hand, we observe Socrates giving way to the love of contradiction, which is apt to be engendered in those who are accustomed to be looked up to. It is like Dr Johnson "sitting upon" one of his admirers. Again, Nichomachides may have been a very stupid man, and really unfit for command, which would give a justification to the line taken against him. Still further, it may be said that it was part of the Socratic method, as revealed by Plato, though not by Xenophon, to see different sides to every truth. In one sense it is true that special experience is required for every department; but it is also true that general ability is available in whatever sphere it be applied.
Socrates was not always allowed to take the aggressive side in discussion. He was sometimes cross-questioned after his own fashion, and put upon his mettle. Aristippus, who had very little reverence in his composition, is reported to have attacked him with the inquiry, "whether he knew anything good?" in order that, if he mentioned anything usually considered good, such as health, strength, &c., Aristippus might refute him by proving that it was sometimes an evil. But Socrates parried the question, asking in return, "Good for what? Do you mean good for a fever?" "No," said Aristippus, "I do not." " Good for sore eyes?" "No." "Good for hunger?" "No, not that." "Well, then," said Socrates, "if you mean to ask me whether I know anything good which is not good for anything in particular, I neither know such, nor do I wish to know it." The tables are thus cleverly turned, and Socrates obtains a
