The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates

7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-historicity-of-platos-apology-of-socrates 1/92

Loyola University ChicagoLoyola eCommons

Master's Teses Teses and Dissertations

1946

Te Historicity of Plato's Apology of SocratesDavid J. Bowman Loyola University Chicago

Tis Tesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Teses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion inMaster's Teses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please [email protected].

Tis work is licensed under aCreative Commons A ribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.Copyright © 1946 David J. Bowman

Recommended CitationBowman, David J., "Te Historicity of Plato's Apology of Socrates" (1946). Master's Teses.Paper 61.h p://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/61

http://ecommons.luc.edu/

http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses

http://ecommons.luc.edu/td

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/





mailto:[email protected]

http://ecommons.luc.edu/td

http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses

http://ecommons.luc.edu/



!H E HISTORICITYOP

PLATO'S

APOLOGY OF SOCRATES

BY

DA.VID J . B O W J W f ~S . J

.l. !BESIS SUBMITTED I l f PARTIAL FULFILIJIE.NT OF THB:

R}gQUIRE'IIENTS POR THE DEGREE OF IIA.STER

OF ARTS I l l LOYOLA UlfiVERSITY

JULY

1946



V I fA.-David J . Bowman; S .J •• was born in Oak Park, Ill1no1a, on

Ma7 20, 1919. Atter b!a eleaentar7 education a t Ascension School#in Oak Park, he attended LoJola AcademJ o t Chicago, graduat1DS.from. there in June, 1937.

On September 1, 1937# he entered the Sacred Heart Novitiateo t the SocietJ o t Jesus a t M i l f o r d ~Ohio. Por the t o u r Jear•he spent there , he was aoademicallJ connected with XavierUniverai tr, Cincinnati, Ohio.

In August ot 1941 he t ranaterred to West Baden College o.fLorol& Universit7, Obicago, and received the degree o t Bacheloro.f Arts with a major in Greek in Deo.aber, 1941. Whereupon heenrolled in the graduate aohool o t Lo7ola UniveraitJ in thedepartment o t the Olaaaica.



v .

VI.

s ix th argument: Divine Sign forbade anypreparation---answer from Phaedrus andReflbl io---seventh argument: ?ram Xenophon'smo ve In writng his works on Socra tes- - •mistaken motive•-• las t argument: Socratesnot an orator--·Diogenea Laer t ius ' t e s t i

mony---Phaedrua---Oldfather•s descr ip t ionof the t r i a l - - - n o t consistent with the fac t s- - - ju ry not a mob---Socrates• •vaunting"•••h is conclusion not proved.

CONCLUSION • •

BIBLIOGRAPHY •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• 80

• 83



IJTRODUC!ION

! h i s paper wil l deal with the problem ot how much ot Pla to ' s

Apololl belongs to Socrates,and

how much oti t

1s Pla to ' s ownwork. Perhaps the t i r a t queat1on a reader ma7 ask wi l l be, •Wh7

t rea t th i s subject a t a l l t • Be aa7 think tha t i t has been labored

over, and belabored again and again, un t i l a l l that 1s l e t t 1.8 a

:auddle ot confl ic t ing opinions.

Two anawers to th i s question a&J be proposed. Pi r s t , eventhougb the subject has been t reated often and b7 many . a s t e r s , i t

reaaina one of the . o a t in teres t ing .in. the t1eld of c lass ics . Th

tapact of the Apologz 18 s t i l l f e l t and wi l l alwara be f e l t in a

world. tounded on Graeco•Roman cul ture . And aecondl7 1 a new

version ot what happened 1n the court o t the ?ff X wv (' r1..crL"''f.,j5

1n 399 B.c., has reoentl7 appeared. This version runs counter to

the OOIIIIIloft17-aocepted idea o t Socrates ' l a s t speech in court , and

th i s version I intend to re fu te . Socrates wil l be established

as the speaker ot the Apoloil of" Plato - · a t l e a s t ~as the speaker

o t the speech which Plato wrote up, and wnich we now know as

Pla to ' s A p o l Q ~ ~ ! !Soorates. l

To show the lengths to which l l r . Oldfather goes in his desire

to depr1Ye PA o t an7 his tor ica l value, here are two ot h is s t a t e •

1 Por o b v 1 ~ areasons, t h i s terminology wil l be abbreviated inth i s paper. I abal l tollow the lead o t Kr. R. Hacktorth incal l ing the A.polog7 of Plato aimplJ PA, .that ot Xenophon, n .



menta: • ••• even Plato •a br i l l i an t aDd moving drama iii in so man7

respects simplJ 1noonce1vable, both of the man and o t the occasion

tha t the beat c r i t i ca l Judgment of our time gives i t up as an

authentic his tor ica l record.• 2 And again, referr ing to the

desire o t l a t e r authors to ~ i t e speeches purporting to be

Socrates• ApologJ, he sara : •xt Socrates had rea l l7 delivered so

much as a t i the ot what Plato with such t ine er tec t puts into hla

mouth, a tee l ins l ike th is would. surel7 not have been so natural"-

• feel ing tba t what should bave been said had not been said 1n

court . He cont1nues:"There ia no deceptive statement ( that theseare Socrates• actual words), and I suspect tbat Plato himself

would have been astonished to find anrone takin i hie ApologJ as

an authentic record o t preoiaelJ what was said and done.• 4

As we shal l see, Mr. Oldta.ther ' a guide to th is expreme stand

ia Gomperz1 other prominent cr1t1c.a bav.e approached the i r posit ion

Most o t th$se scholar• look on the Socrates portrared b7 Plato as

too ideal , •an ideal which i s too good to be quite t rue", aa

Shorer sara. 5 Mr. Isaac Flagg argues tbat t i d e l l t J to scene - -

PA i s noteworth117 authentic in i t a courtroom deta i ls - · does not

2 W ..t. Oldfather, •socrates in Court,• O.lasaical Weeklz, XXXI(1938), 204.

3 .QR• . i l l · , 204.4 I'Dld., 211.5 P. !b.oreJ, What Plat.o Said, Ohioaso, UnlveraitJ o t Chicago

Preas, 1 9 3 4 ~ . - - - -



mean t i d e l i t J to words and acta .

although i t s scene i s bia tor ioa l , ( i t ) doesnot record the discourse tha t was pronouncedon the occasion to which i t i s adaptedlnevertheless, in vindicating bia aas ter tothe world a t large, while presenting under the

lineaments o t Socrates a picture of the IdealSage in i t a simple unit7 and in tegr i t J , Platowould be moved bJ teel inga o t piet,- , no leastban by the sanae o t a r t i s t i c t i t neas , toexclude ever7 feature not eaaent1all7 charact e r i s t i c , ever7 l ine or sbade.ot color notgenuine an d t rue to the 11te.6

Bonner agrees w1 tb Flagg' a general idea, and compares the tone o t

the speech to tha t o ~ LJaiaa ' taaoua o r a t i o n ~!h! Cr1pEle.7

This i s the basic idea o ~ Professor Werner Jaeger, who

claims • ••• the speech ia too a r t t u l l J constructed to be merel7 a

revised version o t the actual speech which Socrates made, ex

teapore, in oourt .•8 But be goes on to SaJ. , • i t i s &J11&Zingl7

t rue to Socrates• r ea l 1 1 ~ eaDd. obaracter• •9 an d "onlJ Plato had..

enough Athenian feeling and enouah •po l i t i ca l ' feeling to

underatand Socrates ful l7 ." 10 He coneludea: "In the .A.polog7

Plato presents b1a aa the incarnation o t the highest courage and

greatness ot s p i r i t , and in Phaedo he t e l l s o t his death as a

heroic t r iuaph over l i ~ e . • l l

This view o ~ the Apology aa the picture o t the ideal

6 I . Flagg,· Plato: !!!,! Apologz!!!! Crito, lfew York, American BooCoapaft7, 1001, 33.

7 R.J. Bonner, The Legal Sett ing ot Plato 's Apology•, ClassicalPhilologJ, I I I (1908), 169•177. .

8 w. Jaeger, Paideia, I I , t rana l . b7 Gilbert Highet, lfew York,Oxtord Un1vera1'E,--rreaa, 1943, 37.

9 1b1d. , 37 10 ~ . , 73. l l ib id . , 76.



'hilosopher 11 jus t a l i t t l e b i t aore l ike the extreae view o t

Oldfather and Go.aperz, than the opinion ot. those.who look on the

speech as a por ta r i t o t Socrates • • not the actual picture , but

an idealized version ot what he said and what he adght have said

in court . We ma7 take Pbi l l ipson 'a account aa representat ive •

.l·ll these things (detai ls about the PA) are inaccord w1 th our knowledge o t the his tor ica lSooratea aoqaired tro.a a l l the various sources,and the7 are not ineoapatible with the newcircumstances created b7 the accusatian. Allthese things are t rue to l i t e and t n e to t a c t ,even though Plato ma7 adopt a a l igh t embellish-ment here, and make a s l ight adjuataent of p ~ a s e -

o1og and sequence o t expression& there ; to r hisa t t i tude i s tha t o t a t rue a r t i s t o t penetratingvis ion, not t ha t o t a shorthand :·.reporter t h ispicture ia a por t ra i t , not a p h o t o g r a p h . l ~

l'wlbered aaons those who hold th1a view i s Mr. ·de Laguna,

who wri tes against wbat he ca l l a the t r ad i t iona l view o t Ueberwes.

Grote a nd Zel lar• • • the view tha t P& i s aubstant ia l l7 a reproduc•

t ion o t the actual defence. This in te rpre ta t ion , Mr. de Laguna13

claims, i s now acknowledged to be untenable. Hla reason i s the

contrast between the tln1ahed t o r a o t P ~ and tba exteaporaneit7

o t the actual speech as given b7 Socrates. He theretore a ~ e e a

with Pbilllpaon an d F 1 ~ l d l4 tha t PA la aore a por t ra i t tban a

picture. One conclusion which he draws t roa the facta given above

12 c. Phil l ipson, !he Tria l of Socrates, London, Stevens and Sons1928, 21 . - - .

13 T. de Laguna, · ~ h eInterpreta t ion o t the Apolog7,•Philosophical Review, XVIII, (1909), 23.

14 tr.c. P1e14, socrates and Plato, Oxford, Parker am Oo., 1913•••••••••• , Pla to! ! ! ! ! ! Oont«Bporariea, London, Ketbnen andco., 1930.



5

i s tha t the Apglog7 was not necessari ly piblished imaediately

af ' ter the t r i a l o t Socrates, since i t i s not meant to be an

exact record o t bia words.

' this question or the dateo t

thePA

has been arguedt o r

centuries, and on i t depends, to some extent , the answer to our

problem. Ot course, we cannot go into the aa t t e r o t dates to r

a l l the Platonic dialogues; auoh an 1nquirJ i s t i t subject o t a

doctorate thes i s . But we can give a tew o t the ideas whiob,while

they wil l be inconclusive, wi l l help us in approaching the maiD

issue o t th i s paper.

'the question i s t h i s : was P.&. Wl'itten almost illlllled1atel7

a f t e r the t r i a l or not! I t i t was, then ver7 l lkel7 i t i s

hia tor ica l l7 accurate; otherwise, people who had attended the

t r i a l would have recognised discrepancies and denounced the

work aa a fraud. I t i t was not publiShed aoon a t t e r the t r i&l ,

we have mnoh l eas external evidence to r considering i t hia tor ioa l ,

to r auch t es t t .on7 against i t would hardly be forthcoming, since

most of the audience w ~ l dbe dead or dispersed.

Tayloran d

Burnet, or course, argue to r an e&rlJ date . Thoswho agree as to t h i s (Grot.e : is one, 1n h is Plato ~ !!!! Earlz

Companions !!! Socrates) uaual lJ instance a a one o t the! r lUin

reasons, the prophecy in 39 CD:

punishment wil l come upon you straightwa7 a f t e rmy death, ta r more grievous in sooth than thepunishment o t death which you have meted out tome. For now you have done th i s to me because



you hoped tha t you would be rel ieved fromrendering an account of y o u r l ives , but I sayyou wil l find the r e su l t fa r di ffe ren t .Those who wil l force you to give an accountWill be more nUIIleroua than heretofore; men

whoa I res t ra ined, though ;you knew 1 t not ;and tbe;y wi l l be harSher, inasmuch as they

15are younger, and ;you wil l be more annoJed.

6

They aaJ tha t th i s prophecy was not fu l f i l l ed , so Plato surely

would not have included i t had he known tha t no accusers would

ar ise •straightway.• Tbi.s l ine of argument seems to be val id ,

despite Mr. Adam•a claim tha t accusers did a r i se , fu l f i l l ing the

prophecr in a deeper sense than Socrates ant ic ipated. •The ideal

of which Socrates was the h a l t - o o n a ~ o u sprophet and the ear l i e s t

mart,r was never afterwards los t s ight of b f Greek th inkers . • l6

Perhaps t rue , but tb i s was cer ta1nlr not the fulf i l lment ot

Socrates actual words, aDd cannot underDdne our strong point .

Other c r i t i c s , however, do not accept the date aa ear ly,and consequently re jec t the arguaent tram chronology to r the

his tor ic i ty of PA. Field says i t i s possible tha t PA was composed

and published immediately af te r the tragedJ in court, •aut i t i s

equally l ike ly tha t Plato was led to publish i t by the appearance

of other in ter ior accounts o t what happened, o t which we know

there were severa1.• 17 He sa;ra there i s no way o t deciding these

15 Texts and t ransla t ions used in th is thes i s wi l l be those o t

the Loeb Classical Librarr. !h i s quotation i s from Eutbzphro,Apolop,. Cr1to, Pha.e.do, Phaedrus, t l 'anal. by H. Fowler,toridon, Heinemann, 1026, 1!7-1!8.

16 J . Adam, The R e l ~ i o u aTeachers ~ Greece, Edinburgh, T. andT. Clark,-rJ2S, z ! .

17 P l a t o ~ ! ! !gonteaeorariea, op. c i t •• 154.



7

poss ib i l i t ies ; Phil l ipson a&Js tba t there i s , and. tha t the work

was produced several J&ara a t t a r the events described in i t . He

8 aya there i s no evidence • tba t Plato , who was present a t the

t r i a l , made a t the t t . e a verbatim repor t of the proceedings and

tbe speeches an d kept i t to r tu ture publication.•l8

!h e case t o r the publication a t a l a t e date 1a growing

stronger. Backtorth, however, seeas to BJnthesize the evidence,

and he aa7a that PA came a t t e r XA because Xenophon sa7s a t the

beginning of his work that no one baa yet explained Socrates•

l o t ty tone; surely Plato has done tba t . 19 Concerning the bel ie f

that PA . u s t be an ear ly work because of i t a readers, he bad

previously s ta ted, · ~ h i sJudgaent, however, implies one assumption,

namely t ba t the Apology was cer ta in to be understood by i t a

original readers as claiming to be an authentic repor t . •20 He

denies the necess i t r o t t h e i r so understanding i t , although he

also admits the posaib111tJ o t the assumption.

We have not . then, reached a def in i te conclusion as to the

date of the ApologJ. Tbia, b ~ e v e r .need not t e ~ i n a t eour

attempt to solve the main problem o t t h i s thes is ; we need onlJ

admit t ha t tb ie aspect o t the problea i s uncertain, and t ha t

consequentlJ some important· evidence of h i s to r i c i ty remains in

doubt. We prefer to take the apeech as published soon a t t e r the

18 ~ · c i t •• 1819 R; H&Citorth, ~ b eCaa2os1t1on o t Plato•a Apologz, c . . ridge,

!he Un1versit7-pr•••-=r9SS, !9 : -20 1b1d •• 2.-



8

t r i a l , believing tha t the whole weight of paJChological probabi l i t

l i e s here. Plato•s devotion to Socrates aurely would prompt him

to an early publishing o t his master•a f ina l pablic defense.

The l a s t group which we have considered, looks on the Apologas a por t ra i t o t a great philosopher, ra ther than aa a polished

edit ion of Socrates• actual speech. Now the moderates:

The view tha t i t was Plato 's own compositionused general lJ to be held although i t was

·never doubted tha t i t was baaed on the factao t the t r i a l , bQt some cr i t i c s now believetba t i t ia the actual apeech.ot Socrates,edited by Plato to r publicat ion, and as nearto what was aa14 as , say, a speech o t

Demosthenes or Cicero 1n i t a published tor.m

was to the speech the orator actual lydelivered. The t ru th probablJ l i e s betweenthese two views.2l

The moderates, then, look on the speech as a compound or t ac t

an4 f i c t ion , the f ic t ion being some departure from the s t r i c t

form o t the actual speech without departing from i t a substance.

Phil l ipson l i s t s as holding t h i s view: Schleiermacher, Zeller,

Grote, Ueberweg, Boutroux and "&lry.22 Others. are Cooper, Adam,

Moore, KcDonnell. aDd Dfer, whose books wil l be found l i s ted in

the bibliography. Zeller remarks tba t • th i s Apology i s not a

mere creation or his own, but tha t in a l l substant ia l points , i tt a i th tu l ly recorda what Socrates sa14."23 Grote says he agrees

21 J.B. Bury, •Li te aDd Death of Socrates • C&Bbridge AncientHiatort , V,.Chapter 13 1 #4, • • • York, M a c m ! i i i n ~1 9 ~ ,3§2.

22 ~ · ol . , 20. ·23 E ; Zi t !er, Socratea and the Socrat ic Schools, t rans l . by

o.J. Reicher, Loiaon;-Longmana, Green and Oo., 1868, 164, no••1 .



9

with Schleiermacher, Ueberwes, and the common opinion, " tha t

this i s in substance the rea l d•tence pronounced. bJ Sokrates;

reported, and o t course dreat up, Je t not intent1onall7 t rans-

tor.aed, b7 Plato.•24 He goes on to sa7 tha t no matter which wa7

we look a t the ApologJ", i t contains "aore o t pure Sokra t1 • than

anJ other composition of Plato.•25

ADd a t the other end of the scale are those who hold to r

close t i d e l i t J to the actual words. Even these men seem to be

t a r more logical and l ikel7 to be r ight than the other extremists .

At l eas t , theJ allow aa.ething to r Plato 's devotion to his master.

Havelock uses the following arguments to r b is case: since the

ApologJ is the only Dialogue not a conversation, 11 i t indicates

that to r once he i s in teres ted in something other than an abstract

problaa.•26 This work alone shows Socrates in public l i t e • • a

departure to be thought his tor ica l b7 readers twent7 7ears l a te r.

ADd th is work alone re ters to Pla to ' s presence there (34 A, 38 B)

" I theretore take the ApologJ to be Pla to ' s one deliberate

a t t . . t to reconstruct Socrates to r his own sake. This 1s not to

aa7 tha t i t i s report ing. On the contrary, i t i s • • r J unlikel7

to be.• 27

According to Havelock, unless we take the ApoloQ in th is wa

25

G. Grote, Plato, and the Other O o m ~ a n i o n so t Socrates, (3rdI , London, Jobii Murra'j&nd Co., i S ~ . 2 8 1 . -ib id . , 282. Ot . the same author 's Greece, VIII, London,~ i e r ,1 9 0 0 ~403, 410 (note 2) , 4 ~ · 4 7 7 .

26 E. Havelock, The Evidence t e r the Teachingo t

Socrates,"TAPA, LXV, (1934), 291•

e



10

we sha l l know very l i t t l e of Socrates, since the onl7 other

source of re l iable knowledge about i s .Aristopbane.s' Clouds. •xy

thesis i s t ha t these two works, and these alone, i t r igh t ly used,

provide us with a cr i te r ion to r d1sttngu1ah1ng the teaching of

Socratea.•28

Rogers echoes th i s opinion.

I t i s open to sa7 that the Apologr i s not meantto be h i s to r i ca l ; in tha t oaae wa aball baveto resign ourselves to a conteaaion of ignoranceabout the r ea l Socrates. ••• I t appears unlikely

t ha t abortl7 a f t e r Socrates ' death• when the!ac t s were widely known, Plato would have under-taken to give an account or th i s t r i a l whichevery intormed person would recognize as f a l se ;there could bardl7 bave been a surer wa7 o t

defeating wbat clear ly was b is purpose • • • •~ b e only altermative to taking the account asb i s t o ~i s to suppose tha t Plato i s exercisingh is r igh ts as a writer of f ict ion.29

~ h e disjunction need not be stated ao b a l d l y ~There i s ath i rd poss ib i l i ty : the moderate opinion referred to above. I t

saves the Apolos7 as t ru ly Socratic, and leaves roaa fo r Pla to ' s

genius, too. · ~ b eApology ia a document o t u n i ~ eauthor i t7 . I t

i s the only di rec t atateaent o t the meaning of Socrates ' l i t e

wri t ten b.J a man capable o t penetrating to tha t meaning. •30

28 Havelock, op. c i t . , 290.29 A.K. Rogers, ~ s e - s o c r a t i cP r o b l e m ~Hew Haven, Yale Univerai t j

Preas, 1933, ST."30 F. Oorntord, Before and Atter Socrates, Cambridge, UniYeraity

Preas, 1932, !1. • _ -



l l

~ h e a e ,then, are the confl ict ing oplniona concerning th la

problem. !h la thesis i s an a t t . ap t to re tu te the f i r s t and most

extreme one given: tha t o t Goaperz and Oldfather. B'umeroua

opinions wil l have to be noted in the course ot tb ia re tuta t1on.

one chapter wil l be devoted to the in terpreta t ion of !ay lor an 4

Burnet on the Platoaio Dialogues in general, and the Apologr in

part icular, since t he i r opinion wi l l be uaed aa a guide in

refuting Oldfather. Throughout the chapter dealing with hia

ar t i c l e , the ra .arka o t the di t te ren t co. . ntatora wi l l be quoted,

to bols ter statements which otherwise might aeea ent i re ly gra tu i -

tous. In a subject l ike t h i s , on which such a mass o t cr i t io1sa

has been expended, a generous sampling of t ha t cr1 t i c i m aeeaa

to be the only way to reach an objective conclusion.



OHAP'l'ER I

SmotARY OF 11ft. OLDFA!'BER t S ARTICLE

Here, then, i s the ar t i c l e in question. I t waa drawn in

large part tr011 Dr. Gomperz • previous ar t i c l e , •sokrates Ha l tung

vor seinen Richtern,• l tram which ar t i c l e Mr. Oldfather received

the l i gh t and strength to go ahead with a paper which he bad to r

some time been preparing on the same subject . 'l'he resu l t i s the

present ar t i c le which we are cal l ing 1nto question.

Dr. Goaperz• statements are summarized bJ Oldfather thus.

In the Gorgiaa, Oalliclea draws a picture o t Socratea on t r i a l ,

with hia opponent a t r i v i a l rascal . Socrates w111 stand there ,

mouth open, not knowing what to aa7 1 and wil l be condemaed. 2

Socratea does not answer the fellow immediately, but l a t e r repeats

the propheo7, assert ing th e aaae or Call1clea before tbe Judges

o t the Dea4.3 Now th i s charge and i t a adm!aa1on bJ Socrates are

abau.rd 1 t Socrates rea l l J did give a speech even reaotel7

reaesbl1ng that known as Plato's. AP9lOSl o t Socrates.• Furthermore,

1 In Wiener Stud1en, LIV (1936), 32•43.2. flai , s r t o s ! w a , Gorg1as, t rana l . b7 W. Lamb, London, Heineaann

' 4S' - ~ .3 1b1d., 526 E, 527A.4 Since th1a 1a a aummar,-, no par t icu la r references are given.

12



1 ~

a passage in the Theaetetus (172 0 • 175 D) describes the same

general s i tuat ion or a philosopher on t r i a l ; the v e ~ same words,,...., ) J ) ......._ l l / U ') I

even, are used: llol..\/""o(v oL11optoLv ... o l 1 T o ~ w v ;r>VK E)<_wv o r t E.tTiol_5.

surelJ the Socrates or Pla to ' s work i s &nJthing by nature except

8 belpleaa aDd r idiculous .•

GOJDperz continues. Jlax1111us ot Tyre s ta tes that Socrates

did not defend b1mselt, 8 and advances a number or ezoellent

reasons for such conduct on his par t . • B1s teat1JilonJ i s str ik1ngl7

confirmatory ot tha t ot the Gorgias, yet could bardlJ have been

derived tram i t , so different i s i t s phrasing. The conclusion i s

• inevi table ." Socrates made no se t and tormal defence ot anJ

length. k person's t ee l i a s s about such a question bave nothing to

do with the t ru th of the matter, wbicb depends upon the evidence.

Even though we l ike to think Socrates gave an inspir ing speech

and afterwards Plato wrote i t out, our t i d e l i t J to t ru th compe1s

us to deny h1Da tba t honor. Thus tar D r. Goaperz.

At th is point in his ar t i c l e , Oldfather adds aaae supplemen-

tary considerations ot his own, a l l leading to the conclusion

which has been enuntiated above: Socrates gave no long speech a t

his t r i a l , especial lJ no speech such as that a t t r ibuted to him b7

Plato. He proposes eight ot these considerations.

His t i r s t point i s the astonishing mult ip l ic i t J o t speeches

a t t r ibu ted to Socrates. Just about ever7body who was anybody in

Greek l i t e ra tu re seems to have ~ i e dhis hand a t i t : Plato,



xenopbon. (Pseudo-Xenopbon), Lyslas. who wrote two, ~ e o d e o t e s

Demetrius of Pbalerum, Zeno of Sidon, Plutarch, Tbeo o t Abtiooh,

and even L1baniua, though his was a al ight matter or seven hundred

yeara too l a t e l So hackneyed did the theme becaae in schools of

rhetor ic , tnat rules were la id down to r the oo.aposition o t an

"Apology o t Socrates• . Kaximns of Tyre speaks or the many defences

and attacks appearing even in his day. All th i s suggests strongly

that there never was a rea l l7 adequate speech made by Socrates,

but that Pla::to was following ThuoJdidea' dictUlll about "what

rea l l7 ought to have been sa id . • ( I , 22, 1 . ) Plato and Xenophonhave done l i t t l e more to produce an atmosphere of r e a l i t J in t he i r

effor t s than has L1ba.n1us with h is preposterous concoction.

His aeooncl point , and the one he considers aost convincing

against the time-honored view, 1s the tone o t Pla to ' s speech • •

making i t a reply, a ~ o a ta r e t o r t , and der1n1tel7 not an a t teapt-o persuade h is audience to acquit him. Unless Socrates actual l7

wished to die. the whole speech la beautiful f ic t ion , but hardly

his tor ica l .

The t h i rd point i s the divers i ty of subject matter of the

hree extant Apologies. All those in court would h a ~ eremembered

each wol'd of the address i f he gave &nJ, so tbe7 would not allow

any great divergence froa what he aotuall7 said . in speeches which

purported to give what he had deolaiaed in oourt.

The fourth point . A clear reterenoe ia made to the t r i a l in



15

Gorgiaa (521 B • 522 0) , where Socrates, in a br ief defence of-his at t i tude in court , a a ~ ahis t r i a l wil l l ike tba t o t a doctor

answering the c ~ g e so t a confectioner before a panel of children.

I t he speaks the t ru th , what a treDlendous outcry such a Jury would

aak e l Then, speaking of himaelf, • •or &ball I be able to apeak

the t ru th ••• nor an,thing else . • Bow when a man does tb1a,

obvioual7 he does not make a speech. Plato•a f i c t ion , therefore,

i s t rul7 a f ic t ion , tor Socrates 1a very d e t 1 n 1 t e l ~a t ease and

apeakiq the t ru th in Pla to ' • Ar1?5!lop;.

Hia f i f t h point i s th is . The theme o t the r idiculous or

pathetic t i ~ ecut bJ the philosopher in court i s atr ikinglJ

frequent in Plato. Examples are 1n G o r g i a ~•a. n.E, •as A-c,

521 B • 522 E; Theaetetua 1?2 C • 175 D; RePgblio 51? k and D;

Laches 196 B. He gives other prob 8 ble references as well as these

Now no other philosopher up to then had ever appeared in court

and made himself appear r id iculous; they bad a l l gone in to exi le

before they had been brought to court ·- to r example, Anaxagoras,

Diogenea o t Apollon1a, Diagoras of Keloa, and Prodicua. Again,

the evidence accumulates against the h i s to r i c i t7 o t the speech.

t Plato was alwa1s thinking or Socrates, be was admitting thathis beloved hero did not 4o hiaae l f ao proud when he f1nall7 faced

the Athenian JurJ,aen.

So on to the s ixth arguaent. According to Xenophon, the

naiaonion• expreaal7 res is ted an7 e t to r t on the part o t Socrates

to make prepara.tiona to r his defence. He s ta tes th is in Kemorabil1



16

(IV, a. 4 t t . ) . I t i s repeated i n the ~ p o l o g rat t r ibuted to hi••

and contiraed b7 the statement in PA (40 A•C) tbat a t no time

during the t iae o t the t r i a l had the Divine Sign intervened.

When he acted in court as an7 man must have acted who has !lade-no preparfltion, the Sign complacentl7 accepte.d the consequences •

.All or this serves to explain wh7 Socrates actuall7 said l i t t l e

or noth1ag on the occasion or h is appearance in c ~ t .

His seventh point i s against Zeller, who argues that since

the Xenophontean Apololl i s spurious, the testimon7 o t Bermogenes

1n the Ke.aorab1lia 1s ••bendamit• • • worthless. This 1s jus t a

c8 se o t wiabtul thinld.ng, espec1all7 when Zeller. proceeds to

c l a i • tha t an7 elaborate defence would have been out or character

to r Socrates. He merel7 proves to r tbe other aide. The motive

o t the Xenophontean ARolOil and the l a s t chapter of the K e m o r a

i s to explain wh7 Socrates did not make a bet te r defence o t b1msel

in court . This i s absurd i t P.A. in whole or in par t waa delivered

1n court , • t o r tha t i s without question the t ines t .o t a l l i m a g i

defences.• The poor defence to r which Xenophon i s t rying to cover

up i s the actual defence, not an idealized f i c t ion .

Kr. O l d f a t h e r ~i ronic cr i t ic ism o t PA t in ishea With a length7

discourse on the 1mprob 8 b1l i t7 o t a dia lec t ic ian ' s turning in to

such a cons'UlllBlate orator before a host i le jury. Cicero ta i led 1n

a similar s i tua t ion , the speech to r Milo. A l i t e t i a e spent in

dia lec t ic would not guarantee that a person would be an a c c o m p

orator ! ! tem22re, eapec1all7 when the •an avoided lengthJ apeeche



17

as Socrates had avoided them. His method was ent i re l7 d i ffe ren t ,

both rhetor ical l7 and psJchologic 8 117, t raa courtroom orator7,

and i t i s inconceivable tha t he could t a l l ! ! tempore into .uch

a long, a r t f u l speech as PA. (Here he makes an untortunate

reference to Christ before His accusers, not opening His mouth.)

Neither John BUs nor Savonarola succeeded in t he i r cr i ses , despite

the t ac t tha t the7 were aaong the beat orators in the world. But

Socrates could not, even i t he had wished• have delivered such a

superb oration as the ~ p o l o 1 7 .At most he used to write out long

aeries of questions and answers to r use in h is ~ e a t 1 o n i n g a ;to

compose an order l r and aupra.el7 moving orat ion, and th i s on the

spur o t the moaent, • • no, we cannot belleve such a manifest

untruth. •To me, I confess, the ent i re a a ~ p t i o ni s nothing

less than a patent absurdi t r. •

These are his destructive cr1tic1amsl we aha l l r e t u r n to

t h e . 1n l a t e r chapters o t th i s thes i s . Now what would he subs t i ·

tu te to r our view of what happened a t the t r i a l ? S o c ~ a t e ai s

seen in a di ffe ren t l i gh t , as helpless in f ron t o t a crowd. I t

i s t rue that Oldfather expresses these views not as cer ta in , but

as •probable, which to r purposes of s t r l i s t i c convenience, I sha l lexpress as statements o t t ac t . • Here, then, i s what happened a t

he great t r i a l of 399 B.o ••

Soon af te r get t ing to his t e e t , Socrates made soae absurd

statement t ha t amused the court. In !heaetetus (175 D) he i s

(). I /represented as fi(),f f " ' ~ f L - ' u > v -(though Burnet reads (3cJ.r-rrJ. pt5wv



18

At anJ r a t e , a t t h i s point developed a laugh, which soon became

a disturbance, as Plato h ~ s e l toften admits, when be makes

socrates request the jur7aen not to ra i se a row. (Aeoloaz 17 0-D,

20 E, 21 A, 27 B, 30 C.) Socrates .awaited a period o t re la t ive

q u i e t ~then asserted bluntl7 tha t he was an honest man and a

worthJ c i t izen , referred to the oracle a t Delphi• and made some

remarks about the •Daimon1on.• He went on to s ta te t ha t the

accusation .was whol17 t a lae , claiming i t was a t raveat7 on j u t i c e

for such men to a i t in judgment on him., when he had spent h is

ent i re l i t e in considering jus t auch questions aa t h i s on whichtheJ were to decide.

Such words were bound to i r r i t a t e the jurors , and his manner/

was also t e l t to be overbear ins . The •1ot t7 tone• - - f L E ~ a l .~ ~ ~ o f t o-

gave Xenophon the idea tha t he was wearJ or l i t e and wanted to

die; cer ta in lJ a l l h is words and acts implied aa much, and he

consistentl7 retueed to keep si lence. The ent i re Apololl o t

Plato ia oaat in a tone o t an aloof and jus t i f iab l7 insolent

contempt.

Socrates did not get so ta r on th i s tack, however. The

disturbance soon becaae so great tha t he could saJ nothing• but

jus t stood there with his mouth open • • the picture drawn o t him

in the Theaetetua. In this desperate s i tuat ion sOJDe o t his

fr iends t r ied to apeak to r ~ , but without effec t , since theJ

were not prepared, and the audience was b7 th i s ttme pos1tivelJ

hos t i le , l i t t l e more than a mob. InevitablJ the f i r s t vote was



19

to r condemnation; then Socrates brazenly proposed his counter-

penalty of s ta te pension as a benetactor of Athena, and infur ia ted

the crowd even more. Contusion ensued, and various sums of money

were shouted by one person or another, but none o t thea was

tormallJ recorded by the clerk . The f ina l vote was taken amid

considerable contusion. Libanius says in his De.clamationea tba t

socrates was the viot ia o t SQJster accusation, and the jur7 cas t

the i r vote sooner than was r ight .

Once the f ina l vote was taken, and Socrates had become a

criminal, someone gave him a bufte t on the side o t the head,

perhaps as he was being led o t t to prison. ~ h i s ia mentioned in

Gorgiaa, and t i t s in pertect l7 with the res t o t the evidence.

A contirmation o t the above description of the t r i a l can be

had, in a waJ, tro.a Diogenes Laert iua, who mentions nothing o t aformal detence.5 He records onl7 an unsuccessful at t sapt that

Plato made to apeak, the dispute about the t ine , and the penaltJ

o t the pension. Although Diogenea i s uaual lJ unrel iable , because

he often oadta passages, on th is point he mal be r igh t . Socrates

was UDdoubtedlJ the kind o t man whoa Plato represents. He never

qualledf he never compromised; he did the beat he c011ld under the

circumstances. But he did not del iver tha t aGperb speech which

Plato a t t r ibutes to him.

5 Lives o t Eminent Philosophers, t ranal . by R.D. Hicks, L.C.L.,London, Helliiiiinn, 10!5, II , 41 and <&2.



20

Mr. Oldfather ends h is a r t i c l e ra ther cballenginglJ• Those

who accept the b1atoric1tJ of PA must characterize as l i a r s the

tollowing: Plato in bia other dialogues; Xenophon, Hermogaaes,

Diogenes Laert ius, Justus, Maximus of TJre, the author o t the

Prolegomena, or the •ources or these l a t t e r authors. On the other

band, the picture given b7 Oldfather i s plausible aDd acceptable

to a l l students. Plato nowhere says, "These are the words t ba t

Socrates ut tered a t his t r i a l . • The Apologz i s a mere defence

dreamed up b1 Plato. Either the Apolosz i s histor1call7 r ight ,

or the Gorg1aa and Theaetetua.are; the7 cannot both be r igh t a t

the same t i a e , and Mr. Oldfather prefers the l a t t e r two. Bia

f ina l words are: •JfJ appeal i s from Plato drunk ( in. the Aeology)

to Plato sober ( in the other two.)•

Thus t a r Mr. Oldfather. His arguments, in br ief , are these.

Ever7b0d7 wr.ote "Apologies;• the tone o t PA snows i t i s f ic t ion;

different versions prove i t was not given; Plato h1mstlt t e l l s

us Socrates did not give i t in court ; Xenophon aa1s Socrates

did not prepare to r h is t r i a l , and t r i e s to explain his poor

showing; besides, Socrates was not a speaker. And a l l through

his arguments runs tha t fundamental misconception: the inoonceiva•b i l i t 7 o t &nJ man's gett ing up before an audience in court and

doing an7tbing else but t r7 to escape with his l i t e .



CHAPTER I I

SUMMARY OF THE REFUTATION

Same 7ears ago, a book appeared whose t i t l e 1s "Buol1des

Vindicatus." Perhaps the t i t l e of t h i s thes i s should be "Platon1s

Socrates Vindicatus,• s ince i t s purpose i s to es tab l i sh the r e a l i t

of the Socrates portra7ed in the dialogues or Plato , and eapecia l l

o t the Socrates depicted in the ApoloSl• Mr. Oldfather ma1nta1ns

tha t the rea l Socrates gave no such speech as the PA, but ra ther

was so nonplussed on h is appearance in court before the r io t ing

judges, tha t he fa i l ed completely to del iver an7 convincing

address , much l ess a polished orat ion such as Pla to ' s l i t t l e

masterpiece. He argues a t length; I sha l l give here a .summary

of m7 arguments agains t him. Sincei t i s

a summary, there wil lbe apparent a few lacunae in the thought; these wi l l be eliminated

in the exhaustive treatment of each argument, which wi l l be found

in the four th chapter.

And since our point of view i s important, the conclusion

which we sha l l t ry to reach with object ive evidence i s t h i s :

Socrates did del iver the speech which forms the basis to r the

polished orat ion which we now c a l l Pla to ' s ApologJ, though the

f inished l i t e ra ry s ty le o t the speech i s due to the genius of the

21



22

disciple , and not to the ! ! tempore speaking ab i l i ty of the master

This i s the opinion o t Burnet and Ta7lor, with modifications, and

probably of most of the modern cammentatora. 1 And now to the

summary or the refuta t ion.

Dr. Ga.perz• arguaenta t roa the Gorgias aDd Theaetetus

require a nuaber of qQotationa tram the Greek t ex t , ao we sha l l

l e t them wait u n t i l the more detai led refUtation in a l a t e r

chapter. Sutt1ce i t to say now t ha t the picture drawn in these

dialogues i s not tba t of Socrates in court • • and we may reach

th i s conclusion tram external evidence in no way connected with

the Apologz of Plato. Since the statements of Kaximua of !yre

are uae4 mainly to c o n f i ~the condluaiona from the other two

dialoguea of Plato, his evidence i s no longer of any great value.

Thef i r s t

point against us concerns the mult ipl ic i ty of thespeeches claiming to be the actual Defence of Socrates, and the

fac t that rules were la id down to r the composition of imitat ion

~ ~ p o l o g i e s . •The arguments given b.1 ~ seem to indicate ra ther

the opposite conclusion: the Apology of Plato i s aubstant1all7

the same as the rea l speech o t Socrates in court . Bad the fear less

old gadfly not made an t .p ress ive . important speech, so many

di ffe ren t aen would not have t r ied to wri te i t up. And Plato was

surely best qualif ied to repor t h is master 's discourse most

acouaately. He was there; the others were not . That he did not

l Grote. Hacktorth, Phil l ipson, Rogers, Zel ler.



socrates. The tone o t the Apolo5J ia i t a cer ta in badge o t

genuinit7; Socrates ' replT to the unjust . untounded charge ia

jus t what would be expected of the Socrates whose general characte

we know from the other dialogues. Of course he did not t ry to

escape the death sentenceJ Of course he wanted to d ie • • obedieno

to atate law requir ing i t . and unswerving allegiance to t ru th

asking i t of ~ . 3 To •7 ~ D d ,the tone of the Apololl ia i t a

most t ru ly Socratic ~ a l i t y . He ia perfect l7 consis tent .

Theth i rd point

i sthat d ivers i ty o t subject-matters in the

different Apologies shows that no effect ive speech was given in

court . The answer i t that the divers i ty i s present because Plato

waa there; Xenophon was not. Plato probably did jus t what Dr.

Oldfather •tJS everybody there would have done • • remember the

great speech quite exactly. Mr. Taylor makes much of t h i s point .

Furthermore, the divers i ty i s there because Plato i s Plato, and

the others are not . Wby they should write up the speech i n the

aame way as an admitted genius who was present when they were not ,

i s d i f f i c u l t to aay. Lastly, Xenophon, or the author of the

Apologz at t r ibuted to him, aaya he has not wri t ten up the whole

r i a l , and baa oai t ted things said by Socrates and his f r iends .

Mr. Oldfather next coaea back to the evidence from Gorgiaa

and Theaetetus, saying tha t the scenes of the discomfiture of the

philosopher in court are absurd i t PA i s rea l ly his tor ic . But the

3 J.Burnet. Greek Ph1losoESl•I ,

London# Macmillan, 1924, 180•181.



25

scenes are not absurd. Therefore, the PA i s f ic t ion . This

objection ia invalidated by one simple method: reading the dia-

logues in ~ e s t i o n .Socratea c lear ly •ara tha t he wil l not have

a word ! ! t l a t t e r z to say in court . •The speeches tha t I make

trom time to tbne are not atmed a t gra t i f ica t ion , but a t what i a

best instead of what i s most pleasant .• (Gorsias, 521 D) This ia

per tect l7 consistent with h is words 1n the Apolo(l• He mar not

have a word of t l a t t e r r to ••1 to bia ignorant judges; he s t i l l

may put h is thoughts as to t he i r qual i f icat ions in the to rce tu l

s tyle o t PA. He s t i l l may marshal the facts of his l i f e and the

ideals which be has undertaken to follow, and del1Yer them with

a l l the ainoer i tJ be can muster, thereby endowing hie speech with

a torcetulness ordinar117 unconnected with his discourses. These

passages bJ no means contradict the Apolosz; they confirm i t .

All thewa7

through theoorJ?!!a

Platoni cum.,

Plato has given usa

picture of his master, consistent as to h is personal character

and his determination to pursue t ru th and goodness. This corporate

impression, derived f r o . perusal of the di ffe ren t dialogues, i s

d ia . e t r i ca l ly opposed to the picture of the thunder•atruok Socrate

whoa Mr. Oldfather puts before us.

Another argument i s drawn t roa . the .llemorab111a of Xenophon.

t the Daimonion prevented him tram making a speech beforehand,

he must have been a t a loss for words in court , and made no

lengthy attempt to defend himself. This conclusion may be denied,

and from Xenophon•a own teat1mon7 in the aaae work# where he aaJS



26

tha t Socrates "acquired great glorJ by proving the firmness o t

his mind, pleading his cause, above a l l men, with the greates t

regard to t ru th , ingenuousness, and juat ice .•4 And the whole o t

Pbaedrus m&J' be considered a refuta t ion of 01dtatber•a stand,

since in i t Socrates i s made out to be a surpassingl7 good orator.

I f PA 1a re jected, the in terpreta t ion o t th i s d1al.ogue i s rendered

very d1t t1cul t . Wh7 would Plato represent Socrates aa such a

speaker, when ever7one would recognise the picture aa talseY

The motive o t the Xenophontean Apolosz and of the Meaorabilia

i s Slid to be • to explain wh7 Socrates did not make a be t t e r

defence o t himself in cour t . • That motive does not seem to be

stated or 1mplieit!J ' contained in e i ther o t the works above

mentioned. They are rather writ ten to show why Socrates adopted

the lo t t7 plane he did take, and did not cater to the low t as tes

and wishes o t the jurors . ~ h i emotive i s quite in accord with

wbat we saw 1n regard to Gorgias aDd ' l 'heaetetua.

His l a s t point i s about the d i a l e c t i c i a n - ~ e d - c r a t

Socrates m&J not have b ~ n another Demosthenes, but 'he surelT bad

same points in bis favor when he was baled in to court . His

dia lec t ica l sk i l l a t l eas t helped bim there , part icularlJ ' to r ! !

tempore speaking. Pbaedrus, as we have alread7 seen, makes him

out to be quite ski l led a t speeoh•making. But as he sa7s himaelt,

his whole l i f e was h is preparation to r th i s speech. Included in

4 In Socrat ic Discourses o t Plato and XenoBbon, t rana l . by

E. Rbis, London, Dent an! ! o n a ~!J!o, i i . .



CHAP'l'ER I I I

THE '!'AYLOR-BURHET TBEOBY

Having seen Mr. Oldfather 's at tack on Pla to ' s Socrates, we

sha l l now go to the other extreme, as i t were, before we end i n

the middle. Mr. Taylor may be considered the extreme, with Mr.

Burnet stadding jus t th ia aide o t him. They agree that Plato baa

given us an accuaate picture o t the his tor ica l Socrates in his

d i a l o g u e s ~they disagree as to some de ta i l s . We ahall f i r s t t r e a to t t he i r general theory as to the relat ionship between the actual

socrates and h is por t ra i t in Plato; then we sha l l see what they

saJ regarding the PA.

F i ra t , Mr. Burnet:

'!'he present wri ter believes that we are boundto-regard a l l the dialogues in which Socratesi s the leading speaker as prb la r i l7 intendedto expound his teaching. '!'his by no meansexcludes the poss ib i l i ty tha t Plato a&J haveideal ised h is hero more or l eas , or ~ h a t heJD.&y have given a turn of his own to a good118.1lJ' things. ! 'hat would onl7 be hwaan nature ,but i t would not ser ioualr a t t e c t the generalimpression. The principle ground to r holding

th i s view i s t ha t , a t a cer ta in period of h isl i t e , Plato began to t ee l that i t was inappropriate to make Socrates the chief speakerin his d ia lopes (c t . Laws, Poli t icus ,Timaeus) ••• The Phi le ;ua; one ot ~ ! a t o1 s

! a t e a l works, ia ]us t the exception whichproves the ru l e . I t s theae i s the applicat ion of PJthagorean principles to ~ e a t i o n s

28



o t morals; and i t we believe Plato , t h f t wasjus t the ohief' occupation or Socrates.

In another book he writesa

To avoid misunderstanding, I should sa7 that

29

I do not regard the d.ialogues of' Plato asrecords of' actual conversations, though I dothink i t probable that there are such embeddedin them. I also f 'ul lJ admit tha t the Pla tonicSocrates i s Socrates as Plato saw bim, an d thathis image may be to 80J i l8 extent t ransfiguredb7 the memor7 or his martyrdom. The extent towhich t h i s has happened. we cannot, of ' course,determine, but I do not believe § t hasser iouslJ f'alsif 'led the picture .

This i s exactl7 the stand which wi l l be taken in th i s thes i s .

The arguments given against Oldfather wil l be such as Burnet

would probabl7 use. Not tha t his theor1 can be accepted 1n a l l

t s deta i l s . Bls idea tha t we should s t a r t with Pla to ' s S o c r a t

since hei s

more important than most men or f lesh and blood, evenf h is por t ra i t i s f ' iot1t lous, l s nei ther a good idea nor a t rue

one. 3 His attempt to make a P7thagorean out of' Socrates does not

succeed, nor does h is assert ion tha t Socrates held the Theor1 of

dea•• But his points in favor o t Pla to ' s acou•ao7 are will ingl7

accepted and gladl7 used to bols ter the arguaents 1n th i s thes6s.

"The Platonic Ar1stophanes i s thoroughl7 Aristophanic, and th i s

ra ises a t l eas t a presumption tha t the Platonic Socrates i s

In his a r t i c l e •socrates• , HastiA&!' E n c z c l o ~ e d i aor Relisionand Ethics, XI,.New York, Scribners Sons, !9=t, 67!7 .

2 n r i e i PhiiosopAz, 149.3 lbia. , 129.-



30

socra t ic . • • As reasons why Plato could know Socrates much bet te r

and easier than Xenophon, Burnet Sa71 t ha t Plato •was a t Athena

during the l a s t two 7eara o t h i s (Socrates ' ) l i t e , while Xenopbon

was in As1a.•5 The theme o t a l l his discussion i s : "The Platonic

socrates i s no mere tJPe, but a 11Y1ng man. That, above a l l , i s

our jus t i f ica t ion to r believing that he 1s '1n t ruth •the

his tor ica l Sooratea.•• 6

Taylor goea far ther than Burnet, though even he wi l l not

demand s lavish acceptance o t every word as tha t o t Socrates. His

general opinion i a :

The por t ra i t drawn in the Platonic dialoguesof the personal and philosophical individual i tyo t Socrates i s in a l l i t a main points s t r i c t l yh i s to r i ca l , and capable of being shown to be so •••• In a wort, what the genius o t Plato h as

done to r hia master i s .not, as 1a too oftenthou.Jbt, to transfigure him, but to understand

him.One o t his main reasons fo r th i s opinion i s the fac t tha t Plato

changed his method in l a t e r l i t e • • the aaae reason as the one

o t Burnet above. He sa7a he can see no reason t o r th i s change

but tha t given b7 Burnet, • t h a t Pla to ' s h i s to r i ca l sense forbade

him to make Socrates the expositor of philosophical and sc ien t i f ic

4 J . Burnet, Phaedo, Oxford, Clarendon Preas, 1931, xxxiv.5 ib id . , xxix.ES !'51'!., l v i.7 1:17 Taylor, Varia Sooratlca, Fi r s t Series , Oxford, James

Parker and Oo., 1§1I, Ix-x.



31

in te res t s and doctrines which Plato well knew to be his own and

those or bis contemporaries.•&

Another o t his arguments i s t h i s . I t i s unintel l igible wb7

Plato ahould put in so man7 l i t t l e deta i l s in the character anddoings o t Socrates, and keep them so consistent through the

writ ings o t ha l t a centurJ, unless he were reproducing an actual

character. !hose part icular character is t ics are bJ no means

necessary to the ideal sage, so must be founded on Socrates b i a

se l t . The main f igures or the non-Socratic dialogues, are verJ

defini te ly tJPea • • to r instance, the Eleat ic Stranger o t the

Sof2istes and Pol1ticus. 9 Be claima that "Plato i s rea l ly the

sole contemporarJ o t Socrates who bas an7thlng o t importance to

t e l l ua.•lO And he goes on to say,

89

The -h i s to r i ca l Socrates,• as he bas been

cal led, au.stbe tound

in tbe f 'ull and t a i t h tu lpor t ra i t , drawn with careful a t ten t ion to t ac t ,o t a great thinker b.J another great thinker,who bJ God's grace, was also a master o t

dramatic portra i ture . The por t ra i t i s tbat o t

the actual son o t Sophroniscua; nearl7 •••rJ""h is tor ica l • touch in i t i s known to uaul t imatelJ onlJ on the t a1 th o t Pla to . l l

So h is conclusion i s :

The assumption upon which the tollowing accounto t Socrates wi l l be based, i s , then, tha t P la to ' s

Socrates, 26.Piato*s B i o ; r a ~o t Socrates,!ead Kirch ~ ~ l ~ ! i - !S .

London, Oxtord Universi tJ Press,

0 i b id . , 32.'f'6'l"!. , 40.-



picture of his master ia sub . tan t ia l ly accurate.and t ha t the information he supplies about himta intended to be taken as h i s to r i ca l t a c t . I tdoes not . of course follow tha t there baa beenno •transfiguration& o t Socrates in Pla to ' smind bJ aedi ta t ion on his death as a martfr••••I t does not follow again, t ha t everything r ia tot e l l s us must be precise his tor ica l t ru th .

32

Burnet and Ta7lor, then, agree on t h e i r aain ideas; theJ

disagree vio len t l J with Oldfather. In approaching the i r versiGn

o t what the speech means. we sha l l do well to c lear the ground

f i r s t . The7 do not accept Xenophon as much o t a witness. since

he was awa7 from Athena a t the time or the t r i a l , and he had l e t t

the c i ty around the age or twenty-five, so t ha t he could not have

known Socrates very int imately before he did depar t . l 3 " I t does

not appear t roa his own writ ings tha t he was ever part1eular1y

intimate with Socrates, and i t seems cer ta in that he cannot have

been more than twentJ-tour a t the outside when he saw the Masterto r the l a s t t ime.• 14 Be adds a note to th i s statement:

I t i s cer ta in tha t Xenophon never saw Socratesa f t e r his own departure from Athena in 401 tojo in the expedi*ion·ot Prince Cyrus. We donot know even tha t he ever revis i ted Athena a f t e rth ia-s i?ore his baniabaent in the 7ear 394. Thathe had never been very intimate with Socrates mayprobabl7 be in terred tram the t a c t tha t h i s naae

i s never mentioned b7 Plato. who t e l l s us a greatdeal about the aembera o t the Socrat ic c i ro le . lS

12 Socrates, 3 2 - ~ .

13 ~ e t , Platonisa. Berkele7, California Universi tJPreas, 1928, 20.

14 Ta7lor, Socrates, 16.15 ~ . , 16, note 1 .



33

Xenophon, too, i s not a re l iab le witness concerning even

events a t which he claimed to be present . He S&J'B he was a t the

SJmposium; 7et i t occurred in 421 or 420 B.c., when he wa' 7et a

cbi ldl As regards th i s event aDd his record or i t , Burnet sa7s;

"Xenopbon, who had read Pla to ' • Szmposiua without discovering what

i t was about, i t we 11a7 judge from h is own COII.position o t the same.1 6name.

Xenophon mentions no biographical data which he could not

have obtained trom Pla to ' s works; as a matter o t t a c t , he gives

ver7 l i t t l e o t such da ta . l 7 XA ia made up aa1nl7 or palpable

borrowings trom the Apologl, Cri to , and Phaedo ot Plato, except

or what ~ a r l o rca l la two not very bappf additions or corrections.

The f i r s t i s the •remarkable and co.aical statement• tha t the

purpose o t Socrates in making a defence which was r e a l l J a defiance

was " to ensure h is own conviction and so. escape the wealmess and

disorders at tendant on old age . . hardl7 a creditable motive or

one l ike l7 in a man vigorous enough to have le t t a baby in arms

behind him.• 18 And the Ma.orabilia t e l l s us l i t t l e ; in i t he

never mentions the attempted rescu• from paiaon and Socrates•

efusal to use i t , though th i s would have suited Xenopbon•spurpose. In XA he br ief l7 mentions t h i s , but tha t i s a l l , and i t

s an evident • s tea l . •



34

From the t ac t tha t Xenophon t e l l s ua nothing o t &nJ close

riendsb1p he bad with Socrates, but onl7 that he consulted the

philosopher as to h is journe7 to Asia, Burnet concludes tbat

Xenophon had l i t t l e more tban tha t to do with him. " I t there had

been much more to t e l l , we aa7 be pret t7 sure Xenopb.on would have

told i t ; to r he i s by no means averse to talking about himaelt .• l9

And the t i na l cr1t1qae o t Xenophon i s , according to Burnet. the

ent i re character o t his ApolOSl• "XenophonL defence ot Sokrates

i s too successful . He would never have been put to death i t he

had been l ike t ha t . • 20

Xenophon, therefore, ia dismissed with l i t t l e a,apath7 b.1

Ta7lor and Burnet. Their idea o t Aris to t le ' s helpfulness in

solving the Socrat ic problem i s l i t t l e higher. About a l l tha t

he7 wi l l admit i s that he drew moat or his facts tram Pla to ' s

wchool, and supports the i r theorr i t he does an,.thing.

Aris tot le nei ther had, nor could have beenexpected to have, an7 part icular knowledge o t

the l i t e and thought o t Socrates, except whathe learned from Plato, orread in the works o t

the "Socratic men," and more especial ly •• •every statement o t importance made aboutSocrates .in the Aris tote l ian corpus can bet raced to an exist ing source in the Platonic

dialoguea.2l .Aris tot le exercised no kind o t higher cr1 t1ois . on h is documents,

but aimplJ' accepted wb.at he read in the works or Plato and others

19 Burnet, Greek Philoaop!f, 126.20 i b id . , 149.21 ! i j ! o r , Varia Sooratioa, 40·41.



35as a dramatically t a i t h t u l presentat ion of a rea l h i s to r i ca l

igure . And since Aris to t le drew most o t h is knowledge o t Socrates

rom his being in Pla to ' s school, • the reasonable presumption i s

hus tha t the Aris tote l ian account o t Socrates simpl7 recorda

amil iar t r a i t s t r a a an a ~ o a texcluaivelJ Ao 8 deaio school-tradiion , which must r e s t , 1n i ta turn , on ~ e writings o t Plato .• 22

Ta7lor goes on to prove th i s point to r twenty pages, and f inishes

his discussion with:•we have therefore a r ight to claim his t e s t i •

mon7, such as i t i s , in favour of the view tha t P la to ' s dramatic

portra i ture of Socrates i s , in a l l essen t ia l s , thoroughlJ h1stor1-

cal . •23

Burnet adds that Aris tot le classed the dialogues with the

mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus, thus indicat ing tha t they are

mitat ions of rea l people; Plato used r ea l characters in a t rue

o - l i t ewaJ. The reason

wh7he bad no f i rs t -hand information

about Socrates i s tha t he did not doae to Athena unt i l a generation

a f t e r the death of Socratea.24

So theJ are readJ to accept onlJ the dialogues and the Clouds

t Ariatopbanes as of an7 r ea l his tor ica l value; we ba ve alreadJ

een tha t Havelock follows thea 1n th i s . Their reason t o r accep•ing the Clouds seems to be tha t i t gives t h a . a handle to r th ie

heory of the i r s tha t Socrates was rea l l J a P7thagorean, head of a

ind of school. According to Burnet, the picture of Socrates in

2 i b i d . , 54.3 I 'Sil . , 89 .

24 ~ t . Hastings Enozoloeedia, 672.



36I

the Cf f o v r c ~ r r Y )p l o V i s i n t e l l ig ib le onl7 on the supposition

tha t •socrates was popular17 regarded as the di rec tor a t once ot

a sc1ent1tio school, and of a re l ig ious conventicle , and tha t

combination inevitabl7 suggests a P7tbagorean f"-v v ( 6 L o v • •2 5

He claims tha t no offense was taken a t tbe actual pertoraance o t

the Clouds, jus t because Socrates did head some kind o t esoter ic

group. In the Sl!Posium, Socrates and Aristophanes are made out

to be very close fr iends s ix or seven years a f t e r the production

of the pla7. Only in the l i gh t o t subsequent events was the

Clouds resented, and even ao the whole m a t t e ~i s t rea ted quite

igh t ly in PA. The fac t tha t the parody i s found in a comedy i s

a presumption tha t i t i s not a statement merely of t a c t , for t ha t

would not be tunny. •en the other hand, every such statement .,.

must have some sor t of foundation i n f ac t ; fo r absolute f ic t ions

about r ea l people are not tunny ei ther. •26

Taylor repeats t h i s viewpoint, saying t ha t i t th i s i s a

car icature of the hero of the Phaedo, we should be able to find

n i t those glor i f ied character is t ics which we find in the l a t t e r

dialogue. 27 He then goes in to th e matter a t great length, and

comes out f i f t y pages l a t e r with th i s conclusion:What has been said , unless i t i s a l l baselessfancr, seems enough to show tha t the accountgiven of Socrates in the dialogues i saurpr1s1n.gly l ike the car icature of h im

25 In H a s t 1 ~ a 'E n c t c l o p e d i ~ ,666.6 Burnet, reek Ph=tosophy, 145.7 V a ~ 1 aSocra£1ca. !2§.



produced by the grea t comedian of Pla to ' sJlo,-hood, so much so tha t the two representa t ions reciprocally contirm one anotherin a way which compels ua to believe tha tthe Clouds i s a h i s to r i ca l document of thef i r s t r ink, and tha t Plato•a descript ionof the entourage, in teresta and ear ly l i f e

o t Socrates r e s t s , in a l l i t a main points ,on a genuinely his tor ica l baaia.28

37

This ia t he i r general viewpoint on Pla to ' s works; not a l l of

t wil l be accepted, but we ahal l have the opposite view from

hat o t Oldfather. Since th i s thesis wi l l s t ee r a middl-e course.

both extremes must be known. As to r the PA, they regard i t as a

professed fa i thfu l reproduction of the ac tua l language of Socrates

a t the memorable t r ial .w29

That i t i s not a word-tor-word reproductiono t the actual speech delivered by Socratesmay be granted a t once. Plato was not anewspaper reporter. On the otber band, weknow tha t he was present a t tbe t r i a l . (34 A,38 B)

and t ha tauggesta

the poaaibi l i t7o f

something more nearly approaching a reportthan we can ta i r l , - assume in the case ofother L w Kp.L r t l<oL >-rf o<- • • • • lfot only wasPlato present in court with many other mem-bers o t the Socratic ci rc le , but there werealso the 500 (or 501) dicasta , besides anaudience, which, in view of the aensationalcharacter of the t r i a l , was no doubt a Largeone. Bow one o t Pla to ' s atms i s surely todefend the memory o t Socrates by se t t ing

for th his character and ac t iv i ty in the i rt rue l igh t ; and , aa most of those presentmust have been s t i l l l iv ing when the Apologywas published, he would have defeated hisown end i f he had given a f i c t i t ious accounto t the a t t i tude o t Socrates and o t the main

8 1b1d., 1 7 4 ; c t . alae Havelock, 282.9 ! i : j !or, Plato , 156



38

l inea or his detence.30

Taylor reasons the same way, and claims Rit te r and Wilamowitz

Moellendortf as a l l i ea . 31 The Introduction to the thesis has

given arguments against t h i s point of view; Taylor and Burnet

seem to have the stronger aide, however.

Ta7lor sa)"& t ha t tbe speech i s so c haracter ia t ic t ha t i t ma7

be accepted as an accurate reproduction of the actual speech, and

h i t s out a t Scbans and the others who argued against i t . He aaya

hei r doubts are due only to t h e i r assumption " tha t the f i r s t

object o t an accused man must always be to •aet o f f ' a t any price .

That may be t rue o t most men, but i t ia not t rue o t a l l , and l eas t

ot a l l of a man l ike Socrates.•32 We sha l l return to th is point .

What did Plato do, then! Why, juat what men l ike Demosthenes

did to r the i r own speeches before~ b l i s h i n g

them• ·

polish andevise i t , without fa ls i fying any fundamental f ac t s . The substan

i a l value or the Apologz as his tory i s assured. Ta7lor and

Burnet waste no sJmpathJ on those who cannot believe that Socrates

actual l7 did not want toescape the death sentence, given the

onditions. They deny t he i r opponents• statement that th is

el iberate seeking o t death i s the only al ternat ive to denial of

he Apolosr as his tor ioa l . 33 TheJ look on PA in a different l igh t .

J . Burnet, Euth,-. . , Apolosz and Cri to , Oxford, ClarendonPress, 1924, 5 3 ; ~ Cf. Griik-pniloaofhl , 180; Plato, 156-15?.

1 Taylor, Socrates, 28.2 ib id . , 116.

0

33 I'f5I'a., 116.

-



39

"The objec t of the pic ture i a t o make ua understand why the

martyr chooses such a l i f e and why the c ompJi:etion of h is career

by a martyr ' s death i s a corona and not a ' d i sas te r • . •34

That Socratesn e a r l ~

won h is case in spi te of h is re fuaa l tocompromise, proves t ha t the jury was not so overwh4lm1ngly agains t

him. Even as i t was, the inf luence of Anytus and the rhetor ic of

Meletus combined only succeeded i n get t ing a a a j o r i t ~of 281 votes

to 220. Surely t ha t does not show a bigoted and antagonis t ic j u r

Wow they t e l l us how they i n t e rp re t the par te of PA. Theytake the f i r s t sec t ion . up to 28 A, as a parddy on· forensic

speeches, containing only huaorous explanations of his mission.

The account of the Delphic oracle i s humorous. a.s i s tha t of the

Clouds. The claim to a specia l mission from •God• i s the actual' .

defence; i t must not be contused with the message from Apollo.

The cross-examination, too , i s j u s t humor, the irony of Socrates

asser t ing i t s e l f . Against Ridde l l ' s claim tha t the subt le rhe to r ic

or the f i r s t par t of Pla to ' s speech i l l accords with tbe h1stor1ca

Socrates , Burnet argues t ha t he misses the mark, since the exordi

ia a parody, aa i s h is disclaiming to have any knowledge or

forensic dic t ion . • I t i s , in f a c t , impossible to doubt t ha t

Socrates was per fec t ly fami l ia r with contemporary rhe tor ic , and

t ha t he thought very l i t t l e of i t . •35 He l a t e r adds tha t Plato

would have represented Socrates as giving t h i s turn to the t r i cks



40

ot the forensic ora tor ' s t rade i f he bad rea l ly done something

ot th i s kind. And only the exordiua ia eo careful l7 done;36 i f

the o r i t ic a would go on and examine the r e s t of the speech in the

same wa7, the7 would f ind tha t 1 t i s not so smooth throughout,

and t he i r ideas would have to be changed.

I f the f i r s t part i s i ronic , his r ea l defence i s tram 28 A

to 34 B. This agrees with the principles enuntiated in Gorgias

and Theaetetus, since i t surel7 baa not f l a t t e ry fo r the judges

n i t . I t concerns Socrates ' divine mission, not from the oracle,

but from god; tha t mission was to exhort everyone not to care fo r

the i r bodies or to r mone7 so much as for t h e i r souls, and how to

make the.m as good as possible. Ho wonder the o ~ T r o A ~ o twould

oppose him and his ideas l That ia wbJ he bad to plead for order

n 30 C; here i s h is f--€. ' tJ,je- 'Qop!J.. . , in defying the f-l7flo5, and

olai ldng he has the miaaion of c onve(ing thea. Another example

ot the l a t t e r was bia refusal to bring in a weeping wife and

children, as most defendants did. And a th i rd was his counter-

proposal of s ta te support fo r the r e s t of his natural l i t e . All

hese things conspired to t i p the scales in favor ot convict ion;

t was not an7 contemptuous a t t i t ude on the par t of the old man.Be could hardl7 explain his mission to the crow& in &nf wa7 tha t

was not unpleasant to them, and he could not omit some attempt a t

an explanation, i t he was to give the t rue stor7 of his l i f e .

36 cr. Havelock, and Backtorth•s whole book, which is devotedto jus t thiapoint .



41

In t h i s way Taylor and Burnet in te rpre t tbe Apologz. They

bave b.•en attacked on t he i r .view by other scholars , whose asser-

ions wi l l serve to counterbalance the extreme views advocated by

he Englishmen, whose opinion has been summed up by an opponent:

The net resu l t o t these onslaughts, i t tbeyprove victor ious , i s that Plato alone has drawnthe por t ra i t o t Socrates ser iously t roa l i t e .Xenophon has onl7 given us a very poor sketch,chief ly making a teeble copy or the l essin teres t ing features in Pla to ' s picture , andpretending that he has produced a l ikenesstram h is memory or the original . I t , whenperplexed whether to t rus t Plato or Xenophon,we·appeal to Aris to t le , he i s discredited,because he knows nothing but Pla to ' s repre-senta t ion. Final ly, the caricature inAristophanes, produced long before Pla to ' sstandard por t r a i t , gives the impression that 3 7he and Plato drew trOll one and the s p e model.

Mrs. Adam believes tha t Xenophon has given us the h i s to r i ca l

Socrates, and tha t the Socrates o t Plato i s not one, but two, and

here ia a gra4ual t rans i t ion trom one to the other. In the early

dialogues, the Socrates portrayed i s the Socrates o t Xenopbon,

plus the v i t a l i t y o t Pla tors dramatic a r t .

Jfr. Field agrees with her, a&taoe the Socrates o t P.A. i s Jmch

i k l Xenophon 1 a Socrates • • going around asking qQestiona. Be has

no specia l teaching kept to r an inner circ le .38 And Aris to t le ' svidence i s against the opinion tha t Socrates was a Pythagorean

r held the Theory of Ideas, or tha t Plato has given us a record

t the views o t the his tor ica l Socrates. To be sure, the ea r l i e r

7 A.M. Adam, •socrates , ' ~ a n t u mmutatua ab i l l o , ' " Classical~ a r t e r 1 7 ,XII (1918), 124.

8 ocrates and Plato, 30.-



42

ialogues have given us a re l iab le account of Socrates. but once

l a to ' s thought emerged tram the rudimentary stages or philosophy,

e pushed ahead on h is own, s t i l l keeping Socrates as h is main

peaker u n t i l the very l a s t dialogues.

Paul Shorey i s one of the foremost Plato scholars of modern

mes, and he believes t ha t tbe extreme view or Taylor and Burnet

must be tempered • • tha t Socrates ' appearance in a dialogue does

ot ~ ipso make tha t dialogue his tor ica l ly accurate.

I f Socrates had possessed a body of doctr inesand a system or philosophy with principlescoherent and interdependent, be would have aeti t down in wri t ing. The of l a te much-advertisedspeculation tha t everything in Pla to ' s writingsup to and includiDI the Republic i s Socrat icinvolves the monstrous para4ox t ba t the world 'smoat aff luent and precise thinker never wrote al ine and t ha t the wri ter who gave consummateexpression to a l l t h i s ·wealth of thought,formulated no ideas or his own t i l l he was past

the age oft i f t J .

So gross ap s J o h o l o g i ~ a l

improbabili ty cannot be taken aeriously.39

gainst Mr. Shorey's opinion may be instanced Socrates• own idea

f the super ior i ty or the spoken over the wri t ten word, as given

n both the Phaedrus (275 B - 277 A) and the Protagoras (347 E).

i s not too sure t ha t Socrates would have wri t ten out h is

hilosophy; Plato evidently does not think he woulA have.

What does Shorey accept as authentic 1n PA, then? That the

nspira t ion was authentic , and t ha t • i t his tory means the l iving

9 What Plato Said, 21.- -



43

past , t h i s Platonic ideal izat ion ia the Socrates o t history• the

only Socrates tha t we sha l l ever know.•40 But in the l a s t ana1Js1

here i a no l ikel ihood tha t such a speech as the Apologz was ever

delivered as i t stands. " I t i s too obviously Pla to ' s ideal izat ion

o t hia master ' s l i f e an d mission and h is summing-up o t the things

hat needed to be said • • • • • 41 the ~ ~ 6 /o VTr j . , which Thucydidea

put in to the mouths of Peric les . Niciaa, and others.

As we pointed out before# t h i s cOMparison of the PA to the

speeches i n Thuc7dides cannot be carried too f a r. I t i s too

def in i te l7 Socrates# not a "Type." who ia speaking the things

which ought to be said . But 11r. Shorey's main idea regarding

Socrates i s surely aodeptable: the old fellow did not actual ly

ake par t in a l l the scenes which Plato baa pictured. Somewhere,

he genius of the pupil passed the bounds of the ideas transmit ted

o him by his master; wher,, we cannot determine exactly.

One of the arguments advanced by Zel le r, who i s claimed b7

Burnet and Taylor to r t h e i r aide. i s t ha t the absence o t &nJ

a r t i s t i c handling o t PA shows tha t i t i s what Socrates actual ly

said.4 2 As to t h i s , Taylor and Burnet argue tha t t h i s apparent

ack of a r t i s t r y i s rea l ly consummate s k i l l , fo r i t appears to

make Socrates an ingenuous c i t izen t rying to do h is best in court .

Ara eat celare artem.• Mr. Riddell has attacked Zel ler on t h i s

40 i b i d . , 231 "ibid.' 81 .

42 or. Hacktorth, 56.



44

point , with the purpose o t discredi t ing PA. Be makes three points .

F i r s t , there i s plentJ o t rhetor ic and a r t i s t r y in i t . Secondly,

Plato had to do th i s to give veriatmilitUde to i t . ThirdlJ , other

Apologies d1t te r from i t in tmportant de ta i l s , so Plato did work

on 1 t . Riddell concludes:

I t ia then too much of' an assumption, thoughcountenanced by Zel ler and Mr. Grote, as wellas by many older wri ters on the subject , thatwe can relF/On the Platonic ApologJ as asubstant ia l reproduction of' the speech o t

Socrates • • • • Even if ' the studied speech of'Plato eabodied authentic reminiscences o t theunpremeditated utterances of h i s master, todisengage the one f'rgm the other i s more thanwe can assum to do.43

Despite th i s , he goes on to do jus t tbatJ Be regards

Aristophanea• at tack as a fai thfUl reproduction o t the f 'acta, 44

and he professes to f ind in the Apologz a rea l por t ra i t o t Socrates

n court . 45 This seems to be simple contradict ion. If' he takes

he speech as f ic t ion , he should not be able to f ind a t rue por•

r a i t there. All tha t he baa l e t t i s XA, which i s genera l l t

i scredi ted, so he wil l never know where to find a por t ra i t of'

ocrates. Riddel l ' s a t tack, then# does l i t t l e more than c la r i ty

be i ssue. Be helps to tone down the Taylor-Burnet theory, but

he hardlJ establishes anJthing posi t ive .

As regards the Taylor-Burnet theor1 of' Ar1atophanea• value

s a confirmation of PA, t he i r conclusion cannot be accepted. The

3 J . Riddell, ~ Apolosz ~ Plato, Oxford, University Press,1877, .x.xv11.

4 i b id . , xxxiv, note 14.5 !5I!.# xxvii .-



45

too obviousl7 bave an axe to grind. Socrates i s very def in i te l7

incensed a t tbe effect of the Clouds on the Athenians. He numbers

Aristophanes with o ~ & c ~ ~ J . A ~ o v r e . s ( l 9B), giving as t he i r charge:I ~ I < , . . . . , \ . )

Lwl<flo[TY)S J ~ t l < ~ l 'K J . . ~-m:ptE-fJ"tLj£.Tol.tJ 3YJTWV Td.. I t vTro 3¥JS Ko(t ovpoivl

Aristophanes i s the f i r s t and only example given of these men

(19 C). He must be taken a t the face value of his words, i f PA

s accepted as his tor ica l . Raokto.rth agrees,

the Socrates of the Apologr ! a t rue to l i f e ,and ••• any evidence which conf l ic t s with i ti t must be re jected. The evidence of Apologr18 A • 19 D, where Socrates i s defending bimt e l t against h is "old accusers," 1 . e . ,miarepresentationa ot long standing, !a , Iwi l l say roundly, u t t e r ly and ent i re l7i r reconci lable with the picture of Socratesin the Clouda.46

He goes on: •Least ot a l l can I understand how scholars who hold

hat the AJologz ! a a close representat ion ot Socrates ' actual

peech, a t the same time defend the caricature of the Clouds as a

a i r car1cature.•47 I t we are to believe tha t PA i s a fa i thfu l

ecord ot what Socrates said , these words against Aristophanea

must be taken as his r ea l a t t ! ~ e .The7 are def in i te .

Mr. Oldfather 's arguments mar now be examined again 1n the

igh t ot the ARologz. Our direct ive norm wil l be the Tarlor-Burnet

heory, which we cannot hold alav!ahly, but which provides us with

re l iab le viewpoint in t reat ing ta1a subject .

6 Hacktorth. 146•147; also c t . Phil l ipson, 180.7 ib id •• 1_49_.



CHAPt'ER IV

REFU'J.'ATION OF JI.R. OLDFATHER'S ARTICLE

Since Mr. Oldfather considers Dr. Gomperz to have proved his

ase alread7, and his own remarks to be mere addi tons bJ wa7 o t

ontirmationes, we sha l l examine the dialogues alleged bJ Go.mperz

Go.mperz takes t h i s as a prophec7 of what actuall7 did happen, so

laims t ha t Socrates could have given no speech l ike that recorded

7 Plato.Ot

th i s ideao t

Gampers, Backtorth baa th i s to say, " Iwil l not discuss these suggestions, both o t which seem u t t e r l7

mposaible.•l And Gamperz, to be log ica l , would bave to take the

whole aa t rue to l i t e , not jus t a par t o t the passage. This would

nvolve taking the accusers· o t Socrates to be rasca ls , even though

uch an assumption does not agree with what we know o t them.

Anytus and Keletus were not men of th i s sor t , but ordinar7 c i t izens

good standing a t the time.

Hackforth, !E• !!!•, 131.

46



47

When we read fa r ther into the Gorgi&a, we flDd some ra ther

contradictory statements concerning th i s "prophec,..• Socrates

does not answer Oall ic les a t once, but goes in to a long i1souasion

of the goal of man, which he says must be the good and not the

l e a s u r ~ l e .Then in 503 A•B he begins to discuss the oratory of

he t imes, which Oall ic les admits i s not always directed to the

good of the people, but merely to t he i r gra t i f ica t ion . Socrates

ays there are tow kinds o t speech: one i s f l a t t e r r and mob•oratory

while the other i s the noble e ffo r t to make people be t t e r and to

ar what i s beat , no metter the r e s t of men think of i t . "But t h is a rhetor ic )"ou never r e t saw; o r i t )"OU have any orator o t th i s

kind tha t )"OU can mention, without more ado l e t me know who he i s . "

Oall ic les admits he does not know anyone of t ha t stamp.

How when we r eca l l Socrates ' doctrine tha t i f a man knows

what i s r igh t , he wi l l do i t , we know what to expect tram Socrates

imself i n court • • jus t the plain speech which PlatOobas given

s, a apeech directed to the good of his hearers , not to t he i r

ra t i f ica t ion . And in the passage quoted above, his use of the, 'ord "yet" o \J l r w To T t . ma7 well be taken as an earnest of what

was to come. The)" had not ze t heard auoh a speaker. Socratesnew what he would do i f he were ever in court .

In 504 D-E he sara:

, our orator, the man of a r t and vi r tue , will ,have in view, when he applies to our soulsthe words that he speaks, and also in a l lhis actions, and in giving allJ g i f t he wil lgive i t , and in taking anything awa7 he wil l



take i t , with th i s thought alwara before hismind - - how jus t ice mar be engendered in thesouls of his fe l low-ci t izens , and how in jus t icemar be removed; how temperance may be bred inthem and l icentiousness cut o t t ; and how vir tueas • whole mar be produced and vice expelled.·

48

Gomperz and others claim t ha t Socrates i s unable to make aspeech. Yet here in Gorgiaa he sara: (519 O.E)

.In t ru th , rou have forced me to make quite aharangue, Cal l ic les , br refusing to answer.Cal l ic les : And you are the man who could notapeak unless somebody answered rou!Socrates: Apparentlr I can. Just now, a tanr r a t e , I am rather extending my speeches,since you wil l not answer me.

The following i s one of Gomperz• favori te passages. Socrates:

i t ever I am brought before the court and standin any such danger as JOU mention, i t wi l l beaoae vi l la in who brings me there , to r no honestman would prosecute a person who had dane nowrong; and i t would be no marvel i f I were putto death. Would JOU l i b me to t e l l rou '&1

reason to r expecting t b i s fCall ic lea: Do, b7 a l l means.Socrates: I think I as one o t the few, not tosa7 the onl7 one, in Athena who attempts thet rue a r t o t statesmanship, and the only mano t the present time who manages ar ta i ra o ts t a t e : hence, as the speeches wbibh I maketrom time to time are not aimed a t gra t i t ioa•t ion , but a t what i s beat instead ot what i smost pleasant , and as I do not care to deal in"these pret t7 tors" that·-.:rou reoolllllend, I sha l lhave not a word to s a r a t the bar. The same

case that I made out to Polus wil l appl7 to me;to r I sha l l be l ike a doctor t r ied b7 a bencho t children on a charge brought bJ a cook. (Aman l ike th i s ) would be u t t e r l r a t a loss whatto say!Oall ic les : Quite so.Socrates: Such, however, I a . sure would be mJ ownt a t e i t I were brought before the court . For notonl7 sha l l I bave no pleasures to plead as havingbeen provided by me • • which t he r regard as services and benef i ts , whereas I enVJ nei ther thosewho provide thea nor those to r whom the7 are



provided • • but i f anyone al leges tha t I e i thercorrupt the younger men by reducing them toperplexi ty or rev i le the older-with b i t t e rexpressions, whether i n pr ivate or in public , Isha l l be unable e i ther to t e l l the t ru th andsay - - " I t i s on jus t grounds tba t I say a l lt h i s , and i t i s your i n t e re s t t ha t I serve

thereby, gentlemen of the jury" • • or to sayanything e l se ; and so, I dareaa7, any so r t ofth ing, aa luck m&J' have i t , wil l befa l l me.2

49

At f i r s t reading, tb ia sounds ra ther def in i te aa proving fp r

Gompers. Blt we must take i t in context . Socrates quite c lear ly

means t ha t he wil l have no word ! ! f l a t t e r l to say to h is judges,

and tha t therefore he wi l l surely be condemned. Indeed, he says

n the next paragraph tha t he would be r ea l ly worried and angry

f a bad l i f e caused b1s condemnation,

This i s the whole point o t

he dialogue - · not t ha t Socrates has nothing to do with rhe tor ic ,

' \ I ) / \ \rY) v rn: p / o uS .L. A "o -v s > f(ol. l ' ) \ I 1 I

TIEpl OA.l<fO...,S Kolc. ' I T C . { J ~7Tor\Ao'VS J

I I ~ ( ........_<f>f1J I{TE o v. !<o( t rn f Y) Top t K'() u I ) 'o v Tw X p-ya<rTf o v tm ......,o' c ~ . / J . . ) . I I < 0 ( h { 0 V {j._£

So much to r tbe Giorgias . The other dialogue l i s t ed as

contradictory to the Apologz i s the Theaetetus, where in a

digression Socrates speaks of the philosopher in cour t .

2 Lamb, !E ~ . , 513, 515, 517, 519, 531.



when he i s obliged to apeak in cour t or anywhereelse about the things a t h is f ee t and before h iseyes, i s a laughing-stock not onl7 to Thraciang i r l s but to the multitude in general , fo r hef a l l s in to pi ta and a l l sor t s of perplexi t iesthrough inexperience, and h1a awkwardness i st e r r ib l e , making him seem a foo l ; ••• fo r when

i t comes to abusing people he has no personalabuse to o t t e r against anrone, because he knowsno e v i l o t &nJ man, never having cared to r suchth ings; so h is perplexi t7 makes him appearr id iculous; and as to laudatorr speeches andthe boasting& o t others , i t becomes manifesttha t he i s laughing a t thea • • not pretendingto laugh, but rea l lJ ' laughing - • and so he i sthought to be a too l .3

50

Then l a t e r , when the Piiloaopher takes the lawyer in to the rea las

t philosopbJ, the mean-spirited fellow i s taken aback.

then the t ab les are turned; dizzied by the newexperience of hanging a t such a height , hegazes downward from the a i r in dismay andperplexi ty ; he stammers and becomes r id iculous ,not in the eyes o t Thracian g i r l s or otheruneducated persona, t o r the7 have no perceptiono t i t , but in tnose o t a l l men who have beenbrought up as t ree men, not as s laves .4

MaJ we say t ha t these passages are evidence agains t PAY I

do not think so. Socrates ia not even speaking of himself in them

He bad prefaced a l l h is raaarks in th i s digression with a descr ip•

ion o t t h i s philosopher who shows up so badly in cour t . (173 C•D)

The leaders , in the f i r s t place, from t he i ryouth onward, remain ignorant of the way tothe agora, do not even know where the cour troom i s , or the senate-house, or any otherpublic place o t assembl7; as to r laws anddecrees, they ne i the r hear the debates on

3 Theaetetua, Sophist , t r ans l . by H.N. Fowler, London, Heinemann,1928, 123.

4 !E!!!· ' 127.



them nor see them when they are published; andthe s t r iv ings of po l i t i ca l clubs a f t e r publicoff ices , and meetings, and banquets, andrevel l ings with chorus g i r l s - · i t never occursto them even i n t he i r dreams to indulge in suchthing a.

51

No one, even~ o m p e r z ,

would •a7 tba t t h i s i s Socra tes ' owndescr ip t ion of himsel t . No, he speaks of Thales or of some idea l

philosopher, not of himself. And even i f someone s t i l l ins&sts

ha t t h i s is Socrates , the h i s to r i ca l Socrates , we must s t i l l note

ha t the philosopher wi l l have nothing to say in f l a t t e ry or

abuse. And t h i s s t i l l agrees with the Apology.

As a matter of f ac t , Socrates here describes the other s ide

as made helpless by the philosopher 's log ic . These opponents of

h is are always vanquished in a personal argument about the very

doctr ines to which they object ; they became d i s sa t i s f i ed with

hemselves, so t ha t t he i r b r i l l i a n t rhetor ic withers away and they

seem l ike chi ldren. (177 B) I s t h i s his tor ica l? I f Theaetetus

s accepted as h i s to r i ca l , then who said nothing to effec t in

court! From t h i s l a s t passage, i t was the accusersJ The give and

ake of a court ba t t l e i s too s imi lar to Socrates• d t i l7 arguments

o r ua to believe t ha t he was a t a loss in cour t .

Gamperz• arguments, then, cannot be claimed t o bave proved

he t hes i s . Oldfather ' s •supplementary considerat ions• have been

er ious ly weakened before he begins. As regards hia own s t a t e -

ments, he SIJ&,

Please observe, however, t ha t these points aremerely supplementary, fo r I regard the case as



already made. No one of them, of course, i sconclusive, except perhaps for the th i rd , andeach i s only an argument f r o . probabil i ty.The cumulative value, however, of so muchconspiring probabi l i ty must necessar i ly beconaiderable.5

52

The cumulative value, tha t i s , of these probabi l i t ies before theyare examined and shown to be improbable. With the support of

Gorgias and Theaetetua denied him, be i s hard put ~ i t to fashion

an argument. By h is own admission, only h is th i rd point i s

conclusive even to him; t h i s point , however, i s the proof based

on those two dialogues already a ~ J s e d l

His f i r s t point i s the mult ipl ic i ty of speeches at t r ibuted

o Socrates . We have already indicated why th i s f ac t does not

prove he never gav• an Apology, but ra ther proves the opposite.6

While we are on t h i s point , we sha l l do well to examine XA and

ee jus t how worthy of credence i t i s . Despite the opinion of

Taylor and Burnet, who dismiss him cur t ly, and of Osborn and

others , who believe the work to be spurious, we sha l l give him a

chance to prove h i . a e l f .

Same authors have defended XA as the more re l iab le picture

twhat actual ly happened in court. Mrs. Adam's approbation of

he work has already been noticed, and Bonner says, " In the

Apology at t r ibuted to Xenophon, we have, I believe, tbe neares t

pproach to an ex .c t repor t of the r ea l speech.• 7 Grote and ~ l l

5 Class ica l Weeklz, op. c i t . , 203.e cr. P· w.

!E· ~ . , 169.



53

agree; they hold t ha t Xenopnon 1 s Apology and Pla to ' s are not

ncompatible, and prefer XA as the guide in using the two speeches.

Grote says the two accounts represent the differ ing a t t i tudes o t

he di ffe ren t men; Xenophon i s the man o t act ion speaking o t the ·

prac t ica l , and Plato i s the philosopher speaking of the theoret ical

They supplement each other. Alcibiades in the SJ!Posium describes

Socrates as a two-sided man (216 0-E), a statement which Jaeger

echoes in saying t ha t Socrates• personali ty must bave contained

he twofold aspect tha t made him the subject o t the two dif teeent

nterpreta t ions . a

What, then, i s the object ion to Xenophon? Rogers, who had

called Xenophon 1 s account •a l o g i c a l l ~possible point o t view,

but one which so t a r as I am aware bas never been consis tent l7

adhered to , • 9 claims nevertheless tha t Xenophon•s record 1a

his tor ioal11 unrel iable to r the following reasons. His other

writ ings make no c l a ~ to be his tory, fo r instance, the SJ!P0&1um,

Oeconomicua, C J r o ~ a e d i a .The tone of his Apolosz i s jus t l ike

~ s e l fand not par t icu la r ly l ike Socrates. The dia lec t ic i s•

Xenophontic ra ther than Socratic. The subjects chosen are favor-

t e s of Xenophan, but probably not or Socrates. The in te l lec tua level of the conversations in his work i s low; Socrates there ia

a bore. Some of the incidents he re la tes are improbable • • the

i s i t to Theodote, fo r instance. Xenophon has Socrates always

8 Ot. Paedeia, op c i t . , 26; Field and Phil l ipson agree with them.9 ~ · ci t . , !6 .0 ~ : ; - 1 6 6 · 1 7 5 .



putt ing u t i l i t y f i r s t - - an unl ikelJ thing.

Mr. Hackforth has l ess respect to r the "Att ic bee.•

the method of Xenophon i s the Memorabilia i sto t r u s t to maaory supplemented by con,ecture

and invention; he remembers what Socrates wasl ike in general, and the so r t or things he usedto say, and he ca.posea the dialogues toi l l u s t r a t e Socrates• character and teaching ••••We sha l l ~ e jus t i f ied in regarding a l l th i s(three-quaDters o t XA) as the author ' s owninvention •••• But in terming th i s "invention•I do not mean to deny t ha t i t includes e lements o t t a c t , or a t l eas t o t what the authorbelieved to be t ao t : I only mean tha t thecomposition i s or tha t type where primary a1m

i s not to record fac ts , but to describe acharacter, or ra ther cer ta in aspects o t acharac ter. l l

54

Jaeger gives saae other reasons whr XA i s not the bet te r o t

he two. XA • i s immediately suspect because of i t s obvious

ntant ion to whitewash Socrates. ••• But recent ~ • s e a r c hhas

hown tha t the Kemoirs too are heavy with subject ive color1ng.• l2

Xenophon was never one of Socrates• pupi ls ; he never aaw Socrates

f t e r he l e t t Athena; h i s books about him were coaposed some

ecades afterwards. And the grea t object ion to Xenophon i s :

I t Socrates had been simply a Babbitt , he would never have aroused

he suspicion of his fe l low-ci t izens , t a r l ess have been condemnedo death as dangerous to th e a ta te . • l3

This l a s t statement i s echoed by Bury, who says Xenophon

1 Hacktorth, ~ · • o i t . , 35, 38.2 .QP• i l l · , 2'0; -3 lOid . , 21 .

-



55

makes Socrates a good man but not a great one, and tha t • t a r

apprec1&S1ng the peraonal i t J of Socrates the bool i s almost

negl ig1ble . • l4 The difference between the two f igures i s t ha t

the Socrates o t Xenophon i s a f igure which wouldbulk in human his tory on about the same scale asDr. Johnson. The Socrates o t Plato i s the r ea lSocrates , a f igure t ha t inspi red ever7 noblecharacter of Greek and Roaan an t i qui t7 to thel a s t hour of i t s decl ine . l5

This, a t t e r a l l , i a tbe moat persuasive point agains t XA,

jus t as the strongest point to r PA i s i t a tone • • i t s u t t e r l7

convincing picture of a Socrates who would have been condemned

to death by a j ~ J angry a t hearing the t ru th about themselves.

No, Xenophon does h is beat in h is Apologz, but i t ia not enough.

Oldfather himeelt ca l la XA • t r i v i a l , chaot ic , and tmplauaible to

a degree.• Our f ina l word must be tha t or Shore7, who contirm.

the stand o t Ta7lor and Burnet.His Socrat ic wri t ings borrow much from Plato .He could not posaibl7 have re.embered a t t e rso many 7ears or campaigning, the conversa-t ions or Socrates tha t he claims to have heardand to repor t verba t t . . I t oan even be arguedtha t he was wholly dependent upon the dialoguesof Plato and other Socrat ica to r a l l ideasexcept a tew of his own favor i te commonplacestha t he put in to the mouth or Socrates. l6

So Xenophon•s e ffo r t i s not much of a competitor with PA.

The other Apologies deserve even leas considerat ion. Plato i s the

J.B. Eur7, •Life and Death of Socrates,• Cambride• AncientH i a t o ~ #V, c. 13, noo 4 , New York, M a c ~ l l a n ,l 24, 386.

15 Oorritord, ~ · ~ . , 59.16 !!E•

i l l • ,B .

14



56

nly one who was present and wrote about what he saw and heard.

The t ac t tha t others copied his report only indicates what an

mpression the speech made on Athens and a l l the civi l ized world

t the time. The Athenians may not in t he i r gr ief have put Keletua

o death and banished Lycon and Anytua, as Diogenes Laertiua would

ave ua bel ieve, l7 but they surely must have looked on his l i f e ,

r i a l and death as landmarks in the his tory of t he i r time.

Att . . ts to reproduce his •tamous l a s t words• would inevi tably

e DBde, and eaR.eciallz in the schools, jus t as the. Gettysburg

Address i s assigned ao often to r imitat ion in our English classes .

Oldfather 's idea tha t PA was composed in tbe manner of Thuoy

idea, giving •what real ly ought to have been said,• i s not tenable

hough Zeller agrees with him. 18 Burnet remarks that a l l the

rators in ~ · h u c y d i d e sapeak in the same s ty le - tha t they are by

\o means characterized as individuals , tha t the i r words give rotIt ovrc (

I

- · what i s cal led to r by the occasion - - and not 'al

po<r"l'\ t'\oV"ro( • • what su i t s the character o t the speaker. Through•

ut PA we hear the same Socrates whom we know from other dialogues.

He i s no ideal type, no vague generali ty, a kind of a n i a ed

Universal Idea o t a Philosopher. No, he i s our well-known Socrateslunt , i ron ica l , devoted to t ruth , seeking always to make his

earers bet te r, even though i t may aean the forfei ture o t his l i t e .

ater thinks we may take PA as a sincere version or the actual

7 !E• c i t . , I I , no. 43.8 ~ · cit . , 165, note 1.



57

words of Socrates, •c loser to them, we may think, than the Greek

ecord of spoken words however important, the speeches in Thucy

dides for instance, by the admission of Thucydides himself, was

wont to be.• l9

Oldfather 's second argument i s the tone of the PA. Socrates

makes no attempt to get o t t , but ra ther assures h is condemnation

by his a t t i tude toward h is judges. Schanz f i r s t brought th i s

object ion against the PA, and now Oldfather f inds i t cogent enough

o force him to h is conclusion about the value of PA.

Such an a t t i tude toward Socrates seems to betray a consummate

gnorance of the man's t rue character. 'l'b.e Gorsias has alread;r

been ~ o t e d ,wherein he says he wil l not mind dying i f i t i s onl;r

n the cause of jus t ice . (522 D-B) And Oldfather could haYe found

hia answer in PA i t s e l f , had he oared to accept i t . Socrates says

a man i s wrong i t he th inks • a man in whom there i s even a l i t t l e

merit ou*ht to consider danger of l i f e or death, and not ra ther

egard t h i s only, ••• whether the things he does are r igh t or

wrong.• (28 B) Here i s Socrates speaking ·- a red-bloode4 old

warrior unafraid of the consequences of his j u s t bat t le to r t ru th .

His defence i s •manly and uncomprom1sing.•20 He would not yield'

o unworthy demands made on him; he well knew tha t onl7 th i s

extreme ex.-ple could hepe to save his fel low-cit izens tram the

19 w. Pater, Plato and Platonism, Hew York, Macmillan, 1893, 67.20 Sir J . Macdonell ;- l iatorloai Tria l s , (ed. R.w. Lee), London,

Oxford Univeri i ty Preas, 1928, 1o.



58

moral abyss in to which they were fa l l ing . He did not mind personal

sacr i f ice , i t his mission would be accomplished - · the saving of

Athens herse l f , to stop the decadence which had already caused

her to lose the vast empire gained under Peric les .

Moral decay o t th i s kind i s not arres ted byarguments, however c lear ly these re ru te thetmmoral practices they at tack. I t can onlybe refuted by action and action o t a remarkable ~ d . For no normal, decent averagegoodness wi l l convince men 1n tha t s ta te ofdis i l lus ioned c,nicism which i s the mark ofsuch a time. Hence the immense signif icanceo t the almost gratuitous way in which Socra•eswent to his death. There was no kind o t

poss ib i l i ty tha t his action could be explainedin a way which would save the face o t thoseclever aol f t ics who knew tha t morality •*•nonsense.

This may explain the tone, but does not saY tha t tha t tone was

contemptuous.

More than one o2i t io believes tha t Socrates did embody

defiance as well as defence in his speech, which •was in the loose

and 4esultory s tyle in ~ i c hhe was wont to speak ' i n the agora

and among the tables o t the money-changers,• and was natural ly

regarded by the dicaats as not so much a defence as a detiance.•22

And yet , th i s •contempt• or "defiance• i s not evident in PA, and

especial ly before 28 D. Even in the par t of h is speech immediately

preceding his appeal to them J l . ~ S o f V ~ f . t T t . ( 3 0C), he has prefaced

21 A. Lindsfy, Introduction to Socratic Discourses ~ Plato andXenophon, (ed. E. Rhys), Lon!on, J. Dent, 1§3o,xrv. - - -

22E.I. B. Osborn, Socrates an d His Friends, London, Hodder andStoughtonL n.d.J c r . t . -vtai i ; The Apolosz and Cr1to, Hww YorkAmerican ~ o o kuo. , 1907, 33 , n o ~ l . - - -

23



59( " " ":) I I

is remarks w1 th Vf-r:J..S ... rJ..r.rtrd...3of-rlL p.r.v KclL < p l ~ W(29 D). Su:rel7 th is

s not " insolent oontsapt .•

As a matter o t t a c t , most cr i t i c s agree tha t the tone o t PA

s t ami l ia r l J Socratic, thereby establishing i t as genatne andlose to the original speech. Dyer speaks of "the colloquial

reedom in the change o t grammatical constructions and in fa i lure

o complete sentencea.•23 Flagg makes i t more general : "the

amiliaR conversational tone pervades the whole work, even where- ..

t s eloquence i s most solemn and 1mpresaive.•24 Contrary to Mr.

Oldfather, these men seem to believe tha t the tone brings Socrates

o them as nothing else could. The conversational manner, the

ack o t a r t i s t i c arrangement, and the f lavor of Socratic irony

makes to r the bel ie f tha t in PA we are ' l i s tening to the actual

oice from the platform.

) /

One instance of th i s i s the contusion o t the words, t t K ~ " ) ~c( ,J ' ) I

V Tw ,u.oo-t eL, and d..V'TL 6 f acp"'l to r the "indictment• .... a meaning

ustained only by the f i r s t o t the three . This i s jus t the kind

t l i t t t l e inconsistency which we would expect a man to commit,

whose onlJ acqua&atance with court procedure had been l i s ten ing

o a case as a ~ r o r .(17 D)

To our mind, then, Socrates spoke plainl,- and as his hear t

ic ta ted, not merelf to infur ia te his judges. He had to remain

3 L. D7er, Plato: Apologz and Crito o t Socrates, Boston, Ginn,1908, 20 . - - - -

4 !2• c i t . , 33, note 1 ; c t . Pater, ~ · !!!•• 67)



60

rue to his own convict ions; he did not de l ibera te ly i n su l t the

ury or i r r i t a t e them eo as to die . Rather he wanted to l ive and

o help hie c i ty. as a gadll7 i f need be. (30 E) He mentions t ha t

ome of the jurors seem to think he i a t ry ing to offend them.

Perhaps ease o t you th ink tha t i n saying t h i s .as in what I s 9 id about lment ing and imploring,I am speaking in a s p i r i t o t bravado; bQt t ha ti s not the case. The t ru th i s ra ther t ha t I amconvinced t ha t I never in ten t iona l ly wrongedanyone; but I cannot convince you of t h i s . to rwe have conversed with each other only a l i t t l ewhile. (37 A)

e did not court death; on the contrary, he &f1d pla in ly tha t he

esired an honorable acqui t ta l , provided only tha t acqui t t a l

nvolved no ooapromise with tbe t ru th .

Well• then, I must make a defence, men ofAthena, and must t ry in so short a t t . e t oremove from you t h i s prejudice which youhave been to r ao long a time acquir ing.Wow I wish tha t th i s might uurn out so, i ti t i s bet te r to r you and fo r me, and tha tI might succeed with my defence. (19 A)

I t was not surpris ing • • cer ta in ly not to him - - tha t he was

ut on t r i a l t o r his l i t e . He was too f rank, too sharp a probe

f the se l f i sh hear ts o t the self-contented Athenians to escape

n a o a t h e d ."The wonder o t i t i s . not t ha t he was t r i e d a t a l l •

tt ha t he was not t r i ed u n t i l so l a t e in hia l i t e : • • • • •

25 And

h e ni t came, he was prepared. Be knew what to do. We know tha t

e himseU' contr ibuted as JDU.ch to the r e su l t as h is accusers did .

ysias i s said to have offered him a read7-made speech, which he



81

refused; Cicero says he spoke not as a defendant, but as "magister

aut dominus • •• judicum.• (De Oratore, I , 54) Quint l l ian says h is

wonderful speech renounced a l l chance or a c ~ i t t a l .So the ancient

world accepts h is speeCh; so.ae moderns cannot accept i t a aubl imi t r.

Seen as h is f i n a l expression of his mission, an d his f i n a l

8 ppeal to h is c i t r ,

the "Platonic Defence" becomes not merelysublime and impressive, but also the man-i f e s t a t ion of a ra t iona l and consis tentpurpose • • • • But i t bears no resemblanceto the speech of one standing on h i s t r i a l ,with tbe wri t ten indictment concluding"Penal ty, Death" banging up in open cour tbefore him. On the contrary, i t i a anemphatic lesson to the hearers , embodiedin the frank outpouring of a fear less andse l f -conf id ing conscience. I t i s undertaken, t rom the beginning, because the lawooliiHnda; w1 th a t a i n t wish, and not evenan unqual1f iJ i wish, but no hope, tha t 1 t118.7 succeed.

Sp Socra tes ' repl7 to the unjus t , unfounded charge i a jus t

what would be expected of the Socrates whollt we know frcma other

dialogues. or course he did not t r y to e scape the death sentence.

Of course he wanted to die · - providing obe6ienoe to the a t a ' e

equired i t , aDd unswerving al legiance to t ru th asked i t of him.

And to h i s mind, he was cal led upon to do j u s t t ha t : to die . He

had a mission; he bad to carry i t out to the end, even though t ha t

end be b i t t e r . And t ha t Dd.aaion was to be a gadtl7 to h i s c i t y,

Athens, to waken Athens up to th e search fo r t r u th , even though

he prosecution of t ha t divine ca l l ing meant jus t what came: rage

78.



62

a t him, tnen death to r l l!m. •:rrom tne Apology we know t ha t the

ea l Socrates t r ied above everything elae to exhort hiafellow•

men to pract ise tv i r tue ' and •the care of the soul•; ••• • 27 The

end tha t did come was only f i t t t n g and proper. As Mr. Grote a ~ y

xo one who reads the 'Platonic Apology• of Socrates w i l l ever

wish tha t he bad made any other defenoe.•28 Mr. Burnet goes on:

In t a c t , as Plato represents the matter, Socrateswould have been glad to secure an acqui t ta l (19 A)i f tha t could be done without stooping to unworthycompromises which would give the l i e to his wholel i t e (38 D) but he did not b e l t e ~ ethe object ofl i t e was •to l ive a given length of t ime.• (Gorg1as512 D). That being so, h is defence was such as i tmust needs be. 29

To • 1 mind, the tone of PA i s i t s most t ru ly Socrat ic qual i ty.

He i s perfect ly consis tent , as Fowler points out , both in the

ega l procedure and in the manner of speech used. The . aeco.nd

speech proves tha t he meant the f i r s t one seriously. The th i rd

speech proves t ha t he meant both tbe former. And the Cri to and

Phaedo put the seal on a l l of t h . a . He did not ~ d dJing in a

good cause, i t only i t was to r the r i g h t and as the god desired.

Perhaps Lane Cooper i s a b i t over-enthusiast ic in his stand, but

his t rend of thought cer ta in ly points to the t ru th when he wri tes :

But Socrates as ~ l a t orepresents him, does nottaunt his judges - · as Antigone taunts Creon,and in fur ia tes him with an accusation, whenthe business of her speech of defence was tosave her l i f e , and save herse l t for her bet rothed. The Apology does not display a flawo t character, defect of judgment, or serious

~ J 8 eger, ~ c i t . , 91.

28 QUoted by-BUPBWt, E u t h y p b r ~ ,e to . , op c i t . , 65.



mistake, of the so r t tha t plunges a man or h isfamily in a drama tram happiness in to u t t e rmisery. The character of Socrates i s , ra ther,somewhat l ike t ha t of a Chris t ian martyr, andthough emotions l ike fear and pi ty are arousedin us by the complication and solut ion eoconcretely represented to us , these emotions

are not the fea r and pi ty of a t ragic drama,and they are enveloped by a sense of exul ta t ionor exal ta t ion ra ther than gr ie f .30

63

As with so many of these points about Socrates , Mr. Taylor

has ant ic ipated t h i s opinion and mode of appreciat ion or ~ who

became a l l but • sa in t Socra tes . •

What i s d e ~ c t e di s the l i f e of a •martyr" ofthe best type as seen from within by the martyrhtmselt ; the object of the pic ture i s to makeus understand why the martyr chooses such al i t e and why the completion of h is career by themartyr ' s death i s a corona and not a d i sas t e r.In our more commonplace moods we are aacustamedto th ink of martyrdom as a highly disagreeableduty; perhaps i t must not be shirked, but we~ e e l t ha t , to be made to lerable to our imaginat ion , i t must be •made up• to the martyr by an•exa l ta t ion• : ••• The Apology is the Hellenic 31counterpart of the second book of the Imita t io .

And even Xenophon says t ha t Socrates preferred death to l i f e • •

though the so ld ie r assigns a market-place motive to the great

philosopher: the desi re to avoid old age and i t s concomitant i l l s .

No, Socrates did want to die . He was not a martyr, of course • •

-except by ext r ins ic denomination, fo r he did give his l i t e fo r the

sake of t ru th and the good of men. He chose to be put to death

unjust ly by h is native c i t y. And t ha t i s jus t what same c r i t i c s

30 L. Cooper, Plato on the Tr ia l and Death of Socrates , I thaca ,Cornell U n i v e r s i t ~ P r e s s ,1941;-46. - -

31 Plato, op. c i t . , 158.



64

and un-Christ ian commentators do not seam to be able to under

stand. They ought to learn from Socrates himself ; he was more

Chris t ian in some respects than they seem t o be.

What Oldfather considers to be the most convincing argumentagainst the h i s to r i c i ty of PA turns out to be the best one of

those fo r i t J His case i s not going so successful ly. But he

continues with his next i d e a ~tha t the lack or an introduction

in PA indicates tha t i t i s a work of f i c t ion , since Plato would

merely be sparing himself the necess i ty of t e l l ing a patent

falsehood. This need not be t r ue . Again, the point made i s a

point to r our s ide . The Apologz i s the only one of the Dialogues

which i s cas t in the form of one long, v i r tua l ly unbroken mono-

ogue. The only conceivable reason why Plato did not wri te h i s

usual introduction and bring in the scene of jurors , judges, and

courtroom apparatus, 1s t ha t he s e t out to wri te , as f a i th fu l ly

as possible, what Socrates sa id in h is defence. "The difference

n s ty le between the Apologz and Pla to ' s usual writ ings, seems

o prove t ha t th i s Apology was not drawn up with h is uaual a r t i s t i c

reedom.•3 2

The lack of an introduction l ike tba t of Xenopbon in X l ~ the

ac t tha t Socrates qneations Miletus only a few times • • and t ha t

n the approved courtroom manner o t the A t h e n i a n s 3 ~ .and the very

233

Zel ler, ~ · !!!•• 165, note 1 .Bonner, ~ · c i t . , 175, says t h i s presents the moat notableexample or e? l ic t ive in ter rogat ion o t an opponent in cour t .Such an in ter rogat ion i s found nowhere else in Greek l e t t e r s .



saoticeable absence of some of the almost invariable charac te r i s t i cs

f the r e s t of the dialogues: descript ions of the scene, of the

eople present , the banter and the • ree l ing around" of the f i r s t

ew paragraphs - - a l l th i s bears out our conviction tha t Plato has

iven us jus t about what Socrates sa id .

Another contention i s tha t the divers i ty of subject matter

n the di ffe ren t Apologies of Plato , Xenophon, and others , can

e accounted fo r only on the ground t ha t Socrates• speech was not

muoh of an e f f o r t . Otherwise, f r iend an d foe would have remembered

t almost verbatim.

F i r s t repl7: the divers i ty i s t h e • because Plato was present;

Xenophon was not . (34 A, 38 B) Plato had f i r s t - e a r information;

Xenophon took someone e l se ' s word fo r what he put down, as we have

een. Really, I believe Plato did jus t what Oldfather says a l l

would have done: remember the speech in outl ine quite exactlJ'•

he proof i s tha t those who were also presentmust have read h is

Apolog7. They would also reca l l the actual speech, and would have

r i t i c ized i t fo r any f a l s i f i ca t ion . Taylor, as we say, makes

much of t h i s point .

Second reply: the divers i ty i s there because Plato i s Plato ,

nd Xenophon i s Xenophon, an d the others are themselves. ~ 7

la to , the master-wri ter, the philosopher, the sympathetic disciple

hould write up Socrates ' speech, which he aotual l7 heard, in the

ame WaJ' as Xenophon, the soldier, the co. . n-sense man-in-the-



66

s t r ee t , who drew h is pic ture trom hearsay • • i s more than we

can sa,...

' fh!rd reply: Xenophon himself' t e l l s us wn,..: "More than th i s

was sa id , of course, both by Socrates himself and bJ the f r iendswho joined in his defence. But I have not made i t a point to

epor t the whole t r i a l •••• •34

With th is o b ~ e c t i o nanswered, we come again to the prime

object ive reason why PA cannot be h i s to r i ca l • • the evidence tram

Gorg1aa and Theaetetua. We have alreadY' inval idated these argu

ments 1n our refuta t ion of Gamperz• statements a t the beginning

of t h i s chapter, so we need not go in to the matter ao thoroughly

here. Perhaps the best course i s to present an a l te rna t ive

solut ion to the d i ff i cu l ty, a solut ion whiCh s t i l l proves fo r

our posi t ion.

Mr. Racktorth, in t reat ing of t h i s object ion from Gorgias,

ays no inference need or can be drawn from what appears to be

Socrates ' "dizziness and gaping.• Socrates r e a l l J t e l l s Oall ic les

You think I sha l l be embarrassed when I am put on m , . t r i a l in a

human law-court : I cant e l l

JOU t ha ti t i s

you who wi l l be embar•assed a t the l a s t judgm.ent.•35 So i f there 1s an7one who does

ot think my reasoning in refut ing t h i s object ion i s va l id , he

34 Xenophon, SJ!PO!iWil and AEologz, t r ans l . by o.-.J. 'fodd, L.O.L.,London, Heinemann, 1 ~ , oi.

5 Hacktorth, ~ · ~ . , 131·132.



67

may accept t h i s in terpreta t ion of Hacktorth • • tha t Socrates i s

merely making his case against Call ic les a l l the more vivid by

picturing himself• in imagination. before an ear th ly court . Mr.

Hacld'orth believes tha t 11 Plato wants to bring out the point t ha t) C I ( ""'although Socrates was ••• in the ordinary sense olovvo£-ros E o l - v

{ 3 o - . , e ~ ~ v, ye t he bas the only •support• tha t matters in the

f ina l account, the support of his own consc1enoe •••• • 36 So tha t

when Socrates forecas ts h is legal helplessness in the law-court,

we are meant to understand, not tha t he wil l t a i l to t e l l his

judges the t ru th about themselves and his mission to them, 11butI

tha t there wi l l be available to him no (3o""Y)9t:..Lo( in the senseI

tha t Cal l ic lea and everybodJ else thinks of a defendant 's ~ o ~ G t

against the charge on which he i s arra1gned."To put i t another

wa7, 11he i s del ibera te ly adopting the standpoint of ' -iallicl.es,

who cannot conceive of a defendant doing anything except muster

arguments to r a favorable verdic t . •37

But whether t h i s in terpreta t ion i s accepted, or the one given

previously in th i s thes i s , these dialogues are perfect ly consis

aa t with Socrates• words in PA: his profession o t t ea r a t the

accusers• power of speech (17 A), h is statements tha t he i s not aclever speaker (17 B•D), h is obvious conviction tha t by the very

words he i s speaking he i s s •a l ing h is death-warrant .( l9 A). And

he Gorgias has already been quoted to the e t teo t tha t Socrates

36 ~ · c i t . , 132.37 ~ i d : ; - 1 3 2 - 1 3 3 .

-



68

could have r iva l l ed the soap-box orators had he wanted to do so.r - 1 L \ lCal l ic les even remarks a t one t ime: ool(t&S V£.o lv t . v t.ro.Cc. t .v r o ' 5

I c " \ e- f I >I.o o c . 5""5 o(.A"'l ws o ' " Y } ~ - , ( o p o sw v (482 C). No, Socrates adm1 t s

he wil l not have a word or r l a t t e r y to say. And he has none.

Shorey in handling the ~ r y o t the G o r g i a ~ ,puts Socra tes '

words t h i s way:

The aim or a l l my words i s to do good, notmerely to please , and I am unski l led in thesubt le t ies of the rhe tor ic or the law cour t s .As I was saying to Polus, my t r i a l wi l l bet ha t of a physician who ia accused before ajury of boys of corrupting thea and destroyingthem With drugs and knives and reducing themto the moat paiDrul s t r a i t s . So I sha l l beaccused o t corrupting youths and reducing themto embarrassment by my questions. And i t w i l lava i l me as l i t t l e as the physician to pleadt h a t I do i t fo r t h e i r good. I do not admitt ha t th i s helplessness i s shameful. As I havesaid , the r ea l ly disgraceful resourcelessnessi s the i nab i l i t y to defend oneself agains tdoing, not sutfer ing, wrong. But i f I sha l lbe condemned to d ie from lack of the resourceso t the rhe tor ic t ha t f l a t t e r s , you w i l l see mebearing my death eas i ly.38

That sure ly i s consis tent with the Apology•

Anotherway in which the PA may be in terpre ted in agreement

with the Gorgias i s given by Taylor, who says tha t PA "might be

aid to atrord an i ron ica l i l l u s t r a t ion of the paradox or the

Gorgias about the uses which may legi t imate ly be made of rhe tor ica l

evices."3 9 Socratea defends himself by what amounts to an

8 ~ · c i t . , 152.9 Plato; -op. c i t . , 157.



69

admission o t gui l t in the eyes or his judges. This i s f u l l accord

with the pr inciples of the Gorgias.

So these passages by no means contradic t the Apology; they

confirm i t . Plato bas given us a consis tent p ic ture or h is master.We simply cannot conceive of our famil iar Socrates - · i ron ic ,

def t a t repar tee , brave, u t t e r ly without buman respect , conti6ent

in his powers and h is mission from the god, master o t words -

standing agape a t the bar o t j u s t i ce . when called to give an

account of h is l i f e and work to the men whoa he bad been t ry ing

to help to r years.

These considerat ions seem to take away the probative force

o t Kr. Oldfather 's conclusion, where he says we must choose e i ther

he Apologz or the Gorgias and Theaetetua, but not both, and

where he appeals tram Plato drunk in the APologz to Plato sober

in the other two. We prefer to take Plato a t his word in a l l

hree dialogues. He need not be accused of drunkenness, .in order

hat the Apolo&J and the other dialogues be at t r ibuted to him.

They can a l l be accepted as camplementary.

The next argument concerns the Divine Sign, which forbadehim to make any preparat ion to apeak, so that in court he acted

as any man ! ! ! ! act who has made no preparation. Xenophon wrote

ha t Socrates s p o ~ eto Bermogenes thus: uWhen I was proceeding, a

i t t l e while ago, to study my. address to the judges, the daemon



70

e s t i f i e s disapprobation.•40 Once more Oldfather 's conclusion

must be denied, and from tne s. . authorts own testimony. In

he same work he says of Socrates, •he acquired grea t glory by

proving the firmness of his Ddnd, pleading h is cause, above a l l

men with regard to t ru th , ingenuousness, and jus t ice . •41 Soon

a f t e r th i s he adds tha t Socrates re jo ices in the f ac t tha t he wi l l

not suffe r deter iorat ion of his facul t ies , which are evidently

s t i l l in the best or condition. (IV, c. a. 8 ) And a l i t t l e fa r ther

on, the so ld ie r eulogizes the Kaster, and says th i s only of the

philosopher: Socrates wasso wise, that he never erred in dist inguishingbet te r tram worse, needing no counsel fromothers, but being su t t i c i en t i n himself tod i s c r ~ i n a t ebetween them; so able to explainand se t t l e such questions by argument; andbesides, so capable or discerning character,o t confuting those who were in er ror, and ofexhorting them to vir tue and honour, he seemedto be

2suoh as the best and happiest man would

be. 4

Such a descr ip t ion or Socrates• speech would not allow us to

accept the idea tha t he was helpless and aghast.

So the theory about the Divine Sign cannot be accepted tram

Oldfather. Even though he did not prepare any se t speech, Socrates

may s t i l l have delivered an excellent improvisation. The whole

of the Pbaedrus may be taken as a refuta t ion ot Oldts.ther • a stand.

n i t Socrates i s made out to be a surpassingly good ora tor.

40 Memorabilia, IV, c .a , 5; in X e n o ~ o n • aAnabasis and Memorabilia!RlNSL. BY I• s. Watson, London, eo. Bell, ta96:-woe.

41 Socrat ic Discourses ~ Plato and Xenophon, op. e i t . , 14942 ibid., 151 - - --



71

Socra tes : But, my dear Pbaedrus, I s h a l l make myself r id iculous

i f I ••• t r y to speak on the same subjec t in competit ion with a mas

t e r o t h is a r t . Phaedrus: • • • Stop tool ing me ••• (236 D). The

mplicat ion i s c l ea r : Socrates can take care of himself in any

speaking contes t .

In 238 o. Socra tes : Well • • • • does i t seem to you. as to me. t ha t

inspired? Phaedrus: Certa in ly, Socrates , you have an unusual

f luency. In 257 0 , Phaedrus. s t ruck by the beauty of Socrates•

discourse on the lover, (which discourse, inc iden ta l ly, i s almost

as long as the whole f i r s t speech of the Apology), breaks in to

pra ise of his f r i end : "But a l l along I have been wondering a t

your discourse, you made i t so much m o ~ ebeaut i fu l than the f i r s t ;

so tha t I am af ra id Lysias wi l l make a poor showing, i t he consents

o compete with i t . " And Lysias was pr imar i ly a speech-wri ter

o r court act ions ; Pla to here seems to be a t t r ibu t ing forens ic

a b i l i t 7 to h is teacher. This dialogue cannot be ac4epted aaat

a l l h i s to r i ca l , i f PA i s re jec ted . Pla to i s consis tent .

Nor can the pic ture of the per fec t philosopher drawn in the

Republic be forgot ten . Surely t h a t near Superman would not be

aught a t a loss i t he were ever on t r i a l fo r his l i t e . And even

hough he was not describing h is master ·exact ly when he wrote

h i s descr ip t ion , he must have had his teacher i n mind. Oldfather

w i l l have a d i f f i c u l t time t ry ing to f e r r e t out evidence from the

orpus Platonicum t ha t ~ o c r a t e swas not as Pla to has depicted htm

verywhere in the Dialogues.



'72

The next potnt ia against Zel ler, who, even though he r e j ec t s

XA as spurious and the test imonr of B e ~ o g e n e sin the Memorabilia

as worthless , yet holds tha t any elaborate defence would have been

out of the character of Socrates; therefore no speech l ike PA was

given. This opinion has al readJ been refuted in the answer to

the object ions drawn from the Gorgias and Theaetetus.

The motive or XA an d the Memorabilia i s sa id to be • to explain

why Socrates did not make a be t t e r defence of htmsel t in cour t . •

That motive i s not evident in e i ther of the works mentioned. They

are ra ther wri t ten to show why Socrates adopted the l o f ty plane

he did take, and did not ca te r to h i s ju rors ' low t a s t e s . Xenopho

says in h is Apologz (1) tha t others have wri t ten about Socrates•

speech, "but they have not shown c lear ly tha t he had now come to

the conclusion tha t death to r him was more to be desired than l i t e ,I

and hence h is l o f ty utterance ( f- t.i oL ~ t. d'o p -c() appears ra ther

i l l -considered.•43 This motive i s quite in accord with the

Gorgias and Tbeaetetus. There i s no case for the opposition in

euch facta .

The l a s t argument: Socrates was a dia lec t ic ian , not an orator,

and before an unsympathetic jury. He was not capable or giving

! tempore such a speech as PA, which Oldfather c a l l s "perhaps

he grea tes t glory of hu1llan eloquence,•44 when ha·.. had never in

43 Todd's t rans la t ion , ~ · c i t . , 489.44 .2R• ~ · ' 20'7. -



7:5

his l i f e delivered a formal speech a t a l l . His method of

question-and-answer with one or a few persons, did not prepare

him for the courtroan f inesse we f ind in PA.

Against th i s l a s t argument we say: Diogenes Laer t ius , whoml a t t e r on Oldfather uses as a supporter of h is b e l i e ~ s(while

admitting tha t the ancient biographer i s usual ly unrel iable • •

l """as a l l agree) says according to Idomeneus Socrates was tv l o ~ s

f-r,ToeL K o ~ sit.&.. vrfs •45 The Phaedrua has already been quoted.

And surel7 the d ia l ec t i ca l s k i l l of the wily old fellow stood

him in good stead when he was haled in to court . I t may not have

made an orator out ot him, but i t ~ a t have helped. And espec ia l l l

fo r ! ! tempore speaking. Coupled with the knowledge of rhetor ic

and the speech-making ab i l i ty which he exhibi ts in Phaedrua, t h i s

dia lec t ic s k i l l i s jua t what makes us ready to accept the f ine l7-

reasoned Apologz as genuine. Xenophon represents him as having

t r i ed to th ink out a defence, before the Divine Sign stopped

him; he must have had a t l e a s t a general idea of what to say.

But, as Xenophon makes him say in XA (3) , h is whole l i f e was h is

preparat ion.

There i s no reason why he would not have included his natura l

t a l en t in tha t l a s t ' s tatement. To be sure, he referred p r ~ a r i

to the moral goodness o t his l i f e ; he could not , however, have

disregarded h is own powere of mind and body, or the help to be

45 22• ! ! ! · · 151.



74

expected from the Sign. Besides, we need not suppose t ha t h is

effor t was so poor. I f the Apology i s t rue in substance, could

we not expect such an able and sincere man to dress i t up a b i t ,

under the s t ress o t excitement and enthusiasm1 After a l l , personal

conviction and love of t ru th are the great helps to effect ive

speech, as they are to good aermons. And Socrates had ever7 reason

to r being fervent and sincere in t h i s one time or t h i s l i t e when

he went before h is te l low•ci t izens to give an account or himself .

Plato did not have to do ~ much rev i s ing .

L i b ~ i u si s quoted in support o t Oldfather ' s contention, the

same Libanius whose Apology o t Socrates i s termed a •preposterous

concoction• in an e a r l i e r paragraph of h is a r t i c l e . This Libanius

l ived a matter or same hundreds o t years a t t e r the ac tual t r i a l .

And the comparison with the fa i lu re o t Our Lord, Savanarola and

John Hus, when these men were put on t r i a l , i s too weak to be

at tacked. Oldfather has gone too t a r af ie ld here.

Next he gives h is idea o t what ahtual ly happened a t the

t r i a l , and a t rue t raves ty i t i s . He does not say he i s sure or

the descript ion, but " t o r purposes o t s t y l i s t i c convenience, I

sha l l express ( i t ) as statements o t t a c t •••• •46 Socrates said

something; the ju ry laughed and became disorder ly ; Socrates claimed

to be innocent and wiser than they; they r io ted ; Socrates stood

there gaping; h is fr iends t r i e d to speak but could do nothing, to r

hey •were t rying to speak before an i r r i t a t e d and jeer ing panel

46 op. c i t . , 207.



tha t were now quite out of hand.• 47 The jur7 , in t h i s mood,

condemned him.

75

The Theaetetus i s ci ted in support of th i s descr ip t ion, but

wrongl7,i t

seems. M0 s t of the re levant passages have been quoted,but a l i t t l e repe t i t ion i s in order here . In 174 C, Socrates t e l l s

h is audi tor, while he i s speaking about the philosophical man,

and par t icu la r l7 about Thales,

such a man, both in private , when he meets withindividuals , and i n public , as I said in thebeginning, when he i s obliged to speak in courtor elsewhere about the things a t his t e e t andbefore h is e7es, i s a laughing-s tock. . . . Forwhen i t comes to abusing people he has nopersonal abuse to o t t e r against anyone.

Now f i r s t of' a l l , t h i s passage cannot be meant to r e fe r to Socrates

who b7 Oldfather 's own a s s ~ p t i o ni s qui te a capable fellow in

pr ivate discourses. He i s speaking of the dreamy Tbales here.

Secondl7, the reason to r the philosopher 's embarrassment in court

i s sim)i7 h is i nab i l i t y to abuse h is opponents in the usual s ty le

o t the court orators . · Oldfather f inds no proof here.

In 175 D, something has happened. Oldfather says SocratesI

i s represented in t h i s apparent l7 obscure passage as( J o L p ~ f i . e

How Fowler in the Loeb edi t ion t rans la tes the passage with theI

~ ""-P ~ e l . . fl ; wv re fe r r ing not to Socrates , but to the small-minded

pet t i fogger who looks good in court , but i s struck dumb when i t

comes to philosophical matteral Onl7 by a mental flashback can

47 i b i d . , 209.-



76

we a t t r i bu te t h i s par t ic ip le to the master himself ; surely Plato

does not do so. Perhaps Oldfather wishes to a t t r i bu te a l l the

descript ion of the s tage- f r igh t of the lawyer in p h i l o s o p ~ ~to

Socrates in cour t ; i t so he i s s t re tching the point more than

the context wi l l bear.

Diogenes Laert ius i s cal led on to confirm t h i s account o t

the t r i a l . Thatt Mr. Oldfather i s grasping a t straws i s aimply

too evident from h is own l ine of argument. He admits tha t t h i s

Diogenes i s almost useless as a source, even ca l l ing h is w o r k ~

"such a dreadful grabbag as the farrago of Diogenes •••• • But

then he goes on to remark, "Diogenes might be excused, a t l ea s t

t h i s once, fo r omitting something of great importance (Socrates•

A p o l o g y ) ~on the suff ic ien t groands t ha t there r ea l ly had never

been anything of the so r t to include.n48 Such an •arguaent"

hardly deserves the name.

His account of the t r i a l does not conveniently coincide with

the facta . I f the jury did become such a r io tous mob, why did

they coddemn Socrates by only a 281 to 220 vote? "The only

surpr is ing thing about the verdic t of 'Gu i l ty ' was the smallness

of the majori ty in favor o t i t . • 4 9 I f 8ld ta ther i s r ight• i t ia

not merely surpr i s ing ; i t i s absolutely incredible . Forty-f ive

percent of them would not have been on h is side a t the end of h is

i r s t speech. Another b i t of evidence tha t the people were ra ther

4:8 i b i d . , 210.4:9 Os'SOrn, !E• .2.!!?.•, 1 8 9 .



77

well-disposed to the old fel low, i s t ha t Ameipsias' Konnos,

which t r ea ted him more respec t fu l ly than the Clouds, was given

second pr ize over A r i s t ~ p h a n e s 'comedy. And h is urging the useI

of the word ,'4t:(cl.At.aof"o( by Xenophon to describe l oc ra t e s '

manner, together with his opinion tha t the whole PA i s cas t in a

tone of aloof and Jus t i f i ab ly inso len t contempt, does not prove

h is point . } J w ' - ' ( r J . . ~ \ . ~ o p t J .may aean "vaunting" and i t may mean

" lof ty speech" according to the new Liddel l and Scot t (which# i t

i s t rue . evinces XA as an example of the former meaning). Perhaps

Xenophon did not mean t ha t Socrates was overbearing, but only

" lo f ty" ; Plato seems to have taken th i s stand. Socrates was a b i t

def iant in the cause of t ru th ; he was not contemptuous. Burnet

and Hackforth seem to be close to the t ru th in saying tha t Socra te

claim to s t a t e support i s the i""f.(rJ.J.t.!of(t{ which puzzled

along with h is re fusa l to appeal fo r pi ty on the conventional l ine

So the question of the meaning of the word is a t l e a s t open.

Fowler even wri tes : "The high moral character and genAine re l ig ious

f a i th of Socrates are made abundantly c lear throughout t h i s d i s

course. I t would seem almost incredible tha t the Athenian court

voted fo r his condemnation, i f we did not know the fac t . •50 soMr. Oldfather 's idea tha t Socrates ' contempt caused his condemnatio

appears to be untenable, especia l ly when we remsmber tha t i t i s

based on XA, which may be spurious. The professional soldier may

50 Euth7Phro, e t c . , op. c i t . , 66.



78

have taken fo r contempt what was r ea l ly f ide l i ty to t ru th and

principle .

To conclude his a t tack, Oldfather says t ha t e i ther the PA

i sr i gh t

or the Gorgias and Theaetetusare

- · not both. Both

the dis junct ion and the conclusion may be denied. Both members

of the dis junct ion are r i g h t ; a l l three dialogues are r igh t ; a l l

are consis tent ; . ·all are t rue . •on the vexed and thorny question

how fa r the dialogue i s h i s to r i ca l , and how fa r imaginative compo

s i t i on , we had bes t not say too much. The speech which Plato repre

sents i s one he heard, fo r he was present a t the t r i a l •••• •51 Mr

Oldfather, i t seems, ~ said too much. He thinks he has found

what he wanted to f ind; he has subject ive cer t i tude .

That h is ideas are not based ent i re ly on object ive evidence,

h is own words show:

As fo r myself, I have never believed t ha t theApologies were thoroughly r e a l i s t i c anyway,fo r they required more of my h i s to r i ca limagination than i t could possibly bear • • • •The loss of a pret ty but incredible i l l u s ioni s more than compensated fo r by the recoveredpeace of a scholarly conscience.52

He may be a t peace with h is scholar ly conscience, but the con-

sciences, scholarly and otherwise, of many others cannot be in a

s imi lar s t a t e i f h is a r t i c l e goes unchallenged.

Our conclusion i s t ha t of Lane Cooper in his recent book.

51 ~ · c i t . , 44.52 ~ · ci t . , 210.



79

Mr. Oldfather 's posiUon i s untenable; Socrates i s vindicated as

the t rue speaker o f the Apology of Plato .

The main march of tbe Apology, and i t s divis ioninto one main sect ion and two smaller ones, wemay take to be h i s to r i ca l . Some omission of

redundant words and the l ike we may assume.The perfect verbal t rans i t ions and smoothadvance from item to i tem, beneath the surfaceof apparent casual natura lness , a l l t ha t canbe done to turn nature in to a r t • • somewhatmore than a speaker does in revising his owncomposition - ~ we may probably a t t r ibu te toPlato.53

53 Cooper, ~ · ~ . , 44.



CONCLUSION

We have reached our conclusion al ready. s e t t l i n g our problem

to our sa t i s fac t ion , so tha t t h i s need be ao more than a swmming•

up of the whole question. Mr. Oldfather 's l ine o t arguments does

not stand up under examination. nor does h is support from the

a r t i c l e of Dr. Gomparz amount to a great deal . Every one of h is

main proofs agains t t h i s thes i s bas been refuted . A moderate

i n t e r p ~ e t a t i o nof the Apology and a l l of Pla to ' s works regardingt h e i r h i s t o r i c i t y, bas been proposed. In th i s in te rpre ta t ion

many scholars concur, and t h e i r opinions have been given a l l

through t h i s paper.

The Taylor-Burnet theory has been used a l l through t h i s

thes i s , nore as a guiding n o ~ than as an expl ic i t support of

our arguments agains t Mr. Oldfather. Although the treatment of

t h e i r theory seems to be confined to the one chapter, in r ea l i ty

t he i r viewpoint and many of t h e i r arguments have permeated the

whole thes i s . They may not be moderatew (although Mr. Burnet in

par t i cu la r seems to be very open-minded), but in combatting such

an extreme view as tha t of Oldfather, the other extreme i s very

useful as a correct ive norm.

80



81

Our proofs have been drawn primari ly from the sources which

Mr. Oldfather c i t e s i n support of his theory. Dr. Gomperz and he

re l7 heavil7 on the Gorgias and Theaetetua; we have seen tha t

those very dialogues are strong supports to r anyone desirous to

re fu te them. The7 go t o the PA to draw from i t evidence showing

t ha t Socrates could not have made such a speech; we have seen

evidence tram i t which goes t a r toward proving tha t he must have

made jus t such a speech - · sure ly not the exact one whiCh Plato

has given to us , but a t l e a s t one containing the main l ines of

defence, and cer ta in ly the s p i r i t of the one which we have. I t

i s qui te Socra t ic ; i t i s qui te consis tent with what we know of

Socrates i n the other dialogues.

We have seen the arguments from Xenophon 1 a works in favor

of Mr. Oldfather; we have seen re fu ta t ions of these arguments,

drawn from those same works and from scholars who do not accept

them as r e l i ab l e . We have seen Oldfather claiming tha t Socrates

was no speaker; we have seen the Pbaedrus, which alone i s a strong

contradic t ion of h is en t i re posi t ion . We have looked in to theI

matter of the Socrat ic p. t:.cr.L) 't.<fo ft.. oJ.. , and found t h a t i t

presented no insurmountable d i ff i cu l ty.An d

above a l l , we haveexamined the "tone" of PA, and found tha t , t a r from proving i t

a l ien to Socrates in cour t , i t i s a very conclusive point of

evidence in favor of i t s being close to h is actual words.

No, the Apolo17 t i t s in with the r e s t of Pla to ' s works as th

log ica l outcome o t the l i t e and habi ts of the Kaster of Irony.



82

Plato has taken care to make Socrates meet only people wham he

did meet or could meet there in Athens. He bas represented him

as the man whom the Athenians rea l ly did know.

the pic ture seems consis tent and not inherently

improbable;i t

shows a perfect ly understandableso r t o t man, with features not to be confusedwith those o t Plato himself, and too concreteand dis t inc t ive to be a mere peg on which tohang opinions t ha t Plato wiShes to recommend.l

No, we need not bel ieve tha t the gr izz led old man made a

show of himself when he f ina l ly was put up in f ron t of the people

wham be had been t ry ing to h e l ~to r so long. We need not believetha t the man whom one of the world's grea tes t men ca l l s the

grea tes t man he ever knew, was put to shame while he was bearing

witness to h is own ideals and his whole l i t e . We do not believe

in holding to t anc i tu l imposs ibi l i t ies merely because they are

pleasing to our es the t ic sense; but when a beaut i fu l human s tory

i s also tenable a f t e r c r i t i c a l inves t igat ion, then we must not

sacr i f ice the beaut i fu l th ing jus t because i t s beauty makes i t

unusual. The Apology of Socrates i s unusual; i t i a unusually

beaut i fu l . But ins tead of re jec t ing i t fo r t ha t reason, l e t us

thank God fo r i t • • to r creat ing such a man. Then we can have

both Mr. Oldfather ' s peace of eonscience and our own enjoyment of

tha t wonderful speech • • not as jus t a rhe tor ica l e ffo r t on Pla to

par t , but as the outpouring of one of the greates t hear t s which

has ever s t r iven and suffered fo r the good of others .

1 Rogers, ~ · !!!•, 81.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Original Sources

A r i s t o p h a n i s ~ComoediaeL I ~ edited by .w. Hall and W.M. G e l d a r tO x o n i i ~Clarendon ~ r e s s ~1906.

Diogenes Laert ius, Livea o t Eminent Philosophers, I ~ t rans l . byi .D. Hicks in the t . ~ L . ,tonaon, Heinemann, 1925.

Plato, Theaetetus, Sophist, t rans l . by H.N. Fowler in the L.C.L.,Loiidon, Heinemann, 1928.

- - - - • , LAsis, S{riPosium, Gorgias, t rans l . byw.

Lamb in theL . C .

Lon on, He ne.mann, 1§25.

- - - - - ,Repub l i c , t rana l . by P. Shorey in the L.C.L., London,Heinemann, I - 1 9 3 0 ~I I • 1935.

- · • • 1 Euthypbro, Apologr, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, t rans l . byH. Fowler in the L.C.L., London, Heinemann, 1926.

- - - - · , Euthythro, e t c . , edited bf J . Burnet, OXford, ClarendonPress, 931.

- - - - - , Theages, e t c . , edited by J . Burnet, Oxford, ClarendonPress, 1935.

Xenophon, gaera Omnia, I I , edited by E.C. Marchant, Oxonii,Clare on Press, 1934.

- - - - - , Anabasis, SljSoeium and A ~ o l o g r ,l a t t e r two t rans l . bzo.J. 'odd, in e t .c.L:; toridon, Heinemann, 1941.

Secondary Sources

Adam, James, The Religious Teachers of Greece, Edinburgh,T. and T ~ l a r k ,1923. - -

thon, c., Xenopqonta Memorabilia of Socrates, New York, Harpers,1848. --

Burnet, Jobn, Peaedo, Oxford, Clarendon Preas, 1931.

- - - - · - • · · - - - , EuthJphrO, Apologz, Crito, Oxford, Clarendon Press,1924.



85 .

More, P.B., Platonism, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 192

Osborn, E_B., Socrates and His Friends, London, Hodder andstoughton, n.a . - -

Pater, w., Plato and Platonism, New York, Macmillan, 1893 •. . . ; ; ; ; . - . , _ . ; o . -

Phil l ipson, o., The Tr ia l of Socrates , London, Stevens & o n s , 19- -

Riddell , J . , The Apologz £! Plato, Oxford, University Press, 1877

Rogers, A.K., The Socrat ic Problem, New Haven, Yale UniversityPress, 19'33":

Shorey, P ., What Plato Said& Chicago, Universi ty of C b i o ~ oPress1934. -

Taylor, A.E., Plato . The Man an d his Work, New York, Dial Press,1936. - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - , Platonism, New York, Longmans, 1927.

- - - - - - · - - - - - , Socrates , Edinburgh, Peter Davies, 1933.

· · - - - - - - - - - - , Varia Socrat ioa, F i r s t Ser ies , S t. Andrew'sUniversi tJ PUblications No. IX, Oxford, James Parker and Co.1911.

· - - - - - - - - - - - , Pla to ' s B i o ~ r ~ h yof Socrates , published fo r theBri t i sh Academy; r e a r e h ~ 8 ,1911, London, Oxford UniversiPress .

Watson, J . s . , Xenophon's Anabasis and Memorabilia, London, Geo.Bel l , 189!. - - -

Whibley, L., A ComEanion !2 Greek Studies, Cambridge, Universi tyPress, 1V05 •

.

Zel ler, E ., Socrates and the Socrat ic Schools, t r ans l . by o . J .Reichel, London,-rongm&ns, Green, !868.



86

Periodicals

Adam, A., "Socrates, · ~ a n t u mmutatus ab i l l o • , " Class ica l~ a r t e r l z ,XII (1918), 121·139.

Austin, M . ~ "Plato as a Writer of Imaginary Conversations,"

Class ica l Journal, XVII (1922), 243•255.Basset t , G., "The Apologia as a Defence,• Class ica l Journal ,

XII (1924), 515 sqq.

Bonner, R., "The Legal Set t ing of Pla to ' s Apology," Class ica lPhilologz, I I I (1908), 169•177.

Burnet, J . , •socrates ," Hastings' Encyclopedia o t Religion andEthics , Vol. XI, 6 6 5 • 6 7 ~ . - - - - -

Field , G., "Socrates and Plato in Post-Aris to te l ian Tradi t ion,"Class ica l Q e a r t e r l ~ ,XVIII (1924), 127-136; XIX (1925),!-13.

Havelock, E ., "The Evidence to r the Teaching of Socrates,"!•!•!•!•• L1V (1934), 282•295.

de Laguna, T ., "The Interpreta t ion of the Apology," PhilosoDbicalReview, XVIII (1909).

Oldfather, W., "Socrates in Court," Class ica l Weeklz, XXXI(1938), 203·211.

Petr ie , R., •Aristophanes and Socrates," ~ ' XX (1911)507-520.



APPHOVAL SEEET

The thes is subcl t ted by David Joseph Bowman

has been read e.nd approved by three members of the

Department of Class ics .

The f i na l copies have been examined by the director

of the thes i s and the signature which appears below ver-

i f i e s t h a t fac t tha t any necessary changes have been in -

corporated, and t h a t the thes i s i s now given f i na l approv-

a l vd th reference to content , form, and mechanical

accuracy.

The thes i s i s therefore accepted in p a r t i a l ful-

The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates

Documents

Transcript of The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates