This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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].
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
! 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 .
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
'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.
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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 .
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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. • _ -
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.-
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.-
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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 .
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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§.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.-
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.- -
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
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_.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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 .
-
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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 .
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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 - - --
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.-
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
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.
7/27/2019 The Historicity of Platos Apology of Socrates
· · - - - - - - - - - - , 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!. - - -