nice to
eat, and by service of that lie to restore the boy to health, to which
account shall we set down this fraud?

Euth. In my judgment it too should be placed to the same account.

Soc. Well, supposing you have a friend in deplorably low spirits, and
you are afraid he will make away with himself--accordingly you rob him
of his knife or other such instrument: to which side ought we to set the
theft?

Euth. That too must surely be placed to the score of right behaviour.

Soc. I understand you to say that a straightforward course is not in
every case to be pursued even in dealing with friends?

Heaven forbid! (the youth exclaimed). If you will allow me, I rescind my
former statement. (31)

(31) See above, I. ii. 44 ({anatithemai}).

Soc. Allow you! Of course you may--anything rather than make a false
entry on our lists.... But there is just another point we ought not to
leave uninvestigated. Let us take the case of deceiving a friend to
his detriment: which is the more wrongful--to do so voluntarily or
unintentionally?

Euth. Really, Socrates, I have ceased to believe in my own answers, for
all my former admissions and conceptions seem to me other than I
first supposed them. (32) Still, if I may hazard one more opinion, the
intentional deceiver, I should say, is worse than the involuntary.

(32) Or, "all my original positions seem to me now other than I first
conceived them"; or, "everything I first asserted seems now to be
twisted topsy-turvy."

Soc. And is it your opinion that there is a lore and science of Right
and Justice just as there is of letters and grammar? (33)

(33) {mathesis kai episteme tou dikaiou}--a doctrine and a knowledge
of the Just.

Euth. That is my opinion.

Soc. And which should you say was more a man of letters (34)--he who
intentionally misspells or misreads, or he who does so unconsciously?

(34) Or, "more grammatical"; "the better grammarian."

Euth. He who does so intentionally, I should say, because he can spell
or read correctly whenever he chooses.

Soc. Then the voluntary misspeller may be a lettered person, but the
involuntary offender is an illiterate? (35)

(35) Or, "In fact, he who sins against the lore of grammer
intentionally may be a good grammarian and a man of letters, but
he who does so involuntarily is illiterate and a bad grammarian?"

Euth. True, he must be. I do not see how to escape from that conclusion.

Soc. And which of