360　BC
  SOPHIST
  by　Plato
  translated　by　Benjamin　Jowett
  SOPHIST
  PERSONS　OF　THE　DIALOGUE：　THEODORUS；　THEAETETUS；　SOCRATES；
  An　ELEATIC　STRANGER；　whom　Theodorus　and　Theaetetus　bring
  with　them；　The　younger　SOCRATES；　who　is　a　silent　auditor
  Theodorus。　Here　we　are；　Socrates；　true　to　our　agreement　of
  yesterday；　and　we　bring　with　us　a　stranger　from　Elea；　who　is　a
  disciple　of　Parmenides　and　Zeno；　and　a　true　philosopher。
  Socrates。　Is　he　not　rather　a　god；　Theodorus；　who　comes　to　us　in
  the　disguise　of　a　stranger？　For　Homer　says　that　all　the　gods；　and
  especially　the　god　of　strangers；　are　companions　of　the　meek　and
  just；　and　visit　the　good　and　evil　among　men。　And　may　not　your
  companion　be　one　of　those　higher　powers；　a　cross…examining　deity；
  who　has　come　to　spy　out　our　weakness　in　argument；　and　to
  cross…examine
  us？
  Theod。　Nay；　Socrates；　he　is　not　one　of　the　disputatious　sort…he　is
  too　good　for　that。　And；　in　my　opinion；　he　is　not　a　god　at　all；　but
  divine　he　certainly　is；　for　this　is　a　title　which　I　should
  give　to　all
  philosophers。
  Soc。　Capital；　my　friend！　and　I　may　add　that　they　are　almost　as
  hard　to　be　discerned　as　the　gods。　For　the　true　philosophers；　and
  such　as　are　not　merely　made　up　for　the　occasion；　appear　in　various
  forms　unrecognized　by　the　ignorance　of　men；　and　they　〃hover　about
  cities；〃　as　Homer　declares；　looking　from　above　upon　human　life；　and
  some　think　nothing　of　them；　and　others　can　never　think　enough；　and
  sometimes　they　appear　as　statesmen；　and　sometimes　as　sophists；　and
  then；　again；　to　many　they　seem　to　be　no　better　than　madmen。　I　should
  like　to　ask　our　Eleatic　friend；　if　he　would　tell　us；　what　is　thought
  about　them　in　Italy；　and　to　whom　the　terms　are　applied。
  Theod。　What　terms？
  Soc。　Sophist；　statesman；　philosopher。
  Theod。　What　is　your　difficulty　about　them；　and　what　made　you　ask？
  Soc。　I　want　to　know　whether　by　his　countrymen　they　are　regarded　as
  one　or　two；　or　do　they；　as　the　names　are　three；　distinguish
  also　three
  kinds；　and　assign　one　to　each　name？
  Theod。　I　dare　say　that　the　Stranger　will　not　object　to　discuss　the
  question。　What　do　you　say；　Stranger？
  Stranger。　I　am　far　from　objecting；　Theodorus；　nor　have　I　any
  difficulty　in　replying　that　by　us　they　are　regarded　as　three。　But　to
  define　precisely　the　nature　of　each　of　them　is　by　no　means　a
  slight　or
  easy　task。
  Theod。　You　have　happened　to　light；　Socrates；　almost　on　the　very
  question　which　we　were　asking　our　friend　before　we　came
  hither；　and　he
  excused　himself　to　us；　as　he　does　now　you；　although　he　admitted　that
  the　matter　had　been　fully　discussed；　and　that　he　remembered　the
  answer。
  Soc。　Then　do　not；　Stranger；　deny　us　the　first　favour　which
  we　ask　of
  you：　I　am　sure　that　you　will　not；　and　therefore　I　shall　only　beg　of
  you　to　say　whether　you　like　and　are　accustomed　to　make　a　long
  oration　on　a　subject　which　you　want　to　explain　to　another；　or　to
  proceed　by　the　method　of　question　and　answer。　I　remember　hearing　a
  very　noble　discussion　in　which　Parmenides　employed　the　latter　of　the
  two　methods；　when　I　was　a　young　man；　and　he　was　far　advanced
  in　years。
  Str。　I　prefer　to　talk　with　another　when　he　responds　pleasantly；
  and　is　light　in　hand；　if　not；　I　would　rather　have　my　own　say。
  Soc。　Any　one　of　the　present　company　will　respond　kindly　to　you；
  and　you　can　choose　whom　you　like　of　them；　I　should　recommend　you　to
  take　a　young　person…Theaetetus；　for　example…unless　you　have　a
  preference　for　some　one　else。
  Str。　I　feel　ashamed；　Socrates；　being　a　new　comer　into　your
  society；　instead　of　talking　a　little　and　hearing　others　talk；　to　be
  spinning　out　a　long　soliloquy　or　address；　as　if　I　wanted　to　show
  off。　For　the　true　answer　will　certainly　be　a　very　long　one；　a　great
  deal　longer　than　might　be　expected　from　such　a　short　and　simple
  question。　At　the　same　time；　I　fear　that　I　may　seem　rude　and
  ungracious
  if　I　refuse　your　courteous　request；　especially　after　what　you　have
  said。　For　I　certainly　cannot　object　to　your　proposal；　that
  Theaetetus　should　respond；　having　already　conversed　with　him　myself；
  and　being　recommended　by　you　to　take　him。
  Theaetetus。　But　are　you　sure；　Stranger；　that　this　will　be　quite　so
  acceptable　to　the　rest　of　the　company　as　Socrates　imagines？
  Str。　You　hear　them　applauding；　Theaetetus；　after　that；　there　is
  nothing　more　to　be　said。　Well　then；　I　am　to　argue　with　you；
  and　if　you
  tire　of　the　argument；　you　may　complain　of　your　friends　and　not　of　me。
  Theaet。　I　do　not　think　that　I　shall　tire；　and　if　I　do；　I　shall　get
  my　friend　here；　young　Socrates；　the　namesake　of　the　elder
  Socrates；　to
  help；　he　is　about　my　own　age；　and　my　partner　at　the　gymnasium；　and
  is　constantly　accustomed　to　work　with　me。
  Str。　Very　good；　you　can　decide　about　that　for　yourself　as　we
  proceed。　Meanwhile　you　and　I　will　begin　together　and　enquire　into
  the　nature　of　the　Sophist；　first　of　the　three：　I　should　like　you　to
  make　out　what　he　is　and　bring　him　to　light　in　a　discussion；　for　at
  present　we　are　only　agreed　about　the　name；　but　of　the　thing　to　which
  we　both　apply　the　name　possibly　you　have　one　notion　and　I　another；
  whereas　we　ought　always　to　come　to　an　understanding　about　the　thing
  itself　in　terms　of　a　definition；　and　not　merely　about　the　name　minus
  the　definition。　Now　the　tribe　of　Sophists　which　we　are　investigating
  is　not　easily　caught　or　defined；　and　the　world　has　long　ago　agreed；
  that　if　great　subjects　are　to　be　adequately　treated；　they　must　be
  studied　in　the　lesser　and　easier　instances　of　them　before　we　proceed
  to　the　greatest　of　all。　And　as　I　know　that　the　tribe　of　Sophists　is
  troublesome　and　hard　to　be　caught；　I　should　recommend　that
  we　practise
  beforehand　the　method　which　is　to　be　applied　to　him　on　some
  simple　and
  smaller　thing；　unless　you　can　suggest　a　better　way。
  Theaet。　Indeed　I　cannot。
  Str。　Then　suppose　that　we　work　out　some　lesser　example
  which　will　be
  a　pattern　of　the　greater？
  Theaet。　Good。
  Str。　What　is　there　which　is　well　known　and　not　great；　and　is　yet
  as　susceptible　of　definition　as　any　larger　thing？　Shall　I　say　an
  angler？　He　is　familiar　to　all　of　us；　and　not　a　very　interesting　or
  important　person。
  Theaet。　He　is　not。
  Str。　Yet　I　suspect　that　he　will　furnish　us　with　the　sort　of
  definition　and　line　of　enquiry　which　we　want。
  Theaet。　Very　good。
  Str。　Let　us　begin　by　asking　whether　he　is　a　man　having　art　or　not
  having　art；　but　some　other　power。
  Theaet。　He　is　clearly　a　man　of　art。
  Str。　And　of　arts　there　are　two　kinds？
  Theaet。　What　are　they？
  Str。　There　is　agriculture；　and　the　tending　of　mortal　creatures；
  and　the　art　of　constructing　or　moulding　vessels；　and　there　is　the
  art　of　imitation…all　these　may　be　appropriately　called　by　a　single
  name。
  Theaet。　What　do　you　mean？　And　what　is　the　name？
  Str。　He　who　brings　into　existence　something　that　did　not　exist
  before　is　said　to　be　a　producer；　and　that　which　is　brought　into
  existence　is　said　to　be　produced。
  Theaet。　True。
  Str。　And　all　the　arts　which　were　just　now　mentioned　are
  characterized　by　this　power　of　producing？
  Theaet。　They　are。
  Str。　Then　let　us　sum　them　up　under　the　name　of　productive　or
  creative　art。
  Theaet。　Very　good。
  Str。　Next　follows　the　whole　class　of　learning　and　cognition；　then
  comes　trade；　fighting；　hunting。　And　since　none　of　these　produces
  anything；　but　is　only　engaged　in　conquering　by　word　or　deed；　or　in
  preventing　others　from　conquering；　things　which　exist　and　have　been
  already　produced…in　each　and　all　of　these　branches　there
  appears　to　be
  an　art　which　may　be　called　acquisitive。
  Theaet。　Yes；　that　is　the　proper　name。
  Str。　Seeing；　then；　that　all　arts　are　either　acquisitive　or
  creative；
  in　which　class　shall　we　place　the　art　of　the　angler？
  Theaet。　Clearly　in　the　acquisitive　class。
  Str。　And　the　acquisitive　may　be　subdivided　into　two　parts：　there
  is　exchange；　which　is　voluntary　and　is　effected　by　gifts；　hire；
  purchase；　and　the　other　part　of　acquisitive；　which　takes　by　force　of
  word　or　deed；　may　be　termed　conquest？
  Theaet。　That　is　implied　in　what　has　been　said。
  Str。　And　may　not　conquest　be　again　subdivided？
  Theaet。　How？
  Str。　Open　force　may；　be　called　fighting；　and　secret　force　may　have
  the　general　name　of　hunting？
  Theaet。　Yes。
  Str。　And　there　is　no　reason　why　the　art　of　hunting　should　not　be
  further　divided。
  Theaet。　How　would　you　make　the　division？
  Str。　Into　the　hunting　of　living　and　of　lifeless　prey。
  Theaet。　Yes；　if　both　kinds　exist。
  Str。　Of　course　they　exist；　but　the　hunting　after　lifeless　things
  having　no　special　name；　except　some　sorts　of　diving；　and　other　small
  matters；　may　be　omitted；　the　hunting　after　living　things　may
  be　called
  animal　hunting。
  Theaet。　Yes。
  Str。　And　animal　hunting　may　be　truly　said　to　have　two　divisions；
  land…animal　hunting；　which　has　many　kinds　and　names；　and
  water…animals
  hunting；　or　the　hunting　after　animals　who　swim？
  Theae