Is not Socrates more ineffably tiresome, and at the same time does he not speak higher truth, in the _Gorgias_ than anywhere else? Why call these higher truths "paradoxes"? Are not your sermons always a sort of apology for talking to them of God? And why should your Introductions be a sort of apology for recognizing that Socrates speaks the highest truth and no paradox? Have guarded statements, whether about God or any particular moral or truth, ever produced enthusiasm of religion or in morality? Is there any Dialogue, not even excepting the _Phaedo_ and _Crito_, where he is so much in earnest? He is so terribly in earnest that towards the end he even throws all his dialectic aside, and makes even Polus in earnest. To me, speaking as one of the stupid and ignorant, it seems that your Introduction dwells too much on the _form_ of the _Gorgias_ and does not bring out in sufficiently striking relief the great truths which Socrates labours so strenuously to enforce that he almost seems to lose himself in them. These great moral truths are (are they not?):--(1) _It is a greater evil to do than to suffer injustice._ If you call this a "paradox," why do you not call the 53rd Chapter of Isaiah a paradox? Is it not the highest of truths? (2) _It is a greater evil not to be punished than to be punished for wrong._ I have no idea why you call this a paradox. It follows from all the higher experience of the life of every one of us. In family life I see it every day. I see the "spoilt child" making himself, and oftener herself, and everyone else miserable, down to mature life or extreme old age. (Tho' the "punishments" of my life have been somewhat severe, yet I can bless God, even in this world, that never in all my life have I been allowed to "do as I liked.") ... [139] See _first_ edition, vol. ii. p. 145, and _second_ edition, vol. iii. pp. 161-162. [140] On one occasion she forgot the Greek for "Limitless," and asked Mr. Jowett to tell her. He replied by quoting Homer: "[Greek: amoton memauia], raging insatiably or without limit"-- adding wickedly "Whom did this represent?" [141] See _second_ edition, vol. iii. p. 145. If the reader cares to take this passage to a comparison of the second with the first edition of Mr. Jowett's Introduction,[142] he will discover again how largely, and closely, Miss Nightingale's criticisms were accepted. She dealt similarly--giving precise references for every statement--with the greater part of the Dialogues. "In the _Phaedrus_," said Mr. Jowett (July 22, 1873), "I have put in most of what you suggested and made some additions. You are quite right in thinking that I should get as much modern truth into the Introductions as possible. It is a great opportunity; which I have had in view, but not so clearly as since you wrote to me."