is condemned by the Persians is to be found in the absolute nature of their empire; it does not suit the interest of the government that a generous spirit and strong friendships and attachments should spring up among their subjects, and these are effects which love has an especial tendency to produce. The truth of this was actually experienced by our tyrants at Athens; it was the love of Aristogiton and the strong affection of Harmodius which destroyed their power. We may conclude then that where such love has been condemned it is the poor character of the people-greed for power in the rulers and cowardice in the subjects-which lies behind such condemnation; but that where it has been thought to be unreservedly and necessarily good, this is due to mental indolence in the legislators.

"Our institutions are far nobler than these, but, as I said, are not easily comprehensible. On the one hand, a love which courts no concealment is reckoned among us nobler than a love which shuns observation, and the love of those who are most eminent by birth or merit, even though they may be inferior in looks, is held in the highest esteem.

"... The truth of the matter I believe to be this. There is, as I stated at first, no absolute right and wrong in love; but everything depends upon the circumstances; to yield to a bad man in a bad way is wrong, but to yield to a worthy man in a right way is right. The bad man is the common, or vulgar lover, who is in love with the body rather than the soul; he is not constant because what he loves is not constant; as soon as the flower of physical beauty, which is what he loves, begins to fade, he is gone 'even as a dream', and all his professions and promises are as nothing. But the lover of a noble nature remains its lover for life, because the thing to which he cleaves is constant. The object of our custom, then, is to subject lovers to a thorough test . . . to determine to which kind lover and beloved respectively belong. This is the motive which lies behind our general feeling that two things are discreditable, first, to give in quickly to a lover-time, which is the best test of most things, must be allowed to elapse-second, to give in on account of his wealth or power, either because one is frightened and cannot hold out under the hardships which he inflicts, or because one cannot resist the material and political advantages which he confers; none of these things is stable or constant, quite apart from the fact that no noble friendship can be founded upon them.

"According to our principles, there is only one way in which lovers can honorably enjoy the possession of one another. We hold that, just as a lover may submit to any form of servitude to his beloved without shameful servility, so there is one, and only one, other form of voluntary servitude which brings with it no dishonour, and that is servitude which has for its object the acquisition of excellence. If a person likes to place himself at the disposal of another because he believes that in this way he can improve himself in some department of knowledge, or in some other excellent quality, such a voluntary submission involves, by our standards, no taint of disgrace or servility . . . (Thus) when lovers come together, each in conformity with the principles appropriate to him-which are that the lover is justified in performing any service whatever in return for the favours of his beloved, and that the latter is justified in any act of compliance to one who can make him wise and good; that the one is able to contribute towards wisdom and excellence, while the other is anxious to improve his education and knowledge

one

40