Contents:

Page No 1

Page No 2

Page No 3

Page No 4

Menexenus...........................................................................................................................................................1

Plato.........................................................................................................................................................1

APPENDIX I...........................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................4

MENEXENUS .........................................................................................................................................5

It seems impossible to separate by any exact line the genuine writings of Plato from the spurious. The only

external evidence to them which is of much value is that of Aristotle; for the Alexandrian catalogues of a

century later include manifest forgeries. Even the value of the Aristotelian authority is a good deal impaired

by the uncertainty concerning the date and authorship of the writings which are ascribed to him. And several

of the citations of Aristotle omit the name of Plato, and some of them omit the name of the dialogue from

which they are taken. Prior, however, to the enquiry about the writings of a particular author, general

considerations which equally affect all evidence to the genuineness of ancient writings are the following:

Shorter works are more likely to have been forged, or to have received an erroneous designation, than longer

ones; and some kinds of composition, such as epistles or panegyrical orations, are more liable to suspicion

than others; those, again, which have a taste of sophistry in them, or the ring of a later age, or the slighter

character of a rhetorical exercise, or in which a motive or some affinity to spurious writings can be detected,

or which seem to have originated in a name or statement really occurring in some classical author, are also of

doubtful credit; while there is no instance of any ancient writing proved to be a forgery, which combines

excellence with length. A really great and original writer would have no object in fathering his works on

Plato; and to the forger or imitator, the 'literary hack' of Alexandria and Athens, the Gods did not grant

originality or genius. Further, in attempting to balance the evidence for and against a Platonic dialogue, we

must not forget that the form of the Platonic writing was common to several of his contemporaries.

Aeschines, Euclid, Phaedo, Antisthenes, and in the next generation Aristotle, are all said to have composed

dialogues; and mistakes of names are very likely to have occurred. Greek literature in the third century before

Christ was almost as voluminous as our own, and without the safeguards of regular publication, or printing,

or binding, or even of distinct titles. An unknown writing was naturally attributed to a known writer whose

works bore the same character; and the name once appended easily obtained authority. A tendency may also

be observed to blend the works and opinions of the master with those of his scholars. To a later Platonist, the

difference between Plato and his imitators was not so perceptible as to ourselves. The Memorabilia of

Xenophon and the Dialogues of Plato are but a part of a considerable Socratic literature which has passed

away. And we must consider how we should regard the question of the genuineness of a particular writing, if

These considerations lead us to adopt the following criteria of genuineness: (1) That is most certainly Plato's

which Aristotle attributes to him by name, which (2) is of considerable length, of (3) great excellence, and

also (4) in harmony with the general spirit of the Platonic writings. But the testimony of Aristotle cannot

always be distinguished from that of a later age (see above); and has various degrees of importance. Those

writings which he cites without mentioning Plato, under their own names, e.g. the Hippias, the Funeral

Oration, the Phaedo, etc., have an inferior degree of evidence in their favour. They may have been supposed

by him to be the writings of another, although in the case of really great works, e.g. the Phaedo, this is not

credible; those again which are quoted but not named, are still more defective in their external credentials.

There may be also a possibility that Aristotle was mistaken, or may have confused the master and his scholars

in the case of a short writing; but this is inconceivable about a more important work, e.g. the Laws, especially

when we remember that he was living at Athens, and a frequenter of the groves of the Academy, during the

last twenty years of Plato's life. Nor must we forget that in all his numerous citations from the Platonic

writings he never attributes any passage found in the extant dialogues to any one but Plato. And lastly, we

may remark that one or two great writings, such as the Parmenides and the Politicus, which are wholly devoid

of Aristotelian (1) credentials may be fairly attributed to Plato, on the ground of (2) length, (3) excellence,

and (4) accordance with the general spirit of his writings. Indeed the greater part of the evidence for the

genuineness of ancient Greek authors may be summed up under two heads only: (1) excellence; and (2)

uniformity of traditiona kind of evidence, which though in many cases sufficient, is of inferior value.

Proceeding upon these principles we appear to arrive at the conclusion that nineteentwentieths of all the

writings which have ever been ascribed to Plato, are undoubtedly genuine. There is another portion of them,

including the Epistles, the Epinomis, the dialogues rejected by the ancients themselves, namely, the

Axiochus, De justo, De virtute, Demodocus, Sisyphus, Eryxias, which on grounds, both of internal and

external evidence, we are able with equal certainty to reject. But there still remains a small portion of which

we are unable to affirm either that they are genuine or spurious. They may have been written in youth, or

possibly like the works of some painters, may be partly or wholly the compositions of pupils; or they may

have been the writings of some contemporary transferred by accident to the more celebrated name of Plato, or

of some Platonist in the next generation who aspired to imitate his master. Not that on grounds either of

language or philosophy we should lightly reject them. Some difference of style, or inferiority of execution, or

inconsistency of thought, can hardly be considered decisive of their spurious character. For who always does

justice to himself, or who writes with equal care at all times? Certainly not Plato, who exhibits the greatest

differences in dramatic power, in the formation of sentences, and in the use of words, if his earlier writings

are compared with his later ones, say the Protagoras or Phaedrus with the Laws. Or who can be expected to

think in the same manner during a period of authorship extending over above fifty years, in an age of great

intellectual activity, as well as of political and literary transition? Certainly not Plato, whose earlier writings

are separated from his later ones by as wide an interval of philosophical speculation as that which separates

The dialogues which have been translated in the first Appendix, and which appear to have the next claim to

genuineness among the Platonic writings, are the Lesser Hippias, the Menexenus or Funeral Oration, the First

Alcibiades. Of these, the Lesser Hippias and the Funeral Oration are cited by Aristotle; the first in the

Metaphysics, the latter in the Rhetoric. Neither of them are expressly attributed to Plato, but in his citation of

both of them he seems to be referring to passages in the extant dialogues. From the mention of 'Hippias' in the

singular by Aristotle, we may perhaps infer that he was unacquainted with a second dialogue bearing the

same name. Moreover, the mere existence of a Greater and Lesser Hippias, and of a First and Second

Alcibiades, does to a certain extent throw a doubt upon both of them. Though a very clever and ingenious

work, the Lesser Hippias does not appear to contain anything beyond the power of an imitator, who was also

a careful student of the earlier Platonic writings, to invent. The motive or leading thought of the dialogue may

be detected in Xen. Mem., and there is no similar instance of a 'motive' which is taken from Xenophon in an

undoubted dialogue of Plato. On the other hand, the upholders of the genuineness of the dialogue will find in

the Hippias a true Socratic spirit; they will compare the Ion as being akin both in subject and treatment; they

will urge the authority of Aristotle; and they will detect in the treatment of the Sophist, in the satirical

reasoning upon Homer, in the reductio ad absurdum of the doctrine that vice is ignorance, traces of a Platonic

authorship. In reference to the last point we are doubtful, as in some of the other dialogues, whether the

author is asserting or overthrowing the paradox of Socrates, or merely following the argument 'whither the

wind blows.' That no conclusion is arrived at is also in accordance with the character of the earlier dialogues.

The resemblances or imitations of the Gorgias, Protagoras, and Euthydemus, which have been observed in

the Hippias, cannot with certainty be adduced on either side of the argument. On the whole, more may be said

The Menexenus or Funeral Oration is cited by Aristotle, and is interesting as supplying an example of the

manner in which the orators praised 'the Athenians among the Athenians,' falsifying persons and dates, and

casting a veil over the gloomier events of Athenian history. It exhibits an acquaintance with the funeral

oration of Thucydides, and was, perhaps, intended to rival that great work. If genuine, the proper place of the

Menexenus would be at the end of the Phaedrus. The satirical opening and the concluding words bear a great

resemblance to the earlier dialogues; the oration itself is professedly a mimetic work, like the speeches in the

Phaedrus, and cannot therefore be tested by a comparison of the other writings of Plato. The funeral oration

of Pericles is expressly mentioned in the Phaedrus, and this may have suggested the subject, in the same

manner that the Cleitophon appears to be suggested by the slight mention of Cleitophon and his attachment to

Thrasymachus in the Republic; and the Theages by the mention of Theages in the Apology and Republic; or

as the Second Alcibiades seems to be founded upon the text of Xenophon, Mem. A similar taste for parody

appears not only in the Phaedrus, but in the Protagoras, in the Symposium, and to a certain extent in the

To these two doubtful writings of Plato I have added the First Alcibiades, which, of all the disputed dialogues

of Plato, has the greatest merit, and is somewhat longer than any of them, though not verified by the

testimony of Aristotle, and in many respects at variance with the Symposium in the description of the

relations of Socrates and Alcibiades. Like the Lesser Hippias and the Menexenus, it is to be compared to the

earlier writings of Plato. The motive of the piece may, perhaps, be found in that passage of the Symposium in

which Alcibiades describes himself as selfconvicted by the words of Socrates. For the disparaging manner

in which Schleiermacher has spoken of this dialogue there seems to be no sufficient foundation. At the same

time, the lesson imparted is simple, and the irony more transparent than in the undoubted dialogues of Plato.

We know, too, that Alcibiades was a favourite thesis, and that at least five or six dialogues bearing this name

passed current in antiquity, and are attributed to contemporaries of Socrates and Plato. (1) In the entire

absence of real external evidence (for the catalogues of the Alexandrian librarians cannot be regarded as

trustworthy); and (2) in the absence of the highest marks either of poetical or philosophical excellence; and

(3) considering that we have express testimony to the existence of contemporary writings bearing the name of

Alcibiades, we are compelled to suspend our judgment on the genuineness of the extant dialogue.

Neither at this point, nor at any other, do we propose to draw an absolute line of demarcation between

genuine and spurious writings of Plato. They fade off imperceptibly from one class to another. There may

have been degrees of genuineness in the dialogues themselves, as there are certainly degrees of evidence by

which they are supported. The traditions of the oral discourses both of Socrates and Plato may have formed

the basis of semiPlatonic writings; some of them may be of the same mixed character which is apparent in

Aristotle and Hippocrates, although the form of them is different. But the writings of Plato, unlike the

writings of Aristotle, seem never to have been confused with the writings of his disciples: this was probably

due to their definite form, and to their inimitable excellence. The three dialogues which we have offered in

the Appendix to the criticism of the reader may be partly spurious and partly genuine; they may be altogether

spurious;that is an alternative which must be frankly admitted. Nor can we maintain of some other

dialogues, such as the Parmenides, and the Sophist, and Politicus, that no considerable objection can be urged

against them, though greatly overbalanced by the weight (chiefly) of internal evidence in their favour. Nor,

on the other hand, can we exclude a bare possibility that some dialogues which are usually rejected, such as

the Greater Hippias and the Cleitophon, may be genuine. The nature and object of these semiPlatonic

writings require more careful study and more comparison of them with one another, and with forged writings

in general, than they have yet received, before we can finally decide on their character. We do not consider

them all as genuine until they can be proved to be spurious, as is often maintained and still more often

implied in this and similar discussions; but should say of some of them, that their genuineness is neither

proven nor disproven until further evidence about them can be adduced. And we are as confident that the

Epistles are spurious, as that the Republic, the Timaeus, and the Laws are genuine.

On the whole, not a twentieth part of the writings which pass under the name of Plato, if we exclude the

works rejected by the ancients themselves and two or three other plausible inventions, can be fairly doubted

by those who are willing to allow that a considerable change and growth may have taken place in his

philosophy (see above). That twentieth debatable portion scarcely in any degree affects our judgment of

Plato, either as a thinker or a writer, and though suggesting some interesting questions to the scholar and

The Menexenus has more the character of a rhetorical exercise than any other of the Platonic works. The

writer seems to have wished to emulate Thucydides, and the far slighter work of Lysias. In his rivalry with

the latter, to whom in the Phaedrus Plato shows a strong antipathy, he is entirely successful, but he is not

equal to Thucydides. The Menexenus, though not without real Hellenic interest, falls very far short of the

rugged grandeur and political insight of the great historian. The fiction of the speech having been invented by

Aspasia is well sustained, and is in the manner of Plato, notwithstanding the anachronism which puts into her

mouth an allusion to the peace of Antalcidas, an event occurring forty years after the date of the supposed

oration. But Plato, like Shakespeare, is careless of such anachronisms, which are not supposed to strike the

mind of the reader. The effect produced by these grandiloquent orations on Socrates, who does not recover

Such discourses, if we may form a judgment from the three which are extant (for the socalled Funeral

Oration of Demosthenes is a bad and spurious imitation of Thucydides and Lysias), conformed to a regular

type. They began with Gods and ancestors, and the legendary history of Athens, to which succeeded an

almost equally fictitious account of later times. The Persian war usually formed the centre of the narrative; in

the age of Isocrates and Demosthenes the Athenians were still living on the glories of Marathon and Salamis.

The Menexenus veils in panegyric the weak places of Athenian history. The war of Athens and Boeotia is a

war of liberation; the Athenians gave back the Spartans taken at Sphacteria out of kindness indeed, the

only fault of the city was too great kindness to their enemies, who were more honoured than the friends of

others (compare Thucyd., which seems to contain the germ of the idea); we democrats are the aristocracy of

virtue, and the like. These are the platitudes and falsehoods in which history is disguised. The taking of

The author of the Menexenus, whether Plato or not, is evidently intending to ridicule the practice, and at the

same time to show that he can beat the rhetoricians in their own line, as in the Phaedrus he may be supposed

to offer an example of what Lysias might have said, and of how much better he might have written in his own

style. The orators had recourse to their favourite loci communes, one of which, as we find in Lysias, was the

shortness of the time allowed them for preparation. But Socrates points out that they had them always ready

for delivery, and that there was no difficulty in improvising any number of such orations. To praise the

Athenians among the Athenians was easy,to praise them among the Lacedaemonians would have been a

much more difficult task. Socrates himself has turned rhetorician, having learned of a woman, Aspasia, the

mistress of Pericles; and any one whose teachers had been far inferior to his ownsay, one who had learned

from Antiphon the Rhamnusianwould be quite equal to the task of praising men to themselves. When we

remember that Antiphon is described by Thucydides as the best pleader of his day, the satire on him and on

The ironical assumption of Socrates, that he must be a good orator because he had learnt of Aspasia, is not

coarse, as Schleiermacher supposes, but is rather to be regarded as fanciful. Nor can we say that the offer of

Socrates to dance naked out of love for Menexenus, is any more unPlatonic than the threat of physical force

which Phaedrus uses towards Socrates. Nor is there any real vulgarity in the fear which Socrates expresses

that he will get a beating from his mistress, Aspasia: this is the natural exaggeration of what might be

expected from an imperious woman. Socrates is not to be taken seriously in all that he says, and Plato, both in

the Symposium and elsewhere, is not slow to admit a sort of Aristophanic humour. How a great original

genius like Plato might or might not have written, what was his conception of humour, or what limits he

would have prescribed to himself, if any, in drawing the picture of the Silenus Socrates, are problems which

On the other hand, the dialogue has several Platonic traits, whether original or imitated may be uncertain.

Socrates, when he departs from his character of a 'know nothing' and delivers a speech, generally pretends

that what he is speaking is not his own composition. Thus in the Cratylus he is run away with; in the

Phaedrus he has heard somebody say something is inspired by the genius loci; in the Symposium he

derives his wisdom from Diotima of Mantinea, and the like. But he does not impose on Menexenus by his

dissimulation. Without violating the character of Socrates, Plato, who knows so well how to give a hint, or

some one writing in his name, intimates clearly enough that the speech in the Menexenus like that in the

Phaedrus is to be attributed to Socrates. The address of the dead to the living at the end of the oration may

also be compared to the numerous addresses of the same kind which occur in Plato, in whom the dramatic

element is always tending to prevail over the rhetorical. The remark has been often made, that in the Funeral

Oration of Thucydides there is no allusion to the existence of the dead. But in the Menexenus a future state is

Whether the Menexenus is a genuine writing of Plato, or an imitation only, remains uncertain. In either case,

the thoughts are partly borrowed from the Funeral Oration of Thucydides; and the fact that they are so, is not

in favour of the genuineness of the work. Internal evidence seems to leave the question of authorship in

doubt. There are merits and there are defects which might lead to either conclusion. The form of the greater

part of the work makes the enquiry difficult; the introduction and the finale certainly wear the look either of

Plato or of an extremely skilful imitator. The excellence of the forgery may be fairly adduced as an argument

that it is not a forgery at all. In this uncertainty the express testimony of Aristotle, who quotes, in the

Rhetoric, the wellknown words, 'It is easy to praise the Athenians among the Athenians,' from the Funeral

Oration, may perhaps turn the balance in its favour. It must be remembered also that the work was famous in

SOCRATES: And what might you be doing at the Council? And yet I need hardly ask, for I see that you,

believing yourself to have arrived at the end of education and of philosophy, and to have had enough of them,

are mounting upwards to things higher still, and, though rather young for the post, are intending to govern us

elder men, like the rest of your family, which has always provided some one who kindly took care of us.

MENEXENUS: Yes, Socrates, I shall be ready to hold office, if you allow and advise that I should, but not if

you think otherwise. I went to the council chamber because I heard that the Council was about to choose

some one who was to speak over the dead. For you know that there is to be a public funeral?

MENEXENUS: No one; they delayed the election until tomorrow, but I believe that either Archinus or Dion

SOCRATES: O Menexenus! Death in battle is certainly in many respects a noble thing. The dead man gets a

fine and costly funeral, although he may have been poor, and an elaborate speech is made over him by a wise

man who has long ago prepared what he has to say, although he who is praised may not have been good for

much. The speakers praise him for what he has done and for what he has not donethat is the beauty of

themand they steal away our souls with their embellished words; in every conceivable form they praise the

city; and they praise those who died in war, and all our ancestors who went before us; and they praise

ourselves also who are still alive, until I feel quite elevated by their laudations, and I stand listening to their

words, Menexenus, and become enchanted by them, and all in a moment I imagine myself to have become a

greater and nobler and finer man than I was before. And if, as often happens, there are any foreigners who

accompany me to the speech, I become suddenly conscious of having a sort of triumph over them, and they

seem to experience a corresponding feeling of admiration at me, and at the greatness of the city, which

appears to them, when they are under the influence of the speaker, more wonderful than ever. This

consciousness of dignity lasts me more than three days, and not until the fourth or fifth day do I come to my

senses and know where I am; in the meantime I have been living in the Islands of the Blest. Such is the art of

our rhetoricians, and in such manner does the sound of their words keep ringing in my ears.

MENEXENUS: You are always making fun of the rhetoricians, Socrates; this time, however, I am inclined

to think that the speaker who is chosen will not have much to say, for he has been called upon to speak at a

SOCRATES: But why, my friend, should he not have plenty to say? Every rhetorician has speeches ready

made; nor is there any difficulty in improvising that sort of stuff. Had the orator to praise Athenians among

Peloponnesians, or Peloponnesians among Athenians, he must be a good rhetorician who could succeed and

gain credit. But there is no difficulty in a man's winning applause when he is contending for fame among the

MENEXENUS: Do you think that you could speak yourself if there should be a necessity, and if the Council

SOCRATES: That I should be able to speak is no great wonder, Menexenus, considering that I have an

excellent mistress in the art of rhetoric,she who has made so many good speakers, and one who was the

SOCRATES: Yes, I do; and besides her I had Connus, the son of Metrobius, as a master, and he was my

master in music, as she was in rhetoric. No wonder that a man who has received such an education should be

a finished speaker; even the pupil of very inferior masters, say, for example, one who had learned music of

Lamprus, and rhetoric of Antiphon the Rhamnusian, might make a figure if he were to praise the Athenians

SOCRATES: Of my own wit, most likely nothing; but yesterday I heard Aspasia composing a funeral

oration about these very dead. For she had been told, as you were saying, that the Athenians were going to

choose a speaker, and she repeated to me the sort of speech which he should deliver, partly improvising and

partly from previous thought, putting together fragments of the funeral oration which Pericles spoke, but

SOCRATES: I ought to be able, for she taught me, and she was ready to strike me because I was always

SOCRATES: Because I am afraid that my mistress may be angry with me if I publish her speech.

MENEXENUS: Nay, Socrates, let us have the speech, whether Aspasia's or any one else's, no matter. I hope

SOCRATES: But I am afraid that you will laugh at me if I continue the games of youth in old age.

SOCRATES: Truly I have such a disposition to oblige you, that if you bid me dance naked I should not like

to refuse, since we are alone. Listen then: If I remember rightly, she began as follows, with the mention of the

There is a tribute of deeds and of words. The departed have already had the first, when going forth on their

destined journey they were attended on their way by the state and by their friends; the tribute of words

remains to be given to them, as is meet and by law ordained. For noble words are a memorial and a crown of

noble actions, which are given to the doers of them by the hearers. A word is needed which will duly praise

the dead and gently admonish the living, exhorting the brethren and descendants of the departed to imitate

their virtue, and consoling their fathers and mothers and the survivors, if any, who may chance to be alive of

the previous generation. What sort of a word will this be, and how shall we rightly begin the praises of these

brave men? In their life they rejoiced their own friends with their valour, and their death they gave in

exchange for the salvation of the living. And I think that we should praise them in the order in which nature

made them good, for they were good because they were sprung from good fathers. Wherefore let us first of

all praise the goodness of their birth; secondly, their nurture and education; and then let us set forth how

noble their actions were, and how worthy of the education which they had received.

And first as to their birth. Their ancestors were not strangers, nor are these their descendants sojourners only,

whose fathers have come from another country; but they are the children of the soil, dwelling and living in

their own land. And the country which brought them up is not like other countries, a stepmother to her

children, but their own true mother; she bore them and nourished them and received them, and in her bosom

they now repose. It is meet and right, therefore, that we should begin by praising the land which is their

The country is worthy to be praised, not only by us, but by all mankind; first, and above all, as being dear to

the Gods. This is proved by the strife and contention of the Gods respecting her. And ought not the country

which the Gods praise to be praised by all mankind? The second praise which may be fairly claimed by her,

is that at the time when the whole earth was sending forth and creating diverse animals, tame and wild, she

our mother was free and pure from savage monsters, and out of all animals selected and brought forth man,

who is superior to the rest in understanding, and alone has justice and religion. And a great proof that she

brought forth the common ancestors of us and of the departed, is that she provided the means of support for

her offspring. For as a woman proves her motherhood by giving milk to her young ones (and she who has no

fountain of milk is not a mother), so did this our land prove that she was the mother of men, for in those days

she alone and first of all brought forth wheat and barley for human food, which is the best and noblest

sustenance for man, whom she regarded as her true offspring. And these are truer proofs of motherhood in a

country than in a woman, for the woman in her conception and generation is but the imitation of the earth,

and not the earth of the woman. And of the fruit of the earth she gave a plenteous supply, not only to her own,

but to others also; and afterwards she made the olive to spring up to be a boon to her children, and to help

them in their toils. And when she had herself nursed them and brought them up to manhood, she gave them

Gods to be their rulers and teachers, whose names are well known, and need not now be repeated. They are

the Gods who first ordered our lives, and instructed us in the arts for the supply of our daily needs, and taught

Thus born into the world and thus educated, the ancestors of the departed lived and made themselves a

government, which I ought briefly to commemorate. For government is the nurture of man, and the

government of good men is good, and of bad men bad. And I must show that our ancestors were trained

under a good government, and for this reason they were good, and our contemporaries are also good, among

whom our departed friends are to be reckoned. Then as now, and indeed always, from that time to this,

speaking generally, our government was an aristocracya form of government which receives various

names, according to the fancies of men, and is sometimes called democracy, but is really an aristocracy or

government of the best which has the approval of the many. For kings we have always had, first hereditary

and then elected, and authority is mostly in the hands of the people, who dispense offices and power to those

who appear to be most deserving of them. Neither is a man rejected from weakness or poverty or obscurity of

origin, nor honoured by reason of the opposite, as in other states, but there is one principlehe who appears

to be wise and good is a governor and ruler. The basis of this our government is equality of birth; for other

states are made up of all sorts and unequal conditions of men, and therefore their governments are unequal;

there are tyrannies and there are oligarchies, in which the one party are slaves and the others masters. But we

and our citizens are brethren, the children all of one mother, and we do not think it right to be one another's

masters or servants; but the natural equality of birth compels us to seek for legal equality, and to recognize no

And so their and our fathers, and these, too, our brethren, being nobly born and having been brought up in all

freedom, did both in their public and private capacity many noble deeds famous over the whole world. They

were the deeds of men who thought that they ought to fight both against Hellenes for the sake of Hellenes on

behalf of freedom, and against barbarians in the common interest of Hellas. Time would fail me to tell of

their defence of their country against the invasion of Eumolpus and the Amazons, or of their defence of the

Argives against the Cadmeians, or of the Heracleids against the Argives; besides, the poets have already

declared in song to all mankind their glory, and therefore any commemoration of their deeds in prose which

we might attempt would hold a second place. They already have their reward, and I say no more of them; but

there are other worthy deeds of which no poet has worthily sung, and which are still wooing the poet's muse.

Of these I am bound to make honourable mention, and shall invoke others to sing of them also in lyric and

other strains, in a manner becoming the actors. And first I will tell how the Persians, lords of Asia, were

enslaving Europe, and how the children of this land, who were our fathers, held them back. Of these I will

speak first, and praise their valour, as is meet and fitting. He who would rightly estimate them should place

himself in thought at that time, when the whole of Asia was subject to the third king of Persia. The first king,

Cyrus, by his valour freed the Persians, who were his countrymen, and subjected the Medes, who were their

lords, and he ruled over the rest of Asia, as far as Egypt; and after him came his son, who ruled all the

accessible part of Egypt and Libya; the third king was Darius, who extended the land boundaries of the

empire to Scythia, and with his fleet held the sea and the islands. None presumed to be his equal; the minds

of all men were enthralled by himso many and mighty and warlike nations had the power of Persia

subdued. Now Darius had a quarrel against us and the Eretrians, because, as he said, we had conspired

against Sardis, and he sent 500,000 men in transports and vessels of war, and 300 ships, and Datis as

commander, telling him to bring the Eretrians and Athenians to the king, if he wished to keep his head on his

shoulders. He sailed against the Eretrians, who were reputed to be amongst the noblest and most warlike of

the Hellenes of that day, and they were numerous, but he conquered them all in three days; and when he had

conquered them, in order that no one might escape, he searched the whole country after this manner: his

soldiers, coming to the borders of Eretria and spreading from sea to sea, joined hands and passed through the

whole country, in order that they might be able to tell the king that no one had escaped them. And from

Eretria they went to Marathon with a like intention, expecting to bind the Athenians in the same yoke of

necessity in which they had bound the Eretrians. Having effected onehalf of their purpose, they were in the

act of attempting the other, and none of the Hellenes dared to assist either the Eretrians or the Athenians,

except the Lacedaemonians, and they arrived a day too late for the battle; but the rest were panicstricken

and kept quiet, too happy in having escaped for a time. He who has present to his mind that conflict will

know what manner of men they were who received the onset of the barbarians at Marathon, and chastened the

pride of the whole of Asia, and by the victory which they gained over the barbarians first taught other men

that the power of the Persians was not invincible, but that hosts of men and the multitude of riches alike yield

to valour. And I assert that those men are the fathers not only of ourselves, but of our liberties and of the

liberties of all who are on the continent, for that was the action to which the Hellenes looked back when they

ventured to fight for their own safety in the battles which ensued: they became disciples of the men of

Marathon. To them, therefore, I assign in my speech the first place, and the second to those who fought and

conquered in the sea fights at Salamis and Artemisium; for of them, too, one might have many things to

sayof the assaults which they endured by sea and land, and how they repelled them. I will mention only

that act of theirs which appears to me to be the noblest, and which followed that of Marathon and came

nearest to it; for the men of Marathon only showed the Hellenes that it was possible to ward off the

barbarians by land, the many by the few; but there was no proof that they could be defeated by ships, and at

sea the Persians retained the reputation of being invincible in numbers and wealth and skill and strength. This

is the glory of the men who fought at sea, that they dispelled the second terror which had hitherto possessed

the Hellenes, and so made the fear of numbers, whether of ships or men, to cease among them. And so the

soldiers of Marathon and the sailors of Salamis became the schoolmasters of Hellas; the one teaching and

habituating the Hellenes not to fear the barbarians at sea, and the others not to fear them by land. Third in

order, for the number and valour of the combatants, and third in the salvation of Hellas, I place the battle of

Plataea. And now the Lacedaemonians as well as the Athenians took part in the struggle; they were all united

in this greatest and most terrible conflict of all; wherefore their virtues will be celebrated in times to come, as

they are now celebrated by us. But at a later period many Hellenic tribes were still on the side of the

barbarians, and there was a report that the great king was going to make a new attempt upon the Hellenes,

and therefore justice requires that we should also make mention of those who crowned the previous work of

our salvation, and drove and purged away all barbarians from the sea. These were the men who fought by sea

at the river Eurymedon, and who went on the expedition to Cyprus, and who sailed to Egypt and divers other

places; and they should be gratefully remembered by us, because they compelled the king in fear for himself

And so the war against the barbarians was fought out to the end by the whole city on their own behalf, and on

behalf of their countrymen. There was peace, and our city was held in honour; and then, as prosperity makes

men jealous, there succeeded a jealousy of her, and jealousy begat envy, and so she became engaged against

her will in a war with the Hellenes. On the breaking out of war, our citizens met the Lacedaemonians at

Tanagra, and fought for the freedom of the Boeotians; the issue was doubtful, and was decided by the

engagement which followed. For when the Lacedaemonians had gone on their way, leaving the Boeotians,

whom they were aiding, on the third day after the battle of Tanagra, our countrymen conquered at Oenophyta,

and righteously restored those who had been unrighteously exiled. And they were the first after the Persian

war who fought on behalf of liberty in aid of Hellenes against Hellenes; they were brave men, and freed those

whom they aided, and were the first too who were honourably interred in this sepulchre by the state.

Afterwards there was a mighty war, in which all the Hellenes joined, and devastated our country, which was

very ungrateful of them; and our countrymen, after defeating them in a naval engagement and taking their

leaders, the Spartans, at Sphagia, when they might have destroyed them, spared their lives, and gave them

back, and made peace, considering that they should war with the fellowcountrymen only until they gained a

victory over them, and not because of the private anger of the state destroy the common interest of Hellas; but

that with barbarians they should war to the death. Worthy of praise are they also who waged this war, and are

here interred; for they proved, if any one doubted the superior prowess of the Athenians in the former war

with the barbarians, that their doubts had no foundationshowing by their victory in the civil war with

Hellas, in which they subdued the other chief state of the Hellenes, that they could conquer singlehanded

those with whom they had been allied in the war against the barbarians. After the peace there followed a third

war, which was of a terrible and desperate nature, and in this many brave men who are here interred lost their

livesmany of them had won victories in Sicily, whither they had gone over the seas to fight for the liberties

of the Leontines, to whom they were bound by oaths; but, owing to the distance, the city was unable to help

them, and they lost heart and came to misfortune, their very enemies and opponents winning more renown for

valour and temperance than the friends of others. Many also fell in naval engagements at the Hellespont, after

having in one day taken all the ships of the enemy, and defeated them in other naval engagements. And what

I call the terrible and desperate nature of the war, is that the other Hellenes, in their extreme animosity

towards the city, should have entered into negotiations with their bitterest enemy, the king of Persia, whom

they, together with us, had expelled;him, without us, they again brought back, barbarian against Hellenes,

and all the hosts, both of Hellenes and barbarians, were united against Athens. And then shone forth the

power and valour of our city. Her enemies had supposed that she was exhausted by the war, and our ships

were blockaded at Mitylene. But the citizens themselves embarked, and came to the rescue with sixty other

ships, and their valour was confessed of all men, for they conquered their enemies and delivered their friends.

And yet by some evil fortune they were left to perish at sea, and therefore are not interred here. Ever to be

remembered and honoured are they, for by their valour not only that sea fight was won for us, but the entire

war was decided by them, and through them the city gained the reputation of being invincible, even though

attacked by all mankind. And that reputation was a true one, for the defeat which came upon us was our own

doing. We were never conquered by others, and to this day we are still unconquered by them; but we were

our own conquerors, and received defeat at our own hands. Afterwards there was quiet and peace abroad, but

there sprang up war at home; and, if men are destined to have civil war, no one could have desired that his

city should take the disorder in a milder form. How joyful and natural was the reconciliation of those who

came from the Piraeus and those who came from the city; with what moderation did they order the war

against the tyrants in Eleusis, and in a manner how unlike what the other Hellenes expected! And the reason

of this gentleness was the veritable tie of blood, which created among them a friendship as of kinsmen,

faithful not in word only, but in deed. And we ought also to remember those who then fell by one another's

hands, and on such occasions as these to reconcile them with sacrifices and prayers, praying to those who

have power over them, that they may be reconciled even as we are reconciled. For they did not attack one

another out of malice or enmity, but they were unfortunate. And that such was the fact we ourselves are

witnesses, who are of the same race with them, and have mutually received and granted forgiveness of what

we have done and suffered. After this there was perfect peace, and the city had rest; and her feeling was that

she forgave the barbarians, who had severely suffered at her hands and severely retaliated, but that she was

indignant at the ingratitude of the Hellenes, when she remembered how they had received good from her and

returned evil, having made common cause with the barbarians, depriving her of the ships which had once

been their salvation, and dismantling our walls, which had preserved their own from falling. She thought that

she would no longer defend the Hellenes, when enslaved either by one another or by the barbarians, and did

accordingly. This was our feeling, while the Lacedaemonians were thinking that we who were the champions

of liberty had fallen, and that their business was to subject the remaining Hellenes. And why should I say

more? for the events of which I am speaking happened not long ago and we can all of us remember how the

chief peoples of Hellas, Argives and Boeotians and Corinthians, came to feel the need of us, and, what is the

greatest miracle of all, the Persian king himself was driven to such extremity as to come round to the opinion,

that from this city, of which he was the destroyer, and from no other, his salvation would proceed.

And if a person desired to bring a deserved accusation against our city, he would find only one charge which

he could justly urgethat she was too compassionate and too favourable to the weaker side. And in this

instance she was not able to hold out or keep her resolution of refusing aid to her injurers when they were

being enslaved, but she was softened, and did in fact send out aid, and delivered the Hellenes from slavery,

and they were free until they afterwards enslaved themselves. Whereas, to the great king she refused to give

the assistance of the state, for she could not forget the trophies of Marathon and Salamis and Plataea; but she

allowed exiles and volunteers to assist him, and they were his salvation. And she herself, when she was

compelled, entered into the war, and built walls and ships, and fought with the Lacedaemonians on behalf of

the Parians. Now the king fearing this city and wanting to stand aloof, when he saw the Lacedaemonians

growing weary of the war at sea, asked of us, as the price of his alliance with us and the other allies, to give

up the Hellenes in Asia, whom the Lacedaemonians had previously handed over to him, he thinking that we

should refuse, and that then he might have a pretence for withdrawing from us. About the other allies he was

mistaken, for the Corinthians and Argives and Boeotians, and the other states, were quite willing to let them

go, and swore and covenanted, that, if he would pay them money, they would make over to him the Hellenes

of the continent, and we alone refused to give them up and swear. Such was the natural nobility of this city,

so sound and healthy was the spirit of freedom among us, and the instinctive dislike of the barbarian, because

we are pure Hellenes, having no admixture of barbarism in us. For we are not like many others, descendants

of Pelops or Cadmus or Egyptus or Danaus, who are by nature barbarians, and yet pass for Hellenes, and

dwell in the midst of us; but we are pure Hellenes, uncontaminated by any foreign element, and therefore the

hatred of the foreigner has passed unadulterated into the lifeblood of the city. And so, notwithstanding our

noble sentiments, we were again isolated, because we were unwilling to be guilty of the base and unholy act

of giving up Hellenes to barbarians. And we were in the same case as when we were subdued before; but, by

the favour of Heaven, we managed better, for we ended the war without the loss of our ships or walls or

colonies; the enemy was only too glad to be quit of us. Yet in this war we lost many brave men, such as were

those who fell owing to the ruggedness of the ground at the battle of Corinth, or by treason at Lechaeum.

Brave men, too, were those who delivered the Persian king, and drove the Lacedaemonians from the sea. I

remind you of them, and you must celebrate them together with me, and do honour to their memories.

Such were the actions of the men who are here interred, and of others who have died on behalf of their

country; many and glorious things I have spoken of them, and there are yet many more and more glorious

things remaining to be toldmany days and nights would not suffice to tell of them. Let them not be

forgotten, and let every man remind their descendants that they also are soldiers who must not desert the

ranks of their ancestors, or from cowardice fall behind. Even as I exhort you this day, and in all future time,

whenever I meet with any of you, shall continue to remind and exhort you, O ye sons of heroes, that you

strive to be the bravest of men. And I think that I ought now to repeat what your fathers desired to have said

to you who are their survivors, when they went out to battle, in case anything happened to them. I will tell

you what I heard them say, and what, if they had only speech, they would fain be saying, judging from what

they then said. And you must imagine that you hear them saying what I now repeat to you:

'Sons, the event proves that your fathers were brave men; for we might have lived dishonourably, but have

preferred to die honourably rather than bring you and your children into disgrace, and rather than dishonour

our own fathers and forefathers; considering that life is not life to one who is a dishonour to his race, and that

to such a one neither men nor Gods are friendly, either while he is on the earth or after death in the world

below. Remember our words, then, and whatever is your aim let virtue be the condition of the attainment of

your aim, and know that without this all possessions and pursuits are dishonourable and evil. For neither does

wealth bring honour to the owner, if he be a coward; of such a one the wealth belongs to another, and not to

himself. Nor does beauty and strength of body, when dwelling in a base and cowardly man, appear comely,

but the reverse of comely, making the possessor more conspicuous, and manifesting forth his cowardice. And

all knowledge, when separated from justice and virtue, is seen to be cunning and not wisdom; wherefore

make this your first and last and constant and allabsorbing aim, to exceed, if possible, not only us but all

your ancestors in virtue; and know that to excel you in virtue only brings us shame, but that to be excelled by

you is a source of happiness to us. And we shall most likely be defeated, and you will most likely be victors

in the contest, if you learn so to order your lives as not to abuse or waste the reputation of your ancestors,

knowing that to a man who has any selfrespect, nothing is more dishonourable than to be honoured, not for

his own sake, but on account of the reputation of his ancestors. The honour of parents is a fair and noble

treasure to their posterity, but to have the use of a treasure of wealth and honour, and to leave none to your

successors, because you have neither money nor reputation of your own, is alike base and dishonourable. And

if you follow our precepts you will be received by us as friends, when the hour of destiny brings you hither;

but if you neglect our words and are disgraced in your lives, no one will welcome or receive you. This is the

'Some of us have fathers and mothers still living, and we would urge them, if, as is likely, we shall die, to

bear the calamity as lightly as possible, and not to condole with one another; for they have sorrows enough,

and will not need any one to stir them up. While we gently heal their wounds, let us remind them that the

Gods have heard the chief part of their prayers; for they prayed, not that their children might live for ever, but

that they might be brave and renowned. And this, which is the greatest good, they have attained. A mortal

man cannot expect to have everything in his own life turning out according to his will; and they, if they bear

their misfortunes bravely, will be truly deemed brave fathers of the brave. But if they give way to their

sorrows, either they will be suspected of not being our parents, or we of not being such as our panegyrists

declare. Let not either of the two alternatives happen, but rather let them be our chief and true panegyrists,

who show in their lives that they are true men, and had men for their sons. Of old the saying, "Nothing too

much," appeared to be, and really was, well said. For he whose happiness rests with himself, if possible,

wholly, and if not, as far as is possible,who is not hanging in suspense on other men, or changing with the

vicissitude of their fortune,has his life ordered for the best. He is the temperate and valiant and wise; and

when his riches come and go, when his children are given and taken away, he will remember the proverb

"Neither rejoicing overmuch nor grieving overmuch," for he relies upon himself. And such we would have

our parents to bethat is our word and wish, and as such we now offer ourselves, neither lamenting

overmuch, nor fearing overmuch, if we are to die at this time. And we entreat our fathers and mothers to

retain these feelings throughout their future life, and to be assured that they will not please us by sorrowing

and lamenting over us. But, if the dead have any knowledge of the living, they will displease us most by

making themselves miserable and by taking their misfortunes too much to heart, and they will please us best

if they bear their loss lightly and temperately. For our life will have the noblest end which is vouchsafed to

man, and should be glorified rather than lamented. And if they will direct their minds to the care and nurture

of our wives and children, they will soonest forget their misfortunes, and live in a better and nobler way, and

'This is all that we have to say to our families: and to the state we would sayTake care of our parents and

of our sons: let her worthily cherish the old age of our parents, and bring up our sons in the right way. But we

know that she will of her own accord take care of them, and does not need any exhortation of ours.'

This, O ye children and parents of the dead, is the message which they bid us deliver to you, and which I do

deliver with the utmost seriousness. And in their name I beseech you, the children, to imitate your fathers,

and you, parents, to be of good cheer about yourselves; for we will nourish your age, and take care of you

both publicly and privately in any place in which one of us may meet one of you who are the parents of the

dead. And the care of you which the city shows, you know yourselves; for she has made provision by law

concerning the parents and children of those who die in war; the highest authority is specially entrusted with

the duty of watching over them above all other citizens, and they will see that your fathers and mothers have

no wrong done to them. The city herself shares in the education of the children, desiring as far as it is possible

that their orphanhood may not be felt by them; while they are children she is a parent to them, and when they

have arrived at man's estate she sends them to their several duties, in full armour clad; and bringing freshly to

their minds the ways of their fathers, she places in their hands the instruments of their fathers' virtues; for the

sake of the omen, she would have them from the first begin to rule over their own houses arrayed in the

strength and arms of their fathers. And as for the dead, she never ceases honouring them, celebrating in

common for all rites which become the property of each; and in addition to this, holding gymnastic and

equestrian contests, and musical festivals of every sort. She is to the dead in the place of a son and heir, and

to their sons in the place of a father, and to their parents and elder kindred in the place of a guardianever

and always caring for them. Considering this, you ought to bear your calamity the more gently; for thus you

will be most endeared to the dead and to the living, and your sorrows will heal and be healed. And now do

you and all, having lamented the dead in common according to the law, go your ways.

MENEXENUS: Truly, Socrates, I marvel that Aspasia, who is only a woman, should be able to compose

SOCRATES: Well, and do you not admire her, and are you not grateful for her speech?

MENEXENUS: Yes, Socrates, I am very grateful to her or to him who told you, and still more to you who

SOCRATES: Very good. But you must take care not to tell of me, and then at some future time I will repeat