In these two dialogues, Socrates seeks to discover the true nature of virtue by trying to define a single virtue, namely courage in the Laches and temperance in the Charmides. In the first text, two men have sought the counsel of two generals, Nicias and Laches, for advice in how to educate their sons to be good and virtuous men. Socrates is soon brought into the conversation, and he predictably shifts the discussion from one of means to one of ends. Socrates says that the best education is one for the benefit of the boys' souls, namely virtue. Before one can find a teacher of virtue, one must understand what virtue is. He proposes to simplify matters by seeking to define one aspect of virtue, namely courage. Nicias and Laches offer such definitions as a sort of endurance of the soul and a knowledge of the fearful and the hopeful in war, but Socrates identifies problems with each proffered definition. The dialogue ends with each man admitting failure. In the Charmides, a similar debate takes place, only this time it is a different aspect of virtue, namely temperance, which the men attempt to define. The young philosopher Charmides, whose beauty initially overwhelms Socrates, first says that temperance consists of doing things in an orderly and quiet way; when Socrates points out the inadequacy of such a definition, Charmides says that temperance is a form of modesty. When Socrates proves to him that modesty can be both good and bad, he retreats and refers to someone else's notion that temperance consists of minding one's own business. Critias then jumps into the fray to defend this third position; once he is put on the defensive, he falls back on two alternate definitions--first, that temperance consists of doing good things, and then that temperance is equivalent to knowing oneself. In the end, no satisfactory definition of temperance is arrived at, although one is left with the impression that temperance has much to do with the knowledge of good and evil.

These two dialogues are rather short, and they do succeed in demonstrating the effective yet annoying method of Socrates' philosophic inquiries. I found Charmides to be a somewhat harder text to follow because it sometimes broke down into wild abstractions, but both texts are quite readable in terms of the narrative style of the writing. Rosamond Kent Sprague, the translator, provides many useful footnotes throughout the book, and, more importantly, offers a very helpful introduction to each dialogue. Each introduction sets the context and timeframe for the particular dialogue, offers a basic rundown of its main ideas and arguments, and basically makes each text much more accessible and readable for this reader.