will soon leave that seeming cloud, and freely shed abroad his
light without any hindrances." Could Socrates not have made an
adequate return to Archelaus, if he had taught him to reign? as
though Socrates would not benefit him sufficiently, merely by
enabling him to bestow a benefit upon Socrates. Why, then, did
Socrates say this? Being a joker and a speaker in parables--a man
who turned all, especially the great, into ridicule--he preferred
giving him a satirical refusal, rather than an obstinate or haughty
one, and therefore said that he did not wish to receive benefits
from one to whom he could not return as much as he received. He
feared, perhaps, that he might be forced to receive something which
he did not wish, he feared that it might be something unfit for
Socrates to receive. Some one may say, "He ought to have said that
he did not wish to go." But by so doing he would have excited
against himself the anger of an arrogant king, who wished
everything connected with himself to be highly valued. It makes no
difference to a king whether you be unwilling to give anything to
him or to accept anything from him; he is equally incensed at
either rebuff, and to be treated with disdain is more bitter to a
proud spirit than not to be feared. Do you wish to know what
Socrates really meant? He, whose freedom of speech could not be
borne even by a free state, was not willing of his own choice to
become a slave.

VII. I think that we have sufficiently discussed this part of the
subject, whether it be disgraceful to be worsted in a contest of
benefits. Whoever asks this question must know that men are not
wont to bestow benefits upon themselves, for evidently it could not
be disgraceful to be worsted by oneself. Yet some of the Stoics
debate this question, whether any one can confer a benefit upon