Part 177

“But what? is it not possible, then, for one who loves ever to be hated? as lovers surely sometimes seem to be treated by their favourites: for though they love most ardently, some of them think that they are not loved in turn, and some even that they are hated. Does not this appear to you to be true?”

“Quite true,” said he.

“In such a case, then,” said I, “does one love, and is the other loved?”

“Yes.”

“Which then of these is the friend of the other? the lover of the beloved, whether he is loved in turn, or even if he is hated, or the beloved of the lover? or again, in such a case, is neither the friend of neither, unless both love each other?”

“It seems indeed to be so.”

22. “Now, then, it appears to us otherwise than it appeared before. For then if one loved, both appeared to be friends; but now, unless both love neither is a friend.”

“It appears so,” said he.

“Nothing, therefore, is a friend to that which loves unless it loves in turn.”

“It seems not.”

“Neither, then, are they friends of horses, whom horses do not love in turn, nor friends of quails, nor again friends of dogs, and friends of wine, and friends of gymnastics, and of wisdom, unless wisdom loves them in turn: or do they severally love these things although they are not friends, and does the poet speak falsely who says, ‘Happy the man who has boys for his friends, and solid-hoofed horses, and hunting dogs, and a foreign guest?’”

“It does not seem so to me,” he replied.

“But does he appear to you to speak the truth?”

“Yes.”

“The beloved, then, is a friend to that which loves, as it seems, Menexenus, whether it loves or whether it hates; just as children newly born, who partly do not yet love, and partly even hate, when they are punished by their mother or their father, nevertheless, at the very time when they hate, are in the highest degree beloved by their parents.

“It appears to me,” said he, “that this is the case.”

23. “The lover, therefore, from this reasoning, is not the friend, but the beloved.”

“It seems so.”

“And he who is hated, therefore, is an enemy, but not he who hates.”

“So it appears.”

“Many, therefore, are beloved by their enemies and hated by their friends; and are friends to their enemies, but enemies to their friends, if the beloved is a friend, and not the lover. Though it is very absurd, my dear friend, or rather, I think, impossible, to be an enemy to a friend, and a friend to an enemy.”

“You seem to speak truly, Socrates,” said he.

“If, therefore, this is impossible, the lover will be a friend of the beloved.”

“So it appears.”

“Again, therefore, that which hates must be the enemy of that which is hated.”

“Necessarily so.”

“Therefore, the result will be that we must of necessity admit the very things that we did before, that a man is often a friend of that which is not a friend, and often even of that which is an enemy, when either any one loves that which does not love, or even loves that which hates, and is often an enemy of that which is not an enemy, or is even a friend, when either any one loves that which does not hate, or even hates that which loves.”

“It appears so,” said he.