Socrates, Man and Myth

The Two Socratic Apologies of Xenophon

Anton-Hermann Chroust

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138618527
• eBook ISBN: 9780429865886
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

The purpose of this book, first published in 1957, is to make a critical analysis of the controversial Socratic problem. The Socratic issue owes its paramount difficulty not only to the status of available source materials, but also to the diversity of opinion as to the proper use of these materials. This volume offers a new approach to the problem, and a starting point to further investigations.

1

The General Nature of Xenophon’s Socratica

THE MAIN SOURCES from which we traditionally derive our information about Socrates and ‘Socratic philosophy’, are the Socratica of Xenophon, a few passages from the works of Aristotle, and the dialogues of Plato, particularly the earliest dialogues. To this we may add a host of what for a long time have been considered ‘inferior’ and, hence, ‘less reliable’ sources: a few passages from some of the late fifth-century comedians, as well as certain fragmentary reports or allusions which can be credited to a considerable number of allegedly ‘minor’ Socratic witnesses.

Since the Aristotelian testimony, on the whole, may be discarded as essentially useless,¹ the primary Socratic source problem seems to be reduced to two apparently irreconcilable testimonials: the Socratica of Plato and those of Xenophon. In view of the seriously conflicting nature of these two reports, it has become a common, although singularly ineffective, practice of the scholar to turn to Xenophon for additional help or needed correction of Plato’s testimony; or to call on Plato for some assistance in reaching the ‘proper’ understanding of Xenophon’s accounts. If he should still be dissatisfied with these two sources, or doubtful about his findings, he could always turn away from both Plato and Xenophon and seek help from every other informant or source of information available: from Aristotle and the Peripatetics; from Antisthenes; from Euclides; from Aeschines; from Aristippus; from the many exponents of those schools which called themselves, or were called, ‘Socratic schools’; from biographers; from commentators; from philosophers; and from historians. He may even consult a host of modern critics and authors. But whenever in his quest for the historical Socrates the scholar turns away from Plato and Xenophon (and perhaps even from Aristotle, who for a long time has been credited by some people with having a ‘superior’ understanding of Socrates), as a rule he does so with the definitely prejudiced feeling of a man who is exchanging what to him appears to be the only creditable sources for something which he considers much less reliable and certain. But this feeling is probably his most serious error. For in so doing he evidences his conviction that Plato and Xenophon—each perhaps corrected by the other—unmistakably contain the historical Socrates; and that the real problem is simply to ‘lift’ the historical Socrates as well as the ‘true’ philosophy of Socrates from these two sources.

Schleiermacher, despite the many and at times basic discrepancies which separate the accounts of Plato from those of Xenophon, still believed that Plato and Xenophon were reporting on the historical Socrates. He hoped to solve this conflicting source situation by asking the following question, which to him apparently became fundamental to the whole solution of the Socratic issue: what could Socrates have been above and beyond the testimony of Xenophon, provided such a query would not destroy the basic traits of character which Xenophon had definitely declared to be Socratic—and what must Socrates really have been so as to inspire and justify a Plato for making him the actual spokesman in the majority of his dialogues?² This rather rhetorical question of Schleiermacher, despite the fact that its practical application offers more puzzling and seemingly insoluble difficulties than real solutions, has become something of a canon with many scholars whenever they have tried to deal with the problem of the historical Socrates and his philosophy.³

It appears, however, that on account of his artistic temperament and talents, as well as strongly self-revelatory individualism, Plato is further away from the hard facts of historical reality than some of the other Socratic witnesses. In addition, nowhere in the many extant Socratica does the intertwining of what may be Socratic ideas and the individuality of the witness seem to be more complete than in the dialogues of Plato. This situation, which must be credited above all to the literary excellence of Plato, resists most stubbornly all scholarly efforts to separate Socrates from Plato. Hence the further question arises, namely, whether the Platonic Socrates is not predominantly a ‘literary Socrates’ rather than the historical Socrates. In addition, the attempt to solve the Socratic issue solely through reliance on Plato’s testimony is tantamount to linking the desperately difficult Socratic problem to the extremely involved general Platonic problem. Needless to say, the uncertainty about some major passages in the Platonic dialogues would seriously affect the solution of the Socratic question. The necessity in this case of submitting the Socratic question to the same philosophical, historical, literary, and philological tests which are essential to the proper interpretation of Plato’s works, should further complicate the search after the historical Socrates. And there is no guarantee that despite all these efforts, the Platonic Socrates would prove to be the historical Socrates, or even a remote facsimile of the historical Socrates.⁴

Plato’s literary mastery, in its artistic perfection, tends to obliterate the many component elements or motives which are at the basis of his Socratica. Thus it becomes an extremely difficult task also to ascertain the sources as well as the influences which prompted him to create his particular Socrates. In this, Plato, the artist, is somewhat akin to an expert mason who, by polishing down a wall with such perfection that the individual component stones are no longer discernible, succeeds in creating the impression of a single uniform structure. Naturally, in this polishing process the various component stones or elements are also considerably altered, until it becomes nearly impossible to recognize their original size and shape. And the same holds true as regards the various elements that went into the Platonic Socrates.

Xenophon, on the other hand, definitely lacks the literary skill and perfection of a Plato. The many and various component elements of his Socratica as well as the background, influences, and motives behind the specifically Xenophontean Socrates, therefore, to some extent can still be recognized because they are frequently left in their original significance or connotations. This, in turn, occasionally permits us to trace them back to their origin and the particular context from which they have been taken. Such being the case, the Socratica of Xenophon offer the promise of some definite success in establishing, not what the historical Socrates actually had been—this would be too much to expect—but what he probably might not have been.

Aside from his own rather narrow outlook, Xenophon, it should be borne in mind, never could give, and probably never intended to give the reader a complete and unbiased report on the historical Socrates. His prolonged absence from Athens during some of what may be considered perhaps the most crucial years in the life of Socrates, made it impossible for him to father any first-hand information about Socrates. In consequence, he had to rely on some informant whose historical reliability, however, is likewise open to challenge. Hence all those reports and passages which are introduced with an indefinite λέγεται (it is said)⁵ must be used with extreme caution.

The most crucial issue connected with the whole of the Xenophontean Socratica concerns the truthfulness and objectivity of Xenophon as a reporter. This particular problem may be briefly stated in the following queries: Did Xenophon really intend to write a historio-biographical report on Socrates? Or did he compose his Socratica (Memorabilia, Defence, Symposium, and Economicus) merely in order to advance, in the name of Socrates, his own ideas and convictions?⁶ For the Socratic conversations recorded by Xenophon frequently appear to be nothing other than vehicles of Xenophon’s admitted fondness for displaying his literary gifts or for propagating his personal convictions, philosophy of life, and views about a great many things in general. The second question may also be posed in the following manner: To what extent, if at all, does Xenophon, who was definitely a dramatizing witness, consciously or unconsciously impute himself to his ‘hero’ Socrates? Was he at all aiming at historical truth, or was he primarily interested in devising what strikes us as being a quaint combination of panegyrical and self-revelatory efforts? When answering this particular query, which also touches upon the basic problem of Xenophon’s historical reliability, we have also to take into consideration a fact of decisive importance: the strikingly low intellectual level of most of the Socratic discourses. Whenever feasible, Xenophon adopts a frequently unconvincing apologetic tone, creating thereby, among other things, the impression that Socrates must have been a much over-rated individual. The Socrates of Xenophon, to be sure, impresses us as a man prompted by the best of intentions. But, like his author, he appears to be mentally incapable of stating anything more than numerous and boring commonplaces, or even of saying them with any convincing vigour. And finally, we may ask the following question: Did Xenophon, for reasons which are yet to be established, purposely falsify certain facts about Socrates? For this much seems to be certain: as regards much of their content, both the Xenophontean Socratica and the other philosophical writings of Xenophon frequently appear to be identical. One has only to compare, for instance, the general characterization of Socrates and that of King Agesilaus,⁷ or the Xenophontean explanation for the human greatness of a Socrates and for the distinguished position which Lacedaemon held among the Greek cities.⁸ And the same may be said about the character of King Cyrus, which seems to be essentially the same as that ascribed to Socrates, Agesilaus, or Lycurgus.⁹ All this would compel us to assume that the characterization or description of Socrates in the Xenophontean Socratica is not a truthful description of Socrates but rather an ‘ideal’ or ‘ideal pattern’ of a man—ideal from the viewpoint of a Xenophon—which the latter imputes to any person who has caught his fancy or whom he admires.¹⁰

It appears that the view which holds that the Xenophontean Socratica possess, at best, only extremely limited, not to say peculiar, historical source significance or biographical value, is by now generally accepted,¹¹ notwithstanding some intrepid scholars who still maintain that the Socrates sketched by Xenophon is the historical Socrates.¹² The questionable objectivity of Xenophon as a historiographer or biographer in general becomes manifest, among other things, in the partiality with which he extols Clearchus and Proxenus in his Anabasis, and disparages Menon and Neon. His many encomia of Cyrus the Younger purposely fail to record some of the less attractive traits and deeds of Cyrus. Beginning with Book III of the Anabasis we are made to believe that Xenophon is the guiding spirit, the one great general of the whole retreat. But Diodorus, who probably uses a more objective source (Sophaenetus?), never mentions Xenophon even once in connection with this widely known event.¹³ Barring a few and what seem to be exceptional instances, the historical veracity and objectivity of the Hellenica has been severely criticized by nearly all competent scholars.¹⁴ Our knowledge and understanding of the events which transpired during this epoch would have to be called deplorable if we had to rely solely on the accounts found in the Hellenica. These few examples may suffice to demonstrate beyond all doubt that, on the whole, Xenophon is a most unreliable reporter. Nevertheless, his specific testimony as regards Socrates, particularly on account of his limited artistic and philosophical aptitude, permits us to draw certain important inferences from his Socratica which might bring us a little closer to the historical Socrates or to some solution of the many problems connected with Socrates and especially with the Socratic literature.

It will be shown later that Memorabilia 1.1.1-1.2.64 originally were published or, at least, intended as an independent Socratic Apology. This fact would explain the argumentative nature and form of this particular part of the Memorabilia, as contrasted with the remainder of this work which is made up preponderantly of Socratic discourses and ‘conversations’. If we accept the theory that Memorabilia 1.1.1-1.2.64 originally constituted a separate essay—and there exists no good reason why this should be rejected—then we would still have to refute the contention that the whole of the Xenophontean Memorabilia was meant to be historiography and biography. For such a contention could, with some restrictions, apply only to the apologetic part of the Memorabilia, but certainly not to the remainder of the work.

With the exception of chapters 1 and 2 of Book I, the Memorabilia are, according to their author, partly accounts of what Xenophon prefers to call his personal and intimate recollections, and partly the experiences of other witnesses which he has collated in what appears to be a most haphazard manner. It would perhaps be more appropriate, therefore, to call the second part of this work a ‘Collection of λόγοι Σωϰρατιϰοί’,¹⁵ rather than ‘Memoirs’. As a matter of fact, one of the most striking features of this ‘Collection’ is the obvious lack of an orderly and articulate arrangement in which this bewildering host of materials of varying significance and value has been assembled. We are left with the impression that the whole Memorabilia could neither have been the result of one single uniform draft, nor have been edited by Xenophon himself. For otherwise he would most certainly have noticed himself that Memorabilia 1.4.1-9, and Memorabilia 4.3.1-18, for instance, are merely two different versions of one and the same topic. Hence we may also surmise that the Memorabilia, at least in the form in which they have been handed down, constitute an ‘anthology’ of notes and literary curios jotted down on different occasions and perhaps intended to serve as materials for a later and more integrated publication.¹⁶

The form alone in which the ‘Socratic conversations’ in the second part of the Memorabilia have been recorded by Xenophon would suggest that they are to a large degree literary improvisations, if not ‘inventions’. No one will seriously deny that some of these discourses may contain an historical element or residuum, based perhaps on some genuine reminiscence. But the larger part of the Memorabilia, both as regards detail and scope, is not Socratic, but rather ‘Xenophontean’. And if Xenophon should have felt free to distort or invent the details and the particular scope of his ‘Socratic stories’ by adding in a rather wilful manner some of his own ideas, why, then, should he suddenly become scrupulous about some ‘basic occurrence’ ascribed to Socrates? And there is some probability that this ‘basic occurrence’ was also invented by Xenophon merely to introduce some ‘Xenophontean detail’ in the name of Socrates. It appears, therefore, that nearly everywhere Xenop...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• PREFACE
• 1. THE GENERAL NATURE OF XENOPHON’S SOCRATICA
• 2. XENOPHON’S DEFENCE OF SOCRATES BEFORE HIS JUDGES
• 3. XENOPHON’S MEMORABILIA 1.1.1–1.2.64
• 4. POLYCRATES’ Κατηγορία Σωκράτους
• 5. THE ANTISTHENIAN ELEMENTS IN THE TWO APOLOGIES OF XENOPHON
• 6. THE ANTISTHENIAN ELEMENTS IN THE Κατηγορία Σωκράτους OF POLYCRATES
• 7. THE POLITICAL ASPECTS OF THE SOCRATIC PROBLEM
• 8. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
• NOTES
• INDEX