<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.tlg010.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="26"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> In cases of illness, does not the proper combination of these elements produce health?</said></p><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="26"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="26a"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And in the acute and the grave, the quick and the slow, which are unlimited, the addition of these same elements creates a limit and establishes the whole art of music in all its perfection, does it not?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Excellent.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And again in the case of cold and hot weather, the introduction of these elements removes the excess and indefiniteness and creates moderation and harmony.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Assuredly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And thence arise the seasons and all the beauties of our world,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="26b"/>by mixture of the infinite with the finite?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> There are countless other things which I pass over, such as health, beauty, and strength of the body and the many glorious beauties of the soul.  For this goddess, <note resp="Loeb" anchored="true">This goddess may be <foreign xml:lang="grc">Μουσική</foreign> (in which case <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐγγενομένη</foreign> the reading of T and G, would be preferable to <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐγγενόμενα</foreign> above), not music in the restricted modern sense, but the spirit of numbers and measure which underlies all music, and all the beauties of the world;  or the goddess may be mentioned here in reference (and opposition) to the goddess Pleasure (12 B);  she is the nameless deity who makes Pleasure and all others conform to her rules.</note> my fair Philebus, beholding the violence and universal wickedness which prevailed, since there was no limit of pleasures or of indulgence in them, established law and order, which contain a limit.  You say she did harm; 
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="26c"/>I say, on the contrary, she brought salvation.  What do you think, Protarchus?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What you say, Socrates, pleases me greatly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> I have spoken of these three classes, you observe.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, I believe I understand;  I think you mean that the infinite is one class and the finite is another class among existing things;  but what you wish to designate as the third class, I do not comprehend very well.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> No, because the multitude which springs up in the third class overpowers you and yet the infinite also comprised many classes,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="26d"/>nevertheless, since they were sealed with the seal of the more and less, they were seen to be of one class.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> True.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And the finite, again, did not contain many classes, nor were we disturbed about its natural unity.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Of course not.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> No, not at all.  And as to the third class, understand that I mean every offspring of these two which comes into being as a result of the measures created by the cooperation of the finite.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> I understand.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="26e"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> But we said there was, in addition to three classes, a fourth to be investigated.  Let us do that together.  See whether you think that everything which comes into being must necessarily come into being through a cause.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, I do;  for how could it come into being apart from a cause?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Does not the nature of that which makes or creates differ only in name from the cause, and may not the creative agent and the cause be properly considered one?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="27"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="27"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="27a"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And, again, we shall find that, on the same principle, that which is made or created differs in name only from that which comes into being, shall we not?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> We shall.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And the creative agent always naturally leads, and that which is created follows after it as it comes into being?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then the cause and that which is the servant of the cause for the purpose of generation are not the same.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Of course not.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Did not the things which come into being and the things out of which they come into being furnish us all the three classes?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="27b"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And that which produces all these, the cause, we call the fourth, as it has been satisfactorily shown to be distinct from the others?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, it is distinct.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> It is, then, proper, now that we have distinguished the four, to make sure that we remember them separately by enumerating them in order.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> The first, then, I call infinite, the second limit or finite, and the third something generated by a mixture of these two.  And should I be making any mistake if I called
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="27c"/>the cause of this mixture and creation the fourth?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly not.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Now what is the next step in our argument, and what was our purpose in coming to the point we have reached?  Was it not this?  We were trying to find out whether the second place belonged to pleasure or to wisdom, were we not?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, we were.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And may we not, perhaps, now that we have finished with these points, be better able to come to a decision about the first and second places, which was the original subject of our discussion?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Perhaps.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="27d"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Well then;  we decided that the mixed life of pleasure and wisdom was the victor, did we not?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And do we not see what kind of life this is, and to what class it belongs?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Of course we do.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> We shall say that it belongs to the third class;  for that class is not formed by mixture of any two things, but of all the things which belong to the infinite, bound by the finite;  and therefore this victorious life would rightly be considered a part of this class.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Quite rightly.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="27e"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Well then, what of your life, Philebus, of unmixed pleasure?  In which of the aforesaid classes may it properly be said to belong?  But before you tell me, please answer this question.</said></p><p><said who="#Philebus"><label>Phi.</label> Ask your question.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Have pleasure and pain a limit, or are they among the things which admit of more and less?</said></p><p><said who="#Philebus"><label>Phi.</label> Yes, they are among those which admit of the more, Socrates;  for pleasure would not be absolute good if it were not infinite in number and degree.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="28"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="28"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="28a"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Nor would pain, Philebus, be absolute evil;  so it is not the infinite which supplies any element of good in pleasure;  we must look for something else.  Well, I grant you that pleasure and pain are in the class of the infinite but to which of the aforesaid classes, Protarchus and Philebus, can we now without irreverence assign wisdom, knowledge, and mind?  I think we must find the right answer to this question, for our danger is great if we fail.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="28b"/><p><said who="#Philebus"><label>Phi.</label> Oh Socrates, you exalt your own god.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And you your goddess, my friend.  But the question calls for an answer, all the same.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Socrates is right, Philebus;  you ought to do as he asks.</said></p><p><said who="#Philebus"><label>Phi.</label> Did you not, Protarchus, elect to reply in my place?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes;  but now I am somewhat at a loss, and I ask you, Socrates, to be our spokesman yourself, that we may not select the wrong representative and so say something improper.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="28c"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> I must do as you ask, Protarchus;  and it is not difficult.  But did I really, as Philebus said, embarrass you by playfully exalting my god, when I asked to what class mind and knowledge should be assigned?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> You certainly did, Socrates.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Yet the answer is easy;  for all philosophers agree—whereby they really exalt themselves—that mind is king of heaven and earth.  Perhaps they are right.  But let us, if you please, investigate the question of its class more at length.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="28d"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Speak just as you like, Socrates.  Do not consider length, so far as we are concerned you cannot bore us.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Good.  Then let us begin by asking a question.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What is the question?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Shall we say, Protarchus, that all things and this which is called the universe are governed by an irrational and fortuitous power and mere chance, or, on the contrary, as our forefathers said, are ordered and directed by mind and a marvellous wisdom?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="28e"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> The two points of view have nothing in common, my wonderful Socrates.  For what you are now saying seems to me actually impious.  But the assertion that mind orders all things is worthy of the aspect of the world, of sun, moon, stars, and the whole revolving universe;  I can never say or think anything else about it.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="29"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Do you, then, think we should assent to this and agree in the doctrine of our predecessors,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="29"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="29a"/>not merely intending to repeat the words of others, with no risk to ourselves, but ready to share with them in the risk and the blame, if any clever man declares that this world is not thus ordered, but is without order?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, of course I do.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then observe the argument that now comes against us.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Go on.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> We see the elements which belong to the natures of all living beings, fire, water, air, and earth—or, as the storm-tossed mariners say, land in sight—
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="29b"/>in the constitution of the universe.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly and we are truly storm-tossed in the puzzling cross-currents of this discussion.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Well, here is a point for you to consider in relation to each of these elements as it exists in us.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What is the point?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Each element in us is small and poor and in no way pure at all or endowed with the power which is worthy of its nature.  Take one example and apply it to all.  Fire, for instance, exists in us and also in the universe.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Of course.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="29c"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And that which is in us is small, weak, and poor, but that which is in the universe is marvellous in quantity, beauty, and every power which belongs to fire.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What you say is very true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Well, is the fire of the universe nourished, originated, and ruled by the fire within us, or, on the contrary, does my fire, and yours, and that of all living beings derive nourishment and all that from the universal fire?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> That question does not even deserve an answer.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="29d"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> True;  and you will, I fancy, say the same of the earth which is in us living creatures and that which is in the universe, and concerning all the other elements about which I asked a moment ago your answer will be the same.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes.  Who could answer otherwise without being called a lunatic?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Nobody, I fancy.  Now follow the next step.  When we see that all the aforesaid elements are gathered together into a unit, do we not call them a body?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Of course.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="29e"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Apply the same line of thought to that which we call the universe.  It would likewise be a body, being composed of the same elements.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Quite right.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Does our body derive, obtain, and possess from that body, or that body from ours, nourishment and everything else that we mentioned just now?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> That, Socrates, is another question not worth asking.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="30"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="30"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="30a"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Well, is this next one worth asking?  What will you say to it?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What is it?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Shall we not say that our body has a soul?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Clearly we shall.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Where did it get it, Protarchus, unless the body of the universe had a soul, since that body has the same elements as ours, only in every way superior?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Clearly it could get it from no other source.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> No;  for we surely do not believe, Protarchus, that of those four elements, the finite, the infinite, the combination,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="30b"/>and the element of cause which exists in all things, this last, which gives to our bodies souls and the art of physical exercise and medical treatment when the body is ill, and which is in general a composing and healing power, is called the sum of all wisdom, and yet, while these same elements exist in the entire heaven and in great parts thereof, and area moreover, fair and pure, there is no means of including among them that nature which is the fairest and most precious of all.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="30c"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly there would be no sense in that.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then if that is not the case, it would be better to follow the other line of thought and say, as we have often said, that there is in the universe a plentiful infinite and a sufficient limit, and in addition a by no means feeble cause which orders and arranges years and seasons and months, and may most justly be called wisdom and mind.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, most justly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Surely reason and mind could never come into being without soul.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> No, never.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then in the nature of Zeus you would say that a kingly soul
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="30d"/>and a kingly mind were implanted through the power of the cause, and in other deities other noble qualities from which they derive their favorite epithets.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Now do not imagine, Protarchus, that this is mere idle talk of mine;  it confirms the utterances of those who declared of old <note resp="Loeb" anchored="true">Anaxagoras and probably some now unknown precursors.</note> that mind always rules the universe.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And to my question it has furnished the reply
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="30e"/>that mind belongs to that one of our four classes which was called the cause of all.  Now, you see, you have at last my answer.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, and a very sufficient one and yet you answered without my knowing it.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Yes, Protarchus, for sometimes a joke is a restful change from serious talk.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> You are right.</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>