Page:The Dialogues of Plato v. 1.djvu/62

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
is Apllo's salutaion of his worshippers.
23
Charmides.
Socrates, Critias.which he explains as meaning 'Be temperate.'

Yes.

Then, as woul<l seem, in doing good, he may act wisdy or temperately, and be wise or temperate, but not know hi•s own wisdom or temperance?

But that, Socrates, he said, is impossihle; and therefore if th1.s 1.s, as you i.mp1y, the necessary consequence of any of my previous admissions, J will withdraw them, rather than admit that a man can be temperate or wise who does not know himself; and I am not ashamed to confess that I was in error. Fur self-knowledge would certainly be maintained hy me to be the very essence of knowledge, and in this I agree with him who dedicated the inscription, ' Know thyself!' at Delphi. That word, if I am not mistaken, is put there as a sort of salutation which the god addresses to those who enter the temple; as much as to say that the ordinary salutation of ' Hail! ' is not right, and that the exhortation ' Be temperate! ' would be a far better way of saluting one another. The notion of him who dedicated the inscription was, as I believe, that the god speaks to those who enter his temple, not as men speak; but, when a worshipper enters, the first word which he hears is 'Be temperate! ' This, however, like a prophet he expresses in a sort of riddle, for ' Know thyself!' and ' Be temperate! ' are the same, as I maintain, and as the letters imply [σωφρόνει, γνῶθι σαυτόν] , and yet they may be easily misunderstood; 165 and succeeding sages who added ' Never too much,' or, 'Give a pledge, and evil is nigh at hand,' would appear to have so misunderstood them; for they imagined that ' Know thyself! ' was a piece of advice which the god gave, and not his salutation of the worshippers at their first coming in; and they dedicated their own inscription under the idea that they too would give equally useful pieces of advice. Shall I tell you, Socrates, why I say all this? My object is to leave the previous discussion (in which I know not whether you or Fifth definition: Temperance is self-knowledge. I are more right, but, at any rate, no clear result was attained), and to raise a new one in which I will attempt to prove, if you deny, that temperance is self-knowledge.

Yes, I said, Critias; but you come to me as though I pro­ fessed to know about the questions which I ask, and as though I could, if I only would, agree with you. [1] Whereas the fact

  1. Reading, according to Heusde's conjecture, ὁμολογήσοντός σοι .