<p>In this paper, I reexamine a notorious passage in Plato's Sophist 253d-e in order to establish a new relationship between the Method of Division practiced in the scene of denning sophist and the Separation in the scene of the (συμπλοκη των ειδων. The passage begins with following introductory remarks(253d1-2). Το κατα γενη διαιρεισθαι (Intr. 1) και μητε αυτον ειδο&b.sigmav; ετερον ηγησασθαι και μητε ετερον ον ταυτον (Intr. 2) These two items belong to the Knowledge of Dialectic, and someone who is equipped with them discerns sufficiently the followings(ibid. d7 ιλανω&b.sigmav; διαισθανται). (1) μιαν ιδεαν δια πολλων, ενο&b.sigmav; εκαστου κειμνου χωρι&b.sigmav;, παντη διατεταμενην (2) πολλα&b.sigmav; ετερα&b.sigmav; αλληλων υπο μια&b.sigmav; εξωθεν περιεχομενα&b.sigmav; (3) μιαν δι' ολων πολλων εν ενι συνημμενην (4) πολλα&b.sigmav; χωρι&b.sigmav; παντη διωρισμενα&b.sigmav;(ibid. d5-e1) Among various interpretations on this passage, we can see two tendencies. On the one hand, some scholars think that this passage refers to the Method of Division, and hold that Plato intended here to describe the genus-species relationship in the world of Idea. On the other hand, some scholars reject this kind of view and claim that it refers to the Dialectic in the scene of συμπλοκη which they treat as a grasp of consistency and inconsistency between Forms. It seems, however, to me that both of these tendencies have a common fault that they cannot help supposing in one and the same dialogue two kinds of Dialectic which are totally different from each other. So in our interpretation these two types of Dialectic should have some suitable relationship. My general strategy is as follows. At the first stage of my interpretation, I investigate the passage in relation to the Method of Division. And among four items cited above, I take (1) as the Collection(219c6-7, 226c5-6), (2) as the Separation(226e6, 227c5, 267d9e1), (3) as the Connection(224c9, 252c5, 268c6), and (4) as the Repetition of a set of those three(223c1-4, 226a6-8, 231c5), respectively. Although most of scholars have took the expression of (2) to mean the Collection in combination with that of (1), I don't commit myself to this kind of view. At the second stage, I connect the passage to the Dialectic in the scene of συμπλοκη by means of interpreting the phrase ιχανω&b.sigmav; διαισθανεται cited above as a grasp of the foundation of the Method of Division(cf. 253a9 ικανω&b.sigmav;, ibid. c3 αιτια). In other words, I regard the Dialectic in the συμπλοκη as the foundation of the Method of Division, and think, accordingly, that there is a certain kind of hierarchy between the two. For example, as far as (2) is concerned, I think two types of separation in this dialogue. One is the separation in the scene of defining sophist. In this scene the Stranger distinguishes one Form from the other exclusive Form, such as the cleansing of soul from that of body(227c5 αφορισασθαι). I call this type of separation Separation 1, and take the expression of Intr. 1 to refer to the Separation 1. The other is the separation in the scene of συμπλοχη. In this scene the Stranger distinguishes one Form from many Forms which are comprehended by the former one, such as Being from Rest and Motion(250b8-c4). And in another passage of the text this type of separation seems to be said in other words that Being is the same as itself but different from any other Forms(254d4-15, 257a1-6, 259b1-4). So I call both of these Separation 2. Depending upon this classification, I consider the relationship between the two types of separation. Indeed many cleansings concerning body are tied up as similar things(cf. 227b3 ομοιοτητα) in comparison with many cleansings concerning soul. But this doesn't mean that the many cleansings about body are the same as the one Form which ties up them. So, strictly</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>