<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg006.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="183"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="183"/><milestone n="183a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Theodorus"><label>THEO.</label> So it seems.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> 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, <q type="emph">becomes thus,</q> to avoid giving them fixity by using the word <q type="emph">is.</q></said></p><p><said who="#Theodorus"><label>THEO.</label> You are right.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Except, Theodorus, that I said <q type="emph">thus,</q> and <q type="emph">not thus</q>;  but we ought not even to say <q type="emph">thus</q>; 
<milestone n="183b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>
for <q type="emph">thus</q> would no longer be in motion;  nor, again, <q type="emph">not thus.</q>  For there is no motion in <q type="emph">this</q> 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 <q type="emph">nohow.</q>  That might be most fitting for them, since it is indefinite.</said></p><p><said who="#Theodorus"><label>THEO.</label> At any rate that is the most appropriate form of speech for them.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> 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; 
<milestone n="183c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>
and we are not going to concede that knowledge is perception, at least not by the theory of universal motion, unless Theaetetus here has something different to say.</said></p><p><said who="#Theodorus"><label>THEO.</label> An excellent idea, Socrates;  for now that this matter is settled, I too should be rid of the duty of answering your questions according to our agreement, since the argument about Protagoras is ended.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> No, Theodorus, not until you and Socrates
<milestone n="183d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>
have discussed those who say all things are at rest, as you proposed just now.</said></p><p><said who="#Theodorus"><label>THEO.</label> A young man like you, Theaetetus, teaching your elders to do wrong by breaking their agreements!  No;  prepare to answer Socrates yourself for the rest of the argument.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> I will if he wishes it.  But I should have liked best to hear about the doctrine I mentioned.</said></p><p><said who="#Theodorus"><label>THEO.</label> Calling Socrates to an argument is calling cavalry into an open plain. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">A proverbial expression.  An open plain is just what cavalry desires.</note> Just ask him a question and you shall hear.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Still I think, Theodorus,
<milestone n="183e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>
I shall not comply with the request of Theaetetus.</said></p><p><said who="#Theodorus"><label>THEO.</label> Why will you not comply with it?</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>