y
doubted by those who are willing to allow that a considerable change
and growth may have taken place in his philosophy (see above). That
twentieth debatable portion scarcely in any degree affects our judgment
of Plato, either as a thinker or a writer, and though suggesting some
interesting questions to the scholar and critic, is of little importance
to the general reader.

ALCIBIADES I

by

Plato (see Appendix I above)

Translated by Benjamin Jowett

INTRODUCTION.

The First Alcibiades is a conversation between Socrates and Alcibiades.
Socrates is represented in the character which he attributes to himself
in the Apology of a know-nothing who detects the conceit of knowledge in
others. The two have met already in the Protagoras and in the Symposium;
in the latter dialogue, as in this, the relation between them is that
of a lover and his beloved. But the narrative of their loves is told
differently in different places; for in the Symposium Alcibiades
is depicted as the impassioned but rejected lover; here, as coldly
receiving the advances of Socrates, who, for the best of purposes, lies
in wait for the aspiring and ambitious youth.

Alcibiades, who is described as a very young man, is about to enter on
public life, having an inordinate opinion of himself, and an extravagant
ambition. Socrates, 'who knows what is in man,' astonishes him by a
revelation of his designs. But has he the knowledge which is necessary
for carrying them out? He is going to persuade the Athenians--about
what? Not about any particular art, but about politics--when to fight
and when to make peace. Now, men should fight and make peace on just
grounds, and therefore the question of justice and injustice must enter
into peace and war; and he who advises the Athenians must know the
difference between them. Does Alcibiades know? If he does, he must
either have been taught by some master, or he must have discovered the
nature of them himself. If he has had a master, Socrates would like to
be informed who he is, that he may go and learn of him also. Alcibiades
admits that he has never learned. Then has he enquired for himself? He
may have, if he was ever aware of a time when he was ignorant. But
he never was ignorant; for when he played with other boys at dice, he
charged them with cheating, and this implied a knowledge of just
and unjust. According to his own explanation, he had learned of the
multitude. Why, he asks, should he not learn o