---
title: "Parmenides · Παρμενίδης"
author: "Plato"
translator: "Harold North Fowler"
languages: [grc, en]
shelf: "Philosophy"
section: 2 of 4
url: https://scriptura.si/works/plato-parmenides/2/
cite: "Plato, tr. Harold North Fowler, Parmenides · Παρμενίδης, section 2. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/plato-parmenides/2/"
---

# Parmenides · Παρμενίδης

*Plato, tr. Harold North Fowler*

The young Socrates meets old Parmenides, who takes the theory of Forms apart.

> Greek: ed. John Burnet, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-greekLit, tlg0059.tlg009, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: Harold North Fowler, from the Perseus Digital Library (tlg0059.tlg009.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 2. Sections 136e–146d

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/plato-parmenides/2/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/plato-parmenides/2/#p-N

[¶0] 136e. for the many do not know that except by this devious passage through all things the mind cannot attain to the truth. So I, Parmenides, join Socrates in his request, that I myself may hear the method, which I have not heard for a long time. Antiphon said that Pythodorus told him that when Zeno said this he himself and Antisthenes and the rest begged Parmenides to show his meaning by an example and not to refuse. And Parmenides said: I must perforce do as you ask.

> Greek: 136e. ἀγνοοῦσιν γὰρ οἱ πολλοὶ ὅτι ἄνευ ταύτης τῆς διὰ πάντων διεξόδου τε καὶ πλάνης ἀδύνατον ἐντυχόντα τῷ ἀληθεῖ νοῦν σχεῖν. ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν, ὦ Παρμενίδη, Σωκράτει συνδέομαι, ἵνα καὶ αὐτὸς διακούσω διὰ χρόνου.ταῦτα δὴ εἰπόντος τοῦ Ζήνωνος, ἔφη ὁ Ἀντιφῶν φάναι τὸν Πυθόδωρον, αὐτόν τε δεῖσθαι τοῦ Παρμενίδου καὶ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους, ἐνδείξασθαι ὃ λέγοι καὶ μὴ ἄλλως ποιεῖν. τὸν οὖν Παρμενίδην· ἀνάγκη, φάναι, πείθεσθαι. καίτοι δοκῶ μοι τὸ τοῦ Ἰβυκείου ἵππου πεπονθέναι, ᾧ ἐκεῖνος ἀθλητῇ ὄντι καὶ πρεσβυτέρῳ, ὑφʼ ἅρματι μέλλοντι ἀγωνιεῖσθαι καὶ διʼ ἐμπειρίαν τρέμοντι τὸ μέλλον, ἑαυτὸν ἀπεικάζων ἄκων ἔφη καὶ αὐτὸς οὕτω πρεσβύτης ὢν εἰς τὸν ἔρωτα ἀναγκάζεσθαι ἰέναι·

[¶1] 137a. Ceph. And yet I feel very much like the horse in the poem of Ibycus —an old race-horse who was entered for a chariot race and was trembling with fear of what was before him, because he knew it by experience. Ibycus says he is compelled to fall in love against his will in his old age, and compares himself to the horse. So I am filled with terror when I remember through what a fearful ocean of words I must swim, old man that I am. However, I will do it, for I must be obliging, especially since we are, as Zeno says, alone.

> Greek: 137a. κἀγώ μοι δοκῶ μεμνημένος μάλα φοβεῖσθαι πῶς χρὴ τηλικόνδε ὄντα διανεῦσαι τοιοῦτόν τε καὶ τοσοῦτον πέλαγος λόγων· ὅμως δὲ δεῖ γὰρ χαρίζεσθαι, ἐπειδὴ καί, ὃ Ζήνων λέγει, αὐτοί ἐσμεν. πόθεν οὖν δὴ ἀρξόμεθα καὶ τί πρῶτον ὑποθησόμεθα;

[¶2] 137b. Well, how shall we begin? What shall be our first hypothesis? Or, since you are determined that I must engage in a laborious pastime, shall I begin with myself, taking my own hypothesis and discussing the consequences of the supposition that the one exists or that it does not exist? By all means, said Zeno. Who then, said he, to answer my questions? Shall we say the youngest? He would be least likely to be over-curious and most likely to say what he thinks and moreover his replies would give me a chance to rest.

> Greek: 137b. ἢ βούλεσθε, ἐπειδήπερ δοκεῖ πραγματειώδη παιδιὰν παίζειν, ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ ἄρξωμαι καὶ τῆς ἐμαυτοῦ ὑποθέσεως, περὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς αὐτοῦ ὑποθέμενος, εἴτε ἕν ἐστιν εἴτε μὴ ἕν, τί χρὴ συμβαίνειν;πάνυ μὲν οὖν, φάναι τὸν Ζήνωνα.τίς οὖν, εἰπεῖν, μοὶ ἀποκρινεῖται; ἢ ὁ νεώτατος; ἥκιστα γὰρ ἂν πολυπραγμονοῖ, καὶ ἃ οἴεται μάλιστα ἂν ἀποκρίνοιτο· καὶ ἅμα ἐμοὶ ἀνάπαυλα ἂν εἴη ἡ ἐκείνου ἀπόκρισις.

[¶3] 137c. I am ready, Parmenides, to do that, said Aristoteles, for I am the youngest, so you mean me. Ask your questions and I will answer. Well then, said he, if the one exists, the one cannot be many, can it? No, of course not. Then there can be no parts of it, nor can it be a whole. How is that? The part surely is part of a whole. Yes. And what is the whole? Is not a whole that of which no part is wanting?

> Greek: 137c. ἕτοιμός σοι, ὦ Παρμενίδη, φάναι, τοῦτο, τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη· ἐμὲ γὰρ λέγεις τὸν νεώτατον λέγων. ἀλλὰ ἐρώτα ὡς ἀποκρινουμένου. εἶεν δή, φάναι· εἰ ἕν ἐστιν, ἄλλο τι οὐκ ἂν εἴη πολλὰ τὸ ἕν; πῶς γὰρ ἄν; οὔτε ἄρα μέρος αὐτοῦ οὔτε ὅλον αὐτὸ δεῖ εἶναι. τί δή; τὸ μέρος που ὅλου μέρος ἐστίν. ναί. τί δὲ τὸ ὅλον; οὐχὶ οὗ ἂν μέρος μηδὲν ἀπῇ ὅλον ἂν εἴη; πάνυ γε. ἀμφοτέρως ἄρα τὸ ἓν ἐκ μερῶν ἂν εἴη, ὅλον τε ὂν καὶ μέρη ἔχον. ἀνάγκη. ἀμφοτέρως ἂν ἄρα οὕτως τὸ ἓν πολλὰ εἴη ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἕν.

[¶4] 137d. Certainly. Then in both cases the one would consist of parts, being a whole and having parts. Inevitably. Then in both cases the one would be many, not one. True. Yet it must be not many, but one. Yes. Then the one, if it is to be one, will not be a whole and will not have parts. No. And if it has no parts, it can have no beginning, or middle, or end, for those would be parts of it? Quite right. Beginning and end are, however, the limits of everything. Of course. Then the one, if it has neither beginning nor end, is unlimited. Yes, it is unlimited. And it is without form, for it partakes neither of the round nor of the straight.

> Greek: 137d. ἀληθῆ. δεῖ δέ γε μὴ πολλὰ ἀλλʼ ἓν αὐτὸ εἶναι. δεῖ. οὔτʼ ἄρα ὅλον ἔσται οὔτε μέρη ἕξει, εἰ ἓν ἔσται τὸ ἕν. οὐ γάρ.οὐκοῦν εἰ μηδὲν ἔχει μέρος, οὔτʼ ἂν ἀρχὴν οὔτε τελευτὴν οὔτε μέσον ἔχοι· μέρη γὰρ ἂν ἤδη αὐτοῦ τὰ τοιαῦτα εἴη. ὀρθῶς. καὶ μὴν τελευτή γε καὶ ἀρχὴ πέρας ἑκάστου. πῶς δʼ οὔ; ἄπειρον ἄρα τὸ ἕν, εἰ μήτε ἀρχὴν μήτε τελευτὴν ἔχει. ἄπειρον. καὶ ἄνευ σχήματος ἄρα· οὔτε γὰρ στρογγύλου οὔτε εὐθέος μετέχει.

[¶5] 137e. How so? The round, of course, is that of which the extremes are everywhere equally distant from the center. Yes. And the straight, again, is that of which the middle is in the nearest line between the two extremes. It is. Then the one would have parts and would be many, whether it partook of straight or of round form. Certainly. Then it is neither straight nor round, since it has no parts.

> Greek: 137e. πῶς; στρογγύλον γέ πού ἐστι τοῦτο οὗ ἂν τὰ ἔσχατα πανταχῇ ἀπὸ τοῦ μέσου ἴσον ἀπέχῃ. ναί. καὶ μὴν εὐθύ γε, οὗ ἂν τὸ μέσον ἀμφοῖν τοῖν ἐσχάτοιν ἐπίπροσθεν ᾖ. οὕτως. οὐκοῦν μέρη ἂν ἔχοι τὸ ἓν καὶ πολλὰ ἂν εἴη, εἴτε εὐθέος σχήματος εἴτε περιφεροῦς μετέχοι. πάνυ μὲν οὖν. οὔτε ἄρα εὐθὺ οὔτε περιφερές ἐστιν, ἐπείπερ οὐδὲ μέρη ἔχει.

[¶6] 138a. Right.

> Greek: 138a. ὀρθῶς.

[¶7] 138. Ceph. Moreover, being of such a nature, it cannot be anywhere, for it could not be either in anything else or in itself. How is that? If it were in something else, it would be encircled by that in which it would be and would be touched in many places by many parts of it; but that which is one and without parts and does not partake of the circular nature cannot be touched by a circle in many places. No, it cannot. But, furthermore, being in itself it would also be surrounding with itself naught other than itself, if it were in itself; for nothing can be in anything which does not surround it.

> Greek: 138. καὶ μὴν τοιοῦτόν γε ὂν οὐδαμοῦ ἂν εἴη· οὔτε γὰρ ἐν ἄλλῳ οὔτε ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἴη. πῶς δή; ἐν ἄλλῳ μὲν ὂν κύκλῳ που ἂν περιέχοιτο ὑπʼ ἐκείνου ἐν ᾧ ἐνείη, καὶ πολλαχοῦ ἂν αὐτοῦ ἅπτοιτο πολλοῖς· τοῦ δὲ ἑνός τε καὶ ἀμεροῦς καὶ κύκλου μὴ μετέχοντος ἀδύνατον πολλαχῇ κύκλῳ ἅπτεσθαι. ἀδύνατον. ἀλλὰ μὴν αὐτό γε ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὂν κἂν ἑαυτῷ εἴη περιέχον οὐκ ἄλλο ἢ αὑτό, εἴπερ καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἴη·

[¶8] 138b. No, it cannot. Then that which surrounds would be other than that which is surrounded; for a whole cannot be both active and passive in the same action; and thus one would be no longer one, but two. True. Then the one is not anywhere, neither in itself nor in something else. No, it is not. This being the case, see whether it can be either at rest or in motion. Why not?

> Greek: 138b. ἔν τῳ γάρ τι εἶναι μὴ περιέχοντι ἀδύνατον. ἀδύνατον γάρ. οὐκοῦν ἕτερον μὲν ἄν τι εἴη αὐτὸ τὸ περιέχον, ἕτερον δὲ τὸ περιεχόμενον· οὐ γὰρ ὅλον γε ἄμφω ταὐτὸν ἅμα πείσεται καὶ ποιήσει· καὶ οὕτω τὸ ἓν οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἔτι ἓν ἀλλὰ δύο. οὐ γὰρ οὖν. οὐκ ἄρα ἐστίν που τὸ ἕν, μήτε ἐν αὑτῷ μήτε ἐν ἄλλῳ ἐνόν. οὐκ ἔστιν.ὅρα δή, οὕτως ἔχον εἰ οἷόν τέ ἐστιν ἑστάναι ἢ κινεῖσθαι. τί δὴ γὰρ οὔ; ὅτι κινούμενόν γε ἢ φέροιτο ἢ ἀλλοιοῖτο ἄν·

[¶9] 138c. Because if in motion it would be either moving in place or changing; for those are the only kinds of motion. Yes. But the one, if changing to something other than itself, cannot any longer be one. It cannot. Then it is not in motion by the method of change. Apparently not. But by moving in place? Perhaps. But if the one moved in place, it would either revolve in the same spot or pass from one place to another. Yes, it must do so. And that which revolves must rest upon a center and have other parts which turn about the center;

> Greek: 138c. αὗται γὰρ μόναι κινήσεις. ναί. ἀλλοιούμενον δὲ τὸ ἓν ἑαυτοῦ ἀδύνατόν που ἓν ἔτι εἶναι. ἀδύνατον. οὐκ ἄρα κατʼ ἀλλοίωσίν γε κινεῖται. οὐ φαίνεται. ἀλλʼ ἆρα τῷ φέρεσθαι; ἴσως. καὶ μὴν εἰ φέροιτο τὸ ἕν, ἤτοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἂν περιφέροιτο κύκλῳ ἢ μεταλλάττοι χώραν ἑτέραν ἐξ ἑτέρας. ἀνάγκη. οὐκοῦν κύκλῳ μὲν περιφερόμενον ἐπὶ μέσου βεβηκέναι ἀνάγκη, καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸ μέσον φερόμενα ἄλλα μέρη ἔχειν ἑαυτοῦ· ᾧ δὲ μήτε μέσου μήτε μερῶν προσήκει, τίς μηχανὴ τοῦτο κύκλῳ ποτʼ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου ἐνεχθῆναι;

[¶10] 138d. but what possible way is there for that which has no center and no parts to revolve upon a center? There is none. But does it change its place by coming into one place at one time and another at another, and move in that way? Yes, if it moves at all. Did we not find that it could not be in anything? Yes. And is it not still more impossible for it to come into anything? I do not understand why. If anything comes into anything, it must be not yet in it, while it is still coming in, nor still entirely outside of it, if it is already coming in, must it not? It must.

> Greek: 138d. οὐδεμία. ἀλλὰ δὴ χώραν ἀμεῖβον ἄλλοτʼ ἄλλοθι γίγνεται καὶ οὕτω κινεῖται; εἴπερ γε δή. οὐκοῦν εἶναι μέν που ἔν τινι αὐτῷ ἀδύνατον ἐφάνη; ναί. ἆρʼ οὖν γίγνεσθαι ἔτι ἀδυνατώτερον; οὐκ ἐννοῶ ὅπῃ. εἰ ἔν τῴ τι γίγνεται, οὐκ ἀνάγκη μήτε πω ἐν ἐκείνῳ εἶναι ἔτι ἐγγιγνόμενον, μήτʼ ἔτι ἔξω ἐκείνου παντάπασιν, εἴπερ ἤδη ἐγγίγνεται; ἀνάγκη. εἰ ἄρα τι ἄλλο πείσεται τοῦτο, ἐκεῖνο ἂν μόνον πάσχοι οὗ μέρη εἴη·

[¶11] 138e. Now if anything goes through this process, it can be only that which has parts; for a part of it could be already in the other, and the rest outside; but that which has no parts cannot by any possibility be entirely neither inside nor outside of anything at the same time. True. But is it not still more impossible for that which has no parts and is not a whole to come into anything, since it comes in neither in parts nor as a whole? Clearly.

> Greek: 138e. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἄν τι αὐτοῦ ἤδη ἐν ἐκείνῳ, τὸ δὲ ἔξω εἴη ἅμα· τὸ δὲ μὴ ἔχον μέρη οὐχ οἷόν τέ που ἔσται τρόπῳ οὐδενὶ ὅλον ἅμα μήτε ἐντὸς εἶναί τινος μήτε ἔξω. ἀληθῆ. οὗ δὲ μήτε μέρη εἰσὶ μήτε ὅλον τυγχάνει ὄν, οὐ πολὺ ἔτι ἀδυνατώτερον ἐγγίγνεσθαί που, μήτε κατὰ μέρη μήτε κατὰ ὅλον ἐγγιγνόμενον; φαίνεται. οὔτʼ ἄρα ποι ἰὸν καὶ ἔν τῳ γιγνόμενον χώραν ἀλλάττει, οὔτʼ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ περιφερόμενον οὔτε ἀλλοιούμενον.

[¶12] 139a. Ceph. Then it does not change its place by going anywhere or into anything, nor does it revolve in a circle, nor change. Apparently not. Then the one is without any kind of motion. It is motionless. Furthermore, we say that it cannot be in anything. We do. Then it is never in the same. Why is that? Because it would then be in that with which the same is identical. Certainly. But we saw that it cannot be either in itself or in anything else. No, it cannot. Then the one is never in the same.

> Greek: 139a. οὐκ ἔοικε. κατὰ πᾶσαν ἄρα κίνησιν τὸ ἓν ἀκίνητον. ἀκίνητον. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ εἶναί γέ φαμεν ἔν τινι αὐτὸ ἀδύνατον. φαμὲν γάρ. οὐδʼ ἄρα ποτὲ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἐστιν. τί δή; ὅτι ἤδη ἂν ἐν ἐκείνῳ εἴη ἐν ᾧ τῷ αὐτῷ ἐστιν. πάνυ μὲν οὖν. ἀλλʼ οὔτε ἐν αὑτῷ οὔτε ἐν ἄλλῳ οἷόν τε ἦν αὐτῷ ἐνεῖναι. οὐ γὰρ οὖν. οὐδέποτε ἄρα ἐστὶ τὸ ἓν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ. οὐκ ἔοικεν.

[¶13] 139b. Apparently not. But that which is never in the same is neither motionless nor at rest. No, it cannot be so. The one, then, it appears, is neither in motion nor at rest. No, apparently not. Neither, surely, can it be the same with another or with itself; nor again other than itself or another. Why not? If it were other than itself, it would be other than one and would not be one. True. And, surely, if it were the same with another, it would be that other, and would not be itself;

> Greek: 139b. ἀλλὰ μὴν τό γε μηδέποτε ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ὂν οὔτε ἡσυχίαν ἄγει οὔθʼ ἕστηκεν. οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε. τὸ ἓν ἄρα, ὡς ἔοικεν, οὔτε ἕστηκεν οὔτε κινεῖται. οὔκουν δὴ φαίνεταί γε.οὐδὲ μὴν ταὐτόν γε οὔτε ἑτέρῳ οὔτε ἑαυτῷ ἔσται, οὐδʼ αὖ ἕτερον οὔτε αὑτοῦ οὔτε ἑτέρου ἂν εἴη. πῇ δή; ἕτερον μέν που ἑαυτοῦ ὂν ἑνὸς ἕτερον ἂν εἴη καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἕν. ἀληθῆ. καὶ μὴν ταὐτόν γε ἑτέρῳ ὂν ἐκεῖνο ἂν εἴη, αὐτὸ δʼ οὐκ ἂν εἴη·

[¶14] 139c. therefore in this case also it would not be that which it is, namely one, but other than one. Quite so. Then it will not be the same as another, nor other than itself. No. But it will not be other than another, so long as it is one. For one cannot be other than anything; only other, and nothing else, can be other than another. Right. Then it will not be other by reason of being one, will it? Certainly not. And if not for this reason, not by reason of itself; and if not by reason of itself, not itself; but since itself is not other at all, it will not be other than anything.

> Greek: 139c. ὥστε οὐδʼ ἂν οὕτως εἴη ὅπερ ἔστιν, ἕν, ἀλλʼ ἕτερον ἑνός. οὐ γὰρ οὖν. ταὐτὸν μὲν ἄρα ἑτέρῳ ἢ ἕτερον ἑαυτοῦ οὐκ ἔσται. οὐ γάρ. ἕτερον δέ γε ἑτέρου οὐκ ἔσται, ἕως ἂν ᾖ ἕν· οὐ γὰρ ἑνὶ προσήκει ἑτέρῳ τινὸς εἶναι, ἀλλὰ μόνῳ ἑτέρῳ ἑτέρου, ἄλλῳ δὲ οὐδενί. ὀρθῶς. τῷ μὲν ἄρα ἓν εἶναι οὐκ ἔσται ἕτερον· ἢ οἴει; οὐ δῆτα. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ μὴ τούτῳ, οὐχ ἑαυτῷ ἔσται, εἰ δὲ μὴ αὑτῷ, οὐδὲ αὐτό· αὐτὸ δὲ μηδαμῇ ὂν ἕτερον οὐδενὸς ἔσται ἕτερον.

[¶15] 139d. Right. And yet one will not be the same with itself. Why not? The nature of one is surely not the same as that of the same. Why? Because when a thing becomes the same as anything, it does not thereby become one. But why not? That which becomes the same as many, becomes necessarily many, not one. True. But if the one and the same were identical, whenever anything became the same it would always become one, and when it became one, the same. Certainly. Then if the one is the same with itself, it will not be one with itself; and thus, being one, it will not be one; this, however, is impossible; it is therefore impossible for one to be either the other of other or the same with itself.

> Greek: 139d. ὀρθῶς. οὐδὲ μὴν ταὐτόν γε ἑαυτῷ ἔσται. πῶς δʼ οὔ; οὐχ ἥπερ τοῦ ἑνὸς φύσις, αὑτὴ δήπου καὶ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ. τί δή; ὅτι οὐκ, ἐπειδὰν ταὐτὸν γένηταί τῴ τι, ἓν γίγνεται. ἀλλὰ τί μήν; τοῖς πολλοῖς ταὐτὸν γενόμενον πολλὰ ἀνάγκη γίγνεσθαι ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἕν. ἀληθῆ. ἀλλʼ εἰ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ ταὐτὸν μηδαμῇ διαφέρει, ὁπότε τι ταὐτὸν ἐγίγνετο, ἀεὶ ἂν ἓν ἐγίγνετο, καὶ ὁπότε ἕν, ταὐτόν.

[¶16] 139e. Impossible. Thus the one cannot be either other or the same to itself or another. No, it cannot. Ceph. And again it will not be like or unlike anything, either itself or another. Why not? Because the like is that which is affected in the same way. Yes. But we saw that the same was of a nature distinct from that of the one. Yes, so we did.

> Greek: 139e. πάνυ γε. εἰ ἄρα τὸ ἓν ἑαυτῷ ταὐτὸν ἔσται, οὐχ ἓν ἑαυτῷ ἔσται· καὶ οὕτω ἓν ὂν οὐχ ἓν ἔσται. ἀλλὰ μὴν τοῦτό γε ἀδύνατον· ἀδύνατον ἄρα καὶ τῷ ἑνὶ ἢ ἑτέρου ἕτερον εἶναι ἢ ἑαυτῷ ταὐτόν. ἀδύνατον. οὕτω δὴ ἕτερόν γε ἢ ταὐτὸν τὸ ἓν οὔτʼ ἂν αὑτῷ οὔτʼ ἂν ἑτέρῳ εἴη. οὐ γὰρ οὖν. οὐδὲ μὴν ὅμοιόν τινι ἔσται οὐδʼ ἀνόμοιον οὔτε αὑτῷ οὔτε ἑτέρῳ. τί δή; ὅτι τὸ ταὐτόν που πεπονθὸς ὅμοιον. ναί. τοῦ δέ γε ἑνὸς χωρὶς ἐφάνη τὴν φύσιν τὸ ταὐτόν.

[¶17] 140a. But if the one were affected in any way apart from being one, it would be so affected as to be more than one, and that is impossible. Yes. Then the one cannot possibly be affected in the same way as another or as itself. Evidently not. Then it cannot be like another or itself. No, so it appears. Nor can the one be so affected as to be other; for in that case it would be so affected as to be more than one. Yes, it would be more. But that which is affected in a way other than itself or other, would be unlike itself or other, if that which is affected in the same way is like.

> Greek: 140a. ἐφάνη γάρ. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ τι πέπονθε χωρὶς τοῦ ἓν εἶναι τὸ ἕν, πλείω ἂν εἶναι πεπόνθοι ἢ ἕν, τοῦτο δὲ ἀδύνατον. ναί. οὐδαμῶς ἔστιν ἄρα ταὐτὸν πεπονθὸς εἶναι τὸ ἓν οὔτε ἄλλῳ οὔτε ἑαυτῷ. οὐ φαίνεται. οὐδὲ ὅμοιον ἄρα δυνατὸν αὐτὸ εἶναι οὔτε ἄλλῳ οὔτε ἑαυτῷ. οὐκ ἔοικεν. οὐδὲ μὴν ἕτερόν γε πέπονθεν εἶναι τὸ ἕν· καὶ γὰρ οὕτω πλείω ἂν πεπόνθοι εἶναι ἢ ἕν. πλείω γάρ. τό γε μὴν ἕτερον πεπονθὸς ἢ ἑαυτοῦ ἢ ἄλλου ἀνόμοιον ἂν εἴη ἢ ἑαυτῷ ἢ ἄλλῳ, εἴπερ τὸ ταὐτὸν πεπονθὸς ὅμοιον.

[¶18] 140b. Right. But the one, as it appears, being never affected in a way other than itself or other, is never unlike either itself or other. Evidently not. Then the one will be neither like nor unlike either other or itself. So it seems. Since, then, it is of such a nature, it can be neither equal nor unequal to itself or other. Why not? If it is equal, it is of the same measures as that to which it is equal.

> Greek: 140b. ὀρθῶς. τὸ δέ γε ἕν, ὡς ἔοικεν, οὐδαμῶς ἕτερον πεπονθὸς οὐδαμῶς ἀνόμοιόν ἐστιν οὔτε αὑτῷ οὔτε ἑτέρῳ. οὐ γὰρ οὖν. οὔτε ἄρα ὅμοιον οὔτε ἀνόμοιον οὔθʼ ἑτέρῳ οὔτε ἑαυτῷ ἂν εἴη τὸ ἕν. οὐ φαίνεται.καὶ μὴν τοιοῦτόν γε ὂν οὔτε ἴσον οὔτε ἄνισον ἔσται οὔτε ἑαυτῷ οὔτε ἄλλῳ. πῇ; ἴσον μὲν ὂν τῶν αὐτῶν μέτρων ἔσται ἐκείνῳ ᾧ ἂν ἴσον ᾖ.

[¶19] Yes. And if it is greater or less than things with which it is commensurate, it will have more measures than the things which are less and less measures than the things which are greater.

> Greek: ναί. μεῖζον δέ που ἢ ἔλαττον ὄν, οἷς μὲν ἂν σύμμετρον ᾖ, τῶν μὲν ἐλαττόνων πλείω μέτρα ἕξει, τῶν δὲ μειζόνων ἐλάττω.

[¶20] 140c. Yes. And in the case of things with which it is not commensurate, it will have smaller measures than some and greater measures than others. Of course. Is it not impossible for that which does not participate in sameness to have either the same measures or anything else the same? Impossible. Then not having the same measures, it cannot be equal either to itself or to anything else. No, apparently not. But whether it have more measures or less, it will have as many parts as measures and thus one will be no longer one, but will be as many as are its measures.

> Greek: 140c. ναί. οἷς δʼ ἂν μὴ σύμμετρον, τῶν μὲν σμικροτέρων, τῶν δὲ μειζόνων μέτρων ἔσται. πῶς γὰρ οὔ; οὐκοῦν ἀδύνατον τὸ μὴ μετέχον τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἢ μέτρων τῶν αὐτῶν εἶναι ἢ ἄλλων ὡντινωνοῦν τῶν αὐτῶν; ἀδύνατον. ἴσον μὲν ἄρα οὔτʼ ἂν ἑαυτῷ οὔτε ἄλλῳ εἴη μὴ τῶν αὐτῶν μέτρων ὄν. οὔκουν φαίνεταί γε. ἀλλὰ μὴν πλειόνων γε μέτρων ὂν ἢ ἐλαττόνων, ὅσωνπερ μέτρων, τοσούτων καὶ μερῶν ἂν εἴη· καὶ οὕτω αὖ οὐκέτι ἓν ἔσται ἀλλὰ τοσαῦτα ὅσαπερ καὶ τὰ μέτρα.

[¶21] 140d. Right. But if it were of one measure, it would be equal to the measure; but we have seen that it cannot be equal to anything. Yes, so we have. Then it will partake neither of one measure, nor of many, nor of few; nor will it partake at all of the same, nor will it ever, apparently, be equal to itself or to anything else; nor will it be greater or less than itself or another. Perfectly true.

> Greek: 140d. ὀρθῶς. εἰ δέ γε ἑνὸς μέτρου εἴη, ἴσον ἂν γίγνοιτο τῷ μέτρῳ· τοῦτο δὲ ἀδύνατον ἐφάνη, ἴσον τῳ αὐτὸ εἶναι. ἐφάνη γάρ. οὔτε ἄρα ἑνὸς μέτρου μετέχον οὔτε πολλῶν οὔτε ὀλίγων, οὔτε τὸ παράπαν τοῦ αὐτοῦ μετέχον, οὔτε ἑαυτῷ ποτε, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἔσται ἴσον οὔτε ἄλλῳ· οὔτε αὖ μεῖζον οὐδὲ ἔλαττον οὔτε ἑαυτοῦ οὔτε ἑτέρου. παντάπασι μὲν οὖν οὕτω.

[¶22] 140e. Well, does anyone believe that the one can be older or younger or of the same age? Why not? Because if it has the same age as itself or as anything else, it will partake of equality and likeness of time, and we said the one had no part in likeness or equality. Yes, we said that. And we said also that it does not partake of unlikeness or inequality. Certainly.

> Greek: 140e. τί δέ; πρεσβύτερον ἢ νεώτερον ἢ τὴν αὐτὴν ἡλικίαν ἔχειν τὸ ἓν δοκεῖ τῳ δυνατὸν εἶναι; τί δὴ γὰρ οὔ; ὅτι που ἡλικίαν μὲν τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχον ἢ αὑτῷ ἢ ἄλλῳ ἰσότητος χρόνου καὶ ὁμοιότητος μεθέξει, ὧν ἐλέγομεν οὐ μετεῖναι τῷ ἑνί, οὔτε ὁμοιότητος οὔτε ἰσότητος. ἐλέγομεν γὰρ οὖν. καὶ μὴν καὶ ὅτι ἀνομοιότητός τε καὶ ἀνισότητος οὐ μετέχει, καὶ τοῦτο ἐλέγομεν. πάνυ μὲν οὖν.

[¶23] 141. Ceph. How, then, being of such a nature, can it be either younger or older or of the same age as anything?

> Greek: 141. πῶς οὖν οἷόν τε ἔσται τινὸς ἢ πρεσβύτερον ἢ νεώτερον εἶναι ἢ τὴν αὐτὴν ἡλικίαν ἔχειν τῳ τοιοῦτον ὄν;

[¶24] 141a. In no way. Then the one cannot be younger or older or of the same age as anything. No, evidently not. And can the one exist in time at all, if it is of such a nature? Must it not, if it exists in time, always be growing older than itself? It must. And the older is always older than something younger? Certainly. Then that which grows older than itself grows at the same time younger than itself, if it is to have something than which it grows older. What do you mean?

> Greek: 141a. οὐδαμῶς. οὐκ ἄρα ἂν εἴη νεώτερόν γε οὐδὲ πρεσβύτερον οὐδὲ τὴν αὐτὴν ἡλικίαν ἔχον τὸ ἓν οὔτε αὑτῷ οὔτε ἄλλῳ. οὐ φαίνεται. ἆρʼ οὖν οὐδὲ ἐν χρόνῳ τὸ παράπαν δύναιτο ἂν εἶναι τὸ ἕν, εἰ τοιοῦτον εἴη; ἢ οὐκ ἀνάγκη, ἐάν τι ᾖ ἐν χρόνῳ, ἀεὶ αὐτὸ αὑτοῦ πρεσβύτερον γίγνεσθαι; ἀνάγκη. οὐκοῦν τό γε πρεσβύτερον ἀεὶ νεωτέρου πρεσβύτερον; τί μήν;

[¶25] 141b. This is what I mean: A thing which is different from another does not have to become different from that which is already different, but it must be different from that which is already different, it must have become different from that which has become so, it will have to be different from that which will be so, but from that which is becoming different it cannot have become, nor can it be going to be, nor can it already be different: it must become different, and that is all. There is no denying that.

> Greek: 141b. τὸ πρεσβύτερον ἄρα ἑαυτοῦ γιγνόμενον καὶ νεώτερον ἑαυτοῦ ἅμα γίγνεται, εἴπερ μέλλει ἔχειν ὅτου πρεσβύτερον γίγνηται. πῶς λέγεις; ὧδε· διάφορον ἕτερον ἑτέρου οὐδὲν δεῖ γίγνεσθαι ἤδη ὄντος διαφόρου, ἀλλὰ τοῦ μὲν ἤδη ὄντος ἤδη εἶναι, τοῦ δὲ γεγονότος γεγονέναι, τοῦ δὲ μέλλοντος μέλλειν, τοῦ δὲ γιγνομένου οὔτε γεγονέναι οὔτε μέλλειν οὔτε εἶναί πω διάφορον, ἀλλὰ γίγνεσθαι καὶ ἄλλως οὐκ εἶναι.

[¶26] 141c. But surely the notion “older” is a difference with respect to the younger and to nothing else. Yes, so it is. But that which is becoming older than itself must at the same time be becoming younger than itself. So it appears. But surely it cannot become either for a longer or for a shorter time than itself; it must become and be and be about to be for an equal time with itself. That also is inevitable. Apparently, then, it is inevitable that everything which exists in time and partakes of time is of the same age as itself and is also at the same time becoming older and younger than itself.

> Greek: 141c. ἀνάγκη γὰρ δή. ἀλλὰ μὴν τό γε πρεσβύτερον διαφορότης νεωτέρου ἐστὶν καὶ οὐδενὸς ἄλλου. ἔστι γάρ. τὸ ἄρα πρεσβύτερον ἑαυτοῦ γιγνόμενον ἀνάγκη καὶ νεώτερον ἅμα ἑαυτοῦ γίγνεσθαι. ἔοικεν. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ μήτε πλείω ἑαυτοῦ γίγνεσθαι χρόνον μήτε ἐλάττω, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἴσον χρόνον καὶ γίγνεσθαι ἑαυτῷ καὶ εἶναι καὶ γεγονέναι καὶ μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι. ἀνάγκη γὰρ οὖν καὶ ταῦτα. ἀνάγκη ἄρα ἐστίν, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὅσα γε ἐν χρόνῳ ἐστὶν καὶ μετέχει τοῦ τοιούτου, ἕκαστον αὐτῶν τὴν αὐτήν τε αὐτὸ αὑτῷ ἡλικίαν ἔχειν καὶ πρεσβύτερόν τε αὑτοῦ ἅμα καὶ νεώτερον γίγνεσθαι.

[¶27] 141d. I see no escape from that. But the one had nothing to do with such affections. No, it had not. It has nothing to do with time, and does not exist in time. No, that is the result of the argument. Well, and do not the words “was,” “has become,” and “was becoming” appear to denote participation in past time? Certainly.

> Greek: 141d. κινδυνεύει. ἀλλὰ μὴν τῷ γε ἑνὶ τῶν τοιούτων παθημάτων οὐδὲν μετῆν. οὐ γὰρ μετῆν. οὐδὲ ἄρα χρόνου αὐτῷ μέτεστιν, οὐδʼ ἔστιν ἔν τινι χρόνῳ. οὔκουν δή, ὥς γε ὁ λόγος αἱρεῖ.τί οὖν; τὸ ἦν καὶ τὸ γέγονε καὶ τὸ ἐγίγνετο οὐ χρόνου μέθεξιν δοκεῖ σημαίνειν τοῦ ποτὲ γεγονότος; καὶ μάλα.

[¶28] 141e. And “will be,” “will become,” and “will be made to become,” in future time?
Yes. And “is” and “is becoming” in the present?

> Greek: 141e. τί δέ; τὸ ἔσται καὶ τὸ γενήσεται καὶ τὸ γενηθήσεται οὐ τοῦ ἔπειτα [τοῦ μέλλοντος];
ναί. τὸ δὲ δὴ ἔστι καὶ τὸ γίγνεται οὐ τοῦ νῦν παρόντος; πάνυ μὲν οὖν. εἰ ἄρα τὸ ἓν μηδαμῇ μηδενὸς μετέχει χρόνου, οὔτε ποτὲ γέγονεν οὔτʼ ἐγίγνετο οὔτʼ ἦν ποτέ, οὔτε νῦν γέγονεν οὔτε γίγνεται οὔτε ἔστιν, οὔτʼ ἔπειτα γενήσεται οὔτε γενηθήσεται οὔτε ἔσται.

[¶29] Certainly. Then if the one has no participation in time whatsoever, it neither has become nor became nor was in the past, it has neither become nor is it becoming nor is it in the present, and it will neither become nor be made to become nor will it be in the future. Very true. Can it then partake of being in any other way than in the past, present, or future? It cannot. Then the one has no share in being at all. Apparently not. Then the one is not at all. Evidently not.

> Greek: ἀληθέστατα. ἔστιν οὖν οὐσίας ὅπως ἄν τι μετάσχοι ἄλλως ἢ κατὰ τούτων τι; οὐκ ἔστιν. οὐδαμῶς ἄρα τὸ ἓν οὐσίας μετέχει. οὐκ ἔοικεν. οὐδαμῶς ἄρα ἔστι τὸ ἕν. οὐ φαίνεται.

[¶30] 142. Ceph. Then it has no being even so as to be one, for if it were one, it would be and would partake of being; but apparently one neither is nor is one, if this argument is to be trusted.

> Greek: 142. οὐδʼ ἄρα οὕτως ἔστιν ὥστε ἓν εἶναι· εἴη γὰρ ἂν ἤδη ὂν καὶ οὐσίας μετέχον· ἀλλʼ ὡς ἔοικεν, τὸ ἓν οὔτε ἕν ἐστιν οὔτε ἔστιν, εἰ δεῖ τῷ τοιῷδε λόγῳ πιστεύειν.

[¶31] 142a. That seems to be true. But can that which does not exist have anything pertaining or belonging to it? Of course not. Then the one has no name, nor is there any description or knowledge or perception or opinion of it. Evidently not. And it is neither named nor described nor thought of nor known, nor does any existing thing perceive it. Apparently not. Is it possible that all this is true about the one? I do not think so. Shall we then return to our hypothesis and see if a review of our argument discloses any new point of view?

> Greek: 142a. κινδυνεύει. ὃ δὲ μὴ ἔστι, τούτῳ τῷ μὴ ὄντι εἴη ἄν τι αὐτῷ ἢ αὐτοῦ; καὶ πῶς; οὐδʼ ἄρα ὄνομα ἔστιν αὐτῷ οὐδὲ λόγος οὐδέ τις ἐπιστήμη οὐδὲ αἴσθησις οὐδὲ δόξα. οὐ φαίνεται. οὐδʼ ὀνομάζεται ἄρα οὐδὲ λέγεται οὐδὲ δοξάζεται οὐδὲ γιγνώσκεται, οὐδέ τι τῶν ὄντων αὐτοῦ αἰσθάνεται. οὐκ ἔοικεν. ἦ δυνατὸν οὖν περὶ τὸ ἓν ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχειν; οὔκουν ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ.

[¶32] 142b. By all means. We say, then, that if the one exists, we must come to an agreement about the consequences, whatever they may be, do we not? Yes. Now consider the first point. If one is, can it be and not partake of being? No, it cannot. Then the being of one will exist, but will not be identical with one; for if it were identical with one, it would not be the being of one, nor would one partake of it, but the statement that one is would be equivalent to the statement that one is one but our hypothesis is not if one is one, what will follow, but if one is.

> Greek: 142b. βούλει οὖν ἐπὶ τὴν ὑπόθεσιν πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπανέλθωμεν, ἐάν τι ἡμῖν ἐπανιοῦσιν ἀλλοῖον φανῇ; πάνυ μὲν οὖν βούλομαι. οὐκοῦν ἓν εἰ ἔστιν, φαμέν, τὰ συμβαίνοντα περὶ αὐτοῦ, ποῖά ποτε τυγχάνει ὄντα, διομολογητέα ταῦτα· οὐχ οὕτω; ναί. ὅρα δὴ ἐξ ἀρχῆς. ἓν εἰ ἔστιν, ἆρα οἷόν τε αὐτὸ εἶναι μέν, οὐσίας δὲ μὴ μετέχειν; οὐχ οἷόν τε. οὐκοῦν καὶ ἡ οὐσία τοῦ ἑνὸς εἴη ἂν οὐ ταὐτὸν οὖσα τῷ ἑνί· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐκείνη ἦν ἐκείνου οὐσία, οὐδʼ ἂν ἐκεῖνο, τὸ ἕν, ἐκείνης μετεῖχεν, ἀλλʼ ὅμοιον ἂν ἦν λέγειν ἕν τε εἶναι καὶ ἓν ἕν.

[¶33] 142c. Do you agree? Certainly. In the belief that one and being differ in meaning? Most assuredly. Then if we say concisely “one is,” it is equivalent to saying that one partakes of being? Certainly. Let us again say what will follow if one is and consider whether this hypothesis must not necessarily show that one is of such a nature as to have parts. How does that come about? In this way:

> Greek: 142c. νῦν δὲ οὐχ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ὑπόθεσις, εἰ ἓν ἕν, τί χρὴ συμβαίνειν, ἀλλʼ εἰ ἓν ἔστιν· οὐχ οὕτω; πάνυ μὲν οὖν. οὐκοῦν ὡς ἄλλο τι σημαῖνον τὸ ἔστι τοῦ ἕν; ἀνάγκη. ἆρα οὖν ἄλλο ἢ ὅτι οὐσίας μετέχει τὸ ἕν, τοῦτʼ ἂν εἴη τὸ λεγόμενον, ἐπειδάν τις συλλήβδην εἴπῃ ὅτι ἓν ἔστιν; πάνυ γε. πάλιν δὴ λέγωμεν, ἓν εἰ ἔστιν, τί συμβήσεται. σκόπει οὖν εἰ οὐκ ἀνάγκη ταύτην τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τοιοῦτον ὂν τὸ ἓν σημαίνειν, οἷον μέρη ἔχειν;

[¶34] 142d. If being is predicated of the one which exists and unity is predicated of being which is one, and being and the one are not the same, but belong to the existent one of our hypothesis, must not the existent one be a whole of which the one and being are parts? Inevitably. And shall we call each of these parts merely a part, or must it, in so far as it is a part, be called a part of the whole? A part of the whole. Whatever one, then, exists is a whole and has a part. Certainly. Well then, can either of these two parts of existent one—unity and being—abandon the other?

> Greek: 142d. πῶς; ὧδε· εἰ τὸ ἔστι τοῦ ἑνὸς ὄντος λέγεται καὶ τὸ ἓν τοῦ ὄντος ἑνός, ἔστι δὲ οὐ τὸ αὐτὸ ἥ τε οὐσία καὶ τὸ ἕν, τοῦ αὐτοῦ δὲ ἐκείνου οὗ ὑπεθέμεθα, τοῦ ἑνὸς ὄντος, ἆρα οὐκ ἀνάγκη τὸ μὲν ὅλον ἓν ὂν εἶναι αὐτό, τούτου δὲ γίγνεσθαι μόρια τό τε ἓν καὶ τὸ εἶναι; ἀνάγκη. πότερον οὖν ἑκάτερον τῶν μορίων τούτων μόριον μόνον προσεροῦμεν, ἢ τοῦ ὅλου μόριον τό γε μόριον προσρητέον; τοῦ ὅλου. καὶ ὅλον ἄρα ἐστί, ὃ ἂν ἓν ᾖ, καὶ μόριον ἔχει. πάνυ γε. τί οὖν; τῶν μορίων ἑκάτερον τούτων τοῦ ἑνὸς ὄντος, τό τε ἓν καὶ τὸ ὄν, ἆρα ἀπολείπεσθον ἢ τὸ ἓν τοῦ εἶναι μορίου ἢ τὸ ὂν τοῦ ἑνὸς μορίου;

[¶35] 142e. Can unity cease to be a part of being or being to be a part of unity? No. Ceph. And again each of the parts possesses unity and being, and the smallest of parts is composed of these two parts, and thus by the same argument any part whatsoever has always these two parts; for always unity has being and being has unity;

> Greek: 142e. οὐκ ἂν εἴη. πάλιν ἄρα καὶ τῶν μορίων ἑκάτερον τό τε ἓν ἴσχει καὶ τὸ ὄν, καὶ γίγνεται τὸ ἐλάχιστον ἐκ δυοῖν αὖ μορίοιν τὸ μόριον, καὶ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον οὕτως ἀεί, ὅτιπερ ἂν μόριον γένηται, τούτω τὼ μορίω ἀεὶ ἴσχει· τό τε γὰρ ἓν τὸ ὂν ἀεὶ ἴσχει καὶ τὸ ὂν τὸ ἕν· ὥστε ἀνάγκη δύʼ ἀεὶ γιγνόμενον μηδέποτε ἓν εἶναι.

[¶36] 143a. and, therefore, since it is always becoming two, it can never be one. Certainly. Then it results that the existent one would be infinite in number? Apparently. Let us make another fresh start. In what direction? We say that the one partakes of being, because it is? Yes. And for that reason the one, because it is, was found to be many. Yes. Well then, will the one, which we say partakes of being, if we form a mental conception of it alone by itself, without that of which we say it partakes, be found to be only one, or many? One, I should say.

> Greek: 143a. παντάπασι μὲν οὖν. οὐκοῦν ἄπειρον ἂν τὸ πλῆθος οὕτω τὸ ἓν ὂν εἴη; ἔοικεν.ἴθι δὴ καὶ τῇδε ἔτι. πῇ; οὐσίας φαμὲν μετέχειν τὸ ἕν, διὸ ἔστιν; ναί. καὶ διὰ ταῦτα δὴ τὸ ἓν ὂν πολλὰ ἐφάνη. οὕτω. τί δέ; αὐτὸ τὸ ἕν, ὃ δή φαμεν οὐσίας μετέχειν, ἐὰν αὐτὸ τῇ διανοίᾳ μόνον καθʼ αὑτὸ λάβωμεν ἄνευ τούτου οὗ φαμεν μετέχειν, ἆρά γε ἓν μόνον φανήσεται ἢ καὶ πολλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο; ἕν, οἶμαι ἔγωγε.

[¶37] 143b. Just let us see; must not the being of one be one thing and one itself another, if the one is not being, but, considered as one, partakes of being? Yes, that must be so. Then if being is one thing and one is another, one is not other than being because it is one, nor is being other than one because it is being, but they differ from each other by virtue of being other and different. Certainly. Therefore the other is neither the same as one nor as being. Certainly not. Well, then, if we make a selection among them, whether we select being and the other, or being and one, or one and the other, in each instance we select two things which may properly be called both?

> Greek: 143b. ἴδωμεν δή· ἄλλο τι ἕτερον μὲν ἀνάγκη τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ εἶναι, ἕτερον δὲ αὐτό, εἴπερ μὴ οὐσία τὸ ἕν, ἀλλʼ ὡς ἓν οὐσίας μετέσχεν. ἀνάγκη. οὐκοῦν εἰ ἕτερον μὲν ἡ οὐσία, ἕτερον δὲ τὸ ἕν, οὔτε τῷ ἓν τὸ ἓν τῆς οὐσίας ἕτερον οὔτε τῷ οὐσία εἶναι ἡ οὐσία τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄλλο, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἑτέρῳ τε καὶ ἄλλῳ ἕτερα ἀλλήλων. πάνυ μὲν οὖν. ὥστε οὐ ταὐτόν ἐστιν οὔτε τῷ ἑνὶ οὔτε τῇ οὐσίᾳ τὸ ἕτερον. πῶς γάρ;

[¶38] 143c. What do you mean? I will explain. We can speak of being? Yes. And we can also speak of one? Yes, that too. Then have we not spoken of each of them? Yes. And when I speak of being and one, do I not speak of both? Certainly. And also when I speak of being and other, or other and one, in every case I speak of each pair as both?

> Greek: 143c. τί οὖν; ἐὰν προελώμεθα αὐτῶν εἴτε βούλει τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ τὸ ἕτερον εἴτε τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ τὸ ἓν εἴτε τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ ἕτερον, ἆρʼ οὐκ ἐν ἑκάστῃ τῇ προαιρέσει προαιρούμεθά τινε ὣ ὀρθῶς ἔχει καλεῖσθαι ἀμφοτέρω; πῶς; ὧδε· ἔστιν οὐσίαν εἰπεῖν; ἔστιν. καὶ αὖθις εἰπεῖν ἕν; καὶ τοῦτο. ἆρʼ οὖν οὐχ ἑκάτερον αὐτοῖν εἴρηται; ναί. τί δʼ ὅταν εἴπω οὐσία τε καὶ ἕν, ἆρα οὐκ ἀμφοτέρω; πάνυ γε. οὐκοῦν καὶ ἐὰν οὐσία τε καὶ ἕτερον ἢ ἕτερόν τε καὶ ἕν, καὶ οὕτω πανταχῶς ἐφʼ ἑκάστου ἄμφω λέγω; ναί.

[¶39] 143d. Yes. If things are correctly called both, can they be both without being two? They cannot. And if things are two, must not each of them be one? Certainly. Then since the units of these pairs are together two, each must be individually one. That is clear. But if each of them is one, by the addition of any sort of one to any pair whatsoever the total becomes three? Yes. And three is an odd number, and two is even? Of course.

> Greek: 143d. ὣ δʼ ἂν ἄμφω ὀρθῶς προσαγορεύησθον, ἆρα οἷόν τε ἄμφω μὲν αὐτὼ εἶναι, δύο δὲ μή; οὐχ οἷόν τε. ὣ δʼ ἂν δύο ἦτον, ἔστι τις μηχανὴ μὴ οὐχ ἑκάτερον αὐτοῖν ἓν εἶναι; οὐδεμία. τούτων ἄρα ἐπείπερ σύνδυο ἕκαστα συμβαίνει εἶναι, καὶ ἓν ἂν εἴη ἕκαστον. φαίνεται. εἰ δὲ ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἐστι, συντεθέντος ἑνὸς ὁποιουοῦν ᾑτινιοῦν συζυγίᾳ οὐ τρία γίγνεται τὰ πάντα; ναί. τρία δὲ οὐ περιττὰ καὶ δύο ἄρτια; πῶς δʼ οὔ; τί δέ; δυοῖν ὄντοιν οὐκ ἀνάγκη εἶναι καὶ δίς, καὶ τριῶν ὄντων τρίς, εἴπερ ὑπάρχει τῷ τε δύο τὸ δὶς ἓν καὶ τῷ τρία τὸ τρὶς ἕν;

[¶40] 143e. Well, when there are two units, must there not also be twice, and when there are three, thrice, that is, if two is twice one and three is thrice one? There must. But if there are two and twice, must there not also be twice two? And again, if there are three and thrice, must there not be thrice three? Of course. Well then, if there are three and twice and two and thrice, must there not also be twice three and thrice two? Inevitably.

> Greek: 143e. ἀνάγκη. δυοῖν δὲ ὄντοιν καὶ δὶς οὐκ ἀνάγκη δύο δὶς εἶναι; καὶ τριῶν καὶ τρὶς οὐκ ἀνάγκη αὖ τρία τρὶς εἶναι; πῶς δʼ οὔ; τί δέ; τριῶν ὄντων καὶ δὶς ὄντων καὶ δυοῖν ὄντοιν καὶ τρὶς ὄντοιν οὐκ ἀνάγκη τε τρία δὶς εἶναι καὶ δύο τρίς; πολλή γε.

[¶41] 144. Ceph. Then there would be even times even, odd times odd, odd times even, and even times odd.

> Greek: 144. ἄρτιά τε ἄρα ἀρτιάκις ἂν εἴη καὶ περιττὰ περιττάκις καὶ ἄρτια περιττάκις καὶ περιττὰ ἀρτιάκις.

[¶42] 144a. Yes. Then if that is true, do you believe any number is left out, which does not necessarily exist? By no means. Then if one exists, number must also exist. It must. But if number exists, there must be many, indeed an infinite multitude, of existences; or is not number infinite in multitude and participant of existence? Certainly it is. Then if all number partakes of existence, every part of number will partake of it? Yes.

> Greek: 144a. ἔστιν οὕτω. εἰ οὖν ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει, οἴει τινὰ ἀριθμὸν ὑπολείπεσθαι ὃν οὐκ ἀνάγκη εἶναι; οὐδαμῶς γε. εἰ ἄρα ἔστιν ἕν, ἀνάγκη καὶ ἀριθμὸν εἶναι. ἀνάγκη. ἀλλὰ μὴν ἀριθμοῦ γε ὄντος πολλὰ ἂν εἴη καὶ πλῆθος ἄπειρον τῶν ὄντων· ἢ οὐκ ἄπειρος ἀριθμὸς πλήθει καὶ μετέχων οὐσίας γίγνεται; καὶ πάνυ γε. οὐκοῦν εἰ πᾶς ἀριθμὸς οὐσίας μετέχει, καὶ τὸ μόριον ἕκαστον τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ μετέχοι ἂν αὐτῆς; ναί.

[¶43] 144b. Existence, then, is distributed over all things, which are many, and is not wanting in any existing thing from the greatest to the smallest? Indeed, is it not absurd even to ask that question? For how can existence be wanting in any existing thing? It cannot by any means. Then it is split up into the smallest and greatest and all kinds of existences nothing else is so much divided, and in short the parts of existence are infinite.

> Greek: 144b. ἐπὶ πάντα ἄρα πολλὰ ὄντα ἡ οὐσία νενέμηται καὶ οὐδενὸς ἀποστατεῖ τῶν ὄντων, οὔτε τοῦ σμικροτάτου οὔτε τοῦ μεγίστου; ἢ τοῦτο μὲν καὶ ἄλογον ἐρέσθαι; πῶς γὰρ ἂν δὴ οὐσία γε τῶν ὄντων του ἀποστατοῖ; οὐδαμῶς. κατακεκερμάτισται ἄρα ὡς οἷόν τε σμικρότατα καὶ μέγιστα καὶ πανταχῶς ὄντα, καὶ μεμέρισται πάντων μάλιστα, καὶ ἔστι μέρη ἀπέραντα τῆς οὐσίας.

[¶44] 144c. That is true. Its parts are the most numerous of all. Yes, they are the most numerous. Well, is there any one of them which is a part of existence, but is no part? How could that be? But if there is, it must, I imagine, so long as it is, be some one thing; it cannot be nothing. That is inevitable. Then unity is an attribute of every part of existence and is not wanting to a smaller or larger or any other part. True.

> Greek: 144c. ἔχει οὕτω. πλεῖστα ἄρα ἐστὶ τὰ μέρη αὐτῆς. πλεῖστα μέντοι. τί οὖν; ἔστι τι αὐτῶν ὃ ἔστι μὲν μέρος τῆς οὐσίας, οὐδὲν μέντοι μέρος; καὶ πῶς ἄν [τοι] τοῦτο γένοιτο; ἀλλʼ εἴπερ γε οἶμαι ἔστιν, ἀνάγκη αὐτὸ ἀεί, ἕωσπερ ἂν ᾖ, ἕν γέ τι εἶναι, μηδὲν δὲ ἀδύνατον. ἀνάγκη. πρὸς ἅπαντι ἄρα [ἑκάστῳ] τῷ τῆς οὐσίας μέρει πρόσεστιν τὸ ἕν, οὐκ ἀπολειπόμενον οὔτε σμικροτέρου οὔτε μείζονος μέρους οὔτε ἄλλου οὐδενός. οὕτω. ἆρα οὖν ἓν ὂν πολλαχοῦ ἅμα ὅλον ἐστί;

[¶45] 144d. Can the one be in many places at once and still be a whole? Consider that question. I am considering and I see that it is impossible. Then it is divided into parts, if it is not a whole; for it cannot be attached to all the parts of existence at once unless it is divided. I agree. And that which is divided into parts must certainly be as numerous as its parts. It must. Then what we said just now—that existence was divided into the greatest number of parts—was not true for it is not divided, you see, into any more parts than one, but, as it seems, into the same number as one for existence is not wanting to the one, nor the one to existence, but being two they are equal throughout.

> Greek: 144d. τοῦτο ἄθρει. ἀλλʼ ἀθρῶ καὶ ὁρῶ ὅτι ἀδύνατον. μεμερισμένον ἄρα, εἴπερ μὴ ὅλον· ἄλλως γάρ που οὐδαμῶς ἅμα ἅπασι τοῖς τῆς οὐσίας μέρεσιν παρέσται ἢ μεμερισμένον. ναί. καὶ μὴν τό γε μεριστὸν πολλὴ ἀνάγκη εἶναι τοσαῦτα ὅσαπερ μέρη. ἀνάγκη. οὐκ ἄρα ἀληθῆ ἄρτι ἐλέγομεν λέγοντες ὡς πλεῖστα μέρη ἡ οὐσία νενεμημένη εἴη. οὐδὲ γὰρ πλείω τοῦ ἑνὸς νενέμηται, ἀλλʼ ἴσα, ὡς ἔοικε, τῷ ἑνί·

[¶46] 144e. That is perfectly clear. The one, then, split up by existence, is many and infinite in number. Clearly. Then not only the existent one is many, but the absolute one divided by existence, must be many. Certainly.

> Greek: 144e. οὔτε γὰρ τὸ ὂν τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀπολείπεται οὔτε τὸ ἓν τοῦ ὄντος, ἀλλʼ ἐξισοῦσθον δύο ὄντε ἀεὶ παρὰ πάντα. παντάπασιν οὕτω φαίνεται. τὸ ἓν ἄρα αὐτὸ κεκερματισμένον ὑπὸ τῆς οὐσίας πολλά τε καὶ ἄπειρα τὸ πλῆθός ἐστιν. φαίνεται. οὐ μόνον ἄρα τὸ ὂν ἓν πολλά ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἓν ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄντος διανενεμημένον πολλὰ ἀνάγκη εἶναι. παντάπασι μὲν οὖν.

[¶47] 145. Ceph. And because the parts are parts of a whole, the one would be limited by the whole;

> Greek: 145. καὶ μὴν ὅτι γε ὅλου τὰ μόρια μόρια, πεπερασμένον ἂν εἴη κατὰ τὸ ὅλον τὸ ἕν· ἢ οὐ περιέχεται ὑπὸ τοῦ ὅλου τὰ μόρια;

[¶48] 145a. or are not the parts included by the whole? They must be so. But surely that which includes is a limit. Of course. Then the existent one is, apparently, both one and many, a whole and parts, limited and of infinite number. So it appears. Then if limited it has also extremes? Certainly. Yes, and if it is a whole, will it not have a beginning, a middle, and an end? Or can there be any whole without these three? And if any one of these is wanting, will it still be a whole? It will not.

> Greek: 145a. ἀνάγκη. ἀλλὰ μὴν τό γε περιέχον πέρας ἂν εἴη. πῶς δʼ οὔ; τὸ ἓν ἄρα ὂν ἕν τέ ἐστί που καὶ πολλά, καὶ ὅλον καὶ μόρια, καὶ πεπερασμένον καὶ ἄπειρον πλήθει. φαίνεται. ἆρʼ οὖν οὐκ, ἐπείπερ πεπερασμένον, καὶ ἔσχατα ἔχον; ἀνάγκη. τί δέ; εἰ ὅλον, οὐ καὶ ἀρχὴν ἂν ἔχοι καὶ μέσον καὶ τελευτήν; ἢ οἷόν τέ τι ὅλον εἶναι ἄνευ τριῶν τούτων; κἄν του ἓν ὁτιοῦν αὐτῶν ἀποστατῇ, ἐθελήσει ἔτι ὅλον εἶναι; οὐκ ἐθελήσει. καὶ ἀρχὴν δή, ὡς ἔοικεν, καὶ τελευτὴν καὶ μέσον ἔχοι ἂν τὸ ἕν.

[¶49] 145b. Then the one, it appears, will have a beginning, a middle, and an end. It will. But surely the middle is equally distant from the extremes for otherwise it would not be a middle. No. And the one, apparently, being of such a nature, will partake of some shape, whether straight or round or a mixture of the two. Yes, it will. This being the case, will not the one be in itself and in other? How is that? Each of the parts doubtless is in the whole and none is outside of the whole. True. And all the parts are included in the whole?

> Greek: 145b. ἔχοι. ἀλλὰ μὴν τό γε μέσον ἴσον τῶν ἐσχάτων ἀπέχει· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἄλλως μέσον εἴη. οὐ γάρ. καὶ σχήματος δή τινος, ὡς ἔοικε, τοιοῦτον ὂν μετέχοι ἂν τὸ ἕν, ἤτοι εὐθέος ἢ στρογγύλου ἤ τινος μεικτοῦ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν. μετέχοι γὰρ ἄν.ἆρʼ οὖν οὕτως ἔχον οὐκ αὐτό τε ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔσται καὶ ἐν ἄλλῳ; πῶς; τῶν μερῶν που ἕκαστον ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ ἐστὶ καὶ οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς τοῦ ὅλου. οὕτω. πάντα δὲ τὰ μέρη ὑπὸ τοῦ ὅλου περιέχεται;

[¶50] 145c. Yes. And surely the one is all its parts, neither more nor less than all. Certainly. But the whole is the one, is it not? Of course. Then if all the parts are in the whole and all the parts are the one and the one is also the whole, and all the parts are included in the whole, the one will be included in the one, and thus the one will be in itself. Evidently. But the whole is not in the parts, neither in all of them nor in any.

> Greek: 145c. ναί. καὶ μὴν τά γε πάντα μέρη τὰ αὑτοῦ τὸ ἕν ἐστι, καὶ οὔτε τι πλέον οὔτε ἔλαττον ἢ πάντα. οὐ γάρ. οὐκοῦν καὶ τὸ ὅλον τὸ ἕν ἐστιν; πῶς δʼ οὔ; εἰ ἄρα πάντα τὰ μέρη ἐν ὅλῳ τυγχάνει ὄντα, ἔστι δὲ τά τε πάντα τὸ ἓν καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ὅλον, περιέχεται δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ ὅλου τὰ πάντα, ὑπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἂν περιέχοιτο τὸ ἕν, καὶ οὕτως ἂν ἤδη τὸ ἓν αὐτὸ ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἴη. φαίνεται. ἀλλὰ μέντοι τό γε ὅλον αὖ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς μέρεσίν ἐστιν, οὔτε ἐν πᾶσιν οὔτε ἐν τινί.

[¶51] 145d. For if it is in all, it must be in one, for if it were wanting in any one it could no longer be in all; for if this one is one of all, and the whole is not in this one, how can it still be in all? It cannot in any way. Nor can it be in some of the parts; for if the whole were in some parts, the greater would be in the less, which is impossible. Yes, it is impossible. But not being in one or several or all of the parts, it must be in something else or cease to be anywhere at all? It must. And if it were nowhere, it would be nothing, but being a whole, since it is not in itself, it must be in something else, must it not?

> Greek: 145d. εἰ γὰρ ἐν πᾶσιν, ἀνάγκη καὶ ἐν ἑνί· ἔν τινι γὰρ ἑνὶ μὴ ὂν οὐκ ἂν ἔτι που δύναιτο ἔν γε ἅπασιν εἶναι· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο μὲν τὸ ἓν τῶν ἁπάντων ἐστί, τὸ δὲ ὅλον ἐν τούτῳ μὴ ἔνι, πῶς ἔτι ἔν γε τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐνέσται; οὐδαμῶς. οὐδὲ μὴν ἐν τισὶ τῶν μερῶν· εἰ γὰρ ἐν τισὶ τὸ ὅλον εἴη, τὸ πλέον ἂν ἐν τῷ ἐλάττονι εἴη, ὅ ἐστιν ἀδύνατον. ἀδύνατον γάρ. μὴ ὂν δʼ ἐν πλέοσιν μηδʼ ἐν ἑνὶ μηδʼ ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς μέρεσι τὸ ὅλον οὐκ ἀνάγκη ἐν ἑτέρῳ τινὶ εἶναι ἢ μηδαμοῦ ἔτι εἶναι;

[¶52] 145e. Certainly. Then the one, inasmuch as it is a whole, is in other and inasmuch as it is all its parts, it is in itself; and thus one must be both in itself and in other. It must. This being its nature, must not the one be both in motion and at rest? How is that?

> Greek: 145e. ἀνάγκη. οὐκοῦν μηδαμοῦ μὲν ὂν οὐδὲν ἂν εἴη, ὅλον δὲ ὄν, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἐν αὑτῷ ἐστιν, ἀνάγκη ἐν ἄλλῳ εἶναι; πάνυ γε. ἧι μὲν ἄρα τὸ ἓν ὅλον, ἐν ἄλλῳ ἐστίν· ᾗ δὲ τὰ πάντα μέρη ὄντα τυγχάνει, αὐτὸ ἐν ἑαυτῷ· καὶ οὕτω τὸ ἓν ἀνάγκη αὐτό τε ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἶναι καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ. ἀνάγκη.οὕτω δὴ πεφυκὸς τὸ ἓν ἆρʼ οὐκ ἀνάγκη καὶ κινεῖσθαι καὶ ἑστάναι; πῇ;

[¶53] 146. Ceph. It is at rest, no doubt, if it is in itself; for being in one, and not passing out from this, it is in the same, namely in itself. It is. But that which is always in the same, must always be at rest. Certainly. Well, then, must not, on the contrary, that which is always in other be never in the same, and being never in the same be not at rest, and being not at rest be in motion? True. Then the one, being always in itself and in other, must always be in motion and at rest. That is clear. And again, it must be the same with itself and other than itself, and likewise the same with all other things and other than they, if what we have said is true.

> Greek: 146. ἕστηκε μέν που, εἴπερ αὐτὸ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἐστιν· ἐν γὰρ ἑνὶ ὂν καὶ ἐκ τούτου μὴ μεταβαῖνον ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἂν εἴη, ἐν ἑαυτῷ. ἔστι γάρ. τὸ δέ γε ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἀεὶ ὂν ἑστὸς δήπου ἀνάγκη ἀεὶ εἶναι. πάνυ γε. τί δέ; τὸ ἐν ἑτέρῳ ἀεὶ ὂν οὐ τὸ ἐναντίον ἀνάγκη μηδέποτʼ ἐν ταὐτῷ εἶναι, μηδέποτε δὲ ὂν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ μηδὲ ἑστάναι, μὴ ἑστὸς δὲ κινεῖσθαι; οὕτως. ἀνάγκη ἄρα τὸ ἕν, αὐτό τε ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀεὶ ὂν καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ, ἀεὶ κινεῖσθαί τε καὶ ἑστάναι. φαίνεται.καὶ μὴν ταὐτόν γε δεῖ εἶναι αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἕτερον ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὡσαύτως ταὐτόν τε καὶ ἕτερον εἶναι, εἴπερ καὶ τὰ πρόσθεν πέπονθεν.

[¶54] 146b. How is that? Everything stands to everything in one of the following relations: it is either the same or other; or if neither the same or other, its relation is that of a part to a whole or of a whole to a part. Obviously. Now is the one a part of itself? By no means. Then it cannot, by being a part in relation to itself, be a whole in relation to itself, as a part of itself. No, that is impossible. Nor can it be other than itself.

> Greek: 146b. πῶς; πᾶν που πρὸς ἅπαν ὧδε ἔχει, ἢ ταὐτόν ἐστιν ἢ ἕτερον· ἢ ἐὰν μὴ ταὐτὸν ᾖ μηδʼ ἕτερον, μέρος ἂν εἴη τούτου πρὸς ὃ οὕτως ἔχει, ἢ ὡς πρὸς μέρος ὅλον ἂν εἴη. φαίνεται. ἆρʼ οὖν τὸ ἓν αὐτὸ αὑτοῦ μέρος ἐστίν; οὐδαμῶς. οὐδʼ ἄρα ὡς πρὸς μέρος αὐτὸ αὑτοῦ ὅλον ἂν εἴη, πρὸς ἑαυτὸ μέρος ὄν. οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε.

[¶55] 146c. Certainly not. Then if it is neither other nor a part nor a whole in relation to itself, must it not therefore be the same with itself? It must. Well, must not that which is in another place than itself—the self being in the same place with itself—be other than itself, if it is to be in another place? I think so. Now we saw that this was the case with one, for it was in itself and in other at the same time. Yes, we saw that it was so. Then by this reasoning the one appears to be other than itself.

> Greek: 146c. ἀλλʼ ἆρα ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἑνὸς τὸ ἕν; οὐ δῆτα. οὐδʼ ἄρα ἑαυτοῦ γε ἕτερον ἂν εἴη. οὐ μέντοι. εἰ οὖν μήτε ἕτερον μήτε ὅλον μήτε μέρος αὐτὸ πρὸς ἑαυτό ἐστιν, οὐκ ἀνάγκη ἤδη ταὐτὸν εἶναι αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ; ἀνάγκη. τί δέ; τὸ ἑτέρωθι ὂν αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ὄντος ἑαυτῷ οὐκ ἀνάγκη αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ ἕτερον εἶναι, εἴπερ καὶ ἑτέρωθι ἔσται; ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ. οὕτω μὴν ἐφάνη ἔχον τὸ ἕν, αὐτό τε ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὂν ἅμα καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ. ἐφάνη γάρ. ἕτερον ἄρα, ὡς ἔοικεν, εἴη ταύτῃ ἂν ἑαυτοῦ τὸ ἕν.

[¶56] 146d. So it appears. Well then, if a thing is other than something, will it not be other than that which is other than it? Certainly. Are not all things which are not one, other than one, and the one other than the not one? Of course. Then the one would be other than the others. Yes, it is other. Consider; are not the absolute same and the absolute other opposites of one another? Of course. Then will the same ever be in the other, or the other in the same? No. Then if the other can never be in the same, there is no existing thing in which the other is during any time; for if it were in anything during any time whatsoever, the other would be in the same, would it not?

> Greek: 146d. ἔοικεν. τί οὖν; εἴ τού τι ἕτερόν ἐστιν, οὐχ ἑτέρου ὄντος ἕτερον ἔσται; ἀνάγκη. οὐκοῦν ὅσα μὴ ἕν ἐστιν, ἅπανθʼ ἕτερα τοῦ ἑνός, καὶ τὸ ἓν τῶν μὴ ἕν; πῶς δʼ οὔ; ἕτερον ἄρα ἂν εἴη τὸ ἓν τῶν ἄλλων. ἕτερον. ὅρα δή· αὐτό τε ταὐτὸν καὶ τὸ ἕτερον ἆρʼ οὐκ ἐναντία ἀλλήλοις; πῶς δʼ οὔ; ἦ οὖν ἐθελήσει ταὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἢ τὸ ἕτερον ἐν ταὐτῷ ποτε εἶναι; οὐκ ἐθελήσει. εἰ ἄρα τὸ ἕτερον ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ μηδέποτε ἔσται, οὐδὲν ἔστι τῶν ὄντων ἐν ᾧ ἐστὶν τὸ ἕτερον χρόνον οὐδένα·