ATH. Stay a moment: here too is a case we must further consider. Suppose there were a number of brothers, all sons of the same parents, it would not be at all surprising if most of them were unjust and but few just.
CLIN. It would not.
ATH. And, moreover, it would ill beseem you and me to go a-chasing after this form of expression, that if the bad ones conquered,the whole of this family and house should be called “self-inferior,” but “self-superior” if they were defeated; for our present reference to the usage of ordinary speech is not concerned with the propriety or impropriety of verbal phrases but with the essential rightness or wrongness of laws.
CLIN. Very true, Stranger.
MEG. And finely spoken, too, up to this point, as I agree.
ATH. Let us also look at this point: the brothers we have just described would have, I suppose, a judge?
CLIN. Certainly.
ATH. Which of the two would be the better—a judge who destroyed all the wicked among them and charged the good to govern themselves, or one who made the good members govern and, while allowing the bad to live, made them submit willingly to be governed? And there is a third judge we must mention (third and best in point of merit),—if indeed such a judge can be found,—who in dealing with a single divided family will destroy none of them but reconcile them and succeed, by enacting laws for them, in securing amongst them thenceforward permanent friendliness.
