hand which has done him a service. Hence compulsion is not the method
of him who makes wisdom his study, but of him who wields power
untempered by reflection. Once more: the man who ventures on violence
needs the support of many to fight his battles, while he whose
strength lies in persuasiveness triumphs single-handed, for he is
conscious of a cunning to compel consent unaided. And what has such a
one to do with the spilling of blood? since how ridiculous it were to
do men to death rather than turn to account the trusty service of the
living.

[2] {o kategoros} = Polycrates possibly. See M. Schantz, op. cit.,
"Einleitun," S. 6: "Die Anklagerede des Polykrates"; Introduction,
p. xxxii. foll.

[3] i.e. staking the election of a magistrate on the colour of a bean.
See Aristot. "Ath. Pol." viii. 2, and Dr. Sandys ad loc.

But, the accuser answers, the two men[4] who wrought the greatest
evils to the state at any time--to wit, Critias and Alcibiades--were
both companions of Socrates--Critias the oligarch, and Alcibiades the
democrat. Where would you find a more arrant thief, savage, and
murderer[5] than the one? where such a portent of insolence,
incontinence, and high-handedness as the other? For my part, in so far
as these two wrought evil to the state, I have no desire to appear as
the apologist of either. I confine myself to explaining what this
intimacy of theirs with Socrates really was.

[4] See "Hell." I. and II. passim.

[5] Reading {kleptistatos te kai biaiotatos kai phonikotatos}, or if