How could they?
If, then, smallness is present in the one it will be present
either in the whole or in a part of the whole?
Certainly.
Suppose the first; it will be either co-equal and co-extensive
with the whole one, or will contain the one?
Clearly.
If it be co-extensive with the one it will be coequal with the
one, or if containing the one it will be greater than the one?
Of course.
But can smallness be equal to anything or greater than anything, and
have the functions of greatness and equality and not its own
functions?
Impossible.
Then smallness cannot be in the whole of one, but, if at all, in a
part only?
Yes.
And surely not in all of a part, for then the difficulty of the
whole will recur; it will be equal to or greater than any part in
which it is.
Certainly.
Then smallness will not be in anything, whether in a whole or in a
part; nor will there be anything small but actual smallness.
True.
Neither will greatness be in the one, for if greatness be in
anything there will be something greater other and besides greatness
itself, namely, that in which greatness is; and this too when the
small itself is not there, which the one, if it is great, must exceed;
this, however, is impossible, seeing that smallness is wholly absent.
True.
But absolute greatness is only greater than absolute smallness,
and smallness is only smaller than absolute greatness.
Very true.
Pages:
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52