Memorabilia

Then will he who knows what is lawful about the gods worship the gods lawfully?Certainly.Then does not he who worships lawfully worship as he ought?Of course.Yes, but he who worships as he ought is pious?Certainly.Shall we therefore rightly define the pious man as one who knows what is lawful concerning the gods?I at any rate think so.

In dealing with men, again, may one do as one chooses?No, in the case of men too there are laws of conduct.Then do not those who observe them in their dealings with one another behave as they ought?Of course.And do not they who behave as they ought behave well?Certainly.And do not they who behave well towards men act well in human affairs?Presumably.And do not those who obey the laws do what is just?Certainly.

Do you know what sort of things are called just?The things that the laws command.Consequently those who do what the laws command do both what is just and what they must do?Of course.And are not they who do what is just, just men?I think so.Do you think then, that any obey the laws without knowing what the laws command?I do not.And knowing what they must do, do you suppose that any think they must not do it?I don’t think so.Do you know of any who do, not what they think they must do, but something else?I do not.Consequently those who know what is lawful concerning men do what is just?Certainly.But are not they who do what is just, just men?Exactly.At last, then, we may rightly define just men as those who know best what is just concerning men?I think so.And what of Wisdom?

How shall we describe it? Tell me, does it seem to you that the wise are wise about what they know, or are some wise about what they do not know?About what they know, obviously; for how can a man be wise about the things he doesn’t know?The wise, then, are wise by knowledge?How else can a man be wise if not by knowledge?Do you think that wisdom is anything but that by which men are wise?No.It follows that Wisdom is Knowledge?I think so.Then do you think it possible for a man to know all things?Of course not — nor even a fraction of them.So an all-wise man is an impossibility?Of course, of course.Consequently everyone is wise just in so far as he knows?I think so.

Now to seek the Good, Euthydemus: is this the way?What do you mean?Does it seem to you that the same thing is useful to everyone?No.In fact, what is useful to one may sometimes be hurtful to another, don’t you think?Assuredly.Should you call anything good except what is useful?No.Consequently what is useful is good for him to whom it is useful?I think so.

Consider the Beautiful: can we define it in any other way? Or is it possible to name a beautiful body, for instance, or vessel, or anything else that you know to be beautiful for all purposes?Of course not.Then does the beauty in using anything consist in using it for just that purpose for which that particular thing is useful?Certainly.And is a thing beautiful for any other purpose than that for which it is beautiful to use that particular thing?For no other purpose whatever.The useful, then, is beautiful for any purpose for which it is useful?I think so.Next comes Courage, Euthydemus.

Do you think it a beautiful thing?I prefer to say very beautiful.So you think Courage useful for no mean purposes?Of course — or rather, for the greatest.Then do you think that in the pressure of terrors and dangers it is useful to be ignorant of them?By no means.So those who feel no fear of such things because they are ignorant of them are not courageous?Of course not, for in that case many madmen and cowards would be courageous.What of those who are afraid when there is no ground for fear?Still less, of course.Then do you think that those who are good in the presence of terrors and dangers are courageous, and those who are bad are cowards?Certainly.

And do you think that any are good in the presence of such things, except those who can deal with them well?None but these.And bad, except such as deal badly with them?These and none others.Then do both classes behave as they think they must?How can they behave otherwise?Then do those who cannot behave well know how they must behave?Surely not.So those who know how they must behave are just those who can?Yes, only they.Well now, do those who are not utterly mistaken deal badly with such things?I think not.So those who behave badly are utterly mistaken?Presumably.It follows that those who know how to deal well with terrors and dangers are courageous, and those who utterly mistake the way are cowards?That is my opinion.

Kingship and despotism, in his judgment, were both forms of government, but he held that they differed. For government of men with their consent and in accordance with the laws of the state was kingship; while government of unwilling subjects and not controlled by laws, but imposed by the will of the ruler, was despotism. And where the officials are chosen among those who fulfil the requirements of the laws, the constitution is an aristocracy: where rateable property is the qualification for office, you have a plutocracy: where all are eligible, a democracy.

Whenever anyone argued with him on any point without being able to make himself clear, asserting but not proving, that so and so was wiser or an abler politician or braver or what not, he would lead the whole discussion back to the definition required, much in this way:

Do you say that your man is a better citizen than mine?I do indeed.Then why didn’t we first consider what is the function of a good citizen?Let us do so.In financial administration, then, is not the better man he who makes the city wealthier?Certainly.And in war he who makes her stronger than her rivals?Of course.And on an embassy he who turns enemies into friends?Presumably.And in debate he who puts down strife and produces harmony?I think so.By this process of leading back the argument even his adversay came to see the truth clearly.

Whenever he himself argued out a question, he advanced by steps that gained general assent, holding this to be the only sure method. Accordingly, whenever he argued, he gained a greater measure of assent from his hearers than any man I have known. He said that Homer gave Odysseus the credit of being a safe speaker[*](Odyssey, viii. 171.) because he had a way of leading the discussion from one acknowledged truth to another.

I think that I have said enough to show that Socrates stated his own opinion plainly to those who consorted with him: I will now show that he also took pains to make them independent in doing the work that they were fitted for. For I never knew a man who was so careful to discover what each of his companions knew. Whatever it befits a gentleman to know he taught most zealously, so far as his own knowledge extended; if he was not entirely familiar with a subject, he took them to those who knew.

He also taught them how far a well-educated man should make himself familiar with any given subject.For instance, he said that the study of geometry should be pursued until the student was competent to measure a parcel of land accurately in case he wanted to take over, convey or divide it, or to compute the yield; and this knowledge was so easy to acquire, that anyone who gave his mind to mensuration knew the size of the piece and carried away a knowledge of the principles of land measurement.

He was against carrying the study of geometry so far as to include the more complicated figures, on the ground that he could not see the use of them. Not that he was himself unfamiliar with them, but he said that they were enough to occupy a lifetime, to the complete exclusion of many other useful studies.

Similarly he recommended them to make themselves familiar with astronomy, but only so far as to be able to find the time of night, month and year, in order to use reliable evidence when planning a journey by land or sea, or setting the watch, and in all other affairs that are done in the night or month or year, by distinguishing the times and seasons aforesaid. This knowledge, again, was easily to be had from night hunters and pilots and others who made it their business to know such things.

But he strongly deprecated studying astronomy so far as to include the knowledge of bodies revolving in different courses, and of planets and comets, and wearing oneself out with the calculation of their distance from the earth, their periods of revolution and the causes of these. Of such researches, again he said that he could not see what useful purpose they served. He had indeed attended lectures on these subjects too; but these again, he said, were enough to occupy a lifetime to the complete exclusion of many useful studies.

In general, with regard to the phenomena of the heavens, he deprecated curiosity to learn how the deity contrives them: he held that their secrets could not be discovered by man, and believed that any attempt to search out what the gods had not chosen to reveal must be displeasing to them. He said that he who meddles with these matters runs the risk of losing his sanity as completely as Anaxagoras, who took an insane pride in his explanation of the divine machinery.

For that sage, in declaring the sun to be fire, ignored the facts than men can look at fire without inconvenience, but cannot gaze steadily at the sun; that their skin is blackened by the sun’s rays, but not by fire. Further, he ignored the fact that sunlight is essential to the health of all vegetation, whereas if anything is heated by fire it withers. Again, when he pronounced the sun to be a red-hot stone, he ignored the fact that a stone in fire neither glows nor can resist it long, whereas the sun shines with unequalled brilliance for ever.

He also recommended the study of arithmetic. But in this case as in the others he recommended avoidance of vain application; and invariably, whether theories or ascertained facts formed the subject of his conversation, he limited it to what was useful.