I am not speaking of drinking, or not drinking, wine at all, but ofintoxication. Are we to follow the custom of the Scythians, andPersians, and Carthaginians, and Celts, and Iberians, and Thracians,who are all warlike nations, or that of your countrymen, for they,as you say, altogether abstain? But the Scythians and Thracians,both men and women, drink unmixed wine, which they pour on theirgarments, and this they think a happy and glorious institution. ThePersians, again, are much given to other practices of luxury which youreject, but they have more moderation in them than the Thracians andScythians.
Meg. O best of men, we have only to take arms into our hands, and wesend all these nations flying before us.
Ath. Nay, my good friend, do not say that; there have been, as therealways will be, flights and pursuits of which no account can be given,and therefore we cannot say that victory or defeat in battle affordsmore than a doubtful proof of the goodness or badness of institutions.
For when the greater states conquer and enslave the lesser, as theSyracusans have done the Locrians, who appear to be thebest-governed people in their part of the world, or as the Athenianshave done the Ceans (and there are ten thousand other instances of thesame sort of thing), all this is not to the point; let us endeavourrather to form a conclusion about each institution in itself and saynothing, at present, of victories and defeats. Let us only say thatsuch and such a custom is honourable, and another not. And firstpermit me to tell you how good and bad are to be estimated inreference to these very matters.
Meg. How do you mean?
Ath. All those who are ready at a moment"s notice to praise orcensure any practice which is matter of discussion, seem to me toproceed in a wrong way. Let me give you an illustration of what Imean:-You may suppose a person to be praising wheat as a good kindof food, whereupon another person instantly blames wheat, without everenquiring into its effect or use, or in what way, or to whom, orwith what, or in what state and how, wheat is to be given. And that isjust what we are doing in this discussion. At the very mention ofthe word intoxication, one side is ready with their praises and theother with their censures; which is absurd. For either side adducetheir witnesses and approvers, and some of us think that we speak withauthority because we have many witnesses; and others because theysee those who abstain conquering in battle, and this again is disputedby us. Now I cannot say that I shall be satisfied, if we go ondiscussing each of the remaining laws in the same way. And aboutthis very point of intoxication I should like to speak in another way,which I hold to be the right one; for if number is to be thecriterion, are there not myriads upon myriads of nations ready todispute the point with you, who are only two cities?
Meg. I shall gladly welcome any method of enquiry which is right.
Ath. Let me put the matter thus:-Suppose a person to praise thekeeping of goats, and the creatures themselves as capital things tohave, and then some one who had seen goats feeding without agoatherd in cultivated spots, and doing mischief, were to censure agoat or any other animal who has no keeper, or a bad keeper, wouldthere be any sense or justice in such censure?
Meg. Certainly not.
Ath. Does a captain require only to have nautical knowledge in orderto be a good captain, whether he is sea-sick or not? What do you say?
Meg. I say that he is not a good captain if, although he havenautical skill, he is liable to sea-sickness.
Ath. And what would you say of the commander of an army? Will hebe able to command merely because he has military skill if he be acoward, who, when danger comes, is sick and drunk with fear?
Meg. Impossible.
Ath. And what if besides being a coward he has no skill?
Meg. He is a miserable fellow, not fit to be a commander of men, butonly of old women.
Ath. And what would you say of some one who blames or praises anysort of meeting which is intended by nature to have a ruler, and iswell enough when under his presidency? The critic, however, hasnever seen the society meeting together at an orderly feast underthe control of a president, but always without a ruler or with a badone:-when observers of this class praise or blame such meetings, arewe to suppose that what they say is of any value?
Meg. Certainly not, if they have never seen or been present atsuch a meeting when rightly ordered.
Ath. Reflect; may not banqueters and banquets be said toconstitute a kind of meeting?
Meg. Of course.
Ath. And did any one ever see this sort of convivial meeting rightlyordered? Of course you two will answer that you have never seen themat all, because they are not customary or lawful in your country;but I have come across many of them in many different places, andmoreover I have made enquiries about them wherever I went, as I maysay, and never did I see or hear of anything of the kind which wascarried on altogether rightly; in some few particulars they might beright, but in general they were utterly wrong.
Cle. What do you mean, Stranger, by this remark? Explain; For we, asyou say, from our inexperience in such matters, might very likelynot know, even if they came in our way, what was right or wrong insuch societies.
Ath. Likely enough; then let me try to be your instructor: You wouldacknowledge, would you not, that in all gatherings of man, kind, ofwhatever sort, there ought to be a leader?
Cle. Certainly I should.
Ath. And we were saying just now, that when men are at war theleader ought to be a brave man?
Cle. We were.
Ath. The brave man is less likely than the coward to be disturbed byfears?
Cle. That again is true.
Ath. And if there were a possibility of having a general of anarmy who was absolutely fearless and imperturbable, should we not byall means appoint him?
Cle. Assuredly.
Ath. Now, however, we are speaking not of a general who is tocommand an army, when foe meets foe in time of war, but of one whois to regulate meetings of another sort, when friend meets friend intime of peace.
Cle. True.
Ath. And that sort of meeting, if attended with drunkenness, isapt to be unquiet.
Cle. Certainly; the reverse of quiet.
Ath. In the first place, then, the revellers as well as the soldierswill require a ruler?
