not. They may predict results, but cannot tell whether they are really
terrible; only the courageous man can tell that.' Laches draws the
inference that the courageous man is either a soothsayer or a god.

Again, (2) in Nicias' way of speaking, the term 'courageous' must be denied
to animals or children, because they do not know the danger. Against this
inversion of the ordinary use of language Laches reclaims, but is in some
degree mollified by a compliment to his own courage. Still, he does not
like to see an Athenian statesman and general descending to sophistries of
this sort. Socrates resumes the argument. Courage has been defined to be
intelligence or knowledge of the terrible; and courage is not all virtue,
but only one of the virtues. The terrible is in the future, and therefore
the knowledge of the terrible is a knowledge of the future. But there can
be no knowledge of future good or evil separated from a knowledge of the
good and evil of the past or present; that is to say, of all good and evil.
Courage, therefore, is the knowledge of good and evil generally. But he
who has the knowledge of good and evil generally, must not only have
courage, but also temperance, justice, and every other virtue. Thus, a
single virtue would be the same as all virtues (compare Protagoras). And
after all the two generals, and Socrates, the hero of Delium, are still in
ignorance of the nature of courage. They must go to school again, boys,
old men and all.

Some points of resemblance, and some points of difference, appear in the
Laches when compared with the Charmides and Lysis. There is less of
poetical and simple beauty, and more of dramatic interest and power. They
are richer in the externals of the scene; the Laches has more play and
development of character. In the Lysis and Charmides the youths are the
central figures, and frequent allusions are made to the place of meeting,
which is a palaestra. Here the place of meeting, which is also a