<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="204"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="204"/><milestone n="204a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> 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.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Therefore there must be no parts of it.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> How so?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> 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?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes, I do.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Do you then say that all and the whole are the same,
<milestone n="204b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>
or that each of the two is different from the other?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> I am not sure;  but you tell me to answer boldly, so I take the risk and say that they are different.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Your boldness, Theaetetus, is right;  but whether your answer is so remains to be seen.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes, certainly, we must see about that.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> The whole, then, according to our present view, would differ from all?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> 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,
<milestone n="204c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>
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?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Of the same.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> That is, of six?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Then in each form of speech we have spoken of all the six?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> And again do we not speak of one thing when we speak of them all?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Assuredly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> That is, of six?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes.</said></p><milestone n="204d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> 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?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Apparently.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Here is another way of approaching the matter.  The number of the fathom and the fathom are the same, are they not?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> And of the furlong likewise.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> And the number of the army is the same as the army, and all such cases are alike?  In each of them all the number is all the thing.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> And is the number of each anything but
<milestone n="204e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>
the parts of each?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> No.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Everything that has parts, accordingly, consists of parts, does it not?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Evidently.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> But we are agreed that the all must be all the parts if all the number is to be the all. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">Cf. <bibl n="Plat. Theaet. 204b.">Plat. Theaet. 204b</bibl></note></said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> Then the whole does not consist of parts, for if it consisted of all the parts it would be the all.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> That seems to be true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>SOC.</label> But is a part a part of anything in the world but the whole?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>THEAET.</label> Yes, of the all.</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>