Com. Where do you come from, Socrates? And yet I need hardly ask
the question, for I know that you have been in chase of the fair Alcibiades. I
saw the day before yesterday; and he had got a beard like a man-and he is
a man, as I may tell you in your ear. But I thought that he was still very
charming.
Soc. What of his beard? Are you not of Homer's opinion, who says
Youth is most charming when the beard first appears? And that is now the
charm of Alcibiades.
Com. Well, and how do matters proceed? Have you been visiting him,
and was he gracious to you?
Soc. Yes, I thought that he was very gracious; and especially to-day,
for I have just come from him, and he has been helping me in an argument.
But shall I tell you a strange thing? I paid no attention to him, and
several times I quite forgot that he was present.
Com. What is the meaning of this? Has anything happened between
you and him? For surely you cannot have discovered a fairer love than he
is; certainly not in this city of Athens.
Soc. Yes, much fairer.
Com. What do you mean-a citizen or a foreigner?
Soc. A foreigner.
Com. Of what country?
Soc. Of Abdera.
Com. And is this stranger really in your opinion a fairer love
than the son of Cleinias?
Soc. And is not the wiser always the fairer, sweet friend?
Com. But have you really met, Socrates, with some wise one?
Soc. Say rather, with the wisest of all living men, if you are
willing to accord that title to Protagoras.
Com. What! Is Protagoras in Athens?
Soc. Yes; he has been here two days.
Com. And do you just come from an interview with him?
Soc. Yes; and I have heard and said many things.
Com. Then, if you have no engagement, suppose that you sit down
tell me what passed, and my attendant here shall give up his place to
you.
Soc. To be sure; and I shall be grateful to you for listening.
Com. Thank you, too, for telling us.
Soc. That is thank you twice over. Listen then:-
Last night, or rather very early this morning, Hippocrates, the son of
Apollodorus and the brother of Phason, gave a tremendous thump with his
staff at my door; some one opened to him, and he came rushing in and bawled
out: Socrates, are you awake or asleep?
I knew his voice, and said: Hippocrates, is that you? and do you bring
any news?
Good news, he said; nothing but good.
Delightful, I said; but what is the news? and why have you come hither at
this unearthly hour?
He drew nearer to me and said: Protagoras is come.
Yes, I replied; he came two days ago: have you only just heard of his arrival?
Yes, by the gods, he said; but not until yesterday evening.
At the same time he felt for the truckle-bed, and sat down at my feet, and
then he said: Yesterday quite late in the evening, on my return from Oenoe
whither I had gone in pursuit of my runaway slave Satyrus, as I meant to
have told you, if some other matter had not come in the way;-on my return, when
we had done supper and were about to retire to rest, my brother said to
me: Protagoras is come. I was going to you at once, and then I thought that
the night was far spent. But the moment sleep left me after my fatigue, I
got up and came hither direct.
I, who knew the very courageous madness of the man, said: What is the
matter? Has Protagoras robbed you of anything?
He replied, laughing: Yes, indeed he has, Socrates, of the wisdom which
he keeps from me.
But, surely, I said, if you give him money, and make friends with him, he
will make you as wise as he is himself.
Would to heaven, he replied, that this were the case! He might take all
that I have, and all that my friends have, if he pleased. But that is why
I have come to you now, in order that you may speak to him on my behalf;
for I am young, and also I have never seen nor heard him; (when he
visited Athens before I was but a child) and all men praise him, Socrates;
he is reputed to be the most accomplished of speakers. There is no
reason why we should not go to him at once, and then we shall find him
at home. He lodges, as I hear, with Callias the son of Hipponicus: let
us start.
I replied: Not yet, my good friend; the hour is too early. But let us
rise and take a turn in the court and wait about there until daybreak; when
the day breaks, then we will go. For Protagoras is generally at home, and
we shall be sure to find him; never fear.
Upon this we got up and walked about in the court, and I thought that I
would make trial of the strength of his resolution. So I examined him
and put questions to him. Tell me, Hippocrates, I said, as you are going
to Protagoras, and will be paying your money to him, what is he to whom
you are going? and what will he make of you? If, for example, you had
thought of going to Hippocrates of Cos, the Asclepiad, and were about to
give him your money, and some one had said to you: You are paying money to
your namesake Hippocrates, O Hippocrates; tell me, what is he that you give
him money? how would you have answered?
I should say, he replied, that I gave money to him as a physician.
And what will he make of you?
A physician, he said.
And if you were resolved to go to Polycleitus the Argive, or Pheidias the
Athenian, and were intending to give them money, and some one had asked you:
What are Polycleitus and Pheidias? and why do you give them this money?-how would
you have answered?
I should have answered, that they were statuaries.
And what will they make of you?
A statuary, of course.
Well now, I said, you and I are going to Protagoras, and we are ready to
pay him money on your behalf. If our own means are sufficient, and we can
gain him with these, we shall be only too glad; but if not, then we are
to spend the money of your friends as well. Now suppose, that while we
are thus enthusiastically pursuing our object some one were to say to us:
Tell me, Socrates, and you Hippocrates, what is Protagoras, and why are
you going to pay him money,-how should we answer? I know that Pheidias is
a sculptor, and that Homer is a poet; but what appellation is given to
Protagoras? how is he designated?
They call him a Sophist, Socrates, he replied.
Then we are going to pay our money to him in the character of a Sophist?
Certainly.
But suppose a person were to ask this further question: And how about yourself?
What will Protagoras make of you, if you go to see him?
He answered, with a blush upon his face (for the day was just beginning to
dawn, so that I could see him): Unless this differs in some way from the
former instances, I suppose that he will make a Sophist of me.
By the gods, I said, and are you not ashamed at having to appear before
the Hellenes in the character of a Sophist?
Indeed, Socrates, to confess the truth, I am.
But you should not assume, Hippocrates, that the instruction of Protagoras is
of this nature: may you not learn of him in the same way that you learned the
arts of the grammarian, musician, or trainer, not with the view of making
any of them a profession, but only as a part of education, and because a
private gentleman and freeman ought to know them?
Just so, he said; and that, in my opinion, is a far truer account of the
teaching of Protagoras.
I said: I wonder whether you know what you are doing?
And what am I doing?
You are going to commit your soul to the care of a man whom you call a
Sophist. And yet I hardly think that you know what a Sophist is; and if
not, then you do not even know to whom you are committing your soul and
whether the thing to which you commit yourself be good or evil.
I certainly think that I do know, he replied.
Then tell me, what do you imagine that he is?
I take him to be one who knows wise things, he replied, as his name implies.
And might you not, I said, affirm this of the painter and of the carpenter
also: Do not they, too, know wise things? But suppose a person were to
ask us: In what are the painters wise? We should answer: In what relates
to the making of likenesses, and similarly of other things. And if he
were further to ask: What is the wisdom of the Sophist, and what is the
manufacture over which he presides?-how should we answer him?
How should we answer him, Socrates? What other answer could there be but
that he presides over the art which makes men eloquent?
Yes, I replied, that is very likely true, but not enough; for in the
answer a further question is involved: Of what does the Sophist make a
man talk eloquently? The player on the lyre may be supposed to make a man
talk eloquently about that which he makes him understand, that is about playing
the lyre. Is not that true?
Yes.
Then about what does the Sophist make him eloquent? Must not he make him
eloquent in that which he understands?
Yes, that may be assumed.
And what is that which the Sophist knows and makes his disciple know?
Indeed, he said, I cannot tell.
Then I proceeded to say: Well, but are you aware of the danger which you
are incurring? If you were going to commit your body to some one, who might
do good or harm to it, would you not carefully consider and ask the opinion
of your friends and kindred, and deliberate many days as to whether you
should give him the care of your body? But when the soul is in question, which
you hold to be of far more value than the body, and upon the good or
evil of which depends the well-being of your all,-about this never consulted either
with your father or with your brother or with any one of us who are your
companions. But no sooner does this foreigner appear, than you instantly
commit your soul to his keeping. In the evening, as you say, you hear of
him, and in the morning you go to him, never deliberating or taking the
opinion of any one as to whether you ought to intrust yourself to him or
not;-you have quite made up your mind that you will at all hazards be a
pupil of Protagoras, and are prepared to expend all the property of yourself
and of your friends in carrying out at any price this determination, although,
as you admit, you do not know him, and have never spoken with him: and
you call him a Sophist, but are manifestly ignorant of what a Sophist
is; and yet you are going to commit yourself to his keeping.
When he heard me say this, he replied: No other inference, Socrates, can
be drawn from your words.
I proceeded: Is not a Sophist, Hippocrates, one who deals wholesale or
retail in the food of the soul? To me that appears to be his nature.
And what, Socrates, is the food of the soul?
Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of the soul; and we must take care,
my friend, that the Sophist does not deceive us when he praises what he
sells, like the dealers wholesale or retail who sell the food of the body;
for they praise indiscriminately all their goods, without knowing what
are really beneficial or hurtful: neither do their customers know, with
the exception of any trainer or physician who may happen to buy of them.
In like manner those who carry about the wares of knowledge, and make
the round of the cities, and sell or retail them to any customer who is
in want of them, praise them all alike; though I should not wonder, O my
friend, if many of them were really ignorant of their effect upon the
soul; and their customers equally ignorant, unless he who buys of them happens
to be a physician of the soul. If, therefore, you have understanding of
what is good and evil, you may safely buy knowledge of Protagoras or of
any one; but if not, then, O my friend, pause, and do not hazard your dearest
interests at a game of chance. For there is far greater peril in buying
knowledge than in buying meat and drink: the one you purchase of the
wholesale or retail dealer, and carry them away in other vessels, and before
you receive them into the body as food, you may deposit them at home and
call in any experienced friend who knows what is good to be eaten or
drunken, and what not, and how much, and when; and then the danger of purchasing
them is not so great. But you cannot buy the wares of knowledge and
carry them away in another vessel; when you have paid for them you must
receive them into the soul and go your way, either greatly harmed or
greatly benefited; and therefore we should deliberate and take counsel with
our elders; for we are still young-too young to determine such a matter. And
now let us go, as we were intending, and hear Protagoras; and when we
have heard what he has to say, we may take counsel of others; for not only
is Protagoras at the house of Callias, but there is Hippias of Elis, and,
if I am not mistaken, Prodicus of Ceos, and several other wise men.
To this we agreed, and proceeded on our way until we reached the vestibule
of the house; and there we stopped in order to conclude a discussion which
had arisen between us as we were going along; and we stood talking in
the vestibule until we had finished and come to an understanding. And I
think that the doorkeeper, who was a eunuch, and who was probably annoyed at
the great inroad of the Sophists, must have heard us talking. At any rate,
when we knocked at the door, and he opened and saw us, he grumbled: They
are Sophists -he is not at home; and instantly gave the door a hearty bang
with both his hands. Again we knocked, and he answered without opening: Did
you not hear me say that he is not at home, fellows? But, my friend, I
said, you need not be alarmed; for we are not Sophists, and we are not come
to see Callias, but we want to see Protagoras; and I must request you to
announce us. At last, after a good deal of difficulty, the man was persuaded
to open the door.
When we entered, we found Protagoras taking a walk in the cloister; and
next to him, on one side, were walking Callias, the son of Hipponicus, and
Paralus, the son of Pericles, who, by the mother's side, is his half-brother, and Charmides, the son of Glaucon. On the other side of him were
Xanthippus, the other son of Pericles, Philippides, the son of
Philomelus; also Antimoerus of Mende, who of all the disciples of
Protagoras is the most famous, and intends to make sophistry his
profession. A train of listeners followed him; the greater part of them
appeared to be foreigners, whom Protagoras had brought with him out of
the various cities visited by him in his journeys, he, like Orpheus,
attracting them his voice, and they following. I should mention also
that there were some Athenians in the company. Nothing delighted me more
than the precision of their movements: they never got into his way at
all; but when he and those who were with him turned back, then the band
of listeners parted regularly on either side; he was always in front, and
they wheeled round and took their places behind him in perfect order.
After him, as Homer says, "I lifted up my eyes and saw" Hippias the
Elean sitting in the opposite cloister on a chair of state, and around him
were seated on benches Eryximachus, the son of Acumenus, and Phaedrus the
Myrrhinusian, and Andron the son of Androtion, and there were strangers whom
he had brought with him from his native city of Elis, and some others: they
were putting to Hippias certain physical and astronomical questions, and
he, ex cathedra, was determining their several questions to them, and discoursing
of them.
Also, "my eyes beheld Tantalus"; for Prodicus the Cean was at Athens: he had been lodged in a room which, in the days of Hipponicus, was a
storehouse; but, as the house was full, Callias had cleared this out and
made the room into a guest-chamber. Now Prodicus was still in bed,
wrapped up in sheepskins and bed-clothes, of which there seemed to be a
great heap; and there was sitting by him on the couches near, Pausanias
of the deme of Cerameis, and with Pausanias was a youth quite young, who
is certainly remarkable for his good looks, and, if I am not mistaken,
is also of a fair and gentle nature. I thought that I heard him called
Agathon, and my suspicion is that he is the beloved of Pausanias. There
was this youth, and also there were the two Adeimantuses, one the son of
Cepis, and the other of Leucolophides, and some others. I was very
anxious to hear what Prodicus was saying, for he seems to me to be an
all-wise and inspired man; but I was not able to get into the inner
circle, and his fine deep voice made an echo in the room which rendered
his words inaudible.
No sooner had we entered than there followed us Alcibiades the beautiful,
as you say, and I believe you; and also Critias the son of Callaeschrus.
On entering we stopped a little, in order to look about us, and then
walked up to Protagoras, and I said: Protagoras, my friend Hippocrates and
I have come to see you.
Do you wish, he said, to speak with me alone, or in the presence of the
company?
Whichever you please, I said; you shall determine when you have heard
the purpose of our visit.
And what is your purpose? he said.
I must explain, I said, that my friend Hippocrates is a native Athenian; he
is the son of Apollodorus, and of a great and prosperous house, and he
is himself in natural ability quite a match for anybody of his own age. I
believe that he aspires to political eminence; and this he thinks that conversation
with you is most likely to procure for him. And now you can determine
whether you would wish to speak to him of your teaching alone or in the
presence of the company.
Thank you, Socrates, for your consideration of me. For certainly a
stranger finding his way into great cities, and persuading the flower of
the youth in them to leave company of their kinsmen or any other acquaintances, old or young, and live with him, under the idea that they will be improved by his conversation, ought to be very cautious; great jealousies are
aroused by his proceedings, and he is the subject of many enmities and
conspiracies. Now the art of the Sophist is, as I believe, of great
antiquity; but in ancient times those who practised it, fearing this
odium, veiled and disguised themselves under various names, some under
that of poets, as Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides, some, of hierophants and
prophets, as Orpheus and Musaeus, and some, as I observe, even under the
name of gymnastic-masters, like Iccus of Tarentum, or the more recently
celebrated Herodicus, now of Selymbria and formerly of Megara, who is a
first-rate Sophist. Your own Agathocles pretended to be a musician, but
was really an eminent Sophist; also Pythocleides the Cean; and there
were many others; and all of them, as I was saying, adopted these arts
as veils or disguises because they were afraid of the odium which they
would incur. But that is not my way, for I do not believe that they
effected their purpose, which was to deceive the government, who were
not blinded by them; and as to the people, they have no understanding, and
only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them. Now to run away,
and to be caught in running away, is the very height of folly, and also
greatly increases the exasperation of mankind; for they regard him who
runs away as a rogue, in addition to any other objections which they have
to him; and therefore I take an entirely opposite course, and acknowledge myself
to be a Sophist and instructor of mankind; such an open acknowledgement appears
to me to be a better sort of caution than concealment. Nor do I neglect
other precautions, and therefore I hope, as I may say, by the favour of
heaven that no harm will come of the acknowledgment that I am a Sophist. And
I have been now many years in the profession-for all my years when added
up are many: there is no one here present of whom I might not be the
father. Wherefore I should much prefer conversing with you, if you want
to speak with me, in the presence of the company.
As I suspected that he would like to have a little display and glorification
in the presence of Prodicus and Hippias, and would gladly show us to
them in the light of his admirers, I said: But why should we not summon
Prodicus and Hippias and their friends to hear us?
Very good, he said.
Suppose, said Callias, that we hold a council in which you may sit and
discuss.-This was agreed upon, and great delight was felt at the prospect of
hearing wise men talk; we ourselves took the chairs and benches, and arranged
them by Hippias, where the other benches had been already placed. Meanwhile
Callias and Alcibiades got Prodicus out of bed and brought in him and
his companions.
When we were all seated, Protagoras said: Now that the company are
assembled, Socrates, tell me about the youngman of whom you were just now
speaking.
I replied: I will begin again at the same point, Protagoras, and tell
you once more the purport of my visit: this is my friend Hippocrates, who
is desirous of making your acquaintance; he would like to know what will
happen to him if he associates with you. I have no more to say.
Protagoras answered: Young man, if you associate with me, on the very
first day you will return home a better man than you came, and better on
the second day than on the first, and better every day than you were on
the day before.
When I heard this, I said: Protagoras, I do not at all wonder at hearing
you say this; even at your age, and with all your wisdom, if any one
were to teach you what you did not know before, you would become better no
doubt: but please to answer in a different way-I will explain how by an
example. Let me suppose that Hippocrates, instead of desiring your acquaintance, wished to become acquainted with the young man Zeuxippus of Heraclea, who has lately been in Athens, and he had come to him as he has come to you, and had heard him say, as he has heard you say, that every day he would grow and become better if he associated with him: and then suppose that he were to ask him, "In what shall I become better, and in what shall
I grow?"-Zeuxippus would answer, "In painting." And
suppose that he went to Orthagoras the Theban, and heard him say the
same thing, and asked him, "In what shall I become better day by
day?" he would reply, "In flute-playing." Now I want you
to make the same sort of answer to this young man and to me, who am
asking questions on his account. When you say that on the first day on
which he associates with you he will return home a better man, and on
every day will grow in like manner,-In what, Protagoras, will he be better?
and about what?
When Protagoras heard me say this, he replied: You ask questions fairly,
and I like to answer a question which is fairly put. If Hippocrates comes
to me he will not experience the sort of drudgery with which other Sophists
are in the habit of insulting their pupils; who, when they have just
escaped from the arts, are taken and driven back into them by these teachers,
and made to learn calculation, and astronomy, and geometry, and music
(he gave a look at Hippias as he said this); but if he comes to me, he
will learn that which he comes to learn. And this is prudence in affairs private
as well as public; he will learn to order his own house in the best
manner, and he will be able to speak and act for the best in the affairs of
the state.
Do I understand you, I said; and is your meaning that you teach the art
of politics, and that you promise to make men good citizens?
That, Socrates, is exactly the profession which I make.
Then, I said, you do indeed possess a noble art, if there is no mistake about
this; for I will freely confess to you, Protagoras, that I have a doubt
whether this art is capable of being taught, and yet I know not how to
disbelieve your assertion. And I ought to tell you why I am of opinion that
this art cannot be taught or communicated by man to man. I say that the
Athenians are an understanding people, and indeed they are esteemed to
be such by the other Hellenes. Now I observe that when we are met together in
the assembly, and the matter in hand relates to building, the builders are
summoned as advisers; when the question is one of shipbuilding, then the
ship-wrights; and the like of other arts which they think capable of being
taught and learned. And if some person offers to give them advice who is
not supposed by them to have any skill in the art, even though he be
good-looking, and rich, and noble, they will not listen to him, but laugh
and hoot at him, until either he is clamoured down and retires of himself;
or if he persist, he is dragged away or put out by the constables at the
command of the prytanes. This is their way of behaving about professors of
the arts. But when the question is an affair of state, then everybody is
free to have a say-carpenter, tinker, cobbler, sailor, passenger; rich and
poor, high and low-any one who likes gets up, and no one reproaches him,
as in the former case, with not having learned, and having no teacher, and
yet giving advice; evidently because they are under the impression that
this sort of knowledge cannot be taught. And not only is this true of
the state, but of individuals; the best and wisest of our citizens are unable
to impart their political wisdom to others: as for example, Pericles, the
father of these young men, who gave them excellent instruction in all that
could be learned from masters, in his own department of politics neither taught
them, nor gave them teachers; but they were allowed to wander at their
own free will in a sort of hope that they would light upon virtue of
their own accord. Or take another example: there was Cleinias the younger brother
of our friend Alcibiades, of whom this very same Pericles was the guardian;
and he being in fact under the apprehension that Cleinias would be
corrupted by Alcibiades, took him away, and placed him in the house of
Ariphron to be educated; but before six months had elapsed, Ariphron sent
him back, not knowing what to do with him. And I could mention numberless other
instances of persons who were good themselves, and never yet made any
one else good, whether friend or stranger. Now I, Protagoras, having these
examples before me, am inclined to think that virtue cannot be taught. But
then again, when I listen to your words, I waver; and am disposed to think
that there must be something in what you say, because I know that you
have great experience, and learning, and invention. And I wish that you
would, if possible, show me a little more clearly that virtue can be taught.
Will you be so good?
That I will, Socrates, and gladly. But what would you like? Shall I, as
an elder, speak to you as younger men in an apologue or myth, or shall I
argue out the question?
To this several of the company answered that he should choose for himself.
Well, then, he said, I think that the myth will be more interesting.
Once upon a time there were gods only, and no mortal creatures. But when
the time came that these also should be created, the gods fashioned them
out of earth and fire and various mixtures of both elements in the interior
of the earth; and when they were about to bring them into the light of
day, they ordered Prometheus and Epimetheus to equip them, and to
distribute to them severally their proper qualities. Epimetheus said to
Prometheus: "Let me distribute, and do you inspect." This was agreed, and Epimetheus made the distribution. There were some to whom he gave
strength without swiftness, while he equipped the weaker with swiftness;
some he armed, and others he left unarmed; and devised for the latter
some other means of preservation, making some large, and having their
size as a protection, and others small, whose nature was to fly in the
air or burrow in the ground; this was to be their way of escape. Thus
did he compensate them with the view of preventing any race from
becoming extinct. And when he had provided against their destruction by
one another, he contrived also a means of protecting them against the
seasons of heaven; clothing them with close hair and thick skins
sufficient to defend them against the winter cold and able to resist the
summer heat, so that they might have a natural bed of their own when
they wanted to rest; also he furnished them with hoofs and hair and hard
and callous skins under their feet. Then he gave them varieties of
food-herb of the soil to some, to others fruits of trees, and to others
roots, and to some again he gave other animals as food. And some he made
to have few young ones, while those who were their prey were very
prolific; and in this manner the race was preserved. Thus did Epimetheus, who,
not being very wise, forgot that he had distributed among the brute animals
all the qualities which he had to give-and when he came to man, who was
still unprovided, he was terribly perplexed. Now while he was in this
perplexity, Prometheus came to inspect the distribution, and he found that
the other animals were suitably furnished, but that man alone was naked
and shoeless, and had neither bed nor arms of defence. The appointed hour
was approaching when man in his turn was to go forth into the light of
day; and Prometheus, not knowing how he could devise his salvation, stole
the mechanical arts of Hephaestus and Athene, and fire with them (they
could neither have been acquired nor used without fire), and gave them
to man. Thus man had the wisdom necessary to the support of life, but
political wisdom he had not; for that was in the keeping of Zeus, and the
power of Prometheus did not extend to entering into the citadel of heaven,
where Zeus dwelt, who moreover had terrible sentinels; but he did enter
by stealth into the common workshop of Athene and Hephaestus, in which
they used to practise their favourite arts, and carried off Hephaestus' art
of working by fire, and also the art of Athene, and gave them to man. And
in this way man was supplied with the means of life. But Prometheus is
said to have been afterwards prosecuted for theft, owing to the blunder of
Epimetheus.
Now man, having a share of the divine attributes, was at first the only
one of the animals who had any gods, because he alone was of their kindred;
and he would raise altars and images of them. He was not long in
inventing articulate speech and names; and he also constructed houses and
clothes and shoes and beds, and drew sustenance from the earth. Thus provided,
mankind at first lived dispersed, and there were no cities. But the
consequence was that they were destroyed by the wild beasts, for they were
utterly weak in comparison of them, and their art was only sufficient to
provide them with the means of life, and did not enable them to carry on
war against the animals: food they had, but not as yet the art of government, of which the art of war is a part. After a while the desire of
self-preservation gathered them into cities; but when they were gathered
together, having no art of government, they evil intreated one another,
and were again in process of dispersion and destruction. Zeus feared
that the entire race would be exterminated, and so he sent Hermes to
them, bearing reverence and justice to be the ordering principles of
cities and the bonds of friendship and conciliation. Hermes asked Zeus
how he should impart justice and reverence among men:-Should he
distribute them as the arts are distributed; that is to say, to a
favoured few only, one skilled individual having enough of medicine or
of any other art for many unskilled ones? "Shall this be the manner
in which I am to distribute justice and reverence among men, or shall I
give them to all?" "To all," said Zeus; "I should like them all to have a share; for cities cannot exist, if a few only share in the virtues, as in the arts. And further, make a law by my order, that he who has no part in reverence and justice shall be put to death, for he is a plague of the state."
And this is the reason, Socrates, why the Athenians and mankind in
general, when the question relates to carpentering or any other mechanical art,
allow but a few to share in their deliberations; and when any one else
interferes, then, as you say, they object, if he be not of the favoured few;
which, as I reply, is very natural. But when they meet to deliberate about
political virtue, which proceeds only by way of justice and wisdom, they
are patient enough of any man who speaks of them, as is also natural, because
they think that every man ought to share in this sort of virtue, and
that states could not exist if this were otherwise. I have explained to
you, Socrates, the reason of this phenomenon.
And that you may not suppose yourself to be deceived in thinking that
all men regard every man as having a share of justice or honesty and of
every other political virtue, let me give you a further proof, which is
this. In other cases, as you are aware, if a man says that he is a good flute-player,
or skilful in any other art in which he has no skill, people either
laugh at him or are angry with him, and his relations think that he is
mad and go and admonish him; but when honesty is in question, or some
other political virtue, even if they know that he is dishonest, yet, if
the man comes publicly forward and tells the truth about his dishonesty, then,
what in the other case was held by them to be good sense, they now deem
to be madness. They say that all men ought to profess honesty whether they
are honest or not, and that a man is out of his mind who says anything else.
Their notion is, that a man must have some degree of honesty; and that
if he has none at all he ought not to be in the world.
I have been showing that they are right in admitting every man as a
counsellor about this sort of virtue, as they are of opinion that every
man is a partaker of it. And I will now endeavour to show further that
they do not conceive this virtue to be given by nature, or to grow spontaneously,
but to be a thing which may be taught; and which comes to a man by
taking pains. No one would instruct, no one would rebuke, or be angry
with those whose calamities they suppose to be due to nature or chance; they
do not try to punish or to prevent them from being what they are; they
do but pity them. Who is so foolish as to chastise or instruct the ugly,
or the diminutive, or the feeble? And for this reason. Because he knows
that good and evil of this kind is the work of nature and of chance; whereas
if a man is wanting in those good qualities which are attained by study
and exercise and teaching, and has only the contrary evil qualities, other
men are angry with him, and punish and reprove him-of these evil qualities
one is impiety, another injustice, and they may be described generally
as the very opposite of political virtue. In such cases any man will be
angry with another, and reprimand him,-clearly because he thinks that by
study and learning, the virtue in which the other is deficient may be
acquired. If you will think, Socrates, of the nature of punishment, you
will see at once that in the opinion of mankind virtue may be acquired; no
one punishes the evil-doer under the notion, or for the reason, that he
has done wrong, only the unreasonable fury of a beast acts in that manner. But
he who desires to inflict rational punishment does not retaliate for a
past wrong which cannot be undone; he has regard to the future, and is desirous
that the man who is punished, and he who sees him punished, may be
deterred from doing wrong again. He punishes for the sake of prevention, thereby
clearly implying that virtue is capable of being taught. This is the
notion of all who retaliate upon others either privately or publicly. And
the Athenians, too, your own citizens, like other men, punish and take vengeance
on all whom they regard as evil doers; and hence, we may infer them to
be of the number of those who think that virtue may be acquired and
taught. Thus far, Socrates, I have shown you clearly enough, if I am not
mistaken, that your countrymen are right in admitting the tinker and the
cobbler to advise about politics, and also that they deem virtue to be
capable of being taught and acquired.
There yet remains one difficulty which has been raised by you about the
sons of good men. What is the reason why good men teach their sons the
knowledge which is gained from teachers, and make them wise in that, but
do nothing towards improving them in the virtues which distinguish themselves?
And here, Socrates, I will leave the apologue and resume the argument.
Please to consider: Is there or is there not some one quality of which
all the citizens must be partakers, if there is to be a city at all? In
the answer to this question is contained the only solution of your difficulty;
there is no other. For if there be any such quality, and this quality or
unity is not the art of the carpenter, or the smith, or the potter, but
justice and temperance and holiness and, in a word, manly virtue-if this
is the quality of which all men must be partakers, and which is the very
condition of their learning or doing anything else, and if he who is
wanting in this, whether he be a child only or a grown-up man or woman, must
be taught and punished, until by punishment he becomes better, and he
who rebels against instruction and punishment is either exiled or condemned to
death under the idea that he is incurable-if what I am saying be true, good
men have their sons taught other things and not this, do consider how
extraordinary their conduct would appear to be. For we have shown that they
think virtue capable of being taught and cultivated both in private and
public; and, notwithstanding, they have their sons taught lesser matters, ignorance
of which does not involve the punishment of death: but greater things,
of which the ignorance may cause death and exile to those who have no
training or knowledge of them-aye, and confiscation as well as death, and,
in a word, may be the ruin of families-those things, I say, they are supposed
not to teach them-not to take the utmost care that they should learn.
How improbable is this, Socrates!
Education and admonition commence in the first years of childhood, and
last to the very end of life. Mother and nurse and father and tutor are
vying with one another about the improvement of the child as soon as ever
he is able to understand what is being said to him: he cannot say or do
anything without their setting forth to him that this is just and that
is unjust; this is honourable, that is dishonourable; this is holy, that
is unholy; do this and abstain from that. And if he obeys, well and good;
if not, he is straightened by threats and blows, like a piece of bent or
warped wood. At a later stage they send him to teachers, and enjoin them
to see to his manners even more than to his reading and music; and the
teachers do as they are desired. And when the boy has learned his letters and
is beginning to understand what is written, as before he understood only
what was spoken, they put into his hands the works of great poets, which
he reads sitting on a bench at school; in these are contained many admonitions,
and many tales, and praises, and encomia of ancient famous men, which he
is required to learn by heart, in order that he may imitate or emulate
them and desire to become like them. Then, again, the teachers of the
lyre take similar care that their young disciple is temperate and gets
into no mischief; and when they have taught him the use of the lyre, they
introduce him to the poems of other excellent poets, who are the lyric poets;
and these they set to music, and make their harmonies ana rhythms quite
familiar to the children's souls, in order that they may learn to be
more gentle, and harmonious, and rhythmical, and so more fitted for speech
and action; for the life of man in every part has need of harmony and
rhythm. Then they send them to the master of gymnastic, in order that their
bodies may better minister to the virtuous mind, and that they may not
be compelled through bodily weakness to play the coward in war or on any
other occasion. This is what is done by those who have the means, and those
who have the means are the rich; their children begin to go to school soonest
and leave off latest. When they have done with masters, the state again
compels them to learn the laws, and live after the pattern which they
furnish, and not after their own fancies; and just as in learning to
write, the writing-master first draws lines with a style for the use of
the young beginner, and gives him the tablet and makes him follow the lines,
so the city draws the laws, which were the invention of good lawgivers living
in the olden time; these are given to the young man, in order to guide
him in his conduct whether he is commanding or obeying; and he who transgresses
them is to be corrected, or, in other words, called to account, which is
a term used not only in your country, but also in many others, seeing
that justice calls men to account. Now when there is all this care about
virtue private and public, why, Socrates, do you still wonder and doubt
whether virtue can be taught? Cease to wonder, for the opposite would be
far more surprising.
But why then do the sons of good fathers often turn out ill? There is
nothing very wonderful in this; for, as I have been saying, the existence of
a state implies that virtue is not any man's private possession. If so-and
nothing can be truer-then I will further ask you to imagine, as an
illustration, some other pursuit or branch of knowledge which may be assumed
equally to be the condition of the existence of a state. Suppose that
there could be no state unless we were all flute-players, as far as each
had the capacity, and everybody was freely teaching everybody the art,
both in private and public, and reproving the bad player as freely and
openly as every man now teaches justice and the laws, not concealing them
as he would conceal the other arts, but imparting them-for all of us
have a mutual interest in the justice and virtue of one another, and this
is the reason why every one is so ready to teach justice and the laws;-suppose, I say, that there were the same readiness and liberality among us in
teaching one another flute-playing, do you imagine, Socrates, that the
sons of good flute players would be more likely to be good than the sons
of bad ones? I think not. Would not their sons grow up to be
distinguished or undistinguished according to their own natural
capacities as flute-players, and the son of a good player would often
turn out to be a bad one, and the son of a bad player to be a good one,
all flute-players would be good enough in comparison of those who were
ignorant and unacquainted with the art of flute-playing? In like manner
I would have you consider that he who appears to you to be the worst of
those who have been brought up in laws and humanities, would appear to
be a just man and a master of justice if he were to be compared with men
who had no education, or courts of justice, or laws, or any restraints
upon them which compelled them to practise virtue-with the savages, for
example, whom the poet Pherecrates exhibited on the stage at the last
year's Lenaean festival. If you were living among men such as the
man-haters in his Chorus, you would be only too glad to meet with Eurybates
and Phrynondas, and you would sorrowfully long to revisit the rascality
of this part of the world. you, Socrates, are discontented, and why?
Because all men are teachers of virtue, each one according to his ability;
and you say, Where are the teachers? You might as well ask, Who teaches
Greek? For of that too there will not be any teachers found. Or you
might ask, Who is to teach the sons of our artisans this same art which they
have learned of their fathers? He and his fellow-workmen have taught them
to the best of their ability,-but who will carry them further in their arts?
And you would certainly have a difficulty, Socrates, in finding a teacher
of them; but there would be no difficulty in finding a teacher of those
who are wholly ignorant. And this is true of virtue or of anything else;
if a man is better able than we are to promote virtue ever so little, we
must be content with the result. A teacher of this sort I believe myself to
be, and above all other men to have the knowledge which makes a man noble
and good; and I give my pupils their money's-worth, and even more, as
they themselves confess. And therefore I have introduced the following mode
of payment:-When a man has been my pupil, if he likes he pays my price, but
there is no compulsion; and if he does not like, he has only to go into
a temple and take an oath of the value of the instructions, and he pays
no more than he declares to be their value.
Such is my Apologue, Socrates, and such is the argument by which I
endeavour to show that virtue may be taught, and that this is the opinion of
the Athenians. And I have also attempted to show that you are not to wonder
at good fathers having bad sons, or at good sons having bad fathers, of
which the sons of Polycleitus afford an example, who are the companions of
our friends here, Paralus and Xanthippus, but are nothing in comparison with
their father; and this is true of the sons of many other artists. As yet
I ought not to say the same of Paralus and Xanthippus themselves, for
they are young and there is still hope of them.
Protagoras ended, and in my ear
So charming left his voice, that I the while
Thought him still speaking; still stood fixed to hear. At length, when the
truth dawned upon me, that he had really finished, not without difficulty I
began to collect myself, and looking at Hippocrates, I said to him: O son
of Apollodorus, how deeply grateful I am to you for having brought me
hither; I would not have missed the speech of Protagoras for a great deal.
For I used to imagine that no human care could make men good; but I know
better now. Yet I have still one very small difficulty which I am sure
that Protagoras will easily explain, as he has already explained so much.
If a man were to go and consult Pericles or any of our great speakers about
these matters, he might perhaps hear as fine a discourse; but then when
one has a question to ask of any of them, like books, they can neither answer
nor ask; and if any one challenges the least particular of their speech,
they go ringing on in a long harangue, like brazen pots, which when they
are struck continue to sound unless some one puts his hand upon them;
whereas our friend Protagoras can not only make a good speech, as he has
already shown, but when he is asked a question he can answer briefly; and
when he asks he will wait and hear the answer; and this is a very rare gift.
Now I, Protagoras, want to ask of you a little question, which if you
will only answer, I shall be quite satisfied. You were saying that virtue
can be taught;-that I will take upon your authority, and there is no one
to whom I am more ready to trust. But I marvel at one thing about which
I should like to have my mind set at rest. You were speaking of Zeus sending
justice and reverence to men; and several times while you were speaking,
justice, and temperance, and holiness, and all these qualities, were
described by you as if together they made up virtue. Now I want you to
tell me truly whether virtue is one whole, of which justice and temperance and
holiness are parts; or whether all these are only the names of one and
the same thing: that is the doubt which still lingers in my mind.
There is no difficulty, Socrates, in answering that the qualities of
which you are speaking are the parts of virtue which is one.
And are they parts, I said, in the same sense in which mouth, nose, and
eyes, and ears, are the parts of a face; or are they like the parts of
gold, which differ from the whole and from one another only in being larger
or smaller?
I should say that they differed, Socrates, in the first way; they are
related to one another as the parts of a face are related to the whole face.
And do men have some one part and some another part of virtue? Of if a
man has one part, must he also have all the others?
By no means, he said; for many a man is brave and not just, or just and
not wise.
You would not deny, then, that courage and wisdom are also parts of
virtue?
Most undoubtedly they are, he answered; and wisdom is the noblest of the
parts.
And they are all different from one another? I said.
Yes.
And has each of them a distinct function like the parts of the face;-the eye,
for example, is not like the ear, and has not the same functions; and
the other parts are none of them like one another, either in their functions,
or in any other way? I want to know whether the comparison holds concerning
the parts of virtue. Do they also differ from one another in themselves
and in their functions? For that is clearly what the simile would imply.
Yes, Socrates, you are right in supposing that they differ.
Then, I said, no other part of virtue is like knowledge, or like justice, or
like courage, or like temperance, or like holiness?
No, he answered.
Well then, I said, suppose that you and I enquire into their natures. And
first, you would agree with me that justice is of the nature of a thing, would
you not? That is my opinion: would it not be yours also?
Mine also, he said.
And suppose that some one were to ask us, saying, "O Protagoras, and you,
Socrates, what about this thing which you were calling justice, is it
just or unjust?"-and I were to answer, just: would you vote with me or
against me?
With you, he said.
Thereupon I should answer to him who asked me, that justice is of the nature
of the just: would not you?
Yes, he said.
And suppose that he went on to say: "Well now, is there also such a thing
as holiness? "we should answer, "Yes," if I am not mistaken?
Yes, he said.
Which you would also acknowledge to be a thing-should we not say so?
He assented.
"And is this a sort of thing which is of the nature of the holy, or of
the nature of the unholy?" I should be angry at his putting such a question, and should say, "Peace, man; nothing can be holy if holiness is not
holy." What would you say? Would you not answer in the same way?
Certainly, he said.
And then after this suppose that he came and asked us, "What were you saying
just now? Perhaps I may not have heard you rightly, but you seemed to me
to be saying that the parts of virtue were not the same as one another." I should reply, "You certainly heard that said, but not, as you
imagine, by me; for I only asked the question; Protagoras gave the
answer." And suppose that he turned to you and said, "Is this
true, Protagoras? and do you maintain that one part of virtue is unlike
another, and is this your position?"-how would you answer him?
I could not help acknowledging the truth of what he said, Socrates.
Well then, Protagoras, we will assume this; and now supposing that he
proceeded to say further, "Then holiness is not of the nature of justice, nor justice of the nature of holiness, but of the nature of unholiness; and holiness is of the nature of the not just, and therefore of the unjust,
and the unjust is the unholy": how shall we answer him? I should
certainly answer him on my own behalf that justice is holy, and that
holiness is just; and I would say in like manner on your behalf also, if
you would allow me, that justice is either the same with holiness, or
very nearly the same; and above all I would assert that justice is like
holiness and holiness is like justice; and I wish that you would tell me
whether I may be permitted to give this answer on your behalf, and
whether you would agree with me.
He replied, I cannot simply agree, Socrates, to the proposition that
justice is holy and that holiness is just, for there appears to me to be
a difference between them. But what matter? if you please I please; and
let us assume, if you will I, that justice is holy, and that holiness is
just.
Pardon me, I replied; I do not want this "if you wish" or "if you will" sort of conclusion to be proven, but I want you and me to be
proven: I mean to say that the conclusion will be best proven if there
be no "if."
Well, he said, I admit that justice bears a resemblance to holiness, for
there is always some point of view in which everything is like every other
thing; white is in a certain way like black, and hard is like soft, and
the most extreme opposites have some qualities in common; even the parts
of the face which, as we were saying before, are distinct and have different
functions, are still in a certain point of view similar, and one of them
is like another of them. And you may prove that they are like one
another on the same principle that all things are like one another; and
yet things which are like in some particular ought not to be called alike,
nor things which are unlike in some particular, however slight, unlike.
And do you think, I said in a tone of surprise, that justice and holiness
have but a small degree of likeness?
Certainly not; any more than I agree with what I understand to be your
view.
Well, I said, as you appear to have a difficulty about this, let us take
another of the examples which you mentioned instead. Do you admit the
existence of folly?
I do.
And is not wisdom the. very opposite of folly?
That is true, he said.
And when men act rightly and advantageously they seem to you to be temperate?
Yes, he said.
And temperance makes them temperate?
Certainly.
And they who do not act rightly act foolishly, and in acting thus are not
temperate?
I agree, he said.
Then to act foolishly is the opposite of acting temperately?
He assented.
And foolish actions are done by folly, and temperate actions by temperance?
He agreed.
And that is done strongly which is done by strength, and that which is
weakly done, by weakness?
He assented.
And that which is done with swiftness is done swiftly, and that which is
done with slowness, slowly?
He assented again.
And that which is done in the same manner, is done by the same; and that
which is done in an opposite manner by the opposite?
He agreed.
Once more, I said, is there anything beautiful?
Yes.
To which the only opposite is the ugly?
There is no other.
And is there anything good?
There is.
To which the only opposite is the evil?
There is no other.
And there is the acute in sound?
True.
To which the only opposite is the grave?
There is no other, he said, but that.
Then every opposite has one opposite only and no more?
He assented.
Then now, I said, let us recapitulate our admissions. First of all we
admitted that everything has one opposite and not more than one?
We did so.
And we admitted also that what was done in opposite ways was done by opposites?
Yes.
And that which was done foolishly, as we further admitted, was done in
the opposite way to that which was done temperately?
Yes.
And that which was done temperately was done by temperance, and that which
was done foolishly by folly?
He agreed.
And that which is done in opposite ways is done by opposites?
Yes.
And one thing is done by temperance, and quite another thing by folly?
Yes.
And in opposite ways?
Certainly.
And therefore by opposites:-then folly is the opposite of temperance?
Clearly.
And do you remember that folly has already been acknowledged by us to be
the opposite of wisdom?
He assented.
And we said that everything has only one opposite?
Yes.
Then, Protagoras, which of the two assertions shall we renounce? One says
that everything has but one opposite; the other that wisdom is distinct from
temperance, and that both of them are parts of virtue; and that they are
not only distinct, but dissimilar, both in themselves and in their functions,
like the parts of a face. Which of these two assertions shall we
renounce? For both of them together are certainly not in harmony; they do
not accord or agree: for how can they be said to agree if everything is
assumed to have only one opposite and not more than one, and yet folly, which
is one, has clearly the two opposites wisdom and temperance? Is not that
true, Protagoras? What else would you say?
He assented, but with great reluctance.
Then temperance and wisdom are the same, as before justice and holiness appeared
to us to be nearly the same. And now, Protagoras, I said, we must finish
the enquiry, and not faint. Do you think that an unjust man can be
temperate in his injustice?
I should be ashamed, Socrates, he said, to acknowledge this which nevertheless
many may be found to assert.
And shall I argue with them or with you? I replied.
I would rather, he said, that you should argue with the many first, if
you will.
Whichever you please, if you will only answer me and say whether you are
of their opinion or not. My object is to test the validity of the argument;
and yet the result may be that I who ask and you who answer may both be
put on our trial.
Protagoras at first made a show of refusing, as he said that the argument
was not encouraging; at length, he consented to answer.
Now then, I said, begin at the beginning and answer me. You think that
some men are temperate, and yet unjust?
Yes, he said; let that be admitted.
And temperance is good sense?
Yes.
And good sense is good counsel in doing injustice?
Granted.
If they succeed, I said, or if they do not succeed?
If they succeed.
And you would admit the existence of goods?
Yes.
And is the good that which is expedient for man?
Yes, indeed, he said: and there are some things which may be inexpedient, and
yet I call them good.
I thought that Protagoras was getting ruffled and excited; he seemed to
be setting himself in an attitude of war. Seeing this, I minded my business, and
gently said:-
When you say, Protagoras, that things inexpedient are good, do you mean
inexpedient for man only, or inexpedient altogether? and do you call the
latter good?
Certainly not the last, he replied; for I know of many things-meats, drinks,
medicines, and ten thousand other things, which are inexpedient for man,
and some which are expedient; and some which are neither expedient nor
inexpedient for man, but only for horses; and some for oxen only, and some
for dogs; and some for no animals, but only for trees; and some for the
roots of trees and not for their branches, as for example, manure, which
is a good thing when laid about the roots of a tree, but utterly destructive
if thrown upon the shoots and young branches; or I may instance olive
oil, which is mischievous to all plants, and generally most injurious to
the hair of every animal with the exception of man, but beneficial to human
hair and to the human body generally; and even in this application (so
various and changeable is the nature of the benefit), that which is the
greatest good to the outward parts of a man, is a very great evil to his
inward parts: and for this reason physicians always forbid their patients the
use of oil in their food, except in very small quantities, just enough to
extinguish the disagreeable sensation of smell in meats and sauces.
When he had given this answer, the company cheered him. And I said: Protagoras,
I have a wretched memory, and when any one makes a long speech to me I
never remember what he is talking about. As then, if I had been deaf,
and you were going to converse with me, you would have had to raise your
voice; so now, having such a bad memory, I will ask you to cut your answers
shorter, if you would take me with you.
What do you mean? he said: how am I to shorten my answers? shall I make
them too short?
Certainly not, I said.
But short enough?
Yes, I said.
Shall I answer what appears to me to be short enough, or what appears to
you to be short enough?
I have heard, I said, that you can speak and teach others to speak about
the same things at such length that words never seemed to fail, or with
such brevity that no one could use fewer of them. Please therefore, if
you talk with me, to adopt the latter or more compendious method.
Socrates, he replied, many a battle of words have I fought, and if I
had followed the method of disputation which my adversaries desired, as
you want me to do, I should have been no better than another, and the name
of Protagoras would have been nowhere.
I saw that he was not satisfied with his previous answers, and that he
would not play the part of answerer any more if he could help; and I
considered that there was no call upon me to continue the conversation; so
I said: Protagoras, I do not wish to force the conversation upon you if
you had rather not, but when you are willing to argue with me in such a
way that I can follow you, then I will argue with you. Now you, as is said
of you by others and as you say of yourself, are able to have discussions in
shorter forms of speech as well as in longer, for you are a master of wisdom;
but I cannot manage these long speeches: I only wish that I could. You,
on the other hand, who are capable of either, ought to speak shorter as
I beg you, and then we might converse. But I see that you are disinclined, and
as I have an engagement which will prevent my staying to hear you at greater
length (for I have to be in another place), I will depart; although I
should have liked to have heard you.
Thus I spoke, and was rising from my seat, when Callias seized me by
the right hand, and in his left hand caught hold of this old cloak of
mine. He said: We cannot let you go, Socrates, for if you leave us there will
be an end of our discussions: I must therefore beg you to remain, as
there is nothing in the world that I should like better than to hear you
and Protagoras discourse. Do not deny the company this pleasure.
Now I had got up, and was in the act of departure. Son of Hipponicus, I
replied, I have always admired, and do now heartily applaud and love your
philosophical spirit, and I would gladly comply with your request, if I
could. But the truth is that I cannot. And what you ask is as great an
impossibility to me, as if you bade me run a race with Crison of Himera, when
in his prime, or with some one of the long or day course runners. To
such a request I should reply that I would fain ask the same of my own legs;
but they refuse to comply. And therefore if you want to see Crison and
me in the same stadium, you must bid him slacken his speed to mine, for
I cannot run quickly, and he can run slowly. And in like manner if you
want to hear me and Protagoras discoursing, you must ask him to shorten his
answers, and keep to the point, as he did at first; if not, how can there
be any discussion? For discussion is one thing, and making an oration is
quite another, in my humble opinion.
But you see, Socrates, said Callias, that Protagoras may fairly claim
to speak in his own way, just as you claim to speak in yours.
Here Alcibiades interposed, and said: That, Callias, is not a true statement
of the case. For our friend Socrates admits that he cannot make a
speech-in this he yields the palm to Protagoras: but I should be greatly surprised
if he yielded to any living man in the power of holding and apprehending an
argument. Now if Protagoras will make a similar admission, and confess that
he is inferior to Socrates in argumentative skill, that is enough for
Socrates; but if he claims a superiority in argument as well, let him ask
and answer-not, when a question is asked, slipping away from the point, and
instead of answering, making a speech at such length that most of his hearers
forget the question at issue (not that Socrates is likely to forget-I will
be bound for that, although he may pretend in fun that he has a bad memory).
And Socrates appears to me to be more in the right than Protagoras; that
is my view, and every man ought to say what he thinks.
When Alcibiades had done speaking, some one-Critias, I believe-went on
to say: O Prodicus and Hippias, Callias appears to me to be a partisan of
Protagoras: and this led Alcibiades, who loves opposition, to take the other
side. But we should not be partisans either of Socrates or of Protagoras; let
us rather unite in entreating both of them not to break up the discussion.
Prodicus added: That, Critias, seems to me to be well said, for those
who are present at such discussions ought to be impartial hearers of
both the speakers; remembering, however, that impartiality is not the same
as equality, for both sides should be impartially heard, and yet an equal
meed should not be assigned to both of them; but to the wiser a higher meed
should be given, and a lower to the less wise. And I as well as Critias would
beg you, Protagoras and Socrates, to grant our request, which is, that
you will argue with one another and not wrangle; for friends argue with
friends out of goodwill, but only adversaries and enemies wrangle. And
then our meeting will be delightful; for in this way you, who are the speakers,
will be most likely to win esteem, and not praise only, among us who
are your audience; for esteem is a sincere conviction of the hearers' souls,
but praise is often an insincere expression of men uttering falsehoods contrary
to their conviction. And thus we who are the hearers will be gratified and
not pleased; for gratification is of the mind when receiving wisdom and
knowledge, but pleasure is of the body when eating or experiencing some
other bodily delight. Thus spoke Prodicus, and many of the company applauded
his words.
Hippias the sage spoke next. He said: All of you who are here present I
reckon to be kinsmen and friends and fellow-citizens, by nature and not by
law; for by nature like is akin to like, whereas law is the tyrant of mankind,
and often compels us to do many things which are against nature. How
great would be the disgrace then, if we, who know the nature of things, and
are the wisest of the Hellenes, and as such are met together in this city,
which is the metropolis of wisdom, and in the greatest and most glorious house
of this city, should have nothing to show worthy of this height of dignity,
but should only quarrel with one another like the meanest of mankind I
pray and advise you, Protagoras, and you, Socrates, to agree upon a compromise. Let us be your peacemakers. And do not you, Socrates, aim at this precise and extreme brevity in discourse, if Protagoras objects, but loosen and let go the reins of speech, that your words may be grander and more
becoming to you. Neither do you, Protagoras, go forth on the gale with
every sail set out of sight of land into an ocean of words, but let
there be a mean observed by both of you. Do as I say. And let me also
persuade you to choose an arbiter or overseer or president; he will
keep watch over your words and will prescribe their proper length.
This proposal was received by the company with universal approval; Callias
said that he would not let me off, and they begged me to choose an
arbiter. But I said that to choose an umpire of discourse would be unseemly; for if the person chosen was inferior, then the inferior or worse ought not to preside over the better; or if he was equal, neither would that be well; for he who is our equal will do as we do, and what will be the use of choosing him? And if you say, "Let us have a better
then,"-to that I answer that you cannot have any one who is wiser
than Protagoras. And if you choose another who is not really better,
and whom you only say is better, to put another over him as though he
were an inferior person would be an unworthy reflection on him; not
that, as far as I am concerned, any reflection is of much consequence
to me. Let me tell you then what I will do in order that the
conversation and discussion may go on as you desire. If Protagoras is
not disposed to answer, let him ask and I will answer; and I will
endeavour to show at the same time how, as I maintain, he ought to
answer: and when I have answered as many questions as he likes to ask, let
him in like manner answer me; and if he seems to be not very ready at
answering the precise question asked of him, you and I will unite in entreating
him, as you entreated me, not to spoil the discussion. And this will
require no special arbiter-all of you shall be arbiters.
This was generally approved, and Protagoras, though very much against his
will, was obliged to agree that he would ask questions; and when he had
put a sufficient number of them, that he would answer in his turn those which
he was asked in short replies. He began to put his questions as follows:-
I am of opinion, Socrates, he said, that skill in poetry is the principal
part of education; and this I conceive to be the power of knowing what
compositions of the poets are correct, and what are not, and how they are
to be distinguished, and of explaining when asked the reason of the difference.
And I propose to transfer the question which you and I have been
discussing to the domain of poetry; we will speak as before of virtue, but
in reference to a passage of a poet. Now Simonides says to Scopas the son
of Creon the Thessalian:
Hardly on the one hand can a man become truly good, built four-square in
hands and feet and mind, a work without a flaw. Do you know the poem? or
shall I repeat the whole?
There is no need, I said; for I am perfectly well acquainted with the
ode-I have made a careful study of it.
Very well, he said. And do you think that the ode is a good composition, and
true?
Yes, I said, both good and true.
But if there is a contradiction, can the composition be good or true?
No, not in that case, I replied.
And is there not a contradiction? he asked. Reflect.
Well, my friend, I have reflected.
And does not the poet proceed to say, "I do not agree with the word of
Pittacus, albeit the utterance of a wise man: Hardly can a man be good"? Now you will observe that this is said by the same poet.
I know it.
And do you think, he said, that the two sayings are consistent?
Yes, I said, I think so (at the same time I could not help fearing that
there might be something in what he said). And you think otherwise?
Why, he said, how can he be consistent in both? First of all, premising as
his own thought, "Hardly can a man become truly good"; and then a little further on in the poem, forgetting, and blaming Pittacus and refusing to agree with him, when he says, "Hardly can a man be good," which
is the very same thing. And yet when he blames him who says the same
with himself, he blames himself; so that he must be wrong either in his
first or his second assertion.
Many of the audience cheered and applauded this. And I felt at first
giddy and faint, as if I had received a blow from the hand of an expert
boxer, when I heard his words and the sound of the cheering; and to
confess the truth, I wanted to get time to think what the meaning of the
poet really was. So I turned to Prodicus and called him. Prodicus, I
said, Simonides is a countryman of yours, and you ought to come to his aid.
I must appeal to you, like the river Scamander in Homer, who, when beleaguered
by Achilles, summons the Simois to aid him, saying:
Brother dear, let us both together stay the force of the hero. And I
summon you, for I am afraid that Protagoras will make an end of Simonides. Now
is the time to rehabilitate Simonides, by the application of your philosophy of synonyms, which enables you to distinguish "will" and
"wish," and make other charming distinctions like those which
you drew just now. And I should like to know whether you would agree
with me; for I am of opinion that there is no contradiction in the
words of Simonides. And first of all I wish that you would say whether,
in your opinion, Prodicus, "being" is the same as
"becoming."
Not the same, certainly, replied Prodicus.
Did not Simonides first set forth, as his own view, that "Hardly can a
man become truly good"?
Quite right, said Prodicus.
And then he blames Pittacus, not, as Protagoras imagines, for repeating that
which he says himself, but for saying something different from himself. Pittacus
does not say as Simonides says, that hardly can a man become good, but
hardly can a man be good: and our friend Prodicus would maintain that being,
Protagoras, is not the same as becoming; and if they are not the same,
then Simonides is not inconsistent with himself. I dare say that Prodicus
and many others would say, as Hesiod says,
On the one hand, hardly can a man become good,
For the gods have made virtue the reward of toil,
But on the other hand, when you have climbed the height,
Then, to retain virtue, however difficult the acquisition, is easy.
Prodicus heard and approved; but Protagoras said: Your correction, Socrates,
involves a greater error than is contained in the sentence which you
are correcting.