Yes (I replied), for now it looks as if this art were one which made
the wise and skilled possessor of it wealthy, whilst the unskilled, in
spite of all the pains he takes, must live in indigence.

Isch. Now shall you hear, then,[5] Socrates, the generous nature of
this human art. For is it not a proof of something noble in it, that
being of supreme utility, so sweet a craft to exercise, so rich in
beauty, so acceptable alike to gods and men, the art of husbandry may
further fairly claim to be the easiest of all the arts to learn? Noble
I name it! this, at any rate, the epithet we give to animals which,
being beautiful and large and useful, are also gentle towards the race
of man.[6]

[5] Or, "Listen, then, and whilst I recount to you at once the loving-
kindness of this art, to man the friendliest."

[6] Schenkl regards this sentence as an interpolation. For the epithet
{gennaios} applied to the dog see "Cyrop." I. iv. 15, 21;
"Hunting," iv. 7.

Allow me to explain, Ischomachus (I interposed). Up to a certain point
I fully followed what you said. I understand, according to your
theory, how a bailiff must be taught. In other words, I follow your
descriptions both as to how you make him kindly disposed towards
yourself; and how, again, you make him careful, capable of rule, and
upright. But at that point you made the statement that, in order to
apply this diligence to tillage rightly, the careful husbandman must
further learn what are the different things he has to do, and not
alone what things he has to do, but how and when to do them. These are
the topics which, in my opinion, have hitherto been somewhat lightly