probably to the second or third generation after Plato, when his writings
were well known at Athens and Alexandria. They exhibit considerable
originality, and are remarkable for containing several thoughts of the sort
which we suppose to be modern rather than ancient, and which therefore have
a peculiar interest for us. The Second Alcibiades shows that the
difficulties about prayer which have perplexed Christian theologians were
not unknown among the followers of Plato. The Eryxias was doubted by the
ancients themselves: yet it may claim the distinction of being, among all
Greek or Roman writings, the one which anticipates in the most striking
manner the modern science of political economy and gives an abstract form
to some of its principal doctrines.
For the translation of these two dialogues I am indebted to my friend and
secretary, Mr. Knight.
That the Dialogue which goes by the name of the Second Alcibiades is a
genuine writing of Plato will not be maintained by any modern critic, and
was hardly believed by the ancients themselves. The dialectic is poor and
weak. There is no power over language, or beauty of style; and there is a
certain abruptness and agroikia in the conversation, which is very un-
Platonic. The best passage is probably that about the poets:--the remark
that the poet, who is of a reserved disposition, is uncommonly difficult to
understand, and the ridiculous interpretation of Homer, are entirely in the
spirit of Plato (compare Protag; Ion; Apol.). The characters are ill-
drawn. Socrates assumes the 'superior person' and preaches too much, while
Alcibiades is stupid and heavy-in-hand. There are traces of Stoic
influence in the general tone and phraseology of the Dialogue (compare opos
melesei tis...kaka: oti pas aphron mainetai): and the writer seems to
have been acquainted with the 'Laws' of Plato (compare Laws). An incident
from the Symposium is rather clumsily introduced, and two somewhat
hackneyed quotations (Symp., Gorg.) recur. The reference to the death of
Archelaus as having occurred 'quite lately' is only a fiction, probably
suggested by the Gorgias, where the story of Archelaus is told, and a
similar phrase occurs;--ta gar echthes kai proen gegonota tauta, k.t.l.
There are several passages which are either corrupt or extremely ill-
expressed. But there is a modern interest in the subject of the dialogue;
and it is a good example of a short spurious work, which may be attributed
to the second or third century before Christ.
ERYXIAS
by
Platonic Imitator (see Appendix II above)
Translated by Benjamin Jowett
INTRODUCTION.
Much cannot be said in praise of the style or conception of the Eryxias.
It is frequently obscure; like the exercise of a student, it is full of
small imitations of Plato:--Phaeax returning from an expedition to Sicily
(compare Socrates in the Charmides from the army at Potidaea), the figure
of the game at draughts, borrowed from the Republic, etc. It has also in
many passages the ring of sophistry. On the other hand, the rather
unhandsome treatment which is exhibited towards Prodicus is quite unlike
the urbanity of Plato.
Yet there are some points in the argument which are deserving of attention.
(1) That wealth depends upon the need of it or demand for it, is the first
anticipation in an abstract form of one of the great principles of modern
political economy, and the nearest approach to it to be found in an ancient
writer. (2) The resolution of wealth into its simplest implements going on
to infinity is a subtle and refined thought. (3) That wealth is relative
to circumstances is a sound conception. (4) That the arts and sciences
which receive payment are likewise to be comprehended under the notion of
wealth, also touches a question of modern political economy. (5) The
distinction of post hoc and propter hoc, often lost sight of in modern as
well as in ancient times. These metaphysical conceptions and distinctions
show considerable power of thought in the writer, whatever we may think of
his merits as an imitator of Plato.
ERYXIAS
by
Platonic Imitator (see Appendix II above)
Translated by Benjamin Jowett
PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE: Socrates, Eryxias, Erasistratus, Critias.
SCENE: The portico of a temple of Zeus.
It happened by chance that Eryxias the Steirian was walking with me in the
Portico of Zeus the Deliverer, when there came up to us Critias and
Erasistratus, the latter the son of Phaeax, who was the nephew of
Erasistratus. Now Erasistratus had just arrived from Sicily and that part
of the world. As they approached, he said, Hail, Socrates!
SOCRATES: The same to you, I said; have you any good news from Sicily to
tell us?
ERASISTRATUS: Most excellent. But, if you please, let us first sit down;
for I am tired with my yesterday's journey from Megara.
SOCRATES: Gladly, if that is your desire.
ERASISTRATUS: What would you wish to hear first? he said. What the
Sicilians are doing, or how they are disposed towards our city? To my
mind, they are very like wasps: so long as you only cause them a little
annoyance they are quite unmanageable; you must destroy their nests if you
wish to get the better of them. And in a similar way, the Syracusans,
unless we set to work in earnest, and go against them with a great
expedition, will never submit to our rule. The petty injuries which we at
present inflict merely irritate them enough to make them utterly
intractable. And now they have sent ambassadors to Athens, and intend, I
suspect, to play us some trick.--While we were talking, the Syracusan
envoys chanced to go by, and Erasistratus, pointing to one of them, said to
me, That, Socrates, is the richest man in all Italy and Sicily. For who
has larger estates or more land at his disposal to cultivate if he please?
And they are of a quality, too, finer than any other land in Hellas.
Moreover, he has all the things which go to make up wealth, slaves and
horses innumerable, gold and silver without end.
I saw that he was inclined to expatiate on the riches of the man; so I
asked him, Well, Erasistratus, and what sort of character does he bear in
Sicily?
ERASISTRATUS: He is esteemed to be, and really is, the wickedest of all
the Sicilians and Italians, and even more wicked than he is rich; indeed,
if you were to ask any Sicilian whom he thought to be the worst and the
richest of mankind, you would never hear any one else named.
I reflected that we were speaking, not of trivial matters, but about wealth
and virtue, which are deemed to be of the greatest moment, and I asked
Erasistratus whom he considered the wealthier,--he who was the possessor of
a talent of silver or he who had a field worth two talents?
ERASISTRATUS: The owner of the field.
SOCRATES: And on the same principle he who had robes and bedding and such
things which are of greater value to him than to a stranger would be richer
than the stranger?
ERASISTRATUS: True.
SOCRATES: And if any one gave you a choice, which of these would you
prefer?
ERASISTRATUS: That which was most valuable.
SOCRATES: In which way do you think you would be the richer?
ERASISTRATUS: By choosing as I said.
SOCRATES: And he appears to you to be the richest who has goods of the
greatest value?
ERASISTRATUS: He does.
SOCRATES: And are not the healthy richer than the sick, since health is a
possession more valuable than riches to the sick? Surely there is no one
who would not prefer to be poor and well, rather than to have all the King
of Persia's wealth and to be ill. And this proves that men set health
above wealth, else they would never choose the one in preference to the
other.
ERASISTRATUS: True.
SOCRATES: And if anything appeared to be more valuable than health, he
would be the richest who possessed it?
ERASISTRATUS: He would.
SOCRATES: Suppose that some one came to us at this moment and were to ask,
Well, Socrates and Eryxias and Erasistratus, can you tell me what is of the
greatest value to men? Is it not that of which the possession will best
enable a man to advise how his own and his friend's affairs should be
administered?--What will be our reply?
ERASISTRATUS: I should say, Socrates, that happiness was the most precious
of human possessions.
SOCRATES: Not a bad answer. But do we not deem those men who are most
prosperous to be the happiest?
ERASISTRATUS: That is my opinion.
SOCRATES: And are they not most prosperous who commit the fewest errors in
respect either of themselves or of other men?
ERASISTRATUS: Certainly.
SOCRATES: And they who know what is evil and what is good; what should be
done and what should be left undone;--these behave the most wisely and make
the fewest mistakes?
Erasistratus agreed to this.
SOCRATES: Then the wisest and those who do best and the most fortunate and
the richest would appear to be all one and the same, if wisdom is really
the most valuable of our possessions?
Yes, said Eryxias, interposing, but what use would it be if a man had the
wisdom of Nestor and wanted the necessaries of life, food and drink and
clothes and the like? Where would be the advantage of wisdom then? Or how
could he be the richest of men who might even have to go begging, because
he had not wherewithal to live?
I thought that what Eryxias was saying had some weight, and I replied,
Would the wise man really suffer in this way, if he were so ill-provided;
whereas if he had the house of Polytion, and the house were full of gold
and silver, he would lack nothing?
ERYXIAS: Yes; for then he might dispose of his property and obtain in
exchange what he needed, or he might sell it for money with which he could
supply his wants and in a moment procure abundance of everything.
SOCRATES: True, if he could find some one who preferred such a house to
the wisdom of Nestor. But if there are persons who set great store by
wisdom like Nestor's and the advantages accruing from it, to sell these, if
he were so disposed, would be easier still. Or is a house a most useful
and necessary possession, and does it make a great difference in the
comfort of life to have a mansion like Polytion's instead of living in a
shabby little cottage, whereas wisdom is of small use and it is of no
importance whether a man is wise or ignorant about the highest matters? Or
is wisdom despised of men and can find no buyers, although cypress wood and
marble of Pentelicus are eagerly bought by numerous purchasers? Surely the
prudent pilot or the skilful physician, or the artist of any kind who is
proficient in his art, is more worth than the things which are especially
reckoned among riches; and he who can advise well and prudently for himself
and others is able also to sell the product of his art, if he so desire.
Eryxias looked askance, as if he had received some unfair treatment, and
said, I believe, Socrates, that if you were forced to speak the truth, you
would declare that you were richer than Callias the son of Hipponicus. And
yet, although you claimed to be wiser about things of real importance, you
would not any the more be richer than he.
I dare say, Eryxias, I said, that you may regard these arguments of ours as
a kind of game; you think that they have no relation to facts, but are like
the pieces in the game of draughts which the player can move in such a way
that his opponents are unable to make any countermove. (Compare Republic.)
And perhaps, too, as regards riches you are of opinion that while facts
remain the same, there are arguments, no matter whether true or false,
which enable the user of them to prove that the wisest and the richest are
one and the same, although he is in the wrong and his opponents are in the
right. There would be nothing strange in this; it would be as if two
persons were to dispute about letters, one declaring that the word Socrates
began with an S, the other that it began with an A, and the latter could
gain the victory over the former.
Eryxias glanced at the audience, laughing and blushing at once, as if he
had had nothing to do with what had just been said, and replied,--No,
indeed, Socrates, I never supposed that our arguments should be of a kind
which would never convince any one of those here present or be of advantage
to them. For what man of sense could ever be persuaded that the wisest and
the richest are the same? The truth is that we are discussing the subject
of riches, and my notion is that we should argue respecting the honest and
dishonest means of acquiring them, and, generally, whether they are a good
thing or a bad.
Very good, I said, and I am obliged to you for the hint: in future we will
be more careful. But why do not you yourself, as you introduced the
argument, and do not think that the former discussion touched the point at
issue, tell us whether you consider riches to be a good or an evil?
I am of opinion, he said, that they are a good. He was about to add
something more, when Critias interrupted him:--Do you really suppose so,
Eryxias?
Certainly, replied Eryxias; I should be mad if I did not: and I do not
fancy that you would find any one else of a contrary opinion.
And I, retorted Critias, should say that there is no one whom I could not
compel to admit that riches are bad for some men. But surely, if they were
a good, they could not appear bad for any one?
Here I interposed and said to them: If you two were having an argument
about equitation and what was the best way of riding, supposing that I knew
the art myself, I should try to bring you to an agreement. For I should be
ashamed if I were present and did not do what I could to prevent your
difference. And I should do the same if you were quarrelling about any
other art and were likely, unless you agreed on the point in dispute, to
part as enemies instead of as friends. But now, when we are contending
about a thing of which the usefulness continues during the whole of life,
and it makes an enormous difference whether we are to regard it as
beneficial or not,--a thing, too, which is esteemed of the highest
