Chapter XXIV: Gorgias (2)

Throughout the whole of this dialogue, Plato intimates decidedly how great a paradox the doctrine maintained by Sokrates must appear: how diametrically it was opposed to the opinion not merely of the less informed multitude, but of the wiser and more reflecting citizen--even such a man as Nikias. Indeed it is literally exact--what Plato here puts into the mouth of Kallikles--that if the doctrine here advocated by Sokrates were true, the whole of social life would be turned upside down.[51] If, for example, it were true, as Plato contends,--That every man who commits a crime, takes upon him thereby a terrible and lasting distemper, incurable except by the application of punishment, which is the specific remedy in the case--every theory of punishment would, literally speaking, be turned upside down. The great discouragement from crime would then consist in the fear of that formidable distemper with which the criminal was sure to inoculate himself: and punishment, instead of being (as it is now considered, and as Plato himself represents it in the Protagoras) the great discouragement to the commission of crime, would operate in the contrary direction. It would be the means of removing or impairing the great real discouragement to crime: and a wise legislator would hesitate to inflict it. This would be nothing less than a reversal of the most universally accepted political or social precepts (as Kallikles is made to express himself).

[Footnote 51: Plato, Gorg. p. 481 C. _Kall._--[Greek: ei) me\n ga\r spouda/zeis te kai\ tugcha/nei tau=ta a)lêthê= o)/nta a(\ le/geis, a)/llo ti ê)\ ê(mô=n o( bi/os a)natetramme/nos a)\n ei)/ê tô=n a)nthrô/pôn, kai\ pa/nta ta\ e)nanti/a pra/ttomen, ê)\ a(\ dei=?]]

[Side-note: Plato pushes too far the analogy between mental distemper and bodily distemper--Material difference between the two--Distemper must be felt by the distempered persons.]

It will indeed be at once seen, that the taint or distemper with which Archelaus is supposed to inoculate himself, when he commits signal crime--is a pure fancy or poetical metaphor on the part of Plato himself.[52] A distemper must imply something painful, enfeebling, disabling, to the individual who feels it: there is no other meaning: we cannot recognise a distemper, which does not make itself felt in any way by the distempered person. Plato is misled by his ever-repeated analogy between bodily health and mental health: real, on some points--not real on others. When a man is in bad bodily health, his sensations warn him of it at once. He suffers pain, discomfort, or disabilities, which leave no doubt as to the fact: though he may not know either the precise cause, or the appropriate remedy. Conversely, in the absence of any such warnings, and in the presence of certain positive sensations, he knows himself to be in tolerable or good health. If Sokrates and Archelaus were both in good bodily health, or both in bad bodily health, each would be made aware of the fact by analogous evidences. But by what measure are we to determine _when_ a man is in a good or bad mental state? By his own feelings? In that case, Archelaus and Sokrates are in a mental state equally good: each is satisfied with his own. By the judgment of by-standers? Archelaus will then be the better of the two: at least his admirers and enviers will outnumber those of Sokrates. By my judgment? If my opinion is asked, I agree with Sokrates: though not on the grounds which he here urges, but on other grounds. Who is to be the ultimate referee--the interests or security of other persons, who have suffered or are likely to suffer by Archelaus, being by the supposition left out of view?

[Footnote 52: The disposition of Plato to build argument on a metaphor is often shown. Aristotle remarks it of him in respect to his theory of Ideas; and Aristotle in his Topica gives several precepts in regard to the general tendency--precepts enjoining disputants to be on their guard against it in dialectic discussion (Topica, iv. 123, a. 33, vi. 139-140)--[Greek: pa=n ga\r a)saphe\s to\ kata\ metaphora\n lego/menon], &c.]

Polus is now dismissed as vanquished, after having been forced, against his will, to concede--That the doer of wrong is more miserable than the sufferer: That he is more miserable, if unpunished,--less so, if punished: That a triumphant criminal on a great scale, like Archelaus, is the most miserable of men.

[Side-note: Kallikles begins to argue against Sokrates--he takes a distinction between Just by Law and Just by nature--Reply of Sokrates, that there is no variance between the two, properly understood.]

Here, then, we commence with Kallikles: who interposes, to take up the debate with Sokrates. Polus (says Kallikles), from deference to the opinions of mankind, has erroneously conceded the point--That it is more disgraceful to do wrong, than to suffer wrong. This is indeed true (continues Kallikles), according to what is just by law or convention, that is, according to the general sentiment of mankind: but it is not true, according to justice by nature, or natural justice. Nature and Law are here opposed.[53] The justice of Nature is, that among men (as among other animals) the strong individual should govern and strip the weak, taking and keeping as much as he can grasp. But this justice will not suit the weak, who are the many, and who defeat it by establishing a different justice--justice according to law--to curb the strong man, and prevent him from having more than his fair share.[54] The many, feeling their own weakness, and thankful if they can only secure a fair and equal division, make laws and turn the current of praise and blame for their own protection, in order to deter the strong man from that encroachment and oppression to which he is disposed. _The just according to law_ is thus a tutelary institution, established by the weak to defend themselves against _the just according to nature_. Nature measures right by might, and by nothing else: so that according to the right of nature, suffering wrong is more disgraceful than doing wrong. Hêraklês takes from Geryon his cattle, by the right of nature or of the strongest, without either sale or gift.[55]

[Footnote 53: Plato, Gorgias, p. 482 E. [Greek: ô(s ta\ polla\ de\ tau=ta e)nanti/a a)llê/lois e)sti/n, ê(/ te phu/sis kai\ o( no/mos.]]

[Footnote 54: Plato, Gorgias, p. 483 B. [Greek: a)ll', oi)=mai, oi( tithe/menoi tou\s no/mous oi( a)sthenei=s a)/nthrôpoi/ ei)si kai\ oi( polloi\. Pro\s au(tou\s ou)=n kai\ to\ au)toi=s sumphe/ron tou/s te no/mous ti/thentai kai\ tou\s e)pai/nous e)painou=si kai\ tou\s pso/gous pse/gousin, e)kphobou=nte/s te tou\s e)r)r(ômeneste/rous tô=n a)nthrô/pôn kai\ dunatou\s o)/ntas ple/on e)/chein, i(/na mê\ au)tô=n ple/on e)/chôsin, le/gousin ô(s ai)schro\n kai\ a)/dikon to\ pleonektei=n, kai\ tou=to e)sti to\ a)dikei=n, to\ zêtei=n tô=n a)/llôn ple/on e)/chein; a)gapô=si ga/r, oi)=mai, au)toi\ a)\n to\ i)/son e)/chôsi phaulo/teroi o)/ntes.]]

[Footnote 55: Plato, Gorgias, pp. 484-488.]

But (rejoins Sokrates) the many are by nature stronger than the one; since, as you yourself say, they make and enforce laws to restrain him and defeat his projects. Therefore, since the many are the strongest, the right which they establish is the right of (or by) nature. And the many, as you admit, declare themselves in favour of the answer given by Polus--That to do wrong is more disgraceful than to suffer wrong.[56] Right by nature, and right by institution, sanction it alike.

[Footnote 56: Plato, Gorgias, p. 488 D-E.]

* * * * *

[Side-note: What Kalliklês says is not to be taken as a sample of the teachings of Athenian sophists. Kalliklês--rhetor and politician.]

Several commentators have contended, that the doctrine which Plato here puts into the mouth of Kalliklês was taught by the Sophists at Athens: who are said to have inculcated on their hearers that true wisdom and morality consisted in acting upon the right of the strongest and taking whatever they could get, without any regard to law or justice. I have already endeavoured to show, in my History of Greece, that the Sophists cannot be shown to have taught either this doctrine, or any other common doctrine: that one at least among them (Prodikus) taught a doctrine inconsistent with it: and that while all of them agreed in trying to impart rhetorical accomplishments, or the power of handling political, ethical, judicial, matters in a manner suitable for the Athenian public--each had his own way of doing this. Kalliklês is not presented by Plato as a Sophist, but as a Rhetor aspiring to active political influence; and taking a small dose of philosophy, among the preparations for that end.[57] He depreciates the Sophists as much as the philosophers, and in fact rather more.[58] Moreover Plato represents him as adapting himself, with accommodating subservience, to the Athenian public assembly, and saying or unsaying exactly as they manifested their opinion.[59] Now the Athenian public assembly would repudiate indignantly all this pretended right of the strongest, if any orator thought fit to put it forward as over-ruling established right and law. Any aspiring or subservient orator, such as Kalliklês is described, would know better than to address them in this strain. The language which Plato puts into the mouth of Kalliklês is noway consistent with the attribute which he also ascribes to him--slavish deference to the judgments of the Athenian Dêmos.

[Footnote 57: Plato, Gorgias, p. 487 C, 485.]

[Footnote 58: Plato, Gorgias, p. 520 A.]

[Footnote 59: Plato, Gorgias, p. 481-482.]

[Side-note: Uncertainty of referring to Nature as an authority. It may be pleaded in favour of opposite theories. The theory of Kalliklês is made to appear repulsive by the language in which he expresses it.]

Kalliklês is made to speak like one who sympathises with the right of the strongest, and who decorates such iniquity with the name and authority of that which he calls Nature. But this only shows the uncertainty of referring to Nature as an authority.[60] It may be pleaded in favour of different and opposite theories. Nature prompts the strong man to take from weaker men what will gratify his desires: Nature also prompts these weaker men to defeat him and protect themselves by the best means in their power. The many are weaker, taken individually--stronger taken collectively: hence they resort to defensive combination, established rules, and collective authority.[61] The right created on one side, and the opposite right created on the other, flow alike from Nature: that is, from propensities and principles natural, and deeply seated, in the human mind. The authority of Nature, considered as an enunciation of actual and wide-spread facts, may be pleaded for both alike. But a man's sympathy and approbation may go either with the one or the other; and he may choose to stamp that which he approves, with the name of Nature as a personified law-maker. This is what is here done by Kalliklês as Plato exhibits him.[62] He sympathises with, and approves, the powerful individual. Now the greater portion of mankind are, and always have been, governed upon this despotic principle, and brought up to respect it: while many, even of those who dislike Kalliklês because they regard him as the representative of Athenian democracy (to which however his proclaimed sentiments stand pointedly opposed), when they come across a great man or so-called hero, such as Alexander or Napoleon, applaud the most exorbitant ambition if successful, and if accompanied by military genius and energy--regarding communities as made for little else except to serve as his instruments, subjects, and worshippers. Such are represented as the sympathies of Kalliklês: but those of the Athenians went with the second of the two rights--and mine go with it also. And though the language which Plato puts into the mouth of Kalliklês, in describing this second right, abounds in contemptuous rhetoric, proclaiming offensively the individual weakness of the multitude[63]--yet this very fact is at once the most solid and most respectable foundation on which rights and obligations can be based. The establishment of them is indispensable, and is felt as indispensable, to procure security for the community: whereby the strong man whom Kalliklês extols as the favourite of Nature, may be tamed by discipline and censure, so as to accommodate his own behaviour to this equitable arrangement.[64] Plato himself, in his Republic,[65] traces the generation of a city to the fact that each man individually taken is not self-sufficing, but stands in need of many things: it is no less true, that each man stands also in fear of many things, especially of depredations from animals, and depredations from powerful individuals of his own species. In the mythe of Protagoras,[66] we have fears from hostile animals--in the speech here ascribed to Kalliklês, we have fears from hostile strong men--assigned as the generating cause, both of political communion and of established rights and obligations to protect it.

[Footnote 60: Aristotle (Sophist. Elench. 12, p. 173, a. 10) makes allusion to this argument of Kalliklês in the Gorgias, and notices it as a frequent point made by disputants in Dialectics--to insist on the contradiction between the Just according to Nature and the Just according to Law: which contradiction (Aristotle says) all the ancients recognised as a real one ([Greek: oi( a)rchai=oi pa/ntes ô)/|onto sumbai/nein]). It was doubtless a point on which the Dialectician might find much to say on either side.]

[Footnote 61: In the conversation between Sokrates and Kritobulus, one of the best in Xenophon's Memorabilia (ii. 6, 21), respecting the conditions on which friendship depends, we find Sokrates clearly stating that the causes of friendship and the causes of enmity, though different and opposite, nevertheless both exist _by nature_. [Greek: A)ll' e)/chei me/n, e)/phê o( Sôkra/tês, poiki/lôs pôs tau=ta: Phu/sei ga\r e)/chousin oi( a)/nthrôpoi ta\ me\n philika/--de/ontai/ te ga\r a)llê/lôn, kai\ e)leou=si, kai\ sunergou=ntes ô)phelou=ntai, kai\ tou=to sunie/ntes cha/rin e)/chousin a)llê/lois--ta\ de\ polemika/--ta/ te ga\r au)ta\ kala\ kai\ ê(de/a nomi/zontes u(pe\r tou/tôn ma/chontai kai\ dichognômonou=ntes e)nantiou=ntai; polemiko\n de\ kai\ e)/ris kai\ o)rgê/, kai\ dusmene\s me\n o( tou= pleonektei=n e)/rôs, misêto\n de\ o( phtho/nos. A)ll' o(/môs dia\ tou/tôn pa/ntôn ê( phili/a diaduome/nê suna/ptei tou\s kalou/s te ka)gathou/s], &c.

We read in the speech of Hermokrates the Syracusan, at the congress of Gela in Sicily, when exhorting the Sicilians to unite for the purpose of repelling the ambitious schemes of Athens, Thucyd. iv. 61: [Greek: kai\ tou\s me\n A)thênai/ous tau=ta pleonektei=n te kai\ pronoei=sthai pollê\ xuggnô/mê, kai\ ou) toi=s a)/rchein boulome/nois me/mphomai a)lla\ toi=s u(pakou/ein e(toimote/rois ou)=si; _ pe/phuke ga\r to\ a)nthrô/peion dia\ panto\s a)/rchein me\n tou= ei)/kontos, phula/ssesthai de\ to\ e)pio/n_. o(/soi de\ gignô/skontes au)ta\ mê\ o)rthô=s proskopou=men, mêde\ tou=to/ tis presbu/taton ê(/kei kri/nas, to\ koinô=s phobero\n a(/pantas eu)= the/sthai, a(marta/nomen.] A like sentiment is pronounced by the Athenian envoys in their debate with the Melians, Thuc. v. 105: [Greek: ê(gou/metha ga\r to/ te thei=on do/xê|, to\ a)nthrô/peio/n te saphô=s dia\ panto/s, u(po\ _phu/seôs a)nagkai/as_, ou)= a)\n kratê=|, a)/rchein.] Some of the Platonic critics would have us believe that this last-cited sentiment emanates from the corrupt teaching of Athenian Sophists: but Hermokrates the Syracusan had nothing to do with Athenian Sophists.]

[Footnote 62: Respecting the vague and indeterminate phrases--Natural Justice, Natural Right, Law of Nature--see Mr. Austin's Province of Jurisprudence Determined, p. 160, ed. 2nd. [Jurisp., 4th ed, pp. 179, 591-2], and Sir H. S. Maine's Ancient Law, chapters iii. and iv.

Among the assertions made about the Athenian Sophists, it is said by some commentators that they denied altogether any Just or Unjust by _nature_--that they recognised no Just or Unjust, except by _law or convention_.

To say that the _Sophists_ (speaking of them collectively) either affirmed or denied anything, is, in my judgment, incorrect. Certain persons are alluded to by Plato (Theætêt. 172 B) as adopting partially the doctrine of Protagoras (_Homo Mensura_) and as denying altogether the Just by _nature_.

In another Platonic passage (Protagor. 337) which is also cited as contributing to prove that the Sophists denied [Greek: to\ di/kaion phu/sei]--nothing at all is said about [Greek: to\ di/kaion]. Hippias the Sophist is there introduced as endeavouring to appease the angry feeling between Protagoras and Sokrates by reminding them, "I am of opinion that we all (_i.e._ men of literature and study) are kinsmen, friends, and fellow-citizens by _nature_ though not by _law_: for law, the despot of mankind, carries many things by force, contrary to nature". The remark is very appropriate from one who is trying to restore good feeling between literary disputants: and the cosmopolitan character of literature is now so familiar a theme, that I am surprised to find Heindorf (in his note) making it an occasion for throwing the usual censure upon the Sophist, because some of them distinguished Nature from the Laws, and despised the latter in comparison with the former.

Kalliklês here, in the Gorgias, maintains an opinion not only different from, but inconsistent with, the opinion alluded to above in the Theætêtus, 172 B. The persons noticed in the Theætêtus said--There is no Natural Justice: no Justice, except Justice by Law. Kalliklês says--There is a Natural Justice quite distinct from (and which he esteems more than) Justice by Law: he then explains what he believes Natural Justice to be--That the strong man should take what he pleases from the weak.

Though these two opinions are really inconsistent with each other, yet we see Plato in the Leges (x. 889 E, 890 A) alluding to them both as the same creed, held and defended by the same men; whom he denounces with extreme acrimony. Who they were, he does not name; he does not mention [Greek: sophistai/], but calls them [Greek: a)ndrô=n sophô=n, i)diôtô=n te kai\ poiêtô=n].

We see, in the third chapter of Sir H. S. Maine's excellent work on Ancient Law, the meaning of these phrases--Natural Justice, Law of Nature. It designated or included "a set of legal principles entitled to supersede the existing laws, on the ground of intrinsic superiority". It denoted an ideal condition of society, supposed to be much better than what actually prevailed. This at least seems to have been the meaning which began to attach to it in the time of Plato and Aristotle. What this ideal perfection of human society was, varied in the minds of different speakers. In each speaker's mind the word and sentiment was much the same, though the objects to which it attached were often different. Empedokles proclaims in solemn and emphatic language that the Law of Nature peremptorily forbids us to kill any animal. (Aristot. Rhetor. i. 13, 1373 b. 15.) Plato makes out to his own satisfaction, that his Republic is thoroughly in harmony with the Law of Nature: and he insists especially on this harmony, in the very point which even the Platonic critics admit to be wrong--that is, in regard to the training of women and the relations of the sexes (Republic, v. 456 C, 466 D). We learn from Plato himself that the propositions of the Republic were thoroughly adverse to what other persons reverenced as the Law of Nature.

In the notes of Beck and Heindorf on Protagor. p. 337 we read, "Hippias præ cæteris Sophistis contempsit leges, iisque opposuit Naturam. Naturam legibus plures certé Sophistarum opposuisse, easque præ illâ contempsisse, multis veterum locis constat." Now this allegation is more applicable to Plato than to the Sophists. Plato speaks with the most unmeasured contempt of existing communities and their laws: the scheme of his Republic, radically departing from them as it does, shows what he considered as required by the exigencies of human nature. Both the Stoics and the Epikureans extolled what they called the Law of Nature above any laws actually existing.

The other charge made against the Sophists (quite opposite, yet sometimes advanced by the same critics) is, that they recognised no Just by Nature, but only Just by Law: _i.e._ all the actual laws and customs considered as binding in each different community. This is what Plato ascribes to some persons (Sophists or not) in the Theætêtus, p. 172. But in this sense it is not exact to call Kalliklês (as Heindorf does, Protagor. p. 337) "germanus ille Sophistarum alumnus in Gorgià Callicles," nor to affirm (with Schleiermacher, Einleit. zum Theætêt. p. 183) that Plato meant to refute Aristippus under the name of Kallikles, Aristippus maintaining that there was no Just by Nature, but only Just by Law or Convention.]

[Footnote 63: Plato, Gorgias, p. 483 B, p. 492 A. [Greek: oi( polloi\, a)pokrupto/menoi tê\n e(autô=n a)dunami/an], &c.]

[Footnote 64: Plato, Gorgias, p. 483 E.]

[Footnote 65: Plato, Republic, ii. p. 369 B. [Greek: o(/ti tugcha/nei ê(mô=n e(/kastos ou)k au)tarkê\s ô)/n, a)lla\ pollô=n e)ndeê/s.]]

[Footnote 66: Plato, Protag. p. 322 B.]

* * * * *

[Side-note: Sokrates maintains that self-command and moderation is requisite for the strong man as well as for others. Kalliklês defends the negative.]

Kalliklês now explains, that by _stronger_ men, he means better, wiser, braver men. It is they (he says) who ought, according to right by nature, to rule over others and to have larger shares than others. _Sokr._--Ought they not to rule themselves as well as others:[67] to control their own pleasures and desires: to be sober and temperate? _Kall._--No, they would be foolish if they did. The weak multitude must do so; and there grows up accordingly among _them_ a sentiment which requires such self-restraint from all. But it is the privilege of the superior few to be exempt from this necessity. The right of nature authorises them to have the largest desires, since their courage and ability furnish means to satisfy the desires. It would be silly if a king's son or a despot were to limit himself to the same measure of enjoyment with which a poor citizen must be content; and worse than silly if he did not enrich his friends in preference to his enemies. He need not care for that public law and censure which must reign paramount over each man among the many. A full swing of enjoyment, if a man has power to procure and maintain it, is virtue as well as happiness.[68]

[Footnote 67: Plato, Gorgias, p. 491 D.]

[Footnote 68: Plato, Gorgias, p. 492 A-C.]

[Side-note: Whether the largest measure of desires is good for a man, provided he has the means of satisfying them? Whether all varieties of desire are good? Whether the pleasurable and the good are identical?]

_Sokr._--I think on the contrary that a sober and moderate life, regulated according to present means and circumstances, is better than a life of immoderate indulgence.[69] _Kall._--The man who has no desires will have no pleasure, and will live like a stone. The more the desires, provided they can all be satisfied, the happier a man will be. _Sokr._--You mean that a man shall be continually hungry, and continually satisfying his hunger: continually thirsty, and satisfying his thirst; and so forth. _Kall._--By having and by satisfying those and all other desires, a man will enjoy happiness. _Sokr._--Do you mean to include all varieties of desire and satisfaction of desire: such for example as itching and scratching yourself:[70] and other bodily appetites which might be named? _Kall._--Such things are not fit for discussion. _Sokr._--It is you who drive me to mention them, by laying down the principle, that men who enjoy, be the enjoyment of what sort it may, are happy; and by not distinguishing what pleasures are good and what are evil. Tell me again, do you think that the pleasurable and the good are identical? Or are there any pleasurable things which are not good?[71] _Kall._--I think that the pleasurable and the good are the same.

[Footnote 69: Plato, Gorgias, p. 493 C. [Greek: e)a/n pôs oi(=o/s t' ô)= pei=sai metathe/sthai kai\ a)nti\ tou= a)plê/stôs kai\ a)kola/stôs e)/chontos bi/ou to\n kosmi/ôs kai\ toi=s a)ei\ parou=sin i(kanô=s kai\ e)xarkou/ntôs e)/chonta bi/on e(le/sthai.]]

[Footnote 70: Plato, Gorg. p. 494 E.]

[Footnote 71: Plato, Gorg. pp. 494-495. [Greek: ê)= ga\r e)gô\ a)/gô e)ntau=tha, ê)\ e)kei=nos o(\s a)\n phê=| a)ne/dên ou(/tô tou\s chai/rontas, o(/pôs a)\n chairôsin, eu)dai/monas ei)=nai, kai\ mê\ diori/zêtai tô=n ê(donô=n o(poi=ai a)gathai\ kai\ kakai/? a)ll' e)/ti kai\ nu=n le/ge, po/teron phê\| ei)=nai to\ au)to\ ê(du\ kai\ a)gatho/n, ê)\ ei)=nai ti tô=n ê(de/ôn o(\ ou)k e)/stin a)gatho/n?]]

[Side-note: Kalliklês maintains that pleasurable and good are identical. Sokrates refutes him. Some pleasures are good, others bad. A scientific adviser is required to discriminate them.]

Upon this question the discussion now turns: whether pleasure and good are the same, or whether there are not some pleasures good, others bad. By a string of questions much protracted, but subtle rather than conclusive, Sokrates proves that pleasure is not the same as good--that there are such things as bad pleasures and good pains. And Kalliklês admits that some pleasures are better, others worse.[72] Profitable pleasures are good: hurtful pleasures are bad. Thus the pleasures of eating and drinking are good, if they impart to us health and strength--bad, if they produce sickness and weakness. We ought to choose the good pleasures and pains, and avoid the bad ones. It is not every man who is competent to distinguish what pleasures are good, and what are bad. A scientific and skilful adviser, judging upon general principles, is required to make this distinction.[73]

[Footnote 72: Plato, Gorgias, pp. 496-499.]

[Footnote 73: Plato, Gorgias, pp. 499-500. [Greek: A)=r' ou)=n panto\s a)ndro/s e)stin e)kle/xasthai poi=a a)gatha\ tô=n ê(de/ôn e)sti\ kai\ o(poi=a kaka/, ê)= technikou= dei= ei)s e(/kaston? Technikou=.]]

* * * * *

[Side-note: Contradiction between Sokrates in the Gorgias, and Sokrates in the Protagoras.]

This debate between Sokrates and Kalliklês, respecting the "Quomodo vivendum est,"[74] deserves attention on more than one account. In the first place, the relation which Sokrates is here made to declare between the two pairs of general terms, Pleasurable--Good: Painful--Evil: is the direct reverse of that which he both declares and demonstrates in the Protagoras. In that dialogue, the Sophist Protagoras is represented as holding an opinion very like that which is maintained by Sokrates in the Gorgias. But Sokrates (in the Protagoras) refutes him by an elaborate argument; and demonstrates that pleasure and good (also pain and evil) are names for the same fundamental ideas under different circumstances: pleasurable and painful referring only to the sensation of the present moment--while good and evil include, besides, an estimate of its future consequences and accompaniments, both pleasurable and painful, and represent the result of such calculation. In the Gorgias, Sokrates demonstrates the contrary, by an argument equally elaborate but not equally convincing. He impugns a doctrine advocated by Kalliklês, and in impugning it, proclaims a marked antithesis and even repugnance between the pleasurable and the good, the painful and the evil: rejecting the fundamental identity of the two, which he advocates in the Protagoras, as if it were a disgraceful heresy.

[Footnote 74: Plato, Gorgias, p. 492 D. [Greek: i(/na tô=| o)/nti kata/dêlon ge/nêtai, pô=s biôte/on], &c. 500 C: [Greek: o(/ntina chrê\ tro/pon zê=|n.]]

[Side-note: Views of critics about this contradiction.]

The subject evidently presented itself to Plato in two different ways at different times. Which of the two is earliest, we have no means of deciding. The commentators, who favour generally the view taken in the Gorgias, treat the Protagoras as a juvenile and erroneous production: sometimes, with still less reason, they represent Sokrates as arguing in that dialogue, from the principles of his opponents, not from his own. For my part, without knowing whether the Protagoras or the Gorgias is the earliest, I think the Protagoras an equally finished composition, and I consider that the views which Sokrates is made to propound in it, respecting pleasure and good, are decidedly nearer to the truth.

[Side-note: Comparison and appreciation of the reasoning of Sokrates in both dialogues.]

That in the list of pleasures there are some which it is proper to avoid,--and in the list of pains, some which it is proper to accept or invite--is a doctrine maintained by Sokrates alike in both the dialogues. Why? Because some pleasures are good, others bad: some pains bad, others good--says Sokrates in the Gorgias. The same too is said by Sokrates in the Protagoras; but then, he there explains what he means by the appellation. All pleasure (he there says), so far as it goes, is good--all pain is bad. But there are some pleasures which cannot be enjoyed without debarring us from greater pleasures or entailing upon us greater pains: on that ground therefore, such pleasures are bad. So again, there are some pains, the suffering of which is a condition indispensable to our escaping greater pains, or to our enjoying greater pleasures: such pains therefore are good. Thus this apparent exception does not really contradict, but confirms, the general doctrine--That there is no good but the pleasurable, and the elimination of pain--and no evil except the painful, or the privation of pleasure. Good and evil have no reference except to pleasures and pains; but the terms imply, in each particular case, an estimate and comparison of future pleasurable and painful consequences, and express the result of such comparison. "You call enjoyment itself evil" (says Sokrates in the Protagoras),[75] "when it deprives us of greater pleasures or entails upon us greater pains. If you have any other ground, or look to any other end, in calling it evil, you may tell us what that end is; but you will not be able to tell us. So too, you say that pain is a good, when it relieves us from greater pains, or when it is necessary as the antecedent cause of greater pleasures. If you have any other end in view, when you call pain good, you may tell us what that end is; but you will not be able to tell us."[76]

[Footnote 75: Plato, Protagoras,** p. 354 D. [Greek: e)pei/, ei) kat' a)/llo ti au)to\ to\ chai/rein kako\n kalei=te kai\ ei)s a)/llo ti te/los a)poble/psantes, e)/choite a)\n kai\ ê(mi=n ei)pei=n; a)ll' ou)ch e(/xete. . . . e)pei\ ei) pro\s a)/llo ti te/los a)poble/pete, o(/tan kalê=te au)to\ to\ lupei=sthai a)gatho/n, ê)\ pro\s o(\ e)gô\ le/gô, e)/chete ê(mi=n ei)pein; a)ll' ou)ch e(/xete.]]

[Footnote 76: In a remarkable passage of the De Legibus, Plato denies all essential distinction between Good and Pleasure, and all reality of Good apart from Pleasure (Legg. ii. pp. 662-663). [Greek: ei) d' au)= to\n dikaio/taton eu)daimone/staton a)pophai/noito bi/on ei)=nai, zêtoi= pou pa=s a)\n o( a)kou/ôn, oi)=mai, ti/ pot' e)n au)tô=| to\ tê=s ê(donê=s krei=tton a)gatho/n te kai\ kalo\n o( no/mos e)no\n e)painei=? ti/ ga\r dê\ dikai/ô| chôrizo/menon ê(donê=s a)gatho\n a)\n ge/noito?]

Plato goes on to argue as follows: Even though it were not true, as I affirm it to be, that the life of justice is a life of pleasure, and the life of injustice a life of pain--still the law-giver must proclaim this proposition as a useful falsehood, and compel every one to chime in with it. Otherwise the youth will have no motive to just conduct. For no one will willingly consent to obey any recommendation from which he does not expect more pleasure than pain; [Greek: ou)dei\s ga\r a)\n e(/kôn e)/theloi pei/thesthai pra/ttein tou=to o(/, tô| mê\ to\ chai/rein tou= lupei=sthai ple/on e(/petai] (663 B).]

[Side-note: Distinct statement in the Protagoras. What are good and evil, and upon what principles the scientific adviser is to proceed in discriminating them. No such distinct statement in the Gorgias.]

In the Gorgias, too, Sokrates declares that some pleasures are good, others bad--some pains bad, others good. But here he stops. He does not fulfil the reasonable demand urged by Sokrates in the Protagoras--"If you make such a distinction, explain the ground on which you make it, and the end to which you look". The distinction in the Gorgias stands without any assigned ground or end to rest upon. And this want is the more sensibly felt, when we read in the same dialogue, that--"It is not every man who can distinguish the good pleasures from the bad: a scientific man, proceeding on principle, is needed for the purpose".[77] But upon what criterion is the scientific man to proceed? Of what properties is he to take account, in pronouncing one pleasure to be bad, another good--or one pain to be bad and another good--the estimate of consequences, measured in future pleasures and pains, being by the supposition excluded? No information is given. The problem set to the scientific man is one of which all the quantities are unknown. Now Sokrates in the Protagoras[78] also lays it down, that a scientific or rational calculation must be had, and a mind competent to such calculation must be postulated, to decide which pleasures are bad or fit to be rejected--which pains are good, or proper to be endured. But then he clearly specifies the elements which alone are to be taken into the calculation--_viz._, the future pleasures and pains accompanying or dependent upon each with the estimate of their comparative magnitude and durability. The theory of this calculation is clear and intelligible: though in many particular cases, the data necessary for making it, and the means of comparing them, may be very imperfectly accessible.

[Footnote 77: Plato, Gorgias, p. 500 A. [Greek: A)=r' ou)=n panto\s a)ndro/s** e)stin e)kle/xasthai poi=a a)/gatha\ tô=n ê(de/ôn e)sti\ kai\ o(poi=a kaka/? ê)\ technikou= dei= ei)s e(/kaston? Technikou=.]]

[Footnote 78: Plato, Protagoras, pp. 357 B, 356 E.]

[Side-note: Modern ethical theories. Intuition. Moral sense--not recognised by Plato in either of the dialogues.]

According to various ethical theories, which have chiefly obtained currency in modern times, the distinction--between pleasures good or fit to be enjoyed, and pleasures bad or unfit to be enjoyed--is determined for us by a moral sense or intuition: by a simple, peculiar, sentiment of right and wrong, or a conscience, which springs up within us ready-made, and decides on such matters without appeal; so that a man has only to look into his own heart for a solution. We need not take account of this hypothesis, in reviewing Plato's philosophy: for he evidently does not proceed upon it. He expressly affirms, in the Gorgias as well as in the Protagoras, that the question is one requiring science or knowledge to determine it, and upon which none but the man of science or _expert_ ([Greek: techniko\s]) is a competent judge.

[Side-note: In both dialogues the doctrine of Sokrates is self-regarding as respects the agent: not considering the pleasures and pains of other persons, so far as affected by the agent.]

Moreover, there is another point common to both the two dialogues, deserving of notice. I have already remarked when reviewing the doctrine of Sokrates in the Protagoras, that it appears to me seriously defective, inasmuch as it takes into account the pleasures and pains of the agent only, and omits the pleasures and pains of other persons affected by his conduct. But this is not less true respecting the doctrine of Sokrates in the Gorgias: for whatever criterion he may there have in his mind to determine which among our pleasures are bad, it is certainly not this--that the agent in procuring them is obliged to hurt others. For the example which Sokrates cites as specially illustrating the class of bad pleasures--_viz._, the pleasure of scratching an itching part of the body[79]--is one in which no others besides the agent are concerned. As in the Protagoras, so in the Gorgias--Plato in laying down his rule of life, admits into the theory only what concerns the agent himself, and makes no direct reference to the happiness of others as affected by the agent's behaviour.

[Footnote 79: The Sokrates of the Protagoras would have reckoned this among the bad pleasures, because the discomfort and distress of body out of which it arises more than countervail the pleasure.]

[Side-note: Points wherein the doctrine of the two dialogues is in substance the same, but differing in classification.]

There are however various points of analogy between the Protagoras and the Gorgias, which will enable us, after tracing them out, to measure the amount of substantial difference between them; I speak of the reasoning of Sokrates in each. Thus, in the Protagoras,[80] Sokrates ranks health, strength, preservation of the community, wealth, command, &c., under the general head of Good things, but expressly on the ground that they are the producing causes and conditions of pleasures and of exemption from pains: he also ranks sickness and poverty under the head of Evil things, as productive causes of pain and suffering. In the Gorgias also, he numbers wisdom, health, strength, perfection of body, riches, &c., among Good things or profitable things[81]--(which two words he treats as equivalent)--and their contraries as Evil things. Now he does not expressly say here (as in the Protagoras) that these things are _good_, because they are productive causes of pleasure or exemption from pain: but such assumption must evidently be supplied in order to make the reasoning valid. For upon what pretence can any one pronounce strength, health, riches, to be _good_--and helplessness, sickness, poverty, to be _evil_--if no reference be admitted to pleasures and pains? Sokrates in the Gorgias[82] declares that the pleasures of eating and drinking are good, in so far as they impart health and strength to the body--evil, in so far as they produce a contrary effect. Sokrates in the Protagoras reasons in the same way--but with this difference--that he would count the pleasure of the repast itself as one item of good: enhancing the amount of good where the future consequences are beneficial, diminishing the amount of evil where the future consequences are Unfavourable: while Sokrates in the Gorgias excludes immediate pleasure from the list of good things, and immediate pain from the list of evil things.

[Footnote 80: Plato, Protagor. pp. 353 D, 354 A.]

[Footnote 81: Plato, Gorgias, pp. 467-468-499.]

[Footnote 82: Plato, Gorgias, p. 499 D.]

This last exclusion renders the theory in the Gorgias untenable and inconsistent. If present pleasure be not admitted as an item of good so far as it goes--then neither can the future and consequent aggregates of pleasure, nor the causes of them, be admitted as good. So likewise, if present pain be no evil, future pain cannot be allowed to rank as an evil.[83]

[Footnote 83: Compare a passage in the Republic (ii. p. 357) where Sokrates gives (or accepts, as given by Glaukon) a description of Good much more coincident with the Protagoras than with the Gorgias. The common property of all Good is to be desired or loved; and there are three varieties of it--1. That which we desire for itself, and for its own sake, apart from all ulterior consequences, such as innocuous pleasures or enjoyments. 2. That which we desire both for itself and for its ulterior consequences, such as good health, good vision, good sense, &c. 3. That which we do not desire--nay, which we perhaps hate or shun, _per se_: but which we nevertheless desire and invite, in connection with and for the sake of ulterior consequences: such as gymnastic training, medical treatment when we are sick, labour in our trade or profession.

Here Plato admits the immediately pleasurable _per se_ as one variety of good, always assuming that it is not countervailed by consequences or accompaniments of a painful character. This is the doctrine of the Protagoras, as distinguished from the Gorgias, where Sokrates sets pleasure in marked opposition to good.]

[Side-note: Kalliklês, whom Sokrates refutes in the Gorgias, maintains a different argument from that which Sokrates combats in the Protagoras.]

Each of the two dialogues, which I am now comparing, is in truth an independent composition: in each, Sokrates has a distinct argument to combat; and in the latest of the two (whichever that was), no heed is taken of the argumentation in the earlier. In the Protagoras, he exalts the dignity and paramount force of knowledge or prudence: if a man knows how to calculate pleasures and pains, he will be sure to choose the result which involves the greater pleasure or the less pain, on the whole: to say that he is overpowered by immediate pleasure or pain into making a bad choice, is a wrong description--the real fact being, that he is deficient in the proper knowledge how to choose. In the Gorgias, the doctrine assigned to Kalliklês and impugned by Sokrates is something very different. That justice, temperance, self-restraint, are indeed indispensable to the happiness of ordinary men; but if there be any one individual, so immensely superior in force as to trample down and make slaves of the rest, this one man would be a fool if he restrained himself: having the means of gratifying all his appetites, the more appetites he has, the more enjoyments will he have and the greater happiness.[84] Observe--that Kalliklês applies this doctrine only to the one omnipotent despot: to all other members of society, he maintains that self-restraint is essential. This is the doctrine which Sokrates in the Gorgias undertakes to refute, by denying community of nature between the pleasurable and the good--between the painful and the evil.

[Footnote 84: Plato, Gorgias, p. 492 B.]

[Side-note: The refutation of Kalliklês by Sokrates in the Gorgias, is unsuccessful--it is only so far successful as he adopts unintentionally the doctrine of Sokrates in the Protagoras.]

To me his refutation appears altogether unsuccessful, and the position upon which he rests it incorrect. The only parts of the refutation really forcible, are those in which he unconsciously relinquishes this position, and slides into the doctrine of the Protagoras. Upon this latter doctrine, a refutation might be grounded: you may show that even an omnipotent despot (regard for the comfort of others being excluded by the hypothesis) will gain by limiting the gratification of his appetites to-day so as not to spoil his appetites of tomorrow. Even in his case, prudential restraint is required, though his motives for it would be much less than in the case of ordinary social men. But Good, as laid down by Plato in the Gorgias, entirely disconnected from pleasure--and Evil, entirely disconnected from pain--have no application to this supposed despot. He has no desire for such Platonic Good--no aversion for such Platonic Evil. His happiness is not diminished by missing the former or incurring the latter. In fact, one of the cardinal principles of Plato's ethical philosophy, which he frequently asserts both in this dialogue and elsewhere,[85]--That every man desires Good, and acts for the sake of obtaining Good, and avoiding Evil--becomes untrue, if you conceive Good and Evil according to the Gorgias, as having no reference to pleasure or the avoidance of pain: untrue, not merely in regard to a despot under these exceptional conditions, but in regard to the large majority of social men. They desire to obtain Good and avoid Evil, in the sense of the Protagoras: but not in the sense of the Gorgias.[86] Sokrates himself proclaims in this dialogue: "I and philosophy stand opposed to Kalliklês and the Athenian public. What I desire is, to reason consistently with myself." That is, to speak the language of Sokrates in the Protagoras--"To me, Sokrates, the consciousness of inconsistency with myself and of an unworthy character, the loss of my own self-esteem and the pungency of my own self-reproach, are the greatest of all pains: greater than those which you, Kalliklês, and the Athenians generally, seek to avoid at all price and urge me also to avoid at all price--poverty, political nullity, exposure to false accusation, &c."[87] The noble scheme of life, here recommended by Sokrates, may be correctly described according to the theory of the Protagoras: without any resort to the paradox of the Gorgias, that Good has no kindred or reference to Pleasure, nor Evil to Pain.

[Footnote 85: Plato, Gorgias, pp. 467 C, 499 E.]

[Footnote 86: The reasoning of Plato in the Gorgias, respecting this matter, rests upon an equivocal phrase. The Greek phrase [Greek: eu)= pra/ttein] has two meanings; it means _recté agere_, to act rightly; and it also means _felicem esse_, to be happy. There is a corresponding double sense in [Greek: kakô=s pra/ttein]. Heindorf has well noticed the fallacious reasoning founded by Plato on this double sense. We read in the Gorgias, p. 507 C: [Greek: a)na/gkê to\n sô/phrona, di/kaion o)/nta kai\ a)ndrei=on kai\ o(/sion, a)gatho\n a)/ndra ei)=nai tele/ôs, to\n de\ a)gatho\n ei)= te kai\ kalô=s pra/ttein a)\ a)\n pra/ttê|, to\n d' eu)= pra/ttonta maka/rio/n te kai\ eu)dai/mona ei)=nai, to\n de\ ponêro\n kai\ kakô=s pra/ttonta a)/thlion.] Upon which Heindorf remarks, citing a note of Routh, who says, "Vix enim potest credi, Platonem duplici sensu verborum [Greek: eu)= pra/ttein] ad argumentum probandum abuti voluisse, quæ fallacia esset amphiboliæ". "Non meminerat" (says Heindorf) "vir doctus ceteros in Platone locos, ubi eodem modo ex duplici illâ potestate argumentatio ducitur, cujusmodi plura attulimus ad Charmidem, 42, p. 172 A." Heindorf observes, on the Charmidês l. c.: "Argumenti hujus vim positam apparet in duplici dictionis [Greek: eu)= pra/ttein] significatu: quum vulgo sit _felicem esse_, non _recté facere_. Hoc aliaque ejusdem generis sæpius sic ansam præbuerunt sophismatis magis quam justi syllogismi." Heindorf then refers to analogous passages in Plato, Repub. i. p. 354 A: Alkib. i. p. 116 B, p. 134 A. A similar fallacy is found in Aristotle, Politic. vii. i. p. 1323, a. 17, b. 32--[Greek: a)/rista ga\r pra/ttein prosê/kei tou\s a)/rista politeuome/nous--a)du/naton de\ kalô=s pra/ttein toi=s mê\ ta\ kala\ pra/ttousin.] This fallacy is recognised and properly commented on as a "logisches Wortspiel," by Bernays, in his instructive volume, _Die** Dialoge des Aristoteles_, pp. 80-81 (Berlin, 1863).]

[Footnote 87: Plato, Gorgias, pp. 481 D, 482 B.]

[Side-note: Permanent elements--and transient elements--of human agency--how each of them is appreciated in the two dialogues.]

Lastly I will compare the Protagoras and the Gorgias (meaning always, the reasoning of Sokrates in each of them) under one more point of view. How does each of them describe and distinguish the permanent elements, and the transient elements, involved in human agency? What function does each of them assign to the permanent element? The distinction of these two is important in its ethical bearing. The whole life both of the individual and of society consists of successive moments of action or feeling. But each individual (and the society as an aggregate of individuals) has within him embodied and realised an element more or less permanent--an established character, habits, dispositions, intellectual acquirements, &c.--a sort of capital accumulated from the past. This permanent element is of extreme importance. It stands to the transient element in the same relation as the fixed capital of a trader or manufacturer to his annual produce. The whole use and value of the fixed capital, of which the skill and energy of the trader himself make an important part, consists in the amount of produce which it will yield: but at the same time the trader must keep it up in its condition of fixed capital, in order to obtain such amount: he must set apart, and abstain from devoting to immediate enjoyment, as much of the annual produce as will suffice to maintain the fixed capital unimpaired--and more, if he desires to improve his condition. The capital cannot be commuted into interest; yet nevertheless its whole value depends upon, and is measured by, the interest which it yields. Doubtless the mere idea of possessing the capital is pleasurable to the possessor, because he knows that it can and will be profitably employed, so long as he chooses.

[Side-note: In the Protagoras.]

Now in the Protagoras, the permanent element is very pointedly distinguished from the transient, and is called Knowledge--the Science or Art of Calculation. Its function also is clearly announced--to take comparative estimate and measurement of the transient elements; which are stated to consist of pleasures and pains, present and future--near and distant--certain and uncertain--faint and strong. To these elements, manifold yet commensurable, the calculation is to apply. "The safety of life" (says Sokrates[88]) "resides in our keeping up this science or art of calculation." No present enjoyment must be admitted, which would impair it; no present pain must be shunned, which is essential to uphold it. Yet the whole of its value resides in its application to the comparison of the pleasures and pains.

[Footnote 88: Plato, Protag. p. 357 A. [Greek: e)peidê\ de\ ê(donê=s te kai\ lu/pês e)n o)rthê=| tê=| ai(re/sei e)pha/nê ê(mi=n ê( sôtêri/a tou= bi/ou ou)=sa, tou= te ple/onos kai\ e)lattonos kai\ mei/zonos kai\ smikrote/rou kai\ por)r(ôte/rô kai\ e)ggute/rô], &c.]

[Side-note: In the Gorgias.]

In the Gorgias the same two elements are differently described, and less clearly explained. The permanent is termed, Order, arrangement, discipline, a lawful, just, and temperate, cast of mind (opposed to the doctrine ascribed to Kalliklês, which negatived this element altogether, in the mind of the despot), parallel to health and strength of body: the unordered mind is again the parallel of the corrupt, distempered, helpless, body; life is not worth having until this is cured.[89] This corresponds to the knowledge or Calculating Science in the Protagoras; but we cannot understand what its function is, in the Gorgias, because the calculable elements are incompletely enumerated.

[Footnote 89: Plato, Gorgias, pp. 504 B-C, 506 D-E. [Greek: Ta/xis--ko/smos--psuchê\ kosmi/a a)mei/nôn tou= a)kosmê/tou.]]

In the Protagoras, these calculable elements are two-fold--immediate pleasures and pains--and future or distant pleasures and pains. Between these two there is intercommunity of nature, so that they are quite commensurable; and the function of the calculating reason is, to make a right estimate of the one against the other.[90] But in the Gorgias, no mention is made of future or distant pleasures and pains: the calculable element is represented only by immediate pleasure or pain--and from thence we pass at once to the permanent calculator--the mind, sound or corrupt. You must abstain from a particular enjoyment, because it will taint the soundness of your mind: this is a pertinent reason (and would be admitted as such by Sokrates in the Protagoras, who instead of sound mind would say, calculating intelligence), but it is neither the ultimate reason (since this soundness of mind is itself valuable with a view to future calculations), nor the only reason: for you must also abstain, if it will bring upon yourself (or upon others) preponderating pains in the particular case--if the future pains would preponderate over the present pleasure. Of this last calculation no notice is taken in the Gorgias: which exhibits only the antithesis (not merely marked but even over-done[91]) between the immediate pleasure or pain and the calculating efficacy of mind, but leaves out the true function which gives value to the sound mind as distinguished from the unsound and corrupt. That function consists in its application to particular cases: in right dealing with actual life, as regards the agent himself and others: in [Greek: e)nergei/a], as distinguished from [Greek: e(/xis], to use Aristotelian language.[92] I am far from supposing that this part of the case was absent from Plato's mind. But the theory laid out in the Gorgias (as compared with that in the Protagoras) leaves no room for it; giving exclusive prominence to the other elements, and acknowledging only the present pleasure or pain, to be set against the permanent condition of mind, bad or good as it may be.

[Footnote 90: There would be also the like intercommunity of nature, if along with the pains and pleasures of the agent himself (which alone are regarded in the calculation of Sokrates in the Protagoras) you admit into the calculation the pleasures and pains of others concerned, and the rules established with a view to both the two together with a view to the joint interest both of the agent and of others.]

[Footnote 91: Epikurus and his followers assigned the greatest value, in their ethical theory, to the permanent element, or established character of the agent, intellectual and emotional. But great as they reckoned this value to be, they resolved it all into the diminution or mitigation of pains, and, in a certain though inferior degree, the multiplication of pleasures. They did not put it in a separate category of its own, altogether disparate and foreign to pleasures and pains.

See the letter of Epikurus to Menoekeus, Diog. L. x. 128-132; Lucretius, v. 18-45, vi. 12-25; Horat. Epist. i. 2, 48-60.]

[Footnote 92: Aristot. Ethic. Nikom. i. 7. The remark of Aristotle in the same treatise, i. 5--[Greek: dokei= ga\r e)nde/chesthai kai\ katheu/dein e)/chonta tê\n a)retê/n, ê)\ a)praktei=n dia\ bi/ou]--might be applied to the theory of the Gorgias. Compare also Ethic. Nik. vii. 3 (vii. 4, p. 1146, b. 31, p. 1147, a. 12).]

[Side-note: Character of the Gorgias generally--discrediting all the actualities of life.]

Indeed there is nothing more remarkable in the Gorgias, than the manner in which Sokrates not only condemns the unmeasured, exorbitant, maleficent desires, but also depreciates and degrades all the actualities of life--all the recreative and elegant arts, including music and poetry, tragic as well as dithyrambic--all provision for the most essential wants, all protection against particular sufferings and dangers, even all service rendered to another person in the way of relief or of rescue[93]--all the effective maintenance of public organised force, such as ships, docks, walls, arms, &c. Immediate satisfaction or relief, and those who confer it, are treated with contempt, and presented as in hostility to the perfection of the mental structure. And it is in this point of view that various Platonic commentators extol in an especial manner the Gorgias: as recognising an Idea of Good superhuman and supernatural, radically disparate from pleasures and pains of any human being, and incommensurable with them: an Universal Idea, which, though it is supposed to cast a distant light upon its particulars, is separated from them by an incalculable space, and is discernible only by the Platonic telescope.

[Footnote 93: Plato, Gorgias, pp. 501-502-511-512-517-519. [Greek: a)/neu ga\r dikaiosu/nês kai\ sôphrosu/nês lime/nôn kai\ neôri/ôn kai\ teichô=n kai\ pho/rôn kai\ toiou/tôn phluariô=n e)mpeplê/kasi tê\n po/lin.]