<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg013.perseus-eng2:131-135</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg013.perseus-eng2:131-135</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg013.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="131"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="131"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="131a"/><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> So it seems.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And anyone who gets to know something belonging to the body knows the things that are his, but not himself.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> That is so.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then no physician, in so far as he is a physician, knows himself, nor does any trainer, in so far as he is a trainer.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> It seems not.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And farmers, and craftsmen generally, are far from knowing themselves. For these people, it would seem, do not even know their own things, but only things still more remote than their own things, in respect of the arts which they follow; since they know <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="131b"/>but the things of the body, with which it is tended.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> That is true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> So if knowing oneself is temperance, none of these people is temperate in respect of his art.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> None, I agree.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And that is why these arts are held to be sordid, and no acquirements for a good man.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Quite so.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then once again, whoever tends his body tends his own things, but not himself?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> It looks rather like it.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> But whoever tends his money tends neither himself nor <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="131c"/>his own things, but only things yet more remote than his own things?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> I agree.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> So that the money-maker has ceased to do his own business.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Correct.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And if anyone is found to be a lover of Alcibiades’ body, he has fallen in love, not with Alcibiades, but with something belonging to Alcibiades?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> That is true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Your lover is rather he who loves your soul?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> He must be, apparently, by our argument.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And he who loves your body quits you, and is gone, as soon as its bloom is over?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Apparently.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="131d"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Whereas he who loves your soul will not quit you so long as it makes for what is better?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> So it seems.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And I am he who does not quit you, but remains with you when your body’s prime is over, and the rest have departed.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Yes, and I am glad of it, Socrates, and hope you will not go.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then you must endeavor to be as handsome as you can.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Well, I shall endeavor.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> You see how you stand: Alcibiades, <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="131e"/>the son of Cleinias, it seems, neither had nor has any lover except one only, and that a cherished one, Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus and Phaenarete.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> True.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And you said that I only just anticipated you in coming to you, for otherwise you would have come to me first for the purpose of inquiring why I am the only one who does not leave you?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Yes, that was so.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="132"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then the reason was that I was the only lover of you, whereas the rest were lovers of what is yours; and that is losing its charm, <milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="132"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="132a"/>while you are beginning to bloom. So now, if you are not blighted and deformed by the Athenian people, I shall never forsake you. For my chiefest fear is of your being blighted by becoming a lover of the people, since many a good Athenian has come to that ere now. For fair of face is <quote>the people of great-hearted Erechtheus;</quote><bibl n="Hom. Il. 2.547">Hom. Il. 2.547</bibl> but you should get a view of it stripped: so take the precaution that I recommend.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> What is it?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="132b"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Exercise yourself first, my wonderful friend, in learning what you ought to know before entering on politics; you must wait till you have learnt, in order that you may be armed with an antidote and so come to no harm.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Your advice seems to me good, Socrates; but try to explain in what way we can take pains over ourselves.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Well, we have made one step in advance; for there is a pretty fair agreement now as to what we are, whereas we were afraid we might fail of this and take pains, without knowing it, over something other than ourselves.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> That is so.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="132c"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And the next step, we see, is to take care of the soul, and look to that.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Clearly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> While handing over to others the care of our bodies and our coffers.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Quite so.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then how shall we obtain the most certain knowledge of it? For if we know that, it seems we shall know ourselves also. In Heaven’s name, do we fail to comprehend the wise words of the Delphic inscription, which we mentioned just now?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> With what intent do you say that, Socrates?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="132d"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> I will tell you what I suspect to be the real advice which the inscription gives us. I rather think there are not many illustrations of it to be found, but only in the case of sight.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> What do you mean by that?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Consider in your turn: suppose that, instead of speaking to a man, it said to the eye of one of us, as a piece of advice <q type="spoken">See thyself,</q> how should we apprehend the meaning of the admonition? Would it not be, that the eye should look at that by looking at which it would see itself?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Clearly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then let us think what object there is anywhere, by looking at which <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="132e"/>we can see both it and ourselves.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Why, clearly, Socrates, mirrors and things of that sort.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Quite right. And there is also something of that sort in the eye that we see with?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> To be sure.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="133"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And have you observed that the face of the person who looks into another’s eye is shown in the optic confronting him, <milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="133"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="133a"/>as in a mirror, and we call this the pupil, <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">The Greek <foreign xml:lang="grc">κόρη</foreign> and the Latin <q type="foreign">pupilla</q> both mean <gloss>little girl</gloss> or <gloss>doll,</gloss> and were used to indicate the dark center of the eye in which a tiny image can be seen reflected.</note> for in a sort it is an image of the person looking?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="133b"/><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> That is true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then an eye viewing another eye, and looking at the most perfect part of it, the thing wherewith it sees, will thus see itself.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Apparently.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> But if it looks at any other thing in man or at anything in nature but what resembles this, <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">i.e. it must look at the pupil of a man’s eye, or at what is comparable to that <q type="mentioned">perfect part</q> in other things.</note> it will not see itself.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> That is true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then if an eye is to see itself, it must look at an eye, and at that region of the eye in which the virtue of an eye is found to occur; and this, I presume, is sight.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> That is so.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And if the soul too, my dear Alcibiades, is to know herself, she must surely look at a soul, and especially at that region of it in which occurs the virtue of a soul—wisdom, and at any other part of a soul which resembles this?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> I agree, Socrates.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="133c"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And can we find any part of the soul that we can call more divine than this, which is the seat of knowledge and thought?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> We cannot.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then this part of her resembles God, and whoever looks at this, and comes to know all that is divine, will gain thereby the best knowledge of himself.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Apparently.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And self-knowledge we admitted to be temperance. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">Above, <bibl n="Plat. Alc. 1.131b">Plat. Alc. 1.131b</bibl>.</note></said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> To be sure.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> So if we have no knowledge of ourselves and no temperance, shall we be able to know our own belongings, good or evil?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> How can that be, Socrates?</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="133d"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> For I expect it seems impossible to you that without knowing Alcibiades you should know that the belongings of Alcibiades are in fact his.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Impossible indeed, upon my word.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Nor could we know that our belongings are ours if we did not even know ourselves?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> How could we?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And so, if we did not so much as know our belongings, we could not know the belongings of our belongings either?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Apparently not.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then we were not quite correct in admitting just now that there are people who, without knowing themselves, know their belongings, while others know their belongings’ belongings. For it seems to be the function of one man and one art to discern all three— <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="133e"/>himself, his belongings, and the belongings of his belongings.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> It looks like it.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And anyone who is ignorant of his belongings will be similarly ignorant, I suppose, of the belongings of others.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Quite so.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And if ignorant of others’ affairs, he will be ignorant also of the affairs of states.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> He must be.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then such a man can never be a statesman.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> No, indeed.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> No, nor an economist either.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="134"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="134"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="134a"/><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> No, indeed.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Nor will he know what he is doing.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> No, I agree.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And will not he who does not know make mistakes?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> To be sure.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And when he makes mistakes, will he not do ill both in private and in public?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And doing ill he will be wretched?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Yes, very.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And what of those for whom he is doing so?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> They will be wretched also.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then it is impossible to be happy if one is not temperate and good.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Impossible.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="134b"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> So it is the bad men who are wretched.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Yes, very.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And hence it is not he who has made himself rich that is relieved of wretchedness, but he who has made himself temperate.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Apparently.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> So it is not walls or warships or arsenals that cities need, Alcibiades, if they are to be happy, nor numbers, nor size, without virtue.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> No, indeed.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And if you are to manage the city’s affairs properly and honorably, you must impart virtue to the citizens.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Of course.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="134c"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> But could one possibly impart a thing that one had not?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> How, indeed?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then you or anyone else who is to be governor and curator, not merely of himself and his belongings in private, but of the state and its affairs, must first acquire virtue himself.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> That is true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Hence it is not licence or authority for doing what one pleases that you have to secure to yourself or the state, but justice and temperance.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Apparently.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="134d"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> For you and the state, if you act justly and temperately, will act so as to please God.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Naturally.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And, as we were saying in what went before, you will act with your eyes turned on what is divine and bright.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Apparently.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Well, and looking thereon you will behold and know both yourselves and your good.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And so you will act aright and well?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Yes.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="134e"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Well now, if you act in this way, I am ready to warrant that you must be happy.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> And I can rely on your warranty.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> But if you act unjustly, with your eyes on the godless and dark, the probability is that your acts will resemble these through your ignorance of yourselves.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> That is probable.</said></p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="135"><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> For if a man, my dear Alcibiades, is at liberty to do what he pleases, but is lacking in mind, what is the probable result to him personally, or to the state as well? For instance, if he is sick and at liberty to do what he pleases—without a medical mind, <milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="135"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="135a"/>but with a despot’s power which prevents anyone from even reproving him—what will be the result? Will not his health, in all likelihood, be shattered?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> That is true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Again, in a ship, if a man were at liberty to do what he chose, but were devoid of mind and excellence in navigation, do you perceive what must happen to him and his fellow-sailors?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> I do: they must all perish.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And in just the same way, if a state, or any office or authority, is lacking in excellence or virtue, <milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="135b"/>it will be overtaken by failure?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> It must.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then it is not despotic power, my admirable Alcibiades, that you ought to secure either to yourself or to the state, if you would be happy, but virtue.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> That is true.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And before getting virtue, to be governed by a superior is better than to govern, for a man as well as a child.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Apparently.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And the better is also nobler?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And the nobler more becoming?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Of course.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="135c"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then it becomes a bad man to be a slave, since it is better.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> So vice is a thing that becomes a slave.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Apparently.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And virtue becomes a free man.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And we should shun, my good friend, all slavishness?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Most certainly, Socrates.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> And do you now perceive how you stand? Are you on the side of the free, or not?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> I think I perceive only too clearly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Then do you know how you may escape from the condition in which you now find yourself? Let us not give it a name, where a handsome person is concerned!</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="135d"/><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> I do.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> How?</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> If it be your wish, Socrates.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> That is not well said, Alcibiades.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Well, what should I say?</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> If it be God’s will.</said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Then I say it. And yet I say this besides, that we are like to make a change in our parts, Socrates, so that I shall have yours and you mine. For from this day onward it must be the case that I am your attendant, and you have me always in attendance on you. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb"><foreign xml:lang="grc">παιδαγωγεῖν</foreign> is used here simply in the sense of <gloss>following about as personal attendant.</gloss></note></said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="135e"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> Ah, generous friend! So my love will be just like a stork; for after hatching a winged love in you it is to be cherished in return by its nestling. <note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">It was commonly believed that aged storks were fed by younger storks which they had previously hatched and reared.</note></said></p><p><said who="#Alcibiades"><label>Alc.</label> Well, that is the position, and I shall begin here and now to take pains over justice.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Soc.</label> I should like to think you will continue to do so; yet I am apprehensive, not from any distrust of your nature, but in view of the might of the state, lest it overcome both me and you.</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>