Yes, and mine, Socrates, to Eurysaces, and that of Eurysaces to Zeus!
Yes, and mine, noble Alcibiades, to Daedalus, Socrates’ father, Sophroniscus, was a sculptor, and Daedalus was the legendary inventor of sculpture. and Daedalus to Hephaestus, son of Zeus! But take the lines of those people, i.e., the kings of Sparta and Persia. going back from them: you have a succession of kings reaching to Zeus—on the one hand, kings of Argos and Sparta; on the other, of Persia, which they have always ruled, and frequently Asia also, as at present; whereas we are private persons ourselves, and so were our fathers. And then, suppose that you had to make what show you could of your ancestors, and of Salamis as the native land of Eurysaces, or of Aegina as the home of the yet earlier Aeacus, to impress Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes, how you must expect to be laughed at! Why, I am afraid we are quite outdone by those persons in pride of birth and upbringing altogether. Or have you not observed how great are the advantages of the Spartan kings, and how their wives are kept under statutory ward of the ephors, in order that every possible precaution may be taken against the king being born of any but the Heracleidae? And the Persian king so far surpasses us that no one has a suspicion that he could have been born of anybody but the king before him; and hence the king’s wife has nothing to guard her except fear. When the eldest son, the heir to the throne, is born, first of all the king’s subjects who are in his palace have a feast, and then for ever after on that date the whole of Asia celebrates the king’s birthday with sacrifice and feasting: but when we are born, as the comic poet The saying, which became proverbial, is thought to have occurred in one of the (now lost) plays of Plato, the Athenian comic poet, who lived c. 460-389 B.C. says, even the neighbors barely notice it,Plato Comicus? Alcibiades. After that comes the nurture of the child, not at the hands of a woman-nurse of little worth, but of the most highly approved eunuchs in the king’s service, who are charged with the whole tendance of the new-born child, and especially with the business of making him as handsome as possible by moulding his limbs into a correct shape; and while doing this they are in high honor. When the boys are seven years old they are given horses and have riding lessons, and they begin to follow the chase. And when the boy reaches fourteen years he is taken over by the royal tutors, as they call them there: these are four men chosen as the most highly esteemed among the Persians of mature age, namely, the wisest one, the justest one, the most temperate one, and the bravest one.
The first of these teaches him the magian lore of Zoroaster, Zoroaster was the reputed founder of the Persian religion, of which the ministers were the Magi or hereditary priests. son of Horomazes; and that is the worship of the gods: he teaches him also what pertains to a king. The justest teaches him to be truthful all his life long; the most temperate, not to be mastered by even a single pleasure, in order that he may be accustomed to be a free man and a veritable king, who is the master first of all that is in him, not the slave; while the bravest trains him to be fearless and undaunted, telling him that to be daunted is to be enslaved. But you, Alcibiades, had a tutor set over you by Pericles from amongst his servants,who was old as to be the most useless of them, Zopyrus the Thracian. I might describe to you at length the nurture and education of your competitors, were it not too much of a task; and besides, what I have said suffices to show the rest that follows thereon. But about your birth, Alcibiades, or nurture or education, or about those of any other Athenian, one may say that nobody cares, unless it be some lover whom you chance to have. And again, if you chose to glance at the wealth, the luxury, the robes with sweeping trains, the anointings with myrrh, the attendant troops of menials, and all the other refinements of the Persians, you would be ashamed at your own case, on perceiving its inferiority to theirs. Should you choose, again, to look at the temperance and orderliness, the facility and placidity, the magnanimity and discipline, the courage and endurance, and the toil-loving, success-loving, honor-loving spirit of the Spartans, you would count yourself but a child in all these things. If again you regard wealth, and think yourself something in that way, I must not keep silence on this point either, if you are to realize where you stand. For in this respect you have only to look at the wealth of the Spartans, and you will perceive that our riches here are far inferior to theirs. Think of all the land that they have both in their own and in the Messenian country: not one of our estates could compete with theirs in extent and excellence, nor again in ownership of slaves, and especially of those of the helot class, nor yet of horses, nor of all the flocks and herds that graze in Messene. However, I pass over all these things: but there is more gold and silver privately held in Lacedaemon than in the whole of Greece; for during many generations treasure has been passing in to them from every part of Greece, and often from the barbarians also, but not passing out to anyone; and just as in the fable of Aesop, where the fox remarked to the lion on the direction of the footmarks, the traces of the money going into Lacedaemon are clear enough, but nowhere are any to be seen of it coming out;
so that one can be pretty sure that those people are the richest of the Greeks in gold and silver, and that among themselves the richest is the king; for the largest and most numerous receipts of the kind are those of the kings, and besides there is the levy of the royal tribute in no slight amount, which the Spartans pay to their kings. Now, the Spartan fortunes, though great compared with the wealth of other Greeks, are nought beside that of the Persians and their king. For I myself was once told by a trustworthy person, who had been up to their court, that he traversed a very large tract of excellent land, nearly a day’s journey, which the inhabitants called the girdle of the king’s wife, and another which was similarly called her veil; and many other fine and fertile regions reserved for the adornment of the consort; and each of these regions was named after some part of her apparel. So I imagine, if someone should say to the king’s mother Amestris, who was wife of Xerxes, The son of Deinomache The mother of Alcibiades. intends to challenge your son; the mother’s dresses are worth perhaps fifty minae at the outside, while the son has under three hundred acres at Erchiae, In Attica, about fifteen miles east of Athens. she would wonder to what on earth this Alcibiades could be trusting, that he proposed to contend against Artaxerxes; and I expect she would remark—The only possible things that the man can be trusting to for his enterprise are industry and wisdom; for these are the only things of any account among the Greeks. Whereas if she were informed that this Alcibiades who is actually making such an attempt is, in the first place, as yet barely twenty years old, and secondly, altogether uneducated; and further, that when his lover tells him that he must first learn, and take pains over himself, and practise, before he enters on a contest with the king, he refuses, and says he will do very well as he is; I expect she would ask in surprise, On what, then, can the youngster rely? And if we told her, On beauty, stature, birth, wealth, and mental gifts, she would conclude we were mad, Alcibiades, when she compared the advantages of her own people in all these respects.
And I imagine that even Lampido, daughter of Leotychides and wife of Archidamus and mother of Agis, who have all been kings, would wonder in the same way, when she compared her people’s resources, at your intention of having a contest with her son despite your bad upbringing. And yet, does it not strike you as disgraceful that our enemies’ wives should have a better idea of the qualities that we need for an attempt against them than we have ourselves? Ah, my remarkable friend, listen to me and the Delphic motto, Know thyself; for these people are our competitors, not those whom you think; and there is nothing that will give us ascendancy over them save only pains and skill. If you are found wanting in these, you will be found wanting also in achievement of renown among Greeks and barbarians both; and of this I observe you to be more enamored than anyone else ever was of anything.
Well then, what are the pains that I must take, Socrates? Can you enlighten me? For I must say your words are remarkably like the truth.
Yes, I can: but we must put our heads together, Cf. above, Plat. Alc. 1.119b. you know, as to the way in which we can improve ourselves to the utmost. For observe that when I speak of the need of being educated I am not referring only to you, apart from myself; since my case is identical with yours except in one point.
What is that ?
My guardian is better and wiser than your one, Pericles.
Who is he, Socrates?
God, Alcibiades, who until this day would not let me converse with you; and trusting in him I say that through no other man but me will you attain to eminence.
You are jesting, Socrates.
Perhaps; I am right, however, in saying that we need to take pains—all men rather badly, but we two very badly indeed.
As to me, you are not wrong.
Nor, I fear, as to myself either.
Then what can we do?
There must be no crying off or skulking, my good friend.
No, for that would indeed be unseemly, Socrates.
It would; so let us consider in common. Now tell me: we say, do we not, that we wish to be as good as possible?
Yes.
In what excellence?
Clearly that which is the aim of good men.
Good in what?
Clearly, good in the management of affairs.
What sort of affairs? Horsemanship?
No, no.
Because we should apply to horsemen?
Yes.
Well, seamanship, do you mean?
No.
Because we should apply to seamen?
Yes.
Well, what sort of thing? The business of what men?
Of Athenian gentlemen.
Do you mean by gentlemen the intelligent or the unintelligent?
The intelligent.
And everyone is good in that wherein he is intelligent?
Yes.
And bad wherein he is unintelligent?
Of course.
Then is the shoemaker intelligent in the making of foot-gear?
Certainly.
So he is good in that article?
Good.
Well now, is not the shoemaker unintelligent in the making of clothes?
Yes.
So he is bad in that?
Yes.
Then, on this showing, the same man is both bad and good.
Apparently.
Well, can you say that good men are also bad?
No, indeed.
But whoever do you mean by the good?
I mean those who are able to rule in the city.
Not, I presume, over horses?
No, no.
But over men?
Yes.
When they are sick?
No.
Or at sea?
I say, no.
Or harvesting?
No.
Doing nothing, or doing something?
Doing something, I say.
Doing what? Try and let me know.
Well, men who do business with each other and make use of one another, as is our way of life in our cities.
Then you speak of ruling over men who make use of men?
Yes.
Over boatswains who make use of rowers?
No, no.
Because that is the pilot’s distinction?
Yes.
Well, do you mean ruling over men who are flute-players, and who lead the singing and make use of dancers?
No, no.
Because, again, that is the chorus-teacher’s function?
To be sure.
But whatever do you mean by being able to rule over men who make use of men?
I mean ruling over men in the city who share in it as fellow-citizens, and do business with each other.
Well, what art is this? Suppose I should ask you over again, as I did just now, what art makes men know how to rule over fellow-sailors?
The pilot’s.
And what knowledge—to repeat what was said a moment ago—makes them rule over their fellow-singers?
That which you just mentioned, the chorus-teacher’s.
Well now, what do you call the knowledge of one’s fellow-citizens?