{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/plato-dialogues/10-meno.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "plato-dialogues",
    "name": "Dialogues of Plato"
  },
  "parents": [],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 10,
    "slug": "10-meno",
    "title": "Meno",
    "of": 24,
    "words": 12746,
    "text": "## Meno\n\n\n#### 380 BC\n\n#### translated by Benjamin Jowett\n\n##### New York, C. Scribner's Sons, [1871]\n\nPERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE MENO; SOCRATES; A SLAVE OF MENO;\nANYTUS\n\nMeno. Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by\nteaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice,\nthen whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?\n\nSocrates. O Meno, there was a time when the Thessalians were\nfamous among the other Hellenes only for their riches and their\nriding; but now, if I am not mistaken, they are equally famous for\ntheir wisdom, especially at Larisa, which is the native city of your\nfriend Aristippus. And this is Gorgias' doing; for when he came there,\nthe flower of the Aleuadae, among them your admirer Aristippus, and\nthe other chiefs of the Thessalians, fell in love with his wisdom. And\nhe has taught you the habit of answering questions in a grand and bold\nstyle, which becomes those who know, and is the style in which he\nhimself answers all comers; and any Hellene who likes may ask him\nanything. How different is our lot! my dear Meno. Here at Athens there\nis a dearth of the commodity, and all wisdom seems to have emigrated\nfrom us to you. I am certain that if you were to ask any Athenian\nwhether virtue was natural or acquired, he would laugh in your face,\nand say: \"Stranger, you have far too good an opinion of me, if you\nthink that I can answer your question. For I literally do not know\nwhat virtue is, and much less whether it is acquired by teaching or\nnot.\" And I myself, Meno, living as I do in this region of poverty, am\nas poor as the rest of the world; and I confess with shame that I know\nliterally nothing about virtue; and when I do not know the \"quid\" of\nanything how can I know the \"quale\"? How, if I knew nothing at all\nof Meno, could I tell if he was fair, or the opposite of fair; rich\nand noble, or the reverse of rich and noble? Do you think that I\ncould?\n\nMen. No, Indeed. But are you in earnest, Socrates, in saying that\nyou do not know what virtue is? And am I to carry back this report\nof you to Thessaly?\n\nSoc. Not only that, my dear boy, but you may say further that I have\nnever known of any one else who did, in my judgment.\n\nMen. Then you have never met Gorgias when he was at Athens?\n\nSoc. Yes, I have.\n\nMen. And did you not think that he knew?\n\nSoc. I have not a good memory, Meno, and therefore I cannot now tell\nwhat I thought of him at the time. And I dare say that he did know,\nand that you know what he said: please, therefore, to remind me of\nwhat he said; or, if you would rather, tell me your own view; for I\nsuspect that you and he think much alike.\n\nMen. Very true.\n\nSoc. Then as he is not here, never mind him, and do you tell me:\nBy the gods, Meno, be generous, and tell me what you say that virtue\nis; for I shall be truly delighted to find that I have been\nmistaken, and that you and Gorgias do really have this knowledge;\nalthough I have been just saying that I have never found anybody who\nhad.\n\nMen. There will be no difficulty, Socrates, in answering your\nquestion. Let us take first the virtue of a man-he should know how\nto administer the state, and in the administration of it to benefit\nhis friends and harm his enemies; and he must also be careful not to\nsuffer harm himself. A woman's virtue, if you wish to know about that,\nmay also be easily described: her duty is to order her house, and keep\nwhat is indoors, and obey her husband. Every age, every condition of\nlife, young or old, male or female, bond or free, has a different\nvirtue: there are virtues numberless, and no lack of definitions of\nthem; for virtue is relative to the actions and ages of each of us\nin all that we do. And the same may be said of vice, Socrates.\n\nSoc. How fortunate I am, Meno! When I ask you for one virtue, you\npresent me with a swarm of them, which are in your keeping. Suppose\nthat I carry on the figure of the swarm, and ask of you, What is the\nnature of the bee? and you answer that there are many kinds of bees,\nand I reply: But do bees differ as bees, because there are many and\ndifferent kinds of them; or are they not rather to be distinguished by\nsome other quality, as for example beauty, size, or shape? How would\nyou answer me?\n\nMen. I should answer that bees do not differ from one another, as\nbees.\n\nSoc. And if I went on to say: That is what I desire to know, Meno;\ntell me what is the quality in which they do not differ, but are all\nalike;-would you be able to answer?\n\nMen. I should.\n\nSoc. And so of the virtues, however many and different they may\nbe, they have all a common nature which makes them virtues; and on\nthis he who would answer the question, \"What is virtue?\" would do well\nto have his eye fixed: Do you understand?\n\nMen. I am beginning to understand; but I do not as yet take hold\nof the question as I could wish.\n\nSoc. When you say, Meno, that there is one virtue of a man,\nanother of a woman, another of a child, and so on, does this apply\nonly to virtue, or would you say the same of health, and size, and\nstrength? Or is the nature of health always the same, whether in man\nor woman?\n\nMen. I should say that health is the same, both in man and woman.\n\nSoc. And is not this true of size and strength? If a woman is\nstrong, she will be strong by reason of the same form and of the\nsame strength subsisting in her which there is in the man. I mean to\nsay that strength, as strength, whether of man or woman, is the\nsame. Is there any difference?\n\nMen. I think not.\n\nSoc. And will not virtue, as virtue, be the same, whether in a child\nor in a grown-up person, in a woman or in a man?\n\nMen. I cannot help feeling, Socrates, that this case is different\nfrom the others.\n\nSoc. But why? Were you not saying that the virtue of a man was to\norder a state, and the virtue of a woman was to order a house?\n\nMen. I did say so.\n\nSoc. And can either house or state or anything be well ordered\nwithout temperance and without justice?\n\nMen. Certainly not.\n\nSoc. Then they who order a state or a house temperately or justly\norder them with temperance and justice?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. Then both men and women, if they are to be good men and\nwomen, must have the same virtues of temperance and justice?\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. And can either a young man or an elder one be good, if they are\nintemperate and unjust?\n\nMen. They cannot.\n\nSoc. They must be temperate and just?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. Then all men are good in the same way, and by participation\nin the same virtues?\n\nMen. Such is the inference.\n\nSoc. And they surely would not have been good in the same way,\nunless their virtue had been the same?\n\nMen. They would not.\n\nSoc. Then now that the sameness of all virtue has been proven, try\nand remember what you and Gorgias say that virtue is.\n\nMen. Will you have one definition of them all?\n\nSoc. That is what I am seeking.\n\nMen. If you want to have one definition of them all, I know not what\nto say, but that virtue is the power of governing mankind.\n\nSoc. And does this definition of virtue include all virtue? Is\nvirtue the same in a child and in a slave, Meno? Can the child\ngovern his father, or the slave his master; and would he who\ngoverned be any longer a slave?\n\nMen. I think not, Socrates.\n\nSoc. No, indeed; there would be small reason in that. Yet once more,\nfair friend; according to you, virtue is \"the power of governing\"; but\ndo you not add \"justly and not unjustly\"?\n\nMen. Yes, Socrates; I agree there; for justice is virtue.\n\nSoc. Would you say \"virtue,\" Meno, or \"a virtue\"?\n\nMen. What do you mean?\n\nSoc. I mean as I might say about anything; that a round, for\nexample, is \"a figure\" and not simply \"figure,\" and I should adopt\nthis mode of speaking, because there are other figures.\n\nMen. Quite right; and that is just what I am saying about\nvirtue-that there are other virtues as well as justice.\n\nSoc. What are they? tell me the names of them, as I would tell you\nthe names of the other figures if you asked me.\n\nMen. Courage and temperance and wisdom and magnanimity are\nvirtues; and there are many others.\n\nSoc. Yes, Meno; and again we are in the same case: in searching\nafter one virtue we have found many, though not in the same way as\nbefore; but we have been unable to find the common virtue which runs\nthrough them all.\n\nMen. Why, Socrates, even now I am not able to follow you in the\nattempt to get at one common notion of virtue as of other things.\n\nSoc. No wonder; but I will try to get nearer if I can, for you\nknow that all things have a common notion. Suppose now that some one\nasked you the question which I asked before: Meno, he would say,\nwhat is figure? And if you answered \"roundness,\" he would reply to\nyou, in my way of speaking, by asking whether you would say that\nroundness is \"figure\" or \"a figure\"; and you would answer \"a figure.\"\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. And for this reason-that there are other figures?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And if he proceeded to ask, What other figures are there? you\nwould have told him.\n\nMen. I should.\n\nSoc. And if he similarly asked what colour is, and you answered\nwhiteness, and the questioner rejoined, Would you say that whiteness\nis colour or a colour? you would reply, A colour, because there are\nother colours as well.\n\nMen. I should.\n\nSoc. And if he had said, Tell me what they are?-you would have\ntold him of other colours which are colours just as much as whiteness.\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And suppose that he were to pursue the matter in my way, he\nwould say: Ever and anon we are landed in particulars, but this is not\nwhat I want; tell me then, since you call them by a common name, and\nsay that they are all figures, even when opposed to one another,\nwhat is that common nature which you designate as figure-which\ncontains straight as well as round, and is no more one than the\nother-that would be your mode of speaking?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And in speaking thus, you do not mean to say that the round\nis round any more than straight, or the straight any more straight\nthan round?\n\nMen. Certainly not.\n\nSoc. You only assert that the round figure is not more a figure than\nthe straight, or the straight than the round?\n\nMen. Very true.\n\nSoc. To what then do we give the name of figure? Try and answer.\nSuppose that when a person asked you this question either about figure\nor colour, you were to reply, Man, I do not understand what you\nwant, or know what you are saying; he would look rather astonished and\nsay: Do you not understand that I am looking for the \"simile in\nmultis\"? And then he might put the question in another form: Mono,\nhe might say, what is that \"simile in multis\" which you call figure,\nand which includes not only round and straight figures, but all? Could\nyou not answer that question, Meno? I wish that you would try; the\nattempt will be good practice with a view to the answer about virtue.\n\nMen. I would rather that you should answer, Socrates.\n\nSoc. Shall I indulge you?\n\nMen. By all means.\n\nSoc. And then you will tell me about virtue?\n\nMen. I will.\n\nSoc. Then I must do my best, for there is a prize to be won.\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. Well, I will try and explain to you what figure is. What do you\nsay to this answer?-Figure is the only thing which always follows\ncolour. Will you be satisfied with it, as I am sure that I should\nbe, if you would let me have a similar definition of virtue?\n\nMen. But, Socrates, it is such a simple answer.\n\nSoc. Why simple?\n\nMen. Because, according to you, figure is that which always\nfollows colour.\n\n(Soc. Granted.)\n\nMen. But if a person were to say that he does not know what colour\nis, any more than what figure is-what sort of answer would you have\ngiven him?\n\nSoc. I should have told him the truth. And if he were a\nphilosopher of the eristic and antagonistic sort, I should say to him:\nYou have my answer, and if I am wrong, your business is to take up the\nargument and refute me. But if we were friends, and were talking as\nyou and I are now, I should reply in a milder strain and more in the\ndialectician's vein; that is to say, I should not only speak the\ntruth, but I should make use of premisses which the person\ninterrogated would be willing to admit. And this is the way in which I\nshall endeavour to approach you. You will acknowledge, will you not,\nthat there is such a thing as an end, or termination, or\nextremity?-all which words use in the same sense, although I am\naware that Prodicus might draw distinctions about them: but still you,\nI am sure, would speak of a thing as ended or terminated-that is all\nwhich I am saying-not anything very difficult.\n\nMen. Yes, I should; and I believe that I understand your meaning.\n\nSoc. And you would speak of a surface and also of a solid, as for\nexample in geometry.\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. Well then, you are now in a condition to understand my\ndefinition of figure. I define figure to be that in which the solid\nends; or, more concisely, the limit of solid.\n\nMen. And now, Socrates, what is colour?\n\nSoc. You are outrageous, Meno, in thus plaguing a poor old man to\ngive you an answer, when you will not take the trouble of\nremembering what is Gorgias' definition of virtue.\n\nMen. When you have told me what I ask, I will tell you, Socrates.\n\nSoc. A man who was blindfolded has only to hear you talking, and\nhe would know that you are a fair creature and have still many lovers.\n\nMen. Why do you think so?\n\nSoc. Why, because you always speak in imperatives: like all beauties\nwhen they are in their prime, you are tyrannical; and also, as I\nsuspect, you have found out that I have weakness for the fair, and\ntherefore to humour you I must answer.\n\nMen. Please do.\n\nSoc. Would you like me to answer you after the manner of Gorgias,\nwhich is familiar to you?\n\nMen. I should like nothing better.\n\nSoc. Do not he and you and Empedocles say that there are certain\neffluences of existence?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. And passages into which and through which the effluences pass?\n\nMen. Exactly.\n\nSoc. And some of the effluences fit into the passages, and some of\nthem are too small or too large?\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. And there is such a thing as sight?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And now, as Pindar says, \"read my meaning\" colour is an\neffluence of form, commensurate with sight, and palpable to sense.\n\nMen. That, Socrates, appears to me to be an admirable answer.\n\nSoc. Why, yes, because it happens to be one which you have been in\nthe habit of hearing: and your wit will have discovered, I suspect,\nthat you may explain in the same way the nature of sound and smell,\nand of many other similar phenomena.\n\nMen. Quite true.\n\nSoc. The answer, Meno, was in the orthodox solemn vein, and\ntherefore was more acceptable to you than the other answer about\nfigure.\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And yet, O son of Alexidemus, I cannot help thinking that the\nother was the better; and I am sure that you would be of the same\nopinion, if you would only stay and be initiated, and were not\ncompelled, as you said yesterday, to go away before the mysteries.\n\nMen. But I will stay, Socrates, if you will give me many such\nanswers.\n\nSoc. Well then, for my own sake as well as for yours, I will do my\nvery best; but I am afraid that I shall not be able to give you very\nmany as good: and now, in your turn, you are to fulfil your promise,\nand tell me what virtue is in the universal; and do not make a\nsingular into a plural, as the facetious say of those who break a\nthing, but deliver virtue to me whole and sound, and not broken into a\nnumber of pieces: I have given you the pattern.\n\nMen. Well then, Socrates, virtue, as I take it, is when he, who\ndesires the honourable, is able to provide it for himself; so the poet\nsays, and I say too-\n\nVirtue is the desire of things honourable and the power of\nattaining them.\n\nSoc. And does he who desires the honourable also desire the good?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. Then are there some who desire the evil and others who desire\nthe good? Do not all men, my dear sir, desire good?\n\nMen. I think not.\n\nSoc. There are some who desire evil?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. Do you mean that they think the evils which they desire, to\nbe good; or do they know that they are evil and yet desire them?\n\nMen. Both, I think.\n\nSoc. And do you really imagine, Meno, that a man knows evils to be\nevils and desires them notwithstanding?\n\nMen. Certainly I do.\n\nSoc. And desire is of possession?\n\nMen. Yes, of possession.\n\nSoc. And does he think that the evils will do good to him who\npossesses them, or does he know that they will do him harm?\n\nMen. There are some who think that the evils will do them good,\nand others who know that they will do them harm.\n\nSoc. And, in your opinion, do those who think that they will do them\ngood know that they are evils?\n\nMen. Certainly not.\n\nSoc. Is it not obvious that those who are ignorant of their nature\ndo not desire them; but they desire what they suppose to be goods\nalthough they are really evils; and if they are mistaken and suppose\nthe evils to be good they really desire goods?\n\nMen. Yes, in that case.\n\nSoc. Well, and do those who, as you say, desire evils, and think\nthat evils are hurtful to the possessor of them, know that they will\nbe hurt by them?\n\nMen. They must know it.\n\nSoc. And must they not suppose that those who are hurt are miserable\nin proportion to the hurt which is inflicted upon them?\n\nMen. How can it be otherwise?\n\nSoc. But are not the miserable ill-fated?\n\nMen. Yes, indeed.\n\nSoc. And does any one desire to be miserable and ill-fated?\n\nMen. I should say not, Socrates.\n\nSoc. But if there is no one who desires to be miserable, there is no\none, Meno, who desires evil; for what is misery but the desire and\npossession of evil?\n\nMen. That appears to be the truth, Socrates, and I admit that nobody\ndesires evil.\n\nSoc. And yet, were you not saying just now that virtue is the desire\nand power of attaining good?\n\nMen. Yes, I did say so.\n\nSoc. But if this be affirmed, then the desire of good is common to\nall, and one man is no better than another in that respect?\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. And if one man is not better than another in desiring good,\nhe must be better in the power of attaining it?\n\nMen. Exactly.\n\nSoc. Then, according to your definition, virtue would appear to be\nthe power of attaining good?\n\nMen. I entirely approve, Socrates, of the manner in which you now\nview this matter.\n\nSoc. Then let us see whether what you say is true from another point\nof view; for very likely you may be right:-You affirm virtue to be the\npower of attaining goods?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And the goods which mean are such as health and wealth and\nthe possession of gold and silver, and having office and honour in the\nstate-those are what you would call goods?\n\nMen. Yes, I should include all those.\n\nSoc. Then, according to Meno, who is the hereditary friend of the\ngreat king, virtue is the power of getting silver and gold; and\nwould you add that they must be gained piously, justly, or do you deem\nthis to be of no consequence? And is any mode of acquisition, even\nif unjust and dishonest, equally to be deemed virtue?\n\nMen. Not virtue, Socrates, but vice.\n\nSoc. Then justice or temperance or holiness, or some other part of\nvirtue, as would appear, must accompany the acquisition, and without\nthem the mere acquisition of good will not be virtue.\n\nMen. Why, how can there be virtue without these?\n\nSoc. And the non-acquisition of gold and silver in a dishonest\nmanner for oneself or another, or in other words the want of them, may\nbe equally virtue?\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. Then the acquisition of such goods is no more virtue than the\nnon-acquisition and want of them, but whatever is accompanied by\njustice or honesty is virtue, and whatever is devoid of justice is\nvice.\n\nMen. It cannot be otherwise, in my judgment.\n\nSoc. And were we not saying just now that justice, temperance, and\nthe like, were each of them a part of virtue?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And so, Meno, this is the way in which you mock me.\n\nMen. Why do you say that, Socrates?\n\nSoc. Why, because I asked you to deliver virtue into my hands\nwhole and unbroken, and I gave you a pattern according to which you\nwere to frame your answer; and you have forgotten already, and tell me\nthat virtue is the power of attaining good justly, or with justice;\nand justice you acknowledge to be a part of virtue.\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. Then it follows from your own admissions, that virtue is\ndoing what you do with a part of virtue; for justice and the like\nare said by you to be parts of virtue.\n\nMen. What of that?\n\nSoc. What of that! Why, did not I ask you to tell me the nature of\nvirtue as a whole? And you are very far from telling me this; but\ndeclare every action to be virtue which is done with a part of virtue;\nas though you had told me and I must already know the whole of virtue,\nand this too when frittered away into little pieces. And, therefore,\nmy dear I fear that I must begin again and repeat the same question:\nWhat is virtue? for otherwise, I can only say, that every action\ndone with a part of virtue is virtue; what else is the meaning of\nsaying that every action done with justice is virtue? Ought I not to\nask the question over again; for can any one who does not know\nvirtue know a part of virtue?\n\nMen. No; I do not say that he can.\n\nSoc. Do you remember how, in the example of figure, we rejected any\nanswer given in terms which were as yet unexplained or unadmitted?\n\nMen. Yes, Socrates; and we were quite right in doing so.\n\nSoc. But then, my friend, do not suppose that we can explain to any\none the nature of virtue as a whole through some unexplained portion\nof virtue, or anything at all in that fashion; we should only have\nto ask over again the old question, What is virtue? Am I not right?\n\nMen. I believe that you are.\n\nSoc. Then begin again, and answer me, What, according to you and\nyour friend Gorgias, is the definition of virtue?\n\nMen. O Socrates, I used to be told, before I knew you, that you\nwere always doubting yourself and making others doubt; and now you are\ncasting your spells over me, and I am simply getting bewitched and\nenchanted, and am at my wits' end. And if I may venture to make a jest\nupon you, you seem to me both in your appearance and in your power\nover others to be very like the flat torpedo fish, who torpifies those\nwho come near him and touch him, as you have now torpified me, I\nthink. For my soul and my tongue are really torpid, and I do not\nknow how to answer you; and though I have been delivered of an\ninfinite variety of speeches about virtue before now, and to many\npersons-and very good ones they were, as I thought-at this moment I\ncannot even say what virtue is. And I think that. you are very wise in\nnot voyaging and going away from home, for if you did in other\nplaces as do in Athens, you would be cast into prison as a magician.\n\nSoc. You are a rogue, Meno, and had all but caught me.\n\nMen. What do you mean, Socrates?\n\nSoc. I can tell why you made a simile about me.\n\nMen. Why?\n\nSoc. In order that I might make another simile about you. For I know\nthat all pretty young gentlemen like to have pretty similes made about\nthem-as well they may-but I shall not return the compliment. As to\nmy being a torpedo, if the torpedo is torpid as well as the cause of\ntorpidity in others, then indeed I am a torpedo, but not otherwise;\nfor I perplex others, not because I am clear, but because I am utterly\nperplexed myself. And now I know not what virtue is, and you seem to\nbe in the same case, although you did once perhaps know before you\ntouched me. However, I have no objection to join with you in the\nenquiry.\n\nMen. And how will you enquire, Socrates, into that which you do\nnot know? What will you put forth as the subject of enquiry? And if\nyou find what you want, how will you ever know that this is the\nthing which you did not know?\n\nSoc. I know, Meno, what you mean; but just see what a tiresome\ndispute you are introducing. You argue that man cannot enquire\neither about that which he knows, or about that which he does not\nknow; for if he knows, he has no need to enquire; and if not, he\ncannot; for he does not know the, very subject about which he is to\nenquire.\n\nMen. Well, Socrates, and is not the argument sound?\n\nSoc. I think not.\n\nMen. Why not?\n\nSoc. I will tell you why: I have heard from certain wise men and\nwomen who spoke of things divine that-\n\nMen. What did they say?\n\nSoc. They spoke of a glorious truth, as I conceive.\n\nMen. What was it? and who were they?\n\nSoc. Some of them were priests and priestesses, who had studied\nhow they might be able to give a reason of their profession: there,\nhave been poets also, who spoke of these things by inspiration, like\nPindar, and many others who were inspired. And they say-mark, now, and\nsee whether their words are true-they say that the soul of man is\nimmortal, and at one time has an end, which is termed dying, and at\nanother time is born again, but is never destroyed. And the moral\nis, that a man ought to live always in perfect holiness. \"For in the\nninth year Persephone sends the souls of those from whom she has\nreceived the penalty of ancient crime back again from beneath into the\nlight of the sun above, and these are they who become noble kings\nand mighty men and great in wisdom and are called saintly heroes in\nafter ages.\" The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born\nagain many times, rand having seen all things that exist, whether in\nthis world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all; and it is\nno wonder that she should be able to call to remembrance all that\nshe ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is\nakin, and the soul has learned all things; there is no difficulty in\nher eliciting or as men say learning, out of a single recollection\n-all the rest, if a man is strenuous and does not faint; for all\nenquiry and all learning is but recollection. And therefore we ought\nnot to listen to this sophistical argument about the impossibility\nof enquiry: for it will make us idle; and is sweet only to the\nsluggard; but the other saying will make us active and inquisitive. In\nthat confiding, I will gladly enquire with you into the nature of\nvirtue.\n\nMen. Yes, Socrates; but what do you mean by saying that we do not\nlearn, and that what we call learning is only a process of\nrecollection? Can you teach me how this is?\n\nSoc. I told you, Meno, just now that you were a rogue, and now you\nask whether I can teach you, when I am saying that there is no\nteaching, but only recollection; and thus you imagine that you will\ninvolve me in a contradiction.\n\nMen. Indeed, Socrates, I protest that I had no such intention. I\nonly asked the question from habit; but if you can prove to me that\nwhat you say is true, I wish that you would.\n\nSoc. It will be no easy matter, but I will try to please you to\nthe utmost of my power. Suppose that you call one of your numerous\nattendants, that I may demonstrate on him.\n\nMen. Certainly. Come hither, boy.\n\nSoc. He is Greek, and speaks Greek, does he not?\n\nMen. Yes, indeed; he was born in the house.\n\nSoc. Attend now to the questions which I ask him, and observe\nwhether he learns of me or only remembers.\n\nMen. I will.\n\nSoc. Tell me, boy, do you know that a figure like this is a square?\n\nBoy. I do.\n\nSoc. And you know that a square figure has these four lines equal?\n\nBoy. Certainly.\n\nSoc. And these lines which I have drawn through the middle of the\nsquare are also equal?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. A square may be of any size?\n\nBoy. Certainly.\n\nSoc. And if one side of the figure be of two feet, and the other\nside be of two feet, how much will the whole be? Let me explain: if in\none direction the space was of two feet, and in other direction of one\nfoot, the whole would be of two feet taken once?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. But since this side is also of two feet, there are twice two\nfeet?\n\nBoy. There are.\n\nSoc. Then the square is of twice two feet?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. And how many are twice two feet? count and tell me.\n\nBoy. Four, Socrates.\n\nSoc. And might there not be another square twice as large as this,\nand having like this the lines equal?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. And of how many feet will that be?\n\nBoy. Of eight feet.\n\nSoc. And now try and tell me the length of the line which forms\nthe side of that double square: this is two feet-what will that be?\n\nBoy. Clearly, Socrates, it will be double.\n\nSoc. Do you observe, Meno, that I am not teaching the boy\nanything, but only asking him questions; and now he fancies that he\nknows how long a line is necessary in order to produce a figure of\neight square feet; does he not?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And does he really know?\n\nMen. Certainly not.\n\nSoc. He only guesses that because the square is double, the line\nis double.\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. Observe him while he recalls the steps in regular order. (To\nthe Boy.) Tell me, boy, do you assert that a double space comes from a\ndouble line? Remember that I am not speaking of an oblong, but of a\nfigure equal every way, and twice the size of this-that is to say of\neight feet; and I want to know whether you still say that a double\nsquare comes from double line?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. But does not this line become doubled if we add another such\nline here?\n\nBoy. Certainly.\n\nSoc. And four such lines will make a space containing eight feet?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. Let us describe such a figure: Would you not say that this is\nthe figure of eight feet?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. And are there not these four divisions in the figure, each of\nwhich is equal to the figure of four feet?\n\nBoy. True.\n\nSoc. And is not that four times four?\n\nBoy. Certainly.\n\nSoc. And four times is not double?\n\nBoy. No, indeed.\n\nSoc. But how much?\n\nBoy. Four times as much.\n\nSoc. Therefore the double line, boy, has given a space, not twice,\nbut four times as much.\n\nBoy. True.\n\nSoc. Four times four are sixteen-are they not?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. What line would give you a space of right feet, as this gives\none of sixteen feet;-do you see?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. And the space of four feet is made from this half line?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. Good; and is not a space of eight feet twice the size of\nthis, and half the size of the other?\n\nBoy. Certainly.\n\nSoc. Such a space, then, will be made out of a line greater than\nthis one, and less than that one?\n\nBoy. Yes; I think so.\n\nSoc. Very good; I like to hear you say what you think. And now\ntell me, is not this a line of two feet and that of four?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. Then the line which forms the side of eight feet ought to be\nmore than this line of two feet, and less than the other of four feet?\n\nBoy. It ought.\n\nSoc. Try and see if you can tell me how much it will be.\n\nBoy. Three feet.\n\nSoc. Then if we add a half to this line of two, that will be the\nline of three. Here are two and there is one; and on the other side,\nhere are two also and there is one: and that makes the figure of which\nyou speak?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. But if there are three feet this way and three feet that way,\nthe whole space will be three times three feet?\n\nBoy. That is evident.\n\nSoc. And how much are three times three feet?\n\nBoy. Nine.\n\nSoc. And how much is the double of four?\n\nBoy. Eight.\n\nSoc. Then the figure of eight is not made out of a of three?\n\nBoy. No.\n\nSoc. But from what line?-tell me exactly; and if you would rather\nnot reckon, try and show me the line.\n\nBoy. Indeed, Socrates, I do not know.\n\nSoc. Do you see, Meno, what advances he has made in his power of\nrecollection? He did not know at first, and he does not know now, what\nis the side of a figure of eight feet: but then he thought that he\nknew, and answered confidently as if he knew, and had no difficulty;\nnow he has a difficulty, and neither knows nor fancies that he knows.\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. Is he not better off in knowing his ignorance?\n\nMen. I think that he is.\n\nSoc. If we have made him doubt, and given him the \"torpedo's shock,\"\nhave we done him any harm?\n\nMen. I think not.\n\nSoc. We have certainly, as would seem, assisted him in some degree\nto the discovery of the truth; and now he will wish to remedy his\nignorance, but then he would have been ready to tell all the world\nagain and again that the double space should have a double side.\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. But do you suppose that he would ever have enquired into or\nlearned what he fancied that he knew, though he was really ignorant of\nit, until he had fallen into perplexity under the idea that he did not\nknow, and had desired to know?\n\nMen. I think not, Socrates.\n\nSoc. Then he was the better for the torpedo's touch?\n\nMen. I think so.\n\nSoc. Mark now the farther development. I shall only ask him, and not\nteach him, and he shall share the enquiry with me: and do you watch\nand see if you find me telling or explaining anything to him,\ninstead of eliciting his opinion. Tell me, boy, is not this a square\nof four feet which I have drawn?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. And now I add another square equal to the former one?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. And a third, which is equal to either of them?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. Suppose that we fill up the vacant corner?\n\nBoy. Very good.\n\nSoc. Here, then, there are four equal spaces?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. And how many times larger is this space than this other?\n\nBoy. Four times.\n\nSoc. But it ought to have been twice only, as you will remember.\n\nBoy. True.\n\nSoc. And does not this line, reaching from corner to corner,\nbisect each of these spaces?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. And are there not here four equal lines which contain this\nspace?\n\nBoy. There are.\n\nSoc. Look and see how much this space is.\n\nBoy. I do not understand.\n\nSoc. Has not each interior line cut off half of the four spaces?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. And how many spaces are there in this section?\n\nBoy. Four.\n\nSoc. And how many in this?\n\nBoy. Two.\n\nSoc. And four is how many times two?\n\nBoy. Twice.\n\nSoc. And this space is of how many feet?\n\nBoy. Of eight feet.\n\nSoc. And from what line do you get this figure?\n\nBoy. From this.\n\nSoc. That is, from the line which extends from corner to corner of\nthe figure of four feet?\n\nBoy. Yes.\n\nSoc. And that is the line which the learned call the diagonal. And\nif this is the proper name, then you, Meno's slave, are prepared to\naffirm that the double space is the square of the diagonal?\n\nBoy. Certainly, Socrates.\n\nSoc. What do you say of him, Meno? Were not all these answers\ngiven out of his own head?\n\nMen. Yes, they were all his own.\n\nSoc. And yet, as we were just now saying, he did not know?\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. But still he had in him those notions of his-had he not?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. Then he who does not know may still have true notions of that\nwhich he does not know?\n\nMen. He has.\n\nSoc. And at present these notions have just been stirred up in\nhim, as in a dream; but if he were frequently asked the same\nquestions, in different forms, he would know as well as any one at\nlast?\n\nMen. I dare say.\n\nSoc. Without any one teaching him he will recover his knowledge\nfor himself, if he is only asked questions?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And this spontaneous recovery of knowledge in him is\nrecollection?\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. And this knowledge which he now has must he not either have\nacquired or always possessed?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. But if he always possessed this knowledge he would always\nhave known; or if he has acquired the knowledge he could not have\nacquired it in this life, unless he has been taught geometry; for he\nmay be made to do the same with all geometry and every other branch of\nknowledge. Now, has any one ever taught him all this? You must know\nabout him, if, as you say, he was born and bred in your house.\n\nMen. And I am certain that no one ever did teach him.\n\nSoc. And yet he has the knowledge?\n\nMen. The fact, Socrates, is undeniable.\n\nSoc. But if he did not acquire the knowledge in this life, then he\nmust have had and learned it at some other time?\n\nMen. Clearly he must.\n\nSoc. Which must have been the time when he was not a man?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And if there have been always true thoughts in him, both at the\ntime when he was and was not a man, which only need to be awakened\ninto knowledge by putting questions to him, his soul must have\nalways possessed this knowledge, for he always either was or was not a\nman?\n\nMen. Obviously.\n\nSoc. And if the truth of all things always existed in the soul, then\nthe soul is immortal. Wherefore be of good cheer, and try to recollect\nwhat you do not know, or rather what you do not remember.\n\nMen. I feel, somehow, that I like what you are saying.\n\nSoc. And I, Meno, like what I am saying. Some things I have said\nof which I am not altogether confident. But that we shall be better\nand braver and less helpless if we think that we ought to enquire,\nthan we should have been if we indulged in the idle fancy that there\nwas no knowing and no use in seeking to know what we do not know;-that\nis a theme upon which I am ready to fight, in word and deed, to the\nutmost of my power.\n\nMen. There again, Socrates, your words seem to me excellent.\n\nSoc. Then, as we are agreed that a man should enquire about that\nwhich he does not know, shall you and I make an effort to enquire\ntogether into the nature of virtue?\n\nMen. By all means, Socrates. And yet I would much rather return to\nmy original question, Whether in seeking to acquire virtue we should\nregard it as a thing to be taught, or as a gift of nature, or as\ncoming to men in some other way?\n\nSoc. Had I the command of you as well as of myself, Meno, I would\nnot have enquired whether virtue is given by instruction or not, until\nwe had first ascertained \"what it is.\" But as you think only of\ncontrolling me who am your slave, and never of controlling\nyourself,-such being your notion of freedom, I must yield to you,\nfor you are irresistible. And therefore I have now to enquire into the\nqualities of a thing of which I do not as yet know the nature. At\nany rate, will you condescend a little, and allow the question\n\"Whether virtue is given by instruction, or in any other way,\" to be\nargued upon hypothesis? As the geometrician, when he is asked\nwhether a certain triangle is capable being inscribed in a certain\ncircle, will reply: \"I cannot tell you as yet; but I will offer a\nhypothesis which may assist us in forming a conclusion: If the\nfigure be such that when you have produced a given side of it, the\ngiven area of the triangle falls short by an area corresponding to the\npart produced, then one consequence follows, and if this is impossible\nthen some other; and therefore I wish to assume a hypothesis before\nI tell you whether this triangle is capable of being inscribed in\nthe circle\":-that is a geometrical hypothesis. And we too, as we\nknow not the nature and -qualities of virtue, must ask, whether virtue\nis or not taught, under a hypothesis: as thus, if virtue is of such\na class of mental goods, will it be taught or not? Let the first\nhypothesis be-that virtue is or is not knowledge,-in that case will it\nbe taught or not? or, as we were just now saying, remembered\"? For\nthere is no use in disputing about the name. But is virtue taught or\nnot? or rather, does not everyone see that knowledge alone is taught?\n\nMen. I agree.\n\nSoc. Then if virtue is knowledge, virtue will be taught?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. Then now we have made a quick end of this question: if virtue\nis of such a nature, it will be taught; and if not, not?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. The next question is, whether virtue is knowledge or of another\nspecies?\n\nMen. Yes, that appears to be the -question which comes next in\norder.\n\nSoc. Do we not say that virtue is a good?-This is a hypothesis which\nis not set aside.\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. Now, if there be any sort-of good which is distinct from\nknowledge, virtue may be that good; but if knowledge embraces all\ngood, then we shall be right in think in that virtue is knowledge?\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. And virtue makes us good?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And if we are good, then we are profitable; for all good things\nare profitable?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. Then virtue is profitable?\n\nMen. That is the only inference.\n\nSoc. Then now let us see what are the things which severally\nprofit us. Health and strength, and beauty and wealth-these, and the\nlike of these, we call profitable?\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. And yet these things may also sometimes do us harm: would you\nnot think so?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And what is the guiding principle which makes them profitable\nor the reverse? Are they not profitable when they are rightly used,\nand hurtful when they are not rightly used?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. Next, let us consider the goods of the soul: they are\ntemperance, justice, courage, quickness of apprehension, memory,\nmagnanimity, and the like?\n\nMen. Surely.\n\nSoc. And such of these as are not knowledge, but of another sort,\nare sometimes profitable and sometimes hurtful; as, for example,\ncourage wanting prudence, which is only a sort of confidence? When a\nman has no sense he is harmed by courage, but when he has sense he\nis profited?\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. And the same may be said of temperance and quickness of\napprehension; whatever things are learned or done with sense are\nprofitable, but when done without sense they are hurtful?\n\nMen. Very true.\n\nSoc. And in general, all that the attempts or endures, when under\nthe guidance of wisdom, ends in happiness; but when she is under the\nguidance of folly, in the opposite?\n\nMen. That appears to be true.\n\nSoc. If then virtue is a quality of the soul, and is admitted to\nbe profitable, it must be wisdom or prudence, since none of the things\nof the soul are either profitable or hurtful in themselves, but they\nare all made profitable or hurtful by the addition of wisdom or of\nfolly; and therefore and therefore if virtue is profitable, virtue\nmust be a sort of wisdom or prudence?\n\nMen. I quite agree.\n\nSoc. And the other goods, such as wealth and the like, of which we\nwere just now saying that they are sometimes good and sometimes\nevil, do not they also become profitable or hurtful, accordingly as\nthe soul guides and uses them rightly or wrongly; just as the things\nof the soul herself are benefited when under the guidance of wisdom\nand harmed by folly?\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. And the wise soul guides them rightly, and the foolish soul\nwrongly.\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And is not this universally true of human nature? All other\nthings hang upon the soul, and the things of the soul herself hang\nupon wisdom, if they are to be good; and so wisdom is inferred to be\nthat which profits-and virtue, as we say, is profitable?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. And thus we arrive at the conclusion that virtue is either\nwholly or partly wisdom?\n\nMen. I think that what you are saying, Socrates, is very true.\n\nSoc. But if this is true, then the good are not by nature good?\n\nMen. I think not.\n\nSoc. If they had been, there would assuredly have been discerners of\ncharacters among us who would have known our future great men; and\non their showing we should have adopted them, and when we had got\nthem, we should have kept them in the citadel out of the way of\nharm, and set a stamp upon them far rather than upon a piece of\ngold, in order that no one might tamper with them; and when they\ngrew up they would have been useful to the state?\n\nMen. Yes, Socrates, that would have been the right way.\n\nSoc. But if the good are not by nature good, are they made good by\ninstruction?\n\nMen. There appears to be no other alternative, Socrates. On the\nsupposition that virtue is knowledge, there can be no doubt that\nvirtue is taught.\n\nSoc. Yes, indeed; but what if the supposition is erroneous?\n\nMen. I certainly thought just now that we were right.\n\nSoc. Yes, Meno; but a principle which has any soundness should stand\nfirm not only just now, but always.\n\nMen. Well; and why are you so slow of heart to believe that\nknowledge is virtue?\n\nSoc. I will try and tell you why, Meno. I do not retract the\nassertion that if virtue is knowledge it may be taught; but I fear\nthat I have some reason in doubting whether virtue is knowledge: for\nconsider now. and say whether virtue, and not only virtue but anything\nthat is taught, must not have teachers and disciples?\n\nMen. Surely.\n\nSoc. And conversely, may not the art of which neither teachers nor\ndisciples exist be assumed to be incapable of being taught?\n\nMen. True; but do you think that there are no teachers of virtue?\n\nSoc. I have certainly often enquired whether there were any, and\ntaken great pains to find them, and have never succeeded; and many\nhave assisted me in the search, and they were the persons whom I\nthought the most likely to know. Here at the moment when he is\nwanted we fortunately have sitting by us Anytus, the very person of\nwhom we should make enquiry; to him then let us repair. In the first\nPlace, he is the son of a wealthy and wise father, Anthemion, who\nacquired his wealth, not by accident or gift, like Ismenias the Theban\n(who has recently made himself as rich as Polycrates), but by his\nown skill and industry, and who is a well-conditioned, modest man, not\ninsolent, or over-bearing, or annoying; moreover, this son of his\nhas received a good education, as the Athenian people certainly appear\nto think, for they choose him to fill the highest offices. And these\nare the sort of men from whom you are likely to learn whether there\nare any teachers of virtue, and who they are. Please, Anytus, to\nhelp me and your friend Meno in answering our question, Who are the\nteachers? Consider the matter thus: If we wanted Meno to be a good\nphysician, to whom should we send him? Should we not send him to the\nphysicians?\n\nAny. Certainly.\n\nSoc. Or if we wanted him to be a good cobbler, should we not send\nhim to the cobblers?\n\nAny. Yes.\n\nSoc. And so forth?\n\nAny. Yes.\n\nSoc. Let me trouble you with one more question. When we say that\nwe should be right in sending him to the physicians if we wanted him\nto be a physician, do we mean that we should be right in sending him\nto those who profess the art, rather than to those who do not, and\nto those who demand payment for teaching the art, and profess to teach\nit to any one who will come and learn? And if these were our\nreasons, should we not be right in sending him?\n\nAny. Yes.\n\nSoc. And might not the same be said of flute-playing, and of the\nother arts? Would a man who wanted to make another a flute-player\nrefuse to send him to those who profess to teach the art for money,\nand be plaguing other persons to give him instruction, who are not\nprofessed teachers and who never had a single disciple in that\nbranch of knowledge which he wishes him to acquire-would not such\nconduct be the height of folly?\n\nAny. Yes, by Zeus, and of ignorance too.\n\nSoc. Very good. And now you are in a position to advise with me\nabout my friend Meno. He has been telling me, Anytus, that he\ndesires to attain that kind of wisdom and-virtue by which men order\nthe state or the house, and honour their parents, and know when to\nreceive and when to send away citizens and strangers, as a good man\nshould. Now, to whom should he go in order that he may learn this\nvirtue? Does not the previous argument imply clearly that we should\nsend him to those who profess and avouch that they are the common\nteachers of all Hellas, and are ready to impart instruction to any one\nwho likes, at a fixed price?\n\nAny. Whom do you mean, Socrates?\n\nSoc. You surely know, do you not, Anytus, that these are the\npeople whom mankind call Sophists?\n\nAny. By Heracles, Socrates, forbear! I only hope that no friend or\nkinsman or acquaintance of mine, whether citizen or stranger, will\never be so mad as to allow himself to be corrupted by them; for they\nare a manifest pest and corrupting influences to those who have to\ndo with them.\n\nSoc. What, Anytus? Of all the people who profess that they know\nhow to do men good, do you mean to say that these are the only ones\nwho not only do them no good, but positively corrupt those who are\nentrusted to them, and in return for this disservice have the face\nto demand money? Indeed, I cannot believe you; for I know of a\nsingle man, Protagoras, who made more out of his craft than the\nillustrious Pheidias, who created such noble works, or any ten other\nstatuaries. How could that A mender of old shoes, or patcher up of\nclothes, who made the shoes or clothes worse than he received them,\ncould not have remained thirty days undetected, and would very soon\nhave starved; whereas during more than forty years, Protagoras was\ncorrupting all Hellas, and sending his disciples from him worse than\nhe received them, and he was never found out. For, if I am not\nmistaken,-he was about seventy years old at his death, forty of\nwhich were spent in the practice of his profession; and during all\nthat time he had a good reputation, which to this day he retains:\nand not only Protagoras, but many others are well spoken of; some\nwho lived before him, and others who are still living. Now, when you\nsay that they deceived and corrupted the youth, are they to be\nsupposed to have corrupted them consciously or unconsciously? Can\nthose who were deemed by many to be the wisest men of Hellas have been\nout of their minds?\n\nAny. Out of their minds! No, Socrates; the young men who gave\ntheir money to them, were out of their minds, and their relations\nand guardians who entrusted their youth to the care of these men\nwere still more out of their minds, and most of all, the cities who\nallowed them to come in, and did not drive them out, citizen and\nstranger alike.\n\nSoc. Has any of the Sophists wronged you, Anytus? What makes you\nso angry with them?\n\nAny. No, indeed, neither I nor any of my belongings has ever had,\nnor would I suffer them to have, anything to do with them.\n\nSoc. Then you are entirely unacquainted with them?\n\nAny. And I have no wish to be acquainted.\n\nSoc. Then, my dear friend, how can you know whether a thing is\ngood or bad of which you are wholly ignorant?\n\nAny. Quite well; I am sure that I know what manner of men these are,\nwhether I am acquainted with them or not.\n\nSoc. You must be a diviner, Anytus, for I really cannot make out,\njudging from your own words, how, if you are not acquainted with them,\nyou know about them. But I am not enquiring of you who are the\nteachers who will corrupt Meno (let them be, if you please, the\nSophists); I only ask you to tell him who there is in this great\ncity who will teach him how to become eminent in the virtues which I\nwas just, now describing. He is the friend of your family, and you\nwill oblige him.\n\nAny. Why do you not tell him yourself?\n\nSoc. I have told him whom I supposed to be the teachers of these\nthings; but I learn from you that I am utterly at fault, and I dare\nsay that you are right. And now I wish that you, on your part, would\ntell me to whom among the Athenians he should go. Whom would you name?\n\nAny. Why single out individuals? Any Athenian gentleman, taken at\nrandom, if he will mind him, will do far more, good to him than the\nSophists.\n\nSoc. And did those gentlemen grow of themselves; and without\nhaving been taught by any one, were they nevertheless able to teach\nothers that which they had never learned themselves?\n\nAny. I imagine that they learned of the previous generation of\ngentlemen. Have there not been many good men in this city?\n\nSoc. Yes, certainly, Anytus; and many good statesmen also there\nalways have been and there are still, in the city of Athens. But the\nquestion is whether they were also good teachers of their own\nvirtue;-not whether there are, or have been, good men in this part\nof the world, but whether virtue can be taught, is the question\nwhich we have been discussing. Now, do we mean to say that the good\nmen our own and of other times knew how to impart to others that\nvirtue which they had themselves; or is virtue a thing incapable of\nbeing communicated or imparted by one man to another? That is the\nquestion which I and Meno have been arguing. Look at the matter in\nyour own way: Would you not admit that Themistocles was a good man?\n\nAny. Certainly; no man better.\n\nSoc. And must not he then have been a good teacher, if any man\never was a good teacher, of his own virtue?\n\nAny. Yes certainly,-if he wanted to be so.\n\nSoc. But would he not have wanted? He would, at any rate, have\ndesired to make his own son a good man and a gentleman; he could not\nhave been jealous of him, or have intentionally abstained from\nimparting to him his own virtue. Did you never hear that he made his\nson Cleophantus a famous horseman; and had him taught to stand upright\non horseback and hurl a javelin, and to do many other marvellous\nthings; and in anything which could be learned from a master he was\nwell trained? Have you not heard from our elders of him?\n\nAny. I have.\n\nSoc. Then no one could say that his son showed any want of capacity?\n\nAny. Very likely not.\n\nSoc. But did any one, old or young, ever say in your hearing that\nCleophantus, son of Themistocles, was a wise or good man, as his\nfather was?\n\nAny. I have certainly never heard any one say so.\n\nSoc. And if virtue could have been taught, would his father\nThemistocles have sought to train him in these minor\naccomplishments, and allowed him who, as you must remember, was his\nown son, to be no better than his neighbours in those qualities in\nwhich he himself excelled?\n\nAny. Indeed, indeed, I think not.\n\nSoc. Here was a teacher of virtue whom you admit to be among the\nbest men of the past. Let us take another,-Aristides, the son of\nLysimachus: would you not acknowledge that he was a good man?\n\nAny. To be sure I should.\n\nSoc. And did not he train his son Lysimachus better than any other\nAthenian in all that could be done for him by the help of masters? But\nwhat has been the result? Is he a bit better than any other mortal? He\nis an acquaintance of yours, and you see what he is like. There is\nPericles, again, magnificent in his wisdom; and he, as you are\naware, had two sons, Paralus and Xanthippus.\n\nAny. I know.\n\nSoc. And you know, also, that he taught them to be unrivalled\nhorsemen, and had them trained in music and gymnastics and all sorts\nof arts-in these respects they were on a level with the best-and had\nhe no wish to make good men of them? Nay, he must have wished it.\nBut virtue, as I suspect, could not be taught. And that you may not\nsuppose the incompetent teachers to be only the meaner sort of\nAthenians and few in number, remember again that Thucydides had two\nsons, Melesias and Stephanus, whom, besides giving them a good\neducation in other things, he trained in wrestling, and they were\nthe best wrestlers in Athens: one of them he committed to the care\nof Xanthias, and the other of Eudorus, who had the reputation of being\nthe most celebrated wrestlers of that day. Do you remember them?\n\nAny. I have heard of them.\n\nSoc. Now, can there be a doubt that Thucydides, whose children\nwere taught things for which he had to spend money, would have\ntaught them to be good men, which would have cost him nothing, if\nvirtue could have been taught? Will you reply that he was a mean\nman, and had not many friends among the Athenians and allies? Nay, but\nhe was of a great family, and a man of influence at Athens and in\nall Hellas, and, if virtue could have been taught, he would have found\nout some Athenian or foreigner who would have made good men of his\nsons, if he could not himself spare the time from cares of state. Once\nmore, I suspect, friend Anytus, that virtue is not a thing which can\nbe taught?\n\nAny. Socrates, I think that you are too ready to speak evil of\nmen: and, if you will take my advice, I would recommend you to be\ncareful. Perhaps there is no city in which it is not easier to do\nmen harm than to do them good, and this is certainly the case at\nAthens, as I believe that you know.\n\nSoc. O Meno, think that Anytus is in a rage. And he may well be in a\nrage, for he thinks, in the first place, that I am defaming these\ngentlemen; and in the second place, he is of opinion that he is one of\nthem himself. But some day he will know what is the meaning of\ndefamation, and if he ever does, he will forgive me. Meanwhile I\nwill return to you, Meno; for I suppose that there are gentlemen in\nyour region too?\n\nMen. Certainly there are.\n\nSoc. And are they willing to teach the young? and do they profess to\nbe teachers? and do they agree that virtue is taught?\n\nMen. No indeed, Socrates, they are anything but agreed; you may hear\nthem saying at one time that virtue can be taught, and then again\nthe reverse.\n\nSoc. Can we call those teachers who do not acknowledge the\npossibility of their own vocation?\n\nMen. I think not, Socrates.\n\nSoc. And what do you think of these Sophists, who are the only\nprofessors? Do they seem to you to be teachers of virtue?\n\nMen. I often wonder, Socrates, that Gorgias is never heard promising\nto teach virtue: and when he hears others promising he only laughs\nat them; but he thinks that men should be taught to speak.\n\nSoc. Then do you not think that the Sophists are teachers?\n\nMen. I cannot tell you, Socrates; like the rest of the world, I am\nin doubt, and sometimes I think that they are teachers and sometimes\nnot.\n\nSoc. And are you aware that not you only and other politicians\nhave doubts whether virtue can be taught or not, but that Theognis the\npoet says the very same thing?\n\nMen. Where does he say so?\n\nSoc. In these elegiac verses:\n\nEat and drink and sit with the mighty, and make yourself agreeable\nto them; for from the good you will learn what is good, but if you mix\nwith the bad you will lose the intelligence which you already have.\n\nDo you observe that here he seems to imply that virtue can be taught?\n\nMen. Clearly.\n\nSoc. But in some other verses he shifts about and says:\n\nIf understanding could be created and put into a man, then they [who\nwere able to perform this feat] would have obtained great rewards.\n\nAnd again:-\n\nNever would a bad son have sprung from a good sire, for he would\nhave heard the voice of instruction; but not by teaching will you ever\nmake a bad man into a good one.\n\nAnd this, as you may remark, is a contradiction of the other.\n\nMen. Clearly.\n\nSoc. And is there anything else of which the professors are affirmed\nnot only not to be teachers of others, but to be ignorant\nthemselves, and bad at the knowledge of that which they are professing\nto teach? or is there anything about which even the acknowledged\n\"gentlemen\" are sometimes saying that \"this thing can be taught,\"\nand sometimes the opposite? Can you say that they are teachers in\nany true sense whose ideas are in such confusion?\n\nMen. I should say, certainly not.\n\nSoc. But if neither the Sophists nor the gentlemen are teachers,\nclearly there can be no other teachers?\n\nMen. No.\n\nSoc. And if there are no teachers, neither are there disciples?\n\nMen. Agreed.\n\nSoc. And we have admitted that a thing cannot be taught of which\nthere are neither teachers nor disciples?\n\nMen. We have.\n\nSoc. And there are no teachers of virtue to be found anywhere?\n\nMen. There are not.\n\nSoc. And if there are no teachers, neither are there scholars?\n\nMen. That, I think, is true.\n\nSoc. Then virtue cannot be taught?\n\nMen. Not if we are right in our view. But I cannot believe,\nSocrates, that there are no good men: And if there are, how did they\ncome into existence?\n\nSoc. I am afraid, Meno, that you and I are not good for much, and\nthat Gorgias has been as poor an educator of you as Prodicus has\nbeen of me. Certainly we shall have to look to ourselves, and try to\nfind some one who will help in some way or other to improve us. This I\nsay, because I observe that in the previous discussion none of us\nremarked that right and good action is possible to man under other\nguidance than that of knowledge (episteme);-and indeed if this be\ndenied, there is no seeing how there can be any good men at all.\n\nMen. How do you mean, Socrates?\n\nSoc. I mean that good men are necessarily useful or profitable. Were\nwe not right in admitting this? It must be so.\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And in supposing that they will be useful only if they are true\nguides to us of action-there we were also right?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. But when we said that a man cannot be a good guide unless he\nhave knowledge (phrhonesis), this we were wrong.\n\nMen. What do you mean by the word \"right\"?\n\nSoc. I will explain. If a man knew the way to Larisa, or anywhere\nelse, and went to the place and led others thither, would he not be\na right and good guide?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. And a person who had a right opinion about the way, but had\nnever been and did not know, might be a good guide also, might he not?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. And while he has true opinion about that which the other knows,\nhe will be just as good a guide if he thinks the truth, as he who\nknows the truth?\n\nMen. Exactly.\n\nSoc. Then true opinion is as good a guide to correct action as\nknowledge; and that was the point which we omitted in our\nspeculation about the nature of virtue, when we said that knowledge\nonly is the guide of right action; whereas there is also right\nopinion.\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. Then right opinion is not less useful than knowledge?\n\nMen. The difference, Socrates, is only that he who has knowledge\nwill always be right; but he who has right opinion will sometimes be\nright, and sometimes not.\n\nSoc. What do you mean? Can he be wrong who has right opinion, so\nlong as he has right opinion?\n\nMen. I admit the cogency of your argument, and therefore,\nSocrates, I wonder that knowledge should be preferred to right\nopinion-or why they should ever differ.\n\nSoc. And shall I explain this wonder to you?\n\nMen. Do tell me.\n\nSoc. You would not wonder if you had ever observed the images of\nDaedalus; but perhaps you have not got them in your country?\n\nMen. What have they to do with the question?\n\nSoc. Because they require to be fastened in order to keep them,\nand if they are not fastened they will play truant and run away.\n\nMen. Well. what of that?\n\nSoc. I mean to say that they are not very valuable possessions if\nthey are at liberty, for they will walk off like runaway slaves; but\nwhen fastened, they are of great value, for they are really\nbeautiful works of art. Now this is an illustration of the nature of\ntrue opinions: while they abide with us they are beautiful and\nfruitful, but they run away out of the human soul, and do not remain\nlong, and therefore they are not of much value until they are fastened\nby the tie of the cause; and this fastening of them, friend Meno, is\nrecollection, as you and I have agreed to call it. But when they are\nbound, in the first place, they have the nature of knowledge; and,\nin the second place, they are abiding. And this is why knowledge is\nmore honourable and excellent than true opinion, because fastened by a\nchain.\n\nMen. What you are saying, Socrates, seems to be very like the truth.\n\nSoc. I too speak rather in ignorance; I only conjecture. And yet\nthat knowledge differs from true opinion is no matter of conjecture\nwith me. There are not many things which I profess to know, but this\nis most certainly one of them.\n\nMen. Yes, Socrates; and you are quite right in saying so.\n\nSoc. And am I not also right in saying that true opinion leading the\nway perfects action quite as well as knowledge?\n\nMen. There again, Socrates, I think you are right.\n\nSoc. Then right opinion is not a whit inferior to knowledge, or less\nuseful in action; nor is the man who has right opinion inferior to him\nwho has knowledge?\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. And surely the good man has been acknowledged by us to be\nuseful?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. Seeing then that men become good and useful to states, not only\nbecause they have knowledge, but because they have right opinion,\nand that neither knowledge nor right opinion is given to man by nature\nor acquired by him-(do you imagine either of them to be given by\nnature?\n\nMen. Not I.)\n\nSoc. Then if they are not given by nature, neither are the good by\nnature good?\n\nMen. Certainly not.\n\nSoc. And nature being excluded, then came the question whether\nvirtue is acquired by teaching?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. If virtue was wisdom [or knowledge], then, as we thought, it\nwas taught?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And if it was taught it was wisdom?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. And if there were teachers, it might be taught; and if there\nwere no teachers, not?\n\nMen. True.\n\nSoc. But surely we acknowledged that there were no teachers of\nvirtue?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. Then we acknowledged that it was not taught, and was not\nwisdom?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. And yet we admitted that it was a good?\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And the right guide is useful and good?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. And the only right guides are knowledge and true\nopinion-these are the guides of man; for things which happen by chance\nare not under the guidance of man: but the guides of man are true\nopinion and knowledge.\n\nMen. I think so too.\n\nSoc. But if virtue is not taught, neither is virtue knowledge.\n\nMen. Clearly not.\n\nSoc. Then of two good and useful things, one, which is knowledge,\nhas been set aside, and cannot be supposed to be our guide in\npolitical life.\n\nMen. I think not.\n\nSoc. And therefore not by any wisdom, and not because they were\nwise, did Themistocles and those others of whom Anytus spoke govern\nstates. This was the reason why they were unable to make others like\nthemselves-because their virtue was not grounded on knowledge.\n\nMen. That is probably true, Socrates.\n\nSoc. But if not by knowledge, the only alternative which remains\nis that statesmen must have guided states by right opinion, which is\nin politics what divination is in religion; for diviners and also\nprophets say many things truly, but they know not what they say.\n\nMen. So I believe.\n\nSoc. And may we not, Meno, truly call those men \"divine\" who, having\nno understanding, yet succeed in many a grand deed and word?\n\nMen. Certainly.\n\nSoc. Then we shall also be right in calling divine those whom we\nwere just now speaking of as diviners and prophets, including the\nwhole tribe of poets. Yes, and statesmen above all may be said to be\ndivine and illumined, being inspired and possessed of God, in which\ncondition they say many grand things, not knowing what they say.\n\nMen. Yes.\n\nSoc. And the women too, Meno, call good men divine-do they not?\nand the Spartans, when they praise a good man, say \"that he is a\ndivine man.\"\n\nMen. And I think, Socrates, that they are right; although very\nlikely our friend Anytus may take offence at the word.\n\nSoc. I da not care; as for Anytus, there will be another opportunity\nof talking with him. To sum up our enquiry-the result seems to be,\nif we are at all right in our view, that virtue is neither natural nor\nacquired, but an instinct given by God to the virtuous. Nor is the\ninstinct accompanied by reason, unless there may be supposed to be\namong statesmen some one who is capable of educating statesmen. And if\nthere be such an one, he may be said to be among the living what Homer\nsays that Tiresias was among the dead, \"he alone has understanding;\nbut the rest are flitting shades\"; and he and his virtue in like\nmanner will be a reality among shadows.\n\nMen. That is excellent, Socrates.\n\nSoc. Then, Meno, the conclusion is that virtue comes to the virtuous\nby the gift of God. But we shall never know the certain truth until,\nbefore asking how virtue is given, we enquire into the actual nature\nof virtue. I fear that I must go away, but do you, now that you are\npersuaded yourself, persuade our friend Anytus. And do not let him\nbe so exasperated; if you can conciliate him, you will have done\ngood service to the Athenian people.\n\n-THE END-",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}