_Sokr._--You do not admit, then, Nikias, that lions, tigers, boars, &c., and such animals, are courageous? _Nikias._--No: they are without fear--simply from not knowing the danger--like children: but they are not courageous, though most people call them so. I may call them bold, but I reserve the epithet courageous for the intelligent. _Lachês._--See how Nikias strips those, whom every one admits to be courageous, of this honourable appellation! _Nikias._--Not altogether, Lachês: I admit you, and Lamachus, and many other Athenians, to be courageous, and of course therefore intelligent. _Lachês._--I feel the compliment: but such subtle distinctions befit a Sophist rather than a general in high command.[20] _Sokr._--The highest measure of intelligence befits one in the highest command. What you have said, Nikias, deserves careful examination. You remember that in taking up the investigation of courage, we reckoned it only as a portion of virtue: you are aware that there are other portions of virtue, such as justice, temperance, and the like. Now you define courage to be, intelligence of what is terrible or not terrible: of that which causes fear, or does not cause fear. But nothing causes fear, except future or apprehended evils: present or past evils cause no fear. Hence courage, as you define it, is intelligence respecting future evils, and future events not evil. But how can there be intelligence respecting the future, except in conjunction with intelligence respecting the present and the past? In every special department, such as medicine, military proceedings, agriculture, &c., does not the same man, who knows the phenomena of the future, know also the phenomena of present and past? Are they not all inseparable acquirements of one and the same intelligent mind?[21] [Footnote 20: Plato, Lachês, 197. [Greek: Kai\ ga\r pre/pei, ô)= Sô/krates, sophistê=| ta\ toiau=ta ma=llon kompseu/esthai ê)\ a)ndri\ o(\n ê( po/lis a)xioi= au(tê=s proi+sta/nai.] Assuredly the distinctions which here Plato puts into the mouth of Nikias are nowise more subtle than those which he is perpetually putting into the mouth of Sokrates. He cannot here mean to distinguish the Sophists from Sokrates, but to distinguish the dialectic talkers, including both one and the other, from the active political leaders.] [Footnote 21: Plato, Lachês, 198 D. [Greek: peri\ o(/sôn e)sti\n e)pistê/mê, ou)k a)/llê me\n ei)=nai peri\ gegono/tos, ei)de/nai o(/pê| ge/gonen, a)/llê de\ peri\ gignome/nôn, o(/pê| gi/gnetai, a)/llê de\ o(/pê| a)\n ka/llista ge/noito kai\ genê/setai to\ mê/pô gegono/s--a)ll' ê( au)tê/. oi(=on peri\ to\ u(gieino\n ei)s a(/pantas tou\s chro/nous ou)k a)/llê tis ê)\ ê( i)atrikê/, mi/a ou)=sa, e)phora=| kai\ gigno/mena kai\ gegono/ta kai\ genêso/mena, o(/pê| genê/setai.] 199 B. [Greek: ê( de/ g' au)tê\ e)pistê/mê tô=n au)tô=n kai\ mello/ntôn kai\ pa/ntôs e)cho/ntôn ei)=nai [ô(molo/gêtai].]