The Memorabilia | Page 7

in persuasiveness triumphs single-handed, for he is
conscious of a cunning to compel consent unaided. And what has such
a one to do with the spilling of blood? since how ridiculous it were to
do men to death rather than turn to account the trusty service of the
living.
[2] {o kategoros} = Polycrates possibly. See M. Schantz, op. cit.,
"Einleitun," S. 6: "Die Anklagerede des Polykrates"; Introduction, p.
xxxii. foll.
[3] i.e. staking the election of a magistrate on the colour of a bean. See
Aristot. "Ath. Pol." viii. 2, and Dr. Sandys ad loc.
But, the accuser answers, the two men[4] who wrought the greatest
evils to the state at any time--to wit, Critias and Alcibiades--were both
companions of Socrates--Critias the oligarch, and Alcibiades the
democrat. Where would you find a more arrant thief, savage, and
murderer[5] than the one? where such a portent of insolence,
incontinence, and high-handedness as the other? For my part, in so far
as these two wrought evil to the state, I have no desire to appear as the
apologist of either. I confine myself to explaining what this intimacy of
theirs with Socrates really was.
[4] See "Hell." I. and II. passim.
[5] Reading {kleptistatos te kai biaiotatos kai phonikotatos}, or if
{pleonektistatos te kai biaiotatis}, translate "such a manner of greed
and violence as the one, of insolence, etc., as the other?" See Grote, "H.

G." viii. 337.
Never were two more ambitious citizens seen at Athens. Ambition was
in their blood. If they were to have their will, all power was to be in
their hands; their fame was to eclipse all other. Of Socrates they
knew--first that he lived an absolutely independent life on the scantiest
means; next that he was self-disciplined to the last degree in respect of
pleasures; lastly that he was so formidable in debate that there was no
antagonist he could not twist round his little finger. Such being their
views, and such the character of the pair, which is the more probable:
that they sought the society of Socrates because they felt the fascination
of his life, and were attracted by the bearing of the man? or because
they thought, if only we are leagued with him we shall become adepts
in statecraft and unrivalled in the arts of speech and action? For my part
I believe that if the choice from Heaven had been given them to live
such a life as they saw Socrates living to its close, or to die, they would
both have chosen death.
Their acts are a conclusive witness to their characters. They no sooner
felt themselves to be the masters of those they came in contact with
than they sprang aside from Socrates and plunged into that whirl of
politics but for which they might never have sought his society.
It may be objected: before giving his companions lessons in politics
Socrates had better have taught them sobriety.[6] Without disputing the
principle, I would point out that a teacher cannot fail to discover to his
pupils his method of carrying out his own precepts, and this along with
argumentative encouragement. Now I know that Socrates disclosed
himself to his companions as a beautiful and noble being, who would
reason and debate with them concerning virtue and other human
interests in the noblest manner. And of these two I know that as long as
they were companions of Socrates even they were temperate, not
assuredly from fear of being fined or beaten by Socrates, but because
they were persuaded for the nonce of the excellence of such conduct.
[6] {sophrosune} = "sound-mindedness," "temperence." See below, IV.
iii. 1.
Perhaps some self-styled philosophers[7] may here answer: "Nay, the
man truly just can never become unjust, the temperate man can never
become intemperate, the man who has learnt any subject of knowledge
can never be as though he had learnt it not." That, however, is not my

own conclusion. It is with the workings of the soul as with those of the
body; want of exercise of the organ leads to inability of function, here
bodily, there spiritual, so that we can neither do the things that we
should nor abstain from the things we should not. And that is why
fathers keep their sons, however temperate they may be, out of the
reach of wicked men, considering that if the society of the good is a
training in virtue so also is the society of the bad its dissolution.
[7] In reference to some such tenet as that of Antisthenes ap. Diog.
Laert. VI. ix. 30, {areskei d' autois kai ten areten didakten einai, katha
phesin 'Antisthenes en to 'Rraklei kai anapobleton uparkhein}. Cf. Plat.
"Protag." 340 D, 344 D.
To this the poet[8] is a witness, who says:
"From the