man who does not know how to use it is not wealth?

Soc. And I understand you to concur in the truth of our proposition so
far: wealth is that, and that only, whereby a man may be benefited.
Obviously, if a man used his money to buy himself a mistress, to the
grave detriment of his body and soul and whole estate, how is that
particular money going to benefit him now? What good will he extract
from it?

Crit. None whatever, unless we are prepared to admit that
hyoscyamus,[12] as they call it, is wealth, a poison the property of
which is to drive those who take it mad.

[12] "A dose of henbane, 'hogs'-bean,' so called." Diosc. 4. 69; 6.
15; Plut. "Demetr." xx. (Clough, v. 114).

Soc. Let money then, Critobulus, if a man does not know how to use it
aright--let money, I say, be banished to the remote corners of the
earth rather than be reckoned as wealth.[13] But now, what shall we
say of friends? If a man knows how to use his friends so as to be
benefited by them, what of these?

[13] Or, "then let it be relegated . . . and there let it lie in the
category of non-wealth."

Crit. They are wealth indisputably, and in a deeper sense than cattle
are, if, as may be supposed, they are likely to prove of more benefit
to a man than wealth of cattle.

Soc. It would seem, according to your argument, that the foes of a