按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
Str。 And other products of human creation are twofold and go in
pairs； there is the thing； with which the art of making the thing is
concerned； and the image； with which imitation is concerned。
Theaet。 Now I begin to understand； and am ready to acknowledge
that there are two kinds of production； and each of them two fold；
in the lateral division there is both a divine and a human
production；
in the vertical there are realities and a creation of a kind of
similitudes。
Str。 And let us not forget that of the imitative class the one
part to have been likeness making； and the other phantastic； if it
could be shown that falsehood is a reality and belongs to
the class of
real being。
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 And this appeared to be the case； and therefore now； without
hesitation； we shall number the different kinds as two。
Theaet。 True。
Str。 Then； now； let us again divide the phantastic art。
Theaet。 Where shall we make the division？
Str。 There is one kind which is produced by an instrument； and
another in which the creator of the appearance is himself the
instrument。
Theaet。 What do you mean？
Str。 When any one makes himself appear like another in his
figure or
his voice； imitation is the name for this part of the phantastic art。
Theaet。 Yes。
Str。 Let this； then； be named the art of mimicry； and this the
province assigned to it； as for the other division； we are weary and
will give that up； leaving to some one else the duty of making the
class and giving it a suitable name。
Theaet。 Let us do as you say…assign a sphere to the one and leave
the other。
Str。 There is a further distinction； Theaetetus； which is worthy
of our consideration； and for a reason which I will tell you。
Theaet。 Let me hear。
Str。 There are some who imitate； knowing what they
imitate； and some
who do not know。 And what line of distinction can there possibly be
greater than that which divides ignorance from knowledge？
Theaet。 There can be no greater。
Str。 Was not the sort of imitation of which we spoke just now the
imitation of those who know？ For he who would imitate you
would surely
know you and your figure？
Theaet。 Naturally。
Str。 And what would you say of the figure or form of justice or of
virtue in general？ Are we not well aware that many； having no
knowledge of either； but only a sort of opinion； do their
best to show
that this opinion is really entertained by them； by expressing it；
as far as they can； in word and deed？
Theaet。 Yes； that is very common。
Str。 And do they always fail in their attempt to be thought just；
when they are not？ Or is not the very opposite true？
Theaet。 The very opposite。
Str。 Such a one； then； should be described as an imitator…to be
distinguished from the other； as he who is ignorant is distinguished
from him who knows？
Theaet。 True。
Str。 Can we find a suitable name for each of them？ This is clearly
not an easy task； for among the ancients there was some confusion of
ideas； which prevented them from attempting to divide genera into
species； wherefore there is no great abundance of names。 Yet； for
the sake of distinctness； I will make bold to call the
imitation which
coexists with opinion； the imitation of appearance…that
which coexists
with science； a scientific or learned imitation。
Theaet。 Granted。
Str。 The former is our present concern； for the Sophist was
classed with imitators indeed； but not among those who have
knowledge。
Theaet。 Very true。
Str。 Let us； then； examine our imitator of appearance； and see
whether he is sound； like a piece of iron； or whether there is still
some crack in him。
Theaet。 Let us examine him。
Str。 Indeed there is a very considerable crack； for if you
look； you
find that one of the two classes of imitators is a simple creature；
who thinks that he knows that which he only fancies； the other sort
has knocked about among arguments； until he suspects and
fears that he
is ignorant of that which to the many he pretends to know。
Theaet。 There are certainly the two kinds which you describe。
Str。 Shall we regard one as the simple imitator…the other as the
dissembling or ironical imitator？
Theaet。 Very good。
Str。 And shall we further speak of this latter class as having one
or two divisions？
Theaet。 Answer yourself。
Str。 Upon consideration； then； there appear to me to be two； there
is the dissembler； who harangues a multitude in public in a long
speech； and the dissembler； who in private and in short speeches
compels the person who is conversing with him to contradict himself。
Theaet。 What you say is most true。
Str。 And who is the maker of the longer speeches？ Is he the
statesman or the popular orator？
Theaet。 The latter。
Str。 And what shall we call the other？ Is he the philosopher or
the Sophist？
Theaet。 The philosopher he cannot be； for upon our view he is
ignorant； but since he is an imitator of the wise he will have a
name which is formed by an adaptation of the word sothos。 What shall
we name him？ I am pretty sure that I cannot be mistaken in
terming him
the true and very Sophist。
Str。 Shall we bind up his name as we did before； making a
chain from
one end of his genealogy to the other？
Theaet。 By all means。
Str。 He； then； who traces the pedigree of his art as follows…who；
belonging to the conscious or dissembling section of the art of
causing self…contradiction； is an imitator of appearance； and is
separated from the class of phantastic which is a branch of
image…making into that further division of creation； the juggling of
words； a creation human； and not divine…any one who affirms the real
Sophist to be of this blood and lineage will say the very truth。
Theaet。 Undoubtedly。
…THE END…
。