Etext prepared by John Bickers, jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz.
The Memorabilia
by Xenophon
Translation by H. G. Dakyns
Xenophon the Athenian was born 431 B.C. He was a
pupil of Socrates. He marched with the Spartans,
and was exiled from Athens. Sparta gave him land
and property in Scillus, where he lived for many
years before having to move once more, to settle
in Corinth. He died in 354 B.C.
The Memorabilia is a recollection of Socrates in
word and deed, to show his character as the best
and happiest of men.
PREPARER'S NOTE
This was typed from Dakyns' series, "The Works of Xenophon," a
four-volume set. The complete list of Xenophon's works (though
there is doubt about some of these) is:
Work Number of books
The Anabasis 7
The Hellenica 7
The Cyropaedia 8
The Memorabilia 4
The Symposium 1
The Economist 1
On Horsemanship 1
The Sportsman 1
The Cavalry General 1
The Apology 1
On Revenues 1
The Hiero 1
The Agesilaus 1
The Polity of the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians 2
Text in brackets "{}" is my transliteration of Greek text into
English using an Oxford English Dictionary alphabet table. The
diacritical marks have been lost.
The Memorabilia
or
Recollections of Socrates
BOOK I
I
I have often wondered by what arguments those who indicted[1] Socrates
could have persuaded the Athenians that his life was justly forfeit to
the state. The indictment was to this effect: "Socrates is guilty of
crime in refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state, and
importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of
corrupting the young."
[1] {oi grapsamenoi} = Meletus (below, IV. iv. 4, viii. 4; "Apol." 11,
19), Anytus ("Apol." 29), and Lycon. See Plat. "Apol." II. v. 18;
Diog. Laert. II. v. (Socr.); M. Schanz, "Plat. Apol. mit deutschen
Kemmentar, Einleitung," S. 5 foll.
In the first place, what evidence did they produce that Socrates
refused to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state? Was it that
he did not sacrifice? or that he dispensed with divination? On the
contrary, he was often to be seen engaged in sacrifice, at home or at
the common altars of the state. Nor was his dependence on divination
less manifest. Indeed that saying of his, "A divinity[2] gives me a
sign," was on everybody's lips. So much so that, if I am not mistaken,
it lay at the root of the imputation that he imported novel
divinities; though there was no greater novelty in his case than in
that of other believers in oracular help, who commonly rely on omens
of all sorts: the flight or cry of birds, the utterances of man,
chance meetings,[3] or a victim's entrails. Even according to the
popular conception, it is not the mere fowl, it is not the chance
individual one meets, who knows what things are profitable for a man,
but it is the gods who vouchsafe by such instruments to signify the
same. This was also the tenet of Socrates. Only, whereas men
ordinarily speak of being turned aside, or urged onwards by birds, or
other creatures encountered on the path, Socrates suited his language
to his conviction. "The divinity," said he, "gives me a sign."
Further, he would constantly advise his associates to do this, or
beware of doing that, upon the authority of this same divine voice;
and, as a matter of fact, those who listened to his warnings
prospered, whilst he who turned a deaf ear to them repented
afterwards.[4] Yet, it will be readily conceded, he would hardly
desire to present himself to his everyday companions in the character
of either knave or fool. Whereas he would have appeared to be both,
supposing[5] the God-given revelations had but revealed his own
proneness to deception. It is plain he would not have ventured on
forecast at all, but for his belief that the words he spoke would in
fact be verified. Then on whom, or what, was the assurance rooted, if
not upon God? And if he had faith in the gods, how could he fail to
recognise them?
[2] Or, "A divine something." See "Encyc. Brit." "Socrates." Dr. H.
Jackason; "The Daemon of Socrates," F. W. H. Myers; K. Joel, "Der
echte und der Xenophontische Sokrates," i. p. 70 foll.; cf.
Aristot. "M. M." 1182 a 10.
[3] See Aesch. "P. V." 487, {enodious te sombolous}, "and pathway
tokens," L. Campbell; Arist. "Birds," 721, {sombolon ornin}:
"Frogs," 196, {to sometukhon exion}; "Eccl." 792; Hor. "Od." iii.
27, 1-7.
[4] See "Anab." III. i. 4; "Symp." iv. 48.
[5] Or, "if his vaunted manifestations from heaven had but manifested
the falsity of his judgment."
But his mode of dealing with his intimates has another aspect. As
regards the ordinary necessities of life,[6] his advice was, "Act as
you believe[7] these things may best be done." But in the case of
those darker problems, the issues of which are incalculable, he
directed his friends to consult the oracle, whether the business
should be undertaken or not. "No one," he would say, "who wishes to
manage a house or city with success: no one aspiring to guide the helm
of state aright, can afford to dipense with aid from above. Doubtless,
skill in carpentering, building, smithying, farming, of the art of
governing men, together with the theory of these processes, and the
sciences of arithmetic, economy, strategy, are affairs of study, and
within the grasp of human intelligence. Yet there is a side even of
these, and that not the least important, which the gods reserve to
themselves, the bearing of which is hidden from mortal vision. Thus,
let a man sow a field or plant a farm never so well, yet he cannot
foretell who will gather in the fruits: another may build him a house
of fairest proportion, yet he knows not who will inhabit it. Neither
can a general foresee whether it will profit him to conduct a
campaign, nor a politician be certain whether his leadership will turn
to evil or good. Nor can the man who weds a fair wife, looking forward
to joy, know whether through her he shall not reap sorrow. Neither can
he who has built up a powerful connection in the state know whether he
shall not by means of it be cast out of his city. To suppose that all
these matters lay within the scope of human judgment, to the exclusion
of the preternatural, was preternatural folly. Nor was it less
extravagant to go and consult the will of Heaven on any questions
which it is given to us to decide by dint of learning. As though a man
should inquire, "Am I to choose an expert driver as my coachman, or
one who has never handled the reins?" "Shall I appoint a mariner to be
skipper of my vessel, or a landsman?" And so with respect to all we
may know by numbering, weighing, and measuring. To seek advice from
Heaven on such points was a sort of profanity. "Our duty is plain," he
would observe; "where we are permitted to work through our natural
faculties, there let us by all means apply them. But in things which
are hidden, let us seek to gain knowledge from above, by divination;
for the gods," he added, "grant signs to those to whom they will be
gracious."
[6] Or, "in the sphere of the determined," {ta anagkaia} = certa,
quorum eventus est necessarius; "things positive, the law-ordained
department of life," as we might say. See Grote, "H. G." i. ch.
xvi. 500 and passim.
[7] Reading {os nomizoien}, or if {os enomizen}, translate "As to
things with certain results, he advised them to do them in the way
in which he believed they would be done best"; i.e. he did not
say, "follow your conscience," but, "this course seems best to me
under the circumstances."
Again, Socrates ever lived in the public eye; at early morning he was
to be seen betaking himself to one of the promenades, or wrestling-
grounds; at noon he would appear with the gathering crowds in the
market-place; and as day declined, wherever the largest throng might
be encountered, there was he to be found, talking for the most part,
while any one who chose might stop and listen. Yet no one ever heard
him say, or saw him do anything impious or irreverent. Indeed, in
contrast to others he set his face against all discussion of such
high matters as the nature of the Universe; how the "kosmos," as the
savants[8] phrase it, came into being;[9] or by what forces the
celestial phenomena arise. To trouble one's brain about such matters
was, he argued, to play the fool. He would ask first: Did these
investigators feel their knowledge of things human so complete that
they betook themselves to these lofty speculations? Or did they
maintain that they were playing their proper parts in thus neglecting
the affairs of man to speculate on the concerns of God? He was
astonished they did not see how far these problems lay beyond mortal
ken; since even those who pride themselves most on their discussion of
these points differ from each other, as madmen do. For just as some
madmen, he said, have no apprehension of what is truly terrible,
others fear where no fear is; some are ready to say and do anything in
public without the slightest symptom of shame;[10] others think they
ought not so much as to set foot among their fellow-men; some honour
neither temple, nor altar, nor aught else sacred to the name of God;
others bow down to stocks and stones and worship the very beasts:--so
is it with those thinkers whose minds are cumbered with cares[11]
concerning the Universal Nature. One sect[12] has discovered that
Being is one and indivisible. Another[13] that it is infinite in
number. If one[14] proclaims that all things are in a continual flux,
another[15] replies that nothing can possibly be moved at any time.
The theory of the universe as a process of birth and death is met by
the counter theory, that nothing ever could be born or ever will die.
[8] Lit. "the sophists." See H. Sidgwick, "J. of Philol." iv. 1872; v.
1874.
[9] Reading {ephu}. Cf. Lucian, "Icaromenip." xlvi. 4, in imitation of
this passage apparently; or if {ekhei}, translate "is arranged."
See Grote, "H. G." viii. 573.
[10] See "Anab." V. iv. 30.
[11] See Arist. "Clouds," 101, {merimnophrontistai kaloi te kagathoi}.
[12] e.g. Xenophanes and Parmenides, see Grote, "Plato," I. i. 16
foll.
[13] e.g. Leucippus and Democritus, ib. 63 foll.
[14] e.g. Heraclitus, ib. 27 foll.
[15] e.g. Zeno, ib. ii. 96.
But the questioning of Socrates on the merits of these speculators
sometimes took another form. The student of human learning expects, he
said, to make something of his studies for the benefit of himself or
others, as he likes. Do these explorers into the divine operations
hope that when they have discovered by what forces the various
phenomena occur, they will create winds and waters at will and
fruitful seasons? Will they manipulate these and the like to suit
their needs? or has no such notion perhaps ever entered their heads,
and will they be content simply to know how such things come into
existence? But if this was his mode of describing those who meddle
with such matters as these, he himself never wearied of discussing
human topics. What is piety? what is impiety? What is the beautiful?
what the ugly? What the noble? what the base? What are meant by just
and unjust? what by sobriety and madness? what by courage and
cowardice? What is a state? what is a statesman? what is a ruler over
men? what is a ruling character? and other like problems, the
knowledge of which, as he put it, conferred a patent of nobility on
the possessor,[16] whereas those who lacked the knowledge might
deservedly be stigmatised as slaves.
[16] Or, "was distinctive of the 'beautiful and good.'" For the phrase
see below, ii. 2 et passim.
Now, in so far as the opinions of Socrates were unknown to the world
at large, it is not surprising that the court should draw false
conclusions respecting them; but that facts patent to all should have
been ignored is indeed astonishing.
At one time Socrates was a member of the Council,[17] he had taken the
senatorial oath, and sworn "as a member of that house to act in
conformity with the laws." It was thus he chanced to be President of
the Popular Assembly,[18] when that body was seized with a desire to
put the nine[19] generals, Thrasyllus, Erasinides, and the rest, to
death by a single inclusive vote. Whereupon, in spite of the bitter
resentment of the people, and the menaces of several influential
citizens, he refused to put the question, esteeming it of greater
importance faithfully to abide by the oath which he had taken, than to
gratify the people wrongfully, or to screen himself from the menaces
of the mighty. The fact being, that with regard to the care bestowed
by the gods upon men, his belief differed widely from that of the
multitude. Whereas most people seem to imagine that the gods know in
part, and are ignorant in part, Socrates believed firmly that the gods
know all things--both the things that are said and the things that are
done, and the things that are counselled in the silent chambers of the
heart. Moreover, they are present everywhere, and bestow signs upon
man concerning all the things of man.
[17] Or "Senate." Lit. "the Boule."
[18] Lit. "Epistates of the Ecclesia." See Grote, "H. G." viii. 271;
Plat. "Apol." 32 B.
[19] {ennea} would seem to be a slip of the pen for {okto}, eight. See
"Hell." I. v. 16; vi. 16; vi. 29; vii. 1 foll.
I can, therefore, but repeat my former words. It is a marvel to me how
the Athenians came to be persuaded that Socrates fell short of sober-
mindedness as touching the gods. A man who never ventured one impious
word or deed against the gods we worship, but whose whole language
concerning them, and his every act, closely coincided, word for word,
and deed for deed, with all we deem distinctive of devoutest piety.
II
No less surprising to my mind is the belief that Socrates corrupted
the young. This man, who, beyond what has been already stated, kept
his appetites and passions under strict control, who was pre-eminently
capable of enduring winter's cold and summer's heat and every kind of
toil, who was so schooled to curtail his needs that with the scantiest
of means he never lacked sufficiency--is it credible that such a man
could have made others irreverent or lawless, or licentious, or
effeminate in face of toil? Was he not rather the saving of many
through the passion for virtue which he roused in them, and the hope
he infused that through careful management of themselves they might
grow to be truly beautiful and good--not indeed that he ever undertook
to be a teacher of virtue, but being evidently virtuous himself he
made those who associated with him hope that by imitating they might
at last resemble him.
But let it not be inferred that he was negligent of his own body or
approved of those who neglected theirs. If excess of eating,
counteracted by excess of toil, was a dietary of which he
disapproved,[1] to gratify the natural claim of appetite in
conjunction with moderate exercise was a system he favoured, as
tending to a healthy condition of the body without trammelling the
cultivation of the spirit. On the other hand, there was nothing
dandified or pretentious about him; he indulged in no foppery of shawl
or shoes, or other effeminacy of living.
[1] See [Plat.] "Erast." 132 C.
Least of all did he tend to make his companions greedy of money. He
would not, while restraining passion generally, make capital out of
the one passion which attached others to himself; and by this
abstinence, he believed, he was best consulting his own freedom; in so
much that he stigmatised those who condescended to take wages for
their society as vendors of their own persons, because they were
compelled to discuss for the benefits of their paymasters. What
surprised him was that any one possessing virtue should deign to ask
money as its price instead of simply finding his rward in the
acquisition of an honest friend, as if the new-fledged soul of honour
could forget her debt of gratitude to her greatest benefactor.
For himself, without making any such profession, he was content to
believe that those who accepted his views would play their parts as
good and true friends to himself and one another their lives long.
Once more then: how should a man of this character corrupt the young?
unless the careful cultivation of virtue be corruption.
But, says the accuser,[2] by all that's sacred! did not Socrates cause
his associates to despise the established laws when he dwelt on the
folly of appointing state officers by ballot?[3] a principle which, he
said, no one would care to apply in selecting a pilot or a flute-
player or in any similar case, where a mistake would be far less
disastrous than in matters political. Words like these, according to
the accuser, tended to incite the young to contemn the established
constitution, rendering them violent and headstrong. But for myself I
think that those who cultivate wisdom and believe themselves able to
instruct their fellow-citizens as to their interests are least likely
to become partisans of violence. They are too well aware that to
violence attach enmities and dangers, whereas results as good may be
obtained by persuasion safely and amicably. For the victim of violence
hates with vindictiveness as one from whom something precious has been
stolen, while the willing subject of persuasion is ready to kiss the
hand which has done him a service. Hence compulsion is not the method
of him who makes wisdom his study, but of him who wields power
untempered by reflection. Once more: the man who ventures on violence
needs the support of many to fight his battles, while he whose
strength lies in persuasiveness triumphs single-handed, for he is
conscious of a cunning to compel consent unaided. And what has such a
one to do with the spilling of blood? since how ridiculous it were to
do men to death rather than turn to account the trusty service of the
living.
[2] {o kategoros} = Polycrates possibly. See M. Schantz, op. cit.,
"Einleitun," S. 6: "Die Anklagerede des Polykrates"; Introduction,
p. xxxii. foll.
[3] i.e. staking the election of a magistrate on the colour of a bean.
See Aristot. "Ath. Pol." viii. 2, and Dr. Sandys ad loc.
But, the accuser answers, the two men[4] who wrought the greatest
evils to the state at any time--to wit, Critias and Alcibiades--were
both companions of Socrates--Critias the oligarch, and Alcibiades the
democrat. Where would you find a more arrant thief, savage, and
murderer[5] than the one? where such a portent of insolence,
incontinence, and high-handedness as the other? For my part, in so far
as these two wrought evil to the state, I have no desire to appear as
the apologist of either. I confine myself to explaining what this
intimacy of theirs with Socrates really was.
[4] See "Hell." I. and II. passim.
[5] Reading {kleptistatos te kai biaiotatos kai phonikotatos}, or if
{pleonektistatos te kai biaiotatis}, translate "such a manner of
greed and violence as the one, of insolence, etc., as the other?"
See Grote, "H. G." viii. 337.
Never were two more ambitious citizens seen at Athens. Ambition was in
their blood. If they were to have their will, all power was to be in
their hands; their fame was to eclipse all other. Of Socrates they
knew--first that he lived an absolutely independent life on the
scantiest means; next that he was self-disciplined to the last degree
in respect of pleasures; lastly that he was so formidable in debate
that there was no antagonist he could not twist round his little
finger. Such being their views, and such the character of the pair,
which is the more probable: that they sought the society of Socrates
because they felt the fascination of his life, and were attracted by
the bearing of the man? or because they thought, if only we are
leagued with him we shall become adepts in statecraft and unrivalled
in the arts of speech and action? For my part I believe that if the
choice from Heaven had been given them to live such a life as they saw
Socrates living to its close, or to die, they would both have chosen
death.
Their acts are a conclusive witness to their characters. They no
sooner felt themselves to be the masters of those they came in contact
with than they sprang aside from Socrates and plunged into that whirl
of politics but for which they might never have sought his society.
It may be objected: before giving his companions lessons in politics
Socrates had better have taught them sobriety.[6] Without disputing
the principle, I would point out that a teacher cannot fail to
discover to his pupils his method of carrying out his own precepts,
and this along with argumentative encouragement. Now I know that
Socrates disclosed himself to his companions as a beautiful and noble
being, who would reason and debate with them concerning virtue and
other human interests in the noblest manner. And of these two I know
that as long as they were companions of Socrates even they were
temperate, not assuredly from fear of being fined or beaten by
Socrates, but because they were persuaded for the nonce of the
excellence of such conduct.
[6] {sophrosune} = "sound-mindedness," "temperence." See below, IV.
iii. 1.
Perhaps some self-styled philosophers[7] may here answer: "Nay, the
man truly just can never become unjust, the temperate man can never
become intemperate, the man who has learnt any subject of knowledge
can never be as though he had learnt it not." That, however, is not my
own conclusion. It is with the workings of the soul as with those of
the body; want of exercise of the organ leads to inability of
function, here bodily, there spiritual, so that we can neither do the
things that we should nor abstain from the things we should not. And
that is why fathers keep their sons, however temperate they may be,
out of the reach of wicked men, considering that if the society of the
good is a training in virtue so also is the society of the bad its
dissolution.
[7] In reference to some such tenet as that of Antisthenes ap. Diog.
Laert. VI. ix. 30, {areskei d' autois kai ten areten didakten
einai, katha phesin 'Antisthenes en to 'Rraklei kai anapobleton
uparkhein}. Cf. Plat. "Protag." 340 D, 344 D.
To this the poet[8] is a witness, who says:
"From the noble thou shalt be instructed in nobleness; but, and if
thou minglest with the base thou wilt destroy what wisdom thou
hast now";
And he[9] who says:
"But the good man has his hour of baseness as well as his hour of
virtue"--
to whose testimony I would add my own. For I see that it is impossible
to remember a long poem without practice and repetition; so is
forgetfulness of the words of instruction engendered in the heart that
has ceased to value them. With the words of warning fades the
recollection of the very condition of mind in which the soul yearned
after holiness; and once forgetting this, what wonder that the man
should let slip also the memory of virtue itself! Again I see that a
man who falls into habits of drunkenness or plunges headlong into
licentious love, loses his old power of practising the right and
abstaining from the wrong. Many a man who has found frugality easy
whilst passion was cold, no sooner falls in love than he loses the
faculty at once, and in his prodigal expenditure of riches he will no
longer withhold his hand from gains which in former days were too base
to invite his touch. Where then is the difficulty of supposing that a
man may be temperate to-day, and to-morrow the reverse; or that he who
once has had it in his power to act virtuously may not quite lose that
power?[10] To myself, at all events, it seems that all beautiful and
noble things are the result of constant practice and training; and
pre-eminently the virtue of temperance, seeing that in one and the
same bodily frame pleasures are planted and spring up side by side
with the soul and keep whispering in her ear, "Have done with self-
restraint, make haste to gratify us and the body."[11]
[8] Theognis, 35, 36. See "Symp." ii. 4; Plat. "Men." 95 D.
[9] The author is unknown. See Plat. "Protag." l.c.
[10] Cf. "Cyrop." V. i. 9 foll.; VI. i. 41.
[11] See my remarks, "Hellenica Essays," p. 371 foll.
But to return to Critias and Alcibiades, I repeat that as long as they
lived with Socrates they were able by his support to dominate their
ignoble appetites;[12] but being separated from him, Critias had to
fly to Thessaly,[13] where he consorted with fellows better versed in
lawlessness than justice. And Alcibiades fared no better. His personal
beauty on the one hand incited bevies of fine ladies[14] to hunt him
down as fair spoil, while on the other hand his influence in the state
and among the allies exposed him to the corruption of many an adept in
the arts of flattery; honoured by the democracy and stepping easily to
the front rank he behaved like an athlete who in the games of the
Palaestra is so assured of victory that he neglects his training; thus
he presently forgot the duty which he owed himself.
[12] Cf. [Plat.] "Theag." 130 A.
[13] See "Hell." II. iii. 36.
[14] Cf. Plut. "Ages.," "Alcib."
Such were the misadventures of these two. Is the sequel extraordinary?
Inflated with the pride of ancestry,[15] exalted by their wealth,
puffed up by power, sapped to the soul's core by a host of human
tempters, separate moreover for many a long day from Socrates--what
wonder that they reached the full stature of arrogancy! And for the
offences of these two Socrates is to be held responsible! The accuser
will have it so. But for the fact that in early days, when they were
both young and of an age when dereliction from good feeling and self-
restraint might have been expected, this same Socrates kept them
modest and well-behaved, not one word of praise is uttered by the
accuser for all this. That is not the measure of justice elsewhere
meted. Would a master of the harp or flute, would a teacher of any
sort who has turned out proficient pupils, be held to account because
one of them goes away to another teacher and turns out to be a
failure? Or what father, if he have a son who in the society of a
certain friend remains an honest lad, but falling into the company of
some other becomes a good-for-nothing, will that father straightway
accuse the earlier instructor? Will not he rather, in proportion as
the boy deteriorates in the company of the latter, bestow more
heartfelt praise upon the former? What father, himself sharing the
society of his own children, is held to blame for their
transgressions, if only his own goodness be established? Here would
have been a fair test to apply to Socrates: Was he guilty of any base
conduct himself? If so let him be set down as a knave, but if, on the
contrary, he never faltered in sobriety from beginning to end, how in
the name of justice is he to be held to account for a baseness which
was not in him?
[15] Or, "became overweening in arrogance." Cf. "Henry VIII. II. iv.
110": "But your heart is crammed with arrogancy, spleen, and
pride."
I go further: if, short of being guilty of any wrong himself, he saw
the evil doings of others with approval, reason were he should be held
blameworthy. Listen then: Socrates was well aware that Critias was
attached to Euthydemus,[16] aware too that he was endeavouring to deal
by him after the manner of those wantons whose love is carnal of the
body. From this endeavour he tried to deter him, pointing out how
illiberal a thing it was, how ill befitting a man of honour to appear
as a beggar before him whom he loved, in whose eyes he would fain be
precious, ever petitioning for something base to give and base to get.
[16] See below, IV. ii. 1 (if the same person).
But when this reasoning fell on deaf ears and Critias refused to be
turned aside, Socrates, as the story goes, took occasion of the
presence of a whole company and of Euthydemus to remark that Critias
appeared to be suffering from a swinish affection, or else why this
desire to rub himself against Euthydemus like a herd of piglings
scraping against stones.
The hatred of Critias to Socrates doubtless dates from this incident.
He treasured it up against him, and afterwards, when he was one of the
Thirty and associated with Charicles as their official lawgiver,[17]
he framed the law against teaching the art of words[18] merely from a
desire to vilify Socrates. He was at a loss to know how else to lay
hold of him except by levelling against him the vulgar charge[19]
against philosophers, by which he hoped to prejudice him with the
public. It was a charge quite unfounded as regards Socrates, if I may
judge from anything I ever heard fall from his lips myself or have
learnt about him from others. But the animus of Critias was clear. At
the time when the Thirty were putting citizens, highly respectable
citizens, to death wholesale, and when they were egging on one man
after another to the commission of crime, Socrates let fall an
observation: "It would be sufficiently extraordinary if the keeper of
a herd of cattle[20] who was continually thinning and impoverishing
his cattle did not admit himself to be a sorry sort of herdsman, but
that a ruler of the state who was continually thinning and
impoverishing the citizens should neither be ashamed nor admit himself
to be a sorry sort of ruler was more extraordinary still." The remark
being reported to the government, Socrates was summoned by Critias and
Charicles, who proceeded to point out the law and forbade him to
converse with the young. "Was it open to him," Socrates inquired of
the speaker, "in case he failed to understand their commands in any
point, to ask for an explanation?"
[17] Lit. "Nomothetes." See "Hell." II. iii. 2; Dem. 706. For
Charicles see Lys. "c. Eratosth." S. 56; Aristot. "Pol." v. 6. 6.
[18] See Diog. Laert. II. v. ("Socr.")
[19] i.e. {to ton etto logon kreitto poiein}, "of making the worse
appear the better cause." Cf. Arist. "Clouds."
[20] See Dio Chrys. "Or." 43.
"Certainly," the two assented.
Then Socrates: I am prepared to obey the laws, but to avoid
transgression of the law through ignorance I need instruction: is it
on the supposition that the art of words tends to correctness of
statement or to incorrectness that you bid us abstain from it? for if
the former, it is clear we must abstain from speeking correctly, but
if the latter, our endeavour should be to amend our speech.
To which Charicles, in a fit of temper, retorted: In consideration of
your ignorance,[21] Socrates, we will frame the prohibition in
language better suited to your intelligence: we forbid you to hold any
conversation whatsoever with the young.
[21] See Aristot. "de Soph. El." 183 b7.
Then Socrates: To avoid all ambiguity then, or the possibility of my
doing anything else than what you are pleased to command, may I ask
you to define up to what age a human being is to be considered young?
For just so long a time (Charicles answered) as he is debarred from
sitting as a member of the Council,[22] as not having attained to the
maturity of wisdom; accordingly you will not hold converse with any
one under the age of thirty.
[22] The Boule or Senate. See W. L. Newman, "Pol. Aristot." i. 326.
Soc. In making a purchase even, I am not to ask, what is the price of
this? if the vendor is under the age of thirty?
Cha. Tut, things of that sort: but you know, Socrates, that you have a
way of asking questions, when all the while you know how the matter
stands. Let us have no questions of that sort.
Soc. Nor answers either, I suppose, if the inquiry concerns what I
know, as, for instance, where does Charicles live? or where is Critias
to be found?
Oh yes, of course, things of that kind (replied Charicles), while
Critias added: But at the same time you had better have done with your
shoemakers, carpenters, and coppersmiths.[23] These must be pretty
well trodden out at heel by this time, considering the circulation you
have given them.
[23] Cf. Plat. "Gorg." 491 A; "Symp." 221 E; Dio Chrys. "Or." 55, 560
D, 564 A.
Soc. And am I to hold away from their attendant topics also--the just,
the holy, and the like?
Most assuredly (answered Charicles), and from cowherds in particular;
or else see that you do not lessen the number of the herd yourself.
Thus the secret was out. The remark of Socrates about the cattle had
come to their ears, and they could not forgive the author of it.
Perhaps enough has been said to explain the kind of intimacy which had
subsisted between Critias and Socrates, and their relation to one
another. But I will venture to maintain that where the teacher is not
pleasing to the pupil there is no education. Now it cannot be said of
Critias and Alcibiades that they associated with Socrates because they
found him pleasing to them. And this is true of the whole period. From
the first their eyes were fixed on the headship of the state as their
final goal. During the time of their imtimacy with Socrates there were
no disputants whom they were more eager to encounter than professed
politicians.
Thus the story is told of Alcibiades--how before the age of twenty he
engaged his own guardian, Pericles, at that time prime minister of the
state, in a discussion concerning laws.
Alc. Please, Pericles, can you teach me what a law is?
Per. To be sure I can.
Alc. I should be so much obliged if you would do so. One so often
hears the epithet "law-abiding" applied in a complimentary sense; yet,
it strikes me, one hardly deserves the compliment, if one does not
know what a law is.
Per. Fortunately there is a ready answer to your difficulty. You wish
to know what a law is? Well, those are laws which the majority, being
met together in conclave, approve and enact as to what it is right to
do, and what it is right to abstain from doing.
Alc. Enact on the hypothesis that it is right to do what is good? or
to do what is bad?
Per. What is good, to be sure, young sir, not what is bad.
Alc. Supposing it is not the majority, but, as in the case of an
oligarchy, the minority, who meet and enact the rules of conduct, what
are these?
Per. Whatever the ruling power of the state after deliberation enacts
as our duty to do, goes by the name of laws.
Alc. Then if a tyrant, holding the chief power in the state, enacts
rules of conduct for the citizens, are these enactments law?
Per. Yes, anything which a tyrant as head of the state enacts, also
goes by the name of law.
Alc. But, Pericles, violence and lawlessness--how do we define them?
Is it not when a stronger man forces a weaker to do what seems right
to him--not by persuasion but by compulsion?
Per. I should say so.
Alc. It would seem to follow that if a tyrant, without persuading the
citizens, drives them by enactment to do certain things--that is
lawlessness?
Per. You are right; and I retract the statement that measures passed
by a tyrant without persuasion of the citizens are law.
Alc. And what of measures passed by a minority, not by persuasion of
the majority, but in the exercise of its power only? Are we, or are we
not, to apply the term violence to these?
Per. I think that anything which any one forces another to do without
persuasion, whether by enactment or not, is violence rather than law.
Alc. It would seem that everything which the majority, in the exercise
of its power over the possessors of wealth, and without persuading
them, chooses to enact, is of the nature of violence rather than of
law?
To be sure (answered Pericles), adding: At your age we were clever
hands at such quibbles ourselves. It was just such subtleties which we
used to practise our wits upon; as you do now, if I mistake not.
To which Alcibiades replied: Ah, Pericles, I do wish we could have met
in those days when you were at your cleverest in such matters.
Well, then, as soon as the desired superiority over the politicians of
the day seemed to be attained, Critias and Alcibiades turned their
backs on Socrates. They found his society unattractive, not to speak
of the annoyance of being cross-questioned on their own shortcomings.
Forthwith they devoted themselves to those affairs of state but for
which they would never have come near him at all.
No; if one would seek to see true companions of Socrates, one must
look to Crito,[24] and Chaerephon, and Chaerecrates, to Hermogenes, to
Simmias and Cebes, to Phaedondes and others, who clung to him not to
excel in the rhetoric of the Assembly or the law-courts, but with the
nobler ambition of attaining to such beauty and goodliness of soul as
would enable them to discharge the various duties of life to house and
family, to relatives and friends, to fellow-citizens, and to the state
at large. Of these true followers not one in youth or old age was ever
guilty, or thought guilty, of committing any evil deed.
[24] For these true followers, familiar to us in the pages of Plato,
("Crito," "Apol.," "Phaedo," etc) see Cobet, "Pros. Xen."
"But for all that," the accuser insists, "Socrates taught sons to pour
contumely upon their fathers[25] by persuading his young friends that
he could make them wiser than their sires, or by pointing out that the
law allowed a son to sue his father for aberration of mind, and to
imprison him, which legal ordinance he put in evidence to prove that
it might be well for the wiser to imprison the more ignorant."
[25] See "Apol." 20; Arist. "Clouds," 1407, where Pheidippides "drags
his father Strepsiades through the mire."
Now what Socrates held was, that if a man may with justice incarcerate
another for no better cause than a form of folly or ignorance, this
same person could not justly complain if he in his turn were kept in
bonds by his superiors in knowledge; and to come to the bottom of such
questions, to discover the difference between madness and ignorance
was a problem which he was perpetually working at. His opinion came to
this: If a madman may, as a matter of expediency to himself and his
friends, be kept in prison, surely, as a matter of justice, the man
who knows not what he ought to know should be content to sit at the
feet of those who know, and be taught.
But it was the rest of their kith and kin, not fathers only (according
to the accuser), whom Socrates dishonoured in the eyes of his circle
of followers, when he said that "the sick man or the litigant does not
derive assistance from his relatives,[26] but from his doctor in the
one case, and his legal adviser in the other." "Listen further to his
language about friends," says the accuser: "'What is the good of their
being kindly disposed, unless they can be of some practical use to
you? Mere goodness of disposition is nothing; those only are worthy of
honour who combine with the knowledge of what is right the faculty of
expounding it;'[27] and so by bringing the young to look upon himself
as a superlatively wise person gifted with an extraordinary capacity
for making others wise also, he so worked on the dispositions of those
who consorted with him that in their esteem the rest of the world
counted for nothing by comparison with Socrates."
[26] See Grote, "H. G." v. 535.
[27] Cf. Thuc. ii. 60. Pericles says, "Yet I with whom you are so
angry venture to say of myself, that I am as capable as any one of
devising and explaining a sound policy."--Jowett.
Now I admit the language about fathers and the rest of a man's
relations. I can go further, and add some other sayings of his, that
"when the soul (which is alone the indwelling centre of intelligence)
is gone out of a man, be he our nearest and dearest friend, we carry
the body forth and bury it out of sight." "Even in life," he used to
say, "each of us is ready to part with any portion of his best
possession--to wit, his own body--if it be useless and unprofitable.
He will remove it himself, or suffer another to do so in his stead.
Thus men cut off their own nails, hair, or corns; they allow surgeons
to cut and cauterise them, not without pains and aches, and are so
grateful to the doctor for his services that they further give him a
fee. Or again, a man ejects the spittle from his mouth as far as
possible.[28] Why? Because it is of no use while it stays within the
system, but is detrimental rather."
[28] See Aristot. "Eth. Eud." vii. 1.
Now by these instances his object was not to inculcate the duty of
burying one's father alive or of cutting oneself to bits, but to show
that lack of intelligence means lack of worth;[29] and so he called
upon his hearers to be as sensible and useful as they could be, so
that, be it father or brother or any one else whose esteem he would
deserve, a man should not hug himself in careless self-interest,
trusting to mere relationship, but strive to be useful to those whose
esteem he coveted.
[29] i.e. "witless and worthless are synonymous."
But (pursues the accuser) by carefully culling the most immoral
passages of the famous poets, and using them as evidences, he taught
his associates to be evildoers and tyrranical: the line of Hesiod[30]
for instance--
No work is a disgrace; slackness of work is the disgrace--
"interpreted," says the accuser, "by Socrates as if the poet enjoined
us to abstain from no work wicked or ignoble; do everything for the
sake of gain."
[30] "Works and Days," 309 {'Ergon d' ouden oneidos}. Cf. Plat.
"Charm." 163 C.
Now while Socrates would have entirely admitted the propositions that
"it is a blessing and a benefit to a man to be a worker," and that "a
lazy do-nothing is a pestilent evil," that "work is good and idleness
a curse," the question arises, whom did he mean by workers? In his
vocabulary only those were good workmen[31] who were engaged on good
work; dicers and gamblers and others engaged on any other base and
ruinous business he stigmatised as the "idle drones"; and from this
point of view the quotation from Hesiod is unimpeachable--
No work is a disgrace; only idlesse is disgrace.
But there was a passage from Homer[32] for ever on his lips, as the
accuser tells us--the passage which says concerning Odysseus,
What prince, or man of name,
He found flight-giv'n, he would restrain with words of gentlest blame:
"Good sir, it fits you not to fly, or fare as one afraid,
You should not only stay yourself, but see the people stayed."
Thus he the best sort us'd; the worst, whose spirits brake out in noise,[33]
He cudgell'd with his sceptre, chid, and said, "Stay, wretch, be still,
And hear thy betters; thou art base, and both in power and skill
Poor and unworthy, without name in counsel or in war."
We must not all be kings.
[31] See below, III. ix. 9.
[32] "Il." ii. 188 foll., 199 foll. (so Chapman).
[33] Lit. "But whatever man of the people he saw and found him
shouting."--W. Leaf.
The accuser informs us that Socrates interpreted these lines as though
the poet approved the giving of blows to commoners and poor folk. Now
no such remark was ever made by Socrates; which indeed would have been
tantamount to maintaining that he ought to be beaten himself. What he
did say was, that those who were useful neither in word nor deed, who
were incapable of rendering assistance in time of need to the army or
the state or the people itself, be they never so wealthy, ought to be
restrained, and especially if to incapacity they added effrontery.
As to Socrates, he was the very opposite of all this--he was plainly a
lover of the people, and indeed of all mankind. Though he had many
ardent admirers among citizens and strangers alike, he never demanded
any fee for his society from any one,[34] but bestowed abundantly upon
all alike of the riches of his sould--good things, indeed, of which
fragments accepted gratis at his hands were taken and sold at high
prices to the rest of the community by some,[35] who were not, as he
was, lovers of the people, since with those who had not money to give
in return they refused to discourse. But of Socrates be it said that
in the eyes of the whole world he reflected more honour on the state
and a richer lustre than ever Lichas,[36] whose fame is proverbial,
shed on Lacedaemon. Lichas feasted and entertained the foreign
residents in Lacedaemon at the Gymnopaediae most handsomely. Socrates
gave a lifetime to the outpouring of his substance in the shape of the
greatest benefits bestowed on all who cared to receive them. In other
words, he made those who lived in his society better men, and sent
them on their way rejoicing.
[34] See "Symp." iv. 43; Plat. "Hipp. maj." 300 D; "Apol." 19 E.
[35] See Diog. Laert. II. viii. 1.
[36] See "Hell." III. ii. 21; Thuc. v. 50; Plut. "Cim." 284 C. For the
Gymnopaediae, see Paus. III. xi. 9; Athen. xiv. p. 631.
To no other conclusion, therefore, can I come but that, being so good
a man, Socrates was worthier to have received honour from the state
than death. And this I take to be the strictly legal view of the case,
for what does the law require?[37] "If a man be proved to be a thief,
a filcher of clothes, a cut-purse, a housebreaker, a man-stealer, a
robber of temples, the penalty is death." Even so; and of all men
Socrates stood most aloof from such crimes.
[37] See "Symp." iv. 36; Plat. "Rep." 575 B; "Gorg." 508 E.
To the state he was never the cause of any evil--neither disaster in
war, nor faction, nor treason, nor any other mischief whatsoever. And
if his public life was free from all offence, so was his private. He
never hurt a single soul either by deprivation of good or infliction
of evil, nor did he ever lie under the imputation of any of those
misdoings. WHere then is his liability to the indictment to be found?
Who, so far from disbelieving in the gods, as set forth in the
indictment, was conspicuous beyond all men for service to heaven; so
far from corrupting the young--a charge alleged with insistence by the
prosecutor--was notorious for the zeal with which he strove not only
to stay his associates from evil desires, but to foster in them a
passionate desire for that loveliest and queenliest of virtues without
which states and families crumble to decay.[38] Such being his
conduct, was he not worthy of high honour from the state of Athens?
[38] Or, "the noblest and proudest virtue by means of which states and
families are prosperously directed."
III
It may serve to illustrate the assertion that he benefited his
associates partly by the display of his own virtue and partly by
verbal discourse and argument, if I set down my various
recollections[1] on these heads. And first with regard to religion and
the concerns of heaven. In conduct and language his behaviour
conformed to the rule laid down by the Pythia[2] in reply to the
question, "How shall we act?" as touching a sacrifice or the worship
of ancestors, or any similar point. Her answer is: "Act according to
the law and custom of your state, and you will act piously." After
this pattern Socrates behaved himself, and so he exhorted others to
behave, holding them to be but busybodies and vain fellows who acted
on any different principle.
[1] Hence the title of the work, {'Apomenmoneumata}, "Recollections,
Memoirs, Memorabilia." See Diog. Laert. "Xen." II. vi. 48.
[2] The Pythia at Delphi.
His formula or prayer was simple: "Give me that which is best for me,"
for, said he, the gods know best what good things are--to pray for
gold or silver or despotic power were no better than to make some
particular throw at dice or stake in battle or any such thing the
subject of prayer, of which the future consequences are manifestly
uncertain.[3]
[3] See (Plat.) "Alcib. II." 142 foll.; Valerius Max. vii. 2;
"Spectator," No. 207.
If with scant means he offered but small sacrifices he believed that
he was in no wise inferior to those who make frequent and large
sacrifices from an ampler store. It were ill surely for the very gods
themselves, could they take delight in large sacrifices rather than in
small, else oftentimes must the offerings of bad men be found
acceptable rather than of good; nor from the point of view of men
themselves would life be worth living if the offerings of a villain
rather than of a righteous man found favour in the sight of Heaven.
His belief was that the joy of the gods is greater in proportion to
the holiness of the giver, and he was ever an admirer of that line of
Hesiod which says,
According to thine ability do sacrifice to the immortal gods.[4]
[4] Hesiod, "Works and Days," 336. See "Anab." III. ii. 9.
"Yes," he would say, "in our dealings with friends and strangers
alike, and in reference to the demands of life in general, there is no
better motto for a man than that: 'let a man do according to his
ability.'"
Or to take another point. If it appeared to him that a sign from
heaven had been given him, nothing would have induced him to go
against heavenly warning: he would as soon have been persuaded to
accept the guidance of a blind man ignorant of the path to lead him on
a journey in place of one who knew the road and could see; and so he
denounced the folly of others who do things contrary to the warnings
of God in order to avoid some disrepute among men. For himself he
despised all human aids by comparison with counsel from above.
The habit and style of living to which he subjected his soul and body
was one which under ordinary circumstances[5] would enable any one
adopting it to look existence cheerily in the face and to pass his
days serenely: it would certainly entail no difficulties as regards
expense. So frugal was it that a man must work little indeed who could
not earn the quantum which contented Socrates. Of food he took just
enough to make eating a pleasure--the appetite he brought to it was
sauce sufficient; while as to drinks, seeing that he only drank when
thirsty, any draught refreshed.[6] If he accepted an invitation to
dinner, he had no difficulty in avoiding the common snare of over-
indulgence, and his advice to people who could not equally control
their appetite was to avoid taking what would allure them to eat if
not hungry or to drink if not thirsty.[7] Such things are ruinous to
the constitution, he said, bad for stomachs, brains, and soul alike;
or as he used to put it, with a touch of sarcasm,[8] "It must have
been by feasting men on so many dainty dishes that Circe produced her
pigs; only Odysseus through his continency and the 'promptings[9] of
Hermes' abstained from touching them immoderately, and by the same
token did not turn into a swine." So much for this topic, which he
touched thus lightly and yet seriously.
[5] {ei me ti daimonion eie}, "save under some divinely-ordained
calamity." Cf. "Cyrop." I. vi. 18; "Symp." viii. 43.
[6] See "Ages." ix; Cic. "Tusc." v. 34, 97; "de Fin." ii. 28, 90.
[7] Cf. Plut. "Mor." 128 D; Clement, "Paedag." 2. 173, 33; "Strom." 2,
492, 24; Aelian, "N. A." 8, 9.
[8] "Half in gibe and half in jest," in ref. to "Od." x. 233 foll.:
"So she let them in . . ."
[9] {upothemosune}, "inspiration." Cf. "Il." xv. 412; "Od." xvi. 233.
But as to the concerns of Aphrodite, his advice was to hold strongly
aloof from the fascination of fair forms: once lay finger on these and
it is not easy to keep a sound head and a sober mind. To take a
particular case. It was a mere kiss which, as he had heard,
Critobulus[10] had some time given to a fair youth, the son of
Alcibiades.[11] Accordingly Critobulus being present, Socrates
propounded the question.
[10] For Critobulus (the son of Crito) see "Econ." i. 1 foll.; "Symp."
i. 3 foll.
[11] See Isocr. "Or." xvi. Cobet conj. {ton tou 'Axiokhou uion}, i.e.
Clinias.
Soc. Tell me, Xenophon, have you not always believed Critobulus to be
a man of sound sense, not wild and self-willed? Should you not have
said that he was remarkable for his prudence rather than thoughtless
or foolhardy?
Xen. Certainly that is what I should have said of him.
Soc. Then you are now to regard him as quite the reverse--a hot-
blooded, reckless libertine: this is the sort of man to throw
somersaults into knives,[12] or to leap into the jaws of fire.
[12] Cf. "Symp." ii. 10, iv. 16. See Schneider ad loc.
Xen. And what have you seen him doing, that you give him so bad a
character?
Soc. Doing? Why, has not the fellow dared to steal a kiss from the son
of Alcibiades, most fair of youths and in the golden prime?
Xen. Nay, then, if that is the foolhardy adventure, it is a danger
which I could well encounter myself.
Soc. Pour soul! and what do you expect your fate to be after that
kiss? Let me tell you. On the instant you will lose your freedom, the
indenture of your bondage will be signed; it will be yours on
compulsion to spend large sums on hurtful pleasures; you will have
scarcely a moment's leisure left for any noble study; you will be
driven to concern yourself most zealously with things which no man,
not even a madman, would choose to make an object of concern.
Xen. O Heracles! how fell a power to reside in a kiss!
Soc. Does it surprise you? Do you not know that the tarantula, which
is no bigger than a threepenny bit,[13] has only to touch the mouth
and it will afflict its victim with pains and drive him out of his
senses.
[13] Lit. "a half-obol piece." For the {phalaggion} see Aristot. "H.
A." ix. 39, 1.
Xen. Yes, but then the creature injects something with its bite.
Soc. Ah, fool! and do you imagine that these lovely creatures infuse
nothing with their kiss, simply because you do not see the poison? Do
you not know that this wild beast which men call beauty in its bloom
is all the more terrible than the tarantula in that the insect must
first touch its victim, but this at a mere glance of thebeholder,
without even contact, will inject something into him--yards away--
which will make him man. And may be that is why the Loves are called
"archers," because these beauties wound so far off.[14] But my advice
to you, Xenophon, is, whenever you catch sight of one of these fair
forms, to run helter-skelter for bare life without a glance behind;
and to you, Critobulus, I would say, "Go abroad for a year: so long
time will it take to heal you of this wound."
[14] L. Dindorf, etc. regard the sentence as a gloss. Cf. "Symp." iv.
26 [{isos de kai . . . entimoteron estin}].
Such (he said), in the affairs of Aphrodite, as in meats and drinks,
should be the circumspection of all whose footing is insecure. At
least they should confine themselves to such diet as the soul would
dispense with, save for some necessity of the body; and which even so
ought to set up no disturbance.[15] But for himself, it was clear, he
was prepared at all points and invulnerable. He found less difficulty
in abstaining from beauty's fairest and fullest bloom than many others
from weeds and garbage. To sum up:[16] with regard to eating and
drinking and these other temptations of the sense, the equipment of
his soul made him independent; he could boast honestly that in his
moderate fashion[17] his pleasures were no less than theirs who take
such trouble to procure them, and his pains far fewer.
[15] Cf. "Symp." iv. 38.
[16] L. Dindorf [brackets] this passage as spurious.
[17] On the principle "enough is as good as a feast," {arkountos}.
IV
A belief is current, in accordance with views maintained concerning
Socrates in speech and writing, and in either case conjecturally,
that, however powerful he may have been in stimulating men to virtue
as a theorist, he was incapable of acting as their guide himself.[1]
It would be well for those who adopt this view to weigh carefully not
only what Socrates effected "by way of castigation" in cross-
questioning whose who conceived themselves to be possessed of all
knowledge, but also his everyday conversation with those who spent
their time in close intercourse with himself. Having done this, let
them decide whether he was incapable of making his companions better.
[1] Al. "If any one believes that Socrates, as represented in certain
dialogues (e.g. of Plato, Antisthenes, etc.) of an imaginary
character, was an adept ({protrepsasthai}) in the art of
stimulating people to virtue negatively but scarcely the man to
guide ({proagein}) his hearers on the true path himself." Cf.
(Plat.) "Clitophon," 410 B; Cic. "de Or." I. xlvii. 204; Plut.
"Mor." 798 B. See Grote, "Plato," iii. 21; K. Joel, op. cit. p. 51
foll.; Cf. below, IV. iii. 2.
I will first state what I once heard fall from his lips in a
discussion with Aristodemus,[2] "the little," as he was called, on the
topic of divinity.[3] Socrates had observed that Aristodemus neither
sacrificed nor gave heed to divination, but on the contrary was
disposed to ridicule those who did.
[2] See Plat. "Symp." 173 B: "He was a little fellow who never wore
any shoes, Aristodemus, of the deme of Cydathenaeum."--Jowett.
[3] Or, "the divine element."
So tell me, Aristodemus (he begain), are there any human beings who
have won your admiration for their wisdom?
Ar. There are.
Soc. Would you mention to us their names?
Ar. In the writings of epic poetry I have the greatest admiration for
Homer. . . . And as a dithyrambic poet for Melanippides.[4] I admire
also Sophocles as a tragedian, Polycleitus as a sculptor, and Zeuxis
as a painter.
[4] Melanippides, 430 B.C. See Cobet, "Pros. Xen." s.n.
Soc. Which would you consider the more worthy of admiration, a
fashioner of senseless images devoid of motion or one who could
fashion living creatures endowed with understanding and activity?
Ar. Decidedly the latter, provided his living creatures owed their
birth to design and were not the offspring of some chance.
Soc. But now if you had two sorts of things, the one of which presents
no clue as to what it is for, and the other is obviously for some
useful purpose--which would you judge to be the result of chance,
which of design?
Ar. Clearly that which is produced for some useful end is the work of
design.
Soc. Does it not strike you then that he who made man from the
beginning[5] did for some useful end furnish him with his several
senses--giving him eyes to behold the visible word, and ears to catch
the intonations of sound? Or again, what good would there be in odours
if nostrils had not been bestowed upon us? what perception of sweet
things and pungent, and of all the pleasures of the palate, had not a
tongue been fashioned in us as an interpreter of the same? And besides
all this, do you not think this looks like a matter of foresight, this
closing of the delicate orbs of sight with eyelids as with folding
doors, which, when there is need to use them for any purpose, can be
thrown wide open and firmly closed again in sleep? and, that even the
winds of heaven may not visit them too roughly, this planting of the
eyelashes as a protecting screen?[6] this coping of the region above
the eyes with cornice-work of eyebrow so that no drop of sweat fall
from the head and injure them? again this readiness of the ear to
catch all sounds and yet not to be surcharged? this capacity of the
front teeth of all animals to cut and of the "grinders" to receive the
food and reduce it to pulp? the position of the mouth again, close to
the eyes and nostrils as a portal of ingress for all the creature's
supplies? and lastly, seeing that matter passing out[7] of the body is
unpleasant, this hindward direction of the passages, and their removal
to a distance from the avenues of sense? I ask you, when you see all
these things constructed with such show of foresight can you doubt
whether they are products of chance or intelligence?
[5] Cf. Aristot. "de Part. Animal." 1. For the "teleological" views
see IV. iii. 2 foll.
[6] "Like a sieve" or "colander."
[7] "That which goeth out of a man."
Ar. To be sure not! Viewed in this light they would seem to be the
handiwork of some wise artificer,[8] full of love for all things
living.[9]
[8] "Demiurge."
[9] Passage referred to by Epictetus ap. Stob. "Flor." 121, 29.
Soc. What shall we say of this passion implanted in man to beget
offspring, this passion in the mother to rear her babe, and in the
creature itself, once born, this deep desire of life and fear of
death?
Ar. No doubt these do look like the contrivances of some one
deliberately planning the existence of living creatures.
Soc. Well, and doubtless you feel to have a spark of wisdom yourself?
Ar. Put your questions, and I will answer.
Soc. And yet you imagine that elsewhere no spark of wisdom is to be
found? And that, too, when you know that you have in your body a tiny
fragment only of the mighty earth, a little drop of the great waters,
and of the other elements, vast in their extent, you got, I presume, a
particle of each towards the compacting of your bodily frame? Mind
alone, it would seem, which is nowhere to be found,[10] you had the
lucky chance to snatch up and make off with, you cannot tell how. And
these things around and about us, enormous in size, infinite in
number, owe their orderly arrangement, as you suppose, to some vacuity
of wit?
[10] Cf. Plat. "Phileb." 30 B: "Soc. May our body be said to have a
soul? Pro. Clearly. Soc. And whence comes that soul, my dear
Protarchus, unless the body of the universe, which contains
elements similar to our bodies but finer, has also a soul? Can
there be any other source?"--Jowett. Cic. "de N. D." ii. 6; iii.
11.
Ar. It may be, for my eyes fail to see the master agents of these, as
one sees the fabricators of things produced on earth.
Soc. No more do you see your own soul, which is the master agent of
your body; so that, as far as that goes, you may maintain, if you
like, that you do nothing with intelligence,[11] but everything by
chance.
[11] Or, "by your wit," {gnome}.
At this point Aristodemus: I assure you, Socrates, that I do not
disdain the Divine power. On the contrary, my belief is that the
Divinity is too grand to need any service which I could render.
Soc. But the grander that power is, which deigns to tend and wait upon
you, the more you are called upon to honour it.
Ar. Be well assured, if I could believe the gods take thought for all
men, I would not neglect them.
Soc. How can you suppose that they do not so take thought? Who, in the
first place, gave to man alone of living creatures his erect posture,
enabling him to see farther in front of him and to contemplate more
freely the height above, and to be less subject to distress than other
creatures [endowed like himself with eyes and ears and mouth].[12]
Consider next how they gave to the beast of the field[13] feet as a
means of progression only, but to man they gave in addition hands--
those hands which have achieved so much to raise us in the scale of
happiness above all animals. Did they not make the tongue also? which
belongs indeed alike to man and beast, but in man they fashioned it so
as to play on different parts of the mouth at different times, whereby
we can produce articulate speech, and have a code of signals to
express our every want to one another. Or consider the pleasures of
the sexual appetite; limited in the rest of the animal kingdom to
certain seasons, but in the case of man a series prolonged unbroken to
old age. Nor did it content the Godhead merely to watch over the
interests of man's body. What is of far higher import, he implanted in
man the noblest and most excellent type of soul. For what other
creature, to begin with, has a soul to appreciate the existence of the
gods who have arranged this grand and beauteous universe? What other
tribe of animals save man can render service to the gods? How apt is
the spirit of man to take precautions against hunger and thirst, cold
and heat, to alleviate disease and foster strength! how suited to
labour with a view to learning! how capable of garnering in the
storehouse of his memory all that he has heard or seen or understood!
Is it not most evident to you that by the side of other animals men
live and move a race of gods--by nature excellent, in beauty of body
and of soul supreme? For, mark you, had a creature of man's wit been
encased in the body of an ox,[14] he would have been powerless to
carry out his wishes, just as the possession of hands divorced from
human wit is profitless. And then you come, you who have obtained
these two most precious attributes, and give it as your opinion, that
the gods take no thought or care for you. Why, what will you have them
to do, that you may believe and be persuaded that you too are in their
thoughts?
[12] See Kuhner for an attempt to cure the text.
[13] {erpetois}, a "poetical" word. Cf. "Od." iv. 418; Herod. i. 140.
[14] See Aristot. "de Part. Animal." iv. 10.
Ar. When they treat me as you tell us they treat you, and send me
counsellors to warn me what I am to do and what abstain from
doing,[15] I will believe.
[15] See IV. iii. 12.
Soc. Send you counsellors! Come now, what when the people of Athens
make inquiry by oracle, and the gods' answer comes? Are you not an
Athenian? Think you not that to you also the answer is given? What
when they send portents to forewarn the states of Hellas? or to all
mankind? Are you not a man? a Hellene? Are not these intended for you
also? Can it be that you alone are excepted as a signal instance of
Divine neglect? Again, do you suppose that the gods could have
implanted in the heart of man the belief in their capacity to work him
weal or woe had they not the power? Would not men have discovered the
imposture in all this lapse of time? Do you not perceive that the
wisest and most perdurable of human institutions--be they cities or
tribes of men--are ever the most God-fearing; and in the individual
man the riper his age and judgment, the deeper his religousness? Ay,
my good sir (he broke forth), lay to heart and understand that even as
your own mind within you can turn and dispose of your body as it
lists, so ought we to think that the wisdom which abides within the
universal frame does so dispose of all things as it finds agreeable to
itself; for hardly may it be that your eye is able to range over many
a league, but that the eye of God is powerless to embrace all things
at a glance; or that to your soul it is given to dwell in thought on
matters here or far away in Egypt or in Sicily, but that the wisdom
and thought of God is not sufficient to include all things at one
instant under His care. If only you would copy your own behaviour[16]
where human beings are concerned. It is by acts of service and of
kindness that you discover which of your fellows are willing to
requite you in kind. It is by taking another into your counsel that
you arrive at the secret of his wisdom. If, on like principle, you
will but make trial of the gods by acts of service, whether they will
choose to give you counsel in matters obscure to mortal vision, you
shall discover the nature and the greatness of Godhead to be such that
they are able at once to see all things and to hear all things and to
be present everywhere, nor does the least thing escape their watchful
care.
[16] Or, "reason as you are wont to do."
To my mind the effect of words like these was to cause those about him
to hold aloof from unholiness, baseness, and injustice, not only
whilst they were seen of men, but even in the solitary place, since
they must believe that no part of their conduct could escape the eye
of Heaven.
V
I suppose it may be taken as admitted that self-control is a noble
acquirement for a man.[1] If so, let us turn and consider whether by
language like the following he was likely to lead his listeners
onwards[2] to the attainment of this virtue. "Sirs," he would say, "if
a war came upon us and we wished to choose a man who would best help
us to save ourselves and to subdue our enemy, I suppose we should
scarcely select one whom we knew to be a slave to his belly, to wine,
or lust, and prone to succumb to toil or sleep. Could we expect such
an one to save us or to master our foes? Or if one of us were nearing
the end of his days, and he wished to discover some one to whom he
might entrust his sons for education, his maiden daughters for
protection, and his property in general for preservation, would he
deem a libertine worthy of such offices? Why, no one would dream of
entrusting his flocks and herds, his storehouses and barns, or the
superintendence of his works to the tender mercies of an intemperate
slave. If a butler or an errand boy with such a character were offered
to us we would not take him as a free gift. And if he would not accept
an intemperate slave, what pains should the master himself take to
avoid that imputation.[3] For with the incontinent man it is not as
with the self-seeker and the covetous. These may at any rate be held
to enrich themselves in depriving others. But the intemperate man
cannot claim in like fashion to be a blessing to himself if a curse to
his neighbours; nay, the mischief which he may cause to others is
nothing by comparison with that which redounds against himself, since
it is the height of mischief to ruin--I do not say one's own house and
property--but one's own body and one's own soul. Or to take an example
from social intercourse, no one cares for a guest who evidently takes
more pleasure in the wine and the viands than in the friends beside
him--who stints his comrades of the affection due to them to dote upon
a mistress. Does it not come to this, that every honest man is bound
to look upon self-restraint as the very corner-stone of virtue:[4]
which he should seek to lay down as the basis and foundation of his
soul? Without self-restraint who can lay any good lesson to heart or
practise it when learnt in any degree worth speaking of? Or, to put it
conversely, what slave of pleasure will not suffer degeneracy of soul
and body? By Hera,[5] well may every free man pray to be saved from
the service of such a slave; and well too may he who is in bondage to
such pleasures supplicate Heaven to send him good masters, seeing that
is the one hope of salvation left him."
[1] Lit. "a beautiful and brave possesion."
[2] {proubibaze}.
[3] Or, "how should the master himself beware lest he fall into that
category."
[4] {krepida}. See Pind. "Pyth." iv. 138; ib. vii. 3; ib. fr. 93.
[5] See below, III. x. 9, xi. 5; IV. ii. 9, iv. 8; "Econ." x. 1;
"Cyrop." I. iv. 12; Plat. "Phaedr." 230 B. Cf. Shakesp. "by'r
Lakin."
Well-tempered words: yet his self-restraint shone forth even more in
his acts than in his language. Not only was he master over the
pleasures which flow from the body, but of those also which are fed by
riches, his belief being that he who receives money from this or that
chance donor sets up over himself a master, and binds himself to an
abominable slavery.
VI
In this context some discussions with Antiphon the sophist[1] deserve
record. Antiphon approaches Socrates in hope of drawing away his
associates, and in their presence thus accosts him.
[1] {o teratoskopos}, "jealous of Socrates," according to Aristotle
ap. Diog. Laert. II. v. 25. See Cobet, "Pros. Xen."
Antiphon. Why, Socrates, I always thought it was expected of students
of philosophy to grow in happiness daily; but you seem to have reaped
other fruits from your philosophy. At any rate, you exist, I do not
say live, in a style such as no slave serving under a master would put
up with. Your meat and your drink are of the cheapest sort, and as to
clothes, you cling to one wretched cloak which serves you for summer
and winter alike; and so you go the whole year round, without shoes to
your feet or a shirt to your back. Then again, you are not for taking
or making money, the mere seeking of which is a pleasure, even as the
possession of it adds to the sweetness and independence of existence.
I do not know whether you follow the common rule of teachers, who try
to fashion their pupils in imitation of themselves,[2] and propose to
mould the characters of your companions; but if you do you ought to
dub yourself professor of the art of wretchedness.[3]
[2] Or, "try to turn out their pupils as copies of themselves."
[3] See Arist. "Clouds," {on o kakodaimon Sokrates kai Khairephon}.
Thus challenged, Socrates replied: One thing to me is certain,
Antiphon; you have conceived so vivid an idea of my life of misery
that for yourself you would choose death sooner than live as I do.
Suppose now we turn and consider what it is you find so hard in my
life. Is it that he who takes payment must as a matter of contract
finish the work for which he is paid, whereas I, who do not take it,
lie under no constraint to discourse except with whom I choose? Do you
despise my dietary on the ground that the food which I eat is less
wholesome and less stengthening than yours, or that the articles of my
consumption are so scarce and so much costlier to procure than yours?
Or have the fruits of your marketing a flavour denied to mine? Do you
not know the sharper the appetite the less the need of sauces, the
keener the thirst the less the desire for out-of-the-way drinks? And
as to raiment, clothes, you know, are changed on account of cold or
else of heat. People only wear boots and shoes in order not to gall
their feet and be prevented walking. Now I ask you, have you ever
noticed that I keep more within doors than others on account of the
cold? Have you ever seen me battling with any one for shade on account
of the heat? Do you not know that even a weakling by nature may, by
dint of exercise and practice, come to outdo a giant who neglects his
body? He will beat him in the particular point of training, and bear
the strain more easily. But you apparently will not have it that I,
who am for ever training myself to endure this, that, and the other
thing which may befall the body, can brave all hardships more easily
than yourself for instance, who perhaps are not so practised. And to
escape slavery to the belly or to sleep or lechery, can you suggest
more effective means than the possession of some powerful attraction,
some counter-charm which shall gladden not only in the using, but by
the hope enkindled of its lasting usefulness? And yet this you do
know; joy is not to him who feels that he is doing well in nothing--it
belongs to one who is persuaded that things are progressing with him,
be it tillage or the working of a vessel,[4] or any of the thousand
and one things on which a man may chance to be employed. To him it is
given to rejoice as he reflects, "I am doing well." But is the
pleasured derived from all these put together half as joyous as the
consciousness of becoming better oneself, of acquiring better and
better friends? That, for my part, is the belief I continue to
cherish.
[4] "The business of a shipowner or skipper."
Again, if it be a question of helping one's friends or country, which
of the two will have the larger leisure to devote to these objects--he
who leads the life which I lead to-day, or he who lives in the style
which you deem so fortunate? Which of the two will adopt a soldier's
life more easily--the man who cannot get on without expensive living,
or he to whom whatever comes to hand suffices? Which will be the
readier to capitulate and cry "mercy" in a siege--the man of elaborate
wants, or he who can get along happily with the readiest things to
hand? You, Antiphon, would seem to suggest that happiness consists of
luxury and extravagance; I hold a different creed. To have no wants at
all is, to my mind, an attribute of Godhead;[5] to have as few wants
as possible the nearest approach to Godhead; and as that which is
divine is mightiest, so that is next mightiest which comes closest to
the divine.
[5] Cf. Aristot. "Eth. N." x. viii. 1.
Returning to the charge at another time, this same Antiphon engaged
Socrates in conversation thus.
Ant. Socrates, for my part, I believe you to be a good and upright
man; but for your wisdom I cannot say much. I fancy you would hardly
dispute the verdict yourself, since, as I remark, you do not ask a
money payment for your society; and yet if it were your cloak now, or
your house, or any other of your possessions, you would set some value
upon it, and never dream, I will not say of parting with it gratis,
but of exchanging it for less than its worth. A plain proof, to my
mind, that if you thought your society worth anything, you would ask
for it not less than its equivalent in gold.[6] Hence the conclusion
to which I have come, as already stated: good and upright you may be,
since you do not cheat people from pure selfishness; but wise you
cannot be, since your knowledge is not worth a cent.
[6] Or rather "money," lit. "silver."
To this onslaught Socrates: Antiphon, it is a tenet which we cling to
that beauty and wisdom have this in common, that there is a fair way
and a foul way in which to dispose of them. The vendor of beauty
purchases an evil name, but supposing the same person have discerned a
soul of beauty in his lover and makes that man his friend, we regard
his choice as sensible.[7] So is it with wisdom; he who sells it for
money to the first bidder we name a sophist,[8] as though one should
say a man who prostitutes his wisdom; but if the same man, discerning
the noble nature of another, shall teach that other every good thing,
and make him his friend, of such a one we say he does that which it is
the duty of every good citizen of gentle soul to do. In accordance
with this theory, I too, Antiphon, having my tastes, even as another
finds pleasure in his horse and his hounds,[9] and another in his
fighting cocks, so I too take my pleasure in good friends; and if I
have any good thing myself I teach it them, or I commend them to
others by whom I think they will be helped forwards on the path of
virtue. The treasures also of the wise of old, written and bequeathed
in their books,[10] I unfold and peruse in common with my friends. If
our eye light upon any good thing we cull it eagerly, and regard it as
great gain if we may but grow in friendship with one another.
[7] Add "and a sign of modesty," {sophrona nomizomen}.
[8] {sophistas}. See Grote, "H. G." viii. 482 foll.; "Hunting," xi.
foll.
[9] Cf. Plat. "Lys." 211 E.
[10] Cf. "Symp." iv. 27.
As I listened to this talk I could not but reflect that he, the
master, was a person to be envied, and that we, his hearers, were
being led by him to beauty and nobility of soul.
Again on some occasion the same Antiphon asked Socrates how he
expected to make politicians of others when, even if he had the
knowledge, he did not engage in politics himself.
Socrates replied: I will put to you a question, Antiphon: Which were
the more statesmanlike proceeding, to practise politics myself single-
handed, or to devote myself to making as many others as possible fit
to engage in that pursuit?
VII
Let us here turn and consider whether by deterring his associates from
quackery and false seeming he did not directly stimulate them to the
pursuit of virtue.[1] He used often to say there was no better road to
renown than the one by which a man became good at that wherein he
desired to be reputed good.[2] The truth of the concept he enforced as
follows: "Let us reflect on what a man would be driven to do who
wanted to be thought a good flute player, without really being so. He
would be forced to imitate the good flute player in the externals of
his art, would he not? and first or all, seeing that these artists
always have a splendid equipment,[3] and travel about with a long
train of attendants, he must have the same; in the next place, they
can command the plaudits of a multitude, he therefore must pack a
conclave of clackers. But one thing is clear: nothing must induce him
to give a performance, or he will be exposed at once, and find himself
a laughing-stock not only as a sorry sort of flute player, but as a
wretched imposter. And now he has a host of expenses to meet; and not
one advantage to be reaped; and worse than all his evil reputation.
What is left him but to lead a life stale and unprofitable, the scorn
and mockery of men? Let us try another case. Suppose a man wished to
be thought a good general or a good pilot, though he were really
nothing of the sort, let us picture to our minds how it will fare with
him. Of two misfortunes one: either with a strong desire to be thought
proficient in these matters, he will fail to get others to agree with
him, which will be bad enough; or he will succeed, with worse result;
since it stands to reason that anyone appointed to work a vessel or
lead an army without the requisite knowledge will speedily ruin a
number of people whom he least desires to hurt, and will make but a
sorry exit from the stage himself." Thus first by one instance and
then another would he demonstrate the unprofitableness of trying to
appear rich, or courageous, or strong, without really being the thing
pretended. "You are sure sooner or later to have commands laid upon
you beyond your power to execute, and failing just where you are
credited with capacity, the world will give you no commiseration." "I
call that man a cheat, and a great cheat too," he would say, "who gets
money or goods out of some one by persuasion, and defrauds him; but of
all imposters he surely is the biggest who can delude people into
thinking that he is fit to lead the state, when all the while he is a
worthless creature."[4]
[1] {apotrepon proutrepen}. See K. Joel, op. cit. p. 450 foll.
[2] Cf. "Cyrop." I. vi. 22.
[3] Or, "furniture of the finest," like Arion's in Herod. i. 24.
Schneid. cf. Demosth. 565. 6.
[4] Here follows the sentence [{emoi men oun edokei kai tou
alazoneuesthai apotrepein tous sunontas toiade dialegomenos}],
which, for the sake of convenience, I have attached to the first
sentence of Bk. II. ch. i. [{edokei de moi . . . ponou.}] I
believe that the commentators are right in bracketing both one and
the other as editorial interpolations.
BOOK II
I
Now, if the effect of such discourses was, as I imagine, to deter his
hearers from the paths of quackery and false-seeming,[1] so I am sure
that language like the following was calculated to stimulate his
followers to practise self-control and endurance: self-control in the
matters of eating, drinking, sleeping, and the cravings of lust;
endurance of cold and heat and toil and pain. He had noticed the undue
licence which one of his acquaintances allowed himself in all such
matters.[2] Accordingly he thus addressed him:
[1] This sentence in the Greek concludes Bk. I. There is something
wrong or very awkward in the text here.
[2] Cf. Grote, "Plato," III. xxxviii. p. 530.
Tell me, Aristippus (Socrates said), supposing you had two children
entrusted to you to educate, one of them must be brought up with an
aptitude for government, and the other without the faintest propensity
to rule--how would you educate them? What do you say? Shall we begin
our inquiry from the beginning, as it were, with the bare elements of
food and nutriment?
Ar. Yes, food to begin with, by all means, being a first principle,[3]
without which there is no man living but would perish.
[3] Aristippus plays upon the word {arkhe}.
Soc. Well, then, we may expect, may we not, that a desire to grasp
food at certain seasons will exhibit itself in both the children?
Ar. It is to be expected.
Soc. Which, then, of the two must be trained, of his own free will,[4]
to prosecute a pressing business rather than gratify the belly?
[4] {proairesis}.
Ar. No doubt the one who is being trained to govern, if we would not
have affairs of state neglected during[5] his government.
[5] Lit. "along of."
Soc. And the same pupil must be furnished with a power of holding out
against thirst also when the craving to quench it comes upon him?
Ar. Certainly he must.
Soc. And on which of the two shall we confer such self-control in
regard to sleep as shall enable him to rest late and rise early, or
keep vigil, if the need arise?
Ar. To the same one of the two must be given that endurance also.
Soc. Well, and a continence in regard to matters sexual so great that
nothing of the sort shall prevent him from doing his duty? Which of
them claims that?
Ar. The same one of the pair again.
Soc. Well, and on which of the two shall be bestowed, as a further
gift, the voluntary resolution to face toils rather than turn and flee
from them?
Ar. This, too, belongs of right to him who is being trained for
government.
Soc. Well, and to which of them will it better accord to be taught all
knowledge necessary towards the mastery of antagonists?
Ar. To our future ruler certainly, for without these parts of learning
all his other capacities will be merely waste.
Soc. [6]Will not a man so educated be less liable to be entrapped by
rival powers, and so escape a common fate of living creatures, some of
which (as we all know) are hooked through their own greediness, and
often even in spite of a native shyness; but through appetite for food
they are drawn towards the bait, and are caught; while others are
similarly ensnared by drink?
[6] [SS. 4, 5, L. Dind. ed Lips.]
Ar. Undoubtedly.
Soc. And others again are victims of amorous heat, as quails, for
instance, or partridges, which, at the cry of the hen-bird, with lust
and expectation of such joys grow wild, and lose their power of
computing dangers: on they rush, and fall into the snare of the
hunter?
Aristippus assented.
Soc. And would it not seem to be a base thing for a man to be affected
like the silliest bird or beast? as when the adulterer invades the
innermost sanctum[7] of the house, though he is well aware of the
risks which his crime involves,[8] the formidable penalties of the
law, the danger of being caught in the toils, and then suffering the
direst contumely. Considering all the hideous penalties which hang
over the adulterer's head, considering also the many means at hand to
release him from the thraldom of his passion, that a man should so
drive headlong on to the quicksands of perdition[9]--what are we to
say of such frenzy? The wretch who can so behave must surely be
tormented by an evil spirit?[10]
[7] {eis as eirktas}. The penetralia.
[8] Or, "he knows the risks he runs of suffering those penalties with
which the law threatens his crime should he fall into the snare,
and being caught, be mutilated."
[9] Or, "leap headlong into the jaws of danger."
[10] {kakodaimonontos}.
Ar. So it strikes me.
Soc. And does it not strike you as a sign of strange indifference
that, whereas the greater number of the indispensable affairs of men,
as for instance, those of war and agriculture, and more than half the
rest, need to be conducted under the broad canopy of heaven,[11] yet
the majority of men are quite untrained to wrestle with cold and heat?
[11] Or, "in the open air."
Aristippus again assented.
Soc. And do you not agree that he who is destined to rule must train
himself to bear these things lightly?
Ar. Most certainly.
Soc. And whilst we rank those who are self-disciplined in all these
matters among persons fit to rule, we are bound to place those
incapable of such conduct in the category of persons without any
pretension whatsoever to be rulers?
Ar. I assent.
Soc. Well, then, since you know the rank peculiar to either section of
mankind, did it ever strike you to consider to which of the two you
are best entitled to belong?
Yes I have (replied Aristippus). I do not dream for a moment of
ranking myself in the class of those who wish to rule. In fact,
considering how serious a business it is to cater for one's own
private needs, I look upon it as the mark of a fool not to be content
with that, but to further saddle oneself with the duty of providing
the rest of the community with whatever they may be pleased to want.
That, at the cost of much personal enjoyment, a man should put himself
at the head of a state, and then, if he fail to carry through every
jot and tittle of that state's desire, be held to criminal account,
does seem to me the very extravagance of folly. Why, bless me! states
claim to treat their rulers precisely as I treat my domestic slaves. I
expect my attendants to furnish me with an abundance of necessaries,
but not to lay a finger on one of them themselves. So these states
regard it as the duty of a ruler to provide them with all the good
things imaginable, but to keep his own hands off them all the
while.[12] So then, for my part, if anybody desires to have a heap of
pother himself,[13] and be a nuisance to the rest of the world, I will
educate him in the manner suggested, and he shall take his place among
those who are fit to rule; but for myself, I beg to be enrolled
amongst those who wish to spend their days as easily and pleasantly as
possible.
[12] Or, "but he must have no finger in the pie himself."
[13] See Kuhner ad loc.
Soc. Shall we then at this point turn and inquire which of the two are
likely to lead the pleasanter life, the rulers or the ruled?
Ar. By all means let us do so.
Soc. To begin then with the nations and races known to ourselves.[14]
In Asia the Persians are the rulers, while the Syrians, Phrygians,
Lydians are ruled; and in Europe we find the Scythians ruling, and the
Maeotians being ruled. In Africa[15] the Carthaginians are rulers, the
Libyans ruled. Which of these two sets respectively leads the happier
life, in your opinion? Or, to come nearer home--you are yourself a
Hellene--which among Hellenes enjoy the happier existence, think you,
the dominant or the subject states?
[14] Or, "the outer world, the non-Hellenic races and nationalities of
which we have any knowledge."
[15] Lit. "Libya."
Nay,[16] I would have you to understand (exclaimed Aristippus) that I
am just as far from placing myself in the ranks of slavery; there is,
I take it, a middle path between the two which it is my ambition to
tread, avoiding rule and slavery alike; it lies through freedom--the
high road which leads to happiness.
[16] Or, "Pardon me interrupting you, Socrates; but I have not the
slightest intention of placing myself." See W. L. Newman, op. cit.
i. 306.
Soc. True, if only your path could avoid human beings, as it avoids
rule and slavery, there would be something in what you say. But being
placed as you are amidst human beings, if you purpose neither to rule
nor to be ruled, and do not mean to dance attendance, if you can help
it, on those who rule, you must surely see that the stronger have an
art to seat the weaker on the stool of repentance[17] both in public
and in private, and to treat them as slaves. I daresay you have not
failed to note this common case: a set of people has sown and planted,
whereupon in comes another set and cuts their corn and fells their
fruit-trees, and in every way lays siege to them because, though
weaker, they refuse to pay them proper court, till at length they are
persuaded to accept slavery rather than war against their betters. And
in private life also, you will bear me out, the brave and powerful are
known to reduce the helpless and cowardly to bondage, and to make no
small profit out of their victims.
[17] See "Symp." iii. 11; "Cyrop." II. ii. 14; Plat. "Ion," 535 E; L.
Dindorf ad loc.
Ar. Yes, but I must tell you I have a simple remedy against all such
misadventures. I do not confine myself to any single civil community.
I roam the wide world a foreigner.
Soc. Well, now, that is a masterly stroke, upon my word![18] Of
course, ever since the decease of Sinis, and Sciron, and
Procrustes,[19] foreign travellers have had an easy time of it. But
still, if I bethink me, even in these modern days the members of free
communities do pass laws in their respective countries for self-
protection against wrong-doing. Over and above their personal
connections, they provide themselves with a host of friends; they gird
their cities about with walls and battlements; they collect armaments
to ward off evil-doers; and to make security doubly sure, they furnish
themselves with allies from foreign states. In spite of all which
defensive machinery these same free citizens do occasionally fall
victims to injustice. But you, who are without any of these aids; you,
who pass half your days on the high roads where iniquity is rife;[20]
you, who, into whatever city you enter, are less than the least of its
free members, and moreover are just the sort of person whom any one
bent on mischief would single out for attack--yet you, with your
foreigner's passport, are to be exempt from injury? So you flatter
yourself. And why? Will the state authorities cause proclamation to be
made on your behalf: "The person of this man Aristippus is secure; let
his going out and his coming in be free from danger"? Is that the
ground of your confidence? or do you rather rest secure in the
consciousness that you would prove such a slave as no master would
care to keep? For who would care to have in his house a fellow with so
slight a disposition to work and so strong a propensity to
extravagance? Suppose we stop and consider that very point: how do
masters deal with that sort of domestic? If I am not mistaken, they
chastise his wantonness by starvation; they balk his thieving
tendencies by bars and bolts where there is anything to steal; they
hinder him from running away by bonds and imprisonment; they drive the
sluggishness out of him with the lash. Is it not so? Or how do you
proceed when you discover the like tendency in one of your domestics?
[18] Or, "Well foiled!" "A masterly fall! my prince of wrestlers."
[19] For these mythical highway robbers, see Diod. iv. 59; and for
Sciron in particular, Plut. "Theseus," 10.
[20] Or, "where so many suffer wrong."
Ar. I correct them with all the plagues, till I force them to serve me
properly. But, Socrates, to return to your pupil educated in the royal
art,[21] which, if I mistake not, you hold to be happiness: how, may I
ask, will he be better off than others who lie in evil case, in spite
of themselves, simply because they suffer perforce, but in his case
the hunger and the thirst, the cold shivers and the lying awake at
nights, with all the changes he will ring on pain, are of his own
choosing? For my part I cannot see what difference it makes, provided
it is one and the same bare back which receives the stripes, whether
the whipping be self-appointed or unasked for; nor indeed does it
concern my body in general, provided it be my body, whether I am
beleaguered by a whole armament of such evils[22] of my own will or
against my will--except only for the folly which attaches to self-
appointed suffering.
[21] Cf. below, IV. ii. 11; Plat. "Statesm." 259 B; "Euthyd." 291 C;
K. Joel, op. cit. p. 387 foll. "Aristippus anticipates Adeimantus"
("Rep." 419), W. L. Newman, op. cit. i. 395.
[22] Cf. "suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune."
Soc. What, Aristippus, does it not seem to you that, as regards such
matters, there is all the difference between voluntary and involuntary
suffering, in that he who starves of his own accord can eat when he
chooses, and he who thirsts of his own free will can drink, and so for
the rest; but he who suffers in these ways perforce cannot desist from
the suffering when the humour takes him? Again, he who suffers
hardship voluntarily, gaily confronts his troubles, being buoyed on
hope[23]--just as a hunter in pursuit of wild beasts, through hope of
capturing his quarry, finds toil a pleasure--and these are but prizes
of little worth in return for their labours; but what shall we say of
their reward who toil to obtain to themselves good friends, or to
subdue their enemies, or that through strength of body and soul they
may administer their households well, befriend their friends, and
benefit the land which gave them birth? Must we not suppose that these
too will take their sorrows lightly, looking to these high ends? Must
we not suppose that they too will gaily confront existence, who have
to support them not only their conscious virtue, but the praise and
admiration of the world?[24] And once more, habits of indolence, along
with the fleeting pleasures of the moment, are incapable, as gymnastic
trainers say, of setting up[25] a good habit of body, or of implanting
in the soul any knowledge worthy of account; whereas by painstaking
endeavour in the pursuit of high and noble deeds, as good men tell us,
through endurance we shall in the end attain the goal. So Hesiod
somewhere says:[26]
Wickedness may a man take wholesale with ease, smooth is the way
and her dwelling-place is very nigh; but in front of virtue the
immortal gods have placed toil and sweat, long is the path and
steep that leads to her, and rugged at the first, but when the
summit of the pass is reached, then for all its roughness the path
grows easy.
[23] Cf. above, I. vi. 8.
[24] Or, "in admiration of themselves, the praise and envy of the
world at large."
[25] See Hippocrates, "V. Med." 18.
[26] Hesiod, "Works and Days," 285. See Plat. "Prot." 340 C; "Rep."
ii. 364 D; "Laws," iv. 718 E.
And Ephicharmus[27] bears his testimony when he says:
The gods sell us all good things in return for our labours.
[27] Epicharmus of Cos, the chief comic poet among the Dorians, fl.
500 B.C. Cf. Plat. "Theaet." 152 E, "the prince of comedy";
"Gorg." 505 D.
And again in another passage he exclaims:
Set not thine heart on soft things, thou knave, lest thou light
upon the hard.
And that wise man Prodicus[28] delivers himself in a like strain
concerning virtue in that composition of his about Heracles, which
crowds have listened to.[29] This, as far as I can recollect it, is
the substance at least of what he says:
[28] Prodicus of Ceos. See Plat. "Men." 24; "Cratyl." 1; Philostr.
"Vit. Soph." i. 12.
[29] Or, "which he is fond of reciting as a specimen of style." The
title of the {epideixis} was {'Orai} according to Suidas,
{Prodikos}.
"When Heracles was emerging from boyhood into the bloom of youth,
having reached that season in which the young man, now standing upon
the verge of independence, shows plainly whether he will enter upon
the path of virtue or of vice, he went forth into a quiet place, and
sat debating with himself which of those two paths he should pursue;
and as he there sat musing, there appeared to him two women of great
stature which drew nigh to him. The one was fair to look upon, frank
and free by gift of nature,[30] her limbs adorned with purity and her
eyes with bashfulness; sobriety set the rhythm of her gait, and she
was clad in white apparel. The other was of a different type; the
fleshy softness of her limbs betrayed her nurture, while the
complexion of her skin was embellished that she might appear whiter
and rosier than she really was, and her figure that she might seem
taller than nature made her; she stared with wide-open eyes, and the
raiment wherewith she was clad served but to reveal the ripeness of
her bloom. With frequent glances she surveyed her person, or looked to
see if others noticed her; while ever and anon she fixed her gaze upon
the shadow of herself intently.
[30] Reading {eleutherion phusei, . . .} or if {eleutherion,
phusei . . .} translate "nature had adorned her limbs . . ."
"Now when these two had drawn near to Heracles, she who was first
named advanced at an even pace[31] towards him, but the other, in her
eagerness to outstrip her, ran forward to the youth, exclaiming, 'I
see you, Heracles, in doubt and difficulty what path of life to
choose; make me your friend, and I will lead you to the pleasantest
road and easiest. This I promise you: you shall taste all of life's
sweets and escape all bitters. In the first place, you shall not
trouble your brain with war or business; other topics shall engage
your mind;[32] your only speculation, what meat or drink you shall
find agreeable to your palate; what delight[33] of ear or eye; what
pleasure of smell or touch; what darling lover's intercourse shall
most enrapture you; how you shall pillow your limbs in softest
slumber; how cull each individual pleasure without alloy of pain; and
if ever the suspicion steal upon you that the stream of joys will one
day dwindle, trust me I will not lead you where you shall replenish
the store by toil of body and trouble of soul. No! others shall
labour, but you shall reap the fruit of their labours; you shall
withhold your hand from nought which shall bring you gain. For to all
my followers I give authority and power to help themselves freely from
every side.'
[31] Or, "without change in her demeanour."
[32] Reading {diese}, or {dioisei}, "you shall continue speculating
solely."
[33] It will be recollected that Prodicus prided himself on {orthotes
onomaton}. Possibly Xenophon is imitating (caricaturing?) his
style. {terphtheies, estheies, euphrantheies}.
"Heracles hearing these words made answer: 'What, O lady, is the name
you bear?' To which she: 'Know that my friends call be Happiness, but
they that hate me have their own nicknames[34] for me, Vice and
Naughtiness.'
[34] So the vulg. {upokorizomenoi} is interpreted. Cobet ("Pros. Xen."
p. 36) suggests {upoknizomenoi} = "quippe qui desiderio
pungantur."
"But just then the other of those fair women approached and spoke:
'Heracles, I too am come to you, seeing that your parents are well
known to me, and in your nurture I have gauged your nature; wherefore
I entertain good hope that if you choose the path which leads to me,
you shall greatly bestir yourself to be the doer of many a doughty
deed of noble emprise; and that I too shall be held in even higher
honour for your sake, lit with the lustre shed by valorous deeds.[35]
I will not cheat you with preludings of pleasure,[36] but I will
relate to you the things that are according to the ordinances of God
in very truth. Know then that among things that are lovely and of good
report, not one have the gods bestowed upon mortal men apart from toil
and pains. Would you obtain the favour of the gods, then must you pay
these same gods service; would you be loved by your friends, you must
benefit these friends; do you desire to be honoured by the state, you
must give the state your aid; do you claim admiration for your virtue
from all Hellas, you must strive to do some good to Hellas; do you
wish earth to yield her fruits to you abundantly, to earth must you
pay your court; do you seek to amass riches from your flocks and
herds, on them must you bestow your labour; or is it your ambition to
be potent as a warrior, able to save your friends and to subdue your
foes, then must you learn the arts of war from those who have the
knowledge, and practise their application in the field when learned;
or would you e'en be powerful of limb and body, then must you
habituate limbs and body to obey the mind, and exercise yourself with
toil and sweat.'
[35] Or, "bathed in the splendour of thy virtues."
[36] Or, "honeyed overtures of pleasure."
"At this point, (as Prodicus relates) Vice broke in exclaiming: 'See
you, Heracles, how hard and long the road is by which yonder woman
would escort you to her festal joys.[37] But I will guide you by a
short and easy road to happiness.'
[37] Hesiod, "Theog." 909; Milton, "L'Allegro," 12.
"Then spoke Virtue: 'Nay, wretched one, what good thing hast thou? or
what sweet thing art thou acquainted with--that wilt stir neither hand
nor foot to gain it? Thou, that mayest not even await the desire of
pleasure, but, or ever that desire springs up, art already satiated;
eating before thou hungerest, and drinking before thou thirsteth; who
to eke out an appetite must invent an army of cooks and confectioners;
and to whet thy thirst must lay down costliest wines, and run up and
down in search of ice in summer-time; to help thy slumbers soft
coverlets suffice not, but couches and feather-beds must be prepared
thee and rockers to rock thee to rest; since desire for sleep in thy
case springs not from toil but from vacuity and nothing in the world
to do. Even the natural appetite of love thou forcest prematurely by
every means thou mayest devise, confounding the sexes in thy service.
Thus thou educatest thy friends: with insult in the night season and
drowse of slumber during the precious hours of the day. Immortal, thou
art cast forth from the company of gods, and by good men art
dishonoured: that sweetest sound of all, the voice of praise, has
never thrilled thine ears; and the fairest of all fair visions is
hidden from thine eyes that have never beheld one bounteous deed
wrought by thine own hand. If thou openest thy lips in speech, who
will believe thy word? If thou hast need of aught, none shall satisfy
thee. What sane man will venture to join thy rablle rout? Ill indeed
are thy revellers to look upon, young men impotent of body, and old
men witless in mind: in the heyday of life they batten in sleek
idleness, and wearily do they drag through an age of wrinkled
wretchedness: and why? they blush with shame at the thought of deeds
done in the past, and groan for weariness at what is left to do.
During their youth they ran riot through their sweet things, and laid
up for themselves large store of bitterness against the time of eld.
But my companionship is with the gods; and with the good among men my
conversation; no bounteous deed, divine or human, is wrought without
my aid. Therefore am I honoured in Heaven pre-eminently, and upon
earth among men whose right it is to honour me;[38] as a beloved
fellow-worker of all craftsmen; a faithful guardian of house and
lands, whom the owners bless; a kindly helpmeet of servants;[39] a
brave assistant in the labours of peace; an unflinching ally in the
deeds of war; a sharer in all friendships indispensable. To my friends
is given an enjoyment of meats and drinks, which is sweet in itself
and devoid of trouble, in that they can endure until desire ripens,
and sleep more delicious visits them than those who toil not. Yet they
are not pained to part with it; nor for the sake of slumber do they
let slip the performance of their duties. Among my followers the youth
delights in the praises of his elders, and the old man glories in the
honour of the young; with joy they call to memory their deeds of old,
and in to-day's well-doing are well pleased. For my sake they are dear
in the sight of God, beloved of their friends and honoured by the
country of their birth. When the appointed goal is reached they lie
not down in oblivion with dishonour, but bloom afresh--their praise
resounded on the lips of men for ever.[40] Toils like these, O son of
noble parents, Heracles, it is yours to meet with, and having endured,
to enter into the heritage assured you of transcendant happiness.'"
[38] Reading {ois prosekei}, or if {proseko}, translate "to whom I am
attached."
[39] Cf. "Econ." v. 8.
[40] Or, "so true is it, a branch is left them; undying honour to
their name!"
This, Aristippus, in rough sketch is the theme which Prodicus
pursues[41] in his "Education of Heracles by Virtue," only he decked
out his sentiments, I admit, in far more magnificant phrases than I
have ventured on. Were it not well, Aristippus, to lay to heart these
sayings, and to strive to bethink you somewhat of that which touches
the future of our life?
[41] Reading {diokei}, al. {diokei} = "so Prodicus arranged the parts
of his discourse."
II
At another time, he had noticed the angry temper shown by Lamprocles,
the elder of his sons, towards their mother, and thus addressed
himself to the lad.
Soc. Pray, my son, did you ever hear of certain people being called
ungrateful?
That I have (replied the young man).
Soc. And have you understood what it is they do to get that bad name?
Lamp. Yes, I have: when any one has been kindly treated, and has it in
his power to requite the kindness but neglects to do so, men call him
ungrateful.
Soc. And you admit that people reckon the ungrateful among wrongdoers?
Lamp. I do.
Soc. And has it ever struck you to inquire whether, as regards the
right or wrong of it, ingratitude may not perhaps resemble some such
conduct as the enslavement, say, of prisoners, which is accounted
wrong towards friends but justifiable towards enemies?
Lamp. Yes, I have put that question to myself. In my opinion, no
matter who confers the kindness, friend or foe, the recipient should
endeavour to requite it, failing which he is a wrongdoer.
Soc. Then if that is how the matter stands, ingratitude would be an
instance of pure unadulterate wrongdoing?
Lamprocles assented to the proposition.
Soc. It follows, then, that in proportion to the greatness of the
benefit conferred, the greater his misdoing who fails to requite the
kindness?
Lamprocles again assented.
Socrates continued: And where can we hope to find greater benefits
than those which children derive from their parents--their father and
mother who brought them out of nothingness into being, who granted
them to look upon all these fair sights, and to partake of all those
blessings which the gods bestow on man, things so priceless in our
eyes that one and all we shudder at the thought of leaving them, and
states have made death the penalty for the greatest crimes, because
there is no greater evil through fear of which to stay iniquity.
You do not suppose that human beings produce children for the sake of
carnal pleasure[1] merely; were this the motive, street and bordell
are full of means to quit them of that thrall; whereas nothing is
plainer than the pains we take to seek out wives who shall bear us the
finest children.[2] With these we wed, and carry on the race. The man
has a twofold duty to perform: partly in cherishing her who is to
raise up children along with him, and partly towards the children yet
unborn in providing them with things that he thinks will contribute to
their well-being--and of these as large a store as possible. The
woman, conceiving, bears her precious burthen with travail and pain,
and at the risk of life itself--sharing with that within her womb the
food on which she herself is fed. And when with much labour she has
borne to the end and brought forth her offspring, she feeds it and
watches over it with tender care--not in return for any good thing
previously received, for indeed the babe itself is little conscious of
its benefactor and cannot even signify its wants; only she, the
mother, making conjecture of what is good for it, and what will please
it, essays to satisfy it;[3] and for many months she feeds it night
and day, enduring the toil nor recking what return she shall receive
for all her trouble. Nor does the care and kindness of parents end
with nurture; but when the children seem of an age to learn, they
teach them themselves whatever cunning they possess, as a guide to
life, or where they feel that another is more competent, to him they
send them to be taught at their expense. Thus they watch over their
children, doing all in their power to enable them to grow up to be as
good as possible.
[1] Lit. "the joys of Aphrodite."
[2] "For the procreation of children." See below, IV. iv. 22; "Pol.
Lac." i.
[3] Lit. "to leave nought lacking."
So be it (the youth answered); but even if she have done all that, and
twenty times as much, no soul on earth could endure my mother's cross-
grained temper.
Then Socrates: Which, think you, would be harder to bear--a wild
beast's savagery or a mother's?
Lamp. To my mind, a mother's--at least if she be such as mine.
Soc. Dear me! And has this mother ever done you any injury--such as
people frequently receive from beasts, by bite or kick?
Lamp. If she has not done quite that, she uses words which any one
would sooner sell his life than listen to.
Soc. And how many annoyances have you caused your mother, do you
suppose, by fretfulness and peevishness in word and deed, night and
day, since you were a little boy? How much sorrow and pain, when you
were ill?
Lamp. Well, I never said or did anything to bring a blush to her
cheeks.
Soc. No, come now! Do you suppose it is harder for you to listen to
your mother's speeches than for actor to listen to actor on the tragic
stage,[4] when the floodgates of abuse are opened?
[4] See Grote, "H. G." viii. 457; Plut. "Solon," xxix.
Lamp. Yes; for the simple reason that they know it is all talk on
their parts. The inquisitor may cross-question, but he will not
inflict a fine; the threatener may hurl his menaces, but he will do no
mischief--that is why they take it all so easily.
Soc. Then ought you to fly into a passion, who know well enough that,
whatever your mother says, she is so far from meaning you mischief
that she is actually wishing blessings to descend upon you beyond all
others? Or do you believe that your mother is really ill disposed
towards you?
Lamp. No, I do not think that.
Soc. Then this mother, who is kindly disposed to you, and takes such
tender care of you when you are ill to make you well again, and to see
that you want for nothing which may help you; and, more than all, who
is perpetually pleading for blessings in your behalf and offering her
vows to Heaven[5]--can you say of her that she is cross-grained and
harsh? For my part, I think, if you cannot away with such a mother,
you cannot away with such blessings either.
[5] Or, "paying vows."
But tell me (he proceeded), do you owe service to any living being,
think you? or are you prepared to stand alone? Prepared not to please
or try to please a single soul? to follow none? To obey neither
general nor ruler of any sort? Is that your attitude, or do you admit
that you owe allegience to somebody?
Lamp. Yes; certainly I owe allegiance.
Soc. May I take it that you are willing to please at any rate your
neighbour, so that he may kindle a fire for you in your need, may
prove himself a ready helpmate in good fortune, or if you chance on
evil and are stumbling, may friendlily stand by your side to aid?
Lamp. I am willing.
Soc. Well, and what of that other chance companion--your fellow-
traveller by land or sea? what of any others, you may light upon? is
it indifferent to you whether these be friends or not, or do you admit
that the goodwill of these is worth securing by some pains on your
part?
Lamp. I do.
Soc. It stands thus then: you are prepared to pay attention to this,
that, and the other stranger, but to your mother who loves you more
than all else, you are bound to render no service, no allegiance? Do
you not know that whilst the state does not concern itself with
ordinary ingratitude or pass judicial sentence on it; whilst it
overlooks the thanklessness of those who fail to make return for
kindly treatment, it reserves its pains and penalties for the special
case? If a man render not the service and allegiance due to his
parents, on him the finger of the law is laid; his name is struck off
the roll; he is forbidden to hold the archonship--which is as much as
to say, "Sacrifices in behalf of the state offered by such a man would
be no offerings, being tainted with impiety; nor could aught else be
'well and justly' performed of which he is the doer." Heaven help us!
If a man fail to adorn the sepulchre of his dead parents the state
takes cognisance of the matter, and inquisition is made in the
scrutiny of the magistrates.[6] And as for you, my son, if you are in
your sober senses, you will earnestly entreat your mother, lest the
very gods take you to be an ungrateful being, and on their side also
refuse to do you good; and you will beware of men also, lest they
should perceive your neglect of your parents, and with one consent
hold you in dishonour;[7] and so you find yourself in a desert devoid
of friends. For if once the notion be entertained that here is a man
ungrateful to his parents, no one will believe that any kindness shown
you would be other than thrown away.
[6] Lit. "the docimasia." See Gow, "Companion," xiv.
[7] "Visiti with atimia."
III
At another time the differences between two brothers named Chaerephon
and Chaerecrates, both well known to him, had drawn his attention; and
on seeing the younger of the two he thus addresed him.
Soc. Tell me, Chaerecrates, you are not, I take it, one of those
strange people who believe that goods are better and more precious
than a brother;[1] and that too although the former are but senseless
chattels which need protection, the latter a sensitive and sensible
being who can afford it; and what is more, he is himself alone, whilst
as for them their name is legion. And here again is a marvellous
thing: that a man should count his brother a loss, because the goods
of his brother are not his; but he does not count his fellow-citizens
loss, and yet their possessions are not his; only it seems in their
case he has wits to see that to dwell securely with many and have
enough is better than to own the whole wealth of a community and to
live in dangerous isolation; but this same doctrine as applied to
brothers they ignore. Again, if a man have the means, he will purchase
domestic slaves, because he wants assistants in his work; he will
acquire friends, because he needs their support; but this brother of
his--who cares about brothers? It seems a friend may be discovered in
an ordinary citizen, but not in a blood relation who is also a
brother. And yet it is a great vantage-ground towards friendship to
have sprung from the same loins and to have been suckled at the same
breasts, since even among beasts a certain natural craving, and
sympathy springs up between creatures reared together.[2] Added to
which, a man who has brothers commands more respect from the rest of
the world than the man who has none, and who must fight his own
battles.[3]
[1] Cf. "Merchant of Venice," II. viii. 17: "Justice! the law! my
ducats, and my daughter!"
[2] Or, "a yearning after their foster-brothers manifests itself in
animals." See "Cyrop." VIII. vii. 14 foll. for a parallel to this
discussion.
[3] Lit. "and is less liable to hostility."
Chaer. I daresay, Socrates, where the differences are not profound,
reason would a man should bear with his brother, and not avoid him for
some mere trifle's sake, for a brother of the right sort is, as you
say, a blessing; but if he be the very antithesis of that, why should
a man lay his hand to achieve the impossible?
Soc. Well now, tell me, is there nobody whom Chaerephon can please any
more than he can please yourself; or do some people find him agreeable
enough?
Chaer. Nay, there you hit it. That is just why I have a right to
detest him. He can be pleasing enough to others, but to me, whenever
he appears on the scene, he is not a blessing--no! but by every manner
of means the reverse.
Soc. May it not happen that just as a horse is no gain to the inexpert
rider who essays to handle him, so in like manner, if a man tries to
deal with his brother after an ignorant fashion, this same brother
will kick?
Chaer. But is it likely now? How should I be ignorant of the art of
dealing with my brother if I know the art of repaying kind words and
good deeds in kind? But a man who tries all he can to annoy me by word
and deed, I can neither bless nor benefit, and, what is more, I will
not try.
Soc. Well now, that is a marvellous statement, Chaerecrates. Your dog,
the serviceable guardian of your flocks, who will fawn and lick the
hand of your shepherd, when you come near him can only growl and show
his teeth. Well; you take no notice of the dog's ill-temper, you try
to propitiate him by kindness; but your brother? If your brother were
what he ought to be, he would be a great blessing to you--that you
admit; and, as you further confess, you know the secret of kind acts
and words, yet you will not set yourself to apply means to make him
your best of friends.
Chaer. I am afraid, Socrates, that I have no wisdom or cunning to make
Chaerephon bear himself towards me as he should.
Soc. Yet there is no need to apply any recondite or novel machinery.
Only bait your hook in the way best known to yourself, and you will
capture him; whereupon he will become your devoted friend.
Chaer. If you are aware that I know some love-charm, Socrates, of
which I am the happy but unconscious possessor, pray make haste and
enlighten me.
Soc. Answer me then. Suppose you wanted to get some acquaintance to
invite you to dinner when he next keeps holy day,[4] what steps would
you take?
[4] "When he next does sacrifice"; see "Hiero," viii. 3. Cf. Theophr.
"Char." xv. 2, and Prof. Jebb's note ad loc.
Chaer. No doubt I should set him a good example by inviting him myself
on a like occasion.
Soc. And if you wanted to induce some friend to look after your
affairs during your absence abroad, how would you achieve your
purpose?
Chaer. No doubt I should present a precedent in undertaking to look
after his in like circumstances.
Soc. And if you wished to get some foreign friend to take you under
his roof while visiting his country, what would you do?
Chaer. No doubt I should begin by offering him the shelter of my own
roof when he came to Athens, in order to enlist his zeal in furthering
the objects of my visit; it is plain I should first show my readiness
to do as much for him in a like case.
Soc. Why, it seems you are an adept after all in all the philtres
known to man, only you chose to conceal your knowledge all the while;
or is it that you shrink from taking the first step because of the
scandal you will cause by kindly advances to your brother? And yet it
is commonly held to redound to a man's praise to have outstripped an
enemy in mischief or a friend in kindness. Now if it seemed to me that
Chaerephon were better fitted to lead the way towards this
friendship,[5] I should have tried to persuade him to take the first
step in winning your affection, but now I am persuaded the first move
belongs to you, and to you the final victory.
[5] Reading {pros ten philian}, or if {phusin}, transl. "natural
disposition."
Chaer. A startling announcement, Socrates, from your lips, and most
unlike you, to bid me the younger take precedence of my elder brother.
Why, it is contrary to the universal custom of mankind, who look to
the elder to take the lead in everything, whether as a speaker or an
actor.
Soc. How so? Is it not the custom everywhere for the younger to step
aside when he meets his elder in the street and to give him place? Is
he not expected to get up and offer him his seat, to pay him the
honour of a soft couch,[6] to yield him precedence in argument?
[6] Lit. "with a soft bed," or, as we say, "the best bedroom."
My good fellow, do not stand shilly-shallying,[7] but put out your
hand caressingly, and you will see the worthy soul will respond at
once with alacrity. Do you not note your brother's character, proud
and frank and sensitive to honour? He is not a mean and sorry rascal
to be caught by a bribe--no better way indeed for such riff-raff. No!
gentle natures need a finer treatment. You can best hope to work on
them by affection.
[7] Or, "have no fears, essay a soothing treatment."
Chaer. But suppose I do, and suppose that, for all my attempts, he
shows no change for the better?
Soc. At the worst you will have shown yourself to be a good, honest,
brotherly man, and he will appear as a sorry creature on whom kindness
is wasted. But nothing of the sort is going to happen, as I
conjecture. My belief is that as soon as he hears your challenge, he
will embrace the contest; pricked on by emulous pride, he will insist
upon getting the better of you in kindness of word and deed.
At present you two are in the condition of two hands formed by God to
help each other, but which have let go their business and have turned
to hindering one another all they can. You are a pair of feet
fashioned on the Divine plan to work together, but which have
neglected this in order to trammel each other's gait. Now is it not
insensate stupidity[8] to use for injury what was meant for advantage?
And yet in fashioning two brothers God intends them, methinks, to be
of more benefit to one another than either two hands, or two feet, or
two eyes, or any other of those pairs which belong to man from his
birth.[9] Consider how powerless these hands of ours if called upon to
combine their action at two points more than a single fathom's length
apart;[10] and these feet could not stretch asunder[11] even a bare
fathom; and these eyes, for all the wide-reaching range we claim for
them, are incapable of seeing simultaneously the back and front of an
object at even closer quarters. But a pair of brothers, linked in
bonds of amity, can work each for the other's good, though seas divide
them.[12]
[8] "Boorishness verging upon monomania."
[9] "With which man is endowed at birth."
[10] "More than an 'arms'-stretch' asunder."
[11] Lit. "reach at one stretch two objects, even over that small
distance."
[12] "Though leagues separate them."
IV
I have at another time heard him discourse on the kindred theme of
friendship in language well calculated, as it seemed to me, to help a
man to choose and also to use his friends aright.
He (Socrates) had often heard the remark made that of all possessions
there is none equal to that of a good and sincere friend; but, in
spite of this assertion, the mass of people, as far as he could see,
concerned themselves about nothing so little as the acquisition of
friends. Houses, and fields, and slaves, and cattle, and furniture of
all sorts (he said) they were at pains to acquire, and they strove
hard to keep what they had got; but to procure for themselves this
greatest of all blessings, as they admitted a friend to be, or to keep
the friends whom they already possessed, not one man in a hundred ever
gave himself a thought. It was noticeable, in the case of a sickness
befalling a man's friend and one of his own household simultaneously,
the promptness with which the master would fetch the doctor to his
domestic, and take every precaution necessary for his recovery, with
much expenditure of pains; but meanwhile little account would be taken
of the friend in like condition, and if both should die, he will show
signs of deep annoyance at the death of his domestic, which, as he
reflects, is a positive loss to him; but as regards his friend his
position is in no wise materially affected, and thus, though he would
never dream of leaving his other possessions disregarded and ill cared
for, friendship's mute appeal is met with flat indifference.[1]
[1] Or, "the cry of a friend for careful tending falls on deaf ears."
Or to take (said he) a crowning instance:[2] with regard to ordinary
possessions, however multifarious these may be, most people are at
least acquainted with their number, but if you ask a man to enumerate
his friends, who are not so very many after all perhaps, he cannot; or
if, to oblige the inquirer, he essays to make a list, he will
presently retract the names of some whom he had previously
included.[3] Such is the amount of thought which people bestow upon
their friends.
[2] Or, "Nor had he failed to observe another striking contrast." Cf.
Cic. "Lael." 17; Diog. Laert. ii. 30.
[3] i.e. "like a chess-player recalling a move."
And yet what thing else may a man call his own is comparable to this
one best possession! what rather will not serve by contrast to enhance
the value of an honest friend! Think of a horse or a yoke of oxen;
they have their worth; but who shall gauge the worth of a worthy
friend? Kindlier and more constant than the faithfullest of slaves--
this is that possession best named all-serviceable.[4] Consider what
the post is that he assigns himself! to meet and supplement what is
lacking to the welfare of his friends, to promote their private and
their public interests, is his concern. Is there need of kindly action
in any quarter? he will throw in the full weight of his support. Does
some terror confound? he is at hand to help and defend by expenditure
of money and of energy,[5] by appeals to reason or resort to force.
His the privilege alike to gladden the prosperous in the hour of
success and to sustain their footing who have well-nigh slipped. All
that the hands of a man may minister, all that the eyes of each are
swift to see, the ears to hear, and the feet to compass, he with his
helpful arts will not fall short of. Nay, not seldom that which a man
has failed to accomplish for himself, has missed seeing or hearing or
attaining, a friend acting in behalf of friend will achieve
vicariously. And yet, albeit to try and tend a tree for the sake of
its fruit is not uncommon, this copious mine of wealth--this friend--
attracts only a lazy and listless attention on the part of more than
half the world.
[4] "A vessel fit for all work indeed is this friend." Cf. Ar. "Ach."
936, {pagkhreston aggos estai}, like the "leather bottel."
[5] Or, "by dint of his diplomacy."
V
I remember listening to another argument of his, the effect of which
would be to promote self-examination. The listener must needs be
brought to ask himself, "Of what worth am I to my friends?" It
happened thus. One of those who were with him was neglectful, as he
noted, of a friend who was at the pinch of poverty (Antisthenes).[1]
Accordingly, in the presence of the negligent person and of several
others, he proceeded to question the sufferer.
[1] Antisthenes, "cynicorum et stoicorum parens." Cic. "de Or." iii.
17; "ad Att." xii. 38. See below, III. iii. 17; "Symp." passim;
Diog. Laert. II. v.; VI. i.
Soc. What say you, Antisthenes?--have friends their values like
domestic slaves? One of these latter may be worth perhaps two
minae,[2] another only half a mina, a third five, and a fourth as much
as ten; while they do say that Nicias,[3] the son of Niceratus, paid a
whole talent for a superintendent of his silver mines. And so I
propound the question to myself as follows: "Have friends, like
slaves, their market values?"
[2] A mina = L4 circ.
[3] For Nicias see Thuc. vii. 77 foll.; "Revenues," iv. 14; Plut.
"Nic." IV. v.; Lys. "de bon. Aristoph." 648.
Not a doubt of it (replied Antisthenes). At any rate, I know that I
would rather have such a one as my friend than be paid two minae, and
there is such another whose worth I would not estimate at half a mina,
and a third with whom I would not part for ten, and then again a
fourth whose friendship would be cheap if it cost me all the wealth
and pains in the world to purchase it.
Well then (continued Socrates), if that be so, would it not be well if
every one were to examine himself: "What after all may I chance to be
worth to my friends?" Should he not try to become as dear as possible,
so that his friends will not care to give him up? How often do I hear
the complaint: "My friend So-and-so has given me up"; or "Such an one,
whom I looked upon as a friend, has sacrificed me for a mina." And
every time I hear these remarks, the question arises in my mind: If
the vendor of a worthless slave is ready to part with him to a
purchaser for what he will fetch--is there not at least a strong
temptation to part with a base friend when you have a chance of making
something on the exchange? Good slaves, as far as I can see, are not
so knocked down to the hammer; no, nor good friends so lightly parted
with.
VI
Again, in reference to the test to be applied, if we would gauge the
qualifications of a friend worth the winning, the following remarks of
Socrates could not fail, I think, to prove instructive.[1]
[1] Or, "Again, as to establishing a test of character, since a friend
worth having must be of a particular type, I cannot but think that
the following remarks would prove instructive."
Tell me (said Socrates, addressing Critobulus), supposing we stood in
need of a good friend, how should we set about his discovery? We must,
in the first place, I suppose, seek out one who is master of his
appetites, not under the dominion, that is, of his belly, not addicted
to the wine-cup or to lechery or sleep or idleness, since no one
enslaved to such tyrants could hope to do his duty either by himself
or by his friends, could he?
Certainly not (Critobulus answered).
Soc. Do you agree, then, that we must hold aloof from every one so
dominated?
Cri. Most assuredly.
Well then (proceeded Socrates), what shall we say of the spendthrift
who has lost his independence and is for ever begging of his
neighbours; if he gets anything out of them he cannot repay, but if he
fails to get anything, he hates you for not giving--do you not think
that this man too would prove but a disagreeable friend?
Cri. Certainly.
Soc. Then we must keep away from him too?
Cri. That we must.
Soc. Well! and what of the man whose strength lies in monetary
transactions?[2] His one craving is to amass money; and for that
reason he is an adept at driving a hard bargain[3]--glad enough to
take in, but loath to pay out.
[2] Or, "the money-lender? He has a passion for big money-bags."
[3] Or, "hard in all his dealings."
Cri. In my opinion he will prove even a worse fellow than the last.
Soc. Well! and what of that other whose passion for money-making is so
absorbing that he has no leisure for anything else, save how he may
add to his gains?
Cri. Hold aloof from him, say I, since there is no good to be got out
of him or his society.
Soc. Well! what of the quarrelsome and factious person[4] whose main
object is to saddle his friends with a host of enemies?
[4] "The partisan."
Cri. For God's sake let us avoid him also.
Soc. But now we will imagine a man exempt indeed from all the above
defects--a man who has no objection to receive kindnesses, but it
never enters into his head to do a kindness in return.
Cri. There will be no good in him either. But, Socrates, what kind of
man shall we endeavour to make our friend? what is he like?
Soc. I should say he must be just the converse of the above: he has
control over the pleasures of the body, he is kindly disposed,[5]
upright in all his dealings,[6] very zealous is he not to be outdone
in kindness by his benefactors, if only his friends may derive some
profit from his acquaintance.
[5] Reading {eunous}, or if {euorkos}, transl. "a man of his word."
[6] Or, "easy to deal with."
Cri. But how are we to test these qualities, Socrates, before
acquaintance?
Soc. How do we test the merits of a sculptor?--not by inferences drawn
from the talk of the artist merely. No, we look to what he has already
achieved. These former statues of his were nobly executed, and we
trust he will do equally well with the rest.
Cri. You mean that if we find a man whose kindness to older friends is
established, we may take it as proved that he will treat his newer
friends as amiably?
Soc. Why, certainly, if I see a man who has shown skill in the
handling of horses previously, I argue that he will handle others no
less skilfully again.
Cri. Good! and when we have discovered a man whose friendship is worth
having, how ought we to make him our friend?
Soc. First we ought to ascertain the will of Heaven whether it be
advisable to make him our friend.
Cri. Well! and how are we to effect the capture of this friend of our
choice, whom the gods approve? will you tell me that?
Not, in good sooth (replied Socrates), by running him down like a
hare, nor by decoying him like a bird, or by force like a wild
boar.[7] To capture a friend against his will is a toilsome business,
and to bind him in fetters like a slave by no means easy. Those who
are so treated are apt to become foes instead of friends.[8]
[7] Reading {kaproi}, al. {ekhthroi}, "an enemy."
[8] Or, "Hate rather than friendship is the outcome of these methods."
Cri. But how convert them into friends?
Soc. There are certain incantations, we are told, which those who know
them have only to utter, and they can make friends of whom they list;
and there are certain philtres also which those who have the secret of
them may administer to whom they like and win their love.
Cri. From what source shall we learn them?
Soc. You need not go farther than Homer to learn that which the Sirens
sang to Odysseus,[9] the first words of which run, I think, as
follows:
Hither, come hither, thou famous man, Odysseus, great glory of the
Achaeans!
[9] "Od." xii. 184.
Cri. And did the magic words of this spell serve for all men alike?
Had the Sirens only to utter this one incantation, and was every
listener constrained to stay?
Soc. No; this was the incantation reserved for souls athirst for fame,
of virtue emulous.
Cri. Which is as much as to say, we must suit the incantation to the
listener, so that when he hears the words he shall not think that the
enchanter is laughing at him in his sleeve. I cannot certainly
conceive a method better calculated to excite hatred and repulsion
than to go to some one who knows that he is small and ugly and a
weakling, and to breathe in his ears the flattering tale that he is
beautiful and tall and stalwart. But do you know any other love-
charms, Socrates?
Soc. I cannot say that I do; but I have heard that Pericles[10] was
skilled in not a few, which he poured into the ear of our city and won
her love.
[10] See above, I. ii. 40; "Symp." viii. 39.
Cri. And how did Themistocles[11] win our city's love?
[11] See below, III. vi. 2; IV. ii. 2.
Soc. Ah, that was not by incantation at all. What he did was to
encircle our city with an amulet of saving virtue.[12]
[12] See Herod. vii. 143, "the wooden wall"; Thuc. i. 93, "'the walls'
of Athens."
Cri. You would imply, Socrates, would you not, that if we want to win
the love of any good man we need to be good ourselves in speech and
action?
And did you imagine (replied Socrates) that it was possible for a bad
man to make good friends?
Cri. Why, I could fancy I had seen some sorry speech-monger who was
fast friends with a great and noble statesman; or again, some born
commander and general who was boon companion with fellows quite
incapable of generalship.[13]
[13] Or, "Why, yes, when I see some base orator fast friends with a
great leader of the people; or, again, some fellow incapable of
generalship a comrade to the greatest captains of his age."
Soc. But in reference to the point we were discussing, may I ask
whether you know of any one who can attach a useful friend to himself
without being of use in return?[14] Can service ally in friendship
with disservice?
[14] Add, "Can service ally in friendship with disservice? Must there
not be a reciprocity of service to make friendship lasting?"
Cri. In good sooth no. But now, granted it is impossible for a base
man to be friends with the beautiful and noble,[14] I am concerned at
once to discover if one who is himself of a beautiful and noble
character can, with a wave of the hand, as it were, attach himself in
friendship to every other beautiful and noble nature.
[14] {kalous kagathous}.
Soc. What perplexes and confounds you, Critobulus, is the fact that so
often men of noble conduct, with souls aloof from baseness, are not
friends but rather at strife and discord with one another, and deal
more harshly by one another than they would by the most good-for-
nothing of mankind.
Cri. Yes, and this holds true not of private persons only, but states,
the most eager to pursue a noble policy and to repudiate a base one,
are frequently in hostile relation to one another. As I reason on
these things my heart fails me, and the question, how friends are to
be acquired, fills me with despondency. The bad, as I see, cannot be
friends with one another. For how can such people, the ungrateful, or
reckless, or covetous, or faithless, or incontinent, adhere together
as friends? Without hesitation I set down the bad as born to be foes
not friends, and as bearing the birthmark of internecine hate. But
then again, as you suggest, no more can these same people harmonise in
friendship with the good. For how should they who do evil be friends
with those who hate all evil-doing? And if, last of all, they that
cultivate virtue are torn by party strife in their struggle for the
headship of the states, envying one another, hating one another, who
are left to be friends? where shall goodwill and faithfulness be found
among men?
Soc. The fact is there is some subtlety in the texture of these
things.[15] Seeds of love are implanted in man by nature. Men have
need of one another, feel pity, help each other by united efforts, and
in recognition of the fact show mutual gratitude. But there are seeds
of war implanted also. The same objects being regarded as beautiful or
agreeable by all alike, they do battle for their possession; a spirit
of disunion[16] enters, and the parties range themselves in adverse
camps. Discord and anger sound a note of war: the passion of more-
having, staunchless avarice, threatens hostility; and envy is a
hateful fiend.[17]
[15] i.e. a cunning intertwining of the threads of warp and woof.
[16] Cf. Shelley, "The devil of disunion in their souls."
[17] The diction is poetical.
But nevertheless, through all opposing barriers friendship steals her
way and binds together the beautiful and good among mankind.[18] Such
is their virtue that they would rather possess scant means painlessly
than wield an empire won by war. In spite of hunger and thirst they
will share their meat and drink without a pang. Not bloom of lusty
youth, nor love's delights can warp their self-control; nor will they
be tempted to cause pain where pain should be unknown. It is theirs
not merely to eschew all greed of riches, not merely to make a just
and lawful distribution of wealth, but to supply what is lacking to
the needs of one another. Theirs it is to compose strife and discord
not in painless oblivion simply, but to the general advantage. Theirs
also to hinder such extravagance of anger as shall entail remorse
hereafter. And as to envy they will make a clean sweep and clearance
of it: the good things which a man possesses shall be also the
property of his friends, and the goods which they possess are to be
looked upon as his. Where then is the improbability that the beautiful
and noble should be sharers in the honours[19] of the state not only
without injury, but even to their mutual advantage?
[18] Or, as we say, "the elite of human kind."
[19] "And the offices."
They indeed who covet and desire the honours and offices in a state
for the sake of the liberty thereby given them to embezzle the public
moneys, to deal violently by their fellow-creatures, and to batten in
luxury themselves, may well be regarded as unjust and villainous
persons incapable of harmony with one another. But if a man desire to
obtain these selfsame honours in order that, being himself secure
against wrong-doing, he may be able to assist his friends in what is
right, and, raised to a high position,[20] may essay to confer some
blessing on the land of his fathers, what is there to hinder him from
working in harmony with some other of a like spirit? Will he, with the
"beautiful and noble" at his side, be less able to aid his friends? or
will his power to benfit the community be shortened because the flower
of that community are fellow-workers in that work? Why, even in the
contests of the games it is obvious that if it were possible for the
stoutest combatants to combine against the weakest, the chosen band
would come off victors in every bout, and would carry off all the
prizes. This indeed is against the rules of the actual arena; but in
the field of politics, where the beautiful and good hold empery, and
there is nought to hinder any from combining with whomsoever a man may
choose to benefit the state, it will be a clear gain, will it not, for
any one engaged in state affairs to make the best men his friends,
whereby he will find partners and co-operators in his aims instead of
rivals and antagonists? And this at least is obvious: in case of
foreign war a man will need allies, but all the more if in the ranks
opposed to him should stand the flower of the enemy.[21] Moreover,
those who are willing to fight your battles must be kindly dealt with,
that goodwill may quicken to enthusiasm; and one good man[22] is
better worth your benefiting that a dozen knaves, since a little
kindness goes a long way with the good, but with the base the more you
give them the more they ask for.
[20] "As archon," or "raised to rule."
[21] Lit. "the beautiful and good."
[22] Or, "the best, though few, are better worth your benefiting than
the many base."
So keep a good heart, Critobulus; only try to become good yourself,
and when you have attained, set to your hand to capture the beautiful
and good. Perhaps I may be able to give you some help in this quest,
being myself an adept in Love's lore.[23] No matter who it is for whom
my heart is aflame; in an instant my whole soul is eager to leap
forth. With vehemence I speed to the mark. I, who love, demand to be
loved again; this desire in me must be met by counter desire in him;
this thirst for his society by thirst reciprocal for mine. And these
will be your needs also, I foresee, whenever you are seized with
longing to contract a friendship. Do not hide from me, therefore, whom
you would choose as a friend, since, owing to the pains I take to
please him who pleases me, I am not altogether unversed, I fancy, in
the art of catching men.[24]
[23] "An authority in matters of love." Cf. Plat. "Symp." 177 D; Xen.
"Symp." viii. 2.
[24] See below, III. xi. 7; cf. Plat. "Soph." 222; N. T. Matt. iv. 19,
{alieis anthropon}.
Critobulus replied: Why, these are the very lessons of instruction,
Socrates, for which I have been long athirst, and the more
particularly if this same love's lore will enable me to capture those
who are good of soul and those who are beautiful of person.
Soc. Nay, now I warn you, Critobulus, it is not within the province of
my science to make the beautiful endure him who would lay hands upon
them. And that is why men fled from Scylla, I am persuaded, because
she laid hands upon them; but the Sirens were different--they laid
hands on nobody, but sat afar off and chanted their spells in the ears
of all; and therefore, it is said, all men endured to listen, and were
charmed.
Cri. I promise I will not lay violent hands on any; therefore, if you
have any good device for winning friends, instruct your pupil.
Soc. And if there is to be no laying on of the hands, there must be no
application either of the lips; is it agreed?
Cri. No, nor application of the lips to any one--not beautiful.
Soc. See now! you cannot open your mouth without some luckless
utterence. Beauty suffers no such liberty, however eagerly the ugly
may invite it, making believe some quality of soul must rank them with
the beautiful.
Cri. Be of good cheer then; let the compact stand thus: "Kisses for
the beautiful, and for the good a rain of kisses." So now teach us the
art of catching friends.
Soc. Well then, when you wish to win some one's affection, you will
allow me to lodge information against you to the effect that you
admire him and desire to be his friend?
Cri. Lodge the indictment, with all my heart. I never heard of any one
who hated his admirers.
Soc. And if I add to the indictment the further charge that through
your admiration you are kindly disposed towards him, you will not feel
I am taking away your character?
Cri. Why, no; for myself I know a kindly feeling springs up in my
heart towards any one whom I conceive to be kindly disposed to me.
Soc. All this I shall feel empowered to say about you to those whose
friendship you seek, and I can promise further help; only there is a
comprehensive "if" to be considered: if you will further authorise me
to say that you are devoted to your friends; that nothing gives you so
much joy as a good friend; that you pride yourself no less on the fine
deeds of those you love than on your own; and on their good things
equally with your own; that you never weary of plotting and planning
to procure them a rich harvest of the same; and lastly, that you have
discovered a man's virtue is to excel his friends in kindness and his
foes in hostility. If I am authorised thus to report of you, I think
you will find me a serviceable fellow-hunter in the quest of friends,
which is the conquest of the good.
Cri. Why this appeal to me?--as if you had not free permission to say
exactly what you like about me.
Soc. No; that I deny, on the authority of Aspasia.[25] I have it from
her own lips. "Good matchmakers," she said tome, "were clever hands at
cementing alliances between people, provided the good qualities they
vouched for were truthfully reported; but when it came to their
telling lies, for her part she could not compliment them.[26] Their
poor deluded dupes ended by hating each other and the go-betweens as
well." Now I myself am so fully persuaded of the truth of this that I
feel it is not in my power to say aught in your praise which I cannot
say with truth.
[25] Aspasia, daughter of Axiochus, of Miletus. See "Econ." iii. 14;
Plat. "Menex." 235 E; Aesch. Socrat. ap. Cic. "de Invent." I.
xxxi. 51. See Grote, "H. G." vi. 132 foll.; Cobet, "Pros. Xen."
[26] Reading {ouk ethelein epainein}, or if {ouk ophelein epainousas}
with Kuhner transl. "Good matchmakers, she told me, have to
consult truth when reporting favourably of any one: then indeed
they are terribly clever at bringing people together: whereas
false flatterers do no good; their dupes," etc.
Cri. Really, Socrates, you are a wonderfully good friend to me--in so
far as I have any merit which will entitle me to win a friend, you
will lend me a helping hand, it seems; otherwise you would rather not
forge any petty fiction for my benefit.
Soc. But tell me, how shall I assist you best, think you? By praising
you falsely or by persuading you to try to be a good man? Or if it is
not plain to you thus, look at the matter by the light of some
examples. I wish to introduce you to a shipowner, or to make him your
friend: I begin by singing your praises to him falsely thus, "You will
find him a good pilot"; he catches at the phrase, and entrusts his
ship to you, who have no notion of guiding a vessel. What can you
expect but to make shipwreck of the craft and yourself together? or
suppose by similar false assertions I can persuade the state at large
to entrust her destinies to you--"a man with a fine genius for
command," I say, "a practised lawyer," "a politician born," and so
forth. The odds are, the state and you may come to grief through you.
Or to take an instance from everyday life. By my falsehoods I persuade
some private person to entrust his affairs to you as "a really careful
and business-like person with a head for economy." When put to the
test would not your administration prove ruinous, and the figure you
cut ridiculous? No, my dear friend, there is but one road, the
shortest, safest, best, and it is simply this: In whatsoever you
desire to be deemed good, endeavour to be good. For of all the virtues
namable among men, consider, and you will find there is not one but
may be increased by learning and practice. For my part then,
Critobulus, these are the principles on which we ought to go a-
hunting; but if you take a different view, I am all attention, please
instruct me.
Then Critobulus: Nay, Socrates, I should be ashamed to gainsay what
you have said; if I did, it would neither be a noble statement nor a
true.[27]
[27] {kala . . . alethe}.
VII
He had two ways of dealing with the difficulties of his friends: where
ignorance was the cause, he tried to meet the trouble by a dose of
common sense; or where want and poverty were to blame, by lessoning
them that they should assist one another according to their ability;
and here I may mention certain incidents which occurred within my own
knowledge. How, for instance, he chanced upon Aristarchus wearing the
look of one who suffered from a fit of the "sullens," and thus
accosted him.
Soc. You seem to have some trouble on your mind, Aristarchus; if so,
you should share it with your friends. Perhaps together we might
lighten the weight of it a little.
Aristarchus answered: Yes, Socrates, I am in sore straits indeed. Ever
since the party strife declared itself in the city,[1] what with the
rush of people to Piraeus, and the wholesale banishments, I have been
fairly at the mercy of my poor deserted female relatives. Sisters,
nieces, cousins, they have all come flocking to me for protection. I
have fourteen free-born souls, I tell you, under my single roof, and
how are we to live? We can get nothing out of the soil--that is in the
hands of the enemy; nothing from my house property, for there is
scarcely a living soul left in the city; my furniture? no one will buy
it; money? there is none to be borrowed--you would have a better
chance to find it by looking for it on the road than to borrow it from
a banker. Yes, Socrates, to stand by and see one's relatives die of
hunger is hard indeed, and yet to feed so many at such a pinch
impossible.
[1] i.e. circa 404-403 B.C. See "Hell." II. iv.
After he listened to the story, Socrates asked: How comes it that
Ceramon,[2] with so many mouths to feed, not only contrives to furnish
himself and them with the necessaries of life, but to realise a
handsome surplus, whilst you being in like plight[3] are afraid you
will one and all perish of starvation for want of the necessaries of
life?
[2] An employer of labour, apparently, on a grand scale.
[3] Lit. "with your large family to feed." L. Dindorf would like to
read {su de oligous}, "you with your small family."
Ar. Why, bless your soul, do you not see he has only slaves and I have
free-born souls to feed?
Soc. And which should you say were the better human beings, the free-
born members of your household or Ceramon's slaves?
Ar. The free souls under my roof without a doubt.
Soc. Is it not a shame, then, that he with his baser folk to back him
should be in easy circumstances, while you and your far superior
household are in difficulties?
Ar. To be sure it is, when he has only a set of handicraftsmen to
feed, and I my liberally-educated household.
Soc. What is a handicraftsman? Does not the term apply to all who can
make any sort of useful product or commodity?
Ar. Certainly.
Soc. Barley meal is a useful product, is it not?
Ar. Pre-eminently so.
Soc. And loaves of bread?
Ar. No less.
Soc. Well, and what do you say to cloaks for men and for women--
tunics, mantles, vests?[4]
[4] For these articles of dress see Becker's "Charicles," Exc. i. to
Sc. xi. "Dress."
Ar. Yes, they are all highly useful commodities.
Soc. Then your household do not know how to make any of these?
Ar. On the contrary, I believe they can make them all.
Soc. Then you are not aware that by means of the manufacture of one of
these alone--his barley meal store--Nausicydes[5] not only maintains
himself and his domestics, but many pigs and cattle besides, and
realises such large profits that he frequently contributes to the
state benevolences;[6] while there is Cyrebus, again, who, out of a
bread factory, more than maintains the whole of his establishment, and
lives in the lap of luxury; and Demeas of Collytus gets a livelihood
out of a cloak business, and Menon as a mantua-maker, and so, again,
more than half the Megarians[7] by the making of vests.
[5] Nausicydes. Cobet, "Pros. Xen." cf. Aristoph. "Eccles." 426.
[6] Lit. "state liturgies," or "to the burden of the public services."
For these see Gow, "Companion," xviii. "Athenian Finance."
[7] Cf. Arist. "Acharnians," 519, {esukophantei Megareon ta
khlaniskia}. See Dr. Merry's note ad loc.
Ar. Bless me, yes! They have got a set of barbarian fellows, whom they
purchase and keep, to manufacture by forced labour whatever takes
their fancy. My kinswomen, I need not tell you, are free-born ladies.
Soc. Then, on the ground that they are free-born and your kinswomen,
you think that they ought to do nothing but eat and sleep? Or is it
your opinion that people who live in this way--I speak of free-born
people in general--lead happier lives, and are more to be
congratulated, than those who give their time and attention to such
useful arts of life as they are skilled in? Is this what you see in
the world, that for the purpose of learning what it is well to know,
and of recollecting the lessons taught, or with a view to health and
strength of body, or for the sake of acquiring and preserving all that
gives life its charm, idleness and inattention are found to be
helpful, whilst work and study are simply a dead loss? Pray, when
those relatives of yours were taught what you tell me they know, did
they learn it as barren information which they would never turn to
practical account, or, on the contrary, as something with which they
were to be seriously concerned some day, and from which they were to
reap advantage? Do human beings in general attain to well-tempered
manhood by a course of idling, or by carefully attending to what will
be of use? Which will help a man the more to grow in justice and
uprightness, to be up and doing, or to sit with folded hands revolving
the ways and means of existence? As things now stand, if I am not
mistaken, there is no love lost between you. You cannot help feeling
that they are costly to you, and they must see that you find them a
burthen? This is a perilous state of affairs, in which hatred and
bitterness have every prospect of increasing, whilst the pre-existing
bond of affection[8] is likely to be snapped.
[8] Or, "the original stock of kindliness will be used up."
But now, if only you allow them free scope for their energies, when
you come to see how useful they can be, you will grow quite fond of
them, and they, when they perceive that they can please you, will
cling to their benefactor warmly. Thus, with the memory of former
kindnesses made sweeter, you will increase the grace which flows from
kindnesses tenfold; you will in consequence be knit in closer bonds of
love and domesticity. If, indeed, they were called upon to do any
shameful work, let them choose death rather than that; but now they
know, it would seem, the very arts and accomplishments which are
regarded as the loveliest and the most suitable for women; and the
things which we know, any of us, are just those which we can best
perform, that is to say, with ease and expedition; it is a joy to do
them, and the result is beautiful.[9] Do not hesitate, then, to
initiate your friends in what will bring advantage to them and you
alike; probably they will gladly respond to your summons.
[9] Or, "with ease, rapidity, pleasure and effect."
Well, upon my word (Aristarchus answered), I like so well what you
say, Socrates, that though hitherto I have not been disposed to
borrow, knowing that when I had spent what I got I should not be in a
condition to repay, I think I can now bring myself to do so in order
to raise a fund for these works.
Thereupon a capital was provided; wools were purchased; the good man's
relatives set to work, and even whilst they breakfasted they worked,
and on and on till work was ended and they supped. Smiles took the
place of frowns; they no longer looked askance with suspicion, but
full into each other's eyes with happiness. They loved their kinsman
for his kindness to them. He became attached to them as helpmates; and
the end of it all was, he came to Socrates and told him with delight
how matters fared; "and now," he added, "they tax me with being the
only drone in the house, who sit and eat the bread of idleness."
To which Socrates: Why do not you tell them the fable of the dog?[10]
Once on a time, so goes the story, when beasts could speak, the sheep
said to her master, "What a marvel is this, master, that to us, your
own sheep, who provide you with fleeces and lambs and cheese, you give
nothing, save only what we may nibble off earth's bosom; but with this
dog of yours, who provides you with nothing of the sort, you share the
very meat out of your mouth." When the dog heard these words, he
answered promptly, "Ay, in good sooth, for is it not I who keep you
safe and sound, you sheep, so that you are not stolen by man nor
harried by wolves; since, if I did not keep watch over you, you would
not be able so much as to graze afield, fearing to be destroyed." And
so, says the tale, the sheep had to admit that the dog was rightly
preferred to themselves in honour. And so do you tell your flock
yonder that like the dog in the fable you are their guardian and
overseer, and it is thanks to you that they are protected from evil
and evildoers, so that they work their work and live their lives in
blissful security.
[10] See Joseph Jacobs, "The Fables of Aesop," vol. i. p. 26 foll.,
for "a complete list of the Fables given in Greek literature up to
the fall of Greek independence." Cf. Hesiod, "Works and Days," 202
foll.; Archilochus, 89 (60), Bergk; Herod. i. 141; Aesch.
"Myrmid." fr. 123; Aristot. "Rhet." II. xx.
VIII
At another time chancing upon an old friend whom he had not seen for a
long while, he greeted him thus.
Soc. What quarter of the world do you hail from, Eutherus?
The other answered: From abroad, just before the close of the war; but
at present from the city itself.[1] You see, since we have been
denuded of our possessions across the frontier,[2] and my father left
me nothing in Attica, I must needs bide at home, and provide myself
with the necessaries of life by means of bodily toil, which seems
preferable to begging from another, especially as I have no security
on which to raise a loan.
[1] Lit. "from here." The conversation perhaps takes place in Piraeus
404 B.C.
[2] Or, "colonial possession." Cf. "Symp." iv. 31.
Soc. And how long do you expect your body to be equal to providing the
necessaries of life for hire?
Euth. Goodness knows, Socrates--not for long.
Soc. And when you find yourself an old man, expenses will not
diminish, and yet no one will care to pay you for the labour of your
hands.
Euth. That is true.
Soc. Would it not be better then to apply yourself at once to such
work as will stand you in good stead when you are old--that is,
address yourself to some large proprietor who needs an assistant in
managing his estate?[3] By superintending his works, helping to get in
his crops, and guarding his property in general, you will be a benefit
to the estate and be benefited in return.
[3] Cf. "Cyrop." VIII. iii. 48.
I could not endure the yoke of slavery, Socrates! (he exclaimed).
Soc. And yet the heads of departments in a state are not regarded as
adopting the badge of slavery because they manage the public property,
but as having attained a higher degree of freedom rather.
Euth. In a word, Socrates, the idea of being held to account to
another is not at all to my taste.
Soc. And yet, Eutherus, it would be hard to find a work which did not
involve some liability to account; in fact it is difficult to do
anything without some mistake or other, and no less difficult, if you
should succeed in doing it immaculately, to escape all unfriendly
criticism. I wonder now whether you find it easy to get through your
present occupations entirely without reproach. No? Let me tell you
what you should do. You should avoid censorious persons and attach
yourself to the considerate and kind-hearted, and in all your affairs
accept with a good grace what you can and decline what you feel you
cannot do. Whatever it be, do it heart and soul, and make it your
finest work.[4] There lies the method at once to silence fault-finders
and to minister help to your own difficulties. Life will flow
smoothly, risks will be diminished, provision against old age secured.
[4] Or, "study to make it your finest work, the expression of a real
enthusiasm."
IX
At another time, as I am aware, he had heard a remark made by Crito[1]
that life at Athens was no easy matter for a man who wished to mind
his own affairs.
[1] Crito. See above, I. ii. 48; Cobet, "P. X."; cf. Plat. "Rep."
viii. 549 C.
As, for instance, at this moment (Crito proceeded) there are a set of
fellows threatening me with lawsuits, not because they have any
misdemeanour to allege against me, but simply under the conviction
that I will sooner pay a sum of money than be troubled further.
To which Socrates replied: Tell me, Crito, you keep dogs, do you not,
to ward off wolves from your flocks?
Cr. Certainly; it pays to do so.
Soc. Then why do you not keep a watchman willing and competent to ward
off this pack of people who seek to injure you?
I should not at all mind (he answered), if I were not afraid he might
turn again and rend his keeper.
What! (rejoined Socrates), do you not see that to gratify a man like
yourself is far pleasanter as a matter of self-interest than to
quarrel with you? You may be sure there are plenty of people here who
will take the greatest pride in making you their friend.
Accordingly, they sought out Archedemus,[2] a practical man with a
clever tongue in his head[3] but poor; the fact being, he was not the
sort to make gain by hook or by crook, but a lover of honesty and of
too good a nature himself to make his living as a pettifogger.[4]
Crito would then take the opportunity of times of harvesting and put
aside small presents for Achedemus of corn and oil, or wine, or wool,
or any other of the farm produce forming the staple commodities of
life, or he would invite him to a sacrificial feast, and otherwise pay
him marked attention. Archedemus, feeling that he had in Crito's house
a harbour of refuge, could not make too much of his patron, and ere
long he had hunted up a long list of iniquities which could be lodged
against Crito's pettifogging persecutors themselves, and not only
their numerous crimes but their numerous enemies; and presently he
prosecuted one of them in a public suit, where sentence would be given
against him "what to suffer or what to pay."[5] The accused, conscious
as he was of many rascally deeds, did all he could to be quit of
Archedemus, but Archedemus was not to be got rid of. He held on until
he had made the informer not only loose his hold of Crito but pay
himself a sum of money; and now that Archedemus had achieved this and
other similar victories, it is easy to guess what followed.[6] It was
just as when some shepherd has got a very good dog, all the other
shepherds wish to lodge their flocks in his neighbourhood that they
too may reap the benefit of him. So a number of Crito's friends came
begging him to allow Archedemus to be their guardian also, and
Archedemus was overjoyed to do something to gratify Crito, and so it
came about that not only Crito abode in peace, but his friends
likewise. If any of those people with whom Archedemus was not on the
best of terms were disposed to throw it in his teeth that he accepted
his patron's benefits and paid in flatteries, he had a ready retort:
"Answer me this question--which is the more scandalous, to accept
kindnesses from honest folk and to repay them, with the result that I
make such people my friends but quarrel with knaves, or to make
enemies of honourable gentlemen[7] by attempts to do them wrong, with
the off-chance indeed of winning the friendship of some scamps in
return for my co-operation, but the certainty of losing in the tone of
my acquaintances?"[8]
[2] Archedemus, possibly the demagogue, "Hell." I. vii. 2. So Cobet,
"P. X.," but see Grote, "H. G." viii. 245.
[3] Lit. "very capable of speech and action"--the writer's favourite
formula for the well-trained Athenian who can speak fluently and
reason clearly, and act energetically and opportunely.
[4] Reading {kai euphuesteros on} [or {e os}] . . . {apo sukophanton}
[or {sukophantion}], after Cobet, "P. X." s.v. Archedemus. The
MSS. give {kai ephe raston einai}--"nothing is easier," he said,
"than recovering from sycophants."
[5] For this formula cf. "Econ." vi. 24. Cf. Plat. "Statesm." 299 A.
[6] {ede tote}. Cf. Plat. "Laws," vi. 778 C.
[7] Lit. the {kaloi kagathoi}, which like {khrestous} and {ponerous}
has a political as well as an ethical meaning.
[8] Lit. "must associate with these (the {ponerois}) instead of those
(the {kalois te kagathois}).
The net result of the whole proceedings was that Archedemus was now
Crito's right hand,[9] and by the rest of Crito's friends he was held
in honour.
[9] He was No. 1--{eis}.
X
Again I may cite, as known to myself,[1] the following discussion; the
arguments were addressed to Diodorus, one of his companions. The
master said:
[1] Or, "for which I can personally vouch."
Tell me, Diodorus, if one of your slaves runs away, are you at pains
to recover him?
More than that (Diodorus answered), I summon others to my aid and I
have a reward cried for his recovery.
Soc. Well, if one of your domestics is sick, do you tend him and call
in the doctors to save his life?
Diod. Decidedly I do.
Soc. And if an intimate acquaintance who is far more precious to you
than any of your household slaves is about to perish of want, you
would think it incumbent on you to take pains to save his life? Well!
now you know without my telling you that Hermogenes[2] is not made of
wood or stone. If you helped him he would be ashamed not to pay you in
kind. And yet--the opportunity of possessing a willing, kindly, and
trusty assistant well fitted to do your bidding, and not merely that,
but capable of originating useful ideas himself, with a certain
forecast of mind and judgment--I say such a man is worth dozens of
slaves. Good economists tell us that when a precious article may be
got at a low price we ought to buy. And nowadays when times are so bad
it is possible to get good friends exceedingly cheap.
[2] Hermogenes, presumably the son of Hipponicus. See I. ii. 48.
Diodorus answered: You are quite right, Socrates; bid Hermogenes come
to me.
Soc. Bid Hermogenes come to you!--not I indeed! since for aught I can
understand you are no better entitled to summon him that to go to him
yourself, nor is the advantage more on his side than your own.
Thus Diodorus went off in a trice to seek Hermogenes, and at no great
outlay won to himself a friend--a friend whose one concern it now was
to discover how, by word or deed, he might help and gladden Diodorus.
BOOK III
I
Aspirants to honour and distinction[1] derived similar help from
Socrates, who in each case stimulated in them a persevering assiduity
towards their several aims, as the following narratives tend to show.
He had heard on one occasion of the arrival in Athens of
Dionysodorus,[2] who professed to teach the whole duty of a
general.[3] Accordingly he remarked to one of those who were with him
--a young man whose anxiety to obtain the office of Strategos[4] was
no secret to him:
[1] {ton kalon} = everything which the {kalos te kagathos} should aim
at, but especially the honourable offices of state such as the
Archonship, Strategia, Hipparchia, etc. See Plat. "Laches."
[2] Dionysodorus of Chios, presumably. See Plat. "Euthyd." 271 C foll.
[3] A professor of the science and art of strategy.
[4] Lit. "that honour," sc. the Strategia.
Soc. It would be monstrous on the part of any one who sought to become
a general[5] to throw away the slightest opportunity of learning the
duties of the office. Such a person, I should say, would deserve to be
fined and punished by the state far more than the charlatan who
without having learnt the art of a sculptor undertakes a contract to
carve a statue. Considering that the whole fortunes of the state are
entrusted to the general during a war, with all its incidental peril,
it is only reasonable to anticipate that great blessings or great
misfortunes will result in proportion to the success or bungling of
that officer. I appeal to you, young sir, do you not agree that a
candidate who, while taking pains to be elected neglects to learn the
duties of the office, would richly deserve to be fined?
[5] i.e. "head of the war department, and commander-in-chief," etc.
With arguments like these he persuaded the young man to go and take
lessons. After he had gone through the course he came back, and
Socrates proceeded playfully to banter him.
Soc. Behold our young friend, sirs, as Homer says of Agamemnon, of
mein majestical,[6] so he; does he not seem to move more majestically,
like one who has studied to be a general? Of course, just as a man who
has learned to play the harp is a harper, even if he never touch the
instrument, or as one who has studied medicine is a physician, though
he does not practise, so our friend here from this time forward is now
and ever shall be a general, even though he does not receive a vote at
the elections. But the dunce who has not the science is neither
general nor doctor, no, not even if the whole world appointed him. But
(he proceeded, turning to the youth), in case any of us should ever
find ourselves captain or colonel[7] under you, to give us some
smattering of the science of war, what did the professor take as the
starting-point of his instruction in generalship? Please inform us.
[6] "Il." iii. 169, 170.
[7] Or, "brigadier or captain," lit. taxiarch or lochagos.
Then the young man: He began where he ended; he taught me tactics[8]--
tactics and nothing else.
[8] Cf. "Cyrop." I. vi. 12 foll.; VIII. v. 15.
Yet surely (replied Socrates) that is only an infinitisemal part of
generalship. A general[9] must be ready in furnishing the material of
war: in providing the commissariat for his troops; quick in devices,
he must be full of practical resource; nothing must escape his eye or
tax his endurance; he must be shrewd, and ready of wit, a combination
at once of clemency and fierceness, of simplicity and of insidious
craft; he must play the part of watchman, of robber; now prodigal as a
spendthrift, and again close-fisted as a miser, the bounty of his
munificence must be equalled by the narrowness of his greed;
impregnable in defence, a very dare-devil in attack--these and many
other qualities must he possess who is to make a good general and
minister of war; they must come to him by gift of nature or through
science. No doubt it is a grand thing also to be a tactician, since
there is all the difference in the world between an army properly
handled in the field and the same in disorder; just as stones and
bricks, woodwork and tiles, tumbled together in a heap are of no use
at all, but arrange them in a certain order--at bottom and atop
materials which will not crumble or rot, such as stones and earthen
tiles, and in the middle between the two put bricks and woodwork, with
an eye to architectural principle,[10] and finally you get a valuable
possession--to wit, a dwelling-place.
[9] A strategos. For the duties and spheres of action of this officer,
see Gow, op. cit. xiv. 58.
[10] "As in the building of a house." See Vitrivius, ii. 3; Plin. xxv.
14.
The simile is very apt, Socrates[11] (replied the youth), for in
battle, too, the rule is to draw up the best men in front and rear,
with those of inferior quality between, where they may be led on by
the former and pushed on by the hinder.
[11] Cf. "Il." iv. 297 foll.; "Cyrop." VI. iii. 25; Polyb. x. 22.
Soc. Very good, no doubt, if the professor taught you to distinguish
good and bad; but if not, where is the use of your learning? It would
scarcely help you, would it, to be told to arrange coins in piles, the
best coins at top and bottom and the worst in the middle, unless you
were first taught to distinguish real from counterfeit.
The Youth. Well no, upon my word, he did not teach us that, so that
the task of distinguishing between good and bad must devolve on
ourselves.
Soc. Well, shall we see, then, how we may best avoid making blunders
between them?
I am ready (replied the youth).
Soc. Well then! Let us suppose we are marauders, and the task imposed
upon us is to carry off some bullion; it will be a right disposition
of our forces if we place in the vanguard those who are the greediest
of gain?[12]
[12] "Whose fingers itch for gold."
The Youth. I should think so.
Soc. Then what if there is danger to be faced? Shall the vanguard
consist of men who are greediest of honour?
The Youth. It is these, at any rate, who will face danger for the sake
of praise and glory.[13] Fortunately such people are not hid away in a
corner; they shine forth conspicuous everywhere, and are easy to be
discovered.
[13] Cf. Shakesp. "seeking the bubble reputation even in the cannon's
mouth."
Soc. But tell me, did he teach you how to draw up troops in general,
or specifically where and how to apply each particular kind of
tactical arrangement?
The Youth. Nothing of the sort.
Soc. And yet there are and must be innumerable circumstances in which
the same ordering of march or battle will be out of place.
The Youth. I assure you he did not draw any of these fine
distinctions.
He did not, did not he? (he answered). Bless me! Go back to him again,
then, and ply him with questions; if he really has the science, and is
not lost to all sense of shame, he will blush to have taken your money
and then to have sent you away empty.
II
At another time he fell in with a man who had been chosen general and
minister of war, and thus accosted him.
Soc. Why did Homer, think you, designate Agamemnon "shepherd of the
peoples"?[1] Was it possibly to show that, even as a shepherd must
care for his sheep and see that they are safe and have all things
needful, and that the objects of their rearing be secured, so also
must a general take care that his soldiers are safe and have their
supplies, and attain the objects of their soldiering? Which last is
that they may get the mastery of their enemies, and so add to their
own good fortune and happiness; or tell me, what made him praise
Agamemnon, saying--
He is both a good king and a warrior bold?[2]
Did he mean, perhaps, to imply that he would be a 'warrior bold,' not
merely in standing alone and bravely battling against the foe, but as
inspiring the whole of his host with like prowess; and by a 'good
king,' not merely one who should stand forth gallantly to protect his
own life, but who should be the source of happiness to all over whom
he reigns? Since a man is not chosen king in order to take heed to
himself, albeit nobly, but that those who chose him may attain to
happiness through him. And why do men go soldiering except to
ameliorate existence?[3] and to this end they choose their generals
that they may find in them guides to the goal in question. He, then,
who undertakes that office is bound to procure for those who choose
him the thing they seek for. And indeed it were not easy to find any
nobler ambition than this, or aught ignobler than its opposite.
[1] "Il." ii. 243. "The People's Paster," Chapman.
[2] "Il." iii. 179; cf. "Symp." iv. 6. A favourite line of Alexander
the Great's, it is said.
[3] Of, "that life may reach some flower of happiness."
After such sort he handled the question, what is the virtue of a good
leader? and by shredding off all superficial qualities, laid bare as
the kernel of the matter that it is the function of every leader to
make those happy whom he may be called upon to lead.[4]
[4] Cf. Plat. "Rep." 342.
III
The following conversation with a youth who had just been elected
hipparch[1] (or commandant of cavalry), I can also vouch for.[2]
[1] Cf. "Hipparch."
[2] Lit. "I know he once held."
Soc. Can you tell us what set you wishing to be a general of cavalry,
young sir? What was your object? I suppose it was not simply to ride
at the head of the "knights," an honour not denied to the mounted
archers,[3] who ride even in front of the generals themselves?
[3] Lit. "Hippotoxotai." See Boeckh, "P. E. A." II. xxi. p. 264 (Eng.
tr.)
Hipp. You are right.
Soc. No more was it for the sake merely of public notoriety, since a
madman might boast of that fatal distinction.[4]
[4] Or, "as we all know, 'Tom Fool' can boast," etc.
Hipp. You are right again.
Soc. Is this possibly the explanation? you think to improve the
cavalry--your aim would be to hand it over to the state in better
condition than you find it; and, if the cavalry chanced to be called
out, you at their head would be the cause of some good thing to
Athens?
Hipp. Most certainly.
Soc. Well, and a noble ambition too, upon my word--if you can achieve
your object. The command to which you are appointed concerns horses
and riders, does it not?
Hipp. It does, no doubt.
Soc. Come then, will you explain to us first how you propose to
improve the horses.
Hipp. Ah, that will scarcely form part of my business, I fancy. Each
trooper is personally responsible for the condition of his horse.
Soc. But suppose, when they present themselves and their horses,[5]
you find that some have brought beasts with bad feet or legs or
otherwise infirm, and others such ill-fed jades that they cannot keep
up on the march; others, again, brutes so ill broken and unmanageable
that they will not keep their place in the ranks, and others such
desperate plungers that they cannot be got to any place in the ranks
at all. What becomes of your cavalry force then? How will you charge
at the head of such a troop, and win glory for the state?
[5] For this phrase, see Schneider and Kuhner ad loc.
Hipp. You are right. I will try to look after the horses to my utmost.
Soc. Well, and will you not lay your hand to improve the men
themselves?
Hipp. I will.
Soc. The first thing will be to make them expert in mounting their
chargers?
Hipp. That certainly, for if any of them were dismounted he would then
have a better chance of saving himself.
Soc. Well, but when it comes to the hazard of engagement, what will
you do then? Give orders to draw the enemy down to the sandy ground[6]
where you are accustomed to manouvre, or endeavour beforehand to put
your men through their practice on ground resembling a real
battlefield?
[6] e.g. the hippodrome at Phaleron.
Hipp. That would be better, no doubt.
Soc. Well, shall you regard it as a part of your duty to see that as
many of your men as possible can take aim and shoot on horseback?[7]
[7] Cf. "Hipparch," i. 21.
Hipp. It will be better, certainly.
Soc. And have you thought how to whet the courage of your troopers? to
kindle in them rage to meet the enemy?--which things are but
stimulants to make stout hearts stouter?
Hipp. If I have not done so hitherto, I will try to make up for lost
time now.
Soc. And have you troubled your head at all to consider how you are to
secure the obedience of your men? for without that not one particle of
good will you get, for all your horses and troopers so brave and so
stout.
Hipp. That is a true saying; but how, Socrates, should a man best
bring them to this virtue?[8]
[8] {protrepsasthai}. See above, I. ii. 64; below, IV. v. 1.
Soc. I presume you know that in any business whatever, people are more
apt to follow the lead of those whom they look upon as adepts; thus in
case of sickness they are readiest to obey him whom they regard as the
cleverest physician; and so on a voyage the most skilful pilot; in
matters agricultural the best farmer, and so forth.
Hipp. Yes, certainly.
Soc. Then in this matter of cavalry also we may reasonably suppose
that he who is looked upon as knowing his business best will command
the readiest obedience.
Hipp. If, then, I can prove to my troopers that I am better than all
of them, will that suffice to win their obedience?
Soc. Yes, if along with that you can teach them that obedience to you
brings greater glory and surer safety to themselves.
Hipp. How am I to teach them that?
Soc. Upon my word! How are you to teach them that? Far more easily, I
take it, than if you had to teach them that bad things are better than
good, and more advantageous to boot.
Hipp. I suppose you mean that, besides his other qualifications a
commandant of cavalry must have command of speech and argument?[9]
[9] Or, "practise the art of oratory"; "express himself clearly and
rationally." See Grote, "H. G." VIII. lxvii. p. 463 note;
"Hipparch," i. 24; viii. 22.
Soc. Were you under the impression that the commandant was not to open
his mouth? Did it never occur to you that all the noblest things which
custom[10] compels us to learn, and to which indeed we owe our
knowledge of life, have all been learned by means of speech[11] and
reason; and if there be any other noble learning which a man may
learn, it is this same reason whereby he learns it; and the best
teachers are those who have the freest command of thought and
language, and those that have the best knowledge of the most serious
things are the most brilliant masters of disputation. Again, have you
not observed that whenever this city of ours fits out one of her
choruses--such as that, for instance, which is sent to Delos[12]--
there is nothing elsewhere from any quarter of the world which can
compete with it; nor will you find in any other state collected so
fair a flower of manhood as in Athens?[13]
[10] Cf Arist. "Rhet." ii. 12, {oi neoi pepaideuntai upo tou nomou
monon}.
[11] {dia logou}.
[12] See Thuc. iii. 104; and below, IV. viii. 2.
[13] See references ap. Schneider and Kuhner; "Symp." iv. 17.
Hipp. You say truly.
Soc. But for all that, it is not in sweetness of voice that the
Athenians differ from the rest of the world so much, nor in stature of
body or strength of limb, but in ambition and that love of honour[14]
which most of all gives a keen edge to the spirit in the pursuit of
things lovely and of high esteem.
[14] See below, v. 3; Dem. "de Cor." 28 foll.
Hipp. That, too, is a true saying.
Soc. Do you not think, then, that if a man devoted himself to our
cavalry also, here in Athens, we should far outstrip the rest of the
world, whether in the furnishing of arms and horses, or in orderliness
of battle-array, or in eager hazardous encounter with the foe, if only
we could persuade ourselves that by so doing we should obtain honour
and distinction?
Hipp. It is reasonable to think so.
Soc. Have no hesitation, therefore, but try to guide your men into
this path,[15] whence you yourself, and through you your fellow-
citizens, will reap advantage.
[15] Or, "to conduct which will not certainly fail of profit to
yourself or through you to . . ."
Yes, in good sooth, I will try (he answered).
IV
At another time, seeing Nicomachides on his way back from the
elections (of magistrates),[1] he asked him: Who are elected generals,
Nicomachides?
[1] Cf. "Pol. Ath." i. 3; Aristot. "Ath. Pol." 44. 4; and Dr. Sandys'
note ad loc. p. 165 of his edition.
And he: Is it not just like them, these citizens of Athens--just like
them, I say--to go and elect, not me, who ever since my name first
apepared on the muster-roll have literally worn myself out with
military service--now as a captain, now as a colonel--and have
received all these wounds from the enemy, look you! (at the same time,
and suiting the action to the word, he bared his arms and proceeded to
show the scars of ancient wounds)--they elect not me (he went on),
but, if you please, Antisthenes! who never served as a hoplite[2] in
his life nor in the cavalry ever made a brilliant stroke, that I ever
heard tell of; no! in fact, he has got no science at all, I take it,
except to amass stores of wealth.
[2] Cf. Lys. xiv. 10.
But still (returned Socrates), surely that is one point in his favour
--he ought to be able to provide the troops with supplies.
Nic. Well, for the matter of that, merchants are good hands at
collecting stores; but it does not follow that a merchant or trader
will be able to command an army.
But (rejoined Socrates) Antisthenes is a man of great pertinacity, who
insists on winning, and that is a very necessary quality in a
general.[3] Do not you see how each time he has been choragos[4] he
has been successful with one chorus after another?
[3] See Grote, "Plato," i. 465 foll.
[4] Choir-master, or Director of the Chorus. It was his duty to
provide and preside over a chorus to sing, dance, or play at any
of the public festivals, defraying the cost as a state service of
{leitourgia}. See "Pol. Ath." iii. 4; "Hiero," ix. 4; Aristot.
"Pol. Ath." 28. 3.
Nic. Bless me! yes; but there is a wide difference between standing at
the head of a band of singers and dancers and a troop of soldiers.
Soc. Still, without any practical skill in singing or in the training
of a chorus, Antisthenes somehow had the art to select the greatest
proficients in both.
Nic. Yes, and by the same reasoning we are to infer that on a campaign
he will find proficients, some to marshal the troops for him and
others to fight his battles?
Soc. Just so. If in matters military he only exhibits the same skill
in selecting the best hands as he has shown in matters of the chorus,
it is highly probable he will here also bear away the palm of victory;
and we may presume that if he expended so much to win a choric victory
with a single tribe,[5] he will be ready to expend more to secure a
victory in war with the whole state to back him.
[5] See Dem. "against Lept." 496. 26. Each tribe nominated such of its
members as were qualified to undertake the burden.
Nic. Do you really mean, Socrates, that it is the function of the same
man to provide efficient choruses and to act as commander-in-chief?
Soc. I mean this, that, given a man knows what he needs to provide,
and has the skill to do so, no matter what the deparment of things may
be--house or city or army--you will find him a good chief and
director[6] of the same.
[6] Or, "representative."
Then Nicomachides: Upon my word, Socrates, I should never have
expected to hear you say that a good housekeeper[7] and steward of an
estate would make a good general.
[7] Or, "economist"; cf. "Cyrop." I. vi. 12.
Soc. Come then, suppose we examine their respective duties, and so
determine[8] whether they are the same or different.
[8] Lit. "get to know."
Nic. Let us do so.
Soc. Well then, is it not a common duty of both to procure the ready
obedience of those under them to their orders?
Nic. Certainly.
Soc. And also to assign to those best qualified to perform them their
distinctive tasks?
That, too, belongs to both alike (he answered).
Soc. Again, to chastise the bad and reward the good belongs to both
alike, methinks?
Nic. Decidedly.
Soc. And to win the kindly feeling of their subordinates must surely
be the noble ambition of both?
That too (he answered).
Soc. And do you consider it to the interest of both alike to win the
adherence of supporters and allies?[9]
[9] In reference to the necessity of building up a family connection
or political alliances cf. Arist. "Pol." iii. 9, 13.
Nic. Without a doubt.
Soc. And does it not closely concern them both to be good guardians of
their respective charges?
Nic. Very much so.
Soc. Then it equally concerns them both to be painstaking and prodigal
of toil in all their doings?
Nic. Yes, all these duties belong to both alike, but the parallel ends
when you come to actual fighting.
Soc. Yet they are both sure to meet with enemies?
Nic. There is no doubt about that.
Soc. Then is it not to the interest of both to get the upper hand of
these?
Nic. Certainly; but you omit to tell us what service organisation and
the art of management will render when it comes to actual fighting.
Soc. Why, it is just then, I presume, it will be of most service, for
the good economist knows that nothing is so advantageous or so
lucrative as victory in battle, or to put it negatively, nothing so
disastrous and expensive as defeat. He will enthusiastically seek out
and provide everything conducive to victory, he will painstakingly
discover and guard against all that tends to defeat, and when
satisifed that all is ready and ripe for victory he will deliver
battle energetically, and what is equally important, until the hour of
final preparation has arrived,[10] he will be cautious to deliver
battle. Do not despise men of economic genius, Nicomachides; the
difference between the devotion requisite to private affairs and to
affairs of state is merely one of quantity. For the rest the parallel
holds strictly, and in this respect pre-eminently, that both are
concerned with human instruments: which human beings, moreover, are of
one type and temperament, whether we speak of devotion to public
affairs or of the administration of private property. To fare well in
either case is given to those who know the secret of dealing with
humanity, whereas the absence of that knowledge will as certainly
imply in either case a fatal note of discord.[11]
[10] Lit. "as long as he is unprepared."
[11] L. Dindorf, "Index Graec." Ox. ed.; cf. Hor. "Ep." II. ii. 144,
"sed verae numerosque modosque ediscere vitae," "the harmony of
life," Conington.
V
A conversation held with Pericles the son of the great statesman may
here be introduced.[1] Socrates began:
[1] Or, "On one occasion Pericles was the person addressed in
conversation." For Pericles see "Hell." I. v. 16; vii. 15; Plut.
"Pericl." 37 (Clough, i. 368).
I am looking forward, I must tell you, Pericles, to a great
improvement in our military affairs when you are minister of war.[2]
The prestige of Athens, I hope, will rise; we shall gain the mastery
over our enemies.
[2] "Strategos."
Pericles replied: I devoutly wish your words might be fulfilled, but
how this happy result is to be obtained, I am at a loss to discover.
Shall we (Socrates continued), shall we balance the arguments for and
against, and consider to what extent the possibility does exist?
Pray let us do so (he answered).
Soc. Well then, you know that in point of numbers the Athenians are
not inferior to the Boeotians?
Per. Yes, I am aware of that.
Soc. And do you think the Boeotians could furnish a better pick of
fine healthy men than the Athenians?
Per. I think we should very well hold our own in that respect.
Soc. And which of the two would you take to be the more united people
--the friendlier among themselves?
Per. The Athenians, I should say, for so many sections of the
Boeotians, resenting the selfish policy[3] of Thebes, are ill disposed
to that power, but at Athens I see nothing of the sort.
[3] "The self-aggrandisement."
Soc. But perhaps you will say that there is no people more jealous of
honour or haughtier in spirit.[4] And these feelings are no weak spurs
to quicken even a dull spirit to hazard all for glory's sake and
fatherland.
[4] Reading {megalophronestatoi}, after Cobet. See "Hipparch," vii. 3;
or if as vulg. {philophronestatoi}, transl. "more affable."
Per. Nor is there much fault to find with Athenians in these respects.
Soc. And if we turn to consider the fair deeds of ancestry,[5] to no
people besides ourselves belongs so rich a heritage of stimulating
memories, whereby so many of us are stirred to pursue virtue with
devotion and to show ourselves in our turn also men of valour like our
sires.
[5] See Wesley's anthem, Eccles. xliv. 1, "Let us now praise famous
men and our fathers that begat us."
Per. All that you say, Socrates, is most true, but do you observe that
ever since the disaster of the thousand under Tolmides at Lebadeia,
coupled with that under Hippocrates at Delium,[6] the prestige of
Athens by comparison with the Boeotians has been lowered, whilst the
spirit of Thebes as against Athens had been correspondingly exalted,
so that those Boeotians who in old days did not venture to give battle
to the Athenians even in their own territory unless they had the
Lacedaemonians and the rest of the Peloponnesians to help them, do
nowadays threaten to make an incursion into Attica single-handed; and
the Athenians, who formerly, if they had to deal with the Boeotians[7]
only, made havoc of their territory, are now afraid the Boeotians may
some day harry Attica.
[6] Lebadeia, 447 B.C.; Delium, 424 B.C. For Tolmides and Hippocrates
see Thuc. i. 113; iv. 100 foll.; Grote, "H. G." v. 471; vi. 533.
[7] Reading {ote B. monoi}, al. {ou monoi}, "when the Boeotians were
not unaided."
To which Socrates: Yes, I perceive that this is so, but it seems to me
that the state was never more tractably disposed, never so ripe for a
really good leader, as to-day. For if boldness be the parent of
carelessness, laxity, and insubordination, it is the part of fear to
make people more disposed to application, obedience, and good order. A
proof of which you may discover in the behaviour of people on ship-
board. It is in seasons of calm weather when there is nothing to fear
that disorder may be said to reign, but as soon as there is
apprehension of a storm, or an enemy in sight, the scene changes; not
only is each word of command obeyed, but there is a hush of silent
expectation; the mariners wait to catch the next signal like an
orchestra with eyes upon the leader.
Per. But indeed, given that now is the opportunity to take obedience
at the flood, it is high time also to explain by what means we are to
rekindle in the hearts of our countrymen[8] the old fires--the
passionate longing for antique valour, for the glory and the wellbeing
of the days of old.
[8] Reading {anerasthenai}, Schneider's emendation of the vulg.
{aneristhenai}.
Well (proceeded Socrates), supposing we wished them to lay claim to
certain material wealth now held by others, we could not better
stimulate them to lay hands on the objects coveted than by showing
them that these were ancestral possessions[9] to which they had a
natural right. But since our object is that they should set their
hearts on virtuous pre-eminence, we must prove to them that such
headship combined with virtue is an old time-honoured heritage which
pertains to them beyond all others, and that if they strive earnestly
after it they will soon out-top the world.
[9] Cf. Solon in the matter of Salamis, Plut. "Sol." 8; Bergk. "Poet.
Lyr. Gr. Solon," SALAMIS, i. 2, 3.
Por. How are we to inculcate this lesson?
Soc. I think by reminding them of a fact already registered in their
minds,[10] that the oldest of our ancestors whose names are known to
us were also the bravest of heroes.
[10] Or, "to which their ears are already opened."
Per. I suppose you refer to that judgment of the gods which, for their
virtue's sake, Cecrops and his followers were called on to decide?[11]
[11] See Apollodorus, iii. 14.
Soc. Yes, I refer to that and to the birth and rearing of
Erectheus,[12] and also to the war[13] which in his days was waged to
stay the tide of invasion from the whole adjoining continent; and that
other war in the days of the Heraclidae[14] against the men of
Peloponnese; and that series of battles fought in the days of
Theseus[15]--in all which the virtuous pre-eminence of our ancestry
above the men of their own times was made manifest. Or, if you please,
we may come down to things of a later date, which their descendants
and the heroes of days not so long anterior to our own wrought in the
struggle with the lords of Asia,[16] nay of Europe also, as far as
Macedonia: a people possessing a power and means of attack far
exceeding any who had gone before--who, moreover, had accomplished the
doughtiest deeds. These things the men of Athens wrought partly
single-handed,[17] and partly as sharers with the Peloponnesians in
laurels won by land and sea. Heroes were these men also, far
outshining, as tradition tells us, the peoples of their time.
[12] Cf. "Il." ii. 547, {'Erekhtheos megaletoros k.t.l.}
[13] Cf. Isoc. "Paneg." 19, who handles all the topics.
[14] Commonly spoken of as "the Return." See Grote, "H. G." II. ch.
xviii.
[15] Against the Amazons and Thracians; cf. Herod. ix. 27; Plut.
"Thes." 27.
[16] The "Persian" wars; cf. Thucyd. I. i.
[17] He omits the Plataeans.
Per. Yes, so runs the story of their heroism.
Soc. Therefore it is that, amidst the many changes of inhabitants, and
the migrations which have, wave after wave, swept over Hellas, these
maintained themselves in their own land, unmoved; so that it was a
common thing for others to turn to them as to a court of appeal on
points of right, or to flee to Athens as a harbour of refuge from the
hand of the oppressor.[18]
[18] Cf. (Plat.) "Menex."; Isocr. "Paneg."
Then Pericles: And the wonder to me, Socrates, is how our city ever
came to decline.
Soc. I think we are victims of our own success. Like some athlete,[19]
whose facile preponderance in the arena has betrayed him into laxity
until he eventually succumbs to punier antagonists, so we Athenians,
in the plenitude of our superiority, have neglected ourselves and are
become degenerate.
[19] Reading {athletai tines}, or if {alloi tines}, translate "any one
else."
Per. What then ought we to do now to recover our former virtue?
Soc. There need be no mystery about that, I think. We can rediscover
the institutions of our forefathers--applying them to the regulation
of our lives with something of their precision, and not improbably
with like success; or we can imitate those who stand at the front of
affairs to-day,[20] adapting to ourselves their rule of life, in which
case, if we live up to the standard of our models, we may hope at
least to rival their excellence, or, by a more conscientious adherence
to what they aim at, rise superior.
[20] Sc. the Lacedaemonians. See W. L. Newman, op. cit. i. 396.
You would seem to suggest (he answered) that the spirit of beautiful
and brave manhood has taken wings and left our city;[21] as, for
instance, when will Athenians, like the Lacedaemonians, reverence old
age--the Athenian, who takes his own father as a starting-point for
the contempt he pours upon grey hairs? When will he pay as strict an
attention to the body, who is not content with neglecting a good
habit,[22] but laughs to scorn those who are careful in this matter?
When shall we Athenians so obey our magistrates--we who take a pride,
as it were, in despising authority? When, once more, shall we be
united as a people--we who, instead of combining to promote common
interests, delight in blackening each other's characters,[23] envying
one another more than we envy all the world besides; and--which is our
worst failing--who, in private and public intercourse alike, are torn
by dissension and are caught in a maze of litigation, and prefer to
make capital out of our neighbour's difficulties rather than to render
natural assistance? To make our conduct consistent, indeed, we treat
our national interests no better than if they were the concerns of
some foreign state; we make them bones of contention to wrangle over,
and rejoice in nothing so much as in possessing means and ability to
indulge these tastes. From this hotbed is engendered in the state a
spirit of blind folly[24] and cowardice, and in the hearts of the
citizens spreads a tangle of hatred and mutual hostility which, as I
often shudder to think, will some day cause some disaster to befall
the state greater than it can bear.[25]
[21] Or, "is far enough away from Athens."
[22] See below, III. xii. 5; "Pol. Ath." i. 13; "Rev." iv. 52.
[23] Or, "to deal despitefully with one another.
[24] Reading {ateria}. See L. Dindorf ad loc., Ox. ed. lxii. Al.
{apeiria}, a want of skill, or {ataxia}, disorderliness. Cf. "Pol.
Ath." i. 5.
[25] Possibly the author is thinking of the events of 406, 405 B.C.
(see "Hell." I. vii. and II.), and history may repeat itself.
Do not (replied Socrates), do not, I pray you, permit yourself to
believe that Athenians are smitten with so incurable a depravity. Do
you not observe their discipline in all naval matters? Look at their
prompt and orderly obedience to the superintendents at the gymnastic
contests,[26] their quite unrivalled subservience to their teachers in
the training of our choruses.
[26] Epistatoi, i.e. stewards and training-masters.
Yes (he answered), there's the wonder of it; to think that all those
good people should so obey their leaders, but that our hoplites and
our cavalry, who may be supposed to rank before the rest of the
citizens in excellence of manhood,[27] should be so entirely
unamenable to discipline.
[27] {kalokagathia}.
Then Socrates: Well, but the council which sits on Areopagos is
composed of citizens of approved[28] character, is it not?
[28] Technically, they must have passed the {dokimasia}. And for the
"Aeropagos" see Grote, "H. G." v. 498; Aristot. "Pol." ii. 12;
"Ath. Pol." 4. 4, where see Dr. Sandys' note, p. 18.
Certainly (he answered).
Soc. Then can you name any similar body, judicial or executive, trying
cases or transacting other business with greater honour, stricter
legality, higher dignity, or more impartial justice?
No, I have no fault to find on that score (he answered).
Soc. Then we ought not to despair as though all sense of orderliness
and good discipline had died out of our countrymen.
Still (he answered), if it is not to harp upon one string, I maintain
that in military service, where, if anywhere, sobreity and temperance,
orderliness and good discipline are needed, none of these essentials
receives any attention.
May it not perhaps be (asked Socrates) that in this department they
are officered by those who have the least knowledge?[29] Do you not
notice, to take the case of harp-players, choric performers, dancers,
and the like, that no one would ever dream of leading if he lacked the
requisite knowledge? and the same holds of wrestlers or pancratiasts.
[29] {episteme}. See below, III. ix. 10.
Moreover, while in these cases any one in command can tell you where
he got the elementary knowledge of what he presides over, most
generals are amateurs and improvisers.[30] I do not at all suppose
that you are one of that sort. I believe you could give as clear an
account of your schooling in strategy as you could in the matter of
wrestling. No doubt you have got at first hand many of your father's
"rules for generalship," which you carefully preserve, besides having
collected many others from every quarter whence it was possible to
pick up any knowledge which would be of use to a future general.
Again, I feel sure you are deeply concerned to escape even unconscious
ignorance of anything which will be serviceable to you in so high an
office; and if you detect in yourself any ignorance, you turn to those
who have knowledge in these matters (sparing neither gifts nor
gratitude) to supplement your ignorance by their knowledge and to
secure their help.
[30] Cf. "Pol. Lac." xiii. 5.
To which Pericles: I am not so blind, Socrates, as to imagine you say
these words under the idea that I am truly so careful in these
matters; but rather your object is to teach me that the would-be
general must make such things his care. I admit in any case all you
say.
Socrates proceeded: Has it ever caught your observation, Pericles,
that a high mountain barrier stretches like a bulwark in front of our
country down towards Boeotia--cleft, moreover, by narrow and
precipitous passes, the only avenues into the heart of Attica, which
lies engirdled by a ring of natural fortresses?[31]
[31] The mountains are Cithaeron and Parnes N., and Cerata N.W.
Per. Certainly I have.
Soc. Well, and have you ever heard tell of the Mysians and Pisidians
living within the territory of the great king,[32] who, inside their
mountain fortresses, lightly armed, are able to rush down and inflict
much injury on the king's territory by their raids, while preserving
their own freedom?
[32] For this illustration see "Anab." III. ii. 23; cf. "Econ." iv.
18, where Socrates ({XS}) refers to Cyrus's expedition and death.
Per. Yes, the circumstance is not new to me.
And do you not think (added Socrates) that a corps of young able-
bodied Athenians, accoutred with lighter arms,[33] and holding our
natural mountain rampart in possession, would prove at once a thorn in
the enemy's side offensively, whilst defensively they would form a
splendid bulwark to protect the country?
[33] Cf. the reforms of Iphicrates.
To which Pericles: I think, Socrates, these would be all useful
measures, decidedly.
If, then (replied Socrates), these suggestions meet your approbation,
try, O best of men, to realise them--if you can carry out a portion of
them, it will be an honour to yourself and a blessing to the state;
while, if you fail in any point, there will be no damage done to the
city nor discredit to yourself.
VI
Glaucon,[1] the son of Ariston, had conceived such an ardour to gain
the headship of the state that nothing could hinder him but he must
deliver a course of public speeches,[2] though he had not yet reached
the age of twenty. His friends and relatives tried in vain to stop him
making himself ridiculous and being dragged down from the bema.[3]
Socrates, who took a kindly interest in the youth for the sake of
Charmides[4] the son of Glaucon, and of Plato, alone succeeded in
restraining him. It happened thus. He fell in with him, and first of
all, to get him to listen, detained him by some such remarks as the
following:[5]
[1] Glaucon, Plato's brother. Grote, "Plato," i. 508.
[2] "Harangue the People."
[3] See Plat. "Protag." 319 C: "And if some person offers to give them
advice who is not supposed by them to have any skill in the art
[sc. of politics], even though he be good-looking, and rich, and
noble, they will not listen to him, but laugh at him, and hoot
him, until he is either clamoured down and retires of himself; or
if he persists, he is dragged away or put out by the constables at
the command of the prytanes" (Jowett). Cf. Aristoph. "Knights,"
665, {kath eilkon auton oi prutaneis kai toxotai}.
[4] For Charmides (maternal uncle of Plato and Glaucon, cousin of
Critias) see ch. vii. below; Plato the philosopher, Glaucon's
brother, see Cobet, "Pros. Xen." p. 28.
[5] Or, "and in the first instance addressing him in such terms he
could not choose but hear, detained him." See above, II. vi. 11.
Socrates applies his own theory.
Ah, Glaucon (he exclaimed), so you have determined to become prime
minister?[6]
[6] {prostateuein}.
Glauc. Yes, Socrates, I have.
Soc. And what a noble aim! if aught human ever deserved to be called
noble; since if you succeed in your design, it follows, as the night
the day, you will be able not only to gratify your every wish, but you
will be in a position to benefit your friends, you will raise up your
father's house, you will exalt your fatherland, you will become a name
thrice famous in the city first, and next in Hellas, and lastly even
among barbarians perhaps, like Themistocles; but be it here or be it
there, wherever you be, you will be the observed of all beholders.[7]
[7] "The centre of attraction--the cynosure of neighbouring eyes."
The heart of Glaucon swelled with pride as he drank in the words, and
gladly he stayed to listen.
Presently Socrates proceeded: Then this is clear, Glaucon, is it not?
that you must needs benefit the city, since you desire to reap her
honours?
Glauc. Undoubtedly.
Then, by all that is sacred (Socrates continued), do not keep us in
the dark, but tell us in what way do you propose first to benefit the
state? what is your starting-point?[8] When Glaucon remained with
sealed lips, as if he were now for the first time debating what this
starting-point should be, Socrates continued: I presume, if you wished
to improve a friend's estate, you would endeavour to do so by adding
to its wealth, would you not? So here, maybe, you will try to add to
the wealth of the state?
[8] Or, "tell us what your starting-point will be in the path of
benefaction."
Most decidedly (he answered).
Soc. And we may take it the state will grow wealthier in proportion as
her revenues increase?
Glauc. That seems probable, at any rate.
Soc. Then would you kindly tell us from what sources the revenues of
the state are at present derived, and what is their present magnitude?
No doubt you have gone carefully into the question, so that if any of
these are failing you may make up the deficit, or if neglected for any
reason, make some new provision.[9]
[9] Or, "or if others have dropped out or been negligently overlooked,
you may replace them."
Glauc. Nay, to speak the truth, these are matters I have not
thoroughly gone into.
Never mind (he said) if you have omitted the point; but you might
oblige us by running through the items or heads of expenditure.
Obviously you propose to remove all those which are superfluous?
Glauc. Well, no. Upon my word I have not had time to look into that
side of the matter either as yet.
Soc. Then we will postpone for the present the problem of making the
state wealthier; obviously without knowing the outgoings and the
incomings it would be impossible to deal with the matter seriously.
But, Socrates (Glaucon remarked), it is possible to enrich the state
out of the pockets of her enemies!
Yes, to be sure, considerably (answered Socrates), in the event of
getting the better of them; but in the event of being worsted, it is
also possible to lose what we have got.
A true observation (he replied).
And therefore (proceeded Socrates), before he makes up his mind with
what enemy to go to war, a statesman should know the relative powers
of his own city and the adversary's, so that, in case the superiority
be on his own side, he may throw the weight of his advice into the
scale of undertaking war; but if the opposite he may plead in favour
of exercising caution.
You are right (he answered).
Soc. Then would you for our benefit enumerate the land and naval
forces first of Athens and then of our opponents?
Glauc. Pardon me. I could not tell you them off-hand at a moment's
notice.
Or (added Socrates), if you have got the figures on paper, you might
produce them. I cannot tell how anxious I am to hear your statement.
Glauc. No, I assure you, I have not got them even on paper yet.
Soc. Well then, we will defer tending advice on the topic of peace or
war, in a maiden speech at any rate.[10] I can understand that, owing
to the magnitude of the questions, in these early days of your
ministry you have not yet fully examined them. But come, I am sure
that you have studied the defences of the country, at all events, and
you know exactly how many forts and outposts are serviceable[11] and
how many are not; you can tell us which garrisons are strong enough
and which defective; and you are prepared to throw in the weight of
your advice in favour of increasing the serviceable outposts and
sweeping away those that are superfluous?
[10] See "Econ." xi. 1.
[11] Or, "advantageously situated." See the author's own tract on
"Revenues."
Glauc. Yes, sweep them all away, that's my advice; for any good that
is likely to come of them! Defences indeed! so maintained that the
property of the rural districts is simply pilfered.
But suppose you sweep away the outposts (he asked), may not something
worse, think you, be the consequence? will not sheer plundering be
free to any ruffian who likes? . . . But may I ask is this judgment
the result of personal inspection? have you gone yourself and examined
the defences? or how do you know that they are all maintained as you
say?
Glauc. I conjecture that it is so.
Soc. Well then, until we have got beyond the region of conjecture
shall we defer giving advice on the matter? (It will be time enough
when we know the facts.)
Possibly it would be better to wait till then (replied Glaucon).
Soc. Then there are the mines,[12] but, of course, I am aware that you
have not visited them in person, so as to be able to say why they are
less productive than formerly.
[12] Again the author's tract on "Revenues" is a comment on the
matter.
Well, no; I have never been there myself (he answered).
Soc. No, Heaven help us! an unhealthy district by all accounts; so
that, when the moment for advice on that topic arrives, you will have
an excuse ready to hand.
I see you are making fun of me (Glaucon answered).
Soc. Well, but here is a point, I am sure, which you have not
neglected. No, you will have thoroughly gone into it, and you can tell
us. For how long a time could the corn supplies from the country
districts support the city? how much is requisite for a single year,
so that the city may not run short of this prime necessary, before you
are well aware; but on the contrary you with your full knowledge will
be in a position to give advice on so vital a question, to the aid or
may be the salvation of your country?
It is a colossal business this (Glaucon answered), if I am to be
obliged to give attention to all these details.
Soc. On the other hand, a man could not even manage his own house or
his estate well, without, in the first place, knowing what he
requires, and, in the second place, taking pains, item by item, to
supply his wants. But since this city consists of more than ten
thousand houses, and it is not easy to pay minute attention to so many
all at once, how is it you did not practise yourself by trying to
augment the resources of one at any rate of these--I mean your own
uncle's? The service would not be thrown away. Then if your strength
suffices in the single case you might take in hand a larger number;
but if you fail to relieve one, how could you possibly hope to succeed
with many? How absurd for a man, if he cannot carry half a
hundredweight, to attempt to carry a whole![13]
[13] Lit. "a single talent's weight . . . to carry two."
Glauc. Nay, for my part, I am willing enough to assist my uncle's
house, if my uncle would only be persuaded to listen to my advice.
Soc. Then, when you cannot persuade your uncle, do you imagine you
will be able to make the whole Athenian people, uncle and all, obey
you? Be careful, Glaucon (he added), lest in your thirst for glory and
high repute you come to the opposite. Do you not see how dangerous it
is for a man to speak or act beyond the range[14] of his knowledge? To
take the cases known to you of people whose conversation or conduct
clearly transcends these limits: should you say they gain more praise
or more blame on that account? Are they admired the rather or
despised? Or, again, consider those who do know what they say and what
they do; and you will find, I venture to say, that in every sort of
undertaking those who enjoy repute and admiration belong to the class
of those endowed with the highest knowledge; whilst conversely the
people of sinister reputation, the mean and the contemptible, emanate
from some depth of ignorance and dulness. If therefore what you thirst
for is repute and admiration as a statesman, try to make sure of one
accomplishment: in other words, the knowledge as far as in you lies of
what you wish to do.[15] If, indeed, with this to distinguish you from
the rest of the world you venture to concern yourself with state
affairs, it would not surprise me but that you might reach the goal of
your ambition easily.
[14] Or, "to talk of things which he does not know, or to meddle with
them."
[15] Or, "try as far as possible to achieve one thing, and that is to
know the business which you propose to carry out."
VII
Now Charmides,[1] the son of Glaucon, was, as Socrates observed, a man
of mark and influence: a much more powerful person in fact than the
mass of those devoted to politics at that date, but at the same time
he was a man who shrank from approaching the people or busying himself
with the concerns of the state. Accordingly Socrates addressed him
thus:
[1] See last chapter for his relationship to Glaucon (the younger) and
Plato; for a conception of his character, Plato's dialogue
"Charmides"; "Theag." 128 E; "Hell." II. iv. 19; "Symp." iv. 31;
Grote, "Plato," i. 480.
Tell me, Charmides, supposing some one competent to win a victory in
the arena and to receive a crown,[2] whereby he will gain honour
himself and make the land of his fathers more glorious in Hellas,[3]
were to refuse to enter the lists--what kind of person should you set
him down to be?
[2] In some conquest (e.g. of the Olympic games) where the prize is a
mere wreath.
[3] Cf. Pindar passim.
Clearly an effeminate and cowardly fellow (he answered).
Soc. And what if another man, who had it in him, by devotion to
affairs of state, to exalt his city and win honour himself thereby,
were to shrink and hesitate and hang back--would he too not reasonably
be regarded as a coward?
Possibly (he answered); but why do you address these questions to me?
Because (replied Socrates) I think that you, who have this power, do
hesitate to devote yourself to matters which, as being a citizen, if
for no other reason, you are bound to take part in.[4]
[4] Or add, "and cannot escape from."
Charm. And wherein have you detected in me this power, that you pass
so severe a sentence upon me?
Soc. I have detected it plainly enough in those gatherings[5] in which
you meet the politicians of the day, when, as I observe, each time
they consult you on any point you have always good advice to offer,
and when they make a blunder you lay your finger on the weak point
immediately.
[5] See above, I. v. 4; here possibly of political club conversation.
Charm. To discuss and reason in private is one thing, Socrates, to
battle in the throng of the assembly is another.
Soc. And yet a man who can count, counts every bit as well in a crowd
as when seated alone by himself; and it is the best performer on the
harp in private who carries off the palm of victory in public.
Charm. But do you not see that modesty and timidity are feelings
implanted in man's nature? and these are much more powerfully present
to us in a crowd than within the cirlce of our intimates.
Soc. Yes, but what I am bent on teaching you is that while you feel no
such bashfulness and timidity before the wisest and strongest of men,
you are ashamed of opening your lips in the midst of weaklings and
dullards.[6] Is it the fullers among them of whom you stand in awe, or
the cobblers, or the carpenters, or the coppersmiths, or the
merchants, or the farmers, or the hucksters of the market-place
exchanging their wares, and bethinking them how they are to buy this
thing cheap, and to sell the other dear--is it before these you are
ashamed, for these are the individual atoms out of which the Public
Assembly is composed?[7] And what is the difference, pray, between
your behaviour and that of a man who, being the superior of trained
athletes, quails before a set of amateurs? Is it not the case that you
who can argue so readily with the foremost statesmen in the city, some
of whom affect to look down upon you--you, with your vast superiority
over practised popular debaters--are no sooner confronted with a set
of folk who never in their lives gave politics a thought, and into
whose heads certainly it never entered to look down upon you--than you
are afraid to open your lips in mortal terror of being laughed at?
[6] Cf. Cic. "Tusc." v. 36, 104; Plat. "Gorg." 452 E, 454 B.
[7] Cf. Plat. "Protag." 319 C. See W. L. Newman, op. cit. i. 103.
Well, but you would admit (he answered) that sound argument does
frequently bring down the ridicule of the Popular Assembly.
Soc. Which is equally true of the others.[8] And that is just what
rouses my astonishment, that you who can cope so easily with these
lordly people (when guilty of ridicule) should persuade yourself that
you cannot stand up against a set of commoners.[9] My good fellow, do
not be ignorant of yourself![10] do not fall into that commonest of
errors--theirs who rush off to investigate the concerns of the rest of
the world, and have no time to turn and examine themselves. Yet that
is a duty which you must not in cowardly sort draw back from: rather
must you brace ourself to give good heed to your own self; and as to
public affairs, if by any manner of means they may be improved through
you, do not neglect them. Success in the sphere of politics means that
not only the mass of your fellow-citizens, but your personal friends
and you yourself last but not least, will profit by your action.
[8] {oi eteroi}, i.e. "the foremost statesmen" mentioned before. Al.
"the opposite party," the "Tories," if one may so say, of the
political clubs.
[9] Lit. "those . . . these."
[10] Ernesti aptly cf. Cic. "ad Quint." iii. 6. See below, III. ix. 6;
IV. ii. 24.
VIII
Once when Aristippus[1] set himself to subject Socrates to a cross-
examination, such as he had himself undergone at the hands of Socrates
on a former occasion,[2] Socrates, being minded to benefit those who
were with him, gave his answers less in the style of a debater
guarding against perversions of his argument, than of a man persuaded
of the supreme importance of right conduct.[3]
[1] For Aristippus see above, p. 38; for the connection, {boulomenos
tous sunontas ophelein}, between this and the preceeding chapter,
see above, Conspectus, p. xxvi.
[2] Possibly in reference to the conversation above. In reference to
the present dialogue see Grote, "Plato," I. xi. p. 380 foll.
[3] For {prattein ta deonta} cf. below, III. ix. 4, 11; Plat. "Charm."
164 B; but see J. J. Hartman, "An. Xen." p. 141.
Aristippus asked him "if he knew of anything good,"[4] intending in
case he assented and named any particular good thing, like food or
drink, or wealth, or health, or strength, or courage, to point out
that the thing named was sometimes bad. But he, knowing that if a
thing troubles us, we immediately want that which will put an end to
our trouble, answered precisely as it was best to do.[5]
[4] See Grote, "Plato," ii. 585, on Philebus.
[5] Or, "made the happiest answer."
Soc. Do I understand you to ask me whether I know anything good for
fever?
No (he replied), that is not my question.
Soc. Then for inflammation of the eyes?
Aristip. No, nor yet that.
Soc. Well then, for hunger?
Aristip. No, nor yet for hunger.
Well, but (answered Socrates) if you ask me whether I know of any good
thing which is good for nothing, I neither know of it nor want to
know.
And when Aristippus, returning to the charge, asked him "if he knew of
any thing beautiful,"
He answered: Yes, many things.
Aristip. Are they all like each other?
Soc. On the contrary, they are often as unlike as possible.
How then (he asked) can that be beautiful which is unlike the
beautiful?
Soc. Bless me! for the simple reason that it is possible for a man who
is a beautiful runner to be quite unlike another man who is a
beautiful boxer,[6] or for a shield, which is a beautiful weapon for
the purpose of defence, to be absolutely unlike a javelin, which is a
beautiful weapon of swift and sure discharge.
[6] See Grote, "H. G." x. 164, in reference to Epaminondas and his
gymnastic training; below, III. x. 6.
Aristip. Your answers are no better now than[7] when I asked you
whether you knew any good thing. They are both of a pattern.
[7] Or, "You answer precisely as you did when . . ."
Soc. And so they should be. Do you imagine that one thing is good and
another beautiful? Do not you know that relatively to the same
standard all things are at once beautiful and good?[8] In the first
place, virtue is not a good thing relatively to one standard and a
beautiful thing relatively to another standard; and in the next place,
human beings, on the same principle[9] and relatively to the same
standard, are called "beautiful and good"; and so the bodily frames of
men relatively to the same standards are seen to be "beautiful and
good," and in general all things capable of being used by man are
regarded as at once beautiful and good relatively to the same standard
--the standing being in each case what the thing happens to be useful
for.[10]
[8] Or, "good and beautiful are convertible terms: whatever is good is
beautiful, or whatever is beautiful is good."
[9] Or, "in the same breath." Cf. Plat. "Hipp. maj." 295 D; "Gorg."
474 D.
[10] Or, "and this standard is the serviceableness of the thing in
question."
Aristip. Then I presume even a basket for carrying dung[11] is a
beautiful thing?
[11] Cf. Plat. "Hipp. maj." 288 D, 290 D; and Grote's note, loc. cit.
p. 381: "in regard to the question wherein consists {to kalon}?"
Soc. To be sure, and a spear of gold an ugly thing, if for their
respective uses--the former is well and the latter ill adapted.
Aristip. Do you mean to assert that the same things may be beautiful
and ugly?
Soc. Yes, to be sure; and by the same showing things may be good and
bad: as, for instance, what is good for hunger may be bad for fever,
and what is good for fever bad for hunger; or again, what is beautiful
for wrestling is often ugly for running; and in general everything is
good and beautiful when well adapted for the end in view, bad and ugly
when ill adapted for the same.
Similarly when he spoke about houses,[12] and argued that "the same
house must be at once beautiful and useful"--I could not help feeling
that he was giving a good lesson on the problem: "how a house ought to
be built." He investigated the matter thus:
[12] See K. Joel, op. cit. p. 488; "Classical Review," vii. 262.
Soc. "Do you admit that any one purposing to build a perfect house[13]
will plan to make it at once as pleasant and as useful to live in as
possible?" and that point being admitted,[14] the next question would
be:
[13] Or, "the ideal house"; lit. "a house as it should be."
[14] See below, IV. vi. 15.
"It is pleasant to have one's house cool in summer and warm in winter,
is it not?" and this proposition also having obtained assent, "Now,
supposing a house to have a southern aspect, sunshine during winter
will steal in under the verandah,[15] but in summer, when the sun
traverses a path right over our heads, the roof will afford an
agreeable shade, will it not? If, then, such an arrangement is
desirable, the southern side of a house should be built higher to
catch the rays of the winter sun, and the northern side lower to
prevent the cold winds finding ingress; in a word, it is reasonable to
suppose that the pleasantest and most beautiful dwelling place will be
one in which the owner can at all seasons of the year find the
pleasantest retreat, and stow away his goods with the greatest
security."
[15] Or, "porticoes" or "collonades."
Paintings[16] and ornamental mouldings are apt (he said) to deprive
one of more joy[17] than they confer.
[16] See "Econ." ix. 2; Plat. "Hipp. maj." 298 A; "Rep." 529; Becker,
"Charicles," 268 (Engl. trans.)
[17] {euphrosunas}, archaic or "poetical" = "joyance." See "Hiero,"
vi. 1.
The fittest place for a temple or an altar (he maintained) was some
site visible from afar, and untrodden by foot of man:[18] since it was
a glad thing for the worshipper to lift up his eyes afar off and offer
up his orison; glad also to wend his way peaceful to prayer
unsullied.[19]
[18] e.g. the summit of Lycabettos, or the height on which stands the
temple of Phygaleia. Cf. Eur. "Phoen." 1372, {Pallados
khrusaspidos blepsas pros oikon euxato} of Eteocles.
[19] See Vitruvius, i. 7, iv. 5, ap. Schneid. ad loc.; W. L. Newman,
op. cit. i. 338.
IX
Being again asked by some one: could courage be taught,[1] or did it
come by nature? he answered: I imagine that just as one body is by
nature stronger than another body to encounter toils, so one soul by
nature grows more robust than another soul in face of dangers.
Certainly I do note that people brought up under the same condition of
laws and customs differ greatly in respect of daring. Still my belief
is that by learning and practice the natural aptitude may always be
strengthened towards courage. It is clear, for instance, that
Scythians or Thracians would not venture to take shield and spear and
contend with Lacedaemonians; and it is equally evident that
Lacedaemonians would demur to entering the lists of battle against
Thracians if limited to their light shields and javelins, or against
Scythians without some weapon more familiar than their bows and
arrows.[2] And as far as I can see, this principle holds generally:
the natural differences of one man from another may be compensated by
artificial progress, the result of care and attention. All which
proves clearly that whether nature has endowed us with keener or
blunter sensibilities, the duty of all alike is to learn and practise
those things in which we would fain achieve distinction.
[1] Or, "When some one retorted upon him with the question: 'Can
courage be taught?'" and for this problem see IV. vi. 10, 11;
"Symp." ii. 12; Plat. "Lach."; "Protag." 349; "Phaedr." 269 D; K.
Joel, op. cit. p. 325 foll.; Grote, "Plato," i. 468 foll., ii. 60;
Jowett, "Plato," i. 77, 119; Newman, op. cit. i. 343.
[2] Or, "against Thracians with light shields and javelins, or against
Scythians with bows and arrows"; and for the national arms of
these peoples respectively see Arist. "Lysistr." 563; "Anab." III.
iv. 15; VI. VII. passim.
Between wisdom and sobriety of soul (which is temperance) he drew no
distinction.[3] Was a man able on the one hand to recognise things
beautiful and good sufficiently to live in them? Had he, on the other
hand, knowledge of the "base and foul" so as to beware of them? If so,
Socrates judged him to be wise at once and sound of soul (or
temperate).[4]
[3] But cf. IV. vi. 7; K. Joel, op. cit. p. 363.
[4] Reading {alla to . . . kai to}, or more lit. "he discovered the
wise man and sound of soul in his power not only to recognise
things 'beautiful and good,' but to live and move and have his
being in them; as also in his gift of avoiding consciously things
base." Or if {alla ton . . . kai ton . . .} transl. "The man who
not only could recognise the beautiful and good, but lived, etc.,
in that world, and who morever consciously avoided things base, in
the judgment of Socrates was wise and sound of soul." Cf. Plat.
"Charm."
And being further questioned whether "he considered those who have the
knowledge of right action, but do not apply it, to be wise and self-
controlled?"--"Not a whit more," he answered, "than I consider them to
be unwise and intemperate.[5] Every one, I conceive, deliberately
chooses what, within the limits open to him, he considers most
conducive to his interest, and acts accordingly. I must hold therefore
that those who act against rule and crookedly[6] are neither wise nor
self-controlled.
[5] For the phrase "not a whit the more" see below, III. xii. 1;
"Econ." xii. 18. Al. "I should by no means choose to consider them
wise and self-controlled rather than foolish and intemperate."
[6] "Who cannot draw a straight line, ethically speaking."
He said that justice, moreover, and all other virtue is wisdom. That
is to say, things just, and all things else that are done with virtue,
are "beautiful and good"; and neither will those who know these things
deliberately choose aught else in their stead, nor will he who lacks
the special knowledge of them be able to do them, but even if he makes
the attempt he will miss the mark and fail. So the wise alone can
perform the things which are "beautiful and good"; they that are
unwise cannot, but even if they try they fail. Therefore, since all
things just, and generally all things "beautiful and good," are
wrought with virtue, it is clear that justice and all other virtue is
wisdom.
On the other hand, madness (he maintained) was the opposite to wisdom;
not that he regarded simple ignorance as madness,[7] but he put it
thus: for a man to be ignorant of himself, to imagine and suppose that
he knows what he knows not, was (he argued), if not madness itself,
yet something very like it. The mass of men no doubt hold a different
language: if a man is all abroad on some matter of which the mass of
mankind are ignorant, they do not pronounce him "mad";[8] but a like
aberration of mind, if only it be about matters within the scope of
ordinary knowledge, they call madness. For instance, any one who
imagined himself too tall to pass under a gateway of the Long Wall
without stooping, or so strong as to try to lift a house, or to
attempt any other obvious impossibility, is a madman according to
them; but in the popular sense he is not mad, if his obliquity is
confined to small matters. In fact, just as strong desire goes by the
name of passion in popular parlance, so mental obliquity on a grand
scale is entitled madness.
[7] See K. Joel, op. cit. p. 346; Grote, "Plato," i. 400.
[8] Or, "they resent the term 'mad' being applied to people who are
all abroad," etc. See Comte, "Pos. Pol." i. 575; ii. 373 (Engl.
trans.)
In answer to the question: what is envy? he discovered it to be a
certain kind of pain; not certainly the sorrow felt at the misfortunes
of a friend or the good fortune of an enemy--that is not envy; but, as
he said, "envy is felt by those alone who are annoyed at the successes
of their friends." And when some one or other expressed astonishment
that any one friendlily disposed to another should be pained at his
well-doing, he reminded him of a common tendency in people: when any
one is faring ill their sympathies are touched, they rush to the aid
of the unfortunate; but when fortune smiles on others, they are
somwhow pained. "I do not say," he added, "this could happen to a
thoughtful person; but it is no uncommon condition of a silly
mind."[9]
[9] Or, "a man in his senses . . . a simpleton"; for the sentiment L.
Dind. cf. Isocr. "ad Demonic." 7 D.
In answer to the question: what is leisure? I discover (he said) that
most men do something:[10] for instance, the dice player,[11] the
gambler, the buffoon, do something, but these have leisure; they can,
if they like, turn and do something better; but nobody has leisure to
turn from the better to the worse, and if he does so turn, when he has
no leisure, he does but ill in that.
[10] See above, I. ii. 57; and in ref. to these definitions, K. Joel,
op. cit. p. 347 foll.
[11] For "dice-playing" see Becker, "Charicl." 354 (Engl. trans.); for
"buffoonery," ib. 98; "Symp."
(To pass to another definition.) They are not kings or rulers (he
said) who hold the sceptre merely, or are chosen by fellows out of the
street,[12] or are appointed by lot, or have stepped into office by
violence or by fraud; but those who have the special knowledge[13] how
to rule. Thus having won the admission that it is the function of a
ruler to enjoin what ought to be done, and of those who are ruled to
obey, he proceeded to point out by instances that in a ship the ruler
or captain is the man of special knowledge, to whom, as an expert, the
shipowner himself and all the others on board obey. So likewise, in
the matter of husbandry, the proprietor of an estate; in that of
sickness, the patient; in that of physical training of the body, the
youthful athlete going through a course; and, in general, every one
directly concerned in any matter needing attention and care will
either attend to this matter personally, if he thinks he has the
special knowledge; or, if he mistrusts his own science, will be eager
to obey any expert on the spot, or will even send and fetch one from a
distance. The guidance of this expert he will follow, and do what he
has to do at his dictation.
[12] Tom, Dick, and Harry (as we say).
[13] The {episteme}. See above, III. v. 21; Newman, op. cit. i. 256.
And thus, in the art of spinning wool, he liked to point out that
women are the rulers of men--and why? because they have the knowledge
of the art, and men have not.
And if any one raised the objection that a tyrant has it in his power
not to obey good and correct advice, he would retort: "Pray, how has
he the option not to obey, considering the penalty hanging over him
who disobeys the words of wisdom? for whatever the matter be in which
he disobeys the word of good advice, he will fall into error, I
presume, and falling into error, be punished." And to the suggestion
that the tyrant could, if he liked, cut off the head of the man of
wisdom, his answer was: "Do you think that he who destroys his best
ally will go scot free, or suffer a mere slight and passing loss? Is
he more likely to secure his salvation that way, think you, or to
compass his own swift destruction?"[14]
[14] Or, "Is that to choose the path of safety, think you? Is it not
rather to sign his own death-warrent?" L. Dind. cf. Hesiod, "Works
and Days," 293. See Newman, op. cit. i. 393-397.
When some one asked him: "What he regarded as the best pursuit or
business[15] for a man?" he answered: "Successful conduct";[16] and to
a second question: "Did he then regard good fortune as an end to be
pursued?"--"On the contrary," he answered, "for myself, I consider
fortune and conduct to be diametrically opposed. For instance, to
succeed in some desirable course of action without seeking to do so, I
hold to be good fortune; but to do a thing well by dint of learning
and practice, that according to my creed is successful conduct,[17]
and those who make this the serious business of their life seem to me
to do well."
[15] Or, "the noblest study."
[16] {eupraxia, eu prattein}--to do well, in the sense both of well or
right doing, and of welfare, and is accordingly opposed to
{eutukhia}, mere good luck or success. Cf. Plat. "Euthyd." 281 B.
[17] Lit. "well-doing"; and for the Socratic view see Newman, op. cit.
i. 305, 401.
They are at once the best and the dearest in the sight of God[18] (he
went on to say) who for instance in husbandry do well the things of
farming, or in the art of healing all that belongs to healing, or in
statecraft the affairs of state; whereas a man who does nothing well--
nor well in anything--is (he added) neither good for anything nor dear
to God.
[18] Or, "most divinely favoured." Cf. Plat. "Euthyphro," 7 A.
X
But indeed,[1] if chance brought him into conversation with any one
possessed of an art, and using it for daily purposes of business, he
never failed to be useful to this kind of person. For instance,
stepping one time into the studio of Parrhasius[2] the painter, and
getting into conversation with him--
[1] {alla men kai} . . . "But indeed the sphere of his helpfulness was
not circumscribed; if," etc.
[2] For Parrhasius of Ephesus, the son of Evenor and rival of Zeuxis,
see Woltmann and Woermann, "Hist. of Painting," p. 47 foll.;
Cobet, "Pros. Xen." p. 50 (cf. in particular Quint. XII. x. 627).
At the date of conversation (real or ideal) he may be supposed to
have been a young man.
I suppose, Parrhasius (said he), painting may be defined as "a
representation of visible objects," may it not?[3] That is to say, by
means of colours and palette you painters represent and reproduce as
closely as possible the ups and downs, lights and shadows, hard and
soft, rough and smooth surfaces, the freshness of youth and the
wrinkles of age, do you not?
[3] Reading with Schneider, L. Dind., etc., after Stobaeus, {e
graphike estin eikasia}, or if the vulg. {graphike estin e
eikasia}, trans. "Painting is the term applied to a particular
representation," etc.
You are right (he answered), that is so.
Soc. Further, in portraying ideal types of beauty, seeing it is not
easy to light upon any one human being who is absolutely devoid of
blemish, you cull from many models the most beautiful traits of each,
and so make your figures appear completely beautiful?[4]
[4] Cf. Cic. "de Invent." ii. 1 ad in. of Zeuxis; Max. Tur. "Dissert."
23, 3, ap. Schneider ad loc.
Parrh. Yes, that is how we do.[5]
[5] Or, "that is the secret of our creations," or "our art of
composition."
Well, but stop (Socrates continued); do you also pretend to represent
in similar perfection the characteristic moods of the soul, its
captivating charm and sweetness, with its deep wells of love, its
intensity of yearning, its burning point of passion? or is all this
quite incapable of being depicted?
Nay (he answered), how should a mood be other than inimitable,
Socrates, when it possesses neither linear proportion[6] nor colour,
nor any of those qualities which you named just now; when, in a word,
it is not even visible?
[6] Lit. "symmetry." Cf. Plin. xxxv. 10, "primus symmetriam picturae
dedit," etc.
Soc. Well, but the kindly look of love, the angry glance of hate at
any one, do find expression in the human subject, do they not?[7]
[7] Or, "the glance of love, the scowl of hate, which one directs
towards another, are recognised expressions of human feeling." Cf.
the description of Parrhasius's own portrait of Demos, ap. Plin.
loc. cit.
Parrh. No doubt they do.
Soc. Then this look, this glance, at any rate may be imitated in the
eyes, may it not?
Undoubtedly (he answered).
Soc. And do anxiety and relief of mind occasioned by the good or evil
fortune of those we love both wear the same expression?
By no means (he answered); at the thought of good we are radiant, at
that of evil a cloud hangs on the brow.
Soc. Then here again are looks with it is possible to represent?
Parrh. Decidedly.
Soc. Furthermore, as through some chink or crevice, there pierces
through the countenance of a man, through the very posture of his body
as he stands or moves, a glimpse of his nobility and freedom, or again
of something in him low and grovelling--the calm of self-restraint,
and wisdom, or the swagger of insolence and vulgarity?
You are right (he answered).
Soc. Then these too may be imitated?
No doubt (he said).
Soc. And which is the pleasanter type of face to look at, do you think
--one on which is imprinted the characteristics of a beautiful, good,
and lovable disposition, or one which bears the impress of what is
ugly, and bad, and hateful?[8]
[8] For this theory cp. Ruskin, "Mod. P." ii. 94 foll. and indeed
passim.
Parrh. Doubtless, Socrates, there is a vast distinction between the
two.
At another time he entered the workshop of the sculptor Cleiton,[9]
and in course of conversation with him said:
[9] An unknown artist. Coraes conj. {Kleona}. Cf. Plin. xxxiv. 19;
Paus. v. 17, vi. 3. He excelled in portrait statues. See Jowett,
"Plato," iv.; "Laws," p. 123.
You have a gallery of handsome people here,[10] Cleiton, runners, and
wrestlers, and boxers, and pancratiasts--that I see and know; but how
do you give the magic touch of life to your creations, which most of
all allures the soul of the beholder through his sense of vision?
[10] Reading after L. Dind. {kaloi ous}, or if vulg. {alloious},
translate "You have a variety of types, Cleiton, not all of one
mould, but runners," etc.; al. "I see quite well how you give the
diversity of form to your runners," etc.
As Cleiton stood perplexed, and did not answer at once, Socrates
added: Is it by closely imitating the forms of living beings that you
succeed in giving that touch of life to your statues?
No doubt (he answered).
Soc. It is, is it not, by faithfully copying the various muscular
contractions of the body in obedience to the play of gesture and
poise, the wrinklings of flesh and the sprawl of limbs, the tensions
and the relaxations, that you succeed in making your statues like real
beings--make them "breathe" as people say?
Cleit. Without a doubt.
Soc. And does not the faithful imitation of the various affections of
the body when engaged in any action impart a particular pleasure to
the beholder?
Cleit. I should say so.
Soc. Then the threatenings in the eyes of warriors engaged in battle
should be carefully copied, or again you should imitate the aspect of
a conqueror radiant with success?
Cleit. Above all things.
Soc. It would seem then that the sculptor is called upon to
incorporate in his ideal form the workings and energies also of the
soul?
Paying a visit to Pistias,[11] the corselet maker, when that artist
showed him some exquisite samples of his work, Socrates exclaimed:
[11] Cf. Athen. iv. 20, where the same artist is referred to
apparently as {Piston}, and for the type of person see the
"Portrait of a Tailor" by Moroni in the National Gallery--see
"Handbook," Edw. T. Cook, p. 152.
By Hera! a pretty invention this, Pistias, by which you contrive that
the corselet should cover the parts of the person which need
protection, and at the same time leave free play to the arms and
hands. . . . but tell me, Pistias (he added), why do you ask a higher
price for these corselets of yours if they are not stouter or made of
costlier material than the others?
Because, Socrates (he answered), mine are of much finer proportion.
Soc. Proportion! Then how do you make this quality apparent to the
customer so as to justify the higher price--by measure or weight? For
I presume you cannot make them all exactly equal and of one pattern--
if you make them fit, as of course you do?
Fit indeed! that I most distinctly do (he answered), take my word for
it: no use in a corselet without that.
But then are not the wearer's bodies themselves (asked Socrates) some
well proportioned and others ill?
Decidedly so (he answered).
Soc. Then how do you manage to make the corselet well proportioned if
it is to fit an ill-proportioned body?[12]
[12] Or, "how do you make a well-proportioned corselet fit an ill-
proportioned body? how well proportioned?"
Pist. To the same degree exactly as I make it fit. What fits is well
proportioned.
Soc. It seems you use the term "well-proportioned" not in an absolute
sense, but in reference to the wearer, just as you might describe a
shield as well proportioned to the individual it suits; and so of a
military cloak, and so of the rest of things, in your terminology? But
maybe there is another considerable advantage in this "fitting"?
Pist. Pray instruct me, Socrates, if you have got an idea.
Soc. A corselet which fits is less galling by its weight than one
which does not fit, for the latter must either drag from the shoulders
with a dead weight or press upon some other part of the body, and so
it becomes troublesome and uncomfortable; but that which fits, having
its weight distributed partly along the collar-bone and shoulder-
blade, partly over the shoulders and chest, and partly the back and
belly, feels like another natural integument rather than an extra load
to carry.[13]
[13] Schneider ad loc. cf Eur. "Electr." 192, {prosthemata aglaias},
and for the weight cf. Aristoph. "Peace," 1224.
Pist. You have named the very quality which gives my work its
exceptional value, as I consider; still there are customers, I am
bound to say, who look for something else in a corselet--they must
have them ornamental or inlaid with gold.
For all that (replied Socrates), if they end by purchasing an ill-
fitting article, they only become the proprietors of a curiously-
wrought and gilded nuisance, as it seems to me. But (he added), as the
body is never in one fixed position, but is at one time curved, at
another raised erect how can an exactly-modelled corselet fit?
Pist. It cannot fit at all.
You mean (Socrates continued) that it is not the exactly-modelled
corselet which fits, but that which does not gall the wearer in the
using?
Pist. There, Socrates, you have hit the very point. I see you
understand the matter most precisely.[14]
[14] Or, "There, Socrates, you have hit the very phrase. I could not
state the matter more explicitly myself."
XI
There was once in the city a fair woman named Theodote.[1] She was not
only fair, but ready to consort with any suitor who might win her
favour. Now it chanced that some one of the company mentioned her,
saying that her beauty beggared description. "So fair is she," he
added, "that painters flock to draw her portrait, to whom, within the
limits of decorum, she displays the marvels of her beauty." "Then
there is nothing for it but to go and see her," answered Socrates,
"since to comprehend by hearsay what is beyond description is clearly
impossible." Then he who had introduced the matter replied: "Be quick
then to follow me"; and on this wise they set off to seek Theodote.
They found her "posing" to a certain painter; and they took their
stand as spectators. Presently the painter had ceased his work;
whereupon Socrates:
[1] For Theodote see Athen. v. 200 F, xiii. 574 F; Liban. i. 582. Some
say that it was Theodote who stood by Alcibiades to the last,
though there are apparently other better claimants to the honour.
Plut. "Alc." (Clough, ii. p. 50).
"Do you think, sirs, that we ought to thank Theodote for displaying
her beauty to us, or she us for coming to gaze at her? . . . It would
seem, would it not, that if the exhibition of her charms is the more
profitable to her, the debt is on her side; but if the spectacle of
her beauty confers the greater benefit on us, then we are her
debtors."
Some one answered that "was an equitable statement of the case."
Well then (he continued), as far as she is concerned, the praise we
bestow on her is an immediate gain; and presently, when we have spread
her fame abroad, she will be further benefited; but for ourselves the
immediate effect on us is a strong desire to touch what we have seen;
by and by, too, we shall go away with a sting inside us, and when we
are fairly gone we shall be consumed with longing. Consequently it
seems that we should do her service and she accept our court.
Whereupon Theodote: Oh dear! if that is how the matter stands, it is I
who am your debtor for the spectacle.[2]
[2] In reference to the remark of Socrates above; or, "have to thank
you for coming to look at me."
At this point, seeing that the lady herself was expensively attired,
and that she had with her her mother also, whose dress and style of
attendance[3] were out of the common, not to speak of the waiting-
women--many and fair to look upon, who presented anything but a
forlorn appearance; while in every respect the whole house itself was
sumptuously furnished--Socrates put a question:
[3] Or, "her mother there with her in a dress and general get-up
({therapeia}) which was out of the common." See Becker,
"Charicles," p. 247 (Eng. tr.)
Pray tell me, Theodote, have you an estate in the country?
Theod. Not I indeed.
Soc. Then perhaps you possess a house and large revenues along with
it?
Theod. No, nor yet a house.
Soc. You are not an employer of labour on a large scale?[4]
[4] Lit. "You have not (in your employ) a body of handicraftsmen of
any sort?"
Theod. No, nor yet an employer of labour.
Soc. From what source, then, do you get your means of subsistence?[5]
[5] Or, Anglice, "derive your income."
Theod. My friends are my life and fortune, when they care to be kind
to me.
Soc. By heaven, Theodote, a very fine property indeed, and far better
worth possessing than a multitude of sheep or goats or cattle. A flock
of friends! . . . But (he added) do you leave it to fortune whether a
friend lights like a fly on your hand at random, or do you use any
artifice[6] yourself to attract him?
[6] Or, "means and appliances," "machinery."
Theod. And how might I hit upon any artifice to attract him?
Soc. Bless me! far more naturally than any spider. You know how they
capture the creatures on which they live;[7] by weaving webs of
gossamer, is it not? and woe betide the fly that tumbles into their
toils! They eat him up.
[7] Lit. "the creatures on which they live."
Theod. So then you would consel me to weave myself some sort of net?
Soc. Why, surely you do not suppose you are going to ensnare that
noblest of all game--a lover, to wit--in so artless a fashion? Do you
not see (to speak of a much less noble sort of game) what a number of
devices are needed to bag a hare?[8] The creatures range for their
food at night; therefore the hunter must provide himself with night
dogs. At peep of dawn they are off as fast as they can run. He must
therefore have another pack of dogs to scent out and discover which
way they betake them from their grazing ground to their forms;[9] and
as they are so fleet of foot that they run and are out of sight in no
time, he must once again be provided with other fleet-footed dogs to
follow their tracks and overtake them;[10] and as some of them will
give even these the slip, he must, last of all, set up nets on the
paths at the points of escape, so that they may fall into the meshes
and be caught.
[8] See the author's own treatise on "Hunting," vi. 6 foll.
[9] Lit. "from pasture to bed."
[10] Or, "close at their heels and run them down." See "Hunting"; cf.
"Cyrop." I. vi. 40.
Theod. And by what like contrivance would you have me catch my lovers?
Soc. Well now! what if in place of a dog you can get a man who will
hunt up your wealthy lover of beauty and discover his lair, and having
found him, will plot and plan to throw him into your meshes?
Theod. Nay, what sort of meshes have I?
Soc. One you have, and a close-folding net it is,[11] I trow; to wit,
your own person; and inside it sits a soul that teaches you[12] with
what looks to please and with what words to cheer; how, too, with
smiles you are to welcome true devotion, but to exclude all wantons
from your presence.[13] It tells you, you are to visit your beloved in
sickness with solicitude, and when he has wrought some noble deed you
are greatly to rejoice with him; and to one who passionately cares for
you, you are to make surrender of yourself with heart and soul. The
secret of true love I am sure you know: not to love softly merely, but
devotedly.[14] And of this too I am sure: you can convince your lovers
of your fondness for them not by lip phrases, but by acts of love.
[11] Or, "right well woven."
[12] Lit. "by which you understand."
[13] Or, "with what smiles to lie in wait for (cf. 'Cyrop.' II. iv.
20; Herod. vi. 104) the devoted admirer, and how to banish from
your presence the voluptary."
[14] Or, "that it should be simply soft, but full of tender goodwill."
Theod. No, upon my word, I have none of these devices.
Soc. And yet it makes all the difference whether you approach a human
being in the natural and true way, since it is not by force certainly
that you can either catch or keep a friend. Kindness and pleasure are
the only means to capture this fearful wild-fowl man and keep him
constant.
Theod. You are right.
Soc. In the first place you must make such demands only of your well-
wisher as he can grant without repentance; and in the next place you
must make requital, dispensing your favours with a like economy. Thus
you will best make friends whose love shall last the longest and their
generosity know no stint.[15] And for your favours you will best win
your friends if you suit your largess to their penury; for, mark you,
the sweetest viands presented to a man before he wants them are apt to
prove insipid, or, to one already sated, even nauseous; but create
hunger, and even coarser stuff seems honey-sweet.
[15] Or, "This is the right road to friendship--permanent and open-
handed friendship."
Theod. How then shall I create this hunger in the heart of my friends?
Soc. In the first place you must not offer or make suggestion of your
dainties to jaded appetites until satiety has ceased and starvation
cries for alms. Even then shall you make but a faint suggestion to
their want, with modest converse--like one who would fain bestow a
kindness . . . and lo! the vision fades and she is gone--until the
very pinch of hunger; for the same gifts have then a value unknown
before the moment of supreme desire.
Then Theodote: Oh why, Socrates, why are you not by my side (like the
huntsman's assistant) to help me catch my friends and lovers?
Soc. That will I be in good sooth if only you can woo and win me.
Theod. How shall I woo and win you?
Soc. Seek and you will find means, if you truly need me.
Theod. Come then in hither and visit me often.
And Socrates, poking sly fun at his own lack of business occupation,
answered: Nay, Theodote, leisure is not a commodity in which I largely
deal. I have a hundred affairs of my own too, private or public, to
occupy me; and then there are my lady-loves, my dear friends, who will
not suffer me day or night to leave them, for ever studying to learn
love-charms and incantations at my lips.
Theod. Why, are you really versed in those things, Socrates?
Soc. Of course, or else how is it, do you suppose, that
Apollodorus[16] here and Antisthenes never leave me; or why have Cebes
and Simmias come all the way from Thebes to stay with me? Be assured
these things cannot happen without diverse love-charms and
incantations and magic wheels.
[16] For Apollodorus see "Apol." 28; Plat. "Symp." 172 A; "Phaed." 59
A, 117 D. For Antisthenes see above. For Cebes and Simmias see
above, I. ii. 48; Plat. "Crit." 45 B; "Phaed." passim.
Theod. I wish you would lend me your magic-wheel,[17] then, and I will
set it spinning first of all for you.
[17] Cf. Theocr. ii. 17; Schneider ad loc.
Soc. Ah! but I do not wish to be drawn to you. I wish you to come to
me.
Theod. Then I will come. Only, will you be "at home" to me?
Soc. Yes, I will welcome you, unless some one still dearer holds me
engaged, and I must needs be "not at home."
XII
Seeing one of those who were with him, a young man, but feeble of
body, named Epigenes,[1] he addressed him.
[1] Epigenes, possibly the son of Antiphon. See Plat. "Apol." 33 E;
"Phaed." 59 B.
Soc. You have not the athletic appearance of a youth in training,[2]
Epigenes.
[2] {idiotikos}, lit. of the person untrained in gymnastics. See A. R.
Cluer ad loc. Cf. Plat. "Laws," 839 E; I. ii. 4; III. v. 15;
"Symp." ii. 17.
And he: That may well be, seeing I am an amateur and not in training.
Soc. As little of an amateur, I take it, as any one who ever entered
the lists of Olympia, unless you are prepared to make light of that
contest for life and death against the public foe which the Athenians
will institute when the day comes.[3] And yet they are not a few who,
owing to a bad habit of body, either perish outright in the perils of
war, or are ignobly saved. Many are they who for the self-same cause
are taken prisoners, and being taken must, if it so betide, endure the
pains of slavery for the rest of their days; or, after falling into
dolorous straits,[4] when they have paid to the uttermost farthing of
all, or may be more than the worth of all, that they possess, must
drag on a miserable existence in want of the barest necessaries until
death release them. Many also are they who gain an evil repute through
infirmity of body, being thought to play the coward. Can it be that
you despise these penalties affixed to an evil habit? Do you think you
could lightly endure them? Far lighter, I imagine, nay, pleasant even
by comparison, are the toils which he will undergo who duly cultivates
a healthy bodily condition. Or do you maintain that the evil habit is
healthier, and in general more useful than the good? Do you pour
contempt upon those blessings which flow from the healthy state? And
yet the very opposite of that which befalls the ill attends the sound
condition. Does not the very soundness imply at once health and
strength?[5] Many a man with no other talisman than this has passed
safely through the ordeal of war; stepping, not without dignity,[6]
through all its horrors unscathed. Many with no other support than
this have come to the rescue of friends, or stood forth as benefactors
of their fatherland; whereby they were thought worthy of gratitude,
and obtained a great renown and received as a recompense the highest
honours of the State; to whom is also reserved a happier and brighter
passage through what is left to them of life, and at their death they
leave to their children the legacy of a fairer starting-point in the
race of life.
[3] Or, "should chance betide." Is the author thinking of a life-and-
death struggle with Thebes?
[4] e.g. the prisoners in the Latomiae. Thuc. vii. 87.
[5] It is almost a proverb--"Sound of body and limb is hale and
strong." "Qui valet praevalebit."
[6] e.g. Socrates himself, according to Alcibiades, ap. Plat. "Symp."
221 B; and for the word {euskhemonos} see Arist. "Wasps," 1210,
"like a gentleman"; L. and S.; "Cyr." I. iii. 8; Aristot. "Eth.
N." i. 10, 13, "gracefully."
Because our city does not practise military training in public,[7]
that is no reason for neglecting it in private, but rather a reason
for making it a foremost care. For be you assured that there is no
contest of any sort, nor any transaction, in which you will be the
worse off for being well prepared in body; and in fact there is
nothing which men do for which the body is not a help. In every
demand, therefore, which can be laid upon the body it is much better
that it should be in the best condition; since, even where you might
imagine the claims upon the body to be slightest--in the act of
reasoning--who does not know the terrible stumbles which are made
through being out of health? It suffices to say that forgetfulness,
and despondency, and moroseness, and madness take occasion often of
ill-health to visit the intellectual faculties so severely as to expel
all knowledge[8] from the brain. But he who is in good bodily plight
has large security. He runs no risk of incurring any such catastrophe
through ill-health at any rate; he has the expectation rather that a
good habit must procure consequences the opposite to those of an evil
habit;[9] and surely to this end there is nothing a man in his senses
would not undergo. . . . It is a base thing for a man to wax old in
careless self-neglect before he has lifted up his eyes and seen what
manner of man he was made to be, in the full perfection of bodily
strength and beauty. But these glories are withheld from him who is
guilty of self-neglect, for they are not wont to blaze forth
unbidden.[10]
[7] Cf. "Pol. Ath." i. 13; and above, III. v. 15.
[8] Or, "whole branches of knowledge" ({tas epistemas}).
[9] Or, "he may well hope to be insured by his good habit against the
evils attendant on its opposite."
[10] Or, "to present themselves spontaneously."
XII
Once when some one was in a fury of indignation because he had bidden
a passer-by good-day and the salutation was not returned, Socrates
said: "It is enough to make one laugh! If you met a man in a wretched
condition of body, you would not fall into a rage; but because you
stumble upon a poor soul somewhat boorishly disposed, you feel
annoyed."
To the remark of another who complained that he did not take his foot
with pleasure, he said: "Acumenus[1] has a good prescription for
that." And when the other asked: "And what may that be?" "To stop
eating," he said. "On the score of pleasure, economy, and health,
total abstinence has much in its favour."[2]
[1] A well-known physician. See Plat. "Phaedr." 227 A, 269 A; "Symp."
176 B. A similar story is told of Dr. Abernethy, I think.
[2] Lit. "he would live a happier, thriftier, and healthier life, if
he stopped eating."
And when some one else lamented that "the drinking-water in his house
was hot," he replied: "Then when you want a warm bath you will not
have to wait."
The Other. But for bathing purposes it is cold.
Soc. Do you find that your domestics seem to mind drinking it or
washing in it?
The Other. Quite the reverse; it is a constant marvel to me how
contentedly they use it for either purpose.
Soc. Which is hotter to the taste--the water in your house or the hot
spring in the temple of Asclepius?[3]
[3] In the Hieron at Epidauros probably. See Baedeker, "Greece," p.
240 foll.
The Other. The water in the temple of Asclepius.
Soc. And which is colder for bathing--yours or the cold spring in the
cave of Amphiaraus?[4]
[4] Possibly at Oropos. Cf. Paus. i. 34. 3.
The Other. The water in the cave of Amphiaraus.
Soc. Then please to observe: if you do not take care, they will set
you down as harder to please than a domestic servant or an invalid.[5]
[5] i.e. "the least and the most fastidious of men."
A man had administered a severe whipping to the slave in attendance on
him, and when Socrates asked: "Why he was so wroth with his own
serving-man?" excused himself on the ground that "the fellow was a
lazy, gourmandising, good-for-nothing dolt--fonder of money than of
work." To which Socrates: "Did it ever strike you to consider which of
the two in that case the more deserves a whipping--the master or the
man?"
When some one was apprehending the journey to Olympia, "Why are you
afraid of the long distance?" he asked. "Here at home you spend nearly
all your day in taking walks.[6] Well, on your road to Olympia you
will take a walk and breakfast, and then you will take another walk
and dine, and go to bed. Do you not see, if you take and tack together
five or six days' length of walks, and stretch them out in one long
line, it will soon reach from Athens to Olympia? I would recommend
you, however, to set off a day too soon rather than a day too late. To
be forced to lengthen the day's journey beyond a reasonable amount may
well be a nuisance; but to take one day's journey beyond what is
necessary is pure relaxation. Make haste to start, I say, and not
while on the road."[7]
[6] {peripateis}, "promenading up and down."
[7] "Festina lente"--that is your motto.
When some one else remarked "he was utterly prostrated after a long
journey," Socrates asked him: "Had he had any baggage to carry?"
"Not I," replied the complainer; "only my cloak."
Soc. Were you travelling alone, or was your man-servant with you?
He. Yes, I had my man.
Soc. Empty-handed, or had he something to carry?
He. Of course; carrying my rugs and other baggage.
Soc. And how did he come off on the journey?
He. Better than I did myself, I take it.
Soc. Well, but now suppose you had had to carry his baggage, what
would your condition have been like?
He. Sorry enough, I can tell you; or rather, I could not have carried
it at all.
Soc. What a confession! Fancy being capable of so much less toil than
a poor slave boy! Does that sound like the perfection of athletic
training?
XIV
On the occasion of a common dinner-party[1] where some of the company
would present themselves with a small, and others with a large supply
of viands, Socrates would bid the servants[2] throw the small supplies
into the general stock, or else to help each of the party to a share
all round. Thus the grand victuallers were ashamed in the one case not
to share in the common stock, and in the other not to throw in their
supplies also.[3] Accordingly in went the grand supplies into the
common stock. And now, being no better off than the small
contributors, they soon ceased to cater for expensive delicacies.
[1] For the type of entertainment see Becker, "Charicles," p. 315
(Eng. tr.)
[2] "The boy."
[3] Or, "were ashamed not to follow suit by sharing in the common
stock and contributing their own portion."
At a supper-party one member of the company, as Socrates chanced to
note, had put aside the plain fare and was devoting himself to certain
dainties.[4] A discussion was going on about names and definitions,
and the proper applications of terms to things.[5] Whereupon Socrates,
appealing to the company: "Can we explain why we call a man a 'dainty
fellow'? What is the particular action to which the term applies?[6]--
since every one adds some dainty to his food when he can get it.[7]
But we have not quite hit the definition yet, I think. Are we to be
called dainty eaters because we like our bread buttered?"[8]
[4] For the distinction between {sitos} and {opson} see Plat. "Rep."
372 C.
[5] Or, "The conversation had fallen upon names: what is the precise
thing denoted under such and such a term? Define the meaning of so
and so."
[6] {opsophagos} = {opson} (or relish) eater, and so a "gourmand" or
"epicure"; but how to define a gourmand?
[7] Lit. "takes some {opson} (relish) to his {sitos} (food)."
[8] Lit. "simply for that" (sc. the taking of some sort of {opson}.
For {epi touto} cf. Plat. "Soph." 218 C; "Parmen." 147 D.
No! hardly! (some member of the company replied).
Soc. Well, but now suppose a man confine himself to eating venison or
other dainty without any plain food at all, not as a matter of
training,[9] but for the pleasure of it: has such a man earned the
title? "The rest of the world would have a poor chance against
him,"[10] some one answered. "Or," interposed another, "what if the
dainty dishes he devours are out of all proportion to the rest of his
meal--what of him?"[11]
[9] Lit. "{opson} (relish) by itself, not for the sake of training,"
etc. The English reader wil bear in mind that a raw beefsteak or
other meat prescribed by the gymnastic trainer in preference to
farinaceous food ({sitos}) would be {opson}.
[10] Or, more lit. "Hardly any one could deserve the appellation
better."
[11] Lit. "and what of the man who eats much {opson} on the top of a
little ({sitos})?" {epesthion} = follows up one course by another,
like the man in a fragment of Euripides, "Incert." 98: {kreasi
boeiois khlora suk' epesthien}, who "followed up his beefsteak
with a garnish of green figs."
Soc. He has established a very fair title at any rate to the
appellation, and when the rest of the world pray to heaven for a fine
harvest: "May our corn and oil increase!" he may reasonably ejaculate,
"May my fleshpots multiply!"
At this last sally the young man, feeling that the conversation set
somewhat in his direction, did not desist indeed from his savoury
viands, but helped himself generously to a piece of bread. Socrates
was all-observant, and added: Keep an eye on our friend yonder, you
others next him, and see fair play between the sop and the sauce.[12]
[12] Lit. "see whether he will make a relish of the staple or a staple
of the relish" ("butter his bread or bread his butter").
Another time, seeing one of the company using but one sop of bread[13]
to test several savoury dishes, he remarked: Could there be a more
extravagant style of cookery, or more murderous to the dainty dishes
themselves, than this wholesale method of taking so many dishes
together?--why, bless me, twenty different sorts of seasoning at one
swoop![14] First of all he mixes up actually more ingredients than the
cook himself prescribes, which is extravagant; and secondly, he has
the audacity to commingle what the chef holds incongruous, whereby if
the cooks are right in their method he is wrong in his, and
consequently the destroyer of their art. Now is it not ridiculous
first to procure the greatest virtuosi to cook for us, and then
without any claim to their skill to take and alter their procedure?
But there is a worse thing in store for the bold man who habituates
himself to eat a dozen dishes at once: when there are but few dishes
served, out of pure habit he will feel himself half starved, whilst
his neighbour, accustomed to send his sop down by help of a single
relish, will feast merrily, be the dishes never so few.
[13] {psomos}, a sop or morsel of bread (cf. {psomion}, N. T., in mod.
Greek = "bread").
[14] Huckleberry Finn (p. 2 of that young person's "Adventures")
propounds the rationale of the system: "In a barrel of odds and
ends it is different; things get mixed up, and the juice kind of
swaps around, and the things go better."
He had a saying that {euokheisthai}, to "make good cheer,"[15] was in
Attic parlance a synonym for "eating," and the affix {eu} (the
attributive "good") connoted the eating of such things as would not
trouble soul or body, and were not far to seek or hard to find. So
that to "make good cheer" in his vocabulary applied to a modest and
well-ordered style of living.[16]
[15] {euokheisthai}, cf. "Cyrop." IV. v. 7; "Pol. Ath." ii. 9; Kuhner
cf. Eustah. "ad Il." ii. p. 212, 37, {'Akhaioi ten trophen okhen
legousin oxutonos}. Athen. viii. 363 B. See "Hipparch," viii. 4,
of horses. Cf. Arist. "H. A." viii. 6.
[16] See "Symp." vi. 7; and for similar far-fetched etymologies, Plat.
"Crat." passim.
BOOK IV
I
Such was Socrates; so helpful under all circumstances and in every way
that no observer, gifted with ordinary sensibility, could fail to
appreciate the fact, that to be with Socrates, and to spend long time
in his society (no matter where or what the circumstances), was indeed
a priceless gain. Even the recollection of him, when he was no longer
present, was felt as no small benefit by those who had grown
accustomed to be with him, and who accepted him. Nor indeed was he
less helpful to his acquaintance in his lighter than in his graver
moods.
Let us take as an example that saying of his, so often on his lips: "I
am in love with so and so"; and all the while it was obvious the
going-forth of his soul was not towards excellence of body in the
bloom of beauty, but rather towards faculties of the soul unfolding in
virtue.[1] And these "good natures" he detected by certain tokens: a
readiness to learn that to which the attention was directed; a power
of retaining in the memory the lessons learnt; and a passionate
predilection for those studies in particular which serve to good
administration of a house or of a state,[2] and in general to the
proper handling of man and human affairs. Such beings, he maintained,
needed only to be educated[3] to become not only happy themselves and
happy administrators of their private households, but to be capable of
rendering other human beings as states or individuals happy also.
[1] Or, "not excellence of body in respect of beauty, but of the soul
as regards virtue; and this good natural disposition might be
detected by the readiness of its possessor to learn," etc. Cf.
Plat. "Rep." 535 B.
[2] Cf. above, I. i. 7.
[3] Or, "A person of this type would, if educated, not only prove a
fortune-favoured invididual himself and," etc. Al. Kuhner, "Eos,
qui ita instituti sunt, ut tales sint."
He had indeed a different way of dealing with different kinds of
people.[4] Those who thought they had good natural ability and
despised learning he instructed that the most highly-gifted nature
stands most in need of training and education;[5] and he would point
out how in the case of horses it is just the spirited and fiery
thoroughbred which, if properly broken in as a colt, will develop into
a serviceable and superb animal, but if left unbroken will turn out
utterly intractable and good for nothing. Or take the case of dogs: a
puppy exhibiting that zest for toil and eagerness to attack wild
creatures which are the marks of high breeding,[6] will, if well
brought up, prove excellent for the chase or for any other useful
purpose; but neglect his education and he will turn out a stupid,
crazy brute, incapable of obeying the simplest command. It is just the
same with human beings; here also the youth of best natural endowments
--that is to say, possessing the most robust qualities of spirit and a
fixed determination to carry out whatever he has laid his hand to--
will, if trained and taught what it is right to do, prove a
superlatively good and useful man. He achieves, in fact, what is best
upon the grandest scale. But leave him in boorish ignorance untrained,
and he will prove not only very bad but very mischievous,[7] and for
this reason, that lacking the knowledge to discern what is right to
do, he will frequently lay his hand to villainous practices; whilst
the very magnificence and vehemence of his character render it
impossible either to rein him in or to turn him aside from his evil
courses. Hence in his case also his achievements are on the grandest
scale but of the worst.[8]
[4] Or, "His method of attack was not indeed uniformly the same. It
varied with the individual."
[5] Or, "If any one was disposed to look down upon learning and study
in reliance upon his own natural ability, he tried to lesson him
that it is just the highly-gifted nature which stands," etc. See
Newman, op. cit. i. 397.
[6] Cf. Aristot. "H. A." ix. 1; and "Hunting," iii. 11.
[7] Or, "and the same man may easily become a master villain of the
most dangerous sort."
[8] Kuhner ad loc. after Fr. Hermann cf. Plato. "Crito," 44 E; "Hipp.
min." 375 E; "Rep." vi. 491 E; "Gorg." 526 A; "Polit." 303 A.
Or to take the type of person so eaten up with the pride of riches
that he conceives himself dispensed from any further need of education
--since it is "money makes the man," and his wealth will amply suffice
him to carry out his desires and to win honours from admiring
humanity.[9] Socrates would bring such people to their senses by
pointing out the folly of supposing that without instruction it was
possible to draw the line of demarcation[10] between what is gainful
and what is hurtful in conduct; and the further folly of supposing
that, apart from such discrimination, a man could help himself by
means of wealth alone to whatever he liked or find the path of
expediency plain before him; and was it not the veriest simplicity to
suppose that, without the power of labouring profitably, a man can
either be doing well or be in any sort of way sufficiently equipped
for the battle of life? and again, the veriest simplicity to suppose
that by mere wealth without true knowledge it was possible either to
purchase a reputation for some excellence, or without such reputation
to gain distinction and celebrity?
[9] Or, "and to be honoured by mankind."
[10] Or, "that without learning the distinction it was possible to
distinguish between," etc.
II
Or to come to a third kind--the class of people who are persuaded that
they have received the best education, and are proud of their wisdom:
his manner of dealing with these I will now describe.
Euthydemus[1] "the beautiful" had (Socrates was given to understand)
collected a large library, consisting of the most celebrated poets and
philosophers,[2] by help of which he already believed himself to be
more than a match for his fellows in wisdom, and indeed might
presently expect to out-top them all in capacity of speech and
action.[3] At first, as Socrates noted, the young man by reason of his
youth had not as yet set foot in the agora,[4] but if he had anything
to transact, his habit was to seat himself in a saddler's shop hard
by. Accordingly to this same saddler's shop Socrates betook himself
with some of those who were with him. And first the question was
started by some one: "Was it through consorting with the wise,[5] or
by his own unaided talent, that Themistocles came so to surpass his
fellow-citizens that when the services of a capable man were needed
the eyes of the whole community instinctively turned to him?"
Socrates, with a view to stirring[6] Euthydemus, answered: There was
certainly an ingenuous simplicity in the belief that superiority in
arts of comparatively little worth could only be attained by aid of
qualified teachers, but that the leadership of the state, the most
important concern of all, was destined to drop into the lap of
anybody, no matter whom, like an accidental windfall.[7]
[1] Euthydemus, the son of Diocles perhaps. See Plat. "Symp." 222 B,
and Jowet ad loc.; Cobet, "Prosop. Xen." s.n.; K. Joel, op. cit.
p. 372 foll. For {ton kalon} cf. "Phaedr." 278 E, "Isocrates the
fair." For the whole chapter cf. Plat. "Alc." i.; "Lys." 210 E.
See above, "Mem." I. ii. 29; Grote, "Plato," i. ch. x. passim.
[2] Lit. "sophists." See Grote, "H. G." viii. p. 480, note. For
private libraries see Becker, "Char." p. 272 foll. (Eng. tr.)
[3] See "Hipparch," i. 24; "Cyrop." V. v. 46.
[4] See above, III. vi. 1; Schneid. cf. Isocr. "Areop." 149 C.
[5] Cf. Soph. fr. 12, {sophoi turannoi ton sophon xunousia}.
[6] L. and S. cf. Plat. "Lys." 223 A; "Rep." 329 B: "Wishing to draw
him out."
[7] Cf. Plat. "Alc." i. 118 C: "And Pericles is said not to have got
his wisdom by the light of nature, but to have associated with
several of the philosophers" (Jowett).
On a subsequent occasion, Euthydemus being present, though, as was
plain to see, somewhat disposed to withdraw from the friendly
concourse,[8] as if he would choose anything rather than appear to
admire Socrates on the score of wisdom, the latter made the following
remarks.
[8] {sunedrias}, "the council."
Soc. It is clear from his customary pursuits, is it not, sirs, that
when our friend Euthydemus here is of full age, and the state
propounds some question for solution, he will not abstain from
offering the benefit of his advice? One can imagine the pretty
exordium to his parliamentary speeches which, in his anxiety not to be
thought to have learnt anything from anybody, he has ready for the
occasion.[9] Clearly at the outset he will deliver himself thus: "Men
of Athens, I have never at any time learnt anything from anybody; nor,
if I have ever heard of any one as being an able statesman, well
versed in speech and capable of action, have I sought to come across
him individually. I have not so much as been at pains to provide
muself with a teacher from amongst those who have knowledge;[10] on
the contrary, I have persistently avoided, I will not say learning
from others, but the very faintest suspicion of so doing. However,
anything that occurs to me by the light of nature I shall be glad to
place at your disposal." . . . How appropriate[11] would such a
preface sound on the lips of any one seeking, say, the office of state
physician,[12] would it not? How advantageously he might begin an
address on this wise: "Men of Athens, I have never learnt the art of
healing by help of anybody, nor have I sought to provide myself with
any teacher among medical men. Indeed, to put it briefly, I have been
ever on my guard not only against learning anything from the
profession, but against the very notion of having studied medicine at
all. If, however, you will be so good as to confer on me this post, I
promise I will do my best to acquire skill by experimenting on your
persons." Every one present laughed at the exordium (and there the
matter dropped).
[9] Or, "the pretty exordium . . . now in course of conposition. He
must at all hazards avoid the suspicion of having picked up any
crumb of learning from anybody; how can he help therefore
beginning his speech thus?"
[10] Or, "scientific experts."
[11] Al. "Just as if one seeking the office of state physician were to
begin with a like exordium." {armoseie} = "it would be consistent
(with what has gone before)."
[12] Schneider cf. Plat. "Laws," iv. 720 A; "Gorg." 456 A; and for
"the parish doctor," "Polit." 259 A; Arist. "Acharn." 1030.
Presently, when it became apparent that Euthydemus had got so far that
he was disposed to pay attention to what was said, though he was still
at pains not to utter a sound himself, as if he hoped by silence to
attach to himself some reputation for sagacity, Socrates, wishing to
cure him of that defect, proceeded.
Soc. Is it not surprising that people anxious to learn to play the
harp or the flute, or to ride, or to become proficient in any like
accomplishment, are not content to work unremittingly in private by
themselves at whatever it is in which they desire to excel, but they
must sit at the feet of the best-esteemed teachers, doing all things
and enduring all things for the sake of following the judgment of
those teachers in everything, as though they themselves could not
otherwise become famous; whereas, among those who aspire to become
eminent politically as orators and statesmen,[13] there are some who
cannot see why they should not be able to do all that politics demand,
at a moment's notice, by inspiration as it were, without any
preliminary pains or preparations whatever? And yet it would appear
that the latter concerns must be more difficult of achievement than
the former, in proportion as there are more competitors in the field
but fewer who reach the goal of their ambition, which is as much as to
say that a more sustained effort of attention is needed on the part of
those who embark upon the sea of politics than is elsewhere called
for.
[13] Or, more lit. "powerful in speech and action within the sphere of
politics."
Such were the topics on which Socrates was wont in the early days of
their association to dilate in the hearing of Euthydemus; but when the
philosopher perceived that the youth not only could tolerate the turns
of the discussion more readily but was now become a somewhat eager
listener, he went to the saddler's shop alone,[14] and when Euthydemus
was seated by his side the following conversation took place.
[14] The question arises: how far is the conversation historical or
imaginary?
Soc. Pray tell me, Euthydemus, is it really true what people tell me,
that you have made a large collection of the writings of "the wise,"
as they are called?[15]
[15] Or, "have collected several works of our classical authors and
philosophers."
Euthydemus answered: Quite true, Socrates, and I mean to go on
collecting until I possess all the books I can possibly lay hold of.
Soc. By Hera! I admire you for wishing to possess treasures of wisdom
rather than of gold and silver, which shows that you do not believe
gold and silver to be the means of making men better, but that the
thoughts[16] of the wise alone enrich with virtue their possessions.
[16] Lit. "gnomes," maxims, sententiae. Cf. Aristot. "Rhet." ii. 21.
And Euthydemus was glad when he heard that saying, for, thought he to
himself, "In the eyes of Socrates I am on the high road to the
acquisition of wisdom." But the latter, perceiving him to be pleased
with the praise, continued.
Soc. And what is it in which you desire to excel, Euthydemus, that you
collect books?
And when Euthydemus was silent, considering what answer he should
make, Socrates added: Possibly you want to be a great doctor? Why, the
prescriptions[17] of the Pharmacopoeia would form a pretty large
library by themselves.
[17] {suggrammata}, "medical treatises." See Aristot. "Eth." x. 9, 21.
No, indeed, not I! (answered Euthydemus).
Soc. Then do you wish to be an architect? That too implies a man of
well-stored wit and judgment.[18]
[18] Or, "To be that implies a considerable store of well-packed
wisdom."
I have no such ambition (he replied).
Soc. Well, do you wish to be a mathematician, like Theodorus?[19]
[19] Of Cyrene (cf. Plat. "Theaet.") taught Plato. Diog. Laert. ii. 8,
19.
Euth. No, nor yet a mathematician.
Soc. Then do you wish to be an astronomer?[20] or (as the youth
signified dissent) possibly a rhapsodist?[21] (he asked), for I am
told you have the entire works of Homer in your possession.[22]
[20] Cf. below, IV. vii. 4.
[21] See "Symp." iii. 6; Plat. "Ion."
[22] See Jowett, "Plato," i. 229; Grote, "Plato," i. 455.
Nay, God forbid! not I! (ejaculated the youth). Rhapsodists have a
very exact acquaintance with epic poetry, I know, of course; but they
are empty-pated creatures enough themselves.[23]
[23] Or, "are simply perfect in the art of reciting epic poetry, but
are apt to be the veriest simpletons themselves."
At last Socrates said: Can it be, Euthydemus, that you are an aspirant
to that excellence through which men become statesmen and
administrators fit to rule and apt to benefit[24] the rest of the
world and themselves?
[24] Or, "statesmen, and economists, and rules, and benefactors of
the rest of the world and themselves."
Yes (replied he), that is the excellence I desire--beyond measure.
Upon my word (said Socrates), then you have indeed selected as the
object of your ambition the noblest of virtues and the greatest of the
arts, for this is the property of kings, and is entitled "royal"; but
(he continued) have you considered whether it is possible to excel in
these matters without being just and upright?[25]
[25] Just, {dikaios} = upright, righteous. Justice, {dikaiosune} =
social uprightness = righteousness, N.T. To quote a friend: "The
Greek {dikaios} combines the active dealing out of justice with
the self-reflective idea of preserving justice in our conduct,
which is what we mean by 'upright.'"
Euth. Certainly I have, and I say that without justice and uprightness
it is impossible to be a good citizen.
No doubt (replied Socrates) you have accomplished that initial step?
Euth. Well, Socrates, I think I could hold my own against all comers
as an upright man.
And have upright men (continued Socrates) their distinctive and
appropriate works like those of carpenters or shoe-makers?
Euth. To be sure they have.
Soc. And just as the carpenter is able to exhibit his works and
products, the righteous man should be able to expound and set forth
his, should he not?
I see (replied Euthydemus) you are afraid I cannot expound the works
of righteousness! Why, bless me! of course I can, and the works of
unrighteousness into the bargain, since there are not a few of that
sort within reach of eye and ear every day.
Shall we then (proceeded Socrates) write the letter R on this
side,[26] and on that side the letter W; and then anything that
appears to us to be the product of righteousness we will place to the
R account, and anything which appears to be the product of wrong-doing
and iniquity to the account of W?
[26] The letter R (to stand for Right, Righteous, Upright, Just). The
letter W (to stand for Wrong, Unrighteous, Unjust).
By all means do so (he answered), if you think that it assists
matters.
Accordingly Socrates drew the letters, as he had suggested, and
continued.
Soc. Lying exists among men, does it not?
Euth. Certainly.
To which side of the account then shall we place it? (he asked).
Euth. Clearly on the side of wrong and injustice.
Soc. Deceit too is not uncommon?
Euth. By no means.
Soc. To which side shall we place deceit?
Euth. Deceit clearly on the side of wrong.
Soc. Well, and chicanery[27] or mischief of any sort?
[27] Reading {to kakourgein} (= furari, Sturz); al. {kleptein}, Stob.
Euth. That too.
Soc. And the enslavement of free-born men?[28]
[28] Or, "the kidnapping of men into slavery." {to andrapodizesthai} =
the reduction of a free-born man to a state of slavery. Slavery
itself ({douleia}) being regarded as the normal condition of a
certain portion of the human race and not in itself immoral.
Euth. That too.
Soc. And we cannot allow any of these to lie on the R side of the
account, to the side of right and justice, can we, Euthydemus?
It would be monstrous (he replied).
Soc. Very good. But supposing a man to be elected general, and he
succeeds in enslaving an unjust, wicked, and hostile state, are we to
say that he is doing wrong?
Euth. By no means.
Soc. Shall we not admit that he is doing what is right?
Euth. Certainly.
Soc. Again, suppose he deceives the foe while at war with them?
Euth. That would be all fair and right also.
Soc. Or steals and pillages their property? would he not be doing what
is right?
Euth. Certainly; when you began I thought you were limiting the
question to the case of friends.
Soc. So then everything which we set down on the side of Wrong will
now have to be placed to the credit of Right?
Euth. Apparently.
Soc. Very well then, let us so place them; and please, let us make a
new definition--that while it is right to do such things to a foe, it
is wrong to do them to a friend, but in dealing with the latter it
behoves us to be as straightforward as possible.[29]
[29] Or, "an absolutely straightforward course is necessary."
I quite assent (replied Euthydemus).
So far so good (remarked Socrates); but if a general, seeing his
troops demoralised, were to invent a tale to the effect that
reinforcements were coming, and by means of this false statement
should revive the courage of his men, to which of the two accounts
shall we place that act of fraud?[30]
[30] Cf. "Hell." IV. iii. 10; "Cyrop." I. vi. 31.
On the side of right, to my notion (he replied).
Soc. Or again, if a man chanced to have a son ill and in need of
medicine, which the child refused to take, and supposing the father by
an act of deceit to administer it under the guise of something nice to
eat, and by service of that lie to restore the boy to health, to which
account shall we set down this fraud?
Euth. In my judgment it too should be placed to the same account.
Soc. Well, supposing you have a friend in deplorably low spirits, and
you are afraid he will make away with himself--accordingly you rob him
of his knife or other such instrument: to which side ought we to set
the theft?
Euth. That too must surely be placed to the score of right behaviour.
Soc. I understand you to say that a straightforward course is not in
every case to be pursued even in dealing with friends?
Heaven forbid! (the youth exclaimed). If you will allow me, I rescind
my former statement.[31]
[31] See above, I. ii. 44 ({anatithemai}).
Soc. Allow you! Of course you may--anything rather than make a false
entry on our lists. . . . But there is just another point we ought not
to leave uninvestigated. Let us take the case of deceiving a friend to
his detriment: which is the more wrongful--to do so voluntarily or
unintentionally?
Euth. Really, Socrates, I have ceased to believe in my own answers,
for all my former admissions and conceptions seem to me other than I
first supposed them.[32] Still, if I may hazard one more opinion, the
intentional deceiver, I should say, is worse than the involuntary.
[32] Or, "all my original positions seem to me now other than I first
conceived them"; or, "everything I first asserted seems now to be
twisted topsy-turvy."
Soc. And is it your opinion that there is a lore and science of Right
and Justice just as there is of letters and grammar?[33]
[33] {mathesis kai episteme tou dikaiou}--a doctrine and a knowledge
of the Just.
Euth. That is my opinion.
Soc. And which should you say was more a man of letters[34]--he who
intentionally misspells or misreads, or he who does so unconsciously?
[34] Or, "more grammatical"; "the better grammarian."
Euth. He who does so intentionally, I should say, because he can spell
or read correctly whenever he chooses.
Soc. Then the voluntary misspeller may be a lettered person, but the
involuntary offender is an illiterate?[35]
[35] Or, "In fact, he who sins against the lore of grammer
intentionally may be a good grammarian and a man of letters, but
he who does so involuntarily is illiterate and a bad grammarian?"
Euth. True, he must be. I do not see how to escape from that
conclusion.
Soc. And which of the two knows what is right--he who intentionally
lies and deceives, or he who lies and deceives unconsciously?[36]
[36] Or, Soc. And does he who lies and deceives with intent know what
is right rather than he who does either or both unconsciously?
Euth. Clearly he does.
Euth. The intentional and conscious liar clearly.
Soc. Well then, your statement is this: on the one hand, the man who
has the knowledge of letters is more lettered than he who has no such
knowledge?[37]
[37] Or, Soc. It is a fair inference, is it not, that he who has the
{episteme} of grammar is more grammatical than he who has no such
{episteme}?
Euth. Yes.
Soc. And he who has the {episteme} of things rightful is more
righteous than he who lacks the {episteme}? See Plat. "Hipp.
min."; Arist. "Eth. Eud." VI. v. 7.
Euth. Yes.
Soc. And, on the other, he who has the knowledge of what is right is
more righteous than he who lacks that knowledge?
Euth. I suppose it is, but for the life of me I cannot make head or
tail of my own admission.[38]
[38] Lit. "Apparently; but I appear to myself to be saying this also,
heaven knows how." See Jowett, "Plato," ii. p. 416 (ed. 2).
Soc. Well (look at it like this). Suppose a man to be anxious to speak
the truth, but he is never able to hold the same language about a
thing for two minutes together. First he says: "The road is towards
the east," and then he says, "No, it's towards the west"; or, running
up a column of figures, now he makes the product this, and again he
makes it that, now more, now less--what do you think of such a man?
Euth. Heaven help us! clearly he does not know what he thought he
knew.
Soc. And you know the appellation given to certain people--
"slavish,"[39] or, "little better than a slave?"
[39] {andropododeis}, which has the connotation of mental dulness, and
a low order of intellect, cf. "boorish,' "rustic," "loutish,"
("pariah," conceivably). "Slavish," "servile," with us connote
moral rather than intellectual deficiency, I suppose. Hence it is
impossible to preserve the humour of the Socratic argument. See
Newman, op. cit. i. 107.
Euth. I do.
Soc. Is it a term suggestive of the wisdom or the ignorance of those
to whom it is applied?
Euth. Clearly of their ignorance.
Soc. Ignorance, for instance, of smithying?
Euth. No, certainly not.
Soc. Then possibly ignorance of carpentering?
Euth. No, nor yet ignorance of carpentering.
Soc. Well, ignorance of shoemaking?
Euth. No, nor ignorance of any of these: rather the reverse, for the
majority of those who do know just these matters are "little better
than slaves."
Soc. You mean it is a title particularly to those who are ignorant of
the beautiful, the good, the just?[40]
[40] Cf. Goethe's "Im Ganzen Guten Schonen resolut zu leben."
It is, in my opinion (he replied).
Soc. Then we must in every way strain every nerve to avoid the
imputation of being slaves?
Euth. Nay, Socrates, by all that is holy, I did flatter myself that at
any rate I was a student of philosophy, and on the right road to be
taught everything essential to one who would fain make beauty and
goodness his pursuit.[41] So that now you may well imagine my despair
when, for all my pains expended, I cannot even answer the questions
put to me about what most of all a man should know; and there is no
path of progress open to me, no avenue of improvement left.
[41] {tes kalokagathias}, the virtue of the {kalos te kagathos}--
nobility of soul. Cf. above, I. vi. 14.
Thereupon Socrates: Tell me, Euthydemus, have you ever been to Delphi?
Yes, certainly; twice (said he).
Soc. And did you notice an inscription somewhere on the temple: {GNOMI
SEAUTON}--KNOW THYSELF?
Euth. I did.
Soc. Did you, possibly, pay no regard to the inscription? or did you
give it heed and try to discover who and what you were?
I can safely say I did not (he answered). That much I made quite sure
I knew, at any rate; since if I did not know even myself, what in the
world did I know?
Soc. Can a man be said, do you think, to know himself who knows his
own name and nothing more? or must he not rather set to work precisely
like the would-be purchaser of a horse, who certainly does not think
that he has got the knowledge he requires until he has discovered
whether the beast is tractable or stubborn, strong or weak, quick or
slow, and how it stands with the other points, serviceable or the
reverse, in reference to the use and purpose of a horse? So, I say,
must a man in like manner interrogate his own nature in reference to a
man's requirements, and learn to know his own capacities, must he not?
Euth. Yes, so it strikes me: he who knows not his own ability knows
not himself.
Soc. And this too is plain, is it not: that through self-knowledge men
meet with countless blessings, and through ignorance of themselves
with many evils? Because, the man who knows himself knows what is
advantageous to himself; he discerns the limits of his powers, and by
doing what he knows, he provides himself with what he needs and so
does well; or, conversely, by holding aloof from what he knows not, he
avoids mistakes and thereby mishaps. And having now a test to gauge
other human beings he uses their need as a stepping-stone to provide
himself with good and to avoid evil. Whereas he who does not know
himself, but is mistaken as to his own capacity, is in like
predicament to the rest of mankind and all human matters else; he
neither knows what he wants, nor what he is doing, nor the people whom
he deals with; and being all abroad in these respects, he misses what
is good and becomes involved in what is ill.
Again, he that knows what he is doing through the success of his
performance attains to fame and honour; his peers and co-mates are
glad to make use of him, whilst his less successful neighbours,
failing in their affairs, are anxious to secure his advice, his
guidance, his protection;[42] they place their hopes of happiness in
him, and for all these causes[43] single him out as the chief object
of their affection. He, on the contrary, who knows not what he does,
who chooses amiss and fails in what he puts his hands to, not only
incurs loss and suffers chastisement through his blunders, but step by
step loses reputation and becomes a laughing-stock, and in the end is
doomed to a life of dishonour and contempt.
[42] Cf. Dante, "Tu duca, tu maestro, tu signore."
[43] Reading, {dia panta tauta}, or if {dia tauta}, translate "and
therefore."
What is true of individuals is true also of communities.[44] That
state which in ignorance of its power goes to war with a stronger than
itself ends by being uprooted or else reduced to slavery.
[44] Or, more lit. "A law which applies, you will observe, to bodies
politic."
Thereupon Euthydemus: Be assured I fully concur in your opinion; the
precept KNOW THYSELF cannot be too highly valued; but what is the
application? What the starting-point of self-examination? I look to
you for an explanation, if you would kindly give one.[45]
[45] Or, "at what point to commence the process of self-inspection?--
there is the mystery. I look to you, if you are willing, to
interpret it."
Well (replied Socrates), I presume you know quite well the distinction
between good and bad things: your knowledge may be relied upon so far?
Why, yes, to be sure (replied the youth); for without that much
discernment I should indeed be worse than any slave.[46]
[46] Lit. "if I did not know even that."
Come then (said he), do you give me an explanation of the things so
termed.
That is fortunately not hard (replied the youth). First of all, health
in itself I hold to be a good, and disease in itself an evil; and in
the next place the sources of either of those aforenamed, meats and
drinks, and habits of life,[47] I regard as good or evil according as
they contribute either to health or to disease.
[47] Or, "pursuits and occupations"; "manners and customs."
Soc. Then health and disease themselves when they prove to be soruces
of any good are good, but when of any evil, evil?
And when (asked he), can health be a source of evil, or disease a
source of good?
Why, bless me! often enough (replied Socrates). In the event, for
instance, of some ill-starred expedition or of some disastrous voyage
or other incident of the sort, of which veritably there are enough to
spare--when those who owing to their health and strength take a part
in the affair are lost; whilst those who were left behind--as hors de
combat, on account of ill-health of other feebleness--are saved.
Euth. Yes, you are right; but you will admit that there are advantages
to be got from strength and lost through weakness.
Soc. Even so; but ought we to regard those things which at one moment
benefit and at another moment injure us in any strict sense good
rather than evil?
Euth. No, certainly not, according to that line of argument. But
wisdom,[48] Socrates, you must on your side admit, is irrefragably a
good; since there is nothing which or in which a wise man would not do
better than a fool.
[48] See above, III. ix. 5. Here {sophia} is not = {sophrosune}.
Soc. What say you? Have you never heard of Daedalus,[49] how he was
seized by Minos on account of his wisdom, and forced to be his slave,
and robbed of fatherland and freedom at one swoop? and how, while
endeavouring to make his escape with his son, he caused the boy's
death without effecting his own salvation, but was carried off among
barbarians and again enslaved?
[49] See Ovid. "Met." viii. 159 foll., 261 foll.; Hygin. "Fab." 39,
40; Diod. Sic. iv. 79; Paus. vii. 4. 6.
Yes, I know the old story (he answered).[50]
[50] Or, "Ah yes, of course; the tale is current."
Soc. Or have you not heard of the "woes of Palamedes,"[51] that
commonest theme of song, how for his wisdom's sake Odysseus envied him
and slew him?
[51] See Virg. "Aen." ii. 90; Hygin. 105; Philostr. "Her." x.
Euth. That tale also is current.
Soc. And how many others, pray, do you suppose have been seized on
account of their wisdom, and despatched to the great king and at his
court enslaved?[52]
[52] Cf. Herod. iii. 129.
Well, prosperity, well-being[53] (he exclaimed), must surely be a
blessing, and that the most indisputable, Socrates?
[53] {to eudaimonein}, "happiness." Cf. Herod. i. 86.
It might be so (replied the philosopher) if it chanced not to be in
itself a compound of other questionable blessings.
Euth. And which among the components of happiness and well-being can
possibly be questionable?
None (he retorted), unless of course we are to include among these
components beauty, or strength, or wealth, or reputation, or anything
else of that kind?
Euth. By heaven! of course we are to include these, for what would
happiness be without these?
Soc. By heaven! yes; only then we shall be including the commonest
sources of mischief which befall mankind. How many are ruined by their
fair faces at the hand of admireres driven to distraction[54] by the
sight of beauty in its bloom! how many, tempted by their strength to
essay deeds beyond their power, are involved in no small evils! how
many, rendered effeminate by reason of their wealth, have been plotted
against and destroyed![55] how many through fame and political power
have suffered a world of woe!
[54] Cf. Plat. "Rep." vii. 517 D; "Phaedr." 249 D.
[55] e.g. Alcibiades.
Well (the youth replied) if I am not even right in praising happiness,
I must confess I know not for what one ought to supplicate the gods in
prayer.[56]
[56] See above for Socrates' own form of supplication.
Nay, these are matters (proceeded Socrates) which perhaps, through
excessive confidence in your knowledge of them, you have failed to
examine into; but since the state, which you are preparing yourself to
direct, is democratically constituted,[57] of course you know what a
democracy is.
[57] Or, "popularly governed."
Euth. I presume I do, decidedly.
Soc. Well, now, is it possible to know what a popular state is without
knowing who the people are?
Euth. Certainly not.
Soc. And whom do you consider to be the people?
Euth. The poor citizens, I should say.
Soc. Then you know who the poor are, of course?
Euth. Of course I do.
Soc. I presume you also know who the rich are?
Euth. As certainly as I know who are the poor.
Soc. Whom do you understand by poor and rich?
Euth. By poor I mean those who have not enough to pay for their
necessaries,[58] and by rich those who have more means than sufficient
for all their needs.
[58] Al. "who cannot contribute their necessary quota to the taxes
(according to the census)."
Soc. Have you noticed that some who possess a mere pittance not only
find this sufficient, but actually succeed in getting a surplus out of
it; while others do not find a large fortune large enough?
I have, most certainly; and I thank you for the reminder (replied
Euthydemus). One has heard of crowned heads and despotic rulers being
driven by want to commit misdeeds like the veriest paupers.
Then, if that is how matters stand (continued Socrates), we must class
these same crowned heads with the commonalty; and some possessors of
scant fortunes, provided they are good economists, with the wealthy?
Then Euthydemus: It is the poverty of my own wit which forces me to
this admission. I bethink me it is high time to keep silence
altogether; a little more, and I shall be proved to know absolutely
nothing. And so he went away crestfallen, in an agony of self-
contempt, persuaded that he was verily and indeed no better than a
slave.
Amongst those who were reduced to a like condition by Socrates, many
refused to come near him again, whom he for his part looked upon as
dolts and dullards.[59] But Euthydemus had the wit to understand that,
in order to become worthy of account, his best plan was to associate
as much as possible with Socrates; and from that moment, save for some
necessity, he never left him--in some points even imitating him in his
habits and pursuits. Socrates, on his side, seeing that this was the
young man's disposition, disturbed him as little as possible, but in
the simplest and plainest manner initiated him into everything which
he held to be needful to know or important to practise.
[59] Or, "as people of dull intelligence and sluggish temperament."
Cf. Plat. "Gorg." 488 A.
III
It may be inferred that Socrates was in no hurry for those who were
with him to discover capacities for speech and action or as inventive
geniuses,[1] without at any rate a well-laid foundation of self-
control.[2] For those who possessed such abilities without these same
saving virtues would, he believed, only become worse men with greater
power for mischief. His first object was to instil into those who were
with him a wise spirit in their relation to the gods.[3] That such was
the tenor of his conversation in dealing with men may be seen from the
narratives of others who were present on some particular occasion.[4]
I confine myself to a particular discussion with Euthydemus at which I
was present.
[1] Or, "as speakers" (see ch. vi. below), "and men of action" (see
ch. v. below), "or as masters of invention" (see ch. vii. below).
[2] Or, "but as prior to those excellences must be engrafted in them
{sophrosune} (the virtues of temperance and sanity of soul)."
[3] Lit. "His first object and endeavour was to make those who were
with him {sophronas} (sound of soul) as regards the gods."
[4] Reading after Herbst, Cobet, etc., {diegountai}, or if vulg.
{diegounto}, translate, "from the current accounts penned during
his lifetime by the other witnesses." For {alloi} see K. Joel, op.
cit. pp. 15, 23; above, "Mem." I. iv. 1.
Socrates said:[5] Tell me, Euthydemus, has it ever struck you to
observe what tender pains the gods have taken to furnish man with all
his needs?
[5] For the subject matter of this "teleological" chapter, see above,
I. iv.; K. Joel, op. cit. Appendix, p. 547 foll. in ref. to
Dummler's views.
Euth. No indeed, I cannot say that it has ever struck me.
Well (Socrates cotinued), you do not need to be reminded that, in the
first place, we need light, and with light the gods supply us.
Euth. Most true, and if we had not got it we should, as far as our own
eyes could help us, be like men born blind.
Soc. And then, again, seeing that we stand in need of rest and
relaxation, they bestow upon us "the blessed balm of silent night."[6]
[6] {kalliston anapauterion}. The diction throughout is "poetical."
Yes (he answered), we are much beholden for that boon.
Soc. Then, forasmuch as the sun in his splendour makes manifest to us
the hours of the day and bathes all things in brightness, but anon
night in her darkness obliterates distinctions, have they not
displayed aloft the starry orbs, which inform us of the watches of the
night, whereby we can accomplish many of our needs?[7]
[7] e.g. for temple orientation see Dr. Penrose quoted by Norman
Lockyer, "Nature," August 31. 1893.
It is so (he answered).
Soc. And let us not forget that the moon herself not only makes clear
to us the quarters of the night, but of the month also?
Certainly (he answered).
Soc. And what of this: that whereas we need nutriment, this too the
heavenly powers yield us? Out of earth's bosom they cause good to
spring up[8] for our benefit; and for our benefit provide appropriate
seasons to furnish us in turn not only with the many and diverse
objects of need, but with the sources also of our joy and gladness?[9]
[8] Cf. Plat. "Laws," 747 D.
[9] Or, "pleasure."
Yes (he answered earerly), these things bear token truly to a love for
man.[10]
[10] Cf. Plat. "Laws," 713 D; "Symp." 189 D. "These things are signs
of a beneficient regard for man."
Soc. Well, and what of another priceless gift, that of water, which
conspires with earth and the seasons to give both birth and increase
to all things useful to us; nay, which helps to nurture our very
selves, and commingling with all that feeds us, renders it more
digestible, more wholesome, and more pleasant to the taste; and mark
you in proportion to the abundance of our need the superabundance of
its supply. What say you concerning such a boon?
Euth. In this again I see a sign of providential care.
Soc. And then the fact that the same heavenly power has provided us
with fire[11]--our assistant against cold, our auxiliary in darkness,
our fellow-workman in every art and every instrument which for the
sake of its utility mortal man may invent or furnish himself withal.
What of this, since, to put it compendiously, there is nothing
serviceable to the life of man worth speaking of but owes its
fabrication to fire?[12]
[11] Lit. "and then the fact that they made provision for us of even
fire"; the credit of this boon, according to Hesiod, being due to
Prometheus.
[12] Or, "no life-aiding appliance worthy of the name."
Euth. Yes, a transcendent instance of benevolent design.[13]
[13] Or, "Yes, that may be called an extreme instance of the divine
'philanthropy.'" Cf. Cic. "de N. D." ii. 62.
Soc. Again, consider the motions of the Sun,[14] how when he has
turned him about in winter[15] he again draws nigh to us, ripening
some fruits, and causing others whose time is past to dry up; how when
he has fulfilled his work he comes no closer, but turns away as if in
fear to scorch us to our hurt unduly; and again, when he has reached a
point where if he should prolong his reatreat we should plainly be
frozen to death with cold, note how he turns him about and resumes his
approach, traversing that region of the heavens where he may shed his
genial influence best upon us.
[14] A single MS. inserts a passage {to de kai era . . .
'Anekphraston}.
[15] i.e. as we say, "after the winter solstice."
Yes, upon my word (he answered), these occurrences bear the impress of
being so ordered for the sake of man.
Soc. And then, again, it being manifest that we could not endure
either scorching heat or freezing cold if they came suddenly upon us,
note how gradually the sun approaches, and how gradually recedes, so
that we fail to notice how we come at last to either extreme.[16]
[16] Or, "note the gradual approach and gradual recession of the sun-
god, so gradual that we reach either extreme in a manner
imperceptibly, and before we are aware of its severity."
For my part (he replied), the question forces itself upon my mind,
whether the gods have any other occupation save only to minister to
man; and I am only hindered from saying so, because the rest of
animals would seem to share these benefits along with man.
Soc. Why, to be sure; and is it not plain that these animals
themselves are born and bred for the sake of man? At any rate, no
living creature save man derives so many of his enjoyments from sheep
and goats, horses and cattle and asses, and other animals. He is more
dependent, I should suppose, on these than even on plants and
vegetables. At any rate, equally with these latter they serve him as
means of subsistence or articles of commerce; indeed, a large portion
of the human family do not use the products of the soil as food at
all, but live on the milk and cheese and flesh of their flocks and
herds, whilst all men everywhere tame and domesticate the more useful
kinds of animals, and turn them to account as fellow-workers in war
and for other purposes.
Yes, I cannot but agree with what you say (he answered), when I see
that animals so much stronger than man become so subservient to his
hand that he can use them as he lists.
Soc. And as we reflect on the infinite beauty and utility and the
variety of nature, what are we to say of the fact that man has been
endowed with sensibilities which correspond with this diversity,
whereby we take our fill of every blessing;[17] or, again, this
implanted faculty of reasoning, which enables us to draw inferences
concerning the things which we perceive, and by aid of memory to
understand how each set of things may be turned to our good, and to
devise countless contrivances with a view to enjoying the good and
repelling the evil; or lastly, when we consider the faculty bestowed
upon us of interpretative speech, by which we are enabled to instruct
one another, and to participate in all the blessings fore-named: to
form societies, to establish laws, and to enter upon a civilised
existence[18]--what are we to think?
[17] Or, "Again, when we consider how many beautiful objects there are
serviceable to man, and yet how unlike they are to one another,
the fact that man has been endowed with senses adapted to each
class of things, and so has access to a world of happiness."
[18] Cf. Aristot. "Pol." III. ix. 5.
Euth. Yes, Socrates, decidely it would appear that the gods do
manifest a great regard, nay, a tender care, towards mankind.
Soc. Well, and what do you make of the fact that where we are
powerless to take advantageous forethought for our future, at this
stage they themselves lend us their co-operation, imparting to the
inquirer through divination knowledge of events about to happen, and
instructing him by what means they may best be turned to good account?
Euth. Ay, and you, Socrates, they would seem to treat in a more
friendly manner still than the rest of men, if, without waiting even
to be inquired of by you, they show you by signs beforehand what you
must, and what you must not do.[19]
[19] See above, I. iv. 14, for a parallel to the train of thought on
the part of Aristodemus "the little," and of Euthydemus; and for
Socrates' {daimonion}, see above; Grote, "Plato," i. 400.
Soc. Yes, and you will discover for youself the truth of what I say,
if, without waiting to behold the outward and visible forms[20] of the
gods themselves, you will be content to behold their works; and with
these before you, to worship and honour the Divine authors of
them.[21] I would have you reflect that the very gods themselves
suggest this teaching.[22] Not one of these but gives us freely of his
blessings; yet they do not step from behind their veil in order to
grant one single boon.[23] And pre-eminently He who orders and holds
together the universe,[24] in which are all things beautiful and
good;[25] who fashions and refashions it to never-ending use unworn,
keeping it free from sickness or decay,[26] so that swifter than
thought it ministers to his will unerringly--this God is seen to
perform the mightiest operations, but in the actual administration of
the same abides himself invisible to mortal ken. Reflect further, this
Sun above our heads, so visible to all--as we suppose--will not suffer
man to regard him too narrowly, but should any essay to watch him with
a shameless stare he will snatch away their power of vision. And if
the gods themselves are thus unseen, so too shall you find their
ministers to be hidden also; from the height of heaven above the
thunderbolt is plainly hurled, and triumphs over all that it
encounters, yet it is all-invisible, no eye may detect its coming or
its going at the moment of its swoop. The winds also are themselves
unseen, though their works are manifest, and through their approach we
are aware of them. And let us not forget, the soul of man himself,
which if aught else human shares in the divine--however manifestly
enthroned within our bosom, is as wholly as the rest hidden from our
gaze. These things you should lay to mind, and not despise the
invisible ones, but learn to recognise their power, as revealed in
outward things, and to know the divine influence.[27]
[20] Cf. Cic. "de N. D." I. xii. 31; Lactantius, "de Ira," xi. 13.
[21] See L. Dindorf ad loc. (ed. Ox. 1862), {theous}; G. Sauppe, vol.
iii. "An. crit." p. xxix; R. Kuhner; C. Schenkl.
[22] i.e. "that man must walk by faith." For {upodeiknunai} cf.
"Econ." xii. 18.
[23] Schneid. cf. Plat. "Crat." 396.
[24] Or, "the co-ordinator and container of the universe."
[25] Or, "in whom all beauty and goodness is."
[26] Cf. "Cyrop." VIII. vii. 22; above, I. iv. 13.
[27] {to daimonion}, the divinity.
Nay, Socrates (replied Euthydemus), there is no danger I shall turn a
deaf ear to the divine influence even a little; of that I am not
afraid, but I am out of heart to think that no soul of man may ever
requite the kindness of the gods with fitting gratitude.
Be not out of heart because of that (he said); you know what answer
the god at Delphi makes to each one who comes asking "how shall I
return thanks to heaven?"--"According to the law and custom of your
city"; and this, I presume, is law and custom everywhere that a man
should please the gods with offerings according to the ability which
is in him.[28] How then should a man honour the gods with more
beautiful or holier honour than by doing what they bid him? but he
must in no wise slacken or fall short of his ability, for when a man
so does, it is manifest, I presume, that at the moment he is not
honouring the gods. You must then honour the gods, not with
shortcoming but according to your ability; and having so done, be of
good cheer and hope to receive the greatest blessings. For where else
should a man of sober sense look to receive great blessings if not
from those who are able to help him most, and how else should he hope
to obtain them save by seeking to please his helper, and how may he
hope to please his helper better than by yielding him the amplest
obedience?
[28] Or, "and that law, I presume, is universal which says, Let a
man," etc.; and for the maxim see above; "Anab." III. ii. 9.
By such words--and conduct corresponding to his words--did Socrates
mould and fashion the hearts of his companions, making them at once
more devout and more virtuous.[29]
[29] Or, "sounder of soul and more temperate as well as more pious."
IV
But indeed[1] with respect to justice and uprightness he not only made
no secret of the opinion he held, but gave practical demonstration of
it, both in private by his law-abiding and helpful behaviour to
all,[2] and in public by obeying the magistrates in all that the laws
enjoined, whether in the life of the city or in military service, so
that he was a pattern of loyalty to the rest of the world, and on
three several occasions in particular: first, when as president
(Epistates) of the assembly he would not suffer the sovereign people
to take an unconstitutional vote,[3] but ventured, on the side of the
laws, to resist a current of popular feeling strong enough, I think,
to have daunted any other man. Again, when the Thirty tried to lay
some injunction on him contrary to the laws, he refused to obey, as
for instance when they forbade his conversing with the young;[4] or
again, when they ordered him and certain other citizens to arrest a
man to be put to death,[5] he stood out single-handed on the ground
that the injunctions laid upon him were contrary to the laws. And
lastly, when he appeared as defendant in the suit instituted by
Meletus,[6] notwithstanding that it was customary for litigants in the
law courts to humour the judges in the conduct of their arguments by
flattery and supplications contrary to the laws,[7] notwithstanding
also that defendants owed their acquittal by the court to the
employment of such methods, he refused to do a single thing however
habitual in a court of law which was not strictly legal; and though by
only a slight deflection from the strict path he might easily have
been acquitted by his judges,[8] he preferred to abide by the laws and
die rather than transgress them and live.
[1] L. Dindorf suspects [SS. 1-6, {'Alla men . . . pollakis}], ed.
Lips. 1872. See also Praef. to Ox. ed. p. viii.
[2] Or, "by his conduct to all, which was not merely innocent in the
eye of law and custom but positively helpful."
[3] See above, I. i. 18; "Hell." I. vii. 14, 15; Grote, "H. G." viii.
272.
[4] See above, I. ii. 35.
[5] Leon of Salamis. See "Hell." II. iii. 39; Plat. "Apol." 32 C;
Andoc. "de Myst." 46.
[6] See above, I. i. 1; Plat. "Apol." 19 C.
[7] Kuhner cf. Quintil. VI. i. 7: "Athenis affectus movere etiam per
praeconem prohibatur orator"; "Apol." 4; Plat. "Apol." 38 D, E.
[8] See Grote, "H. G." viii. p. 663 foll.
These views he frequently maintained in conversation, now with one and
now with another, and one particular discussion with Hippias of
Elis[9] on the topic of justice and uprightness has come to my
knowledge.[10]
[9] For this famous person see Cob. "Pros. Xen." s.n.; Plat. "Hipp.
maj." 148; Quint. xii. 11, 21; Grote, "H. G." viii. 524.
[10] Or, "I can personally vouch for."
Hippias had just arrived at Athens after a long absence, and chanced
to be present when Socrates was telling some listeners how astonishing
it was that if a man wanted to get another taught to be a shoemaker or
carpenter or coppersmith or horseman, he would have no doubt where to
send him for the purpose: "People say,"[11] he added, "that if a man
wants to get his horse or his ox taught in the right way,[12] the
world is full of instructors; but if he would learn himself, or have
his son or his slave taught in the way of right, he cannot tell where
to find such instruction."
[11] L. Dindorf, after Ruhnken and Valckenar, omits this sentence
{phasi de tines . . . didaxonton}. See Kuhner ad loc. For the
sentiment see Plat. "Apol." 20 A.
[12] Cf. "Cyrop." II. ii. 26; VIII. iii. 38; also "Horsem." iii. 5;
"Hunting," vii. 4.
Hippias, catching the words, exclaimed in a bantering tone: What!
still repeating the same old talk,[13] Socrates, which I used to hear
from you long ago?
[13] This tale is repeated by Dio Chrys. "Or." III. i. 109. Cf. Plat.
"Gorg." 490 E.
Yes (answered Socrates), and what is still more strange, Hippias, it
is not only the same old talk but about the same old subjects. Now
you, I daresay, through versatility of knowledge,[14] never say the
same thing twice over on the same subject?
[14] Or, "such is the breadth of your learning," {polumathes}. Cf.
Plat. "Hipp. maj."
To be sure (he answered), my endeavour is to say something new on all
occasions.
What (he asked) about things which you know, as for instance in a case
of spelling, if any one asks you, "How many letters in Socrates, and
what is their order?"[15] I suppose you try to run off one string of
letters to-day and to-morrow another? or to a question of arithmetic,
"Does twice five make ten?" your answer to-day will differ from that
of ye