264–265
Theaetetus
Theaet. Yes, it is possible.
Stranger
Str. And we decided some time ago that the sophist was in one of those two divisions of the image-making class.
Theaetetus
Theaet. Yes.
20
Stranger
Str. Then let us try again; let us divide in two the class we have taken up for discussion, and proceed always by way of the right-hand part of the thing divided, clinging close to the company to which the sophist belongs, until, having stripped him of all common properties and left him only his own peculiar nature, we shall show him plainly first to ourselves and secondly to those who are most closely akin to the dialectic method.
Theaetetus
Theaet. Right.
Stranger
Str. We began by making two divisions of art, the productive and the acquisitive, did we not? See Plat. Theaet. 219
Stranger
Str. And the sophist showed himself to us in the arts of hunting, contests, commerce, and the like, which were subdivisions of acquisitive art?
5
Theaetetus
Theaet. Certainly.
Stranger
Str. But now, since imitative art has taken him over, it is clear that our first step must be the division of productive art into two parts; for imitative art is a kind of production—of images, however, we say, not of real things in each case. Do you agree?
Theaetetus
Theaet. By all means.
Stranger
Str. Then let us first assume two parts of productive art.
Theaetetus
Theaet. What are they?
10
Stranger
Str. The divine and the human.
Theaetetus
Theaet. I don’t yet understand.
Stranger
Str. We said, if we remember the beginning of our conversation, that every power is productive which causes things to come into being which did not exist before.
Theaetetus
Theaet. Yes, we remember.
