Page 695 of 1391

Quite right, he replied.

But is the art of medicine or any other art faulty or deficient

in any quality in the same way that the eye may be deficient in

sight or the ear fail of hearing, and therefore requires another

art to provide for the interests of seeing and hearing-has art in

itself, I say, any similar liability to fault or defect, and does

every art require another supplementary art to provide for its

interests, and that another and another without end? Or have the

arts to look only after their own interests? Or have they no need

either of themselves or of another?-having no faults or defects,

they have no need to correct them, either by the exercise of

their own art or of any other; they have only to consider the

interest of their subject-matter. For every art remains pure and

faultless while remaining true-that is to say, while perfect and

unimpaired. Take the words in your precise sense, and tell me

whether I am not right.

Yes, clearly.