of my baser.”
“Is that what I would say?”
“Ah, but here I have you, Socrates! For what if a man seeks not to follow his peers, but to lead them? What if his speech proceeds not from the falsehoods of the flatterer, but from the truest precincts of his heart? Is that not the definition of a man of the
polis,
a politician? One who acts not for himself, but for his city?”
The conversation ran on with lively animation for most of the evening. I confess I did not, or could not, follow much of its twists and turns. At last, however, the discourse seemed to condense about one issue that the company had been debating before my arrival: could a man in a democracy be described as “indispensable,” and if so would this man merit dispensation beyond that of his lesser contemporaries?
Socrates took up his post on the side of the laws, which, however imperfect, he professed, command that all men stand equal before them. Alcibiades declared this preposterous and with a laugh claimed that his friend did not, and could not, believe it. “In fact I nominate you beyond all, sir, as indispensable. I would sacrifice battalions to preserve your life, and so would every man at this table.”
A chorus of “Again, again!” seconded this.
“Nor do I speak from affection only,” the younger man continued, “but for the advantage of the state. For she needs you, Socrates, as herphysician, to the tendance of her soul. Bereft of you, what shall become of her?”
The older man could not contain a laugh. “You disappoint me, my friend, for I had hoped to discover love rather than politics sheltering beneath that devotion you so passionately proclaim. Yet let us not pass over this issue lightly, gentlemen, for at its heart lies matter which compels our most rigorous examination:
“Which takes precedence, do we believe, man or law? To set a man above the law is to negate law entire, for if the laws do not apply equally to all, they apply to none. To install one man upon such a promontory founds that flight of steps by which another may later ascend. In fact I suspect, don’t you, brothers, that when our companion nominates myself as indispensable, his intent is to establish that precedent by which he may next anoint himself.”
Alcibiades, laughing, declared himself indeed indispensable. “Were not Themistocles, Miltiades, Pericles indispensable? The state would lie in ruins without them. And let us not forget Solon, who gave us those laws in whose defense our friend stands with such steadfastness. Do not misunderstand me. I seek not to overturn law, but to adhere to it. To declare men ‘equal’ would be absurd if it were not evil. In truth that argument which seeks to calumniate one man as ‘above the law’ is false on its face, for that man, if he be Themistocles or Cimon, conforms by his actions to a higher law, whose name is Necessity. To impede in the name of ‘equality’ the indispensable man is the folly of one ignorant of the workings of this god, who antedates Zeus and Cronos and Earth herself and stands everlastingly as their, and our, lawgiver and progenitor.”
More laughter and rapping of wine bowls. Socrates was about to respond when a commotion interrupted from without. An overturned brazier had set the adjoining shelter alight; now all poured forth to assist in its extinguishment. The salon broke up. I found myself beside Alcibiades. He motioned to his groom to fetch horses. “Come, Pommo, I’ll escort you back to your camp.”
I secured the password of the changing watch and we set out into the cold. “Well,” Alcibiades inquired when we had cleared the first line of pickets, “what did you think of him, our Professor Baldpate?”
I replied that I could not quite make the man out. Sophists, I knew,grew rich from their fees. Yet Socrates, garbed as he was in homespun, appeared more like…
“A beggar?” Alcibiades laughed. “That is because he scorns to profit from that which he pursues out of
Mark Russinovich, Howard Schmidt