eryxias-第3部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



by　praying　to　the　Gods　the　knowledge　of　grammar　or　music　or　any　other　art；

which　he　must　either　learn　from　another　or　find　out　for　himself？



Prodicus　agreed　to　this　also。



And　when　you　pray　to　the　Gods　that　you　may　do　well　and　receive　good；　you

mean　by　your　prayer　nothing　else　than　that　you　desire　to　become　good　and

wise：if；　at　least；　things　are　good　to　the　good　and　wise　and　evil　to　the

evil。　　But　in　that　case；　if　virtue　is　acquired　by　instruction；　it　would

appear　that　you　only　pray　to　be　taught　what　you　do　not　know。



Hereupon　I　said　to　Prodicus　that　it　was　no　misfortune　to　him　if　he　had　been

proved　to　be　in　error　in　supposing　that　the　Gods　immediately　granted　to　us

whatever　we　asked：if；　I　added；　whenever　you　go　up　to　the　Acropolis　you

earnestly　entreat　the　Gods　to　grant　you　good　things；　although　you　know　not

whether　they　can　yield　your　request；　it　is　as　though　you　went　to　the　doors

of　the　grammarian　and　begged　him；　although　you　had　never　made　a　study　of

the　art；　to　give　you　a　knowledge　of　grammar　which　would　enable　you

forthwith　to　do　the　business　of　a　grammarian。



While　I　was　speaking；　Prodicus　was　preparing　to　retaliate　upon　his　youthful

assailant；　intending　to　employ　the　argument　of　which　you　have　just　made

use；　for　he　was　annoyed　to　have　it　supposed　that　he　offered　a　vain　prayer

to　the　Gods。　　But　the　master　of　the　gymnasium　came　to　him　and　begged　him　to

leave　because　he　was　teaching　the　youths　doctrines　which　were　unsuited　to

them；　and　therefore　bad　for　them。



I　have　told　you　this　because　I　want　you　to　understand　how　men　are

circumstanced　in　regard　to　philosophy。　　Had　Prodicus　been　present　and　said

what　you　have　said；　the　audience　would　have　thought　him　raving；　and　he

would　have　been　ejected　from　the　gymnasium。　　But　you　have　argued　so

excellently　well　that　you　have　not　only　persuaded　your　hearers；　but　have

brought　your　opponent　to　an　agreement。　　For　just　as　in　the　law　courts；　if

two　witnesses　testify　to　the　same　fact；　one　of　whom　seems　to　be　an　honest

fellow　and　the　other　a　rogue；　the　testimony　of　the　rogue　often　has　the

contrary　effect　on　the　judges'　minds　to　what　he　intended；　while　the　same

evidence　if　given　by　the　honest　man　at　once　strikes　them　as　perfectly　true。

And　probably　the　audience　have　something　of　the　same　feeling　about　yourself

and　Prodicus；　they　think　him　a　Sophist　and　a　braggart；　and　regard　you　as　a

gentleman　of　courtesy　and　worth。　　For　they　do　not　pay　attention　to　the

argument　so　much　as　to　the　character　of　the　speaker。



But　truly；　Socrates；　said　Erasistratus；　though　you　may　be　joking；　Critias

does　seem　to　me　to　be　saying　something　which　is　of　weight。



SOCRATES：　　I　am　in　profound　earnest；　I　assure　you。　　But　why；　as　you　have

begun　your　argument　so　prettily；　do　you　not　go　on　with　the　rest？　　There　is

still　something　lacking；　now　you　have　agreed　that　（wealth）　is　a　good　to

some　and　an　evil　to　others。　　It　remains　to　enquire　what　constitutes　wealth；

for　unless　you　know　this；　you　cannot　possibly　come　to　an　understanding　as

to　whether　it　is　a　good　or　an　evil。　　I　am　ready　to　assist　you　in　the

enquiry　to　the　utmost　of　my　power：　　but　first　let　him　who　affirms　that

riches　are　a　good；　tell　us　what；　in　his　opinion；　is　wealth。



ERASISTRATUS：　　Indeed；　Socrates；　I　have　no　notion　about　wealth　beyond　that

which　men　commonly　have。　　I　suppose　that　wealth　is　a　quantity　of　money

（compare　Arist。　Pol。）；　and　this；　I　imagine；　would　also　be　Critias'

definition。



SOCRATES：　　Then　now　we　have　to　consider；　What　is　money？　　Or　else　later　on

we　shall　be　found　to　differ　about　the　question。　　For　instance；　the

Carthaginians　use　money　of　this　sort。　　Something　which　is　about　the　size　of

a　stater　is　tied　up　in　a　small　piece　of　leather：　　what　it　is；　no　one　knows

but　the　makers。　　A　seal　is　next　set　upon　the　leather；　which　then　passes

into　circulation；　and　he　who　has　the　largest　number　of　such　pieces　is

esteemed　the　richest　and　best　off。　　And　yet　if　any　one　among　us　had　a　mass

of　such　coins　he　would　be　no　wealthier　than　if　he　had　so　many　pebbles　from

the　mountain。　　At　Lacedaemon；　again；　they　use　iron　by　weight　which　has　been

rendered　useless：　　and　he　who　has　the　greatest　mass　of　such　iron　is　thought

to　be　the　richest；　although　elsewhere　it　has　no　value。　　In　Ethiopia

engraved　stones　are　employed；　of　which　a　Lacedaemonian　could　make　no　use。　

Once　more；　among　the　Nomad　Scythians　a　man　who　owned　the　house　of　Polytion

would　not　be　thought　richer　than　one　who　possessed　Mount　Lycabettus　among

ourselves。　　And　clearly　those　things　cannot　all　be　regarded　as　possessions；

for　in　some　cases　the　possessors　would　appear　none　the　richer　thereby：　

but；　as　I　was　saying；　some　one　of　them　is　thought　in　one　place　to　be　money；

and　the　possessors　of　it　are　the　wealthy；　whereas　in　some　other　place　it　is

not　money；　and　the　ownership　of　it　does　not　confer　wealth；　just　as　the

standard　of　morals　varies；　and　what　is　honourable　to　some　men　is

dishonourable　to　others。　　And　if　we　wish　to　enquire　why　a　house　is　valuable

to　us　but　not　to　the　Scythians；　or　why　the　Carthaginians　value　leather

which　is　worthless　to　us；　or　the　Lacedaemonians　find　wealth　in　iron　and　we

do　not；　can　we　not　get　an　answer　in　some　such　way　as　this：　　Would　an

Athenian；　who　had　a　thousand　talents　weight　of　the　stones　which　lie　about

in　the　Agora　and　which　we　do　not　employ　for　any　purpose；　be　thought　to　be

any　the　richer？



ERASISTRATUS：　　He　certainly　would　not　appear　so　to　me。



SOCRATES：　　But　if　he　possessed　a　thousand　talents　weight　of　some　precious

stone；　we　should　say　that　he　was　very　rich？



ERASISTRATUS：　　Of　course。



SOCRATES：　　The　reason　is　that　the　one　is　useless　and　the　other　useful？



ERASISTRATUS：　　Yes。



SOCRATES：　　And　in　the　same　way　among　the　Scythians　a　house　has　no　value

because　they　have　no　use　for　a　house；　nor　would　a　Scythian　set　so　much

store　on　the　finest　house　in　the　world　as　on　a　leather　coat；　because　he

could　use　the　one　and　not　the　other。　　Or　again；　the　Carthaginian　coinage　is

not　wealth　in　our　eyes；　for　we　could　not　employ　it；　as　we　can　silver；　to

procure　what　we　need；　and　therefore　it　is　of　no　use　to　us。



ERASISTRATUS：　　True。



SOCRATES：　　What　is　useful　to　us；　then；　is　wealth；　and　what　is　useless　to　us

is　not　wealth？



But　how　do　you　mean；　Socrates？　said　Eryxias；　interrupting。　　Do　we　not

employ　in　our　intercourse　with　one　another　speech　and　violence　（？）　and

various　other　things？　　These　are　useful　and　yet　they　are　not　wealth。



SOCRATES：　　Clearly　we　have　not　yet　answered　the　question；　What　is　wealth？　

That　wealth　must　be　useful；　to　be　wealth　at　all；thus　much　is　acknowledged

by　every　one。　　But　what　particular　thing　is　wealth；　if　not　all　things？　　Let

us　pursue　the　argument　in　another　way；　and　then　we　may　perhaps　find　what　we

are　seeking。　　What　is　the　use　of　wealth；　and　for　what　purpose　has　the

possession　of　riches　been　invented；in　the　sense；　I　mean；　in　which　drugs

have　been　discovered　for　the　cure　of　disease？　　Perhaps　in　this　way　we　may

throw　some　light　on　the　question。　　It　appears　to　be　clear　that　whatever

constitutes　wealth　must　be　useful；　and　that　wealth　is　one　class　of　useful

things；　and　now　we　have　to　enquire；　What　is　the　use　of　those　useful　things

which　constitute　wealth？　　For　all　things　probably　may　be　said　to　be　useful

which　we　use　in　production；　just　as　all　things　which　have　life　are　animals；

but　there　is　a　special　kind　of　animal　which　we　call　'man。'　　Now　if　any　one

were　to　ask　us；　What　is　that　of　which；　if　we　were　rid；　we　should　not　want

medicine　and　the　instruments　of　medicine；　we　might　reply　that　this　would　be

the　case　if　disease　were　absent　from　our　bodies　and　either　never　came　to

them　at　all　or　went　away　again　as　soon　as　it　appeared；　and　we　may　therefore

conclude　that　medicine　is　the　science　which　is　useful　for　getting　rid　of

disease。　　But　if　we　are　further　asked；　What　is　that　from　which；　if　we　were

free；　we　should　have　no　need　of　wealth？　can　we　give　an　answer？　　If　we　have

none；　suppose　that　we　restate　the　question　thus：If　a　man　could　live

without　food　or　drink；　and　yet　suffer　neither　hunger　nor　thirst；　would　he

want　either　money　or　anything　else　in　order　to　supply　his　needs？



ERYXIAS：　　He　would　not。



SOCRATES：　　And　does　not　this　apply　in　other　cases？　　If　we　did　not　want　for

the　service　of　the　body　the　things　of　which　we　now　stand　in　need；　and　heat

and　cold　and　the　other　bodily　sensations　were　unperceived　by　us；　there

would　be　no　use　in　this　so…called　wealth；　if　no　one；　that　is；　had　any

necessity　for　those　things　which　now　make　us　wish　for　wealth　in　order　that

we　may　satisfy　the　desires　and　needs　of　the　body　in　respect　of　our　various

wants。　　And　therefore　if　the　possession　of　wealth　is　useful　in　ministering

to　our　bodily　wants；　and　bodily　wants　were　unknown　to　us；　we　should　not

need　wealth；　and　possibly　there　would　be　no　such　thing　as　wealth。



ERYXIAS：　　Clearly　not。



SOCRATES：　　Then　our　conclusion　is；　as　would　appear；　that　wealth　is　what　is

useful　to　this　end？



Eryxias　once　more　gave　his　assent；　but　the　small　argument　considerably

troubled　him。



SOCRATES：　　And　what　is　your　opinion　about　another　question：Would　you　say

that　the　same　thing　can　be　at　one　time　useful　and　at　another　useless　for

the　production　of　the　same　result？



ERYXIAS：　　I　cannot　say　more　than　that　if　we　require　the　same　thing　to

produce　the　same　result；　then　it　seems　to　me　to　be　useful；　if　not；　not。



SOCRATES：　　Then　if　without　the　aid　of　fire　we　could　make　a　brazen　statue；

we　should　not　want　fire　for　that　purpose；　and　if　we　did　not　want　it；　it

would　be　useless　to　us？　　And　the　argument　applies　equally　in　other　cases。



ERYXIAS：　　Clearly。



SOCRATES：　　And　therefore　conditions　which　are　not　required　for　the

existence　of　a　thing　are　not　useful　for　the　production　of　it？



ERYXIAS：　　Of　course　not。



SOCRATES：　　And　if　without　gold　or　silver　or　anything　else　which　we　do　not

use　directly　for　the　body　in　the　way　that　we　do　f