Memorabilia

I will now show his method of dealing with those who thought they had received the best education, and prided themselves on wisdom. He was informed that Euthydemus, the handsome, had formed a large collection of the works of celebrated poets and professors, and therefore supposed himself to be a prodigy of wisdom for his age, and was confident of surpassing all competitors in power of speech and action. At present, Socrates observed, he did not enter the Market-place owing to his youth, but when he wanted to get anything done, he would be found sitting in a saddler’s shop near the Market. So, to make an opening, Socrates went to this shop with some of his companions.At the first visit, one of them asked:

Was it by constant intercourse with some wise man or by natural ability that Themistocles stood out among his fellow-citizens as the man to whom the people naturally looked when they felt the want of a great leader?In order to set Euthydemus thinking, Socrates said:If in the minor arts great achievement is impossible without competent masters, surely it is absurd to imagine that the art of statesmanship, the greatest of all accomplishments, comes to a man of its own accord.

Some time afterwards, meeting Euthydemus again, he saw that he was reluctant to join the circle and anxious not to betray any admiration for the wisdom of Socrates: Well, gentlemen, said he, when our friend Euthydemus has attained his full powers, and some question of policy is before the Assembly, he won’t be backward in offering advice: that is obvious from his behaviour. I fancy he has prepared a noble exordium to his addresses, with due care not to give the impression that he is indebted to anyone for his knowledge. No doubt he will begin his speech with this introduction:

Men of Athens, I have never yet learnt anything from anyone, nor when I have been told of any man’s ability in speech and in action, have I sought to meet him, nor have I been at pains to find a teacher among the men who know. On the contrary, I have constantly avoided learning anything of anyone, and even the appearance of it. Nevertheless I shall recommend to your consideration anything that comes into my head.

This exordium might be adapted so as to suit candidates for the office of public physician. They might begin their speeches in this strain:Men of Athens, I have never yet studied medicine, nor sought to find a teacher among our physicians; for I have constantly avoided learning anything from the physicians, and even the appearance of having studied their art. Nevertheless I ask you to appoint me to the office of a physician, and I will endeavour to learn by experimenting on you.The exordium set all the company laughing.

Now when it became evident that Socrates had gained the attention of Euthydemus, but that Euthydemus still avoided breaking silence himself, and thought that he assumed an air of prudence by remaining dumb, Socrates wanted to put an end to that affectation. How strange it is, he said, that those who want to play the harp or the flute, or to ride or to get skill in any similar accomplishment, work hard at the art they mean to master, and not by themselves but under the tuition of the most eminent professors, doing and bearing anything in their anxiety to do nothing without their teachers’ guidance, just because that is the only way to become proficient: and yet, among those who want to shine as speakers in the Assembly and as statesmen, there are some who think that they will be able to do so on a sudden, by instinct, without training or study.

Yet surely these arts are much the harder to learn; for many more are interested in them and far fewer succeed. Clearly then these arts demand a longer and more intense application than the others.

For a time, then, Socrates continued to talk in this strain, while Euthydemus listened. But on finding him more tolerant of his conversation and more attentive, Socrates went alone to the saddler’s; and when Euthydemus had taken a seat beside him, he said: Tell me, Euthydemus, am I rightly informed that you have a large collection of books written by the wise men of the past, as they are called?By Zeus, yes, Socrates, answered he, and I am still adding to it, to make it as complete as possible.

By Hera, retorted Socrates,[*](νὴ τὴν Ἥραν, a favourite oath of Socrates, is not rendered literally elsewhere; but here it seems to be intended to cap νὴ τὸν Δία) I do admire you for valuing the treasures of wisdom above gold and silver. For you are evidently of opinion that, while gold and silver cannot make men better, the thoughts of the wise enrich their possessors with virtue.Now Euthydemus was glad to hear this, for he guessed that in the opinion of Socrates he was on the road to wisdom.

But Socrates, aware that he was pleased with his approbation, went on to say: Tell me, Euthydemus, what kind of goodness do you want to get by collecting these books?And as Euthydemus was silent, considering what answer to give, Possibly you want to be a doctor? he guessed: Medical treatises alone make a large collection.Oh no, not at all.But perhaps you wish to be an architect? One needs a well-stored mind for that too.No, indeed I don’t.Well, perhaps you want to be a good mathematician, like Theodorus?[*](Theodorus of Cyrene, who is one of the characters in the Theaetetus of Plato.)No, not that either.Well, perhaps you want to be an astronomer? And as he again said no, Perhaps a rhapsodist, then? They tell me you have a complete copy of Homer.Oh no, not at all; for your rhapsodists, I know, are consummate as reciters, but they are very silly fellows themselves.Then Socrates exclaimed:

Surely, Euthydemus, you don’t covet the kind of excellence that makes good statesmen and managers, competent rulers and benefactors of themselves and mankind in general?Yes, I do, Socrates, answered Euthydemus, that kind of excellence I greatly desire.Why, cried Socrates, it is the noblest kind of excellence, the greatest of arts that you covet, for it belongs to kings and is dubbed kingly. However, he added, have you reflected whether it be possible to excel in these matters without being a just man?Yes, certainly; and it is, in fact, impossible to be a good citizen without justice.

Then tell me, have you got that?Yes, Socrates, I think I can show myself to be as just as any man.And have just men, like carpenters, their works?Yes, they have.And as carpenters can point out their works, should just men be able to rehearse theirs?Do you suppose, retorted Euthydemus, that I am unable to rehearse the works of justice? Of course I can, — and the works of injustice too, since there are many opportunities of seeing and hearing of them every day.

I propose, then, that we write J in this column and I in that, and then proceed to place under these letters, J and I, what we take to be the works of justice and injustice respectively.Do so, if you think it helps at all.Having written down the letters as he proposed, Socrates went on:

Lying occurs among men, does it not?Yes, it does.Under which heading, then, are we to put that?Under the heading of injustice, clearly.Deceit, too, is found, is it not?Certainly.Under which heading will that go?Under injustice again, of course.What about doing mischief?That too.Selling into slavery?That too.Then we shall assign none of these things to justice, Euthydemus?No, it would be monstrous to do so.

Now suppose a man who has been elected general enslaves an unjust and hostile city, shall we say that he acts unjustly?Oh no!We shall say that his actions are just, shall we not?Certainly.And what if he deceives the enemy when at war?[*](Cyropaedia I, vi. 31, VI. i. 55.)That too is just.And if he steals and plunders their goods, will not his actions be just?Certainly; but at first I assumed that your questions had reference only to friends.Then everything that we assigned to injustice should be assigned to justice also?Apparently.

Then I propose to revise our classification, and to say: It is just to do such things to enemies, but it is unjust to do them to friends, towards whom one’s conduct should be scrupulously honest.By all means.

Now suppose that a general, seeing that his army is downhearted, tells a lie and says that reinforcements are approaching, and by means of this lie checks discouragement among the men, under which heading shall we put this deception?Under justice, I think.Suppose, again, that a man’s son refuses to take a dose of medicine when he needs it, and the father induces him to take it by pretending that it is food, and cures him by means of this lie, where shall we put this deception?That too goes on the same side, I think.And again, suppose one has a friend suffering from depression, and, for fear that he may make away with himself, one takes away his sword or something of the sort, under which heading shall we put that now?That too goes under justice, of course.

You mean, do you, that even with friends straightforward dealing is not invariably right?It isn’t, indeed! I retract what I said before, if you will let me.Why, I’m bound to let you; it’s far better than getting our lists wrong.

But now, consider deception practised on friends to their detriment: we mustn’t overlook that either. Which is the more unjust deception in that case, the intentional or unintentional?Nay, Socrates, I have lost all confidence in my answers; for all the opinions that I expressed before seem now to have taken an entirely different form. Still I venture to say that the intentional deception is more unjust than the unintentional.

Do you think there is a doctrine and science of the just, as there is of letters?Yes.Which, in your judgment, is the more literate, the man who intentionally blunders in writing and reading, or the man who blunders unintentionally?The one who blunders intentionally, I presume; for he can always be accurate when he chooses.May we not say, then, that the intentional blunderer is literate and the unintentional is illiterate?Indeed we must.And which knows what is just, the intentional liar and deceiver, or the unintentional?The intentional, clearly.You say, then, as I understand, that he who knows letters is more literate than he who is ignorant of them?YesAnd he who knows what is just is more just than he who does not know?Apparently; but here again I don’t feel sure of my own meaning.