added: Keep an eye on our friend yonder, you others next him, and see fair play between the sop and the sauce. [12]
[12] Lit. 'see whether he will make a relish of the staple or a staple of the relish' ('butter his bread or bread his butter').
Another time, seeing one of the company using but one sop of bread[13] to test several savoury dishes, he remarked: Could there be a more extravagant style of cookery, or more murderous to the dainty dishes themselves, than this wholesale method of taking so many dishes together?--why, bless me, twenty different sorts of seasoning at one swoop![14] First of all he mixes up actually more ingredients than the cook himself prescribes, which is extravagant; and secondly, he has the audacity to commingle what the chef holds incongruous, whereby if the cooks are right in their method he is wrong in his, and consequently the destroyer of their art. Now is it not ridiculous first to procure the greatest virtuosi to cook for us, and then without any claim to their skill to take and alter their procedure? But there is a worse thing in store for the bold man who habituates himself to eat a dozen dishes at once: when there are but few dishes served, out of pure habit he will feel himself half starved, whilst his neighbour, accustomed to send his sop down by help of a single relish, will feast merrily, be the dishes never so few.
[13] {psomos}, a sop or morsel of bread (cf. {psomion}, N. T., in mod. Greek = 'bread').
[14] Huckleberry Finn (p. 2 of that young person's 'Adventures') propounds the rationale of the system: 'In a barrel of odds and ends it is different; things get mixed up, and the juice kind of swaps around, and the things go better.'
He had a saying that {euokheisthai}, to 'make good cheer,'[15] was in Attic parlance a synonym for 'eating,' and the affix {eu} (the attributive 'good') connoted the eating of such things as would not trouble soul or body, and were not far to seek or hard to find. So that to 'make good cheer' in his vocabulary applied to a modest and well- ordered style of living.[16]
[15] {euokheisthai}, cf. 'Cyrop.' IV. v. 7; 'Pol. Ath.' ii. 9; Kuhner cf. Eustah. 'ad Il.' ii. p. 212, 37, {'Akhaioi ten trophen okhen legousin oxutonos}. Athen. viii. 363 B. See 'Hipparch,' viii. 4, of horses. Cf. Arist. 'H. A.' viii. 6.
[16] See 'Symp.' vi. 7; and for similar far-fetched etymologies, Plat. 'Crat.' passim.
BOOK IV
I
Such was Socrates; so helpful under all circumstances and in every way that no observer, gifted with ordinary sensibility, could fail to appreciate the fact, that to be with Socrates, and to spend long time in his society (no matter where or what the circumstances), was indeed a priceless gain. Even the recollection of him, when he was no longer present, was felt as no small benefit by those who had grown accustomed to be with him, and who accepted him. Nor indeed was he less helpful to his acquaintance in his lighter than in his graver moods.
Let us take as an example that saying of his, so often on his lips: 'I am in love with so and so'; and all the while it was obvious the going-forth of his soul was not towards excellence of body in the bloom of beauty, but rather towards faculties of the soul unfolding in virtue.[1] And these 'good natures' he detected by certain tokens: a readiness to learn that to which the attention was directed; a power of retaining in the memory the lessons learnt; and a passionate predilection for those studies in particular which serve to good administration of a house or of a state,[2] and in general to the proper handling of man and human affairs. Such beings, he maintained, needed only to be educated[3] to become not only happy themselves and happy administrators of their private households, but to be capable of rendering other human beings as states or individuals happy also.
[1] Or, 'not excellence of body in respect of beauty, but of the soul as regards virtue; and this good natural disposition might be detected by the readiness of its possessor to learn,' etc. Cf. Plat. 'Rep.' 535 B.
[2] Cf. above, I. i. 7.
[3] Or, 'A person of this type would, if educated, not only prove a fortune-favoured invididual himself and,' etc. Al. Kuhner, 'Eos, qui ita instituti sunt, ut tales sint.'
He had indeed a different way of dealing with different kinds of people.[4] Those who thought they had good natural ability and despised learning he instructed that the most highly-gifted nature stands most in need of training and education;[5] and he would point out how in the case of horses it is just the spirited and fiery thoroughbred which, if properly broken in as a colt, will develop into a serviceable and superb animal, but if left unbroken will turn out utterly intractable and good for nothing. Or take the case of dogs: a puppy exhibiting that zest for toil and eagerness to attack wild creatures which are the marks of high breeding,[6] will, if well brought up, prove excellent for the chase or for any other useful purpose; but neglect his education and he will turn out a stupid, crazy brute, incapable of obeying the simplest command. It is just the same with human beings; here also the youth of best natural endowments --that is to say, possessing the most robust qualities of spirit and a fixed determination to carry out whatever he has laid his hand to-- will, if trained and taught what it is right to do, prove a superlatively good and useful man. He achieves, in fact, what is best upon the grandest scale. But leave him in boorish ignorance untrained, and he will prove not only very bad but very mischievous,[7] and for this reason, that lacking the knowledge to discern what is right to do, he will frequently lay his hand to villainous practices; whilst the very magnificence and vehemence of his character render it impossible either to rein him in or to turn him aside from his evil courses. Hence in his case also his achievements are on the grandest scale but of the worst.[8]
[4] Or, 'His method of attack was not indeed uniformly the same. It varied with the individual.'
[5] Or, 'If any one was disposed to look down upon learning and study in reliance upon his own natural ability, he tried to lesson him that it is just the highly-gifted nature which stands,' etc. See Newman, op. cit. i. 397.
[6] Cf. Aristot. 'H. A.' ix. 1; and 'Hunting,' iii. 11.
[7] Or, 'and the same man may easily become a master villain of the most dangerous sort.'
[8] Kuhner ad loc. after Fr. Hermann cf. Plato. 'Crito,' 44 E; 'Hipp. min.' 375 E; 'Rep.' vi. 491 E; 'Gorg.' 526 A; 'Polit.' 303 A.
Or to take the type of person so eaten up with the pride of riches that he conceives himself dispensed from any further need of education --since it is 'money makes the man,' and his wealth will amply suffice him to carry out his desires and to win honours from admiring humanity.[9] Socrates would bring such people to their senses by pointing out the folly of supposing that without instruction it was possible to draw the line of demarcation[10] between what is gainful and what is hurtful in conduct; and the further folly of supposing that, apart from such discrimination, a man could help himself by means of wealth alone to whatever he liked or find the path of expediency plain before him; and was it not the veriest simplicity to suppose that, without the power of labouring profitably, a man can either be doing well or be in any sort of way sufficiently equipped for the battle of life? and again, the veriest simplicity to suppose that by mere wealth without true knowledge it was possible either to purchase a reputation for some excellence, or without such reputation to gain distinction and celebrity?
[9] Or, 'and to be honoured by mankind.'
[10] Or, 'that without learning the distinction it was possible to distinguish between,' etc.
II
Or to come to a third kind--the class of people who are persuaded that they have received the best education, and are proud of their wisdom: his manner of dealing with these I will now describe.
Euthydemus[1] 'the beautiful' had (Socrates was given to understand) collected a large library, consisting of the most celebrated poets and philosophers,[2] by help of which he already believed himself to be more than a match for his fellows in wisdom, and indeed might presently expect to out-top them all in capacity of speech and action.[3] At first, as Socrates noted, the young man by reason of his youth had not as yet set foot in the agora,[4] but if he had anything to transact, his habit was to seat himself in a saddler's shop hard by. Accordingly to this same saddler's shop Socrates betook himself with some of those who were with him. And first the question was started by some one: 'Was it through consorting with the wise,[5] or by his own unaided talent, that Themistocles came so to surpass his fellow-citizens that when the services of a capable man were needed the eyes of the whole community instinctively turned to him?' Socrates, with a view to stirring[6] Euthydemus, answered: There was certainly an ingenuous simplicity in the belief that superiority in arts of comparatively little worth could only be attained by aid of qualified teachers, but that the leadership of the state, the most important concern of all, was destined to drop into the lap of anybody, no matter whom, like an accidental windfall.[7]
[1] Euthydemus, the son of Diocles perhaps. See Plat. 'Symp.' 222 B, and Jowet ad loc.; Cobet, 'Prosop. Xen.' s.n.; K. Joel, op. cit. p. 372 foll. For {ton kalon} cf. 'Phaedr.' 278 E, 'Isocrates the fair.' For the whole chapter cf.
