The Economist [6]
arranged, each in its appointed place?
Quite right (he answered), and the phrase implies that everything is orderly arranged, not in the first chance place, but in that to which it naturally belongs.
Crit. Yes, the case is to the point, I think, and does involve another economic principle.
Soc. What, then, if I exhibit to you a third contrast, which bears on the condition of domestic slaves? On the one side you shall see them fettered hard and fast, as I may say, and yet for ever breaking their chains and running away. On the other side the slaves are loosed, and free to move, but for all that, they choose to work, it seems; they are constant to their masters. I think you will admit that I here point out another function of economy[4] worth noting.
[4] Or, "economical result."
Crit. I do indeed--a feature most noteworthy.
Soc. Or take, again, the instance of two farmers engaged in cultivating farms[5] as like as possible. The one had never done asserting that agriculture has been his ruin, and is in the depth of despair; the other has all he needs in abundance and of the best, and how acquired?--by this same agriculture.
[5] {georgias}. See Hartman, "An. Xen." p. 193. Hold. cf. Plat. "Laws," 806 E. Isocr. "Areop." 32.
Yes (Critobulus answered), to be sure; perhaps[6] the former spends both toil and money not simply on what he needs, but on things which cause an injury to house alike and owner.
[6] Or, "like enough in the one case the money and pains are spent," etc.
Soc. That is a possible case, no doubt, but it is not the one that I refer to; I mean people pretending they are farmers, and yet they have not a penny to expend on the real needs of their business.
Crit. And pray, what may be the reason of that, Socrates?
Soc. You shall come with me, and see these people also; and as you contemplate the scene, I presume you will lay to heart the lesson.
Crit. I will, if possibly I can, I promise you.
Soc. Yes, and while you contemplate, you must make trial of yourself and see if you have wit to understand. At present, I will bear you witness that if it is to go and see a party of players performing in a comedy, you will get up at cock-crow, and come trudging a long way, and ply me volubly with reasons why I should accompany you to see the play. But you have never once invited me to come and witness such an incident as those we were speaking of just now.
Crit. And so I seem to you ridiculous?[7]
[7] Or, "a comic character in the performance." Soc. "Not so comic as you must appear to yourself (i.e. with your keen sense of the ludicrous)."
Soc. Far more ridiculous to yourself, I warrant. But now let me point out to you another contrast: between certain people whose dealing with horses has brought them to the brink of poverty, and certain others who have found in the same pursuit the road to affluence,[8] and have a right besides to plume themselves upon their gains.[9]
[8] Or, "who have not only attained to affluence by the same pursuit, but can hold their heads high, and may well pride themselves on their thrift."
[9] Cf. Hom. "Il." xii. 114, {ippoisin kai okhesphin agallomenos}, et passim; "Hiero," viii. 5; "Anab." II. vi. 26.
Crit. Well, then, I may tell you, I see and know both characters as well as you do; but I do not find myself a whit the more included among those who gain.
Soc. Because you look at them just as you might at the actors in a tragedy or comedy, and with the same intent--your object being to delight the ear and charm the eye, but not, I take it, to become yourself a poet. And there you are right enough, no doubt, since you have no desire to become a playright. But, when circumstances compel you to concern yourself with horsemanship, does it not seem to you a little foolish not to consider how you are to escape being a mere amateur in the matter, especially as the same creatures which are good for use are profitable for sale?
Crit. So you wish me to set up as a breeder of young horses,[10] do you, Socrates?
[10]
Quite right (he answered), and the phrase implies that everything is orderly arranged, not in the first chance place, but in that to which it naturally belongs.
Crit. Yes, the case is to the point, I think, and does involve another economic principle.
Soc. What, then, if I exhibit to you a third contrast, which bears on the condition of domestic slaves? On the one side you shall see them fettered hard and fast, as I may say, and yet for ever breaking their chains and running away. On the other side the slaves are loosed, and free to move, but for all that, they choose to work, it seems; they are constant to their masters. I think you will admit that I here point out another function of economy[4] worth noting.
[4] Or, "economical result."
Crit. I do indeed--a feature most noteworthy.
Soc. Or take, again, the instance of two farmers engaged in cultivating farms[5] as like as possible. The one had never done asserting that agriculture has been his ruin, and is in the depth of despair; the other has all he needs in abundance and of the best, and how acquired?--by this same agriculture.
[5] {georgias}. See Hartman, "An. Xen." p. 193. Hold. cf. Plat. "Laws," 806 E. Isocr. "Areop." 32.
Yes (Critobulus answered), to be sure; perhaps[6] the former spends both toil and money not simply on what he needs, but on things which cause an injury to house alike and owner.
[6] Or, "like enough in the one case the money and pains are spent," etc.
Soc. That is a possible case, no doubt, but it is not the one that I refer to; I mean people pretending they are farmers, and yet they have not a penny to expend on the real needs of their business.
Crit. And pray, what may be the reason of that, Socrates?
Soc. You shall come with me, and see these people also; and as you contemplate the scene, I presume you will lay to heart the lesson.
Crit. I will, if possibly I can, I promise you.
Soc. Yes, and while you contemplate, you must make trial of yourself and see if you have wit to understand. At present, I will bear you witness that if it is to go and see a party of players performing in a comedy, you will get up at cock-crow, and come trudging a long way, and ply me volubly with reasons why I should accompany you to see the play. But you have never once invited me to come and witness such an incident as those we were speaking of just now.
Crit. And so I seem to you ridiculous?[7]
[7] Or, "a comic character in the performance." Soc. "Not so comic as you must appear to yourself (i.e. with your keen sense of the ludicrous)."
Soc. Far more ridiculous to yourself, I warrant. But now let me point out to you another contrast: between certain people whose dealing with horses has brought them to the brink of poverty, and certain others who have found in the same pursuit the road to affluence,[8] and have a right besides to plume themselves upon their gains.[9]
[8] Or, "who have not only attained to affluence by the same pursuit, but can hold their heads high, and may well pride themselves on their thrift."
[9] Cf. Hom. "Il." xii. 114, {ippoisin kai okhesphin agallomenos}, et passim; "Hiero," viii. 5; "Anab." II. vi. 26.
Crit. Well, then, I may tell you, I see and know both characters as well as you do; but I do not find myself a whit the more included among those who gain.
Soc. Because you look at them just as you might at the actors in a tragedy or comedy, and with the same intent--your object being to delight the ear and charm the eye, but not, I take it, to become yourself a poet. And there you are right enough, no doubt, since you have no desire to become a playright. But, when circumstances compel you to concern yourself with horsemanship, does it not seem to you a little foolish not to consider how you are to escape being a mere amateur in the matter, especially as the same creatures which are good for use are profitable for sale?
Crit. So you wish me to set up as a breeder of young horses,[10] do you, Socrates?
[10]