Next, as to the man who believes in the Gods, but refuses to acknowledge that they take care of human things—­let him too have a word of admonition.  ‘Best of men,’ we will say to him, ’some affinity to the Gods leads you to honour them and to believe in them.  But you have heard the happiness of wicked men sung by poets and admired by the world, and this has drawn you away from your natural piety.  Or you have seen the wicked growing old in prosperity, and leaving great offices to their children; or you have watched the tyrant succeeding in his career of crime; and considering all these things you have been led to believe in an irrational way that the Gods take no care of human affairs.  That your error may not increase, I will endeavour to purify your soul.’  Do you, Megillus and Cleinias, make answer for the youth, and when we come to a difficulty, I will carry you over the water as I did before.  ‘Very good.’  He will easily be convinced that the Gods care for the small as well as the great; for he heard what was said of their goodness and of their having all things under their care.  ‘He certainly heard.’  Then now let us enquire what is meant by the virtue of the Gods.  To possess mind belongs to virtue, and the contrary to vice.  ‘That is what we say.’  And is not courage a part of virtue, and cowardice of vice?  ‘Certainly.’  And to the Gods we ascribe virtues; but idleness and indolence are not virtues.  ‘Of course not.’  And is God to be conceived of as a careless, indolent fellow, such as the poet would compare to a stingless drone?  ‘Impossible.’  Can we be right in praising any one who cares for great matters and leaves the small to take care of themselves?  Whether God or man, he who does so, must either think the neglect of such matters to be of no consequence, or he is indolent and careless.  For surely neither of them can be charged with neglect if they fail to attend to something which is beyond their power?  ‘Certainly not.’

And now we will examine the two classes of offenders who admit that there are Gods, but say,—­the one that they may be appeased, the other that they take no care of small matters:  do they not acknowledge that the Gods are omnipotent and omniscient, and also good and perfect?  ‘Certainly.’  Then they cannot be indolent, for indolence is the offspring of idleness, and idleness of cowardice, and there is no cowardice in God.  ‘True.’  If the Gods neglect small matters, they must either know or not know that such things are not to be regarded.  But of course they know that they should be regarded, and knowing, they cannot be supposed to neglect their duty, overcome by the seductions of pleasure or pain.  ‘Impossible.’  And do not all human things share in soul, and is not man the most religious of animals and the possession of the Gods?  And the Gods, who are the best of owners, will surely take care of their property, small or great.  Consider further, that the greater the power of perception,