<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="56"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> All that would be left for us would be to conjecture and to drill the perceptions by practice and experience, with the additional use of the powers of guessing,
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="56"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="56a"/>which are commonly called arts and acquire their efficacy by practice and toil.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> That is undeniable.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Take music first;  it is full of this; it attains harmony by guesswork based on practice, not by measurement;  and flute music throughout tries to find the pitch of each note as it is produced by guess, so that the amount of uncertainty mixed up in it is great, and the amount of certainty small.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Very true.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="56b"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And we shall find that medicine and agriculture and piloting and generalship are all in the same case.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> But the art of building, I believe, employs the greatest number of measures and instruments which give it great accuracy and make it more scientific than most arts.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> In what way?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> In shipbuilding and house-building, and many other branches of wood-working.  For the artisan uses a rule, I imagine, a lathe, compasses, a chalk-line,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="56c"/>and an ingenious instrument called a vice.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly, Socrates;  you are right.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Let us, then, divide the arts, as they are called, into two kinds, those which resemble music, and have less accuracy in their works, and those which, like building, are more exact.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Agreed.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And of these the most exact are the arts which I just now mentioned first.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> I think you mean arithmetic and the other arts you mentioned with it just now.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="56d"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Certainly.  But, Protarchus, ought not these to be divided into two kinds?  What do you say?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> What kinds?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Are there not two kinds of arithmetic, that of the people and that of philosophers?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> How can one kind of arithmetic be distinguished from the other?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> The distinction is no small one, Protarchus.  For some arithmeticians reckon unequal units,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="56e"/>for instance, two armies and two oxen and two very small or incomparably large units;  whereas others refuse to agree with them unless each of countless units is declared to differ not at all from each and every other unit.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> You are certainly quite right in saying that there is a great difference between the devotees of arithmetic, so it is reasonable to assume that it is of two kinds.</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>