us if,
instead of helping us to live, she helps us to starve.

Soc. And by a parity of reasoning, sheep and cattle may fail of being
wealth if, through want of knowledge how to treat them, their owner
loses by them; to him at any rate the sheep and the cattle are not
wealth?

Crit. That is the conclusion I draw.

Soc. It appears, you hold to the position that wealth consists of things
which benefit, while things which injure are not wealth?

Crit. Just so.

Soc. The same things, in fact, are wealth or not wealth, according as a
man knows or does not know the use to make of them? To take an instance,
a flute may be wealth to him who is sufficiently skilled to play upon
it, but the same instrument is no better than the stones we tread under
our feet to him who is not so skilled... unless indeed he chose to sell
it?

Crit. That is precisely the conclusion we should come to. [8] To
persons ignorant of their use [9] flutes are wealth as saleable, but as
possessions not for sale they are no wealth at all; and see, Socrates,
how smoothly and consistently the argument proceeds, [10] since it is
admitted that things which benefit are wealth. The flutes in question
unsold are not wealth, being good for nothing: to become wealth they
must be sold.

[8] Reading {tout auto}, or if {tout au} with Sauppe, transl. "Yes,
that is another position we may fairly subscribe to."

[9] i.e. "without knowledge of how to use them."

[10] Or, "our discussion marches on all-fours, as it were."

Yes! (rejoined Socrates), presuming the owner knows how to sell them;
since, supposing again he were to sell them for something which he does
not know how to use, [11] the mere selling will not transform them into
wealth, according to your argument.

[11] Reading {pros touto o}, or if {pros touton, os}, transl. "to a
man who did not know how to use them."

Crit. You seem to say, Socrates, that money itself in the pockets of a
man who does not know how to use it is not wealth?

Soc. And I understand you to concur in the truth of our proposition
so far: wealth is that, and that only, whereby a man may be benefited.
Obviously, if a man used his money to buy himself a mistress, to the
grave detriment of his body and soul and whole estate, how is that
particular money going to benefit him now? What good will he extract
from it?

Crit. None whatever, unless we are prepared to admit that hyoscyamus,
[12] as they call it, is wealth,