<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.tlg023.perseus-eng2:454</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg023.perseus-eng2:454</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.tlg023.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="454"><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>Then if we are asked what kind of persuasion, and dealing with what, we shall reply, I suppose:  The instructive kind, which deals with the amount of an odd or an even number; 
<milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="454"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="454a"/>and we shall be able to demonstrate that all the other arts which we mentioned just now are producers of persuasion, and what kind it is, and what it deals with, shall we not?</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>Yes.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>Hence rhetoric is not the only producer of persuasion.</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>You are right.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>Since then it is not the only one that achieves this effect, but others can also, we should be justified in putting this further question to the speaker, as we did concerning the painter:  Then of what kind of persuasion, and of persuasion dealing with what, is rhetoric the art?  <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="454b"/> Or do you not consider that such a further question would be justified?</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>Yes, I do.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>Then answer me, Gorgias, since you agree with me on that.</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>Well then, I mean that kind of persuasion, Socrates, which you find in the law-courts and in any public gatherings, as in fact I said just now;  and it deals with what is just and unjust.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>I, too, I may tell you, had a suspicion that it was this persuasion that you meant, and as dealing with those things, Gorgias;  but you must not be surprised if I ask you by-and-by some such question as may seem to be obvious, though I persist in it;  <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="454c"/> for, as I say, I ask my questions with a view to an orderly completion of our argument—I am not aiming at you, but only anxious that we do not fall into a habit of snatching at each other’s words with a hasty guess, and that you may complete your own statement in your own way, as the premises may allow.</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>And I think you are quite right in doing so, Socrates.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>Come then, let us consider another point.  Is there something that you call <q type="emph">having learnt.</q></p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>There is.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>And again, <q type="emph">having believed</q>?</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>Yes.</p></said><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="454d"/><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>Then do you think that having learnt and having believed, or learning and belief, are the same thing, or different?</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>In my opinion, Socrates, they are different.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>And your opinion is right, as you can prove in this way:  if some one asked you—Is there, Gorgias, a false and a true belief?—you would say, Yes, I imagine.</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>I should.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>But now, is there a false and a true knowledge?</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>Surely not.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>So it is evident again that they<note resp="Loeb" anchored="true">i.e.  knowledge and belief.</note> are not the same.</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>You are right.</p></said><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="454e"/><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>But yet those who have learnt have been persuaded, as well as those who have believed.</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>That is so.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>Then would you have us assume two forms of persuasion—one providing belief without knowledge, and the other sure knowledge?</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>Certainly.</p></said><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label><p>Now which kind of persuasion is it that rhetoric creates in law courts or any public meeting on matters of right and wrong?  The kind from which we get belief without knowledge, or that from which we get knowledge?</p></said><said who="#Gorgias"><label>Gorg.</label><p>Obviously, I presume, Socrates, that from which we get belief.</p></said></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>