This is a modern-English version of Laches, originally written by Plato. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.





LACHES

OR COURAGE



By Plato



Translated by Benjamin Jowett










Contents






INTRODUCTION.

Lysimachus, the son of Aristides the Just, and Melesias, the son of the elder Thucydides, two aged men who live together, are desirous of educating their sons in the best manner. Their own education, as often happens with the sons of great men, has been neglected; and they are resolved that their children shall have more care taken of them, than they received themselves at the hands of their fathers.

Lysimachus, the son of Aristides the Just, and Melesias, the son of the elder Thucydides, two elderly men who live together, want to provide the best education for their sons. Like many sons of prominent figures, they didn’t receive the attention they needed in their own upbringing; now they are determined that their children will receive more care than they did from their fathers.

At their request, Nicias and Laches have accompanied them to see a man named Stesilaus fighting in heavy armour. The two fathers ask the two generals what they think of this exhibition, and whether they would advise that their sons should acquire the accomplishment. Nicias and Laches are quite willing to give their opinion; but they suggest that Socrates should be invited to take part in the consultation. He is a stranger to Lysimachus, but is afterwards recognised as the son of his old friend Sophroniscus, with whom he never had a difference to the hour of his death. Socrates is also known to Nicias, to whom he had introduced the excellent Damon, musician and sophist, as a tutor for his son, and to Laches, who had witnessed his heroic behaviour at the battle of Delium (compare Symp.).

At their request, Nicias and Laches have joined them to watch a man named Stesilaus fighting in heavy armor. The two fathers ask the two generals what they think of this display and if they would recommend that their sons learn this skill. Nicias and Laches are more than happy to share their thoughts, but they suggest that Socrates should be invited to join the discussion. He is unfamiliar to Lysimachus but is later recognized as the son of his old friend Sophroniscus, with whom he never had a disagreement until his death. Socrates is also known to Nicias, who had introduced him to the excellent Damon, a musician and sophist, as a tutor for his son, and to Laches, who had seen his brave actions at the battle of Delium (compare Symp.).

Socrates, as he is younger than either Nicias or Laches, prefers to wait until they have delivered their opinions, which they give in a characteristic manner. Nicias, the tactician, is very much in favour of the new art, which he describes as the gymnastics of war—useful when the ranks are formed, and still more useful when they are broken; creating a general interest in military studies, and greatly adding to the appearance of the soldier in the field. Laches, the blunt warrior, is of opinion that such an art is not knowledge, and cannot be of any value, because the Lacedaemonians, those great masters of arms, neglect it. His own experience in actual service has taught him that these pretenders are useless and ridiculous. This man Stesilaus has been seen by him on board ship making a very sorry exhibition of himself. The possession of the art will make the coward rash, and subject the courageous, if he chance to make a slip, to invidious remarks. And now let Socrates be taken into counsel. As they differ he must decide.

Socrates, being younger than both Nicias and Laches, chooses to hold off until they share their opinions, which they do in their own distinct ways. Nicias, the strategist, strongly supports the new approach, referring to it as the "gymnastics of war"—effective when ranks are formed and even more so when they break; it generates a general interest in military tactics and significantly enhances the soldier's appearance in the field. Laches, the straightforward warrior, believes this approach lacks true knowledge and is therefore worthless, since the Lacedaemonians, who are exceptional in combat, ignore it. His own service experience has shown him that these impostors are both useless and ridiculous. He recalls seeing a man named Stesilaus on a ship making a complete fool of himself. Mastering this art may lead a coward to act recklessly, and if a brave person slips up, they'll face harsh criticism. Now it’s time for Socrates to weigh in. Since they disagree, he needs to make the call.

Socrates would rather not decide the question by a plurality of votes: in such a serious matter as the education of a friend's children, he would consult the one skilled person who has had masters, and has works to show as evidences of his skill. This is not himself; for he has never been able to pay the sophists for instructing him, and has never had the wit to do or discover anything. But Nicias and Laches are older and richer than he is: they have had teachers, and perhaps have made discoveries; and he would have trusted them entirely, if they had not been diametrically opposed.

Socrates would prefer not to settle the issue with a majority vote: in such an important matter as the education of a friend's children, he would seek advice from the one knowledgeable person who has had teachers and can provide evidence of their expertise. That person isn't him; he has never been able to pay the sophists for their teaching and has never had the cleverness to do or discover anything. However, Nicias and Laches are older and wealthier than he is: they have had teachers and may have made discoveries; he would have completely trusted them if they weren't completely opposed to each other.

Lysimachus here proposes to resign the argument into the hands of the younger part of the company, as he is old, and has a bad memory. He earnestly requests Socrates to remain;—in this showing, as Nicias says, how little he knows the man, who will certainly not go away until he has cross-examined the company about their past lives. Nicias has often submitted to this process; and Laches is quite willing to learn from Socrates, because his actions, in the true Dorian mode, correspond to his words.

Lysimachus suggests handing the discussion over to the younger members of the group since he is old and has a poor memory. He sincerely asks Socrates to stay; in this, as Nicias points out, he shows how little he understands the man, who will definitely not leave until he has questioned everyone about their past experiences. Nicias has gone through this process many times, and Laches is eager to learn from Socrates, as his actions genuinely reflect his words in a true Dorian way.

Socrates proceeds: We might ask who are our teachers? But a better and more thorough way of examining the question will be to ask, 'What is Virtue?'—or rather, to restrict the enquiry to that part of virtue which is concerned with the use of weapons—'What is Courage?' Laches thinks that he knows this: (1) 'He is courageous who remains at his post.' But some nations fight flying, after the manner of Aeneas in Homer; or as the heavy-armed Spartans also did at the battle of Plataea. (2) Socrates wants a more general definition, not only of military courage, but of courage of all sorts, tried both amid pleasures and pains. Laches replies that this universal courage is endurance. But courage is a good thing, and mere endurance may be hurtful and injurious. Therefore (3) the element of intelligence must be added. But then again unintelligent endurance may often be more courageous than the intelligent, the bad than the good. How is this contradiction to be solved? Socrates and Laches are not set 'to the Dorian mode' of words and actions; for their words are all confusion, although their actions are courageous. Still they must 'endure' in an argument about endurance. Laches is very willing, and is quite sure that he knows what courage is, if he could only tell.

Socrates continues: We could ask who our teachers are. But a better and more thorough way to explore this question is to ask, 'What is Virtue?'—or more specifically, to focus the inquiry on that part of virtue related to the use of weapons—'What is Courage?' Laches believes he knows the answer: (1) 'A courageous person is someone who stays at their post.' Yet, some nations fight by retreating, like Aeneas in Homer's tales; or as the heavily armed Spartans did at the battle of Plataea. (2) Socrates seeks a broader definition, not just of military courage, but of all types of courage, tested in both pleasure and pain. Laches responds that this universal courage is endurance. But since courage is a good thing, and mere endurance can be harmful, we must add the element of intelligence. However, naive endurance can sometimes be braver than intelligent endurance, and the bad can be braver than the good. How can we resolve this contradiction? Socrates and Laches aren't locked into a specific pattern of words and actions; their words are all mixed up, even though their actions are brave. Still, they need to 'endure' in this discussion about endurance. Laches is eager and confident that he knows what courage is, if only he could express it.

Nicias is now appealed to; and in reply he offers a definition which he has heard from Socrates himself, to the effect that (1) 'Courage is intelligence.' Laches derides this; and Socrates enquires, 'What sort of intelligence?' to which Nicias replies, 'Intelligence of things terrible.' 'But every man knows the things to be dreaded in his own art.' 'No they do not. They may predict results, but cannot tell whether they are really terrible; only the courageous man can tell that.' Laches draws the inference that the courageous man is either a soothsayer or a god.

Nicias is now being asked for his input; in response, he shares a definition he learned directly from Socrates, saying, (1) 'Courage is intelligence.' Laches mocks this idea, and Socrates asks, 'What kind of intelligence?' Nicias answers, 'Intelligence about frightening things.' Socrates counters, 'But everyone knows what to fear in their own field.' Nicias responds, 'No, they don’t. They can predict outcomes, but they can’t truly know if those outcomes are really frightening; only the courageous person can determine that.' Laches concludes that the courageous person must be either a fortune teller or a god.

Again, (2) in Nicias' way of speaking, the term 'courageous' must be denied to animals or children, because they do not know the danger. Against this inversion of the ordinary use of language Laches reclaims, but is in some degree mollified by a compliment to his own courage. Still, he does not like to see an Athenian statesman and general descending to sophistries of this sort. Socrates resumes the argument. Courage has been defined to be intelligence or knowledge of the terrible; and courage is not all virtue, but only one of the virtues. The terrible is in the future, and therefore the knowledge of the terrible is a knowledge of the future. But there can be no knowledge of future good or evil separated from a knowledge of the good and evil of the past or present; that is to say, of all good and evil. Courage, therefore, is the knowledge of good and evil generally. But he who has the knowledge of good and evil generally, must not only have courage, but also temperance, justice, and every other virtue. Thus, a single virtue would be the same as all virtues (compare Protagoras). And after all the two generals, and Socrates, the hero of Delium, are still in ignorance of the nature of courage. They must go to school again, boys, old men and all.

Again, in Nicias' way of speaking, the term 'courageous' must be denied to animals or children, because they do not understand danger. Laches pushes back against this unusual use of language, but he feels somewhat appeased by a compliment about his own bravery. Still, he doesn't like seeing an Athenian statesman and general resort to this kind of reasoning. Socrates takes up the argument again. Courage has been defined as intelligence or knowledge of what is terrible, and courage is not the only virtue, but just one of them. The terrible lies in the future, so knowing what is terrible means having knowledge of the future. However, you can't know future good or evil without also understanding good and evil from the past or present; that is, you need to know all good and bad. Therefore, courage is the knowledge of good and evil in general. But someone who understands good and evil generally must not only have courage but also possess temperance, justice, and every other virtue. So, one single virtue would equal all virtues (see Protagoras). In the end, the two generals and Socrates, the hero of Delium, still don't grasp the true nature of courage. They all need to go back to school, whether they're kids or old men.

Some points of resemblance, and some points of difference, appear in the Laches when compared with the Charmides and Lysis. There is less of poetical and simple beauty, and more of dramatic interest and power. They are richer in the externals of the scene; the Laches has more play and development of character. In the Lysis and Charmides the youths are the central figures, and frequent allusions are made to the place of meeting, which is a palaestra. Here the place of meeting, which is also a palaestra, is quite forgotten, and the boys play a subordinate part. The seance is of old and elder men, of whom Socrates is the youngest.

Some similarities and differences can be seen in the Laches when compared to the Charmides and Lysis. There’s less poetic and simple beauty and more dramatic interest and power. The scenes are richer in detail; the Laches has more character development and interaction. In the Lysis and Charmides, the young men are the main focus, and there are frequent references to the location of their gathering, which is a palaestra. In this case, the meeting spot, which is also a palaestra, is largely overlooked, and the boys take on a minor role. The gathering consists of older men, with Socrates being the youngest.

First is the aged Lysimachus, who may be compared with Cephalus in the Republic, and, like him, withdraws from the argument. Melesias, who is only his shadow, also subsides into silence. Both of them, by their own confession, have been ill-educated, as is further shown by the circumstance that Lysimachus, the friend of Sophroniscus, has never heard of the fame of Socrates, his son; they belong to different circles. In the Meno their want of education in all but the arts of riding and wrestling is adduced as a proof that virtue cannot be taught. The recognition of Socrates by Lysimachus is extremely graceful; and his military exploits naturally connect him with the two generals, of whom one has witnessed them. The characters of Nicias and Laches are indicated by their opinions on the exhibition of the man fighting in heavy armour. The more enlightened Nicias is quite ready to accept the new art, which Laches treats with ridicule, seeming to think that this, or any other military question, may be settled by asking, 'What do the Lacedaemonians say?' The one is the thoughtful general, willing to avail himself of any discovery in the art of war (Aristoph. Aves); the other is the practical man, who relies on his own experience, and is the enemy of innovation; he can act but cannot speak, and is apt to lose his temper. It is to be noted that one of them is supposed to be a hearer of Socrates; the other is only acquainted with his actions. Laches is the admirer of the Dorian mode; and into his mouth the remark is put that there are some persons who, having never been taught, are better than those who have. Like a novice in the art of disputation, he is delighted with the hits of Socrates; and is disposed to be angry with the refinements of Nicias.

First is the older Lysimachus, who can be compared to Cephalus in the Republic and, like him, steps back from the argument. Melesias, who is just his shadow, also falls silent. Both of them admit they haven't had the best education, which is highlighted by the fact that Lysimachus, a friend of Sophroniscus, has never heard of the fame of Socrates, his son; they come from different circles. In the Meno, their lack of education in anything but riding and wrestling is used as evidence that virtue can't be taught. The way Lysimachus recognizes Socrates is very graceful, and his military achievements naturally link him to the two generals, one of whom has witnessed them. The characters of Nicias and Laches are shown by their views on the demonstration of a man fighting in heavy armor. The more educated Nicias is open to the new method, while Laches mocks it, seemingly believing that any military issue can just be resolved by asking, "What do the Spartans say?" One is the thoughtful general, willing to embrace any new insight in warfare (Aristoph. Aves); the other is the practical person who relies on his own experience and is against innovation; he can act but struggles to express himself and tends to lose his temper. It's worth noting that one of them is thought to be a listener of Socrates, while the other only knows about his deeds. Laches appreciates the Dorian mode, and he suggests that some people, having never been taught, can actually be better than those who have. Like a novice in debating, he is thrilled by Socrates’ clever points and tends to get frustrated with Nicias' subtle arguments.

In the discussion of the main thesis of the Dialogue—'What is Courage?' the antagonism of the two characters is still more clearly brought out; and in this, as in the preliminary question, the truth is parted between them. Gradually, and not without difficulty, Laches is made to pass on from the more popular to the more philosophical; it has never occurred to him that there was any other courage than that of the soldier; and only by an effort of the mind can he frame a general notion at all. No sooner has this general notion been formed than it evanesces before the dialectic of Socrates; and Nicias appears from the other side with the Socratic doctrine, that courage is knowledge. This is explained to mean knowledge of things terrible in the future. But Socrates denies that the knowledge of the future is separable from that of the past and present; in other words, true knowledge is not that of the soothsayer but of the philosopher. And all knowledge will thus be equivalent to all virtue—a position which elsewhere Socrates is not unwilling to admit, but which will not assist us in distinguishing the nature of courage. In this part of the Dialogue the contrast between the mode of cross-examination which is practised by Laches and by Socrates, and also the manner in which the definition of Laches is made to approximate to that of Nicias, are worthy of attention.

In the discussion of the main theme of the Dialogue—'What is Courage?'—the conflict between the two characters becomes even more evident. In this case, as with the earlier question, the truth is divided between them. Gradually and not without effort, Laches is encouraged to move from a more popular understanding to a more philosophical one; he had never considered that there could be any form of courage other than that of a soldier, and he can only create a general idea with great mental effort. The moment this general idea is formed, it disappears under Socrates' questioning, and Nicias comes in with the Socratic belief that courage is knowledge. This is explained as knowledge of frightening things that may happen in the future. However, Socrates argues that knowledge of the future cannot be separated from knowledge of the past and present; in other words, true knowledge is not that of a fortune teller but of a philosopher. Consequently, all knowledge equates to all virtue—a stance that Socrates does not shy away from elsewhere, but it does not help us clarify the nature of courage. In this part of the Dialogue, the contrast between the way Laches and Socrates conduct their cross-examinations and how Laches's definition gets closer to Nicias's is particularly noteworthy.

Thus, with some intimation of the connexion and unity of virtue and knowledge, we arrive at no distinct result. The two aspects of courage are never harmonized. The knowledge which in the Protagoras is explained as the faculty of estimating pleasures and pains is here lost in an unmeaning and transcendental conception. Yet several true intimations of the nature of courage are allowed to appear: (1) That courage is moral as well as physical: (2) That true courage is inseparable from knowledge, and yet (3) is based on a natural instinct. Laches exhibits one aspect of courage; Nicias the other. The perfect image and harmony of both is only realized in Socrates himself.

Thus, with some understanding of the connection and unity of virtue and knowledge, we don't reach a clear conclusion. The two sides of courage are never balanced. The knowledge discussed in the Protagoras as the ability to weigh pleasures and pains gets lost here in a vague and abstract idea. Still, several key insights into the nature of courage come through: (1) That courage is both moral and physical; (2) That true courage can't be separated from knowledge, and yet (3) is rooted in a natural instinct. Laches shows one side of courage, while Nicias represents the other. The perfect representation and balance of both can only be found in Socrates himself.

The Dialogue offers one among many examples of the freedom with which Plato treats facts. For the scene must be supposed to have occurred between B.C. 424, the year of the battle of Delium, and B.C. 418, the year of the battle of Mantinea, at which Laches fell. But if Socrates was more than seventy years of age at his trial in 399 (see Apology), he could not have been a young man at any time after the battle of Delium.

The Dialogue is just one of many examples of how freely Plato handles facts. The scene is estimated to have taken place between 424 BC, the year of the battle of Delium, and 418 BC, the year of the battle of Mantinea, where Laches died. However, if Socrates was over seventy years old during his trial in 399 (as mentioned in the Apology), he couldn't have been young at any point after the battle of Delium.






LACHES,

OR COURAGE.





PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE:

                     Lysimachus, son of Aristides.
                     Melesias, son of Thucydides.
                     Their sons.
                     Nicias, Laches, Socrates.
                
                     Lysimachus, son of Aristides.  
                     Melesias, son of Thucydides.  
                     Their sons.  
                     Nicias, Laches, Socrates.  










LYSIMACHUS: You have seen the exhibition of the man fighting in armour, Nicias and Laches, but we did not tell you at the time the reason why my friend Melesias and I asked you to go with us and see him. I think that we may as well confess what this was, for we certainly ought not to have any reserve with you. The reason was, that we were intending to ask your advice. Some laugh at the very notion of advising others, and when they are asked will not say what they think. They guess at the wishes of the person who asks them, and answer according to his, and not according to their own, opinion. But as we know that you are good judges, and will say exactly what you think, we have taken you into our counsels. The matter about which I am making all this preface is as follows: Melesias and I have two sons; that is his son, and he is named Thucydides, after his grandfather; and this is mine, who is also called after his grandfather, Aristides. Now, we are resolved to take the greatest care of the youths, and not to let them run about as they like, which is too often the way with the young, when they are no longer children, but to begin at once and do the utmost that we can for them. And knowing you to have sons of your own, we thought that you were most likely to have attended to their training and improvement, and, if perchance you have not attended to them, we may remind you that you ought to have done so, and would invite you to assist us in the fulfilment of a common duty. I will tell you, Nicias and Laches, even at the risk of being tedious, how we came to think of this. Melesias and I live together, and our sons live with us; and now, as I was saying at first, we are going to confess to you. Both of us often talk to the lads about the many noble deeds which our own fathers did in war and peace—in the management of the allies, and in the administration of the city; but neither of us has any deeds of his own which he can show. The truth is that we are ashamed of this contrast being seen by them, and we blame our fathers for letting us be spoiled in the days of our youth, while they were occupied with the concerns of others; and we urge all this upon the lads, pointing out to them that they will not grow up to honour if they are rebellious and take no pains about themselves; but that if they take pains they may, perhaps, become worthy of the names which they bear. They, on their part, promise to comply with our wishes; and our care is to discover what studies or pursuits are likely to be most improving to them. Some one commended to us the art of fighting in armour, which he thought an excellent accomplishment for a young man to learn; and he praised the man whose exhibition you have seen, and told us to go and see him. And we determined that we would go, and get you to accompany us; and we were intending at the same time, if you did not object, to take counsel with you about the education of our sons. That is the matter which we wanted to talk over with you; and we hope that you will give us your opinion about this art of fighting in armour, and about any other studies or pursuits which may or may not be desirable for a young man to learn. Please to say whether you agree to our proposal.

LYSIMACHUS: You’ve seen the guy fighting in armor, Nicias and Laches, but we didn’t explain at the time why my friend Melesias and I wanted you to come along and watch him. I think we should just admit what it was, since we shouldn't hold back with you. The reason was that we intended to ask for your advice. Some people laugh at the idea of advising others, and when asked, they won’t share their thoughts. They guess what the person asking wants to hear and respond based on that instead of their own opinions. But we know that you are good judges and will say exactly what you think, so we’ve included you in our discussion. What I’m getting at is this: Melesias and I have two sons; that’s his son, named Thucydides after his grandfather; and mine is also named after his grandfather, Aristides. We’re determined to take great care of the boys and not let them run wild as they often do when they’re no longer children, but instead start right away to do everything we can for them. Knowing you have sons too, we figured you’d likely be focused on their training and improvement, and if you happen not to have, we’d like to remind you that you should have and invite you to help us fulfill a shared responsibility. Nicias and Laches, I’ll share how we came to think of this, even if it might be a bit tedious. Melesias and I live together, and our sons live with us; and now, as I mentioned at the beginning, we’re about to confess to you. We often talk to the boys about the many noble deeds our own fathers accomplished in war and peace—in managing the allies and running the city; but neither of us has any deeds of our own to show. The truth is we’re embarrassed for them to see this contrast, and we blame our fathers for letting us get spoiled in our youth while they were busy with other matters; we urge the boys to understand that they won't earn honor if they’re rebellious and don’t put in any effort; but that if they do, they might become worthy of the names they carry. They promise to comply with our requests, and our focus is on figuring out what studies or activities will benefit them the most. Someone recommended the art of fighting in armor, which he thought was a great skill for a young man to learn; and he praised the guy you’ve seen demonstrate, encouraging us to watch him. We decided to go and wanted you to join us; at the same time, if you’re okay with it, we hoped to consult with you about our sons’ education. That’s the topic we wanted to discuss with you; and we hope you’ll share your thoughts on this art of fighting in armor, as well as any other studies or pursuits that might be suitable for a young man to learn. Please let us know whether you agree with our proposal.

NICIAS: As far as I am concerned, Lysimachus and Melesias, I applaud your purpose, and will gladly assist you; and I believe that you, Laches, will be equally glad.

NICIAS: As for me, Lysimachus and Melesias, I support your goal and will happily help you out; and I think you, Laches, will feel the same way.

LACHES: Certainly, Nicias; and I quite approve of the remark which Lysimachus made about his own father and the father of Melesias, and which is applicable, not only to them, but to us, and to every one who is occupied with public affairs. As he says, such persons are too apt to be negligent and careless of their own children and their private concerns. There is much truth in that remark of yours, Lysimachus. But why, instead of consulting us, do you not consult our friend Socrates about the education of the youths? He is of the same deme with you, and is always passing his time in places where the youth have any noble study or pursuit, such as you are enquiring after.

LACHES: Of course, Nicias; I completely agree with the comment that Lysimachus made about his own father and Melesias's father, which applies not just to them but to all of us involved in public affairs. As he pointed out, people like us tend to neglect our own kids and personal matters. There’s a lot of truth in what you said, Lysimachus. But instead of asking us, why don’t you consult our friend Socrates about the education of the young? He’s from the same deme as you and often spends his time in places where young people are engaged in noble studies or pursuits, like the one you’re asking about.

LYSIMACHUS: Why, Laches, has Socrates ever attended to matters of this sort?

LYSIMACHUS: So, Laches, has Socrates ever been involved in things like this?

LACHES: Certainly, Lysimachus.

LACHES: Sure, Lysimachus.

NICIAS: That I have the means of knowing as well as Laches; for quite lately he supplied me with a teacher of music for my sons,—Damon, the disciple of Agathocles, who is a most accomplished man in every way, as well as a musician, and a companion of inestimable value for young men at their age.

NICIAS: I know just as well as Laches; not long ago, he arranged for a music teacher for my sons—Damon, a student of Agathocles, who is incredibly skilled in every way, not just as a musician but also as an invaluable companion for young men at their age.

LYSIMACHUS: Those who have reached my time of life, Socrates and Nicias and Laches, fall out of acquaintance with the young, because they are generally detained at home by old age; but you, O son of Sophroniscus, should let your fellow demesman have the benefit of any advice which you are able to give. Moreover I have a claim upon you as an old friend of your father; for I and he were always companions and friends, and to the hour of his death there never was a difference between us; and now it comes back to me, at the mention of your name, that I have heard these lads talking to one another at home, and often speaking of Socrates in terms of the highest praise; but I have never thought to ask them whether the son of Sophroniscus was the person whom they meant. Tell me, my boys, whether this is the Socrates of whom you have often spoken?

LYSIMACHUS: Those of us at my age, Socrates, Nicias, and Laches, tend to lose touch with the younger generation because we're usually stuck at home due to old age. But you, son of Sophroniscus, should share any advice you can offer with your fellow demesman. Besides, I have a connection to you as an old friend of your father's; he and I were always close companions, and until the moment of his death, we never had a disagreement. Now, hearing your name reminds me that I've heard these young people talking at home, often praising Socrates highly, but I never thought to ask them if that's the son of Sophroniscus they meant. Tell me, boys, is this the Socrates you've spoken about so often?

SON: Certainly, father, this is he.

SON: Of course, dad, that’s him.

LYSIMACHUS: I am delighted to hear, Socrates, that you maintain the name of your father, who was a most excellent man; and I further rejoice at the prospect of our family ties being renewed.

LYSIMACHUS: I'm really happy to hear, Socrates, that you carry on your father's name, who was a truly great man; and I'm also excited about the idea of our family connections being brought back together.

LACHES: Indeed, Lysimachus, you ought not to give him up; for I can assure you that I have seen him maintaining, not only his father's, but also his country's name. He was my companion in the retreat from Delium, and I can tell you that if others had only been like him, the honour of our country would have been upheld, and the great defeat would never have occurred.

LACHES: Absolutely, Lysimachus, you should not let him go; because I can tell you that I’ve seen him not only uphold his father's reputation but also that of our country. He was with me when we retreated from Delium, and I can say that if more people had been like him, our country's honor would have been preserved, and that major defeat would never have happened.

LYSIMACHUS: That is very high praise which is accorded to you, Socrates, by faithful witnesses and for actions like those which they praise. Let me tell you the pleasure which I feel in hearing of your fame; and I hope that you will regard me as one of your warmest friends. You ought to have visited us long ago, and made yourself at home with us; but now, from this day forward, as we have at last found one another out, do as I say—come and make acquaintance with me, and with these young men, that I may continue your friend, as I was your father's. I shall expect you to do so, and shall venture at some future time to remind you of your duty. But what say you of the matter of which we were beginning to speak—the art of fighting in armour? Is that a practice in which the lads may be advantageously instructed?

LYSIMACHUS: That’s really high praise you’re getting, Socrates, from reliable people and for actions just like the ones they commend. I want to share how happy I am to hear about your reputation, and I hope you see me as one of your biggest supporters. You should have come to see us long ago and made yourself comfortable here. But now that we’ve finally connected, I want you to come and get to know me and these young men. I want to keep being your friend, just like I was with your father. I expect you to do this and I might remind you of it later. But what do you think about what we were starting to discuss—the art of fighting in armor? Is that something the young guys could really benefit from learning?

SOCRATES: I will endeavour to advise you, Lysimachus, as far as I can in this matter, and also in every way will comply with your wishes; but as I am younger and not so experienced, I think that I ought certainly to hear first what my elders have to say, and to learn of them, and if I have anything to add, then I may venture to give my opinion to them as well as to you. Suppose, Nicias, that one or other of you begin.

SOCRATES: I’ll do my best to help you, Lysimachus, as much as I can in this situation, and I’ll also do my best to meet your wishes; but since I’m younger and not as experienced, I think I should definitely listen to what my elders have to say first and learn from them. If I have anything to contribute, then I’ll feel comfortable sharing my thoughts with both them and you. How about you start, Nicias, or one of you?

NICIAS: I have no objection, Socrates; and my opinion is that the acquirement of this art is in many ways useful to young men. It is an advantage to them that among the favourite amusements of their leisure hours they should have one which tends to improve and not to injure their bodily health. No gymnastics could be better or harder exercise; and this, and the art of riding, are of all arts most befitting to a freeman; for they only who are thus trained in the use of arms are the athletes of our military profession, trained in that on which the conflict turns. Moreover in actual battle, when you have to fight in a line with a number of others, such an acquirement will be of some use, and will be of the greatest whenever the ranks are broken and you have to fight singly, either in pursuit, when you are attacking some one who is defending himself, or in flight, when you have to defend yourself against an assailant. Certainly he who possessed the art could not meet with any harm at the hands of a single person, or perhaps of several; and in any case he would have a great advantage. Further, this sort of skill inclines a man to the love of other noble lessons; for every man who has learned how to fight in armour will desire to learn the proper arrangement of an army, which is the sequel of the lesson: and when he has learned this, and his ambition is once fired, he will go on to learn the complete art of the general. There is no difficulty in seeing that the knowledge and practice of other military arts will be honourable and valuable to a man; and this lesson may be the beginning of them. Let me add a further advantage, which is by no means a slight one,—that this science will make any man a great deal more valiant and self-possessed in the field. And I will not disdain to mention, what by some may be thought to be a small matter;—he will make a better appearance at the right time; that is to say, at the time when his appearance will strike terror into his enemies. My opinion then, Lysimachus, is, as I say, that the youths should be instructed in this art, and for the reasons which I have given. But Laches may take a different view; and I shall be very glad to hear what he has to say.

NICIAS: I have no objections, Socrates; I believe that learning this skill is really beneficial for young men. It's good for them to have activities during their free time that enhance, rather than harm, their physical health. No form of exercise is better or more challenging; along with riding, this skill is the most suitable for a free person. Only those trained in using weapons become the athletes of our military, prepared for what combat requires. In actual battle, when you need to fight alongside others, this training will prove useful. It’s especially crucial when the formations break and you have to fight alone, whether in pursuit of someone defending themselves or when fleeing from an attacker. Certainly, someone skilled at this won’t be easily harmed by a single opponent, or even a few; in any situation, they would have a significant advantage. Additionally, this skill leads a person to appreciate other valuable lessons; anyone who learns to fight in armor will want to learn about the organization of an army, which follows from this training. Once he learns that and feels motivated, he’ll continue to master the complete art of being a general. It's clear that knowing and practicing other military skills will be honorable and beneficial for a person, and this lesson could be where it all begins. Moreover, I should mention another important benefit—this training will make anyone much braver and more composed in battle. I won't overlook what some might consider a minor detail; they'll also look more intimidating at key moments, specifically when their presence will instill fear in their enemies. So, my view, Lysimachus, is that young people should be taught this skill, for the reasons I've shared. But Laches might have a different perspective, and I would really like to hear what he thinks.

LACHES: I should not like to maintain, Nicias, that any kind of knowledge is not to be learned; for all knowledge appears to be a good: and if, as Nicias and as the teachers of the art affirm, this use of arms is really a species of knowledge, then it ought to be learned; but if not, and if those who profess to teach it are deceivers only; or if it be knowledge, but not of a valuable sort, then what is the use of learning it? I say this, because I think that if it had been really valuable, the Lacedaemonians, whose whole life is passed in finding out and practising the arts which give them an advantage over other nations in war, would have discovered this one. And even if they had not, still these professors of the art would certainly not have failed to discover that of all the Hellenes the Lacedaemonians have the greatest interest in such matters, and that a master of the art who was honoured among them would be sure to make his fortune among other nations, just as a tragic poet would who is honoured among ourselves; which is the reason why he who fancies that he can write a tragedy does not go about itinerating in the neighbouring states, but rushes hither straight, and exhibits at Athens; and this is natural. Whereas I perceive that these fighters in armour regard Lacedaemon as a sacred inviolable territory, which they do not touch with the point of their foot; but they make a circuit of the neighbouring states, and would rather exhibit to any others than to the Spartans; and particularly to those who would themselves acknowledge that they are by no means first-rate in the arts of war. Further, Lysimachus, I have encountered a good many of these gentlemen in actual service, and have taken their measure, which I can give you at once; for none of these masters of fence have ever been distinguished in war,—there has been a sort of fatality about them; while in all other arts the men of note have been always those who have practised the art, they appear to be a most unfortunate exception. For example, this very Stesilaus, whom you and I have just witnessed exhibiting in all that crowd and making such great professions of his powers, I have seen at another time making, in sober truth, an involuntary exhibition of himself, which was a far better spectacle. He was a marine on board a ship which struck a transport vessel, and was armed with a weapon, half spear, half scythe; the singularity of this weapon was worthy of the singularity of the man. To make a long story short, I will only tell you what happened to this notable invention of the scythe spear. He was fighting, and the scythe was caught in the rigging of the other ship, and stuck fast; and he tugged, but was unable to get his weapon free. The two ships were passing one another. He first ran along his own ship holding on to the spear; but as the other ship passed by and drew him after as he was holding on, he let the spear slip through his hand until he retained only the end of the handle. The people in the transport clapped their hands, and laughed at his ridiculous figure; and when some one threw a stone, which fell on the deck at his feet, and he quitted his hold of the scythe-spear, the crew of his own trireme also burst out laughing; they could not refrain when they beheld the weapon waving in the air, suspended from the transport. Now I do not deny that there may be something in such an art, as Nicias asserts, but I tell you my experience; and, as I said at first, whether this be an art of which the advantage is so slight, or not an art at all, but only an imposition, in either case such an acquirement is not worth having. For my opinion is, that if the professor of this art be a coward, he will be likely to become rash, and his character will be only more notorious; or if he be brave, and fail ever so little, other men will be on the watch, and he will be greatly traduced; for there is a jealousy of such pretenders; and unless a man be pre-eminent in valour, he cannot help being ridiculous, if he says that he has this sort of skill. Such is my judgment, Lysimachus, of the desirableness of this art; but, as I said at first, ask Socrates, and do not let him go until he has given you his opinion of the matter.

LACHES: I wouldn’t want to say, Nicias, that any knowledge can’t be learned, since all knowledge seems beneficial. If, as you and the experts in the field claim, this technique of fighting is indeed a form of knowledge, then it should be learned. But if it’s not, and if those claiming to teach it are just frauds, or if it is knowledge but of little value, then what’s the point in learning it? I mention this because I believe that if it really held any value, the Spartans, who dedicate their lives to discovering and mastering skills that give them an edge in war against other nations, would have figured this out. And even if they hadn’t, these so-called teachers of the art certainly would have recognized that the Spartans care most about such matters, and a well-respected master among them would surely thrive elsewhere, just like a celebrated tragic poet would thrive here. That’s why anyone who thinks they can write a tragedy isn’t traveling around to nearby states but rushes directly here to perform in Athens; it makes sense. Meanwhile, I notice that these fighters in armor treat Sparta as a sacred, untouchable place, completely avoiding it; they instead circle around neighboring states and prefer to showcase their skills to anyone but the Spartans, especially to those who would admit they are not even close to the best in warfare. Furthermore, Lysimachus, I’ve met quite a few of these guys in actual combat, and I can tell you right away that none of these fencing masters have distinguished themselves in war—it seems to be a bit of a curse for them. In contrast, in every other art, those who excel are always those who practice it, but these guys are a notable exception. Take this very Stesilaus, whom you and I just saw performing in that huge crowd, boasting about his skills; I’ve seen him in a different situation where he unintentionally put on a much better show. He was a sailor on a ship that collided with a transport vessel, armed with a weapon that was half spear, half scythe; the oddity of that weapon matched the oddness of the man. To cut a long story short, let me just tell you what happened with this peculiar scythe spear. While fighting, the scythe got tangled in the rigging of the other ship and got stuck. He pulled but couldn’t free his weapon. As the two ships passed each other, he ran along his own ship still holding onto the spear, but as the other ship drew away, he let the spear slip from his grip until he was left with just the end of the handle. The people on the transport clapped and laughed at his silly appearance. When someone threw a stone that landed at his feet, and he let go of the scythe spear, the crew of his own ship couldn’t help but laugh too; they burst out when they saw the weapon dangling in the air from the transport. Now, I don’t doubt that there might be something valuable in such an art, as Nicias claims, but I am sharing my own experience; as I said before, whether this is a skill of minimal benefit or not an art at all but merely a scam, either way, it isn’t worth acquiring. In my view, if the teacher of this art is a coward, he’s likely to become reckless, and that will only draw more attention to his shortcomings. But if he’s brave and makes even a slight error, others will be watching, and he’ll be harshly criticized; there tends to be jealousy toward such pretenders. Unless someone excels in bravery, they can’t help but look foolish if they claim to possess this type of skill. That’s my take, Lysimachus, on the desirability of this art; but, as I stated earlier, ask Socrates, and don’t let him leave until you have his opinion on this matter.

LYSIMACHUS: I am going to ask this favour of you, Socrates; as is the more necessary because the two councillors disagree, and some one is in a manner still needed who will decide between them. Had they agreed, no arbiter would have been required. But as Laches has voted one way and Nicias another, I should like to hear with which of our two friends you agree.

LYSIMACHUS: I’m going to ask you for a favor, Socrates. It’s especially important because the two counselors can’t seem to agree, and we actually need someone to help decide between them. If they had come to an agreement, we wouldn’t need a mediator. But since Laches has voted one way and Nicias another, I’d like to know which of our two friends you side with.

SOCRATES: What, Lysimachus, are you going to accept the opinion of the majority?

SOCRATES: What, Lysimachus, are you really going to go along with what most people think?

LYSIMACHUS: Why, yes, Socrates; what else am I to do?

LYSIMACHUS: Of course, Socrates; what else can I do?

SOCRATES: And would you do so too, Melesias? If you were deliberating about the gymnastic training of your son, would you follow the advice of the majority of us, or the opinion of the one who had been trained and exercised under a skilful master?

SOCRATES: Would you do the same, Melesias? If you were deciding on your son's gymnastic training, would you listen to the advice of most of us or the opinion of someone who has been trained and coached by a skilled master?

MELESIAS: The latter, Socrates; as would surely be reasonable.

MELESIAS: The latter, Socrates; that would definitely make sense.

SOCRATES: His one vote would be worth more than the vote of all us four?

SOCRATES: His one vote would count more than all four of ours combined?

MELESIAS: Certainly.

Sure thing.

SOCRATES: And for this reason, as I imagine,—because a good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers?

SOCRATES: And for this reason, I believe—because a good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers?

MELESIAS: To be sure.

MELESIAS: For sure.

SOCRATES: Must we not then first of all ask, whether there is any one of us who has knowledge of that about which we are deliberating? If there is, let us take his advice, though he be one only, and not mind the rest; if there is not, let us seek further counsel. Is this a slight matter about which you and Lysimachus are deliberating? Are you not risking the greatest of your possessions? For children are your riches; and upon their turning out well or ill depends the whole order of their father's house.

SOCRATES: Shouldn't we first ask if anyone among us actually knows what we’re discussing? If there is, let’s take his advice, even if he's the only one, and disregard the others; but if there isn’t, let’s seek more guidance. Is this a trivial matter that you and Lysimachus are debating? Aren’t you risking your most valuable asset? Your children are your wealth, and their success or failure influences the entire stability of their father’s household.

MELESIAS: That is true.

MELESIAS: That's true.

SOCRATES: Great care, then, is required in this matter?

SOCRATES: So we need to be very careful about this, right?

MELESIAS: Certainly.

MELESIAS: For sure.

SOCRATES: Suppose, as I was just now saying, that we were considering, or wanting to consider, who was the best trainer. Should we not select him who knew and had practised the art, and had the best teachers?

SOCRATES: Imagine, as I was just saying, that we were thinking about who the best trainer is. Shouldn't we choose someone who knows and has practiced the art and has learned from the best teachers?

MELESIAS: I think that we should.

MELESIAS: I think we should.

SOCRATES: But would there not arise a prior question about the nature of the art of which we want to find the masters?

SOCRATES: But wouldn’t there be a question first about the nature of the skill we want to identify the experts in?

MELESIAS: I do not understand.

MELESIAS: I don't understand.

SOCRATES: Let me try to make my meaning plainer then. I do not think that we have as yet decided what that is about which we are consulting, when we ask which of us is or is not skilled in the art, and has or has not had a teacher of the art.

SOCRATES: Let me clarify my point. I don’t think we’ve figured out what we’re really discussing when we ask who among us is or isn’t skilled in the craft, and who has or hasn’t had a teacher in this craft.

NICIAS: Why, Socrates, is not the question whether young men ought or ought not to learn the art of fighting in armour?

NICIAS: So, Socrates, isn't the real question whether young men should or shouldn't learn how to fight in armor?

SOCRATES: Yes, Nicias; but there is also a prior question, which I may illustrate in this way: When a person considers about applying a medicine to the eyes, would you say that he is consulting about the medicine or about the eyes?

SOCRATES: Yes, Nicias; but there's also an earlier question that I can explain like this: When someone thinks about using a medicine for the eyes, would you say they're thinking about the medicine or about the eyes?

NICIAS: About the eyes.

NICIAS: Regarding the eyes.

SOCRATES: And when he considers whether he shall set a bridle on a horse and at what time, he is thinking of the horse and not of the bridle?

SOCRATES: And when he thinks about whether he should put a bridle on a horse and when to do it, is he considering the horse and not the bridle?

NICIAS: True.

NICIAS: For sure.

SOCRATES: And in a word, when he considers anything for the sake of another thing, he thinks of the end and not of the means?

SOCRATES: So, basically, when he thinks about something for the purpose of another thing, he focuses on the outcome and not on the process?

NICIAS: Certainly.

Sure.

SOCRATES: And when you call in an adviser, you should see whether he too is skilful in the accomplishment of the end which you have in view?

SOCRATES: And when you bring in an adviser, you should check if he is also skilled at achieving the goal you have in mind?

NICIAS: Most true.

NICIAS: So true.

SOCRATES: And at present we have in view some knowledge, of which the end is the soul of youth?

SOCRATES: So right now, are we considering some knowledge that focuses on the essence of youth?

NICIAS: Yes.

NICIAS: Definitely.

SOCRATES: And we are enquiring, Which of us is skilful or successful in the treatment of the soul, and which of us has had good teachers?

SOCRATES: So we're trying to figure out who among us is skilled or successful in caring for the soul, and who has had good teachers?

LACHES: Well but, Socrates; did you never observe that some persons, who have had no teachers, are more skilful than those who have, in some things?

LACHES: Well, Socrates, have you ever noticed that some people who haven't had any teachers are more skilled than those who have, in certain areas?

SOCRATES: Yes, Laches, I have observed that; but you would not be very willing to trust them if they only professed to be masters of their art, unless they could show some proof of their skill or excellence in one or more works.

SOCRATES: Yes, Laches, I’ve noticed that too; but you wouldn’t really want to trust them if they only claimed to be experts in their field, unless they could provide some evidence of their skill or excellence in one or more tasks.

LACHES: That is true.

LACHES: That's true.

SOCRATES: And therefore, Laches and Nicias, as Lysimachus and Melesias, in their anxiety to improve the minds of their sons, have asked our advice about them, we too should tell them who our teachers were, if we say that we have had any, and prove them to be in the first place men of merit and experienced trainers of the minds of youth and also to have been really our teachers. Or if any of us says that he has no teacher, but that he has works of his own to show; then he should point out to them what Athenians or strangers, bond or free, he is generally acknowledged to have improved. But if he can show neither teachers nor works, then he should tell them to look out for others; and not run the risk of spoiling the children of friends, and thereby incurring the most formidable accusation which can be brought against any one by those nearest to him. As for myself, Lysimachus and Melesias, I am the first to confess that I have never had a teacher of the art of virtue; although I have always from my earliest youth desired to have one. But I am too poor to give money to the Sophists, who are the only professors of moral improvement; and to this day I have never been able to discover the art myself, though I should not be surprised if Nicias or Laches may have discovered or learned it; for they are far wealthier than I am, and may therefore have learnt of others. And they are older too; so that they have had more time to make the discovery. And I really believe that they are able to educate a man; for unless they had been confident in their own knowledge, they would never have spoken thus decidedly of the pursuits which are advantageous or hurtful to a young man. I repose confidence in both of them; but I am surprised to find that they differ from one another. And therefore, Lysimachus, as Laches suggested that you should detain me, and not let me go until I answered, I in turn earnestly beseech and advise you to detain Laches and Nicias, and question them. I would have you say to them: Socrates avers that he has no knowledge of the matter—he is unable to decide which of you speaks truly; neither discoverer nor student is he of anything of the kind. But you, Laches and Nicias, should each of you tell us who is the most skilful educator whom you have ever known; and whether you invented the art yourselves, or learned of another; and if you learned, who were your respective teachers, and who were their brothers in the art; and then, if you are too much occupied in politics to teach us yourselves, let us go to them, and present them with gifts, or make interest with them, or both, in the hope that they may be induced to take charge of our children and of yours; and then they will not grow up inferior, and disgrace their ancestors. But if you are yourselves original discoverers in that field, give us some proof of your skill. Who are they who, having been inferior persons, have become under your care good and noble? For if this is your first attempt at education, there is a danger that you may be trying the experiment, not on the 'vile corpus' of a Carian slave, but on your own sons, or the sons of your friend, and, as the proverb says, 'break the large vessel in learning to make pots.' Tell us then, what qualities you claim or do not claim. Make them tell you that, Lysimachus, and do not let them off.

SOCRATES: So, Laches and Nicias, just like Lysimachus and Melesias, who are eager to improve their sons' minds and have asked us for advice, we should also share who our teachers were, if we indeed had any, and demonstrate that they were worthy individuals and experienced in training young minds. If someone claims to have no teacher but showcases their own work, they should identify which Athenians or outsiders, whether free or enslaved, acknowledge their improvements. However, if they can show neither teachers nor accomplishments, they should tell them to seek help elsewhere and avoid the risk of ruining their friends' children, which would lead to the most serious accusations from those closest to them. As for me, Lysimachus and Melesias, I openly admit that I have never had a teacher in the art of virtue, even though I have always wished for one since my youth. However, I cannot afford to pay the Sophists, who are the only ones teaching moral improvement; to this day, I have not found the art myself, although I wouldn’t be surprised if Nicias or Laches had discovered or learned it since they are much wealthier than I am and could have learned from others. They are older too, giving them more time to make this discovery. I truly believe they can educate someone; if they weren’t confident in their knowledge, they wouldn’t have spoken so decisively about what is beneficial or harmful to a young man. I trust both of them, but I'm taken aback by their differing views. Therefore, Lysimachus, as Laches suggested you should keep me here until I respond, I earnestly request you to also keep Laches and Nicias here and question them. You should ask them: Socrates claims he has no knowledge of this; he cannot decide who is speaking the truth, as he is neither an inventor nor a student of anything like this. But you, Laches and Nicias, should each share with us who the most skilled educator you’ve ever known is, and whether you created this art yourselves or learned from someone else. If you learned, who were your respective teachers and who else practiced this art alongside them? Then, if you’re too busy with politics to teach us yourself, let us go to those teachers, offering gifts, or finding other ways to motivate them, hoping they will take care of our children as well as yours; this way, they won’t grow up to be inferior and bring shame to their ancestors. But if you are original innovators in this area, show us proof of your abilities. Who are the individuals who, once unremarkable, have become good and noble under your guidance? If this is your first attempt at teaching, there's a risk you might be experimenting, not on the 'worthless body' of a Carian slave, but on your own sons or those of your friends, and, as the saying goes, 'break the large vessel in trying to make pots.' So tell us, what qualities do you assert or deny having? Make them reveal that, Lysimachus, and don’t let them evade.

LYSIMACHUS: I very much approve of the words of Socrates, my friends; but you, Nicias and Laches, must determine whether you will be questioned, and give an explanation about matters of this sort. Assuredly, I and Melesias would be greatly pleased to hear you answer the questions which Socrates asks, if you will: for I began by saying that we took you into our counsels because we thought that you would have attended to the subject, especially as you have children who, like our own, are nearly of an age to be educated. Well, then, if you have no objection, suppose that you take Socrates into partnership; and do you and he ask and answer one another's questions: for, as he has well said, we are deliberating about the most important of our concerns. I hope that you will see fit to comply with our request.

LYSIMACHUS: I really like what Socrates has said, my friends; but you, Nicias and Laches, need to decide if you want to be questioned and to explain things like this. I and Melesias would be very happy to hear you answer the questions Socrates is asking, if you're willing: I mentioned earlier that we brought you into our discussions because we believed you would have thought deeply about this topic, especially since you have children who, like ours, are almost ready to be educated. So, if you don't mind, why not partner with Socrates? You both can ask and answer each other's questions, because, as he said, we’re discussing the most important issues. I hope you will agree to our request.

NICIAS: I see very clearly, Lysimachus, that you have only known Socrates' father, and have no acquaintance with Socrates himself: at least, you can only have known him when he was a child, and may have met him among his fellow-wardsmen, in company with his father, at a sacrifice, or at some other gathering. You clearly show that you have never known him since he arrived at manhood.

NICIAS: I can see clearly, Lysimachus, that you’ve only known Socrates' father and have no real connection to Socrates himself. You must have only met him as a child or maybe seen him with his father's friends at a sacrifice or some other event. It’s obvious you haven't known him since he became an adult.

LYSIMACHUS: Why do you say that, Nicias?

LYSIMACHUS: Why do you say that, Nicias?

NICIAS: Because you seem not to be aware that any one who has an intellectual affinity to Socrates and enters into conversation with him is liable to be drawn into an argument; and whatever subject he may start, he will be continually carried round and round by him, until at last he finds that he has to give an account both of his present and past life; and when he is once entangled, Socrates will not let him go until he has completely and thoroughly sifted him. Now I am used to his ways; and I know that he will certainly do as I say, and also that I myself shall be the sufferer; for I am fond of his conversation, Lysimachus. And I think that there is no harm in being reminded of any wrong thing which we are, or have been, doing: he who does not fly from reproof will be sure to take more heed of his after-life; as Solon says, he will wish and desire to be learning so long as he lives, and will not think that old age of itself brings wisdom. To me, to be cross-examined by Socrates is neither unusual nor unpleasant; indeed, I knew all along that where Socrates was, the argument would soon pass from our sons to ourselves; and therefore, I say that for my part, I am quite willing to discourse with Socrates in his own manner; but you had better ask our friend Laches what his feeling may be.

NICIAS: Because you don't seem to realize that anyone who has a mental connection with Socrates and talks to him is likely to get drawn into a debate; no matter what topic he starts with, he will keep circling around it until you find yourself having to explain both your current choices and your past actions. Once you're caught up in it, Socrates won’t let you go until he has thoroughly examined everything. I'm familiar with his style, and I know he'll definitely do what I expect, and I’ll be the one affected by it; I actually enjoy his conversations, Lysimachus. I believe there's no harm in being reminded of any wrongs we’re committing or have committed. Those who don't shy away from criticism will likely be more mindful of their future; as Solon puts it, they will want to keep learning for as long as they live and won't think that simply getting older brings wisdom. For me, being questioned by Socrates is neither strange nor uncomfortable; I knew all along that if Socrates was around, the discussion would eventually shift from our children to ourselves. So, for my part, I'm totally willing to engage in a conversation with Socrates in his own way; but you might want to see how our friend Laches feels about it.

LACHES: I have but one feeling, Nicias, or (shall I say?) two feelings, about discussions. Some would think that I am a lover, and to others I may seem to be a hater of discourse; for when I hear a man discoursing of virtue, or of any sort of wisdom, who is a true man and worthy of his theme, I am delighted beyond measure: and I compare the man and his words, and note the harmony and correspondence of them. And such an one I deem to be the true musician, attuned to a fairer harmony than that of the lyre, or any pleasant instrument of music; for truly he has in his own life a harmony of words and deeds arranged, not in the Ionian, or in the Phrygian mode, nor yet in the Lydian, but in the true Hellenic mode, which is the Dorian, and no other. Such an one makes me merry with the sound of his voice; and when I hear him I am thought to be a lover of discourse; so eager am I in drinking in his words. But a man whose actions do not agree with his words is an annoyance to me; and the better he speaks the more I hate him, and then I seem to be a hater of discourse. As to Socrates, I have no knowledge of his words, but of old, as would seem, I have had experience of his deeds; and his deeds show that free and noble sentiments are natural to him. And if his words accord, then I am of one mind with him, and shall be delighted to be interrogated by a man such as he is, and shall not be annoyed at having to learn of him: for I too agree with Solon, 'that I would fain grow old, learning many things.' But I must be allowed to add 'of the good only.' Socrates must be willing to allow that he is a good teacher, or I shall be a dull and uncongenial pupil: but that the teacher is younger, or not as yet in repute—anything of that sort is of no account with me. And therefore, Socrates, I give you notice that you may teach and confute me as much as ever you like, and also learn of me anything which I know. So high is the opinion which I have entertained of you ever since the day on which you were my companion in danger, and gave a proof of your valour such as only the man of merit can give. Therefore, say whatever you like, and do not mind about the difference of our ages.

LACHES: I have one main feeling, Nicias, or maybe I should say two feelings, about discussions. Some people might think I'm a fan of discourse, while to others I might come off as someone who dislikes it. When I hear a true man speaking about virtue or any kind of wisdom, I feel incredibly happy: I compare the man to his words and notice how they match up. I see such a person as a true musician, in tune with a more beautiful harmony than that of the lyre or any other nice musical instrument; because he embodies a harmony of words and actions that isn’t just ordinary, but has a true Hellenic quality, which is the Dorian mode, and nothing else. Listening to him brings me joy, and when I hear him speak, people might think I love discourse, because I'm so eager to absorb his words. But a guy whose actions don’t match his words really annoys me; the better he speaks, the more I dislike him, and then I appear to be someone who hates discussions. As for Socrates, I don’t know his words, but I’ve seen his actions in the past, and they show he naturally has free and noble thoughts. If his words align with that, then I’ll feel in sync with him and will be happy to be questioned by someone like him, and I won’t mind learning from him: because I also agree with Solon that 'I would love to grow old learning many things.' But I need to add 'only the good things.' Socrates has to be willing to accept that he’s a good teacher; otherwise, I’ll be a dull and difficult student. But the fact that the teacher is younger or not yet well-known doesn’t matter to me at all. So, Socrates, I’m letting you know that you can teach and challenge me as much as you like, and you can also learn from me anything I know. I hold you in such high regard ever since you stood by me in danger and showed bravery that only someone truly worthy can show. So, say whatever you want, and don’t worry about our age difference.

SOCRATES: I cannot say that either of you show any reluctance to take counsel and advise with me.

SOCRATES: I can't say that either of you seem hesitant to discuss and give advice with me.

LYSIMACHUS: But this is our proper business; and yours as well as ours, for I reckon you as one of us. Please then to take my place, and find out from Nicias and Laches what we want to know, for the sake of the youths, and talk and consult with them: for I am old, and my memory is bad; and I do not remember the questions which I am going to ask, or the answers to them; and if there is any interruption I am quite lost. I will therefore beg of you to carry on the proposed discussion by your selves; and I will listen, and Melesias and I will act upon your conclusions.

LYSIMACHUS: But this is our main concern, and it’s yours too, because I consider you one of us. So please, take my place and find out from Nicias and Laches what we need to know for the sake of the young people. Discuss it with them: I am old and my memory isn’t great; I can’t remember the questions I want to ask or the answers to them, and if there’s any interruption, I totally lose track. So, I’m asking you to carry on the discussion yourselves, and I’ll listen. Melesias and I will go along with your conclusions.

SOCRATES: Let us, Nicias and Laches, comply with the request of Lysimachus and Melesias. There will be no harm in asking ourselves the question which was first proposed to us: 'Who have been our own instructors in this sort of training, and whom have we made better?' But the other mode of carrying on the enquiry will bring us equally to the same point, and will be more like proceeding from first principles. For if we knew that the addition of something would improve some other thing, and were able to make the addition, then, clearly, we must know how that about which we are advising may be best and most easily attained. Perhaps you do not understand what I mean. Then let me make my meaning plainer in this way. Suppose we knew that the addition of sight makes better the eyes which possess this gift, and also were able to impart sight to the eyes, then, clearly, we should know the nature of sight, and should be able to advise how this gift of sight may be best and most easily attained; but if we knew neither what sight is, nor what hearing is, we should not be very good medical advisers about the eyes or the ears, or about the best mode of giving sight and hearing to them.

SOCRATES: Let’s, Nicias and Laches, go along with what Lysimachus and Melesias are asking. It won’t hurt to revisit the question we were originally posed: ‘Who has taught us in this area, and who have we helped improve?’ However, another way to approach this inquiry will lead us to the same conclusion and feel more like starting from the basics. If we knew that adding something would enhance another thing, and we could make that addition, then we would clearly need to understand how to best and easily achieve the improvement we’re discussing. Maybe you’re not following what I mean. Let me clarify. Imagine we knew that adding sight improves the eyes that have it, and we could give sight to those eyes; then, obviously, we would need to understand the nature of sight and advise on how to obtain this ability most effectively. But if we didn't know what sight or hearing really are, we wouldn’t be very good at advising on how to improve sight and hearing for the eyes and ears.

LACHES: That is true, Socrates.

That’s true, Socrates.

SOCRATES: And are not our two friends, Laches, at this very moment inviting us to consider in what way the gift of virtue may be imparted to their sons for the improvement of their minds?

SOCRATES: Aren't our two friends, Laches, right now encouraging us to think about how the gift of virtue can be passed on to their sons to enhance their minds?

LACHES: Very true.

LACHES: Absolutely right.

SOCRATES: Then must we not first know the nature of virtue? For how can we advise any one about the best mode of attaining something of which we are wholly ignorant?

SOCRATES: So, shouldn't we first understand what virtue is? How can we guide anyone on the best way to achieve something we know nothing about?

LACHES: I do not think that we can, Socrates.

LACHES: I don’t think we can, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Then, Laches, we may presume that we know the nature of virtue?

SOCRATES: So, Laches, can we assume that we understand what virtue really is?

LACHES: Yes.

LACHES: Yep.

SOCRATES: And that which we know we must surely be able to tell?

SOCRATES: So, what we know, we should definitely be able to share?

LACHES: Certainly.

LACHES: Of course.

SOCRATES: I would not have us begin, my friend, with enquiring about the whole of virtue; for that may be more than we can accomplish; let us first consider whether we have a sufficient knowledge of a part; the enquiry will thus probably be made easier to us.

SOCRATES: I don’t think we should start, my friend, by trying to understand all of virtue; that might be more than we can handle. Instead, let’s first see if we have a good grasp of a part of it; this way, the inquiry will likely be simpler for us.

LACHES: Let us do as you say, Socrates.

LACHES: Let's do what you say, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Then which of the parts of virtue shall we select? Must we not select that to which the art of fighting in armour is supposed to conduce? And is not that generally thought to be courage?

SOCRATES: So which part of virtue should we choose? Shouldn't we pick the one that relates to the skill of fighting in armor? And isn't that usually considered to be courage?

LACHES: Yes, certainly.

LACHES: Sure, absolutely.

SOCRATES: Then, Laches, suppose that we first set about determining the nature of courage, and in the second place proceed to enquire how the young men may attain this quality by the help of studies and pursuits. Tell me, if you can, what is courage.

SOCRATES: So, Laches, let’s first figure out what courage really is, and then we can look into how the young men can develop this quality through their studies and activities. Can you tell me what courage is?

LACHES: Indeed, Socrates, I see no difficulty in answering; he is a man of courage who does not run away, but remains at his post and fights against the enemy; there can be no mistake about that.

LACHES: Definitely, Socrates, I don’t see any problem in answering; a courageous person is someone who doesn’t flee but stands their ground and fights against the enemy; there’s no doubt about that.

SOCRATES: Very good, Laches; and yet I fear that I did not express myself clearly; and therefore you have answered not the question which I intended to ask, but another.

SOCRATES: That’s good, Laches; but I worry that I wasn’t clear enough, and because of that, you didn’t answer the question I meant to ask, but something else.

LACHES: What do you mean, Socrates?

LACHES: What are you talking about, Socrates?

SOCRATES: I will endeavour to explain; you would call a man courageous who remains at his post, and fights with the enemy?

SOCRATES: I will try to explain; you would say a man is courageous if he stays at his post and fights the enemy?

LACHES: Certainly I should.

LACHES: Of course I should.

SOCRATES: And so should I; but what would you say of another man, who fights flying, instead of remaining?

SOCRATES: I should think so too; but what would you say about another man who runs away instead of standing his ground?

LACHES: How flying?

LACHES: How's the flight?

SOCRATES: Why, as the Scythians are said to fight, flying as well as pursuing; and as Homer says in praise of the horses of Aeneas, that they knew 'how to pursue, and fly quickly hither and thither'; and he passes an encomium on Aeneas himself, as having a knowledge of fear or flight, and calls him 'an author of fear or flight.'

SOCRATES: Well, just like the Scythians are said to fight, both fleeing and chasing; and as Homer praises Aeneas's horses for their ability to "quickly chase and flee hither and thither"; he also speaks highly of Aeneas himself, recognizing his understanding of fear or retreat, calling him "a master of fear or flight."

LACHES: Yes, Socrates, and there Homer is right: for he was speaking of chariots, as you were speaking of the Scythian cavalry, who have that way of fighting; but the heavy-armed Greek fights, as I say, remaining in his rank.

LACHES: Yes, Socrates, and there Homer is correct: he was talking about chariots, just as you were talking about the Scythian cavalry, who have that style of fighting; but the heavily armed Greek fights, as I’ve said, by staying in his formation.

SOCRATES: And yet, Laches, you must except the Lacedaemonians at Plataea, who, when they came upon the light shields of the Persians, are said not to have been willing to stand and fight, and to have fled; but when the ranks of the Persians were broken, they turned upon them like cavalry, and won the battle of Plataea.

SOCRATES: Yet, Laches, you have to consider the Spartans at Plataea, who, when they encountered the shiny shields of the Persians, are said to have been unwilling to stay and fight, and they fled; but when the Persian ranks broke, they turned on them like cavalry and won the battle of Plataea.

LACHES: That is true.

LACHES: That's true.

SOCRATES: That was my meaning when I said that I was to blame in having put my question badly, and that this was the reason of your answering badly. For I meant to ask you not only about the courage of heavy-armed soldiers, but about the courage of cavalry and every other style of soldier; and not only who are courageous in war, but who are courageous in perils by sea, and who in disease, or in poverty, or again in politics, are courageous; and not only who are courageous against pain or fear, but mighty to contend against desires and pleasures, either fixed in their rank or turning upon their enemy. There is this sort of courage—is there not, Laches?

SOCRATES: That’s what I meant when I said I messed up my question, which is why you didn't answer it well. I wanted to ask not just about the bravery of heavily armed soldiers, but about the bravery of cavalry and all other kinds of soldiers. I wanted to know not only who is brave in war, but also who shows courage at sea, in sickness, in poverty, or in politics. I wanted to find out who can stand up to pain or fear, as well as those who can resist desires and pleasures, whether they are steadfast in their positions or focused on their enemies. There’s that kind of courage, right, Laches?

LACHES: Certainly, Socrates.

LACHES: Of course, Socrates.

SOCRATES: And all these are courageous, but some have courage in pleasures, and some in pains: some in desires, and some in fears, and some are cowards under the same conditions, as I should imagine.

SOCRATES: All of them are brave, but some are brave in the face of pleasure, while others are brave in the face of pain; some show courage when it comes to their desires, and others when confronting their fears. I would assume that some are cowards under the same circumstances.

LACHES: Very true.

LACHES: Totally true.

SOCRATES: Now I was asking about courage and cowardice in general. And I will begin with courage, and once more ask, What is that common quality, which is the same in all these cases, and which is called courage? Do you now understand what I mean?

SOCRATES: I was asking about courage and cowardice in general. I'll start with courage and ask again, what is the common trait that is the same in all these situations and is referred to as courage? Do you understand what I mean now?

LACHES: Not over well.

LACHES: Not going well.

SOCRATES: I mean this: As I might ask what is that quality which is called quickness, and which is found in running, in playing the lyre, in speaking, in learning, and in many other similar actions, or rather which we possess in nearly every action that is worth mentioning of arms, legs, mouth, voice, mind;—would you not apply the term quickness to all of them?

SOCRATES: What I’m saying is this: Just like I could ask what that quality called quickness is, which you find in running, playing the lyre, speaking, learning, and many other similar activities—essentially, the quickness we see in almost every noteworthy action involving arms, legs, mouth, voice, and mind—wouldn’t you say the term quickness applies to all of them?

LACHES: Quite true.

LACHES: Totally true.

SOCRATES: And suppose I were to be asked by some one: What is that common quality, Socrates, which, in all these uses of the word, you call quickness? I should say the quality which accomplishes much in a little time—whether in running, speaking, or in any other sort of action.

SOCRATES: If someone asked me, “What’s that common quality you refer to as quickness, Socrates?” I would say it’s the ability to achieve a lot in a short amount of time—whether it's in running, speaking, or any other kind of action.

LACHES: You would be quite correct.

LACHES: You would be absolutely right.

SOCRATES: And now, Laches, do you try and tell me in like manner, What is that common quality which is called courage, and which includes all the various uses of the term when applied both to pleasure and pain, and in all the cases to which I was just now referring?

SOCRATES: So now, Laches, can you tell me what the common quality called courage is, which covers all the different ways the term is used when talking about both pleasure and pain, as well as all the situations I just mentioned?

LACHES: I should say that courage is a sort of endurance of the soul, if I am to speak of the universal nature which pervades them all.

LACHES: I would say that courage is a kind of endurance of the spirit, if I’m going to address the universal quality that runs through all of them.

SOCRATES: But that is what we must do if we are to answer the question. And yet I cannot say that every kind of endurance is, in my opinion, to be deemed courage. Hear my reason: I am sure, Laches, that you would consider courage to be a very noble quality.

SOCRATES: But that’s what we have to do if we want to answer the question. Still, I can’t say that every type of endurance is, in my view, true courage. Let me explain: I’m sure, Laches, that you would agree that courage is a very admirable trait.

LACHES: Most noble, certainly.

LACHES: Most definitely noble.

SOCRATES: And you would say that a wise endurance is also good and noble?

SOCRATES: So you would say that a wise patience is also good and admirable?

LACHES: Very noble.

LACHES: Quite noble.

SOCRATES: But what would you say of a foolish endurance? Is not that, on the other hand, to be regarded as evil and hurtful?

SOCRATES: But what do you think about pointless endurance? Isn't that, on the other hand, something to be seen as bad and harmful?

LACHES: True.

LACHES: Correct.

SOCRATES: And is anything noble which is evil and hurtful?

SOCRATES: Is there anything good that is also evil and harmful?

LACHES: I ought not to say that, Socrates.

LACHES: I shouldn't say that, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Then you would not admit that sort of endurance to be courage—for it is not noble, but courage is noble?

SOCRATES: So you wouldn't call that kind of endurance courage—because it's not noble, but courage is noble?

LACHES: You are right.

LACHES: You're right.

SOCRATES: Then, according to you, only the wise endurance is courage?

SOCRATES: So, you think that only wise endurance is what courage is?

LACHES: True.

LACHES: For real.

SOCRATES: But as to the epithet 'wise,'—wise in what? In all things small as well as great? For example, if a man shows the quality of endurance in spending his money wisely, knowing that by spending he will acquire more in the end, do you call him courageous?

SOCRATES: But what do you mean by the term 'wise'—wise in everything, big and small? For instance, if a person demonstrates the ability to endure by managing their money wisely, understanding that by spending it they will ultimately gain more, do you consider them courageous?

LACHES: Assuredly not.

Definitely not.

SOCRATES: Or, for example, if a man is a physician, and his son, or some patient of his, has inflammation of the lungs, and begs that he may be allowed to eat or drink something, and the other is firm and refuses; is that courage?

SOCRATES: For instance, if a doctor has a son or a patient who has lung inflammation and asks to eat or drink something, and the doctor stands his ground and says no; is that courage?

LACHES: No; that is not courage at all, any more than the last.

LACHES: No, that’s not courage at all, just like the last one.

SOCRATES: Again, take the case of one who endures in war, and is willing to fight, and wisely calculates and knows that others will help him, and that there will be fewer and inferior men against him than there are with him; and suppose that he has also advantages of position; would you say of such a one who endures with all this wisdom and preparation, that he, or some man in the opposing army who is in the opposite circumstances to these and yet endures and remains at his post, is the braver?

SOCRATES: Let’s consider someone who stands strong in battle, who is ready to fight and wisely assesses that others will support him. He knows that he has fewer and weaker opponents to face than the allies he has with him, and he also has the advantage of a good position. Would you say that this person, who shows endurance, wisdom, and preparation, is braver than someone in the opposing army who, despite facing the opposite conditions, still holds his ground?

LACHES: I should say that the latter, Socrates, was the braver.

LACHES: I should say that Socrates was the braver one.

SOCRATES: But, surely, this is a foolish endurance in comparison with the other?

SOCRATES: But, really, this is a foolish way to endure compared to the other?

LACHES: That is true.

LACHES: That's true.

SOCRATES: Then you would say that he who in an engagement of cavalry endures, having the knowledge of horsemanship, is not so courageous as he who endures, having no such knowledge?

SOCRATES: So you would say that someone in a cavalry battle who endures, knowing how to ride, isn't as brave as someone who endures without that knowledge?

LACHES: So I should say.

LACHES: I guess I'll say that.

SOCRATES: And he who endures, having a knowledge of the use of the sling, or the bow, or of any other art, is not so courageous as he who endures, not having such a knowledge?

SOCRATES: Is the person who can endure and knows how to use a sling, a bow, or any other skill really more courageous than someone who endures without that knowledge?

LACHES: True.

LACHES: Correct.

SOCRATES: And he who descends into a well, and dives, and holds out in this or any similar action, having no knowledge of diving, or the like, is, as you would say, more courageous than those who have this knowledge?

SOCRATES: So, someone who goes down into a well, dives, and stays submerged without knowing anything about diving or anything like it, is, as you would say, braver than those who actually have this knowledge?

LACHES: Why, Socrates, what else can a man say?

LACHES: Well, Socrates, what else can a person say?

SOCRATES: Nothing, if that be what he thinks.

SOCRATES: Nothing, if that's what he believes.

LACHES: But that is what I do think.

LACHES: But that's exactly what I think.

SOCRATES: And yet men who thus run risks and endure are foolish, Laches, in comparison of those who do the same things, having the skill to do them.

SOCRATES: And yet men who take these risks and endure are foolish, Laches, compared to those who do the same things but have the skill to do them.

LACHES: That is true.

LACHES: That's true.

SOCRATES: But foolish boldness and endurance appeared before to be base and hurtful to us.

SOCRATES: But back then, reckless bravery and endurance seemed lowly and harmful to us.

LACHES: Quite true.

LACHES: That's true.

SOCRATES: Whereas courage was acknowledged to be a noble quality.

SOCRATES: Courage was recognized as a valuable trait.

LACHES: True.

LACHES: For real.

SOCRATES: And now on the contrary we are saying that the foolish endurance, which was before held in dishonour, is courage.

SOCRATES: And now, on the other hand, we are saying that the foolish endurance, which used to be seen as disgraceful, is actually courage.

LACHES: Very true.

LACHES: So true.

SOCRATES: And are we right in saying so?

SOCRATES: Are we correct in saying that?

LACHES: Indeed, Socrates, I am sure that we are not right.

LACHES: You’re right, Socrates, I know we aren’t correct.

SOCRATES: Then according to your statement, you and I, Laches, are not attuned to the Dorian mode, which is a harmony of words and deeds; for our deeds are not in accordance with our words. Any one would say that we had courage who saw us in action, but not, I imagine, he who heard us talking about courage just now.

SOCRATES: So, based on what you said, Laches, neither of us is in sync with the Dorian mode, which combines words and actions; because our actions don’t match our words. Anyone who saw us in action would probably call us brave, but I doubt anyone who just heard us talk about bravery would think the same.

LACHES: That is most true.

LACHES: That’s so true.

SOCRATES: And is this condition of ours satisfactory?

SOCRATES: So, are we okay with this situation?

LACHES: Quite the reverse.

LACHES: Quite the opposite.

SOCRATES: Suppose, however, that we admit the principle of which we are speaking to a certain extent.

SOCRATES: Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that we accept the principle we’re discussing to some degree.

LACHES: To what extent and what principle do you mean?

LACHES: What do you mean by that, and what principle are you referring to?

SOCRATES: The principle of endurance. We too must endure and persevere in the enquiry, and then courage will not laugh at our faint-heartedness in searching for courage; which after all may, very likely, be endurance.

SOCRATES: The principle of endurance. We also need to endure and keep searching, and then courage won’t mock our lack of bravery in seeking courage; which, after all, could very well be endurance.

LACHES: I am ready to go on, Socrates; and yet I am unused to investigations of this sort. But the spirit of controversy has been aroused in me by what has been said; and I am really grieved at being thus unable to express my meaning. For I fancy that I do know the nature of courage; but, somehow or other, she has slipped away from me, and I cannot get hold of her and tell her nature.

LACHES: I’m ready to continue, Socrates; although I’m not used to discussions like this. What’s been said has sparked my competitive spirit, and I’m genuinely frustrated that I can’t fully convey my thoughts. I believe I understand what courage is, but somehow, it’s eluded me, and I can’t grasp it or define its essence.

SOCRATES: But, my dear friend, should not the good sportsman follow the track, and not be lazy?

SOCRATES: But, my dear friend, shouldn't a good athlete follow the path and not be lazy?

LACHES: Certainly, he should.

LACHES: Definitely, he should.

SOCRATES: And shall we invite Nicias to join us? he may be better at the sport than we are. What do you say?

SOCRATES: Should we invite Nicias to join us? He might be better at this than we are. What do you think?

LACHES: I should like that.

Sounds good to me.

SOCRATES: Come then, Nicias, and do what you can to help your friends, who are tossing on the waves of argument, and at the last gasp: you see our extremity, and may save us and also settle your own opinion, if you will tell us what you think about courage.

SOCRATES: So come on, Nicias, do what you can to help your friends, who are struggling with the debate and are at their breaking point: you see our desperate situation, and you might save us and clarify your own views if you share what you believe about courage.

NICIAS: I have been thinking, Socrates, that you and Laches are not defining courage in the right way; for you have forgotten an excellent saying which I have heard from your own lips.

NICIAS: I've been thinking, Socrates, that you and Laches aren't defining courage correctly; you seem to have overlooked a great saying I've heard from you before.

SOCRATES: What is it, Nicias?

SOCRATES: What's up, Nicias?

NICIAS: I have often heard you say that 'Every man is good in that in which he is wise, and bad in that in which he is unwise.'

NICIAS: I’ve often heard you say that ‘Every man is good in what he knows and bad in what he doesn’t know.’

SOCRATES: That is certainly true, Nicias.

SOCRATES: That's really true, Nicias.

NICIAS: And therefore if the brave man is good, he is also wise.

NICIAS: So, if a brave person is good, they are also wise.

SOCRATES: Do you hear him, Laches?

SOCRATES: Do you hear him, Laches?

LACHES: Yes, I hear him, but I do not very well understand him.

LACHES: Yeah, I can hear him, but I don’t really understand him.

SOCRATES: I think that I understand him; and he appears to me to mean that courage is a sort of wisdom.

SOCRATES: I think I get what he’s saying; it seems to me that he believes courage is a kind of wisdom.

LACHES: What can he possibly mean, Socrates?

LACHES: What could he possibly mean, Socrates?

SOCRATES: That is a question which you must ask of himself.

SOCRATES: That's a question you need to ask him yourself.

LACHES: Yes.

LACHES: Yep.

SOCRATES: Tell him then, Nicias, what you mean by this wisdom; for you surely do not mean the wisdom which plays the flute?

SOCRATES: So, Nicias, explain what you mean by this wisdom; you can't possibly be talking about the kind of wisdom that plays the flute, right?

NICIAS: Certainly not.

Definitely not.

SOCRATES: Nor the wisdom which plays the lyre?

SOCRATES: Nor the knowledge that plays the lyre?

NICIAS: No.

NICIAS: Nope.

SOCRATES: But what is this knowledge then, and of what?

SOCRATES: But what kind of knowledge is this, and about what?

LACHES: I think that you put the question to him very well, Socrates; and I would like him to say what is the nature of this knowledge or wisdom.

LACHES: I think you asked him the question really well, Socrates; and I would like him to explain what this knowledge or wisdom is all about.

NICIAS: I mean to say, Laches, that courage is the knowledge of that which inspires fear or confidence in war, or in anything.

NICIAS: What I'm saying, Laches, is that courage is understanding what causes fear or confidence in war, or in anything else.

LACHES: How strangely he is talking, Socrates.

LACHES: It’s strange how he’s talking, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Why do you say so, Laches?

SOCRATES: Why do you say that, Laches?

LACHES: Why, surely courage is one thing, and wisdom another.

LACHES: Well, courage is one thing, and wisdom is another.

SOCRATES: That is just what Nicias denies.

SOCRATES: That's exactly what Nicias disagrees with.

LACHES: Yes, that is what he denies; but he is so silly.

LACHES: Yes, that's what he denies; but he's so foolish.

SOCRATES: Suppose that we instruct instead of abusing him?

SOCRATES: What if we teach him instead of mistreating him?

NICIAS: Laches does not want to instruct me, Socrates; but having been proved to be talking nonsense himself, he wants to prove that I have been doing the same.

NICIAS: Laches doesn't want to teach me, Socrates; but after he was shown to be talking nonsense himself, he wants to prove that I've been doing the same.

LACHES: Very true, Nicias; and you are talking nonsense, as I shall endeavour to show. Let me ask you a question: Do not physicians know the dangers of disease? or do the courageous know them? or are the physicians the same as the courageous?

LACHES: That’s absolutely right, Nicias; and you’re making no sense, as I will try to demonstrate. Let me ask you a question: Don’t doctors know the risks of illness? Or do the brave know them? Or are the doctors the same as the brave?

NICIAS: Not at all.

Not at all.

LACHES: No more than the husbandmen who know the dangers of husbandry, or than other craftsmen, who have a knowledge of that which inspires them with fear or confidence in their own arts, and yet they are not courageous a whit the more for that.

LACHES: Just like farmers who understand the risks of farming, or other skilled workers who are aware of what makes them feel afraid or confident in their crafts, they still aren't any braver because of it.

SOCRATES: What is Laches saying, Nicias? He appears to be saying something of importance.

SOCRATES: What is Laches saying, Nicias? He seems to have something important to say.

NICIAS: Yes, he is saying something, but it is not true.

NICIAS: Yeah, he’s saying something, but it’s not true.

SOCRATES: How so?

SOCRATES: How's that?

NICIAS: Why, because he does not see that the physician's knowledge only extends to the nature of health and disease: he can tell the sick man no more than this. Do you imagine, Laches, that the physician knows whether health or disease is the more terrible to a man? Had not many a man better never get up from a sick bed? I should like to know whether you think that life is always better than death. May not death often be the better of the two?

NICIAS: Why? Because he doesn’t realize that a doctor’s knowledge only covers health and disease. He can tell a sick person nothing more than that. Do you think, Laches, that the doctor knows which is worse for a person—health or disease? Wouldn’t many people be better off if they never got out of bed when they’re sick? I’d like to know if you believe that life is always better than death. Isn’t death often the better option of the two?

LACHES: Yes certainly so in my opinion.

LACHES: Yes, I definitely think so.

NICIAS: And do you think that the same things are terrible to those who had better die, and to those who had better live?

NICIAS: Do you think the same things are terrifying for those who would be better off dying and those who would be better off living?

LACHES: Certainly not.

LACHES: Absolutely not.

NICIAS: And do you suppose that the physician or any other artist knows this, or any one indeed, except he who is skilled in the grounds of fear and hope? And him I call the courageous.

NICIAS: Do you really think that the doctor or any other artist knows this, or anyone at all, except for the person who's knowledgeable about the roots of fear and hope? That person, I call courageous.

SOCRATES: Do you understand his meaning, Laches?

SOCRATES: Do you get what he means, Laches?

LACHES: Yes; I suppose that, in his way of speaking, the soothsayers are courageous. For who but one of them can know to whom to die or to live is better? And yet Nicias, would you allow that you are yourself a soothsayer, or are you neither a soothsayer nor courageous?

LACHES: Yes; I guess that, in his own way, the fortune tellers are brave. Because who else but one of them can know whether it’s better to die or to live? And yet Nicias, would you say that you’re a fortune teller yourself, or are you neither a fortune teller nor brave?

NICIAS: What! do you mean to say that the soothsayer ought to know the grounds of hope or fear?

NICIAS: What! Are you saying that the fortune teller should understand the reasons for hope or fear?

LACHES: Indeed I do: who but he?

LACHES: Of course I do: who else could it be?

NICIAS: Much rather I should say he of whom I speak; for the soothsayer ought to know only the signs of things that are about to come to pass, whether death or disease, or loss of property, or victory, or defeat in war, or in any sort of contest; but to whom the suffering or not suffering of these things will be for the best, can no more be decided by the soothsayer than by one who is no soothsayer.

NICIAS: I would say it's more about the person I'm talking about; because a soothsayer should only be aware of the signs of things that are going to happen, whether it's death or illness, loss of property, victory, or defeat in battle or any kind of competition. However, whether experiencing these things is ultimately for the best can't be determined by the soothsayer any more than it can by someone who's not a soothsayer.

LACHES: I cannot understand what Nicias would be at, Socrates; for he represents the courageous man as neither a soothsayer, nor a physician, nor in any other character, unless he means to say that he is a god. My opinion is that he does not like honestly to confess that he is talking nonsense, but that he shuffles up and down in order to conceal the difficulty into which he has got himself. You and I, Socrates, might have practised a similar shuffle just now, if we had only wanted to avoid the appearance of inconsistency. And if we had been arguing in a court of law there might have been reason in so doing; but why should a man deck himself out with vain words at a meeting of friends such as this?

LACHES: I don’t understand what Nicias is trying to say, Socrates; he describes the brave man as neither a fortune teller, nor a doctor, nor in any other way, unless he means he’s a god. I think he doesn’t want to honestly admit that he’s talking nonsense, so he’s just stammering to hide the confusion he’s in. You and I, Socrates, could have done the same just now if we wanted to avoid looking inconsistent. If we were arguing in a courtroom, that might make sense, but why should someone decorate their speech with empty words in a friendly gathering like this?

SOCRATES: I quite agree with you, Laches, that he should not. But perhaps Nicias is serious, and not merely talking for the sake of talking. Let us ask him just to explain what he means, and if he has reason on his side we will agree with him; if not, we will instruct him.

SOCRATES: I totally agree with you, Laches, that he shouldn't. But maybe Nicias is being serious and not just talking for the sake of it. Let’s ask him to explain what he means, and if he has a good point, we’ll go along with him; if not, we’ll help him understand.

LACHES: Do you, Socrates, if you like, ask him: I think that I have asked enough.

LACHES: Socrates, if you want, you can ask him: I believe I've asked enough.

SOCRATES: I do not see why I should not; and my question will do for both of us.

SOCRATES: I don't see why I shouldn't; and my question works for both of us.

LACHES: Very good.

LACHES: Awesome.

SOCRATES: Then tell me, Nicias, or rather tell us, for Laches and I are partners in the argument: Do you mean to affirm that courage is the knowledge of the grounds of hope and fear?

SOCRATES: So, tell me, Nicias, or actually tell us, since Laches and I are both involved in this discussion: Are you saying that courage is knowing the reasons behind hope and fear?

NICIAS: I do.

I do.

SOCRATES: And not every man has this knowledge; the physician and the soothsayer have it not; and they will not be courageous unless they acquire it—that is what you were saying?

SOCRATES: And not everyone has this knowledge; the doctor and the fortune-teller don’t have it; and they won’t be brave unless they gain it—that’s what you were saying?

NICIAS: I was.

I was.

SOCRATES: Then this is certainly not a thing which every pig would know, as the proverb says, and therefore he could not be courageous.

SOCRATES: So this is definitely not something every pig would know, as the saying goes, and so he couldn't be courageous.

NICIAS: I think not.

NICIAS: I don't think so.

SOCRATES: Clearly not, Nicias; not even such a big pig as the Crommyonian sow would be called by you courageous. And this I say not as a joke, but because I think that he who assents to your doctrine, that courage is the knowledge of the grounds of fear and hope, cannot allow that any wild beast is courageous, unless he admits that a lion, or a leopard, or perhaps a boar, or any other animal, has such a degree of wisdom that he knows things which but a few human beings ever know by reason of their difficulty. He who takes your view of courage must affirm that a lion, and a stag, and a bull, and a monkey, have equally little pretensions to courage.

SOCRATES: Clearly not, Nicias; even a big pig like the Crommyonian sow wouldn't be called courageous by you. I’m not saying this as a joke, but because I believe that anyone who agrees with your idea that courage is understanding the reasons behind fear and hope can't say any wild animal is courageous unless they accept that a lion, a leopard, or maybe a boar, or any other creature, has a level of wisdom that allows them to comprehend things that only a few humans ever manage to understand because of their complexity. Someone who shares your perspective on courage must also admit that a lion, a stag, a bull, and a monkey have no more claim to courage.

LACHES: Capital, Socrates; by the gods, that is truly good. And I hope, Nicias, that you will tell us whether these animals, which we all admit to be courageous, are really wiser than mankind; or whether you will have the boldness, in the face of universal opinion, to deny their courage.

LACHES: Money, Socrates; honestly, that’s really great. And I hope, Nicias, you’ll let us know if these creatures, which we all agree are brave, are actually smarter than humans; or if you’ll have the courage to go against what everyone thinks and deny their bravery.

NICIAS: Why, Laches, I do not call animals or any other things which have no fear of dangers, because they are ignorant of them, courageous, but only fearless and senseless. Do you imagine that I should call little children courageous, which fear no dangers because they know none? There is a difference, to my way of thinking, between fearlessness and courage. I am of opinion that thoughtful courage is a quality possessed by very few, but that rashness and boldness, and fearlessness, which has no forethought, are very common qualities possessed by many men, many women, many children, many animals. And you, and men in general, call by the term 'courageous' actions which I call rash;—my courageous actions are wise actions.

NICIAS: Well, Laches, I don’t consider animals or anything else that doesn’t fear dangers, because they’re unaware of them, to be courageous; they’re just fearless and oblivious. Do you really think I would call little kids courageous when they don’t fear dangers because they don’t know any? I believe there’s a distinction between fearlessness and courage. I think that true, thoughtful courage is a quality that very few people have, while rashness, boldness, and fearlessness without foresight are common traits found in many men, women, children, and animals. You and most people generally refer to actions as ‘courageous’ that I see as rash; my courageous actions are wise actions.

LACHES: Behold, Socrates, how admirably, as he thinks, he dresses himself out in words, while seeking to deprive of the honour of courage those whom all the world acknowledges to be courageous.

LACHES: Look, Socrates, how impressively, as he believes, he wraps himself in words, while trying to take away the honor of courage from those whom everyone recognizes as brave.

NICIAS: Not so, Laches, but do not be alarmed; for I am quite willing to say of you and also of Lamachus, and of many other Athenians, that you are courageous and therefore wise.

NICIAS: Not at all, Laches, but don’t worry; I’m more than happy to say that you, along with Lamachus and many other Athenians, are brave and therefore wise.

LACHES: I could answer that; but I would not have you cast in my teeth that I am a haughty Aexonian.

LACHES: I could respond to that, but I wouldn’t want you to hold it against me that I’m an arrogant Aexonian.

SOCRATES: Do not answer him, Laches; I rather fancy that you are not aware of the source from which his wisdom is derived. He has got all this from my friend Damon, and Damon is always with Prodicus, who, of all the Sophists, is considered to be the best puller to pieces of words of this sort.

SOCRATES: Don't respond to him, Laches; I have a feeling you don't realize where his knowledge comes from. He got all this from my friend Damon, and Damon is always with Prodicus, who is regarded as the best at breaking down words like these among all the Sophists.

LACHES: Yes, Socrates; and the examination of such niceties is a much more suitable employment for a Sophist than for a great statesman whom the city chooses to preside over her.

LACHES: Yes, Socrates; and discussing these details is a much better job for a Sophist than for a great leader that the city selects to guide her.

SOCRATES: Yes, my sweet friend, but a great statesman is likely to have a great intelligence. And I think that the view which is implied in Nicias' definition of courage is worthy of examination.

SOCRATES: Yes, my dear friend, but a great leader is likely to have great intelligence. I believe that the perspective suggested by Nicias' definition of courage deserves to be explored.

LACHES: Then examine for yourself, Socrates.

LACHES: Then take a look for yourself, Socrates.

SOCRATES: That is what I am going to do, my dear friend. Do not, however, suppose I shall let you out of the partnership; for I shall expect you to apply your mind, and join with me in the consideration of the question.

SOCRATES: That’s exactly what I'm going to do, my dear friend. But don’t think I’ll let you off the hook; I expect you to engage your mind and work with me on this question.

LACHES: I will if you think that I ought.

LACHES: I will if you think I should.

SOCRATES: Yes, I do; but I must beg of you, Nicias, to begin again. You remember that we originally considered courage to be a part of virtue.

SOCRATES: Yes, I do; but I need to ask you, Nicias, to start over. You remember that we first thought of courage as a part of virtue.

NICIAS: Very true.

NICIAS: So true.

SOCRATES: And you yourself said that it was a part; and there were many other parts, all of which taken together are called virtue.

SOCRATES: And you said that it was one part; and there were many other parts, all of which together are called virtue.

NICIAS: Certainly.

NICIAS: Of course.

SOCRATES: Do you agree with me about the parts? For I say that justice, temperance, and the like, are all of them parts of virtue as well as courage. Would you not say the same?

SOCRATES: Do you agree with me about the parts? Because I believe that justice, temperance, and the like are all parts of virtue just like courage. Wouldn't you say the same?

NICIAS: Certainly.

Definitely.

SOCRATES: Well then, so far we are agreed. And now let us proceed a step, and try to arrive at a similar agreement about the fearful and the hopeful: I do not want you to be thinking one thing and myself another. Let me then tell you my own opinion, and if I am wrong you shall set me right: in my opinion the terrible and the hopeful are the things which do or do not create fear, and fear is not of the present, nor of the past, but is of future and expected evil. Do you not agree to that, Laches?

SOCRATES: Alright then, we seem to be on the same page so far. Now, let’s take the next step and see if we can agree on the concepts of fear and hope. I don’t want us to be thinking differently about this. Let me share my thoughts, and if I'm mistaken, please correct me: I believe that the things that are terrifying and hopeful are those that either create fear or don’t. Fear isn’t about what’s happening now or what’s happened before; it’s about what we anticipate might go wrong in the future. Do you agree with that, Laches?

LACHES: Yes, Socrates, entirely.

Sure, Socrates, absolutely.

SOCRATES: That is my view, Nicias; the terrible things, as I should say, are the evils which are future; and the hopeful are the good or not evil things which are future. Do you or do you not agree with me?

SOCRATES: That’s what I think, Nicias; the really awful things are the bad things that are yet to come, while the promising things are the good or not-bad things that are also in the future. Do you agree with me or not?

NICIAS: I agree.

NICIAS: I'm on board.

SOCRATES: And the knowledge of these things you call courage?

SOCRATES: So, is the knowledge of these things what you call courage?

NICIAS: Precisely.

NICIAS: Exactly.

SOCRATES: And now let me see whether you agree with Laches and myself as to a third point.

SOCRATES: Now, let me check if you agree with Laches and me on a third point.

NICIAS: What is that?

NICIAS: What’s that?

SOCRATES: I will tell you. He and I have a notion that there is not one knowledge or science of the past, another of the present, a third of what is likely to be best and what will be best in the future; but that of all three there is one science only: for example, there is one science of medicine which is concerned with the inspection of health equally in all times, present, past, and future; and one science of husbandry in like manner, which is concerned with the productions of the earth in all times. As to the art of the general, you yourselves will be my witnesses that he has an excellent foreknowledge of the future, and that he claims to be the master and not the servant of the soothsayer, because he knows better what is happening or is likely to happen in war: and accordingly the law places the soothsayer under the general, and not the general under the soothsayer. Am I not correct in saying so, Laches?

SOCRATES: I'll explain. He and I believe that there isn't just one type of knowledge or science for the past, another for the present, and a third for what might be best in the future. Instead, there's just one science that covers all three: for example, there's one science of medicine that deals with health across all times—past, present, and future—and one science of agriculture that addresses the earth's products in all periods. As for the general, you can all see for yourselves that he has an exceptional ability to foresee the future, claiming to be the expert rather than the apprentice of the soothsayer because he understands better what’s happening or what is likely to happen in war. Therefore, the law places the soothsayer under the general, not the other way around. Am I right about this, Laches?

LACHES: Quite correct.

LACHES: That's right.

SOCRATES: And do you, Nicias, also acknowledge that the same science has understanding of the same things, whether future, present, or past?

SOCRATES: So, Nicias, do you also agree that the same knowledge understands the same things, whether they're in the future, present, or past?

NICIAS: Yes, indeed Socrates; that is my opinion.

NICIAS: Yeah, I completely agree, Socrates; that’s how I feel.

SOCRATES: And courage, my friend, is, as you say, a knowledge of the fearful and of the hopeful?

SOCRATES: So, courage, my friend, is, as you said, knowing what to be afraid of and what to hope for?

NICIAS: Yes.

NICIAS: Yeah.

SOCRATES: And the fearful, and the hopeful, are admitted to be future goods and future evils?

SOCRATES: So, we agree that fear and hope are considered future benefits and future harms?

NICIAS: True.

NICIAS: That's true.

SOCRATES: And the same science has to do with the same things in the future or at any time?

SOCRATES: Does that same science relate to the same things in the future or at any time?

NICIAS: That is true.

NICIAS: That's true.

SOCRATES: Then courage is not the science which is concerned with the fearful and hopeful, for they are future only; courage, like the other sciences, is concerned not only with good and evil of the future, but of the present and past, and of any time?

SOCRATES: So, courage isn't just the knowledge related to fear and hope, because those are only about the future; courage, like the other fields of knowledge, deals not only with the good and bad of the future but also with what is happening now and what has happened in the past, at any point in time?

NICIAS: That, as I suppose, is true.

NICIAS: I believe that's true.

SOCRATES: Then the answer which you have given, Nicias, includes only a third part of courage; but our question extended to the whole nature of courage: and according to your view, that is, according to your present view, courage is not only the knowledge of the hopeful and the fearful, but seems to include nearly every good and evil without reference to time. What do you say to that alteration in your statement?

SOCRATES: So the answer you've given, Nicias, only covers a part of courage; but our question was about the total nature of courage. According to your current view, courage isn't just knowing what’s hopeful and what’s fearful, but seems to involve almost every good and bad thing without considering time. What do you think about that change in your statement?

NICIAS: I agree, Socrates.

NICIAS: I’m with you, Socrates.

SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness? He would possess them all, and he would know which were dangers and which were not, and guard against them whether they were supernatural or natural; and he would provide the good, as he would know how to deal both with gods or men.

SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a person knew everything about good and evil, how they exist, have existed, and will exist, wouldn’t they be perfect and lack any virtue, whether it's justice, self-control, or holiness? They would have all of these qualities and would understand which things were dangerous and which were not, protecting themselves from both supernatural and natural threats; plus, they would know how to do good, since they would understand how to interact with both gods and people.

NICIAS: I think, Socrates, that there is a great deal of truth in what you say.

NICIAS: I think, Socrates, that there’s a lot of truth in what you’re saying.

SOCRATES: But then, Nicias, courage, according to this new definition of yours, instead of being a part of virtue only, will be all virtue?

SOCRATES: But then, Nicias, courage, based on this new definition of yours, will be not just a part of virtue but all of virtue?

NICIAS: It would seem so.

NICIAS: It looks that way.

SOCRATES: But we were saying that courage is one of the parts of virtue?

SOCRATES: But we were saying that courage is one of the aspects of virtue?

NICIAS: Yes, that was what we were saying.

NICIAS: Yeah, that's what we were talking about.

SOCRATES: And that is in contradiction with our present view?

SOCRATES: Is that in conflict with what we think now?

NICIAS: That appears to be the case.

NICIAS: That seems to be true.

SOCRATES: Then, Nicias, we have not discovered what courage is.

SOCRATES: So, Nicias, we still haven't figured out what courage really is.

NICIAS: We have not.

NICIAS: We haven't.

LACHES: And yet, friend Nicias, I imagined that you would have made the discovery, when you were so contemptuous of the answers which I made to Socrates. I had very great hopes that you would have been enlightened by the wisdom of Damon.

LACHES: And still, my friend Nicias, I thought you would have realized this after you dismissed the responses I gave to Socrates. I really hoped that the wisdom of Damon would have opened your mind.

NICIAS: I perceive, Laches, that you think nothing of having displayed your ignorance of the nature of courage, but you look only to see whether I have not made a similar display; and if we are both equally ignorant of the things which a man who is good for anything should know, that, I suppose, will be of no consequence. You certainly appear to me very like the rest of the world, looking at your neighbour and not at yourself. I am of opinion that enough has been said on the subject which we have been discussing; and if anything has been imperfectly said, that may be hereafter corrected by the help of Damon, whom you think to laugh down, although you have never seen him, and with the help of others. And when I am satisfied myself, I will freely impart my satisfaction to you, for I think that you are very much in want of knowledge.

NICIAS: I notice, Laches, that you don't seem to care that you've shown your lack of understanding about the nature of courage. Instead, you only check to see if I've done the same. If we’re both equally clueless about the things a capable person should know, I guess that won't matter much. You really seem to be just like everyone else, focusing on others rather than yourself. I believe we've talked enough about this topic; if anything needs clarification, it can be sorted out later with help from Damon, whom you think you can dismiss even though you’ve never met him, and with help from others. When I feel confident about what I know, I’ll gladly share that with you because I think you really need some knowledge.

LACHES: You are a philosopher, Nicias; of that I am aware: nevertheless I would recommend Lysimachus and Melesias not to take you and me as advisers about the education of their children; but, as I said at first, they should ask Socrates and not let him off; if my own sons were old enough, I would have asked him myself.

LACHES: You're a philosopher, Nicias; I get that. Still, I think Lysimachus and Melesias shouldn't rely on us for advice about their kids' education. As I mentioned earlier, they should really consult Socrates and not let him slip away. If my sons were old enough, I would have asked him myself.

NICIAS: To that I quite agree, if Socrates is willing to take them under his charge. I should not wish for any one else to be the tutor of Niceratus. But I observe that when I mention the matter to him he recommends to me some other tutor and refuses himself. Perhaps he may be more ready to listen to you, Lysimachus.

NICIAS: I completely agree, as long as Socrates is willing to take them on. I wouldn’t want anyone else to teach Niceratus. However, I’ve noticed that whenever I bring it up with him, he suggests another tutor and declines himself. Maybe he’ll be more open to you, Lysimachus.

LYSIMACHUS: He ought, Nicias: for certainly I would do things for him which I would not do for many others. What do you say, Socrates—will you comply? And are you ready to give assistance in the improvement of the youths?

LYSIMACHUS: He really should, Nicias; because I would definitely do things for him that I wouldn’t do for a lot of others. What do you think, Socrates—will you help out? Are you willing to assist in developing the young people?

SOCRATES: Indeed, Lysimachus, I should be very wrong in refusing to aid in the improvement of anybody. And if I had shown in this conversation that I had a knowledge which Nicias and Laches have not, then I admit that you would be right in inviting me to perform this duty; but as we are all in the same perplexity, why should one of us be preferred to another? I certainly think that no one should; and under these circumstances, let me offer you a piece of advice (and this need not go further than ourselves). I maintain, my friends, that every one of us should seek out the best teacher whom he can find, first for ourselves, who are greatly in need of one, and then for the youth, regardless of expense or anything. But I cannot advise that we remain as we are. And if any one laughs at us for going to school at our age, I would quote to them the authority of Homer, who says, that

SOCRATES: Truly, Lysimachus, it would be very wrong of me to refuse to help improve anyone. If I had demonstrated in this conversation that I possess knowledge that Nicias and Laches do not, then I would agree that it makes sense for you to ask me to take on this responsibility. However, since we are all equally confused, why should one of us be favored over the others? I certainly believe that no one should be. Given this situation, let me offer you a piece of advice (which should remain between us). I argue, my friends, that each of us should find the best teacher we can for our own benefit, as we really need it, and then for the youth, regardless of the cost. But I cannot recommend that we stay as we are. If anyone mocks us for wanting to learn at our age, I would refer them to the authority of Homer, who says that

'Modesty is not good for a needy man.'

'Being modest isn't helpful for someone in need.'

Let us then, regardless of what may be said of us, make the education of the youths our own education.

Let’s then, no matter what others might say about us, make the education of young people our own learning experience.

LYSIMACHUS: I like your proposal, Socrates; and as I am the oldest, I am also the most eager to go to school with the boys. Let me beg a favour of you: Come to my house to-morrow at dawn, and we will advise about these matters. For the present, let us make an end of the conversation.

LYSIMACHUS: I like your idea, Socrates; and since I’m the oldest, I’m also the most eager to learn with the kids. Let me ask a favor: Come to my place tomorrow at dawn, and we can discuss this further. For now, let’s wrap up our conversation.

SOCRATES: I will come to you to-morrow, Lysimachus, as you propose, God willing.

SOCRATES: I will come to you tomorrow, Lysimachus, as you suggested, if all goes well.










Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!