<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.tlg027.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="532"><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>And so we may state, in general terms, that the same person will always distinguish, given the same subject and several persons talking about it, <milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="532"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="532a"/> both who speaks well and who badly:  otherwise, if he is not going to distinguish the bad speaker, clearly he will not distinguish the good one either, where the subject is the same.</p></said><said who="#Ion"><label>Ion.</label><p>That is so.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>And the same man is found to be skilled in both?</p></said><said who="#Ion"><label>Ion.</label><p>Yes.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>And you say that Homer and the other poets, among whom are Hesiod and Archilochus, all speak about the same things, only not similarly;  but the one does it well, and the rest worse?</p></said><said who="#Ion"><label>Ion.</label><p>Yes, and what I say is true.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>And since you distinguish the good speaker, <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="532b"/> you could distinguish also the inferiority of the worse speakers.</p></said><said who="#Ion"><label>Ion.</label><p>So it would seem.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>Then, my excellent friend, we shall not be wrong in saying that our Ion is equally skilled in Homer and in the other poets, seeing that you yourself admit that the same man will be a competent judge of all who speak on the same things, and that practically all the poets treat of the same things.</p></said><said who="#Ion"><label>Ion.</label><p>Then what can be the reason, Socrates, why I pay no attention when somebody discusses any other poet, and am unable to offer any remark at all of any value, <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="532c"/> but simply drop into a doze, whereas if anyone mentions something connected with Homer I wake up at once and attend and have plenty to say?</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>That is not difficult to guess, my good friend;  anyone can see that you are unable to speak on Homer with art and knowledge.  For if you could do it with art, you could speak on all the other poets as well;  since there is an art of poetry, I take it, as a whole, is there not?</p></said><said who="#Ion"><label>Ion.</label><p>Yes.</p></said><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="532d"/><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>And when one has acquired any other art whatever as a whole, the same principle of inquiry holds through all the arts?  Do you require some explanation from me, Ion, of what I mean by this?</p></said><said who="#Ion"><label>Ion.</label><p>Yes, upon my word, Socrates, I do;  for I enjoy listening to you wise men.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>I only wish you were right there, Ion:  but surely it is you rhapsodes and actors, and the men whose poems you chant, who are wise;  whereas I speak but the plain truth, as a simple layman might.  <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="532e"/> For in regard to this question I asked you just now, observe what a trifling commonplace it was that I uttered—a thing that any man might know—namely, that when one has acquired a whole art the inquiry is the same.  Let us just think it out thus:  there is an art of painting as a whole?</p></said><said who="#Ion"><label>Ion.</label><p>Yes.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>And there are and have been many painters, good and bad?</p></said><said who="#Ion"><label>Ion.</label><p>Certainly.</p></said></div></div></body></text></TEI>