Sacred Texts  Classics  Plato


by Plato

380 BC

translated by Benjamin Jowett

New York, C. Scribner's Sons, [1871]

   Scene: The house of Callicles.
   Callicles. The wise man, as the proverb says, is late for a fray,
 but not for a feast.
   Socrates. And are we late for a feast?
   Cal. Yes, and a delightful feast; for Gorgias has just been
 exhibiting to us many fine things.
   Soc. It is not my fault, Callicles; our friend Chaerephon is to
 blame; for he would keep us loitering in the Agora.
   Chaerephon. Never mind, Socrates; the misfortune of which I have
 been the cause I will also repair; for Gorgias is a friend of mine,
 and I will make him give the exhibition again either now, or, if you
 prefer, at some other time.
   Cal. What is the matter, Chaerephon-does Socrates want to hear
   Chaer. Yes, that was our intention in coming.
   Cal. Come into my house, then; for Gorgias is staying with me, and
 he shall exhibit to you.
   Soc. Very good, Callicles; but will he answer our questions? for I
 want to hear from him what is the nature of his art, and what it is
 which he professes and teaches; he may, as you [Chaerephon] suggest,
 defer the exhibition to some other time.
   Cal. There is nothing like asking him, Socrates; and indeed to
 answer questions is a part of his exhibition, for he was saying only
 just now, that any one in my house might put any question to him,
 and that he would answer.
   Soc. How fortunate! will you ask him, Chaerephon-?
   Chaer. What shall I ask him?
   Soc. Ask him who he is.
   Chaer. What do you mean?
   Soc. I mean such a question as would elicit from him, if he had been
 a maker of shoes, the answer that he is a cobbler. Do you understand?
   Chaer. I understand, and will ask him: Tell me, Gorgias, is our
 friend Callicles right in saying that you undertake to answer any
 questions which you are asked?
   Gorgias. Quite right, Chaerephon: I was saying as much only just
 now; and I may add, that many years have elapsed since any one has
 asked me a new one.
   Chaer. Then you must be very ready, Gorgias.
   Gor. Of that, Chaerephon, you can make trial.
   Polus. Yes, indeed, and if you like, Chaerephon, you may make
 trial of me too, for I think that Gorgias, who has been talking a long
 time, is tired.
   Chaer. And do you, Polus, think that you can answer better than
   Pol. What does that matter if I answer well enough for you?
   Chaer. Not at all:-and you shall answer if you like.
   Pol. Ask:-
   Chaer. My question is this: If Gorgias had the skill of his
 brother Herodicus, what ought we to call him? Ought he not to have the
 name which is given to his brother?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Chaer. Then we should be right in calling him a physician?
   Pol. Yes.
   Chaer. And if he had the skill of Aristophon the son of Aglaophon,
 or of his brother Polygnotus, what ought we to call him?
   Pol. Clearly, a painter.
   Chaer. But now what shall we call him-what is the art in which he is
   Pol. O Chaerephon, there are many arts among mankind which are
 experimental, and have their origin in experience, for experience
 makes the days of men to proceed according to art, and inexperience
 according to chance, and different persons in different ways are
 proficient in different arts, and the best persons in the best arts.
 And our friend Gorgias is one of the best, and the art in which he
 is a proficient is the noblest.
   Soc. Polus has been taught how to make a capital speech, Gorgias;
 but he is not fulfilling the promise which he made to Chaerephon.
   Gor. What do you mean, Socrates?
   Soc. I mean that he has not exactly answered the question which he
 was asked.
   Gor. Then why not ask him yourself?
   Soc. But I would much rather ask you, if you are disposed to answer:
 for I see, from the few words which Polus has uttered, that he has
 attended more to the art which is called rhetoric than to dialectic.
   Pol. What makes you say so, Socrates?
   Soc. Because, Polus, when Chaerephon asked you what was the art
 which Gorgias knows, you praised it as if you were answering some
 one who found fault with it, but you never said what the art was.
   Pol. Why, did I not say that it was the noblest of arts?
   Soc. Yes, indeed, but that was no answer to the question: nobody
 asked what was the quality, but what was the nature, of the art, and
 by what name we were to describe Gorgias. And I would still beg you
 briefly and clearly, as you answered Chaerephon when he asked you at
 first, to say what this art is, and what we ought to call Gorgias:
 Or rather, Gorgias, let me turn to you, and ask the same question what
 are we to call you, and what is the art which you profess?
   Gor. Rhetoric, Socrates, is my art.
   Soc. Then I am to call you a rhetorician?
   Gor. Yes, Socrates, and a good one too, if you would call me that
 which, in Homeric language, "I boast myself to be."
   Soc. I should wish to do so.
   Gor. Then pray do.
   Soc. And are we to say that you are able to make other men
   Gor. Yes, that is exactly what I profess to make them, not only at
 Athens, but in all places.
   Soc. And will you continue to ask and answer questions, Gorgias,
 as we are at present doing and reserve for another occasion the longer
 mode of speech which Polus was attempting? Will you keep your promise,
 and answer shortly the questions which are asked of you?
   Gor. Some answers, Socrates, are of necessity longer; but I will
 do my best to make them as short as possible; for a part of my
 profession is that I can be as short as any one.
   Soc. That is what is wanted, Gorgias; exhibit the shorter method
 now, and the longer one at some other time.
   Gor. Well, I will; and you will certainly say, that you never
 heard a man use fewer words.
   Soc. Very good then; as you profess to be a rhetorician, and a maker
 of rhetoricians, let me ask you, with what is rhetoric concerned: I
 might ask with what is weaving concerned, and you would reply (would
 you not?), with the making of garments?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. And music is concerned with the composition of melodies?
   Gor. It is.
   Soc. By Here, Gorgias, I admire the surpassing brevity of your
   Gor. Yes, Socrates, I do think myself good at that.
   Soc. I am glad to hear it; answer me in like manner about
 rhetoric: with what is rhetoric concerned?
   Gor. With discourse.
   Soc. What sort of discourse, Gorgias?-such discourse as would
 teach the sick under what treatment they might get well?
   Gor. No.
   Soc. Then rhetoric does not treat of all kinds of discourse?
   Gor. Certainly not.
   Soc. And yet rhetoric makes men able to speak?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. And to understand that about which they speak?
   Gor. Of course.
   Soc. But does not the art of medicine, which we were just now
 mentioning, also make men able to understand and speak about the sick?
   Gor. Certainly.
   Soc. Then medicine also treats of discourse?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. Of discourse concerning diseases?
   Gor. Just so.
   Soc. And does not gymnastic also treat of discourse concerning the
 good or evil condition of the body?
   Gor. Very true.
   Soc. And the same, Gorgias, is true of the other arts:-all of them
 treat of discourse concerning the subjects with which they severally
 have to do.
   Gor. Clearly.
   Soc. Then why, if you call rhetoric the art which treats of
 discourse, and all the other arts treat of discourse, do you not
 call them arts of rhetoric?
   Gor. Because, Socrates, the knowledge of the other arts has only
 to do with some sort of external action, as of the hand; but there
 is no such action of the hand in rhetoric which works and takes effect
 only through the medium of discourse. And therefore I am justified
 in saying that rhetoric treats of discourse.
   Soc. I am not sure whether I entirely understand you, but I dare say
 I shall soon know better; please to answer me a question:-you would
 allow that there are arts?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. As to the arts generally, they are for the most part
 concerned with doing, and require little or no speaking; in
 painting, and statuary, and many other arts, the work may proceed in
 silence; and of such arts I suppose you would say that they do not
 come within the province of rhetoric.
   Gor. You perfectly conceive my meaning, Socrates.
   Soc. But there are other arts which work wholly through the medium
 of language, and require either no action or very little, as, for
 example, the arts of arithmetic, of calculation, of geometry, and of
 playing draughts; in some of these speech is pretty nearly
 co-extensive with action, but in most of them the verbal element is
 greater-they depend wholly on words for their efficacy and power:
 and I take your meaning to be that rhetoric is an art of this latter
   Gor. Exactly.
   Soc. And yet I do not believe that you really mean to call any of
 these arts rhetoric; although the precise expression which you used
 was, that rhetoric is an art which works and takes effect only through
 the medium of discourse; and an adversary who wished to be captious
 might say, "And so, Gorgias, you call arithmetic rhetoric." But I do
 not think that you really call arithmetic rhetoric any more than
 geometry would be so called by you.
   Gor. You are quite right, Socrates, in your apprehension of my
   Soc. Well, then, let me now have the rest of my answer:-seeing
 that rhetoric is one of those arts which works mainly by the use of
 words, and there are other arts which also use words, tell me what
 is that quality in words with which rhetoric is concerned:-Suppose
 that a person asks me about some of the arts which I was mentioning
 just now; he might say, "Socrates, what is arithmetic?" and I should
 reply to him, as you replied to me, that arithmetic is one of those
 arts which take effect through words. And then he would proceed to
 ask: "Words about what?" and I should reply, Words about and even
 numbers, and how many there are of each. And if he asked again:
 "What is the art of calculation?" I should say, That also is one of
 the arts which is concerned wholly with words. And if he further said,
 "Concerned with what?" I should say, like the clerks in the
 assembly, "as aforesaid" of arithmetic, but with a difference, the
 difference being that the art of calculation considers not only the
 quantities of odd and even numbers, but also their numerical relations
 to themselves and to one another. And suppose, again, I were to say
 that astronomy is only word-he would ask, "Words about what,
 Socrates?" and I should answer, that astronomy tells us about the
 motions of the stars and sun and moon, and their relative swiftness.
   Gor. You would be quite right, Socrates.
   Soc. And now let us have from you, Gorgias, the truth about
 rhetoric: which you would admit (would you not?) to be one of those
 arts which act always and fulfil all their ends through the medium
 of words?
   Gor. True.
   Soc. Words which do what? I should ask. To what class of things do
 the words which rhetoric uses relate?
   Gor. To the greatest, Socrates, and the best of human things.
   Soc. That again, Gorgias is ambiguous; I am still in the dark: for
 which are the greatest and best of human things? I dare say that you
 have heard men singing at feasts the old drinking song, in which the
 singers enumerate the goods of life, first health, beauty next,
 thirdly, as the writer of the song says, wealth honesty obtained.
   Gor. Yes, I know the song; but what is your drift?
   Soc. I mean to say, that the producers of those things which the
 author of the song praises, that is to say, the physician, the
 trainer, the money-maker, will at once come to you, and first the
 physician will say: "O Socrates, Gorgias is deceiving you, for my
 art is concerned with the greatest good of men and not his." And
 when I ask, Who are you? he will reply, "I am a physician." What do
 you mean? I shall say. Do you mean that your art produces the greatest
 good? "Certainly," he will answer, "for is not health the greatest
 good? What greater good can men have, Socrates?" And after him the
 trainer will come and say, "I too, Socrates, shall be greatly
 surprised if Gorgias can show more good of his art than I can show
 of mine." To him again I shall say, Who are you, honest friend, and
 what is your business? "I am a trainer," he will reply, "and my
 business is to make men beautiful and strong in body." When I have
 done with the trainer, there arrives the money-maker, and he, as I
 expect, utterly despise them all. "Consider Socrates," he will say,
 "whether Gorgias or any one-else can produce any greater good than
 wealth." Well, you and I say to him, and are you a creator of
 wealth? "Yes," he replies. And who are you? "A money-maker." And do
 you consider wealth to be the greatest good of man? "Of course,"
 will be his reply. And we shall rejoin: Yes; but our friend Gorgias
 contends that his art produces a greater good than yours. And then
 he will be sure to go on and ask, "What good? Let Gorgias answer." Now
 I want you, Gorgias, to imagine that this question is asked of you
 by them and by me; What is that which, as you say, is the greatest
 good of man, and of which you are the creator? Answer us.
   Gor. That good, Socrates, which is truly the greatest, being that
 which gives to men freedom in their own persons, and to individuals
 the power of ruling over others in their several states.
   Soc. And what would you consider this to be?
   Gor. What is there greater than the word which persuades the
 judges in the courts, or the senators in the council, or the
 citizens in the assembly, or at any other political meeting?-if you
 have the power of uttering this word, you will have the physician your
 slave, and the trainer your slave, and the money-maker of whom you
 talk will be found to gather treasures, not for himself, but for you
 who are able to speak and to persuade the multitude.
   Soc. Now I think, Gorgias, that you have very accurately explained
 what you conceive to be the art of rhetoric; and you mean to say, if I
 am not mistaken, that rhetoric is the artificer of persuasion,
 having this and no other business, and that this is her crown and end.
 Do you know any other effect of rhetoric over and above that of
 producing persuasion?
   Gor. No: the definition seems to me very fair, Socrates; for
 persuasion is the chief end of rhetoric.
   Soc. Then hear me, Gorgias, for I am quite sure that if there ever
 was a man who-entered on the discussion of a matter from a pure love
 of knowing the truth, I am such a one, and I should say the same of
   Gor. What is coming, Socrates?
   Soc. I will tell you: I am very well aware that do not know what,
 according to you, is the exact nature, or what are the topics of
 that persuasion of which you speak, and which is given by rhetoric;
 although I have a suspicion about both the one and the other. And I am
 going to ask-what is this power of persuasion which is given by
 rhetoric, and about what? But why, if I have a suspicion, do I ask
 instead of telling you? Not for your sake, but in order that the
 argument may proceed in such a manner as is most likely to set forth
 the truth. And I would have you observe, that I am right in asking
 this further question: If I asked, "What sort of a painter is Zeuxis?"
 and you said, "The painter of figures," should I not be right in
 asking, What kind of figures, and where do you find them?"
   Gor. Certainly.
   Soc. And the reason for asking this second question would be, that
 there are other painters besides, who paint many other figures?
   Gor. True.
   Soc. But if there had been no one but Zeuxis who painted them,
 then you would have answered very well?
   Gor. Quite so.
   Soc. Now I was it to know about rhetoric in the same way;-is
 rhetoric the only art which brings persuasion, or do other arts have
 the same effect? I mean to say-Does he who teaches anything persuade
 men of that which he teaches or not?
   Gor. He persuades, Socrates,-there can be no mistake about that.
   Soc. Again, if we take the arts of which we were just now
 speaking:-do not arithmetic and the arithmeticians teach us the
 properties of number?
   Gor. Certainly.
   Soc. And therefore persuade us of them?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. Then arithmetic as well as rhetoric is an artificer of
   Gor. Clearly.
   Soc. And if any one asks us what sort of persuasion, and about
 what,-we shall answer, persuasion which teaches the quantity of odd
 and even; and we shall be able to show that all the other arts of
 which we were just now speaking are artificers of persuasion, and of
 what sort, and about what.
   Gor. Very true.
   Soc. Then rhetoric is not the only artificer of persuasion?
   Gor. True.
   Soc. Seeing, then, that not only rhetoric works by persuasion, but
 that other arts do the same, as in the case of the painter, a question
 has arisen which is a very fair one: Of what persuasion is rhetoric
 the artificer, and about what?-is not that a fair way of putting the
   Gor. I think so.
   Soc. Then, if you approve the question, Gorgias, what is the answer?
   Gor. I answer, Socrates, that rhetoric is the art of persuasion in
 courts of law and other assemblies, as I was just now saying, and
 about the just and unjust.
   Soc. And that, Gorgias, was what I was suspecting to be your notion;
 yet I would not have you wonder if by-and-by I am found repeating a
 seemingly plain question; for I ask not in order to confute you, but
 as I was saying that the argument may proceed consecutively, and
 that we may not get the habit of anticipating and suspecting the
 meaning of one another's words; I would have you develop your own
 views in your own way, whatever may be your hypothesis.
   Gor. I think that you are quite right, Socrates.
   Soc. Then let me raise another question; there is such a thing as
 "having learned"?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. And there is also "having believed"?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. And is the "having learned" the same "having believed," and are
 learning and belief the same things?
   Gor. In my judgment, Socrates, they are not the same.
   Soc. And your judgment is right, as you may ascertain in this
 way:-If a person were to say to you, "Is there, Gorgias, a false
 belief as well as a true?" -you would reply, if I am not mistaken,
 that there is.
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. Well, but is there a false knowledge as well as a true?
   Gor. No.
   Soc. No, indeed; and this again proves that knowledge and belief
   Gor. Very true.
   Soc. And yet those who have learned as well as those who have
 believed are persuaded?
   Gor. Just so.
   Soc. Shall we then assume two sorts of persuasion,-one which is
 the source of belief without knowledge, as the other is of knowledge?
   Gor. By all means.
   Soc. And which sort of persuasion does rhetoric create in courts
 of law and other assemblies about the just and unjust, the sort of
 persuasion which gives belief without knowledge, or that which gives
   Gor. Clearly, Socrates, that which only gives belief.
   Soc. Then rhetoric, as would appear, is the artificer of a
 persuasion which creates belief about the just and unjust, but gives
 no instruction about them?
   Gor. True.
   Soc. And the rhetorician does not instruct the courts of law or
 other assemblies about things just and unjust, but he creates belief
 about them; for no one can be supposed to instruct such a vast
 multitude about such high matters in a short time?
   Gor. Certainly not.
   Soc. Come, then, and let us see what we really mean about
 rhetoric; for I do not know what my own meaning is as yet. When the
 assembly meets to elect a physician or a shipwright or any other
 craftsman, will the rhetorician be taken into counsel? Surely not. For
 at every election he ought to be chosen who is most skilled; and,
 again, when walls have to be built or harbours or docks to be
 constructed, not the rhetorician but the master workman will advise;
 or when generals have to be chosen and an order of battle arranged, or
 a proposition taken, then the military will advise and not the
 rhetoricians: what do you say, Gorgias? Since you profess to be a
 rhetorician and a maker of rhetoricians, I cannot do better than learn
 the nature of your art from you. And here let me assure you that I
 have your interest in view as well as my own. For likely enough some
 one or other of the young men present might desire to become your
 pupil, and in fact I see some, and a good many too, who have this
 wish, but they would be too modest to question you. And therefore when
 you are interrogated by me, I would have you imagine that you are
 interrogated by them. "What is the use of coming to you, Gorgias? they
 will say about what will you teach us to advise the state?-about the
 just and unjust only, or about those other things also which
 Socrates has just mentioned? How will you answer them?
   Gor. I like your way of leading us on, Socrates, and I will
 endeavour to reveal to you the whole nature of rhetoric. You must have
 heard, I think, that the docks and the walls of the Athenians and
 the plan of the harbour were devised in accordance with the
 counsels, partly of Themistocles, and partly of Pericles, and not at
 the suggestion of the builders.
   Soc. Such is the tradition, Gorgias, about Themistocles; and I
 myself heard the speech of Pericles when he advised us about the
 middle wall.
   Gor. And you will observe, Socrates, that when a decision has to
 be given in such matters the rhetoricians are the advisers; they are
 the men who win their point.
   Soc. I had that in my admiring mind, Gorgias, when I asked what is
 the nature of rhetoric, which always appears to me, when I look at the
 matter in this way, to be a marvel of greatness.
   Gor. A marvel, indeed, Socrates, if you only knew how rhetoric
 comprehends and holds under her sway all the inferior arts. Let me
 offer you a striking example of this. On several occasions I have been
 with my brother Herodicus or some other physician to see one of his
 patients, who would not allow the physician to give him medicine, or
 apply a knife or hot iron to him; and I have persuaded him to do for
 me what he would not do for the physician just by the use of rhetoric.
 And I say that if a rhetorician and a physician were to go to any
 city, and had there to argue in the Ecclesia or any other assembly
 as to which of them should be elected state-physician, the physician
 would have no chance; but he who could speak would be chosen if he
 wished; and in a contest with a man of any other profession the
 rhetorician more than any one would have the power of getting
 himself chosen, for he can speak more persuasively to the multitude
 than any of them, and on any subject. Such is the nature and power
 of the art of rhetoric And yet, Socrates, rhetoric should be used like
 any other competitive art, not against everybody-the rhetorician ought
 not to abuse his strength any more than a pugilist or pancratiast or
 other master of fence; because he has powers which are more than a
 match either for friend or enemy, he ought not therefore to strike,
 stab, or slay his friends. Suppose a man to have been trained in the
 palestra and to be a skilful boxer-he in the fulness of his strength
 goes and strikes his father or mother or one of his familiars or
 friends; but that is no reason why the trainers or fencing-masters
 should be held in detestation or banished from the city-surely not.
 For they taught their art for a good purpose, to be used against
 enemies and evil-doers, in self-defence not in aggression, and
 others have perverted their instructions, and turned to a bad use
 their own strength and skill. But not on this account are the teachers
 bad, neither is the art in fault, or bad in itself; I should rather
 say that those who make a bad use of the art are to blame. And the
 same argument holds good of rhetoric; for the rhetorician can speak
 against all men and upon any subject-in short, he can persuade the
 multitude better than any other man of anything which he pleases,
 but he should not therefore seek to defraud the physician or any other
 artist of his reputation merely because he has the power; he ought
 to use rhetoric fairly, as he would also use his athletic powers.
 And if after having become a rhetorician he makes a bad use of his
 strength and skill, his instructor surely ought not on that account to
 be held in detestation or banished. For he was intended by his teacher
 to make a good use of his instructions, but he abuses them. And
 therefore he is the person who ought to be held in detestation,
 banished, and put to death, and not his instructor.
   Soc. You, Gorgias, like myself, have had great experience of
 disputations, and you must have observed, I think, that they do not
 always terminate in mutual edification, or in the definition by either
 party of the subjects which they are discussing; but disagreements are
 apt to arise-somebody says that another has not spoken truly or
 clearly; and then they get into a passion and begin to quarrel, both
 parties conceiving that their opponents are arguing from personal
 feeling only and jealousy of themselves, not from any interest in
 the question at issue. And sometimes they will go on abusing one
 another until the company at last are quite vexed at themselves for
 ever listening to such fellows. Why do I say this? Why, because I
 cannot help feeling that you are now saying what is not quite
 consistent or accordant with what you were saying at first about
 rhetoric. And I am afraid to point this out to you, lest you should
 think that I have some animosity against you, and that I speak, not
 for the sake of discovering the truth, but from jealousy of you. Now
 if you are one of my sort, I should like to cross-examine you, but
 if not I will let you alone. And what is my sort? you will ask. I am
 one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything
 which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says
 what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute-I
 for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the
 gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing
 another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so
 great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are
 speaking and if you claim to be one of my sort, let us have the
 discussion out, but if you would rather have done, no matter-let us
 make an end of it.
   Gor. I should say, Socrates, that I am quite the man whom you
 indicate; but, perhaps, we ought to consider the audience, for, before
 you came, I had already given a long exhibition, and if we proceed the
 argument may run on to a great length. And therefore I think that we
 should consider whether we, may not be detaining some part of the
 company when they are wanting to do something else.
   Chaer. You hear the audience cheering, Gorgias and Socrates, which
 shows their desire to listen to you; and for myself, Heaven forbid
 that I should have any business on hand which would take me Away
 from a discussion so interesting and so ably maintained.
   Cal. By the gods, Chaerephon, although I have been present at many
 discussions, I doubt whether I was ever so much delighted before,
 and therefore if you go on discoursing all day I shall be the better
   Soc. I may truly say, Callicles, that I am willing, if Gorgias is.
   Gor. After all this, Socrates, I should be disgraced if I refused,
 especially as I have promised to answer all comers; in accordance with
 the wishes of the company, them, do you begin. and ask of me any
 question which you like.
   Soc. Let me tell you then, Gorgias, what surprises me in your words;
 though I dare say that you may be right, and I may have understood
 your meaning. You say that you can make any man, who will learn of
 you, a rhetorician?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. Do you mean that you will teach him to gain the ears of the
 multitude on any subject, and this not by instruction but by
   Gor. Quite so.
   Soc. You were saying, in fact, that the rhetorician will have,
 greater powers of persuasion than the physician even in a matter of
   Gor. Yes, with the multitude-that is.
   Soc. You mean to say, with the ignorant; for with those who know
 he cannot be supposed to have greater powers of persuasion.
   Gor. Very true.
   Soc. But if he is to have more power of persuasion than the
 physician, he will have greater power than he who knows?
   Gor. Certainly.
   Soc. Although he is not a physician:-is he?
   Gor. No.
   Soc. And he who is not a physician must, obviously, be ignorant of
 what the physician knows.
   Gor. Clearly.
   Soc. Then, when the rhetorician is more persuasive than the
 physician, the ignorant is more persuasive with the ignorant than he
 who has knowledge?-is not that the inference?
   Gor. In the case supposed:-Yes.
   Soc. And the same holds of the relation of rhetoric to all the other
 arts; the rhetorician need not know the truth about things; he has
 only to discover some way of persuading the ignorant that he has
 more knowledge than those who know?
   Gor. Yes, Socrates, and is not this a great comfort?-not to have
 learned the other arts, but the art of rhetoric only, and yet to be in
 no way inferior to the professors of them?
   Soc. Whether the rhetorician is or not inferior on this account is a
 question which we will hereafter examine if the enquiry is likely to
 be of any service to us; but I would rather begin by asking, whether
 he is as ignorant of the just and unjust, base and honourable, good
 and evil, as he is of medicine and the other arts; I mean to say, does
 he really know anything of what is good and evil, base or
 honourable, just or unjust in them; or has he only a way with the
 ignorant of persuading them that he not knowing is to be esteemed to
 know more about these things than some. one else who knows? Or must
 the pupil know these things and come to you knowing them before he can
 acquire the art of rhetoric? If he is ignorant, you who are the
 teacher of rhetoric will not teach him-it is not your business; but
 you will make him seem to the multitude to know them, when he does not
 know them; and seem to be a good man, when he is not. Or will you be
 unable to teach him rhetoric at all, unless he knows the truth of
 these things first? What is to be said about all this? By heavens,
 Gorgias, I wish that you would reveal to me the power of rhetoric,
 as you were saying that you would.
   Gor. Well, Socrates, I suppose that if the pupil does chance not
 to know them, he will have to learn of me these things as well.
   Soc. Say no more, for there you are right; and so he whom you make a
 rhetorician must either know the nature of the just and unjust
 already, or he must be taught by you.
   Gor. Certainly.
   Soc. Well, and is not he who has learned carpentering a carpenter?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. And he who has learned music a musician?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. And he who has learned medicine is a physician, in like manner?
 He who has learned anything whatever is that which his knowledge makes
   Gor. Certainly.
   Soc. And in the same way, he who has learned what is just is just?
   Gor. To be sure.
   Soc. And he who is just may be supposed to do what is just?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. And must not the just man always desire to do what is just?
   Gor. That is clearly the inference.
   Soc. Surely, then, the just man will never consent to do injustice?
   Gor. Certainly not.
   Soc. And according to the argument the rhetorician must be a just
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. And will therefore never be willing to do injustice?
   Gor. Clearly not.
   Soc. But do you remember saying just now that the trainer is not
 to be accused or banished if the pugilist makes a wrong use of his
 pugilistic art; and in like manner, if the rhetorician makes a bad and
 unjust use of rhetoric, that is not to be laid to the charge of his
 teacher, who is not to be banished, but the wrong-doer himself who
 made a bad use of his rhetoric-he is to be banished-was not that said?
   Gor. Yes, it was.
   Soc. But now we are affirming that the aforesaid rhetorician will
 never have done injustice at all?
   Gor. True.
   Soc. And at the very outset, Gorgias, it was said that rhetoric
 treated of discourse, not [like arithmetic] about odd and even, but
 about just and unjust? Was not this said?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. I was thinking at the time, when I heard you saying so, that
 rhetoric, which is always discoursing about justice, could not
 possibly be an unjust thing. But when you added, shortly afterwards,
 that the rhetorician might make a bad use of rhetoric I noted with
 surprise the inconsistency into which you had fallen; and I said, that
 if you thought, as I did, that there was a gain in being refuted,
 there would be an advantage in going on with the question, but if not,
 I would leave off. And in the course of our investigations, as you
 will see yourself, the rhetorician has been acknowledged to be
 incapable of making an unjust use of rhetoric, or of willingness to do
 injustice. By the dog, Gorgias, there will be a great deal of
 discussion, before we get at the truth of all this.
   Polus. And do even you, Socrates, seriously believe what you are now
 saying about rhetoric? What! because Gorgias was ashamed to deny
 that the rhetorician knew the just and the honourable and the good,
 and admitted that to any one who came to him ignorant of them he could
 teach them, and then out of this admission there arose a
 contradiction-the thing which you dearly love, and to which not he,
 but you, brought the argument by your captious questions-[do you
 seriously believe that there is any truth in all this?] For will any
 one ever acknowledge that he does not know, or cannot teach, the
 nature of justice? The truth is, that there is great want of manners
 in bringing the argument to such a pass.
   Soc. Illustrious Polus, the reason why we provide ourselves with
 friends and children is, that when we get old and stumble, a younger
 generation may be at hand to set us on our legs again in our words and
 in our actions: and now, if I and Gorgias are stumbling, here are
 you who should raise us up; and I for my part engage to retract any
 error into which you may think that I have fallen-upon one condition:
   Pol. What condition?
   Soc. That you contract, Polus, the prolixity of speech in which
 you indulged at first.
   Pol. What! do you mean that I may not use as many words as I please?
   Soc. Only to think, my friend, that having come on a visit to
 Athens, which is the most free-spoken state in Hellas, you when you
 got there, and you alone, should be deprived of the power of
 speech-that would be hard indeed. But then consider my case:-shall not
 I be very hardly used, if, when you are making a long oration, and
 refusing to answer what you are asked, I am compelled to stay and
 listen to you, and may not go away? I say rather, if you have a real
 interest in the argument, or, to repeat my former expression, have any
 desire to set it on its legs, take back any statement which you
 please; and in your turn ask and answer, like myself and
 Gorgias-refute and be refuted: for I suppose that you would claim to
 know what Gorgias knows-would you not?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And you, like him, invite any one to ask you about anything
 which he pleases, and you will know how to answer him?
   Pol. To be sure.
   Soc. And now, which will you do, ask or answer?
   Pol. I will ask; and do you answer me, Socrates, the same question
 which Gorgias, as you suppose, is unable to answer: What is rhetoric?
   Soc. Do you mean what sort of an art?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. To say the truth, Polus, it is not an art at all, in my
   Pol. Then what, in your opinion, is rhetoric?
   Soc. A thing which, as I was lately reading in a book of yours,
 you say that you have made an art.
   Pol. What thing?
   Soc. I should say a sort of experience.
   Pol. Does rhetoric seem to you to be an experience?
   Soc. That is my view, but you may be of another mind.
   Pol. An experience in what?
   Soc. An experience in producing a sort of delight and gratification.
   Pol. And if able to gratify others, must not rhetoric be a fine
   Soc. What are you saying, Polus? Why do you ask me whether
 rhetoric is a fine thing or not, when I have not as yet told you
 what rhetoric is?
   Pol. Did I not hear you say that rhetoric was a sort of experience?
   Soc. Will you, who are so desirous to gratify others, afford a
 slight gratification to me?
   Pol. I will.
   Soc. Will you ask me, what sort of an art is cookery?
   Pol. What sort of an art is cookery?
   Soc. Not an art at all, Polus.
   Pol. What then?
   Soc. I should say an experience.
   Pol. In what? I wish that you would explain to me.
   Soc. An experience in producing a sort of delight and gratification,
   Pol. Then are cookery and rhetoric the same?
   Soc. No, they are only different parts of the same profession.
   Pol. Of what profession?
   Soc. I am afraid that the truth may seem discourteous; and I
 hesitate to answer, lest Gorgias should imagine that I am making fun
 of his own profession. For whether or no this is that art of
 rhetoric which Gorgias practises I really cannot tell:-from what he
 was just now saying, nothing appeared of what he thought of his art,
 but the rhetoric which I mean is a part of a not very creditable
   Gor. A part of what, Socrates? Say what you mean, and never mind me.
   Soc. In my opinion then, Gorgias, the whole of which rhetoric is a
 part is not an art at all, but the habit of a bold and ready wit,
 which knows how to manage mankind: this habit I sum up under the
 word "flattery"; and it appears to me to have many other parts, one of
 which is cookery, which may seem to be an art, but, as I maintain,
 is only an experience or routine and not an art:-another part is
 rhetoric, and the art of attiring and sophistry are two others: thus
 there are four branches, and four different things answering to
 them. And Polus may ask, if he likes, for he has not as yet been
 informed, what part of flattery is rhetoric: he did not see that I had
 not yet answered him when he proceeded to ask a further question:
 Whether I do not think rhetoric a fine thing? But I shall not tell him
 whether rhetoric is a fine thing or not, until I have first
 answered, "What is rhetoric?" For that would not be right, Polus;
 but I shall be happy to answer, if you will ask me, What part of
 flattery is rhetoric?
   Pol. I will ask and do you answer? What part of flattery is
   Soc. Will you understand my answer? Rhetoric, according to my
 view, is the ghost or counterfeit of a part of politics.
   Pol. And noble or ignoble?
   Soc. Ignoble, I should say, if I am compelled to answer, for I
 call what is bad ignoble: though I doubt whether you understand what I
 was saying before.
   Gor. Indeed, Socrates, I cannot say that I understand myself.
   Soc. I do not wonder, Gorgias; for I have not as yet explained
 myself, and our friend Polus, colt by name and colt by nature, is
 apt to run away.
   Gor. Never mind him, but explain to me what you mean by saying
 that rhetoric is the counterfeit of a part of politics.
   Soc. I will try, then, to explain my notion of rhetoric, and if I am
 mistaken, my friend Polus shall refute me. We may assume the existence
 of bodies and of souls?
   Gor. Of course.
   Soc. You would further admit that there is a good condition of
 either of them?
   Gor. Yes.
   Soc. Which condition may not be really good, but good only in
 appearance? I mean to say, that there are many persons who appear to
 be in good health, and whom only a physician or trainer will discern
 at first sight not to be in good health.
   Gor. True.
   Soc. And this applies not only to the body, but also to the soul: in
 either there may be that which gives the appearance of health and
 not the reality?
   Gor. Yes, certainly.
   Soc. And now I will endeavour to explain to you more clearly what
 I mean: The soul and body being two, have two arts corresponding to
 them: there is the art of politics attending on the soul; and
 another art attending on the body, of which I know no single name, but
 which may be described as having two divisions, one of them gymnastic,
 and the other medicine. And in politics there is a legislative part,
 which answers to gymnastic, as justice does to medicine; and the two
 parts run into one another, justice having to do with the same subject
 as legislation, and medicine with the same subject as gymnastic, but
 with a difference. Now, seeing that there are these four arts, two
 attending on the body and two on the soul for their highest good;
 flattery knowing, or rather guessing their natures, has distributed
 herself into four shams or simulations of them; she puts on the
 likeness of some one or other of them, and pretends to be that which
 she simulates, and having no regard for men's highest interests, is
 ever making pleasure the bait of the unwary, and deceiving them into
 the belief that she is of the highest value to them. Cookery simulates
 the disguise of medicine, and pretends to know what food is the best
 for the body; and if the physician and the cook had to enter into a
 competition in which children were the judges, or men who had no
 more sense than children, as to which of them best understands the
 goodness or badness of food, the physician would be starved to
 death. A flattery I deem this to be and of an ignoble sort, Polus, for
 to you I am now addressing myself, because it aims at pleasure without
 any thought of the best. An art I do not call it, but only an
 experience, because it is unable to explain or to give a reason of the
 nature of its own applications. And I do not call any irrational thing
 an art; but if you dispute my words, I am prepared to argue in defence
 of them.
   Cookery, then, I maintain to be a flattery which takes the form of
 medicine; and tiring, in like manner, is a flattery which takes the
 form of gymnastic, and is knavish, false, ignoble, illiberal,
 working deceitfully by the help of lines, and colours, and enamels,
 and garments, and making men affect a spurious beauty to the neglect
 of the true beauty which is given by gymnastic.
   I would rather not be tedious, and therefore I will only say,
 after the manner of the geometricians (for I think that by this time
 you will be able to follow)
     astiring : gymnastic :: cookery : medicine;
 or rather,
     astiring : gymnastic :: sophistry : legislation;
     as cookery : medicine :: rhetoric : justice.
 And this, I say, is the natural difference between the rhetorician and
 the sophist, but by reason of their near connection, they are apt to
 be jumbled up together; neither do they know what to make of
 themselves, nor do other men know what to make of them. For if the
 body presided over itself, and were not under the guidance of the
 soul, and the soul did not discern and discriminate between cookery
 and medicine, but the body was made the judge of them, and the rule of
 judgment was the bodily delight which was given by them, then the word
 of Anaxagoras, that word with which you, friend Polus, are so well
 acquainted, would prevail far and wide: "Chaos" would come again,
 and cookery, health, and medicine would mingle in an indiscriminate
 mass. And now I have told you my notion of rhetoric, which is, in
 relation to the soul, what cookery is to the body. I may have been
 inconsistent in making a long speech, when I would not allow you to
 discourse at length. But I think that I may be excused, because you
 did not understand me, and could make no use of my answer when I spoke
 shortly, and therefore I had to enter into explanation. And if I
 show an equal inability to make use of yours, I hope that you will
 speak at equal length; but if I am able to understand you, let me have
 the benefit of your brevity, as is only fair: And now you may do
 what you please with my answer.
   Pol. What do you mean? do you think that rhetoric is flattery?
   Soc. Nay, I said a part of flattery-if at your age, Polus, you
 cannot remember, what will you do by-and-by, when you get older?
   Pol. And are the good rhetoricians meanly regarded in states,
 under the idea that they are flatterers?
   Soc. Is that a question or the beginning of a speech?
   Pol. I am asking a question.
   Soc. Then my answer is, that they are not regarded at all.
   Pol. How not regarded? Have they not very great power in states?
   Soc. Not if you mean to say that power is a good to the possessor.
   Pol. And that is what I do mean to say.
   Soc. Then, if so, I think that they have the least power of all
 the citizens.
   Pol. What! Are they not like tyrants? They kill and despoil and
 exile any one whom they please.
   Soc. By the dog, Polus, I cannot make out at each deliverance of
 yours, whether you are giving an opinion of your own, or asking a
 question of me.
   Pol. I am asking a question of you.
   Soc. Yes, my friend, but you ask two questions at once.
   Pol. How two questions?
   Soc. Why, did you not say just now that the rhetoricians are like
 tyrants, and that they kill and despoil or exile any one whom they
   Pol. I did.
   Soc. Well then, I say to you that here are two questions in one, and
 I will answer both of them. And I tell you, Polus, that rhetoricians
 and tyrants have the least possible power in states, as I was just now
 saying; for they do literally nothing which they will, but only what
 they think best.
   Pol. And is not that a great power?
   Soc. Polus has already said the reverse.
   Soc. No, by the great-what do you call him?-not you, for you say
 that power is a good to him who has the power.
   Pol. I do.
   Soc. And would you maintain that if a fool does what he think
 best, this is a good, and would you call this great power?
   Pol. I should not.
   Soc. Then you must prove that the rhetorician is not a fool, and
 that rhetoric is an art and not a flattery-and so you will have
 refuted me; but if you leave me unrefuted, why, the rhetoricians who
 do what they think best in states, and the tyrants, will have
 nothing upon which to congratulate themselves, if as you say, power be
 indeed a good, admitting at the same time that what is done without
 sense is an evil.
   Pol. Yes; I admit that.
   Soc. How then can the rhetoricians or the tyrants have great power
 in states, unless Polus can refute Socrates, and prove to him that
 they do as they will?
   Pol. This fellow-
   Soc. I say that they do not do as they will-now refute me.
   Pol. Why, have you not already said that they do as they think best?
   Soc. And I say so still.
   Pol. Then surely they do as they will?
   Soc. I deny it.
   Pol. But they do what they think best?
   Soc. Aye.
   Pol. That, Socrates, is monstrous and absurd.
   Soc. Good words, good Polus, as I may say in your own peculiar
 style; but if you have any questions to ask of me, either prove that I
 am in error or give the answer yourself.
   Pol. Very well, I am willing to answer that I may know what you
   Soc. Do men appear to you to will that which they do, or to will
 that further end for the sake of which they do a thing? when they take
 medicine, for example, at the bidding of a physician, do they will the
 drinking of the medicine which is painful, or the health for the
 sake of which they drink?
   Pol. Clearly, the health.
   Soc. And when men go on a voyage or engage in business, they do
 not will that which they are doing at the time; for who would desire
 to take the risk of a voyage or the trouble of business?-But they
 will, to have the wealth for the sake of which they go on a voyage.
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. And is not this universally true? If a man does something for
 the sake of something else, he wills not that which he does, but
 that for the sake of which he does it.
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And are not all things either good or evil, or intermediate and
   Pol. To be sure, Socrates.
   Soc. Wisdom and health and wealth and the like you would call goods,
 and their opposites evils?
   Pol. I should.
   Soc. And the things which are neither good nor evil, and which
 partake sometimes of the nature of good and at other times of evil, or
 of neither, are such as sitting, walking, running, sailing; or, again,
 wood, stones, and the like:-these are the things which you call
 neither good nor evil?
   Pol. Exactly so.
   Soc. Are these indifferent things done for the sake of the good,
 or the good for the sake of the indifferent?
   Pol. Clearly, the indifferent for the sake of the good.
   Soc. When we walk we walk for the sake of the good, and under the
 idea that it is better to walk, and when we stand we stand equally for
 the sake of the good?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And when we kill a man we kill him or exile him or despoil
 him of his goods, because, as we think, it will conduce to our good?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. Men who do any of these things do them for the sake of the
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And did we not admit that in doing something for the sake of
 something else, we do not will those things which we do, but that
 other thing for the sake of which we do them?
   Pol. Most true.
   Soc. Then we do not will simply to kill a man or to exile him or
 to despoil him of his goods, but we will to do that which conduces
 to our good, and if the act is not conducive to our good we do not
 will it; for we will, as you say, that which is our good, but that
 which is neither good nor evil, or simply evil, we do not will. Why
 are you silent, Polus? Am I not right?
   Pol. You are right.
   Soc. Hence we may infer, that if any one, whether he be a tyrant
 or a rhetorician, kills another or exiles another or deprives him of
 his property, under the idea that the act is for his own interests
 when really not for his own interests, he may be said to do what seems
 best to him?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. But does he do what he wills if he does what is evil? Why do
 you not answer?
   Pol. Well, I suppose not.
   Soc. Then if great power is a good as you allow, will such a one
 have great power in a state?
   Pol. He will not.
   Soc. Then I was right in saying that a man may do what seems good to
 him in a state, and not have great power, and not do what he wills?
   Pol. As though you, Socrates, would not like to have the power of
 doing what seemed good to you in the state, rather than not; you would
 not be jealous when you saw any one killing or despoiling or
 imprisoning whom he pleased, Oh, no!
   Soc. Justly or unjustly, do you mean?
   Pol. In either case is he not equally to be envied?
   Soc. Forbear, Polus!
   Pol. Why "forbear"?
   Soc. Because you ought not to envy wretches who are not to be
 envied, but only to pity them.
   Pol. And are those of whom spoke wretches?
   Soc. Yes, certainly they are.
   Pol. And so you think that he who slays any one whom he pleases, and
 justly slays him, is pitiable and wretched?
   Soc. No, I do not say that of him: but neither do I think that he is
 to be envied.
   Pol. Were you not saying just now that he is wretched?
   Soc. Yes, my friend, if he killed another unjustly, in which case he
 is also to be pitied; and he is not to be envied if he killed him
   Pol. At any rate you will allow that he who is unjustly put to death
 is wretched, and to be pitied?
   Soc. Not so much, Polus, as he who kills him, and not so much as
 he who is justly killed.
   Pol. How can that be, Socrates?
   Soc. That may very well be, inasmuch as doing injustice is the
 greatest of evils.
   Pol. But is it the greatest? Is not suffering injustice a greater
   Soc. Certainly not.
   Pol. Then would you rather suffer than do injustice?
   Soc. I should not like either, but if I must choose between them,
 I would rather suffer than do.
   Pol. Then you would not wish to be a tyrant?
   Soc. Not if you mean by tyranny what I mean.
   Pol. I mean, as I said before, the power of doing whatever seems
 good to you in a state, killing, banishing, doing in all things as you
   Soc. Well then, illustrious friend, when I have said my say, do
 you reply to me. Suppose that I go into a crowded Agora, and take a
 dagger under my arm. Polus, I say to you, I have just acquired rare
 power, and become a tyrant; for if I think that any of these men
 whom you see ought to be put to death, the man whom I have a mind to
 kill is as good as dead; and if I am disposed to break his head or
 tear his garment, he will have his head broken or his garment torn
 in an instant. Such is my great power in this city. And if you do
 not believe me, and I show you the dagger, you would probably reply:
 Socrates, in that sort of way any one may have great power-he may burn
 any house which he pleases, and the docks and triremes of the
 Athenians, and all their other vessels, whether public or
 private-but can you believe that this mere doing as you think best
 is great power?
   Pol. Certainly not such doing as this.
   Soc. But can you tell me why you disapprove of such a power?
   Pol. I can.
   Soc. Why then?
   Pol. Why, because he who did as you say would be certain to be
   Soc. And punishment is an evil?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. And you would admit once more, my good sir, that great power is
 a benefit to a man if his actions turn out to his advantage, and
 that this is the meaning of great power; and if not, then his power is
 an evil and is no power. But let us look at the matter in another
 way do we not acknowledge that the things of which we were speaking,
 the infliction of death, and exile, and the deprivation of property
 are sometimes a good and sometimes not a good?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. About that you and I may be supposed to agree?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. Tell me, then, when do you say that they are good and when that
 they are evil-what principle do you lay down?
   Pol. I would rather, Socrates, that you should answer as well as ask
 that question.
   Soc. Well, Polus, since you would rather have the answer from me,
 I say that they are good when they are just, and evil when they are
   Pol. You are hard of refutation, Socrates, but might not a child
 refute that statement?
   Soc. Then I shall be very grateful to the child, and equally
 grateful to you if you will refute me and deliver me from my
 foolishness. And I hope that refute me you will, and not weary of
 doing good to a friend.
   Pol. Yes, Socrates, and I need not go far or appeal to antiquity;
 events which happened only a few days ago are enough to refute you,
 and to prove that many men who do wrong are happy.
   Soc. What events?
   Pol. You see, I presume, that Archelaus the son of Perdiccas is
 now the ruler of Macedonia?
   Soc. At any rate I hear that he is.
   Pol. And do you think that he is happy or miserable?
   Soc. I cannot say, Polus, for I have never had any acquaintance with
   Pol. And cannot you tell at once, and without having an acquaintance
 with him, whether a man is happy?
   Soc. Most certainly not.
   Pol. Then clearly, Socrates, you would say that you did not even
 know whether the great king was a happy man?
   Soc. And I should speak the truth; for I do not know how he stands
 in the matter of education and justice.
   Pol. What! and does all happiness consist in this?
   Soc. Yes, indeed, Polus, that is my doctrine; the men and women
 who are gentle and good are also happy, as I maintain, and the
 unjust and evil are miserable.
   Pol. Then, according to your doctrine, the said Archelaus is
   Soc. Yes, my friend, if he is wicked.
   Pol. That he is wicked I cannot deny; for he had no title at all
 to the throne which he now occupies, he being only the son of a
 woman who was the slave of Alcetas the brother of Perdiccas; he
 himself therefore in strict right was the slave of Alcetas; and if
 he had meant to do rightly he would have remained his slave, and then,
 according to your doctrine, he would have been happy. But now he is
 unspeakably miserable, for he has been guilty of the greatest
 crimes: in the first place he invited his uncle and master, Alcetas,
 to come to him, under the pretence that he would restore to him the
 throne which Perdiccas has usurped, and after entertaining him and his
 son Alexander, who was his own cousin, and nearly of an age with
 him, and making them drunk, he threw them into a waggon and carried
 them off by night, and slew them, and got both of them out of the way;
 and when he had done all this wickedness he never discovered that he
 was the most miserable of all men, was very far from repenting:
 shall I tell you how he showed his remorse? he had a younger
 brother, a child of seven years old, who was the legitimate son of
 Perdiccas, and to him of right the kingdom belonged; Archelaus,
 however, had no mind to bring him up as he ought and restore the
 kingdom to him; that was not his notion of happiness; but not long
 afterwards he threw him into a well and drowned him, and declared to
 his mother Cleopatra that he had fallen in while running after a
 goose, and had been killed. And now as he is the greatest criminal
 of all the Macedonians, he may be supposed to be the most miserable
 and not the happiest of them, and I dare say that there are many
 Athenians, and you would be at the head of them, who would rather be
 any other Macedonian than Archelaus!
   Soc. I praised you at first, Polus, for being a rhetorician rather
 than a reasoner. And this, as I suppose, is the sort of argument
 with which you fancy that a child might refute me, and by which I
 stand refuted when I say that the unjust man is not happy. But, my
 good friend, where is the refutation? I cannot admit a word which
 you have been saying.
   Pol. That is because you will not; for you surely must think as I
   Soc. Not so, my simple friend, but because you will refute me
 after the manner which rhetoricians practise in courts of law. For
 there the one party think that they refute the other when they bring
 forward a number of witnesses of good repute in proof of their
 allegations, and their adversary has only a single one or none at all.
 But this kind of proof is of no value where truth is the aim; a man
 may often be sworn down by a multitude of false witnesses who have a
 great air of respectability. And in this argument nearly every one,
 Athenian and stranger alike, would be on your side, if you should
 bring witnesses in disproof of my statement-you may, if you will,
 summon Nicias the son of Niceratus, and let his brothers, who gave the
 row of tripods which stand in the precincts of Dionysus, come with
 him; or you may summon Aristocrates, the son of Scellius, who is the
 giver of that famous offering which is at Delphi; summon, if you will,
 the whole house of Pericles, or any other great Athenian family whom
 you choose-they will all agree with you: I only am left alone and
 cannot agree, for you do not convince me; although you produce many
 false witnesses against me, in the hope of depriving me of my
 inheritance, which is the truth. But I consider that nothing worth
 speaking of will have been effected by me unless I make you the one
 witness of my words; nor by you, unless you make me the one witness of
 yours; no matter about the rest of the world. For there are two ways
 of refutation, one which is yours and that of the world in general;
 but mine is of another sort-let us compare them, and see in what
 they differ. For, indeed, we are at issue about matters which to
 know is honourable and not to know disgraceful; to know or not to know
 happiness and misery-that is the chief of them. And what knowledge can
 be nobler? or what ignorance more disgraceful than this? And therefore
 I will begin by asking you whether you do not think that a man who
 is unjust and doing injustice can be happy, seeing that you think
 Archelaus unjust, and yet happy? May I assume this to be your opinion?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. But I say that this is an impossibility-here is one point about
 which we are at issue:-very good. And do you mean to say also that
 if he meets with retribution and punishment he will still be happy?
   Pol. Certainly not; in that case he will be most miserable.
   Soc. On the other hand, if the unjust be not punished, then,
 according to you, he will be happy?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. But in my opinion, Polus, the unjust or doer of unjust
 actions is miserable in any case,-more miserable, however, if he be
 not punished and does not meet with retribution, and less miserable if
 he be punished and meets with retribution at the hands of gods and
   Pol. You are maintaining a strange doctrine, Socrates.
   Soc. I shall try to make you agree with me, O my friend, for as a
 friend I regard you. Then these are the points at issue between us-are
 they not? I was saying that to do is worse than to suffer injustice?
   Pol. Exactly so.
   Soc. And you said the opposite?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. I said also that the wicked are miserable, and you refuted me?
   Pol. By Zeus, I did.
   Soc. In your own opinion, Polus.
   Pol. Yes, and I rather suspect that I was in the right.
   Soc. You further said that the wrong-doer is happy if he be
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. And I affirm that he is most miserable, and that those who
 are punished are less miserable-are you going to refute this
 proposition also?
   Pol. A proposition which is harder of refutation than the other,
   Soc. Say rather, Polus, impossible; for who can refute the truth?
   Pol. What do you mean? If a man is detected in an unjust attempt
 to make himself a tyrant, and when detected is racked, mutilated,
 has his eyes burned out, and after having had all sorts of great
 injuries inflicted on him, and having seen his wife and children
 suffer the like, is at last impaled or tarred and burned alive, will
 he be happier than if he escape and become a tyrant, and continue
 all through life doing what he likes and holding the reins of
 government, the envy and admiration both of citizens and strangers? Is
 that the paradox which, as you say, cannot be refuted?
   Soc. There again, noble Polus, you are raising hobgoblins instead of
 refuting me; just now you were calling witnesses against me. But
 please to refresh my memory a little; did you say-"in an unjust
 attempt to make himself a tyrant"?
   Pol. Yes, I did.
   Soc. Then I say that neither of them will be happier than the
 other-neither he who unjustly acquires a tyranny, nor he who suffers
 in the attempt, for of two miserables one cannot be the happier, but
 that he who escapes and becomes a tyrant is the more miserable of
 the two. Do you laugh, Polus? Well, this is a new kind of
 refutation-when any one says anything, instead of refuting him to
 laugh at him.
   Pol. But do you not think, Socrates, that you have been sufficiently
 refuted, when you say that which no human being will allow? Ask the
   Soc. O Polus, I am not a public man, and only last year, when my
 tribe were serving as Prytanes, and it became my duty as their
 president to take the votes, there was a laugh at me, because I was
 unable to take them. And as I failed then, you must not ask me to
 count the suffrages of the company now; but if, as I was saying, you
 have no better argument than numbers, let me have a turn, and do you
 make trial of the sort of proof which, as I think, is required; for
 I shall produce one witness only of the truth of my words, and he is
 the person with whom I am arguing; his suffrage I know how to take;
 but with the many I have nothing to do, and do not even address myself
 to them. May I ask then whether you will answer in turn and have
 your words put to the proof? For I certainly think that I and you
 and every man do really believe, that to do is a greater evil than
 to suffer injustice: and not to be punished than to be punished.
   Pol. And I should say neither I, nor any man: would you yourself,
 for example, suffer rather than do injustice?
   Soc. Yes, and you, too; I or any man would.
   Pol. Quite the reverse; neither you, nor I, nor any man.
   Soc. But will you answer?
   Pol. To be sure, I will-for I am curious to hear what you can have
 to say.
   Soc. Tell me, then, and you will know, and let us suppose that I
 am beginning at the beginning: which of the two, Polus, in your
 opinion, is the worst?-to do injustice or to suffer?
   Pol. I should say that suffering was worst.
   Soc. And which is the greater disgrace?-Answer.
   Pol. To do.
   Soc. And the greater disgrace is the greater evil?
   Pol. Certainly not.
   Soc. I understand you to say, if I am not mistaken, that the
 honourable is not the same as the good, or the disgraceful as the
   Pol. Certainly not.
   Soc. Let me ask a question of you: When you speak of beautiful
 things, such as bodies, colours, figures, sounds, institutions, do you
 not call them beautiful in reference to some standard: bodies, for
 example, are beautiful in proportion as they are useful, or as the
 sight of them gives pleasure to the spectators; can you give any other
 account of personal beauty?
   Pol. I cannot.
   Soc. And you would say of figures or colours generally that they
 were beautiful, either by reason of the pleasure which they give, or
 of their use, or both?
   Pol. Yes, I should.
   Soc. And you would call sounds and music beautiful for the same
   Pol. I should.
   Soc. Laws and institutions also have no beauty in them except in
 so far as they are useful or pleasant or both?
   Pol. I think not.
   Soc. And may not the same be said of the beauty of knowledge?
   Pol. To be sure, Socrates; and I very much approve of your measuring
 beauty by the standard of pleasure and utility.
   Soc. And deformity or disgrace may be equally measured by the
 opposite standard of pain and evil?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. Then when of two beautiful things one exceeds in beauty, the
 measure of the excess is to be taken in one or both of these; that
 is to say, in pleasure or utility or both?
   Pol. Very true.
   Soc. And of two deformed things, that which exceeds in deformity
 or disgrace, exceeds either in pain or evil-must it not be so?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. But then again, what was the observation which you just now
 made, about doing and suffering wrong? Did you not say, that suffering
 wrong was more evil, and doing wrong more disgraceful?
   Pol. I did.
   Soc. Then, if doing wrong is more disgraceful than suffering, the
 more disgraceful must be more painful and must exceed in pain or in
 evil or both: does not that also follow?
   Pol. Of course.
   Soc. First, then, let us consider whether the doing of injustice
 exceeds the suffering in the consequent pain: Do the injurers suffer
 more than the injured?
   Pol. No, Socrates; certainly not.
   Soc. Then they do not exceed in pain?
   Pol. No.
   Soc. But if not in pain, then not in both?
   Pol. Certainly not.
   Soc. Then they can only exceed in the other?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. That is to say, in evil?
   Pol. True.
   Soc. Then doing injustice will have an excess of evil, and will
 therefore be a greater evil than suffering injustice?
   Pol. Clearly.
   Soc. But have not you and the world already agreed that to do
 injustice is more disgraceful than to suffer?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And that is now discovered to be more evil?
   Pol. True.
   Soc. And would you prefer a greater evil or a greater dishonour to a
 less one? Answer, Polus, and fear not; for you will come to no harm if
 you nobly resign yourself into the healing hand of the argument as
 to a physician without shrinking, and either say "Yes" or "No" to me.
   Pol. I should say "No."
   Soc. Would any other man prefer a greater to a less evil?
   Pol. No, not according to this way of putting the case, Socrates.
   Soc. Then I said truly, Polus that neither you, nor I, nor any
 man, would rather, do than suffer injustice; for to do injustice is
 the greater evil of the two.
   Pol. That is the conclusion.
   Soc. You see, Polus, when you compare the two kinds of
 refutations, how unlike they are. All men, with the exception of
 myself, are of your way of thinking; but your single assent and
 witness are enough for me-I have no need of any other, I take your
 suffrage, and am regardless of the rest. Enough of this, and now let
 us proceed to the next question; which is, Whether the greatest of
 evils to a guilty man is to suffer punishment, as you supposed, or
 whether to escape punishment is not a greater evil, as I supposed.
 Consider:-You would say that to suffer punishment is another name
 for being justly corrected when you do wrong?
   Pol. I should.
   Soc. And would you not allow that all just things are honourable
 in so far as they are just? Please to reflect, and, tell me your
   Pol. Yes, Socrates, I think that they are.
   Soc. Consider again:-Where there is an agent, must there not also be
 a patient?
   Pol. I should say so.
   Soc. And will not the patient suffer that which the agent does,
 and will not the suffering have the quality of the action? I mean, for
 example, that if a man strikes, there must be something which is
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And if the striker strikes violently or quickly, that which
 is struck will he struck violently or quickly?
   Pol. True.
   Soc. And the suffering to him who is stricken is of the same
 nature as the act of him who strikes?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And if a man burns, there is something which is burned?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. And if he burns in excess or so as to cause pain, the thing
 burned will be burned in the same way?
   Pol. Truly.
   Soc. And if he cuts, the same argument holds-there will be something
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And if the cutting be great or deep or such as will cause pain,
 the cut will be of the same nature?
   Pol. That is evident.
   Soc. Then you would agree generally to the universal proposition
 which I was just now asserting: that the affection of the patient
 answers to the affection of the agent?
   Pol. I agree.
   Soc. Then, as this is admitted, let me ask whether being punished is
 suffering or acting?
   Pol. Suffering, Socrates; there can be no doubt of that.
   Soc. And suffering implies an agent?
   Pol. Certainly, Socrates; and he is the punisher.
   Soc. And he who punishes rightly, punishes justly?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And therefore he acts justly?
   Pol. Justly.
   Soc. Then he who is punished and suffers retribution, suffers
   Pol. That is evident.
   Soc. And that which is just has been admitted to be honourable?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. Then the punisher does what is honourable, and the punished
 suffers what is honourable?
   Pol. True.
   Soc. And if what is honourable, then what is good, for the
 honourable is either pleasant or useful?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. Then he who is punished suffers what is good?
   Pol. That is true.
   Soc. Then he is benefited?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. Do I understand you to mean what I mean by the term
 "benefited"? I mean, that if he be justly punished his soul is
   Pol. Surely.
   Soc. Then he who is punished is delivered from the evil of his soul?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And is he not then delivered from the greatest evil? Look at
 the matter in this way:-In respect of a man's estate, do you see any
 greater evil than poverty?
   Pol. There is no greater evil.
   Soc. Again, in a man's bodily frame, you would say that the evil
 is weakness and disease and deformity?
   Pol. I should.
   Soc. And do you not imagine that the soul likewise has some evil
 of her own?
   Pol. Of course.
   Soc. And this you would call injustice and ignorance and
 cowardice, and the like?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. So then, in mind, body, and estate, which are three, you have
 pointed out three corresponding evils-injustice, disease, poverty?
   Pol. True.
   Soc. And which of the evils is the most disgraceful?-Is not the most
 disgraceful of them injustice, and in general the evil of the soul?
   Pol. By far the most.
   Soc. And if the most disgraceful, then also the worst?
   Pol. What do you mean, Socrates?
   Soc. I mean to say, that is most disgraceful has been already
 admitted to be most painful or hurtful, or both.
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. And now injustice and all evil in the soul has been admitted by
 to be most disgraceful?
   Pol. It has been admitted.
   Soc. And most disgraceful either because most painful and causing
 excessive pain, or most hurtful, or both?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. And therefore to be unjust and intemperate, and cowardly and
 ignorant, is more painful than to be poor and sick?
   Pol. Nay, Socrates; the painfulness does not appear to me to
 follow from your premises.
   Soc. Then, if, as you would argue, not more painful, the evil of the
 soul is of all evils the most disgraceful; and the excess of
 disgrace must be caused by some preternatural greatness, or
 extraordinary hurtfulness of the evil.
   Pol. Clearly.
   Soc. And that which exceeds most in hurtfulness will be the greatest
 of evils?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. Then injustice and intemperance, and in general the depravity
 of the soul, are the greatest of evils!
   Pol. That is evident.
   Soc. Now, what art is there which delivers us from poverty? Does not
 the art of making money?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And what art frees us from disease? Does not the art of
   Pol. Very true.
   Soc. And what from vice and injustice? If you are not able to answer
 at once, ask yourself whither we go with the sick, and to whom we take
   Pol. To the physicians, Socrates.
   Soc. And to whom do we go with the unjust and intemperate?
   Pol. To the judges, you mean.
   Soc. -Who are to punish them?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And do not those who rightly punish others, punish them in
 accordance with a certain rule of justice?
   Pol. Clearly.
   Soc. Then the art of money-making frees a man from poverty; medicine
 from disease; and justice from intemperance and injustice?
   Pol. That is evident.
   Soc. Which, then, is the best of these three?
   Pol. Will you enumerate them?
   Soc. Money-making, medicine, and justice.
   Pol. Justice, Socrates, far excels the two others.
   Soc. And justice, if the best, gives the greatest pleasure or
 advantage or both?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. But is the being healed a pleasant thing, and are those who are
 being healed pleased?
   Pol. I think not.
   Soc. A useful thing, then?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. Yes, because the patient is delivered from a great evil; and
 this is the advantage of enduring the pain-that you get well?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. And would he be the happier man in his bodily condition, who is
 healed, or who never was out of health?
   Pol. Clearly he who was never out of health.
   Soc. Yes; for happiness surely does not consist in being delivered
 from evils, but in never having had them.
   Pol. True.
   Soc. And suppose the case of two persons who have some evil in their
 bodies, and that one of them is healed and delivered from evil, and
 another is not healed, but retains the evil-which of them is the
 most miserable?
   Pol. Clearly he who is not healed.
   Soc. And was not punishment said by us to be a deliverance from
 the greatest of evils, which is vice?
   Pol. True.
   Soc. And justice punishes us, and makes us more just, and is the
 medicine of our vice?
   Pol. True.
   Soc. He, then, has the first place in the scale of happiness who has
 never had vice in his soul; for this has been shown to be the greatest
 of evils.
   Pol. Clearly.
   Soc. And he has the second place, who is delivered from vice?
   Pol. True.
   Soc. That is to say, he who receives admonition and rebuke and
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. Then he lives worst, who, having been unjust, has no
 deliverance from injustice?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. That is, he lives worst who commits the greatest crimes, and
 who, being the most unjust of men, succeeds in escaping rebuke or
 correction or punishment; and this, as you say, has been
 accomplished by Archelaus and other tyrants and rhetoricians and
   Pol. True.
   Soc. May not their way of proceeding, my friend, be compared to
 the conduct of a person who is afflicted with the worst of diseases
 and yet contrives not to pay the penalty to the physician for his sins
 against his constitution, and will not be cured, because, like a
 child, he is afraid of the pain of being burned or cut:-Is not that
 a parallel case?
   Pol. Yes, truly.
   Soc. He would seem as if he did not know the nature of health and
 bodily vigour; and if we are right, Polus, in our previous
 conclusions, they are in a like case who strive to evade justice,
 which they see to be painful, but are blind to the advantage which
 ensues from it, not knowing how far more miserable a companion a
 diseased soul is than a diseased body; a soul, I say, which is corrupt
 and unrighteous and unholy. And hence they do all that they can to
 avoid punishment and to avoid being released from the greatest of
 evils; they provide themselves with money and friends, and cultivate
 to the utmost their powers of persuasion. But if we, Polus, are right,
 do you see what follows, or shall we draw out the consequences in
   Pol. If you please.
   Soc. Is it not a fact that injustice, and the doing of injustice, is
 the greatest of evils?
   Pol. That is quite clear.
   Soc. And further, that to suffer punishment is the way to be
 released from this evil?
   Pol. True.
   Soc. And not to suffer, is to perpetuate the evil?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. To do wrong, then, is second only in the scale of evils; but to
 do wrong and not to be punished, is first and greatest of all?
   Pol. That is true.
   Soc. Well, and was not this the point in dispute, my friend? You
 deemed Archelaus happy, because he was a very great criminal and
 unpunished: I, on the other hand, maintained that he or any other
 who like him has done wrong and has not been punished, is, and ought
 to be, the most miserable of all men; and that the doer of injustice
 is more miserable than the sufferer; and he who escapes punishment,
 more miserable than he who suffers.-Was not that what I said?
   Pol. Yes.
   Soc. And it has been proved to be true?
   Pol. Certainly.
   Soc. Well, Polus, but if this is true, where is the great use of
 rhetoric? If we admit what has been just now said, every man ought
 in every way to guard himself against doing wrong, for he will thereby
 suffer great evil?
   Pol. True.
   Soc. And if he, or any one about whom he cares, does wrong, he ought
 of his own accord to go where he will be immediately punished; he will
 run to the judge, as he would to the physician, in order that the
 disease of injustice may not be rendered chronic and become the
 incurable cancer of the soul; must we not allow this consequence,
 Polus, if our former admissions are to stand:-is any other inference
 consistent with them?
   Pol. To that, Socrates, there can be but one answer.
   Soc. Then rhetoric is of no use to us, Polus, in helping a man to
 excuse his own injustice, that of his parents or friends, or
 children or country; but may be of use to any one who holds that
 instead of excusing he ought to accuse-himself above all, and in the
 next degree his family or any of his friends who may be doing wrong;
 he should bring to light the iniquity and not conceal it, that so
 the wrong-doer may suffer and be made whole; and he should even
 force himself and others not to shrink, but with closed eyes like
 brave men to let the physician operate with knife or searing iron, not
 regarding the pain, in the hope of attaining the good and the
 honourable; let him who has done things worthy of stripes, allow
 himself to be scourged, if of bonds, to be bound, if of a fine, to
 be fined, if of exile, to be exiled, if of death, to die, himself
 being the first to accuse himself and his relations, and using
 rhetoric to this end, that his and their unjust actions may be made
 manifest, and that they themselves may be delivered from injustice,
 which is the greatest evil. Then, Polus, rhetoric would indeed be
 useful. Do you say "Yes" or "No" to that?
   Pol. To me, Socrates, what you are saying appears very strange,
 though probably in agreement with your premises.
   Soc. Is not this the conclusion, if the premises are not disproven?
   Pol. Yes; it certainly is.
   Soc. And from the opposite point of view, if indeed it be our duty
 to harm another, whether an enemy or not-I except the case of
 self-defence-then I have to be upon my guard-but if my enemy injures a
 third person, then in every sort of way, by word as well as deed, I
 should try to prevent his being punished, or appearing before the
 judge; and if he appears, I should contrive that he should escape, and
 not suffer punishment: if he has stolen a sum of money, let him keep
 what he has stolen and spend it on him and his, regardless of religion
 and justice; and if he has done things worthy of death, let him not
 die, but rather be immortal in his wickedness; or, if this is not
 possible, let him at any rate be allowed to live as long as he can.
 For such purposes, Polus, rhetoric may be useful, but is of small if
 of any use to him who is not intending to commit injustice; at
 least, there was no such use discovered by us in the previous
   Cal. Tell me, Chaerephon, is Socrates in earnest, or is he joking?
   Chaer. I should say, Callicles, that he is in most profound earnest;
 but you may well ask him
   Cal. By the gods, and I will. Tell me, Socrates, are you in earnest,
 or only in jest? For if you are in earnest, and what you say is
 true, is not the whole of human life turned upside down; and are we
 not doing, as would appear, in everything the opposite of what we
 ought to be doing?
   Soc. O Callicles, if there were not some community of feelings among
 mankind, however varying in different persons-I mean to say, if
 every man's feelings were peculiar to himself and were not shared by
 the rest of his species-I do not see how we could ever communicate our
 impressions to one another. I make this remark because I perceive that
 you and I have a common feeling. For we are lovers both, and both of
 us have two loves apiece:-I am the lover of Alcibiades, the son of
 Cleinias-I and of philosophy; and you of the Athenian Demus, and of
 Demus the son of Pyrilampes. Now, I observe that you, with all your
 cleverness, do not venture to contradict your favourite in any word or
 opinion of his; but as he changes you change, backwards and
 forwards. When the Athenian Demus denies anything that you are
 saying in the assembly, you go over to his opinion; and you do the
 same with Demus, the fair young son of Pyrilampes. For you have not
 the power to resist the words and ideas of your loves; and is a person
 were to express surprise at the strangeness of what you say from
 time to time when under their influence, you would probably reply to
 him, if you were honest, that you cannot help saying what your loves
 say unless they are prevented; and that you can only be silent when
 they are. Now you must understand that my words are an echo too, and
 therefore you need not wonder at me; but if you want to silence me,
 silence philosophy, who is my love, for she is always telling me
 what I am telling you, my friend; neither is she capricious like my
 other love, for the son of Cleinias says one thing to-day and
 another thing to-morrow, but philosophy is always true. She is the
 teacher at whose words you are. now wondering, and you have heard
 her yourself. Her you must refute, and either show, as I was saying,
 that to do injustice and to escape punishment is not the worst of
 all evils; or, if you leave her word unrefuted, by the dog the god
 of Egypt, I declare, O Callicles, that Callicles will never be at
 one with himself, but that his whole life, will be a discord. And yet,
 my friend, I would rather that my lyre should be inharmonious, and
 that there should be no music in the chorus which I provided; aye,
 or that the whole world should be at odds with me, and oppose me,
 rather than that I myself should be at odds with myself, and
 contradict myself.
   Cal. O Socrates, you are a regular declaimer, and seem to be running
 riot in the argument. And now you are declaiming in this way because
 Polus has fallen into the same error himself of which he accused
 Gorgias:-for he said that when Gorgias was asked by you, whether, if
 some one came to him who wanted to learn rhetoric, and did not know
 justice, he would teach him justice, Gorgias in his modesty replied
 that he would, because he thought that mankind in general would be
 displeased if he answered "No"; and then in consequence of this
 admission, Gorgias was compelled to contradict himself, that being
 just the sort of thing in which you delight. Whereupon Polus laughed
 at you deservedly, as I think; but now he has himself fallen into
 the same trap. I cannot say very much for his wit when he conceded
 to you that to do is more dishonourable than to suffer injustice,
 for this was the admission which led to his being entangled by you;
 and because he was too modest to say what he thought, he had his mouth
 stopped. For the truth is, Socrates, that you, who pretend to be
 engaged in the pursuit of truth, are appealing now to the popular
 and vulgar notions of right, which are not natural, but only
 conventional. Convention and nature are generally at variance with one
 another: and hence, if a person is too modest to say what he thinks,
 he is compelled to contradict himself; and you, in your ingenuity
 perceiving the advantage to be thereby gained, slyly ask of him who is
 arguing conventionally a question which is to be determined by the
 rule of nature; and if he is talking of the rule of nature, you slip
 away to custom: as, for instance, you did in this very discussion
 about doing and suffering injustice. When Polus was speaking of the
 conventionally dishonourable, you assailed him from the point of
 view of nature; for by the rule of nature, to suffer injustice is
 the greater disgrace because the greater evil; but conventionally,
 to do evil is the more disgraceful. For the suffering of injustice
 is hot the part of a man, but of a slave, who indeed had better die
 than live; since when he is wronged and trampled upon, he is unable to
 help himself, or any other about whom he cares. The reason, as I
 conceive, is that the makers of laws are the majority who are weak;
 and they, make laws and distribute praises and censures with a view to
 themselves and to their own interests; and they: terrify the
 stronger sort of men, and those who are able to get the better of them
 in order that they may not get the better of them; and they say,
 that dishonesty is shameful and unjust; meaning, by the word
 injustice, the desire of a man to have more than his neighbours; for
 knowing their own inferiority, I suspect that they are too glad of
 equality. And therefore the endeavour to have more than the many, is
 conventionally said to be shameful and unjust, and is called
 injustice, whereas nature herself intimates that it is just for the
 better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker;
 and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and
 indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the
 superior ruling over and having more than the inferior. For on what
 principle of justice did Xerxes invade Hellas, or his father the
 Scythians? (not to speak of numberless other examples). Nay, but these
 are the men who act according to nature; yes, by Heaven, and according
 to the law of nature: not, perhaps, according to that artificial
 law, which we invent and impose upon our fellows, of whom we take
 the best and strongest from their youth upwards, and tame them like
 young lions, -charming them with the sound of the voice, and saying to
 them, that with equality they must be content, and that the equal is
 the honourable and the just. But if there were a man who had
 sufficient force, he would shake off and break through, and escape
 from all this; he would trample under foot all our formulas and spells
 and charms, and all our laws which are against nature: the slave would
 rise in rebellion and be lord over us, and the light of natural
 justice would shine forth. And this I take to be the sentiment of
 Pindar, when he says in his poem, that
    Law is the king of all, of mortals as well as of immortals;
 this, as he says,
    Makes might to be right, doing violence with highest hand; as I
 infer from the deeds of Heracles, for without buying them-
 -I do not remember the exact words, but the meaning is, that without
 buying them, and without their being given to him, he carried off
 the oxen of Geryon, according to the law of natural right, and that
 the oxen and other possessions of the weaker and inferior properly
 belong to the stronger and superior. And this is true, as you may
 ascertain, if you will leave philosophy and go on to higher things:
 for philosophy, Socrates, if pursued in moderation and at the proper
 age, is an elegant accomplishment, but too much philosophy is the ruin
 of human life. Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries
 philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those
 things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know; he is
 inexperienced in the laws of the State, and in the language which
 ought to be used in the dealings of man with man, whether private or
 public, and utterly ignorant of the pleasures and desires of mankind
 and of human character in general. And people of this sort, when
 they betake themselves to politics or business, are as ridiculous as I
 imagine the politicians to be, when they make their appearance in
 the arena of philosophy. For, as Euripides says,
    Every man shines in that and pursues that, and devotes the greatest
 portion of the day to that in which he most excels,
 but anything in which he is inferior, he avoids and depreciates, and
 praises the opposite partiality to himself, and because he from that
 he will thus praise himself. The true principle is to unite them.
 Philosophy, as a part of education, is an excellent thing, and there
 is no disgrace to a man while he is young in pursuing such a study;
 but when he is more advanced in years, the thing becomes ridiculous,
 and I feel towards philosophers as I do towards those who lisp and
 imitate children. For I love to see a little child, who is not of an
 age to speak plainly, lisping at his play; there is an appearance of
 grace and freedom in his utterance, which is natural to his childish
 years. But when I hear some small creature carefully articulating
 its words, I am offended; the sound is disagreeable, and has to my
 ears the twang of slavery. So when I hear a man lisping, or see him
 playing like a child, his behaviour appears to me ridiculous and
 unmanly and worthy of stripes. And I have the same feeling about
 students of philosophy; when I see a youth thus engaged-the study
 appears to me to be in character, and becoming a man of liberal
 education, and him who neglects philosophy I regard as an inferior
 man, who will never aspire to anything great or noble. But if I see
 him continuing the study in later life, and not leaving off, I
 should like to beat him, Socrates; for, as I was saying, such a one,
 even though he have good natural parts, becomes effeminate. He flies
 from the busy centre and the market-place, in which, as the poet says,
 men become distinguished; he creeps into a corner for the rest of
 his life, and talks in a whisper with three or four admiring you,
 but never speaks out like a freeman in a satisfactory manner. Now I,
 Socrates, am very well inclined towards you, and my feeling may be
 compared with that of Zethus towards Amphion, in the play of
 Euripides, whom I was mentioning just now: for I am disposed to say to
 you much what Zethus said to his brother, that you, Socrates, are
 careless about the things of which you ought to be careful; and that
     Who have a soul so noble, are remarkable for a puerile exterior;
     Neither in a court of justice could you state a case, or give any
         reason or proof, offer valiant counsel on another's behalf.
 And you must not be offended, my dear Socrates, for I am speaking
 out of good-will towards you, if I ask whether you are not ashamed
 of being thus defenceless; which I affirm to be the condition not of
 you only but of all those who will carry the study of philosophy too
 far. For suppose that some one were to take you, or any one of your
 sort, off to prison, declaring that you had done wrong when you had
 done no wrong, you must allow that you would not know what to
 do:-there you would stand giddy and gaping, and not having a word to
 say; and when you went up before the Court, even if the accuser were a
 poor creature and not good for much, you would die if he were disposed
 to claim the penalty of death. And yet, Socrates, what is the value of
   An art which converts a man of sense into a fool,
 who is helpless, and has no power to save either himself or others,
 when he is in the greatest danger and is going to be despoiled by
 his enemies of all his goods, and has to live, simply deprived of
 his rights of citizenship?-he being a man who, if I may use the
 expression, may be boxed on the ears with impunity. Then, my good
 friend, take my advice, and refute no more:
     Learn the philosophy of business, and acquire the reputation
         of wisdom.
     But leave to others these niceties,
 whether they are to be described as follies or absurdities:
     For they will only
     Give you poverty for the inmate of your dwelling.
   Cease, then, emulating these paltry splitters of words, and
 emulate only the man of substance and honour, who is well to do.
   Soc. If my soul, Callicles, were made of gold, should I not
 rejoice to discover one of those stones with which they test gold, and
 the very best possible one to which I might bring my soul; and if
 the stone and I agreed in approving of her training, then I should
 know that I was in a satisfactory state, and that no other test was
 needed by me.
   Cal. What is your meaning, Socrates?
   Soc. I will tell you; I think that I have found in you the desired
   Cal. Why?
   Soc. Because I am sure that if you agree with me in any of the
 opinions which my soul forms, I have at last found the truth indeed.
 For I consider that if a man is to make a complete trial of the good
 or evil of the soul, he ought to have three qualities-knowledge,
 good-will, outspokenness, which are all possessed by you. Many whom
 I meet are unable to make trial of me, because they are not wise as
 you are; others are wise, but they will not tell me the truth, because
 they have not the same interest in me which you have; and these two
 strangers, Gorgias and Polus, are undoubtedly wise men and my very
 good friends, but they are not outspoken enough, and they are too
 modest. Why, their modesty is so great that they are driven to
 contradict themselves, first one and then the other of them, in the
 face of a large company, on matters of the highest moment. But you
 have all the qualities in which these others are deficient, having
 received an excellent education; to this many Athenians can testify.
 And are my friend. Shall I tell you why I think so? I know that you,
 Callicles, and Tisander of Aphidnae, and Andron the son of
 Androtion, and Nausicydes of the deme of Cholarges, studied
 together: there were four of you, and I once heard you advising with
 one another as to the extent to which the pursuit of philosophy should
 be carried, and, as I know, you came to the conclusion that the
 study should not be pushed too much into detail. You were cautioning
 one another not to be overwise; you were afraid that too much wisdom
 might unconsciously to yourselves be the ruin of you. And now when I
 hear you giving the same advice to me which you then gave to your most
 intimate friends, I have a sufficient evidence of your real goodwill
 to me. And of the frankness of your nature and freedom from modesty
 I am assured by yourself, and the assurance is confirmed by your
 last speech. Well then, the inference in the present case clearly
 is, that if you agree with me in an argument about any point, that
 point will have been sufficiently tested by us, and will not require
 to be submitted to any further test. For you could not have agreed
 with me, either from lack of knowledge or from superfluity of modesty,
 nor yet from a desire to deceive me, for you are my friend, as you
 tell me yourself. And therefore when you and I are agreed, the
 result will be the attainment of perfect truth. Now there is no nobler
 enquiry, Callicles, than that which you censure me for making,-What
 ought the character of a man to be, and what his pursuits, and how far
 is he to go, both in maturer years and in youth? For be assured that
 if I err in my own conduct I do not err intentionally, but from
 ignorance. Do not then desist from advising me, now that you have
 begun, until I have learned clearly what this is which I am to
 practise, and how I may acquire it. And if you find me assenting to
 your words, and hereafter not doing that to which I assented, call
 me "dolt," and deem me unworthy of receiving further instruction. Once
 more, then, tell me what you and Pindar mean by natural justice: Do
 you not mean that the superior should take the property of the
 inferior by force; that the better should rule the worse, the noble
 have more than the mean? Am I not right in my recollection?
   Cal. Yes; that is what I was saying, and so I still aver.
   Soc. And do you mean by the better the same as the superior? for I
 could not make out what you were saying at the time-whether you
 meant by the superior the stronger, and that the weaker must obey
 the stronger, as you seemed to imply when you said that great cities
 attack small ones in accordance with-natural right, because they are
 superior and stronger, as though the superior and stronger and
 better were the same; or whether the better may be also the inferior
 and weaker, and the superior the worse, or whether better is to be
 defined in the same way as superior: this is the point which I want to
 have cleared up. Are the superior and better and stronger the same
 or different?
   Cal. I say unequivocally that they are the same.
   Soc. Then the many are by nature to the one, against whom, as you
 were saying, they make the laws?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. Then the laws of the many are the laws of the superior?
   Cal. Very true.
   Soc. Then they are the laws of the better; for the superior class
 are far better, as you were saying?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And since they are superior, the laws which are made by them
 are by nature good?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And are not the many of opinion, as you were lately saying,
 that justice is equality, and that to do is more disgraceful than to
 suffer injustice?-is that so or not? Answer, Callicles, and let no
 modesty be: found to come in the way; do the many think, or do they
 not think thus?-I must beg of you to answer, in order that if you
 agree with me I may fortify myself by the assent of so competent an
   Cal. Yes; the opinion of the many is what you say.
   Soc. Then not only custom but nature also affirms that to do is more
 disgraceful than to suffer injustice, and that justice is equality; so
 that you seem to have been wrong in your former assertion, when
 accusing me you said that nature and custom are opposed, and that I,
 knowing this, was dishonestly playing between them, appealing to
 custom when the argument is about nature, and to nature when the
 argument is about custom?
   Cal. This man will never cease talking nonsense. At your age,
 Socrates, are you not ashamed to be catching at words and chuckling
 over some verbal slip? do you not see-have I not told you already,
 that by superior I mean better: do you imagine me to say, that if a
 rabble of slaves and nondescripts, who are of no use except perhaps
 for their physical strength, get together their ipsissima verba are
   Soc. Ho! my philosopher, is that your line?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. I was thinking, Callicles, that something of the kind must have
 been in your mind, and that is why I repeated the question-What is the
 superior? I wanted to know clearly what you meant; for you surely do
 not think that two men are better than one, or that your slaves are
 better than you because they are stronger? Then please to begin again,
 and tell me who the better are, if they are not the stronger; and I
 will ask you, great Sir, to be a little milder in your instructions,
 or I shall have to run away from you.
   Cal. You are ironical.
   Soc. No, by the hero Zethus, Callicles, by whose aid you were just
 now saying many ironical things against me, I am not:-tell me, then,
 whom you mean, by the better?
   Cal. I mean the more excellent.
   Soc. Do you not see that you are yourself using words which have
 no meaning and that you are explaining nothing?-will you tell me
 whether you mean by the better and superior the wiser, or if not,
   Cal. Most assuredly, I do mean the wiser.
   Soc. Then according to you, one wise man may often be superior to
 ten thousand fools, and he ought them, and they ought to be his
 subjects, and he ought to have more than they should. This is what I
 believe that you mean (and you must not suppose that I am
 word-catching), if you allow that the one is superior to the ten
   Cal. Yes; that is what I mean, and that is what I conceive to be
 natural justice-that the better and wiser should rule have more than
 the inferior.
   Soc. Stop there, and let me ask you what you would say in this case:
 Let us suppose that we are all together as we are now; there are
 several of us, and we have a large common store of meats and drinks,
 and there are all sorts of persons in our company having various
 degrees of strength and weakness, and one of us, being physician, is
 wiser in the matter of food than all the rest, and he is probably
 stronger than some and not so strong as others of us-will he not,
 being wiser, be also better than we are, and our superior in this
 matter of food?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. Either, then, he will have a larger share of the meats and
 drinks, because he is better, or he will have the distribution of
 all of them by reason of his authority, but he will not expend or make
 use of a larger share of them on his own person, or if he does, he
 will be punished-his share will exceed that of some, and be less
 than that of others, and if he be the weakest of all, he being the
 best of all will have the smallest share of all, Callicles:-am I not
 right, my friend?
   Cal. You talk about meats and drinks and physicians and other
 nonsense; I am not speaking of them.
   Soc. Well, but do you admit that the wiser is the better? Answer
 "Yes" or "No."
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And ought not the better to have a larger share?
   Cal. Not of meats and drinks.
   Soc. I understand: then, perhaps, of coats -the skilfullest weaver
 ought to have the largest coat, and the greatest number of them, and
 go about clothed in the best and finest of them?
   Cal. Fudge about coats!
   Soc. Then the skilfullest and best in making shoes ought to have the
 advantage in shoes; the shoemaker, clearly, should walk about in the
 largest shoes, and have the greatest number of them?
   Cal. Fudge about shoes! What nonsense are you talking?
   Soc. Or, if this is not your meaning, perhaps you would say that the
 wise and good and true husbandman should actually have a larger
 share of seeds, and have as much seed as possible for his own land?
   Cal. How you go on, always talking in the same way, Socrates!
   Soc. Yes, Callicles, and also about the same things.
   Cal. Yes, by the Gods, you are literally always talking of
 cobblers and fullers and cooks and doctors, as if this had to do
 with our argument.
   Soc. But why will you not tell me in what a man must be superior and
 wiser in order to claim a larger share; will you neither accept a
 suggestion, nor offer one?
   Cal. I have already told you. In the first place, I mean by
 superiors not cobblers or cooks, but wise politicians who understand
 the administration of a state, and who are not only wise, but also
 valiant and able to carry. out their designs, and not the men to faint
 from want of soul.
   Soc. See now, most excellent Callicles, how different my charge
 against you is from that which you bring against me, for you
 reproach me with always saying the same; but I reproach you with never
 saying the same about the same things, for at one time you were
 defining the better and the superior to be the stronger, then again as
 the wiser, and now you bring forward a new notion; the superior and
 the better are now declared by you to be the more courageous: I
 wish, my good friend, that you would tell me once for all, whom you
 affirm to be the better and superior, and in what they are better?
   Cal. I have already told you that I mean those who are wise and
 courageous in the administration of a state-they ought to be the
 rulers of their states, and justice consists in their having more than
 their subjects.
   Soc. But whether rulers or subjects will they or will they not
 have more than themselves, my friend?
   Cal. What do you mean?
   Soc. I mean that every man is his own ruler; but perhaps you think
 that there is no necessity for him to rule himself; he is only
 required to rule others?
   Cal. What do you mean by his "ruling over himself"?
   Soc. A simple thing enough; just what is commonly said, that a man
 should be temperate and master of himself, and ruler of his own
 pleasures and passions.
   Cal. What innocence! you mean those fools-the temperate?
   Soc. Certainly:-any one may know that to be my meaning.
   Cal. Quite so, Socrates; and they are really fools, for how can a
 man be happy who is the servant of anything? On the contrary, I
 plainly assert, that he who would truly live ought to allow his
 desires to wax to the uttermost, and not to chastise them; but when
 they have grown to their greatest he should have courage and
 intelligence to minister to them and to satisfy all his longings.
 And this I affirm to be natural justice and nobility. To this
 however the many cannot attain; and they blame the strong man
 because they are ashamed of their own weakness, which they desire to
 conceal, and hence they say that intemperance is base. As I have
 remarked already, they enslave the nobler natures, and being unable to
 satisfy their pleasures, they praise temperance and justice out of
 their own cowardice. For if a man had been originally the son of a
 king, or had a nature capable of acquiring an empire or a tyranny or
 sovereignty, what could be more truly base or evil than temperance--to
 a man like him, I say, who might freely be enjoying every good, and
 has no one to stand in his way, and yet has admitted custom and reason
 and the opinion of other men to be lords over him?-must not he be in a
 miserable plight whom the reputation of justice and temperance hinders
 from giving more to his friends than to his enemies, even though he be
 a ruler in his city? Nay, Socrates, for you profess to be a votary
 of the truth, and the truth is this:-that luxury and intemperance
 and licence, if they be provided with means, are virtue and
 happiness-all the rest is a mere bauble, agreements contrary to
 nature, foolish talk of men, nothing worth.
   Soc. There is a noble freedom, Callicles, in your way of approaching
 the argument; for what you say is what the rest of the world think,
 but do not like to say. And I must beg of you to persevere, that the
 true rule of human life may become manifest. Tell me, then:-you say,
 do you not, that in the rightly-developed man the passions ought not
 to be controlled, but that we should let them grow to the utmost and
 somehow or other satisfy them, and that this is virtue?
   Cal. Yes; I do.
   Soc. Then those who want nothing are not truly said to be happy?
   Cal. No indeed, for then stones and dead men would be the happiest
 of all.
   Soc. But surely life according to your view is an awful thing; and
 indeed I think that Euripides may have been right in saying,
      Who knows if life be not death and death life;
 and that we are very likely dead; I have heard a philosopher say
 that at this moment we are actually dead, and that the body (soma)
 is our tomb (sema), and that the part of the soul which is the seat of
 the desires is liable to be tossed about by words and blown up and
 down; and some ingenious person, probably a Sicilian or an Italian,
 playing with the word, invented a tale in which he called the
 soul-because of its believing and make-believe nature-a vessel, and
 the ignorant he called the uninitiated or leaky, and the place in
 the souls of the uninitiated in which the desires are seated, being
 the intemperate and incontinent part, he compared to a vessel full
 of holes, because it can never be satisfied. He is not of your way
 of thinking, Callicles, for he declares, that of all the souls in
 Hades, meaning the invisible world these uninitiated or leaky
 persons are the most miserable, and that they pour water into a vessel
 which is full of holes out of a colander which is similarly
 perforated. The colander, as my informer assures me, is the soul,
 and the soul which he compares to a colander is the soul of the
 ignorant, which is likewise full of holes, and therefore
 incontinent, owing to a bad memory and want of faith. These notions
 are strange enough, but they show the principle which, if I can, I
 would fain prove to you; that you should change your mind, and,
 instead of the intemperate and insatiate life, choose that which is
 orderly and sufficient and has a due provision for daily needs. Do I
 make any impression on you, and are you coming over to the opinion
 that the orderly are happier than the intemperate? Or do I fail to
 persuade you, and, however many tales I rehearse to you, do you
 continue of the same opinion still?
   Cal. The latter, Socrates, is more like the truth.
   Soc. Well, I will tell you another image, which comes out of the
 same school:-Let me request you to consider how far you would accept
 this as an account of the two lives of the temperate and intemperate
 in a figure:-There are two men, both of whom have a number of casks;
 the one man has his casks sound and full, one of wine, another of
 honey, and a third of milk, besides others filled with other
 liquids, and the streams which fill them are few and scanty, and he
 can only obtain them with a great deal of toil and difficulty; but
 when his casks are once filled he has need to feed them anymore, and
 has no further trouble with them or care about them. The other, in
 like manner, can procure streams, though not without difficulty; but
 his vessels are leaky and unsound, and night and day he is compelled
 to be filling them, and if he pauses for a moment, he is in an agony
 of pain. Such are their respective lives:-And now would you say that
 the life of the intemperate is happier than that of the temperate?
 Do I not convince you that the opposite is the truth?
   Cal. You do not convince me, Socrates, for the one who has filled
 himself has no longer any pleasure left; and this, as I was just now
 saying, is the life of a stone: he has neither joy nor sorrow after he
 is once filled; but the pleasure depends on the superabundance of
 the influx.
   Soc. But the more you pour in, the greater the waste; and the
 holes must be large for the liquid to escape.
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. The life which you are now depicting is not that of a dead man,
 or of a stone, but of a cormorant; you mean that he is to be hungering
 and eating?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And he is to be thirsting and drinking?
   Cal. Yes, that is what I mean; he is to have all his desires about
 him, and to be able to live happily in the gratification of them.
   Soc. Capital, excellent; go on as you have begun, and have no shame;
 I, too, must disencumber myself of shame: and first, will you tell
 me whether you include itching and scratching, provided you have
 enough of them and pass your life in scratching, in your notion of
   Cal. What a strange being you are, Socrates! a regular mob-orator.
   Soc. That was the reason, Callicles, why I scared Polus and Gorgias,
 until they were too modest to say what they thought; but you will
 not be too modest and will not be scared, for you are a brave man. And
 now, answer my question.
   Cal. I answer, that even the scratcher would live pleasantly.
   Soc. And if pleasantly, then also happily?
   Cal. To be sure.
   Soc. But what if the itching is not confined to the head? Shall I
 pursue the question? And here, Callicles, I would have you consider
 how you would reply if consequences are pressed upon you, especially
 if in the last resort you are asked, whether the life of a catamite is
 not terrible, foul, miserable? Or would you venture to say, that
 they too are happy, if they only get enough of what they want?
   Cal. Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of introducing such topics
 into the argument?
   Soc. Well, my fine friend, but am I the introducer of these
 topics, or he who says without any qualification that all who feel
 pleasure in whatever manner are happy, and who admits of no
 distinction between good and bad pleasures? And I would still ask,
 whether you say that pleasure and good are the same, or whether
 there is some pleasure which is not a good?
   Cal. Well, then, for the sake of consistency, I will say that they
 are the same.
   Soc. You are breaking the original agreement, Callicles, and will no
 longer be a satisfactory companion in the search after truth, if you
 say what is contrary to your real opinion.
   Cal. Why, that is what you are doing too, Socrates.
   Soc. Then we are both doing wrong. Still, my dear friend, I would
 ask you to consider whether pleasure, from whatever source derived, is
 the good; for, if this be true, then the disagreeable consequences
 which have been darkly intimated must follow, and many others.
   Cal. That, Socrates, is only your opinion.
   Soc. And do you, Callicles, seriously maintain what you are saying?
   Cal. Indeed I do.
   Soc. Then, as you are in earnest, shall we proceed with the
   Cal. By all means.
   Soc. Well, if you are willing to proceed, determine this question
 for me:-There is something, I presume, which you would call knowledge?
   Cal. There is.
   Soc. And were you not saying just now, that some courage implied
   Cal. I was.
   Soc. And you were speaking of courage and knowledge as two things
 different from one another?
   Cal. Certainly I was.
   Soc. And would you say that pleasure and knowledge are the same,
 or not the same?
   Cal. Not the same, O man of wisdom.
   Soc. And would you say that courage differed from pleasure?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. Well, then, let us remember that Callicles, the Acharnian, says
 that pleasure and good are the same; but that knowledge and courage
 are not the same, either with one another, or with the good.
   Cal. And what does our friend Socrates, of Foxton, say -does he
 assent to this, or not?
   Soc. He does not assent; neither will Callicles, when he sees
 himself truly. You will admit, I suppose, that good and evil fortune
 are opposed to each other?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And if they are opposed to each other, then, like health and
 disease, they exclude one another; a man cannot have them both, or
 be without them both, at the same time?
   Cal. What do you mean?
   Soc. Take the case of any bodily affection:-a man may have the
 complaint in his eyes which is called ophthalmia?
   Cal. To be sure.
   Soc. But he surely cannot have the same eyes well and sound at the
 same time?
   Cal. Certainly not.
   Soc. And when he has got rid of his ophthalmia, has he got rid of
 the health of his eyes too? Is the final result, that he gets rid of
 them both together?
   Cal. Certainly not.
   Soc. That would surely be marvellous and absurd?
   Cal. Very.
   Soc. I suppose that he is affected by them, and gets rid of them
 in turns?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And he may have strength and weakness in the same way, by fits?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Or swiftness and slowness?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. And does he have and not have good and happiness, and their
 opposites, evil and misery, in a similar alternation?
   Cal. Certainly he has.
   Soc. If then there be anything which a man has and has not at the
 same time, clearly that cannot be good and evil-do we agree? Please
 not to answer without consideration.
   Cal. I entirely agree.
   Soc. Go back now to our former admissions.-Did you say that to
 hunger, I mean the mere state of hunger, was pleasant or painful?
   Cal. I said painful, but that to eat when you are hungry is
   Soc. I know; but still the actual hunger is painful: am I not right?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And thirst, too, is painful?
   Cal. Yes, very.
   Soc. Need I adduce any more instances, or would you agree that all
 wants or desires are painful?
   Cal. I agree, and therefore you need not adduce any more instances.
    Soc. Very good. And you would admit that to drink, when you are
 thirsty, is pleasant?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And in the sentence which you have just uttered, the word
 "thirsty" implies pain?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And the word "drinking" is expressive of pleasure, and of the
 satisfaction of the want?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. There is pleasure in drinking?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. When you are thirsty?
   Soc. And in pain?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Do you see the inference:-that pleasure and pain are
 simultaneous, when you say that being thirsty, you drink? For are they
 not simultaneous, and do they not affect at the same time the same
 part, whether of the soul or the body?-which of them is affected
 cannot be supposed to be of any consequence: Is not this true?
   Cal. It is.
   Soc. You said also, that no man could have good and evil fortune
 at the same time?
   Cal. Yes, I did.
   Soc. But, you admitted that when in pain a man might also have
   Cal. Clearly.
   Soc. Then pleasure is not the same as good fortune, or pain the same
 as evil fortune, and therefore the good is not the same as the
   Cal. I wish I knew, Socrates, what your quibbling means.
   Soc. You know, Callicles, but you affect not to know.
   Cal. Well, get on, and don't keep fooling: then you will know what a
 wiseacre you are in your admonition of me.
   Soc. Does not a man cease from his thirst and from his pleasure in
 drinking at the same time?
   Cal. I do not understand what you are saying.
   Gor. Nay, Callicles, answer, if only for our sakes;-we should like
 to hear the argument out.
   Cal. Yes, Gorgias, but I must complain of the habitual trifling of
 Socrates; he is always arguing about little and unworthy questions.
   Gor. What matter? Your reputation, Callicles, is not at stake. Let
 Socrates argue in his own fashion.
   Cal. Well, then, Socrates, you shall ask these little peddling
 questions, since Gorgias wishes to have them.
   Soc. I envy you, Callicles, for having been initiated into the great
 mysteries before you were initiated into the lesser. I thought that
 this was not allowable, But to return to our argument:-Does not a
 man cease from thirsting and from pleasure of drinking at the same
   Cal. True.
   Soc. And if he is hungry, or has any other desire, does he not cease
 from the desire and the pleasure at the same moment?
   Cal. Very true.
   Soc. Then he ceases from pain and pleasure at the same moment?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. But he does not cease from good and evil at the same moment, as
 you have admitted: do you still adhere to what you said?
   Cal. Yes, I do; but what is the inference?
   Soc. Why, my friend, the inference is that the good is not the
 same as the pleasant, or the evil the same as the painful; there is
 a cessation of pleasure and pain at the same moment; but not of good
 and evil, for they are different. How then can pleasure be the same as
 good, or pain as evil? And I would have you look at the matter in
 another light, which could hardly, I think, have been considered by
 you identified them: Are not the good they have good present with
 them, as the beautiful are those who have beauty present with them?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And do you call the fools and cowards good men? For you were
 saying just now that the courageous and the wise are the good would
 you not say so?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. And did you never see a foolish child rejoicing?
   Cal. Yes, I have.
   Soc. And a foolish man too?
   Cal. Yes, certainly; but what is your drift?
   Soc. Nothing particular, if you will only answer.
   Cal. Yes, I have.
   Soc. And did you ever see a sensible man rejoicing or sorrowing?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Which rejoice and sorrow most-the wise or the foolish?
   Cal. They are much upon a par, I think, in that respect.
   Soc. Enough: And did you ever see a coward in battle?
   Cal. To be sure.
   Soc. And which rejoiced most at the departure of the enemy, the
 coward or the brave?
   Cal. I should say "most" of both; or at any rate, they rejoiced
 about equally.
   Soc. No matter; then the cowards, and not only the brave, rejoice?
   Cal. Greatly.
   Soc. And the foolish; so it would seem?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And are only the cowards pained at the approach of their
 enemies, or are the brave also pained?
   Cal. Both are pained.
   Soc. And are they equally pained?
   Cal. I should imagine that the cowards are more pained.
   Soc. And are they better pleased at the enemy's departure?
   Cal. I dare say.
   Soc. Then are the foolish and the wise and the cowards and the brave
 all pleased and pained, as you were saying, in nearly equal degree;
 but are the cowards more pleased and pained than the brave?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. But surely the wise and brave are the good, and the foolish and
 the cowardly are the bad?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Then the good and the bad are pleased and pained in a nearly
 equal degree?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Then are the good and bad good and bad in a nearly equal
 degree, or have the bad the advantage both in good and evil? [i.e.
 in having more pleasure and more pain.]
   Cal I really do not know what you mean.
   Soc. Why, do you not remember saying that the good were good because
 good was present with them, and the evil because evil; and that
 pleasures were goods and pains evils?
   Cal. Yes, I remember.
   Soc. And are not these pleasures or goods present to those who
 rejoice-if they do rejoice?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. Then those who rejoice are good when goods are present with
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And those who are in pain have evil or sorrow present with
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And would you still say that the evil are evil by reason of the
 presence of evil?
   Cal. I should.
   Soc. Then those who rejoice are good, and those who are in pain
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. The degrees of good and evil vary with the degrees of
 pleasure and of pain?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Have the wise man and the fool, the brave and the coward, joy
 and pain in nearly equal degrees? or would you say that the coward has
   Cal. I should say that he has.
   Soc. Help me then to draw out the conclusion which follows from
 our admissions; for it is good to repeat and review what is good twice
 and thrice over, as they say. Both the wise man and the brave man we
 allow to be good?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And the foolish man and the coward to be evil?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. And he who has joy is good?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And he who is in pain is evil?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. The good and evil both have joy and pain, but, perhaps, the
 evil has more of them?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Then must we not infer, that the bad man is as good and bad
 as the good, or, perhaps, even better?-is not this a further inference
 which follows equally with the preceding from the assertion that the
 good and the pleasant are the same:-can this be denied, Callicles?
   Cal. I have been listening and making admissions to you, Socrates;
 and I remark that if a person grants you anything in play, you, like a
 child, want to keep hold and will not give it back. But do you
 really suppose that I or any other human being denies that some
 pleasures are good and others bad?
   Soc. Alas, Callicles, how unfair you are! you certainly treat me
 as if I were a child, sometimes saying one thing, and then another, as
 if you were meaning to deceive me. And yet I thought at first that you
 were my friend, and would not have deceived me if you could have
 helped. But I see that I was mistaken; and now I suppose that I must
 make the best of a bad business, as they said of old, and take what
 I can get out of you.-Well, then, as I understand you to say, I may
 assume that some pleasures are good and others evil?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. The beneficial are good, and the hurtful are evil?
   Cal. To be sure.
   Soc. And the beneficial are those which do some good, and the
 hurtful are those which do some evil?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Take, for example, the bodily pleasures of eating and drinking,
 which were just now mentioning-you mean to say that those which
 promote health, or any other bodily excellence, are good, and their
 opposites evil?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. And in the same way there are good pains and there are evil
   Cal. To be sure.
   Soc. And ought we not to choose and use the good pleasures and
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. But not the evil?
   Cal. Clearly.
   Soc. Because, if you remember, Polus and I have agreed that all
 our actions are to be done for the sake of the good-and will you agree
 with us in saying, that the good is the end of all our actions, and
 that all our actions are to be done for the sake of the good, and
 not the good, for of them?-will you add a third vote to our two?
   Cal. I will.
   Soc. Then pleasure, like everything else, is to be sought for the
 sake of that which is good, and not that which is good for the sake of
   Cal. To be sure.
   Soc. But can every man choose what pleasures are good and what are
 evil, or must he have art or knowledge of them in detail?
   Cal. He must have art.
   Soc. Let me now remind you of what I was saying to Gorgias and
 Polus; I was saying, as you will not have forgotten, that there were
 some processes which aim only at pleasure, and know nothing of a
 better and worse, and there are other processes which know good and
 evil. And I considered that cookery, which I do not call an art, but
 only an experience, was of the former class, which is concerned with
 pleasure, and that the art of medicine was of the class which is
 concerned with the good. And now, by the god of friendship, I must beg
 you, Callicles, not to jest, or to imagine that I am jesting with you;
 do not answer at random and contrary to your real opinion-for you will
 observe that we are arguing about the way of human life; and to a
 man who has any sense at all, what question can be more serious than
 this?-whether he should follow after that way of life to which you
 exhort me, and act what you call the manly part of speaking in the
 assembly, and cultivating rhetoric, and engaging in public affairs,
 according to the principles now in vogue; or whether he should
 pursue the life of philosophy-and in what the latter way differs
 from the former. But perhaps we had better first try to distinguish
 them, as I did before, and when we have come to an agreement that they
 are distinct, we may proceed to consider in what they differ from
 one another, and which of them we should choose. Perhaps, however, you
 do not even now understand what I mean?
   Cal. No, I do not.
   Soc. Then I will explain myself more clearly: seeing that you and
 I have agreed that there is such a thing as good, and that there is
 such a thing as pleasure, and that pleasure is not the same as good,
 and that the pursuit and process of acquisition of the one, that is
 pleasure, is different from the pursuit and process of acquisition
 of the other, which is good-I wish that you would tell me whether
 you agree with me thus far or not-do you agree?
   Cal. I do.
   Soc. Then I will proceed, and ask whether you also agree with me,
 and whether you think that I spoke the truth when I further said to
 Gorgias and Polus that cookery in my opinion is only an experience,
 and not an art at all; and that whereas medicine is an art, and
 attends to the nature and constitution of the patient, and has
 principles of action and reason in each case, cookery in attending
 upon pleasure never regards either the nature or reason of that
 pleasure to which she devotes herself, but goes straight to her end,
 nor ever considers or calculates anything, but works by experience and
 routine, and just preserves the recollection of what she has usually
 done when producing pleasure. And first, I would have you consider
 whether I have proved what I was saying, and then whether there are
 not other similar processes which have to do with the soul-some of
 them processes of art, making a provision for the soul's highest
 interest-others despising the interest, and, as in the previous
 case, considering only the pleasure of the soul, and how this may be
 acquired, but not considering what pleasures are good or bad, and
 having no other aim but to afford gratification, whether good or
 bad. In my opinion, Callicles, there are such processes, and this is
 the sort of thing which I term flattery, whether concerned with the
 body or the soul, or whenever employed with a view to pleasure and
 without any consideration of good and evil. And now I wish that you
 would tell me whether you agree with us in this notion, or whether you
   Cal. I do not differ; on the contrary, I agree; for in that way I
 shall soonest bring the argument to an end, and shall oblige my friend
   Soc. And is this notion true of one soul, or of two or more?
   Cal. Equally true of two or more.
   Soc. Then a man may delight a whole assembly, and yet have no regard
 for their true interests?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Can you tell me the pursuits which delight mankind-or rather,
 if you would prefer, let me ask, and do you answer, which of them
 belong to the pleasurable class, and which of them not? In the first
 place, what say you of flute-playing? Does not that appear to be an
 art which seeks only pleasure, Callicles, and thinks of nothing else?
   Cal. I assent.
   Soc. And is not the same true of all similar arts, as, for
 example, the art of playing the lyre at festivals?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And what do you say of the choral art and of dithyrambic
 poetry?-are not they of the same nature? Do you imagine that
 Cinesias the son of Meles cares about what will tend to the moral
 improvement of his hearers, or about what will give pleasure to the
   Cal. There can be no mistake about Cinesias, Socrates.
   Soc. And what do you say of his father, Meles the harp-player? Did
 he perform with any view to the good of his hearers? Could he be
 said to regard even their pleasure? For his singing was an
 infliction to his audience. And of harp playing and dithyrambic poetry
 in general, what would you say? Have they not been invented wholly for
 the sake of pleasure?
   Cal. That is my notion of them.
   Soc. And as for the Muse of Tragedy, that solemn and august
 personage-what are her aspirations? Is all her aim and desire only
 to give pleasure to the spectators, or does she fight against them and
 refuse to speak of their pleasant vices, and willingly proclaim in
 word and song truths welcome and unwelcome?-which in your judgment
 is her character?
   Cal. There can be no doubt, Socrates, that Tragedy has her face
 turned towards pleasure and the gratification of the audience.
   Soc. And is not that the sort of thing, Callicles, which we were
 just now describing as flattery?
   Cal. Quite true.
   Soc. Well now, suppose that we strip all poetry of song and rhythm
 and metre, there will remain speech?
   Cal. To be sure.
   Soc. And this speech is addressed to a crowd of people?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Then, poetry is a sort of rhetoric?
   Cal. True.
   Soc. And do not the poets in the theatres seem to you to be
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Then now we have discovered a sort of rhetoric which is
 addressed to a crowd of men, women, and children, freemen and
 slaves. And this is not much to our taste, for we have described it as
 having the nature of flattery.
   Cal. Quite true.
   Soc. Very good. And what do you say of that other rhetoric which
 addresses the Athenian assembly and the assemblies of freemen in other
 states? Do the rhetoricians appear to you always to aim at what is
 best, and do they seek to improve the citizens by their speeches, or
 are they too, like the rest of mankind, bent upon giving them
 pleasure, forgetting the public good in the thought of their own
 interest, playing with the people as with children, and trying to
 amuse them, but never considering whether they are better or worse for
   Cal. I must distinguish. There are some who have a real care of
 the public in what they say, while others are such as you describe.
   Soc. I am contented with the admission that rhetoric is of two
 sorts; one, which is mere flattery and disgraceful declamation; the
 other, which is noble and aims at the training and improvement of
 the souls of the citizens, and strives to say what is best, whether
 welcome or unwelcome, to the audience; but have you ever known such
 a rhetoric; or if you have, and can point out any rhetorician who is
 of this stamp, who is he?
   Cal. But, indeed, I am afraid that I cannot tell you of any such
 among the orators who are at present living.
   Soc. Well, then, can you mention any one of a former generation, who
 may be said to have improved the Athenians, who found them worse and
 made them better, from the day that he began to make speeches? for,
 indeed, I do not know of such a man.
   Cal. What! did you never hear that Themistocles was a good man,
 and Cimon and Miltiades and Pericles, who is just lately dead, and
 whom you heard yourself?
   Soc. Yes, Callicles, they were good men, if, as you said at first,
 true virtue consists only in the satisfaction of our own desires and
 those of others; but if not, and if, as we were afterwards compelled
 to acknowledge, the satisfaction of some desires makes us better,
 and of others, worse, and we ought to gratify the one and not the
 other, and there is an art in distinguishing them-can you tell me of
 any of these statesmen who did distinguish them?
   Cal. No, indeed, I cannot.
   Soc. Yet, surely, Callicles, if you look you will find such a one.
 Suppose that we just calmly consider whether any of these was such
 as I have described. Will not the good man, who says whatever he
 says with a view to the best, speak with a reference to some
 standard and not at random; just as all other artists, whether the
 painter, the builder, the shipwright, or any other look all of them to
 their own work, and do not select and apply at random what they apply,
 but strive to give a definite form to it? The artist disposes all
 things in order, and compels the one part to harmonize and accord with
 the other part, until he has constructed a regular and systematic
 whole; and this is true of all artists, and in the same way the
 trainers and physicians, of whom we spoke before, give order and
 regularity to the body: do you deny this?
   Cal. No; I am ready to admit it.
   Soc. Then the house in which order and regularity prevail is good,
 that in which there is disorder, evil?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And the same is true of a ship?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And the same may be said of the human body?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And what would you say of the soul? Will the good soul be
 that in which disorder is prevalent, or that in which there is harmony
 and order?
   Cal. The latter follows from our previous admissions.
   Soc. What is the name which is given to the effect of harmony and
 order in the body?
   Cal. I suppose that you mean health and strength?
   Soc. Yes, I do; and what is the name which you would give to the
 effect of harmony and order in the soul? Try and discover a name for
 this as well as for the other.
   Cal. Why not give the name yourself, Socrates?
   Soc. Well, if you had rather that I should, I will; and you shall
 say whether you agree with me, and if not, you shall refute and answer
 me. "Healthy," as I conceive, is the name which is given to the
 regular order of the body, whence comes health and every other
 bodily excellence: is that true or not?
   Cal. True.
   Soc. And "lawful" and "law" are the names which are given to the
 regular order and action of the soul, and these make men lawful and
 orderly:-and so we have temperance and justice: have we not?
   Cal. Granted.
   Soc. And will not the true rhetorician who is honest and understands
 his art have his eye fixed upon these, in all the words which he
 addresses to the souls of men, and in all his actions, both in what he
 gives and in what he takes away? Will not his aim be to implant
 justice in the souls of his citizens mind take away injustice, to
 implant temperance and take away intemperance, to implant every virtue
 and take away every vice? Do you not agree?
   Cal. I agree.
   Soc. For what use is there, Callicles, in giving to the body of a
 sick man who is in a bad state of health a quantity of the most
 delightful food or drink or any other pleasant thing, which may be
 really as bad for him as if you gave him nothing, or even worse if
 rightly estimated. Is not that true?
   Cal. I will not say No to it.
   Soc. For in my opinion there is no profit in a man's life if his
 body is in an evil plight-in that case his life also is evil: am I not
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. When a man is in health the physicians will generally allow him
 to eat when he is hungry and drink when he is thirsty, and to
 satisfy his desires as he likes, but when he is sick they hardly
 suffer him to satisfy his desires at all: even you will admit that?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And does not the same argument hold of the soul, my good sir?
 While she is in a bad state and is senseless and intemperate and
 unjust and unholy, her desires ought to be controlled, and she ought
 to be prevented from doing anything which does not tend to her own
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Such treatment will be better for the soul herself?
   Cal. To be sure.
   Soc. And to restrain her from her appetites is to chastise her?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Then restraint or chastisement is better for the soul than
 intemperance or the-absence of control, which you were just now
   Cal. I do not understand you, Socrates, and I wish that you would
 ask some one who does.
   Soc. Here is a gentleman who cannot endure to be improved or: to
 subject himself to that very chastisement of which the argument
   Cal. I do not heed a word of what you are saying, and have only
 answered hitherto out of civility to Gorgias.
   Soc. What are we to do, then? Shall we break off in the middle?
   Cal. You shall judge for yourself.
   Soc. Well, but people say that "a tale should have a head and not
 break off in the middle," and I should not like to have the argument
 going about without a head; please then to go on a little longer,
 and put the head on.
   Cal. How tyrannical you are, Socrates! I wish that you and your
 argument would rest, or that you would get some one else to argue with
   Soc. But who else is willing?-I want to finish the argument.
   Cal. Cannot you finish without my help, either talking straight: on,
 or questioning and answering yourself?
   Soc. Must I then say with Epicharmus, "Two men spoke before, but now
 one shall be enough"? I suppose that there is absolutely no help.
 And if I am to carry on the enquiry by myself, I will first of all
 remark that not only, but all of us should have an ambition to know
 what is true and what is false in this matter, for the discovery of
 the truth is common good. And now I will proceed to argue according to
 my own notion. But if any of you think that I arrive at conclusions
 which are untrue you must interpose and refute me, for I do not
 speak from any knowledge of what I am saying; I am an enquirer like
 yourselves, and therefore, if my opponent says anything which is of
 force, I shall be the first to agree with him. I am speaking on the
 supposition that the argument ought to be completed; but if you
 think otherwise let us leave off and go our ways.
   Gor. I think, Socrates, that we should not go our ways until you
 have completed the argument; and this appears to me to be the wish
 of the rest of the company; I myself should very much like to hear
 what more you have to say.
   Soc. I too, Gorgias, should have liked to continue the argument with
 Callicles, and then I might have given him an "Amphion" in return
 for his "Zethus"; but since you, Callicles, are unwilling to continue,
 I hope that you will listen, and interrupt me if I seem to you to be
 in error. And if you refute me, I shall not be angry with you as you
 are with me, but I shall inscribe you as the greatest of benefactors
 on the tablets of my soul.
   Cal. My good fellow, never mind me, but get on.
   Soc. Listen to me, then, while I recapitulate the argument:-Is the
 pleasant the same as the good? Not the same. Callicles and I are
 agreed about that. And is the pleasant to be pursued for the sake of
 the good? or the good for the sake of the pleasant? The pleasant is to
 be pursued for the sake of the good. And that is pleasant at the
 presence of which we are pleased, and that is good at the presence
 of which we are good? To be sure. And we-good, and all good things
 whatever are good when some virtue is present in us or them? That,
 Callicles, is my conviction. But the virtue of each thing, whether
 body or soul, instrument or creature, when given to them in the best
 way comes to them not by chance but as the result of the order and
 truth and art which are imparted to them: Am I not right? I maintain
 that I am. And is not the virtue of each thing dependent on order or
 arrangement? Yes, I say. And that which makes a thing good is the
 proper order inhering in each thing? Such is my view. And is not the
 soul which has an order of her own better than that which has no
 order? Certainly. And the soul which has order is orderly? Of
 course. And that which is orderly is temperate? Assuredly. And the
 temperate soul is good? No other answer can I give, Callicles dear;
 have you any?
   Cal. Go on, my good fellow.
   Soc. Then I shall proceed to add, that if the, temperate soul is the
 good soul, the soul which is in the opposite condition, that is, the
 foolish and intemperate, is the bad soul. Very true.
   And will not the temperate man do what is proper, both in relation
 to the gods and to men; -for he would not be temperate if he did
 not? Certainly he will do what is proper. In his relation to other men
 he will do what is just; See and in his relation to the gods he will
 do what is holy; and he who does what is just and holy must be just
 and holy? Very true. And must he not be courageous? for the duty of
 a temperate man is not to follow or to avoid what he ought not, but
 what he ought, whether things or men or pleasures or pains, and
 patiently to endure when he ought; and therefore, Callicles, the
 temperate man, being, as we have described, also just and courageous
 and holy, cannot be other than a perfectly good man, nor can the
 good man do otherwise than well and perfectly whatever he does; and he
 who does well must of necessity be happy and blessed, and the evil man
 who does evil, miserable: now this latter is he whom you were
 applauding-the intemperate who is the opposite of the temperate.
 Such is my position, and these things I affirm to be true. And if they
 are true, then I further affirm that he who desires to be happy must
 pursue and practise temperance and run away from intemperance as
 fast as his legs will carry him: he had better order his life so as
 not to need punishment; but if either he or any of his friends,
 whether private individual or city, are in need of punishment, then
 justice must be done and he must suffer punishment, if he would be
 happy. This appears to me to be the aim which a man ought to have, and
 towards which he ought to direct all the energies both of himself
 and of the state, acting so that he may have temperance and justice
 present with him and be happy, not suffering his lusts to be
 unrestrained, and in the never-ending desire satisfy them leading a
 robber's life. Such; one is the friend neither of God nor man, for
 he is incapable of communion, and he who is incapable of communion
 is also incapable of friendship. And philosophers tell us,
 Callicles, that communion and friendship and orderliness and
 temperance and justice bind together heaven and earth and gods and
 men, and that this universe is therefore called Cosmos or order, not
 disorder or misrule, my friend. But although you are a philosopher you
 seem to me never to have observed that geometrical equality is mighty,
 both among gods and men; you think that you ought to cultivate
 inequality or excess, and do not care about geometry.-Well, then,
 either the principle that the happy are made happy by the possession
 of justice and temperance, and the miserable the possession of vice,
 must be refuted, or, if it is granted, what will be the
 consequences? All the consequences which I drew before, Callicles, and
 about which you asked me whether I was in earnest when I said that a
 man ought to accuse himself and his son and his friend if he did
 anything wrong, and that to this end he should use his rhetoric-all
 those consequences are true. And that which you thought that Polus was
 led to admit out of modesty is true, viz., that, to do injustice, if
 more disgraceful than to suffer, is in that degree worse; and the
 other position, which, according to Polus, Gorgias admitted out of
 modesty, that he who would truly be a rhetorician ought to be just and
 have a knowledge of justice, has also turned out to be true.
   And now, these things being as we have said, let us proceed in the
 next place to consider whether you are right in throwing in my teeth
 that I am unable to help myself or any of my friends or kinsmen, or to
 save them in the extremity of danger, and that I am in the power of
 another like an outlaw to whom anyone may do what he likes-he may
 box my ears, which was a brave saying of yours; or take away my
 goods or banish me, or even do his worst and kill me; a condition
 which, as you say, is the height of disgrace. My answer to you is
 one which has been already often repeated, but may as well be repeated
 once more. I tell you, Callicles, that to be boxed on the ears
 wrongfully is not the worst evil which can befall a man, nor to have
 my purse or my body cut open, but that to smite and slay me and mine
 wrongfully is far more disgraceful and more evil; aye, and to
 despoil and enslave and pillage, or in any way at all to wrong me
 and mine, is far more disgraceful and evil to the doer of the wrong
 than to me who am the sufferer. These truths, which have been
 already set forth as I state them in the previous discussion, would
 seem now to have been fixed and riveted by us, if I may use an
 expression which is certainly bold, in words which are like bonds of
 iron and adamant; and unless you or some other still more enterprising
 hero shall break them, there is no possibility of denying what I
 say. For my position has always been, that I myself am ignorant how
 these things are, but that I have never met any one who could say
 otherwise, any more than you can, and not appear ridiculous. This is
 my position still, and if what I am saying is true, and injustice is
 the greatest of evils to the doer of injustice, and yet there is if
 possible a greater than this greatest of evils, in an unjust man not
 suffering retribution, what is that defence of which the want will
 make a man truly ridiculous? Must not the defence be one which will
 avert the greatest of human evils? And will not worst of all
 defences be that with which a man is unable to defend himself or his
 family or his friends?-and next will come that which is unable to
 avert the next greatest evil; thirdly that which is unable to avert
 the third greatest evil; and so of other evils. As is the greatness of
 evil so is the honour of being able to avert them in their several
 degrees, and the disgrace of not being able to avert them. Am I not
 right Callicles?
   Cal. Yes, quite right.
   Soc. Seeing then that there are these two evils, the doing injustice
 and the suffering injustice-and we affirm that to do injustice is a
 greater, and to suffer injustice a lesser evil-by what devices can a
 man succeed in obtaining the two advantages, the one of not doing
 and the other of not suffering injustice? must he have the power, or
 only the will to obtain them? I mean to ask whether a man will
 escape injustice if he has only the will to escape, or must he have
 provided himself with the power?
   Cal. He must have provided himself with the power; that is clear.
   Soc. And what do you say of doing injustice? Is the will only
 sufficient, and will that prevent him from doing injustice, or must he
 have provided himself with power and art; and if he has not studied
 and practised, will he be unjust still? Surely you might say,
 Callicles, whether you think that Polus and I were right in
 admitting the conclusion that no one does wrong voluntarily, but
 that all do wrong against their will?
   Cal. Granted, Socrates, if you will only have done.
   Soc. Then, as would appear, power and art have to be provided in
 order that we may do no injustice?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. And what art will protect us from suffering injustice, if not
 wholly, yet as far as possible? I want to know whether you agree
 with me; for I think that such an art is the art of one who is
 either a ruler or even tyrant himself, or the equal and companion of
 the ruling power.
   Cal. Well said, Socrates; and please to observe how ready I am to
 praise you when you talk sense.
   Soc. Think and tell me whether you would approve of another view
 of mine: To me every man appears to be most the friend of him who is
 most like to him-like to like, as ancient sages say: Would you not
 agree to this?
   Cal. I should.
   Soc. But when the tyrant is rude and uneducated, he may be
 expected to fear any one who is his superior in virtue, and will never
 be able to be perfectly friendly with him.
   Cal. That is true.
   Soc. Neither will he be the friend of any one who greatly his
 inferior, for the tyrant will despise him, and will never seriously
 regard him as a friend.
   Cal. That again is true.
   Soc. Then the only friend worth mentioning, whom the tyrant can
 have, will be one who is of the same character, and has the same likes
 and dislikes, and is at the same time willing to be subject and
 subservient to him; he is the man who will have power in the state,
 and no one will injure him with impunity:-is not that so?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And if a young man begins to ask how he may become great and
 formidable, this would seem to be the way-he will accustom himself,
 from his youth upward, to feel sorrow and joy on, the same occasions
 as his master, and will contrive to be as like him as possible?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And in this way he will have accomplished, as you and your
 friends would. say, the end of becoming a great man and not
 suffering injury?
   Cal. Very true.
   Soc. But will he also escape from doing injury? Must not the very
 opposite be true,-if he is to be like the tyrant in his injustice, and
 to have influence with him? Will he not rather contrive to do as
 much wrong as possible, and not be punished?
   Cal. True.
   Soc. And by the imitation of his master and by the power which he
 thus acquires will not his soul become bad and corrupted, and will not
 this be the greatest evil to him?
   Cal. You always contrive somehow or other, Socrates, to invert
 everything: do you not know that he who imitates the tyrant will, if
 he has a mind, kill him who does not imitate him and take away his
   Soc. Excellent Callicles, I am not deaf, and I have heard that a
 great many times from you and from Polus and from nearly every man
 in the city, but I wish that you would hear me too. I dare say that he
 will kill him if he has a mind-the bad man will kill the good and
   Cal. And is not that just the provoking thing?
   Soc. Nay, not to a man of sense, as the argument shows: do you think
 that all our cares should be directed to prolonging life to the
 uttermost, and to the study of those arts which secure us from
 danger always; like that art of rhetoric which saves men in courts
 of law, and which you advise me to cultivate?
   Cal. Yes, truly, and very good advice too.
   Soc. Well, my friend, but what do you think of swimming; is that
 an art of any great pretensions?
   Cal. No, indeed.
   Soc. And yet surely swimming saves a man from death, there are
 occasions on which he must know how to swim. And if you despise the
 swimmers, I will tell you of another and greater art, the art of the
 pilot, who not only saves the souls of men, but also their bodies
 and properties from the extremity of danger, just like rhetoric. Yet
 his art is modest and unpresuming: it has no airs or pretences of
 doing anything extraordinary, and, in return for the same salvation
 which is given by the pleader, demands only two obols, if he brings us
 from Aegina to Athens, or for the longer voyage from Pontus or
 Egypt, at the utmost two drachmae, when he has saved, as I was just
 now saying, the passenger and his wife and children and goods, and
 safely disembarked them at the Piraeus -this is the payment which he
 asks in return for so great a boon; and he who is the master of the
 art, and has done all this, gets out and walks about on the
 sea-shore by his ship in an unassuming way. For he is able to
 reflect and is aware that he cannot tell which of his
 fellow-passengers he has benefited, and which of them he has injured
 in not allowing them to be drowned. He knows that they are just the
 same when he has disembarked them as when they embarked, and not a
 whit better either in their bodies or in their souls; and he considers
 that if a man who is afflicted by great and incurable bodily
 diseases is only to be pitied for having escaped, and is in no way
 benefited by him in having been saved from drowning, much less he
 who has great and incurable diseases, not of the body, but of the
 soul, which is the more valuable part of him; neither is life worth
 having nor of any profit to the bad man, whether he be delivered
 from the sea, or the law-courts, or any other devourer-and so he
 reflects that such a one had better not live, for he cannot live well.
   And this is the reason why the pilot, although he is our saviour, is
 not usually conceited, any more than the engineer, who is not at all
 behind either the general, or the pilot, or any one else, in his
 saving power, for he sometimes saves whole cities. Is there any
 comparison between him and the pleader? And if he were to talk,
 Callicles, in your grandiose style, he would bury you under a mountain
 of words, declaring and insisting that we ought all of us to be
 engine-makers, and that no other profession is worth thinking about;
 he would have plenty to say. Nevertheless you despise him and his art,
 and sneeringly call him an engine-maker, and you will not allow your
 daughters to marry his son, or marry your son to his daughters. And
 yet, on your principle, what justice or reason is there in your
 refusal? What right have you to despise the engine-maker, and the
 others whom I was just now mentioning? I know that you will say, "I am
 better, better born." But if the better is not what I say, and
 virtue consists only in a man saving himself and his, whatever may
 be his character, then your censure of the engine-maker, and of the
 physician, and of the other arts of salvation, is ridiculous. O my
 friend! I want you to see that the noble and the good may possibly
 be something different from saving and being saved:-May not he who
 is truly a man cease to care about living a certain time?-he knows, as
 women say, that no man can escape fate, and therefore he is not fond
 of life; he leaves all that with God, and considers in what way he can
 best spend his appointed term-whether by assimilating himself to the
 constitution under which he lives, as you at this moment have to
 consider how you may become as like as possible to the Athenian
 people, if you mean to be in their good graces, and to have power in
 the state; whereas I want you to think and see whether this is for the
 interest of either of us-I would not have us risk that which is
 dearest on the acquisition of this power, like the Thessalian
 enchantresses, who, as they say, bring down the moon from heaven at
 the risk of their own perdition. But if you suppose that any man
 will show you the art of becoming great in the city, and yet not
 conforming yourself to the ways of the city, whether for better or
 worse, then I can only say that you are mistaken, Callides; for he who
 would deserve to be the true natural friend of the Athenian Demus,
 aye, or of Pyrilampes' darling who is called after them, must be by
 nature like them, and not an imitator only. He, then, who will make
 you most like them, will make you as you desire, a statesman and
 orator: for every man is pleased when he is spoken to in his own
 language and spirit, and dislikes any other. But perhaps you, sweet
 Callicles, may be of another mind. What do you say?
   Cal. Somehow or other your words, Socrates, always appear to me to
 be good words; and yet, like the rest of the world, I am not quite
 convinced by them.
   Soc. The reason is, Callicles, that the love of Demus which abides
 in your soul is an adversary to me; but I dare say that if we recur to
 these same matters, and consider them more thoroughly, you may be
 convinced for all that. Please, then, to remember that there are two
 processes of training all things, including body and soul; in the one,
 as we said, we treat them with a view to pleasure, and in the other
 with a view to the highest good, and then we do not indulge but resist
 them: was not that the distinction which we drew?
   Cal. Very true.
   Soc. And the one which had pleasure in view was just a vulgar
 flattery:-was not that another of our conclusions?
   Cal. Be it so, if you will have it.
   Soc. And the other had in view the greatest improvement of that
 which was ministered to, whether body or soul?
   Cal. Quite true.
   Soc. And must we not have the same end in view in the treatment of
 our city and citizens? Must we not try and make-them as good as
 possible? For we have already discovered that there is no use in
 imparting to them any other good, unless the mind of those who are
 to have the good, whether money, or office, or any other sort of
 power, be gentle and good. Shall we say that?
   Cal. Yes, certainly, if you like.
   Soc. Well, then, if you and I, Callicles, were intending to set
 about some public business, and were advising one another to undertake
 buildings, such as walls, docks or temples of the largest size,
 ought we not to examine ourselves, first, as to whether we know or
 do not know the art of building, and who taught us?-would not that
 be necessary, Callicles?
   Cal. True.
   Soc. In the second place, we should have to consider whether we
 had ever constructed any private house, either of our own or for our
 friends, and whether this building of ours was a success or not; and
 if upon consideration we found that we had had good and eminent
 masters, and had been successful in constructing many fine
 buildings, not only with their assistance, but without them, by our
 own unaided skill-in that case prudence would not dissuade us from
 proceeding to the construction of public works. But if we had no
 master to show, and only a number of worthless buildings or none at
 all, then, surely, it would be ridiculous in us to attempt public
 works, or to advise one another to undertake them. Is not this true?
   Cal. Certainly.
   Soc. And does not the same hold in all other cases? If you and I
 were physicians, and were advising one another that we were
 competent to practise as state-physicians, should I not ask about you,
 and would you not ask about me, Well, but how about Socrates
 himself, has he good health? and was any one else ever known to be
 cured by him, whether slave or freeman? And I should make the same
 enquiries about you. And if we arrived at the conclusion that no
 one, whether citizen or stranger, man or woman, had ever been any
 the better for the medical skill of either of us, then, by Heaven,
 Callicles, what an absurdity to think that we or any human being
 should be so silly as to set up as state-physicians and advise
 others like ourselves to do the same, without having first practised
 in private, whether successfully or not, and acquired experience of
 the art! Is not this, as they say, to begin with the big jar when
 you are learning the potter's art; which is a foolish thing?
   Cal. True.
   Soc. And now, my friend, as you are already beginning to be a public
 character, and are admonishing and reproaching me for not being one,
 suppose that we ask a few questions of one another. Tell me, then,
 Callicles, how about making any of the citizens better? Was there ever
 a man who was once vicious, or unjust, or intemperate, or foolish, and
 became by the help of Callicles good and noble? Was there ever such
 a man, whether citizen or stranger, slave or freeman? Tell me,
 Callicles, if a person were to ask these questions of you, what
 would you answer? Whom would you say that-you had improved by your
 conversation? There may have been good deeds of this sort which were
 done by you as a private person, before you came forward in public.
 Why will you not answer?
   Cal. You are contentious, Socrates.
   Soc. Nay, I ask you, not from a love of contention, but because I
 really want to know in what way you think that affairs should be
 administered among us-whether, when you come to the administration
 of them, you have any other aim but the improvement of the citizens?
 Have we not already admitted many times over that such is the duty
 of a public man? Nay, we have surely said so; for if you will not
 answer for yourself I must answer for you. But if this is what the
 good man ought to effect for the benefit of his own state, allow me to
 recall to you the names of those whom you were just now mentioning,
 Pericles, and Cimon, and Miltiades, and Themistocles, and ask
 whether you still think that they were good citizens.
   Cal. I do.
   Soc. But if they were good, then clearly each of them must have made
 the citizens better instead of worse?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And, therefore, when Pericles first began to speak in the
 assembly, the Athenians were not so good as when he spoke last?
   Cal. Very likely.
   Soc. Nay, my friend, "likely" is not the word; for if he was a
 good citizen, the inference is certain.
   Cal. And what difference does that make?
   Soc. None; only I should like further to know whether the
 Athenians are supposed to have been made better by Pericles, or, on
 the contrary, to have been corrupted by him; for I hear that he was
 the first who gave the people pay, and made them idle and cowardly,
 and encouraged them in the love of talk and money.
   Cal. You heard that, Socrates, from the laconising set who bruise
 their ears.
   Soc. But what I am going to tell you now is not mere hearsay, but
 well known both to you and me: that at first, Pericles was glorious
 and his character unimpeached by any verdict of the Athenians-this was
 during the time when they were not so good-yet afterwards, when they
 had been made good and gentle by him, at the very end of his life they
 convicted him of theft, and almost put him to death, clearly under the
 notion that he was a malefactor.
   Cal. Well, but how does that prove Pericles' badness?
   Soc. Why, surely you would say that he was a bad manager of asses or
 horses or oxen, who had received them originally neither kicking nor
 butting nor biting him, and implanted in them all these savage tricks?
 Would he not be a bad manager of any animals who received them gentle,
 and made them fiercer than they were when he received them? What do
 you say?
   Cal. I will do you the favour of saying "yes."
   Soc. And will you also do me the favour of saying whether man is
 an animal?
   Cal. Certainly he is.
   Soc. And was not Pericles a shepherd of men?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. And if he was a good political shepherd, ought not the
 animals who were his subjects, as we were just now acknowledging, to
 have become more just, and not more unjust?
   Cal. Quite true.
   Soc. And are not just men gentle, as Homer says?-or are you of
 another mind?
   Cal. I agree.
   Soc. And yet he really did make them more savage than he received
 them, and their savageness was shown towards himself; which he must
 have been very far from desiring.
   Cal. Do you want me to agree with you?
   Soc. Yes, if I seem to you to speak the truth.
   Cal. Granted then.
   Soc. And if they were more savage, must they not have been more
 unjust and inferior?
   Cal. Granted again.
   Soc. Then upon this view, Pericles was not a good statesman?
   Cal. That is, upon your view.
   Soc. Nay, the view is yours, after what you have admitted. Take
 the case of Cimon again. Did not the very persons whom he was
 serving ostracize him, in order that they might not hear his voice for
 ten years? and they did just the same to Themistocles, adding the
 penalty of exile; and they voted that Miltiades, the hero of Marathon,
 should be thrown into the pit of death, and he was only saved by the
 Prytanis. And yet, if they had been really good men, as you say, these
 things would never have happened to them. For the good charioteers are
 not those who at first keep their place, and then, when they have
 broken-in their horses, and themselves become better charioteers,
 are thrown out-that is not the way either in charioteering or in any
 profession-What do you think?
   Cal. I should think not.
   Soc. Well, but if so, the truth is as I have said already, that in
 the Athenian State no one has ever shown himself to be a good
 statesman-you admitted that this was true of our present statesmen,
 but not true of former ones, and you preferred them to the others; yet
 they have turned out to be no better than our present ones; and
 therefore, if they were rhetoricians, they did not use the true art of
 rhetoric or of flattery, or they would not have fallen out of favour.
   Cal. But surely, Socrates, no living man ever came near any one of
 them in his performances.
   Soc. O, my dear friend, I say nothing against them regarded as the
 serving-men of the State; and I do think that they were certainly more
 serviceable than those who are living now, and better able to
 gratify the wishes of the State; but as to transforming those
 desires and not allowing them to have their way, and using the
 powers which they had, whether of persuasion or of force, in the
 improvement of their fellow citizens, which is the prime object of the
 truly good citizen, I do not see that in these respects they were a
 whit superior to our present statesmen, although I do admit that
 they were more clever at providing ships and walls and docks, and
 all that. You and I have a ridiculous way, for during the whole time
 that we are arguing, we are always going round and round to the same
 point, and constantly misunderstanding one another. If I am not
 mistaken, you have admitted and acknowledged more than once, that
 there are two kinds of operations which have to do with the body,
 and two which have to do with the soul: one of the two is ministerial,
 and if our bodies are hungry provides food for them, and if they are
 thirsty gives them drink, or if they are cold supplies them with
 garments, blankets, shoes, and all that they crave. I use the same
 images as before intentionally, in order that you may understand me
 the better. The purveyor of the articles may provide them either
 wholesale or retail, or he may be the maker of any of them,-the baker,
 or the cook, or the weaver, or the shoemaker, or the currier; and in
 so doing, being such as he is, he is naturally supposed by himself and
 every one to minister to the body. For none of them know that there is
 another art-an art of gymnastic and medicine which is the true
 minister of the body, and ought to be the mistress of all the rest,
 and to use their results according to the knowledge which she has
 and they have not, of the real good or bad effects of meats and drinks
 on the body. All other arts which have to do with the body are servile
 and menial and illiberal; and gymnastic and medicine are, as they
 ought to be, their mistresses.
   Now, when I say that all this is equally true of the soul, you
 seem at first to know and understand and assent to my words, and
 then a little while afterwards you come repeating, Has not the State
 had good and noble citizens? and when I ask you who they are, you
 reply, seemingly quite in earnest as if I had asked, Who are or have
 been good trainers?-and you had replied, Thearion, the baker,
 Mithoecus, who wrote the Sicilian cookery-book, Sarambus, the vintner:
 these are ministers of the body, first-rate in their art; for the
 first makes admirable loaves, the second excellent dishes, and the
 third capital wine-to me these appear to be the exact parallel of
 the statesmen whom you mention. Now you would not be altogether
 pleased if I said to you, My friend, you know nothing of gymnastics;
 those of whom you are speaking to me are only the ministers and
 purveyors of luxury, who have no good or noble notions of their art,
 and may very likely be filling and fattening men's bodies and
 gaining their approval, although the result is that they lose their
 original flesh in the long run, and become thinner than they were
 before; and yet they, in their simplicity, will not attribute their
 diseases and loss of flesh to their entertainers; but when in after
 years the unhealthy surfeit brings the attendant penalty of disease,
 he who happens to be near them at the time, and offers them advice, is
 accused and blamed by them, and if they could they would do him some
 harm; while they proceed to eulogize the men who have been the real
 authors of the mischief.
   And that, Callicles, is just what you are now doing. You praise
 the men who feasted the citizens and satisfied their desires, and
 people say that they have made the city great, not seeing that the
 swollen And ulcerated condition of the State is to be attributed to
 these elder statesmen; for they have filled the city full of
 harbours and docks and walls and revenues and all that, and have
 left no room for justice and temperance. And when the crisis of the
 disorder comes, the people will blame the advisers of the hour, and
 applaud Themistocles and Cimon and Pericles, who are the real
 authors of their calamities; and if you are not careful they may
 assail you and my friend Alcibiades, when they are losing not only
 their new acquisitions, but also their original possessions; not
 that you are the authors of these misfortunes of theirs, although
 you may perhaps be accessories to them. A great piece of work is
 always being made, as I see and am told, now as of old; about our
 statesmen. When the State treats any of them as malefactors, I observe
 that there is a great uproar and indignation at the supposed wrong
 which is done to them; "after all their many services to the State,
 that they should unjustly perish"-so the tale runs. But the cry is all
 a lie; for no statesman ever could be unjustly put to death by the
 city of which he is the head. The case of the professed statesman
 is, I believe, very much like that of the professed sophist; for the
 sophists, although they are wise men, are nevertheless guilty of a
 strange piece of folly; professing to be teachers of virtue, they will
 often accuse their disciples of wronging them, and defrauding them
 of their pay, and showing no gratitude for their services. Yet what
 can be more absurd than that men who have become just and good, and
 whose injustice has been taken away from them, and who have had
 justice implanted in them by their teachers, should act unjustly by
 reason of the injustice which is not in them? Can anything be more
 irrational, my friends, than this? You, Callicles, compel me to be a
 mob-orator, because you will not answer.
    Cal. And you are the man who cannot speak unless there is some
 one to answer?
   Soc. I suppose that I can; just now, at any rate, the speeches which
 I am making are long enough because you refuse to answer me. But I
 adjure you by the god of friendship, my good sir, do tell me whether
 there does not appear to you to be a great inconsistency in saying
 that you have made a man good, and then blaming him for being bad?
   Cal. Yes, it appears so to me.
   Soc. Do you never hear our professors of education speaking in
 this inconsistent manner?
   Cal. Yes, but why talk of men who are good for nothing?
   Soc. I would rather say, why talk of men who profess to be rulers,
 and declare that they are devoted to the improvement of the city,
 and nevertheless upon occasion declaim against the utter vileness of
 the city:-do you think that there is any difference between one and
 the other? My good friend, the sophist and the rhetorician, as I was
 saying to Polus, are the same, or nearly the same; but you
 ignorantly fancy that rhetoric is a perfect thing, sophistry a thing
 to be despised; whereas the truth is, that sophistry is as much
 superior to rhetoric as legislation is to the practice of law, or
 gymnastic to medicine. The orators and sophists, as I am inclined to
 think, are the only class who cannot complain of the mischief
 ensuing to themselves from that which they teach others, without in
 the same breath accusing themselves of having done no good to those
 whom they profess to benefit. Is not this a fact?
   Cal. Certainly it is.
   Soc. If they were right in saying that they make men better, then
 they are the only class who can afford to leave their remuneration
 to those who have been benefited by them. Whereas if a man has been
 benefited in any other way, if, for example, he has been taught to run
 by a trainer, he might possibly defraud him of his pay, if the trainer
 left the matter to him, and made no agreement with him that he
 should receive money as soon as he had given him the utmost speed; for
 not because of any deficiency of speed do men act unjustly, but by
 reason of injustice.
   Cal. Very true.
   Soc. And he who removes injustice can be in no danger of being
 treated unjustly: he alone can safely leave the honorarium to his
 pupils, if he be really able to make them good-am I not right?
   Cal. Yes.
   Soc. Then we have found the reason why there is no dishonour in a
 man receiving pay who is called in to advise about building or any
 other art?
   Cal. Yes, we have found the reason.
   Soc. But when the point is, how a man may become best himself, and
 best govern his family and state, then to say that you will give no
 advice gratis is held to be dishonourable?
   Cal. True.
   Soc. And why? Because only such benefits call forth a desire to
 requite them, and there is evidence that a benefit has been
 conferred when the benefactor receives a return; otherwise not. Is
 this true?
   Cal. It is.
   Soc. Then to which service of the State do you invite me?
 determine for me. Am I to be the physician of the State who will
 strive and struggle to make the Athenians as good as possible; or am I
 to be the servant and flatterer of the State? Speak out, my good
 friend, freely and fairly as you did at first and ought to do again,
 and tell me your entire mind.
   Cal. I say then that you should be the servant of the State.
   Soc. The flatterer? well, sir, that is a noble invitation.
   Cal. The Mysian, Socrates, or what you please. For if you refuse,
 the consequences will be-
   Soc. Do not repeat the old story-that he who likes will kill me
 and get my money; for then I shall have to repeat the old answer, that
 he will be a bad man and will kill the good, and that the money will
 be of no use to him, but that he will wrongly use that which he
 wrongly took, and if wrongly, basely, and if basely, hurtfully.
   Cal. How confident you are, Socrates, that you will never come to
 harm! you seem to think that you are living in another country, and
 can never be brought into a court of justice, as you very likely may
 be brought by some miserable and mean person.
   Soc. Then I must indeed be a fool, Callicles, if I do not know
 that in the Athenian State any man may suffer anything. And if I am
 brought to trial and incur the dangers of which you speak, he will
 be a villain who brings me to trial-of that I am very sure, for no
 good man would accuse the innocent. Nor shall I be surprised if I am
 put to death. Shall I tell you why I anticipate this?
   Cal. By all means.
   Soc. I think that I am the only or almost the only Athenian living
 who practises the true art of politics; I am the only politician of my
 time. Now, seeing that when I speak my words are not uttered with
 any view of gaining favour, and that I look to what is best and not to
 what is most pleasant, having no mind to use those arts and graces
 which you recommend, I shall have nothing to say in the justice court.
 And you might argue with me, as I was arguing with Polus: -I shall
 be tried just as a physician would be tried in a court of little
 boys at the indictment of the cook. What Would he reply under such
 circumstances, if some one were to accuse him, saying, "O my boys,
 many evil things has this man done to you: he is the death of you,
 especially of the younger ones among you, cutting and burning and
 starving and suffocating you, until you know not what to do; he
 gives you the bitterest potions, and compels you to hunger and thirst.
 How unlike the variety of meats and sweets on which I feasted you!"
 What do you suppose that the physician would be able to reply when
 he found himself in such a predicament? If he told the truth he
 could only say, "All these evil things, my boys, I did for your
 health," and then would there not just be a clamour among a jury
 like that? How they would cry out!
   Cal. I dare say.
   Soc. Would he not be utterly at a loss for a reply?
   Cal. He certainly would.
   Soc. And I too shall be treated in the same way, as I well know,
 if I am brought before the court. For I shall not be able to
 rehearse to the people the pleasures which I have procured for them,
 and which, although I am not disposed to envy either the procurers
 or enjoyers of them, are deemed by them to be benefits and advantages.
 And if any one says that I corrupt young men, and perplex their minds,
 or that I speak evil of old men, and use bitter words towards them,
 whether in private or public, it is useless for me to reply, as I
 truly might:-"All this I do for the sake of justice, and with a view
 to your interest, my judges, and to nothing else." And therefore there
 is no saying what may happen to me.
   Cal. And do you think, Socrates, that a man who is thus
 defenceless is in a good position?
   Soc. Yes, Callicles, if he have that defence, which as you have
 often acknowledged he should have-if he be his own defence, and have
 never said or done anything wrong, either in respect of gods or men;
 and this has been repeatedly acknowledged by us to be the best sort of
 defence. And if anyone could convict me of inability to defend
 myself or others after this sort, I should blush for shame, whether
 I was convicted before many, or before a few, or by myself alone;
 and if I died from want of ability to do so, that would indeed
 grieve me. But if I died because I have no powers of flattery or
 rhetoric, I am very sure that you would not find me repining at death.
 For no man who is not an utter fool and coward is afraid of death
 itself, but he is afraid of doing wrong. For to go to the world
 below having one's soul full of injustice is the last and worst of all
 evils. And in proof of what I say, if you have no objection, I
 should like to tell you a story.
   Cal. Very well, proceed; and then we shall have done.
   Soc. Listen, then, as story-tellers say, to a very pretty tale,
 which I dare say that you may be disposed to regard as a fable only,
 but which, as I believe, is a true tale, for I mean to speak the
 truth. Homer tells us, how Zeus and Poseidon and Pluto divided the
 empire which they inherited from their father. Now in the days of
 Cronos there existed a law respecting the destiny of man, which has
 always been, and still continues to be in Heaven-that he who has lived
 all his life in justice and holiness shall go, when he is dead, to the
 Islands of the Blessed, and dwell there in perfect happiness out of
 the reach of evil; but that he who has lived unjustly and impiously
 shall go to the house of vengeance and punishment, which is called
 Tartarus. And in the time of Cronos, and even quite lately in the
 reign of Zeus, the judgment was given on the very day on which the men
 were to die; the judges were alive, and the men were alive; and the
 consequence was that the judgments were not well given. Then Pluto and
 the authorities from the Islands of the Blessed came to Zeus, and said
 that the souls found their way to the wrong places. Zeus said: "I
 shall put a stop to this; the judgments are not well given, because
 the persons who are judged have their clothes on, for they are
 alive; and there are many who, having evil souls, are apparelled in
 fair bodies, or encased in wealth or rank, and, when the day of
 judgment arrives, numerous witnesses come forward and testify on their
 behalf that they have lived righteously. The judges are awed by
 them, and they themselves too have their clothes on when judging;
 their eyes and ears and their whole bodies are interposed as a well
 before their own souls. All this is a hindrance to them; there are the
 clothes of the judges and the clothes of the judged-What is to be
 done? I will tell you:-In the first place, I will deprive men of the
 foreknowledge of death, which they possess at present: this power
 which they have Prometheus has already received my orders to take from
 them: in the second place, they shall be entirely stripped before they
 are judged, for they shall be judged when they are dead; and the judge
 too shall be naked, that is to say, dead-he with his naked soul
 shall pierce into the other naked souls; and they shall die suddenly
 and be deprived of all their kindred, and leave their brave attire
 strewn upon the earth-conducted in this manner, the judgment will be
 just. I knew all about the matter before any of you, and therefore I
 have made my sons judges; two from Asia, Minos and Rhadamanthus, and
 one from Europe, Aeacus. And these, when they are dead, shall give
 judgment in the meadow at the parting of the ways, whence the two
 roads lead, one to the Islands of the Blessed, and the other to
 Tartarus. Rhadamanthus shall judge those who come from Asia, and
 Aeacus those who come from Europe. And to Minos I shall give the
 primacy, and he shall hold a court of appeal, in case either of the
 two others are in any doubt:-then the judgment respecting the last
 journey of men will be as just as possible."
   From this tale, Callicles, which I have heard and believe, I draw
 the following inferences:-Death, if I am right, is in the first
 place the separation from one another of two things, soul and body;
 nothing else. And after they are separated they retain their several
 natures, as in life; the body keeps the same habit, and the results of
 treatment or accident are distinctly visible in it: for example, he
 who by nature or training or both, was a tall man while he was
 alive, will remain as he was, after he is dead; and the fat man will
 remain fat; and so on; and the dead man, who in life had a fancy to
 have flowing hair, will have flowing hair. And if he was marked with
 the whip and had the prints of the scourge, or of wounds in him when
 he was alive, you might see the same in the dead body; and if his
 limbs were broken or misshapen when he was alive, the same
 appearance would be visible in the dead. And in a word, whatever was
 the habit of the body during life would be distinguishable after
 death, either perfectly, or in a great measure and for a certain time.
 And I should imagine that this is equally true of the soul, Callicles;
 when a man is stripped of the body, all the natural or acquired
 affections of the soul are laid open to view. And when they come to
 the judge, as those from Asia come to Rhadamanthus, he places them
 near him and inspects them quite impartially, not knowing whose the
 soul is: perhaps he may lay hands on the soul of the great king, or of
 some other king or potentate, who has no soundness in him, but his
 soul is marked with the whip, and is full of the prints and scars of
 perjuries and crimes with which each action has stained him, and he is
 all crooked with falsehood and imposture, and has no straightness,
 because he has lived without truth. Him Rhadamanthus beholds, full
 of all deformity and disproportion, which is caused by licence and
 luxury and insolence and incontinence, and despatches him
 ignominiously to his prison, and there he undergoes the punishment
 which he deserves.
   Now the proper office of punishment is twofold: he who is rightly
 punished ought either to become better and profit by it, or he ought
 to be made an example to his fellows, that they may see what he
 suffers, and fear and become better. Those who are improved when
 they are punished by gods and men, are those whose sins are curable;
 and they are improved, as in this world so also in another, by pain
 and suffering; for there is no other way in which they can be
 delivered from their evil. But they who have been guilty of the
 worst crimes, and are incurable by reason of their crimes, are made
 examples; for, as they are incurable, the time has passed at which
 they can receive any benefit. They get no good themselves, but
 others get good when they behold them enduring for ever the most
 terrible and painful and fearful sufferings as the penalty of their
 sins-there they are, hanging up as examples, in the prison-house of
 the world below, a spectacle and a warning to all unrighteous men
 who come thither. And among them, as I confidently affirm, will be
 found Archelaus, if Polus truly reports of him, and any other tyrant
 who is like him. Of these fearful examples, most, as I believe, are
 taken from the class of tyrants and kings and potentates and public
 men, for they are the authors of the greatest and most impious crimes,
 because they have the power. And Homer witnesses to the truth of this;
 for they are always kings and potentates whom he has described as
 suffering everlasting punishment in the world below: such were
 Tantalus and Sisyphus and Tityus. But no one ever described Thersites,
 or any private person who was a villain, as suffering everlasting
 punishment, or as incurable. For to commit the worst crimes, as I am
 inclined to think, was not in his power, and he was happier than those
 who had the power. No, Callicles, the very bad men come from the class
 of those who have power. And yet in that very class there may arise
 good men, and worthy of all admiration they are, for where there is
 great power to do wrong, to live and to die justly is a hard thing,
 and greatly to be praised, and few there are who attain to this.
 Such good and true men, however, there have been, and will be again,
 at Athens and in other states, who have fulfilled their trust
 righteously; and there is one who is quite famous all over Hellas,
 Aristeides, the son of Lysimachus. But, in general, great men are also
 bad, my friend.
   As I was saying, Rhadamanthus, when he gets a soul of the bad
 kind, knows nothing about him, neither who he is, nor who his
 parents are; he knows only that he has got hold of a villain; and
 seeing this, he stamps him as curable or incurable, and sends him away
 to Tartarus, whither he goes and receives his proper recompense. Or,
 again, he looks with admiration on the soul of some just one who has
 lived in holiness and truth; he may have been a private man or not;
 and I should say, Callicles, that he is most likely to have been a
 philosopher who has done his own work, and not troubled himself with
 the doings of other in his lifetime; him Rhadamanthus sends to the
 Islands of the Blessed. Aeacus does the same; and they both have
 sceptres, and judge; but Minos alone has a golden sceptre and is
 seated looking on, as Odysseus in Homer declares that he saw him:
     Holding a sceptre of gold, and giving laws to the dead.
 Now I, Callicles, am persuaded of the truth of these things, and I
 consider how I shall present my soul whole and undefiled before the
 judge in that day. Renouncing the honours at which the world aims, I
 desire only to know the truth, and to live as well as I can, and, when
 I die, to die as well as I can. And, to the utmost of my power, I
 exhort all other men to do the same. And, in return for your
 exhortation of me, I exhort you also to take part in the great combat,
 which is the combat of life, and greater than every other earthly
 conflict. And I retort your reproach of me, and say, that you will not
 be able to help yourself when the day of trial and judgment, of
 which I was speaking, comes upon you; you will go before the judge,
 the son of Aegina, and, when he has got you in his grip and is
 carrying you off, you will gape and your head will swim round, just as
 mine would in the courts of this world, and very likely some one
 will shamefully box you on the ears, and put upon you any sort of
   Perhaps this may appear to you to be only an old wife's tale,
 which you will contemn. And there might be reason in your contemning
 such tales, if by searching we could find out anything better or
 truer: but now you see that you and Polus and Gorgias, who are the
 three wisest of the Greeks of our day, are not able to show that we
 ought to live any life which does not profit in another world as
 well as in this. And of all that has been said, nothing remains
 unshaken but the saying, that to do injustice is more to be avoided
 than to suffer injustice, and that the reality and not the
 appearance of virtue is to be followed above all things, as well in
 public as in private life; and that when any one has been wrong in
 anything, he is to be chastised, and that the next best thing to a man
 being just is that he should become just, and be chastised and
 punished; also that he should avoid all flattery of himself as well as
 of others, of the few or of the many: and rhetoric and any other art
 should be used by him, and all his actions should be done always, with
 a view to justice.
   Follow me then, and I will lead you where you will be happy in
 life and after death, as the argument shows. And never mind if some
 one despises you as a fool, and insults you, if he has a mind; let him
 strike you, by Zeus, and do you be of good cheer, and do not mind
 the insulting blow, for you will never come to any harm in the
 practise of virtue, if you are a really good and true man. When we
 have practised virtue together, we will apply ourselves to politics,
 if that seems desirable, or we will advise about whatever else may
 seem good to us, for we shall be better able to judge then. In our
 present condition we ought not to give ourselves airs, for even on the
 most important subjects we are always changing our minds; so utterly
 stupid are we! Let us, then, take the argument as our guide, which has
 revealed to us that the best way of life is to practise justice and
 every virtue in life and death. This way let us go; and in this exhort
 all men to follow, not in the way to which you trust and in which
 you exhort me to follow you; for that way, Callicles, is nothing
                               -THE END-