<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="62"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="62"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="62a"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> I think that is what we should do.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Let us assume, then, a man who possesses wisdom about the nature of justice itself, and reason in accordance with his wisdom, and has the same kind of knowledge of all other things.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Agreed.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Now will this man have sufficient knowledge, if he is master of the theory of the divine circle and sphere, but is ignorant of our human sphere and human circles, even when he uses these
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="62b"/>and other kinds of rules or patterns in building houses?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> We call that a ridiculous state of intellect in a man, Socrates, which is concerned only with divine knowledge.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> What?  Do you mean to say that the uncertain and impure art of the false rule and circle is to be put into our mixture?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, that is inevitable, if any man is ever to find his own way home.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And must we add music, which we said a little while ago
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="62c"/>was full of guesswork and imitation and lacked purity?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Yes, I think we must, if our life is to be life at all.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Shall I, then, like a doorkeeper who is pushed and hustled by a mob, give up, open the door, and let all the kinds of knowledge stream in, the impure mingling with the pure?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="62d"/><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> I do not know, Socrates, what harm it can do a man to take in all the other kinds of knowledge if he has the first.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Shall I, then, let them all flow into what Homer very poetically calls <quote type="paraphrase">the mingling of the vales?</quote><note resp="Loeb" anchored="true"><bibl n="Hom. Il. 4.453">Hom. Il. 4.453</bibl>.</note></said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> They are let in;  and now we must turn again to the spring of pleasure.  For our original plan for making the mixture, by taking first the true parts, did not succeed;  because of our love of knowledge,
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="62e"/>we let all kinds of knowledge in together before pleasure.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Very true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> So now it is time for us to consider about pleasures also, whether these, too, shall be all let loose together, or we shall let only the true ones loose at first.</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> It is much safer to let loose the true first.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> We will let them loose, then.  But what next?  If there are any necessary pleasures, as there were kinds of knowledge, must we not mix them with the true?</said></p><p><said who="#Protarchus"><label>Pro.</label> Of course;  the necessary pleasures must certainly be added.</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>