<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.tlg008.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="262"><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Good, Socrates!  If you preserve this attitude of indifference to mere names, you will turn out richer in wisdom when you are old.  But now we will, as you suggest, not trouble ourselves about the name;  but do you see a way in which a man may show that the art of herding is twofold,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="262"/> <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="262a"/> and may thereby cause that which is now sought among a double number of things to be sought among half as many?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> I am quite willing to try.  I think one kind is the care of men, the other that of beasts.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> You made the division with perfect willingness and courage.  However, let us do our best not to fall again into your error.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What error?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> We must not take a single small part, and set it off against many large ones, nor disregard species in making our division.
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="262b"/> On the contrary, the part must be also a species.  It is a very fine thing to separate the object of our search at once from everything else, if the separation can be made correctly, and so, just now, you thought you had the right division and you hurried our discussion along, because you saw that it was leading towards man.  But, my friend, it is not safe to whittle off shavings;  it is safer to proceed by cutting through the middle, and in that way one is more likely to find classes.
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="262c"/> This makes all the difference in the conduct of research.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What do you mean by that, Stranger?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> I must try to speak still more clearly, Socrates, out of regard for your capacity.  Just at present it is impossible to make the matter entirely plain, but I will try to lay it before you a little more fully for the sake of clearness.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What is it, then, that you say we did wrongly in making our division just now?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> It was very much as if, in undertaking to divide the human race into two parts,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="262d"/> one should make the division as most people in this country do;  they separate the Hellenic race from all the rest as one, and to all the other races, which are countless in number and have no relation in blood or language to one another, they give the single name <q type="emph">barbarian</q>;  then, because of this single name, they think it is a single species.  Or it was as if a man should think he was dividing number into two classes by cutting off a myriad from all the other numbers, with the notion that he was making one separate class,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="262e"/> and then should give one name to all the rest, and because of that name should think that this also formed one class distinct from the other.  A better division, more truly classified and more equal, would be made by dividing number into odd and even, and the human race into male and female;  as for the Lydians and Phrygians and various others they could be opposed to the rest and split off from them when it was impossible to find and separate two parts,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="263"/> <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="263a"/> each of which formed a class.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="263"><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Very true;  but that’s just the trouble, Stranger:  how can we get a clearer knowledge of class and part, and see that they are not the same thing, but different?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Socrates, you most excellent young man, it is no small task you impose upon me.  We have already strayed away from our subject more than we ought, and you wish us to wander still farther afield.  So for the present let us return to our subject, as is proper;  then we will go on the trail of this other matter by and by, when we have time.
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="263b"/> Only take very good care not to imagine that you ever heard me declare flatly—</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> That class and part are separate from one another.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> But what did you say?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> That when there is a class of anything, it must necessarily be a part of the thing of which it is said to be a class;  but there is no necessity that a part be also a class.  Please always give this, rather than the other, as my doctrine.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> I will do so.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="263c"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Then please go on to the next point.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What is it?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> That from which our present digression started.  For I think it started when you were asked how the art of herding should be divided and said with great readiness that there were two kinds of living beings, the human race and a second one, a single class, comprising all the beasts.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> True.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And it was clear to me at the time that you removed a part and then thought that the remainder was one class
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="263d"/> because you were able to call them all by the same name of beasts.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> That is true, too.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> But indeed, my most courageous young friend, perhaps, if there is any other animal capable of thought, such as the crane appears to be, or any other like creature, and it perchance gives names, just as you do, it might in its pride of self oppose cranes to all other animals, and group the rest, men included, under one head, calling them by one name, which might very well be that of beasts.  Now let us try to be on our guard against all that sort of thing.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="263e"/><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> How can we guard against it?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> By not dividing the whole class of living beings, that so we may avoid such errors.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Well, there is no need of dividing the whole.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> No, certainly not, for it was in that way that we fell into our former error.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What do you mean?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> That part of intellectual science which involves giving commands was a part of our animal-tending class, with especial reference to animals in herds, was it not?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="264"><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Well, even at that stage of our discussion all animals had already been divided into tame and wild.
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="264"/> <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="264a"/> For if their nature admits of domestication they are called tame; if it does not, they are called wild.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Excellent.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> But the science we are hunting for was, and is, to be sought among tame creatures, more specifically creatures in herds.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Let us, then, not make our division as we did before, with a view to all, nor in a hurry, with the idea that we may thus reach political science quickly,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="264b"/> for that has already brought upon us the proverbial penalty.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What penalty?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> The penalty of having made less speed, because we made too much haste and did not make our division right.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> And it was a good thing for us, Stranger</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> I do not deny it.  So let us begin again and try to divide the art of tending animals in common;  for perhaps the information you desire so much will come to you in the ordinary course of our conversation better than by other means.  Tell me—</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Whether, as I suppose, you have often heard people speak of this,—
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="264c"/> for I know you never actually saw the preserves of fish in the <placeName key="tgn,1127805">Nile</placeName> and in the ponds of the Persian king.  But perhaps you have noticed the like in fountain-pools.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, I have often seen the fish in fountain-pools and have heard many tales of those foreign preserves.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And surely, even if you have not wandered over the plains of <placeName key="tgn,7001399">Thessaly</placeName>, you have heard of goose-farms and crane-farms there and you believe that they exist.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, of course.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="264d"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> The reason why I asked you all these questions is that the rearing of flocks is in part aquatic and in part an affair of the dry land.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, that is true.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Then do you agree that we ought to divide the art of tending animals in common into corresponding parts, assigning one part of it to each of these two, and calling one the art of aquatic-herding and the other the art of land-herding?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, I agree.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And surely we shall not have to ask
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="264e"/> to which of these two arts kingship belongs, for that is clear to everyone.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Anybody could doubtless make a division of the art of tending herds on land.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What would the division be?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Into the tending of flying and walking animals.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Very true.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And statesmanship is to be sought in connection with walking animals, is it not?  Any fool, so to speak, would believe that, don’t you think?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And the art of tending animals that walk must, like an even number, be divided in half.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Evidently.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="265"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="265"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="265a"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And now I think I see two paths leading in that direction in which our argument has started:  the quicker way, by separating a relatively small part and a larger, and the other way, which is more   in accord with what we said a while ago about the need of making the division as nearly in the middle as we can, but is longer.  So we can proceed by whichever of the two we wish.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Can we not go by both?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Not by both at once, silly boy;  but obviously we can take them in turn.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="265b"/><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Then I choose both in turn.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> That is easy enough, since we have but a short distance to go.  At the beginning, certainly, or middle of our journey it would have been hard to comply with your demand.  But now, since this is your wish, let us go first by the longer way, for we are fresher now and shall get along on it more easily.  So attend to the division.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Go on.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> The tame walking animals which live in herds are divided by nature into two classes.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> How by nature?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Because one class is naturally without horns, and the other has horns.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="265c"/><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> That is obvious.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Now divide the art of tending herds of walking animals into two parts, assigning one to each class of animals;  and define the parts, for if you try to give them names, the matter will become needlessly complicated.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> How shall I speak of them then?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> In this way:  say that the science which tends herds of walking animals is divided into two parts, one of which is assigned to the horned portion of the herd, the other to the hornless portion.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Assume that I have said that;
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="265d"/> for you have made it perfectly clear.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And furthermore our <q type="emph">king</q> is very clearly the herdsman of a herd devoid of horns.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Of course;  that is evident.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Let us then try to break up this herd and give the king the part that belongs to him.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Very well.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Shall we make our division on the basis of having or not having cloven hoofs, or on that of mixing or not mixing the breed?  You know what I mean.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> No.  What is it?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="265e"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Why, I mean that horses and asses can breed from each other.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Oh yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> But the rest of the herd of hornless tame animals cannot cross the breed.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> That is true, of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Well then, does the statesman appear to have charge of a kind that mixes or of one that does not mix the breed?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Evidently of one that is unmixed.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> So I suppose we must proceed as we have done heretofore and divide this into two parts.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, we must.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="266"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="266"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="266a"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And yet tame gregarious animals have all, with the exception of about two species, been already divided;  for dogs are not properly to be counted among gregarious creatures.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> No, they are not.  But how shall we divide the two species?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> As you and Theaetetus ought by rights to divide them, since you are interested in geometry.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> How do you mean?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> By the diameter, of course, and again by the diameter of the square of the diameter. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">The word <q type="mentioned">diameter</q> here denotes the diagonal of a square.  The early Greek mathematicians worked out their arithmetical problems largely by geometrical methods (cf. <bibl n="Plat. Theaet. 147 d">Plat. Theaet. 147 D ff</bibl>).  The diagonal of the unit square (√2) was naturally of especial interest.  It was called sometimes, as here simply <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡ διάμετρος</foreign>, sometimes, as just below,<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡ διάμετρος ἡ δυνάμει δίπους</foreign>, or, more briefly,<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἡ διάμετρος δίπους</foreign>.  Given a square the side of which is the unit (i.e. one square foot), the length of the diagonal will be √2 and the square constructed with that diagonal as its side will contain two square feet.  The length of the diagonal of this square will be √4=2 feet, and its area will be four square feet.</note></said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What do you mean by that?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="266b"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Is the nature which our human race possesses related to walking in any other way than as the diameter which is the square root of two feet? <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">There is here a play upon words.  Man, being a two-footed (<foreign xml:lang="grc">δίπους</foreign>) animal, is compared to the diagonal of the unit square (√2,<foreign xml:lang="grc">διάμετρος δίπους</foreign>).</note></said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> No.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And the nature of the remaining species, again, considered from the point of view of the square root, is the diameter of the square of our root, if it is the nature of twice two feet. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">i.e. the remaining species is four-footed.  Our diameter is √2, and four is the area of the square constructed on the diagonal of the square which has √2 as its side.  All this satirizes the tendency of contemporary thinkers to play with numbers.</note></said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Of course;  and now I think I almost understand what you wish to make plain.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Socrates, do we see that besides this something else has turned up
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="266c"/> in these divisions of ours which would be a famous joke?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> No. What is it?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Our human race shares the same lot and runs in the same heat as the most excellent and at the same time most easy-going race of creatures. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">The animal referred to is the pig.  See P. Shorey, <title>Classical Philology,</title>1917, July, p. 308.</note></said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, I see that;  it is a very queer result.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Indeed?  But is it not reasonable that they arrive last, who are the slowest?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Yes, that is true.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And do we fail to notice this further point, that the king appears in a still more ridiculous light, running along with the herd and paired in the race with the man of all others
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="266d"/> who is most in training for a life of careless ease? <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">i.e. the swineherd, the pig belonging to <foreign xml:lang="grc">γένει εὐχερεστάτῳ</foreign>.</note></said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> Certainly he does.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> For now, Socrates, we have shown more clearly the truth of that which we said yesterday in our search for the sophist. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">See <bibl n="Plat. Soph. 227B">Plat. Soph. 227B</bibl>.</note></said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> What was it?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> That this method of argument pays no more heed to the noble than to the ignoble, and no less honor to the small than to the great, but always goes on its own way to the most perfect truth.</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> So it seems.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Then shall I now, without waiting for you to ask me, guide you of my own accord along that shorter way referred to a moment ago that leads
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="266e"/> to the definition of the king?</said></p><p><said who="#Younger Socrates"><label>Y. Soc.</label> By all means.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> I say, then, that we ought at that time to have divided walking animals immediately into biped and quadruped, then seeing that the human race falls into the same division with the feathered creatures and no others, we must again divide the biped class into featherless and feathered, and when that division is made and the art of herding human beings is made plain, we ought to take the statesmanlike and kingly man and place him as a sort of charioteer therein, handing over to him the reins of the state, because that is his own proper science.</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>