{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_62618/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_62618","id":"gutenberg_62618","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62618","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Classics of Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Ethics -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Selected Essays of Plutarch\n\n\n\n\n                      SELECTED ESSAYS OF PLUTARCH\n\n                      TRANSLATED WITH INTRODUCTION\n\n                                   BY\n\n                              T. G. TUCKER\n\n                 LITT.D. (CAMB.), HON. LITT.D. (DUBLIN)\n    PROFESSOR OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE\n\n                               Volume I.\n\n                                 OXFORD\n                         AT THE CLARENDON PRESS\n                                  1913\n\n                           HENRY FROWDE, M.A.\n                 PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD\n                  LONDON, EDINBURGH, NEW YORK, TORONTO\n                          MELBOURNE AND BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\n\nThe essays here rendered into English have not been selected as the very\nbest pieces in Plutarch\u2019s _Moralia_, but, first, as typical examples of\nhis writing in that kind, and, second, as covering between them a\ntolerably large field of interesting matter. The _Moralia_ offer us\nperhaps the best of all extant material for judging the civilization of\nthe middle classes of society just before and after the year 100 of our\nera. From them and from Pliny\u2019s _Letters_ we are able to form a fairly\ncomplete picture of a large part of that sounder social element which\nlay between the froth and the dregs.\n\nIn the Introduction some remarks are offered concerning Plutarch\u2019s\nliterary style. Here it will suffice to say that the English version\ndoes not seek to be either more formal or more vivacious, either more\nimposing or more humorous, than the original. An attempt has been made\nto preserve the tone as faithfully as the substance. In making Plutarch\nwrite as he does in the following pages the translator hopes that _il ne\nluy a au moins rien prest\u00e9 qui le desmente ou qui le desdie_. It is fair\nto add that no modern version of the _Moralia_ has been consulted for\nthe purposes of this rendering. In the Introduction, however, one cannot\nfail to owe much suggestion to Gr\u00e9ard and Volkmann.\n\nIn the spelling of Greek proper names every modern scholar must follow\nhis own best judgement. It does not follow that, because it is necessary\nto say \u2018Plato\u2019 and usual to say \u2018Parmenio\u2019, it is equally judicious to\nsay \u2018Chilo\u2019. Nor can any safe rule be laid down for a choice between\n\u2018Pisistratus\u2019 and \u2018Peisistratus\u2019. Perhaps the most advisable course is\nto safeguard, as far as possible, the pronunciation of those who are\nunfamiliar with Greek, and the spelling \u2018Pheidias\u2019 may do something\ntowards correcting the common English tendency to pronounce the first\nsyllable as it is pronounced in \u2018fiddle\u2019. Notes upon the proper names\nwill be found after the text by readers who may require them.\n\nThe text generally adopted is that of Bernardakis in the Teubner series,\nbut recourse has been had throughout to Wyttenbach, and in a number of\nplaces which are commonly acknowledged to be corrupt the translator has\nventured on a modest emendation of his own. These places are marked in\nthe translation by an asterisk in the margin, and the readings adopted\nwill be found at the end of the book in an appendix on the Greek text.\nCritics would have saved themselves much trouble if they had observed\nthat, though hiatus is regularly avoided in the genuine writings of\nPlutarch, no hiatus is created by a word ending in iota or upsilon,\nvowels which carry a semi-vowel glide in themselves.\n\nThe orthodox order, Greek and Latin titles, and sectional references of\nthe pieces here chosen are as follows. The English titles belong to the\npresent version.\n\n    ON BRINGING UP A BOY (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2: _De liberis educandis_),\n    1-14 C.\n\n    ON THE STUDENT AT LECTURES (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: _De recta ratione\n    audiendi_), 37 C-48 D\n\n    ON FAWNER AND FRIEND (\u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5:\n    _Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur_), 48 E-74 E.\n\n    ADVICE TO MARRIED COUPLES (\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1: _Coniugalia\n    praecepta_), 138 B-146.\n\n    DINNER-PARTY OF THE SEVEN SAGES (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd: _Septem\n    sapientum convivium_), 146 B-164 D.\n\n    ON GARRULOUSNESS (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u1f00\u03b4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2: _De garrulitate_), 502 B-515.\n\n    CONCERNING BUSYBODIES (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2: _De curiositate_), 515\n    B-523 B.\n\n    ON MORAL IGNORANCE IN HIGH PLACES (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd: _Ad\n    principem ineruditum_), 779 D-782 F.\n\n    ON OLD MEN IN PUBLIC LIFE (\u03b5\u1f30 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd: _An seni\n    respublica gerenda sit_), 783 B-797 F.\n\n\n                              INTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe age in which Plutarch was educated and in which he wrote his\n_Ethica_ is, from the literary point of view, closely similar to the\nso-called \u2018Augustan\u2019 age of English writing. Of all the periods of\nEnglish style and thought, he would probably have found himself most at\nhome in that of Pope, Addison, and Steele, or in its continuation with\nGoldsmith and Johnson. He flourished at a time when intellectual\ninterests were remarkably keen, if not very profound; when literature,\nif for the most part it ventured on no high imaginative flights, did at\nleast aim at some practical bearing upon the conduct of life; when men\nfound entertainment, and probably some measure of moral or social help,\nin the readable essay or the friendly epistle; when facts, merely as\nsuch, were accepted as interesting if interestingly set forth; and when\nPhilosophy, if she deigned to keep her feet upon the ground and to speak\nas one of the mortals, met with a due welcome from either sex. An\neighteenth-century Plutarch might conceivably have written the moral\npapers of Johnson without Johnson\u2019s ponderousness, or have contributed\nto the _Spectator_ papers more full than Addison\u2019s of those \u2018ideas\u2019 in\nwhich Matthew Arnold found that writer so deficient. He might have\nwritten, though in a prose form, the _Essay on Man_, being meanwhile as\nwilling as Pope to owe the bulk of his matter to other minds, but not so\nwilling as Pope to play the expositor without first playing the earnest\nand critical student. Plutarch did not, so far as we are aware, try his\nhand at verse. To judge by his comments upon poetic duty and by his\nquotations\u2014which are regularly taken from the best writers of a\nclassical age already far remote\u2014his conception of the poetic office was\ntoo exalted to permit of his dabbling in that domain. Had he done so,\nand had he followed the fashion of his times, he would perhaps have come\nnearer to our \u2018Augustans\u2019 even than in his prose. In poetry it was the\nage of description, reflection, satire, and moralizing, in the highest\ndegree sensible, studiously informed with \u2018wit\u2019\u2014in the broader Queen\nAnne sense of that word\u2014and characterized by extreme deftness of pointed\nand quotable phrase, but in no sense creative, imaginative, or inspired.\nIts ideal contents consisted of \u2018what oft was thought, but ne\u2019er so well\nexpressed\u2019. The attitudes of both prose-writer and poet belonged to the\nintellectual and aesthetic spirit of the period, and so far as that\nspirit finds an individual embodiment in the Greek half of the Roman\nEmpire, it finds him in Plutarch of Chaeronea.\n\nIt would be difficult to suggest with any precision the place which\nPlutarch might have filled in Victorian literature. A distinguished and\npopular \u2018man of letters\u2019 and an educator of public opinion he assuredly\nwould have been. Given a width of reading, a persistent self-culture,\nand a careful but unpedantic style, corresponding to those which he\npractised in his own generation, he might have made\u2014as he did then\u2014an\nadmirable biographer and essayist. He might have been a contributor of\nsubstantial papers to the quarterlies and other higher reviews. He\nmight, and probably would, have been an eminent lecturer; possibly, with\na broad practical Christianity substituted for his broad practical\nPlatonism, a preacher not only eminent but also in the best sense\npopular. He would certainly have made a brilliant expositor of whatever\nhe undertook to expound. He was no Plato or Aristotle; he would have\nbeen no Carlyle or Herbert Spencer; but he might have been much that\nMacaulay was outside of politics.\n\nAs to the date of Plutarch\u2019s birth there can be no certainty.\nApproximately it may be put down as A. D. 48. It is accepted that his\ndeath did not occur before the year 120; it may have taken place\nsomewhat, though not much, later. Born in the days of Claudius, he lived\nthrough the reigns of Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus,\nDomitian, Nerva, and Trajan, and saw at least the first three years of\nthe rule of Hadrian. He must have been nearly fifty before the last\ntyrant of the early Empire fell, but the remainder of his life was spent\nunder the most beneficent r\u00e9gime, and amid the greatest peace and\nprosperity, ever experienced in the ancient world. The _pax Romana_ was\nat its profoundest, the sense of security at its fullest; the fact of\ngeneral well-being was everywhere most palpable. There was at the same\ntime, or in consequence, a vigorous revival of intellectual life. At no\nperiod of antiquity would it have been possible for a man of studious\nhabits and of mild and genial disposition to enjoy a leisure so\nundisturbed or a society so free from those forms of preoccupation which\npreclude an engrossing interest in things purely of the mind. For the\norator who is fired by the natural heat of democratic politics, for the\npatriotic poet from whom thrilling verse must be wrung by the wrongs,\nthe decline, or the yet unrealized aspirations of his country, there was\nindeed no stimulation or scope. But for the cultivation of the\nhumanities, for the indulgence of a taste for art and _belles-lettres_,\nfor the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity, for the search after\ninteresting knowledge\u2014physical, mathematical, antiquarian, historical,\nphilological\u2014and for the thoughtful observation of men and manners, the\ntime was almost ideal. In the absence of anxious and absorbing problems\nof the present there was leisure for a contemplative and critical survey\nof the past, and for making acquaintance with \u2018the best that had been\nthought and said\u2019 by it. Since the immediate human environment was no\nlonger distracted and distracting with the clamorous urgencies of\nexternal or internal strife and danger, it was possible to look abroad\nover a wider field, to contemplate the more spacious world of man and\nhis work, of Nature and her facts, beauties, and marvels. It was\ntherefore the age of the encyclopaedist, the traveller, the commentator,\nthe describer, the collector\u2014collector of curiosities, of objects of\nart, of books, of stories from history, of apophthegms, of pointed and\ninteresting quotations. The prevailing aim was mental and social\nculture. This was the one object of education, however much its\nprofessors might dissent from each other according to the degrees of\nphilistinism in their respective temperaments.\n\nThe aim of contemporary education\u2014generally realized with more\ndefiniteness than educational aims are wont to be in modern times\u2014was to\nturn the pupil into a gentleman, to equip him for the art of living and\nconducting himself as such. There could, of course, hardly fail to be\nthose who regarded this _kalokagathia_ too much from the exterior point\nof view, while others fixed their attention more decidedly, and often\nperhaps too exclusively, upon the inward and spiritual grace. There were\nalso considerable differences between the Greek and Roman conceptions of\na gentleman. But in the main this end was universally avowed\u2014to turn the\nraw material of the boy into a man both capable and clubbable, whether\nfrom a public or a private standpoint. The things to be sought were the\nright accomplishments, the right morals, and the right manners. The\naccomplishments included, beyond all else, literary information and\nculture, argumentative dexterity, and a capacity for speech. The right\nmorals were based mainly upon reasoned self-command. The right manners\nwere chiefly those of urbanity, dignity, and that care of the person,\nthe voice, the dress, and the deportment upon which all ages have\ninsisted according to their several lights or tastes. It might be that\nthe teaching \u2018philosopher\u2019, whose concern was with the soundness of the\nmorals, had his quarrel with the teaching \u2018sophist\u2019, whose business was\nwith the rhetoric and its excellence for exhibition purposes or for the\ngaining of various forms of influence. The philosopher might think the\nsophist superficial, showy, and often actually pernicious, while the\nsophist might look upon the philosopher as visionary, pedantic, and\noften a positive clog upon practical efficiency. Nevertheless no\ntypically cultured person of the day would have questioned that, in\norder to be complete\u2014or, as Coleridge calls it, \u2018orbicular\u2019\u2014education\nmust include its due measure of both forms of teaching.\n\nAfter his years of infancy the boy, under the supervision of his\n_paedagogus_\u2014ideally a slave of superior character, but too often a\nperson who was merely useless for harder work\u2014passed into a school,\nwhere he was first taught his letters and then proceeded to the reading,\nlearning, and recital of classical poetry, to the study of music, and to\nsome acquaintance with elementary arithmetic and geometry. Next, taken\nin hand by the rhetorical teacher in a higher school, he was made to\nwrite and deliver descriptions and essays, mostly on trite and unreal\nthemes of a historical or pseudo-historical nature, to develop his\npowers of invention on either side of a chosen topic, and to cultivate a\nfastidious diction, pointed phrase, and the elocutionary arts and\ngraces. From artificial harangues and the \u2018speaking of a piece\u2019 he\nadvanced to the imaginary pleading of forensic cases, in which the law\nwas often as fictitious as the facts. When, upon reaching the age for\nassuming the _toga virilis_, he was emancipated from the custody of the\n_paedagogus_ and the discipline of the school, his formal education\ncommonly ceased. If he proceeded further, as many did, to what may be\nconsidered as the equivalent of a university course, he might elect to\nstudy philosophy, to study \u2018sophistic\u2019, or to dally with both in such\nmeasure as seemed likely to set off the abilities or consolidate the\nculture of a gentleman. Even in the more mature years of life the\nintellectually-disposed grandee had a habit of maintaining near his\nperson a salaried philosopher as a kind of domestic monitor, and\naudiences of wealth and fashion readily gathered in Rome and elsewhere\nto listen to lectures on philosophy by professors who properly\nunderstood the art of clear and pleasant exposition. For the most part\nthe typical Roman, less genuinely impassioned than the Greek for thought\npure and simple, looked upon any \u2018specializing\u2019 in philosophy as likely\nto lead either to too cloistered a virtue or to the acquisition of\neccentric, if not dangerous, views. A certain modicum of philosophical\nknowledge might be an adornment to life, and a certain modicum of\nphilosophical training might impart a steadiness to character, but the\nstudy must not be pursued to the point at which the student himself\nstood in danger of becoming a \u2018philosopher\u2019. With the Greeks\nphilosophical specializing was commonly subject to no such reprehension,\npartly because of the inborn Hellenic ardour for study and esteem of\nlearning, partly because in this domain, even more than in the\nrhetorical, the Greeks were the accepted teachers throughout the Roman\nsphere.\n\nThis, or nearly this, was the attitude of the educational world in the\nfirst decades of the second century, and it was in this world that\nPlutarch of Chaeronea became a figure of special eminence and\ndistinction. For in whatever light the modern reader may regard Plutarch\nas a man of letters, to his own times he was first and foremost an\neducator. It is from this point of view that we must consider both his\n_Parallel Lives_ and his _Moral Essays_, if we are to perceive in them\nthat unity of character and purpose which he intended all his work to\npossess.\n\nPlutarch, then, was born about A. D. 48 in the very heart of Greece, at\nthe comparatively small town of Chaeronea, famous as the scene of the\ndecisive victory of the Macedonians over the southern Greeks, and also\nof that in which the forces of Mithridates were routed by Sulla. His\nfamily must have been of high local standing, and the fact that his\nfather\u2014a man of cultivated tastes and refined manners\u2014was the owner of\nthe \u2018finest kind of horses\u2019 is enough to show, to those who appreciate\nthe significance of the word _hippotrophia_, that he must have been\npossessed of considerable means. The same conclusion may be drawn both\nfrom what Plutarch himself incidentally reveals concerning his brothers,\nLamprias and Timon, as well as other members of the family circle, and\nalso from what is known of his own life and upbringing. That as a boy he\npassed through the orthodox curriculum, is obvious from his wide\nacquaintance with literature and his intelligent, if not particularly\nprofound, references to both music and mathematics. When of an age to\nreceive an education in philosophy, he was placed, or placed himself,\nchiefly under the distinguished Ammonius, an Alexandrian philosopher of\na broad semi-Platonist, semi-Peripatetic school, who had become\nestablished in a prominent intellectual and public position at Athens.\nIt was the accepted rule for the student to attend, but not necessarily\nto confine himself to, the lectures of a selected teacher. Often he\nlived in that teacher\u2019s house, or at least, in intimate connexion\ntherewith. If the philosopher was strictly conscientious he felt it his\nduty to watch over the developing character of his pupil, to visit him\nwith any deserved reproof,[1] to serve as his father confessor, to\nanswer his questions, and to meet his moral and intellectual\ndifficulties. The familiar phrase \u2018guide, philosopher, and friend\u2019\nperhaps describes the relations with unusual exactness. We find both\nPlutarch and his brother in the company of Ammonius at Delphi when Nero,\nin the year 66, graced that city with his imperial and artistic\npresence.\n\nHis formal education completed, we discover little of the younger\nmanhood of Plutarch, except that he must have been in high local\nestimation, partly, perhaps, from the position of his family, but\ndoubtless no less on account of his own conspicuous gifts. Had this not\nbeen the case, he would hardly have been appointed as one of a\ndelegation of two sent on a mission to the Roman proconsul of the\nprovince. At what age he was first entrusted with civic functions as\naedile, or with a Delphic priesthood (then merely a ceremonial office\nopen to any layman), or with other public positions, we cannot say. We\ncan only be sure that to his learning he added a recognizable capacity\nfor public business. However many hours he may have devoted to study and\nto the compilation of those ample commonplace-books which evidently\nserved him in such good stead, he prided himself on carrying his\nphilosophic attainments into the local Chamber or on to the local\nplatform. In his judgement this procedure was not only a vindication of\nphilosophy and a method of keeping the faculties energetic; it was also\na patriotic duty.\n\nAs has been already said, this was an age of travel. Facilities of\ntransport were plentiful; the seas and main roads were secure from\npirate or enemy; journeys were at least as expeditious as at any modern\ntime until the employment of steam. We know of visits made by Plutarch\nto Alexandria, various parts of Greece, Rome, and the north of Italy.\nRome he must have visited at least twice, and in this metropolis and\n\u2018epitome of the world\u2019 he made acquaintance with a large circle of men\nof distinction, transacted public business (presumably on behalf of his\nnative town, of which he may have been sent as representative),\ndelivered lectures,[2] and apparently acted as a sort of consulting\nphysician to morally perturbed members of Roman society. He must have\nspoken always in Greek, for he confesses that\u2014like most other Greek\nwriters\u2014he had given almost no attention to Latin; nor is any such\navowal needed from a person who, even after looking into the language,\nbelieved _sine patris_ to be the Latin for \u2018without a father\u2019. Greek,\nhowever, was then as much the universal language of the cultured as,\nuntil recently, French was the universal accomplishment of fashion,\ndiplomacy, and the traveller.\n\nThe Rome with which Plutarch was immediately acquainted was the Rome of\nVespasian and of the earlier half of Domitian\u2019s reign. Had his sojourn\nin the capital taken place some fifteen or twenty years later, it is in\nthe highest degree probable that he would have been further known to us\nthrough an acquaintance with Pliny or some other Roman writer of that\ndate. That a Greek, and especially one who had a difficulty in reading\nLatin, should make no mention of contemporary Latin authors\u2014that in his\nheart he should rather despise them\u2014is only characteristic of the\nHellenic attitude of the time. But that the amiable Pliny, who has an\nappreciative word to say of almost every one within his social horizon,\nincluding comparatively obscure philosophers like Euphrates, should say\nnothing of so eminent a figure as Plutarch, amounts to evidence that the\ntwo had never met. A man who could make close friends of consulars like\nSosius Senecio and Mestrius Florus, and who enjoyed an intimacy with\nPaccius and Fundanus, could not have failed to win the notice of the\nHorace Walpole of his day. Quintilian, Silius, Statius, Martial, Pliny,\nSuetonius, and Juvenal were all writing when Plutarch was already the\ncoryphaeus of Greek culture, and if not one of them mentions his name,\nit is because he was living in remote Chaeronea and forgathering only\nwith his chosen circle of philosophers, men of letters, artists, or\nmusicians in that town or in Athens, Corinth, and other Greek centres\nnear at hand.\n\nTo Chaeronea Plutarch must have retired by middle life. There he married\nTimoxena, a lady of position, but of quiet tastes, had issue four sons\nand a daughter, identified himself with the civic and religious concerns\nof his town, delivered lectures, imparted instruction on the lines of a\nmodified or latitudinarian Platonic philosophy, industriously read the\nbooks in his moderate but useful library, made copious extracts\ntherefrom, wrote his _Lives_ and those occasional papers known as his\n_Ethica_ or _Moral Essays_, and enjoyed the discussion of many a knotty\nquestion\u2014often perhaps of little or no importance beyond the fact of its\nforming a problem\u2014in the agreeable society of his relatives or his\ncultivated friends and guests. At such gatherings he was the leader,\ndoubtless dominating the conversation\u2014though in his more courteous\nway\u2014somewhat as Johnson dominated the coterie described by Boswell.\nOften, we gather, he varied this quiet course of life by means of\nexcursions to other Greek cities\u2014Athens, Sparta, Aedepsus\u2014where he most\nprobably delivered an occasional lecture, and where, as we are certain,\nhe thoroughly enjoyed himself in table-talk.[3]\n\nThat he gave philosophical education, though apparently not of a\nsystematic and pedagogic kind, to persons of both sexes is known from\nhis own references to the practice. Whether he did so for money or not,\nwe cannot tell. The later Platonists by no means felt bound to adopt the\nattitude of Socrates and Plato towards the taking of fees. The world had\nchanged, and the _res angusta_ was often more powerful than a principle\nwhich had ceased to appear entirely rational. But there is every reason\nto suppose that Plutarch was a man of independent means; we know further\nthat a genial frugality was the rule of his household, and that he\nentertained a becoming contempt for the obsequious or the advertiser.\nThe day of the endowed professor, whether of philosophy or sophistic,\nwas still to dawn for Greece under Marcus Aurelius, and it never dawned\nat all for so small a town as Chaeronea. We may take it therefore that,\nwhether with or without fee or present, Plutarch was able to choose his\nown pupils\u2014in all likelihood the sons and daughters of his friends\u2014and\nthat, in dealing with them or with a wider audience, he maintained the\nfullest dignity and independence, and practised all the amiable candour\nwhich he explicitly recommends.\n\nFor any lack of originality, of speculative audacity, of profundity (or\nthe obscurity which is so often mistaken for that virtue), Plutarch\nfully compensates. To his generation he served as a milch-cow of\npractical philosophy on its ethical side. He browsed on literature and\nthought, secreted the most valuable constituents, and yielded the cream\nto his hearers or readers. So far as he belonged to a philosophic\nschool, it was that of the Old Academy. In other words, he would have\nlabelled himself a Platonist. It is probable that he was as much\nattracted by the superb literary style of Plato, the nature of the man,\nand the nobility of his conceptions, as by anything capable of\ncrystallization into a philosophy. These qualities attracted even the\ndilettante, while in the more specially philosophic world time had done\nmuch to refract the real Plato, to extract dogma from him, and to create\na large _Aberglaube_ about his writings. Be that as it may, there is\nmuch in Plato that Plutarch does not accept, and there is much outside\nof Plato to which he gives a welcome. Towards Stoics and\nEpicureans\u2014whose doctrines, like those of the Christians, would\nlogically withhold men from public activity\u2014he is distinctly, though\nnever virulently, hostile, and when his pen ranges itself against\nparticular schools, it is against these.[4] It is easier, in fact, to\nsay to what sect Plutarch did not belong than to associate him\ndefinitively with any other. Nevertheless it is as a Platonist that he\nwould have classed himself, and it is especially by the later\nNeo-Platonists that he was quoted as a divinely gifted writer who lent\nliterary charm and potency to wisdom. So broad, however, was his\nteaching, and in many respects so adaptable even to Christianity, that\nearly writers of the Church had no scruple in borrowing liberally from\nhim.[5]\n\nInto whatever shape he may have systematized his views, and however\npopular his treatment of them, Plutarch ranked with the philosophers. If\nhe was opposed to Stoicism and Epicureanism, he was, like other\nphilosophers, no less opposed to sophistic. To him the representatives\nof that art were apt to seem shallow and showy.[6]\n\nHe held, with the Socratics in general, that the basis of right action\nis knowledge, and he had no belief in empiricism. Not that he rejected\neither established moral views or established religion. He was no\nsceptic, still less an atheist. As Friedl\u00e4nder has well argued, there\nwas no ancient cult of atheism. Plutarch, indeed, is remarkably\nreceptive in the matter of deities. The Egyptian worship of Isis and\nOsiris, which had made great progress throughout the Roman Empire,\nappeared to him equally tenable with the worship practised by his own\nancestors. In the polytheism in which he acquiesced, such divinities\nwere only other forms of those known in Hellas, and he found no\ndifficulty in reconciling and combining the two sets of notions and\ncults. He was deeply tinged with Orientalism, though his culture and his\nnatural good taste made him despise corybantic demonstrations and what\nFriedl\u00e4nder has called \u2018dirty mortifications\u2019. He held the Eranian\nbelief in daemonic agencies, which acted upon mankind from the one side\nas the gods did from the other. If he appears to rise to the conception\nof \u2018God\u2019 in the singular, the word is rather to be taken as denoting the\nsum of divine wisdom and beneficent dispensation. Like all the best\nminds of his own and many a previous generation, he found moral\ndifficulties in accepting the characters ascribed to the deities in the\nbest literature of earlier Greece, and therefore, while approving of the\nestablished education in poetry, he necessarily felt some qualms as to\nthe possible effects. Poetry served in the schools \u2018as introduction to\nphilosophy, history, geography, and astronomy\u2019, and it had much to do\nwith the formation of religious and ethical notions. Homer, Pindar,\nSophocles, and Menander were \u2018learned and wise\u2019, and boys were brought\nto regard them as inspired. Hence Plutarch\u2019s treatise on _Poets as Moral\nTeachers of the Young_. The point of view in that essay is not, indeed,\nentirely rational. It was not so easy for Plutarch as it is for us to\nrealize that moral and religious ideas in Greek literature had passed\nthrough an evolution corresponding to the development of intellect and\nsociety. Instead of frankly recognizing the limitations of Homer or the\ninconsistencies of the dramatists in this respect, he puts a highly\ningenious constraint upon the connexion between any dubious sentiment\nand its context. It is only when he fails in such a _tour de force_ that\nhe consents to censure the poet. In this procedure he was by no means\nthe first. The battle of the \u2018takers of objection\u2019 (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af) and\nthe \u2018solvers of difficulties\u2019 (\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af) was centuries old. That Plutarch\nshould range himself as far as possible with the solvers is a\ncircumstance which would naturally follow both from his love of\nliterature and from his constitutionally reverential temperament.\n\nAs has been often observed, the purpose running through the _Parallel\nLives_ and the _Moral Essays_ is one and the same. The philosophy of\nPlutarch was ethical. For logic and dialectic he shows no liking. His\nobject was to relate philosophy to life, to bring home a philosophy\nwhich could be lived. By philosophy he meant the best conduct of life,\nbased on an understanding of the nature of virtue\u2014\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd, the right,\nthe honourable, the becoming. From philosophy we are to learn not only\nwhat is due to ourselves, but what is due to the gods, to the laws, to\nparents, children, friends, enemies, fellow-citizens, and strangers. The\n_Essays_, like those of Seneca or Bacon, deal with separable components\nor manifestations of right and wrong character, with duties and\ncircumstances: the _Lives_ meanwhile afford us concrete examples or\nobject lessons from history.[7] Yet life, even that of a philosopher, is\nnot made up entirely of preaching and exhortation, least of all when the\nphilosopher is at the same time a man of the world and a man of letters.\nPlutarch felt a lively interest in all such posers as were mooted in the\ntalk of the table or of the loungers\u2019 club. He therefore includes among\nhis occasional papers\u2014whether written by request or under the\nfashionable fiction of a request\u2014a number of treatises on physical,\nantiquarian, literary, and artistic topics which can hardly be said to\nbear with any immediateness upon the ethical perfection of the reader.\nAs a change, therefore, from the treatment of _Superstition_ or\n_Inquisitiveness_ or _The Restraint of Anger_, of _Rules for Married\nCouples_ and _Rules of Health_ and rules for _The Student at Lecture_,\nhe may in a spare moment discuss such matters as _The Face in the Moon_\nor questions in Roman custom.\n\nThe majority of the pieces in the present selection speak for\nthemselves. With the one exception to be mentioned immediately, they all\nbear the impress of the man. There is the same moral broadmindedness and\nsobriety, the same shrewd sense of _le bonhomme Plutarque_, the same\nfaculty for popularizing[8] without descending to vapidity, the same\nknack of relieving the sermon by means of anecdote, quotation, or\ninteresting item of information at the point where the discourse\nthreatens to become tedious. It is true that the German critic, in his\nindefatigable search for the _unecht_, has impugned the authorship of\nthe _Dinner-Party of the Seven Sages_[9] on grounds unintelligible to\nthose who do not expect a dinner-table conversation to be a systematic\ntreatise, and who are satisfied to believe that a mixture of serious\ntalk, banter, and narrative, and a frequent transition of subject, are\nprecisely the things for which one would look on such an occasion. Every\nfeature of the style is Plutarchan, and, if Plutarch did not write the\npiece, we can only feel unmixed regret that he did not, and unmixed\nsurprise that its real author should sacrifice the credit of his\nperformance. With the article on _The Bringing-up of a Boy_ the case is\ndifferent. Wyttenbach has sufficiently pointed out its frequent\nfeebleness of argument, its turbid arrangement, the exceeding triteness\nof its ideas, and its unaccountable omissions. To us moderns it is of\ngreat interest for the light which it throws on the education of the\nperiod, and for its incidental revelations of the conditions of domestic\nlife and the domestic affections. Otherwise it is a puerile performance\nand savours of nothing but the student essay. If it be argued that it is\none of Plutarch\u2019s juvenile works, the answer is that it is unlike him to\nbe disingenuous; and disingenuous he must be, if in his early youth he\npretends to have \u2018often impressed upon parents\u2019 this or that. Antiquity\nproduced far too many amateur essays in imitation of great\nauthors\u2014imitations actually ascribed to those authors by a recognized\nfiction of the schools\u2014for us to do an injustice to Plutarch when an\neasier solution lies so close to our hands. Perhaps, again, the piece on\n_Fawner and Friend_[10] suffers from an occasional _longueur_, but there\nare few writers who do not at some less felicitous moment perpetrate\nparagraphs less vivacious than their average.\n\nAs a stylist Plutarch is apt to be underrated. He is, it is true, no\nlaborious atticist, and makes no point of writing like a purist in the\nclassic manner of a Plato or a Lysias. But this does not mean that he is\nin the least negligent in either word or sentence. On the contrary, his\nwords are selected with extreme care, and his sentences\u2014where the text\nis sound, as for the most part it is\u2014are rounded off and interlinked as\nwatchfully as any natural writing need require. It is true that his\nvocabulary is large and his expression full, but, when his words are\nproperly weighed and their metaphorical and other differentiations duly\nperceived, no understanding reader will call him verbose.[11] He\ndisplays an immense command of language, but no word plays an idle part,\nand if (like Cicero, whom in many respects he resembles) he is fond of\njoining what are erroneously called synonyms, it needs but little\nappreciation of verbal values to realize that the added words invariably\ncarry some amplification, some more precise definition, or some emphasis\nhelpful to a full grasp upon the sense. It is true also that his\nsentences are apt to appear\u2014like the sentences of Ruskin\u2019s earlier\ndays\u2014somewhat lengthy; nevertheless they commonly atone by lucidity of\nconstruction for any demand they may make upon sustained attention.[12]\nIn a modern English dress they must necessarily be broken up, but a\npractised reader of Plutarch finds no more difficulty with them in the\noriginal than he would find with a passage of Demosthenes or Plato. To\none who becomes familiar with them they are at least as agreeable as the\nstaccato brevities of Seneca. What chiefly exacts some effort from the\nreader of Plutarchan Greek is the fact that its words are\nextraordinarily charged with metaphor and allusion.[13] His choice of\none word rather than another is always nicely calculated. This truth\nonce recognized, a reader cannot fail to admire both the consistency\nwith which the writer maintains his similitude while he is upon it, and\nalso the copious resources of vocabulary upon which he draws for the\npurpose. Meanwhile, despite any length of sentence and fullness of\npraise, Plutarch neither irritates with tricks and mannerisms nor\nwearies with pedantry and ponderousness. A pedant he could not be. He is\nno writer of Johnsonese. To him the best words are those which best suit\ntheir context, and he has no objection whatever to a dash of the\ncolloquial or a touch of the homely or na\u00efve. It is one of his\ncharacteristic merits that he knows when to take the higher and when the\nlower road of diction. He also knows when he is in danger of stylistic\nmonotony. Plutarch was a teacher, but, like all truly intelligent\nmembers of that profession, he recognized that the most uninspiring\nattitude to adopt is the severely and unremittingly pedagogic. \u2018The\nknack of style,\u2019 it has been said, \u2018is to write like a human being,\u2019 and\nPlutarch, a professor of humanity without a chair, is always and\nentirely human. That his pen must have moved with extraordinary facility\nis evident from the number of his publications. Apart from his _Lives_\n(of which not all are extant), his _Moralia_ include over eighty pieces,\nlong or short, and it is certain that many others had disappeared[14]\nbefore the present collection became available in its eleventh-century\nMS.\n\nIt is not here implied that he is never culpable, never over-loaded.\nThere are times, though rare ones, at which we feel that his memory or\nhis notebook has been unduly exploited. We feel that he might have\nspared us an illustration which does not illustrate or a similitude\nwhich is deficient in similarity. To a certain extent he is a Euphuist,\nand though Guevara perhaps owed nothing directly to him (as he did to\nSeneca[15]), it is manifest that Plutarch sometimes strains a point in\norder to achieve an over-ingenious comparison. The contagion of the\nthing, like that of Euphuism in the Elizabethan age, was in the air, and\nPlutarch assuredly does not err more often or more heinously with one\ngeneration than Shakespeare did with another. Wide reading and natural\nfecundity easily slip into sins which narrow resources and slow\ninvention are impotent to commit.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere are numerous signs that the pendulum of classical interest is\nswinging in the direction of the literature of the early Empire. The\nexclusive _toujours perdrix_ of the Attic and Ciceronian periods has\napparently begun to jade the palate, and writers like Seneca and\nPlutarch are coming into their own once more. There was a time when\nthese authors were perhaps better known than any others. That they were\nworthy of prime consideration is manifest from the immense influence\nwhich they exercised upon the ardent and inquiring spirits of the\nsixteenth and following centuries, in England no less than on the\nContinent. Authors who could make such an appeal to Montaigne, to the\nElizabethan dramatists, to Bacon, or to Jeremy Taylor,[16] are surely\nnot to be despised because they belong stylistically to a \u2018silver\u2019 age,\nor because their strength lies mostly in the fact that they are a mine\nof ideas, wise saws, and pointed moral instances. Seneca, as being a\nwriter of Latin, was naturally the earlier and more widely read,[17] but\nfrom the publication of the _editio princeps_ of Plutarch by Aldus in\n1509 our author sprang into peculiar estimation among the recovered\nspirits of antiquity. It was, however, due to Amyot that both his\n_Lives_ and his _Essays_ became accessible to those who had little or no\nGreek. The _Essays_ were rendered into idiomatic French by that\nadmirable translator in the year 1572,[18] and Montaigne was by no means\nthe only reader among _nous autres ignorans_ who made the Plutarch of\nAmyot his breviary, and who \u2018drew his water incessantly\u2019 from him. It\nwas not the literary etiquette of the Elizabethan age to acknowledge all\nthe obligations one might owe even to a contemporary, much less to the\nancients, and the stores of Plutarch might be rifled without much fear\nof detection, and certainly with no fear of reproach. When Lyly, in\n_Euphues and his Ephoebus_,[19] takes it in hand to bring up a child in\nthe way he should go, he is in a large measure simply translating,\nexpanding, and emphasizing the pseudo-Plutarch on the _Bringing-up of a\nBoy_ and interspersing the discourse with pickings from other essays,\nparticularly that on _Garrulousness_.[20] Montaigne, of course, with his\nbland unreserve, credits Plutarch via Amyot with a multitude of\nobservations, while Bacon, when following the new vogue of the essay,\nsometimes refers us to \u2018Plutarke\u2019, and at least on one occasion informs\nus that \u2018Mountaigny saith\u2019 a thing which on reference to the said\n\u2018Mountaigny\u2019 we find to be Plutarchan.\n\nThough it is no part of the present Introduction to examine in detail\nthe influence of the philosopher of Chaeronea upon modern writers, or to\nmake an inventory of his contributions to English literature, it is at\nleast worth asking whether an author whom genius once delighted to\nexploit, and from whom so many good things have filtered down to us\nthrough various channels, may not be well worth reading at first hand.\nTo Professor Mahaffy[21] Plutarch \u2018is a pure and elevating writer, full\nof precious information, and breathing a lofty moral tone\u2019, and to\nProfessor Gilbert Murray[22] he is \u2018one of the most tactful and charming\nof writers, and one of the most lovable characters in antiquity\u2019. Said\nEmerson[23]: \u2018Plutarch will be perpetually rediscovered from time to\ntime as long as books last.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  The reproof might ostensibly be general, but its particular\n  application was readily felt. Musonius, we are told by Epictetus, made\n  all his hearers feel \u2018as if some one had been talking to him about\n  them\u2019.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  See _Concerning Busybodies_, 522 E.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  Over and above his resemblances to Macaulay as a writer of essays and\n  biographical history, there is a distinct similarity between their\n  conversational tastes. We can imagine a Plutarch fully at home with\n  Macaulay at one of those astonishing early Victorian breakfast-parties\n  where a man might be asked if he \u2018knew his Popes\u2019, and where he might\n  be endured while he recited them. Plutarch\u2019s _Table-Talk_, like his\n  _Dinner-Party of the Seven Sages_, reveals for contemporary Greek\n  society the same deliberate cult of intellectual conversation\n  sharpened by challenge and debate. In such conversation he must\n  himself have played a conspicuous part. Nevertheless, it may fairly be\n  gathered that the Greek or Graeco-Roman interlocutors in the reign of\n  Trajan were the more ingenuously athirst for reciprocal enlightenment,\n  however dubiously we may regard the value of the information or\n  misinformation actually gained. Nor is it easy to believe that\n  Plutarch would have thought it etiquette to indulge in the protracted\n  monologues to which the more modern society submitted with such grace\n  as it best could.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  e.g. in his _De repugnantiis Stoicorum_ and his _Non posse suaviter\n  vivi secundum Epicurum_. Yet, as Mahaffy says, \u2018it would be hard to\n  say whether the number of Stoic dogmas which he rejects exceeds that\n  which he quotes with approval\u2019 (_The Greek World under Roman Sway_,\n  pp. 300 sqq.).\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  Volkmann names in particular Clement of Alexandria and Basil.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  This does not mean that he had no friends among the rhetorical\n  teachers (the contrary is shown by his reference to \u2018our Niger\u2019 in\n  _praec. san._, \u00a7 16), but only that he distrusted the type. He refused\n  to approve of a fluent and polished style as an end in itself. Pliny\n  describes how the amazingly voluble Isaeus would offer his audience a\n  choice of subject and allow it to dictate the side which he should\n  take. He would then rise and demonstrate his extemporizing powers with\n  much show of rhetorical ornament.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  Volkmann says of the _Lives_, \u2018Das Werthvolle an ihnen sind nicht die\n  historischen Details, die er giebt, sondern die eingestreuten\n  Reflexionen, die ethischen Betrachtungen, das Eingehen auf\n  individuelle Stimmungen und Leidenschaften der grossen M\u00e4nner.\u2019\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  _Aulicis tantum scripsit, non doctis_, says Scaliger.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  Volkmann guesses that it is _ein Produkt der sp\u00e4teren Sophistik_. If\n  so, we may congratulate the Sophist on his perfect reproduction of\n  Plutarch\u2019s style and of his non-sophistic tone.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  Bacon\u2019s Essay _Of Followers and Friends_ owes almost nothing to\n  Plutarch beyond the title. We do, however, find him borrowing the\n  words \u2018for there is no such Flatterer as a Man\u2019s selfe\u2019.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  As Volkmann happily puts it, he writes \u2018with comfortable breadth\u2019.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  The sentences would doubtless have been easier still if Plutarch had\n  not felt bound to follow the fashion of the time and elaborately avoid\n  hiatus.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  Perhaps this is why Plutarch, as seen through Amyot, appeared to\n  Montaigne \u2018close and thorny,\u2019 while his sense was nevertheless\n  \u2018closely-jointed and pithily-continued\u2019.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Stobaeus (sixth century) had access to much of Plutarch that is now\n  lost.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  See an observation of Professor Summers, _Seneca Select Letters_,\n  Introduction, p. lxxiv.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  Plutarch \u2018is the theme of more than 230 allusions or direct references\n  on the part of Jeremy Taylor\u2019 (Sandys, _A History of Classical\n  Scholarship_, i. 300).\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  He was familiar reading of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and\n  appears in the _Gesta Romanorum_. Later the _Adagia_ of Erasmus draw\n  freely upon him.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  \u2018Il a en quelque sorte cr\u00e9\u00e9 Plutarque,\u2019 says Demogeot.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  _Euphues_ appeared in 1579. Jusserand (_The English Novel in the Time\n  of Shakespeare_, p. 127) remarks that Euphues \u2018addresses moral\n  epistles to his fellow men to guide them through life\u2019, but he appears\n  to be unaware that Lyly borrowed this object, as well as so large a\n  quantity of his matter, from Plutarch.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  We meet, for example, with the story of Zeno, \u2018the olde man in Athens\n  that amiddest the pottes could hold his peace.\u2019\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  _History of Greek Classical Literature_, ii. 427.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  _The Literature of Ancient Greece_, p. 396.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  Quoted by Sandys (_A History of Classical Scholarship_, i. 300).\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\n             Dinner-Party of the Seven Sages             27\n\n             On Old Men in Public Life                   65\n\n             Advice to Married Couples                   96\n\n             Concerning Busybodies                      113\n\n             On Garrulousness                           130\n\n             On the Student at Lectures                 157\n\n             On Moral Ignorance in High Places          180\n\n             Fawner and Friend                          187\n\n             On Bringing up a Boy                       241\n\n             Notes on Persons and Places                267\n\n\n             Appendix: Notes on the Greek Text          295\n\n\n\n\n_In the following imaginary \u2018Dinner-Party of the Seven Sages\u2019 the\nsupposed narrator is a certain Diocles of Corinth, a professional\ndiviner and expiator of omens connected with the court of Periander, who\nwas despot of Corinth from 625_ B. C. _to 585_ B. C. _The dramatic date\nis towards the close of that period. It must not be assumed that\nPlutarch is pretending to be historical, and anachronisms must be\ndisregarded._\n\n_The Seven Sages are here Thales, Bias, Pittacus, Solon, Chilon,\nCleobulus, Anacharsis (see Notes on Persons and Places). The list varies\nwith different writers, but Thales, Bias, Pittacus, and Solon are\ninvariably, and Chilon is regularly, included in the canon. Periander is\nhimself sometimes made one of the number, and a certain Myson also\nappears._\n\n_The qualities which constituted a \u2018sage\u2019 in this connexion were those\nof keen practical sense and insight, and a power of crystallizing the\nresults into pithy maxims. He was not a \u2018philosopher\u2019 in the later sense\nof that word._\n\n\n\n\n                    DINNER-PARTY OF THE SEVEN SAGES\n\n\nWe [Sidenote: 146 B] may be sure, Nicarchus, that in process of time\nfacts will become so obscured as to be altogether beyond ascertainment,\nseeing that in the present instance, where they are so fresh and recent,\nthe world accepts accounts of them which are pure concoctions. In the\nfirst place, the party at dinner did not consist\u2014as you have been\ntold\u2014merely of seven, but of [Sidenote: C] more than twice that number.\nI was myself included, both as being professionally intimate with\nPeriander and as the host of Thales, who had taken up his quarters with\nme by Periander\u2019s directions. In the second place, whoever related the\nconversation to you, reported it incorrectly. Presumably he was not one\nof the company. Inasmuch, therefore, as I have plenty of spare time and\nmy years do not warrant me in putting off the narrative with any\nconfidence, I will\u2014since you are all so eager\u2014tell you the whole story\nfrom the beginning.\n\nPeriander [Sidenote: D] had prepared his entertainment, not in the city,\nbut in the banquet-hall at Lechaeum, close to the temple of Aphrodite,\nthe festival being in her honour. For after having refused to sacrifice\nto Aphrodite since the love-affair which led to his mother\u2019s suicide, he\nwas now for the first time, thanks to certain dreams on the part of\nMelissa, induced to pay honour and court to that goddess.\n\nInasmuch as it was summer-time and the road all the way to the sea was\ncrowded with people and vehicles, and therefore full of dust and a\nconfusion of traffic, each of the invited guests was supplied with a\ncarriage and pair handsomely caparisoned. Thales, however, on seeing the\ncarriage at the door, simply [Sidenote: E] smiled and sent it away.\nAccordingly we turned off the road and proceeded to walk quietly through\nthe fields, a third member of our party being Niloxenus of Naucratis, a\nman of high character who had formed a close acquaintance with Solon and\nThales in Egypt. His presence was due to his having been sent on another\nmission to Bias. Of its purpose he was himself unaware, although he\nsuspected that the sealed document of which he was the bearer contained\na second problem for solution. He had been instructed, in case Bias\ncould do nothing, to show the missive to the wisest of the Greeks. \u2018It\nis a godsend to me,\u2019 [Sidenote: F] said Niloxenus, \u2018to find you all\nhere, and, as you perceive\u2019\u2014showing us the paper\u2014\u2018I am bringing the\nletter to the dinner.\u2019 At this Thales remarked with a laugh, \u2018In case of\ntrouble, once more to Priene![24] For Bias will solve the difficulty, as\nhe did the first, without assistance.\u2019 \u2018What do you mean,\u2019 said I, \u2018by\n\u201cthe first\u201d?\u2019 \u2018The king,\u2019 replied Thales, \u2018sent him an animal for\nsacrifice, and bade him pick out and send back the worst and best\nportion of the meat. Thereupon our friend, with excellent judgement,\ntook out and sent the tongue; and he is manifestly held in high repute\nand admiration in consequence.\u2019 [Sidenote: 147] \u2018That is not the only\nreason,\u2019 said Niloxenus, \u2018Bias does not object\u2014as you do\u2014to be, and to\nbe called, a friend of kings. In your own case the king not only admires\nyou on general grounds, but he was hugely delighted with your method of\nmeasuring the pyramid. Without any fuss or the need of any instrument,\nyou stood your stick at the end of the shadow thrown by the pyramid, and\nthe fall of the sunlight making two triangles, you showed that the\npyramid stood in the same ratio to the stick as the one shadow to the\nother.[25] But, as I observed, you were charged with being a king-hater,\nand [Sidenote: B] certain outrageous expressions of yours concerning\ndespots were reported to him. For example, when asked by the Ionian\nMolpagoras what was the strangest sight you had seen, you answered, \u201cAn\naged despot.\u201d Again, at a drinking-party, when the talk fell upon\nanimals, you stated that among wild animals the worst was the despot,\nand among tame animals the sycophant. However much a king may claim to\ndiffer from a despot, he does not welcome language of that kind.\u2019 \u2018Nay,\u2019\nsaid Thales, \u2018the former remark belongs to Pittacus, who once made it in\na playful attack on Myrsilus. My own observation [Sidenote: C] was that\nI should regard as a strange sight, not an aged despot, but an aged\nnavigator. None the less, my feelings at the altered version are those\nof the young fellow who, after throwing at the dog and hitting his\nstep-mother, remarked, \u201cNot so bad, after all.\u201d Yes, I regarded Solon as\nvery wise in refusing to act the despot. Our Pittacus also, if he had\nkept clear of monarchy, would not have said that \u201c_it is hard to be\ngood_\u201d. As for Periander, his despotism may be regarded as an inherited\ndisease, from which he is making a creditable recovery, inasmuch as up\nto the present he keeps wholesome company, cultivates the society of\nsensible men, and will have nothing to say to that \u201ccutting down of the\ntall poppies\u201d suggested by my fellow-countryman [Sidenote: D]\nThrasybulus. A despot who desires to rule over slaves rather than men is\nno better than a farmer who is ready to reap a harvest of darnel and\ncammock in preference to wheat and barley. Among the many undesirable\nfeatures of despotic rule, the one desirable element is the honour and\nglory, in a case where the subjects are good but the ruler is better,\nand where they are great but he is regarded as greater. If he is\nsatisfied with safety without honour, his right course would be to rule\nover a herd of sheep, horses, or oxen, not over human beings. However,\n[Sidenote: E] your visitor here has launched us upon an inopportune\ntopic. We are walking to a dinner, and he should have remembered to moot\nquestions suited to the occasion. For you will doubtless admit that\nthere is a certain preparation necessary for the guest as well as for\nthe host. The people of Sybaris, I understand, send their invitations to\nthe women a year in advance, so that they may have plenty of time to\nprepare their dress and their jewelry before coming to dinner. In my own\nopinion one who is to play the diner in the proper way requires still\nmore time for real and true preparation, inasmuch as it is harder to\narrive at the appropriate adornment of character than at the useless and\nsuperfluous adornment of the person. When a man of sense comes to\n[Sidenote: F] dinner, he does not bring himself to be filled like a\nvessel, but to contribute something either serious or sportive. He is to\nlisten or talk about such matters as the occasion asks of the company,\nif they are to find pleasure in each other\u2019s society. An inferior dish\nmay be put aside, and if a wine is poor, one may take refuge with the\nNymphs.[26] But when your table-companion is an ill-bred bore who gives\nyou a headache, he utterly ruins the enjoyment of any wine or dish or\nmusical entertainment. [Sidenote: 148] Nor have you the resource of an\nemetic for that kind of annoyance, but in some cases the mutual\nantipathy lasts all your life, an insulting or angry incident at your\nwine having resulted in a kind of nausea. Chilon was therefore quite\nright when, on receiving his invitation yesterday, he only accepted\nafter ascertaining the full list of the guests. As he remarked, when\npeople cannot help going to sea or on a campaign, and a shipmate or\ntentmate proves disagreeable, they are obliged to put up with him; but\nno sensible man will form one of an indiscriminate wine-party. The mummy\nwhich the Egyptians regularly bring in and exhibit at their parties,\nbidding you [Sidenote: B] remember that you will very soon be like it,\nmay be an unwelcome and unseasonable boon-companion; yet the custom is\nnot without its point. Even if it may not incite you to drink and enjoy\nyourself, it does incite to mutual liking and regard. \u201cLife,\u201d it urges,\n\u201cis short in duration; do not make it long by vexations.\u201d\u2019\n\nAfter talk of this nature on the way we arrived at the house. As we had\nanointed ourselves, Thales decided not to take a bath, but proceeded to\nvisit and inspect the race-tracks, the wrestling-grounds, and the\nhandsomely decorated park along the shore. Not that he was greatly taken\nwith anything of that kind, but he would not appear to despise or slight\nPeriander\u2019s display [Sidenote: C] of public spirit. The other guests, as\nsoon as each had anointed himself or bathed, were being led by the\nservants through the cloister into the dining-room. Anacharsis, however,\nwas seated in the cloister, and in front of him stood a girl, who was\nparting his hair with her hands. Upon her running to meet Thales in the\nfrankest possible manner, he kissed her and said with a laugh, \u2018That\u2019s\nright: make our foreign visitor beautiful, so that he may not frighten\nus by looking like a savage, when he is really a most civilized person.\u2019\nUpon my asking him who the child was, he replied, \u2018Don\u2019t you know the\nwise and far-famed [Sidenote: D] Eumetis? That, by the way, is her\nfather\u2019s name for her, though most people call her Cleobuline, after\nhim.\u2019 \u2018I presume,\u2019 said Niloxenus, \u2018your compliment refers to the girl\u2019s\ncleverness in constructing riddles. Some of her puzzles have found their\nway as far as Egypt.\u2019 \u2018Not at all,\u2019 rejoined Thales. \u2018Those are merely\nthe dice with which, on occasion, she plays a match for fun in\nconversation. There is more in her than that: an admirable spirit, a\npractical intellect, and an amiable character, by which she renders her\nfather\u2019s rule over his fellow country-men more gentle and popular.\u2019\n\u2018Yes,\u2019 remarked Niloxenus, \u2018one [Sidenote: E] can see it by looking at\nher simplicity and unpretentiousness. But how is it she is attending to\nAnacharsis so affectionately?\u2019 \u2018Because,\u2019 was the answer, \u2018he is a man\nof virtue and learning, and has given her zealous and ungrudging\ninstruction in the Scythian manner of dieting and purging the sick. I\nshould say that at the present moment, while looking after the gentleman\nso amiably, she is getting some lesson and talking it over.\u2019\n\nAs we were just approaching the dining-room, we were met by Alexidemus\nof Miletus, the natural son of the despot Thrasybulus. [Sidenote: F] He\nwas coming out in a state of excitement and angrily muttering something\nwhich conveyed no meaning to us. When he saw Thales he collected himself\na little, stopped, and said: \u2018Look how we have been insulted by\nPeriander! He would not allow me to take ship home when I was anxious to\ndo so, but begged me to stay for the dinner; and, when I come to it, he\nassigns me a degrading place at table, and lets Aeolians, islanders, and\ngoodness knows whom, take precedence of Thrasybulus. For since I was\ncommissioned by Thrasybulus, it is evident that, in my person, he means\nto insult and humiliate [Sidenote: 149] him, by treating him as if he\nwere nobody.\u2019 \u2018I see,\u2019 said Thales, \u2018what you are afraid of. In Egypt\nthey say of the stars, according to their increase or decrease of\naltitude in the regions they traverse, that they become \u2018better\u2019 or\n\u2018worse\u2019 than themselves. You are afraid that in your own case your place\nat table may mean a similar loss of brightness and eminence, and you\npropose to show less spirit than the Lacedaemonian, who, upon being put\nby the director in the last place in a chorus, remarked, \u201cA capital way\nof making even this place one of honour.\u201d When we take our places,\u2019\ncontinued Thales, \u2018we should not ask who have seats above us, but how we\nare to make ourselves agreeable to our immediate neighbours. As a means\nof immediately securing a beginning of friendly feeling on their part,\nwe should cultivate, [Sidenote: B] or rather bring with us, instead of\nirritation, a tone of satisfaction at being placed in such good company.\nThe man who is annoyed with his place at table is more annoyed with his\nnext neighbour than with his host, and he earns the dislike of both.\u2019\n\u2018That,\u2019 retorted Alexidemus, \u2018is mere talk. In practice I notice that\neven you sages are greedy for precedence\u2019\u2014and therewith he passed us and\nwent off. Upon our expressing surprise at the man\u2019s peculiar behaviour,\nThales said, \u2018A crazy person, constitutionally wrong-headed. When he was\nstill a mere lad and a quantity of valuable perfume had been presented\nto Thrasybulus, he emptied it into a big wine-cooler, poured in some\nneat wine, and drank it off, thereby bringing ill-odour upon [Sidenote:\nC] Thrasybulus instead of the contrary.\u2019\n\nAt this point an attendant came up and said, \u2018Periander requests you to\ntake Thales here along with you and examine an object which has just\nbeen brought to him, to see whether it is a mere matter of accident or\nsignifies something portentous. He appears himself to be greatly\nagitated, regarding it as a pollution, and as a smirch upon the\nfestival.\u2019 Whereupon he proceeded to lead us to one of the apartments\noff the garden. Here a youth, apparently a herdsman, still beardless and\nwith considerable handsomeness of person, opened a leather wrapper and\ndisplayed a baby thing which he told us was the offspring of a mare. The\nupper parts, as far as the neck and arms, were human, the lower parts\nequine; its voice when it cried was that [Sidenote: D] of a new-born\nchild. Niloxenus, exclaiming \u2018Heaven help us!\u2019 turned away from the\nsight; but Thales took a prolonged look at the young fellow, and with a\nsmile remarked\u2014in accordance with his regular habit of twitting me in\nconnexion with my profession\u2014\u2018I suppose, Diocles, you are thinking of\nsetting your purifications to work and giving trouble to the averting\npowers, in the belief that a great and terrible thing has happened?\u2019 \u2018Of\ncourse I am, Thales,\u2019 said I, \u2018for the token indicates strife and\ndiscord, and I am afraid it may affect no less a matter than marriage\nand its issue. As you see, before we have expiated the original offence,\nthe goddess is giving warning of a second.\u2019 [Sidenote: E] To this Thales\nmade no answer, but began to move off\u2014laughing. Upon Periander coming to\nthe door to meet us, and putting questions as to what we had seen,\nThales turned from me, took him by the hand, and said: \u2018Anything Diocles\nbids you do, you will perform at your leisure. My own advice is to be\nmore careful as to your herdsmen.\u2019 On hearing this speech Periander\nappeared to be greatly delighted, for he burst out laughing and hugged\nand kissed Thales, who observed: \u2018I should say, Diocles, that the sign\nhas found its fulfilment already; for you see what a serious misfortune\nhas befallen us in the [Sidenote: F] refusal of Alexidemus to be present\nat dinner.\u2019\n\nWhen we had actually entered the room, Thales, speaking in a louder\ntone, said: \u2018And where was the seat to which the gentleman objected?\u2019\nUpon the place being pointed out, he went round and occupied it himself,\ntaking me with him, and remarking: \u2018Why, I would have paid something for\nthe [Sidenote: 150] privilege of sharing the same table with Ardalus.\u2019\nThe Ardalus in question was a Troezenian, a flute-player and priest of\nthe Ardalian Muses, whose worship was established by the original\nArdalus of Troezen. Thereupon Aesop\u2014who happened to have arrived\nrecently on a simultaneous mission from Croesus to Periander and to the\ngod at Delphi, and was present on a low stool close to where Solon was\nreclining above\u2014said, \u2018A Lydian mule, having caught sight of his\nreflection in a river and conceived an admiration for the size and\nbeauty of his body, gave a toss of his mane and set out to run like a\nhorse; but after a while, reflecting that he was the son of an ass, he\nquickly [Sidenote: B] stopped his career and dropped his pride and\nconceit.\u2019 At this Chilon, speaking in broad Laconian, observed: \u2018Ye\u2019re\nslow yersel, an\u2019 ye\u2019re running the mule\u2019s gait.\u2019\n\nAt this point Melissa came in and reclined beside Periander, whereas\nEumetis sat at her dinner.\n\nThales, addressing me\u2014I was on the couch above Bias\u2014said: \u2018Diocles, why\ndon\u2019t you inform Bias that our visitor from Naucratis has come to him\nagain with royal problems to solve, so that he may be sober and capable\nof looking after himself when he receives the communication?\u2019 Bias\nreplied: \u2018Nay, our friend here has been trying for a long time to\nfrighten me with that warning. But I am aware that, besides his other\ncapacities, Dionysus is styled _Solver_[27] in right of wisdom. I feel\n[Sidenote: C] no fear, therefore, that my being \u201cfilled with the god\u201d\nwill cause me to make a less hopeful fight of it.\u2019\n\nWhile jokes of this kind were passing between these great men over their\ndinner, I was noticing that the meal was unusually frugal, and I was led\nto meditate on the fact that to invite and entertain wise and good men\nmeans no additional expense, but rather a curtailment of it, since it\neliminates fancy dishes, out-of-the-way perfumes and sweetmeats, and\nlavish decantings of costly wines. Though Periander, being a despot and\na person [Sidenote: D] of wealth and power, indulged in such things\npretty nearly every day, on this occasion he was trying to impress the\ncompany with a show of simplicity and modest expenditure. He put aside\nand out of sight not only the display usually made in other things, but\nalso that used by his wife, whom he made present herself in modest and\ninexpensive attire.\n\nThe tables were removed; Melissa caused garlands to be distributed; and\nwe poured libations. After the flute-girl had played a short piece to\naccompany them, and had then withdrawn, Ardalus, addressing Anacharsis,\nasked if there were any flute-girls among the Scythians. Instantly he\nreplied, \u2018No, nor [Sidenote: E] yet vines.\u2019 When Ardalus rejoined:\n\u2018Well, but the Scythians have gods;\u2019 \u2018Quite true,\u2019 said he: \u2018gods who\nunderstand human language. We are not like the Greeks, who imagine they\nspeak better than the Scythians, and yet believe that the gods would\nrather listen to pieces of bone and wood.\u2019 \u2018Ah,\u2019 said Aesop, \u2018what if\nyou knew, Sir Visitor, that the present-day flute-makers have given up\nusing the bones of fawns and have taken to those of asses? They maintain\nthat these sound better\u2014a fact which explains Cleobuline\u2019s riddle upon\nthe Phrygian flute: [Sidenote: F]\n\n                        _With a shin that was horned\n                          Did an ass that was dead\n                        Deal a blow on my ear._\n\nIt is a wonderful thing that the ass, who is otherwise particularly\ncrass and unmusical, should supply us with a bone particularly fine and\nmelodious.\u2019 \u2018Now that,\u2019 said Niloxenus, \u2018is precisely the objection\nwhich the Busirites bring against us of Naucratis; for asses\u2019 bones for\nflutes are already in use with us. With them, on the contrary, it is\nprofanation even to listen to a trumpet, because it sounds like the bray\nof an ass. You know, I presume, that the ass is treated contemptuously\nby the Egyptians because of Typhon?\u2019\n\nA silence here occurred, and, as Periander perceived that Niloxenus,\nthough eager to enter upon the subject, was shy [Sidenote: 151] of doing\nso, he said: \u2018To my mind, gentlemen, it is a commendable practice,\nwhether of community or ruler, to take the business of strangers first\nand of citizens afterwards. On the present occasion, therefore, I\npropose that for a short time we suspend any topics of our own, as being\nlocal and familiar, and that we treat ourselves as an Assembly and\n\u2018grant an audience\u2019 to those royal communications from Egypt, of which\nour excellent friend Niloxenus is the bearer to Bias, and which Bias\ndesires that you should join him in considering.\u2019 \u2018Yes,\u2019 said Bias: \u2018for\nwhere, or with whom, could one more readily face the risk\u2014if it must be\nfaced\u2014of answering in a case like this, especially when the king\u2019s\ninstructions are that, though [Sidenote: B] the matter is to begin with\nme, it is to go the round of you all?\u2019 Niloxenus thereupon offered him\nthe document, but Bias bade him open it himself and read every word to\nthe whole company. The contents of the letter were to the following\neffect:\n\n    AMASIS, KING OF EGYPT, TO BIAS, WISEST OF THE GREEKS\n\n    _The King of Ethiopia is engaged in matching his wits against mine.\n    Hitherto he has had the worst of it, but has finally concocted a\n    terrible poser in the shape of a command that I should \u2018drink up the\n    sea\u2019. If I meet it with a solution, I am to have a number of his\n    villages and towns. If not, I am to surrender the cities in the\n    neighbourhood of Elephantine. Do you, therefore, take the matter\n    [Sidenote: C] in hand and send Niloxenus back to me at once. Any\n    return which friends or countrymen of yours require from me will be\n    made without hesitation on my part._\n\nThis part of the letter having been read, Bias was not long in\nanswering. After a few moments of meditation and a brief conversation\nwith Cleobulus, who was close to him at table, he said: \u2018Do you mean to\nsay, my friend from Naucratis, that Amasis, though reigning over so many\nsubjects and possessed of so large and excellent a country, will be\nready to drink up the sea in order to win a few miserable insignificant\nvillages?\u2019 \u2018Take it that he will, Bias,\u2019 replied Niloxenus, \u2018and\nconsider how it can be done.\u2019 \u2018Very well then,\u2019 said he: \u2018let him tell\n[Sidenote: D] the Ethiopian _to stop the rivers that run into the ocean,\nwhile he is himself drinking up the sea at present existing_. The\ncommand applies to the sea as it is, not as it is to be later on.\u2019 Bias\nno sooner made this speech than Niloxenus was so delighted that he\nrushed to embrace and kiss him. After the rest of the company had\ncheered and applauded, Chilon said with a laugh, \u2018Sir Visitor from\nNaucratis, before the sea is all drunk up and lost, set sail and tell\nAmasis not to be asking how to make away with all that brine, but rather\nhow to render his kingship sweet and drinkable for his subjects. Bias is\na past master at teaching [Sidenote: E] such a lesson, and, if Amasis\nlearns it, he will have no further occasion for his golden footpan[28]\nin dealing with the Egyptians. They will all be courting and making much\nof him for his goodness, even if he is declared to be of a thousand\ntimes lower birth than he actually is.\u2019 \u2018Yes, and by the way,\u2019 said\nPeriander, \u2018it would be a good thing if all\u2014\u201cman after man\u201d, as Homer\nhas it\u2014were to contribute a similar offering to His Majesty. A bonus of\nthe kind thrown in would not only make the returns on his venture more\nvaluable to him, but would also be the best thing in the world for us.\u2019\n\nChilon thereupon asserted that Solon was the right man to [Sidenote: F]\nmake a beginning on the subject, not only because he was senior to all\nthe rest and was in the place of honour at the table, but because,\nhaving legislated for the Athenians, he held the greatest and completest\nposition as a ruler. At this Niloxenus remarked quietly to me, \u2018People\nbelieve a good deal that is false, Diocles; and they mostly take a\ndelight in inventing for themselves, and in accepting with avidity from\nothers, mischievous stories about wise men. For instance, it was\nreported [Sidenote: 152] to us in Egypt that Chilon had cancelled his\nfriendship and his relations of hospitality with Solon, because Solon\ndeclared that laws were alterable.\u2019 At this I answered, \u2018The story is\nridiculous; for in that case Chilon ought to begin by disclaiming\nLycurgus and all his laws, as having altered the whole Lacedaemonian\nconstitution.\u2019\n\nAfter a brief delay Solon said: \u2018In my opinion a king or despot would\nwin most renown _by furnishing his fellow-citizens with a popular, in\nplace of a monarchical, government_.\u2019 The second to speak was Bias, who\nsaid: \u2018_By identifying his behaviour with the laws of his country._\u2019\nThales came next with the statement that he considered a ruler happy\n\u2018_if he died naturally of old age_\u2018. Fourth Anacharsis: \u2018_If good sense\nnever failed him._\u2019 [Sidenote: *] Fifth Cleobulus: \u2018_If he trusted none\nof those about him._\u2019 Sixth Pittacus: \u2018_If the ruler could get his\nsubjects to fear, not him, but [Sidenote: B] for him._\u2019 Next Chilon said\nthat \u2018_the ruler\u2019s conceptions should never be mortal, but always\nimmortal_\u2018.\n\nAfter hearing these dicta, we claimed that Periander himself should\nexpress an opinion. With anything but cheerfulness, and pulling a\nserious face, he replied: \u2018Well, the opinion I have to add is that every\none of the views stated practically disqualifies a man of sense from\nbeing a ruler.\u2019 Whereupon Aesop, as if in a spirit of reproof, said,\n\u2018You ought, of course, to have discussed this subject by yourselves, and\nnot to have delivered an attack upon rulers under pretence of being\ntheir advisers and friends.\u2019 [Sidenote: C] \u2018Don\u2019t you think,\u2019 said\nSolon, taking him by the head and smiling, \u2018that one can make a ruler\nmore moderate and a despot more reasonable by persuading him that it is\nbetter to decline such a position than to hold it?\u2019 \u2018And pray who,\u2019 he\nreplied, \u2018is likely to follow you in the matter rather than the God,\nwhose opinion is given in the oracle delivered to yourself:\n\n    _Bless\u00e8d the city that hearkens to one commander\u2019s proclaiming._\u2019\n\n\u2018True,\u2019 said Solon, \u2018but, as a matter of fact, the Athenians, though\nwith a popular government, do listen to one proclaimer [Sidenote: D] and\nruler in the shape of the law. You have a wonderful gift at\nunderstanding ravens and jackdaws, but your hearing of the [Sidenote: *]\nvoice of modesty is indistinct. While you think that a state is best off\nwhen it listens, as the God says, to \u201cone\u201d, you believe that the best\nconvivial party is that in which everybody talks on every subject.\u2019\n\u2018Yes,\u2019 said Aesop, \u2018for you have not yet legislated to the effect that\n\u201c_a slave shall not get tipsy_\u201d is to stand on the same footing with\nthose Athenian ordinances of yours which say \u201c_a slave shall not indulge\nin love or in dry-rubbing with oil_\u201d.\u2019[29] At this Solon broke into a\nlaugh, and Cleodorus the physician remarked: \u2018But, in one respect,\ntalking when the wine is taking effect does stand on the same footing\nwith dry-rubbing\u2014it is very pleasant.\u2019 \u2018Consequently,\u2019 [Sidenote: E]\nbroke in Chilon, \u2018it is the more to be avoided.\u2019 \u2018Yes,\u2019 said Aesop\nagain,[30] \u2018Thales did appear to recommend getting old as quickly as\npossible.\u2019 Periander laughed, and said: \u2018Aesop, we have been properly\npunished for dropping into other questions before bringing forward the\nwhole of those from Amasis, as we proposed. Pray look at the rest of the\nletter, Niloxenus, and take advantage of the gentlemen being all here\ntogether.\u2019 \u2018As for that,\u2019 replied Niloxenus, \u2018whereas the command sent\nby the Ethiopian can only be called a \u201cdoleful [Sidenote: F]\ndispatch\u201d\u2014as Archilochus would say\u2014your friend Amasis has shown a fine\nand more civilized taste in setting such problems. He bade him name the\noldest thing, the most beautiful, the greatest, the wisest, the most\nuniversal, and\u2014not stopping there\u2014the most beneficent, the most harmful,\nthe most powerful, and the easiest.\u2019 \u2018Well, and did his answers give the\nsolution in each case?\u2019 \u2018His replies were these,\u2019 said Niloxenus. \u2018It is\n[Sidenote: 153] for you to listen and judge; for the king is very\nanxious neither to be guilty of pettifogging with the answers, nor to\nlet any slip on the part of the answerer escape without refutation. I\nwill read you the replies as given. _What is the oldest thing?_\u2014_Time._\n_What the greatest?_\u2014_The universe._ _What the wisest?_\u2014_Truth._ _What\nthe most beautiful?_\u2014_Light._ _What the most universal?_\u2014_Death._ _What\nthe most beneficent?_\u2014_God._ _What the most harmful?_\u2014_Evil genius._\n_What the strongest?_\u2014_Fortune._ _What the easiest?_\u2014_That which is\npleasant._\u2019\n\nWell, Nicarchus, after the reading of this second passage there was a\nsilence. Then Thales asked Niloxenus if Amasis was satisfied with the\nsolutions. Upon his replying that he had [Sidenote: B] accepted some,\nbut was dissatisfied with others, Thales said, \u2018And yet not one of them\nis unassailable. There are great blunders and signs of ignorance all\nthrough. For instance, how can Time be the oldest thing, seeing that,\nwhile some of it is past and some present, some of it is future? Time\nwhich is to come after us must be regarded as younger than the events\nand persons of the present. Again, to call Truth wisdom appears to me as\nbad as making out that the light is the eye. Next, if he considered\nLight beautiful\u2014as indeed it is\u2014how came he to ignore the sun? As for\nthe rest, the answer concerning gods and evil spirits is bold and\ndangerous, while in that [Sidenote: C] concerning Fortune the logic is\nexceedingly bad. Fortune would not be so readily upset if it was the\nstrongest and most powerful thing in existence. Nor yet again is Death\nthe most universal thing, for in the case of the living it has no\nexistence. However, to avoid seeming merely to criticize the work of\nothers, let us express views of our own and compare them with his. I am\nready to be the first to be questioned point by point, if Niloxenus so\ndesires.\u2019\n\nIn relating the questions and answers I will put them exactly as they\noccurred. _What is the oldest thing?_ \u2018_God_,\u2019 said Thales: \u2018for He is\nwithout birth.\u2019 _What is greatest?_ \u2018_Space_: for [Sidenote: D] while\nthe universe contains everything else, it is space that contains the\nuniverse.\u2019 _What is most beautiful?_ \u2018_The cosmos_: for everything duly\nordered is part of it.\u2019 _What is wisest?_ \u2018_Time_: for it is Time that\nhas either discovered things or will discover them.\u2019 _What most\nuniversal?_ \u2018_Expectation_: for those who have nothing else have that.\u2019\n_What most beneficent?_ \u2018_Virtue_: for it makes other things beneficent\nby using them rightly.\u2019 _What most harmful?_ \u2018_Vice_: for most things\nsuffer from its presence.\u2019 _What most powerful?_ \u2018_Necessity_: for it is\ninvincible.\u2019 _What most easy?_ \u2018_The natural_; not pleasure, for people\noften fail to cope with that.\u2019\n\nThe whole company being satisfied with Thales and his [Sidenote: E]\nacumen, Cleodorus observed: \u2018It is questions and answers of this kind,\nNiloxenus, that are proper for kings. On the other hand, the barbarian\nwho gave Amasis the sea to drink, required the short answer made by\nPittacus to Alyattes, when he wrote the Lesbians a letter containing an\narrogant command. The reply was merely a recommendation to eat onions\nand hot bread.\u2019[31]\n\nHere Periander joined in; \u2018I may remind you, Cleodorus, that even in old\ntimes the Greeks had a habit of posing each [Sidenote: F] other with\nsimilar difficulties. We are told, for instance, that there was a\ngathering at Chalcis of the most distinguished poets among the wise men\nof the day, in order to celebrate the funeral of Amphidamas\u2014a great\nwarrior who had given much trouble to the Eretrians and had fallen in\nthe fighting for Lelantum. The verses composed by the poets were so well\nmatched, that it became a difficult and troublesome matter to judge\nbetween them, and the reputation of the competitors\u2014Homer and\nHesiod\u2014caused the jury much diffidence and [Sidenote: 154]\nembarrassment. Thereupon they had recourse to questions of the present\nkind, and Homer\u2014as Lesches tells us\u2014propounded the following:\n\n      _Tell me, Muse, of such things as neither before have befallen,\n      Nor shall hereafter befall?_\n\nTo which Hesiod instantly replied:\n\n    _When in eager pursuit of the prize the chariots, one \u2019gainst the\n       other\n    Are dashed by the ringing-hoof\u2019d steeds round the tomb where Zeus\n       lieth buried._\n\nThis answer, it is said, won particular admiration and secured him the\ntripod.\u2019\n\n\u2018But pray what is the difference,\u2019 asked Cleodorus, \u2018between such\nquestions and Eumetis\u2019s riddles? It is no doubt right [Sidenote: B]\nenough for her to set women such puzzles by way of amusement,\nconstructing them as other women plait their bits of girdles or\nhair-nets. But for sensible men to treat them with any seriousness is\nabsurd.\u2019 Eumetis would apparently have liked to make some retort, but\nshe was too shy, and checked herself, her face mantled with blushes.\n\u2018Nay,\u2019 said Aesop, by way of championing her, \u2018it is surely more absurd\nto be unable to solve them. Take for example the one she set us just\nbefore dinner:\n\n    _I saw a man glue bronze on a man; with fire did he glue it._\n\nCan you tell me what that means?\u2019 \u2018No, and I don\u2019t want [Sidenote: C] to\nbe told either,\u2019 answered Cleodorus. \u2018And yet,\u2019 said Aesop, \u2018no one is\nso familiar with the thing, or does it so well, as you. If you deny it,\ncupping-glasses[32] will bear me out.\u2019 At this Cleodorus laughed, for he\nmade more use of cupping-glasses than any medical man of the day, and\nthe estimation in which that remedy is held is especially due to him. \u2018I\nbeg to ask, Periander,\u2019 said Mnesiphilus the Athenian, a close friend\nand admirer of Solon, \u2018that the conversation, like the wine, shall not\nbe limited to wealth or rank, but shall be put on a democratic footing\nand made to concern all alike. In what has just been [Sidenote: D] said\nabout wealth and kingship there is nothing for us commoners. We think,\ntherefore, that you should take a government with equal rights, and each\nof you again contribute some opinion, beginning once more with Solon.\u2019\nIt was decided that this should be done. First came Solon. \u2018Well,\nMnesiphilus, you, like every other Athenian, have heard what opinion I\nhold about such a government. But if you desire to hear it again now, it\nseems to me that a community is in the soundest condition, and its\npopular government most securely maintained, _when the wrongdoer is\naccused and punished quite as much by those who [Sidenote: E] have not\nbeen wronged as by the man that has_.\u2019 The second to speak was Bias, who\nsaid that the best popular government is \u2018_that in which every one fears\nthe law as he would a despot_.\u2019 Next came Thales with \u2018_that in which\nthere are no citizens either too rich or too poor_.\u2019 Anacharsis followed\nwith \u2018_that in which, while everything else is treated as equal,\nsuperiority is determined by virtue and inferiority by vice_.\u2019 In the\nfifth place Cleobulus affirmed that a democracy is most soundly\nconducted \u2018_when its public men are more afraid of blame than of the\nlaw_\u2018. Sixth, Pittacus: \u2018_Where the bad are not permitted to hold office\nand the [Sidenote: F] good are not permitted to decline it._\u2019 Last of\nall Chilon expressed the view that the best free government is \u2018_that\nwhich pays least attention to the orators and most to the laws_.\u2019\nPeriander once more summed up at the end by saying that they all\nappeared to him to be praising \u2018that democratic government which most\nresembled an aristocratic.\u2019\n\nUpon the conclusion of this second discussion I begged that they would\nalso tell us the proper way to deal with a household; \u2018for while there\nare few who are at the helm of a kingdom or a commonwealth, we all play\nour parts in the hearth and home.\u2019 [Sidenote: 155] At this Aesop said\nwith a laugh: \u2018No! not if in \u201call\u201d you include Anacharsis. He has no\nhome, but actually prides himself on being homeless, and on using a\nwagon\u2014in the same way as they tell us the sun roams about in a chariot,\noccupying first one and then another region of the sky.\u2019 \u2018Yes,\u2019 retorted\nAnacharsis, \u2018and that is why, unlike any other\u2014or more than any\nother\u2014god, he is free and independent, ruling all and ruled by none, but\nalways playing the king and holding the reins. You, however, fail to\nrealize the surpassing beauty and marvellous [Sidenote: B] size of his\ncar, otherwise you would not have tried to raise a laugh by jocosely\ncomparing it with ours. It seems to me, Aesop, that to you a home means\nthose coverings of yours made by clay and wood and tiles. You might as\nwell regard a \u201csnail\u201d as meaning the shell instead of the animal. It is\ntherefore natural that you should find cause to laugh at Solon, when he\nbeheld all the costly splendour in the house of Croesus and yet refused\nto declare off-hand that its possessor was happy and blessed in his\nhome; \u201cfor\u201d\u2014he argued\u2014\u201cI am more desirous of looking at the fine things\nin the man than at those in his house.\u201d It appears, moreover, that you\nhave forgotten your own fox. That animal, when she and the leopard were\nengaged in a dispute as to which was the more \u201ccunningly marked\u201d, begged\nthe judge to examine her on the inside, inasmuch as she would be found\nto possess more \u201cmarks of cunning\u201d from that point of view. But you go\ninspecting the productions of carpenters [Sidenote: C] and stone-masons,\nand regarding those as the \u201chome\u201d, instead of the inward and domestic\nconstituents in the case\u2014the children, wife, friends, and servants. If\nthese have good sense and good morals, a man who shares his best means\nwith them possesses a good and happy home, even if it be but an ant-hill\nor a bird\u2019s-nest.\u2019 \u2018That,\u2019 he continued, \u2018is my answer to Aesop and my\ncontribution to Diocles. But it is only fair that each of the others\nshould express his own views.\u2019\n\nThereupon Solon said that in his opinion the best household was \u2018_that\nin which the resources are acquired without dishonesty, [Sidenote: D]\nwatched over without distrust, and expended without repentance_\u2018.\nAccording to Bias it was \u2018_that inside which the master behaves for his\nown sake as well as he does outside for the law\u2019s sake_\u2018. According to\nThales, \u2018_that in which the master can find most time to himself_\u2018.\nAccording to Cleobulus, \u2018_where the master has more who love than fear\nhim_.\u2019 Pittacus would have it that the best house is \u2018_that which wants\nno luxury and lacks no necessity_\u2018. Chilon\u2019s view was that the house\nshould be \u2018_as like as possible to a state ruled by a king_\u2018, and he\nwent on to observe that when some one urged Lycurgus to establish a\nrepublic at Sparta, he [Sidenote: E] answered: \u2018You begin by creating a\nrepublic at home.\u2019\n\nThis topic also having been dealt with, Eumetis left the room in company\nwith Melissa. Periander then pledged Chilon in a capacious goblet, and\nChilon in turn pledged Bias. At this Ardalus got up, and, addressing\nAesop, said: \u2018Perhaps you will be good enough to pass yonder cup on to\nus, seeing that these gentlemen are passing theirs to each other, as if\nit were a Bathycles\u2019s goblet,[33] and are giving no one else a turn.\u2019\n\u2018Nay,\u2019 [Sidenote: F] replied Aesop, \u2018there is to be nothing democratic\nabout this cup either, for Solon has been keeping it all to himself for\nquite an age.\u2019 Thereupon Pittacus, addressing Mnesiphilus, asked why\nSolon, by not drinking, was testifying against the verses in which he\nhad written\n\n    _Now do I welcome the tasks of the Cyprus-born goddess and Bacchus,\n    And tasks of the Muses that bring cheer to the heart of mankind._\n\n\u2018Because,\u2019 said Anacharsis, before Mnesiphilus could speak, \u2018he is\nfrightened at that cruel law of your own, Pittacus, where the words run,\n_If any one commit any offence when drunk, the penalty to be double that\npaid by a man who was sober._\u2019 \u2018And you,\u2019 retorted Pittacus, \u2018showed\nsuch wanton contempt of the law that last year, when you had got\nintoxicated at that [Sidenote: 156] party at Delphi, you asked for a\nprize and a victor\u2019s wreath.\u2019 \u2018And why not?\u2019 asked Anacharsis. \u2018A prize\nwas offered to him who drank most, and, since I was the first to get\ntipsy, I, of course, claimed the reward of victory. Otherwise will you\ngentlemen tell me what is the end and aim of drinking a large quantity\nof unmixed wine, if it is not to get intoxicated?\u2019 Pittacus laughed,\nwhile Aesop told the following story. \u2018A wolf, having seen some\nshepherds eating a sheep in a tent, came close up to them, and said:\n\u201cWhat a to-do you would have made if _I_ had been doing that!\u201d\u2019 At this\nChilon remarked, \u2018Aesop has properly taken his revenge. A moment ago we\nput the muzzle on him, and now he sees that others have taken the words\nout of Mnesiphilus\u2019 mouth. It was Mnesiphilus who was requested to\nanswer on behalf of Solon.\u2019 \u2018Well, in doing so,\u2019 said Mnesiphilus, \u2018I\nspeak with knowledge. In Solon\u2019s opinion [Sidenote: B] the concern of\nevery art and faculty of man or God is with results rather than with\nagencies, the end rather than the means. A weaver, I take it, would\nconsider his object to be a cloak or mantle rather than the arrangement\nof his shuttle-rods or the picking-up of his straightening-stones. To a\nblacksmith it is rather the welding of iron and putting an edge on an\naxe than any of the processes necessary thereto, such as the kindling of\nhis charcoal or the preparation of lime. Still more would a\nmaster-builder object if, instead of a ship or a house, we declared his\nobject to be the boring of wood or the mixing of mortar. The Muses would\nutterly scout the notion that their [Sidenote: C] concern is with a harp\nor flute, instead of with the cultivation of character and the soothing\nof the emotions of their votaries by means of melodies properly attuned.\nSo\u2014to come to the point\u2014the object of Aphrodite is not sexual\nintercourse, nor that of Dionysus wine and tipsiness, but the friendly\nfeeling, the longing, the companionship, and the close mutual\nunderstanding which they produce in us by those agencies. These are what\nSolon calls divine \u201ctasks\u201d, and he means that these are the objects\nwhich he appreciates and cultivates in his old age. Of reciprocal\naffection between men and women Aphrodite is the creator, using pleasure\nas the means of melting and commingling their souls at the same time\nwith their bodies; while in ordinary cases, where persons are not very\nintimate or particularly acquainted, Dionysus uses wine as a kind of\nfire to soften and supple their dispositions, and so provides a\nstarting-point towards a blending in mutual friendship.\n\n\u2018But when such men meet together as Periander has invited in your\npersons, there is no need, I take it, of the goblet and the wine-ladle.\nThe Muses set before you all, in the form of conversation, a mixing-bowl\ncontaining no intoxicant and yet abundance of pleasure, grave or gay. In\nthis they stir friendly feeling, blend it, and pour it forth, while for\nthe most part the [Sidenote: E] ladle is allowed to lie undisturbed\n\u201cabove the bowl\u201d\u2014a thing which Hesiod forbids where the company is\nbetter qualified for drinking than for conversation.\u2019\n\n\u2018As for pledging one another,\u2019 he continued, \u2018I gather that with the\nancients the ceremony consisted of one large goblet going the round,\neach man drinking a measured \u201callowance\u201d (as Homer tells us), and then\nletting his neighbour take his share, as he would do with a sacrificial\nportion.\u2019\n\nWhen Mnesiphilus had finished, the poet Chersias\u2014who had ceased to be\nunder censure and had lately been reconciled to [Sidenote: F] Periander\nthrough Chilon\u2019s intercession\u2014remarked, \u2018Are we also to understand that,\nwhen the gods were the guests of Zeus and were pledging each other, he\npoured in their drink by measure, as Agamemnon did for his chieftains?\u2019\n\u2018And pray, Chersias,\u2019 said Cleodorus, \u2018if Zeus has his ambrosia\nbrought\u2014as you poets say he does\u2014by doves which find the greatest\ndifficulty in flying over the Clashing Rocks, don\u2019t you think [Sidenote:\n157] that his nectar is also scarce and hard to get, and that\nconsequently he is sparing of it and doles it out economically?\u2019\n\u2018Perhaps so,\u2019 replied Chersias. \u2018Since, however, the question of\nhousehold economy has again been mooted, perhaps some one will deal with\nthe remainder of the question. And that, I take it, is to discover what\namount of property will be sufficient to meet all needs.\u2019 \u2018To the wise\nman,\u2019 said Cleobulus, \u2018the law has supplied the standard; but in\nreference to weak characters I will repeat a story which my daughter\ntold her brother. The Moon, she said, asked her mother to weave a tunic\nto fit her; whereat the mother answered, \u201cHow can I possibly [Sidenote:\nB] weave one to fit? At one time I see you as a full moon, at another as\na crescent, and at another gibbous.\u201d Similarly, my dear Chersias, there\nis no way of determining the amount of means requisite for a weak and\nfoolish person. His wants vary with his appetites and experiences, his\ncase being that of Aesop\u2019s dog, of whom our friend says that in winter\nhe huddled and curled himself up with the cold, and contemplated making\na house; but in summer it was different; he stretched himself out when\nhe slept, thought himself a big fellow, and decided that it was both a\nlaborious and an unnecessary task to build so large a house to cover\nhim. Don\u2019t you observe, Chersias\u2019\u2014he went on\u2014\u2018that even insignificant\npeople, though they will at one moment draw themselves into a very\nmodest compass, with the idea of living a close and simple Spartan life,\nat another [Sidenote: C] time will fancy they are going to die of want\nunless they have all the money in the world\u2014all the king\u2019s and all the\nprivate people\u2019s?\u2019\n\nChersias having nothing to say, Cleodorus joined in. \u2018Well, but,\u2019 he\nsaid, \u2018I perceive that there is no equal distribution in the properties\nwhich even you sages respectively possess.\u2019 \u2018Yes, my dear sir,\u2019 said\nCleobulus, \u2018because the law, like a weaver, allots us the amount which\nproperly and reasonably fits each case. In your own profession,\nsubstituting reason for law, you feed [Sidenote: D] and diet and physic\nthe sick by prescribing, not the same quantity for everybody, but the\nproper quantity for each case.\u2019 Here Ardalus interposed. \u2018I suppose,\nthen,\u2019 he asked, \u2018it is at the bidding of some law that Epimenides\u2014the\nfriend of you gentlemen and the guest of Solon\u2014abstains from other kinds\nof food and passes the day without breakfast or dinner by merely putting\nin his mouth a little of that \u201canti-hunger essence\u201d which he makes up\nfor himself?\u2019 This remark having arrested the attention of the party,\nThales mockingly observed that Epimenides was a sensible man for\nrefusing to be troubled\u2014as [Sidenote: E] Pittacus was\u2014with grinding and\ncooking his own food. \u2018You must know,\u2019 he said, \u2018that when I was at\nEresus, I heard my hostess singing to the mill:\n\n                   _Grind, mill, grind;\n                   For Pittacus is grinding,\n                   As he kings it over great Mytilene._\u2019\n\nThen Solon expressed his surprise that Ardalus had not read the law\nordaining the diet in question, seeing that it was written in the verses\nof Hesiod. \u2018For it is he who first supplied Epimenides with hints for\nthat form of nourishment, by teaching him to make trial [Sidenote: F]\n\n    _How great and sustaining the food that in mallow and asphodel\n    lieth._\n\n\u2018Nay,\u2019 said Periander, \u2018do you imagine Hesiod conceived of anything of\nthe kind? Don\u2019t you suppose that, with his habitual praise of economy,\nhe is merely urging us to try the most frugal dishes as being the most\nagreeable? The mallow makes good eating, and asphodel-stalk is sweet;\nbut I am told that anti-hunger and anti-thirst drugs\u2014for they are drugs\nrather than foods\u2014include among their ingredients some sort of foreign\nhoney and cheese, and a large number of seeds which are difficult to\nprocure. Most certainly, therefore, Hesiod would find that the\n\u201c_rudder_\u201d hung \u201c_above the smoke_\u201d and\n\n    _The works of the drudging mules and the oxen\u2019s labour would\n    perish_,\n\n[Sidenote: 158] if all that provision is to be made. I am surprised,\nSolon, if your guest, on recently making his great purification of\nDelos, failed to note how they present to the temple\u2014as commemorative\nsamples of the earliest form of food\u2014mallow and asphodel-stalk along\nwith other cheap and self-grown produce. The natural reason for which\nHesiod also recommends them to us is that they are simple and frugal.\u2019\n\u2018Not only so,\u2019 remarked Anacharsis, \u2018but both vegetables bear the\nhighest possible character for wholesomeness.\u2019 \u2018You are quite right,\u2019\nsaid Cleodorus. \u2018That Hesiod possessed medical knowledge is manifest\nfrom the careful and well-informed manner in which he speaks about diet,\nthe mixing of wine, good quality in water, [Sidenote: B] bathing, women,\nand the way to seat infants. But it seems to me that there is more\nreason for Aesop to declare himself a pupil of Hesiod than there is for\nEpimenides. It is to the speech of the hawk to the nightingale that our\nfriend owes the first promptings to his admirably subtle wisdom in many\ntongues. But for my part I should be glad to hear what Solon has to say.\nWe may assume that, in his long association with Epimenides at Athens,\nhe asked him what motive or subtle purpose he had in adopting such a\ndiet.\u2019\n\n\u2018What need was there to ask him that question?\u2019 replied Solon. \u2018It was\nself-evident that the next best thing to the [Sidenote: C] supreme and\ngreatest good is to require the least possible food. You allow, I\nsuppose, that the greatest good is to require no food at all?\u2019 \u2018Not I,\nby any means,\u2019 answered Cleodorus, \u2018if I am to say what I think,\nespecially with a table in front of us. Take away food, and you take\naway the table\u2014that is to say, the altar of the Gods of Friendship and\nHospitality. As Thales tells us that, if you do away with the earth, the\nwhole cosmos will fall into confusion, so the abolition of food means\nthe dissolution of house and home. For with it you do away with the\nhearth-fire, the hearth, the wine-bowl, all entertainment and\nhospitality\u2014the most humanizing and essential elements in our mutual\nrelations. Or rather you do away with the whole of life, if life is \u201c_a\npassing of the time on the part [Sidenote: D] of a human being involving\na series of actions_\u201d, most of those actions being evoked by the need,\nand in the acquirement, of food. Of immense importance, my good friend,\nis the question [Sidenote: *] of mere agriculture. Let agriculture\nperish, and the earth that it leaves us becomes unsightly and foul, a\ncorrupt wilderness of barren forest and vagabond streams. The ruin of\nagriculture means the ruin of all arts and crafts as well; for she takes\nthe lead of them, and provides them with their basis and their\n[Sidenote: E] material. Do away with her, and they count for nothing.\nThere is an end also to our honouring the gods. Men will thank the Sun\nbut little, and the Moon still less, for mere light and warmth. Where\nwill you find altar or sacrifice to Zeus of the Rain, Demeter of the\nPlough, or Poseidon the Fosterer of Plants? How can Dionysus be\nBoon-Giver, if we need nothing that he gives? What sacrifice or libation\nshall we make? What offering of firstfruits? All this means the\noverthrow and confounding of our most important interests. Though to\ncling to every pleasure in every case is to be a madman, to avoid every\npleasure in every case is to be a block. By all means let the soul have\n[Sidenote: F] other pleasures of a superior kind to enjoy; the body can\nfind no pleasure more right and proper than that derived from taking\nfood. All the world recognizes the fact, for this pleasure people take\nopenly, sharing with each other in the table and the banquet, whereas\ntheir amorous pleasure is screened by night and all the darkness\npossible. To share that pleasure with others is considered as shameless\nand brutelike as it is not to share in the case of the table.\u2019\n\nHere, as Cleodorus paused for a moment, I joined in: \u2018And is there not\nanother point\u2014that in discarding food we also [Sidenote: 159] discard\nsleep? If there is no sleep, there is no dreaming either, and we lose\nour most important means of divination. Moreover, life will be all\nalike, and there will be practically no purpose in wearing a body round\nour soul. Most of its parts, and the most important, are provided as\ninstruments to feeding\u2014the tongue, teeth, stomach, and liver. None of\nthem is without its work, and none has other business to attend to.\nConsequently any one who has no need of food has no need of a body\neither. Which means that a person has no need of himself; for it is\nthanks to the body that each of us is a \u201cself\u201d.\u2019 \u2018Such,\u2019 I added, \u2018are\nour contributions on behalf of the belly. If Solon or any one else has\nobjections to bring, we will listen.\u2019\n\n\u2018Of course I have objections,\u2019 replied Solon. \u2018I have no [Sidenote: B]\nwish to be thought a poorer judge than the Egyptians. After cutting open\na dead body, they take out the entrails and expose them to the sunlight.\nThey then throw those parts into the river and proceed to attend to the\nrest of the body, which is now regarded as purified. Yes, therein in\ntruth lies the pollution of our flesh. It is its Tartarus\u2014like that in\nHades\u2014full of \u201cdreadful streams\u201d, a confused medley of wind and fire and\nof dead things. For while itself lives, nothing that feeds it can be\nalive. We commit the wrong of murdering animate things and of destroying\nplants, which can claim to have life through the fact that they feed and\ngrow. I say destroying, because [Sidenote: C] anything that changes from\nwhat nature has made it into something else, is destroyed; it must\nperish utterly in order to become the other\u2019s sustenance. To abstain\nfrom eating flesh, as we are told Orpheus did in ancient times, is more\na quibble than an avoidance of crime in the matter of food. The only way\nof avoiding it, and the only way of attaining to justice by a complete\npurification, is to become self-sufficing and free of external needs. If\nGod has made it impossible for a thing to secure its own preservation\nwithout injury to another, He has also endowed it with the principle of\ninjustice in the shape of its own nature. Would it not, therefore, be a\ngood thing, my dear friend, if, when cutting out injustice, we could cut\nout the belly, the gullet, and the liver, which impart to us no\nperception [Sidenote: D] of anything noble and no appetite for it, but\npartly resemble the utensils for cooking butcher\u2019s meat\u2014such as choppers\nand stew-pans\u2014and partly the apparatus for a bakery\u2014ovens, water-tanks,\nand kneading-troughs? Indeed, in the case of most [Sidenote: *] people\nyou can see their soul shut up in their body as if in a baker\u2019s mill,\nand perpetually going round and round at the business of getting food.\nTake ourselves, for example. Just now we were neither looking at nor\nlistening to one another, but we all had our heads down, slaving at the\nbusiness of feeding. But now that the tables have been removed, we\nhave\u2014as you perceive\u2014become free, and with garlands on our heads we are\n[Sidenote: E] engaged in sociable and leisurely conversation together,\nbecause we have arrived at the state of not requiring food. Well then,\nif the state in which we now find ourselves remains as a permanence all\nour lives, shall we not be at perpetual leisure to enjoy each other\u2019s\nsociety? We shall have no fear of poverty. Nor shall we know the meaning\nof wealth, since the quest for luxuries is but the immediate consequence\nand concomitant of the use of necessaries.\n\n\u2018But, thinks Cleodorus, there must be food so that there may be tables\nand wine-bowls and sacrifices to Demeter and the Maid. Then let some one\nelse demand that there shall be war and fighting, so that we may have\nfortifications and arsenals and [Sidenote: F] armouries, and also\nsacrifices in honour of slaying our hundreds, such as they say are the\nlaw in Messenia. Another, I suppose, is aggrieved at the prospect of the\nhealthfulness which would follow. A terrible thing if, because there is\nno illness, there is no more use in soft bedclothes, and no more\nsacrificing to Asclepius or the Averting Powers, and if medical skill,\nwith all its drugs and implements, must be put away into inglorious\nhiding! What is the difference between these arguments and the other?\nFood is, in fact, \u201ctaken\u201d as a \u201cremedy\u201d for hunger, and all who use food\nare said to be \u201ctaking care\u201d of [Sidenote: 160] themselves and using\nsome \u201cdiet\u201d; and this implies that the act is not a pleasant and\nagreeable performance, but one which Nature renders compulsory.\nCertainly one can enumerate more pains than pleasures arising from\nfeeding. Further still; whereas the pleasure affects but a small region\nof the body, and lasts but a short time, it needs no telling how full we\nbecome of ugly and painful experiences through the worry and difficulty\nof digesting.\n\nHomer had these in view, I suppose, when he used as a proof that the\ngods do not die the fact that they do not feed:\n\n    _For they eat not the bread of corn, nor drink they the wine that is\n       ruddy,\n    And therefore blood have they none in their veins, and are called\n       the Immortals._\n\nFood, he gives us to understand, is the necessary means not only\n[Sidenote: B] for living, but for dying. From it come our diseases,\nfeeding themselves with the feeding of our bodies, which suffer quite as\nmuch from repletion as from want. Very often it is an easier business to\nget together our supply of victuals than to make away with them and get\nquit of them again when once they are in the body. Just suppose it were\na question with the Danaids what sort of life they would live and what\nthey would do if they could get rid of their menial labour at filling\nthe cask. When we raise the question, \u201cSupposing it possible to cease\nfrom heaping into this unconscionable flesh all these things from\n[Sidenote: C] land and sea, what are we going to do?\u201d it is because in\nour ignorance of noble things we are content with the life which our\nnecessities impose. Well, as those who have been in slavery, when they\nare emancipated, do for themselves and on their own account what they\nused formerly to do in the service of their masters, so is it with the\nsoul. As things are, it feeds the body with continual toil and trouble;\nbut let it get quit of its menial service, and it will presumably feed\nitself in the enjoyment of freedom, and will live with an eye to itself\nand the truth, with nothing to distract and deter it.\u2019\n\nThis, Nicarchus, concluded the discussion as to food.\n\nWhile Solon was still speaking, Gorgos, Periander\u2019s brother, entered the\nroom. It happened that, in consequence of certain [Sidenote: D] oracles,\nhe had been sent on a mission to Taenarum in charge of a sacrificial\nembassy. After we had welcomed him, and Periander had taken him to his\narms and kissed him, he sat down by his brother on the couch and gave\nhim a private account of some occurrence which appeared to cause\nPeriander various emotions as he listened to it. At one part he was\nmanifestly vexed, at another indignant; often he showed incredulity, and\nthis was followed by amazement. Finally he laughed and said to us, \u2018I\nshould like to tell the company the news; but I have [Sidenote: E]\nscruples about it, because I heard Thales once say that when a thing is\nprobable we should speak of it, but when it is impossible we should say\nnothing about it.\u2019 At this Bias interposed, \u2018Yes, but here is another\nwise saying of Thales, that \u201cwhile we should disbelieve our enemies even\nin matters believable, we should believe our friends even when the thing\nis unbelievable\u201d. By enemies I presume he meant the wicked and foolish,\nand by friends the good and wise.\u2019 \u2018Very well then,\u2019 said Periander,\n\u2018you must let every one hear it; or rather you must pit the story you\nhave brought us against those new-fangled dithyrambs and overcrow them.\u2019\n\nGorgos then told us his story.\n\nHis sacrificial ceremony had occupied three days, and on the [Sidenote:\nF] last there was an all-night festival with dancing and frolic by the\nsea-shore. The sea was covered with the light of the moon, and, though\nthere was no wind, but a dead calm, there appeared in the distance a\nripple coming in past the promontory, accompanied by foam and a very\nappreciable noise of surge. At this they all ran in astonishment down to\nthe place where it was [Sidenote: *] coming to land. This happened so\nquickly that, before they could guess what was approaching, dolphins\nwere seen, some of them massed together and moving in a ring, some\nleading the way to the levellest part of the shore, and others as it\nwere [Sidenote: 161] bringing up the rear. In the middle there stood out\nabove the sea, dim and indistinct, the shape of a body being carried. So\nthey came on, until, gathering together and coming to land at the same\nmoment, they put ashore a human being, alive and moving; after which\nthey themselves retired in the direction of the promontory, leaping out\nof the water more than ever and for some reason, apparently, frolicking\nand bounding for joy. \u2018Many of our number,\u2019 continued Gorgos, \u2018fled from\nthe sea in a panic, but a few found the courage to approach along with\nmyself, and discovered that it was Arion, the harp-player. Not only did\nhe utter his own name, but his dress spoke for itself, [Sidenote: B] for\nhe was actually wearing the festal robes which he adopted when\nperforming at the competitions. Well, we brought him to a tent, and,\ninasmuch as there was nothing the matter with him except that he was\nevidently tired and overstrained from the rushing motion, we heard him\ntell a story which no one would believe except us who actually saw the\nend of it.\n\n\u2018What Arion told us was this. He had for some time made up his mind to\nleave Italy, and had been made the more eager to do so by a letter from\nPeriander. Accordingly, when a Corinthian merchant-vessel appeared on\nthe scene, he at once went on board and put to sea. They had a moderate\nwind for three days, when he perceived that the sailors were forming a\nplot to make away with him, and was afterwards secretly informed\n[Sidenote: C] by the pilot that they had resolved to do the deed that\nnight. At this, being helpless and at a loss what to do, he acted upon a\nkind of heaven-sent impulse. He decided that he would adorn his person\nand\u2014while still alive\u2014put on his own shroud in the shape of his festal\nattire. Then, in meeting his death, he would sing a _finale_ to life,\nand in that respect show no less spirit than the swan does. Accordingly,\nhaving dressed himself and given notice that he felt moved to perform\nthe Pythian hymn on behalf of the safety of himself and the ship and\ncrew, [Sidenote: D] he took his stand on the poop by the bulwarks. After\nsome prelude invoking the gods of the sea, he began to sing the piece.\nJust before he was half-way through, the sun began to set into the sea\nand the Peloponnese to come into sight. Thereupon the sailors no longer\nwaited for night, but advanced to their murderous deed. Arion, seeing\ntheir knives unsheathed and the pilot beginning to cover his face from\nthe sight, ran back and hurled himself as far as possible from the\nvessel. Before, however, his body had all sunk into the water, a number\nof dolphins ran under him and bore him up. At first he was filled with\nbewilderment, distress, and alarm; but when he found himself riding\neasily, and saw many of them gathering about [Sidenote: E] him in a\nfriendly way, and taking turns at the work as if it were a necessary\nduty belonging to them all; and when the long distance at which the\nvessel was left behind showed how great was their speed; he said that\nwhat he felt was not so much fear of death or desire of life, as\neagerness to be rescued, so that he might become recognized as the\nobject of divine favour, and might have his reputation as a religious\nman assured.\n\nAt the same time, observing that the sky was full of stars, and that the\nmoon was rising bright and clear, while the sea [Sidenote: F] on all\nsides was waveless and a kind of path was being cut for his course, he\nwas led to reflect that Justice has more eyes than one, and that God\nlooks abroad with all those orbs upon whatever deeds are done by land or\nsea. By these reflections (he told us) he found relief from the\nweariness which was by this time beginning to weigh upon his body, and\nwhen at last, dexterously avoiding and rounding the lofty and\nprecipitous headland which ran out to meet them, they swam close in by\nthe shore and [Sidenote: 162] brought him safely to land like a ship\ninto harbour, he realized beyond doubt that he had been steered on his\nvoyage by the hand of God. \u2018When Arion had told us this story,\u2019\ncontinued Gorgos, \u2018I asked him where he thought the ship would put in.\nHe answered that it would certainly be at Corinth, but that it was left\nfar behind; for, after throwing himself off it in the evening, he\nbelieved he had been carried over sixty miles and a calm had fallen\nimmediately.\u2019 Gorgos added, however, that after ascertaining the names\nof the captain and pilot, and also the ship\u2019s flag, he had sent out\nvessels and soldiers to the various landing-places to keep a watch.\nMoreover, he had Arion with [Sidenote: B] him in hiding, so that they\nmight not hear of his rescue beforehand and make their escape. \u2018The\nevent,\u2019 he said, \u2018has proved truly miraculous; for no sooner did we\narrive here than we learned that the ship had been seized by the\nsoldiers, and the traders and sailors arrested.\u2019\n\nThereupon Periander ordered Gorgos to get up and go out at once and\nplace the men in custody where no one would approach them or tell them\nof Arion\u2019s escape.\n\n\u2018Well now,\u2019 said Aesop, \u2018you gentlemen make fun of my jackdaws and crows\nfor talking. Do dolphins behave in this outrageous way?\u2019 To which I\nreplied, \u2018A different matter, [Sidenote: C] Aesop! A story to the same\neffect as this has been believed and written among us for more than a\nthousand years, ever since the times of Ino and Athamas.\u2019\n\nSolon here interposed: \u2018Well, Diodes; let us grant that these events are\nin the sphere of the divine and beyond us. But what happened to Hesiod\nis on our own human plane. You have probably heard the story.\u2019 \u2018For my\npart, no,\u2019 I answered. \u2018Well, it is worth hearing. Hesiod and a\nMilesian\u2014I think it was\u2014shared the same room as guests in a house at\n[Sidenote: D] Locri. The Milesian having been found out in a secret\nintrigue with the host\u2019s daughter, Hesiod fell under suspicion of having\nall along known of the offence and helped in concealing it. Though in no\nway guilty, he fell a victim to cruel circumstance at a critical time of\nanger and misrepresentation. For the girl\u2019s brothers lay in wait for him\nat the Nemeum in Locris and killed him, together with his servant, whose\nname was Troilus. Their bodies having been pushed into the sea, that of\nTroilus, which was carried out into the current of the river Daphnus,\nwas caught by a low wave-washed rock projecting a little above the\nwater. The rock still bears his name. Meanwhile the [Sidenote: E] dead\nbody of Hesiod was picked up immediately off the shore by a shoal of\ndolphins, who proceeded to carry it to Rhium, close to Molycrea. It\nhappened that the Locrians were engaged in the Rhian festival and fair,\nwhich is still a notable celebration in those parts. At sight of the\nbody being borne towards them they were naturally amazed, and when, on\nrunning down to the shore, they recognized the corpse\u2014for it was still\nfresh\u2014they could think of nothing but tracking out the murder, so high\nwas the renown of Hesiod. Their object was soon achieved. They\ndiscovered the murderers, threw them into the sea, and razed their house\nto the ground. Meanwhile Hesiod was buried near the Nemeum. Most\nstrangers, however, are ignorant of his tomb, which has been concealed\nbecause the people of [Sidenote: F] Orchomenus are in quest of it, from\na desire, it is said, to recover the remains and bury them in their own\ncountry in accordance with an oracle.\n\n\u2018If, then, dolphins show such affectionate interest in the dead, it is\nstill more natural for them to render help to the living, especially if\nthey have been charmed by the flute or the singing of tunes. For, of\ncourse, we are all aware that music is a thing which these animals enjoy\nand court, swimming and gambolling beside a ship as its oarsmen row to\nthe tune of song and flute in calm weather. They take a delight also in\nchildren when [Sidenote: 163] swimming, and they have diving matches\nwith them. Hence there is an unwritten law that they shall not be\nharmed. No one hunts them or injures them; the only exception being\nthat, when they get into the nets and do mischief to the catch, they are\npunished with a beating, like naughty children. I further remember\nhearing some Lesbians tell of a girl having been rescued from the sea by\na dolphin. I am not, however, sure as to the exact details, and, since\nPittacus knows them, he is the right person to tell us about them.\u2019\n\nPittacus thereupon assured us that the story had good warrant and was\nmentioned by many authorities. \u2018An oracle was given to the colonizers of\nLesbos that, when on the voyage they came across the reef known as\nMesogeum, they should then and [Sidenote: B] there throw a bull into the\nwater as an offering to Poseidon, and a live virgin to Amphitrite and\nthe Nereids. There were seven chiefs, all of whom were kings,\nEchelaus\u2014whom the Pythian oracle had assigned as leader of the\ncolony\u2014making an eighth. Echelaus was still a bachelor. When as many of\nthe seven as had unmarried girls cast lots, the lot fell upon the\ndaughter of Smintheus. Upon getting near the place, they decked her in\nfine clothes and gold ornaments, and, after offering prayer, were on the\npoint of lowering her into the water. Now it happened that one of the\nparty on the ship\u2014assuredly a gallant young man\u2014was in love with her.\nHis name has been preserved to us as Enalus. This youth, in the passion\nof the [Sidenote: C] moment, seized by an eager but utterly hopeless\ndesire to succour the girl, darted forward at the right instant and,\nthrowing his arms about her, cast himself along with her into the sea.\nNow from the first there was spread among the contingent a rumour,\nlacking certainty, but nevertheless widely believed, that they were safe\nand had been rescued; and at a later date, it is said, Enalus appeared\nin Lesbos and told how they had been carried by dolphins through the sea\nand cast ashore without harm upon the mainland. He had other still more\nmiraculous experiences to tell, which held the crowd spellbound with\namazement, but for all of which he gave actual evidence. For when an\nenormous wave was rushing sheer round [Sidenote: D] the island and\npeople were terrified, he alone ventured to face it. [Sidenote: *] On\nits retiring, a number of polypi followed him to the temple of Poseidon.\nFrom the largest of these he took a stone which it was carrying, and\noffered it as a dedication. That stone we call Enalus.\n\n\u2018Speaking generally, the man who knows the difference between impossible\nand unfamiliar, between unreasonable and unexpected, will be most a man\nafter your own heart, Chilon; he will neither believe nor disbelieve\nwithout discrimination, but will carefully observe your own rule of\n\u201c_nothing in excess_\u201d.\u2019\n\nAnacharsis next made the remark that, as Thales believed [Sidenote: E]\nall the greatest and most important components of the universe to\ncontain soul, there was no reason to wonder if the most splendid actions\nwere brought to pass by the will of God. \u2018For the body is the instrument\nof the soul, and soul is the instrument of God. And as, though many of\nthe motions of the body proceed from itself, the most and the finest are\nproduced by the soul, so again is it with the soul. While it performs\nmany actions on its own motion, in other cases it is but lending itself,\nas the aptest of all instruments, to the use of God, for Him to direct\nand apply it as He chooses. It would,\u2019 said he, \u2018be [Sidenote: F] a very\nstrange thing if, while fire, wind, water, clouds, and rain are God\u2019s\ninstruments, by which He often preserves and nourishes and often kills\nand destroys, He has never on any occasion at all used animals as His\nagents. On the contrary, it is natural that, in their dependence upon\nthe divine power, they should lend themselves more responsively to\nmotions from God than does the bow to the Scythian or the lyre and flute\nto the Greek.\u2019\n\nAfter this the poet Chersias mentioned, among other cases of persons\nrescued in hopeless situations, that of Cypselus, Periander\u2019s father.\nWhen he was a newborn babe, the men who had been sent to make away with\nhim were turned from their purpose because he smiled at them. When they\nchanged their minds and came back to look for him, he was not to be\nfound, his mother having hidden him in a chest. \u2018It is for this reason\n[Sidenote: 164] that Cypselus built the house at Delphi, believing that\nthe god had then stopped him from crying so that he might elude the\nsearch.\u2019\n\nAt this Pittacus, addressing Periander, observed, \u2018I have to thank\nChersias, Periander, for mentioning that house; for I have often wanted\nto ask you the meaning of those frogs which are carved in such large\nsize at the base of the palm-tree. What reference have they to the god\nor to the dedication?\u2019 Periander having bidden him ask Chersias, who\nknew the reason and was present when Cypselus consecrated the house,\nChersias said with [Sidenote: B] a smile, \u2018No: I will give no\ninformation until these gentlemen have told me the meaning of their\n_Nothing in excess_ and _Know thyself_, and of those words which have\nkept many people from marrying, made many distrustful, and reduced some\nto positive dumbness\u2014the words _Give a pledge, and Mischief is nigh._\u2019\n\u2018Why do you need us to tell you that,\u2019 said Pittacus, \u2018seeing that you\nhave so long admired the stories in which Aesop practically deals with\neach of those maxims?\u2019 \u2018Nay,\u2019 replied Aesop, \u2018he does need it, when he\nis joking at me. But when he is in earnest, he proves that Homer was\ntheir inventor. He says that Hector \u201cknew himself\u201d, inasmuch as, though\n[Sidenote: C] he attacked the rest,\n\n       _Ajax, Telamon\u2019s son, he would not fight, but he shunned him_,\n\nand that Odysseus recommends \u201cnothing in excess\u201d since he urges Diomede\n\n      _Nay, prithee, Tydeus\u2019 son; nor praise me much nor reprove me_.\n\nAs for a pledge, not only is it the general opinion that he is\nreprobating it as a misguided and futile thing when he says\n\n      _Sorry, I trow, to take are the pledges that sorry folk offer_,\n\nbut our friend Chersias here tells us how \u201cMischief\u201d was hurled from\nheaven by Zeus because she was present when he was tripped [Sidenote: D]\nup through pledging his word in connexion with the birth of Heracles.\u2019\n\nHere Solon interposed. \u2018Well, Homer was a very wise man, and we should\ndo well to take his advice:\n\n    _Already the night is here; night bids, and \u2019tis good to obey her._\n\nLet us therefore pour an offering to the Muses and to Poseidon and\nAmphitrite, and then\u2014with your permission\u2014break up the party.\u2019\n\nThis, Nicarchus, terminated the party on that occasion.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  The home of Bias.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  According to another account he waited till the shadow was equal in\n  length to the stick. The pyramid was then also equal in height to the\n  length of its shadow.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  The divinities of spring-water.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  The title _Lusios_ or _Luaios_ was popularly interpreted Deliverer\n  (from care or difficulty).\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  See note on _Amasis_.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  i.e. anointing himself, not in connexion with bathing, but with\n  exercise in the wrestling-schools.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  The precise remark is uncertain, the text here being corrupt.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  Equivalent to a command to \u2018go weep\u2019.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  In antiquity these vessels were of bronze.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  Which was bequeathed \u2018to the wisest\u2019. It was given to Thales, who\n  passed it on to another, and the process was repeated till it came\n  back to Thales, whereupon he dedicated it to Apollo.\n\n\n\n\n                       ON OLD MEN IN PUBLIC LIFE\n\n\nIt is well known, Euphanes, that as an admirer of Pindar you [Sidenote:\n783 B] are fond of quoting his \u2018fine and forcible words\u2019:\n\n                      _When struggle is afoot, excuses\n                      Cast a deep cloud on valour._\n\nIn connexion with the struggles of public life timidity and weakness can\nfind plenty of excuses, but as a last and most desperate plea they urge\n\u2018advancing years\u2019. This is their pretext _par excellence_ for blunting\nambition and putting it out of countenance. They argue that there is a\nfitting close to a public, as much as to an athletic, career. For these\nreasons [Sidenote: C] I think it well to take my own ordinary\nreflections upon \u2018old men in public life\u2019 and lay them before yourself.\nThey may prevent either of us from deserting that long companionship\nwhich has hitherto followed a common path, and from abandoning that\npublic life which may be regarded as a familiar friend from youth up, in\norder to adopt another which is unfamiliar, and with which there is no\ntime for us to become thoroughly intimate. I would have us abide by our\noriginal principle, and determine that life and the worthy life shall\nend together. It is not for us to convert the brief remainder into a\nconfession that the bulk of our time has been wastefully applied to no\ngood purpose. [Sidenote: D]\n\nIt is not, indeed, true\u2014as some one told Dionysius\u2014that \u2018despotism is a\nfine shroud\u2019. In his case the combination of absolutism with injustice\nwas only made all the more complete a calamity by the fact that it never\nceased. It was therefore a shrewd remark of Diogenes, when at a later\ndate he saw Dionysius\u2019 son in a humble private station at Corinth.\n\u2018Dionysius,\u2019 said he, \u2018you are far from receiving your deserts. Instead\nof living a free and fearless life here with us, you ought to have been\nthere, housed in the despot\u2019s palace and made to live in it, like your\nfather, till old age.\u2019 It is different with constitutional and\ndemocratic statesmanship. When a man has learned to show himself a\nprofitable subject as well as a profitable ruler, he [Sidenote: E] does\nindeed obtain at death a \u2018fine shroud\u2019, in the shape of the good name\nearned by his life. For this\u2014to quote Simonides\u2014\n\n              _Is the last thing to sink beneath the ground_,\n\nexcept in cases where high human interests and noble zeal are earlier to\nfail and die than natural desires.\n\nAre the active and divine elements of our being more evanescent than the\npassionate and corporeal? That were an unworthy view to hold; as\nunworthy as to accept the doctrine that the [Sidenote: F] only thing of\nwhich we never weary is making gain. On the contrary, we should improve\nupon Thucydides, and regard as \u2018_the only thing that never ages_\u2019 not\n\u2018_the love of honour_\u2018, but that public spirit and activity which even\nants and bees maintain till the end. No one has ever seen old age\nconvert a bee into a drone. Yet there are some who claim that public men\nwho have passed their prime should sit and be fed in seclusion at home,\nallowing their practical abilities to rust away in idleness. [Sidenote:\n784] Cato used to say that, to the many plagues of its own from which\nold age suffers, there is no justification for deliberately adding the\ndisgrace of vice. There are many vices, but none can do more than weak\nand cowardly inactivity to disgrace a man in years\u2014a man who skulks away\nfrom the public offices to look after a houseful of women, or to\nsupervise gleaners and reapers in the country.\n\n                                 _Where now\n                 Is Oedipus? Where the famed riddles now?_\n\nIt is one thing to wait till old age before commencing public life, and\nto be like Epimenides, who\u2014so they say\u2014fell asleep a youth and fifty\nyears afterwards awoke an old man. If, in [Sidenote: B] such a case, one\nwere to divest himself of that quiet habit which has lasted all his\nlife, and were to plunge into struggles and worries with which he was\nunfamiliar, and for which he was not trained by intercourse with public\naffairs or with mankind, there would be room for remonstrance. We might\nsay, as the Pythian priestess said, \u2018_You come too late_\u2019 in your quest\nof office and leadership. You are past the time for knocking at the door\nof the Presidency. You are like some blundering reveller whose surprise\nvisit is not made till night; or like some stranger who is in quest, not\nof a new district or country, but of a new life, about which you know\nnothing. If Simonides says\n\n    _The State is a man\u2019s teacher_,\n\nit is true only of those who have the time to change their teacher and\nlearn a new lesson\u2014a lesson slowly and laboriously acquired by means of\nmany a struggle and experience, and only when it [Sidenote: C] can take\nits hold sufficiently early on a natural genius for bearing toils and\ntroubles with equanimity.\n\nTo resume. We find that, on the contrary, it is striplings and youths\nwhom sensible men do their best to keep out of public business. Witness\nour laws, under which the crier in the Assembly, when inviting speech\nand advice, calls upon the platform in the first instance not an\nAlcibiades or a Pytheas, but persons over fifty. Foolish audacity and\nlack of experience [Sidenote: D] are nowhere so out of place as in a\ndeliberator or a judge.[34] Cato, when past eighty and on his defence,\nsaid it was hard to have to defend himself before one set of people\nafter having lived with another. It is agreed on all hands that the\nmeasures of Caesar\u2014the conqueror of Antony\u2014became considerably more\nregal and good for the public towards the end of his life. Once, when by\nstern application of custom and law he was correcting the rising\ngeneration, and they made an outcry, his own words were: \u2018Young men,\nlisten to an old man to whom old men listened [Sidenote: E] when he was\nyoung.\u2019 It was in old age, too, that the statesmanship of Pericles\nreached its greatest influence. This was the time when he induced the\nAthenians to enter upon the war, and when he successfully opposed their\nill-timed eagerness to fight a battle against sixty thousand\nmen-at-arms, by all but sealing up the public armouries and the locks of\nthe gates. As for what Xenophon writes of Agesilaus, it is best to quote\nverbatim. _\u2018Is there any youth with whom this old man did not compare to\nadvantage? Who in the prime of life was so formidable to an enemy as\nAgesilaus was at the most advanced age? Of whom was the foe so glad to\nbe rid as of Agesilaus, though he was old [Sidenote: F] when his end\ncame? Who inspired such courage in his own side as Agesilaus, although\nclose upon the end of life? What young man was more regretted by his\nfriends than Agesilaus, though he died when full of years?_\u2019\n\nWell, if time was no hindrance to the great actions of men like these,\nwhat of us, who nowadays enjoy the luxury of a public life which admits\nof no despots, no fighting, no sieges, but only of warless contests and\nof ambitions which are for the most part settled by just means according\nto law and reason? Are we [Sidenote: 785] to play the coward? Must we\nconfess that we are the inferiors, not merely of the commanders and\npopular leaders of those days, but of the poets, leaders of thought, and\nactors? Take Simonides. He won choric victories in old age, as is\nevident from the last lines of the epigram:\n\n       _And withal to Simonides fell the glory and prize of the poet;\n         Fell to Leoprepes\u2019 son, come to his eightieth year._\n\nTake Sophocles. It is said that, when his sons charged him with being in\nhis dotage, he read in his defence the entrance ode of the _Oedipus at\nColonus_, beginning:\n\n                  _To this land of the steed, O stranger,\n                  To the goodliest homes on earth,\n                  Thou hast come\u2014to the white Colonus,\n                  Fond haunt of the nightingale,\n                  Where her clear voice trills its sorrow\n                  In the green of the leafy dell...._\n\na lyric which won such admiration that he left the court, as it\n[Sidenote: B] might have been the theatre, amid the applause and cheers\nof the audience. A little epigram, admitted to be by Sophocles, contains\nthe words:\n\n                 _Five years and fifty Sophocles had seen,\n                 Ere for Herodotus he wrought a song._\n\nTake Philemon, the comic poet, and Alexis. They were still putting plays\nupon the stage, still winning crowns, when death overtook them. Take\nPolus, the tragedian. Eratosthenes and Philochorus inform us that,\nshortly before his end, and when [Sidenote: C] he was seventy, he acted\neight tragedies in four days.\n\nIs it, I say, creditable that old men of the platform should show a\npoorer spirit than old men of the stage? That they should retire from\nthe sacred contests\u2014for \u2018sacred\u2019 these veritably are\u2014and give up the\nr\u00f4le of the public man in exchange for goodness knows what other part?\nFrom king, say, to farmer is a descent indeed. Demosthenes calls it\ncruel treatment of the _Paralus_, to make that sacred warship carry\ncargoes of timber, vine-stakes, and cattle for Meidias. But suppose a\npublic man abandons the Presidentship of Games, his seat on the Federal\nBoard, his high place in the Sacred League, and is found [Sidenote: D]\nmeasuring out barley-meal and olive-cake, or shearing sheep. It cannot\nbut look as if he were needlessly courting the status of \u2018old worn-out\nhorse\u2019. As for leaving a public career to engage in vulgar and petty\ntrade, one might as well take some self-respecting lady, strip off her\ngown, give her an apron, and keep her in a tavern. Turn public ability\nto mere business and money-making, and its rank and character [Sidenote:\nE] are lost.\n\nOr if, as a last alternative, people choose to talk of \u2018ease and\nenjoyment\u2019, when they mean luxurious self-indulgence; if they recommend\nthe public man to adopt that process of idle senile decay, I hardly know\nwhich of two ugly comparisons will best hit off such a life. Shall I say\nit is a case of sailors taking \u2018Aphrodite-holiday\u2019 and keeping it up for\never, without waiting till their ship is berthed, but deserting it while\nstill on the voyage? Or is it a case of \u2018Heracles-chez-Omphale\u2019\u2014as some\nsorry humourists depict him\u2014wearing a saffron gown and quietly allowing\nLydian handmaids to fan him and braid his hair? Are we to treat our\npublic man in that way? To strip off his [Sidenote: F] lion\u2019s-skin, lay\nhim on a couch, and feast him, with lute and flute lulling him all the\nwhile? Or should we not take warning by the retort of Pompey the Great\nto Lucullus? The latter, after his campaigns and public services, had\ngiven himself up to baths, dinners, social entertainments in the\ndaytime, profound indolence, and new-fangled notions in the way of\nhouse-building. Meanwhile he accused Pompey of a fondness for place and\npower unsuited to his years. Pompey replied that for an old man\neffeminacy was more unseasonable than office. When he was [Sidenote:\n786] ill and the doctor ordered him fieldfares\u2014the bird being then out\nof season and difficult to procure\u2014and when some one told him that\nLucullus had a large number in his preserves, he refused to send for or\nreceive one, exclaiming, \u2018What? Pompey could not live but for the luxury\nof Lucullus?\u2019\n\nIt may be true that nature ordinarily seeks pleasure and delight. But,\nwith an old man, the body has become incapable of all pleasures except a\nfew which are essential. Not only is it the case that\n\n               _The Queen of Love turns weary from the old_,\n\n[Sidenote: B] as Euripides has it. Though they may retain the appetite\nfor eating and drinking\u2014generally in a dulled or toothless form\u2014they\nfind a difficulty in whetting the edge or sharpening the teeth even of\nthat. It is in the mind that one must lay up a stock of pleasures,\nthough not of the mean and ignoble kind indicated by Simonides, when he\ntold those who reproached him with avarice that, though age had robbed\nhim of other joys, he had still one left to support his declining\nyears\u2014the joy of money-making. In public activity there are pleasures of\nthe greatest and noblest sort, such as we may believe to be the only, or\nthe chief, enjoyment of the gods themselves\u2014I mean those which result\nfrom a beneficent deed or a fine achievement.\n\nNicias the painter was so taken up with his artistic work that he was\noften obliged to ask his servants whether he had had his [Sidenote: C]\nbath or his breakfast. Archimedes stuck so closely to his drawing-board\nthat, in order to anoint him, his attendants had to drag him away and\nstrip him by force. He then went on drawing his diagrams in the ointment\non his body. Carus the flutist (an acquaintance of your own) used to say\nthat people did not know how much more pleasure he himself got from\nplaying than he gave to others; otherwise an audience would be paid to\nlisten instead of paying. Can we fail to perceive how great are the\npleasures derived from fine actions and public-spirited achievements by\nthose who put high qualities to use? Nor is it by means of those\neffeminate titillations which soft and agreeable movements exert upon\nthe flesh. The ticklings of the flesh [Sidenote: D] are spasmodic,\nfickle, intermittent, whereas the pleasures of noble deeds\u2014the creations\nof the true statesman\u2019s art\u2014will bear the soul aloft in grandeur and\npride and joy, as if, I will not say upon the \u2018_golden wings_\u2019 of\nEuripides, but upon those \u2018_celestial pinions_\u2019 described by Plato.\n\nRemember the instances of which you have so often heard. Epaminondas,\nwhen asked what had been his most pleasurable experience, replied,\n\u2018Having been victorious at Leuctra while [Sidenote: E] my father and\nmother were still alive.\u2019 When Sulla first reached Rome after purging\nItaly of its civil wars, he could not sleep a wink that night. As he has\nwritten in his own _Notes and Recollections_, so elated was his mind\nwith the greatness of his joy and happiness, that it seemed to walk on\nair. If we admit, with Xenophon, that \u2018_no hearing is so agreeable as\npraise_\u2018, no sight, recollection, or reflection is so fraught with\ngratification as the contemplation of exploits of our own in the\nconspicuous public arena of office and statesmanship. Not but what, when\n[Sidenote: F] a grateful goodwill testifies to our achievements, and\nwhen there is a rivalry of commendation productive of well-earned\npopularity, our merit acquires a gloss and brilliance which adds to our\nsense of pleasure.\n\nTherefore, instead of permitting our reputation to wither in our old age\nlike an athlete\u2019s crown, we must be constantly adopting new devices and\nmaking fresh efforts to enliven the sense of past obligation, to enhance\nit, and to make it permanent. We must act like the craftsmen who were\nrequired to provide for the security of the Delian ship. They used to\nreplace unsound timbers by others, and, by means of insertions and\nrepairs, were regarded as keeping the vessel immortal and indestructible\nfrom [Sidenote: 787] the oldest times. Reputation is like flame. There\nis no difficulty in keeping it alive; it merely requires a little\nfeeding with fuel. But let either of them become extinct and cold, and\nit will take some trouble to rekindle.\n\nLampis, the shipowner, was once asked how he made his fortune. \u2018Making\nthe big one,\u2019 he answered, \u2018was easy enough; but it was a long and hard\nbusiness to make the little one.\u2019 So with political power and\nreputation. Though not easy to get in the first instance, anything will\nsuffice to maintain and increase them when once they are great. It is as\nwith a friend, when once he becomes such. He does not look for a large\nnumber of important services in order to retain his friendship;\n[Sidenote: B] small tokens, consistently shown, will keep his constant\naffection. Nor are the confidence and friendship of the people\nperpetually calling for you to open your purse, to play the champion, or\nto hold an office. They are retained by mere public spirit\u2014by being in\nno haste to desert or shirk the burden of care and watchfulness.\n\nCampaigns are not matters of everlastingly facing the enemy, fighting,\nand besieging. They have also their times of sacrifice, their occasional\nsocial gatherings, their periods of ample leisure, when jest and\nnonsense are toward. And why should one look upon public life with\ndread, as being laborious, wearisome, and devoid of consolations, seeing\nthat the theatre, processions, awards, \u2018_dances of the Muses and\nGladsomeness_,\u2019 and honour [Sidenote: C] after honour to the gods relax\nthe stern brow of the Bureau or the Chamber, and yield a manifold return\nof inviting entertainment?\n\nIn the next place jealousy, the greatest bane of public life, is less\nsevere upon old age. For, to quote Heracleitus, \u2018_dogs bark at the man\nthey do not know_.\u2019 Though jealousy may fight with the beginner at the\ndoors of the platform and refuse him access, no savageness or fierceness\nis shown to a man of familiar and established reputation, but he finds\nfriendly admittance. For this reason some have compared jealousy to\nsmoke. In the case of beginners, during the process of kindling, it\npours forth in clouds; when they are in full blaze, it disappears. And\nwhile [Sidenote: D] people resist and dispute other forms of\nsuperiority\u2014in merit, birth, or public spirit\u2014through a belief that any\nacknowledgement to others means so much derogation to themselves, the\nprimacy which is due to time\u2014\u2018seniority\u2019 in the proper sense\u2014is conceded\nwithout a grudge. Respect paid to the aged has the unique quality of\ndoing more honour to the giver than to the recipient.\n\nMoreover it is not every one who expects to attain to the power derived\nfrom wealth, eloquence, or wisdom; whereas no public man despairs of\nwinning the esteem and distinction to which age gradually leads.\n\nImagine a navigator, who has managed his ship safely in the face of\ncontrary winds and waves, and then, when the weather [Sidenote: E]\nbecomes fair and calm, wishes to lay her to. It is just as strange when\na man has fought his ship in a long battle with jealousies, and then,\nafter they are quietly laid, backs out of public life, and, in\nabandoning his activities, abandons his partners and associates. The\nmore time there has been, the more friends and fellow-workers he has\nmade; but he is neither in a position to lead them with him off the\nstage, as a poet does his chorus, [Sidenote: F] nor has he the right to\nleave them in the lurch. A long public life is like an old tree. To pull\nit up is no easy task, because of its many roots and its entanglement\nwith many interests, which involve worse wrenching and disturbance when\nyou leave them than when you stay.\n\nAnd if political conflict does leave you some remnant of jealousy or\nantagonism to face when you are old, it is better to quell it by means\nof your position than to turn your back and retire without armour or\nweapons of defence. People are not so ready to attack you out of\njealousy when you are still in action as they are out of contempt when\nyou give it up.\n\n[Sidenote: 788] We may also appeal to the great Epaminondas and his\nremark to the Thebans. It was winter at the time, and the Arcadians were\ninviting them to enter the city and live in the houses. This he refused\nto allow, observing: \u2018At the present time they come to look at you and\nadmire your wrestling and military exercises; but if they see you\nsitting by the fire and chewing your beans, they will regard you as no\nbetter than themselves.\u2019 So with an aged man. When making a speech,\ntransacting business, or receiving honours, he is a dignified spectacle;\nbut when he lies all day on a couch or sits in the corner of a public\n[Sidenote: B] resort talking drivel and wiping his nose, he is an object\nof contempt. This is precisely what Homer teaches, if you read him\nrightly. Nestor, who was campaigning at Troy, received high respect and\nhonour; whereas Peleus and Laertes, the stay-at-homes, were despised,\nand counted for nothing.\n\nNay, even intellectual power begins to fail those who have let\nthemselves relax. Idleness gradually renders it feeble and flaccid, in\nthe absence of some necessary exercise of thought to keep the logical\nand practical faculty perpetually alive and in trim.\n\n            _Like glossy bronze, \u2019tis use that makes it shine._\n\nBodily weakness may be a drawback to public activity in the [Sidenote:\nC] case of those who, in spite of their years, make the platform or the\nCabinet their goal. But it is more than compensated by the advantage of\ntheir caution and prudence. They do not dash into public affairs with\nthe expression of opinions prompted by error or vanity as the case may\nbe, and carrying the mob with them in as excited a condition as a stormy\nsea; but they deal in a mild and reasonable fashion with such matters as\narise. It is for this reason that, in times of disaster or alarm,\ncommunities feel the need of a Board of Government consisting of senior\nmen. Often they have fetched back from the country [Sidenote: D] an old\nman who neither asked nor wished it, and have compelled him to put his\nhand to the helm and steer the ship of State into safety, while they\nthrust aside generals and popular leaders, despite all their ability to\nshout, to talk without taking breath, and also, no doubt, to make\n\u2018_sturdy stand and doughty fight_\u2019 against the enemy. When Chares, the\nson of Theochares\u2014a man in the prime of bodily strength and\ncondition\u2014was brought into the ring in opposition to Timotheus and\nIphicrates by the public speakers of Athens, with the claim that \u2018this\nis the kind of general the Athenians should have\u2019, Timotheus [Sidenote:\nE] replied: \u2018By no manner of means. No doubt that is the sort needed to\ncarry the general\u2019s baggage; but the general should be one who \u201c_sees\nbefore and after_\u201d, and whose calculations as to policy no distractions\ncan disturb.\u2019 Sophocles said \u2018he was glad that old age had enabled him\nto escape from sexual passion\u2014a fierce and mad master.\u2019 But in public\nlife we have to escape, not from one master\u2014the love of women\u2014but from\nmany madder still; from contentiousness, vanity, and the desire to be\nfirst and greatest\u2014a malady most fertile in envy, jealousy, and\n[Sidenote: F] feud. Some of these feelings are abated or dulled, some\nare altogether chilled and quenched, by old age. And though old age may\ndo something to diminish our zest for action, it does more to guard us\nfrom the intemperate heat of passion, so that we can bring a sober and\nsteady reason to bear upon our thoughts.\n\nBy all means, in dealing with one who begins to play the youth when his\nhair is grey, let it be\u2014as it is considered\u2014sound warning to say:\n\n                  _Misguided man, stay quiet in thy bed._\n\n[Sidenote: 789] Let us remonstrate with an old man when he rises from a\nlong privacy, as from a bed of sickness, and bestirs himself to obtain a\ncommand or an official post. But suppose a man has lived a life of\npublic action and thoroughly played the part. To prevent him from going\non till \u2018finis and the torch\u2019, to call him back and bid him change the\nroad he has long followed, is utterly unfeeling, and bears no\nresemblance to the case just given. If an old man has his wreath on and\nis scenting himself in readiness to marry, there is nothing unreasonable\nin trying to dissuade him by quoting the lines addressed to Philoctetes:\n\n           _But, pray, where is the bride, where the young maid,\n           Would welcome thee? Rare bridegroom thou, poor soul!_\n\nNay, they are fond of making jests of the kind at their own [Sidenote:\nB] expense:\n\n              _I\u2019m marrying old, and for the neighbours\u2019 good:\n              I know it._\n\nBut when a man has been long married, and has lived with his wife for\nyears without a fault to find, to tell him that he should divorce her\nbecause he is old, and that he should live by himself or get a wretched\nconcubine in place of his lawful spouse, is the very extreme of\nabsurdity. In the same way when an aged man seeks to enter\npolitics\u2014Chlidon the farmer, Lampon the ship\u2019s captain, or some\nphilosopher from the Garden[35]\u2014there is some reason in admonishing him,\nand keeping him to the state of inactivity to which he has been used.\nBut it is urging a public man to act [Sidenote: C] with injustice and\ningratitude, when we take hold of a Phocion, a Cato, or a Pericles, and\nsay, \u2018Sir Athenian\u2014or Sir Roman\u2014\n\n             _Thine age is wither\u2019d and thy head o\u2019erfrosted_;\n\ntherefore sue for a divorce from statesmanship, have done with the\nworrying business of the platform and the Board of War, and make haste\ninto the country, to live with farming \u201cfor a waiting-maid\u201d or to occupy\nthe rest of your days with thrift and the keeping of accounts.\u2019\n\nWell, but (it may be asked) what of the soldier in the comedy with his\n\n              _Discharged! No pay! because of my white hair?_\n\nQuite true, my friend. The War-God\u2019s servants must be in the prime of\nmanly vigour. Their business is with\n\n                       _War and war\u2019s baleful work_,\n\nin which, though an old man\u2019s grey hair may be hidden by his [Sidenote:\nD] helmet,\n\n                   _Yet in secret his thews are aweary_,\n\nand, though the spirit be willing, the strength can no longer respond.\n\nBut the ministers of Zeus\u2014the God of Council, of Assembly, of the\nState\u2014are not asked for deeds of hand and foot, but for counsel and\nforesight. We ask them for advice, not such as to evoke roars of mere\nnoise in the Assembly, but full of sense and shrewdness, and safe to\nfollow. In their case the despised white hair and wrinkles become the\nvisible tokens of experience. They suggest moral force, and are\ntherefore a help to persuasion. [Sidenote: E] It is the part of youth to\nobey; of old age to guide; and that state is safest where\n\n                     _Best are the old men\u2019s counsels,\n                     And best the young man\u2019s spear._\n\nHomer\u2019s\n\n        _And first he summon\u2019d to council the old men mighty-hearted\n        By the side of the ship of Nestor_,\n\nis a touch greatly admired. For the same reason the Select Board\nassociated with the kings at Sparta was called by the Pythian oracle\n\u2018elder-born\u2019, but by Lycurgus \u2018old men\u2019 _sans phrase_, while the Roman\nCouncil is called _Senatus_ down to the present time. The law crowns a\nman with the circlet and the wreath, Nature crowns him with grey hair,\nand both are the venerable emblems of sovereign rank. Moreover, the\nwords [Sidenote: F] _geras_, \u2018prerogative,\u2019 and _gerairein_, \u2018honour\nwith prerogative\u2019\u2014derived from _geron_, \u2018old man\u2019\u2014retain a dignified\nsense, not because the old man\u2019s bath is warmed and his bed a softer\none, but because he amounts to a king in the state by virtue of his\nwisdom; and wisdom is like a late-fruiting plant, it is only in old age\nthat nature brings out its special excellence and perfect quality.\n\nWhen the king of kings prayed to the gods\n\n     _Would that among the Achaeans were ten such as he to advise me!_\n\n[Sidenote: 790] \u2014meaning Nestor\u2014not one of the \u2018_valorous_\u2019 and\n\u2018_prowess-breathing_\u2019 Achaeans complained. They all admitted that not\nonly in statesmanship, but in war also, age was of great moment, since\n\n             _More worth is one sage thought than many a hand_,\n\nand one rational and cogent judgement achieves the finest and most\nimportant results in public affairs.\n\nNow kingship, the most complete and comprehensive form of public\nactivity, is full of cares, labours, and preoccupations. Seleucus, it\nwas said, used to declare that if ordinary people knew what a business\nit was merely to write and read so many letters, they would not pick up\nthe crown if they found it [Sidenote: B] lying in the street. And the\nstory goes that, when Philip was proposing to encamp in an excellent\nposition, but was told that there was no fodder for the pack-animals, he\nexclaimed: \u2018Good Heavens! what is our life worth, when we are obliged to\nsuit it to the convenience of our asses?\u2019 Ought we then to give the same\nadvice to a king when he has grown old? Bid him lay aside the crown and\nthe purple, take to a cloak and a crutched stick, and live in the\ncountry, for fear people should think it officious and unseasonable of\nhim to be reigning when he is grey?\n\nBut we have no right to talk in this way about an Agesilaus, or a Numa,\nor a Darius. Neither then should we compel a Solon [Sidenote: C] to\nleave the Council of the Areopagus, nor a Cato the Senate, nor yet urge\na Pericles to leave popular government to look after itself. It is\ncontrary to reason that in our youth we should bounce upon the platform,\nspend upon the public all the passionate licence of our ambition, and\nthen, when age arrives and brings the wisdom of experience, desert and\nbetray our public standing like a woman whom we have used at our\npleasure.\n\nIn Aesop, when the hedgehog wanted to pick off his ticks, the fox would\nnot let him. \u2018These are glutted,\u2019 said he, \u2018and [Sidenote: D] if you get\nrid of them, hungry ones will be at you in their place.\u2019 So with public\nlife. If it is perpetually shedding the old men, it will necessarily be\nplagued with young ones, who are thirsting for notoriety and power but\ndevoid of political sense. How can they be otherwise, if they are to\nhave no elderly statesman to watch and learn from? A ship\u2019s captain is\nnot made by treatises on navigation. He must often have stood upon the\nquarter-deck and watched the struggle with wave and wind and stormy\nnights, when\n\n                    _The sailor on the brine longs sore\n                    For Tyndareus\u2019 twin sons._\n\nAnd can the handling of a State and the persuading of Assembly\n[Sidenote: E] or Council be rightly left to a young man because he has\nread a book or taken down a lecture on statesmanship in the Lyceum?\nThough he has not taken his stand many a time beside rudder-rope and\ntiller, leaned first to this side and then to that, while generals and\npublic leaders were pitting their knowledge and experience against each\nother, and so learned his lesson in the midst of dangers and\ndifficulties? Beyond question, No! For the education and training of the\nyoung, if for no other reason, old men should play a public part. A\nteacher of letters or of music himself reads or plays a passage over\nfirst by way of example [Sidenote: F] to his pupils. So the authority on\nstatesmanship must guide a young man, not simply by talking or\nsuggesting from outside, but by the practical administration of public\nbusiness. It is by deeds as well as by words that he will mould him to\nthe true shape, filled with the breath of life. It is training of this\nkind\u2014not in the schools where you practise safe forms of wrestling under\nmannerly professors, but in contests truly Olympian and Pythian\u2014that\nmakes one, as Simonides puts it,\n\n              _Keep pace, as with the steed the wearied colt_;\n\n[Sidenote: 791] \u2014Aristeides with Cleisthenes, Cimon with Aristeides,\nPhocion with Chabrias, Cato with Fabius Maximus, Pompeius with Sulla,\nPolybius with Philopoemen. It was by attaching themselves when young to\nolder men, by using them as supports to their own growth, by being\nraised to their standard of statesmanlike achievement, that they\nacquired the political experience which brought them fame and power.\n\nWhen certain professors declared that the claim of Aeschines, the\nAcademic philosopher, to have been a pupil of Carneades was contrary to\nfact, he replied, \u2018O yes: I was a disciple of Carneades at the time when\nage had taken all the fuss and noise [Sidenote: B] out of his teaching\nand reduced it to practical and serviceable shape.\u2019 With the\nstatesmanship of an old man, however, it is not merely the talking, but\nthe deeds, that lose all ostentation and itch for notoriety. They tell\nus that, when the iris has grown old and exhausted all crude exuberance\nof perfume, its fragrance gains in sweetness. So with the views and\nsuggestions of the old. There is no crudeness in them, but always a\nquality of quiet solidity. For this reason, as I have said, we must have\nelderly men in public life. Plato speaks of mixing water with neat wine\nas the bringing of a \u2018frenzied god\u2019 to sanity by the [Sidenote: C]\n\u2018chastening of another who is sober\u2019. So when young spirits in the\nAssembly are a-boil with the intoxication of glory and ambition, we need\nthe old men\u2019s caution to qualify them and to eliminate their mad excess\nof fire.\n\nThere is another consideration. It is an error to suppose that\nstatesmanship is like a voyage or a campaign\u2014carried on for an ulterior\nobject and discontinued when that is attained. Statesmanship is not a\npublic burden, to be borne only so long as needs must. It is the career\nof a civilized being with a gift for citizenship and society, and with a\nnatural disposition to live a life of public influence, worthy aims, and\nsocial helpfulness for as long as occasion calls.\n\nThe right course therefore is to _be_ a public man, not to _have_ been\none; just as it is right to speak the truth, not to [Sidenote: D] _have_\nspoken it; to act honestly, not to _have_ so acted; to love one\u2019s\ncountry and fellow-citizens, not to _have_ loved them. Those are\nNature\u2019s objects, and where men are not utterly demoralized by idleness\nand effeminacy, her promptings are such as these:\n\n                 _Thy sire begat thee for rich use to men_,\n\nand\n\n               _Ne\u2019er let us cease from service to mankind._\n\nTo urge the plea of ill-health or disablement is to blame disease and\ninjury, not old age. Young men are often sickly, old men often vigorous.\nIt is therefore not the old whom we should discourage, but the\nincapable. It is the capable whom [Sidenote: E] we should encourage, not\nthe young. Aridaeus was young, and Antigonus old; but while Antigonus\nannexed nearly the whole of Asia, Aridaeus was like the \u2018super\u2019 upon the\nstage\u2014a king with nothing to say, and a butt for whoever happened to be\nin power. To demand of the sophist Prodicus or the poet Philetas\u2014who,\nyoung though they might be, were thin, sickly, and constantly taking to\ntheir beds through ill-health\u2014that they should take up public life, were\nfolly. But it were folly also to hinder old men like Phocion, or\nMasinissa the African, or the Roman Cato, from holding office or\nmilitary command. The [Sidenote: F] Athenians being set upon an\nill-timed war, Phocion ordered that every man under sixty should take up\narms and serve. When this made them angry, he said, \u2018There is no\nhardship. I, who am to be with you in command, am over eighty.\u2019 And of\nMasinissa Polybius relates that he died when he was ninety, leaving a\nchild of four, of whom he was the father. Shortly before his death he\nbeat the Carthaginians in a great battle, [Sidenote: 792] and the next\nday was seen in front of his tent eating a loaf of cheap coarse bread.\nTo expressions of surprise he answered that he did so to keep himself in\ntraining.\n\n               _For like to goodly bronze, it shines in use,\n               While a house crumbles, if left idle long_,\n\nsays Sophocles. We may say the same of that glossy brightness of the\nmind, to which we owe calculation, memory, and sound judgement.\n\nFor the same reason it is said that wars and campaigns make better kings\nthan inactivity. Attalus, the brother of Eumenes, was so thoroughly\nenervated by long peace and [Sidenote: B] idleness that Philopoemen, one\nof his intimates, had simply to shepherd him and keep him fat. In fact,\nthe Romans used to inquire of arrivals from Asia, whether \u2018the king had\nany influence with Philopoemen\u2019. It would be hard to find a Roman\ngeneral more able than Lucullus, so long as he kept his intellect braced\nwith action. But he surrendered himself to a life of inactivity, stayed\nat home, thought of nothing, and became as lifeless and shrunken as a\nsponge in a calm. Afterwards, in his old age, he so tamely accepted a\ncertain freedman, Callisthenes, for his keeper, that the man [Sidenote:\nC] was thought to be bewitching him with spells and drugs, till at last\nhis brother Marcus drove the fellow away and himself took to managing\nand tutoring him for the short remainder of his life. On the other hand,\nDarius, the father of Xerxes, used to say that he became his wisest in\ntimes of danger; and Ateas the Scythian declared that, when he had\nnothing to do, he could see nothing to distinguish him from his grooms.\nWhen some one asked the elder Dionysius if he had time to spare, he\nreplied: \u2018Heaven forbid I ever should!\u2019 Whereas a bow, they tell us, is\nbroken by stringing it tight, a mind is broken by leaving it loose. If a\nmusician gives up listening [Sidenote: D] for pitch, a geometrician the\nsolving of problems, an arithmetician the constant habit of calculation,\nold age will enfeeble the ability along with the loss of its exercise,\nalthough the art in these cases is not a \u2018practic\u2019 one, but a\n\u2018theoretic\u2019. In the case of the special ability of the statesman\u2014his\ncaution, wisdom, and justice, together with an experienced knack of\nhitting the right language at the right time; that is to say, a faculty\nfor creating persuasion\u2014it is kept in good condition by constant speech,\naction, calculation, and judicial decision. It would be a dire mistake\nfor it to abandon such activities [Sidenote: E] and permit all those\nimportant virtues to leak away from the mind. For it naturally means a\ndecline of kindly interest in man and society\u2014a thing which should be\nwithout limit or end.\n\nSuppose your father had been Tithonus. Suppose, though he was immortal,\nold age had made him require close and constant care. You would not, I\nimagine, have run away and repudiated the task of tending him, talking\nto him, and helping him, just because you had \u2018borne the burden for a\nlong time\u2019. Well, your fatherland\u2014or \u2018motherland\u2019 as it is called in\nCrete\u2014has claims prior to those of parents, and greater. Your country\u2019s\nlife has been a long one, but she is not without old age. She is\n[Sidenote: F] not sufficient to herself, but is in perpetual need of\nwatchful and considerate help. She therefore grasps at the statesman and\nholds him back:\n\n    _Clutching his garment she stays him, though eager he be for\n       departure._\n\nYou are aware that I have performed my public duty at many a Pythian\nfestival. But you would not say \u2018Plutarch, you have done enough in the\nway of sacrifices, processions, and choruses. You are now in years; it\nis time to put off your wreath; age entitles you to leave the shrine\nalone\u2019. Well, look at your own duty in the same way. In the sacred\nservice of the State you are coryphaeus and prophet, and it is not for\nyou to abandon that worship of Zeus, God of State and Assembly, in which\nyou have been so long initiated and are so thoroughly versed.\n\n[Sidenote: 793] Permit me now to leave the arguments for quitting public\nlife, and to examine another point. We must beware of inflicting upon\nour old age an unbecoming or exacting task, when so many portions of\npublic work are so well suited to that time of life. If it had been\nproper for us to go on singing all our days, there are at our disposal\nmany keys and modes, or, as the musicians call them, \u2018systems.\u2019 Our\nright course in our old age would have been to cultivate, not a mode\nboth high and sharp, but one combining ease with appropriate character.\nAnd since Nature prompts mankind to act and speak\u2014even more [Sidenote:\nB] than it prompts the swan to sing\u2014until the end, our duty is not to\nlay action aside, like a lyre of too high a pitch, but to lower the key\nand adapt it to such forms of public effort as are light, unexacting,\nand within an old man\u2019s compass. We do not leave our bodies entirely\nwithout muscular exercise because we cannot use the spade and the\njumping-weights, or hurl the discus, or practise fencing, as we used to\ndo. We swing or walk, and in some cases the breathing is exercised and\nwarmth stimulated by playing a gentle game of ball, or by conversation.\n\nOn the one hand, then, do not let us allow ourselves to become\n[Sidenote: C] stiff and torpid from inactivity. On the other, let us not\nundertake any and every official position, clutch at any and every kind\nof public work, and bring such an exposure upon old age that it is\ndriven to exclaim in despair:\n\n             _Right hand, how fain art thou to grasp the spear!\n             How vain thy longing, in thy strengthlessness!_\n\nEven in the prime of strength a man wins no credit if he tries to take\non his shoulders the whole pack of public business, and [Sidenote: D]\nrefuses\u2014like Zeus, according to the Stoics\u2014to leave anything to others;\nif he insinuates himself everywhere and has his finger in everything,\nthrough an insatiable greed for notoriety or through jealousy of any one\nwho contrives to get a share of honour and power in the community. But\nwhen a man is quite old, then, apart from the discredit, wretchedly hard\nwork is entailed by that itch for office which is always courting every\nballot-box, that meddlesomeness which lies in wait for every opportunity\nof acting on a jury or a committee, that ambition which snaps up every\nappointment as delegate or proctor. [Sidenote: E] Such work is a heavy\ntax on an old man, even when people are well-disposed. But the opposite\nmay very well be the case. For young men hate him because he leaves them\nno opportunities and prevents them from coming to the front; while the\nrest of the community looks upon his itch for office and precedence with\nthe same disapproval as upon the itch of other old men for money and\npleasure.\n\nWhen Bucephalus was growing old, Alexander, being unwilling to overwork\nhim, used to ride some other horse while reviewing the phalanx and\ngetting it into position before the [Sidenote: F] battle. Then, after\ngiving the word for the day, he changed his mount to Bucephalus, and at\nonce led the charge and tried the fortunes of war. In the same way a\nsensible public man\u2014in this case handling his own reins\u2014will, when in\nyears, hold aloof from unnecessary effort, leaving more vigorous persons\nto deal with the minor matters of state, but himself playing a zealous\npart in great ones.\n\nAthletes keep their bodies from all contact with necessary labours and\nin perfect trim for useless ones. We, on the contrary, will leave petty\nlittle details alone, and will keep ourselves in reserve for matters of\nmoment. No doubt, as Homer says,\n\n                   _To the young all labours are seemly_,\n\nand the world gives consent and approval, calling them \u2018public-spirited\u2019\nand \u2018energetic\u2019 when they do a large number of little things, and\n\u2018noble\u2019 and \u2018lofty-minded\u2019 when they do brilliant and distinguished\nthings. At that time of life there are [Sidenote: 794] occasions when a\nventuresome aggressiveness is more or less in season and wears a grace\nof its own. But what when an elderly man consents to perform routine\nservices to the public, such as letting out taxes, or superintending\nharbours and markets? What when he seizes opportunities of being sent on\na mission to some governor or other powerful personage\u2014a position for\nwhich there is no necessity, which contains no dignity, and which\nnecessitates time-serving and complaisance? To my mind, my friend, his\ncase is one for regret and commiseration; some may even think it\ndistressingly vulgar.\n\nNot even positions of authority are any longer a suitable [Sidenote: B]\nsphere for him, unless they are of high rank and importance; such a\nposition, for example, as you now hold in the Presidentship of the\nAreopagite Council, not to mention the distinguished rank of\nAmphictyon,[36] which your country has imposed upon you all your life,\nwith its\n\n                  _Welcome toil and labour sweet to bear._\n\nEven these honours we should not seek, but should make from holding\nthem. We should ask, not for them, but to be excused from them. It\nshould seem, not that we are taking office to ourselves, but that we are\nsurrendering ourselves to office. The Emperor Tiberius used to say that\na man over sixty should be ashamed of holding out his wrist to a\nphysician. But he should [Sidenote: C] be more ashamed of holding out\nhis hand to the public in solicitation of its \u2018vote and influence\u2019. That\nsituation is as humiliating and ignoble as the contrary is honourable\nand dignified\u2014I mean when your country chooses you, calls you, and waits\nfor you, and when you come down amidst respect and welcome, a \u2018reverend\nsignior\u2019 indeed, to meet your distinction with gracious acceptance.\n\nSimilarly with speaking in the Assembly. A man of advanced age should\nnot be perpetually springing upon the platform and crowing back to every\ncock that crows. Young men are like horses, and he should not, by\nconstantly grappling with [Sidenote: D] them and irritating them, lose\ncontrol of their respect, or encourage the practice and habit of\nresistance to the reins. He should sometimes leave them to make a\nrestive plunge for distinction, keeping out of the way and not\ninterfering, unless the matter at stake is vital to the public safety or\nto decency and honour. In that case he should not wait to be called, but\nshould let some one take him by the hand, or carry him in his chair, and\npush his way at more than full speed, like Appius Claudius in Roman\nhistory. The Romans had been defeated by Pyrrhus in a great battle, and\nAppius heard that the Senate [Sidenote: E] was listening to proposals\nfor a truce and a peace. This was more than he could bear, and, though\nblind of both eyes, along he came in his chair through the Forum to the\nSenate House. He went in, planted himself before them, and said:\n\u2018Hitherto I have been distressed at the loss of my sight; now I could\npray to be also unable to hear\u2014that you are meditating so ignoble and\ndisgraceful a transaction.\u2019 Thereupon, partly by reproaches, partly by\nadvice and encouragement, he persuaded them to have [Sidenote: F]\nimmediate recourse to arms and to fight Pyrrhus to a finish for the\nprize of Italy.\n\nAgain, when it became manifest that, in acting the demagogue,\nPeisistratus was aiming at absolutism, and yet no one ventured to resist\nor prevent it, Solon brought out his weapons with his own hands, piled\nthem in front of his house, and called upon the citizens to help. And\nwhen Peisistratus sent and asked him what gave him the confidence to do\nso, he replied, \u2018My age.\u2019\n\nThings so vital as these, it is true, are rousing enough to fire even\nthe most worn-out of old men, so long as he possesses the breath of life\nat all. Otherwise he will sometimes, as I have said, be showing good\ntaste if he declines to perform paltry and menial tasks which bring more\nworry to the doer than good [Sidenote: 793] to the persons for whom they\nare done. There are also occasions when he will wait for the citizens to\ncall for him, feel the need of him, and come to his house to fetch him.\nHe is wanted, and therefore his appearance on the scene will carry more\nweight. But for the most part, though present, he will be silent and\nwill leave the younger generation to do the speaking, while he acts as\numpire to the match of political ambition. And if it goes beyond bounds,\nhe will offer a mild reproof and courteously put an end to outbreaks of\nself-assertion, recrimination, or ill-temper. When a motion is wrong, he\nwill reason with and correct the mover, but without blaming him. When it\nis right, he will commend it without reserve and will cheerfully\nacquiesce, often surrendering an argumentative victory in order that\n[Sidenote: B] a young man may get on in the world and be in good heart.\nIn some cases he will supply a deficiency while paying a compliment,\nlike Nestor with his\n\n    _No man, I trow, will find fault with thy words among all the\n       Achaeans:\n    None say thee nay. Yet not to an end hast thou brought all the\n       matter.\n    True \u2019tis, thou art yet but young, and myself might be thine own\n       father._\n\nThere is a practice still more statesmanlike. One may not merely teach a\nlesson openly in public by means of a reproval unaccompanied by any\nsting of humiliation or injury to prestige. Still more may be done in\nprivate for persons with good political abilities. We may offer them\nkindly suggestions and assistance [Sidenote: C] towards the bringing\nforward of useful arguments and public measures, encourage them to high\naims, help them to acquire a distinguished tone of mind, and\u2014as\nriding-masters do with their horses\u2014see that at first the people shall\nbe gentle and docile for them to mount. And if so be a young man should\nmake a failure, instead of leaving him to despond, we may rouse and\ncomfort him. It was in this way that the spirits and courage of Cimon\nwere revived by Aristeides, and those of Themistocles by Mnesiphilus,\nwhen they began by incurring ill-odour and a bad name for forwardness\nand recklessness. It is also said of Demosthenes that, when he was in\ngreat distress at his failure [Sidenote: D] in the Assembly, he was\ntaken to task by a very old man who had heard Pericles, and who told him\nthat he had no right to despair of himself, seeing that he possessed\ngifts so much like those of that eminent person. So when Timotheus was\nhissed for his innovations and treated as guilty of an outrage on music,\nEuripides bade him keep up his courage, since he would soon be dictating\nto his audience.\n\nAt Rome the term of the Vestal Virgins is divided into three stages\u2014one\nfor learning, one for the performance of the ceremonies, and the third\nfor teaching. So with the votaries of [Sidenote: E] Artemis at Ephesus;\neach is called first a novice, next a priestess, and then a\npast-priestess. In the same way the complete statesman is during the\nfirst part of his public career still engaged in learning the mysteries;\nduring the last part he is engaged in teaching and initiating.\n\nWhereas to superintend the athletics of others is to take no part in\nthem oneself, it is otherwise with those who train a youth in public\nbusiness and the political arena, and who make sure that for the good of\nhis country he shall\n\n                _Be speaker of words and eke doer of deeds._\n\nThey perform good service, not in some petty inconsiderable [Sidenote:\nF] part of public life, but in one to which Lycurgus devoted his first\nand foremost attention\u2014training the young to give to every old man the\nsame unfailing obedience as to a lawgiver. What had Lysander in his\nmind, when he declared that the finest form of old age is to be found at\nLacedaemon? Did he mean that at Lacedaemon elderly people had the best\nopportunities of doing nothing, of lending money, of sitting together\nand playing dice, or of meeting together at an early hour to drink?\nSurely not. He meant that all persons at that time of life hold, as it\nwere, a magisterial position; that they are, in a sense, public fathers\nor guardians, who not only look after matters of state, but take active\ncognisance of everything a young [Sidenote: 796] man may do in connexion\nwith his training-school, his pastimes, or his style of living. Such a\nposition makes them an object of fear to wrong-doers, and of respect and\naffection to the well-behaved. For young men make a point of cultivating\ntheir society, because of the way in which they encourage steadiness and\nnobility of character by sympathy and approbation and without jealousy.\n\nThe last-named feeling is not a becoming one at any time of life. But\nwhereas in the case of a young man it finds plenty of respectable\nnames\u2014\u2018rivalry\u2019, \u2018emulation\u2019, \u2018ambition\u2019\u2014in an old man it is a coarse\nand vulgar sentiment altogether out of place. The aged statesman should\ntherefore be entirely free from jealousy. He should be no malignant old\ntree, [Sidenote: B] unequivocally snubbing the shoots and checking the\ngrowth of plants which spring up beside or beneath it, but should give\nthem a kindly welcome and every opportunity to cling to him and twine\nabout him. He should hold young people upright, lead them by the hand,\nand foster them, not only by wise suggestion and advice, but by\nsurrendering to them political tasks which bring honour and distinction,\nor which afford scope for services of an innocent nature and yet welcome\nand gratifying to the public.\n\nWhen a task is a stubborn and arduous one, or when it is like a medicine\nwhich stings and gives pain at the moment, while its beneficial effects\nare not produced till afterwards, he [Sidenote: C] should not prescribe\nit for young people. Instead of subjecting them in their inexperienced\nstate to the uproars of an unreasonable mob, he should himself accept\nthe unpopularity attaching to salutary measures. By this means he will\nrender a youth both more well-disposed and also more zealous in other\nduties.\n\nMeanwhile it must be remembered that statesmanship does not consist\nsolely in holding office, acting as envoy, shouting loudly in the\nAssembly, and indulging in a fine frenzy of speeches and motions on the\nplatform. The generality of people may think that these make a\nstatesman, just as they think that talking [Sidenote: D] from a chair\nand delivering lectures based on books make a philosopher. But they fail\nto discern the sustained statesmanship or philosophy which is revealed\nconsistently day after day in actions and conduct. As Dicaearchus used\nto say, the word _peripatein_, \u2018walk\u2019, has now come to be used of\npersons taking a turn in the colonnades rather than of those who are\nwalking into the country or to see a friend. It is the same with acting\nthe statesman as it is with acting the philosopher. For Socrates to play\nthe philosopher there was no arranging of forms, seating himself in a\nchair, or observing a fixed time\u2014arranged with his associates\u2014for a\ndiscussion or discourse. He played the philosopher while joking with\nyou, perhaps, or drinking with you, [Sidenote: E] or possibly\ncampaigning with you, or at market with you, and finally when he was in\nprison and drinking the poison. He was thus the first to show that life\naffords scope for philosophy at every moment, in every detail, in every\nfeeling and circumstance whatsoever. Statesmanship should be regarded in\nthe same light. Foolish persons, even if they are Ministers of War, or\nSecretaries, or platform-speakers, should not be considered as acting\nthe statesman, but as courting the mob, or making a display, or creating\ndissension, or doing public service because they must. But when a man\npossesses public spirit and broad interests, and is a keen patriot and a\n\u2018state\u2019s man\u2019 in the literal sense, even if he has never worn official\ngarb, he is playing the statesman all the time. He does so by\nstimulating men of [Sidenote: F] ability, giving advice to those who\nneed it, lending his help to deliberation, discouraging bunglers, and\nfortifying persons of sense. And this does not mean that he goes to the\nAssembly Theatre or Senate House out of pride of place when canvassed or\npressed, and, when he gets there, merely puts in an appearance\u2014if he\ndoes so\u2014by way of pastime, as he might at a show or entertainment. It\nmeans that, even if not present in body, he [Sidenote: 797] is present\nin spirit; that he asks how the business goes, and is pleased or vexed\nas the case may be.\n\nAristeides at Athens and Cato at Rome held few public offices; but they\nmade their whole life a perpetual service to their country. Though\nEpaminondas won many a distinguished success as commander-in-chief, he\nis no less famous for what he did in Thessaly at a time when he held no\ncommand or office. The generals had plunged the phalanx into a difficult\nsituation. The enemy was attacking them with his missiles, [Sidenote: B]\nand they were in confusion. Epaminondas was therefore summoned from the\nranks, and, after allaying the panic of the army by words of\nencouragement, he proceeded to make an orderly disposition of the\nphalanx\u2014which was in a state of turmoil\u2014extricated it with ease, posted\nit so as to confront the enemy, and compelled him to change his tactics\nand retire.\n\nOnce when King Agis was in Arcadia, and was in the act of leading his\narmy into action in full order of battle, one of the elder Spartans\nshouted out that he was proposing to \u2018mend one error by another\u2019,\nmeaning (as Thucydides says) that \u2018his [Sidenote: C] present\nunseasonable ardour was intended to repair the discredit of his retreat\u2019\nfrom Argos. Agis listened, took the advice, and retired. Menecrates\nactually had a seat placed for him every day at the doors of the\nGovernment Office, and the Ephors frequently rose and consulted him upon\nquestions of the first importance; so great was his reputation for\nwisdom and shrewdness. The story goes that, when he had completely lost\nall physical strength and was for the most part confined all day to his\nbed, upon the Ephors sending for him to the Agora, he got up and set out\nto walk. As he was toiling slowly along, he met [Sidenote: D] some\nchildren on the way, and asked them: \u2018Do you know anything more binding\nthan to obey a master?\u2019 Upon their replying, \u2018Lack of the power,\u2019 his\nreason told him that this brought his service to an end, and he turned\nback home. For though zeal should not fail so long as ability lasts, we\nmust not put pressure upon it when left helpless.\n\nOnce more, Scipio, whether in the field or in politics, constantly\nsought the advice of Gaius Laelius to such an extent as to make some\npeople say of his achievements that Scipio was the actor, but the author\nwas Gaius. And Cicero himself acknowledges that the greatest and finest\nof the successful measures of his consulship were devised with the help\nof the philosopher Publius Nigidius.\n\n[Sidenote: E] There is, then, nothing to prevent an aged man from\nadvancing the public good in many a department of statesmanship. He has\nthe best of means thereto: reason, judgement, plain-speaking, and\n\u2018_thought discreet_\u2018, as the poets say. It is not merely our hands and\nfeet or the strength of our bodies that are part and parcel of the\npossessions of the State. Most important are the mind and the beauties\nof the mind\u2014temperance, justice, and wisdom. It is monstrous that, as\nthese come late and [Sidenote: F] slowly to their own, our house and\nfarm and other goods and chattels should get the benefit of them, while,\nin a public way, to our country and our fellow-citizens, we make\nourselves of no further use because of \u2018time\u2019. For what time takes away\nfrom our powers of active effort is less than what it adds to those of\nguidance and statesmanship. It is for this reason that, when Hermes is\nrepresented in an elderly form, though he has no hands or feet, his\nvirile parts are tense\u2014an indirect way of saying that there is little\nneed for old men\u2019s bodies to be hard at work, so long as their power of\nreasoned speech is\u2014as it ought to be\u2014vigorous and generative.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  The text here is corrupt.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  i.e. Epicurean.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Member of a religious council which met at Delphi and represented the\n  chief states of all Greece.\n\n\n\n\n                       ADVICE TO MARRIED COUPLES\n\n\n[Sidenote: 138 B] TO POLLIANUS AND EURYDICE WITH PLUTARCH\u2019S BEST WISHES.\n\nWhen they were shutting you in your bridal chamber, the ancestral ritual\nwas duly applied to you by the priestess of Demeter. I believe that now,\nif reason also were to take you in hand and join in the nuptial song, it\nwould prove of some service, and would support the tune as prescribed.\n\nIn the musical world they used to call one of the modes for the flute\n\u2018the Horse-and-Mare\u2019, because, apparently, the strains in that key were\nprovocative of union between those animals. Well, philosophy has many\nexcellent sermons to give, but none [Sidenote: C] more worthy of serious\nattention than that upon marriage. By it she exerts a spell upon those\nwho come together as partners in life, and renders them gentle and\ntractable to each other. I have, therefore, taken the main points of the\nlessons which you have repeatedly heard, brought up as you have been in\nthe company of Philosophy. I have arranged them in a series of brief\ncomparisons to make them easier to remember, and am sending them as a\npresent to you both. In doing so I pray that the Muses may graciously\nlend aid to Aphrodite, since, if it is their province to see that a lyre\nor a harp shall be in tune, it is no less so to provide that the music\nof the married home shall be harmonized by reason and philosophy. When\npeople in olden times assigned a seat with Aphrodite to Hermes, it was\nbecause [Sidenote: D] the pleasure of marriage stands in special need of\nreason; when to Persuasion and the Graces, it was in order that the\nmarried pair might obtain their wishes from each other by means of\npersuasion, and not by contention and strife.\n\n\n                               THE RULES:\n\n\n1. Solon bade the bride eat a piece of quince before coming to the\nbridegroom\u2019s arms\u2014apparently an enigmatical suggestion that, as a first\nrequirement, a pleasant and inviting impression should be gathered from\nan agreeable mouth and speech.\n\n2. In Boeotia, after veiling the bride, they crown her with a wreath of\nthorny asparagus. As that plant yields the sweetest eating from among\nthe roughest prickles, so a bride, if the groom does not run away in\ndisgust because he finds her difficult and vexatious at first, will\nafford him a sweet and gentle companionship. One who shows no patience\nwith the girl\u2019s first [Sidenote: E] bickerings is as bad as those who\nlet the ripe grapes go because once they were sour. Many a young bride\nis affected in the same way. First experiences disgust her with the\nbridegroom, and she makes as great a mistake as if, after enduring the\nsting of the bee, she were to abandon the honeycomb.\n\n3. It is especially at the beginning that married people should beware\nof quarrel and friction. Let them note how vessels which have been\nmended will at first easily pull to pieces on the slightest occasion,\nbut as time goes on and they become solid at the seams, it is as much as\nfire and iron can do to separate [Sidenote: F] the parts.\n\n4. Fire is readily kindled in chaff, dry rushes, or hare\u2019s fur, but\nquickly goes out unless it gets a further hold upon something capable\nboth of keeping it in and feeding it. So with that fierce blaze of\npassion which is produced in the newly-married by physical enjoyment.\nYou must not rely upon it nor expect it to last, unless it is built\nround the moral character, gets a hold upon your rational part, and so\nobtains a permanent vitality.\n\n5. Doctoring the water is no doubt a quick and easy way of [Sidenote:\n139] catching fish, but it renders them bad and uneatable. So when women\nwork artificially upon their husbands with philtres and spells, and\ncontrol them by the agency of pleasure, they have but crazy simpletons\nand dotards for their partners. While Circe derived no good from the men\nshe had bewitched, and made no use of them when turned into swine and\nasses, she found the greatest pleasure in the rational companionship of\nthe wise Odysseus.\n\n6. A woman who is more desirous of ruling a foolish husband than of\nobeying a wise one, is like a traveller who would rather lead a blind\nman than follow one who possesses sight and knowledge.\n\n[Sidenote: B] 7. Why should people disbelieve that Pasiphae, though\nconsort to a king, fell in love with an ox, when they see that some\nwomen find a strict and continent husband wearisome, and prefer to live\nwith one who is as much a mass of ungoverned sensuality as a dog or a\ngoat?\n\n8. When a rider is too weak or effeminate to vault upon a horse, he\nteaches the animal itself to bend its legs and crouch. In the same way\nsome men who marry high-born or wealthy women, instead of improving\nthemselves, put indignities upon their wives, in the belief that they\nwill be more easily ruled when humbled. The proper course is, while\nusing the rein, to maintain the dignity of the wife, as one would the\nfull height of the horse.\n\n[Sidenote: C] 9. When the moon is at a distance from the sun, we see it\nbright and luminous. When it comes near him, it fades and is lost to\nview. With a properly conducted woman it is the contrary. She should be\nmost visible when with her husband; in his absence she should keep at\nhome and out of sight.\n\n10. Herodotus was wrong in saying that when a woman lays aside her tunic\nshe lays aside her modesty. On the contrary, a chaste wife puts on\nmodesty in its place. Between married persons the token of greatest\nregard is greatest modesty.\n\n11. If two notes are taken in accord, the lower of the two is [Sidenote:\nD] the dominant. So, though every action in a well-conducted house is\nperformed by both parties in tune, it will reveal the husband\u2019s\nleadership and priority of choice.\n\n12. The Sun vanquished the North Wind. When the wind endeavoured to take\noff the man\u2019s cloak by violence and blowing a gale, he only tightened\nhis mantle the more and held it the closer. But when, after the wind,\nthe sun became hot, the man began to grow warm. When at last he\nsweltered, he took off not only his cloak but his tunic. The parable\napplies to the generality of women. When their husbands take violent\nmeasures to do away with extravagant indulgence, they show [Sidenote: E]\nfight and temper; but if you reason with them, they give it up peaceably\nand practise moderation.\n\n13. Cato expelled from the Senate a man who had kissed his own wife in\nthe presence of his daughter. This, perhaps, was too severe a step. But\nif\u2014as is the case\u2014it is unseemly to be fondling and kissing and\nembracing each other in company, it is surely more unseemly to be\nscolding and quarrelling in company, and, while treating your\nlove-passages as a sacred secret between you and your wife, to make an\nopen display of fault-finding [Sidenote: F] and reproach.\n\n14. A mirror,[37] though decorated with gold and precious stones, is of\nno use unless it shows you your form true to life. Similarly there is no\nadvantage in a rich wife, if her conduct does not represent that of her\nhusband and harmonize with it in character. If the reflection which it\noffers is glum when you are joyful, but wears a merry grin when you are\ngloomy and distressed, the mirror is faulty and bad. A wife is a poor\nthing and out of place if she is in the dumps when her husband is\ndisposed for frolic or love-making, but is all fun and laughter when he\nis serious. In the former case she is disagreeable; in [Sidenote: 140]\nthe latter, she slights you. Geometers tell us that lines and surfaces\nmake no movement by themselves, but only in conjunction with the bodies\nto which they belong. In the same way a woman should be free from\npeculiar states of mind of her own, but should act as the husband\u2019s\npartner in his earnestness and his jest, in his preoccupation and his\nlaughter.\n\n15. A man who dislikes to see his wife eating with him, teaches her to\nsatisfy her appetite when she gets by herself. Similarly one who is\nnever a merry companion to her, nor shares in her sport and laughter,\nteaches her to look for private pleasures apart from him.\n\n[Sidenote: B] 16. When the Persian kings are dining or feasting, their\nlegitimate wives sit at their side. But when they wish to amuse\nthemselves or get tipsy, they send those wives away and summon their\nminstrel-women and concubines. The practice is a right one, at least to\nthe extent that they do not permit their wives to take part in wanton\nand licentious scenes. So, if a private man, who lacks self-control or\ngood-breeding in his pleasures, is guilty of a lapse with a common woman\nor a menial, the wife should not be indignant and resentful, but should\nreflect that, out of respect for her, he finds some other woman to share\nhis riot and lasciviousness.\n\n[Sidenote: C] 17. When kings are fond of music, they make many\nmusicians; when of learning, learned men; when of athletics, gymnasts.\nSo when the love of a husband is for the person, his wife will be all\nfor dress; when for pleasure, she becomes lewd and wanton; when for\ngoodness and virtue, she shows herself discreet and chaste.\n\n18. When a Lacedaemonian girl was once asked whether she had already\nembraced a man, she answered, \u2018No, indeed; but _he_ has embraced _me_.\u2019\nSuch, I believe, is the right attitude for a lady\u2014not to shun or dislike\ncaresses, when the husband begins them, nor yet to begin them of her own\naccord. The one course is bold and immodest, the other disdainful and\n[Sidenote: D] unaffectionate.\n\n19. The woman ought not to possess private friends, but to share those\nof the man. But first and greatest are the gods, and it is therefore\nright for the wife to reverence or acknowledge only those gods who are\nrecognized by the husband. Her street-door should be kept shut to\nout-of-the-way forms of worship and alien superstitions. No deity finds\ngratification in ceremonies which a woman performs in secret and by\nstealth.\n\n20. Plato holds that a community is in a state of blissful well-being\nwhen the expressions \u2018_mine_\u2019 and \u2018_not mine_\u2019 are scarcely ever heard,\ninasmuch as the citizens enjoy, as far as [Sidenote: E] possible, the\ncommon use of everything worth considering. Much more ought such\nlanguage to be abolished from the married state. In the same way,\nhowever, in which medical men tell us that a blow on the left side\nproduces an answering sensation in the right, it is proper for a wife to\nsympathize with her husband\u2019s concerns and the husband with the wife\u2019s.\nIn this way, just as ropes, when interwoven, lend each other strength,\nso, through each party reciprocating the other\u2019s goodwill, the\npartnership will be maintained by both combined. Nature blends us\nthrough the body in such a way as to take [Sidenote: F] a portion from\neach, and by commingling produce an offspring common to both, so that\nneither can define or distinguish an \u2018own\u2019 part from \u2018another\u2019s\u2019. The\nsame sort of partnership between married persons should assuredly exist\nin respect of money also. They should pour it all into a single fund,\nand blend it in such a way that they never think of one part as \u2018own\u2019\nand one as \u2018another\u2019s\u2019, but treat it all as \u2018own\u2019 and none of it as\n\u2018another\u2019s\u2019. And as we call a mixture \u2018wine\u2019, though it may contain a\ngreater proportion of water, so the property of the house should be said\nto belong to the man, even though the wife may contribute the larger\nshare.\n\n21. Helen loved wealth, and Paris loved pleasure: Odysseus was wise, and\nPenelope discreet. Hence the union of the latter [Sidenote: 141] pair\nwas happy and enviable, while that of the former brought upon Greeks and\nAsiatics an \u2018Iliad of Woes\u2019.\n\n22. When the Roman was admonished by his friends for having divorced a\nwife who was chaste, rich, and beautiful, he stretched out his shoe and\nremarked: \u2018Yes, and this looks fine and new, but no one knows where it\nchafes me.\u2019 The wife must not rely upon her dowry, her birth, or her\nbeauty. The matters in which she touches her husband most closely are\nconversation, character, and companionship. Instead of making these\nharsh and vexatious day after day, she must render them [Sidenote: B]\ncompatible, soothing, and grateful. Physicians are more afraid of fevers\nwhich spring from vague causes gradually accumulating, than of those for\nwhich there is a great and manifest reason. So it is these little,\ncontinual, daily frictions between man and wife, which the world knows\nnothing of, that do most to create the rifts which ruin married life.\n\n23. King Philip was once enamoured of a Thessalian woman who was charged\nwith bewitching him. Olympias thereupon became eager to get this person\ninto her power. When, upon presenting herself, she not only turned out\nto be a handsome woman, but spoke with considerable nobility and good\nsense, [Sidenote: C] Olympias said: \u2018Those calumnies are all nonsense!\nYour witchcraft lies in yourself.\u2019 How irresistible a thing is a married\nand lawful wife, if, by treating everything\u2014dowry, birth, philtres, the\nvery girdle[38] of Aphrodite\u2014as lying in herself, she conquers affection\nby means of character and virtue!\n\n24. On another occasion, when a youthful courtier had married a handsome\nwoman of bad repute, Olympias remarked, \u2018The fellow has no judgement;\notherwise he would not have married with his eyes.\u2019 Marriage should not\nbe made with the eyes; neither should it with the fingers, as it is in\nthe case of some, who reckon up the amount of the dower, instead of\ncalculating the companionable quality, of the wife they are [Sidenote:\nD] marrying.\n\n25. To young men who are fond of looking at themselves in the mirror\nSocrates recommended that the ugly should correct their defects by\nvirtue, while the handsome should avoid spoiling their beauty by vice.\nIt is a good thing for the married woman also, while she is holding the\nmirror, to talk to herself, and, if she is plain, to ask, \u2018And what if I\nshow myself indiscreet?\u2019 if beautiful, \u2018And what if I show myself\ndiscreet as well?\u2019 The plain woman may pride herself on being loved for\nher character, and the handsome woman on being loved more for her\ncharacter than her beauty.\n\n26. When the Sicilian despot sent Lysander\u2019s daughters a set of costly\nmantles and chains, he refused to accept them. \u2018These bits of\nornaments,\u2019 said he, \u2018will rather take from my [Sidenote: E] daughters\u2019\nbeauty than set it off.\u2019 Lysander, however, was anticipated by Sophocles\nin the lines:\n\n              _Nay, \u2019twould not seem, poor fool, to beautify,\n              But to unbeautify, and prove thee wanton._\n\nAs Crates used to say, \u2018Adornment is that which adorns,\u2019 and that which\nadorns is that which adds to a woman\u2019s seemliness. This is not done by\ngold or jewels or scarlet, but by whatever invests her with the badges\nof dignity, decorum, and modesty.\n\n27. In sacrificing to Hera as goddess of marriage, the gall is not\nburned with the other portions of the sacrifice, but is [Sidenote: F]\ntaken out and thrown down at the side of the altar\u2014an indirect\ninjunction of the legislator that gall and anger should have no place in\nthe married state. The austerity of the lady of the house, like the\ndryness of wine, should be wholesome and palatable, not bitter like\naloes or unpleasant like a drug.\n\n28. Xenocrates being somewhat harsh in character, though otherwise a\nhigh type of man, Plato recommended him to _sacrifice to the Graces_.\nNow I take it that a woman of strict morals stands in special need of\nthe graces in dealing with her [Sidenote: 142] husband, so that\u2014as\nMetrodorus used to say\u2014she may live with him on pleasant terms and not\n\u2018in a temper because she is chaste\u2019. A woman should no more forget to be\namiable because she is faithful, than to be neat because she is thrifty.\nDecorum in a woman is rendered as disagreeable by harshness as frugality\nis by sluttishness.\n\n29. A wife who is afraid to laugh and joke with her husband for fear of\nseeming bold and wanton, is as bad as the woman who, from fear of being\nthought to use ointments on her head, does not even oil it,[39] and, to\navoid seeming to rouge her face, does not even wash it. We find that\nwhen poets and orators avoid appealing to the vulgar by bad taste and\naffectation in [Sidenote: B] respect of their diction, they practise\nevery art to attract and stir the hearer with their matter, their\ntreatment, and their moral quality. So the lady of the house, because\nshe avoids and deprecates\u2014as she is quite right to do\u2014extravagant or\nmeretricious demonstration, ought all the more to bring the graces of\ncharacter and conduct into play in dealing with her husband, thus\nhabituating him to proper ways, but in a pleasurable manner. If,\nhowever, a wife shows herself strait-laced and rigidly austere, her\nhusband must put the best face upon it. When Antipater required Phocion\nto perform an improper and [Sidenote: C] degrading action, he answered,\n\u2018I cannot serve you both as your friend and your toady.\u2019 In the same\nway, when a woman is staid and strait-laced, our reflection should be,\n\u2018The same woman cannot behave to me as both a wife and a mistress.\u2019\n\n30. By a national custom the Egyptian women wore no shoes, so that they\nmight keep at home all day. In the case of most women, to deprive them\nof gold-worked shoes, bangles, anklets, purple, and pearls, is to make\nthem stay indoors.\n\n31. Theano, in putting on her mantle, once showed a glimpse of her arm.\nUpon some one saying, \u2018A beautiful forearm!\u2019 she retorted, \u2018But not for\nthe public!\u2019 A well-conducted woman will keep, not only her forearm, but\nher speech, from [Sidenote: D] publicity. She will be as shy and\ncautious about her utterances to the outside world as if they were an\nexposure of her person, inasmuch as, when she talks, they are a\nrevelation of feelings, character, and disposition.\n\n32. Pheidias, in representing the Elean Aphrodite with her foot upon a\ntortoise, meant women to take it as a symbol of home-keeping and\nsilence. A woman should talk either to, or through the medium of, her\nhusband; nor should she resent it if, like a player on the clarinet, she\nfinds a more impressive utterance through another tongue than through\nher own.\n\n33. When rich or royal persons pay respect to a philosopher, they do\nhonour both to themselves and to him. But when a philosopher pays court\nto rich people, he is not conferring [Sidenote: E] distinction upon\nthem, but lowering his own. The same is the case with women. By\nsubmission to their husbands they win regard; by seeking to govern them\nthey demean themselves worse than the men so governed. Meanwhile it is\nonly right that the husband, in controlling the wife, should not be like\nan owner dealing with a chattel, but like the mind dealing with the\nbody\u2014sympathetic with the sympathy of organic union. It is possible to\ncare for the body without being a slave to its pleasures and desires,\nand it is possible to rule a wife and yet do things to please and\ngratify her.\n\n34. Compound objects are classified by philosophers as follows. In some\nthe parts are distinct, as in a fleet or army. [Sidenote: F] In some\nthey are conjoined, as in a house or ship. In others they form an\norganic unity, as in all living creatures. We may say much the same of\nmarriage. The marriage of love is the \u2018organic unity\u2019; the marriage for\na dowry or for children is that of persons \u2018conjoined\u2019; marriage without\nsharing the same couch is that of persons \u2018distinct\u2019, who may be said to\n[Sidenote: 143] dwell together, but not to live together. With persons\nmarrying, there should be a mutual blending of bodies, means, friends,\nand relations, in the same way as, according to the scientists, when\nliquids are mixed, the mixture runs through the whole. When the Roman\nlegislator forbade married couples to exchange presents, he did not mean\nthat they should not impart to each other, but that they should look\nupon everything as joint property.\n\n35. At Leptis in Africa it is a traditional custom for the bride, on the\nday after marriage, to send to the bridegroom\u2019s mother to borrow a pot.\nThe latter refuses, saying she has none. The intention is that the bride\nmay realize from the first the \u2018step-mother\u2019 attitude of her\nmother-in-law, so that, if anything more disagreeable happens\nafterwards, she may not be vexed or irritated. The wife should\nunderstand this fact and apply [Sidenote: B] treatment to its cause,\nwhich is, that the mother is jealous of her son\u2019s affections. There is\nbut one treatment for this state of mind. While winning the special\naffection of her husband for herself, she must avoid detaching or\nlessening his affection for his mother.\n\n36. Mothers appear to be more fond of their sons, because those sons are\nable to help them, and fathers of their daughters, because daughters\nneed their help. Maybe also it is out of compliment to each other that\nboth parties desire to be seen making much of that which is more akin to\nthe other. This, perhaps, is a trait of no importance, but there is\nanother which is charming. I mean, when the wife\u2019s respect is seen to\nincline rather to the husband\u2019s parents than to her own, and when,\n[Sidenote: C] in case of anything troubling her, she refers it to them\nand conceals it from her own people. If you are thought to trust, you\nare trusted; if you are thought to love, you are loved.\n\n37. The Greeks who accompanied Cyrus received the following order from\ntheir commanders: \u2018If the enemy come shouting to the attack, await them\nin silence; if they come in silence, charge to meet them with a shout.\u2019\nWhen a husband has his fits of anger, if he raises his voice, a sensible\nwife keeps quiet; if he is silent, she soothes him by talking to him in\na coaxing way.\n\n38. Euripides is right in blaming those who have the lyre [Sidenote: D]\nplayed to them at their wine. Music is more properly called in to cure\nanger and grief than to encourage further abandonment on the part of\nthose who are taking their pleasure. So I would have you believe that it\nis a wrong principle to share the same bed for the sake of pleasure, and\nyet, when you are angry or fall out, to sleep apart. That is exactly the\ntime to call in the Goddess of Love, who is the best physician for such\ncases. This is practically the teaching of the poet, when he makes Hera\nsay:\n\n                        _And their tangled strife will I loosen,\n      When to their couch I bring them, to meet in love and in union._\n\n[Sidenote: E] 39. At all times and everywhere a wife should avoid\noffending the husband, and a husband the wife; but especially should\nthey beware of doing so when together at night. In the story, the wife,\nin the vexation of her throes, used to say to those who were putting her\nto bed: \u2018How can this couch cure a trouble which befell me upon it?\u2019 So\nquarrels, recriminations, and tempers which are begotten in the chamber\nare not easily got over in another place or at another time.\n\n40. There appears to be a truth in Hermione\u2019s plea: [Sidenote: F]\n\n                \u2018_Tis wicked women\u2019s visits have undone me._\n\nThis occurs in more than one way, but especially when connubial quarrels\nand jealousies offer to such women not only an open door, but an open\near. At such a time, therefore, should a sensible woman shut her ears,\nkeep out of the way of slanderous whispers which add fuel to the fire,\nand be ready to apply the well-known saying of Philip. We are told that\nwhen his friends were trying to exasperate that monarch against the\nGreeks\u2014on the ground that, though he treated them well, they abused\nhim\u2014he remarked, \u2018Well, and what, pray, if we treat them badly?\u2019 So,\nwhen the scandalizers say, \u2018Your husband grieves you, in spite of all\nyour affection and chastity,\u2019 you [Sidenote: 144] should retort, \u2018And\nwhat, pray, if I begin to hate and wrong him?\u2019\n\n41. A man caught sight of a slave who had run away some time before, and\ngave chase. When the slave was too quick, and took refuge in a mill, he\nobserved, \u2018And in what better place could I have wished to find you than\nwhere you are?\u2018[40] So let a woman who is declaring for a divorce\nthrough jealousy say to herself, \u2018And where would my rival be more glad\nto see me? And what would she be more pleased to see me doing, than\nharbouring a grievance, at feud with my husband, and actually abandoning\nthe house and the marriage-chamber?\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: B] 42. The Athenians observe three sacred ploughings; the\nfirst at Sciron, in memory of the oldest sowing of crops; the second in\nthe Rharian district; and the third\u2014known as the Buzygian festival\u2014close\nto the Acropolis. More sacred than all of these is the connubial\nploughing and sowing for the procreation of children. It is a happy\nexpression of Sophocles, when he calls Aphrodite \u2018_fair-fruited\nCytherea_\u2018. Man and wife should therefore be especially scrupulous in\nthis connexion, keeping pure from unholy and unlawful intercourse with\nothers, and forbearing to sow where they desire no crop to grow, or, if\nit does, are ashamed of it and seek to conceal it.\n\n43. When Gorgias the rhetorician once read to the Greeks at Olympia a\ndiscourse upon peace and harmony, Melanthius exclaimed, \u2018Here is a man\ngiving us advice about peace and [Sidenote: C] harmony, when in private\nlife he has failed to harmonize three people\u2014himself, his wife, and his\nmaidservant.\u2019 For Gorgias, it appears, was enamoured, and his wife\njealous, of the domestic. A man\u2019s house ought to be in tune before he\noffers to set in tune a state, a public meeting, or friends. The public\nis more likely to hear of offences against a wife than of offences\ncommitted by her.\n\n44. They say that the cat is driven frantic by the smell of unguents. If\nit had been the case that women were provoked [Sidenote: D] out of their\nsenses by the same means, it would have been a monstrous thing for men\nnot to abstain from unguents, and to let their wives suffer so cruelly\nfor the sake of a trifling gratification of their own. Now since, though\nthe husband\u2019s use of unguents does not so afflict them, his dealings\nwith other women do, it is unjust to cause such vexation and distress to\na wife for the sake of a little pleasure. On the contrary, husbands\nshould come to their wives pure and untainted by other intercourse, just\nas they would approach bees, who are said to show disgust and hostility\ntowards any one who has been so engaged.\n\n45. People never dress in bright clothes when approaching [Sidenote: E]\nan elephant, nor in red when approaching a bull, since the animals in\nquestion are particularly infuriated by those colours. Of tigers it is\nsaid that, if you beat drums all round them, they go mad and tear\nthemselves to pieces. Surely, then, inasmuch as some men cannot bear to\nsee scarlet or purple clothes, and some are irritated at cymbals and\ntambourines, it is not asking too much for women to leave such things\nalone, and not harass or exasperate their husbands, but practise\nquietude and consideration in their society.\n\n[Sidenote: F] 46. When Philip was once seizing upon a woman against her\nwill, she said, \u2018Let me go. All women are the same when you take away\nthe light.\u2019 While this applies well enough to adulterers and\nsensualists, it is particularly when the light is taken away that a wife\nshould _not_ be the same as any ordinary female. Her person may not be\nvisible, but her modesty, chastity, decorum, and natural affection\nshould make themselves palpable.\n\n47. Plato used to recommend that respect should rather be paid by\nelderly men to the young, so that the latter might behave modestly to\nthem in return. For, said he, \u2018where old men are shameless,\u2019 the young\nacquire no modesty or scruple. A husband should bear this in mind, and\nshow more respect [Sidenote: 145] to his wife than to any one else,\nsince the nuptial chamber will prove to be her school of propriety or\nits opposite. The husband who indulges himself in certain pleasures,\nwhile warning her against the same, is as bad as the man who bids his\nwife fight on against an enemy to whom he has himself surrendered.\n\n48. As to love of display, do you, Eurydice, read and endeavour to\nremember what Timoxena wrote to Aristylla. And you, Pollianus, must not\nexpect your wife to refrain from showy extravagance, if she sees that\nyou do not despise it in other [Sidenote: B] matters, but that you take\na pleasure in cups with gilding, rooms with painted walls, mules with\ndecorated harness, and horses with neck-trappings. You cannot banish\nextravagance from the women\u2019s quarters when it has the free run of the\nmen\u2019s. You are at the right age to cultivate philosophy. Adorn your\ncharacter, therefore, by listening to careful reasoning and\ndemonstration in improving company and conversation. Be like the bees.\nGather valuable matter from every source. Carry it home in yourself, and\nshare it with your wife by discussing it and making all the best\nprinciples agreeable and familiar to her. While [Sidenote: C]\n\n       _Thou unto her art father, and honoured mother, and brother_,\n\nit is no less a matter of pride to hear a wife say, \u2018Husband, thou unto\nme art guide, philosopher, and teacher of the noblest and divinest\nlessons.\u2019 It is studies of this kind that tend to keep a woman from\nfoolish practices. She will be ashamed to be dancing, when she is\nlearning geometry. She will lend no ear to the incantations of sorcery,\nwhen she is listening to those of Plato and Xenophon. When any one\npromises to fetch down the moon,[41] she will laugh at the ignorance and\nsilliness of women who believe such things; for she will possess a\nknowledge of astronomy, and will have heard how Aglaonice, the daughter\nof Hegetor of Thessaly, thoroughly understood [Sidenote: D] eclipses of\nthe full moon, how she knew beforehand the date at which it must be\ncaught in the shadow, and how she thereby cheated the women into\nbelieving that she was fetching it down herself.\n\nWe are told that no woman produces a child without the participation of\nthe man, though there are shapeless and fleshlike growths\u2014called\n\u2018millstones\u2019\u2014which form themselves spontaneously from corrupted matter.\nWe must beware of this occurring in women\u2019s minds. If they are not\nimpregnated with sound doctrines by sharing in the culture of their\nhusbands, [Sidenote: E] they will of their own accord conceive many an\nill-advised intention or irrational state of feeling.\n\nAs for you, Eurydice, above all things do your best to keep touch with\nthe sayings of wise and good men, and to have continually in your mouth\nthose utterances which you learned by heart in my school when a girl. By\nso doing, you will not only be a joy to your husband, but the admiration\nof other women, when they see how, at no expense, you can adorn yourself\nwith so much distinction and dignity.\n\nThis rich woman\u2019s pearls, that foreign lady\u2019s silks, are not to be worn\nwithout paying a large price for them. But the ornaments [Sidenote: F]\nof Theano, of Cleobuline, of Gorgo the wife of Leonidas, of Timoclea the\nsister of Theagenes, of the Claudia of ancient history, and of Cornelia\nthe daughter of Scipio, you may wear for nothing; and with this\nadornment your life may be as happy as it is distinguished.\n\n[Sidenote: 146] Sappho thought so much of her skill as a lyrist that she\nwrote\u2014addressing a wealthy woman\u2014\n\n    _When thou art dead, thou shalt lie with none to remember thy name:\n    For no portion hast thou in the roses Pierian...._\n\nYou will assuredly have more occasion to think highly and proudly of\nyourself, if you have a portion, not only in the roses, but also in the\nfruits, which the Muses bring as free gifts to those who prize culture\nand philosophy.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Made of polished bronze.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  Which contained \u2018every charm: love, desire, and sweet converse\u2019\n  (Homer, _Il._ xiv. 214).\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  The use of oil to soften the hair was practically universal.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  A common punishment for a slave was to put him to hard labour in\n  turning the mill, in place of a horse or ass.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  A frequent pretence of ancient witches.\n\n\n\n\n                         CONCERNING BUSYBODIES\n\n\nIf a house is stuffy, dark, chilly, or unhealthy, it is perhaps\n[Sidenote: 515 B] best to get out of it. But if long association makes\nyou fond of the place, you may alter the lights, shift the stairs, open\na door here and close one there, and so make it brighter, fresher, and\nmore wholesome. Even cities have sometimes been improved [Sidenote: C]\nby such rearrangement. For instance, it is said that my own native town,\nwhich used to face the west and receive the full force of the afternoon\nsun from Parnassus, was turned by Chairon so as to front the east.\nEmpedocles, the natural philosopher, once blocked up a mountain gorge,\nwhich sent a destructive and pestilential south wind blowing down upon\nthe plains. By this means, it was thought, he shut the plague out of the\ndistrict.\n\nWell, since there are certain injurious and unhealthy states of mind\nwhich chill and darken the soul, it would be best to get rid of them\u2014to\nmake a clean sweep to the foundations, and give ourselves the benefit of\na clear sky, light, and pure air [Sidenote: D] to breathe. If not, we\nshould reform and readjust them by turning them some other way about.\n\nWe may take the vice of the busybody as an instance in point. It is a\nlove of prying into other people\u2019s troubles, a disease tainted\u2014we may\nbelieve\u2014with both envy and malice.\n\n                _Why so sharp-eyed, my most malignant Sir,\n                For others\u2019 faults, yet overlook your own?_\n\nPray turn your pryingness the other way about, and make it face inwards.\nIf you are so fond of the business of inquiring into defects, you will\nfind plenty to occupy you at home.\n\n[Sidenote: *] _Abundant as leaves on the oak or the water that rolls\nfrom Alizon_ will you find the errors in your conduct, the disorders in\nyour heart and mind, and the lapses in your duty.\n\n[Sidenote: E] According to Xenophon, a good householder has a special\nplace for the utensils of sacrifice, and a special place for those of\nthe table; agricultural implements are stored in one room, weapons of\nwar in another. In your own case you have one stock of faults arising\nfrom envy, another from jealousy, another from cowardice, another from\nmeanness. These are the faults for you to inspect and examine. Block up\nthe windows [Sidenote: F] and alleys of your inquisitiveness on the side\ntowards your neighbours, and open others which look into your own\nhouse\u2014the male quarters, the female quarters, the living-rooms of the\nservants. Our busy curiosity will find occupation of a profitable and\nsalutary, instead of a useless and malicious, kind, if each one will say\nto himself:\n\n      _How have I err\u2019d? What deed have I done? What duty neglected?_\n\nAs it is, we are all of us like the Lamia in the fable, of whom\n[Sidenote: 516] we are told that at home she is asleep and blind, with\nher eyes stowed away in a jar, but that when she comes abroad she puts\nthem in and can see. Outside, and in dealing with others, we furnish our\nmalice with an eye in the shape of our meddlesomeness, but we are\ncontinually being tripped up by our own misdeeds and vices, of which we\nare unaware, because we provide ourselves with no light or vision to\nperceive them. It follows that the busybody is a better friend to his\nenemies than to himself. While censoriously reproving their shortcomings\nand showing them what they ought to avoid or amend, he is so taken up\nwith faults outside that he overlooks most of those at home.\n\n[Sidenote: B] Odysseus refused even to talk to his mother, until he had\ngot his answer from the seer concerning the business which had brought\nhim to Hades. When he had received the information, he turned to her,\nand also began to put questions to the other women, asking who Tyro was,\nand the beautiful Chloris, and why Epicaste met her death by\n\n     _Tying a sheer-hung noose from the height of the lofty roof-tree_.\n\nNot so we. While treating our own concerns with the greatest\nindifference, ignorance, and neglect, we begin discussing other people\u2019s\npedigrees\u2014how our neighbour\u2019s grandfather was a Syrian and his\ngrandmother a Thracian. \u2018So-and-So owes more than seven hundred pounds,\nand cannot pay the interest.\u2019 We also make it our business to inquire\nabout such matters as where So-and-So got his wife from, and what\nprivate talk was that between A and B in the corner. Socrates, on the\nother [Sidenote: C] hand, went about inquiring, \u2018By what arguments did\nPythagoras carry conviction?\u2019 So Aristippus, when he met Ischomachus at\nOlympia, proceeded to ask by what kind of conversation Socrates affected\nthe Athenians as he did. When he had gleaned a few seeds or samples of\nhis talk, he was so moved that he suffered a physical collapse, and\nbecame quite pale and thin. In the end he set sail for Athens, and\nslaked his thirst with draughts from the fountain-head, studying the\nman, his discourses and his philosophy, of which the aim was to\nrecognize one\u2019s own vices and get rid of them.\n\nBut there are some to whom their own life is a most distressing\n[Sidenote: D] spectacle, and who therefore cannot bear to look at it nor\nto reflect the light of reason upon themselves. Their soul is so fraught\nwith all manner of vices, that, shuddering with horror at what lies\nwithin, it darts away from home, and goes prowling round other men\u2019s\nconcerns, where it lets its malice batten and grow fat.\n\nIt often happens that a domestic fowl, though there is plenty of food\nlying at its disposal, will slink into a corner and scratch\n\n       _Where so appeareth, mayhap, one barley-grain in a dunghill._\n\nIt is much the same with the busybody. Ignoring the topics and questions\nwhich are open to all, and which no one prevents him from asking about\nor is annoyed with him if he does ask, [Sidenote: E] he goes picking out\nof every house the troubles which it is endeavouring to bury out of\nsight. But surely it was a neat answer which the Egyptian made to the\nman who asked him what he was carrying in that wrapper. \u2018That,\u2019 said he,\n\u2018is why it _is_ in a wrapper.\u2019 And why, pray, are you so inquisitive\nabout a thing which is being concealed? If it had not been something\nundesirable, there would have been no concealment. It is not usual to\nwalk into another man\u2019s house without knocking at the door. Nowadays\nthere are doorkeepers\u2014formerly knockers were beaten upon the doors in\norder to give warning\u2014the intention being that the stranger shall not\nsurprise the lady of the [Sidenote: F] house or her daughter in the\nopen, or come upon a slave receiving punishment, or the handmaids\nscreaming. But these are exactly the things which the busybody steals in\nto see. At a staid and quiet household he would have no pleasure in\nlooking, even if he were invited. His object is to uncover and make\npublic those things to which keys, bolts, and the street-door owe their\nexistence. \u2018The winds which vex us most,\u2019 says Ariston, \u2018are those which\npull up our cloaks.\u2019 But the busybody strips off not only our mantles\nand tunics, but our walls; he spreads our doors wide open, and makes his\nway like a piercing wind through the \u2018_maiden of tender skin_\u2018, prying\nand sneaking into [Sidenote: 517] her bacchic revels, her dances, and\nher all-night festivals.\n\nAs Cleon in the comedy had\n\n           _His hands in Askthorpe and his thoughts in Thefton_,\n\nso the busybody\u2019s thoughts are at one and the same time in the houses of\nthe rich and the hovels of the poor, in the courts of kings and the\nchambers of the newly-wed. He searches into everybody\u2019s\nbusiness\u2014business of strangers, and business of potentates. Nor is his\nsearch without danger. If one were to take a taste of aconite because he\nwas inquisitive as to its properties, he would find that he had killed\nthe learner before he got his lesson. So those who pry into the troubles\nof the [Sidenote: B] great destroy themselves before discovering what\nthey seek. If any one is not satisfied with the beams which the sun\nlavishes so abundantly upon all, but audaciously insists upon gazing\nunabashed at the orb itself and probing the light to its heart, the\nresult is blindness. It was therefore wise of Philippides, the comic\npoet, when King Lysimachus once asked him, \u2018What can I give you of\nmine?\u2019 to reply, \u2018Anything, Sire, but your secrets.\u2019 The finest and most\npleasant aspects of royalty are those displayed outwardly\u2014its banquets,\nwealth, pomps and shows, graces and favours. But if a king has any\nsecret, keep away from it and leave it alone. A king does not conceal\nhis [Sidenote: C] joy when prosperous, nor his laughter when jocose, nor\nhis intention to do a kindness or confer a boon. When he hides a thing,\nwhen he is glum, unsmiling, unapproachable, it is time for alarm. It\nmeans that he has been storing up anger, and that it is festering; or\nthat he is sullenly meditating a severe punishment; or that he is\njealous of his wife, or suspicious of his son, or distrustful of a\nfriend. Run, run from that cloud which is gathering so black! You cannot\npossibly miss the thunder and lightning, when the matter which is now a\nsecret bursts out in storm.\n\nHow, then, are we to escape this vice? By turning our inquisitiveness\u2014as\nwe have said\u2014the other way round, and, as far as possible, directing our\nminds to better and more interesting objects. If you are to pry, pry\ninto questions [Sidenote: D] connected with sky, earth, air, or sea. You\nare by nature fond of looking either at little things or at big things.\nIf at big things, apply your curiosity to the sun; ask where he sets and\nwhence he rises. Inquire into the changes of the moon, as if she were a\nhuman being. Ask where she loses so much of her light, and whence she\ngets it back; how\n\n               _Once dim, she first comes forth and makes\n             Her young face beauteous, gathering to the full,\n             And, when her greatest splendours she hath shown,\n             Fades out, and passes into naught again._\n\nThese, too, are secrets\u2014the secrets of Nature; but Nature has [Sidenote:\nE] no grievance against those who find them out. Are the big things\nbeyond you? Then pry into the smaller ones. Ask how it is that some\nplants are always flourishing and green, proudly displaying their wealth\nat every season, while others are at one moment as good as these, but at\nanother have squandered their abundance all at once, like some human\nspendthrift, and are left bare and beggared. Why, again, do some plants\nproduce elongated fruits, some angular, some round and globelike?\n\nBut perhaps you will have no curiosity for such concerns, [Sidenote: F]\nbecause there is nothing wrong about them. Well, if inquisitiveness\nabsolutely must be always browsing and passing its time among things\nsordid, like a maggot among dead matter, let us introduce it to history\nand story, and supply it with bad things in abundance and without stint.\nFor there it will find\n\n                _Fallings of men and spurnings-off of life_,\n\nseductions of women, assaults by slaves, slanderings of friends,\nconcoctions of poisons, envies, jealousies, shipwrecks of homes,\noverthrows of rulers. Take your fill, enjoy yourself, and cause no\nannoyance or pain to any of those with whom you come in contact.\n\nApparently, however, inquisitiveness finds no pleasure in scandals which\nare stale; it wants them hot and fresh. And [Sidenote: 518] while it\nenjoys the spectacle of a novel tragedy, it takes no sort of interest in\nthe comedy or more cheerful side of life. Consequently the busybody\nlends but a careless and indifferent ear to the account of a wedding, a\nsacrifice, or a complimentary \u2018farewell\u2019. He says he has already heard\nmost of the details, and urges the narrator to cut them short or omit\nthem. But if any one will sit by him and tell him the news about the\ncorruption of a girl or the unfaithfulness of a wife or an impending\naction at law or a quarrel between brothers, there is no sleepiness or\nhurry about him, but\n\n    _More words still doth he ask, and proffers his ears to receive\n       them._\n\nAs applied to the busybody, the words\n\n                 _How much more apt to reach the ear of man\n                 An ill thing than a happy!_\n\nare a true saying. As a cupping-glass sucks from the flesh what\n[Sidenote: B] is worst in it, so the inquisitive ear draws to itself the\nmost undesirable topics. To vary the figure: cities have certain\n\u2018Accursed\u2019 or \u2018Dismal\u2019 gates, through which they take out criminals on\ntheir way to death and throw the refuse and offscourings of\npurification, while nothing sacred or undefiled goes in or out through\nthem. So with the ears of the busybody. They give passage to nothing\nfine or useful, but serve only as the pathway of gruesome\ncommunications, with their load of foul and polluted gossip.\n\n                _No chance brings other minstrel to my roof,\n                But always Lamentation._\n\n[Sidenote: C] That is the one Muse and Siren of the busybody, the most\npleasant of all music to his ear. For his vice is a love of finding out\nwhatever is secret and concealed, and no one conceals a good thing when\nhe has one; on the contrary, he will pretend to one which has no\nexistence. Since therefore it is troubles that the busybody is eager to\ndiscover, the disease from which he suffers is malignant gloating\u2014own\nbrother to envy and spite. For envy is pain at another\u2019s good; malignity\nis pleasure at another\u2019s harm; and the parent of both is ill-nature\u2014the\n[Sidenote: D] feeling of a savage or a brute beast.\n\nSo painful do we all find it to have our troubles revealed, that there\nare many who would rather die than tell a physician of a secret disease.\nImagine Herophilus or Erasistratus, or Asclepius himself\u2014when he was a\nmortal man\u2014calling from house to house with his drugs and his\ninstruments, and asking whether a man had a fistula or a woman a cancer\nin the womb! Inquisitiveness in their profession may, it is true, save a\nlife. None the less, I presume, every one would have scouted such a\nperson, [Sidenote: E] for coming to investigate other people\u2019s ailments\nwithout waiting till he was required and sent for. Yet our busybody\nsearches out precisely these, or even worse, ailments; and, since he\ndoes so not by way of curing them, but merely of disclosing them, he\ndeserves the hatred he gets.\n\nWe are annoyed and indignant with the collector of customs,[42] not when\nhe picks out and levies on those articles which we import openly, but\nwhen, in the search for hidden goods, he ransacks among baggage and\nmerchandise which are not in [Sidenote: F] question. Yet the law permits\nhim to do so, and he is the loser if he does not. On the other hand, the\nbusybody lets his own concerns go to ruin, while he is occupying himself\nwith those of other people. He rarely takes a walk to the farm; it is\ntoo lonely, and he cannot bear the quiet and silence. And if, after a\ntime, he does chance along, he has a keener eye for his neighbour\u2019s\nvines than for his own. He proceeds to ask how many of his neighbour\u2019s\ncattle have died, or how much of his wine turned sour. After a good meal\nof such news he is quickly off and away.\n\nYour true and genuine type of farmer has no desire to hear even the news\nwhich finds its own way from the city. Says he:\n\n                   _Then, while he digs, he\u2019ll tell\n             The terms o\u2019the treaty. He must now, confound him,\n             Go round and poke his nose in things like that!_\n\n[Sidenote: 519] But to your busybody country life is a stale and\nuninteresting thing with nothing to fuss about. He therefore flees from\nit, and pushes into the Exchange, the Market, or the Harbour. \u2018Is there\nany news?\u2019 \u2018Why, weren\u2019t you at market early this morning? Do you\nimagine there has been a revolution in three hours?\u2019 If, however, any\none has a piece of news to tell, down he gets from his horse, grasps the\nman\u2019s hand, kisses him, and stands there listening. But if some one\nmeets him and says there is nothing fresh, he exclaims, as if he were\nannoyed: \u2018What? Haven\u2019t you been at market? Haven\u2019t you been near the\nBoard-Room? And haven\u2019t you met the new arrivals from [Sidenote: B]\nItaly?\u2019\n\nThe Locrian magistrates therefore did right in fining any one who, after\nbeing out of town, came up and asked, \u2018Is there any news?\u2019 As the\nbutchers pray for a good supply of animals, and fishermen for a good\nsupply of fish, so busybodies pray for a good supply of calamities, for\nplenty of troubles, for novelties and changes. They must always have\ntheir fish to catch or carcass to cut up.\n\nAnother good rule was that of the legislator of Thurii, who forbade the\nlampooning of citizens on the stage, with the exception of adulterers\nand busybodies. The one class bears a resemblance to the other, adultery\nbeing a sort of inquisitiveness into [Sidenote: C] another\u2019s pleasure,\nand a prying search into matters protected from the general eye, while\ninquisitiveness is the illicit denuding and corrupting of a secret.\nWhile a natural consequence of much learning is having much to say, and\ntherefore Pythagoras enjoined upon the young a five years\u2019 silence,\nwhich he called \u2018Truce to Speech\u2019, the necessary concomitant of\ncuriosity is speaking evil. What the curious delight to hear, they\ndelight to talk about; what they take pains to gather from others, they\njoy in giving out to new hearers. It follows that, besides its\n[Sidenote: D] other drawbacks, their disease actually stands in the way\nof its own desires. For every one is on his guard to hide things from\nthem, and is reluctant to do anything when the busybody is looking, or\nto say anything when he is listening. People put off a consultation and\npostpone the consideration of business until such persons are out of the\nway. If, when a secret matter is towards, or an important action is in\nthe doing, a busybody appears upon the scene, they take it away and hide\nit, as they [Sidenote: E] would a piece of victuals when the cat comes\npast. Often, therefore, he is the only person not permitted to hear or\nsee what others may see and hear.\n\nFor the same reason the busybody can find no one to trust him. We would\nrather trust our letters, papers, or seals to a slave or a stranger than\nto an inquisitive relation or friend. Bellerophon, though the writing\nwhich he carried was about himself, would not broach it, but showed the\nsame continence in keeping his hands off the king\u2019s letter as in keeping\nthem off his wife.\n\nYes, inquisitiveness is as incontinent as adultery, and not only\nincontinent, but terribly silly and foolish. To pass by so many women\nwho are public property, and to struggle to get at one [Sidenote: F] who\nis kept under lock and key, who is expensive, and perhaps ugly to boot,\nis the very height of insanity. The busybody is just as bad. He passes\nby much that is admirable to see and hear, many an excellent discourse\nor discussion, to dig into another man\u2019s poor little letter or clap his\near to his neighbour\u2019s wall, listening to slaves and womenfolk\nwhispering together, and incurring danger often, and discredit always.\n\n[Sidenote: 520] Well, if he wishes to get rid of his vice, the busybody\nwill find nothing so helpful as to think over the discoveries he has\nhitherto made. Simonides used to say that, in opening his boxes after a\nlapse of time, he found the fee-box always full and the thanks-box\nalways empty. So, if one were to open the store-room of inquisitiveness\nafter an interval, and to contemplate all the useless, futile, and\nuninviting things with which it is filled, he would probably become sick\nof the business, so nauseating and senseless would it appear.\n\nSuppose a person to run over the works of our old writers and pick out\ntheir faultiest passages, compiling and keeping a book full of such\nthings as \u2018headless\u2019 lines of Homer, solecisms [Sidenote: B] in the\ntragedians, the indecent and licentious language to women by which\nArchilochus makes a sorry show of himself. Does he not deserve the\nexecration in the tragedy:\n\n                   _Perish, thou picker-up of miseries!_\n\nExecration apart, his treasury, filled with other men\u2019s faults,\npossesses neither beauty nor use. It is like the town which Philip\nfounded with the rudest riff-raff, and which he called Knaveborough.\n\nWith the busybody, however, it is not from lines of poetry, but from\nlives, that he goes gleaning and gathering blunders and slips and\nsolecisms, till the memory which he carries about is the dullest and\ndreariest record-box, crammed with ugly things. [Sidenote: C]\n\nAt Rome there are those who set no store by the paintings, the statues,\nor\u2014failing these\u2014the handsome children or women on sale, but who haunt\nthe monster-market, examining specimens with no calves to their legs, or\nwith weasel-elbows, three eyes, or ostrich-heads, and looking out for\nthe appearance of any\n\n                 _Commingled shape and misformed prodigy._\n\nYet if you keep on showing them such sights, they will soon become\nsurfeited and sick of it all. In the same way those who make it their\nbusiness to pry into other people\u2019s failures in their affairs, blots on\ntheir pedigree, disturbances and delinquencies in their homes, will do\nwell to remind themselves how thankless [Sidenote: D] and unprofitable\ntheir previous discoveries have proved.\n\nThe most effective way, however, of preventing this weakness is to form\na habit\u2014to begin at an early stage and train ourselves systematically to\nacquire the necessary self-control. It is by habit that the vice\nincreases, the advance of the disease being gradual. How this is, we\nshall see, in discussing the proper method of practice.\n\nLet us make a beginning with comparatively trifling and insignificant\nmatters.\n\nOn the roads it can be no difficult matter to abstain from reading\n[Sidenote: E] the inscriptions on the tombs. Nor in the promenades can\nthere be any hardship in refusing to let the eye linger upon the\nwritings on the walls. You have only to tell yourself that they contain\nnothing useful or entertaining. There is A expressing his \u2018kind\nsentiments\u2019 towards B; So-and-So described as \u2018the best of friends\u2019; and\nmuch mere twaddle of the same kind. No doubt it seems as if the reading\nof them does you no harm; but harm you it does, without your knowing it,\nby inducing a habit of inquiring into things which do not concern you.\nHunters do not permit young hounds to turn aside and [Sidenote: F]\nfollow up every scent, but pull them sharply back with the leash, so as\nto keep their power of smell in perfectly clean condition for their\nproper work, and make it stick more keenly to the tracks:\n\n    _With nostril a-search for the trail that the beast gives forth from\n       its body_.\n\nThe same watchfulness must be shown in suppressing, or in diverting to\nuseful ends, the tendency of an inquisitive person to run off the track\nand wander after everything that he can see or hear. An eagle or a lion\ngathers its talons in when it [Sidenote: 521] walks, so as not to wear\nthe sharp edge from their tips. Similarly let us treat the inquiring\nspirit as the keen edge to our love of learning, and refrain from\nwasting or blunting it upon objects of no value.\n\nIn the next place let us train ourselves, when passing another\u2019s door,\nto refrain from looking in, or from letting our inquisitive gaze clutch\nat what is passing inside. Xenocrates said\u2014and we shall do well to keep\nthe remark in mind\u2014that whether we set foot or set eyes in another man\u2019s\nhouse makes no difference. Not only is such prying unfair and improper;\nwe get no pleasure from the spectacle.\n\n               _Unsightly, stranger, are the sights within_,\n\nis a saying which is generally true of what we see inside\u2014a litter of\npots and pans, or servant-girls sitting about, but nothing of [Sidenote:\nB] any importance or interest. This furtive throwing of sidelong\nglances, which at the same time gives a kind of squint to the mind, is\nugly, and the habit is demoralizing. When the Olympian victor Dioxippus\nwas making a triumphal entry in a chariot, and could not drag his eyes\nfrom a beautiful woman among the spectators, but kept turning half round\nand throwing side glances in her direction, Diogenes\u2014who saw it\nall\u2014remarked, \u2018See how a bit of a girl gets the neck-grip on our great\nathlete!\u2019 Inquisitive people, however, are to be seen gripped by the\nneck and twisted about by any kind of sight, when they once develop a\nhabit of squandering their glances in all directions.\n\nThis is assuredly no right use of the faculty of vision. It should\n[Sidenote: C] not go gadding about like some ill-trained maidservant;\nbut when the mind sends it upon an errand, it should make haste to reach\nits destination, deliver its message, and then come quietly home again\nto wait upon the commands of the reason. Instead of this, the case is as\nin Sophocles:\n\n              _Thereon the Aenean driver\u2019s hard-mouthed colts\n              Break from control._\n\nWhen the faculty of vision has not been tutored and trained in the\nproper manner as above described, it runs away, drags [Sidenote: D] the\nmind with it, and often brings it into disastrous collisions.\n\nThere is a story that Democritus deliberately destroyed his sight by\nfixing his eyes upon a red-hot mirror and allowing its heat to be\nfocussed upon them. His object, it is said, was to block up the windows\ntoward the street, and thus prevent the disturbance of his intellect by\nrepeated calls from outside, enabling it to stay at home and devote\nitself to pure thinking. Though the story is a fiction, nothing is more\ntrue than that those who make most use of their mind make few calls upon\nthe senses. Note how our halls of learning are built far out from the\ntowns, and how night has been styled the \u2018_well-minded_\u2018, from a belief\n[Sidenote: E] that quiet and the absence of distraction are a powerful\naid to intellectual discovery and research.\n\nSuppose, again, that people are quarrelling and abusing each other in\nthe market-place. It requires no great effort of self-denial to keep at\na distance. When a crowd is running towards a certain spot, it is easy\nfor you to remain seated, or else, if you lack the necessary strength of\nmind, to get up and go away. There is no advantage to be got from mixing\nyourself with busybodies, whereas you will derive great benefit from\nputting a forcible check upon your curiosity and training it to obey the\ncommands of the reason.\n\n[Sidenote: F] We may now go a step further, and tax ourselves more\nseverely. It is good practice, when a successful entertainment is going\non in a public hall, to pass it by; when our friends invite us to a\nperformance by a dancer or comedian, to decline; when there is a roar in\nthe race-ground or the circus, to take no notice. Socrates used to urge\nthe avoidance of all foods and drinks which tempt one to eat when he is\nnot hungry or to drink when he is not thirsty. In the same way we shall\ndo well to shun carefully all appeals to eye or ear, when, though they\nare no business of ours, their attractions prove too much for us.\n\nCyrus refused to see Panthea, and when Araspes talked of her [Sidenote:\n522] remarkable beauty, his answer was: \u2018All the more reason for keeping\naway from her. If I took your advice and went to see her, she might\nperhaps tempt me to be visiting her again when I could not spare the\ntime, and to be sitting and looking at her to the neglect of much\nimportant business.\u2019 In the same way Alexander refused to set eyes on\nDarius\u2019 wife, who was said to be strikingly handsome. Though he visited\nthe mother\u2014an elderly woman\u2014he would not bring himself to see her young\nand beautiful daughter. But what we do is to peep into women\u2019s litters\nand hang about their windows, finding nothing improper in encouraging\nour curiosity and allowing it such dangerous [Sidenote: B] and unchecked\nplay.\n\nNote how you may train yourself for other virtues. To learn justice you\nshould sometimes forgo an honest gain, and so accustom yourself to keep\naloof from dishonest ones. Similarly, to learn continence, you should\nsometimes hold aloof from your own wife, and so secure yourself against\ntemptation from another\u2019s. Apply this habit to inquisitiveness.\nEndeavour occasionally to miss hearing or seeing things which concern\nyourself. When something happens at home, and a person wishes to tell\nyou of it, put the matter off; and when things have been said which\nappear to affect yourself, refuse to hear them. Remember how Oedipus was\nbrought into the direst disasters by over-curiosity. Finding he was no\nCorinthian, but an alien, he set to work [Sidenote: C] to discover who\nhe was, and so he met with Laius. He killed him, married his own mother,\nwith the throne for dowry, and then, while apparently blessed by\nfortune, began his search once more. The endeavours of his wife to\nprevent him only made him question still more closely, and in the most\nperemptory way, the old man who was in the secret. And at last, when\ncircumstances are already bringing him to suspect, and the old man\ncries:\n\n               _Alas! I stand on the dread brink of speech!_\n\nhe is nevertheless in such a blaze or spasm of passion that he replies:\n\n                  _And I of hearing; and yet hear I must._\n\n[Sidenote: D] So bitter-sweet, so uncontrollable, is the excitement of\ncuriosity\u2014like the tickling of a wound, at which one tears till he makes\nit bleed. Meanwhile if we are free from that malady, and mild by nature,\nwe shall ignore a disagreeable thing and say:\n\n                   _Sovran Oblivion, how wise art thou!_\n\nWe must therefore train ourselves to this end. If a letter is brought to\nus, we must not show all that hurry and eagerness to open it which most\npeople display, when they bite the fastenings through with their teeth,\nif their hands are too slow. When a messenger arrives from somewhere or\nother, we must not run to meet him, nor get up from our seats. If a\nfriend [Sidenote: E] says, \u2018I have something new to tell you,\u2019 let us\nreply: \u2018Better, if you have something useful or profitable.\u2019 When I was\nonce lecturing at Rome, the famous Rusticus\u2014who was afterwards put to\ndeath by Domitian out of jealousy at his reputation\u2014was among my\nhearers. A soldier came through the audience and handed him a note from\nthe emperor. There was a hush, and I made a pause, to allow of his\nreading the letter. This, however, he refused to do, nor would he open\nit, until I had finished my discourse and the audience broke up. The\nincident caused universal admiration at his dignified behaviour.\n\nBut when one feeds his inquisitiveness upon permissible material until\nhe makes it robust and headstrong, he no longer [Sidenote: F] finds it\neasy to master, when force of habit urges it towards forbidden ground.\nSuch persons will stealthily open their friends\u2019 missives, will push\ntheir way into a confidential meeting, will get a view of rites which it\nis an impiety to see, will tread in hallowed places, and will pry into\nthe doings and sayings of a king.\n\nNow with a despot\u2014who is compelled to know everything\u2014there is nothing\nthat makes him so detested as the crew known as his \u2018ears\u2019 and\n\u2018jackals\u2019. \u2018Listeners\u2019 were first instituted by Darius the Younger, who\nhad no confidence in himself and looked upon every one with fear and\nsuspicion. \u2018Jackals\u2019 were [Sidenote: 523] the creation of the Dionysii,\nwho distributed them among the people of Syracuse. Naturally, when the\nrevolution came, these were the first to be seized and cudgelled to\ndeath by the Syracusans.\n\nBlackmailers and informers are a breed belonging to the Busybody clan;\nthey are members of the family. But, whereas the informer looks to see\nif his neighbours have done or plotted any mischief, the busybody brings\nto book and drags into public even the misfortunes for which they are\nnot responsible. It is said that the outcast derived his name of\n_aliterios_ in the first instance from being a busybody. It appears that\nwhen a severe famine once occurred at Athens, and when those who were in\npossession of wheat, instead of bringing it in to the public [Sidenote:\nB] stock, used to grind it (_alein_) secretly by night in their houses,\ncertain persons, who went round watching for the noise of the mills,\nwere in consequence called _aliterioi_. It was in the same way, we are\ntold, that the informer won his name of _sukophantes_. The export of\nfigs (_suka_) being prohibited, those who gave information (_phainein_)\nand impeached the offenders were called _sukophantai_. Busybodies would\ndo well to reflect upon this fact. It may make them ashamed of the\nfamily likeness between their own practices and those of a class which\nis a special object of loathing and anger.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  These were farmed.\n\n\n\n\n                            ON GARRULOUSNESS\n\n\n[Sidenote: 502 B] When philosophy undertakes to cure garrulity it has a\ndifficult and intractable case in hand. The remedy is reason, which\nrequires that the patient should listen. But the garrulous person\n[Sidenote: C] does not listen, for he is always talking. Herein lies the\nfirst trouble with an inability to keep silent; it means an inability to\nlisten. It is the deliberate deafness of a person who appears to find\nfault with nature for giving him two ears and only one tongue. Euripides\nis, of course, right when he says of the unintelligent hearer:\n\n             _I cannot fill a man who cannot hold\n             My wise words, poured and poured in unwise ears._\n\nBut there is more reason to say of the babbler:\n\n             _I cannot fill a man who takes not in\n             My wise words, poured and poured in unwise ears_,\n\n\u2014or rather poured over them, since he talks though you do [Sidenote: D]\nnot listen, and refuses to listen when you talk. For even if, thanks to\nsome ebb in his loquacity, he does listen for a moment, he immediately\nmakes up for it several times over.\n\nThere is a colonnade at Olympia which reverberates a single utterance\ntime after time, and is therefore known as the \u2018Seven-Voiced\u2019. Say but\nthe least thing to set garrulity sounding, and it immediately dins you\nwith its echoes:\n\n         _Stirring the strings o\u2019 the mind that none should stir._\n\nThe passage through the babbler\u2019s ears leads, apparently, not to his\nmind, but to his tongue. Consequently, while others [Sidenote: E] retain\nwhat is said, the loquacious person lets it all leak away, and goes\nabout like a vessel full of noise but void of sense. Nevertheless, if we\nare resolved to leave no stone unturned, let us say to the babbler:\n\n                _Hush, boy: in silence many a virtue lies_,\n\nand, first and foremost, the two virtues of hearing and being heard. The\ngarrulous person can get the benefit of neither, and makes a miserable\nfailure of the very thing he is aiming at.\n\nIn other mental maladies\u2014love of money, love of glory, love of\npleasure\u2014there is at least a chance of gaining the object pursued. But\nwith the babbler that result can hardly happen. [Sidenote: F] What he\ndesires is listeners, and listeners he cannot get, for they all run\nheadlong away. If, when they are sitting in a lounge or taking a walk\ntogether, they catch sight of him approaching, they promptly pass each\nother the word to shift camp.\n\nWhen a silence occurs at some meeting, it is said that _Hermes has\nappeared upon the scene_. Similarly, when a chatterer comes in to a\nwine-party or a social circle, everybody grows mum, for [Sidenote: 503]\nfear of giving him an opportunity. And if he begins of his own accord to\nopen his lips, then\n\n                _As ere the storm, when the North wind blows\n                By the headland that juts to the deep_,\n\nthe prospect of being tossed and seasick is so distressing that up they\nget and out they go.\n\nFor the same reason he finds no welcome from neighbours at a dinner or\nfrom messmates on a journey or a voyage. They merely tolerate him\nbecause they must. For he sticks to you anywhere and everywhere, seizing\nyou by the clothes or the beard, and slapping you in the ribs.\n\n                    _Then are your feet most precious_,\n\nas Archilochus would say\u2014and not only Archilochus, but that wise man\nAristotle. When the latter was himself once worried [Sidenote: B] by a\nchatterer, who bored him with a number of silly stories and kept\nrepeating, \u2018Isn\u2019t it wonderful, Aristotle?\u2019 he retorted, \u2018The wonder is\nnot at that, but at any one tolerating you, when he owns a pair of\nlegs.\u2019 To another person of the kind, who, after a great deal of talk,\nremarked, \u2018Master, I have wearied you with my chatter,\u2019 he replied, \u2018Not\nat all; I was not listening.\u2019 Precisely so. If a chatterer insists on\ntalking, the mind surrenders the ears to him and lets the stream pour\nover them on the outside, while inwardly it goes its own way, opening\n[Sidenote: C] and reading to itself a book of quite different thoughts.\nIt follows that he can get no hearer either to attend to him or to\nbelieve him. A babbler\u2019s talk is as barren of effect as the seed of a\nperson over-prone to sexualities is said to be.\n\nAnd yet there is no part of us which Nature has fenced with so excellent\na barricade as the tongue. In front of that organ it has planted a guard\nin the shape of the teeth, so that, if it will not obey orders and pull\nitself together inside when reason tightens the \u2018_silence-working\nreins_\u2018,[43] we may check its rashness by biting it till it bleeds. The\nphrase of Euripides is that \u2018_disaster is the end_\u2019 not of an\n\u2018unchained\u2019 treasury or storeroom, but of an \u2018_unchained mouth_\u2018. To\nrecognize that a storeroom without a door, or a purse without a\nfastening, is of no use to the owner, and yet to possess a mouth without\nlock or door, but with as perpetual an outflow as the mouth of the\n[Sidenote: D] Black Sea, is to set the lowest possible value on speech.\n\nThe result is that such a person meets with no belief, though all speech\nhas that object, its final cause being to create precisely such credence\nin the hearer. A chatterer is disbelieved even when he tells the truth.\nFor as wheat, when shut in a bin, is found to increase in bulk but to\ndeteriorate in quality, so, when a story finds its way into a chatterer,\nit generates a large addition of falsehood and its credibility is\nthereby corrupted.\n\nAgain, any self-respecting and well-behaved person will beware of\ndrunkenness. For while\u2014as some put it\u2014anger lives next door to madness,\ndrunkenness lives in the same house. [Sidenote: E] Or rather it _is_\nmadness, of shorter duration, it is true, but more culpable, as being in\na measure voluntary. But the charge most seriously urged against\ndrunkenness is its intemperate and irresponsible language:\n\n    _For though right shrewd be a man, wine eggs him on till he singeth;\n    It loosens him that he laughs with a feeble laughter, and danceth._\n\nYet if this were the worst\u2014singing, laughing, and dancing\u2014there would\nbe, so far, nothing very terrible.\n\n    _And he letteth slip some speech, the which were better unspoken_:\u2014\n\n[Sidenote: F] that is where the mischief and danger begin.\n\nWe may, indeed, believe that these lines of the poet give the solution\nof the question discussed in the philosophic schools as to the\ndistinction between mellowness and intoxication: mellowness produces\nunbending, but drunkenness foolish twaddling. As the proverb-makers put\nit, \u2018_What is in the sober man\u2019s heart is on the drunken man\u2019s tongue._\u2019\nHence when Bias once kept silent at a carousal, and a chatterer taunted\nhim with stupidity, he retorted: \u2018And, pray, who could keep silent over\nhis wine, if he were a fool?\u2019 A certain person at Athens was [Sidenote:\n504] once entertaining envoys from a king, and, as they were eager for\nhim to get together the philosophic teachers, he made every effort to\ngratify them. While the rest took part in general discussion, to which\neach contributed his quota, Zeno said nothing. At this the visitors,\npledging him in friendly and courteous terms, asked him, \u2018And what are\nwe to say to the king about you, Zeno?\u2019 \u2018Merely,\u2019 replied he, \u2018that\nthere is one old man at Athens who is capable of holding his tongue\n[Sidenote: *] when drinking.\u2019\n\nSilence, then, goes with depth, the capacity to keep a secret,\n[Sidenote: B] and sobriety. Drunkenness, on the other hand, will be\ntalking, for it means folly and witlessness, and therefore loquacity. In\nfact, the philosophic definition of intoxication calls it \u2018_silly talk\nin one\u2019s cups_\u2018. The blame, therefore, is not for drinking, if one can\ndrink and yet at the same time hold his tongue. It is the foolish talk\nthat converts mellowness into drunkenness.\n\nWell, while the drunken man talks nonsense at his wine, the babbler\ntalks it everywhere\u2014in the market-place, in the theatre, when walking,\nwhen tipsy, by day and by night. As your doctor, he is a greater\ninfliction than the disease; as your shipmate, more disagreeable than\nthe sea-sickness; his praises are more annoying than another person\u2019s\nblame. A tactful rogue is more pleasant company than an honest\nchatterer. In Sophocles, when [Sidenote: C] Ajax is beginning to use\nrough language, Nestor, in endeavouring to soothe him, says politely:\n\n             _I blame thee not; for though thy words are wrong,\n             Thine acts are right._\n\nBut those are not our feelings towards the twaddler. On the contrary,\nthe tactlessness of his talk spoils and nullifies anything acceptable in\nwhat he may do.\n\nLysias once gave a litigant a speech which he had composed for him.\nAfter reading it several times the man came back. In a despondent tone\nhe told Lysias that, when he first went through the speech, it appeared\nwonderfully good, but on taking it up a second and third time, he found\nit extremely weak and ineffective. \u2018Well,\u2019 said Lysias laughing, \u2018isn\u2019t\nit only once [Sidenote: D] that you have to speak it before the jury?\u2019\nAnd consider how persuasive and charming Lysias is! For he is another\nwho\n\n                       _Hath goodly portion, I trow,\n                       Of the Muses violet-tress\u2019d._\n\nOf all things that are said about the great bard the truest is this\u2014that\nHomer alone manages never to cloy the appetite, since he is always new,\nand his charm always at its height. Nevertheless, exclaiming on his own\naccount in the words of Odysseus: [Sidenote: *]\n\n                        _But to me it is hateful\n    To tell o\u2019er a story again, when once right plainly \u2019tis told you_,\n\nhe is continually avoiding that tendency to surfeit which threatens talk\nof every kind, carrying his hearers from one story to another, and\nrelieving their satiety by his constant freshness.\n\nOur babblers, on the contrary, bore us to death with their repetitions,\nas if our ears were palimpsests for them to scrawl rubbish upon.\n\nLet this, then, be the first thing of which we remind them. [Sidenote:\nE] It is with talking as it is with wine. The purpose of wine is to\ncreate pleasure and friendly feeling; but to insist upon our drinking it\nin great quantities and without qualifying it, is to lead us into\noffensive and wanton behaviour. So, while talk plays the most pleasant\nand human part in our intercourse, those who make a wrong and rash use\nof it render it inhuman and insufferable. The means by which they\nimagine they are ingratiating themselves and gaining admiration and\nfriendship, only makes them a nuisance and wins them ridicule and\ndislike.\n\nHow destitute of charm would be a person who alienated his company and\ndrove them away with the very \u2018girdle of charm\u2019! And how destitute of\nculture and tact is the man [Sidenote: F] who arouses annoyance and\nhostility by means of speech!\n\nOther infirmities and disorders may be dangerous or detestable or\nridiculous. Garrulity is all three at once. It is derided for relating\nwhat everybody knows; it is hated for bearing bad news; it is endangered\nthrough blabbing secrets. This is the [Sidenote: 505] reason why, when\nAnacharsis went to sleep after being entertained at dinner at Solon\u2019s\nhouse, he was seen to be holding his right hand over his mouth. He\nbelieved\u2014quite rightly\u2014that the tongue requires a firmer control than\nany other member. It would be difficult, for instance, to count up as\nmany persons who have been ruined by sensuality, as cities and dominions\nwhich have been brought to destruction by the divulgence of a secret.\nWhen Sulla was besieging Athens, he could not afford to spend much time\nupon it,\n\n                      _Since other labour was urging_,\n\nMithridates having seized upon Asia, and the Marian party [Sidenote: B]\nbeing again masters of Rome. It happened, however, that a number of old\nmen were talking at a barber\u2019s, to the effect that no watch was kept\nupon the Heptachalcon and that the town was in danger of capture at that\npoint. They were overheard by spies, who gave information to Sulla; and\nhe promptly brought up his forces at midnight, led in his army, and\nalmost razed the city to the ground, filling it with carnage till the\nCerameicus flowed with blood. His anger with the Athenians was, however,\ndue more to their words than to their deeds. They would leap on to the\nwalls, and abuse him and Metella, and by jeering at him with [Sidenote:\nC]\n\n          _A mulberry is Sulla, sprinkled o\u2019er with barley-meal_,\n\nand a number of similar scurrilities, they brought upon themselves\u2014to\nuse a phrase of Plato\u2014\u2018_a very heavy penalty_\u2019 for that \u2018_very light_\u2019\nthing, their words.\n\nIt was, again, the talkativeness of one man that prevented Rome from\nobtaining its freedom by the removal of Nero. All preparations had been\nmade, and only a single night was left before the despot was to perish.\nIt happened, however, that the man who was to perform the assassination,\nwhen on his way to the theatre, saw a prisoner at the palace doors on\nthe point of being brought before Nero. As he was bewailing his fate,\nour friend came up close and whispered to him, \u2018My good [Sidenote: D]\nman, only pray that to-day may pass, and to-morrow you will be offering\nme thanks.\u2019 The prisoner grasped the meaning of the hint, and\nreflecting, I suppose, that\n\n    _\u2019Tis a fool who forgoes what he holds, to pursue what is out of his\n       keeping_,\n\nchose the surer rather than the more righteous way of saving himself.\nThat is to say, he informed Nero of the expression used. The man was\nthereupon promptly seized, and underwent rack, fire, and lash while\ndenying, in the face of constraint, what he had betrayed without any\nconstraint.\n\nThe philosopher Zeno, for fear that bodily suffering might force him to\nreveal some secret in spite of himself, bit through his tongue and spat\nit out at the despot. Leaena, again, has been gloriously rewarded for\nher self-command. She was the [Sidenote: E] mistress of Harmodius and\nAristogeiton, and she shared in their plot against the despots\u2014to the\nbest of her hopes, which was all a woman could do. For she also was\ninspired with the bacchic frenzy of that glorious \u2018_bowl of love_\u2018, and\nthe God had caused her also to be initiated into the secret. Well, after\nthey had failed and met their death, she was put to the question and\nordered to inform against those who still escaped detection. She\nrefused, and the firmness with which she bore her sufferings [Sidenote:\nF] proved that, in the love of those heroes for such a woman, there was\nnothing unworthy of themselves. The Athenians therefore had a bronze\nlioness made without a tongue, and set it up in the gates of the\nAcropolis, that courageous animal representing her indomitable firmness,\nand the absence of a tongue her power of silence in keeping a solemn\nsecret.\n\nNo uttered word has ever done such service as many which have been\nunuttered. You may some day utter what you have kept silent, but you\ncannot unsay what has been said; it has been poured out, and has run\nabroad. Hence, I take it, we have mankind to teach us how to speak, but\ngods to teach us how to keep silent, our lesson in that art being\nreceived at initiatory [Sidenote: 506] rites and mysteries. Odysseus,\nwho possessed most eloquence, the poet has made most reticent; he has\ndone the same with his son, his wife, and his nurse. You hear how she\nsays:\n\n    _Like stubborn oak or like iron will I hold your secret and keep\n       it._\n\nIn the case of Odysseus himself, as he sat beside Penelope,\n\n    _Though in his heart he pitied his wife, and was sore at her\n       weeping,\n    Steady within their lids stood his eyes as horn or as iron._\n\n[Sidenote: B] So full of self-command was his body in every part, under\nsuch perfect discipline and control did reason hold it, that it forbade\nthe eyes to shed a tear, the tongue to utter a sound, the heart to\ntremble or cry out with rage;\n\n    _And his heart once more did obey, and endure with a patient\n       enduring_,\n\ninasmuch as reason had extended even to his irrational movements and\nmade his very breath and blood amenable to its authority. Most of his\ncomrades also were of the same character. Self-command and loyalty could\nno further go than in their case. Though harried and dashed upon the\nground by the Cyclops, they would not denounce Odysseus to him. They\nwould not betray the plot against his eye and the implement which had\n[Sidenote: C] been sharpened in the fire for that purpose; but they\nchose to be eaten raw rather than tell a word of the secret.\n\nPittacus, therefore, was not far out, when, upon the King of Egypt\nsending him a sacrificial victim and bidding him pick out the \u2018fairest\nand foulest\u2019 part of the meat, he took out and sent him the tongue, as\nbeing the instrument of both the greatest good and the greatest evil.\n\nEuripides\u2019 Ino, making bold to speak for herself, says that she knows\nhow to be\n\n              _Silent in season, speak where speech is safe._\n\nThose, indeed, who are blessed with a noble and a truly royal education,\nknow first how to be silent and then how to talk. The famous king\nAntigonus, when his son asked him at what [Sidenote: D] hour they were\nto break camp, replied, \u2018What are you afraid of? That you may be the\nonly one to miss hearing the trumpet?\u2019 Was it that he did not trust with\na secret the man to whom he intended to bequeath his throne? Rather he\nmeant to teach him self-mastery and caution in dealing with such\nmatters. The aged Metellus, on being asked a similar question during a\ncampaign, answered, \u2018If I thought my shirt knew that secret, I would\ntake it off and put it on the fire.\u2019 When Eumenes heard that Craterus\nwas advancing, he told the fact to none of his friends, but pretended\nthat it was Neoptolemus, whom his [Sidenote: E] soldiers despised,\nwhereas they entertained a great respect for the reputation of Craterus\nand a high esteem of his ability. As, however, no one else found out the\ntruth, they joined battle, won the victory, killed Craterus without\nknowing him, and only discovered who he was from his corpse. So good a\ngeneral was the silence of Eumenes in the battle, and so formidable the\nopponent whose presence it disguised, that his friends admired instead\nof blaming him for not forewarning them. Even if some one does find\nfault, it is better to be accused when mistrust has saved you than to be\nthe accuser when trust proves your undoing.\n\nWhat excuse can one possibly find for himself when blaming another for\nnot holding his tongue? If the matter ought not to [Sidenote: F] have\nbeen known, it was wrong to tell it to any one else. If you let the\nsecret slip from yourself, and yet ask another person to keep it, you\ntake refuge in the loyalty of some one else while abandoning loyalty to\nyourself. And if he turns out as bad as you, you are deservedly undone;\nif better, you are saved by a miracle, through finding another person\nmore faithful to you than yourself. \u2018But So-and-So is my friend.\u2019 So is\na second person _his_ friend, whom _he_ again will trust as _I_ trust\n_him_. So with that person and a third, and thus the talk will go on\n[Sidenote: 507] increasing and extending in link after link of weak\nbetrayal. The Unit never goes beyond its own limit, but is, once and for\nall, \u2018oneness\u2019\u2014whence its name. But the number \u2018two\u2019 is the indefinite\nbeginning of difference, for by the duplication it at once shifts in the\ndirection of multitude. In the same way, so long as a piece of\ninformation is confined to the first possessor, it is really and truly a\n\u2018secret\u2019. But if it passes by him to a second, it must be classed as a\n\u2018report\u2019. \u2018_Winged words_,\u2019 says the poet. If you let go from your hand\na thing with wings, it is not easy to get it back into your grasp; and\nif you let an observation slip from your lips, it is impossible to seize\nand secure it, but away it flies\n\n                         _on nimbly-whirling wing_,\n\nand circulates in all directions from one set of people to another.\n\nWhen a ship is caught by a wind, they put a check upon it [Sidenote: B]\nand deaden its speed with cables and anchors; but let a speech run\u2014so to\nspeak\u2014out of port, and it finds no place to cast and ride at anchor. It\nis carried away with a roar, till he who has uttered it is dashed and\nsunk upon some great and terrible danger.\n\n                _From but a little torch-light Ida\u2019s heights\n                May all be set ablaze; so, tell but one,\n                And all the town will know it._\n\nThe Roman Senate had been engaged for a number of days [Sidenote: C] in\ndebating a secret matter of policy. As it gave rise to much\nmystification and conjecture, a woman\u2014otherwise irreproachable, but\nstill a woman\u2014kept pestering her husband and imploring him to tell her\nthe secret. On her oath, she would be silent: if not, might a curse fall\nupon her. She wept and wailed because she was \u2018not trusted\u2019. From a\ndesire to bring home her folly by a proof, the Roman said, \u2018Have your\nway, wife. But the news is terribly ominous. We have been informed by\nthe priests that a lark has been seen flying about with a gold helmet\nand a spear. We are therefore discussing the portent, and are inquiring,\nwith the help of the augurs, whether it is good or bad. But mind you\ntell nobody.\u2019 With these words he went off to the Forum. The wife at\nonce seized hold of [Sidenote: D] the first maid-servant to enter the\nroom, and, beating her own breast and tearing her hair, exclaimed, \u2018O my\npoor husband and country! What will become of us?\u2018, her wish being to\ngive the maid the opportunity of asking \u2018Why, what has happened?\u2019 At any\nrate she took the question as put, and told the tale, adding the\ninvariable refrain of every babbler, \u2018Tell no one about it, but hold\nyour tongue.\u2019 The girl no sooner left her than she looked for the\nfellow-servant who had least to do, and [Sidenote: E] imparted it to\nher. She in turn told it to her lover, who was paying her a visit. The\nstory went rolling on so rapidly that it reached the Forum before the\nman who had invented it, and he was met by an acquaintance, who said,\n\u2018Have you just come down from home?\u2019 \u2018This minute,\u2019 he replied. \u2018Then\nyou haven\u2019t heard anything?\u2019 \u2018No. Why? Is there any news?\u2019 \u2018A lark has\nbeen seen flying about with a gold helmet and a spear, and the\nmagistrates are about to hold a Senate meeting on the matter.\u2019 At this\nthe man exclaimed with a laugh, \u2018O wife, wife! What a speed! To think\nthe story has got to the Forum ahead of me!\u2019 First he interviewed the\nmagistrates and relieved their anxiety; then, on going home, [Sidenote:\nF] he proceeded to punish his wife by saying, \u2018Wife, you have been the\nruin of me. The secret is public property, and the fault has been traced\nto my house. And so I am to be exiled, all because of your loose\ntongue.\u2019 Upon her attempting to deny it by arguing \u2018But there were three\nhundred who heard it as well as you\u2019, he retorted \u2018Pooh for your three\nhundred! I invented it to try you, all because of your persistence\u2019.\n\nIn this case the man took safe precautions in putting his wife\n[Sidenote: 508] to the test, by pouring into the leaky vessel not wine\nor oil, but water. It was otherwise with Fulvius, the close friend of\nAugustus. The emperor in his old age was lamenting to him over his\ndesolate home and grieving because, two of his daughter\u2019s children being\ndead, and Postumius, the only one left, being in exile on some\ncalumnious charge, he was being driven to adopt his wife\u2019s son as his\nsuccessor, although he felt compassion [Sidenote: B] for his grandson\nand was considering the question of recalling him from abroad. Fulvius\ndivulged what he had heard to his wife, and she to Livia; whereupon\nLivia took Caesar bitterly to task, asking why, if he had been so long\nof this mind, he did not send for his grandson, instead of putting her\nin a position of enmity and strife with the successor to the throne.\nAccordingly, when Fulvius came to him\u2014as he regularly did\u2014in the morning\nand said \u2018Good morning, Caesar\u2019, he replied \u2018Good-bye, Fulvius\u2019. Fulvius\ntook the hint, went away home at once, sent for his wife, and said,\n\u2018Caesar knows that I have betrayed his secret, and I propose therefore\nto put myself to death.\u2019 \u2018Rightly too,\u2019 answered his wife, \u2018seeing that,\nafter living with [Sidenote: C] me so long, you failed to discover the\nlooseness of my tongue and to guard against it. But after me, if you\nplease\u2019\u2014and seizing the sword she despatched herself first.\n\nThe comic poet Philippides therefore acted rightly when, in answer to\nthe friendly civilities of King Lysimachus and his question \u2018What is\nthere of mine that I can share with you?\u2018, he replied \u2018What you choose,\nSire, except your secrets.\u2019\n\nOn the other hand garrulity goes with the equally objectionable vice of\ninquisitiveness. The babbler must find much to hear, so that he may have\nmuch to tell. Especially must he go round tracking and hunting out\nhidden secrets, so as to provide himself with a miscellaneous\nstock-in-trade for his foolish [Sidenote: D] talk. Then, like a child\nwith a piece of ice, he neither likes to keep hold nor wants to let go.\nOr rather, the secrets are reptiles, which he grasps and puts in his\nbosom, but which he cannot hold tight, and so is devoured by them.\nGarfish and vipers\u2014so we are told\u2014burst in giving birth to their young.\nSo the escape of a secret is ruin and destruction to him who lets it\nout.\n\nSeleucus the Victorious, having lost all his army and resources in his\nfight with the Gauls, tore off his royal circlet with his own hands, and\nfled away on horseback with three or four attendants. After a long and\ncircuitous ride away from the highroads, he was at last so overcome by\nwant that he approached a homestead, and being fortunate enough to find\nthe owner in [Sidenote: E] person, asked him for bread and water. The\nman not only gave him these, but supplied him liberally and in the most\nfriendly way with whatever else he had upon his farm. In doing so he\nrecognized the king\u2019s face. So overjoyed was he at his fortunate\nopportunity of rendering him service, that, instead of restraining\nhimself and playing up to the king\u2019s desire to be unknown, he\naccompanied him as far as the road, and, on taking his leave, said,\n\u2018Good-bye, King Seleucus.\u2019 At this the king, holding out his right hand\nand drawing the man towards him as if to kiss him, gave a sign to one of\nthe attendants to cut off his head with a sword;\n\n    _And so, with the word on his lips, his head in the dust lay\n       mingled_,\u2014\n\nwhereas, if he had then had the patience to hold his tongue [Sidenote:\nF] for a little while, he would in all probability, when the king\nsubsequently won success and power, have earned a larger return for his\nsilence than for his hospitality.\n\nIn this case, it is true, the man\u2019s hopes and kindly feeling formed some\nexcuse for his lack of self-command. Most babblers, however, have no\nexcuse at all for their own undoing. For example, people were once\ntalking in a barber\u2019s shop about the despotism of Dionysius, and saying\nhow firmly established it was against all assault. At this the barber\nremarked laughingly, \u2018How can you say that, when every few days I have\nmy [Sidenote: 509] razor at his throat?\u2019 No sooner did Dionysius hear of\nthis speech than he impaled the barber.\n\nBarbers, by the way, are generally a garrulous crew. Their chairs being\nthe resort of the greatest chatterers, they catch the bad habit\nthemselves. It was a neat quip that Archelaus once gave to a loquacious\nbarber. After putting the towel round him, the man asked, \u2018How shall I\ncut your hair, Sire?\u2019 \u2018In silence,\u2019 he replied. It was a barber also who\nreported the great disaster of the Athenians in Sicily, he having been\nthe first to hear it at the Peiraeus from a slave, who had run away\n[Sidenote: B] from the spot. Abandoning his shop, he hurried at full\nspeed to town,\n\n                     _Lest another the glory might win_\n\nby imparting the news to the capital,\n\n                   _while he might come but the second_.\n\nA panic naturally ensued, and the people were gathered to an assembly,\nwhere they set to work to trace the rumour to its source. When, however,\nthe barber was brought forward and questioned, he did not even know the\nname of his informant, but could only give as his authority a person\nunnamed and unknown. Thereupon the audience shouted in anger: \u2018To the\nrack and the wheel with the wretch! The thing is a pure concoction! Who\nelse has heard it? Who believes it?\u2019 The wheel [Sidenote: C] had been\nbrought, and the man had been stretched upon it, when there appeared\nupon the scene the bearers of the disastrous news, who had escaped from\nthe very midst of the action. At this they all dispersed, to occupy\nthemselves with their private griefs, leaving the poor wretch bound upon\nthe wheel. When at a late hour towards evening he was set free, he\nproceeded to ask the executioner \u2018whether they had also heard in what\nmanner Nicias, the commander, had met his death\u2019. Such a hopeless and\nincorrigible failing does garrulity become through force of habit.\n\nAfter drinking a bitter and evil-smelling medicine, we are disgusted\nwith the cup as well. In the same way, if you are the bearer of bad\nnews, you are regarded with disgust and hatred by those who hear it.\nHence a pretty discussion in Sophocles: [Sidenote: D]\n\n         A. _Is it in ear or heart that thou art stung?_\n\n         B. _Why seek thus to define where lies my pain?_\n\n         A. _\u2019Tis the doer grieves thine heart, I but thine ears._\n\nBe that as it may, a speaker causes pain as well as a doer. Nevertheless\nthere is no stopping or chastening a loose, glib tongue.\n\nOn one occasion it was discovered that the temple of Athena \u2018Of the\nBronze House\u2019 at Sparta had been pillaged, and an empty flask was found\nlying inside. The crowd which had run together could make nothing of it,\nwhen one of their number said, \u2018If you like, I will tell you my notion\nas to the flask. I fancy the robbers, realizing all the danger they were\nto run, first drank hemlock, and then brought wine with them. If they\nmanaged to escape detection, they were to neutralize [Sidenote: E] the\neffects of the poison by drinking the unmixed wine, and so get away in\nsafety. If they were caught, they were to die an easy and painless death\nfrom the poison, before they could be put to torture.\u2019 The theory was so\ningenious and acute that it appeared to come of knowledge rather than\nconjecture. He was therefore surrounded and questioned on every\nside\u2014\u2018Who are [Sidenote: F] you? Who knows you? How do you get to know\nall that?\u2018\u2014till finally, under this searching examination, he confessed\nthat he was one of the thieves.\n\nWere not the murderers of Ibycus found out in the same way? As they were\nsitting in the theatre, a number of cranes happened to come in sight,\nand they whispered laughingly to one another, \u2018Here are the avengers of\nIbycus!\u2019 They were overheard by persons sitting near them, and as a\nsearch was being made for Ibycus, who had been missing for a\nconsiderable time, the words were seized upon and reported to the\nmagistrates. By this means the matter was brought home, and the\nassassins carried off to prison, where their punishment was due, not to\nthe cranes, but to their own garrulity, which played the part [Sidenote:\n510] of an Erinys or Spirit of Vengeance in compelling them to divulge\nthe murder. For as in the body, when a part is diseased or in pain, the\nneighbouring matter gathers towards it by attraction; so is it with the\nbabbler\u2019s tongue. Perpetually throbbing and inflamed, it must keep\ndrawing towards itself some secret or other which ought to be concealed.\n\nWe must therefore make ourselves secure. Let Reason lie like a barrier\nin the way of the tongue, to restrain its flow or prevent its slipping.\nAnd let us show that we possess no less [Sidenote: B] sense than certain\ngeese of which we are told. It is said that, when they cross from\nCilicia over the Taurus Range\u2014which is full of eagles\u2014they clap a bolt\nor bit upon their utterance. That is to say, they take in their mouths a\ngood-sized stone, and so fly over at night without being discovered.\n\nNow if it were asked\n\n        _Who it is that is the vilest, who most unredeemed of men_,\n\nit is the traitor who would always be named before any one else. Well,\nEuthycrates (as Demosthenes puts it) \u2018_roofed his house with the timber\ngot from Macedon_\u2018. Philocrates received a large sum of gold and\nproceeded to buy \u2018_strumpets and fish_\u2018. Euphorbus and Philagrus, who\nbetrayed Eretria, received lands [Sidenote: C] from the Persian king.\nBut the babbler is a traitor who volunteers his services without pay,\nnot in the way of betraying horses or fortresses, but of divulging\nsecrets connected with lawsuits, party feuds, or political man\u0153uvres.\nInstead of any one thanking him, he actually has to thank people for\nlistening to him. The line addressed to a man who was recklessly\nsquandering his money by giving indiscriminate presents\u2014\n\n      _Not generous, you: \u2019tis your disease; you love to be a-giving_\u2014\n\nfits the prater also. \u2018You do not give this information out of\nfriendliness and goodwill. \u2019Tis your disease; you love to be a-talking\nand a-babbling.\u2019\n\nThese remarks are not to be regarded as simply an indictment of\ngarrulity. They are an attempt to cure it. An ailment is [Sidenote: D]\novercome by diagnosis and treatment, but diagnosis comes first. No one\ncan be trained to avoid or to rid his mental constitution of a thing\nwhich causes him no distress. That distress we learn to feel at our\ndisorders, when reason leads us to perceive the injury and shame which\nresult from them. Thus in the present instance we perceive that the\nbabbler is hated where he desires to be liked, annoys where he wishes to\ningratiate himself, is derided where he thinks he is admired, and spends\nwithout gaining anything by it. He wrongs his friends, assists his\n[Sidenote: E] enemies, and ruins himself. The first step, therefore, in\nphysicing this disorder, is to reflect upon the disgrace and pain which\nit causes. The second is to consider the advantages of the contrary\nbehaviour, constantly hearing, remembering, and keeping at our call the\npraises of reticence, the solemn and sacramental associations of\nsilence, and the fact that it is not by your unbridled talker at large\nthat admiration, regard, and reputation for wisdom are won, but by the\nman of short and pithy speech, who can pack much sense into few words.\n\nWe find Plato commending such persons, and saying that, in [Sidenote: F]\ntheir deliverance of crisp, terse, and compact utterances, they resemble\na skilful javelineer. Lycurgus, again, forced his fellow-citizens to\nacquire this gift of compression and solidity by applying the pressure\nof silence from their earliest childhood.\n\nThe Celtiberians produce steel from iron by first burying it in the\nground and then clearing away the earthy surplusage. So is it with\nLacedaemonian speech. It has no surplusage, but is steadily hardened\ndown to absolute effectiveness by the removal of everything unessential.\nAnd this knack of theirs of saying a pithy thing, or making a keen and\nnimble retort, is the result of a great habit of silence.\n\n[Sidenote: 511] We must not omit to give our chatterer examples of such\nbrevities, in order to show how pretty and effective they are. For\ninstance:\n\n          _The Lacedaemonians to Philip_: _Dionysius at Corinth_;\n\nand, again, when Philip wrote to them \u2018_If I enter Laconia, I will turn\nyou out_\u2018, they wrote back, \u2018_If._\u2019 When King Demetrius shouted in his\nindignation, \u2018Have the Lacedaemonians sent only one envoy to _me_?\u2018, the\nenvoy replied undismayed, \u2018One to one.\u2019 Among our ancient worthies also\nwe admire [Sidenote: B] the men of few words. It was not the _Iliad_ or\nthe _Odyssey_ or the paeans of Pindar that the Amphictyons inscribed\nupon the temple of the Pythian Apollo, but the maxims _Know Thyself_:\n_Nothing in Excess_: _Give pledge, and Mischief is nigh_, which they\nadmired for their simple and compact expression, with its\nclosely-hammered thought in small compass. And does not the god himself\nshow a love of conciseness and brevity in his oracles, deriving his name\nof \u2018Loxias\u2019 from the fact that he would rather be obscure than\ngarrulous?\n\nDo we not also particularly praise and admire those who can say, by\nmeans of a symbol and without speaking a word, all that [Sidenote: C] is\nnecessary? For instance, when his fellow-citizens insisted upon\nHeracleitus proposing some measure for the promotion of concord, he\nmounted the platform, took a cup of cold water, sprinkled it with\nbarley-meal, stirred it with a slip of pennyroyal, drank it off, and\nwent home. This was his way of intimating that to be satisfied with the\ncommonest things, and to have no expensive wants, is the way to maintain\na community in peace and concord. Another case is that of Scilurus, the\nScythian king, who left behind him eighty sons. When he was dying, he\ncalled for a bundle of small spears, and bade them take and break it in\npieces, tied together as it was, and in the mass. When they gave up the\ntask, he himself drew the spears out one by one and snapped them all\nwith ease, thereby demonstrating [Sidenote: D] how invincible was their\nstrength if harmoniously united, how weak and short-lived if they did\nnot hold together.\n\nAny one, I believe, who constantly recalls these and the like examples,\nwill cease to take a pleasure in chattering. But\u2014speaking for\nmyself\u2014there is a story of a certain slave which greatly discourages me,\nwhen I reflect how hard it is to be so careful of our words as to make\nsure of our purpose. The orator Pupius Piso, not wishing to be troubled,\nordered his slaves to talk only in answer to questions, and not a word\nmore. Subsequently, being anxious to welcome Clodius in his official\nposition, he gave orders for him to be invited to dinner, and prepared\nwhat was, of course, a splendid banquet. When the hour arrived, the\nother guests were all present and waiting for [Sidenote: E] Clodius. The\nslave who regularly carried the invitations was repeatedly sent out to\nsee whether he was on his way. When evening came and he was given up in\ndespair, Piso said to the slave, \u2018Of course you took him the\ninvitation?\u2019 \u2018I did,\u2019 he answered. \u2018Then why has he not appeared?\u2019\n\u2018Because he refused.\u2019 \u2018Then why did you not tell me so at once?\u2019\n\u2018Because you did not ask me that question.\u2019\n\nSo much for the slave at Rome, whereas at Athens he will tell his master\nwhile digging\n\n                   _What terms are named i\u2019 the treaty_,\n\nso great in all things is the force of habituation. To habituation let\nus now turn.\n\n[Sidenote: F] We cannot check the babbler by taking, as it were, a grip\non the reins. The malady can only be overcome by habit.\n\nIn the first place, therefore, when questions are asked of your\nneighbours, train yourself to keep silent until they have all failed to\nanswer.\n\n                _Counsel hath other ends than running hath_,\n\nsays Sophocles, and so has speech or answer. In running, the victor is\nthe man who comes in first, but here the case is different. If another\nmakes a satisfactory reply, the proper course is to lend approval and a\nword of support, and so win credit for good [Sidenote: 512] feeling. If\nhe fails, there is nothing invidious or inopportune in giving the\ninformation which he does not possess, or in supplementing his\ndeficiencies. But above all things let us be on our guard, when a\nquestion is put to another person, that we do not anticipate him and\ntake the answer out of his mouth. In any case in which a request is made\nof another it is, of course, improper for us to push him aside and offer\nour own services. By doing so we shall appear to be casting a slur on\nboth parties; as if the one were incapable of performing what is asked,\nand as if the other did not know the right quarter from which to get\nwhat he asks for. But it is especially in connexion with answers to\nquestions that such impudent forwardness is an outrage on [Sidenote: B]\nmanners. To give the answer before the person questioned has time,\nimplies the remark, \u2018What do you want _him_ for?\u2018, or \u2018What does _he_\nknow?\u2018, or, \u2018When _I_ am present, nobody else should be asked that\nquestion.\u2019\n\nYet we often put a question to a person, not because we need the\ninformation, but by way of eliciting from him a few words of a friendly\nnature, or from a wish to lead him on to converse, as Socrates did with\nTheaetetus and Charmides. To take the answer out of another\u2019s mouth, to\ndivert attention to yourself and wrest it from another, is as bad as if,\nwhen a person desired to be kissed by some one else, you ran forward and\nkissed him yourself, or as if, when he was looking at another, you\ntwisted him round in your own direction. The right and proper [Sidenote:\nC] course, even if the person who is asked for information cannot give\nit, is to wait, to take your cue to answer from the wish of the\nquestioner\u2014his invitation not having been addressed to you\u2014and then to\nmeet the situation in a modest and mannerly way. If a person of whom a\nquestion is asked makes a mistake in answering it, he meets with a due\nmeasure of indulgence; but one who pushes himself forward and insists on\nanswering first, receives no welcome if he is right, while, if he is\nwrong, he becomes an object of positive exultation and derision.\n\nThe second item of our regimen concerns the answering of questions put\nto ourselves. Our garrulous friend must be particularly careful with\nthese. In the first place he must not be deceived into giving serious\nreplies to those who merely provoke him into a discussion in order to\nmake a laughing-stock of him. [Sidenote: D] Sometimes persons who\nrequire no information simply concoct a question for the amusement and\nfun of the thing, and submit it to a character of this kind in order to\nset his foolish tongue wagging. Against this trick he must be on his\nguard. Instead of promptly jumping at the subject as if he were\ngrateful, he should consider both the character of the questioner and\nthe necessity for the question. And when it is clear that information is\nreally desired, he must make a habit of waiting and leaving some\ninterval between question and answer. There will then be time for the\ninquirer to add anything he wishes, and for himself to reflect upon his\nreply, instead of overrunning and muddling the question, hurriedly\ngiving [Sidenote: E] first one answer and then another while the\nquestion is still going on.\n\nThe Pythian priestess, of course, is accustomed to deliver oracles on\nthe instant, even before the question is asked, inasmuch as the God whom\nshe serves\n\n      _Understandeth the dumb, and heareth a man though he speak not._\n\nBut if you wish your answer to be to the purpose, you must wait for the\nquestioner\u2019s thought to be expressed, and discover [Sidenote: F]\nprecisely what he is aiming at. Otherwise it will be a case of the old\nsaying:\n\n                 _Asked for a bucket, they refused a tub._\n\nIn any case that ravenous greed to be talking must be checked. Otherwise\nit will seem as if a stream, which has long been banked up at the\ntongue, is taking joyful advantage of the question to disgorge itself.\nSocrates used to control his thirst on the same principle. He would not\npermit himself to drink after exercise without pouring away the first\njugful drawn from the well, thereby training his irrational part to wait\nuntil reason named the time.\n\n[Sidenote: 513] There are three possible kinds of answer to a\nquestion\u2014the barely necessary, the polite, and the superfluous. For\ninstance, to the inquiry, \u2018Is Socrates at home?\u2018, one person may reply,\nin an offhand and apparently grudging way, \u2018Not at home;\u2019 or, if he is\ndisposed to adopt the Laconian style, he will omit the \u2018at home\u2019 and\nmerely utter the negative. Thus the Lacedaemonians, when Philip had\nwritten to ask, \u2018Do you [Sidenote: *] receive me into your city?\u2018, wrote\na large _No_ on a piece of paper and sent it back. Another, with more\npoliteness, answers, \u2018No, but you will find him at the bankers\u2019\ntables\u2019\u2014going so far, perhaps, as to add, \u2018waiting for some strangers.\u2019\nBut, [Sidenote: B] third, our inordinate chatterbox\u2014at any rate, if he\nhappens also to have read Antimachus of Colophon\u2014will say, \u2018No; but you\nwill find him at the bankers\u2019 tables, waiting for some strangers from\nIonia, concerning whom he has had a letter from Alcibiades, who is near\nMiletus, staying with Tissaphernes, the Great King\u2019s Satrap, the same\nwho used formerly to help the Lacedaemonians, but who is now attaching\nhimself to the Athenians, thanks to Alcibiades; for Alcibiades is\nanxious to be recalled from exile, and is therefore working upon\nTissaphernes to change sides.\u2019 In fact he will talk the whole eighth\nbook of Thucydides and will deluge the questioner with it, until, before\nhe has done, there is war with Miletus and Alcibiades has been exiled\nfor [Sidenote: C] the second time.\n\nHere especially should loquacity be repressed. It should be forced to\nfollow in the footsteps of the question, and to confine the answer\nwithin the circle of which the questioner\u2019s requirement gives the centre\nand radius. When Carneades, before he became famous, was once\ndiscoursing in the gymnasium, the superintendent sent and requested him\nto lower his voice, which was a very loud one. Upon his replying \u2018Give\nme my limit for reach of voice\u2019, the officer aptly rejoined \u2018The person\nwho is speaking with you\u2019. So, in making an answer, let the limit\n[Sidenote: D] be the wishes of the questioner.\n\nIn the next place remember how Socrates used to urge the avoidance of\nthose foods and drinks which induce you to eat when you are not hungry\nand to drink when you are not thirsty. So those subjects in which he\nmost delights, and in which he indulges most immoderately, are the\nsubjects which the babbler should shun, and whose advances he should\nresist. For example, military men are given to prosing about wars. Homer\nintroduces Nestor in that character, making him relate his own deeds of\nprowess time after time. Take, again, those who have scored a victory in\nthe law-courts, or who have met with surprising success at the courts of\ngovernors or kings. Generally [Sidenote: E] speaking, they are chronic\nsufferers from an itch to talk about it, and to describe over and over\nagain how they came in, how they were introduced, how they played their\nparts, how they talked, how they confuted some opponent or accuser, and\nwhat eulogies they won. Their delight is more loquacious than that\n\u2018sleepless night\u2019 in the comedy, and is perpetually fanning itself into\nnew flame and keeping itself fresh by telling over the tale. They are\ntherefore prone to slip into such subjects at every pretext. For not\nonly\n\n               _Where the pain is, there also goes the hand_;\n\n[Sidenote: F] no less does the part which feels pleasure draw the voice\nand twist the tongue in its own direction, from a desire to dwell\nperpetually on the theme. It is the same also with amorous persons, who\nchiefly occupy themselves with such conversation as brings up some\nmention of the object of their passion. If they cannot talk to human\nbeings about it, they do so to inanimate things:\n\n                             _O bed most dear!_\n\nor\n\n             _Bacchis thought thee a god, thou blessed lamp;\n             And greatest god thou art, methinks, through her._\n\nNo doubt it makes not a pin\u2019s difference to the chatterer [Sidenote:\n514] what subject of conversation may arise. Nevertheless, if he has a\ngreater predilection for one class of subjects than for another, he\nought to be on his guard against that class and force himself to hold\naloof from it, since those are the subjects which can always tempt him\nfurthest into prolixity for the pleasure of the thing. It is the same\nwith those matters in which the talker thinks that his experience or\nability gives him a superiority over other people. Through egotism and\nvanity such a person\n\n                 _Giveth the most part of the day to that\n                 Wherein he showeth to the most advantage._\n\nWith the much-read man it is general information; with the [Sidenote: B]\nexpert in letters, the rules of literary art; with the much-travelled\nman, accounts of foreign parts. These subjects also must therefore be\nshunned. They are an enticement to loquacity, which is led on to them\nlike an animal towards its wonted fodder. One admirable feature in the\nconduct of Cyrus was that, in his matches with his mates, he challenged\nthem to compete at something in which he was not more, but less, expert\nthan they. Thus, while he caused no pain by eclipsing them, he also\nderived advantage from a lesson. With the chatterer it is the other way\nabout. If any subject is mooted which gives him the opportunity of\nasking and learning something he does not know, he cannot even pay so\nsmall a fee [Sidenote: C] for it as merely holding his tongue, but he\nblocks the topic and elbows it aside, working steadily round till he\ndrives the conversation into the well-worn track of stale old twaddle.\n\nWe have had an example of this among ourselves, where a person who\nhappened to have read two or three books of Ephorus used to weary every\none to death, and put any convivial party to rout, by everlastingly\ndescribing the battle of Leuctra and its sequel, until he earned the\nnickname of \u2018Epaminondas\u2019. If, however, we are to choose between evils,\nthis is the least, and we must divert loquacity into this channel.\nTalkativeness will be [Sidenote: D] less disagreeable when its excess is\nin an expert connexion.\n\nIn the next place such persons should habituate themselves to putting\nthings in a written or conversational form when alone. The case is not\nas with Antipater the Stoic. He gained his sobriquet of \u2018Pen-Valiant\u2019\nbecause, being\u2014as it would appear\u2014unable and unwilling to come out and\nmeet the vehement attacks made by Carneades upon the Porch, he kept\nfilling his books with written disputations against him. But if the\nbabbler turns to writing and valiantly fights shadows with his pen, the\noccupation will keep him from attacking people at large and will render\nhim daily more bearable to his company. It will be as with dogs. Let\nthem vent their anger on sticks and stones, and they are less ferocious\nto human beings. [Sidenote: E]\n\nAnother extremely beneficial course for talkers to adopt is to associate\ncontinually with their superiors and elders, out of respect for whose\nstanding they will develop a habit of holding their tongues.\n\nAs part and parcel of this training we should always vigilantly apply\nthe following reflection, when we are on the point of talking and the\nwords begin running to our mouths: \u2018What _is_ this remark that is so\npressing and importunate? With what object is my tongue so impatient?\nWhat honour do I get by speaking, or what harm by keeping quiet?\u2019 If the\nthought were an oppressive weight to be got rid of, the matter would be\n[Sidenote: F] different; but it remains with you just as much, even if\nit is spoken. When men talk, it is either for their own sake, because\nthey want something, or it is to help the hearer; or else they seek to\ningratiate themselves with each other by seasoning with the salt of\nrational conversation the pastime or business in which they happen to be\nengaged. But if a remark is neither of advantage to the speaker nor of\nimportance to the hearer, if it contains nothing pleasant or\ninteresting, why is it made? The [Sidenote: *] meaningless and futile is\nas much to be avoided in words as it is in deeds.\n\nOver and above all this, we should keep in lively recollection\n[Sidenote: 515] the saying of Simonides that he \u2018had often repented of\ntalking, but never of holding his tongue\u2019. We should remember also that\npractice is a potent thing and overcomes all difficulties. People get\nrid even of the hiccoughs or a cough by resolutely resisting them. Yet\nthis involves trouble and pain, whereas silence not only, as Hippocrates\nsays, \u2018prevents thirst;\u2019 it also prevents pain and suffering.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  The Homeric \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (\u2018glossy\u2019) is brought, either in error or by a\n  deliberate pun, into relation with \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03ae (\u2018silence\u2019).\n\n\n\n\n                       ON THE STUDENT AT LECTURES\n\n\nMY DEAR NICANDER, [Sidenote: 37 C]\n\nThis is an article upon \u2018The Attitude of the Student\u2019, which I have\nwritten and am sending to you. Its purpose is to teach you the right\nattitude towards your philosophic teacher, now that you are a grown-up\nman and are no longer obliged merely to obey orders.\n\nSome young men are so ill-informed as to suppose that absence of\nrestraint is the same thing as freedom, whereas, by unchaining\n[Sidenote: D] the passions, it makes them slaves to a set of masters\nmore tyrannical than all the teachers and mentors of childhood.\nHerodotus says that when women take off the tunic they also take off\nshame. It is the same with some young men. In laying aside the garb of\nchildhood they also lay aside shame and fear. No sooner do they unloose\nthe cloak which controlled their conduct than they indulge in the utmost\nmisbehaviour. With you it should be otherwise. You have been told over\nand over again that to \u2018follow God\u2019 and to \u2018obey reason\u2019 are the same\nthing. Understand, therefore, that with right-minded persons a coming of\nage does not mean rejection of rule, but change of ruler. For the hired\nor purchased[44] director of conduct they [Sidenote: E] substitute one\nthat is divine\u2014namely, reason. Only those who follow reason deserve to\nbe considered free; for they alone live as they choose, because they\nalone have learned to make the right choice, whereas ignorant and\nirrational desires and actions give small and paltry scope to the will,\nbut great scope to repentance.\n\nNote what happens in the case of naturalized citizens. Entire [Sidenote:\nF] foreigners from another country will often grumble irritably at their\nexperiences, whereas those who have previously been denizens of the\nstate, and have therefore lived in intimate touch with the laws, will\naccept their obligations with cheerful readiness. So with yourself. For\na long time you have been growing up in the company of philosophy. From\nthe first you have been accustomed to a taste of philosophic reason in\neverything that you have been taught or told as a child. It should\ntherefore be in a well-disposed and congenial spirit that you come to\nPhilosophy, who alone can adorn a youth with that finish of manhood\nwhich genuinely and rationally deserves the name.\n\nYou will not, I believe, object to a prefatory remark upon [Sidenote:\n38] the sense of hearing. Theophrastus asserts that it is the most\nsusceptible of all the senses, inasmuch as nothing that can be seen,\ntasted, or touched, is the cause of such strong emotional disturbance\nand excitement as takes hold upon the mind when certain sounds of\nbeating, clashing, or ringing fall upon the ear. It is, however, more\nrational, rather than more emotional, than the other senses. Vice can\nfind many places and parts of the body open for it to enter and seize\nupon the soul. But the only hold that virtue can take is upon pure young\nears [Sidenote: B] which have at all times been protected from the\ncorruptions of flattery or the touch of low communications. Hence the\nadvice of Xenocrates, that ear-guards should be worn by boys more than\nby athletes, inasmuch as the latter merely have their ears disfigured by\nblows, while the former have their characters disfigured by words. Not\nthat he would wed us to inattention or deafness. It is but a warning to\nbeware of wrong communications, and to see that others of the right\nnature have first been fostered in our character by philosophy and have\nmounted guard in that quarter which is most open to influence and\npersuasion.\n\nBias, the ancient sage, was once bidden by Amasis to send him that piece\nof meat from a sacrificial victim which was at the same time the best\nand the worst. He replied by taking out and sending the tongue, on the\nground that speech can do both the greatest harm and the greatest good.\nIt is a general practice in fondling little children to take them by the\nears, and to bid [Sidenote: C] them do the same to us\u2014an indirect and\nplayful way of suggesting that we should be especially fond of those who\nmake our ears the instruments to our advantage.\n\nIt is, of course, obvious that a youth cannot be debarred from any or\nevery kind of hearing, or from tasting any discourse at all. Otherwise\nnot only will he remain entirely without fruit or growth in the way of\nvirtue; he will actually be perverted in the direction of vice, his mind\nbeing an idle and uncultivated patch producing a plentiful crop of\nweeds. Propensity to pleasure and dislike of labour\u2014the springs of\ninnumerable forms of trouble and disease\u2014are not of external origin, nor\nimported [Sidenote: D] from teaching, but they well up naturally from\nthe soil. If therefore they are left free to take their natural course;\nif they are not done away with, or turned aside, by sound instruction;\nif nature is not thus brought under control, man will prove more\nunreclaimed than any brute beast.\n\nThe hearing of lectures, then, may be of great profit, but at the same\ntime of great danger, to a young man. This being so, I believe it a good\nthing to make the matter one of constant discussion, both with oneself\nand with others. In most cases [Sidenote: E] we may notice a false\nprocedure\u2014that of cultivating the art of speaking before being trained\nto the art of listening. It is thought that, while speaking requires\ninstruction and practice, any kind of listening is attended with profit.\nBut not so. Whereas in ball-play one learns simultaneously how to throw\nand how to catch, in the business of speech the right taking in is prior\nto the giving out, just as conception is prior to parturition. We are\ntold that in the case of a hen laying a wind-egg her labour and travail\nend in nothing but an abortive and lifeless piece of refuse. So when a\nyoung man lacks the ability to listen, [Sidenote: F] or the training to\ngather profit through the ear, the speech which he lets fall is\nwind-begotten indeed:\n\n    _Sans all regard and sans note it is lost in the clouds and\n       dispers\u00e8d._\n\nHe will take a vessel and tilt it in the right direction for receiving\nanything to be poured into it, and so ensure a real \u2018in-pouring\u2019 instead\nof a pouring to waste. But he does not learn to lend his own attention\nto a speaker and meet the lecture half-way, so as to miss no valuable\npoint. On the contrary, his behaviour is in the last degree ridiculous.\nIf he happens upon a person [Sidenote: 39] describing a dinner, a\nprocession, a dream, or a brawling-match in which he has been engaged,\nhe listens in silence and is eager for more. But if a teacher to whom he\nhas attached himself tries to impart something useful, or to urge him to\nsome duty, to admonish him when wrong, or to soothe him when angry, he\nis out of all patience. If possible, he shows fight, and is ambitious to\nget the best of the argument. Otherwise he is off and away to discourses\nof a different and a rubbishy kind, filling his ears\u2014the poor leaky\nvessels\u2014with anything rather than the thing they need.\n\n[Sidenote: B] From the right kind of breeder a horse obtains a good\nmouth for the bit, and a lad a good ear for reason. He is taught to do\nmuch listening, but to avoid much speaking. We may quote the remark of\nSpintharus in praise of Epaminondas, that he had scarcely ever met with\nany man either of greater judgement or of fewer words. Moreover, we are\ntold, the reason why nature gave each of us two ears, but only one\ntongue, was that we should do less speaking than hearing.\n\nA youth is at all times sure to find silence a credit to him; but in one\ncase it is especially so\u2014when he can listen to another without becoming\nexcited and continually yelping; when, even [Sidenote: C] if what is\nbeing said is little to his liking, he waits patiently for the speaker\nto finish; when, at the close, he does not immediately come to the\nattack with his contradiction, but (to quote Aeschines) waits a while,\nin case the speaker might wish to supplement his remarks, or perhaps to\nadjust or qualify his position. To take instant objection, neither party\nlistening to the other but both talking at once, is an unseemly\nperformance. On the other hand, those who have been trained to listen\nwith modest self-control will accept a valuable argument and make it\ntheir own, while they will be in a better position to see through a\nworthless or false one and to expose it, thereby [Sidenote: D] showing\nthat they are lovers of truth, and not merely contentious, headstrong,\nor quarrelsome persons. It is therefore not a bad remark of some, that\nthere is more need to expel the wind of vanity and self-conceit from the\nyoung, than to expel the air from a skin, when you wish to pour in\nanything of value: otherwise they are too swollen and flatulent to\nreceive it.\n\nThe presence of envious and malicious jealousy is, of course, never to\ngood purpose, but always an impediment to proper action. In the case of\na student at lectures it is the most perverse of prompters. Words which\nought to do him good are rendered vexing, distasteful, and unwelcome by\nthe fact that there is nothing which an envious man likes so little as\nan [Sidenote: E] excellent piece of reasoning. And note that, when a man\nis piqued by fame or beauty belonging to others, he is envious and\nnothing more; what annoys him is another\u2019s good fortune. But when he is\nirritated by admirable argument, his vexation is at his own good, since\nreason\u2014if he has a mind to accept it\u2014is as much to the good of one who\nhears as light is to the good of one who sees.\n\nEnvy in other matters is the result of various coarse or low attitudes\nof mind; envy of a speaker is born of inordinate love of glory and\nunfair ambition. A person so disposed is prevented [Sidenote: F] from\nlistening to reason. His mind is perturbed and distracted. At one and\nthe same time it is looking at its own endowments, to see if they are\ninferior to those of the speaker, and at the rest of the company, to see\nif they are wondering and admiring. It is disgusted at their applause,\nand exasperated at their approval. The previous portions of the speech\nit forgets and ignores, because the recollection is irksome. The parts\nyet to come it awaits with trembling anxiety, for fear they may prove\nbetter still. When the speaker is at his best, it is most [Sidenote: 40]\neager for him to stop. When the lecture is over, it thinks of nothing\nthat was said, but takes count of the expressions and attitudes of the\naudience. From those who give praise it dances away in a frenzy; and to\nthose who carp and distort it runs to form one of the herd. If there is\nnothing to distort, it makes comparisons with others who have spoken\n\u2018better and more eloquently to the same purpose\u2019. In the end our friend\nhas so cruelly mishandled the lecture that he has made it of no use or\nprofit to himself.\n\n[Sidenote: B] Let the love of glory, then, be brought to terms with the\nlove of learning. Let us listen to a speaker with friendly courtesy,\nregarding ourselves as guests at a sacred banquet or sacrificial\noffering. Let us praise his ability when he makes a hit, or be satisfied\nwith the mere goodwill of a man who is making the public a present of\nhis views and endeavouring to convince others by means of the arguments\nwhich have convinced himself. When he goes right, let us consider that\nhis rightness is due not to chance or accident, but to painstaking\neffort and learning. Let us take a pattern by it, and not only admire\nit, but emulate it. When he is at fault, let us stop and think for what\nreasons he is so, and at what point he began to go astray. [Sidenote: C]\nXenophon observes that good managers derive profit from their enemies as\nwell as from their friends. In the same way those who are attentive and\nalert derive benefit from a speaker not only when he is in the right,\nbut also when he is in the wrong. Paltry thought, empty phrase, affected\nbearing, vulgar delight and excitement at applause, and the like, are\nmore palpable to a listener in another\u2019s case than to a speaker in his\nown. It is well, therefore, to take the criticism which we apply to him,\nand apply it to ourselves, asking whether we commit any mistake of the\nkind without being aware of it. It is the easiest thing in [Sidenote: D]\nthe world to find fault with our neighbour, but it is a futile and\nmeaningless proceeding, unless made to bear in some way upon the\ncorrection or prevention of similar faults. When lapses are committed,\nlet us always be prompt to exclaim to ourselves in the phrase of Plato,\n\u2018Am I, perhaps, as bad?\u2019 As in the eyes of our neighbour we see the\nreflection of our own, so we should find a picture of our own speech in\nthat of another. In that way we shall avoid treating others with\nover-confident contempt, and shall also look more carefully to our own\ndeliverances.\n\nThere is another way in which comparison serves this useful [Sidenote:\nE] purpose. I mean if, when we get by ourselves after the lecture, we\ntake some point which appears to have been wrongly or unsatisfactorily\ntreated, and attack the same theme, doing our best to fill in, to\ncorrect, to re-word, or to attempt an entirely original contribution to\nthe subject, as the case may be\u2014doing, in fact, as Plato did[45] with\nthe speech of Lysias. While to argue against a certain deliverance is\nnot difficult, but, on the contrary, very easy, to set up a better in\nits stead is an extremely hard matter. As the Lacedaemonian said on\nhearing that Philip had razed Olynthus to the ground: \u2018Yes, but to\ncreate a city as good is beyond the man\u2019s power\u2019. Accordingly,\n[Sidenote: F] when we find that in dealing with the same subject we can\ndo but little better than the speaker in the case, we make a large\nreduction in our contempt and speedily prune down that self-satisfied\nconceit which has been exposed during such process of comparison.\n\nNevertheless, though admiration, as opposed to contempt, certainly\nbetokens a fairer and gentler nature, it is a thing which, in its own\nturn, requires no little\u2014perhaps greater\u2014caution. [Sidenote: 41] For\nwhile a contemptuous and over-confident person derives too little\nbenefit from a speaker, an enthusiastic and guileless admirer derives\ntoo much injury. He forms no exception to the rule of Heracleitus that\n\u2018_Any dictum will flutter a fool_\u2018. One should be frank in yielding\npraise to the speaker, but cautious in yielding belief to the assertion;\na kindly and candid observer of the diction and delivery of the arguer,\nbut a sharp and exacting critic of the truth and value of his argument.\n[Sidenote: B] While we thus escape dislike from the speaker, we escape\nharm from the speech. How many false and pernicious doctrines we\nunawares accept through esteeming and trusting their exponent! The\nLacedaemonian authorities, after examining a measure suggested by a man\nof evil life, instructed another person, famous for his conduct and\ncharacter, to move it\u2014a very proper and statesmanlike encouragement to\nthe people to be led more by the character of an adviser than by his\nspeech. But in philosophy we must put aside the reputation of the\nspeaker and examine the speech in and by itself. In lecturing, as in\nwar, there is much that is mere show. The speaker\u2019s grey hairs, his\nvocal [Sidenote: C] affectations, his supercilious airs, his\nself-glorification; above all, the shouting, applauding, and dancing of\nthe audience overwhelm the young and inexperienced student and sweep him\nalong with the current. There is deception in the language also, when it\nstreams upon the question in a delightful flood, and when it contains a\nmeasure of studied art and the grandiose. As, in singing to the\naccompaniment of the flageolet, mistakes are generally undetected by an\naudience, so an elaborate and pretentious diction dazzles the hearer and\nblinds him to the sense. I believe it was Melanthius who, when asked\nabout [Sidenote: D] Diogenes\u2019 tragedy, replied: \u2018I could not get a sight\nof it; it was hidden behind the words.\u2019 But with the discourses and\ndeclamations of the majority of our professors it is not merely a case\nof using the words to screen the thoughts. They also dulcify the\nvoice\u2014modulating, smoothing, and intoning\u2014till the hearer is carried\naway with a perfect intoxication. They give an empty pleasure, and are\npaid with an emptier fame. Their case, in fact, is one for the quip\ngiven by Dionysius. It was he, I think, who, during the performance of a\ndistinguished harp-player, promised him a liberal reward, but\nsubsequently gave [Sidenote: E] him nothing, on the ground that he had\nmade a sufficient return. \u2018For as long a time as I was enjoying your\nsinging\u2019, said he, \u2018you were enjoying your expectations.\u2019 The deliverer\nof the lectures in question finds that they represent a joint\ncontribution of the same kind. He receives admiration as long as his\nentertainment lasts. As soon as no more pleasure is forthcoming for the\near, there is no more glory left for him. The one party has wasted his\ntime, the other his professional life.\n\nLet us, then, strip aside all this empty show of language, and make for\nthe actual fruit. It is better to imitate the bee than [Sidenote: F] the\ngarland-maker. The latter looks for the bright-coloured fragrant petals,\nand, by twining and plaiting them together, produces an object which is\npleasant enough, but short-lived and fruitless. Bees, on the contrary,\nfrequently skim through meadows of violets, roses, or hyacinths, to\nsettle upon the coarsest and bitterest thyme. To this they devote\nthemselves\n\n                         _Contriving yellow honey_,\n\nand then fly home to their proper business with something worth the\ngetting. So a student who takes his work in real earnest will pay no\nregard to dainty flowery words nor to showy [Sidenote: 42] theatrical\nmatter. These he will consider as fodder for drones who play the\nsophist. For his own part he will probe with keen attention into the\nsense of a speech and the quality of the speaker. Therefrom he will suck\nsuch part as will be of service and profit. He will remember that he has\nnot come to a theatre or concert-hall, but to a classroom in the\nschools, and that his object is to get his life corrected by means of\nreason. Hence he should form a critical judgement of the lecture from\nhis own case, that is to say, from a calculation of its effect upon\nhimself. Has it been the chastening of a passion, the lightening\n[Sidenote: B] of a grief? Has it been courage, firmness of spirit,\nenthusiasm for excellence and virtue? Upon rising from the barber\u2019s\nchair he will stand at the glass and put his hands to his head,\ninspecting the trim and arrangement of the hair. No less should he,\nimmediately on leaving a lecture in the philosophic school, look at\nhimself and examine his own mind, to see if it has got rid of any\nuseless and uncomfortable growth and become lighter and more at ease.\n\u2018There is no use\u2019, says Aristo, \u2018in either a bath or a speech, unless it\ncleanses.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: C] By all means let a young man, while profiting from a\ndiscourse, find pleasure in the process. But he must not treat the\npleasure of the lecture as its end, nor expect to come out of the\nphilosopher\u2019s school with a beaming face and humming a tune. He must not\nask for scented unguents when what he needs is a lotion or a poultice.\nOn the contrary, he should be grateful if a pungent argument acts upon\nhis mind like smoke upon a hive, and clears out all the darkness and\nmistiness that fill it. Though it is quite right for a speaker not to be\naltogether without concern for an attractive and persuasive style of\nlanguage, that should be a matter least regarded by the young student,\nat any rate in the first instance. Later, no doubt, the case may be\n[Sidenote: D] different. It is when they are no longer thirsty that\npersons engaged in drinking will turn a cup about and inspect the\nchasing upon it. Similarly during a breathing-time, after taking our\nfill of the lesson, we may be permitted to examine any uncommon elegance\nin the language. But if from the very first, instead of taking a grip\nupon the substance, you insist upon \u2018good pure Attic\u2019 expression, you\nare like a person who refuses to take an antidote unless the vessel is\nmade of the best Attic earthenware; or who declines to put on a thick\ncloak in winter unless the wool is from Attic sheep, preferring to sit,\nstubborn and impracticable, in the thin napless mantle of the \u2018style of\nLysias\u2019. Perversities of this kind are responsible for a plentiful\n[Sidenote: E] lack of good sense and an abundance of loquacious claptrap\nin the schools. Young fellows keep no watch upon the life, the practical\naction, or the public services of a philosopher, but make a great merit\nof diction, phrase, and fine method of statement, while they possess\nneither the ability nor the desire to find out whether the statement is\nvaluable or worthless, whether it is vital or a mere futility.\n\nThe next rule concerns the propounding of difficulties. A guest at a\ndinner is bound to accept what is put upon the [Sidenote: F] table, and\nneither to ask for anything else nor to find fault. When the feast\nconsists of a discourse, any one who comes to it should listen and say\nnothing, if there is an understanding to that effect. Persons who cannot\nlisten in a pleasant and sociable manner, but keep drawing the speaker\noff to other topics, interposing questions and mooting side-issues, get\nno benefit themselves and confuse both the speaker and the speech. When,\nhowever, he invites the audience to ask questions and advance\ndifficulties, any that are proposed should prove to be useful and\nimportant. Odysseus, when in the suitors\u2019 company, incurs ridicule\nthrough\n\n    _Begging for morsels and scraps, and not for a sword or a cauldron._\n\n[Sidenote: 43] regard it as a sign of lofty-mindedness not only to give,\nbut to ask for, something of value. It is, however, more a case for\nridicule when a hearer poses a speaker with petty little problems of the\nkind often propounded by young men, when they are talking claptrap in\norder to make a show of attainments in logic or mathematics\u2014for example,\nconcerning \u2018division of the indeterminate\u2019 and the nature of \u2018lateral\u2019\nor \u2018diagonal\u2019 [Sidenote: B] motion. The proper answer to such persons is\nthe remark of Philotimus to a man who was suffering with abscesses and\nconsumption, but who had been talking to him for some time about\nrequiring \u2018some little thing to cure a whitlow\u2019. Perceiving the man\u2019s\ncondition from his complexion and breathing, Philotimus observed: \u2018My\ngood sir, a whitlow is not the question with you.\u2019 Nor in your case,\nyoung sir, is it worth while to be discussing such questions as yours,\nbut how you are to get rid of conceit, swaggering about love-affairs,\nand such-like nonsense, and how you are to plant your feet on the way to\na healthy and sober-minded life.\n\nEspecially are you bound, in putting your questions, to accommodate\nyourself to a speaker\u2019s range of knowledge or natural [Sidenote: C]\nability\u2014to his special _forte_. A philosopher who is more concerned with\nethics should not be attacked with difficulties in natural science or\nmathematics, nor should one who prides himself upon his scientific\nknowledge be dragged into determining hypothetical syllogisms or solving\nfallacies. If you attempted to chop your wood with the key and to open\nyour door with the axe, it would not be thought that you were making\nsport of these implements, but that you were depriving yourself of their\nrespective powers and uses. In the same way, if you ask of a speaker a\nthing for which he has no gift or training, while you make no harvest of\nwhat he possesses and offers, [Sidenote: D] you not only do yourself\nharm to that extent, but you incur condemnation for malicious\nill-nature.\n\nBe careful also not to propound difficulties yourself in too great\nnumbers or too frequently. This is, in a sense, another way of showing\noff. Meanwhile, to listen equably when some one else is mooting them,\nshows that you are a clubbable person and a student. This is assuming\nyou have no harassing and urgent trouble of your own, no mental\ndisturbance to be controlled or malady to be comforted. It may not,\nafter all, be (as Heracleitus says) \u2018better to conceal ignorance\u2019, but\nto bring it into the open and cure it. If your mind is upset by a fit of\nanger, an attack of superstition, a violent quarrel with your friends,\nor a mad amorous passion which\n\n          _Stirreth the heart-strings that should rest unstirred_,\n\n[Sidenote: E] you must not run away from a discourse which searches it\nhome, and fly to others of a different nature. On the contrary, these\nare the very topics to which you should listen, both at lectures and\nalso by privately approaching the lecturer afterwards and asking for\nfurther light.\n\nThe opposite course is the one too generally followed. So long as the\nphilosopher is dealing with other persons, his hearers are all delight\nand admiration. But when he leaves those others alone and frankly\nadministers some important reminder to themselves personally, they are\ndisgusted with him for not minding his own business. Generally speaking,\nthey think [Sidenote: F] a philosopher is entitled to a hearing inside\nhis school, as the tragedian is in the theatre; but in matters beyond it\nthey do not consider him in any way superior to themselves. Towards a\nsophist their attitude is natural enough; for when he rises from his\nchair, lays aside his books and his introductory manuals, and makes his\nappearance in the practical departments of life, he ranks in the popular\nmind as an unimportant and inferior person. But towards a philosopher in\nthe real sense their attitude is wrong. They do not recognize that a\ntone of earnestness or jest, a sign of approval or disapproval, a smile\nor a frown, [Sidenote: 44] on his part\u2014and, above all, his direct\nhandling of their individual cases\u2014are fruitful in good to those who\nhave learned the art of listening with submission.\n\nApplause, again, has its duties, which call for a certain caution and\nmoderation. A gentleman bestows neither too little nor too much of it. A\nhearer shows churlishly bad taste when nothing whatever in a lecture\nwill make him thaw or unbend; when he is diseased with festering conceit\nand chronic self-complacency, and is all the time thinking he could\nimprove upon the deliverance; when he neither makes any appropriate\nmovement of the brow nor utters any sound to prove that he is [Sidenote:\nB] a considerate and willing listener; when he is seeking a reputation\nfor solidity and depth by means of silence, an affected gravity, and\nattitudes of pose, under the notion that applause is like money, and\nthat whatever amount you give to another you take from yourself. The\nfact is that there are many who take up the well-known saying of\nPythagoras and sing it to a false tune. His own gain from philosophy, he\nsaid, was to \u2018_wonder at [Sidenote: *] nothing_\u2018; whereas theirs is to\n\u2018praise nothing\u2019 or to \u2018honour nothing\u2019. With them wisdom lies in\ncontempt, and the way to be dignified is to be disdainful. While, by\nmeans of knowledge [Sidenote: C] and the ascertainment of the cause in a\ngiven case, philosophic reason does away with the wonder and awe due to\nunenlightenment and ignorance, it does not destroy a generous\nappreciation. Those whose excellence is genuine and firmly seated find\nit the highest honour to bestow honour, the highest distinction to\nbestow distinction, where honour and distinction are due. Such conduct\nimplies that they have fame enough and to spare, and are free from\njealousy, whereas those who are niggards of praise to others are in all\nprobability pinched and hungry for praise of their own.\n\nOn the other hand, the opposite type of hearer is the fluttering\nfeather-head who uses no discrimination, but punctuates with loud cheers\nat every word and syllable. While he is frequently obnoxious to the\ndisputant himself, he is invariably a nuisance [Sidenote: D] to the\nhearers. He worries them on to their feet against their judgement, and\ndrags them willy-nilly to join in the chorus because they are ashamed to\nrefuse. Thanks to his applause deranging the lecture and making an\nimbroglio of it, he gets no good from it, but goes home with one of\nthree descriptions to his credit\u2014fleerer, sycophant, or ignoramus.\n\nIt is true that, when hearing a case in court, we must lean [Sidenote:\nE] neither towards hostility nor towards favour, but towards justice as\nwe best understand it. But at a lecture on a subject of learning there\nis neither law nor oath to debar us from granting the speaker an\nindulgent reception. The reason why the ancients placed the statue of\nHermes in the company of the Graces was that speaking has a special\nclaim to a gracious friendliness. It is impossible for any one to be so\ncomplete a failure or so utterly astray as to offer us nothing deserving\nof a cheer, in the shape of a thought, a reference to others, the mere\nchoice of theme or purpose, or, possibly, in the wording or arrangement\nof the matter,\n\n                _As among urchin-foot or mid coarse broom\n                The tender snowflake springeth into bloom._\n\n[Sidenote: F] There are persons who, for exhibition purposes, can lend a\nfair measure of plausibility to a panegyric upon vomiting or fever, or\neven a pot; and surely a deliverance by a man who has some sort of claim\nto be thought, or to call himself, a philosopher cannot absolutely fail\nto afford a well-disposed or courteous audience some opportunity of\nfinding relief in applause.\n\nAccording to Plato young persons in the bloom of life can always manage\nsomehow to excite a lover\u2019s passion. If they are white he calls them\n\u2018saint-like\u2019; if swarthy, \u2018virile\u2019. [Sidenote: 45] A hook-nose is\n\u2018regal\u2019, a snub nose \u2018piquant\u2019; a sallow skin is a \u2018complexion of\nhoney\u2019. He uses these pretty names, and is pleased and satisfied. Love\nhas, indeed, an ivy-like gift for clinging to any pretext. Much less\nwill an eager and earnest student of letters ever fail in inventiveness.\nIn every speaker he will discover some grounds for reasonable applause.\nIn the speech of Lysias, though Plato objects to its want of\narrangement, and though he has no praise for its inventiveness, he\nnevertheless commends him for his manner of statement, and because there\nis \u2018a clear round finish in the chiselling of every word\u2019. [Sidenote: B]\nWe might find fault with Archilochus for his subject-matter, Parmenides\nfor his versification, Phocylides for his commonplaceness, Euripides for\nhis garrulity, Sophocles for his inequality. Similarly one of the\norators has no characterization, another exerts no passion, a third is\nlacking in grace and charm. Nevertheless each wins praise for a power to\nmove and sway us in his own peculiar way.\n\nThe hearer, then, has ample scope for showing good feeling to a speaker.\nIn some instances it is sufficient if, without further declaration by\nword of mouth, we contribute a kindly eye, a genial expression, a\nfriendly and agreeable mood. There are certain things for which even the\nman who is a total failure may [Sidenote: C] look, and which are but\nordinary items of common etiquette for any and every audience. I mean an\nupright posture in our chairs, with no lolling or lounging; eyes kept\ndirectly upon the speaker; an air of businesslike attention; composure\nof countenance, with no sign, I need not say of insolence or\npeevishness, but of being taken up with other thoughts.\n\nIf in every exacting task beauty is made up of a number of factors\nhappily combined in a due proportion and harmony, ugliness is the prompt\nand immediate outcome of the faulty [Sidenote: D] omission or addition\nof this or that one element. And in this particular matter of listening,\nnot only is there impropriety in a scowling brow, a disagreeable\nexpression, a roving glance, a twisting of the body, and a crossing of\nthe legs; but nodding or whispering to a neighbour, smiling, yawning\nsleepily, looking at the ground, and actions of a similar nature, are\ncensurable and should be studiously avoided.\n\nThere are some who think that, though the speaker has a duty, the hearer\nhas none. They expect the former to present himself with his thoughts\nstudiously prepared; yet, without a thought or care for their own\nobligations, they drop casually in and take their seats, for all the\nworld as if they had come to a dinner to enjoy themselves while others\nare doing the work. Yet even a polite table-companion has his part to\nplay, much [Sidenote: E] more a polite hearer. He is a partner in the\nspeech and a coadjutor of the speaker; and he has no right to be sharply\ncriticizing the mistakes, and taking every phrase and fact to task,\nwhile himself free from responsibility for the impropriety and the\nfrequent solecisms which he commits as a hearer. In ball-play the\ncatcher has to regulate his movements according to those of the thrower.\nSo, in the case of a speech, there is a certain consonance of action in\nwhich both speaker and listener are concerned, if each is to sustain his\nproper part. [Sidenote: F]\n\nOur expressions in applauding must not, however, be used without\ndiscrimination. It is an unpleasing phrase of Epicurus when, in speaking\nof the little epistles from his friends, he says, \u2018We give them a\nrattling clapping.\u2019 But what of those who nowadays introduce such\n_outr\u00e9_ expressions into our lecture-rooms? The _Capital!_ _Well said!_\nand _Very true!_ which were the terms of commendation used by the\nhearers of Plato, Socrates, and Hypereides, are not enough for these\npersons. With their exclamations _Divine!_ _An inspiration!_ or\n_Unapproachable!_ they commit a gross impropriety, libellously making\nout that the speaker requires far-fetched eulogies of an [Sidenote: 46]\noutrageous kind. Highly obnoxious also are those who accompany their\nattestations with an oath, as if they were in a court of law. And\nequally so those who blunder in their descriptive terms; for instance,\nwhen the lecturer is a philosopher and they call out, _A shrewd hit!_,\nor an old man and they exclaim _Cleverly put!_ or _Brilliant!_, thus\nmisapplying to a philosopher the expressions used at academic exercises,\nwhere the speaking is not serious but merely an exhibition of\nadroitness. To offer [Sidenote: B] to a sober discourse such\nmeretricious praise is like crowning an athlete with a wreath of lilies\nor roses instead of laurel or wild olive. Once when the poet Euripides\nwas going over a song [Sidenote: *] with an original setting for the\nbenefit of the members of his chorus, and one of them happened to laugh,\nhe observed: \u2018If you had not been an ignorant dolt, you could not have\nlaughed while I was teaching you a mixolydian[46] piece.\u2019 So, I take it,\na serious and practical philosopher might very well make short work of\nthe airs and affectations of a hearer by saying, \u2018I presume your case is\none of foolishness or ill breeding; otherwise you would not have been\npiping out and jigging about at my remarks, when I was teaching, or\nadmonishing, or arguing concerning religion, statesmanship, or the\nduties of [Sidenote: C] office.\u2019 Just frankly consider what it means,\nwhen a philosopher is speaking, and the shouting and hurrahing inside\nthe building make people outside wonder whether it is a flute-player, a\nharpist, or a dancer who is being applauded.\n\nMeanwhile, in listening to admonition and reproof, the pupil must be\nneither insensible nor unmanly. There are some who bear the\nphilosopher\u2019s reproaches with an easy-going indifference, laughing under\nthe correction and applauding the corrector, just as parasites applaud\nin sheer impudence and recklessness when they are abused by those who\nkeep them. The shamelessness which such persons display is no proper or\ngenuine proof of courage. When a jibe containing no insult, and uttered\nin [Sidenote: D] a playful and tactful way, is borne cheerfully and\nwithout annoyance, it shows neither a want of spirit nor a want of\nbreeding. On the contrary, it is exactly what a gentleman of the true\nSpartan style would do. But it is different when admonition takes in\nhand the correction of character by means of a stinging remedy in the\nshape of rational reproof. If a young man does not cower under the\nlesson and feel his soul burning with shame, till he breaks into a sweat\nand is ready to faint; if, on the contrary, he is unperturbed, gives a\nbroad grin of self-depreciation, and refuses to take the matter\nseriously, then he is an extremely vulgar creature beyond all sense of\nshame, a constant habituation to misconduct having made his soul no more\ncapable of a bruise than a thick callus in the flesh.\n\nThese form the one class. Youths of the opposite disposition, [Sidenote:\nE] if a single hard word is said to them, turn deserters from philosophy\nand run away without a glance behind them. While nature has given them,\nin the shape of modesty, an excellent start towards moral salvation,\nthey are so squeamish and timid that they throw their chance away.\nUnable to put up with reproof or to accept correction with spirit, they\nturn away to listen to the soft and agreeable utterances of some\ntime-server or sophist, who charms them with melodious phrases as\nuseless and futile as they are pleasing. If a man runs away from the\nsurgeon after the operation and objects to be bandaged, he is submitting\nto the pain of the treatment but refusing to put up with its benefit. So\nwhen a lesson has lanced and probed his [Sidenote: F] folly, if he will\nnot permit it to close and dress the wound, he is abandoning philosophy\nafter feeling the sting and the pain but before deriving any advantage\ntherefrom.\n\nEuripides says that the wound of Telephus was\n\n            _Soothed by the filings ground from the same spear._\n\nIt is no less true that the sting implanted by philosophy in [Sidenote:\n47] a youth of parts is cured by the same reasoning that caused the\nwound. While, therefore, it is right that the subject of reproof should\nfeel some pain from the sting, he must not be crushed or dispirited,\nbut, after undergoing the first discomposing rites of purification, he\nshould look for some sweet and splendid revelation to follow the\ndistress and confusion of the moment. For though the reproof may appear\nto be unjust, the proper course is to endure it with all patience until\nthe speaker concludes. Then he may be met by a plea in self-defence, and\nby [Sidenote: B] a request to reserve for some real fault all the\nvigorous candour which he has shown in the present instance.\n\nTo proceed to the next consideration. In reading and writing, playing\nthe lyre, or wrestling, the first lessons are very harassing, laborious,\nand unsure; but, as we advance step by step, it is much as in dealing\nwith mankind. By dint of frequent and familiar acquaintance we find that\nit all becomes pleasant and manageable, and every word or action easy.\nIt is the same with philosophy. No doubt the language and matter, as\nfirst met with, contain something both hard and strange. But we must not\ntake fright at the rudiments and prove so timid and spiritless\n[Sidenote: C] as to abandon the study. On the contrary, our duty is to\ngrapple with every question, to persevere, to be resolved on making\nprogress, and then to wait for that familiarity which converts all right\naction into a pleasure. It will not be long before it arrives, casting\nupon the study a flood of light, and inspiring an ardent passion for\nexcellence. To be without such passion and to put up with the ordinary\ntype of life because one is driven from philosophy by a lack of mettle,\nis to be a miserable or cowardly creature.\n\nWe may also expect that at first the argumentation will prove somewhat\ndifficult for young and inexperienced students to understand. For the\nmost part, however, the obscurity and want of comprehension are due to\nthemselves. Opposite dispositions [Sidenote: D] lead to the same\nmistake. Thus one class, through bashfulness and a desire to spare the\nteacher, will shrink from putting questions and making sure of the\nargument, and will ostensibly assent as if they quite understood. The\nothers, led by misplaced ambition and meaningless rivalry to make a show\nof cleverness and quickness, pretend to have mastered a thing before\nthey take it in, and so will not take it in at all. The consequence is\nthat when the former\u2014the modest and silent kind\u2014go home, they will worry\nthemselves with their perplexities, and in the end they will be driven\nperforce to trouble the speaker by harking back with their questions at\na later date, when they will feel still more ashamed. Meanwhile the bold\nand ambitious kind will be perpetually cloaking their ignorance and\nhiding the fact that it haunts them.\n\nLet us then thrust aside all this pretentious silliness, and march\n[Sidenote: E] on towards learning. Let our business be to get an\nintelligent grasp upon valuable instruction. And let us put up with the\nlaughter of those who are thought to be clever. Remember how Cleanthes\nand Xenocrates, though to all appearance slower than their\nfellow-pupils, refused to give up or run away from their studies. On the\ncontrary, they were the first to joke at their own expense, comparing\nthemselves to a narrow-necked bottle or a brass tablet, inasmuch as,\nthough slow at taking their instruction in, they were safe and sure at\nretaining it. Not only must we, as Phocylides puts it,\n\n    _Oft-times be baulked of our hope while seeking to come unto\n       goodness_;\n\nwe must also \u2018oft-times\u2019 be laughed at, and bear with scoffing\n[Sidenote: F] and jeering, meanwhile putting all our heart and energy\ninto winning the struggle against our ignorance.\n\nWe must, however, be quite as careful not to err in the opposite\ndirection. Some do so from sloth, which makes them a wearisome\ninfliction. Unwilling to trouble themselves when [Sidenote: 48] alone,\nthey keep troubling the teacher by repeatedly asking for information on\nthe same questions. Like unfledged birds in the nest, they are\nperpetually agape to be fed from another\u2019s mouth, and expect to receive\neverything ready masticated by someone else.\n\nAnother kind, in the misplaced quest of a reputation for alertness and\nacumen, worry the lecturer with their fussy garrulity, perpetually\nmooting some unimportant difficulty or demanding some unnecessary\ndemonstration,\n\n                  _Till a short journey so becometh long_\n\n[Sidenote: B] \u2014as Sophocles says\u2014not only to themselves but to every one\nelse. By continually arresting the teacher with superfluous and futile\nquestions, as if they were merely chatting with a companion, they\ninterfere with the continuity of the lesson by a series of checks and\ndelays. Persons of this class are (to quote Hieronymus) like wretched\ncowardly puppies, who bite the skins and tear the odds and ends of wild\nanimals at home, but who never touch the animals themselves.\n\nAs for the former and lazy class, let us give them this advice. When\nthey have managed to comprehend the main points, let them piece the rest\ntogether for themselves, using their [Sidenote: C] memory as a guide to\nindependent thought. And let them take the reasoning they hear from\nanother as a beginning\u2014a seed which they are to make grow and thrive.\n\nThe mind is not a vessel which calls for filling. It is a pile, which\nsimply requires kindling-wood to start the flame of eagerness for\noriginal thought and ardour for truth. Suppose someone goes to borrow\nfrom his neighbour\u2019s fire, and then, on finding a large bright blaze,\npersists in staying and basking on the spot. It is the same when a man\ncomes to another to borrow reason, and does not realize that he must\nkindle a light of his own in the shape of thinking for himself, but sits\nenchanted with enjoyment of the lecture. He derives from the lesson\n[Sidenote: D] a ruddy glow or outward brilliance, but he fails to drive\nout the mould and darkness from within by the warming power of\nphilosophy.\n\nIf therefore any advice is needed for the hearing of lectures, it is to\nremember the rule just given\u2014to practise independent thought along with\nlearning. We shall thus attain, not to the ability of a sophist or the\n\u2018well-informed\u2019 man, but to a deep-seated philosophic power. Right\nlistening will be for us the introduction to right living.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  The _paedagogus_, an attendant slave, who accompanied the boy and\n  watched over his conduct.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  In his _Phaedrus_.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  i. e. in the mixolydian mode, which was of a sad and dirgelike\n  character.\n\n\n\n\n                   ON MORAL IGNORANCE IN HIGH PLACES\n\n\n[Sidenote: 779 D] When Plato was invited by the Cyrenaeans to draw up a\ncode of laws for their use and to organize their constitution, he begged\nto be excused, on the ground that it was difficult to legislate for so\nprosperous a people:\n\n                         _For nought so arrogant_\u2014\n\nnor so impracticable and headstrong\u2014\n\n                                        _as human kind_,\n\nwhen prosperity\u2014or what is so considered\u2014lies within its grasp.\n\n[Sidenote: E] No less difficult is the task of advising a ruler how to\nrule. To admit reason, he fears, is to admit a ruler, whose law of duty\nwill make a slave of him and curtail the advantage he derives from\npower. He has yet to learn a lesson from Theopompus, the Spartan king,\nwho was the first to modify the powers of the throne by means of that of\nthe Ephors. When his wife reproached him for proposing to leave to his\nchildren less authority than he had inherited, he replied: \u2018Nay,\ngreater, because more assured.\u2019 By relaxing its excessive absolutism he\nescaped the [Sidenote: F] consequent ill-feeling, and therewith its\ndangers. But note. Theopompus, in diverting into other channels a\nportion of the full stream of power, deprived himself of just so much as\nhe gave away. But when philosophic reason becomes the established\ncolleague and protector of a ruler, it merely removes the perilous\nelement and leaves the healthy\u2014a process as necessary to power as to\nsound health.\n\nIn most cases, however, monarchs or rulers show as little wisdom as a\ntasteless sculptor, who fancies that to represent a figure with a huge\nstride, strained muscles, and gaping mouth, is to make it appear massive\nand imposing. They imagine that [Sidenote: 780] an arrogant tone, harsh\nlooks, short temper, and exclusiveness give them the true regal air of\nawe and majesty. In reality they are not a bit better than a colossal\nstatue with the outward shape and form of a god or demigod, while the\ninside is a mass of earth, stone, or lead. Indeed, in the case of the\nstatue, these heavy materials serve to keep it erect and prevent it from\nwarping; whereas, with an unschooled governor or chief, the unreason\nwithin is often the cause of instability and collapse. [Sidenote: B] His\nfoundation being out of plumb, the lofty power which he builds upon it\nis correspondingly unstable. Now it is only when the builder\u2019s square is\nitself faultless in line and angle, that it can make other things true\nto line by adjustment to, and comparison with, itself. So a ruler must\nbegin by acquiring rule within himself. Let him set his own soul\nstraight, and make his own character firm, and then begin adjusting his\nsubjects thereto. You cannot set upright, when you are falling; teach,\nwhen you are ignorant; discipline, when unruly; command, when\ndisobedient; govern, when ungoverned. And yet it is a common error to\nsuppose that the chief blessing of authority [Sidenote: C] is to be\nabove authority. To the King of Persia every one was a slave except his\nown wife, the very person whose master he ought to have been.\n\nBy whom, then, is the ruler to be ruled? By the\n\n                                            _Law,\n                  Sovereign of mortals and immortals all_,\n\nas Pindar says; not a law written outwardly in books or on wooden\ntables, but a living law of reason in himself, abiding with him,\nwatching him, and never leaving his soul destitute of guidance. The King\nof Persia kept one chamberlain whose special function was to enter in\nthe morning and say to him: \u2018Rise, Sire, and attend to matters which\nGreat Oromazdes [Sidenote: D] meant for your concern.\u2019 The ruler who has\nlearned wisdom and self-control hears the same voice of exhortation from\nwithin. It was a saying of Polemo that love is \u2018_serving the Gods in the\ncare and protection of the young_\u2018. With more truth it might be said\nthat a ruler serves God in the care and protection of men, by\ndispensing, or safeguarding, the blessings which God gives to mankind.\n\n               _See\u2019st thou yon boundless sky and air aloft,\n               How in soft arms it clasps the world about?_\n\nFrom it descend the first principles of seeds in due kind; earth brings\nthem forth; their growth is fostered by rains or winds or the warmth of\nmoon and stars; while the sun brings everything [Sidenote: E] to beauty\nand tinctures all creation with that peculiar love-spell which is his.\nBut though the Gods may lavish these great boons and blessings, who can\nenjoy or use them rightly, if there be no law, justice, or ruler?\nJustice is the end of law; law is the work of the ruler; and a ruler is\nan image of the God who orders all things. He needs no Pheidias or\nPolycleitus or Myro to fashion him, but brings himself into likeness\nwith deity [Sidenote: F] by means of virtue, and so creates the fairest\nand most divine of effigies. In the heavens the sun and moon were set by\nGod as His own beauteous image; and, in a state, the same shining\nembodiment is to be found in the ruler\n\n                    _Godfearing, who justice upholdeth_,\n\n\u2014that is to say, when he holds, not a sceptre, but a mind which is the\nreason of God; not when he holds the thunderbolt or trident with which\nsome represent themselves in statue or picture, rendering their folly\nodious to Heaven by such impossible assertion. For God visits with\nrighteous wrath him who makes pretence of thunder or thunderbolt or\ndarting sun-ray; but when a man studies to emulate His goodness, and to\ntake [Sidenote: 781] a pattern by His virtue and benevolence, He\ndelights in furthering him and bestowing a portion of His own\nrighteousness, justice, truth, and mercy. Not fire or light, not the\ncourse of the sun, the risings and settings of the stars,\neverlastingness and immortality, are more divine that these attributes.\nFor it is not by reason of length of life that God is happy, but by\nreason of the virtue which rules. This is \u2018divine\u2019. \u2018Noble\u2019, however, is\nthe virtue whose part it is only to obey.\n\nWhen Alexander was in sore distress at killing Cleitus, Anaxarchus told\nhim, by way of comfort, that Right and Justice were [Sidenote: B] but\nthe \u2018assessors\u2019 of Zeus\u2014making out that any act was right and lawful for\na king. A false and pernicious salve for his repentance at his sin, this\nencouragement to repeat it! If we are to use such figures of speech,\nRight is no \u2018assessor\u2019 of Zeus, but He himself is Right and Justice, the\noldest and most consummate Law. What the ancients tell and write and\nteach is that, without Justice, not even Zeus can properly rule.\nAccording to Hesiod\n\n                             _A virgin is she_,\n\nthe incorruptible partner of feeling, self-control, and beneficence.\n[Sidenote: C] Hence are kings called \u2018merciful\u2019, for mercy best becomes\nthose who are least afraid. A ruler\u2019s fear should be of doing harm\nrather than of suffering it; for the former action is the cause of the\nlatter, and this kind of fear on the part of a ruler is creditable to\nhumanity. There is nothing ignoble in a fear for his subjects and of\npossible injury to them. Such rulers are like\n\n    _Dogs that keep ward o\u2019er the sheep in the farmstead, anxiously\n       watching\n    At sound of a fierce wild beast_\u2014\n\ntheir anxiety being not for themselves, but for their charges.\n\nOnce when the Thebans had recklessly abandoned themselves [Sidenote: D]\nto feasting and carousal, Epaminondas went the round of the walls and\nthe military posts all by himself, remarking that he was keeping sober\nand wakeful so that the rest might be drunk and asleep. When Cato, after\nthe defeat at Utica, gave orders that every one else should be sent to\nsea, saw them on board, prayed that they might have a prosperous voyage,\nand then went back home and stabbed himself, it was a lesson on the\ntext, \u2018For whose sake should a ruler feel fear, and for what should he\nfeel contempt?\u2019 On the other hand, Clearchus, despot of Pontus, used at\nbedtime to crawl like a snake into a chest. [Sidenote: E] Similarly,\nAristodemus of Argos crept into an upper room entered by a trap-door.\nOver this he would put the couch upon which he passed the night with his\nmistress. Meanwhile her mother dragged away the ladder from below,\nbringing it back and putting it in place in the morning. How, think you,\nmust he have shuddered at the theatre, at the Government offices, at the\nSenate-House, at the banquet, when he turned his own bedchamber into a\nprison? Yes, kings are afraid _for_ their subjects, despots are afraid\n_of_ them. It follows that, as they add to their power, they add to\ntheir alarms; the more people they rule, the more people they fear.\n\n[Sidenote: F] It is an improbable and unworthy view to hold of God\u2014as\nsome philosophers do\u2014that He exists as an element in matter to which all\nsorts of things may happen, and in entities which are subject to\ninnumerable accidents, chances and changes. In reality He is stablished\nsomewhere aloft \u2018_on holy pedestal_\u2019 (as Plato puts it) in the realm of\nnature uniform and constant, and there \u2018_moves according to Nature in a\nstraight line towards the accomplishment of His end_\u2018. And as in heaven\nthe sun, His beauteous counterfeit, shows itself as His reflection in a\nmirror to those who have the power to see Him through it, so, in the\njustice and reason which shine in a state, He sets up a likeness of that\nwhich is in Himself, and, by copying that likeness, men [Sidenote: 782]\nwhom philosophy has gifted and chastened model themselves after the\nhighest pattern.\n\nThis condition of mind nothing can implant except reason acquired from\nphilosophy. Otherwise we are in the position of Alexander, when he went\nto see Diogenes at Corinth. In delight at his talent, and in admiration\nof his proud and lofty spirit, he exclaimed: \u2018If I had not been\nAlexander, I would have been Diogenes.\u2019 And what did this virtually\nmean? That he was vexed at his own high fortune, splendour, and\n[Sidenote: B] power, because they were an obstacle to the virtue for\nwhich he could find no time, and that he envied the cloak and the\nwallet, which made Diogenes as invincible and unassailable as he himself\nwas made by armour and horses and spears. And yet by the practice of\nphilosophy he might have secured the moral character of a Diogenes while\nretaining the position of an Alexander. Nay, he should have become all\nthe more a Diogenes for being an Alexander, since his high fortune, so\nliable to be tossed by stormy winds, required ample ballast and a master\nhand at the helm.\n\nIn the case of private men without strength or standing, folly is so\nqualified by impotence that in the end no mischief is done. It is as\nwith a bad dream, in which, though the mind is excited with passion, no\nharm results, inasmuch as it is unable to rise and act in accordance\nwith the desires. When, on the other [Sidenote: C] hand, vice is adopted\nby power, the passions acquire sinew and strength. Dionysius spoke truly\nwhen he said that the highest advantage of power was to give speedy\neffect to a wish. A most parlous thing, if you can give effect to a\nwish, and yet wish what is wrong!\n\n    _No sooner the word had been utter\u2019d, than straightway the deed was\n       accomplish\u2019d._\n\nVice, when enabled by power to run rapid course, forces every passion\ninto action, converting anger into murder, love into adultery, greed\ninto confiscation.\n\n                  _No sooner the word hath been utter\u2019d_,\n\nthan your opponent has met his doom. No sooner a suspicion, than the\nvictim of slander is a dead man.\n\n[Sidenote: D] Scientists tell us that, whereas lightning really follows\nand issues from thunder like blood from a wound, it is perceived first\nbecause, while the hearing waits for the sound, the vision goes out to\nmeet the light. So with rulers. The punishment outstrips the charge; the\ncondemnation does not wait for the proof.\n\n             _For forthwith anger slips and loses hold,\n             Like anchor\u2019s tooth in sand when seas swell high_,\n\nunless reason with all its weight puts a heavy drag on power; unless,\nthat is, the ruler acts like the sun, whose motion is least [Sidenote:\nE] when its height is greatest, namely, at the time of its northern\naltitude, its course being steadied by the diminished speed.\n\nVice in high places cannot be hid. When an epileptic is placed upon a\nheight and made to turn round, he is seized with giddiness and begins to\ntotter, his malady being betrayed thereby. So with an unschooled and\nignorant person. After a brief uplifting by wealth or fame or place, the\nsame fortune which raised him up immediately reveals how ready he is to\nfall. To put it another way; when a vessel is empty, you cannot detect\nthe crack or flaw, but when you begin to fill it, the leak appears.\n[Sidenote: F] So with a mind which is too unsound to hold power and\nauthority; its leaks are to be seen in its exhibitions of lust, anger,\npretentiousness, and ignorance. Yet why speak of this, when holes are\npicked in eminent and distinguished men for the merest peccadilloes?\nCimon was reproached for his addiction to wine, Scipio for his addiction\nto sleep, and Lucullus for his extravagance at table[47]....\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  The rest of the essay is missing.\n\n\n\n\n                           FAWNER AND FRIEND\n                     (WITH AN EXCURSUS ON CANDOUR)\n\n\nMY DEAR ANTIOCHUS PHILOPAPPUS, [Sidenote: 48 E]\n\n\u2018Every one,\u2019 says Plato, \u2018will pardon a man for admitting that he has a\nstrong affection for himself,\u2019 but\u2014not to mention [Sidenote: F] numerous\nother defects to which he is subject\u2014there is one chief weakness which\nprecludes him from giving a just and incorruptible verdict in his own\ncase. \u2018The lover is blind where the beloved object is concerned,\u2019 unless\nhe has learned the habit of prizing things, not because they are his own\nor related to himself, but because they are beautiful. Hence, there is\nample opportunity for the flatterer to obtain a place among our friends.\nHe delivers his attack from an excellent point of vantage in the shape\nof that self-love which makes every man his own [Sidenote: 49] first and\ngreatest flatterer, ready and willing to welcome such external testimony\nas will endorse his own conceits and desires. For the man who is\nreprobated as a lover of toadies is an ardent lover of himself. Out of\nfondness for himself he not only entertains the wish to possess, but\nalso the conceit that he possesses, all manner of qualities; and though\nthe desire may be natural enough, the conceit is fallacious and calls\nfor the greatest watchfulness.\n\nAnd if truth is divine, and\u2014as Plato asserts\u2014the first principle\n[Sidenote: B] of \u2018all good things both with Gods and men\u2019, the toady\nmust be an enemy of the Gods, and especially of the Pythian. For, in\nperpetual antagonism to the doctrine of _Know Thyself_, he produces\nself-deception in a man, self-ignorance, and error as to his virtues and\nvices. The virtues he renders defective and abortive; the vices he\nrenders incorrigible.\n\nNow if the flatterer had been like most other mischievous things, and\nhad solely or chiefly attacked mean and petty victims, the harm would\nhave been neither so great nor so difficult to prevent. But it is into\nsoft and sweet kinds of wood that worms prefer to bore, and it is\nestimable and capable characters\u2014characters with a love of\napprobation\u2014that give access and supply nourishment to the flatterer who\nfastens upon [Sidenote: C] them. \u2018_The breeding of the steed_,\u2019 says\nSimonides, \u2018_sorts not with Zacynthus,[48] but with wheat-bearing\nplains_.\u2019 Similarly we do not find toadyism in attendance upon the poor,\nthe insignificant, or the uninfluential, but sapping and debilitating\ngreat houses and great fortunes, and frequently subverting rulers and\nthrones. Consequently no slight effort or common precaution is required\nin considering how it can be most readily detected and so prevented from\ndoing injury and discredit to friendship.\n\n[Sidenote: D] Vermin quit a dying man and desert the body when the blood\nwhich feeds them becomes exhausted. So with the time-server. You will\nnever find him approaching a person whose fortune is destitute of sap\nand warmth. It is the famous and influential whom he attacks; it is out\nof them that he makes capital; and when their circumstances change he\npromptly beats a retreat. We should not, however, wait for that test; it\nis then not merely useless but fraught with injury and danger. It is a\ngrievous thing to find out who is not your friend only at the moment\nwhen a friend is needed, since the discovery does not enable you to\nexchange the uncertain and counterfeit for the genuine and certain. You\nshould possess friends as you possess coin\u2014tested [Sidenote: E] before\nthe occasion, not waiting to be proved by the occasion. Discovery should\nnot come through injury, but injury should be prevented by our acquiring\na scientific insight into the nature of the toady. Otherwise we shall be\nin the position of those who distinguish a deadly poison by tasting it;\nwe shall meet our death in the effort of judging.\n\nOne can neither approve of such a course, nor yet of those who, because\nthey regard a \u2018friend\u2019 as implying a high and wholesome influence,\nimagine that an agreeable associate is immediately and manifestly proved\nto be a time-server. For there is nothing disagreeable or\nuncompromisingly severe about a friend, nor does the high respect we pay\nto friendship depend upon harshness or austerity. Nay, its high\ninfluence and claim to respect are actually an agreeable and desirable\nthing in themselves, [Sidenote: F]\n\n    _And close at its side do the Graces and Longing Desire set their\n       dwellings._\n\nNot only may the unfortunate man say, with Euripides,\n\n              _\u2019Tis sweet to look into a friend\u2019s fond eyes_,\n\nbut friendship is a comrade who adds as much pleasure and gratification\nto our blessings as it brings relief to the pains and perplexities of\nour mishaps. According to Euenus \u2018_the best of [Sidenote: 50] seasonings\nis fire_\u2018. So, by making friendship an ingredient of life, God has\nrendered all things bright and sweet and enjoyable through its presence\nand participation. How, indeed, could the fawner have wormed himself\ninto our pleasures, if he had seen that friendship refuses all\nadmittance to what is pleasant? The thing is absurd. No; the toady is\nlike the mock-gilt and tinsel which merely mimic the sheen and lustre of\ngold. It is in order to imitate the attractiveness and charm of a friend\nthat he makes a constant show of agreeableness and amiability, and never\nopposes or contradicts you. It is therefore wrong, [Sidenote: B] when a\nperson praises you, to suspect at once that he is simply a flatterer.\nFriendship is quite as much called upon to praise in season as it is to\nblame. In fact, perpetual peevishness and fault-finding is the negation\nof friendship and sociability; whereas, when affection bestows zealous\nand ungrudging praise upon our good deeds, we also submit readily and\ncheerfully to its candid remonstrances, being satisfied with the belief\nthat the man who is glad to praise will only blame because he must.\n\n[Sidenote: C] \u2018It is a hard matter then,\u2019 we may be told, \u2018to\ndistinguish between flatterer and friend, if they are equally pleasant\nand equally laudatory, especially when we find that toadyism is often\nmore than a match for friendship in the tendering of services.\u2019\nNaturally so, we reply, if the object of our search is the genuine\ntoady, with a past-master\u2019s skill at the business; if, that is, we do\nnot adopt the common view and mean by \u2018toady\u2019 your poverty-stricken\ntrencherman, who \u2018begins\u2019\u2014as some one has said\u2014\u2018to declare himself with\nthe first course,\u2019 and whose lickspittle character betrays itself by\ngross and vulgar [Sidenote: D] buffoonery at the first dish and the\nfirst glass. It needed no test to expose Melanthius, the parasite of\nPherae. It was enough that, when asked \u2018how Alexander was stabbed,\u2019 he\nreplied, \u2018Through the ribs, into my belly.\u2019 Nor is there any such need\nwith those who besiege \u2018an opulent table\u2019, and whom\n\n                 _Not fire, nor steel, nor bronze can keep_\n\nfrom making their way to a dinner. Nor yet with those female toadies of\nCyprus, who, after their transference to Syria, were [Sidenote: E]\ncalled \u2018pair o\u2019 steps\u2019 from the fact that they used to allow the king\u2019s\nwife to mount her carriage over their bent backs.\n\nAgainst whom, then, are we to be on our guard? Against the man who is\nnot confessedly or apparently a toady; one who is not to be found\nhanging about the kitchen, nor to be caught watching the dial with a\ndinner in prospect; one who is not to be made tipsy and then pitched\ninto any corner; but one who for the most part keeps sober and bustling,\nthinking it his business to take part in all your doings, and to be\nprivy to your confidential talk\u2014the man, in short, who acts the r\u00f4le of\nfriend, not in the satyric[49] or comic style, but in the high tragic.\nAccording to Plato, \u2018the extreme of dishonesty is to appear honest when\nyou are not.\u2019 So with time-serving. It is [Sidenote: F] to be regarded\nas dangerous, not when confessed, but when undetected; when it wears a\nserious, not an amusing, air. In this form, unless we are careful, it\ncasts a slur of discredit even upon genuine friendship, the points of\ncoincidence being numerous. When the Mage was trying to escape and\nGobryes had plunged with him into a dark room and was grappling with\nhim, Darius stood at a loss what to do. \u2018Stab,\u2019 said Gobryes, \u2018though\nyou stab both.\u2019 With us it is not so easy, inasmuch as we can by no\nmeans give any sanction to the maxim: \u2018_Perish friend, if so perish\nfoe._\u2019 There are so many points of similarity to complicate the fawner\nwith the friend that we must find it a most parlous business to tear the\none from the other. We may either be casting out the good thing along\nwith the bad, [Sidenote: 51] or, in trying to spare the right thing, we\nmay let the wrong one bring us to grief. There are wild plants of which\nthe seeds are similar in shape and size to those of wheat. When the two\nare mixed it is difficult to sift these out; they will not fall through\nsmaller holes, and, if the holes are wider, one falls through as much as\nthe other. No less difficult is it to separate time-serving from\nfriendship, when it blends itself with every feeling, every movement,\nneed, and habit.\n\nFriendship being the most pleasant and delightful thing in the world, it\nfollows that the toady also uses pleasure for his [Sidenote: B] bait. To\ngive pleasure is his main concern. And since agreeableness and\nusefulness are concomitants of friendship\u2014whence the saying that \u2018_a\nfriend is more indispensable than fire and water_\u2018\u2014it follows that the\ntoady insists on rendering services, and is all eagerness to show\nunfaltering promptitude and zeal. But the surest foundation of\nfriendship is similarity of pursuits and character. The foremost agent\nin mutual attraction is similarity of temperament\u2014the liking and\ndisliking of the same things. This the time-server perceives, and\ntherefore he adapts himself [Sidenote: C] like wax to the proper shape\nand form, endeavouring by imitation to mould himself so as exactly to\nfit his victim. His supple versatility, his genius for mimicry, is so\ngreat that it is a case of\n\n                                          _Thou art\n                  Achilles\u2019 self, and not Achilles\u2019 son._\n\nAnd note his craftiest device. He observes that candour is called (what\nit appears to be) \u2018the characteristic note of friendship\u2019, while lack of\ncandour is the negation of friendship and spirit. He does not fail,\ntherefore, to imitate this quality also. As a skilful _chef_ will use\nsome bitter or piquant juice for a sauce in order to prevent sweets from\ncloying, so with the candour [Sidenote: D] of the toady. It is not\ngenuine, nor is it useful; it is given, as it were, with a wink, and\nserves simply as an excitant. The result is that he is as hard to detect\nas one of those creatures which possess the natural power of altering\ntheir colour so as to match the spot on which they happen to lie. Since,\ntherefore, it is under cover of resemblances that he deceives us, our\nproper course is to find in the non-resemblances a means of stripping\noff his disguise and showing that\u2014as Plato puts it\u2014he is \u2018beautifying\nhimself with borrowed forms and colours through lack of any of his own\u2019.\n\nLet us begin at the very beginning. In most instances, we remarked,\nfriendship commences with similarity of temperament [Sidenote: E] and\ndisposition, a taste for very much the same habits and principles, and a\ndelight in the same pursuits, occupations, and pastimes. Such a\nsimilarity is implied in the lines:\n\n              _Most welcome to the old is old men\u2019s speech;\n              Child pleaseth child, and woman pleaseth woman,\n              Sick men the sick, and one who meets disaste\n              Brings solace to another suffering it._\n\nThe toady knows that it is natural to find pleasure in one\u2019s like and to\nbe fond of his society. This, therefore, is his first device [Sidenote:\nF] for approaching you and getting neighbours with you. He acts like\nherdsmen on a pasture. He works gently up to you and rubs shoulders with\nyou in the same pursuits, amusements, tastes, and way of life, until you\ngive him his chance and let yourself grow tame and accustomed to his\ntouch. He condemns such circumstances, such conduct, and such persons as\nhe notices you dislike; while of those that please you he cannot say too\nmuch in praise, exhibiting boundless delight and admiration [Sidenote:\n52] for them. He thus confirms you in your loves and hatreds, as being\nthe results, not of feelings, but of judgement.\n\nHow, then, is he to be exposed? By what points of difference are we to\nprove that he is not, nor is on the way to be, our like, but only a\npretender thereto? In the first place we must look for consistency and\npermanence in his principles. We must see whether he takes pleasure in,\nand gives praise to, the same things at all times; whether he directs\nand establishes his own life after one pattern, as a frank and free\nlover of single-minded friendship and fellowship ought to do. A friend\ndoes act in this manner. On the other hand, the time-server possesses no\none fixed hearthstone to his character. He does not live a life\n[Sidenote: B] chosen for himself, but a life chosen for another.\nMoulding and adapting himself to suit others, he possesses no singleness\nor unity, but adopts all manner of varying shapes. Like water poured\nfrom one vessel into another, he is perpetually flowing hither and\nthither and accommodating himself to the form of the receptacle.\n\nThe ape, we are told, is captured through endeavouring to imitate man by\ncopying his motions in dancing. The time-server, on the contrary, is one\nwho allures and decoys others. Nor does his mimicry take the same form\nin all cases. One person he will help to dance and sing: with another he\nwill share a taste for wrestling and athletics. If he gets hold of a\nsportsman devoted to hunting, he follows his lead, and all but shouts,\nin the words of Phaedra, [Sidenote: C]\n\n                   _I long, ye Gods, to cheer the hounds\n                   Close-pressing on the dappled deer_,\n\nwhereas he feels no interest whatever in the animal, but is setting his\ntoils to catch the huntsman himself. If his next quarry is a young man\nwith a taste for study and intellectual improvement, he is all for\nbooks, and grows a beard down to his feet; it is a case of wearing the\nphilosopher\u2019s cloak and his air of \u2018indifference\u2019,[50] and of prating\nabout Plato\u2019s \u2018numbers\u2019 and \u2018right-angled triangles\u2019. If, next, there\nhappens along some easy-going bibulous person with plenty of money,\n\n        _Then forthwith are his rags cast off by the wily Odysseus._\n\n[Sidenote: D] Away goes the cloak; shorn off is the beard\u2014\u2019tis a crop\nthat bears no corn: to the fore are wine-coolers and wine-cups, laughter\nin the streets and mockery of the philosophic student.\n\nWe are told, for instance, that at Syracuse, when Plato visited the\nplace and Dionysius was seized with a mania for philosophy, the host of\ngeometricians turned the palace into a perfect whirl of dust.[51] But\nwhen Dionysius came to logger-heads with Plato, had had enough of\nphilosophy, and abandoned himself to drink and women and to silly talk\nand wanton [Sidenote: E] behaviour, in a moment it was as if Circe had\ntransformed them every one, and there came a reign of vulgarity,\noblivion, and folly. Examples are also to be found in the conduct of\ntime-servers on a large scale, such as demagogues. Greatest was\nAlcibiades. At Athens he joked, kept horses, and lived like a wit and a\nman of the world. At Lacedaemon he cropped his hair close, wore a short\ncloak, and bathed in cold water. In Thrace he fought and drank. But when\nhe attached himself to Tissaphernes, he indulged in luxury, effeminacy,\nand ostentation, and sought to win the good graces of his company by\nadapting himself in all cases to their likeness and becoming one of\nthem. Not so Epaminondas or Agesilaus. Despite [Sidenote: F] all their\nintercourse with so many persons, communities, and standards of conduct,\nthey everywhere maintained\u2014in dress, way of life, speech, and\nbehaviour\u2014their own proper character. So with Plato. He was the same at\nSyracuse as at Athens, the same to Dionysius as to Dion.\n\nOur easiest method of exposing the polypus-like changes of the\ntime-server is to make a show of frequent changes on our own part,\nfinding fault with conduct of which we formerly approved, and all of a\nsudden countenancing actions, conduct, [Sidenote: 53] or talk which used\nto fill us with disgust. We shall then perceive that he has no sort of\nsettled and specific character; that his loves, hatreds, pleasures, and\npains are not matters of his own feeling; that he is merely a mirror\nreflecting extraneous moods, principles, and emotions. For observe the\nman\u2019s ways. Should you speak disparagingly to him of one of your\nfriends, he will remark: \u2018You have been slow in finding the fellow out;\n_I_ never did like him.\u2019 If, on the contrary, you change your tone and\nspeak in his praise, he will declare that he is \u2018right glad and thankful\non the man\u2019s behalf\u2019, because he \u2018believes in him\u2019. If you propose to\nadopt a different mode of life\u2014if, for example, [Sidenote: B] you are\nconverted from a political career to a life of quiet inactivity\u2014he will\nsay, \u2018We ought to have got quit of brawlings and jealousies long before\nthis.\u2019 If, on the other hand, you appear eager for office and the\nplatform, he seconds you with, \u2018A very proper spirit! A quiet life is\npleasant, no doubt, but it lacks honour and distinction.\u2019 We ought\nimmediately to answer that kind of man with the words:\n\n    \u2018_Different, sir, dost thou show thyself now from the man thou wert\n       erstwhile._\n\nI do not want a friend who shifts his ground when I do and who nods when\nI nod\u2014my shadow can do that better\u2014but one who helps me to truth and\nsound judgement.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: C] Such is one way of applying a test. There is a second\npoint of difference to be watched, as against the points of resemblance.\nIt is not in all matters that a genuine friend is prompt to copy or\ncommend us, but only in the best.\n\n             _Not his to share our hates, but share our loves_,\n\nas Sophocles has it. Yes, and to share our right conduct and high\nprinciples, not our wrong and wanton deeds, unless perhaps\u2014as a result\nof familiar association\u2014some contaminating effluence, like that of\nophthalmia, affects him to some extent with a blemish or a fault against\nhis will. For instance, it is said that [Sidenote: D] Plato\u2019s stoop,\nAristotle\u2019s lisp, King Alexander\u2019s crook of the neck and harshness of\nvoice in conversation, were tricks borrowed by their respective\nintimates. There are persons who, without knowing it, pick up from both\nthe temperament and conduct of their friends most of what is\ncharacteristic of them. The time-server, however, is exactly like the\nchameleon. As the latter assimilates himself to every colour but white,\nso the time-server, though utterly unable to arrive at a likeness to\nyour valuable qualities, leaves no discreditable one uncopied. He is\nlike a bad painter, who, because beauty lies beyond the reach of his\nweak capacity, makes the strikingness of his portraiture [Sidenote: E] a\nmatter of wrinkles, moles, and scars. So the toady becomes an imitator\nof dissoluteness, superstition, irascibility, harshness to servants, and\ndistrust of friends and relatives. Not only is he by nature and of his\nown accord prone to the lower course; it is by imitating a baseness that\nhe appears to be farthest from blaming it. A man who takes the higher\nline, and shows distress and vexation at his friends\u2019 misdeeds, is\ndubiously regarded\u2014a fact which accounts for the ruin of Dion with\nDionysius, of Samius with Philip, and of Cleomenes with Ptolemy. But\nwhen a man desires to be, and to be thought, agreeable and to be\ndepended upon, the worse the thing is, the more display he makes of\nliking it, as if the strength of his affection will not permit him to\ndislike even your vices, but makes him your [Sidenote: F] natural\nsympathizer in all circumstances. Such persons therefore insist upon\nsharing even involuntary and accidental shortcomings. When toadying an\ninvalid, they pretend to suffer with the same complaint. In company with\na person who is somewhat blind or deaf, they pretend to be dim-sighted\nand hard of hearing, like the flatterers of Dionysius, whose sight was\nso dull that they stumbled against each other and knocked over the\ndishes at dinner.\n\nSometimes they work themselves into closer and more intimate touch with\na trouble or a malady, till they come to participate in afflictions of\nthe most secret kind. If they see [Sidenote: 54] that the patron is\nunhappy in his marriage or on bad terms with his sons or his relatives,\nthey do not spare themselves, but make lamentations about their own\nchildren, or wife, or relatives, or friends, on certain alleged grounds\nwhich they divulge as a miserable secret. Such similarity creates a\ncloser understanding with their patron. He has received a sort of\nhostage, thereupon betrays to them some secret or other, and, because of\nthat betrayal, keeps friends with them and is afraid to leave his\nconfidence to its fate. I know of one time-server who, when the patron\ndivorced his wife, turned his own wife also out of doors. It was,\nhowever, found out\u2014through a discovery [Sidenote: B] of the patron\u2019s\nwife\u2014that he was visiting and sending messages to her in secret. The\ntoady must have been but little known to the man who thought that the\nlines:\n\n              _Body all belly, and an eye that looks\n              All round; a thing that crawls upon its teeth_,\n\nwere as apt a description for a crab as they are for the flatterer. The\npicture is that of the parasite:\n\n               _The friend of saucepan-time and dinner-hour_,\n\nas Eupolis expresses it.\n\nThis point, however, we will reserve till its proper place. Meanwhile we\nmust not omit to mention another shrewd trick played by the time-server\nwhen he imitates you. If he goes so far as to copy some good quality in\nthe person whom he [Sidenote: C] toadies, he is careful to leave the\nadvantage with him. Friends in the true sense are neither jealous nor\nenvious of each other, and, whether they reach or fail to reach the same\ndegree of excellence, they accept the situation fairly and without a\ngrudge. But the toady\u2014who never forgets to play second r\u00f4le\u2014lets his\nresemblance fall short of equality, and owns to being distanced at\neverything but vices. In vices, however, he insists on first prize. If\nthe patron is irritable, he says, \u2018_I_ am all bile;\u2019 if superstitious,\n\u2018_I_ am a mass of fears;\u2019 if love-sick, \u2018_I_ am frantic.\u2019 [Sidenote: D]\n\u2018It was wrong of you to laugh,\u2019 he will say, \u2018but _I_ was absolutely\ndying with laughter.\u2019 But where virtues are concerned it is the other\nway about. \u2018I am a fast runner, but _you_ positively fly.\u2019 \u2018I am a\ntolerable horseman, but nothing to a centaur like our friend here.\u2019 \u2018I\nhave a neat turn for poetry, and can write a line better than some, but\n\n               _Thunder is not for me, \u2019tis work for Zeus._\u2019\n\nHe thus appears to do two things at once\u2014to give an air of merit to his\npatron\u2019s tastes by imitating them, and of unapproachableness to his\nability by failing to match it.\n\nSo much for the differences between fawner and friend in the midst of\ntheir resemblances.\n\nSince, as we have observed, pleasure is another point in common\u2014a good\ntype of man taking as much delight in his friends as a weak man does in\nhis flatterers\u2014we may proceed to make a distinction here also. The\ndistinction lies in the relation between the pleasure and its end. Thus,\nnot only unguents [Sidenote: E] have an agreeable smell; a medicine may\nhave it also. But there is the difference that the object of the former\nis pleasure and nothing else, while in the other case the purgative,\nwarming, or flesh-making quality happens to be combined with fragrance.\nAgain, a painter mixes engaging colours and dyes, and there are also\ncertain medical preparations with a taking appearance and an attractive\ncolour. Where is the difference? Clearly our distinction will lie in the\nend for which they are used. Just so with the case before us. In the\nagreeable relations of [Sidenote: F] friend with friend the\npleasant-giving element is a kind of gloss upon a substance of high\nvalue and utility. Sometimes sportiveness, the table, wine, and even\nmockery and nonsense are used by them as a seasoning to high and serious\npurposes. Hence such expressions as:\n\n    _Then had they joyance in talk and in speaking the one to the\n       other_;\n\nor:\n\n    _Nor should aught else have parted us twain in our love and our\n       joyance._\n\nBut, with the time-server, it is his function and end to be [Sidenote:\n55] perpetually dishing up in a spicy form something amusing, something\ndone or something said which pleases and is meant to please.\n\nTo put it briefly, the toady thinks the purpose of his every action\nshould be to make himself agreeable, whereas the friend will only do\nwhat is right, and therefore, though often agreeable, he is often the\ncontrary, not because he wishes it, but because, when it is the proper\ncourse, he does not avoid it. It is as with the physician. When it helps\nmatters he will throw in a pinch of saffron or spikenard, and will\nfrequently order a pleasant bath and an inviting diet. But there are\ntimes when he will have none of these, but will shake in a dash of\ncastor\n\n        _Or polium foul of odor, that men e\u2019en shudder to smell it._\n\n[Sidenote: B] Or he will pound a dose of hellebore and make you drink it\noff. Neither the unpleasantness in the one case nor the pleasantness in\nthe other is the end in his mind, but in both cases he has only one\nobject in view for the patient, and that object is his good. In the same\nway there are times when a friend will lead you in the path of duty by\ninspiriting you with praise or gratifying you with courtesies, as the\nspeaker does in\n\n          _Teucer, Telamon\u2019s son, dear prince of a warrior people,\n          Shoot as now thou dost_,\n\nor in:\n\n     _How then should I, if \u2019tis so, be forgetful of godlike Odysseus?_\n\nBut when, on the contrary, you need calling to attention, he will\nupbraid you in biting terms and with the plain-speaking of a guardian:\n[Sidenote: C]\n\n     _Foolish art thou, Menelaus Zeus-foster\u2019d: no time is this present\n     For folly like thine._\n\nThere are also times when he makes the deed accompany the word, like\nMenedemus, when he taught the prodigal and dissolute son of his friend\nAsclepiades a wholesome lesson by shutting the door in his face and\nrefusing to speak to him. Similarly Arcesilaus forbade Bato the\nlecture-room for having attacked Cleanthes in a verse of a comedy. He\nwas reconciled to him, however, when he repented and made his peace with\nCleanthes. For though one must give a friend pain when it does him good,\none must not, while giving the pain, make an end of the friendship. The\nsting should be used only as a medicine, for the care and salvation of\nthe patient. A friend is therefore [Sidenote: D] like a musician. In\nconverting us to right and salutary courses he will sometimes loosen and\nsometimes tighten the strings. Pleasure you will get from him often,\nprofit always. On the other hand, the time-server, who harps in a single\nkey and is accustomed to strike no note but that of your pleasure and\ngratification, has no notion of any action to check you or word to pain\nyou. He merely plays the accompaniment to your wishes, with which both\nhis time and his words are invariably in accord. Xenophon says of\nAgesilaus that he welcomed praise from those who were no less ready to\nblame. So we should regard that which gives pleasure and gratification\nas in the category of \u2018friend\u2019, if it can also on occasion oppose us and\ngive us pain. But a companionship which is uniformly pleasurable and\nmaintains [Sidenote: E] a perpetual graciousness unqualified by any\nsting, calls for suspicion. We ought, in fact, to be ready to ask, like\nthe Laconian on hearing praise of King Charillus, \u2018How can a man be\nhonest, when he cannot be angry even with a rascal?\u2019\n\nIt is close to the ear, we are told, that the gadfly gets into a bull\nand the tick into a dog. In the case of a man of ambition, the\ntime-server with his flatteries takes hold of his ears and sticks so\nfast that it is hard to rub him off. Particularly, therefore, in such\ncircumstances must we keep our judgement vigilant. It must be on the\nalert to see whether the praise is given to the [Sidenote: F] thing or\nto the man. It is given to the thing when men praise us in our absence\nmore than in our presence; when they wish and strive for the same\nobjects themselves, and praise not only us but every one else who does\nthe like; when we do not find them doing and saying first one thing and\nthen the opposite; and\u2014most important of all\u2014when our sense does not\ntell us that we are repenting or ashamed of the things for which we are\npraised, or wishing that we had rather done and said the [Sidenote: 56]\ncontrary. This inward judgement, which testifies against a flattery and\nrefuses to accept it, is immune from contamination, and proof against\nthe time-server.\n\nIt is a strange thing that most men, when they meet with a misfortune,\ncannot bear to be consoled, but are better pleased with those who will\njoin in the lamentations; but when they are guilty of a blunder or a\nfault, if you make them feel the sting of repentance by means of a\nreproof or a reprimand, they think you an enemy and an accuser; whereas,\nif you eulogize their conduct, they regard you as a loyal friend and\nreceive you with open arms.\n\nNow when people give you praise and applause for something [Sidenote: B]\nyou do or say, whether in sober earnest or in careless jest, the harm\nthey do is only for the moment, and only affects the matter in hand. But\nwhen their praises go so far as to influence your moral being, and their\nflatteries to affect your character, they are as bad as servants who\npilfer \u2018_not from the stack, but from the seed_\u2018. For the moral\ndisposition and the moral character\u2014first principle and fountain-head of\nconduct\u2014are the seed of actions, and these they corrupt by clothing vice\nin the titles of virtue. Thucydides tells us that in the midst of war\nand faction \u2018_the customary acceptation of words was arbitrarily changed\nto suit an end. Reckless daring came to be thought devoted courage;\n[Sidenote: C] cautious hesitation, an excuse for cowardice; moderation,\nweakness in disguise; complete insight, complete inertia_\u2018. So, when\nflattery is at work, we should warily note how prodigality is called\n\u2018generosity\u2019; cowardice, \u2018caution\u2019; light-headed caprice, \u2018life and\nvigour\u2019; meanness, \u2018moderation\u2019; the amorous man, \u2018amiable and\naffectionate\u2019; the arrogant and irascible person, \u2018a man of spirit\u2019; a\npoor meek creature, \u2018civil and obliging\u2019. [Sidenote: D] Remember, how\nPlato tells us that the lover\u2014the flatterer of the beloved\u2014calls a snub\nnose \u2018piquant\u2019, a hook-nose \u2018regal\u2019, a swarthy face \u2018virile\u2019, a white\nface \u2018saint-like\u2019, while \u2018honey-colour\u2019 is simply the coinage of a lover\nwho indulgently invents a pretty name for pallor. Yet when an ugly man\nis persuaded that he is beautiful, or a little man that he is tall, his\ndeception is short-lived, and the harm which he sustains is slight and\neasily repaired. But flattery may teach him to treat vices as if they\n[Sidenote: E] were virtues, and to rejoice in them instead of sorrowing.\nIt may remove all sense of shame at misconduct. Such flattery spelled\ndestruction to the Siceliots, when it called the cruelty of Dionysius\nand Phalaris a \u2018hatred of wickedness\u2019. It spelled ruin to Egypt, when it\ngave to Ptolemy\u2019s effeminacy, to his hysterical superstition, to his\nshriekings and bangings of tambourines, the name of piety and worship.\nIt came once within an ace of utterly subverting Roman morals, when it\nglossed over Antony\u2019s dissolute and ostentatious self-indulgence with\npretty terms as a \u2018festive and genial appreciation of the boons of\nunstinted [Sidenote: F] power and fortune\u2019. What made Ptolemy tie on the\nmouth-strap and its pair of flutes? What made Nero cultivate the tragic\nstage and don the mask and buskin? What else but praise from flatterers?\nIs not a king regularly called an Apollo if he warbles, a Dionysius if\nhe gets drunk, a Hercules if he wrestles? And is he not so pleased with\nit, that there is no way of disgracing himself to which flattery will\nnot lead him? It is therefore in the matter of praise that we should\nchiefly beware of the time-server. He is himself alive to the fact, and\n[Sidenote: 57] is deft at avoiding suspicion. If therefore he gets hold\nof some dull-witted and thick-skinned grandee, he fools him to the top\nof his bent. Remember how Strouthias makes a hobby-horse of Bias and\ndances his fling upon the man\u2019s stupidity by praising him with:\n\n                _You have drunk more than royal Alexander_,\n\nor:\n\n            _I laugh to think o\u2019 the quip you gave the Cyprian._\n\nBut with persons of more discernment he perceives that in this direction\nthey are particularly on the alert, that in this quarter they keep a\nspecial watch. He does not therefore adopt a direct line of attack with\nhis flattery, but fetches a circuitous course from a distance, and\n\n                  _Advances noiselessly, as when a beast_\n\n[Sidenote: B] is tentatively approached and fingered. At one moment he\nwill describe how you have been praised by some one else, using the\npublic speaker\u2019s device of putting the words in another person\u2019s mouth.\nHe will say, for instance, that he had the great pleasure of being\npresent in the market-place when some \u2018visitors\u2019\u2014or some \u2018elderly\npeople\u2019\u2014were relating a good many admiring and complimentary stories\nabout you. At another time he will concoct a number of trivial and\nfictitious charges against you, which he purports to have heard from\nothers, and he will say that he has hastened to find you and desires to\nknow where you said such-and-such a thing or did so-and-so. If you deny\nthem\u2014as you naturally will\u2014he at [Sidenote: C] once has you in the trap\nfor his compliments: \u2018It did surprise me that you should speak ill of a\nfriend, seeing that it is not your nature to do so even of an enemy;\u2019 or\n\u2018that you should have designs on other people\u2019s property, when you are\nso liberal with your own\u2019.\n\nOthers, again, are like a painter who brings the light and bright parts\ninto relief by the juxtaposition of dark and shaded portions. By\nblaming, abusing, belittling, and ridiculing the opposite qualities,\nthey give a concealed praise and encouragement to the defects of the\nperson flattered. To a spendthrift they disparage economy and call it\nstinginess. To a grasping knave [Sidenote: D] who makes money by mean\nand shabby practices they depreciate honest self-support and call it\nwant of enterprise and business capacity. When they associate with some\ncareless idler who shuns the busy centres of affairs, they are not\nashamed to style public life a \u2018meddling with other people\u2019s business\u2019,\nand public spirit a \u2018sterile vanity\u2019. Sometimes, in order to flatter a\npublic speaker, a philosopher is belittled, or the favour of profligate\nwomen is won by miscalling faithful and loving wives \u2018provincial and\nunattractive\u2019. Most pitiful in its baseness is the fact that the toady\ndoes not even spare himself. As a wrestler crouches his body in order to\nthrow another, so he insidiously contrives to compliment his neighbour\nby disparaging himself. [Sidenote: E] \u2018I am a nervous wretch at sea,\u2019\nsays he. \u2018I cannot face trouble. Hard words make me frantically angry.\nBut our friend here has no nerves; nothing troubles him. He is a\npeculiar person, always good-tempered, never ruffled.\u2019 But if a man\nthinks himself particularly sensible, and is so desirous of being\nseverely matter-of-fact that\u2014out of what he calls straightforwardness\u2014he\nis always on the defensive with\n\n       _Tydeus\u2019 son, bepraise me not much, nor, prithee, upbraid me_,\n\nthe artist in flattery will not adopt this manner of approaching\n[Sidenote: F] him. Such cases are met by another device. He will come\nand consult him, as a person of superior wisdom, about affairs of his\nown. \u2018Though,\u2019 he will say, \u2018there are others with whom I am more\nintimate, I am compelled to trouble you. For where are we to take refuge\nwhen we need advice? In whom are we to put confidence?\u2019 Then, after\nlistening to what he has to say, he will take his leave with the remark\nthat what he has received is \u2018not an opinion; it is an oracle\u2019. And if\nhe sees that you make pretensions to being a judge of literature, he\ngives you something he has [Sidenote: 58] written himself, and asks you\nto read and correct it. When King Mithridates had a fancy for doctoring,\nsome of his courtiers actually put themselves in his hands to be lanced\nand cauterized. This was flattery by deeds in place of words, since he\naccepted their confidence as a sufficient voucher for his skill.\n\n                     _Of many shapes are means divine_,\n\nand this negative class of praise requires to be countered with some\ncraftiness. The way to confute it is by deliberately offering counsel\nand suggestion which are nonsensical, and making corrections [Sidenote:\nB] which are absurd. If your man objects to nothing, says \u2018Yes\u2019 to\neverything, and exclaims \u2018Good!\u2019 \u2018Capital!\u2019 at every item, he exposes\nhimself as one who\n\n              _The watchword asks, while other are his aims_,\n\n\u2014those aims being to encourage your self-conceit with his laudations.\n\nTake another case. Painting has been styled \u2018silent poetry\u2019. So there is\na way of praising by silent flattery. The sportsman\u2019s purpose is better\nconcealed from the game when he pretends to be upon other\nbusiness\u2014walking, tending cattle, or tilling the soil. In the same way a\ntoady drives home his eulogies most effectively when the eulogy is\ndisguised under some different form of action. It may be by giving up\nhis seat, or his place [Sidenote: C] at table, when you appear upon the\nscene. Or if he is addressing the Assembly or Council, and notices that\nsome wealthy man desires to speak, he may stop his speech and yield him\nthe platform. His silence indicates more clearly than the loudest\nacclamation that he regards the person in question as a better man and\nhis intellectual superior. Such persons may therefore be seen taking\npossession of the front seats at an entertainment or in the\nmeeting-hall, not because they claim any right to them, but in order\nthat they may play the toady by giving up their places to rich people.\nOr you may see them begin the discussion at a congress or a\nboard-meeting, and subsequently give way to \u2018superior argument\u2019 and\nshift round with the [Sidenote: D] greatest readiness to the opposite\nview, if their opponent is a person of influence, wealth, or note. The\nclearest exposure of such complaisances and concessions is to be sought\nin the fact that it is not to knowledge or high abilities or age that\nthe deference is paid, but to riches and reputations. When Megabyzus\ntook a seat at Apelles\u2019 side and wanted to prate to him about \u2018line\u2019 and\n\u2018shading\u2019, the painter remarked, \u2018Do you see those boys yonder grinding\nmy mixing-earth? When you were silent, they were all eyes of admiration\nfor your purple and your jewels. But now that you have begun to talk\nabout things [Sidenote: E] you do not understand, they are laughing at\nyou.\u2019 Similarly Solon, when Croesus questioned him about \u2018happiness\u2019,\ndeclared that Tellus, an Athenian of humble rank, as well as Cleobis and\nBiton, were more favoured by fortune. A flatterer, on the contrary, not\nonly avers that a king, a rich man, or a man in power, is prosperous and\nfortunate; he also declares that he is pre-eminent in wisdom, art, and\nevery form of excellence. Hence while there are persons who have no\npatience to listen when the Stoics describe the sage as at the same time\n\u2018rich, beautiful, noble, and king\u2019, a toady will make out that the rich\nman is at the same time an orator, a poet, and\u2014if he so wishes\u2014a painter\nand a musician. He makes him out swift of foot and [Sidenote: F] strong\nof thew by letting himself be thrown in wrestling and outstripped in\nrunning, as Criso of Himera did in a race against Alexander\u2014much to\nAlexander\u2019s disgust when he detected it. Carneades used to say that the\nonly thing that kings\u2019 and rich men\u2019s sons understand is how to ride;\nthey receive no proper instruction in anything else. For their teacher\nflatters them in school with his praises, and their antagonists in the\nwrestling-ring by courting defeat; whereas a horse, who neither knows\nnor cares whether you are in or out of office, poor or rich, pitches you\nhead first if you cannot keep your seat. It was therefore a silly and\nstupid thing for Bion to say: \u2018If by [Sidenote: 59] eulogizing a field\nwe could make it bear a prolific crop, would it not be a mistake for a\nman to go digging and moiling instead? Neither, then, is it irrational\nfor you to praise a human being, if your praise is productive of good\nfruit.\u2019 A field suffers no injury from being praised, whereas insincere\nand undeserved compliment puffs a man up and ruins him.\n\nOn this point we have said enough. The next consideration is that of\ncandour.\n\n[Sidenote: B] When Patroclus, on going out to fight, dressed himself in\nAchilles\u2019 armour and drove his team, the one thing he let alone and did\nnot venture to touch was the Pelian spear. So it might have been\nexpected of the flatterer that, when dressing himself up carefully for\nthe part of \u2018friend\u2019, with its proper tokens and badges, the one thing\nhe would leave untouched and uncopied would be plain-speaking\u2014a special\nattribute,\n\n                       _Heavy and huge and stubborn_,\n\nto be wielded only by friendship. But in his fear that laughter, strong\ndrink, jest, and fun may mean his betrayal, we find him [Sidenote: C]\nputting a solemn face on the business, flattering with a frown and\nadministering dashes of blame and admonition. Here again, therefore, we\nmust apply our tests. In a comedy of Menander, the Mock-Hercules comes\nin carrying a club which has no strength or solidity, but is merely a\nhollow sham. So, I take it, with the flatterer\u2019s plain-speaking. On\ntrial you will find that it is soft and without weight or vigour; that\nit behaves like a woman\u2019s cushion, which, while seeming to offer a firm\nsupport to the head, actually yields it more of its own way. [Sidenote:\nD] This spurious candour, with its hollow fullness, its false and\nsuperficial puffiness, is merely meant to shrink and collapse, so as to\ninduce the person who leans upon it to make himself more comfortable.\nThe genuine candour of a friend attacks only our misdeeds; it hurts only\nout of care and protection; like honey, it merely stings our sores in\ncleansing them, its general uses being grateful and sweet. This,\nhowever, is a theme for special discussion.\n\nWith the flatterer it is different. In the first place, when he displays\nsharpness or heat or inflexibility, it is in dealing with others than\nyourself. He is severe upon his own servants; he is terribly hard upon\nthe misdeeds of his own relations; he shows no admiration or respect for\na stranger, but treats [Sidenote: E] him with contempt; his scandalizing\nis merciless when exacerbating other people. His object is to make it\nappear that he detests low practices, and that he would not consent to\nabate a jot of his candour in your behalf, or to do or say anything to\ncurry favour. In the next place, when there is something really and\nseriously wrong, he pretends to be completely ignorant and unconscious\nof it, while he will pounce upon some little immaterial shortcoming and\ntake it rigorously and vehemently to task\u2014if, for instance, he sees an\nimplement carelessly placed, or a fault of domestic management, or\nnegligence in the cut of your hair or the wearing of your clothes, or\nlack of [Sidenote: F] proper attention to a dog or a horse. But should\nyou slight your parents, neglect your children, humiliate your wife,\ndespise your relatives, and waste your money, it becomes no business of\nhis. In such circumstances not a word does he venture to utter, but he\nis like a trainer who permits an athlete to get drunk and dissipated,\nwhile he is severe upon him in the matter of an oil-flask or a\nscraping-iron; or like a grammar-master who scolds a boy for the state\nof his slate and pencil, but pretends not to hear his slips of grammar\nand expression. The toady is the kind of man who, in dealing with a\nridiculously incompetent public speaker, has nothing to say about his\nmatter, but finds fault with his voice-production, and blames him\nseverely for spoiling [Sidenote: 60] his larynx by drinking cold drinks;\nor who, when requested to peruse some miserable composition, finds fault\nwith the roughness of the paper and calls the copyist a slovenly wretch.\nIt was so in the case of Ptolemy, when he made pretence to literary\ntastes. They would fight with him about some out-of-the-way word or bit\nof a verse or point of information, and would keep it up till midnight.\nBut to his indulgence in cruelty and outrage, to his tambourine-playing\nand initiating, not one of [Sidenote: B] all their number offered any\nopposition. Imagine a man suffering with tumours and abscesses, and some\none taking a surgeon\u2019s knife and cutting\u2014his hair or his nails! That is\nwhat the flatterer does. He employs his candour upon those parts which\nfeel no pain or soreness.\n\nThere is a still craftier species, who make their plain-speaking and\nfault-finding an actual means of pleasing. When Alexander was once\nmaking large gifts to a jester, envy and vexation drove Agis, the\nArgive, to bawl out, \u2018How utterly absurd!\u2019 The king turned upon him\nangrily and asked, \u2018_What_ is that you say?\u2019 \u2018I confess,\u2019 was the reply,\n\u2018to being annoyed and [Sidenote: C] indignant when I see how much alike\nall you sons of Zeus are in your fondness for flatterers and ridiculous\npersons. Heracles found pleasure in his Cercopes, Dionysus in Sileni,\nand we can see what a high regard you have yourself for people of the\nkind.\u2019 One day when the emperor Tiberius entered the Senate, one of his\nflatterers got up and said that, as free men, they were bound to speak\nfrankly and to treat important interests without reticence or\nreservation. When he had thus aroused every one\u2019s interest and had\nsecured silence and the attention of Tiberius, he said, \u2018Listen, Caesar,\nto the charge which we all make against you, but which no one dares to\nutter openly. You are neglecting yourself, sacrificing your health and\nwearing it out by perpetually working and thinking for us, and giving\nyourself [Sidenote: D] no rest day or night.\u2019 As he continued with a\ngood deal more in the same strain, the orator Cassius Severus is said to\nhave exclaimed, \u2018Such plain-speaking will be the man\u2019s death!\u2019\n\nThese devices, however, are of minor moment. The matter becomes grave\u2014as\nmeaning ruin to foolish people\u2014when a man is accused of the opposite\ndisorders to those with which he is afflicted; as when the parasite\nHimerius used to scold the meanest and most avaricious plutocrat in\nAthens by calling him a reckless prodigal, bent on bringing himself and\nhis children to starvation; or when, on the contrary, a toady reproaches\n[Sidenote: E] a prodigal spendthrift with sordid parsimony, as Titus\nPetronius did Nero; or when he urges a ruler who behaves with savage\ncruelty towards his subjects to divests himself of \u2018all that gentleness\nand ill-timed and mistaken clemency\u2019.\n\nTo the same class belongs the man who pretends to look upon some silly\nnincompoop as a clever rogue of whom he is afraid and wary. Or if an\nill-conditioned person who delights in perpetual fault-finding and\nscandalizing does happen to be led into praising some distinguished man,\nhe may take him to task and raise objections, for \u2018it is a weakness of\nyours, this praising [Sidenote: F] of even quite insignificant people.\nWhat remarkable thing has he ever said or done?\u2019\n\nLove-affairs are favourite ground for the flatterer to play upon his\nvictim by further inflaming his passion. If he sees you at variance with\nyour brothers, or neglecting your parents, or contemptuous towards your\nwife, he offers neither remonstrance nor reproach, but actually\nintensifies the bad feeling. \u2018No: you don\u2019t appreciate yourself,\u2019 or,\n\u2018It is you that are to blame, for always playing the humble servant.\u2019\nBut if anger [Sidenote: 61] and jealousy provoke a tiff with a mistress\nof whom you are enamoured, in comes flattery at once with a fine blaze\nof frankness, and adds fuel to the fire by pleading cause and accusing\nthe lover of all sorts of unloverlike, unfeeling, and unforgivable\nconduct:\n\n                _O ingrate! after all that rain of kisses!_\n\nThus, when Antony was becoming passionately enamoured of the Egyptian\nqueen, his friends did their best to persuade him that the love was on\nher side, and they upbraided him with being \u2018cold and supercilious\u2019.\n\u2018The lady has forsaken all that royal state and that life of delightful\nenjoyments to go wandering [Sidenote: B] about on the march with you,\nlike any concubine.\n\n    _But, for thee, the heart in thy breast is past all moving or\n       charming_,\n\nand you leave her to suffer as she will.\u2019 It gratified Antony to be thus\nput in the wrong; no praise could please him like these accusations; and\nunconsciously he became perverted to the standard of the man who\npretended to be reproving him. For candour of this kind is like the bite\nof a lascivious woman; while pretending to give pain, it arouses a\nprovoking sensation of pleasure.\n\nThough unmixed wine is, generally speaking, a corrective of hemlock,\nyet, if you add it to that drug in the form of a mixture, [Sidenote: C]\nyou make it impossible to counteract the power of the poison, the heat\ndriving it rapidly to the heart. So, while aware that candour is a\npotent corrective of flattery, your rogue actually uses \u2018candour\u2019 as his\ninstrument for flattering you. Bias was therefore wrong in his answer to\nthe question: \u2018What animal is the most dangerous?\u2019 when he replied,\n\u2018Among wild animals, the despot, among tame animals, the toady.\u2019 It\nwould have been truer to say that, among toadies, those who merely\nfrequent your bath and your table are tame, while those who thrust the\n[Sidenote: D] tentacles of their slanderous and malicious meddling into\nbedchamber and boudoir are savage and unmanageable beasts.\n\nThe one method of protecting ourselves appears to lie in recognizing and\nnever forgetting that our mental being is made up of two parts\u2014one\nhigh-principled and rational, the other irrational, mendacious and\npassionate\u2014and that a friend is the unfailing supporter and champion of\nthe better part\u2014a physician who promotes and watches over good\nhealth\u2014while a flatterer acts as prompter to the passionate and\nirrational part, exciting, titillating, coaxing, and divorcing it from\nreason by inventing [Sidenote: E] low forms of self-indulgence on its\nbehalf. There are some kinds of food which yield no benefit to blood or\nbreath, and put no vigour into muscle or marrow, but simply excite the\nsensual appetites and make the flesh flabby and unsound. So with the\nadvice of a fawner. If does nothing to help sane thought and judgement;\nbut watch it, and you will find it cosseting an amorous pleasure,\naggravating a foolish fit of anger or provoking an attack of envy,\npuffing you up with vulgar and empty pride, encouraging your doleful\ndumps, or, where there is a tendency to be ill-natured or mean-spirited\nor mistrustful, making the [Sidenote: F] feeling more bitter or shy or\nsuspicious by constantly suggesting and anticipating evil. For he is\nperpetually in wait for some passion or other, which he proceeds to feed\nup; and whenever there is a festering or inflammation of your mental\nstate, you will always find him a kind of bubo, bringing it to a head.\nAre you angry? \u2018Then punish.\u2019 Do you crave a thing? \u2018Then buy it.\u2019 Are\nyou afraid? \u2018Then let us run away.\u2019 Are you suspicious? \u2018Then trust the\nfeeling.\u2019\n\nIf it is hard to catch him in connexion with such affections as\nthese\u2014their strength being so overpowering as to baffle the reason\u2014he\nwill give you a better opening in smaller matters; for he will be just\nthe same with them. If you are apprehensive [Sidenote: 62] of a headache\nor a surfeit, and are doubtful as to bathing or taking food, a friend\nwill try to check you and will urge you to be cautious, whereas the\ntoady will drag you to the bath, or ask them to put some novel dish on\nthe table, begging you not \u2018to keep so tight a hand upon your body as to\nbe cruel to it\u2019. If he sees you inclined to shirk a journey, a voyage,\nor a piece of work, he will say that there is no immediate hurry, and\nthat it will do just as well if you postpone the matter or send someone\nelse. If, after promising a friend to make him a loan or a present of a\nsum of money, you repent, but have your scruples, the toady [Sidenote:\nB] throws his weight into the less honourable scale; he corroborates\n\u2018the argument of the purse\u2019, and makes short work of your sense of shame\nby urging you to be economical, \u2018seeing that you have so many expenses\nand so many persons to support.\u2019\n\nIf, therefore, we are able to perceive our own covetousness,\nshamelessness, or cowardice, we shall also be able to see when a man is\na toady. Such he is when he is always playing the advocate to those\npassions and \u2018speaking his mind\u2019 when we deviate from them.\n\nEnough having been said upon this topic, we may next proceed to the\nquestion of the practical services rendered. In this [Sidenote: C]\nrespect the flatterer makes his distinction from the friend a very\nobscure and perplexing matter; he always appears so prompt and\nindefatigable in his zeal. While a friend\u2019s way, like the \u2018speech of\ntruth\u2019 as described by Euripides, is \u2018single\u2019, open, and unaffected,\nthat of the flatterer\n\n               _Sick in itself, needs antidotes full shrewd_\n\n\u2014uncommonly so, indeed, and plenty of them. When you meet a friend, he\nsometimes passes on without uttering or receiving a word, and with no\nmore than a glance or a smile; he simply manifests by his expression,\nand gathers from yours, the kindly [Sidenote: D] understanding within.\nBut the toady is on the run to overtake you, greets you from a long way\noff, and, if you catch sight of him and speak to him first, he excuses\nhimself over and over again, calling his witnesses and taking his oath.\nSo in the matter of actions. A friend will neglect many a trifle; he is\nno precisian and makes no fuss; he does not insist upon serving you at\nevery turn. But the other is persistent, unremitting, unwearied; he\nleaves no opportunity or room for any one else to serve you; he is eager\nto receive your orders, and, if he does not get them, he is piqued, nay,\nabsolutely heart-broken with disappointment. A sensible man, then, may\ntake these as some indications that a friendship is not sincere and\nsingle-minded, [Sidenote: E] but is like a harlot who forces her\nembraces upon you before they are asked for.\n\nThe first place, however, in which to look for the difference is in\npromises. It has already been well said by previous writers that a\nfriend will put his promise in the form familiar in\n\n    _If I have power to achieve it, and if \u2019tis a thing for\n       achievement_,\n\nwhile a time-server will put it in this:\n\n                    _Voice me the thought in thy mind._\n\nThe comedians present us with such characters:\n\n             _Nicomachus, pit me against the soldier.\n             I\u2019ll make ripe pulp of him; I\u2019ll make his face\n             Softer than sponge: if not, then flog me soundly._\n\nIn the next place no friend will be a party to your actions [Sidenote:\nF] unless he has first been a party to planning them. He must first have\nlooked into the business and helped to put it on a right and proper\nfooting. Not so the flatterer. Even if you do grant him a share in\nweighing the matter and expressing an opinion about it, he is not only\nso anxious to gratify you with his complaisance, but is in such dread of\nleading you to suspect him of unreadiness to face the action, that he\nleaves you to take your course, or only lends spurs to your desire. It\nis not easy to find a rich man or a grandee who is ready to say:\n[Sidenote: 63]\n\n                _Give me a man, a beggar\u2014nay, no matter,\n                Lower than beggar, if he means me well\u2014\n                To put fear by, and speak his heart to me._\n\nLike the tragedian, he must have the support of a chorus of friends who\nkeep his tune, or of an audience who give applause. Merope in the\ntragedy advises:\n\n            _Get thee for friends such men as, when they speak,\n            Yield not; but when a man will for thy pleasure\n            Make himself knave, lock thou thy door against him._\n\n[Sidenote: B] But such persons do the opposite. If, \u2018when you speak\u2019 you\n\u2018yield not\u2019, but oppose them for their good, they abominate you; but if\n\u2018for their pleasure\u2019 you are a \u2018knave\u2019 and a servile charlatan, they\nreceive you not merely inside their locked doors but inside their most\nsecret passions and concerns. The simple kind of flatterer, it is true,\ndoes not aim at so much. What he asks in such important matters is not\nto be your adviser, but your minister and servant. But the more crafty\nperson will stand still\u2014puzzling over the question with puckered brow\nand appropriate changes of countenance\u2014but will say nothing. And if you\ngive your own idea, he will exclaim, \u2018How strange! You just managed to\nanticipate me. I was about to make exactly your suggestion.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: C] Mathematicians tell us that lines and surfaces, being\nmental perceptions and incorporeal, have in themselves no such thing as\nbending, stretching, or motion, but that they are bent, stretched, and\nchanged in position along with the bodies of which they are the\nboundaries. So you will discover that, with the time-server, his assent,\nhis opinion, even his pleasure and anger, are always dependent. Here,\ntherefore, it is perfectly easy to detect the difference. It is still\nmore apparent in the manner in which a service is rendered. With the\ngood feeling of a friend, as with a living creature, its most vital\nfunctions lie [Sidenote: D] deep. It is marked by no ostentatious\ndisplay; but very often, like a physician who conceals the fact that he\nis doctoring you, a friend does you a good turn by a word of\nintercession or by bringing about an understanding, and so consults your\ninterests without your knowing it. Arcesilaus was a man of this type.\nNot to mention other instances, when Apelles the Chian was ill and\nArcesilaus had discovered how poor he was, he came back later with\ntwenty drachmae. Taking a seat close to him, he exclaimed, \u2018There is\nnothing here beyond Empedocles\u2019 four elements:\n\n       _Fire and water and earth and the gentle air of the heavens._\n\nWhy, even your bed is made all askew.\u2019 With that he moved his pillow and\nmeanwhile slipped the coins under it. When the [Sidenote: E] old woman\nin attendance found them and told Apelles in amazement, he laughed and\nsaid, \u2018It is that thief Arcesilaus.\u2019[52]\n\nAnd here we may note how philosophy produces \u2018_children like unto their\nsires_\u2018. Cephisocrates, who had been impeached, was on his trial, and\nbeside him, with the rest of his friends, stood Lacudes, one of the\ncoterie of Arcesilaus. The accuser having asked for his ring,\nCephisocrates quietly dropped it at his side, and Lacudes, who noticed\nthe action, put his foot upon it and hid it. On that ring depended the\nproof of the charge. When Cephisocrates, after his acquittal, went\nshaking hands with members of the jury, one of them, who had apparently\n[Sidenote: F] seen what occurred, bade him thank Lacudes, and gave an\naccount of the affair, which Lacudes had mentioned to no one. We may\nbelieve that it is the same with the Gods, and that for the most part\nthey confer their benefits unperceived, it being their nature to find\npleasure in the mere act of bestowing favours and doing good. But in a\ndeed done by a flatterer there is nothing honest, sincere,\nsingle-minded, or generous. It is a case of sweating, bawling, bustling,\nand of a tense look upon the face, intended to convey the impression of\narduous and urgent business. The thing resembles, in fact, an overdone\npainting, [Sidenote: 64] which strives to secure realistic effect by the\nuse of blatant colours and affected folds, wrinkles, and angles.\n\nHe is also offensive enough to relate how the business has meant running\nabout and anxiety, and he goes on to describe how he has got into\ntrouble with other people and had no end of worry and some terrible\nexperiences, until you declare that the thing was not worth it all. Any\nobligation thrown in your teeth will cause an unbearable and distressing\nsense of annoyance, but with an obligation from a time-server your sense\nof reproach and shame is felt at once, from the very moment that the\nservice [Sidenote: B] is being rendered. A friend, on the other hand, if\nhe has occasion to speak of the matter, qualifies his account of it, and\nabout himself he says nothing. For example, the Lacedaemonians once sent\nthe people of Smyrna some corn at a time of need, and, to their\nexpressions of admiration of the kindness, they replied, \u2018Not at all! To\nscrape this together we had only to vote the forgoing of one day\u2019s\ndinner for ourselves and our beasts.\u2019 A favour so rendered is not only a\ngenerous one; it is made the more welcome to the recipients by the\nthought that no great harm is done to the benefactor.\n\nIt is not, however, by the flatterer\u2019s offensive way of rendering his\nservices nor by the recklessness of his promises that one [Sidenote: C]\ncan best recognize the breed; an easier criterion consists in the\ncreditable or discreditable nature of the service, and in the different\ncharacter of the pleasure or benefit. A friend will not, as Gorgias\nasserted, expect his friend to render him honest services and yet\nhimself oblige that friend in many ways which are not honest:\n\n               _\u2019Tis his to share the wisdom, not the folly._\n\nRather, therefore, he will dissuade him also from improper courses. And,\nif he fails, there is virtue in Phocion\u2019s answer to Antipater, \u2018You\ncannot use me both as friend and toady\u2019\u2014that is to say, both as friend\nand not friend. We must help a friend in his need, not in his knavery;\nin his planning, not in his plotting; with testimony, not conspiracy.\nYes, and we must share in his misfortunes, though not in his misdeeds.\nWe [Sidenote: D] should not choose even to be privy to the baseness of\nour friends; how then to be a party to their misbehaviour? When the\nLacedaemonians, after their defeat by Antipater, were making terms, they\nstipulated that, though he might impose any penalty he liked, he should\nimpose no disgrace. It is the same with a friend. Should occasion call\nfor expense or danger or hard work, he is foremost in his claim to be\nsummoned and take a prompt and zealous part; but when disgrace attaches\nto it, he will as promptly beg to be spared and left alone. But with the\nfawner it is the reverse. In services of difficulty and danger he cries\noff, and, if you give him a tap to sound him, his excuse\u2014whatever\n[Sidenote: E] it may be\u2014rings false and mean. But in vile and degrading\nlittle jobs, do as you like with him; trample on him; nothing shocks or\ninsults him.\n\nLook at the ape. He cannot watch the house like a dog, nor carry like a\nhorse, nor plough the ground like an ox. He is therefore the bearer of\nscurrilous insult and buffoonery and the butt of sport, his function\nbeing to serve as a tool for laughter. Precisely so with the toady. He\nis unequal to any form of labour and serious effort, and incapable of\nhelping you by a speech, with a contribution, or in a fight; but in\nbusiness which shuns the light he is promptitude itself\u2014a most competent\n[Sidenote: F] agent in an amour, an adept at ransoming a strumpet, alert\nat checking the bill for a drinking-bout, no sloven in the ordering of\nyour dinner, deft at attentions to your mistress, and, if you bid him\nshow insolence to your wife\u2019s relations or bundle her out of doors, he\nis beyond all pity or shame.\n\nThis, therefore, is another easy means of finding him out. Order him to\ndo any disreputable and discreditable thing you [Sidenote: 65] choose,\nand he is ready to spare no pains in gratifying you accordingly.\n\nA very good indication of the wide difference between our fawner and a\nfriend may be found in his attitude towards your other friends. The one\nis delighted to have many others giving and receiving affection with\nhim, and his constant aim is to make his friend widely loved and\nhonoured. He holds that \u2018_friends have all things in common_\u2018, and their\nfriends, he thinks, [Sidenote: B] should be more \u2018in common\u2019 than\nanything else. But the other\u2014the false, bastard, and spurious\narticle\u2014realizes, better than any one, how he is himself sinning against\nfriendship by\u2014so to speak\u2014debasing its coinage. While, therefore, he is\njealous by nature, it is only against his like that he gives his\njealousy play, by striving to surpass them in grovelling and lickspittle\ntricks. Of his betters he stands in fear and dread, we cannot say\nbecause he is\n\n                  _Plodding on foot against a Lydian car_,\n\nbut because, as Simonides has it, he\n\n                              _Hath not e\u2019en lead\n                      To match the pure refin\u00e8d gold._\n\nIf, therefore, light in weight, surface-gilt and counterfeit, he finds\nhimself put in close comparison with genuine friendship, [Sidenote: C]\nfull-carat and mint-made, he cannot bear the test, and must be detected.\nConsequently he acts like the painter whose cocks in a picture were\nwretchedly done, and who therefore ordered his slave to drive any real\ncocks as far from his canvas as possible. In the same way the flatterer\ndrives away real friends and prevents them coming near. If he fails,\nwhile openly he will fawn upon them and pay them court and deference as\nbeing his betters, in secret he will throw out calumnious hints and\nsuggestions. And if the word in secret has given a scratch without at\nonce absolutely producing a wound, he never forgets Medius\u2019s maxim. This\nMedius was what may be called the [Sidenote: D] fugleman or expert\nconductor of the chorus of toadies who surrounded Alexander, and was at\ndaggers drawn with the highest characters. His maxim was, \u2018Be bold in\nlaying on and biting with your slanders, for even if the man who is\nbitten salves the wound, the slander will leave its scar.\u2019 It was\nthrough these scars, or rather because he was eaten up with gangrenes\nand ulcers, that Alexander put Callisthenes, Parmenio, and Philotas to\ndeath. Meanwhile he surrendered himself unreservedly to a Hagnon, a\nBagoas, an Agesias, or a Demetrius, and allowed them to give him a fall\nby salaaming to him and dressing him up after the fashion of an oriental\nidol. So powerful an effect [Sidenote: E] has complaisance, and\napparently most of all with those who think most of themselves. Their\nwish for the finest qualities goes with the belief that they possess\nthem, and so the flatterer acquires both credit and confidence. For\nwhile lofty places are difficult of approach or assault for all who have\ndesigns upon them, the lofty conceit produced in a foolish mind by the\ngifts of fortune or talent offers the readiest footing to those who are\nsmall and petty.\n\nAs therefore we urged at the beginning of this treatise, so we urge\nagain here; \u2018Let us make a clearance of self-love and self-conceit.\u2019\nThese, by flattering us in advance, render us more [Sidenote: F]\namenable to flattery from outside: we come prepared. But if, in\nobedience to the God, we recognize how all-important the maxim _Know\nThyself_ is to each of us; if we therefore examine our own nature,\ntraining, and education, and observe how all alike fall short of\nexcellence in countless ways, and how they all contain a large admixture\nof weakness in the things we do or say or feel, we shall be very slow in\nallowing the flatterer to abuse us at his pleasure. Alexander remarked\nthat what made him give least credence to those who called him a God was\nhis sleep and his sexualities, his excesses in those things falling\nbelow his own standard. On our own part we shall [Sidenote: 66] always\ndiscover that at many a point and in many a way our qualities are ugly\nor a source of pain, defective or misdirected. We shall see ourselves in\nour true light, and find that what we need is not a friend who will pay\nus compliments and eulogies, but one who will bring us to book when we\nare really doing wrong. But only then. There are in any case very few\nwith the courage to treat a friend with candour rather than\ncomplaisance; yet among these few it will be hard to find such as\nunderstand their business. It will be easier to find persons who imagine\nthat they are using candour because they abuse and scold. Yet it is with\nplain-speaking as with any other medicine. [Sidenote: B] When it is\ngiven at the wrong time the effect is to upset and pain you to no\npurpose. In a certain sense it does painfully what flattery does\npleasantly, inasmuch as unseasonable blame works as much harm as\nunseasonable praise. More than anything else it is a thing which drives\na man headlong into the arms of the flatterer. Like water, he turns from\nthe steep unyielding surface and glides away into the receptive\nshallows. Candour, therefore, must be tempered by rational courtesy,\nwhich will divest it of excess and over-severity. The light must not be\nso strong that in our pain and distress at the invariable reproving and\nfault-finding we turn away to escape discomfort and fly to find shade\nwith the flatterer.\n\n[Sidenote: C] In shunning a vice, Philopappus, our object should always\nbe virtue, not the contrary vice. Some people think they escape being\nshamefaced by being shameless; that they escape being rustic by being\nribald; that their behaviour becomes furthest from timidity and\ncowardice when they appear nearest to impudence and insolence. Some\nplead to themselves that they would rather be irreligious than\nsuperstitious, rather [Sidenote: D] knaves than simpletons. Their\ncharacter may be likened to a piece of wood, which, through lack of the\nskill to straighten it, they crook to the opposite side. The ugliest way\nof refusing to flatter is to give useless pain. Our social intercourse\nmust be boorishly ignorant of all the rules of good feeling when it is\nby being harsh and disagreeable that we avoid any creeping humbleness in\nour friendship, just as if we were the freedman in the comedy, who\nthinks that, to be properly enjoyed, \u2018speech on equal terms\u2019 means\nabusive speech.\n\nSince, therefore, it as an ugly thing when our striving to be agreeable\nlands us in flattery, and an ugly thing when, in the avoidance of\nflattery, all the spirit of friendly sympathy is ruined by immoderate\nplain-speaking; and since we ought to commit neither mistake, but\u2014in\ncandour as in other things\u2014draw \u2018success from moderation\u2019, mere logical\nsequence seems to [Sidenote: E] dictate the conclusion to our treatise.\n\nPlain-speaking, we find, is liable to be, as it were, tainted in various\nways. The first thing is to divest it of its selfish aspect, by taking\nthe greatest care not to let it appear as if your reproaches were due to\na kind of injury or grievance of your own. When the speaker is concerned\nabout himself, we regard his words as the outcome of anger, not of\ngoodwill; as grumbling, not as reproof. For whereas candour is a mark of\nfriendliness which compels respect, grumbling is petty and selfish. We\ntherefore respect and admire the person who is frank, while a\nfault-finder provokes recrimination and contempt. Though Achilles\n[Sidenote: F] imagined he was speaking with but reasonable frankness,\nAgamemnon lost his temper; but when Odysseus attacked him bitterly in\nthe words\n\n    _Madman, thou shouldst have commanded some other, some pitiful\n       army_,\n\nhe patiently gave way, the friendly purpose and good sense of the speech\ncausing him to draw in his horns. The reason was that, while the\nplain-speaking of Odysseus, who had no private [Sidenote: 67] grounds\nfor anger, was only for the sake of Greece, the vexation of Achilles was\nthought to be chiefly on his own account. Nay, Achilles himself, though\npossessed of no sweet or gentle temper, but\n\n    _A terrible man, who must blame, e\u2019en though it be blaming the\n       blameless_,\n\nsilently permitted Patroclus to give him many such hard blows:\n\n    _Man of no pity, no father of thine was Peleus the horseman,\n    Thetis no mother of thine; from the green-grey sea wert thou gotten\n    By beetling crags; so comes it thy heart is void of all mercy._\n\n[Sidenote: B] The orator Hypereides used to urge the Athenians to\nconsider not merely whether he was angry, but whether his anger was\ngratuitous. So with the admonition of a friend. When pure from any\nprivate feeling, it is a thing of awe, which we cannot face unabashed.\nAnd if, when a man is speaking his mind, it is manifest that he is\ncasting aside any wrongs his friend may have done to himself; that it is\nother misdemeanours on his part which he is bringing home\u2014other reasons\nfor which he does not shrink from giving him pain\u2014such candour produces\nan irresistible effect, the sharpness and severity of the admonition\nbeing intensified by the kindliness of the admonisher. Doubtless,\n[Sidenote: C] as has been well said, \u2018it is most of all when we are\nangry or at variance with our friends that we should do or devise\nsomething to their advantage or credit\u2019; but we show no less true a\nfriendliness if, when we think ourselves slighted or neglected, it is on\nbehalf of other victims of neglect that we give them a plain-spoken\nreminder. Plato, at a time when his relations with Dionysius were\nstrained and dubious, asked for an interview. Dionysius granted it, in\nthe belief that Plato was coming with a tale of grievance of his own.\nThe conversation, however, took the following shape. \u2018Suppose,\nDionysius, you discovered [Sidenote: D] that some ill-disposed person\nhad made a voyage to Sicily with the intention of doing you an injury,\nbut that he could find no opportunity. Would you allow him to leave the\ncountry and get away scot-free?\u2019 \u2018Certainly not, Plato,\u2019 said Dionysius:\n\u2018enemies must be hated and punished not only for what they do, but for\nwhat they propose to do.\u2019 \u2018Then suppose,\u2019 said Plato, \u2018some one comes\nhere in a friendly spirit, with the intention of rendering you a\nservice, but that you afford him no chance. Is it a proper thing to cast\nhim aside with ingratitude and contempt?\u2019 Upon Dionysius asking who it\nwas, he answered, \u2018Aeschines, a man who, in rightness of character, will\ncompare with any of Socrates\u2019 associates, and whose teaching cannot fail\nto set any hearer firmly on his feet. Though he has [Sidenote: E] made a\nlong voyage for the sake of philosophic intercourse with you, he has\nbeen left in neglect.\u2019 These words stirred Dionysius so deeply that, in\nadmiration of his kindliness and magnanimity, he promptly embraced Plato\nwith effusion and proceeded to pay to Aeschines the most distinguished\nattentions.\n\nIn the second place, our candour must be cleared of all excrescences, so\nto speak. We must allow it no coarse flavourings in the shape of\ninsulting ridicule or buffoonish mockery. When a surgeon is performing\nan operation, a certain ease and neatness [Sidenote: F] should be\nincidentally apparent in his work, but there should be no supple\njuggleries of the hand in the way of fantastic and risky _fioriture_. In\nthe same way candour admits of a dexterous touch of wit, so long as it\nis so prettily put as to maintain our respect; but impertinent and\ninsolent buffoonery utterly destroys that feeling. Hence the harpist\nchose a polite as well as a forcible way of stopping Philip\u2019s mouth,\nwhen that monarch attempted to argue with him on a question of musical\nnote. \u2018Sire,\u2019 said he, \u2018Heaven forbid you should ever become so badly\noff as to know more about these things than I do!\u2019 [Sidenote: 68]\nEpicharmus, on the other hand, chose the wrong way, when Hiero, a few\ndays after putting some of his familiars to death, invited him to\ndinner. \u2018Nay, but,\u2019 said he, \u2018the other day there was no invitation to\nyour sacrifice of your friends.\u2019[53] It was also a mistake for Antiphon,\nwhen the question: \u2018What sort of bronze is the best?\u2019 was under\ndiscussion in the presence of Dionysius, to say, \u2018That kind out of which\nthey made the statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton at Athens.\u2019 No good\nis done by the stinging bitterness of such speeches, nor is any pleasure\ngiven by their scurrilous pleasantry. Language of the [Sidenote: B] kind\ncomes only from a want of self-command\u2014which is partly insolent\nill-nature\u2014combined with enmity. Those who use it are courting their own\ndestruction as well; they are veritably dancing a \u2018dance at the well\u2019s\nedge\u2019. Antiphon was put to death by Dionysius; Timagenes was banished\nfrom Caesar\u2019s friendship, not because of any free word he ever uttered,\nbut because, at dinner-parties or when walking, he would perpetually and\nwith no serious purpose whatever, but\n\n      _For whatsoever him thought might move the Argives to laughter_,\n\nadvance some charge against his conduct as a friend, merely by way of\npretext for upbraiding him.\n\nIt is the same with the comic poets. Their work contained many serious\nand statesmanlike appeals to the audience; but [Sidenote: C] these were\nso much mixed up with farce and ribaldry\u2014like good food in a hotch-potch\nof greenstuff\u2014that their plain-speaking lost all nutritive power and\nuse, with the result that the speaker was looked upon as an ill-natured\nbuffoon, and the hearer derived no benefit from the speech.\n\nIn other cases by all means have your fun and laugh with your friends,\nbut when you give them a piece of your mind, let it be done with\nearnestness and with courtesy. And if the matter is one of importance,\nimpart a cogent and moving effect to your words by your emotions,\ngestures, and tone of voice.\n\nThere is also the question of the right moment. To disregard it is in\nall cases a serious mistake, but is particularly ruinous to good results\nwhen you are \u2018speaking your mind\u2019. That we should beware of doing\nanything of the kind when wine and inebriation are to the fore, is\nobvious. It is to bring a cloud [Sidenote: D] over the bright sky, if,\nin the midst of fun and gaiety, you moot a topic which puckers the brow\nand stiffens the face, as if to defeat the \u2018Relaxing God\u2019, who\u2014to quote\nPindar\u2014\n\n                    _Unbends the harassed brow of care._\n\nNay, there is actually great danger in such unseasonableness. Wine\nrenders the mind perilously testy, and tipsiness often takes command of\ncandour and converts it into enmity. Moreover, instead of showing spirit\nand courage, it shows a want of manliness for a person who dare not\nspeak his mind when sober to become bold at table, like a cowardly dog.\n\nThere is, however, no need to dwell further upon this theme. Let us\nproceed.\n\nThere are many who, when affairs are going well with their [Sidenote: E]\nfriends, neither make any claim nor possess the courage to put restraint\nupon them. Prosperity, they think, lies quite beyond the reach of\nadmonition. But should one stumble and come to grief, they set upon him.\nHe is tame and humbled, and they trample upon him. The stream of their\ncandour has been unnaturally dammed up, and now they let the whole flood\nloose upon him. He was once so disdainful, and they so feeble, that they\nthoroughly enjoy his change of fortune and make the most of it. It is as\nwell, therefore, to discuss this class also.\n\nIf Euripides asks:\n\n             _When fortune blesses, what the need of friends?_\n\nthe answer must be that it is the prosperous man who has most [Sidenote:\nF] need of friends to speak their minds and take down any excess of\npride. There are few who can be both prosperous and wise at the same\ntime. Most men require to import wisdom from abroad; they require that\nreasoning from outside should put compression upon them when fortune\npuffs them up and sets them swaying in the wind. But when fortune\nreduces their inflated bulk, the situation itself carries its own lesson\nand brings repentance home. There is consequently no occasion for\nfriendly candour or for language which bites and distresses. When such\nreverses happen, verily [Sidenote: 69]\n\n              _\u2019Tis sweet to look into a friend\u2019s fond eyes_,\n\nwhile he gives us solace and encouragement. Xenophon says of Clearchus\nthat in battle and danger there appeared upon his face a look of\ngeniality which put greater heart into those who were in peril. But to\nemploy your mordant candour upon a man who is in trouble, is like\nadministering \u2018sharp-sight drops\u2019 to an eye suffering with inflammation.\nIt does nothing to cure or relieve the pain, but only adds anger to it\nby exasperating [Sidenote: B] the sufferer. For instance, when a man is\nin health he is not in the least angry or furious with a friend for\nblaming his looseness with the other sex, his drinking, his shirking of\nwork and exercise, his continual bathings and ill-timed gorgings. But\nwhen he is sick, the thing is intolerable. It is more sickening than the\ndisease to be told, \u2018This is the result of your reckless\nself-indulgence, your laziness, your rich dishes, and your women.\u2019 \u2018What\nan unseasonable man you are! I am writing my will; the doctors are\ngetting castor and scammony ready for me; and you come preaching and\nphilosophizing!\u2019 So, when a man is in trouble, the situation is not one\nfor speaking your mind and moralizing. What it requires is sweet\nreasonableness [Sidenote: C] and help. When a little child has a fall,\nthe nurse does not rush up in order to scold it. She picks it up, washes\noff the dirt, and straightens its dress. It is afterwards that she\nproceeds to reprimand and punish.\n\nAn apposite story is told of Demetrius Phalereus, when he was in\nbanishment and was living at Thebes in mean and obscure circumstances.\nIt was with no pleasure that he saw Crates coming towards him, inasmuch\nas he expected to hear some plain-spoken cynic abuse. Crates, however,\naccosted him gently, and then spoke upon the subject of exile\u2014how there\nwas no calamity in it, and how little need there was to be distressed,\n[Sidenote: D] since it meant getting rid of cares, with their dangers\nand uncertainties. At the same time he urged him to have confidence in\nhimself and his inner man. Cheered and heartened by such language,\nDemetrius exclaimed to his friends: \u2018Alas, for all that engrossing\nbusiness which prevented me from getting to know a man like this!\u2019\n\n             _To one in grief a friend should speak kind words,\n             But to great folly words of admonition._\n\nSuch is the way of a noble friend. But the mean and ignoble flatterer of\nthe prosperous man is like those \u2018ruptures and [Sidenote: E] sprains\u2019 of\nwhich Demosthenes tells us that \u2018when the body meets with an injury,\nthen you begin to feel them\u2019. He seizes upon your change of fortune with\nevery appearance of delight and enjoyment. If you do require any\nreminder when your own ill-advised conduct has brought you to the\nground, it should suffice to say:\n\n    _\u2019Twas not with approval of mine: full oft did I seek to dissuade\n       thee._\n\nIn what cases, then, ought a friend to be uncompromising? When should he\nexert his candour to the full? It is when the proper moment calls for\nhim to stem the vehement course of pleasure, anger, or insolence; to put\nthe curb on avarice; to [Sidenote: F] restrain a reckless folly. It was\nin this way that, when the precarious favours of fortune had corrupted\nCroesus with the pride of luxury, Solon spoke his mind to him, bidding\nhim wait and see the end. It was in this way that Socrates was wont to\nput control on Alcibiades, to wrench his heart and draw genuine tears\nfrom him by bringing his errors home. Such was the method of Cyrus with\nCyaxares. Such too, when Dion\u2019s splendour was at its height and he was\ndrawing all men\u2019s eyes upon him by the brilliance and greatness of his\nexploits, was [Sidenote: 70] the method of Plato, who bade him keep\nanxious watch against\n\n                    _Self-will, house-mate of Solitude._\n\nSpeusippus also urged Dion in his letters not to be proud because he had\na great name among children and women-folk, but to take care and \u2018make\nglorious\u2019 the Academy by adorning Sicily with piety and justice and the\nbest of laws. But not so Euctus and Eulaeus, the associates of Perseus.\nIn his prosperity they followed him like the rest, always assenting,\nalways complaisant. But when he met the Romans at Pydna, was defeated,\nand fled, they attacked him with bitter censure, reminding him of his\nerrors and oversights and throwing them one after the other in his\nteeth, until the man became so utterly sore and [Sidenote: B] angry that\nhe made an end of both by stabbing them with his dagger.\n\nThis, then, may serve for the general rule as to place and time.\n\nBut opportunities are often offered by a man himself, and no one who\ncares for his friend should let these occasions slip or omit to use\nthem. Sometimes a question asked, a story told, blame or praise of a\nsimilar action in the case of other people, gives you the cue for a\npiece of plain-speaking. For instance, the story goes that Demaratus\nvisited Macedonia at a time when [Sidenote: C] Philip was at variance\nwith his wife and son. Upon Philip welcoming him and inquiring how far\nthe Greeks were in harmony with each other, Demaratus\u2014who was his\nwell-wisher and intimate friend\u2014remarked, \u2018It becomes you excellently,\nPhilip, to be asking about the harmonious relations of Athens and the\nPeloponnese, while you allow your own house to be so full of feud and\ndiscord.\u2019 A good hit was also made by Diogenes. Philip was on his way to\nfight the Greeks, and Diogenes, who had entered the camp, was brought\nbefore him. Philip, being unacquainted with him, asked him if he was a\nspy. \u2018Certainly I am,\u2019 he replied. \u2018I am a spy upon the short-sighted\nfoolishness which induces you to come, without any compulsion, and risk\n[Sidenote: D] your throne and person upon the cast of a single hour.\u2019\nThis, however, was perhaps somewhat too forcible.\n\nAnother good opportunity for admonition occurs when a man has been\nabused for his mistakes by some one else and is feeling small and\nhumbled. A person of discretion will make a happy use of the occasion by\nsending the abusive parties to the right about and himself taking his\nfriend in hand, reminding him that, if there is no other reason for\nbeing careful, he should at least give his enemies no encouragement.\n\u2018How can they open their mouths or say another word, if you cast aside\nonce for [Sidenote: E] all these faults for which they abuse you?\u2019 By\nthis means the abuser gets the credit of the pain, and the admonisher\nthat of the benefit.\n\nSome are more subtle. They convert their familiar friends by blaming\nsome one else, accusing others of the things they know that those\nfriends do. Once at a lecture in the afternoon our professor, Ammonius,\naware that some of his class had not lunched as simply as they might,\nordered his freedman to give his own boy a whipping, on the charge that\n\u2018he must have vinegar with his lunch\u2019. Meanwhile the glance he threw at\nus brought the reproach home to the guilty parties.\n\nIn the next place, we should be cautious of speaking plainly to a friend\nbefore company. Remember the case of Plato. [Sidenote: F] Socrates\nhaving handled one of his associates somewhat vigorously in conversation\nat table, Plato remarked, \u2018Would it not have been better if this had\nbeen said in private?\u2019 \u2018And,\u2019 retorted Socrates, \u2018would you not have\ndone better if you had said that to _me_ in private?\u2019 The story goes\nthat, when Pythagoras once dealt rather roughly with a pupil before a\nnumber of persons, the youth hanged himself, and from that time\nPythagoras never again reproved anyone in another\u2019s presence. A fault\nshould be treated like a humiliating complaint. The uncovering and\n[Sidenote: 71] prescribing should be secret, not an ostentatious display\nto a gathering of witnesses or spectators. It is not the act of a\nfriend, but of a sophist, to use another\u2019s slips to glorify oneself,\nshowing off before the company like those medical men who perform\nsurgical operations in the theatre in order to advertise themselves. And\napart from the insult\u2014which has no right to accompany any curative\ntreatment\u2014we have to consider the contentiousness and obstinacy of a man\nin the wrong. Not merely is it the case that\u2014as Euripides has it\u2014\n\n                                 _Love, when reproved,\n                     Is but more tyrannous_,\n\n[Sidenote: B] but if you make no scruple about offering reproof in\npublic, you drive any moral disease or passion into becoming shameless.\nPlato insists that, if old men are to inculcate reverence in the young,\nthey must themselves first show reverence towards the young. In the same\nway the friendly candour which most abashes is that which itself feels\nabashed. Let it be gently and considerately that you approach and handle\nthe offender; then you undermine and destroy his vice, since regard is\ncontagiously felt where regard is shown. Excellent, therefore, is the\nnotion:\n\n    _Putting his head close down, to the end that the rest should not\n       hear it._\n\n[Sidenote: C] Least propriety of all is there in exposing a husband in\nthe hearing of the wife, a father before the eyes of his children, a\nlover in the presence of the beloved, or a teacher in that of his\npupils. He becomes frantic; so sore and angry is he at being set right\nbefore persons in whose eyes he is all anxiety to shine. When Cleitus\nenraged Alexander, it was, I imagine, not so much the fault of the wine\nas that he appeared to be humbling him before a large company. Another\ncase is that of Aristomenes, the tutor[54] of Ptolemy. Once, when an\nembassy was in the room, Ptolemy fell asleep and Aristomenes gave him a\nhit to wake him up. The flatterers seized the opportunity, and affected\nto be indignant on the king\u2019s behalf. \u2018If,\u2019 said [Sidenote: D] they,\n\u2018you did drop off, thanks to hard work and want of sleep, we ought to\nset you right privately, not lay hands on you before so many people.\u2019 As\nthe result, he sent Aristomenes a cup of poison and ordered him to drink\nit off. Aristophanes also tells us how Cleon tried to exasperate the\nAthenians against him by making it a charge that he\n\n                  _Abused the country before foreigners._\n\nThis, then, is another of the mistakes to be avoided, if your desire is\nnot so much to make a self-advertising display as to make your candour\nproduce helpful and healing results.\n\nIn the next place, your plain-speaker ought to bear in mind [Sidenote:\nE] the principle which Thucydides makes the Corinthians so properly\nexpress, in saying that they \u2018had a right to find fault\u2019 with others. It\nwas Lysander, I believe, who said to the man from Megara, when he was\ndelivering himself at the Federal Council concerning the interests of\nGreece, \u2018You need a country to back your talk.\u2019 In any case, doubtless,\nyou need character for plain-speaking, but in no case is this so true as\nwhen you are admonishing and lecturing other people. Plato used to say\nthat it was by his life he admonished Speusippus, and the mere sight of\nXenocrates at lecture, and a glance from him, [Sidenote: F] sufficed to\nconvert Polemon to better ways. When we lack weight and strength of\ncharacter the result of any attempt at plain-speaking on our part is to\ndraw upon ourselves the words:\n\n                _Why physic us, thyself one mass of sores?_\n\nNevertheless it often happens that, though a man\u2019s own character is as\nweak as that of his neighbour, circumstances drive him to administer\nreproof. In that case the civillest behaviour is to contrive somehow to\nimply that the speaker is included in the reproach. In this tone are the\nwords:\n\n      _Tydeus\u2019 son, what ails us, forgetting our prowess and valour?_\n\n[Sidenote: 72] and:\n\n               _But no match are we now for Hector alone...._\n\nSocrates\u2019 way of quietly setting young men right was of the same kind.\nHe would not be taken as being himself free from ignorance, but as\nfeeling it a duty to share with them in the cultivation of virtue and\nthe quest of truth. We inspire affection and confidence when it is\nthought that, being equally to blame, we are applying to our friends the\nsame correction as to ourselves. But if, when rebuking your neighbour,\nyou put on the superior air of a flawless and passionless being, unless\nyou are much the senior or possess an acknowledged eminence of character\nand reputation, you do no good and only make yourself [Sidenote: B]\noffensive and a nuisance. For this reason, when Phoenix introduced the\nstory of his own misfortunes\u2014how in anger he set to work to kill his\nfather, but speedily repented:\n\n    _Lest the Achaeans should name me \u2018the man who murdered his\n       father\u2019_\u2014\n\nit was of set purpose, that it might not seem as if, in reproving\nAchilles, he claimed to be an impeccable person whom anger had no power\nto corrupt. In such cases the moral effect sinks in, since we yield more\nreadily to a show of fellow-feeling than to one of contempt.\n\nAnother point. Since a mind diseased can no more bear unqualified\ncandour and reproof than an inflamed eye can [Sidenote: C] be submitted\nto a brilliant light, one most useful resource among our remedies is to\nadd a slight tincture of praise. For example:\n\n    _Ugly is this that ye do, to cease from your valour and prowess,\n    All ye best of the host! I would not move me to quarrel,\n    If \u2019twere some other who thus might hold his hand from the fighting,\n    Some craven man; but with you is my heart exceedingly anger\u2019d_:\n\nor:\n\n        _Pandarus, where is thy bow, and where thy feathery arrows?\n        Where thy glory, the which no man among us doth challenge?_\n\nIf a man is giving way, there is also a vigorous rallying power in such\nlanguage as\n\n                                          _Where now\n                  Is Oedipus and all his far-famed rede?_\n\nor:\n\n                                        _Is \u2018t Heracles,\n              He who hath borne so many a brunt, speaks thus?_\n\nNot only does it temper the harshness of the punishment [Sidenote: D]\ninflicted by the reproach; it sets a man at rivalry with himself. When\nreminded of the things which stand to his credit, he is ashamed of those\nwhich degrade him, and he finds an elevating example in his own person.\nBut when we make comparisons with others\u2014with mates, fellow citizens, or\nkinsmen\u2014the contentiousness which belongs to his failings is piqued and\nexacerbated. It has a habit of retorting angrily, \u2018Then why don\u2019t you go\nto my betters, instead of harassing _me_?\u2019 We must therefore beware of\nbelauding one person while we are speaking our minds to another\u2014always,\nof course, with the exception of his parents. Thus Agamemnon can say:\n\n        _Truly, a son little like to himself hath Tydeus begotten_;\n\n[Sidenote: E] or Odysseus, when in Scyrus:\n\n             _But thou o\u2019ersham\u2019st the brilliance of thy race,\n             Wool-spinner! thou, whose sire was Greece\u2019s hero!_\n\nBy no means should we use reproof to answer reproof, or plain-speaking\nin counter-attack to plain-speaking. Otherwise we quickly produce heat\nand create a quarrel. Moreover, such disputatiousness is naturally\nregarded, not as a return of candour, [Sidenote: F] but as intolerance\nof it. It is better, therefore, to listen with a good grace when a\nfriend believes he is reproving you. For this, if at a later time some\noffence of his own calls for reprobation, is the very thing which gives\nyour plain-speaking its right\u2014as it were\u2014to speak. When, without bearing\nany grudge, you remind him that it has not been his own habit to let his\nfriends go wrong, but to teach them better and set them right, he will\nbe the more ready to give in and accept the proffered correction; for he\nwill believe that it is good feeling and good intention, not anger and\nfault-finding, which prompt this payment in return.\n\n[Sidenote: 73] In the next place, remember the saying of Thucydides:\n\u2018Well advised is he who accepts unpopularity in a great cause.\u2019 It is\nthe duty of a friend to accept the odium of reproof when questions of\ngreat moment are at stake. But if he is everywhere and always being\ndispleased; if he behaves to his intimates as if he were their tutor and\nnot their friend, his reproofs will possess no edge and produce no\neffect when it comes to matters of importance. He will have frittered\naway his candour, after the manner of a physician who takes a pungent or\nbitter drug [Sidenote: B] of a sovereign and costly character, and\nparcels it out in a large number of petty doses for which there is no\nnecessity. No! while a friend will, for his own part, carefully avoid\nsuch unremitting censoriousness, the incessant niggling and pettifogging\nof some other person will afford him an opening to attack those faults\nwhich are more serious. Once when a man with an ulcerated liver showed\nthe physician Philotimus a sore on his finger, the doctor observed, \u2018My\ngood sir, your case is not a matter of a whitlow!\u2019 So when some one is\nfinding fault with a number of insignificant peccadilloes, the real\nfriend will be offered the opportunity of saying to him, \u2018What have his\ntippling and foolery to do with us? My good sir, let our friend here\ndismiss his mistress or stop dicing, and he is otherwise an admirable\nfellow.\u2019 If a man finds that allowance is made [Sidenote: C] for his\ntrifling errors, he will take it in good part when a friend speaks his\nmind against those which are of more moment. But to be everlastingly\ngirding, to be bitter and harsh on all occasions, to be continually\nmeddling and taking cognisance of every action, is intolerable even to a\nchild or a brother, nay, unendurable even to a slave.\n\nAgain, it is no more true of the folly of our friends than it is\u2014despite\nEuripides\u2014of old age, that\n\n                      _All things are wrong with it._\n\nOur friends have their right actions, and we should keep an eye upon\nthese no less than upon their errors. We should, in fact, begin by\nzealously praising them. In dealing with iron we have first to soften it\nwith heat before the chilling process [Sidenote: D] can impart to it the\nconsistency and hardness of steel. So with our friends. First we warm\nand fuse them with praise; then a quiet application of candour serves as\na tempering douche. We have, for instance, the opportunity of saying,\n\u2018Is there any comparison between the other conduct and this? Do you see\nwhat good fruit comes of doing the right thing? This is what your\nfriends expect of you; it is like you, and what nature meant you for.\nThe other conduct is abominable; away with it\n\n     _To the mountain or to the wave of the surging tumultuous ocean!_\u2018\n\nA sensible physician will always rather cure a sick man with sleep and\nfeeding than with castor and scammony; and a right-minded friend, or a\nkind father or teacher, prefers to use praise [Sidenote: E] rather than\nblame as his means of moral correction. For a candid friend to cause\nleast pain and work most benefit, there is nothing like showing the\nleast possible anger and treating the offender with polite good feeling.\nWe must not, therefore, sharply confute him if he denies a thing, nor\ntry to stop him if he defends himself. On the contrary, we must help him\nto contrive some kind of plausible excuse; and, when he refuses to own\nto the more discreditable motive, we must ourselves concede him a less\nheinous one. Thus Hector says to his brother:\n\n    _Not well is this wrath, foolish man, that thus thou hast stored in\n       thy bosom_,\n\n[Sidenote: F] as if his retirement from the battle, instead of being a\ndastardly running away, was an exhibition of temper. So Nestor to\nAgamemnon:\n\n               _Thou didst yield to the pride of thy spirit._\n\nIt is manifestly more courteous to say, \u2018You did not stop to think,\u2019 or,\n\u2018You failed to perceive,\u2019 than \u2018You behaved badly\u2019, or \u2018You behaved\nunfairly\u2019; to say, \u2018Do not be hard upon [Sidenote: 74] your brother,\u2019\nthan \u2018Do not be jealous of your brother\u2019; to say, \u2018Flee from the woman\u2019s\nseductions,\u2019 than \u2018Stop trying to seduce the woman\u2019. This is the manner\ncultivated by curative [Sidenote: *] candour; the other belongs to\nvexatious candour.\n\nSuppose a person is about to do wrong and that we are called upon to\ncheck him\u2014to stem the current of some vehement impulse. Or suppose that\nhe is inclined to be unready in the performance of duty, and we wish to\nbrace him up and stimulate him. We should do so by making charges which\nput the matter in an outrageously unbecoming light. For instance, in\nSophocles, when Odysseus is working upon Achilles, he makes out, not\nthat Achilles is angry at the affair of the banquet, but [Sidenote: B]\n\n              _Now that thou hast the Trojan burghs in sight,\n              Thou art afraid._\n\nAnd when, in answer to this, Achilles is so enraged that he declares he\nis off home:\n\n                _I know what \u2019tis thou flyest\u2014not reproach:\n                Hector is nigh, and \u2019tis not well to stay._\n\nIn inciting to high courses and dissuading from low ones, we may\nfrighten a man with the reputation he will win: a man of courage and\nspirit with that of coward; a man of temperance and self-control with\nthat of profligate; a man of magnificent generosity with that of miser\nand cheeseparer. Where a thing is past cure, we must show ourselves\nreasonable; our candour [Sidenote: C] must display more sorrow and\nsympathy than blame. But when we are preventing a misdeed or fighting\nagainst a passion, we must be vigorous, inflexible, and insistent. Then\nis the right moment for incorruptible affection and genuine frankness.\n\nTo blame an action when it is done is no more than we find enemies doing\nto each other. Diogenes used to say that, if you are to be kept right,\nyou must possess either good friends or red-hot enemies. The one will\nwarn you, the other will expose you. But it is better to avoid errors by\ntaking advice than to repent of an error because of abuse. For this\nreason [Sidenote: D] we must study tact even in the matter of candour.\nAs it is the most effective drug that can be employed in friendship, so\nit stands in most need of unfailing discretion as to time and moderation\nas to strength.\n\nAnd, finally, since, as I have said, it is in the nature of\nplain-speaking that it should often cause pain to the person under\ntreatment, we must take a pattern by the medical man. He does not use\nhis lancet and then leave the part to suffer; he eases it with gentle\nlotions and fomentations. Similarly, if our admonitions are to be\ntactful, we do not administer a sharp sting and then run away. We adopt\na different strain, and soothe [Sidenote: E] and calm the patient with\ncourteous language, much as sculptors put smoothness and gloss upon a\nstatue where they have chipped it with hammer and chisel. If we strike\nand gash a man with plain-speaking and then leave him in the rough\u2014lumpy\nand uneven with anger\u2014it is a hard matter afterwards to call him back\nand smooth him over. This, therefore, is a result against which the\nadmonisher must be especially on his guard. He must not leave the\npatient too soon, nor allow the last words of his conversation to be\nsuch as pain and exasperate his intimate friend.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  i.e. a rough and mountainous island.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  A \u2018satyric\u2019 drama was a half-comic interlude or sequel to tragedies.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  In the Stoic sense of _adiaphoria_.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  Since diagrams were often drawn with sticks in the dust.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  The Greek jest does not admit of translation. The same word may mean\n  both \u2018theft\u2019 and a \u2018stealthy act\u2019.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  The point lies in an ambiguity which is possible only in the Greek.\n  The words may equally mean: \u2018You issued no invitation when sacrificing\n  your friends,\u2019 and \u2018when sacrificing, you did not invite your\n  friends\u2019.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  Or what French would call the _gouverneur_.\n\n\n\n\n                        ON BRINGING UP A BOY[55]\n\n\nI propose to offer some remarks upon the bringing-up of [Sidenote: 1]\nfree-born children, as a means of securing soundness of character.\n\nPerhaps the best starting-point is that at which they are brought into\nexistence.\n\nUpon one who desires to become the father of reputable [Sidenote: B]\nchildren I would urge that he should be careful as to his consort. She\nmust be no mistress or concubine. Base birth, whether on mother\u2019s or\nfather\u2019s side, is an indelible reproach. It sticks to a man all the days\nof his life; it offers a handle to those who are minded to discredit or\nvilify him; and it is a wise saying of the poet that\n\n                  _When the foundation of a stock is laid\n                  Amiss, needs must the issue be unhappy_.\n\nA sure fund of confidence for facing the world lies therefore in\nhonourable birth, and this must be a first consideration with all who\nare anxious for a right and proper procreation of children.\n\nIt is quite natural that those whose birth is of base metal which will\nnot bear scrutiny should tend to be weak-spirited and abject. The poet\nis quite right in saying: [Sidenote: C]\n\n               _It slaves a man, stout-hearted though he be,\n               To know his mother or his father base._\n\nIt is no doubt equally the case that persons of distinguished parentage\nbecome full of pride and self-assertion. Thus Themistocles\u2019 son,\nDiophantus, is reported to have said on many occasions and to many\npersons that he had only to wish for a thing and the Athenian people\nvoted for it. \u2018What he liked, [Sidenote: D] his mother liked; what his\nmother liked, Themistocles liked; and what Themistocles liked, all\nAthens liked.\u2019\n\nA most praiseworthy pride was that exhibited by the Lacedaemonians, when\nthey mulcted their own king Archidamus for condescending to marry a\nwoman of small stature, their plea being that he intended to provide\nthem with kinglets instead of kings.\n\nIn this connexion there is one observation which my predecessors also\nhave duly made. It is that those who approach their wives with a view to\noffspring should do so either while wholly abstaining from wine or at\nleast after tasting it in moderation. [Sidenote: 2] This explains the\nremark of Diogenes on seeing a youth in a state of mad excitement:\n\u2018Young fellow, your father begat you when he was drunk.\u2019\n\nSo much for the question of birth. We will now turn to that of\nupbringing.\n\nSpeaking generally, we must say of virtue what it is customary to say of\nthe arts and sciences\u2014that for right action three things must go\ntogether, namely, nature, reason, and habit. By reason I mean\ninstruction; by habit I mean exercise. The [Sidenote: B] first elements\ncome from nature; progress, from instruction; the actual use, from\npractice; the consummation, from all combined. In so far as any of these\nis defective, character must necessarily be maimed. Nature without\ninstruction is blind; instruction without nature is futile; practice\nwithout both is abortive. In farming, the soil must first be good; next,\nthe farmer must know his business; third, the seeds must be sound.\nSimilarly with education. Nature is the soil, the teacher is the farmer,\n[Sidenote: C] the lessons and precepts are the seed. It may be\nconfidently asserted that all three were harmoniously blended in the\nsouls of those men whose renown is universal\u2014Pythagoras, Socrates,\nPlato, and others who have won imperishable glory.\n\nBlest indeed, and divinely favoured, is the man on whom Heaven has\nbestowed each and all. Yet it would be a great, or rather a total,\nmistake to suppose that, when natural gift is defective, no right moral\ninstruction and practice will lead one to improve his faulty nature in\nsome attainable degree. For while neglect will ruin an excellent natural\ngift, teaching will correct an inferior one. Be careless, and you miss a\nthing, however easy: take pains, and you secure it, however difficult.\nYou have only to glance at a number of everyday facts in order\n[Sidenote: D] to perceive how complete is the success of persistent\neffort. Drops of water will hollow a rock; iron and bronze are worn away\nby the touch of the hands; wood bent by pressure into a carriage-wheel\ncan never recover its original straightness. To straighten the curved\nsticks used by actors is impossible, the unnatural form having become,\nby dint of straining, stronger than the natural.\n\nNor are these the only examples to prove the efficacy of painstaking.\nInstances are countless. Soil may be naturally [Sidenote: E] good; but\nneglect it, and it becomes a waste. Indeed, the better it is by nature,\nthe more hopeless a wilderness will your neglect make of it. On the\nother hand, it may be too hard and rugged; yet cultivation will speedily\ncause it to produce excellent crops. Is there any tree which will not\ngrow crooked and cease to bear fruit if left untended, whereas, when\nproperly trained, it bears well and brings its fruit to perfection? Does\nnot bodily strength invariably become effete when you take your ease and\nneglect to keep in good condition, whereas a feeble physique gains\nimmensely in strength through gymnastic and athletic exercise? Is there\nany horse which a rider cannot render obedient by [Sidenote: F] a\nthorough breaking-in, whereas, if left unbroken, it will prove\nstiff-necked and full of temper?\n\nBut why dwell longer on such cases, when there are so many examples of\nthe most savage creatures being tamed and made amenable to hard work?\n\nWhen a Thessalian was asked which of his countrymen were the gentlest in\nmanner, his answer was a good one: _Those who are giving up war._ But it\nis useless to multiply instances. Character is long-standing habit, and\nit would scarcely be beside [Sidenote: 3] the mark to speak of the\nvirtues of the mind as the virtues \u2018of minding\u2019.[56] One more\nillustration, and we will dispense with further elaboration of the\nsubject. The Spartan legislator Lycurgus once took two puppies belonging\nto the same parents and brought them up in entirely different ways. The\none he turned into a gluttonous good-for-nothing, the other into a keen\nand capable hunting-dog. Subsequently he got the Lacedaemonians together\nand said to them: \u2018A great factor [Sidenote: B] in engendering virtue\nconsists of habit and education\u2014of instruction in the conduct of life\u2014as\nI am about to prove to you here and now.\u2019 He then brought forward the\ntwo young dogs, put down directly in front of them a plate of food and a\nhare, and let the dogs loose; whereupon the one darted after the hare,\nwhile the other made for the plate. The Lacedaemonians, who were not yet\nin the secret, failed to perceive the meaning of his demonstration,\nuntil he told them: \u2018Both these dogs come from the same parents, but the\ndifference in their education has turned the one into a glutton and the\nother into a hunter.\u2019\n\nNo more need be said of habit and conduct of life. We may [Sidenote: C]\nproceed to the question of nurture.\n\nIn my opinion mothers should nurse their own children and offer them the\nbreast; for their nursing will be of a more sympathetic and painstaking\nkind, since their love is from the heart, or, as the saying goes, \u2018down\nto the finger-tips,\u2019 whereas the affection of professional nurses and\nfoster-mothers\u2014who are paid for it\u2014can only be spurious and factitious.\nThat it is the duty of the mother herself to suckle and nurse her\noffspring is evident from the arrangement of nature, which has supplied\nevery animal after parturition with the necessary provision of milk.\nHere Providence further shows its wisdom, inasmuch as it has furnished a\nwoman with a pair of breasts, [Sidenote: D] so that, even if she bears\ntwins, there may be a double source for them to draw upon. Moreover she\nwill by so acting become more tender and affectionate to her child. It\ncan, indeed, scarcely be otherwise; the connexion of nurse and nursling\nis the means of raising affection to its highest pitch. One can see how\neven a brute beast will yearn for its nursling, if you tear them apart.\n\nIf possible, then, the mother should endeavour to nurse the child\nherself. But if\u2014as may sometimes happen\u2014she is prevented by physical\nweakness, or if other children are speedily on the way, it is at least\ndesirable not to accept as foster-mother or nurse the first that offers,\nbut to choose the best possible. [Sidenote: E] To begin with, her\ncharacter should be Greek. It is as with the treatment of the body. As\nsoon as children are born, we have to mould their limbs in order that\nthey may grow straight and shapely. Similarly their characters ought to\nbe regulated from the first. For youth is supple and plastic, and it is\nwhile the mind is still soft and yielding that it acts as a mould for\ninstruction, whereas it is always difficult to knead into shape\n[Sidenote: F] anything hard. As it is in soft wax that we make the\nimpression of a seal, so it is in the minds of those who are still\nlittle children that we imprint a lesson.\n\nThat great thinker Plato is right, it seems to me, in exhorting a nurse\nto use discretion in the tales she tells to young children; otherwise\ntheir minds may become infected from the first with folly and\ncorruption. It is also sound advice which the poet Phocylides gives in\nthe words:\n\n                         _While yet but a child, it behoveth\n               To learn such deeds as are good._\n\nAnother point which we cannot afford to omit concerns the slave children\nwho are to serve the young master and to be brought up with him. Pains\nmust be taken, first, of course, that [Sidenote: 4] they shall be\nwell-behaved, but also that they shall talk Greek, and talk it with good\narticulation. Otherwise, through rubbing against barbarians and bad\ncharacters, he will pick up something of their vices. The proverb-makers\nhave good reason for saying: _If you have a lame man for a neighbour,\nyou will learn to limp._\n\nWhen children reach the age to be put under a mentor, it becomes\nespecially necessary to take pains in the appointment of such a person.\nOtherwise we shall have them entrusted to some uncivilized or rascally\nfellow. What actually happens [Sidenote: B] is often in the highest\ndegree absurd. Respectable slaves are made into farmers, skippers,\ntraders, stewards, or money-lenders, while any low specimen who is found\nto be a glutton and a tippler and of no use in any kind of business is\ntaken and put in charge of the sons. A fit and proper attendant should\npossess the same qualities of mind as Phoenix, the attendant of\nAchilles.\n\nWe now reach a topic more important and vital than any yet treated\u2014that\nof the right teachers for our children. The kind to be sought for are\nthose whose lives are irreproachable, whose characters are unimpugned,\nand whose skill and experience [Sidenote: C] are of the best. The root\nor fountain-head of character as a man and a gentleman lies in receiving\nthe proper education. As farmers put stakes beside their plants, so the\nright kind of teacher provides firm support for the young in the shape\nof lessons and admonitions, carefully chosen so as to produce an upright\ngrowth of character.\n\nAs things are, the behaviour of some fathers is contemptible. Before\nmaking inquiry as to the proposed teachers, they put their children into\nthe hands of frauds and charlatans, without knowing what they are about,\nor, maybe, because they are not competent to judge. In the latter case\ntheir behaviour is not so ridiculous, but there is another case in which\nit is in the last degree absurd. I mean, when they know, either from\ntheir own [Sidenote: D] observation or from the accounts of others, how\nignorant and [Sidenote: *] bad certain educators are, and yet entrust\ntheir children to them. Sometimes this is because they cannot resist the\nfawning of some obsequious flatterer; sometimes it is done to gratify\nthe whim of a friend. It would be just as reasonable for a sick man to\ngratify a friend by rejecting the doctor whose science could save him,\nand preferring the ignoramus who will kill him; or for a man to dismiss\nthe best ship\u2019s-captain and appoint the worst, because a friend asked\nfor it. In the name of all that is sacred, can any one called a \u2018father\u2019\nset the pleasing of [Sidenote: E] somebody who asks a favour above the\neducation of his children? There was good sense in a frequent saying of\nfamous old Socrates, \u2018If it could be done, one ought to mount the\nloftiest part of the city and shout: _Good people, what are you after?\nWhy in such deadly earnest about making money, while troubling so little\nabout the sons to whom you are to leave it?_\u2019 We may add that the\nconduct of such fathers is like that of a man who is anxious as to his\nshoe, while his foot may look after itself. Many fathers go to such\nlengths in the way of fondness for their money and [Sidenote: F] want of\nfondness for their children, that, to avoid paying a larger fee, they\nchoose utterly worthless persons to educate their sons, their object\nbeing an inexpensive ignorance. This reminds one of Aristippus and his\nneat and witty repartee to a foolish father. Questioned as to what fee\nhe asked for educating the child, he replied, \u2018Forty pounds.\u2019 \u2018Good\nheavens!\u2019 said the father: \u2018What an extravagant demand! For forty pounds\nI can buy a slave.\u2019 \u2018Very well,\u2019 was the answer: \u2018then you [Sidenote: 5]\nwill have two slaves\u2014your son, and the one you buy.\u2019\n\nTo put it shortly, it is surely absurd to train little children to\nreceive their food with the right hand, and to scold them if they put\nout the left, and yet to take no precautions that they shall be taught\nmoral lessons of a sound and proper kind.\n\nWhat the consequence is to these admirable fathers, when they bring up\ntheir sons badly and educate them badly, is soon told. On coming of age\nand taking rank as men, the sons show an utter disregard of a wholesome\nand orderly life, and throw themselves headlong into low and irregular\npleasures. Then [Sidenote: B] at last, when it is of no use, and when\ntheir wrongdoing has brought him to his wits\u2019 end, the father repents of\nhaving sacrificed his children\u2019s education. Some of them take up with\ntoadies and parasites, wretched nondescripts who are the ruin and bane\nof youth; others with haughty and expensive mistresses and strumpets,\nwhom they ransom from their employers. Some spend recklessly on\ngormandizing; some are wrecked upon dice and carousals; some go so far\nas to venture on the more daring vices\u2014they commit adultery, and think\ndeath not too much [Sidenote: C] to pay for a single pleasure. Had these\nlast studied philosophy, they would in all probability not have\nsuccumbed to temptation of this kind. They would have been told of the\nadvice of Diogenes\u2014who, however coarse in his language, is right in his\nfacts\u2014\u2018Go to a brothel, my boy, and you will find that the [Sidenote: *]\nexpensive article is not a bit better than the cheap one.\u2019\n\nIn brief, then, I assert\u2014and it would be fairer to regard me as\nrepeating an oracle than as giving advice\u2014that in these matters the one\nand essential thing, the first, middle, and last, is a sound upbringing\nand right education. It is this, I say, which leads to virtue and\nhappiness.\n\n[Sidenote: D] Other blessings are on the human plane; they are slight\nand not worth serious pursuit. Good birth is a distinction, but the boon\ndepends on one\u2019s ancestors. Wealth is a prize, but its possession\ndepends on fortune, which often carries it off from those who have it\nand bestows it on those who never hoped for it. Moreover, great wealth\nis a target exposed to any rogue of a servant or blackmailer who is\nminded to \u2018aim a purse\u2019 at it. And, worst of all, even the basest of men\nhave their share of it. Fame, again, is imposing, but uncertain. Beauty,\nthough greatly courted, is short-lived; health, though highly prized, is\nunstable; strength is a thing to be envied, but it falls an easy prey to\ndisease and age. Let us tell any one who prides himself [Sidenote: E] on\nhis bodily strength that he is manifestly under a delusion. How small a\nfraction is human strength of the might of other animals, such as the\nelephant, the bull, and the lion!\n\nMeanwhile culture is the only thing in us that is immortal and divine.\nIn the nature of man there are two sovereign elements\u2014understanding and\nreason. It is the place of the understanding to direct the reason and of\nthe reason to serve the understanding. Fortune cannot overcome them,\ncalumny cannot rob us of them, disease cannot corrupt them, old age\ncannot impair them. The understanding is the only thing that renews its\nyouth as it grows old, and, while time carries off everything else, it\nbrings old age one gift\u2014that of knowledge. When, again, war comes like a\ntorrent, tearing and sweeping everything away, it is of our mental\nculture alone that it cannot rob us. Stilpo, the Megarian philosopher,\nmade what seems a memorable answer when Demetrius, after enslaving the\ncity and razing it to the ground, asked him if he had lost anything. \u2018O\nno!\u2019 said he, \u2018for virtue is not made spoil of war.\u2019 The reply of\nSocrates is evidently to the same tune and purpose. [Sidenote: 6] It was\nGorgias, I believe, who asked him his opinion of the Great King, and\nwhether he considered him happy. \u2018I have no knowledge,\u2019 said Socrates,\n\u2018as to the state of his character and culture.\u2019 He assumed that\nhappiness depended upon these, and not upon the gifts of fortune.\n\nNot only should the education of our children be treated as of the very\nfirst importance, but I once more urge that we should insist upon its\nbeing of the sound and genuine kind. From pretentious nonsense our sons\nshould be kept as far aloof [Sidenote: B] as possible. To please the\nmany is to displease the wise, an assertion in which I have the support\nof Euripides:\n\n              _I am not deft of words before the crowd,\n              More skilled when with my compeers and the few.\n              \u2019Tis compensation: they who \u2018mid the wise\n              Are naught, surpass in gift of speech to mobs._\n\nMy own observation tells me that persons who make a business of speaking\nin a way to please and curry favour with the rabble, generally prove\ncorrespondingly dissolute and pleasure-loving in their lives. Nor,\nindeed, should we expect anything else; for if they have no regard to\npropriety when catering for the [Sidenote: C] gratification of other\npeople, it is not likely that they will permit right and sound\nprinciples to have the upper hand of their own voluptuous\nself-indulgence, nor that they will cultivate self-control rather than\nenjoyment.\n\n[Sidenote: *] And how can children learn from them anything admirable?\nAmong admirable things is the practice of neither saying nor doing\nanything at random; and, as the proverb goes, \u2018admirable things are\ndifficult.\u2019 Meanwhile, speeches made offhand are a mass of reckless\nslovenliness, without a notion where to begin or where to end.\n\nApart from other faults, extempore speakers drop into a terrible\nprolixity and verbiage, whereas premeditation keeps [Sidenote: D] a\nspeech safe within the lines of due proportion. When Pericles, \u2018as\ntradition informs us,\u2019 was called upon by the assembly, he frequently\nrefused the call, on the ground that his thoughts were \u2018not arranged\u2019.\nDemosthenes, who took him for his own political model, acted in the same\nway. If the Athenians called upon him to address them, he would resist,\nwith the words, \u2018I have not arranged my thoughts.\u2019 This, it is true, may\nbe unauthentic and a fabrication; but in the speech against Meidias we\nhave an explicit statement as to the advantage of preparation. His words\nare: \u2018_I admit, gentlemen, that I come prepared; and I have no wish to\ndeny it. I have even conned over my speech to the best of my poor\nability. It would have been insane conduct, if, after and amid such\nharsh treatment, I had paid no regard to what I meant to say to you on\nthe subject._\u2019\n\nThat impromptu speaking should be rejected altogether, or, [Sidenote: E]\nfailing this, that it should be practised only on unimportant subjects,\nI do not say. I am recommending a tonic regimen. Before manhood, I claim\nthat there should be no speaking on the spur of the moment. But when the\nability has taken firm root, it is only right for speech to enjoy free\nplay as occasion invites. Though persons who have been in prison for a\nlong time may subsequently be liberated, they are unsteady on their\nfeet, [Sidenote: F] a protracted habit of wearing chains making them\nunable to step out. Similarly if those who have for a long time kept\ntheir speaking under close constraint some day find it necessary to\nspeak offhand, they nevertheless retain the same style of expression.\nBut to let mere children make extempore speeches is to become\nresponsible for the worst of twaddle and futility. There is a story of a\nwretched painter who showed Apelles a picture, with the remark, \u2018I have\njust painted this at one [Sidenote: 7] sitting.\u2019 \u2018I can see,\u2019 said\nApelles, \u2018without your telling me, that it has been quick work. But my\nwonder is that you haven\u2019t painted more than one as good.\u2019\n\nWhile (to return to the original matter in hand) we must be careful to\navoid a style which is theatrical and bombastic, we must be equally on\nour guard against one which is low and trivial. If the turgid style is\nunbusinesslike, too thin a style is ineffective. Just as the body should\nbe not only healthy but also in good condition, so language must be full\nof strength [Sidenote: B] and not simply free from disease. Keep on the\nsafe side, and you are merely commended: face some risk, and you are\nadmired. I take the same view of the mental disposition also. One should\nneither be over-bold, and so become brazen, nor yet timid and bashful,\nand so become mean-spirited. The rule of art and taste is _The middle\ncourse in all things_.\n\n[Sidenote: *] While I am still upon the subject of this part of\neducation there is an opinion which I desire to express. A style\nconsisting of single clauses I regard in the first instance as no slight\nevidence of poor taste, and, in the next, as too finical a thing ever to\n[Sidenote: C] be maintained in practice. Here, as in everything else\nthat caters for ear or eye, monotony is as cloying and irksome as\nvariety is delightful.\n\nThere is no subject in the \u2018regular curriculum\u2019 of which the eye or ear\nof a freeborn boy should be permitted to remain uninformed. But while he\nreceives a cursory education in those subjects in order to taste their\nquality, the most important place\u2014complete all-round proficiency being\nimpossible\u2014must belong to philosophy. We may explain by a comparison\nwith [Sidenote: D] travel, in which it is an excellent thing to visit a\nlarge number of cities, but good policy to settle in the best. As the\nphilosopher Bion wittily remarked, when the suitors could obtain no\naccess to Penelope they satisfied themselves with her handmaids, and\nwhen a man is unable to get hold of philosophy he makes dry bones of\nhimself upon the remaining subjects, which are of no account.\n\nPhilosophy, then, should be put at the head of all mental culture. The\nservices which have been invented for the care of the body are\ntwo\u2014medicine and gymnastics\u2014the one imparting health, the other good\ncondition. But for the weaknesses and ailments of the soul philosophy is\nthe only thing to be prescribed. It is from and with philosophy that we\ncan tell what is becoming or disgraceful, what is just or unjust,\n[Sidenote: E] what course, in short, is to be chosen or shunned. It\nteaches us how to behave towards the Gods, our parents, our elders, the\nlaws, our rulers, friends, wives, children, and servants: that we should\nworship the Gods, honour our parents, respect our elders, obey the laws,\ngive way to our rulers, love our friends, be continent towards our\nwives, show affection to our children, and abstain from cruelty to our\nslaves. Above all, it warns us against excess of joy when prosperous and\nexcess of grief when unfortunate; against dissoluteness in our\npleasures, or fury and brutality in our anger. These I judge to be chief\namong [Sidenote: F] the blessings conferred by philosophy. To bear\nadversity nobly is to act the brave man,[57] to bear prosperity\nunassumingly, the [Sidenote: *] modest mortal. To get the better of\npleasures by reason needs wisdom; to master anger requires no ordinary\ncharacter.\n\nPerfect men I take to be those who can blend practical ability\n[Sidenote: 8] with philosophy, and who can achieve both of two best and\ngreatest ends\u2014the life of public utility as men of affairs, and the calm\nand tranquil life as students of philosophy. For there are three kinds\nof life: the life of action, the life of thought, and the life of\nenjoyment. When life is dissolute and enslaved to pleasure, it is mean\nand animal; when it is all thought and fails to act, it is futile; when\nit is all action and destitute of philosophy, it is crude and\nblundering. We should therefore do our best to engage both in public\nbusiness and in the pursuit [Sidenote: B] of philosophy, as occasion\noffers. Of this kind was the public career of Pericles, of Archytas of\nTarentum, of Dion of Syracuse, and of Epaminondas of Thebes. Of these\nDion actually attached himself to Plato as his pupil.\n\nThere is no need, I think, to deal at any greater length with mental\ncultivation. It is, however, further desirable\u2014or rather it is\nessential\u2014that we should not neglect to possess the standard treatises,\nbut should collect a stock of them, with the result of keeping our\nknowledge from starvation.[58] Farmers stock [Sidenote: *] [their\nfertilizers], and the employment of books is instrumental to culture in\nthe same way.\n\n[Sidenote: C] Meanwhile we must not omit to exercise the body also. Our\nboys must be sent to the teacher of gymnastics and receive a sufficient\namount of physical training, both to secure a good carriage and also to\ndevelop strength. Good condition is the foundation laid in childhood for\na hale old age, and, just as our preparations for wintry weather should\nbe made while it is fine, so we should store up provision for age in the\nshape of regular and temperate behaviour in youth. Physical exertion\nshould, however, be so regulated that a boy does not become too\nexhausted to devote himself sufficiently to mental culture. [Sidenote:\nD] As Plato observes, sleep and weariness are the enemies of study.\n\nUpon this topic I need not dwell, but will pass on at once to the most\nimportant consideration of all\u2014the necessity of training a boy for\nservice as a fighting-man. For this he must go through hard drill in\nhurling the javelin, in shooting with the bow, and in hunting. \u2018The\ngoods of the vanquished,\u2019 it has been said, \u2018are prizes offered to the\nvictor.\u2019 There is no place in war for the physical condition of the\ncloister, and a lean soldier accustomed to warlike exercises will break\nthrough [Sidenote: *] a phalanx of fleshy prize-fighters.\n\n[Sidenote: E] \u2018Well but,\u2019 some one may urge, \u2018while you promised us a\nset of rules for the upbringing of free men, it turns out that you have\nnothing to say concerning that of poor and common people, but are\nsatisfied to confine your suggestions to the rich.\u2019 There is a ready\nreply to the objection. If possible, I should desire the proposed\neducation to be applicable to all alike. But if there are cases in which\nlimited private circumstances make it impossible to carry my rules into\npractice, the blame should be laid upon fortune, not upon him who offers\nthe advice. Though a man is poor, he should make every possible effort\nto bring up his children in the ideal way. Failing this, he must come as\nnear to it as he can.\n\nAfter thus encumbering our discussion with this side-issue, [Sidenote:\nF] I will now proceed with the connected account of such other\n[Sidenote: *] matters as contribute to the right upbringing of the\nyoung.\n\nAnd first, children should be led into right practices of persuasion and\nreasoning: flogging and bodily injury should be out of the question.\nSuch treatment is surely more fit for slaves than for the free, whom the\nsmart, or even the humiliation, of a beating deprives of all life and\nspirit, making their tasks a horror to them. The freeborn find praise a\nmore effective [Sidenote: 9] stimulus to the right conduct, and blame a\nmore effective deterrent from the wrong, than any kind of bodily\nassault. In the use of such praise and reprimand there should be a\nsubtle alternation. When a child is too bold, it should first be shamed\nby reproof and then encouraged by a word of praise. We may take a\npattern by nurses, who may have to make an infant cry, but who\nafterwards comfort it by offering it the breast. We must, however, avoid\npuffing children up with eulogies, the consequence of excessive praise\nbeing vanity and conceit.\n\nI have noticed more than one instance in which the over-fondness\n[Sidenote: B] of a father has proved to be a lack of fondness. To make\nmy meaning clear, I will use an illustration. Being in too great haste\nfor their children to take first place in everything, they impose\nextravagant tasks, which prove too great for their strength and end in\nfailure, besides causing them such weariness and distress that they\nrefuse to submit patiently to instruction. Water in moderation will make\na plant grow, while a flood of water will choke it. In the same way the\nmind will thrive under [Sidenote: C] reasonably hard work, but will\ndrown if the work is excessive. We must therefore allow children\nbreathing-time from perpetual tasks, and remember that all our life\nthere is a division of relaxation and effort. Hence the existence of\nsleep as well as waking, of peace as well as war, of fine weather as\nwell as bad, of holidays as well as business. In a word, it is rest that\nseasons toil. The fact is obvious, not merely in the case of living\nthings, but in that of the inanimate world. We loosen a bow or a lyre,\nso that we may be able to tighten it. In fine, the body is kept sound by\nwant and its satisfaction, the mind by relaxation and labour.\n\n[Sidenote: D] There are some fathers who have a culpable way of\nentrusting their sons to attendants and teachers, and then entirely\nomitting to keep the instruction of such persons under their own eye or\near. This is a most serious failure in their duty. Every few days they\nshould personally examine their children, instead of confiding in the\ncharacter of a hireling, whose attention to his pupils will be more\nconscientious if he is to be brought continually to book. In this\nconnexion there is aptness in the groom\u2019s dictum that _nothing is so\nfattening to a horse as the eye of the king_.\n\n[Sidenote: E] Above all things one should train and exercise a child\u2019s\nmemory. Memory serves as the storehouse of culture, and hence the fable\nthat Recollection is the mother of the Muses\u2014an indirect way of saying\nthat memory is the best thing in the world to beget and foster wisdom.\nWhether children are naturally gifted with a good memory, or, on the\ncontrary, are naturally forgetful, the memory should be trained in\neither case. The natural advantage will be strengthened, or the natural\nshortcoming made up. The former class will excel others, the latter will\nexcel themselves. As Hesiod well puts it: [Sidenote: F]\n\n    _If to the thing that is little you further add but a little,\n    And do the same oft and again, full soon it becometh a great thing._\n\nThis, then, is another fact for fathers to recognize\u2014that the mnemonic\nelement in education plays a most important part, not only in culture,\nbut also in the business of life, inasmuch as the recollection of past\nexperience serves as a guide to wise policy for the future.\n\nOur sons must also be kept from the use of foul language. \u2018The word,\u2019\nsays Democritus, \u2018is the shadow of the deed.\u2019 More than that, we must\nrender them polite and courteous, [Sidenote: 10] for there is nothing so\ndetestable as a boorish character. One way in which children may avoid\nbecoming disagreeable to their company is by refraining from absolute\nstubbornness in discussion. Credit is to be gained not merely by\nvictory, but also by knowing how to accept defeat where victory is\nharmful. There is unquestionably such a thing as a \u2018Cadmean victory\u2019. _\u00c0\npropos_ I may quote the testimony of that wise poet Euripides:\n[Sidenote: B]\n\n               _When two men speak, and one is full of anger,\n               Wiser the one who strives not to reply._\n\nThis is the time to remember certain other habits quite as necessary\u2014and\nmore so\u2014for the young to cultivate as any yet mentioned. These are\nmodesty of behaviour, restraint of the tongue, mastery of the temper,\nand control of the hands. Let us see how important each of them is. We\nmay take an illustration to bring home the notion more clearly. And we\nwill begin with the last. There have been those who, by lowering their\nhands to ill-gotten gains, have thrown away all the reputation won by\ntheir previous career. This was the case with the Lacedaemonian,\nGylippus, who was driven into exile from Sparta [Sidenote: C] for\nsecretly broaching the money-bags. Absence of anger, again, is a quality\nof wisdom. Socrates once received a kick from a very impudent and gross\nyoung buffoon, but on seeing that his own friends were in such a violent\nstate of indignation that they wanted to prosecute him, he remarked: \u2018If\na donkey had kicked me, would you have condescended to kick him back?\u2019\nThe fellow did not, however, get off scot-free, but finding himself\nuniversally reproached and nicknamed \u2018Kicker\u2019, he hanged himself. When\nAristophanes brought out the _Clouds_, and poured all manner of abuse\nupon Socrates, one of those present asked: \u2018Pray, are you not indignant\nat his ridiculing you in this manner?\u2019 [Sidenote: D] \u2018Not I, indeed,\u2019\nreplied Socrates; \u2018this banter in the theatre is only in a big convivial\nparty.\u2019 A close counterpart of this attitude will be found in the\nbehaviour of Plato and of Archytas of Tarentum. When the latter, on his\nreturn from the war in which he had held command, found that his land\nhad gone out of cultivation, he summoned his manager and remarked: \u2018You\nwould have suffered for this, if I had not been too angry.\u2019 When Plato,\nagain, was once worked into a passion with a greedy and impudent slave,\nhe called his sister\u2019s son Speusippus and said, \u2018Go and give this fellow\na thrashing: I am myself in a great passion.\u2019\n\nBut, it may be argued, it is difficult to reach so high a standard\n[Sidenote: E] as this. I am well aware of it. We can therefore only do\nour best to take a pattern by such conduct, and minimize any tendency to\nungovernable rage. As in other matters, we are no match for either the\nmoral mastery or the finished character of those great models.\nNevertheless we may act towards them as we might towards the Gods,\nserving as hierophants and torch-bearers of their wisdom and\nendeavouring to imitate in our nibbling way as much as lies in our\npower.\n\nAs for the control of the tongue\u2014the remaining point to be considered\naccording to our promise\u2014any one who regards it as of trivial moment is\nvery much in the wrong. In a timely [Sidenote: F] silence there is a\nwisdom superior to any speech. It is apparently for this reason that men\nin old times invented our mystic rites and ceremonies. The notion was\nthat, through being trained to silence in connexion with these, we\nshould secure the keeping of human secrets by carrying into them the\nsame religious fear. Moreover, though multitudes have repented of\ntalking, no man has repented of silence, and while it is easy to utter\nwhat has been kept back, it is impossible to recall what has been\nuttered.\n\nMy own reading affords countless instances of the greatest disasters\nresulting from an ungoverned tongue. I will content [Sidenote: 11]\nmyself with mentioning one or two typical examples. When, upon the\nmarriage of Philadelphus with his sister, Sotades composed a scurrilous\nverse, he paid ample atonement for talking out of season by rotting for\na long time in prison. He thus purchased a laugh in others by long\nweeping of his own. The [Sidenote: *] story is closely matched by that\nof the sophist Theocritus, who endured similar, but much more terrible,\nconsequences for a similar remark. Alexander had ordered the Greeks to\nprovide a stock of purple garments, with a view to the thanksgiving\n[Sidenote: B] sacrifice on his return from his Persian victories, and\nthe various peoples were contributing at so much per head. Hereupon\nTheocritus observed: \u2018I have now become clear upon a point which used to\npuzzle me. This is what is meant by Homer\u2019s \u201cpurple death\u201d\u2018\u2014words which\nearned him the enmity of Alexander. Antigonus, the Macedonian king, had\nbut one eye, and Theocritus made him excessively angry by a taunt at\nthis disfigurement. Eutropion, the chief cook, who had become a person\nof importance, was sent to him by the king with a request that he would\ncome to court and engage him in argument. On receiving repeated visits\nfrom Eutropion with this message, he [Sidenote: C] remarked, \u2018I am well\naware that you want to dish me up raw to the Cyclops,\u2019 thus twitting the\none with being disfigured, the other with being a cook. \u2018Then,\u2019 replied\nEutropion, \u2018it will be without your head, for you shall be punished for\nsuch mad and reckless language.\u2019 Thereupon he reported the words to the\nking, who sent and put Theocritus to death.\n\nThe last and most sacred requirement is that children should be trained\nto speak the truth. Lying is a servile habit; it deserves universal\ndetestation and is unpardonable even in a decent slave.\n\n[Sidenote: D] So far I have had no doubt or hesitation in what I have\nsaid of the modesty and good behaviour of children. But upon the matter\nwhich now calls for mention I am dubious and undecided, my judgement\nswaying in the balance first one way and then the other, without finding\nit possible to turn the scale in either direction. It concerns a\npractice which I can neither recommend nor discountenance without great\nreluctance. Nevertheless one must venture a word upon it. The question\nis whether a man who is enamoured of a boy is to be allowed to keep\nintimate [Sidenote: E] company with him, or whether, on the contrary,\nassociation with such a person is to be tabooed. When I look at fathers\nwhose disposition is uncompromisingly harsh and austere, and who regard\nsuch association as an intolerable insult to their children, I have many\nscruples in recommending it or speaking in its favour. When, on the\nother hand, I think of Socrates, Plato, Xenophon, Aeschines, Cebes, and\nall those great men who have with one accord approved of love between\nmales, while they have led youths on to culture, to public leadership,\nand to [Sidenote: F] a virtuous character, I change my mind and am\ninclined to copy those great exemplars. Euripides is on their side, when\nhe says:\n\n              _Nay, men may feel passion of other sort,\n              Love of a just, chaste, virtuous mind and soul._\n\nNor must we omit the saying of Plato, partly serious and partly\nhumorous, that those who have shown special excellence should have the\nright to kiss any beautiful person they choose. The proper course is to\ndrive away those who are enamoured of the person, but, generally\nspeaking, give a sanction to those who are in love with the mind and\nsoul. While we must have nothing to say to the connexions in vogue at\nThebes or in Elis, or to the so-called \u2018abduction\u2019 of Crete, we may well\nimitate that kind [Sidenote: 12] which is usual at Athens or in\nLacedaemon.\n\nOn this matter it is for every man to hold such convictions as he has\nformed for himself. I will now leave it, and, having spoken of the\ndiscipline and good behaviour of the boy, will pass on to deal with the\nage of adolescence. I shall do so in very few words, for I have often\nexpressed my disapproval of those who encourage vicious habits by\nproposing to put a boy under the charge of tutors and teachers, whereas,\nwith a stripling, they would permit his inclinations to range at will.\nAs a matter of [Sidenote: B] fact, there is need of more anxious\nprecautions in the case of the stripling than in that of the boy. Every\none is aware that the faults committed by a boy are small matters, which\ncan be cured without difficulty\u2014such as paying no heed to his tutor, or\ntrickery and inattention in school. But the sins of adolescence often\nreach a flagrant and shocking pitch\u2014stealing the father\u2019s money,\ngormandizing, dicing, roistering, drinking, loose passion for young\ngirls, or corruption of married women. The propensities of young manhood\nought therefore to be carefully watched and kept closely under the\nchain. When capacity for [Sidenote: C] pleasure is at its prime, it\nrejects control, kicks over the traces, and requires the curb. If\ntherefore we do not take a firm hold upon this time of life, we are\ngiving folly a licence to sin. This is the moment when wise fathers\nshould be most watchful and alert; when they should bring their lads\nwithin bounds by warnings, threats, or entreaties, and by pointing out\ninstances of disaster caused by devotion to pleasure, and of praise and\ngood repute won by continence. These two things form what may be called\nfirst principles of virtue, namely, hope of honour and fear of\npunishment, the one producing a greater eagerness [Sidenote: D] for the\nnoblest pursuits, the other a shrinking from bad actions.\n\nOne general rule of duty is to keep boys from associating with vicious\npersons; otherwise they will pick up something of their vice. This has\nbeen urged by Pythagoras among a number of dark sayings. Since these\nalso possess great value as aids to the attainment of virtue, I will\nproceed to quote them, adding their explanation. _Do not taste\nblack-tails_[59]\u2014keep no company with persons who are malignant and\ntherefore \u2018black\u2019. _Do not [Sidenote: E] step over a beam_\u2014justice must\nbe scrupulously respected and not \u2018overstepped\u2019. _Do not sit on a\nquart-measure_\u2014beware of idleness, and see to the providing of daily\nbread. _Do not clasp hands with every man_\u2014we should form no sudden\nconnexions. _Do not wear a tight ring_\u2014one should carry out the practice\nof [Sidenote: *] life, and not fasten it to any chain. _Do not poke a\nfire with iron_\u2014do not irritate a wrathful man (the right course being\nto let angry men go their own way). _Do not eat the heart_\u2014do not injure\n[Sidenote: F] the mind with worry and brooding. _Abstain from\nbeans_\u2014avoid public life (office in former times being determined by\nvoting with beans). _Do not put victuals in a chamber-vessel_\u2014clever\nspeech ought not to be put into a wicked mind, since speech, which is\nthe food of thought, is polluted by the wickedness in a man. _Do not\nturn back on coming to the border_\u2014when about to die, and with the end\nof life close in sight, behave calmly and without losing heart.\n\nTo return to the topic with which we were dealing before this\ndigression. While, as I observed, boys should be kept from every kind of\nvicious company, especially should they be kept [Sidenote: 13] from\nparasites. I venture to repeat here what I am continually urging upon\nfathers. There is no set of creatures so pernicious\u2014none which so\nquickly and completely brings youth to headlong destruction\u2014as\nparasites. They are utter ruin to both father and son, filling the old\nage of the one and the youth of the other with vexation. To gain their\npurpose they offer an irresistible bait in the shape of pleasure. In the\ncase of rich men\u2019s sons, the father preaches sobriety, the parasite\ndrunkenness. The father urges temperance and economy, the parasite\nprofligacy and extravagance. The father says: \u2018Be industrious\u2019; the\nparasite says: \u2018Be idle; for life is only a moment altogether.\n[Sidenote: B] One ought to live, not merely exist. Why trouble about\nyour father\u2019s threats? He is an old driveller with one foot in the\ncoffin, and we will promptly pick him up on our shoulders and carry him\noff to his grave.\u2019 One person tempts him with a drab, or with the\nseduction of a married woman, plundering and stripping the father of all\nthe provision for his old age. They are an abominable crew; their\nfriendship is a sham; of candour they have no idea; they toady the rich\nand despise the poor. They are drawn to young men like puppets on a\nstring; they [Sidenote: *] grin, when those who feed them laugh; they\ncounterfeit the possession of a mind, and give a spurious imitation of\ndetails of real life. They live at the rich man\u2019s beck, and though\nfortune [Sidenote: C] has made them free, their own choice makes them\nslaves. If they are not insulted, they regard it as an insult, their\nmaintenance in that case being without a motive. If, therefore, a father\nis concerned for the obedient conduct of his children, he must keep\nthese abominable creatures at a distance. And he must by all means do\nthe same with vicious fellow-pupils, who are capable of corrupting the\nmost moral of natures.\n\nWhile these principles are right and expedient, I have a word to say\nupon a human aspect of the matter. I have no desire, all this time, that\na father\u2019s disposition should be altogether [Sidenote: D] harsh and\nunyielding. I would have him frequently condone a fault in his junior\nand recollect that he was once young himself. The physician mixes his\nbitter drugs with syrup, and so finds a way to work benefit through the\nmedium of enjoyment. In the same way a father should blend his severe\nreprimande with kindliness, at one time giving the boy\u2019s desires a loose\nor easy rein, at another time tightening it. If possible, he should\n[Sidenote: E] take misdeeds calmly; failing that, his anger should be\nseasonable and should quickly cool down. It is better for a father to be\nsharp-tempered than sullen-tempered; to sulk and bear malice goes far to\nprove a lack of parental affection. Sometimes, when a fault is\ncommitted, it is a good thing to pretend ignorance, turning to advantage\nthe dim sight and defective hearing of old age, and refusing to see or\nhear certain occurrences which one hears and sees. We put up with the\nlapses of a friend. Is it strange to do so with those of a child? A\nslave is often heavy-headed from a debauch, without our taking him to\ntask. The other day you refused the boy money; there are times to meet\nhis requests. The other day you were indignant; there are times to be\nlenient. Perhaps he has cozened you through a servant; [Sidenote: F]\nrestrain your anger. Has he borrowed the team from the farm? Does he\ncome reeking of yesterday\u2019s bout? Do not notice it. Smelling of\nperfumes? Say nothing. Such is the way to manage the restiveness of\nyouth.\n\nA son who cannot resist pleasure and is deaf to remonstrance should be\nput into matrimonial harness, that being the surest way of tying a young\nman down. The woman who becomes his wife should not, however, be to any\ngreat extent his superior either in birth or means. _Keep to your own\nlevel_ is a sound maxim, and a man who marries much above him finds\nhimself, [Sidenote: 14] not the husband of the woman, but the slave of\nthe dowry.\n\nA few words more, and I will conclude my list of principles.\n\nAbove all things a father should set an example to his children in his\nown person, by avoiding all faults of commission or omission. His life\nshould be the glass by which they form themselves and are put out of\nconceit with all ugliness of act or speech. For him to rebuke his erring\nsons when guilty of the same errors himself, is to become his own\naccuser while ostensibly theirs. Indeed, if his life is bad, he is\ndisqualified from reproving even a slave, much more his son. Moreover,\nhe will naturally [Sidenote: B] become their guide and teacher in\nwrongdoing. Where there are old men without shame, inevitably there are\nquite shameless young ones also. To obtain good behaviour from our\nchildren we should therefore strive to carry out every moral duty. An\nexample to follow is that of Eurydice, who, though belonging to a\nthoroughly barbarous country like Illyria, nevertheless took to study\nand self-improvement late in life for the sake of her children\u2019s\neducation. Her maternal affection finds apt expression in the lines\ninscribed upon her offering to the Muses: [Sidenote: C]\n\n               _In that, when mother to grown boys, she won\n               Her soul\u2019s well-known desire\u2014the skill to use\n               The lore of letters\u2014this Eurydice\n               From Hierapolis sends to each Muse._[60]\n\nTo compass the whole of the foregoing elements of success is [Sidenote:\n*] perhaps visionary\u2014a counsel of perfection. But to cultivate the\nmajority of them, though itself requiring good fortune as well as much\ncare, is at any rate a thing within the reach of a human being.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n   This article is in all probability not the work of Plutarch. See the\n  Introduction.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  The play upon words (_\u0113thikas_, \u2018moral\u2019 and _\u0115thikas_, \u2018of habit\u2019) is\n  not adequately translatable.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  The Greek text is here corrupt; the translation represents the\n  probable sense.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  The Greek text is again faulty. The sense here given is approximate.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  These maxims were probably in the first instance merely hygienic, or\n  even popular superstitions, but subsequently they received recondite\n  interpretations.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  The Greek verse is doggerel, and no attempt is made to better it in\n  the English.\n\n\n\n\n                      NOTES ON PERSONS AND PLACES\n\n\nThe following brief notes are intended to supply the bare amount of\ninformation necessary for an understanding of the text. The\npronunciation marks are, of course, added only for the sake of those who\nhave no Greek. An accent marks the syllable which should bear the stress\nin the English pronunciation, and the signs [\u0103 \u0115 \u012d \u014f \u016d] and [\u0101 \u0113 \u012b \u014d \u016b],\nimply that the vowels are short or long respectively. q.v. = see the\nnote on that name.\n\n=\u00c1baris=: a legendary Scythian or \u2018Hyperborean\u2019 priest of Apollo, to\nwhom miraculous powers were attributed in the way of cures and prophecy.\n\n=Aeolians=: inhabitants of Aeolis, the NE. coast of the Aegean, with the\nisland of Lesbos.\n\n=Aesch\u012dnes=: (1) a philosopher, pupil of Socrates (hence Aeschines\nSocraticus). In the eyes of Plato he was a sophist, for the reason that\nhe took fees. His character was not of the highest. Like Plato, he\nvisited Syracuse during the philosophic pose of the elder Dionysius.\n\n(2) Athenian orator, constant opponent of Demosthenes, who charged him\nwith being bribed by Philip. Died in exile 314 B.C.\n\n=Aeschylus=: the first in date and most severe in style of the three\ngreat Attic tragedians, 525-466 B.C. A master of condensed and sonorous\nlanguage and of powerful situations.\n\n=Aesop=: the famous writer (or promulgator) of fables, _c._ 620-564 B.C.\nSaid to have been an emancipated slave, who spent some time at the court\nof Croesus and was sent by him on a mission to Delphi to distribute\nlargess. Practically nothing definite is known of him. His fables were\nmost probably of Indo-Persian origin. Those which now pass under his\nname are a comparatively late compilation from various sources.\n\n=Ag\u00e9sil\u0101us=: Agesilaus II, king of Sparta, 398-361 B.C.; the most\nimportant man in the Greek world of his day. His wars were numerous, the\nmost important being with the Thebans. His character was noble, his\nability great, but his physique and appearance poor.\n\n=Agis=: (1) Agis II, king of Sparta, 427-399 B.C.; commander against the\nAthenians in the Peloponnesian War, his greatest exploit being the\nvictory of Mantinea.\n\n(2) Base and toadying poet of Argos, who accompanied Alexander into\nAsia. The histories of the expedition agree with Plutarch as to his\ncharacter.\n\n=Alcib\u00edades=: a handsome noble of Athens; a type of ostentatious,\nambitious, and unscrupulous brilliancy. After a measure of military and\npolitical prominence he was banished from Athens for sacrilege (415\nB.C.). Becoming hostile to his country he first found a home at Sparta,\nthence migrated to Asia Minor and joined the Persian satrap,\nTissaphernes, whom he endeavoured to bring over to the Athenian side as\na means to his own recall. He returned to Athens for a brief space in\n407 B.C., then removed to Thrace, and thence again to the Persian\nsatrap.\n\n=Alcm\u00e9\u014dn=: son of Amphiaraus (q.v.), who avenged his father by putting\nto death his mother Eriphyle.\n\n=Alexander=: (1) the Great, of Macedon.\n\n(2) of Pherae, a despot who dominated Thessaly from 369 B.C. A cruel\ntyrant, assassinated through the agency of his wife.\n\n=Alexis=: poet of the \u2018Middle Comedy\u2019, who had migrated from South Italy\nto Athens. Plutarch says that he lived to the age of 106, and Suidas\nthat his plays numbered 245.\n\n=Aly\u00e1ttes=: king of Lydia and father of Croesus, carried on wars with\nthe Greeks of the Aegean coast of Asia Minor and had apparently some\ndesigns upon the islands.\n\n=Am\u00e1sis=: an insurgent Egyptian general who secured the throne (569\nB.C.). His rule was beneficent and prosperous, and he cultivated the\nfriendship of the Greeks, handing over to them the town of Naucratis (q.\nv.). When reproached with his humble origin he converted his bronze\nfoot-pan into the effigy of a deity by way of instructive parable. He\nwas visited by Solon and had amicable relations with Croesus.\n\n=Amm\u00f3nius=: Peripatetic philosopher from Attica, teacher of Plutarch,\nwho speaks elsewhere of his great erudition.\n\n=Amphiar\u00e1us=: legendary seer of Argos, who accompanied the \u2018Seven\u2019 in\ntheir expedition against Thebes. A pious and just man, who was led into\nthis false step by the persuasions of his wife, who had been bribed.\n\n=Amph\u00edctyons=: members of a religious Council meeting at Delphi and\nrepresenting the older Greek communities.\n\n=Amph\u00edd\u0103mas=: \u2018hero\u2019 (i. e. demigod) of Chalcis in Euboea, conceived as\na historical personage.\n\n=Amphitr\u00edt\u00eb=: wife of Poseidon and queen-goddess of the sea.\n\n=Anacharsis=: Scythian prince (of N. Thrace). To Greek literature he is\nthe type of the observant and critical visitor from abroad. A pattern of\nthe simple life and direct thinking. Said to have visited Athens about\n600 B.C.\n\n=Anaxarchus=: an easy-going and witty philosopher of the school of\nDemocritus (q. v.); in the suite of Alexander on his Asiatic expedition.\n\n=Ant\u00edg\u014fnus=: a general of Alexander. On the partition of the empire he\nreceived Phrygia, Lycia, and Pamphylia, but afterwards extended his rule\nover all the Asiatic portion. He fell before a combination of the other\nDiadochi in 301 B.C.\n\n=Ant\u00edm\u0103chus=: epic poet of Colophon, who wrote at great length on the\nstory of Thebes. He also composed a voluminous elegy on \u2018Lyde\u2019. Both\npieces were crammed with mythological and other learning, and Plutarch\nappears to treat him as a type of the diffuse. He was a contemporary of\nPlato.\n\n=Ant\u00edp\u0103ter=: (1) regent of Macedonia during the Asiatic expedition of\nAlexander and after his death (334-320 B.C.). A war with a Greek league\nheaded by Athens ended in the submission of the latter.\n\n(2) A Stoic philosopher of Tyre; a friend of Cato the younger, about the\nmiddle of the first century B.C.\n\n=Antiph\u014dn=: several persons were so named, e. g.:\n\n(1) an orator of the fifth century B.C.\n\n(2) An Athenian tragic poet, put to death by the elder Dionysius at\nSyracuse.\n\n(3) A sophist, epic poet, and antagonist of Socrates.\n\n=Ap\u00e9ll\u0113s=: (1) of Colophon or Cos, _fl._ _c._ 335-305 B.C. The greatest\npainter of antiquity, especially favoured by Alexander the Great. His\nmaxim for draughtsmen _nulla dies sine linea_ is famous.\n\n(2) Of Chios, apparently unknown beyond Plutarch.\n\n=Appius Claudius= (=Caecus=): Roman censor 312 B.C., originator of the\nAppian Way.\n\n=Ar\u00e1sp\u0113s=: a Mede, friend of Cyrus, who became enamoured of Panthea (q.\nv.).\n\n=Arc\u0115sil\u00e1us=: latter part of third century B.C.; first a disciple of\nTheophrastus (q. v.), but took an independent line in philosophy as\nfounder of the sceptical New Academy. A man of amiable character and a\nwit.\n\n=Archel\u00e1us=: king of Macedonia 413-399 B.C.; a lover of art and\nliterature and a patron of Euripides and other Athenian men of letters.\n\n=Archid\u00e1mus=: Archidamus II, king of Sparta, 469-427 B.C. There were\nseveral other kings of the name.\n\n=Arch\u00edl\u014fchus=: of Paros, _fl._ _c._ 710-675 B.C. A lyrist of whom only\nfragments are extant; particularly famous for his iambic lampoons.\n\n=Archim\u00e9des=: the Newton of antiquity; an eminent scientist of Syracuse\n287-212 B.C.; student of astronomy, applied mathematics, and\nengineering. He served as mechanical engineer in defending his city from\nthe Romans, by whose soldiers he was killed in ignorance.\n\n=Archytas=: of Tarentum, in the early part of the fourth century B.C.,\nnoted as a mathematician and philosophic statesman of the Pythagorean\norder. Both in generalship and civil business of state he was eminently\nsuccessful and was trusted with extraordinary powers.\n\n=Ar\u0113s=: the Greek War-God, answering generally to the Roman Mars.\n\n=Ar\u020bdaeus= (=Arrhidaeus=): (1) feeble half-witted king of Macedonia\nafter his brother Alexander\u2019s death.\n\n(2) A general of Alexander, joint regent in 321 B.C., afterwards\ngovernor on the Hellespont.\n\n=Ar\u00ed\u014dn=: _c._ 600 B.C.; the famous bard and harp-player of Lesbos, and\nsupposed inventor of the dithyramb. His favourite abode was at the court\nof Periander.\n\n=Aristarchus=: the prince of Greek grammarians and critics; flourished\nat Alexandria 181-146 B.C. Chiefly known for his commentaries on the\nlanguage and matter of Homer, and his recension of the divergent\nmanuscripts.\n\n=Aristeides= (=Arist\u00eddes=): with the sobriquet of \u2018the Just\u2019; a noble of\nAthens, statesman and general, who figures in the stirring times of the\nwar with Persia. Died _c._ 470 B.C.\n\n=Arist\u00edppus=: of Cyrene, disciple, but not imitator, of Socrates. A\nstudent and teacher of ethics, and founder of the Cyrenaic philosophy\nand its cult of pleasure: _fl._ _c._ 380-366 B.C. For a time he was at\nthe court of Dionysius (q. v.) of Syracuse.\n\n=Ar\u00edsto=: (1) the chief bearer of the name was a philosopher who became\nhead of the Peripatetic school about 230 B.C. Anciently considered a\nwriter of more elegance than weight.\n\n(2) A son of Sophocles, and probably himself a tragedian.\n\n=Arist\u00f3m\u0115nes=: practically regent of Egypt from 202 B.C.; a sound\nadviser of the young Ptolemy Epiphanes (q. v.), who put him to death for\nhis frankness in 192 B.C.\n\n=Arist\u00f3ph\u0103nes=: of Athens, 444-380 B.C.; by far the greatest comic poet\nof antiquity. His comedy was of the \u2018Old\u2019, or personal-political type.\nEleven of his plays are extant.\n\n=Ar\u00edst\u014fph\u014dn=: painter, brother of Polygnotus (who _fl._ _c._ 420 B.C.).\n\n=Aristotle=: of Stageira, but commonly domiciled in Athens or in\nMacedonia. Pupil of Plato and subsequently tutor of Alexander. Founder\nof the Peripatetic school, with its head-quarters in the Lyceum (q. v.).\nHis whole tone of mind is strikingly unlike that of his teacher, being\neminently precise, logical, and scientific. His writing is without\nliterary charm. He aimed at sound and comprehensive knowledge as the\nbasis of right principles in society, conduct, and the arts (384-322\nB.C.).\n\n=Ascl\u00e9pius=: (= Aesculapius), the Greek \u2018hero\u2019 of medicine, converted by\nlegend into a son of Apollo and ultimately into a god.\n\n=Atreides= (=Atr\u00eddes=): = \u2018son of Atreus\u2019, a title of Agamemnon and\nMenelaus.\n\n=\u00c1tt\u0103lus= (brother of Eumenes): Attalus Philadelphus, king of Pergamus,\nallied with the Romans in the middle of the second century B.C.\nPhilopoemen was his controlling minister.\n\n=Bacch\u00fdl\u020bdes=: lyric poet of Ceos, _fl._ _c._ 470 B.C., principally at\nthe court of Hiero of Syracuse. In general he may be called a smoother\nand weaker Pindar.\n\n=Bag\u00f3as=: a handsome young eunuch of Darius, afterwards taken into the\nservice and affections of Alexander.\n\n=B\u00e1thycles=: an artist in metal-work, of uncertain date, but probably to\nbe placed in the early part of the age of the Seven Sages.\n\n=Bato=: comic poet of Athens, _fl._ _c._ 280 B.C.; satirized\nphilosophers.\n\n=Bias=: of Priene; precise date unknown, but _fl._ _c._ 550 B.C. He is\ninvariably included in the list of the Seven Sages.\n\n=Bi\u014dn=: _fl._ _c._ 250 B.C., a philosopher from Olbia on the Black Sea,\nwho settled at Athens, tried various systems, and ended by being a\nPeripatetic. He was noted for his keen sententious sayings, but was of\ndissolute character. Has been called \u2018the Greek Voltaire\u2019.\n\n=Br\u012bs\u00e9\u00efs=: captive woman assigned to Achilles, but taken from him by\nAgamemnon when he surrendered Chryseis.\n\n=Bus\u00edrites=: the people of Busiris (modern Abousir), about the middle of\nthe Delta; one of the traditional birthplaces of Osiris.\n\n=Calchas=: the seer of the Achaean army before Troy.\n\n=Call\u00edsth\u0115nes=: philosopher and rhetorician; accompanied Alexander into\nAsia, where he used over-bold language in reproving him. Put to death\n328 B.C. He wrote an account of the expedition and other historical\nworks.\n\n=Cal\u00fdpso=: nymph, on whose island the shipwrecked Odysseus was detained\nfor seven years.\n\n=Carn\u0115\u0103des=: of Cyrene, 213(?)-129 B.C.; a student of Stoicism, but\nleader of the Academics. He was ambassador on behalf of Athens (155\nB.C.) to Rome, where he delivered striking discourses on ethics. His\ncardinal doctrine was the \u2018withholding of assent\u2019 to doctrines.\n\n=Cato=: (1) the elder (or \u2018the Censor\u2019), 234-149 B.C. The type of severe\nold-fashioned Roman morality; soldier, statesman, orator, and writer.\n\n(2) The younger (or \u2018Uticensis\u2019), 95-46 B.C.; modelled himself on his\ngreat-grandfather in respect of the moral and simple life, but was much\ninferior in gifts. Committed suicide 46 B.C., when the struggle against\nthe domination of Julius Caesar had become hopeless.\n\n=C\u0115b\u0113s=: of Thebes, a pupil of Socrates and a _persona_ in Plato\u2019s\n_Phaedo_. He is chiefly known for his (if it is his) symbolic picture or\n\u2018table\u2019 of human life.\n\n=C\u0115r\u0103meicus (-\u00ed-)=: a suburb without, and a broad street within, the\nwest walls of Athens.\n\n=Cerc\u00f3pes=: mythical gnomes, mischievous and thievish, who annoyed\nHeracles by their monkey-like tricks.\n\n=Ch\u00e1br\u020bas=: Athenian commander at various times between 392 and 357\nB.C., gaining some successes by land and sea against the Spartans. An\nable tactician, adventurous, but of somewhat dissolute life.\n\n=Chalcis=: chief town of Euboea (Negropont), once a most important\ncommercial centre.\n\n=Char\u0113s=: Athenian general, of whose various operations we have records\nfor 367-333 B.C. A man of little principle. He effected little against\nthe Macedonians, and often followed independent and useless lines of\naction.\n\n=Ch\u00e1rm\u020bdes=: uncle of Plato, who names one of his Socratic dialogues\nafter him. At the supposed date he was a beautiful and charming youth,\nand the discussion is upon \u2018self-control\u2019.\n\n=Ch\u012bl\u014dn=: of Lacedaemon: _fl._ _c._ 600-570 B.C. Poet and coiner of\nmaxims, and shrewd man of affairs.\n\n=Chrys\u00e9\u00efs=: captive woman assigned to Agamemnon; surrendered by him at\nthe bidding of Apollo, in order to check a pestilence.\n\n=Cim\u014dn=: son of Miltiades, became prominent as a commander against the\nPersians in 477 B.C. His chief exploit was the victory of Eurymedon, 466\nB.C. A handsome, liberal, affable, but somewhat self-indulgent person.\n\n=C\u012bn\u00e9sias=: Athenian dithyrambic poet, much satirized by Aristophanes\nand others. His verse, music, and character appear all to have been of\nan inferior order.\n\n=Claudia=: Roman maiden, who, in full vindication of her chastity, was\nenabled to move the vessel containing the image of Cybele when it stuck\nfast in the Tiber.\n\n=Cle\u00e1nthes=: Stoic philosopher, pupil and successor of Zeno (q. v.) 263\nB.C. The only fragment of his writing still extant is from a Hymn to\nZeus.\n\n=Cle\u00e1rchus=: (1) of Heraclea on the Black Sea; availed himself of\nfaction to make himself despot and tyrant (365 B.C.). Despite the\nprecautions described by Plutarch he was assassinated in 353 B.C.\n\n(2) Of Sparta, leader of the 10,000 Greeks in the expedition of Cyrus\nthe Younger against Babylon; decoyed and put to death by the Persians,\n401 B.C. The retreat was led by Xenophon (q.v.).\n\n=Cleisth\u0115nes=: Athenian noble, who adopted the popular cause and made\nimportant democratic changes in the constitution; _fl._ from 510 B.C.\n\n=Cleitus= (=Cl\u012btus=): a Macedonian commander under Alexander, whose life\nhe saved at the battle of Gran\u00edcus (334 B.C.). He was killed (328 B.C.)\nby Alexander with a spear-thrust, after a quarrel at a carousal, in\nwhich he had spoken with excessive freedom to his chief.\n\n=Cleobul\u00edn\u00eb=: daughter (as the name implies) of Cleobulus (q.v.). Though\nher father is said to have named her Eumetis (\u2018sagacious\u2019), the word may\nbe suspected of being an afterthought.\n\n=Cleob\u00falus=: _c._ 610-560 B.C. A citizen of Lindus in Rhodes, who became\nits despot. His position may have been similar to that of Pittacus\n(q.v.).\n\n=Cle\u00f3m\u0115nes=: Cleomenes III, high-minded king of Sparta, 240-222 B.C. On\nhis defeat by the Achaeans he fled to Ptolemy Euergetes, with whom he\nwas in alliance. The next Ptolemy (Philopator) suspected and imprisoned\nhim.\n\n=Cle\u014dn=: a tanner of Athens; an able but coarse-grained leader of the\npopular party 428-422 B.C. A special enemy of Aristophanes (q.v.), whose\nfiercest political attacks are delivered against him. A self-sufficient\namateur in military operations, in one of which he was slain.\n\n=Cl\u00f3dius=: P. Clodius Pulcher; a daring and unscrupulous person, who\nbecame quaestor in 61 B.C. and tribune of the plebs in 59 B.C. The\nnotorious and relentless enemy of Cicero. Killed by Milo on the high\nroad 52 B.C.\n\n=Col\u00f3nus=: a suburb of Athens outside the north wall, with a small hill,\ngrove, and sanctuary.\n\n=C\u00f3loph\u014dn=: Greek town of Asia Minor, near the Aegean coast, about ten\nmiles north of Ephesus.\n\n=Cornelia=: daughter of Scipio Africanus; the famous \u2018mother of the\nGracchi\u2019; the type of matronly virtue, dignity, cultivation, and high\nexample.\n\n=Cr\u00e1t\u0115rus=: a noble type of Macedonian; one of Alexander\u2019s generals.\nAfter the death of his chief (323 B.C.) he became colleague with\nAntipater in the Graeco-Macedonian portion of the empire. See also under\nEumenes.\n\n=Crat\u0113s=: of Thebes; pupil of Diogenes (q.v.) at Athens; _fl._ _c._ 320\nB.C. A Cynic philosopher in practice as well as theory, he renounced his\nwealth and led the simple life in a cheerful manner. A philosophic\nwriter and a tragic poet.\n\n=Croesus=: king of Lydia 560-546 B.C. A wealthy and powerful ruler, who\nmade war upon the Persians when their empire was growing rapidly under\nCyrus. Was defeated and carried off in the train of the conqueror. While\nin power he was in friendly or hostile relations with various Greek\nstates, and was particularly noted for his liberality to the Delphian\noracle. Whether Solon ever actually had the famous interview with\nCroesus is chronologically doubtful, but it is not impossible.\n\n=Cy\u00e1xares=: king of Media, appears in Xenophon\u2019s _Cyropaedia_ as uncle\nof Cyrus the Great, but the whole book is something of a romance.\n\n=C\u00fdps\u0115lus=: father of Periander, established himself as despot of\nCorinth _c._ 656 B.C. His name was commonly associated with _cypsele_\n(\u2018chest\u2019). The designs upon him in his infancy were those of a\nCorinthian noble house, and were made in consequence of an oracle\nforetelling danger from the child.\n\n=Cyrus=: (1) the elder: the famous Persian monarch, founder of the\nempire, and subjugator of Babylon. The stories told of him in the\n_Cyropaedia_ of Xenophon are largely romance.\n\n(2) the younger: satrap of Lydia, Phrygia, &c., who sought, but failed,\nto dispossess his brother Artaxerxes with the assistance of a Greek\nforce (401 B.C.). This was the expedition related in Xenophon\u2019s\n_Anabasis_.\n\n=Daphn\u016bs=: a river running into the Corinthian Gulf on the north side\nnot far from the entrance.\n\n=D\u0101r\u00edus=: (1) Darius I; strong and able king of Persia (521-485 B.C.),\npreviously satrap under Cyrus the Great. This is the Darius mentioned in\nconnexion with Gobryas.\n\n(2) Darius II (Ochus or Nothus), or Darius the Younger, a weak monarch\nendangered by perpetual rebellions, 424-405 B.C.\n\n(3) Darius Codomannus, overthrown by Alexander. Died 330 B.C.\n\n=D\u00e9los=: central island of the south half of the Aegean, with a temple\nof Apollo, the gathering-place of a great religious confederacy of\nIonians.\n\n=D\u0113mar\u00e1tus=: of Corinth, in friendly relations with Philip and a\nmediator between him and Alexander after their quarrel in 337 B.C.\n\n=D\u0113m\u00e9trius=: (1) Demetrius I (or Poliorcetes), king of Macedonia. His\nfather Antigonus, king of Asia, sent him in 307 B.C. to annex Greece,\nthen under Cassander and Ptolemy. It was at this time that he took\nMegara and met with Stilpo (q. v.).\n\n(2) Demetrius Phal\u00e9reus: Athenian orator and writer (345-283 B.C.); an\nable and cultivated man, put in charge of Athens by the Macedonians, 317\nB.C. First highly honoured, then expelled, he made his way to Thebes and\nsubsequently to Alexandria.\n\n(3) The name of several Macedonian officers in the army of Alexander.\n\n=D\u0113m\u00f3cr\u020btus=: _c._ 460-360 B.C. Of Abd\u0113ra in Thrace. A great traveller\nand student, who developed (though he did not invent) the \u2018Atomic\nTheory\u2019. Ethically his aim was cheerfulness of mind (hence \u2018the laughing\nphilosopher\u2019). His character was of the highest for truth and\nsimplicity.\n\n=Dicae\u00e1rchus=: philosopher from Massana in Sicily; writer on history and\ngeography. A follower of Aristotle, _fl._ _c._ 300 B.C.\n\n=D\u00ed\u014fcles=: the narrator of the Dinner of the Seven Sages: professional\nseer, and interpreter and expiator of omens and dreams. Nothing is known\nof such a person outside Plutarch.\n\n=Di\u00f3g\u0115nes=: (1) the Cynic philosopher of Sinope, who migrated to Athens,\nand after being captured by pirates was sold as a slave to a Corinthian.\nWhether or not he ever lived in the famous (earthenware) \u2018tub\u2019 is\ndoubtful. He was distinguished for his plainness of life, his shrewd\ngood sense, his independence, and his caustic tongue.\n\n(2) Tragic poet of Athens, _c._ 404 B.C.\n\n=Di\u014dn=: of Syracuse, brother-in-law of the elder Dionysius (q. v.). On\nthe visit of Plato to Sicily he became a disciple of that philosopher.\nThe younger Dionysius resented his reputation and his harshness. Dion\ntherefore removed to Athens and other parts of Greece, whence he\nreturned with a force, expelled Dionysius, and was himself appointed\npractically dictator. Assassinated 353 B.C.\n\n=Dionysius=: (i) the elder: despot of Syracuse (\u2018sole general\u2019) 405-367\nB.C. He extended its power over a great part of Sicily, and strongly\nfortified the city itself. In the end he became a veritable tyrant. Like\nmany other despots he affected literature and philosophy, and himself\nwrote bad verses. After inviting Plato to Syracuse he quarrelled with\nand dismissed that philosopher.\n\n(2) the younger, who succeeded his father. For a time he was under the\ninfluence of Dion (q.v.) assisted by Plato. Of weaker character and more\nlicentious than his father, he was compelled to abandon Syracuse after a\nrule of eleven years. Insecurely restored ten years later he was again\ndriven out by Timoleon (343 B.C.). The remainder of his life was spent\nin poverty at Corinth, where he is said to have taught an elementary\nschool.\n\n=D\u014dd\u00f3na=: in Epirus, near the modern Janina; a very ancient seat of the\nworship of Zeus.\n\n=Dol\u014dn=: a Trojan in the _Iliad_, who undertakes to penetrate the\nAchaean camp as a spy, but is slain in the attempt.\n\n=Dry\u00f3pians=: a people of Central Greece.\n\n=Elephant\u00edn\u00eb= = Djesiret-el-Sag; a garrisoned island in the Nile (First\nCataract) opposite the modern Assouan; the frontier town of Egypt\ntowards Ethiopia.\n\n=Emp\u00e9d\u014fcles=: Sicilian physical and practical philosopher of Acragas (=\nGirgenti); _fl._ _c._ 450 B.C. His studies of nature specially qualified\nhim for the cure or \u2018purification\u2019 of epidemics due to insanitary\nconditions. His travels took him to Athens and other parts of Greece.\nThe legend went that he threw himself into the crater of Etna.\n\n=E\u014ds=: = Aurora, dawn-goddess; wife of Tithonus; mother of Memnon, the\nopponent of Achilles.\n\n=Ep\u00e1min\u014dndas=: a type of patriotism, particularly to his compatriot\nPlutarch. The greatest of Theban commanders and statesmen, especially\nfamous for his victory over the Spartans at Leuctra (371 B.C.). So far\nas he applied any philosophy to life, it was that of Pythagoras.\n\n=\u00c9ph\u014frus=: historian of Cumae, _fl._ _c._ 340 B.C. His history, once\nvery famous and much discussed, covered a period of 750 years.\n\n=Epich\u00e1rmus=: _c._ 540-450 B.C.; the great comic poet of Sicily, chiefly\nassociated with the court of Hiero I (q.v.) at Syracuse.\n\n=Epic\u00farus=: 342-270 B.C. Athenian philosopher and founder of the\nEpicurean school, of which the aim was \u2018peace of mind\u2019 or \u2018freedom from\nemotional disturbance\u2019. His own life (as his tenets required) was simple\nand wholesome, and the self-indulgence of the sect in later days was\neither a parody or a misconception of his teachings. A voluminous writer\non physics and ethics, but with a bad style.\n\n=Epim\u00e9n\u020bdes=: priest-prophet and bard of Crete, with peculiar knowledge\nof medicine and methods of purification. Many fables were current\nconcerning him (e.g. of his sleep of fifty-seven years). He was called\nin by the Athenians (_c._ 596 B.C.) to cleanse their city of a plague.\n\n=Epim\u00e9theus=: brother of Prometheus (q.v.). The name was taken to mean\n\u2018After-thinker\u2019, and hence arose a notion that he \u2018thought too late\u2019.\n\n=Eras\u00edstr\u0103tus=: a very distinguished physician in the earlier part of\nthe third century B.C. He practised and taught in Syria and Alexandria.\nAn eminent student of anatomy.\n\n=Erat\u00f3sth\u0115nes=: librarian of Alexandria under the Ptolemies; a writer on\nmathematical geography, history, and grammar. Died about 196 B.C.\n\n=\u00c9r\u0115sus=: a town on the south-west coast of Lesbos (Mytilene);\nbirthplace of Theophrastus.\n\n=Er\u00e9tria=: the second town of Euboea, a little south of Chalcis. See\nLelantum.\n\n=Er\u00ednys=: a spirit of vengeance sent up from the underworld to punish\nunnatural crimes and offences.\n\n=\u00c9te\u014fcles=: (legendary): son of Oedipus, joint king of Thebes with\nPolyneices, whom he expelled through a selfish desire to rule alone.\n\n=Eu\u00e9nus=: two poets of Paros are so named, one of the date of Socrates\nand one earlier. It is, and was anciently, difficult to distinguish\nbetween the two.\n\n=E\u00fam\u0115nes=: an eminent and very able general (and also secretary) of\nAlexander, after whose death he obtained (322 B.C.) the chief command in\nAsia. His subordinate Neoptolemus, governor of Armenia, made head\nagainst him with the help of Craterus. Their defeat, mentioned in the\narticle on Garrulity, took place in Cappadocia in 321 B.C.\n\n=E\u00fap\u014flis=: one of the three chief poets of the \u2018old\u2019 comedy of Athens, a\ncontemporary of Aristophanes (q.v.).\n\n=Eur\u00edpides=: 480-406 B.C.; third in date of the three great Athenian\ntragedians. His works were numerous and uneven. His poetical merits were\n(and are) variously estimated.\n\n=Fabius Maximus=: the best known person of the name was Q. Fabius\nMaximus Cunctator, who saved Rome by his waiting tactics against\nHannibal; but the one who was associated with Polybius, as pupil and\npatron, was Q. F. M. Aemilianus, consul in 145 B.C., who served against\nMacedonia and in Spain.\n\n=G\u00f3bryes=: one of the seven Persian nobles (Darius being another) who\nconspired against the usurper Smerdis the Mage. Darius was raised to the\nthrone and Gobryes became one of his lieutenants.\n\n=G\u00f3rg\u020bas=: of Leontini in Sicily: orator, rhetorical teacher, and\nsophist, who visited Athens 427 B.C. and subsequently. His style, which\nwas highly artificial, was widely imitated. He is the Gorgias of Plato\u2019s\ndialogue.\n\n=Gorgo=: of Sparta; wife of Leonidas and daughter of Cleomenes I.\nStories of her wisdom and sagacity are told by Herodotus (6. 49, 7.\n239).\n\n=Gylippus=: Spartan general who came to the rescue of Syracuse and\nchiefly caused the utter collapse of the Athenian attack upon that city.\nAfter the fall of Athens (404 B.C.) it was his business to convey to\nSparta the 1,500 talents of booty. He opened the seams of the sacks,\nfilched about one-fifth of the amount, but was betrayed by the\ninventories enclosed.\n\n=Harm\u00f3dius=: a handsome youth of Athens associated with Aristogeiton\n(the older man) in the assassination of Hipparchus, brother of the\ndespot Hippias in 514 B.C. Though Athens was not liberated till four\nyears later, these tyrannicides were canonized as saviours of their\ncountry.\n\n=Hecuba=: the aged wife of Priam, and mother of Hector.\n\n=Hephaestus=: practically the Greek equivalent of the Latin Vulcan or\nFire-God. He is represented as a lame, but sturdy and somewhat humorous\ndeity, a master of smithcraft.\n\n=H\u0113racleides= (=H\u00e9raclides=): It is not clear to which person of the\nname Plutarch refers. The best known was Heracleides Ponticus, a pupil\nof Plato and a miscellaneous writer.\n\n=H\u0113racleitus= (=H\u0113racl\u00edtus=): physical philosopher of Ephesus, _fl._\n_c._ 515 B.C. Famous for the compression of his style, which became so\ncryptic that he earned the title of the \u2018Obscure\u2019. He was something of a\nhermit and favoured the simple vegetarian life. The \u2018weeping\nphilosopher\u2019.\n\n=Herm\u00ed\u014fne=: daughter of Menelaus and Helen; married to Neoptolemus (son\nof Achilles) and jealous of Andromache, whom she tried to put to death.\n\n=H\u0113r\u00f3d\u014ftus=: _c._ 484-400 B.C.; the so-called \u2018Father of History\u2019. He\ntravelled widely in the East and in the Grecian world, and wrote on\nLydia, Babylonia, Egypt, Persia, and the great Persian war. His desire\nis to get at the facts, but he displays a na\u00efve fondness for\nstory-telling and for wonders and miracles.\n\n=H\u0113r\u00f3ph\u020blus=: of Chalcedon; a most eminent physician and a discoverer in\nanatomy and physiology; _fl._ _c._ 300 B.C.\n\n=Hiero I=: or the Magnificent, despot of Gelon and Syracuse (478-467\nB.C.), and most powerful Sicilian of his day. Poets at one time or other\nassociated with his court were Epicharmus, Xenophanes, Simonides,\nAeschylus, Pindar, and Bacchylides.\n\n=Hier\u00f3nymus=: tragic and dithyrambic poet of Athens and apparently a\nwriter on poets.\n\n=Hipp\u00f3cr\u0103tes=: of Cos; the \u2018father of medicine\u2019; the most renowned\nphysician and medical teacher and writer of antiquity: _c._ 460-357 B.C.\n\n=Hypereides= (=Hyper\u00eddes=): Attic orator; patriot, contemporary and, for\nthe most part, supporter of Demosthenes in his anti-Macedonian policy.\nPut to death by Antipater (q.v.), 322 B.C. An elegant speaker, of\ndubious private life.\n\n=\u00cdbycus=: of Rhegium, _fl._ _c._ 540 B.C. at the court of the despot of\nSamos; a lyric poet of the erotic type. The proverb, \u2018the cranes of\nIbycus\u2019, arose from the story that, when being murdered by brigands near\nCorinth, he invoked a flock of cranes, then flying past, to avenge his\ndeath. Plutarch tells the sequel (_Garrulity_).\n\n=\u012bno=: or Leuc\u00f3thea; a mythological personage, daughter of Cadmus and\nwife of Athamas. One story went that, when she leapt into the sea, she\nwas carried to Corinth by a dolphin. Hence the allusion in the story of\nArion.\n\n=\u012bph\u00edcr\u0103tes=: Athenian general in early part of the fourth century B.C.\nAn innovator in tactics and military equipment, noted for his prudence\nand foresight.\n\n=Isch\u00f3m\u0103chus=: a character of the name appears in Xenophon\u2019s\n_Oeconomicus_ as lecturing his wife upon the principles of domestic\nmanagement. Such a philosophically disposed person may be the associate\nof Socrates mentioned by Plutarch.\n\n=Ithacans=: the people of Odysseus, king of Ithaca, one of the Ionian\nislands, south of Corfu.\n\n=Ix\u00edon=: mythical Thessalian king, who made illicit love to Hera, wife\nof Zeus, and was punished by being fastened to a perpetually revolving\nwheel in Hades.\n\n=Laelius=: C. Laelius Sapiens, friend of Scipio Africanus Minor. Consul\n140 B.C. Cicero\u2019s _De Amicitia_ is otherwise named his _Laelius_.\nPhilosopher, orator, and scholar.\n\n=La\u00e9rtes=: aged father of Odysseus; superannuated king of Ithaca.\n\n=L\u0115chaeum=: the port of Old Corinth, with which it was connected by\nwalls one and a half miles in length.\n\n=L\u0113l\u00e1ntum=: a river of Euboea, flowing through the fertile Lelantine\nplain (between Chalcis and Eretria), which was long a bone of contention\nbetween the two cities.\n\n=Le\u00f3n\u020bdas=: the famous Spartan king, who so stubbornly held the pass of\nThermopylae against the Persians with his \u2018Three Hundred\u2019, 480 B.C.\n\n=Leptis=: a town in Africa near the modern Tripoli; a Phoenician\nsettlement and afterwards a Roman colony.\n\n=Lesches=: one of the post-Homeric (\u2018Cyclic\u2019) poets, and writer of the\n_Little Iliad_; a native of Lesbos, _fl._ _c._ 705 B.C.\n\n=Leuctra=: Boeotian village; the scene of the great defeat of the\nSpartans by Epaminondas, 371 B.C.\n\n=Livia=: Livia Drusilla, 56 B.C.-A.D. 29. Her first husband was Tiberius\nClaudius Nero, by whom she was the mother of Tiberius, the future\nemperor. Married to Augustus (then Octavianus) in 38 B.C., and having no\nchildren by him, she was anxious to keep the succession in her own\nfamily. A woman of strong character, she exerted a tactful control over\nAugustus and attempted one more imperious over Tiberius, but failed.\n\n=Locri=: Locri Epizephyrii, an important Greek town of South Italy,\nabout the modern Gerace. Its constitutional code was often regarded as a\nmodel.\n\n=Locris=: a Greek community lying along the north side of the middle of\nthe Corinthian Gulf.\n\n=Loxias=: Apollo as God of Oracles. The name was commonly interpreted as\n\u2018Riddling\u2019 or \u2018Indirect\u2019.\n\n=Lucullus=: Roman conqueror of Mithridates, succeeded in his command by\nPompey, 66 B.C. Famous for his wealth and luxury, and particularly for\nhis lavish feasts. A byword for self-indulgence.\n\n=Lyc\u00e9um=: an exercise ground with terraces (\u2018walks\u2019) and colonnades just\noutside the wall to the east of Athens. It was here that Aristotle\ndiscoursed on the \u2018Walk\u2019 (_peripatos_), whence the name \u2018Peripatetic\u2019\nbecame applied to his school.\n\n=Lycurgus=: (1) the more or less legendary lawgiver and\nconstitution-maker of Sparta. His date and personality are quite\nuncertain, and he is not improbably as mythical as Heracles.\n\n(2) son of Dryas, a legendary Thracian king who resisted the worship of\nDionysius and hacked down his sacred plant, the vine. Dionysius punished\nhim with madness, during which he killed his own son, thinking him a\nvine. The story is much varied in particulars.\n\n=Lysander=: Spartan admiral, who won the battle of Aegospotami against\nthe Athenians and concluded the reduction of Athens in 404 B.C. He was\nafterwards distinguished for his ostentation and arrogance.\n\n=Lysias=: orator and professional rhetorician of Athens, distinguished\nfor the purity and lucidity of his diction and his grace of style: _fl._\n_c._ 403 B.C. The majority of his 230 speeches were written for\nlitigants.\n\n=Lys\u00edm\u0103chus=: of Macedonia; became king of Thrace on the partition of\nAlexander\u2019s empire. A man of powerful physique and an able soldier.\nLater his territory included the western half of Asia Minor. Killed in\nbattle 281 B.C.\n\n=Masinissa=: king of Numidia; first a supporter, then an enemy, of\nCarthage, he lent great assistance to the Romans from 204 B.C. to 148.\nHis reign was long and he died at ninety.\n\n=Meidias= (=M\u00eddias=): an Athenian citizen and bitter enemy of\nDemosthenes, one of whose best known speeches is a violent, and possibly\na rather scurrilous, attack upon him.\n\n=Mel\u00e1nthius=: of Athens: an inferior tragic and elegiac poet of\nworthless character: a contemporary of Aristophanes and Plato.\n\n=Mele\u00e1ger=: legendary prince of Calydon. Having slain his mother\u2019s\nbrothers, he was cursed by her, and thereupon refused to take further\npart in the war against the Curetes. No offers could induce him to leave\nhis chamber and rout the enemy, until he yielded to the prayers of his\nwife Cleopatra.\n\n=Menander=: chief poet of the Athenian New Comedy (or comedy of\nmanners), 342-291 B.C.; a polished and easy-tempered man of the world.\nHis sententious writings lent themselves to quotation and were much read\nin schools. To moralizing critics of a later age he was to comedy what\nHomer was to epic.\n\n=M\u0115ned\u00e9mus=: philosopher and statesman of Euboea, of the \u2018Megarian\u2019\nschool. Died _c._ 277 B.C.\n\n=M\u00e9rop\u00eb=: the name of several mythological semi-goddesses, mostly\nconnected with the heavenly bodies.\n\n=Metellus=: Q. Caecilius Metellus, who successfully conducted the\nNumidian War against Jugurtha (109 B.C.) until superseded by Marius. A\nman of high character, military ability, and intellectual culture.\n\n=M\u0113trod\u00f3rus=: favourite pupil of Epicurus (q.v.) and almost co-master of\nhis school. Died 277 B.C.\n\n=Mithrid\u00e1tes=: Mithridates VI, or the Great, king of Pontus 120-63 B.C.,\na Hellenized oriental famed for his physical and intellectual ability,\nhis ambition and daring; of importance in history for his wars with the\nRomans under Lucullus and Pompey. He made a special study of poisons and\ntheir antidotes.\n\n=Mn\u0113s\u00edph\u020blus=: Athenian statesman of sound practical ability, taken by\nThemistocles as his model. It was he who urged Themistocles to force on\nthe battle of Salamis (480 B.C.). In the _Dinner-Party_ Plutarch borrows\nthe name for an imaginary friend of Solon.\n\n=Molycr\u00e9a=: a town just inside the entrance to the Corinthian Gulf on\nthe north side.\n\n=Myr\u014dn=: Boeotian sculptor; _fl._ 430 B.C. Best known by his Discobolus\nand his \u2018Cow\u2019. His work included animal forms, and human figures in a\nstate of muscular activity or tension.\n\n=M\u00fdrs\u020blus=: see Pittacus.\n\n=Naucr\u0103tis=: a Greek town in the Delta of Egypt, thirty miles from the\nsea. At first only a trading-station, it was granted privileges of\ninternal self-government by Amasis (q.v.).\n\n=Neopt\u00f3l\u0115mus=: see Eumenes.\n\n=Nestor=: the typical wise old man of the _Iliad_.\n\n=Nicander=: poet and physician of Colophon; _fl._ in earlier half of\nsecond century B.C. Two of his poems are extant: the _Theriaca_ on\nvenomous animals, and the _Alexipharmaca_ (or \u2018_Antidotes_\u2018) on poisons\nand their remedies. The verse in itself is poor.\n\n=N\u00edcias=: (1) Athenian general in the calamitous expedition against\nSyracuse (415-413 B.C.). A man of wealth, but religious to the point of\ndisastrous superstition; a commander of experience, though wanting in\npromptitude and self-reliance. He was put to death by the victors.\n\n(2) painter of Athens, _fl._ _c._ 310 B.C., particularly noted for his\nchiaroscuro and for improvements in encaustic painting.\n\n=Nil\u00f3x\u0115nus=: a character probably invented by Plutarch, with a name\ngeographically suitable.\n\n=Numa=: Numa Pompilius, second king of Rome, famed for his piety and the\nexcellence of his legislation. Much of his history is legendary.\n\n=Olympias=: wife of Philip (q.v.) and mother of Alexander. An imperious\nand vindictive woman, with good reasons for jealousy, who often figures\nin Macedonian feuds.\n\n=Olynthus=: a Greek town on the Chalcidic peninsula, south of\nThessalonica.\n\n=\u00d3mph\u0103l\u00eb=: queen of Lydia, to whom Heracles was for a time enslaved and\nfor whom he played an effeminate part. In a sense she played the Delilah\nto his Samson.\n\n=Orch\u00f3m\u0115nus=: a very ancient town in Boeotia.\n\n=Oromazdes=: = Ahuramazda, the great God of the Zoroastrians; deity of\nlight and good, as opposed to Ahrimanes.\n\n=P\u00e1nd\u0103rus=: a Lycian warrior on the Trojan side, famous for his skill as\nan archer.\n\n=Panth\u00e9a=: beautiful wife of Abradatas, king of Susa. Cyrus, who had\ncaptured her, showed her such respect that Abradatas came over to his\nside.\n\n=Parm\u00e9n\u020bdes=: philosopher and legislator of Elea, _fl._ _c._ 476 B.C.\nHis writings were in the hexameter verse then usual as the vehicle of\nliterary philosophy.\n\n=Parm\u00e9nio=: general under Philip and Alexander, and right-hand\nlieutenant of the latter. Accused of taking part in a conspiracy against\nhis chief, he was assassinated at the age of seventy in 330 B.C.\n\n=Parrh\u00e1sius=: painter of Ephesus, domiciled at Athens, _c._ 400 B.C.;\nfamed for his accurate drawing and proportion. As a man he was arrogant\nand luxurious.\n\n=P\u0101s\u00edpha\u00eb=: (legendary): wife of Minos of Crete; enamoured of a bull and\nmother of the Minotaur.\n\n=Patr\u00f3clus=: the \u2018squire\u2019 and beloved friend of Achilles. Killed by\nHector in battle, and avenged by Achilles.\n\n=Pe\u00edsistr\u0103tus=: a younger relative of Solon; intrigued himself into the\nposition of despot of Athens 560 B.C. He was twice expelled, but\nre-established himself. A highly capable ruler, beautifier of Athens,\nand a lover of literature.\n\n=P\u0113leides= (-=\u012b=-): (i.e. \u2018son of Peleus\u2019) = Achilles.\n\n=P\u00e9leus=: aged father of Achilles; superannuated king in Thessaly.\n\n=Periander=: despot of Corinth, _c._ 625-585 B.C. An able and powerful\nruler, patron of literature and art, generally (but not invariably)\nincluded among the Seven Sages. His early mildness is commonly reported\nto have passed into tyranny (see Thrasybulus). His wife was Melissa.\n\nPericles: the highest name among what may be called \u2018Prime Ministers\u2019 of\nAthens. His career may be dated 470-429 B.C., but his leadership became\nmost pronounced about 444 B.C. A man of large conceptions, brilliant\noratorical powers, and philosophic tastes, but of an aristocratic and\nexclusive temperament.\n\n=Pers\u00e9ph\u014fn\u00eb=: daughter of Demeter, wife of Pluto, and therefore, in one\nof her aspects, Queen of the Dead.\n\n=Perseus=: king of Macedonia, on whom the Romans made war in 171 B.C. At\nfirst victorious or equal, he was defeated at Pydna by L. Aemilius\nPaulus 168 B.C. He was carried to Rome and lived for some years at Alba.\nA weak, vacillating and parsimonious monarch.\n\n=Petr\u00f3nius=: Titus (or Gaius) Petronius, the famous \u2018arbiter of taste\u2019\nunder Nero and director of his pleasures. Whether he was the author of\nthe famous _Satyricon_ is doubtful.\n\n=Phae\u00e1cians=: seafaring inhabitants of the rich and fertile island of\nPhaeacia, traditionally identified with Corfu, but possibly Crete. When\nOdysseus arrived at the island on his raft he was hospitably entertained\nby King Alcinous and sent home to Ithaca by him on a ship.\n\n=Phaedra=: wife of Theseus and step-mother of Hippolytus, of whom she\nbecame enamoured. The allusion in Plutarch refers to the fondness of\nHippolytus for hunting.\n\n=Ph\u00e1l\u0103ris=: despot of Agrigentum in Sicily _c._ 570 B.C. His name was in\nsome legends proverbial for cruelty, and with him is associated the\nlegend of roasting his victims in a brazen bull. Put he is sometimes\nrepresented otherwise and as a student of letters and philosophy.\n\n=Pheidias= (=Ph\u00edd=-) of Athens, the most eminent sculptor of antiquity:\ndied 432 B.C. He is best known for his work upon the Parthenon and his\ncolossal statue of Zeus at Olympia.\n\n=Ph\u00e9rae=: a town in Thessaly, somewhat west of the modern Volo, which\nbecame dominant under the despots Jason and Alexander (q.v.).\n\n=Philadolphus=: see Ptolemy (1).\n\n=Phil\u00e9m\u014dn=: Athenian poet of the New Comedy, reckoned second only to\nMenander. Lived _c._ 360-262 B.C., and wrote ninety-seven plays.\n\n=Phil\u00e9tas=: of Cos, _c._ 300 B.C.; elegiac poet and critic, tutor of\nPtolemy II. His thinness was a matter of jest for the comedians.\n\n=Philip=: 382-336 B.C. king of Macedon, father of Alexander, and, in a\nlarge measure, conqueror of Greece. Demosthenes\u2019 _Philippics_ and other\nspeeches were directed against him. An able, hard-working, ambitious,\nand rather unscrupulous man; a hard drinker and a sensualist, especially\nfond of rude jest, but with intellectual tastes.\n\n=Phil\u00edpp\u020bdes=: one of the better Athenian poets of the New Comedy; _fl._\n_c._ 335 B.C. At first he attacked the Macedonian rulers, but later\nbecame a friend of Lysimachus (q.v.).\n\n=Phil\u00f3ch\u014frus=: Athenian writer on the history, antiquities, and legends\nof his country, and on miscellaneous subjects: _fl._ _c._ 300-260 B.C.\n\n=Phil\u00f3cr\u0103tes=: Athenian orator, first a supporter, then an opponent, of\nDemosthenes. His policy was consistently to abet the pretensions of\nPhilip of Macedon, who had bribed him lavishly, to the detriment of\nAthens. He was ultimately impeached and compelled to go into exile, 330\nB.C.\n\n=Philoct\u00e9tos=: Greek hero (in the expedition to Troy) left desolate on\nthe island of Lemnos, where he suffered deprivations and the agonies of\na gangrened foot.\n\n=Philopoemen=: (1) the most distinguished Greek soldier of his day; head\nof the Achaean League several times from 208 B.C.; a man of culture and\nhigh character.\n\n(2) controlling minister of Attalus II (q.v.).\n\n=Phil\u00f3tas=: there were several Macedonians of the name in the service of\nAlexander. The two chief were (1) the son of Parmenio, a favourite of\nAlexander, but found guilty of conspiracy and executed; (2) a general\nwho subsequently became governor of Cilicia.\n\n=Philot\u00edmus=: a distinguished physician and writer on medicine of the\ndate of Erasistratus and Herophilus (q.v.), _c._ 300 B.C.\n\n=Phil\u00f3x\u0115nus=: a dithyrambic poet of high repute: _fl._ at Athens 400\nB.C. He thence moved to the court of Dionysius (q.v.), by whom he is\nsaid to have been imprisoned for his scathing criticism on the despot\u2019s\nverses.\n\n=Ph\u00f3ci\u014dn=: 402-317 B.C. An upright Athenian general and statesman, who\nfavoured, though probably not in an unpatriotic spirit, the submission\nof Athens to the Macedonian power under Alexander (335) and Antipater\n(q.v.). He was frequently opposed to Demosthenes, and was put to death\nby his countrymen on a charge of treason.\n\n=Ph\u014dc\u00fdl\u020bdes=: epic and elegiac poet of Miletus, _fl._ _c._ 530 B.C. Many\nof his lines passed into current maxims, and were so intended.\n\n=Phoenix=: a fugitive kindly received by Peleus and entrusted with the\nbringing-up of his son Achilles. He had quarrelled with his own father,\nwhose young mistress he had corrupted at the request of his jealous\nmother.\n\n=Pindar=: of Thebes, the most eminent lyrist of Greece, composer of\nsongs, choral and processional odes, dirges, &c.; lived _c._ 522-442\nB.C.\n\n=P\u00edtt\u0103cus=: of Mytilene, _c._ 650-569. Contemporary of Sappho. During\nthe struggles of the oligarchical and popular parties he was appointed\nby the latter \u2018elective autocrat\u2019 and legislator. The chief\nrepresentative on the other side had been Myrsilus. A philosophic poet\nand the originator of moral maxims.\n\n=Plato=: the aristocratic and cultured philosopher of Athens, follower\nof Socrates, founder of the Academy, and writer of the Dialogues which\ngo under his name.\n\n=P\u00f3l\u0115mo=: (1) of Athens, who in his youth abandoned profligate habits\nfor the cult of the Platonic philosophy under the influence of\nXenocrates (q.v.), whom he succeeded 315 B.C.\n\n(2) a Stoic philosopher, traveller, and geographer, who wrote copiously\non inscriptions, &c.; _fl._ _c._ 195 B.C.\n\n=Pol\u00fdbius=: Greek historian from Arcadia, carried to Italy by the Romans\n167 B.C., and taken under the patronage of Q. Fabius Maximus and Scipio\nAemilianus. He accompanied Scipio against Carthage and in Spain. Wrote a\nsound, useful, unimaginative history of the years 220-146 B.C. A\npractical statesman and a student of the military art.\n\n=Polycleitus= (-=cl\u00edt=-): of Argos, _fl._ _c._ 450-412 B.C.; a sculptor\nof the first rank, particularly distinguished for his representation of\nhuman forms, to which he imparted his ideals of strength and beauty\naccording to a \u2018canon of proportions\u2019. These were best typified in his\n_Doryphorus_ (\u2018spear-bearer\u2019), which was itself sometimes called \u2018the\nCanon\u2019. His chief colossal statue was the chryselephantine Hera of\nArgos.\n\n=Pontus=: in two senses: (1) the Black Sea; (2) a province or region on\nthe eastern half of the south coast of that sea.\n\n=Prax\u00edt\u0115les=: the second greatest name in Athenian sculpture; _fl._ _c._\n365 B.C. He is the head of the \u2018later\u2019 (or more graceful) Attic school,\nPheidias (q.v.) representing the earlier, more massive and majestic. He\nparticularly excelled with his statues of Aphrodite (e.g. the \u2018Venus of\nCnidos\u2019).\n\n=Priam=: aged king of Troy, father of Hector, whose dead body he came to\nAchilles to ransom.\n\n=Pri\u00e9n\u00eb=: an Ionian Greek town in Asia Minor a little south of Ephesus;\nthe home of Bias.\n\n=Pr\u00f3d\u020bcus=: of Ceos, sophist and rhetorical teacher; a contemporary of\nPlato and a frequent visitor to Athens. His bodily weakness was\nnotorious.\n\n=Prom\u00e9theus=: mythical semi-deity, gifted with great foresight; a\nbenefactor of mankind by giving them fire stolen from heaven (an offence\nfor which he was cruelly punished by Zeus), and by the invention of the\ncivilizing arts. His name was commonly interpreted \u2018Fore-thinker\u2019.\n\n=Ptolemy=: (1) Ptolemy II (Philadelphus), king of Egypt 285-247 B.C.\n\n(2) Ptolemy III (Euergetes), king of Egypt 247-222 B.C.\n\n(3) Ptolemy IV (Philopator), king 222-205 B.C.; a vicious and sensual\nmonarch, ruled by his minister Sosibius.\n\n(4) Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), king 205-181 B.C. See _Aristomenes_. It was\nin the early part of his reign that Egypt became a Roman protectorate.\nHe came to the throne at the age of four.\n\n=Publius Nigidius=: contemporary of Cicero; a man of great scientific\nand mathematical learning, as became a Pythagorean.\n\n=P\u016bpius Piso=: Roman orator, and consul in 61 B.C.; a supporter of\nClodius and therefore hostile to Cicero.\n\n=Pyrrhus=: king of Epirus, called in by the people of Tarentum against\nthe Romans. After a dearly won victory in 280 B.C. he sent his eloquent\nminister to Rome to offer humiliating terms of peace. These were\nrejected, and after a practically equal contest he retired from Italy.\n\n=Pythagoras=: of Samos, _fl._ _c._ 540-520 B.C. He had apparently\ntravelled in the East and acquired, besides mathematical knowledge (in\nwhich he made some advances), mystical theological views and probably\nalso his doctrine of the transmigration of souls. He migrated to Croton\nin South Italy, and there became the founder of a close and aristocratic\nphilosophical brotherhood, to whom the word of the master was sufficient\n(_ipse dixit_). Many legends gathered about him and a mystical\ninterpretation was put upon his rather compressed maxims.\n\n=Pythian=: = \u2018belonging to Pytho\u2019, i.e. to Delphi, the seat of the chief\noracle of Apollo.\n\n=Rhium=: the promontory on the south side of the mouth of the Corinthian\nGulf, the north promontory being Antirrhium.\n\n=Rusticus=: L. Junius Arulenus Rusticus, a Roman noble of the Stoic\nschool and champion of liberty, so far as that was possible under the\nRoman emperors. Put to death by Domitian (emperor A.D. 81-96).\n\n=Samius=: lyrist and writer of epigrams at the Macedonian court, _c._\n300 B.C.\n\n=Scipio=: (1) P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major; the brilliant and\nalmost ideal Roman general who conquered Hannibal in 202 B.C.\n\n(2) P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Minor, who completed the\nconquest of Carthage 146 B.C.; a student of letters and philosophy.\n\n=Scir\u014dn=: a spot on the Sacred Way from Athens to Eleusis.\n\n=Scyros=: island in the Aegean off north-east of Euboea. Here Achilles\nwas for a time hidden by his mother in woman\u2019s dress, and occupied in\nfeminine tasks to keep him from the dangers of Troy.\n\n=Seleucus=: called Callinicus (the \u2018Victorious\u2019); king of Syria 246-226\nB.C. He was defeated by Antiochus with the help of Gauls (= Galatians)\nat Ancyra, and it was for a time thought that he had perished in the\nrout. He managed, however, to retain his kingdom.\n\n=Sil\u00e1ni\u014dn=: Athenian portrait sculptor _c._ 324 B.C. His _Jocasta_\nrepresented her as dying, her pallor being realistically rendered by the\nunworthy device of mixing silver with bronze.\n\n=Sil\u00e9ni=: a class of tipsy satyrs associated with Dionysus. _The_\nSilenus was in a sense the Falstaff of Greek legend.\n\n=Sim\u00f3n\u020bdes=: a most distinguished poet of Ceos, writer of elegies,\nchoral and processional odes, epigrams, and drinking songs (556-467\nB.C.). He spent part of his life as a kind of court poet in Thessaly and\nat Syracuse, and visited Athens. His compositions were of a high order,\nand his moral maxims much in vogue, but he was notorious for worldliness\nand a love of money.\n\n=S\u00edsyphus=: legendary king of Corinth; type of fraudulent and criminal\ncunning; punished in Hades by being compelled to roll a stone up a hill\nfor ever and never establishing it at the top.\n\n=Socrates=: the Athenian philosopher (468-399 B.C.), from whose thinking\nmost of the later schools were in some way descended. His object was to\nbring philosophy down to earth, and to arrive at true and universal\ndefinitions. His simple character, his whimsical irony, and his\ndialectical skill formed the groundwork for many stories. His method was\nconversational and non-didactic. He wrote nothing, and what we know of\nhim is due to his disciples Plato and Xenophon, and to later writers.\n\n=Sol\u014dn=: of Athens, _c._ 638-558 B.C.; aristocrat, trader, traveller,\npoet and thinker. Chosen at a time of political and financial crisis as\nmediator between parties in Attica, and as constitution-maker, he\nbehaved with strict impartiality and self-effacement. We may believe\nthat he visited Egypt, but his intercourse with Croesus (q.v.) is of\ndoubtful warrant. Author of much proverbial wisdom.\n\n=Sophocles=: 496-406 B.C.; second in date, and perhaps in merit, of\nthree great Athenian tragedians; a genial and practical man of the\nworld.\n\n=S\u00f3t\u0103des=: a poet at Alexandria _c._ 280 B.C. He wrote songs and satires\nof a lascivious kind. One account states that in consequence of his\nabuse he was thrown into the sea in a leaden chest.\n\n=Speusippus=: of Athens, nephew and disciple of Plato, and his successor\nas head of the Academy (347-339 B.C.); a writer on ethical and\ndialectical subjects. His character is said to have excelled his\nintellect.\n\n=Sp\u00ednth\u0103rus=: the best known person of the name was an inferior tragic\npoet of Heraclea on the Black Sea satirized by Aristophanes and other\ncomedians.\n\n=Stilpo=: a high-minded and sane philosopher of great dialectical\nacuteness. Founder of the Megarian school, which made a cult of virtue\nwhile denying the possibility of knowledge. See also under Demetrius.\n\n=Sulla=: the distinguished Roman general, 138-78 B.C. He took charge of\nthe war against Mithridates in 87 B.C., his capture of Athens taking\nplace in the next year. His love of pleasure resulted in the pimpled\nface referred to in Plutarch\u2019s article on _Garrulity_. Caecilia Metella\nwas his fourth wife.\n\n=S\u00fdb\u0103ris=: the oldest Greek settlement in the southernmost part of\nItaly, once large, prosperous, and a by-word for effeminate luxury\n(whence \u2018sybarite\u2019); afterwards completely overthrown and destroyed, its\nplace being taken by Thurii (q.v.).\n\n=Taen\u0103rum=: now Matapan; cape at the end of the middle prong of the\nPeloponnese.\n\n=T\u00e9l\u0115phus=: king of Mysia at the time of the Trojan war. He was wounded\nby Achilles, and could only be cured by \u2018that which had wounded him\u2019.\nThe remedy turned out to be the rust of Achilles\u2019 spear.\n\n=Th\u00e1\u00efs=: a witty and beautiful courtesan of Athens, first associated\nwith Alexander during his Asiatic campaigns and then with Ptolemy in\nEgypt.\n\n=Thales=: of Miletus, _c._ 635-555 B.C. Famous as a physical\nphilosopher, mathematician, and shrewd practical man. He is regularly\nmentioned first among the Seven Sages.\n\n=Theaet\u00e9tus=: a high-minded Athenian youth, eager for knowledge, who\nplays his part in Plato\u2019s dialogue of that name.\n\n=The\u00e1g\u0115nes=: Theban general at Chaeronea (338 B.C.).\n\n=The\u00e1n\u014d=: wife or pupil (or both) of Pythagoras (q.v.), herself a writer\non philosophy and a pattern of virtue.\n\n=Themist\u014fcles=: became political leader at Athens 483 B.C., and\ncommanded the Athenian contingent at the battle of Salamis. Subsequently\n(471 B.C.) this extremely able, but apparently not extremely honest, man\nwas ostracised. His last days were spent in the service of Persia. His\nson Diophantus is of no note.\n\n=The\u00f3critus=: of Chios, rhetorician and sophist, noted for his caustic\nwit. The Antigonus who put him to death was Antigonus the \u2018One-Eyed\u2019.\n\n=The\u00f3gnis=: elegiac poet of the sententious order. He flourished at\nMegara _c._ 550-540 B.C. Amid the feuds of his country he sides with the\naristocrats, and allusions to political injustice are frequent. Many\ncurrent maxims of proverbial wisdom were fathered on \u2018Theognis\u2019 as a\nmatter of course.\n\n=The\u014dn=: painter of Samos, contemporary of Apelles (q.v.) and Alexander;\nspoken of by Pliny as \u2018next to the first\u2019.\n\n=Theophrastus=: of Lesbos and afterwards of Athens; disciple and\nsuccessor of Aristotle as head of the Peripatetics (322 B.C.). An\nencyclopaedic writer on logic, physics, history, biology, zoology, &c.\nHis best-known work is his _Characters_.\n\n=Theopompus=: king of Sparta, _fl._ _c._ 750 B.C. To his reign belonged\nthe change of the form of government by the establishment of the popular\n\u2018ephors\u2019 to control the royal power.\n\n=Thers\u00edtes=: misshapen and virulent demagogue in the Greek army before\nTroy.\n\n=Th\u0115tis=: sea-goddess; mother of Achilles.\n\n=Thrasyb\u00falus=: despot of Miletus, contemporary and friend of Periander\n(q.v.), over whom he exercised a bad influence, as in advising him to\n\u2018cut down the tall poppies\u2019.\n\n=Th\u00farii=: Greek city in South Italy on the west side of the Gulf of\nTarentum, noted for its special democratic system.\n\n=T\u012bm\u00e1g\u0115nes=: an Alexandrian or Syrian rhetorician and historian. He\ntaught and wrote at Rome under Augustus, whose friendship he obtained,\nlosing it, however, through his caustic freedom.\n\n=T\u012bmocl\u00e9a=: of Thebes. Plutarch tells of her noble and daring spirit in\nhis _Life of Alexander_ (c. 12).\n\n=T\u012bmom\u0103chus=: painter of Byzantium, first century B.C.; particularly\nfamed for his _Ajax_ and _Medea_, which were bought by Julius Caesar.\nMedea was represented meditating the murder of her children.\n\n=Tim\u00f3th\u00ebus=: (1) an able and spirited Athenian general, who obtained\nseveral rather roving successes, chiefly against the Lacedaemonians.\nSomething of a free lance; of popular character and considerable\nculture; _fl._ 378-354 B.C.\n\n(2) poet and musician of Miletus, settled at Athens; _fl._ _c._ 400-360\nB.C. His poems were mainly dithyrambs (high-flown and wordy\ncompositions) or cognate lyrics. His music, at first ill received on\naccount of its vulgarizing innovations, became immensely popular.\n\n=Tissaphernes=: Persian satrap of lower Asia Minor. See Alcibiades.\n\n=T\u012bth\u00f3nus=: a mortal beloved of Eos (Aurora), who obtained for him\nimmortality, but forgot to obtain him immortal youth.\n\n=Troezen=: a town in the east of the Peloponnese near the entrance of\nthe Saronic Gulf.\n\n=Tyndareus\u2019 sons=: Castor and Pollux, the traditional preservers of\nseamen.\n\n=Typh\u014dn=: = Set; Egyptian malignant deity; brother, enemy, and slayer of\nOsiris.\n\n=Xen\u00f3cr\u0103tes=: 396-314 B.C.: philosopher from Chalcedon, disciple of\nPlato, and philosophic teacher and writer. His earnestness of character\nand application to study atoned for his lack of the Graces. Became head\nof the Academic school next but one after Plato.\n\n=Xen\u00f3ph\u0103nes=: philosopher of Colophon, and afterwards of Elea in Italy,\nin later part of sixth century B.C. Noted for his high conception of a\nDeity as neither anthropomorphic nor subject to human passions. His\ndoctrines were embodied in hexameter verse.\n\n=Xenoph\u014dn=: of Athens; the well-known historian, and leader of the\nretreat of the \u2018Ten Thousand\u2019 as recorded in his _Anabasis_. A\nphilosophical adherent of Socrates and a voluminous writer. Lived _c._\n444-359 B.C.\n\n=Zac\u00fdnthus= = Zante, the southernmost of the Ionian islands.\n\n=Z\u00e9no=: (1) of Citium in Cyprus and subsequently of Athens; founder of\nthe Stoic philosophy; a man of simple, if rather dour, character, and\ncapable of an apt retort: _fl._ _c._ 270 B.C. A writer on ethical,\nphysical, and other philosophic subjects.\n\n(2) Philosopher of Elea; disciple of Parmenides (q.v.); upholder of\npopular liberty against a usurping despot.\n\n\n\n\n                                APPENDIX\n                        NOTES ON THE GREEK TEXT\n\n\n4 D \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Read\n... \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, (\u1f22) \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n5 C \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u1fc3\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9. The sense\nrequires \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u2018cheap\u2019.\n\n6 C \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb. The cause\nof the lacuna is obvious if we read \u03c4\u03af \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd;) \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.\n\n7 B \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Rather ... (\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n7 F \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5. Read \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n8 B \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd. Read \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 ...\n\n8 D \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6. Read ... \u1f00\u03b8\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd ...\n\n8 F \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 ...\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c8\u03c9. Read ... \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n11 A \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. We\nrequire the antithesis \u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1 (\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u1f7a\u03bd) \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u1fc3.\n\n12 E \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Read ...\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7 ...\n\n13 B \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bb\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. The sense requires \u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2, to which\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 may be equivalent.\n\n14 C \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f22\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af. The word most easily lost would be (\u03b5\u1f50\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2).\nAlso (\u03bc\u1f02\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd) is to be supplied.\n\n44 B \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c8\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f7c\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Read\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 ...\n\n46 B \u1fa0\u03b4\u03ae\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Read \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2) or the\nlike.\n\n74 A \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd. The sense requires \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 ...\n\n152 A \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. Probably \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 ...\n\n152 D \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u0390\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. For \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 (\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5) read \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 (\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3 i.e.) \u03b4\u1fbd\n\u0391\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 ...\n\n158 D \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7. The sense requires \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n159 D \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. Read\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd.\n\n160 F \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5. Read \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5.\n\n163 D ... \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f15\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb. The sense would be\ngiven by ... \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2)\n\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.\n\n504 B \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Rather\n... \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (\u03b5\u1f37\u03c2) ...\n\n504 C \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f45\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 ... Probably\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f45\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2) \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.\n\n513 A \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u039f\u03a5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd. There would be more point in ... \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd) ... Moreover, what they wrote was simply \u039f.\n\n514 F \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f27\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. Read ... \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f27\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (\u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd) \u1f10\u03bd ...\n\n515 D \u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f08\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1. Perhaps \u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26 ...\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.\n    \u25cb Typographical errors were silently corrected.\n    \u25cb Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only\n      when a predominant form was found in this book.\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Text that was in bold face is enclosed by equals signs (=bold=).\n    \u25cb Page references printed in the margin of the book have been moved\n      into the paragraphs near where they appear, contained in square\n      brackets, and begun with the word \"Sidenote\".\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\n      referenced.","title":"Selected Essays of Plutarch, Vol. I.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":98015}