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. And the false one states things that are other than the facts.
THEAET. Yes.
str. In other words, it speaks of things that are not as if they were.
THEAET. Yes, that is pretty much what it does.
str. And states with reference to you that things are which are other than things which actually are ; for we said, you know, that in respect to everything there are many things that are and many that are not.
THEAET. To be sure.
str. Now the second of my sentences about you is in the first place by sheer necessity one of the shortest which conform to our definition of sentence.
THEAET. At any rate we just now agreed on that point.
str. And secondly it has a subject.
THEAET. Yes.
str. And if you are not the subject, there is none.
439
PLATO
ezal. Ilds — A \ an“ SQ 9) ak f Ww A , zE. MySevos de} ay ovd av Adyos ein TO Tapa- may" ameprvapLev yap ote TOV advvdtwv Av Adyov ovTa. pendevos eivat Adyov. @EAI. “Opforara.
D zr. Ilepi 7) cob Acyopeva, Acyopeva HeVTOL Odrepa Ws Te ara Kat pq) ovTa ws ovTa, mavrd- Taow eouxev ® “i ToLaUvTT avvleors € EK TE puyedtov yryvomevn Kal dvopaTwv ovTws Te Kal adnbds yiyvecbat Adyos pevdys.
@EAI. “AAnOéorata pev obdv.
47. zE. Tt dé 59; dudvoud te Kat dd€a Kai davtacia, u@v ovK 707 SHAov Ott TabTa TA yevy
A \ > ~ 4 > e ~ >? A a
yevdn te Kal adn wav? nudv ev tais puvxais eyylyveTa;
@FAI. [lds ;
aie 5Oo: eles paov, av Tp@Tov ays aura,
E zor’ €o7t Kai Tt duagepovowy € exaota aAAjrwv. @EAI. Aidov povov. b) ~ /, A \ ff b) / \
EE. Ovdxody didvoia péev Kal Adyos tadrov-: mAnv 6 pev evtos THs wuyhns mpos avTijyv Siadoyos avev pwvis yryvojevos Todt atvtTo nuiv éemwvoudabn, Lavola ;
@EAI. Ilavu prev odv.
a TS 2 OPS aD 7 carn \ A /
EE. To 6€ y’ am’ éexelvys peda 61a TOO oTOpatos tov peta POoyyou KéxAntar Adyos;
ozal. “AAnfF
\ \ ’ / S) Aiea 4 x
BE. Kai uv ev Aoyous adto topev ov—
@EAI. To zotov;
Z , Sc ayy,
zE. Ddow te Kat amodaow.
4
1 6€ emend. apogr. Parisinum 1811; ye BT; 6é or 6é ye Heindorf.
440
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Certainly not.
str. And if there is no subject, it would not be a sentence at all; for we showed that a sentence without a subject is impossible.
THEAET. Quite right.
str. Now when things are said about you, but things other are said as the same and things that are not as things that are, it appears that when such a combination is formed of verbs and nouns we have really and truly false discourse.
THEAET. Yes, very truly.
str. Is it, then, not already plain that the three classes, thought, opinion, and fancy, all arise in our minds as both false and true?
THEAET. How is it plain?
str. You will understand more easily if you first grasp their natures and the several differences between them.
THEAET. Give me an opportunity.
str. Well, then, thought and speech are the same; only the former, which is a silent inner conversation of the soul with itself, has been given the special name of thought. Is not that true?
THEAET. Certainly.
str. But the stream that flows from the soul in vocal utterance through the mouth has the name of speech?
THEAET. True.
str. And in speech we know there is just—
THEAET. What?
str. Affirmation and negation.
2 Neyoueva add. Badham.
3 Zouxev W ; ws éouxev BT. 6 aird W, Stobaeus ; om. BT.
P 441
PLATO
EAI. "lopev.
264 * Se. otO7ar obv tobTo ev uyh Kara dudvovay eyylyyytat peta ovyhs, wAnvy dd€yns exerts oO Tt mpoceimns avTo ;
@EAI. Kat was;
AES: uo. orav pen al” avTo ! ara ou aiadnoews mapy TW TO Totottov ati 7a8os, dp’ olov Te opb&s eimety ETepov TL TAnY havTaciav;
@EAI. Qudev.
BE. Odxobtv émeimep Adyos ary Oiis 7) nv Kal pevdys, trovtwv 8 édavyn dudvora prev adTHs mpos eavT7V puxijs duadoyos, dd€a d€ Stavoias amoteAcUTyOIs,
B‘ ‘ paiverat ‘i oe fo) Aéyopev ovppuies alcOicews Kat O0€ns, a dvayen on) Kal TOUTOY TO Aoyw EvyyevOv ovTwv wevdy TE adTay évia Kal éviote ivan.
eEAI. IIa@s 5’ ov;
HE. Karavoeis ou ore mporepov niipedn ysevd7}s d0€a Kat Aoyos 1 KaTa THY mpoodoKiay 7 ay epoBr- Onev apte, 22) mavrdmacw GVTVUTOV Epyov Emrt- Baddoiefa Cnrobvres atte;
@FAI. Kazavow.
48. zE. Mi tolvvv pnd? els ta Aoura abv-
Cpduev. émevdi) yap médavta Tatra, Tay Eumpo- olev avayvyncbGpev Kat’ €ldn Sratpécewr.
@EAI. [otwy 87);
HE. AecAducba Tis eidwAomrouKkhs €tdyn Svo, THY pev eiKaoTiKiy, THY S€ PavTaoTiKHV.
@EAI. Naw.
EE. Kat rov codiotiy elimopev ws amopoiper eis omrotépav Oricomev.
1 gird Stobaeus; adriv BT. 44.2
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Yes, we know that.
str. Now when this arises in the soul silently by way of thought, can you give it any other name than opinion ?
THEAET. Certainly not.
str. And when such a condition is brought about in anyone, not independently, but through sensation, can it properly be called anything but seeming, or fancy?
THEAET. No.
str. Then since speech, as we found, is true and false, and we saw that thought is conversation of the soul with itself, and opinion is the final result of thought, and what we mean when we say “it seems” is a mixture of sensation and opinion, it is inevitable that, since these are all akin to speech, some of them must sometimes be false.
THEAET. Certainly.
str. Do you see, then, that false opinion and false discourse were found sooner than we expected when we feared a few moments ago that in looking for them we were undertaking an endless task ? :
THEAET. Yes, I see.
str. Then let us not be discouraged about the rest of our search, either; for now that these points are settled, we have only to revert to our previous divisions into classes.
THEAET. What divisions?
str. We made two classes of image-making, the likeness-making and the fantastic.!
THEAET. Yes.
str. And we said that we did not know to which of the two the sophist should be assigned.
1 See 235 p ff. 443
PLATO
eFAl. *Hy ratra. =, A AN? e ~ 5 iz: ww , EE. Kat rot? 7u@v azopovpévwrv ett petlwv KatTexv0n oKotodwia, davévtos tod Adyouv Tob ~ > nw e + ) A BA yw méow appropnrobvtos, Ws oUTE EiK@Y OUTE ELOWAOY Dovre ddvtacua ein TO Tapdmav ovdev Sia TO pndap@s pndémote pundayod peBdos etvar. @EAI. Aéyers adnOf. zE. Nov d€ y’ eed méparvrat pev Adyos, / > on / he > A A / medavrat 6 ovaa dd€a Wevdyjs, éyywpet 51) Lysnwata TOV OVTWY civa Kal TEXVHV EK TAUTYS ylyvecBaL THS dvablécews amatrntiKip. @FAI. "Eyywpet. ne A \ tA > 8 ¢€ A D, / BE. Kat punv ore y Hv 6 codiotis TovTwWY 7OTE- pov, Siwpodoynuévoy uty ev Tots mpdabev Tv. ecal. Nat. rs / / 2 A / a A HE. [IdAw roivvr emyeipapuev, oxilovtes duxf TO Ae 4 , 6 4A >) \ } € A 5 \ E mpotelev yévos, mop<cvecbar Kata Tovmi Se€ia del pépos TOD TunGEevtTos, EXopevor THS TOO GodioTob KoWwwvlas, Ews av avToo TA KOLA TAVTO TrEpLeAdYTES, A >} / fe / > / / THv oltketav AuovTes PUow emdciE~wpev padioTa 265 wév auiv adrois, emetta dé Kal Tots éyyuTdtw yéver THS ToLavTns eOddou TepuKdow. @FAI. “Opdds. 5 $e a Nee , \ \ EE. Ovxciv rote pev npyoue8a mrountiKyny Kal KTNTLKHY TEXVHVY StatpovpEvor; egal. Naw. \ ~ A >) ~ \ 3 va BE. Kal tis xrntixis ev Onpevtikh Kal aywvia Kal euTopiKy Kal TLOLY EV TOLOUTOLS ELOEoLW EpavTa- Ce?” atv; 444
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. You are right.
str. And in the midst of our perplexity about that, we were overwhelmed by a still greater dizziness when the doctrine appeared which challenges every- body and asserts that neither likeness nor image nor appearance exists at all, because falsehood never exists anywhere in any way.
THEAET. ‘True.
str. But now, since the existence of false speech and false opinion has been proved, it is possible for imitations of realities to exist and for an art of deception to arise from this condition of mind.
THEAET. Yes, it is possible.
str. And we decided some time ago that the sophist was in one of those two divisions of the image-making class.
THEAET. Yes.
str. Then let us try again; let us divide in two the class we have taken up for discussion, and proceed always by way of the right-hand part of the thing divided, clinging close to the company to which the sophist belongs, until, having stripped him of all common properties and left him only his own peculiar nature, we shall show him plainly first to ourselves and secondly to those who are most closely akin to the dialectic method.
THEAET. Right.
str. We began by making two divisions of art, the productive and the acquisitive, did we not ?1
THEAET. Yes.
str. And the sophist showed himself to us in the arts of hunting, contests, commerce, and the like, which were subdivisions of acquisitive art ?
1 See 219. 445
PLATO
@£Al. Ilavu peév odv.
BE. Nov dé y’ émrevd1) YN TUR mreptetAnger avrov Téxvn, d7jAov ws avriy TV TOWNTURTY dixa
B dvarperéov TPOTHV. u) yap Tov petunous moinots Tis EOTU, eidcbAwy peevtor, payev, GAN’ ode adrav EKAOTWY" 7 yap;
ecal. I[lavramact pv ovv.
BE. Llountixfs 57) 7mp@tov dvo €oTw pépn.
@eEAI. Iloiw;
zE. To prev Oeiov, to 8’ avOpadmwov.
@EAI. Ovrw edna.
49. EE. Houjrexny, ElTEp pepvnpcBa Ta Kar’ dpxas Aexfevra., maoav é aLev eivar Ovvapi NTLS av aitia yiyvntat Tots 7) mpdoTEpov ovaw VoTEpov yiyvecBat.
@FAI. Mepv7jueba.
C =zE. Za 8) wavta OvnTa Kal duTa doa 7 ext vis €k omrepatwv Kat pil@v dveTat Kal doa aybvya ev yh Ewviorara. OWM_ATA THKTA Kal dTHKTO., pL@v aAXov Twos 7 Bob OnpcoupyobvTos Prjcopev v VOTEpOV ylyvecbau TmpoTepov ovK ovTa; 7 TH TOV TOAAdY Soypate Kal pHU“aTe xpwpevor—
ezaAl. Lloiw;
zE. TO tiv dvow attra yevvav amd twos aitias avroudTns Kal avev dtavoias duovans, 7 L<eTAa Adyov Te Kal éemaTHpns Oeias amd Beobd yryvouerys ;
D o£al. “Eyw pev tows dra THY ae ce ToAAdKts duddrepa petadoédalw: viv unv) Brew eis oe Kal brrohapBaver olecbai aE Kar ye Qeov atdra ylyvecbar, TavTn Kal adTos vevosiiKa.
ZE. Kadd@s ye, © Oeairnte: Kai et pev ye ae
1 wiv bs wh BT. 446
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Certainly.
str. But now, since imitative art has taken him over, it is clear that our first step must be the division of productive art into two parts; for imitative art is a kind of production—of images, however, we say, not of real things in each case. Do you agree?
THEAET. By all means.
str. Then let us first assume two parts of productive art.
THEAET, What are they?
str. The divine and the human.
THEAET. ] don’t yet understand.
str. We said, if we remember the beginning of our conversation, that every power is productive which causes things to come into being which did not exist before.
THEAET. Yes, we remember.
str. There are all the animals, and all the plants that grow out of the earth from seeds and roots, and all the lifeless substances, fusible and infusible, that are formed within the earth. Shall we say that they came into being, not having been before, in any other way than through God’s workmanship? Or, accepting the commonly expressed belief—
THEAET. What belief?
srr. That nature brings them forth from some self- acting cause, without creative intelligence. Or shall we say that they are created by reason and by divine knowledge that comes from God ?
THEAET. I, perhaps because I am young, often change from one opinion to the other; but now, looking at you and considering that you think they are created by God, I also adopt that view.
str. Well said, Theaetetus; and if I thought you
4AT
PLATO
€ , A > A ” ie ” nyovpeba Tay eis Tov Emeita xpdvov aAAws TwS dofalovtwy civar, viv av TH Adyw peta TreLBods avayKaias émexeipotpev trovety Owodoyety: é7red?) d€ cov KatapavOdyvw thy dvow, OTL Kal avev TOV
Emap’ 7u@v Adywv adr! mpdcecow ef amep viv eAceobau Ns: edow" Xpovos yap €K mEepiTToo ylyvour dav: ard Ojow Ta pev poet Aeyopeva. movetoba Oeia TéexVN, TAS” eK TOUT WY om * avO peste EvvioTdpeva dvOpwrivy, Kal Kara ToUTor 07) TOV Adyov Svo0 mointiKs yévyn, TO pev avOpwruwvov eivat, To de Ociov.
@EAI. “Opbas.
BE. Téuve 57) dvotyv ovcaw diva éxatépav atts.
ekaAl. IIdas;
266 HE. Ojfov torte péev Kata mAdTos TéuvwY THY ToinTiKny Tacav, viv dé ad KATA LHKOS.
@EAI. Tetprobw.
zE. Térrapa juyv atris otTw Ta TdavTa mEpy yiyverau, dvo fev TA pos HUdV, avOpudmeta, dvo
ad Ta mpos Oedv, Beta.
e£al. Nat.
EE. Ta d€ y ws €Tépws av b dunpypeva, }€pos pev év ad’ Exartépas THs jueptdos avTOTOLNTLKOY, TO brodoimw ayedov padtor’ av Xeyotobnv «idwdo- TouKw: Kal KaTa Tadra 67 mdAw y ToLnTLKT bux Svarpetrar.
B oka. Aéye omy” Exarépa avis.
50. =E. ‘Hpyets pév mov cat taddAa CGa Kal &€ Ov Ta tepuKoT e€oti, Top Kal Vowp Kal TA TOVTWY adeAdad, Jeod yevvijuata wavTa lopev avTa amreipya- opeva ekaoTa’ 7) Tas;
1 airy W; attn B; avrn T. 2? Sry inferior mss.; é70 BT, 448
THE SOPHIST
were one of those who would think differently by and by, I should try now, by argument and urgent persuasion, to make you agree with my opinion; but since I understand your nature and see that it of itself inclines, without any words of mine, towards that to which you say you are at present attracted, I will let that go; for it would be a waste of time. But J will assume that things which people call natural are made by divine art, and things put together by man out of those as materials are made by human art, and that there are accordingly two kinds of art, the one human and the other divine.
THEAET. Quite right.
str. Now that there are two, divide each of them again.
THEAET. How?
str. You divided all productive art widthwise, as it were, before ; now divide it lengthwise.
THEAET. Assume that it is done.
str. In that way we now get four parts in all; two belong to us and are human, and two belong to the gods and are divine.
THEAET. Yes.
str. And again, when the section is made the other way, one part of each half has to do with the making of real things, and the two remaining parts may very well be called image-making; and so productive art is again divided into two parts.
THEAET. Tell me again how each part is dis- tinguished.
str. We know that we and all the other animals, and fire, water, and their kindred elements, out of which natural objects are formed, are one and all the very offspring and creations of God, do we not?
PQ 449
PLATO
a @EAI. Ouvrws. BE. Totvtrwv 5é€ ye éxdorwv eldwda, add’ ovk A ~ ~~ avTa mapémeTa, Sayovia Kal Tatra pyyavy yeyovoTa. ekAl. L[lota; es , 3 ALM ie ,¢ of cit 7 zE. Td te ev tots Umvois Kat doa pel” Audpav davraopata avtodun AéyeTar, oKia pev OTav év an / ~ 5) C7 mupt oxdtos éeyyiyvytat, SimAoby O€ Hvik’ av das oikelov Te Kal aAAdTpLov Trept TA AaTpPA Kal aA >] “a \ ~ ” > / y+ Acia eis &V EvveAOov Tis eumpoaber etwOvias dypews evayTiav atcOnow TOPE XOV €idos amepyalyrat. @EAI. Avo yap ov €oTe Tatra Gelas épya roun- cews, avTo TE Kal TO TapaKoAovboiy «€tdwdAov EKAOTW. a Ti ig a , / 9 9 2A zE. Te d€ tiv nywetépay téxvqv; ap’ odK adriy pev oltay otKodouich HoojLev movet, ypapuch b€ TW éTépay, oiov ovap avOpumuwov éypyyopoow ATELPYAGLEVHD ; i \ s D ocat. [dvu peév odv. — O b) A A PX 4 A 8 [2 PS) Ae, ZE. Ovdxodv kat TdAAa ovTw Kata SUo SitTa epya ~ e > wn THS HpueTepas av mrounTiKHs mpakews, TO ev avTo, apev, adtoupyiKy,! To dé eldwAov <lOwdAorroukh .* @EAI. Ndv paddov epabor, Kat TiOnps dvo Ox TOUNTLKNS <td" Detar ° prev Kal dvOpwrivny 4 Kara / Odrepov Tuma, Kata dé Odrepov TO pev adTav Ov, TO O€ OMOLWwUaTwY TOY yévyna. 1 avroupytxy Heindorf ; advrovpyix} BT. 2 eldwrorouxg Heindorf ; efdwrorouxy BT.
3 @elavy Heindorf; dela B; Oeia T. 4 dvOpwrivny Heindorf ; avO@pwrivn B; avOpwrlvy T.
1 This was the current explanation of reflection. Mirrors and smooth objects were supposed to contain a luminous principle which met on the smooth surface with the light
450
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Yes.
str. And corresponding to each and all of these there are images, not the things themselves, which are also made by superhuman skill.
THEAET. What are they?
str. [The appearances in dreams, and those that arise by day and are said to be spontaneous—a shadow when a dark object interrupts the firelight, or when twofold light, from the objects themselves and from outside, meets on smooth and bright surfaces and causes upon our senses an effect the reverse of our ordinary sight, thus producing an image.!
THEAET. Yes, these are two works of divine creation, the thing itself and the corresponding image in each case.
str. And how about our own art? Shall we not say that we make a house by the art of building, and by the art of painting make another house, a sort of man-made dream produced for those who are awake?
THEAET. Certainly. _
str. And in the same way, we say, all the other works of our creative activity also are twofold and go in pairs—the thing itself, produced by the art that creates real things, and the image, produced by the image-making art.
THEAET. I understand better now; and I agree that there are two kinds of production, each of them twofold—the divine and the human by one method of bisection, and by the other real things and the product that consists of a sort of likenesses.
coming from the object reflected. So in the act of vision the fire within the eye united with the external fire (7imaeus, 46 a). The words ris tumpocbey . . . évavtiay aic@now refer to the transposition of right and left in the reflection (cf. LTheaetetus, 193 c).
451
PLATO
~ / > ~ > ~ 51. EE. Tis | TOLVUV eldwroupyuxiis avapvnobe- Lev ort TO pev elKAOTUKOD, TO dé pavraoriKoy eped- E Ae elvau yevos, el To weBdos GvTws dv Pebdos Kal TOV OVTWY EV TL pavetn TEpuKos. @cAI. “Hy yap odv. zE. Odxotv eddvy te Kal Sia tabdta 81) KarT- apiunoowev atta! viv dvaudioBytyTws €tdn vo; eEAI. Nat. 967 HE. To towvv davtacrikov atOis diopilwev dixa. ocal. If; a A \ 3:2 / / A \ b) lol HE. To pev du’ dpyavwv yryvopevov, To d€ avdtot mTapéxovTos éavTov dpyavov Tob moLwosvTos TO pavrTacua. @EAI. Ids PIS 5 zE. “Orap, oipat, TO GOV OXHUA Tis TH EavTod XpwWuevos aowWpaTe Tmpoddjovoy 7 Pwvnv pwvh paiveobar morn, pipnots TobTo THs PavTacTiKAs peaAvora KéKAnTal zov. ozal. Nat. = \ \ lon Leap / =E. Miunrixov 67) tTotro attis mpoceimovtes > 7 2 \ > yw ~ > ~ atroveuwpeba ro 8 aAdo av addpev padake- Bobévtes Kal mapevtes ETépw cvvayayeiv Te els EV Kal mpémovoav emenvupLlav amrodobval TW avT@. EAI. Neveunobe, TO dé pcleicbw. ZE. Kat pry Kai TobTo ETL Sumdroby, & ® Meaityre, a€vov WyetoBar- bu’ ad dé, oxomet. ogaAl. Adye. ee Par t Ge ae 207 a a BE. Tov pipovpévay of peév €iddtes 6 uypodvras 1 ait] aire BT. 2 dmroveuwueda W 3 aroveuducda BT. 452
THE SOPHIST
str. We must remember that there were to be two parts of the image-making class, the likeness- making and the fantastic, if we should find that falsehood really existed and was in the class of real being.
THEAET. Yes, there were.
str. But we found that falsehood does exist, and therefore we shall now, without any doubts, number the kinds of image-making art as two, shall we not?
THEAET. Yes.
str. Let us, then, again bisect the fantastic art.
THEAET. How?
str. One kind is that produced by instruments, the other that in which the producer of the appear- ance offers himself as the instrument.
THEAET. What do you mean?
str. When anyone, by employing his own person as his instrument, makes his own figure or voice seem similar to yours, that kind of fantastic art is called mimetic.
THEAET. Yes.
str. Let us, then, classify this part under the name of mimetic art; but as for all the rest, let us be so self-indulgent as to let it go and leave it for someone else to unify and name appropriately.
THEAET. Very well, let us adopt that classification and let the other part go.
str. But it is surely worth while to consider, Theaetetus, that the mimetic art also has two parts; and I will tell you why.
THEAET. Please do.
str. Some who imitate do so with knowledge of that which they imitate, and others without such
453
PLATO
TobTo mpattovow, ot 8 ove eiddtes. KalToL Tiva peilw diaipecw ayvwolas Te Kal yywoews Ojcopev;
@EAI. Ovdepiav.
EE. Odxotv 70 ye dpte AcyPev elddTwv Hv mina; TO yap Gov oyhma Kal oé yryvpwoKwy av Tis LUyLT)- Gato.
C oeeat. Ids 8 ov;
BE. Ti d€ duxavoovvns TO oyqa Kat 6Ans EvddAN- Bonv aperis; ap’ ob« ayvoobytes pév, do€alovtes d€ mn, ofddpa emyetpodar oAAol 76 SoKoby adiat TOOTO ws evov avTots mpobvwetobat paivecOan Trovetv, oTt udAvora Epyots Te Kal Adyous WyLOUpEVOL;
@EAI. Kat mavu ye moAdot.
ZE. Mp odv mdvres arotuyxavovet Tob SoKeiv elvar dikaor undapas ovtes; 1) TOUTOV Tray TOUVaY- Tov;
egal. IIdpv.
ZE. Miunryv 8) rtodrov ye €repov éxeivov
D Aexréov ofuat, Tov ayvoobvta Tod yryvwoKorTos.
@EAI. Na.
52. gE. [[dev ofv dvoua éexatépw tis adTav Anibetat mpérov; 7) dHAov 57) yadeTov ov, Si6Te THs TOV yev@v Kat €ldn Staipécews Tadaid Tis, ws €oikev, apyta tots éumpoobev Kal aavvvous Taphy, wate pnd émyepety pndéva Sdratpetobar- Kalo 67) TOV dvoundTwyv avayKyn pn odddpa evdzopeiv. ops O€, Kav Et TOAUNpOTEpoV Eiphabat, Siayvwcews EVEKa THY pev peTa SOENS pipnow So€opiyuntiKny
1 dpyla Madvig ; alria BT. 454
THE SOPHIST
knowledge. And yet what division can we imagine more complete than that which separates knowledge and ignorance ?
THEAET. None.
str. The example I just gave was of imitation by those who know, was it not? For a man who imitates you would know you and your figure.
THEAET. Of course.
str. But what of the figure of justice and, in a word, of virtue in general? Are there not many who have no knowledge of it, but only a sort of opinion, and who try with the greatest eagerness to make this which they themselves think is virtue seem to exist within them, by imitating it in acts and words to the best of their ability ?
THEAET. Yes, there are very many such people.
str. Do all of them, then, fail in the attempt to seem to be just when they are not so at all? Or is quite the opposite the case ?
THEAET. Quite the opposite.
str. Then I think we must say that such an imitator is quite distinct from the other, the one who does not know from the one who knows.
THEAET. Yes.
str. Where, then, can the fitting name for each of the two be found? Clearly it is not an easy task, because there was, it seems, among the earlier thinkers a long established and careless indolence in respect to the division of classes or genera into forms or species, so that nobody even tried to make such divisions ; therefore there cannot be a great abundance of names. However, even though the innovation in language be a trifle bold, let us, for the sake of making a distinction, call the imitation which is
455
PLATO
E , A de > >? / ¢e re Tpoceimwmpev, THY SE pET ETLOTHUNS toTOpLKTY TWa pipnow. @EAI. "KoTw. / / / e A A EE. Oatépw toivvy xpyotéov: 6 yap cod.ioTis ovK é€v Tots Edda 7V, AAN’ ev Tots LLyLovpevots 8%. @zAI. Kai pada. \ \ \ / e zE. Tov do€opintivy 67) oKoTw@pela domep / ” ¢€ \ ” tf Wes? ” 4, aidynporv, elite vyijs cite SumAonv er exywv Twa €oTW €v €avTo@. @EAI. LKomapev. 268 se. "Eyeu toivuy Kat pdda ovyviv. 6 peév yap ev7nOns atTadv ear, olopevos cidévat Taira a 4 \ \ / ~ \ Si > aA do€aler- To dé Barépov oyijua bia THY ev Tots Yj Adyous KvAWdSynow Exer TOAAHVY Bropiav Kai doPov, ws ayvoet Tatra a mpos Tovs ad\ous ws €tdws EOXNMATLOTAL. s \ ee a oFAl. Ildvu prev obv e€otw Eexatépov yévous av elpykas. b) ~ A A ¢ A , \ zE. Ovxoty tov pev amdodyv miunthy twa, Tov A [4 dé elpwrikov pynTny Oycomev; @EAI. Eixos yodv. / > Ss \ LA a a 4 ~ zz. Tovrov 5° ad To yévos ev 7 SUo d&pev; 4 @EAI. “Opa ov. ~ / \ B =E. LKo7d: Kat po. dittw Katadaivecbov / \ A TWe* TOV bev Onoola Te Kal pwaKpots Adyots pos v4 A > / ~ \ VE HIST m7AnOn Svvatov etpwvevecbar Kafopad, Tov dé tdia > te Kal Bpaxéat Adyots avayKalovta Tov mpocdia- Aeyomevov evavtiodoyety avTov adT@. ekAl. Aéyeus opOdtata. 456
THE SOPHIST
based on opinion, opinion-imitation, and that which is founded on knowledge, a sort of scientific imita- tion.
THEAET. Agreed
str. We must therefore apply ourselves to. the former, for we found that the sophist was among those who imitate but was not among those who know.
THEAET. Very true.
str. Then let us examine the opinion-imitator as if he were a piece of iron, and see whether he is sound or there is still some seam in him.
THEAET. Let us do so.
str. Well, there is a very marked seam. For some of these imitators are simple-minded and think they know that about which they have only opinion, but the other kind because of their experience in the rough and tumble of arguments, strongly suspect and fear that they are ignorant of the things which they pretend before the public to know.
THEAET. Certainly the two classes you mention both exist.
str. Then shall we call one the simple imitator and the other the dissembling imitator ?
THEAET. That is reasonable, at any. rate.
str. And shall we say that the latter forms one class or two again?
THEAET. That is your affair.
str. I am considering, and I think I can see two classes. I see one who can dissemble in long speeches in public before a multitude, and the other who does it in private in short speeches and forces the person who converses with him to contradict himself.
THEAET. You are quite right.
457
PLATO
me , s 3 f \ , zE. Tiva obv amodawaje8a Tov paxpodAoywrepov elvat; motepa moATiKOv 7 SnpwodAoytKov ; @EAI. AnpodoyiKor. = TENUN Ne Slee wie zE. Tl d€ tov €repov epoduev; codov 7) codiott- KOV; ecAl. To} wév mov codov advvatov, émeimep ovK 1 tS) 4 b) A “0 . \ ie aA ~ ~ (i etddra adrov Oepev: ptpntis 5° @v Tob codod dHAov 6Tt TapwvUjtov avTod TL AjpeTaL, Kal yedov non pendOnka OTe TobTov Set mpocettrety adyOas avTOV ekeivov TOV TavTaTacW ovTwWSs GodLoTHV. ~ ~ UY zE. Odxotiv ovvdjcopev attod, Kabdmep ep- ~ a) eed) mpoobev, Tovvoya ovpmAdEavtes amo TeAevTIs ET 3 if dpyry 3 , \ > @EAI. ITIdvu pev ovr. zE. To? 61) tis evavtiotrovoAoyiKys EelpwviKod pépous THs do€aoTiKhs pmuyntiKov, ToD PavTaoti- D Kod yévous amo THs eldwAomouKHs od Detov add’ avOpwmuikov THs Toujoews adwpropevov ev Adyots TO JavpatorouKov popiov, TavTys THS yeveds TE \ 5) ~ Kat atuatos os av dH Tov dvTws cogioTHY €ivat, tadAnbéorata, ws EouKev, epet. @EAI. Ilavrdzact pév ody.
1 +o Stephanus ; rév BT. 2 +s Schleiermacher ; 7dv BT.
458
THE SOPHIST
str. And what name shall we give to him who makes the longer speeches? Statesman or popular orator?
THEAET. Popular orator.
sTR. And what shall we call the other? Philoso- pher or sophist ?
THEAET. We cannot very well call him philosopher, since by our hypothesis he is ignorant ; but since he is an imitator of the philosopher, he will evidently have a name derived from his, and I think I am sure at last that we must truly call him the absolutely real and actual sophist.
str. Shall we then bind up his name as we did before, winding it up from the end to the beginning?
THEAET. By all means.
str. The imitative kind of the dissembling part of the art of opinion which is part of the art of con- tradiction and belongs to the fantastic class of the image-making art, and is not divine, but human, and has been defined in arguments as the juggling part of productive activity—he who says that the true sophist is of this descent and blood will, in my opinion, speak the exact truth.
THEAET. Yes, he certainly will.
459
big elle pres? sag: bil wt re « hart atk
EAG 8 * i H i" A
Hi ¢ $e te hine ee aid a ia - a
- ot ang sass Si ie vk eae hug) A abe ie an Geese Si Pde wo o Ho My dere me
re hare a & galt Arai ‘age? erin on ha a wl fala ‘oh bit ey ‘yt ‘Debi Saeco oe Oi kee "ee ant peat dis UES! aid “en atti ath ep edt degaC per Saket awagen S| Daeetinentg xf ailt.ol bee ont moihepr dk gnibsier anoiad 4 A RENE Tay ot wieat Hn yl Tram
i Hany watt iepted bral rye ibydiak: aitotions oth, ong
ye FEO dash Tea ctresy ei ously: sae aa ‘
1) Salt Voc eaihe. Fife Seno? ert 108 |
fred: oattigth wel .oataily Jager Hess agialgrent 9: ESI p aptamer, 5083 As ahaoon
i Pedentyeye Moan el] a Ate 0) ie nae Sede a
| MOLTO, Ju, Bes ito igo boa s3725h -2Ue
i ofiplae i ae fay: fea ree tsaveau an
~ lbinHatetigo od eat ANT
ne vet DAUR eee Lee si Aig Se at Chines sd yor Bt.
gr 0
ay ‘i
a dae i ee pec i ‘
2 : |
Mao tas shew Bae “yyy Tiwoy
ae
INDEX
Absolute and relative exist- ence, 409
Aeschylus, 193 n.
All, 231 ff., 367, 369
Amphitryon, 125
Angler, 273 ff.
Antaeus, 103
Antisthenes, 371 n., 393 n.
Aphrodite, 359
Aristeides, 37
Aristippus, 373 n.
Artemis, 31
Atomists, 373 n.
Aviary, in the soul, 207 ff.
Being, 161, 163, 165, 262, 963, 351, 361 ff., 403, 405, 407, 409, 413 ff.
Cadmus, 377 n.
Callias, 89
Characteristic, ing, 249
Classes, or genera, 401, 403, 443; five classes, 409 ff.
Combinations of elements, 295 ff., 381; of letters, 997 ff.
Condition, passive or active, 381 ff.
Cubes, cube roots, 27 n.
distinguish-
Democritus, 373 n. Dialectic, 4, 401 Difference, 262 Different, not 415 ff. Dionysodorus, 393 n. Discourse, 425 ff., 433
opposite,
Education, 313 ff.
Eleatic, 262, 359, 365 n., Stihin.
Electra, 193 n.
Elements, active and passive, 59 ff., 149; admit of no explanation, 223 ff., 237, 381, 395
Empedocles, 43,359 n.,371n.
Ephesians, 141
Epicharmus, 43
Erineum, 11
Eucleides, 3, 7-11
Euphronius, 15
Eurycles, 397
Euthydemus, 393 n.
False opinion, 351 ff., 443, 445 Falsehood, 353, 429 f., 453 Fancy, 429 Fantastic art, 335, 429, 443, 453 461
INDEX
Gorgias, 371 n.
Hera, 51
Heracleitus, 4, 43, 73, 141, So9 me. olen:
Heracles, 103 n., 105, 125
Hesiod, 243
Hipponicus, 89
Homer, 43, 45, 46, 73, 109, 141, 155, 197, 265
Ideas, 4, 401, 403, 405, 433
Image, 347, 349, 451
Imitation, 329 ff., 451 ff.
Ionian philosophers, 371 n.
Iris, 55
359,
Knowledge, 3-257 passim, 455, 457
Letters, 227 ff., 399, 433 Leucippus, 373 n. Lysimachus, 37
Measure, man the measure of all things, 41 ff., 95 ff., 135
Megarians, 371 n.
Meletus, 257
Melissus, 145, 155
Memory, 4, 85 ff., 185 ff.
Midwives, midwifery, 3, 31, ey (ly BE/
Mimetic art, 453
Motion, 43 ff., 133 ff., 263, 385, 387, 389, 395, 405 ff.
Mysians, 253
Not-being, 161, 262, 337, 339 ff., 351, 361, 371, 391, 393, 413 ff., 431
4.62
Nouns, 433 ff.
Oceanus, 43, 143
Opinion, 167-255 passim, 351 ff., 429, 443, 445, 455 fF.
Orestes, 193 n.
Other, 263, 407 ff.
145,
Parmenides, 43, 155,
962, %65, 269, 337, 355, 301, 301, 4291 Perception, 39°ff., 71, 73,
149 ff., 157,161, 167, 185ff., 225
Phaenarete, 31
Pherecydes, 359 n.
Philosopher, 261, 265, 267, 401, 403, 459
Pindar, 121
Plato, 373 n., 379 n., 433n.
Polydeuces, 121 n.
Power, 379
Prodicus, 39
Protagoras, 41, 43, 51, 55, 73, USE Uo teres tes OS. Ol. NOSSO fee OO Seal cel selolis. 115 el35, 37, 1555 Sc ne
Reason, with true opinion, Date
Relative existence, 409
Rest, 263, 387, 389, 393, 395, 405, 407
Roots, 25 ff.
Same, 263, 407 ff.
Sciron, 103
Sentence, 435 ff.
Sicilian philosophers, 359
Sight, theory of, 57 f.
Socrates, 3-271 passim; the younger, 271
INDEX
Sophist, 261-459 passim
Speech, 497 ff., 441 f.; false, 443 f.
Squares, square roots, 25 ff.
Statesman, 261, 267
Subject, of sentence, 437 ff.
Syllables, 227 ff.
Terpsion, 3, 7-11
Tethys, 43, 143
Thales, 121
Thaumas, 55
Theaetetus, 3-459 passim
Theodorus, 11-269 passim
Theseus, 103 n., 105
Thought and speech the same, 441
Truth, Protagoras’s book, qt, 19,41)
Verbs, 433 ff. Vowels, 399
Wax, block of in the soul, 185 ff. Whole, 231 ff., 367, 369, 371
Xenophanes, 359
Zeno, 265, 365n. Zeus, 9, 47n., 109, 147, 163, 203, 205, 245, 401
Printed in Great Britain by R. & R. Ciark, Limirep, Edinburgh.
(123)
j
x
i ei ho aay " ie eae ne i | ’
F sbed 1 dae s ; dino
, es a ; 74 Th orrone to foie mae rf Tae “lds ir ans E 9 shoolet tel = aye he A CCAR batten LE \aojeanalt We said eae 1 iad W D2, aaah RED Bie ee wert tee th {85 polaaf 5 > al an ss fd Fe SORA hate, , SPUR. i ey eg tani RR aeiple CAR ashose a . > iivirnssey LOL FI eroboed t uF are ie nit noe OR | Linea, Aa COl aoe: ak WPA 00L a 8 eva wh figaags dow; tdgead th © JOR 662 208 OS ares, LMA EIgeT,
oy ae 1 F : ,
Ay ini it Mai iy
I Lae REE Py eee
aye hy ASAE ea! eed t 4 } I aie eB Viney
‘ ! | j "I — * "ith 2 (ti ey aaa... my ey i eeu” Pe uret, &
Nei a oan Mn tet ty = Lh ee
8.9) OO. Pa Page TA $ j : iM Lh, aa a oe Ry. hia Sa Made sh Oli Bc
Ce het S hid
“<i
sty, OETA bea ak > , Per 42 . aes
Raaiges wise 6a Spahrfeay
#
eae Jape, xh 4p! lie inthan ‘ptulopeataen i, ae Shalt Chee aoa? fie Bechithess, ree
ai
ee
horn Pi Sawiaeh, wrist jenn ee i 4 ra
THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
VOLUMES ALREADY PUBLISHED
LATIN AUTHORS
Amm™ianus Marceturnvs. J.C. Rolfe. 3 Vols.
Aputerus: THe Gouipen Ass (Metamorpuosss). W. Adling- ton (1566). Revised by S. Gaselee.
Sr. AucustTINnE: City or Gop. 7 Vols. Vol. I. G. E. McCracken. Vol. VI. W. C. Greene.
Sr. Auecusting, Conrrssions or. W. Watts (1631). 2 Vols.
Sr. AucusTINnE: Setect Lerters. J. H. Baxter.
Avsonius. H. G. Evelyn White. 2 Vols.
Bepve. J. E. King. 2 Vols.
Bortuius: Tracts anp Dr ConsoLaTIONE PHILOSOPHIAE. Rey. H. F. Stewart and E. K. Rand.
Carsar: ALEXANDRIAN, AFRICAN AND SPANISH Wars. A. G. Way.
Carsar: Crivit Wars. A. G. Peskett.
Carsar: Gatuic War. H. J. Edwards.
Cato anp Varro: Der Re Rustica. H. B. Ash and W. D. Hooper.
Catutius. F. W. Cornish; Trsunius. J. B. Postgate; and Pervicitium Veneris. J. W. Mackail.
Crersus: Dre Mepicina. W.G. Spencer. 3 Vols.
Cicero: Brutus ann Orator. G. L. Hendrickson and H. M. Hubbell.
Cicero: Dr Fraisus. H. Rackham.
Cicero: Der Inventionr, ete. H. M. Hubbell.
Cicrro: Dr Natura Dreorum anp Acapemica. H. Rack- ham.
1
THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
Cicero: Dr Orricus. Walter Miller.
Cicero: Dr Orarorg, etc. 2 Vols. Vol. 1: Dre Orartore, Books I and II. E. W. Suttonand H. Rackham Vol. II: Dre Oratore, Boox III; De Fato; Parapoxa Sror- coruM; Der Partitions Oratoria. H. Rackham.
Cicero: Dr Repusrica, De Lrersus, Somnitum Scirronis. Clinton W. Keyes.
Cicrro: Der Senectrute, De Amicitia, De DivinatIone. W. A. Falconer.
Cicero: In Catitinam, Pro Murena, Pro Sutua, Pro Fracco. Louis E. Lord.
Cicero: Lrerrers to Articus. E. O. Winstedt. 3 Vols.
Cicero: Lerrers To His Frrenps. W. Glynn Williams. 3 Vols.
Cicero: Purturprics. W.C. A. Ker.
Cicrro: Pro Arcuia, Post Repirum, De Domo, Dr Ha- RusPICcUM Responsts, Pro Prancto. N. H. Watts.
Cicero: Pro Carcrna, Pro Lecre Manirra, Pro CLuenttio, Pro Rasrrio. H. Grose Hodge.
Cicero: Pro Carrio, De Provinciuts Consutartsus, Pro Barso. R. Gardner.
Cicero: Pro Mitonr, In Pisonem, Pro Scauro, Pro Fontrero, Pro Rasrrtio Postumo, Pro Marcretyio, Pro Licarto, Pro Recr Derotaro. N. H. Watts.
Cicrro: Pro Quincrio, Pro Roscro AmEertNo, Pro Roscio Comorpo, Contra Rutium. J. H. Freese.
Cicero: Pro Srstio, In Vatinrum. R. Gardner.
[Cicero]: Rurtrortca aD HEerennium. H. Caplan.
Cicero: Tuscutan Disputations. J. E. King.
Cicero: VERRINE Orations. L. H. G. Greenwood. 2 Vols.
Craupian. M. Platnauer. 2 Vols.
Cortumetia: Dr Re Rustica; De Arportsus. H. B. Ash, E. S. Forster, E. Heffner. 3 Vols.
Curtius, Q.: History or ALExANDER. J.C. Rolfe. 2 Vols.
Fiorus. E.S. Forster; and Cornettus Nevos. J.C. Rolfe.
Frontinus: STRATAGEMS AND Aquepucts. C. E. Bennett and M. B. McElwain.
Fronto: CorresponpEeNnceE. C. R. Haines. 2 Vols.
Getuws. J.C. Rolfe. 3:Vols.
Horace: Oprs anp Eroprs. C. E. Bennett.
Horace : Satires, Episrtes, Ars Porrica. H. R. Fairclough.
JeRoME: Setecr Lerrers. F. A. Wright.
JUVENAL AND Persius. G. G. Ramsay.
Q
THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
Livy. B. O. Foster, F. G. Moore, Evan T. Sage, A. C. Schlesinger and R. M. Geer (General Index). 14 Vols.
Lucan. J. D. Duff.
Lucretius. W.H. D. Rouse.
Martian. W.C. A. Ker. 2 Vols.
Minor Latin Ports: from Pusxiri1us Syrus to Rutttrvs Namatianus, including Grartius, Catpurnius Sicutus, Nemesranus, Avrianus, with “ Aetna,’’ ‘“* Phoenix’ and other poems. J. Wight Duff and Arnold M. Duff,
Oviv: Tue Art or Love anpD oTHER Poems. J. H. Moz- ley.
oar Fastr. Sir James G. Frazer.
Ovip: Herrorprs anpD Amores. Grant Showerman.
Ovip: Meramorpnuoses. F. J. Miller. 2 Vols.
Ovip: Tristra anD Ex Ponto. A. L. Wheeler.
Pretrronius. M. Heseltine; Seneca: APocoLocynrTosis. W. H. D. Rouse.
Prautus. Paul Nixon. 5 Vols.
Purxy: Lerrers. Melmoth’s translation revised by W.M. L. Hutchinson. 2 Vols.
Puruyy: Naturat History. 10 Vols. Vols. I-V and IX. H. Rackham. Vols. VI and VII. W.H. S. Jones.
Prorertius. H. E. Butler.
Prupentius. H.J. Thomson. 2 Vols.
Qurintitian. H. E. Butler. 4 Vols.
Remains oF Oxtp Latin. E. H. Warmington. 4 Vols. Vol. I (Ennius and Caecilius). Vol. II (Livius, Naevius, Pacuvius, Accius). Voi. III (Lucilius, Laws of the XII Tables). Vol. IV (Archaic Inscriptions),
Satitust. J.C. Rolfe.
Scrrerores Histortar Aucustar. D. Magie. 3 Vols.
Seneca: Apocotocyntosts. Cf. Prrrontus.
Seneca: Epistutar Morarrs. R. M. Gummere. 83 Vols.
Seneca: Morar Essays. J. W. Basore. 3 Vols.
Seneca: Tracepies. F. J. Miller. 2 Vols.
Siponrus: Porms anp Letters. W. B. Anderson. 2 Vols.
Sirius: Iraticus. J. D. Duff. 2 Vols.
Stratius. J. H. Mozley. 2 Vols.
Suetonius. J.C. Rolfe. 2 Vols.
Tacitus: Dratocus. Sir Wm. Peterson; and Acricora AND Germania. Maurice Hutton.
Tacitus: Histrorres anD Annats. C. H. Moore and J. Jackson. 4 Vols.
3
THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
Terence. John Sargeaunt. 2 Vols.
TertTuLLIAN : Apotocia AND De Spectracuuis. T.R. Glover; Minucius Ferix. G. H. Rendall.
Vaterius Fraccus. J. H. Mozley.
Varro: De Lincua Latina. R.G. Kent. 2 Vols.
VetitEIus Patrercutus anD Res Gestar Divi Avucustt. F. W. Shipley.
Vireit. H.R. Fairclough. 2 Vols.
Virruvius: Dre Arcuirectura. F. Granger. 2 Vols.
GREEK AUTHORS
Acuitytes Tatius. S. Gaselee.
AELIAN: Own THE Nature or Antmats. A. F. Scholfield. 3 Vols.
Arnreas Tacticus, ASCLEPIODOTUS AND OnasanDER. ‘The Illinois Greek Club.
Arscuines. C. D. Adams.
Arscuytus. H. Weir Smyth. 2 Vols.
A.crpHrROoN, AELIAN AND Puitostratus: Lerrers. A. R. Benner and F. H. Fobes.
Aprottoporus. Sir James G. Frazer. 2 Vols.
Apro.tonius Ruopius. R. C. Seaton.
Tue Apostotic Fatuers. Kirsopp Lake. 2 Vols.
Appran’s Roman History. Horace White. 4 Vols.
Aratus. Cf. CaALLIMAcHus.
AristopHanrs. Benjamin Bickley Rogers. 3 Vols. Verse trans.
ARISTOTLE: ART oF Rueroric. J. H. Freese.
ArIstoTLE: ATHENIAN ConstiruTIon, Eupemran Eruics, Virtues AnD Vices. H. Rackham.
ARISTOTLE: GENERATION OF Anrmats. A. L. Peck.
ArtstoTLe: Merrapuysics. H. Tredennick. 2 Vols.
AristoTLtE: Merrrorotocica. H. D. P. Lee.
ArtistoTLtE: Minor Works. W. S. Hett. ‘‘ On Colours,” “On Things Heard,” ‘‘ Physiognomics,” “‘ On Plants,” “On Marvellous Things Heard,” ‘‘ Mechanical Problems,” “On _ Indivisible Lines,” ‘ Situations and Names of Winds,” ‘“‘ On Melissus, Xenophanes, and Gorgias.”
ARIsTOTLE: NicoMACHEAN Ernuics. H. Rackham.
4,
THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
ARISTOTLE: Orconomica anp Macna Moratia. G. C. Armstrong. (With Metaphysics, Vol. IT.)
ARrIsTOTLE: On THE Heavens. W. K. C. Guthrie.
ARISTOTLE: Ow THE Sout, Parva Naturatia, On Brearu. W. S. Hett.
ArisToTLe: THe Catrecorrrs. On InTerpreTaATiIon. H. P. Cooke; Prior Anatytics. H. Tredennick.
AristottE: Postertor Awnatytics. H. Tredennick ; Torics. E. S. Forster.
ARISTOTLE: SopnisticAL REFuTATIoNsS. COMING-TO-BE AND Passtinc-away. E. S. Forster. On tHE Cosmos. D. J. Furley.
AristotLeE: Parts or Anrmmats. A. L. Peck; Morion ann Procression oF Antmats. E. S. Forster.
AristoTLeE: Puysics. Rev. P. Wicksteed and F. M. Corn-
ford. 2 Vols.
AntistottE: Porrtcs; Loneinus on THE SuBiime. W. Hamilton Fyfe ; Demetrius on Stytr. W. Rhys Roberts.
ArIstoTLE: Poxitics. H. Rackham.
ArIstoTLE: Prostems. W.S. Hett. 2 Vols.
ArtistoTtE: RurtroricA aD ALExanpRUM. H. Rackham. (With Problems, Vol. IT.)
Arrian: History or ALEXANDER AND INnpica. Rev. E. lliffe Robson. 2 Vols.
ATHENAEUS: DerenosopuistarE. C. B. Gulick. 7 Vols.
St. Bastu: Lertrers. R. J. Deferrari. 4 Vols.
Catiimacuus: Fragments. C. A. Trypanis.
CautitimacHus: Hymns ano Epicrams, anp LycopHron. A. W. Mair; Aratus. G. R. Mair.
Ciement or AtExanpria. Rey. G. W. Butterworth.
Cottutuus. Cf. Oprran.
Darunis anD Cutor. Cf. Loneus.
DemostHENES I: Otynturacs, Puipiprrcs anp Mrinor Orations: I-XVII anp XX. J.H. Vince.
DemostHENEs II: Dr Corona anv Der Fatsa LEGATIONE. C. A. Vince and J. H. Vince.
DemostHENES III: Merpras, ANDROTION, ARISTOCRATES, Timocrates, AristocEiton. J. H. Vince.
DemostHenes [V-VI: Private Orations anD In NEAERAM. A. T. Murray.
DemostHenss VII: Funerat Sprrecu, Erotic Essay, Exorpra AND Letrers. N. W. and N. J. DeWitt.
Dro Casstus: Roman History. E. Cary. 9 Vols.
5
THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
Dio Curysostom. 5 Vols. Vols. I and II. J. W. Cohoon. Vol. III. J. W.Cohoon and H. Lamar Crosby. Vols. [IV and V. H. Lamar Crosby.
Dioporuws Sicutus. 12 Vols. Vols. I-VI. C. H. Oldfather. Vol. VII. C. L. Sherman. Vols. IX and X. Russel M. Geer. Vol. XI. F. R. Walton.
Diocrenses Larrtius. R. D. Hicks. 2 Vols.
Dionysius or Haticarnassus: Roman Antiquities. Spel- man’s translation revised by E. Cary. 7 Vols.
Epictetus. W. A. Oldfather. 2 Vols.
Euriripes. A. S. Way. 4 Vols. Verse trans.
Kusesius: Eccrirstastican History. Kirsopp Lake and J. 4. i.'Oulton: ! 2 Vols.
GaLEnN: Own THE Naturat Facuttirs. A. J. Brock.
Tue Greek Antootocy. W. R. Paton. 5 Vols.
Tue Greek Bucouic Porrs (THreocritus, Bron, Moscuus). J. M. Edmonds.
Greek ELrecy anp [AmMBUS WITH THE ANACREONTEA. J. M. Edmonds. 2 Vols.
Greek Maruematicat Works. Ivor Thomas. 2 Vols.
Herroprs. Cf. THropyrastus : CHARACTERS.
Heropotus. A. D. Godley. 4 Vols.
Herstop AND THE Homeric Hymns. H. G. Evelyn White.
HipPocrRATES AND THE FRAGMENTS OF Heracteitus. W.H.S. Jones and E. T. Withington. 4 Vols.
Homer: Inrap. A. T. Murray. 2 Vols.
Homer: Opyssry. A. T. Murray. 2 Vols.
Isarus. E. S. Forster.
Isocrates. George Norlin and LaRue Van Hook. 3 Vols.
Sr. Jonn DamascENE: BartAaM AnD IoasapH. Rev. G. R. Woodward and Harold Mattingly.
Josepuus. H. St. J. Thackeray and Ralph Marcus. 9 Vols. Vols. I-VII.
Jurran. Wilmer Cave Wright. 3 Vols.
Loneus: Dapunis and Cutior. ‘Thornley’s translation revised by J. M. Edmonds; and Partuenius. S. Gaselee.
Lucian. 8 Vols. Vols. I-V. A. M. Harmon; Vol. VI. K. Kilburn; Vol. VIII. M.D. Macleod.
LycopHron. Cf. CaLLImMacuus.
Lyra Grarca. J. M. Edmonds. 3 Vols.
Lysras. W. R. M. Lamb.
Manetuo. W.G. Waddell; Protemy: Trerrasistos. F. E. Robbins.
6
THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
Marcus Auretius. C. R. Haines.
Mernanpver. F, G. Allinson.
Minor Artic Orators. 2 Vols. K. J. Maidment and J. O. Burtt.
Nonnos: Dronystaca. W.H.D. Rouse. 3 Vols.
Oppran, CoLttutuus, TrypHioporus. A. W. Mair.
Papyrt. Nown-Lirerary Serections. A. S. Hunt and C. C., Edgar. 2 Vols. Lirerary Setecrions (Poetry). D. L. Page.
Partuentius. Cf. Loneus.
Pausantas: Description or Greece. W. H.S. Jones. 5 Vols. and Companion Vol. arranged by R. E. Wycher-
ley.
Puito. 10 Vols. Vols. I-V. F. H. Colson and Rev. G. H. Whitaker; Vols. VI-IX. F. H. Colson. Two Supplementary Vols. Translation only from an
Armenian Text. Ralph Marcus.
Puitostratus: Imactnes; CaLuistrRATUS: DeEscriIprions. A. Fairbanks.
Puitostratus: Tue Lire or Aroutonius or Tyana. F.C. Conybeare. 2 Vols.
PurLostrRatus AND Euwnapius: Lives or THE SoPHISTs. Wilmer Cave Wright.
Pinpar. Sir J. E. Sandys.
Prato: CHarmipss, AtciptapEs, Hreparcuus, Tue Lovers, Tueraces, Minos ann Eprnomis. W. R. M. Lamb.
Prato: Cratytus, PARMENIDES, GREATER Hiprpras, Lesser Hiepras. H. N. Fowler.
Prato: Euruyruro, Arotocy, Criro, PHarpo, PHAEDRUS. H. N. Fowler.
Prato: Lacnurs, Protracoras, Meno, Eursypemus. W. R. M. Lamb:
Prato: Laws. Rev.*RYG! Bury: '2'Vols.
Prato: Lysis, Sympostum, Gorcras. W. R. M. Lamb.
Prato: Repusric. Paul Shorey. 2 Vols.
Prato: Statesman, Puirtesus. H. N. Fowler; Ion. W. R. M. Lamb.
Prato: THEAETETUS AND Sopuist. H. N. Fowler.
Prato: Trmarus, Critras, CriropHo, MeENnExenus, Ept- stTuLAE. Rey. R. G. Bury.
PrutarcH: Moratria. 15 Vols. Vols. I-V. F.C. Babbitt; Vol. VI. W.C. Helmbold ; Vol. VII. P.H. De Lacy and B. Einarson; Vol. IX. E. L. Minar, Jr., F. H. Sandbach,
t
THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
W.C. Helmbold; Vol. X. H.N. Fowler: Vol. XII. H. Cherniss and W. C. Helmbold.
PrutarcH: Tue Paratuet Lives. B. Perrin. 11 Vols.
Potysius. W. R. Paton. 6 Vols.
Procorrus: History or tHE Wars. H. B. Dewing. 7 Vols.
Protemy: Trrrasistos. Cf. Manetuo.
Quintus SmyrnaEus. A. S. Way. Verse trans.
Sextus Emprricus. Rev. R. G. Bury. 4 Vols.
Sopuoctres. F. Storr. 2 Vols. Verse trans.
Srraso: GrocrapHuy. Horace L. Jones. 8 Vols.
TuHEeopHrastus: CuHuaractrers. J. M. Edmonds: Heropes, ete. A. D. Knox.
TuerorHrastus: Enaurry wto Prants. Sir Arthur Hort. 2 Vols.
Tuucypipes. C. F. Smith. 4 Vols.
Trypuioporus. Cf. Oppran.
XeEnopHon: Cyroparepta. Walter Miller. 2 Vols.
Xenopuon: Hewvenitca, AnaBasis, APOLOGY, AND Sympo- stum. C. L. Brownson and O. J. Todd. 3 Vols.
XENOoPHON: MerEMORABILIA AND Orconomicus. E. C. Mar- chant.
XEnopHoN: Scripta Minora. E. C. Marchant. ~
VOLUMES IN PREPARATION
GREEK AUTHORS
AristoTLE: History or Anrmats. A. L. Peck. Protinus. A. H. Armstrong.
LATIN AUTHORS
Basrius AND Puaeprus. B. E. Perry.
DESCRIPTIVE PROSPECTUS ON APPLICATION
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. LONDON HARVARD UNIV. PRESS WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD
——————ee
aaa AUTHORS—continued
: DE REPUBLICA, DE LEGIBUS
CICERO: DE SENECTUTE, DE AMICITIA, DE DIVINATIONE
CICERO; LETTERS TO ATTICUS, 3 vols.
CICERO: LETTERS TO HIS FRIENDS. 3 vols.
CICERO: PHILIPPICS
CICERO: PRO ‘ARCHIA POETA, POST REDITUM IN SENATU, POST REDITUM AD QUJRITES, DE DOMO SUA, DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS, PRO PLANCIO
CICERO: PRO CAECINA, PRO LEGE MANILIA, PRO CLUENTIO, PRO
RABIRIO
, CICERO: PRO QUINCTIO, PRO ROSCIO AMERINO, PRO ROSCIO
COMOEDO, CONTRA RULLUM
CICERO: PRO MILONE, IN PISONEM, PRO SCAURO, PRO ONTEIO,
PRO RAB POSTUMO, PRO MARCELLO, PRO LIGARIO, PRO REGE
| DEIOTARO
CICERO; PRO SESTIO, IN VATINIUM
| CICERO: PRO CAELIO, DE PROVINCIIS CONSULARIBUS, PRO BALBO
| CICERO; TUSCULAN DISPUTATIONS
CICERO: VERRINE ORATIONS. 2 vols.
CLAUDIAN. 2 vols.
COLUMELLA: DE RE RUSTICA. 3 vols.
CURTIUS: HISTORY OF ALEXANDER. 2 vols.
FLORUS. CORNELIUS NEPOS
FRONTINUS: sTRATAGEMS and AQUEDUCTS
FRONTO: CORRESPONDENCE. 2 vols.
~GELLIUS, A.: ATTIC NIGHTS. 3 vols.
“HORACE: opes and EPODES
HORACE: SATIRES, EPISTLES, ARS POEBTICA.
JEROME: SELECT LETTERS
JUVENAL and PERSIUS
LIVY. 14 vols. :
|. LUGAN
|} LUCRETIUS
| MARTIAL. 2 vols,
MINOR LATIN POETS: from Publilius Syrus to Rutilius Namatianus, including Grattius, Calpurnius, Nemesianus, Avianus, and others
OVID: ART OF LOVE AND OTHER POEMS
| OVID: PASTI
OVID: HEROIDES, AMORES
OVID: METAMORPHOSES. 2 vols.
OVID: TRISTIA, EX PONTO ;
PETRONIUS. SENECA: APOCOLOCYNTOsSIS
| PLAUTUS. 5.vols.
PLINY: Letters. 2 vols.
PLINY: NATURAL HIsToRY. 10 vols. Vols. I-VII and iX
PROPERTIUS
PRUDENTIUS.
REMAINS OF OLD “LATIN. 4 vols. SALES SCRIPTORES HISTORIAE AUGUSTAE. 3 vols SENECA: EPISTULAE MORALES. 3 vols. SENECA: MORAL ESSAYS. 3 vols. SENECA: TRAGEDIES. 2 vols. SIDONTIUS: PORMS AND LETTERS, 2 vols. Vol. SILIUS ITALICUS. 2 vols. STATIUS. 2 vols. SUETONIUS. 2 vols. TACITUS: DIALOGUS, AGRICOLA, GERMANIA TACITUS: HISTORIES and ANNALS. 4 vols. TERENCE. 2 vols. LLIAN: APOLOGY, DE SPECTACULIS. MINUCIUS FELIX Aes Mp sie FLACCUS. oO INGUA LATINA. 2 vols.
.
. RES GESTAE DIVI AUGUSTI
| LYRA GRAECA. 3 vols, YSIAS
& 4 be ta} * M'ANSTHO. PTOLEMY: TETRABIBLOS. ee MARCUS AURELIUS ny , - MBENANDER i Mee - MINOR ATTIC keh gee 2 vols. . <a * Pee ye
- NONNOS: gronysiAca. 3 vols. - PAPYRI: sELections. 5 vols. Vols. I-II] : ee 4
' PHILOSTRATUS: LIFE OF APOLLONIUS OF TYANA. 2 vols.
_ CICERO: BRUTUS AND ORATOR
- CICERO: DE INVENTIONE, DE OPTIMO GENERE ORATORUM, TOPICA
Wo. Vinsenank Ltp. | Harvarp UNT
i oa
P é We 7m OPPIAN. COLLUTHUS. ‘TRYPHIODORUS Yt ee
PAUSANIAS: DESCRIPTION OF GREECE. 5 vols. a. PHILO. 10 vols. I-IX. AND 2 supplementary vols. itragal on only) Ye)
PHILOSTRATUS AND EUNAPIUS: LIvEs OF THE SOPHISTS See ee IMAGINES. maim, ahs "DESCRIPTIONS PINDA : PLATO: CHARMIDES, ALCIBIADES I & IL. 1IPPARCHUS, ue LOVERS, “THEAGES, MINOS, “a EPINOMIS i PLATO: CRATYLUS, PARMENIDES, GREATER AND LESSER HIPPIAS PLATO: EUTHYPHRO, APOLOGY, CRITO, PHAEBO, PHAEDRUS PLATO: LACHES, PROTAGORAS, MENO, E EMUS Nae | PLATO: LAWS. 2 vols. - PLATO:;\ LYSIS, SYMPOSIUM, GORGIAS ee PLATO: \REPUBLIC. 2 Vols. 4 PLATO: $TATESMAN, PHILEBUS, ION” PLATO: THEAETETUS, SOPHIST
SS ea a 7 te < vars ° <
' PLATO: TIMAEUS;: CRITIAS, CLEITOPHON, MENEXENUS, PISTLES
PLUTARCH: PARALLEL LIVES. 11 vols. F ;
PLUTARCH: mora tia. 15 vols. Vols. I-VII, IX, X, Xl 2
POLYBIUS. 6 vols. ;
PROCOPIUS. 7 vols.
PTOLEMY: TETRABIBLOs (with MANETHO)
QUINTUS SMYRNAEUS
SEXTUS EMPIRICUS. 4 vols.
SOPHOCLES. 2 vols.
STRABO: GEOGRAPHY, 8 vols. ; ge
THEOCRITUS ‘ ;
THEOPHRASTUS: CHARACTERS. HERODES, CERCIDAS, and the GREEK | CHOLIAMBIC POETS :
THEOPHRASTUS: ENQUIRY INTO PLANTS. 2 vols.
THUCYDIDES. 4 vols.
XENOPHON: CyROPAEDIA. 2 vols.
XENOPHON: HELLENICA, ANABASIS, APOLOGY, SYMPOSIUM. 3 vols.
- XENOPHON: MEMORABILIA and OECONOMICUS
XENOPHON: scRIPTA eae ATIN AUTHORS
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS. 3 vols.
APULEIUS: THE GOLDEN ASS (METAMORPHOSES) 1 ; ‘ ) e - ST. AUGUSTINE: city OF Gop. 7 vols. Vols. Tand mi - } :
ST. AUGUSTENE: CONFESSIONS. 2 vols. j aa
ST. AUGUSTINE: sELECT LETTERS re Le tae : bi! AUSONIUS. 2 vols. .—: - 7 a : .
BEDE: HISTORICAL WORKS. 2 vols.
BOETHIUS: TRACTATES and DE CONSOLATIONS/-PHILOSOPHIAE
CAESAR: ALEXANDRIAN, AFRICAN AND SPANISH WARS ~~
CAESAR: CIVIL WARS or a CAESAR: GALLIC WARS ~ ~ eae. <! J 7 CATO anpD VARRO: DE RE RUSTIC
CATULLUS. TIBULLUS.. "PER VIGILIUM VENERIS
CELSUS: DE MEDICINA. 3 vols.
[CICERO]: AD HERENNIUM .
CICERO.: IN ATILINAM, PRO MURENA, PRO SULLA, PRO FLACCO CICERO™E GRaTORE (Books ¥ and IH) CICERO: DE ORATORE (Book III), DE FATO, te others ~
, LONDON . CAMBRIDGE. }
Descriptive pamphlet on application