<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg004.perseus-eng2:73</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg004.perseus-eng2:73</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg004.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="73"><p><said who="#Phaedo" rend="merge"><label>Phaedo.</label><q type="spoken" rend="merge">But this is impossible if <milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="73"/>
            
         
         <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="73a"/>
            our soul did not
                    exist somewhere before being born in this human form; and so by this argument
                    also it appears that the soul is immortal.</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">But, Cebes,</q> said Simmias, <q type="spoken">what were the proofs of this?
                    Remind me; for I do not recollect very well just now.</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">Briefly,</q> said Cebes, <q type="spoken">a very good proof is
                    this: When people are questioned, if you put the questions well, they answer
                    correctly of themselves about everything; and yet if they had not within them
                    some knowledge and right reason, they could not do this. And that this is so is
                    shown most clearly if you take them 
         
         <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="73b"/>
            to mathematical diagrams or anything of that sort.</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">And if you are not convinced in that way,
                    Simmias,</q> said Socrates, <q type="spoken">see if you don’t agree when you look at it
                    in this way. You are incredulous, are you not, how that which is called learning
                    can be recollection?</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">I am not
                    incredulous,</q> said Simmias, <q type="spoken">but I want just what we are talking
                    about, recollection. And from what Cebes undertook to say I already begin to
                    recollect and be convinced; nevertheless, I should like to hear 
         
         <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="73c"/>
            what you were going to say.</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">It was this,</q> said he. <q type="spoken">We agree, I suppose,
                    that if anyone is to remember anything, he must know it at some previous
                        time?</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">Certainly,</q> said
                        he.<milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">Then do we agree to this also, that
                    when knowledge comes in such a way, it is recollection? What I mean is this: If
                    a man, when he has heard or seen or in any other way perceived a thing, knows
                    not only that thing, but also has a perception of some other thing, the
                    knowledge of which is not the same, but different, are we not right in saying
                    that 
         
         <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="73d"/>
            he recollects the thing of which he has
                    the perception?</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">What do you
                        mean?</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">Let me give an example.
                    Knowledge of a man is different from knowledge of a lyre.</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">Of course.</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">Well, you know that a lover when he sees a lyre or a cloak or anything
                    else which his beloved is wont to use, perceives the lyre and in his mind
                    receives an image of the boy to whom the lyre belongs, do you not? But this is
                    recollection, just as when one sees Simmias, one often remembers Cebes, and I
                    could cite countless such examples.</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">To be sure you could,</q> said Simmias.<milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">Now,</q> said he, 
         
         <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="73e"/>
            <q type="spoken">is that
                    sort of thing a kind of recollection? Especially when it takes place with regard
                    to things which have already been forgotten through time and
                        inattention?</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">Certainly,</q>
                    he replied.<milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">Well, then,</q> said
                    Socrates, <q type="spoken">can a person on seeing a picture of a horse or of a lyre be
                    reminded of a man, or on seeing a picture of Simmias be reminded of
                    Cebes?</q><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/><q type="spoken">Surely.</q></said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>