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