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]
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.
Socrates. 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).
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.
Socrates. 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.
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.
Socrates. 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]
Euthydemus answered: Quite true, Socrates, and I mean to go on
collecting until I possess all the books I can possibly lay hold of.
Socrates. 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.
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.
Socrates. 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.
Socrates. 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]
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]
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?
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]
Euthydemus. 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?
Euthydemus. 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?
Socrates. 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?
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.
Socrates. 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?
Socrates. 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]
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]
Socrates. 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?
Euthydemus. In my judgment it too should be placed to the same account.
Socrates. 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?
Euthydemus. That too must surely be placed to the score of right behaviour.
Socrates. 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]
Socrates. 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?
Euthydemus. 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.
Socrates. 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]
Socrates. And which should you say was more a man of letters[34]--he who
intentionally misspells or misreads, or he who does so unconsciously?
Euthydemus. He who does so intentionally, I should say, because he can spell
or read correctly whenever he chooses.
Socrates. Then the voluntary misspeller may be a lettered person, but the
involuntary offender is an illiterate?[35]
Euthydemus. True, he must be. I do not see how to escape from that
conclusion.
Socrates. And which of the two knows what is right--he who intentionally
lies and deceives, or he who lies and deceives unconsciously?[36]
Euthydemus. The intentional and conscious liar clearly.
Socrates. 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]
Socrates. And, on the other, he who has the knowledge of what is right is
more righteous than he who lacks that knowledge?
Euthydemus. I suppose it is, but for the life of me I cannot make head or
tail of my own admission.[38]
Socrates. 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?
Euthydemus. Heaven help us! clearly he does not know what he thought he
knew.
Socrates. And you know the appellation given to certain people--
"slavish,"[39] or, "little better than a slave?"
Euthydemus. 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."
Socrates. You mean it is a title particularly to those who are ignorant of
the beautiful, the good, the just?[40]
Socrates. Then we must in every way strain every nerve to avoid the
imputation of being slaves?
Euthydemus. 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.
Thereupon Socrates: Tell me, Euthydemus, have you ever been to Delphi?
Socrates. 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?
Socrates. 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?
Euthydemus. Yes, so it strikes me: he who knows not his own ability knows
not himself.
Socrates. 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.
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.
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]
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]
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.
Socrates. 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.
Euthydemus. Yes, you are right; but you will admit that there are advantages
to be got from strength and lost through weakness.
Socrates. 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?
Euthydemus. 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.
Socrates. 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?
Socrates. 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?
Socrates. 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]
Well, prosperity, well-being[53] (he exclaimed), must surely be a
blessing, and that the most indisputable, Socrates?
It might be so (replied the philosopher) if it chanced not to be in
itself a compound of other questionable blessings.
Euthydemus. 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?
Euthydemus. By heaven! of course we are to include these, for what would
happiness be without these?
Socrates. 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!
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]
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.
Socrates. I presume you also know who the rich are?
Euthydemus. As certainly as I know who are the poor.
Socrates. Whom do you understand by poor and rich?
Euthydemus. 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.
Socrates. 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.
[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.)
[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).
[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?"
[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.
[13] Or, more lit. "powerful in speech and action within the sphere of
politics."
[14] The question arises: how far is the conversation historical or
imaginary?
[15] Or, "have collected several works of our classical authors and
philosophers."
[16] Lit. "gnomes," maxims, sententiae. Cf. Aristot. "Rhet." ii. 21.
[17] {suggrammata}, "medical treatises." See Aristot. "Eth." x. 9, 21.
[18] Or, "To be that implies a considerable store of well-packed
wisdom."
[19] Of Cyrene (cf. Plat. "Theaet.") taught Plato. Diog. Laert. ii. 8,
19.
[22] See Jowett, "Plato," i. 229; Grote, "Plato," i. 455.
[23] Or, "are simply perfect in the art of reciting epic poetry, but
are apt to be the veriest simpletons themselves."
[24] Or, "statesmen, and economists, and rules, and benefactors of
the rest of the world and themselves."
[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.'"
[26] The letter R (to stand for Right, Righteous, Upright, Just). The
letter W (to stand for Wrong, Unrighteous, Unjust).
[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.
[29] Or, "an absolutely straightforward course is necessary."
[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."
[33] {mathesis kai episteme tou dikaiou}--a doctrine and a knowledge
of the Just.
[34] Or, "more grammatical"; "the better grammarian."
[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?"
[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.
[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.
[38] Lit. "Apparently; but I appear to myself to be saying this also,
heaven knows how." See Jowett, "Plato," ii. p. 416 (ed. 2).
[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.
[40] Cf. Goethe's "Im Ganzen Guten Schonen resolut zu leben."
[41] {tes kalokagathias}, the virtue of the {kalos te kagathos}--
nobility of soul. Cf. above, I. vi. 14.
[42] Cf. Dante, "Tu duca, tu maestro, tu signore."
[43] Reading, {dia panta tauta}, or if {dia tauta}, translate "and
therefore."
[44] Or, more lit. "A law which applies, you will observe, to bodies
politic."
[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."