Well, I said, there is a certain thing called fear or terror ; and here, Prodicus, I should particularly like to know whether you would agree with me in defining this fear or terror as expectation of evil.
Protagoras and Hippias agreed, but Prodicus said that this was fear and not terror.
Never mind, Prodicus, I said ; but let me ask whether, if our former assertions are true, a man will pursue that which he fears when he is not compelled ? Would not this be in flat contradiction to the admission which has been already made, that he thinks the things which he fears to be evil ; and no one will pursue or voluntarily accept that which he thinks to be evil ?
That also was universally admitted.
Then, I said, these, Hippias and Prodicus, are our premisses ; and I would beg Protagoras to explain to us how he can be right in what he said at first. I do not mean in what he said quite at first, for his first statement, as you may remember, was that whereas there were five parts of virtue none of them was like any other of them ; each of them had a separate function. To this, however, I am not referring, but to the assertion which he afterwards made that of the five virtues four were nearly akin to each other, but that the fifth, which was courage, differed greatly from the others. And of this he gave me the following proof. He said : You will find, Socrates, that some of the most impious, and unrighteous, and intemperate, and ignorant of men are among the most courageous ; which proves that courage is very different from the other parts of virtue. I was surprised at his saying this at the time, and I am still more surprised now that I have discussed the matter with you. So I asked him whether by the brave he meant the confident. Yes, he replied, and the impetuous or goers. (You may remember, Protagoras, that this was your answer.)
He assented.
Well then, I said, tell us against what are the courageous ready to go — against the same dangers as the cowards ?
No, he answered.
Then against something different ?
Yes, he said.
Then do cowards go where there is safety, and the courageous where there is danger ?
Very true, I said. But I want to know against what do you say that the courageous are ready to go — against dangers, believing them to be dangers, or not against dangers ?
No, said he ; the former case has been proved by you in the previous argument to be impossible.
That, again, I replied, is quite true. And if this has been rightly proven, then no one goes to meet what he thinks to be dangers, since the want of self-control, which makes men rush into dangers, has been shown to be ignorance.
He assented.
And yet the courageous man and the coward alike go to meet that about which they are confident ; so that, in this point of view, the cowardly and the courageous go to meet the same things.
And yet, Socrates, said Protagoras, that to which the coward goes is the opposite of that to which the courageous goes ; the one, for example, is ready to go to battle, and the other is not ready.
And is going to battle honourable or disgraceful ? I said.
Honourable, he replied.
And if honourable, then already admitted by us to be good ; for all honourable actions we have admitted to be good.
That is true ; and to that opinion I shall always adhere.
True, I said. But which of the two are they who, as you say, are unwilling to go to war, which is a good and honourable thing ?
The cowards, he replied.
And what is good and honourable, I said, is also pleasant ?
It has certainly been acknowledged to be so, he replied.
And do the cowards knowingly refuse to go to the nobler, and pleasanter, and better ?
The admission of that, he replied, would belie our former admissions.
But does not the courageous man also go to meet the better, and pleasanter, and nobler ?
That must be admitted.
And the courageous man has no base fear or base confidence ?
True, he replied.
And if not base, then honourable ?
He admitted this.
And if honourable, then good ?
Yes.
But the fear and confidence of the coward or foolhardy or madman, on the contrary, are base ?
He assented.
And these base fears and confidences originate in ignorance and uninstructedness ?
True, he said.
Then as to the motive from which the cowards act, do you call it cowardice or courage ?
I should say cowardice, he replied.
And have they not been shown to be cowards through their ignorance of dangers ?
Assuredly, he said.
And because of that ignorance they are cowards ?
He assented.
And the reason why they are cowards is admitted by you to be cowardice ?
He again assented.
Then the ignorance of what is and is not dangerous is cowardice ?
He nodded assent.
But surely courage, I said, is opposed to cowardice ?
Yes.
Then the wisdom which knows what are and are not dangers is opposed to the ignorance of them ?
To that again he nodded assent.
And the ignorance of them is cowardice ?
To that he very reluctantly nodded assent.
And the knowledge of that which is and is not dangerous is courage, and is opposed to the ignorance of these things ?
At this point he would no longer nod assent, but was silent.
And why, I said, do you neither assent nor dissent, Protagoras ?
Finish the argument by yourself, he said.
I only want to ask one more question, I said. I want to know whether you still think that there are men who are most ignorant and yet most courageous ?
You seem to have a great ambition to make me answer, Socrates, and therefore I will gratify you, and say, that this appears to me to be impossible consistently with the argument.