committed in the government of the Republic. He says, therefore, that
such arguments insensibly accustom the youth to despise the laws, and
render them more audacious and more violent. But, in my opinion, such as
study the art of prudence, and who believe they shall be able to render
themselves capable of giving good advice and counsel to their
fellow-citizens, seldom become men of violent tempers; because they know
that violence is hateful and full of danger; while, on the contrary, to
win by persuasion is full of love and safety. For they, whom we have
compelled, brood a secret hatred against us, believing we have done them
wrong; but those whom we have taken the trouble to persuade continue our
friends, believing we have done them a kindness. It is not, therefore,
they who apply themselves to the study of prudence that become violent,
but those brutish intractable tempers who have much power in their hands
and but little judgment to manage it.--He farther said that when a man
desires to carry anything by force, he must have many friends to assist
him: as, on the contrary, he that can persuade has need of none but
himself, and is not subject to shed blood; for who would rather choose to
kill a man than to make use of his services, after having gained his
friendship and goodwill by mildness?

The accuser adds, in proof of the ill tendency of the doctrine of
Socrates, that Critias and Alcibiades, who were two of his most intimate
friends, were very bad men, and did much mischief to their country. For
Critias was the most insatiable and cruel of all the thirty tyrants; and
Alcibiades the most dissolute, the most insolent, and the most audacious
citizen that ever the Republic had. As for me, I pretend not to justify
them, and will only relate for what reason they frequented Socrates. They
were men of an unbounded ambition, and who resolved, whatever it cost, to
govern the State, and make themselves be talked of. They had heard that
Socrates lived very content upon little or nothing, that he entirely