Now up to that point the sophist and the angler proceed together from the starting-point of acquisitive art.
I think they do.
But they separate at the point of animal-hunting, where the one turns to the sea and rivers and lakes to hunt the animals in those.
To be sure.
But the other turns toward the land and to rivers of a different kind—rivers of wealth and youth, bounteous meadows, as it were—and he intends to coerce the creatures in them.
What do you mean?
Of land-hunting there are two chief divisions.
What are they?
One is the hunting of tame, the other of wild creatures.
Is there, then, a hunting of tame creatures?
Yes, If man is a tame animal; but make any assumption you like, that there is no tame animal, or that some other tame animal exists but man is a wild one or that man is tame but there is no hunting of man. For the purpose of our definition choose whichever of these statements you think is satisfactory to you.
Why, Stranger, I think we are a tame animal, and I agree that there is a hunting of man.
Let us, then, say that the hunting of tame animals is also of two kinds.
How do we justify that assertion?
By defining piracy, man-stealing, tyranny, and the whole art of war all collectively as hunting by force.
Excellent.
And by giving the art of the law courts, of the public platform, and of conversation also a single name and calling
them all collectively an art of persuasion.
Correct.
Now let us say that there are two kinds of persuasion.
What kinds?
The one has to do with private persons, the other with the community.
Granted; each of them does form a class.
Then again of the hunting of private persons one kind receives pay, and the other brings gifts, does it not?
I do not understand.
Apparently you have never yet paid attention to the lovers’ method of hunting.
In what respect?
That in addition to their other efforts they give presents to those whom they hunt.