Greek Texts & Translations

Let us adopt some such method as this. Suppose that a man were to praise the rearing of goats, and the goat itself as a fine thing to own, and suppose also that another man, who had seen goats grazing without a herd and doing damage on cultivated land, were to run them down, and find fault equally with every animal he saw that was without a master or under a bad master,—would such a man's censure, about any object whatsoever, be of the smallest value?

Certainly not. 639b

Do we call the man who possesses only nautical science, whether or not he suffers from sea-sickness, a good commander on a ship—or what?

By no means good, if along with his skill he suffers in the way you say.

And how about the army commander? Is a man fit for command, provided that he has military science, even though he be a coward and sea-sick with a kind of tipsy terror when danger comes?

Certainly not.

And suppose he has no military skill, besides being a coward?

You are describing an utterly worthless fellow, not a commander of men at all, but of the most womanish of women. 639c

Now take the case of any social institution whatsoever which naturally has a commander and which, under its commander, is beneficial; and suppose that someone, who had never seen the conduct of the institution under its commander, but seen it only when with no commander or bad commanders, were to commend the institution or censure it: do we imagine that either the praise or the blame of such an observer of such an institution is of any value?

Certainly not, when the man has never seen nor shared in an institution of the kind 639dthat was properly conducted.

Now stay a moment! Shall we lay it down that, of the numerous kinds of social institutions, that of banqueters and banquetings forms one?

Most certainly.

Now has anyone ever yet beheld this institution rightly conducted? Both of you can easily make answer—“Never yet at all,” for with you this institution is neither customary nor legal; but I have come across many modes of banqueting in many places, and I have also inquired into nearly all of them, and I have scarcely seen or heard of 639ea single one that was in all points rightly conducted; for if any were right at all, it was only in a few details, and most of them were almost entirely on the wrong lines.

What do you mean by that, Stranger? Explain yourself more clearly; for since we are (as you observed) without any experience of such institutions, 640aeven if we did come across them, we would probably fail to see at once what was right in them and what wrong.

That is very probable. Try, however, to learn from my description. This you understand—that in all gatherings and associations for any purpose whatsoever it is right that each group should always have a commander.

Of course.

Moreover, we have recently said that the commander of fighting men must be courageous.

Of course.

The courageous man is less perturbed by alarms than the coward. 640b

That is true, too.

Now if there had existed any device for putting an army in charge of a general who was absolutely impervious to fear or perturbation, should we not have made every effort to do so?

Most certainly.

But what we are discussing now is not the man who is to command an army in time of war, in meetings of foe with foe, but the man who is to command friends in friendly association with friends in time of peace.

Quite so. 640c

Such a gathering, if accompanied by drunkenness, is not free from disturbance, is it?

Certainly not; quite the reverse, I imagine.

So those people also need, in the first place, a commander?

Undoubtedly—they above all.

Should we, if possible, provide them with a commander who is imperturbable?

Certainly.

Naturally, also, he should be wise about social gatherings. For he has both to preserve 640dthe friendliness which already exists among the company and to see that the present gathering promotes it still further.

Very true.

Then the commander we set over drunken men should be sober and wise, rather than the opposite? For a commander of drunkards who was himself drunken, young, and foolish would be very lucky if he escaped doing some serious mischief.

Uncommonly lucky.

Suppose, then, that a man were to find fault with such institutions in States where they are managed in the best possible way, 640ehaving an objection to the institution in itself, he might perhaps be right in doing so but if a man abuses an institution when he sees it managed in the worst way possible, it is plain that he is ignorant, first, of the fact that it is badly conducted, and secondly, that every institution will appear similarly bad when it is carried on without a sober ruler and commander. For surely you perceive