Zeller Eduard - Socrates-And-The-Socratic-Schools PDF

ts
;'
iînf'-
Ml'
''"'
T'|.'';i
t^Jrr*-*''
*!''V-
/''
=-
m'J;^-;
;>(t?fr,fitk,
',
'
.,\
%'p
'
;^'^
>
,.
'
'-:
.-HI''
'
!:"
<
':
'
I>
Digitized by the Internet Archive

in
2011 with funding from

University of Toronto
http://www.archive.org/details/socratessocraticOOzell
AUTHORISED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

OF
BE. ZELLBE'S
WOEK
ON THE
PHILOSOPHY OF THE GREEKS

The
PRAE-SOOBATIO SCHOOLS,
Being a History of Greek Philosophy from the Earliest Period
to the
Time
sanction.
of
SOCKATES.
Crown
Translated with the Author's
8vo.
[In pre;paration.
II
SOCRATES and
the
Translated by the Eev.
Crown
revised.
SOCRATIO SCHOOLS.
Oswald
J.
Keichel, M.A.
New Edition,
8vo. price lOs. Qd.
Ill
ARISTOTLE
and
ELDER
the
PERI-
PATETICS.
Translated with the Author's sanction.
Crown
8vo.
[In preparation.
IV
The STOICS, EPICUREAITS, and SCEPTICS.

Translated by the Rev.
Oswald
J.
Eeichel, M.A.
Crown Svo
price 14s.
PLATO
and the
OLDER ACADEMY.
Translated by Sarah Fbances Alleyne and Alfbed Goodwin,

M.A. Fellow and Lecturer of Balliol College, Oxford. Crown
Svo. price IBs.
London,
LONGMANS &
CO.
Lately published, in cro-wn 8vo. price I85.
PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY.

Translated with the Author's sanction from the
German
of
EDUARD ZELLER,
D.
ALLEYNE
By SARAH FEANCES
and
ALFRED GOODWIN,
M.A.
Fellow and Lecturer of Balliol College, Oxford.
THE ACADEMY.
The compliment of translation is well deserved by the patient
erudition and masterly arrangement of the original, which is an indispensable aid to the readers of Plato and Aristotle. Of this translation
'
it can be said that in all essential respects

equivalent of Zeller's book.'
it
may
be relied on as an
EDUCATIONAL TIMES.
The work must become indispensable
to the student of Plato.

It
consists of sixteen chapters, in which Plato's life, the order of his writings, the character of his Philosophy, his Physics, his Ethics, and his
'
Religion are treated with great detail and minuteness. It is, of course
impossible in these pages to do more with so vast a work not vast,
however, in bulk, being a book of 600 pages than to call attention to
it, and, if possible, to give some idea of its style.'
SATITRDAY REVIEW.
departments Dr. Zeller's book is both comprehensive
and trustworthy. He seems to have said the last word on Greek philosophy and his volumes are among those monuments of nineteenthcentury German research which make one wonder what will remain for
the scholars of the twentieth century to do. He brings to his task the
two essential qualities vast learning, and the power of moving at
pleasure in the rarefied atmosphere of abstractions
It is evident
that jNIr. Goodwin, to whom this part of the undertaking fell, had no
sinecure in his work of translation and verification.
He has gone
bravely through with it, however, and both his work and that of Miss
Alleyne, who translated the text, leave almost nothing to be desired.'
In
all its
'
This
is
GUARDIA]>3".
Eduard Zeller's Plato und
a translation of Dr.
die dltere
work
of great value to students of Plato, but hitherto only

The text has been admirably
in part accessible to English readers.
translated by Miss Alleyne, who has proved herself fully competent to
deal with the philosophical terminology of the German original, and to
execute a translation which does not, like some translations, proclaim
itself as such by an un-English structure of its phrases and sentences.
Copious notes and references have been added by Mr. Goodwin, Fellow
of Balliol College, who shares with Miss Alleyne the responsibility of
the work. The value of Dr. Z.sller's work has been amply acknowledged
by Professor Jowept in the Preface to the second edition of his Plato
and this translation of it will be a great boon to many students of
Plato who (as its Authors suggest in their Preface) are less familiar with
Akade'tnie, a
German than with Greek.
London,
LONGMANS &
CO.
SOCEATEg
LONDON
IMilNTIiD BY
SPOTTLSWOODE AND CO., XEW-STUEET SQUAUE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
:
OOLS
N SLATED
FROM miE
Tli/RD
GERMAN EDITION OF
D^ E.^'ZELLER
BY
OSWALD
J.
REICHEL,
B.C.L.
& M.A.
VICAR OP SPERSHOLT, BERKS
.SECOXD
AND ENTIRELY NEW ED[TION
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND

1877
All
iijh Is
rttirr Cfii
CO.
>;
INSTITUTE OF
TORONTO
^^mmi STUDIES
5,
CANADA.
Â2 301S32
PEEFACE
In offering to the English reader a
that part of
new
edition of
Dr Zeller's Philosophie der Griechen
which treats of Socrates and the imperfect Socratic

Schools, the translator
culties of the task
is
not unaware of the
which he has undertaken.
on the one hand, such a translation be too

reader
may
find it
more
difficult to
diffi-
For
if,
literal, the
understand than
the original, and expend a labour in disentangling

the thread of a sentence which were better spent in
grasping
its
meaning.
much freedom be
If,
on the other hand, too
allowed, the charge
may be
justly
preferred, that the rendering does not faithfully re-
present the original.
The present
translator has en-
deavoured to steer a middle course between these
two extremes, aiming at reproducing the meaning of
Dr Zeller's work,
where
it
whilst reducing
the sentences,
seemed necessary, by breaking them up.
In
order to avoid inaccuracies, he has once more care-
PREFACE.
vi
fully
gone over the whole,
so that
as a second edition is really a
what
new
is
now offered
translation
from
the third Grerman edition.
The
writer
been able to
is
realise his
find it a
work of
imperfectly he has
own standard
but believing that there
who
how
well aware
is
of excellence
a large class of students
toil to
read
Dr Zellek's work
in the original, he submits this attempt to
their wants, soliciting for
Glenfriaes, Torquay
May,
1877.
it
a gentle criticism.
meet
CONTENTS
PART
I.
THE GENERAL STATE OF CULTURE IN GREECE.
CHAPTER
I.
THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF GREECE IN

THE FIFTH CENTURY B.C.
PAGE
Introduction.
A.
B.
The problem proposed to philosophy
The problem solved by
political events
1.
Political unsettledness
2.
Athens a centre of union
The problem solved by literature

1.
jEschylus Sophocles
The Tragedians.
pides
Simonides
2.
Didactic Poetry.
3.
The Historians. Herodotus

Comed)^ Aristophanes
Euri-
4.
Bacchylides Pin21
dar
C.
Thucydides
The problem solved by new forms of religious worship
.^7
24
29
.
32
CONTENTS.
viii
CHAPTER
II.
CHARACTER AND PROGRESS OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY

IN THE FIFTH CENTURY B.C.
I'AGK
A. Distinction of Socratic
from pre-Socratic Philosophy
1.
Knowledge substituted
2.
Study of conceptions substituted for study of

nature
for tradition
...
2.
Definition of a conception
Theory of conceptions expanded
2.
>y
.40
4j
.42
C. Distinction of Socratic
1.
38
on
B. Importance of the doctrine of conceptions

1.
38
from post- Aristotelian Philosophy

to be possible
Morality not pursued independently
Knowledge believed
...
43
44
45
D. The Socratic Philosophy developed

1.
Socrates
2.
Plato
3.
Aristotle
4.
Difficulty caused
i-.
'
'48
'
...
by Socratic Schools
PART
j^q
50
II.
.SOCRATES.
CHAPTER
III.
THE LIFE OF SOCRATES.

A.
Youth and early training
B. Active life
....
59
'
.
ei
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER
ix
TV.
THE CHARACTER OF SOCRATES.
....
....
PAGE
70
.....
.....
82
A. Greatness of the character of Socrates

B.
Greek peculiarities in his character
C.
Prominent features in his character
D.
The
âiii6viov
1.
False views of the
2.
Kegarded by Socrates as an oracle

Limited in its application
Correct view of the Saifxdfiop
ii.
4.
hai}x6viov
CHAPTER
74
77
82
84
90
94
98
Y.
SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
PHILOSOPHY OF SOCRATES.
A.
Xenophon and Plato considered
B. General point of
G.
as authorities
104
view of Socrates
Theory of knowledge of conceptions considered
.109
D. Moral value of this theory
113
E. Its subjective character
116
CHAPTER
YI.
THE PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD OF SOCRATES.

A.
Knowledge
B. Search for
of ignorance the first step
knowledge the next
Eros and
Irony
C.
121
Formation of conceptions the third step
124
.
128
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER
yil.
SUBSTANCE OF THE TEACHING OF SOCRATES

A. The subject-matter restricted to Ethics
B. Virtue
is
knowledgethe leading thought
ETHICS.
PAGE
134
of the
Socratic Ethics
C.
140
The Good and Eudaemonism

knowledge about the Good
1.
Theoretically Virtue
2.
Practically the
3.
Inconsistency of Socratic Morality
is
Good determined by custom
147
or
utility
148
.151
.....
D. Particular Moral Eolations

1. Personal independence
160
161
163
2.
Friendship
3.
The State
165
4.
Universal philanthropy
I70
CHAPTEE
VIII.
SUBSTANCE OF THE TEACHING OF SOCRATES, CONTINUED.

NATURE GOD MAN.
A.
View
of
Nature
172
God and the Worship of God

Language about the Gods taken from popular use
God conceived as the Keason of the world
The Worship of God
B. Notion of
1.
2.
3.
C.
Dignity and Immortality of
XENOPHON AND PLATO.
175
175
176
I77
man
CHAPTER
78
IX.
SOCRATES AND THE SOPHISTS.
1.
Xenophon as an authority
Xenophon in harmony with Plato and
2.
Schleiermacher's objections refuted
A. Value of
B. Importance of Socrates for the age in

C. Relation of Socrates to the Sophists
Aristotle
.
which he lived
181
183
185
187
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER
xi
X.
THE TRAGIC END OF SOCRATES.

A. Circumstances connected with his trial and death
1.
2.
3.
4.
PAGE
The Accusation
The Defence
The Sentence
His Death
B. Causes
which led to
193
196
198
200
his sentence
202
1.
The Sophists innocent
2.
Personal animosity only partially the cause
3. Political party-feeling only partially involved

4.
........
202
205
210
The teaching of Socrates generally believed to be

dangerous
213
220
C. Justification of the sentence
2.
Unfounded charges brought against Socrates

The views of Socrates subversive of old views
226
3.
Eolation borne by his views to cot emporary views
231
4.
Result of his death
235
1.
authority
political
PART
life
religion
220
of
.
III.
THE IMPERFECT FOLLOWERS OF SOCRATES.
CHAPTER
XI.
THE SCHOOL OF SOCRATES POPULAR PHILOSOPHY.

XENOPHON j<:scniNES.
A. School of Socrates
236
B.
Xenophon
239
C.
^schines
245
D. Simmias and Cebes
246
CONTENTS.
xii
CHAPTEK
XII.
THE MEGARIAX AND THE ELEAN-ERETRIAN SCHOOLS.

The Megarians
PAGJi
A. History of the School
249
B. Their Doctrine
1.
2.
255
and Becoming
The Good
Being-
C. Eristic
1.
2.
264
Euclid
Eubulides
.........
.....
4.
Alexinus
Diodorus on
5.
Philo.
3.
Motion Destruction the
Pogsible
The Possible Hjrpothetical sentences

Meaning of words
Stilpo. Subject and Predicate
the Good Cvnic
,
6.
259
262
268
269
273
........
Morality
The Elean-Eretrian
265
268
275
School.
A. History of the School
279
B. Doctrine of the School
281
CHAPTER
XIII.
THE CYNICS.
A. History of the 0311108
.......
B. Teaching of the Cynics

1.
2.
C.
.......
Depreciation of theoretical knowledge

Logic
Negative conditions
2.
Positive side
3.
Wisdom and
Good and Evil
3Q2
.
Virtue
Folly
291
291
295
Cynic theory of Morality

1.
284
301
3Xq
.
313
CONTENTS.
Xlll
....
D. Practical results of Cynic teaching

1.
2.
E.
314
Renunciation of Self
Renunciation of Society. Family Life Civil Life
.....
Modesty
3.
PAGK
31.5
311>
Renunciation of Relig-ion
327
Cynic influence on Society
331
CHAPTER
XIV.
THE CYRENAICS.
A. History of the Cyrenaics
.337
B. Teaching of the Cyrenaics

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
344
General position
Feelings the only object of knowledge
Pleasure and pain
The Highest Good
Modified form of the extreme view
.
34g
.
.'.".!
.
C. Practical Life of the Cyrenaics
2.
E.
The
2.
Theodorus
Hegesias
3.
Anniceris
35f>
361
369
......
375
Relation of their philosophy

Points of resemblance
later Cyrenaics
1.
347
352
354
....
D. Relation of their teaching to Socrates

1.
369
376
3jg
.......
3gQ
383
CHAPTER XV.
RETROSPECT.
A. Inconsistencies of the imperfect Socratic
Schools
B. These Schools
more closely related
to Socrates than to
the Sophists
C.
Importance of
J'^^^^^
tliese
386
3g-
Schools
389
'.
.
393
PAET
I.
THE GENERAL STATE OF CULTURE IN GREECE.
CHAPTER
I.
THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF GREECE IN

THE FIFTH CENTURY.
The
intellectual life of
Oreece had reached a point
towards the close of the

choice lay before
it
fifth
century, in which the
of either giving
up philosophy
altogether, or attempting a thorough transformation
upon a new
basis.
wholly extinct
The
but
all
older schools were not indeed
dependence in their systems
had been shaken, and a general disposition to doubt

had set in. From the Sophists men had learnt
to
everything in question to attack or defend
with equal readiness every opinion. Belief in
the
call
truth of
laws,
human
had been
ideas, or in the
lost.
validity of moral
Not only
enquiries respecting
nature, which had engaged the attention of
thinkers
for upwards of a century and a half,
had become
distasteful,
place to a
expression
0.
but even philosophy
itself
had given
mere superficial facility of thought and

and the acquisition of attainments useful
chap.
^
STATU OF CULTURE IN GREECE.
1
Chap.
I.
Prohlem
proposedto
2)hilosophy
in the fifth
century.
only for the purposes of social

of things naturally
life.
Yet
this state
suggested the need of a
new
method, which would avoid the defects and one-
more cautious
treatment of scientific questions. The way thereto
had not only been indirectly prepared by the clearing away of previous speculation, but the very
instrument of research had been sharpened by the
quibbles and subtleties of sophistry ample material,
too, for the erection of a new structure lay to hand
sidedness of previous systems by a
Moreover,
in the labours of preceding philosophers.
by the practical turn which the Sophistic enquiries

had taken, a new field of research was opened up, the
more careful cultivation of which gave promise of a
Would a
creative genius be forthcoming, able to make use of
these materials, and to direct thought into a new
rich harvest for speculative philosophy.
channel?
Before this question
stood at the time

A. The
prohlem
solved by
political
events.
(1) Political
unsettledness.
when
philosophy
Grreek
Socrates appeared.
by the
course which political circumstances, moral life, and
general culture had taken. Between these and philo-
The answer was determined
sophy the connection
is
in great part
at all times close
in the case of the Sophistic teaching,
it
yet lately,
had been
The most sweeping

more than ever apparent.
changes had taken place in the fifth century in
Never has a nation had a more rapid or
Greece.
miore brilliant career of military glory in union with
Yet never has

First came the great
that career been sooner over.
deeds of the Persian war, then the rich bloom of art
high culture than had the Greeks.
':
ILLUSTRATED BY POLITICS.
of the age of Pericles
internal
conflict
which
following immediately that
Chap.
'
wasted the strength and
prosperity of the free states of Greece in unhallowed
domestic quarrels, which sacrificed anew the indepen-
dence so hardly won from the foreigner, undermined

her freedom, threw her moral notions into confusion,
and irretrievably ruined the character of her people.

A progress which elsewhere required centuries was in
her case compressed within a few generations.
the pulse of national
life
When
beats so fast, the general
must be exposed to a quick and susceptible

change and when so much that is great happens in
spirit
so short a time,
an abundance of ideas
up, awaiting only a regulating
hand
is
sure to crop
to range
them-
selves into scientific systems.
Of
greatest importance for the future of philo-
(2)
sophy was the position won by Athens since the close

of the Persian war.
u}iion
a common brotherhood had dawned

upon the Hellenes with a force unknown before.
All that fancy had painted in the legend of the
Trojan war seemed to be realised in actual history
sciousness of
Hellas standing as a united nation opposed to the
The headship of this many-membered body

had fallen in the main to Athens, and herewith that
city had become the centre of all intellectual movements, 'the Prytaneum of the wisdom of Greece.'
East.
the fm-ther development of philosophy.
No
So called by Hippias in Plato, Prot. 337, D.

B 2
doubt
and
^*i^^'^y-
In that great conflict the con-
This circumstance had a most beneficial effect on
Athens
STATE OF CULTURE IN GREECE.

Chap.
I.
tendency may be noticed in the several schools to come

forth from their isolation it maybe seen in the natural
;
philosophers of the fifth century that an active interchange of thought was being carried on between the
East and theWest of Grreece and now that the Sophists

had begun to travel from one end to the other of the
;
Hellenic world, to carry to Thessaly the eloquence of

Sicily, to Sicily the doctrines of Heraclitus, these
various sources of culture could not fail gradually to
flow together into one mighty stream. Still it was of
great importance that a solid bed should be hollowed
out for this stream and
its course directed towards a

This result was brought about by the rise
of the Attic philosophy.
After that, in Athens, as
fixed end.
the
common
centre of the Grrecian world, the various
lines of pre-Socratic enquiry
had met and
crossed,
Socrates was able to found a more comprehensive

philosophy; and ever afterwards Grreek philosophy
continued to be so firmly tied to Athens, that down

to the time of the New Academy that city was the
birthplace of all schools historically important.
was even their
last place of refuge before
It
the final
extinction of ancient philosophy.

B.
The
lyrohlem
solved hy
literature.
The
(1)
tragedians.
To make clear, by means of the literary remains

we possess, the change which took place in the Greek
mode of thought during the fifth century, and to
estimate the worth and extent of the contributions
yielded to philosophy by the general culture of the
time, the
appealed
great Athenian tragedians
to.
For tragedy
is
may
be
first
better suited than any
other kind of poetry to arouse ethical reflection, to
ILLUSTMATED
BY
TRAGEDIANS.
pourtray the moral consciousness of a people,

and to
express the highest sentiments of which
an age,
Chap.
or
at least individual prominent spirits

in an age, are
capable.
Every deeper tragic plot rests on the conflicting calls of duty and interest.
To make clear
'
the origin of the plot, to unfold the

action psychologically, to produce the general
impression intended,
the poet must bring these two points of
view before us,
allowing each to advocate its cause in
lively speech
and counter-speech he must go into the
analysis of
moral consciousness, weigh what is right and
what
is
faulty in
human
action,
and expose
it
to view.
As
a poet he will do this, always having

regard to the
particular case before him. Still, even
this
he cannot
do without comparing one case with another,
without
going back to general experience, to the
generally
received
notions
short, to general
respecting right
and wrong in
moral conceptions. Hence tragic
poetry must always give a lasting

impetus to scientific speculation on moral
conduct and its laws,
affording,
itself,
too,
for
such reflection ample
material
and that to a certain extent already prepared,
and inviting partly use, partly correction.

Moreover,
masmuch as moral convictions were in the case of
^
the Greeks, as in the case of other

nations, originally
bound up with religious convictions, and
inasmuch
as this connection particularly affects
tragedy owing
to the legendary subjects with
which it deals, it
'
On
this 'point
compare the
excellent remarks of
Hist, of Greece, P. II.
Grote,
c.
67,
vol.
viii.
137, ed.
1870'
vii. 7,
ed 1872
vol

Chap,
follows that all that has been said respecting the
connection between tragedy and principles of morality

applies also to the connection between tragedy
principles of theology
and
nay more, in exactly the
same way tragedy must busy itself with the nature

and state of men whose deeds and fate it depicts.
In all these respects a most decided and thorough
change in Grreek thought may be observed in the
three
generations, whose character finds
such
fit-
ting expression in the three successive tragedians,

iEschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.
Without going
so far as to attribute to the poets themselves every
word which they put into the mouths of
their heroes,
the general tone of their sentiments may be

gathered partly from their general treatment of the
still
materials, partly
from their individual utterances,
with no lack of certainty.

{a)
Ms-
chylm.
an earnestness of purpose, a
depth of religious feeling, an overwhelming force and
majesty, worthy of a man of ancient virtue, who had
In ^schylus there
is
himself taken part in the great battles with the

At the same time there is a something
Persians.
and violent about him, which a time of heroic

deeds and sacrifices, of mighty capabilities and inbitter
spiriting results, could neither soften
dispense with.
The
down nor yet
spirit of his tragedies is that of
an untamed, masculine mind, seldom moved by

softer feelings, but spell-bound by reverence for the
gods, by the recognition of an unbending moral
order, by resignation to a destiny from which there
is
no escape.
Never were the Titan-like defiance of
ILLUSTRATED BY TRAGEDIANS.
unbridled strength, the wild fury of passion and
Chap.
might of fate, the paroxysms of

divine vengeance, more thrillingly painted than by
^schylus. At the bottom of all his sentiments lies
frenzy, the crushing
reverence for the divine powers
'____
yet these are grouped
almost monotheistically together, in his vast vision,
almighty power.
as one
will always
notice of
comes
men
What Zeus
to pass, even
says happens
though
it
his
escape the
no mortal can do aught against his
none can escape the decision of heaven, or

rather of destiny,^ over which Zeus himself is powerless.'*
In face of this divine power man feels himself
will
weak and frail

shadow of smoke
his
thoughts are fleeting as the
his life
like a picture
is
which a
That man mistake not his

that he learn not to overrate what is
that he be not indignant with the Grods
sponge washes out.^

position,
human ,^
when
in affliction,^ that his
mind
soar not too high,
that the grain of guilt planted by pride grows to a
harvest of tears,-
glowing words,
such
flashes
is
the teaching which, with
on us in every page of the
poet.
Not even ^schylus, however, was able
to grasp
these ideas in their purity, or to rise above the contradiction which runs not only through Grreek tragedy,
but through the whole of the Grreek view of

'
Suppl. 598
Agamemnon,
H85.
;
On
1327.
Niobe, Fr. 155, (154).

Fragm. 369 Dindorf. Stoha-us. Serm, 108, 43, attributes
the words to Euripides.
6
Prometh. 550.
^ Pers. 93
Fragm. 299 Dindorf (352 Nauck.).
*
Prometh. 511.
* Fragm. 295
Agam.
(390)
^
life.
'
p^j-g^
320.
STATE OF CULTURE IN GREECE,

Chap,
the one hand, even he gives utterance to the ancient

belief in the envy of heaven, which is so closely con-
nected with the peculiarity of natural religion

ness lurks under the rudest health
fortune,
when
it
man
bears
sick-
the wave of
highest on
its crest,
man on whom
breaks on a hidden reef; would the
fortime smiles escape ruin, he must voluntarily throw
away a part of what he has

even fate itself ordains
guilt, when bent on utterly destroying a family.^
On
the other hand, ^schylus never tires of insisting on
the connection between guilt and punishment. Not
;
only in the old stories of Niobe and Ixion, of the

house of Laius and of that of Atreus, does he paint
with telling touches the unavoidable natmê of divine

vengeance, the mischief which follows in the wake
of pride, the never-dying curse of crime
but also in
the unexpected result of the Persian expedition he

sees a higher hand, visiting with punishment the
self-exaltation of the great
king, and the insults
offered to the gods of Grreece.
according to his deeds

in piety without guile
though
it
may
God
Man must
suffer
him who
blesses
lives
and pride, but vengeance,^
be slow at
the transgressor of right;
first,
suddenly overtakes
some Dike
strikes
down
with a sudden blow,^ others she slowly crushes from

generation to generation the curse of crime gathers
;
strength, likewise virtue and happiness

Agam. 1001
compare the
story of Poly crates in Herodo;
tus,
iii.
40.
Niobe, Fr. 160

PlatOy Kep. 380, A.
2
blamed by
descend on
Agam. 1563
Choeph. 309
Fr. 282.
Eumen. 530
Choeph.
Agam.
Fr. 283.
61.
750.
I
i
ILLUSTRATED BY TRAGEDIANS.
children and children's children
the Furies rule over
the destiny of men, avenging the fathers' sins on the

sons,'
sucking the criminal's life-blood, stealthily
him the snares

madness, pursuing him with punishment down to
clinging to his feet, throwing round

of
Thus severely and clearly through all

the plays of ^schylus runs the thought of divine
justice and of implacable destiny.
All the more remarkable on that account is the
vigour with which the poet breaks through the fetters
the shades.2
which this view of the world imposes.
In the Eumenides, these moral conflicts, the play of which

^schylus can so well pourtray,^ are brought to a satis-
Olympic Groddess appeasing

of vengeance, and the severity of the
factory issue, the bright
the dark spirits
ancient bloodthirsty Justice yielding to
human
kind-
In the Prometheus, natural religion as a whole

celebrates its moral transfiguration ; the jealousy of
ness.
the gods towards mortals
mercy
is
seen to resolve itself
Zeus himself requires the aid of the

Wise One, who, for his kindness to men, has had to
feel the whole weight of his wrath
yet, on the other
hand, the unbending mind of the Titan must be
into
and Zeus' rule of might be changed by

willing submission into a moral rule.
What the
softened,
poet places in the legendary past

history
of
his
is
own time and of
in reality the
his
own mind,
^schylus stands on the boundary line between two

periods of culture, and the story he tells of the miti'
Eum.
Eum.
830.
264, 312.
566.
Choeph.
896:
Eum.
198.
Chap.
^'
1^
Chap,
'-
g-ation of ancient justice,
and of the new rule of the
was repeated in another way, the sternness of
Grods,
the
generation of Marathon giving place to the

cheerful beauty of the age of Pericles.
the
I'o
Q)) Sophoek\^.
new age Sophocles has
of this
spirit
given the most fitting expression. Agreeing as he

does in principle with his predecessor, his poems,
nevertheless, convey a very different impression.
The
keynote of the poetry of Sophocles is likewise reverence for the Gods, whose hand and laws encompass
human
life.
fortune
From them come
all
things, even mis-
their never-decaying
power no mortal can

withstand
nothing can escape its destiny ^ from
their eyes no deed and no thought can be hid ^ their
^
no one transgress.
mere human power, dare

Men, however, are weak and
mere shadows
or dreams, a very nothing, capable
eternal laws,^ created by no
frail,
No
only of a passing semblance of happiness.^

mortal's life
happiest
death
from misfortune,^ and even the

cannot be called happy before his
free
is
man
nay, taking
all
things into account, which
the changing day brings with
it,
the
number of woes,
all must
saying, Not to
the rarity of good fortune, the end to which
come,
it
were well to repeat the old
have been born
is
to die as soon as
wisdom
1
is,
the best
may
be.'
Ajax, 1036 Trach. 1278.

Antig. 604, 951
Fr. 615.
;
3
4
Electra, 657.
(Ed. Rex, 864 Ant. 450.
Ajax, 125; (Ed. E. 1186;
;
and the next best
is
The^ highest practical
therefore, to control the wishes, to

;
lot,
'
mode-
Fr. 12, 616, 860.

Ant. 611
Fr. 530.
' (Ed.
E. Trach. 1, 943
532, 583.
(gd. Col. 1215.
;
Fr.
BY
ILLUSTRATED
TRAGEDIANS.
rate the desires, to love justice, to fear
That
resigned to fate.
above
self
man
is
man
human measure,
moderate
lot,
God, to be
Ciim'.
should not exalt him-
only the modest
that
acceptable to the Grods,^ that
to seek a higher instead
11
it
absurd
is
of being content with a
that arrogance hurries on to sudden
destruction, that Zeus hates the vaunts of a boastful
tongue,^ all this Sophocles shows by the example of
men who have been hurled from

fortune, or who have been ruined by
He,
overbearing.
too, is
summit of
the
recklessness
and
impressed by the thought
of the worth of virtue
and of divine retribution. He

knows that uprightness is better than riches, that
loss is better than unjust gain, that heavy guilt
heavy punishment, but that piety and virtue
are worth more than all things else, and are rewarded
entails
not only in this world, but in the next

declares that it
more important
is
he even
to please those in
He
the next world than those in this.^
is
more-
over convinced that all
wisdom comes from the Gods,

and that they always conduct to what is right,^ albeit
men may never
He
cease from
them
learning and
striving
commit their griefs to

who from heaven above looks down and orders
things, and to bear what the Gods send with
after
it.^
bids
to
Zeus,
all
and in
resignation,^
this
Ajax, 127, 758

(Eel. Col.
1211
Fr. 320, 528.
(Ed. R. 873 Ant. 127.
Fr.
18, 210, 1<J6;
1440.
Philoc.
belief
is
neither puzzled
^ Fr. 834, 227, 809, 865

in
the unintelligible 06ia riyi^pci
probably there is a eeiauoTpa.
;
'
Fr. 731, 736.

Eiec. 174
Fr. 523, 862.
;
Ant. 71.
12
Chap,
'.
by the good fortune of many bad men, nor yet by

the misfortunes of many good ones.^
The same thoughts had inspired the poetry of
^schylus, and yet the spirit of the drama of Sophovery different one from his.
Sophocles can
show a higher artistic execution, a fuller dramatic
cles is a
handling, a more delicate delineation of the inner

life, a more careful unravelling of action from
characters
and of characters by means of
actions, a better
proportioned beauty, a clearer and more pleasing

language ; whereas for tempestuous force, for wild
exultation, for majestic view of history, ^schylus is
Nor
unrivalled.
the moral platform of the two

tragedians quite the same. Both are penetrated with
is
reverence for the divine powers; but in ^schylus

this reverence is combined with a horror which has
first to be set aside, and with an antagonism
which
has to be overcome before

trustful resignation
can come up to the
it
and the
blissful
The power
piety of Sophocles.
^schylus much harsher, because

the character of those
Zeus
is
whom
peace of the
of fate seems with

less
called for by
reaches
the reign of
;
a reign of terror, mitigated only by degrees,
it
and man must perish
if
relations with him.^
Both poets celebrate the victory
of moral order over
the victory
struggles.
is
the Deity enter into too close
human
; but in iEschylus
preceded by severer and more dreadful
self-will
Moral order works, with him,
'
Fr. 104.
Compare the character
lo in
of
the
as a stern
Prometheus, espe-
cially v. 887, &c.
ILLUSTRATED
md
BY
TRAGEDIANS.
fearful power, crushing the refractory
13
whereas,
Niih Sophocles, it completes its

jertainty
work with the quiet

of a law of nature, awakening rather
pity
human weakness than
or
terror. That conflict of the

bloodthirsty justice with the new, round
which
heEumenides of ^schylus play, Sophocles has left
)ld
him
)ehind; with
justice
from the very beginharmoniously united with mercy, and the most
ling,
is,
-ccursed of all mortals finds in the

leus
reconciliation at last.
'
different order
(Edipus ColoHis heroes, too, are of

'
from those of his predecessor.
In
Eschyius moral opposites are so hard,

that human
epresentatives of them do not suffice him
hence he
;
rings the Grods themselves into the

battle-field
:eus and the Titans, the daughters
of Night and
the
enizens of
Olympus
whereas the tragedy of Sopholes moves entirely in the world

of men.
The former
eals by preference with violent
natures and unconrolled passions
what
epict
is
the strong point of the latter
noble, self-contained, tender
is
to
strength
by him generally coupled with dignity,

pain with
Jsignation.
Hence his female characters are so
1
)ecially successful.
3stra,
s
repulsiveness.
ays
3t
Eschyius paints in a Clytcemthe demoniacal side of woman's nature

in all
Sophocles in an Antigone pourpure womanhood, knowing ' how to love,

but
to hate,'
and putting even hatred
iroism of her love.

es sets before us
to
shame by the
In short, the poetry of Sophothe sentiments of an epoch and a

>
Ant. 523.
Chap.
^'
14
Chap,
people which having, by most successful
'
happy use of
to a
its
human
nature and
cheerful spirit, to prize
powers, and so to fame and
position, enjoys existence,
look on
efforts, risen
its
and which has learned to

all
that belongs to
in a
it
greatness, to mitigate its
by wise resignation, to bear its weaknesses,

to control its excesses by custom and law. From him, as
sufferings
;'
from no other poet, the idea is gathered of a beautiful

natural agreement between duty and inclination, between freedom and order, which constitutes the moral
ideal of the Grreek world.

{c)
Euri-
jm es.
Only some four Olympiads later comes Euripides.

Yq^ what a remarkable change in ethical tone and
As an artist,
view of life is apparent in his writings
is
Euripides
is far
too fond of substituting calculations
for the spontaneous
cal reflection for
of particular
outcome of the
poet's
mind,
admiring contemplation.
criti-
By means
scenes of an exciting and terrifying
by chorus-songs often loosely connected

with the action of the play, by rhetorical declama-|
tion and moralising, he seeks to produce an effect
character,
which might be gained in greater purity and depth

from the unison of the whole. That harmony between
the moral and the religious life which commended
itself so
may
agreeably to us in Sophocles,
be seen in
^
I'
a state of dissolution in the plays of the younger
Not that he
poet.
religious thoughts.
is
deficient in
He knows
moral maxims
full well
and|";;
that piety
and the virtue of temperance are the best things for

man that he who is mortal must not be proud of
advantages nor despair in misfortune that he can do
;
'
ILLUSTRATED
BY
TRAGEDIANS.
iry
nothing without the Gods that in the long run the

?ood man fares well and the bad fares ill; that
a
modest lot is preferable to fitful greatness ^ that the
;
poor man's fear of

tatious sacrifices
God is worth more than

of many a rich man that
;
:ntelligence are better
the ostenvirtue and
than wealth and noble
birth.'^
He discourses at length of the benefits conferred by

;he Gods on men ^ he speaks right
well of their
;
ighteous
and almighty
human
)ack
rule,^
and he even traces
guilt to their will.^
However numerous such

writings,
lis
still
expressions may be in
they do not contain the whole of
view of the world, neither
lis
iarity of his
is the ethical pecupoetry to be found in them.

Euripides
sufficient
las
appreciation
Qorally beautiful,
to
of
what
great
is
be able to paint
it
when
omes before him in a true and telling manner.
Bacch. 1139. lo Schl. Hip1100. Kirchh.

Fr. 77,
'
olyt.
257, 305, 355, 395, 507, 576,

942, 1014,
1016,
1027
21,
^^^?r*
o^^
Fr. 329, 53, 254, 345, 514,
1
,o^
buppi.
1J7.
Troad 880
Hel. 1442.
ompare tlie concluding verses
r
tins piece, wliich also occur

the end of the Andromache
id Lacchie. Fr. 797, 832, 875,
fV6
it
For
that, as a pupil of philosophers,^ as a kindred

spirit
11
0,
and
i.o-r
Th?'?if
.V anIhe testimony of^ the
ents respecting the connecon between Euripides and

naxagoras has been quoted in
Zei.j.krs Pliilosopliie der Griechen, vol. i. 790, 3.

For the
traces thereof, which are princi pally found in some
oAhe
fragments,
compare
lUntuô^s
Euripides
Restitut
10^' 118, 139.
Anaxagorasi
however, does not, like Euripides, make Earth and Ether
but Air and Ether come first
after tlie original mixino-of all
things.
The well-knowîi and
beautiful passage (Fragment

902) commending the investi'^^'^ contemplates with
innocence the eternal order of
-^'''^'^''
immortal nature,
Anaxagoras.
7.
is
referred to
Compare
Younger men,
also Fr
like Prodicu^
Chap.
^__
STATE OF CVLTUBE IN GREECE.
16
Chap,
\
to the better Sophists, he is too far
removed from the
older lines of thought to be able to give himself
and with full conviction to the traditional

and morality. His sober understanding feels
the improbability and unseemliness of many legends,
and the artistic spirit has not such an exclusive hold
freely
faith
on him that he can overlook this for the sake of the

embody, or for their poetic worth. The
ideas they
fortunes of
men
do not seem to
him
to be directly
the revelation of a higher power, but rather to be
proximately the result of natural causes, of calculation, of caprice,
and of accident.
appear wavering.
ciples
authority
is
admitted,
If,
still
Even moral
prin-
on the whole, their
the poet cannot conceal
from himself that even an immoral course of conduct

has much to say in its defence.
The grand poetic
way of contemplating the world, the moral and religious
way
of looking at
to a sceptical tone, to a
setting
forth
of
plain
brought the Eumenides,

antiquity, yet with
human
life,
has given place
decomposing
reflection, to a
natural
all in
most
^schylus
facts.
the uncouth guise of
fearful effect,
on
to the
whereas the Electra of Euripides says to her

brother, or rather the poet himself says, that they
stage
are
mere
geneia
fancies of his imagination.^
WTiilst Iphi-
flects
preparing to sacrifice the captives, she rethat the goddess herself cannot possibly require
this
sacrifice,
and
is
Socrates,
and that the story of the
Euripides
been their pupil.
may have known,
feast
ofi
but cannot have^
Orest. 248, 387.
BY
ILLUSTRATED
Tantalus
is
a fable.^
TRAGEDIANS.
Likewise in the Electra
tragic chorus doubts as to the
17
2
the
wonder of the change
the course of the sun.
In
In the Troades,^ Hecuba

the story of the judgment of Paris, and exthe assistance of Aphrodite in carryino-
riuestions
plains
off
Helen to
^he
mean
the attractive beauty of Paris.

In
Bacchse,^ Teiresias gives an insipid,
half-natural
explanation of the birth of Bacchus.-^

The Gods,
lays Euripides,^ have no needs,
and therefore
the
tories
which impute to them human passions cannot
Even the general notions of divine

engeance give him offence. This he will not
regard
)0ssibly
be true.
a punishment for particular acts, but

rather as a
miversal law.^
In other instances, the actions and
ommands of the Gods are held up to blameblame,
-s
the most part, not called for by the

character
f the acting persons and go
unpunished in the
3quel, so that it necessarily appears
as the poet's
w'n conviction whence he concludes
at one
30, for
time
lat
man need
not disturb himself because of his

lults, since the Gods commit the
same at another
me, that the stories about the Gods
cannot be
;
ue.
The prophetic
art is held in equally low estima-
on by Euripides.
The opportunity
Iphig. Taur. 372.
that
;
3
^
'
seized in the
God
cares only for great

leaving unimportant
f^l'P^^^'
things to chance.
ofio"
,':,.^*
vxag. M)\).
Here. Fur. 1328.
Orest. 277.
339, 654.
Fr.
508, with which the

ring (Fr. 964) is connected,
'
is
409'
Here Fur 1301
Hpro
Here.
^^^v
Fur.
Chap.
}'
28
Chap.
^'
Helen,
to prove,
that
it is all
and
rites,
lie
on highly rationalistic grounds,
and
With
deceit.^
however, belief in the
No
thoroughly interwoven.
these legends
Gods
most
is
wonder, therefore, that
the poet often puts into the mouths of his heroes
statements respecting the
existence of the
Grods,
which would sound more natural coming from Protagoras than from men and women of the legendary
Tal thy bins raises the question whether there
past.
"
are
Grods, or
whether Chance guides
things
all
^
;
another doubts their existence,'' because of the unjust

distribution of good
and bad fortune
Hecuba
in
her prayer wonders what the deity really is, whether

Zeus, or natural necessity, or the spirit of mortal
beings
Hercules and Clytsemnestra leave
it
open
even the
whether there are Gods, and who Zeus is
Ether is explained to be Zeus.^ So much at least
these utterances prove that Euripides had wandered
;
far
away from the ancient
ing that he
is
sincere
faith in the Gods.
when he
Allow-
says that only a fool
can deny the deity and give credence to the deceitful

assertions of philosophy respecting what is hidden,
still his attitude appears to have been prepondera-
and
critical
towards the popular
tingly
sceptical
faith.
Probably he allowed that there was a God
743.
Sophocles,
1033,
Antig.
makes Cleon attack the prophet, but his accusations are
refuted by the sequel. Not so
with Euripides.
3 Hel. 484.
* Fr. 288
compare Fr. 892.
2
Troad. 877.
Here. Fur. 1250
1034; Orestes, 410,
5
fragment
of
'
Iph. Aul.
and the
Melanippe
483.
fe
;
Fr. 935, 869.

Fr. 905, 981.
Fr.
ILLUSTRATED
certainly he
notions
TRAGEDIANS.
19
attached
no value to the legendary

the dods; holding that the
respecting
essence of
BY
God
could not be known, and

assuming
the oneness of the divine nature either
by glossing
"
over or by plainly denying the ruling
Pantheism.
Nor did the popular ideas respecting the
i
state
death fare better at his hands.

Naturally
enough, he makes use of them when
a poet can use
them, but then it is also said, that we
know not how
it is with another life, we
only follow an unfounded
opinion.
In several places Euripides
expresses the
opinion,^ pointing partly to
Orphic-Pythagorean traditions, and partly to the
teaching of Anaxagoras
md Archilaus,3 that the spirit returns at
death
after
to
)he
ether whence
it
came
'
)pen question, whether at
apparently leaving
it
an
or to what extent,
consciousness belongs to the soul
when united with
-he ether.^
That the sphere of
all,
morals did not
11
Fr. 904 says the ruler of

things IS now called Zeus,
ow Hades, which would point

D
the opinion tiiat the popular
Dr
the one
God
Helios and
.polio ai-e
Identified (Fr. 781,

1) according to the tradition
ilippolyt. 192.
Compare
Zeller^s
8%t'
S^'Atr'
430, 822
846.
Philoso-
'^''' ' PP-
J8,
/Suppl. 532, the genuineness

xth, Hel. 1012 M.836.
'He says in the Helen The
nl ot the dead no longer lives,
It yet It has an eternal con:
sciousness
(yt,d,a-n
after it has^ unked
êduaro.^
with
tl
immortal Ether
From th^
he deduces the belief in retr (Fr. 689, compare Fr 452
8S()^
whether on the whole life ^s
not a death and death a
life
Troades, 638, it
the dead m'an
is
stated ihnt
feelit ei
an unborn child; in Fr.'
536 that he is a nothin- earth
'
and a shade; Fr 734 anrpp
is
îke
tality
of fame;
and in the
Heraclid. 591, he leaves it nn
open questionVhet her tL c
lad
have feelings or not
Chap.
^__
20
Chap,
'
remain unaffected by these doubts
may
be gathered
from the general character of his tragedies more

definitely than from those particular utterances which
some measure
in
sufficed to give offence
The
cotemporaries.^
tragic
movement
even to his
in Euripides,
unlike that conflict of moral forces which ^schylus
and Sophocles knew how to depict with such deep

feeling, lies
rather
in
personal
ments, and experiences.
arrange-
passions,
His heroes have not that
makes them types of a whole

most cases, that higher necessity,
ideal character which

class.
Hence, in
which
called
for
our admiration in the
^schylus and Sophocles,
case
not active in the de-
is
velopment of the Euripidean drama, but the

result is
of
final
brought about by some external means,
by divine interposition or by some human
either
cunning.
Thus,
rich
as
he
may
be
in
poetic
beauties, successful in painting individual characters,
human life and human

many of the speeches and
experienced in knowledge of
weaknesses, thrilling in
scenes in his tragedies
yet most undeniably he has
come down from the moral and
artistic
height of his
two great predecessors, by introducing into tragedy

habits of inward reflection, of studied effect, and of
artificial
As
language, which Agatho with his dainty
yKaxra-'
for instance
?/
Hippol. 607, or
&c.
the language of Eteocles in
Phoen. 504:, 525, that men will
do anything for power, and
even commit crimes for a
throne or that of the old man
in lo 1051, that it befits the
fortunate man to shun wrong,
'
llnufioKe,
but that all means of vengeance

are lawful in case of injury,
It is true Euripides does not
give these as his own sentiments.
Yet even his cotemporaries noticed their resem-i
blance to the moral teaching
of the Sophists.
ILL USTRA TED
B Y BIBA CTIC POETR Y.
elegance, and Critias with his sophistic

were not slow to follow.'
21
moralising,
Chap.
l.
Cotemporary
with ^schylus, or even a little

before him, the poets Epicharmus,
Simonides, and
Pindar, flourished:
soon after him
(2)
^^^'
m^.
I^^^'V-
Bacchylides.
The first of these, Epicharmus, it has

been shown
in an earlier work,^ takes
a rational view of the
world, and entertains clear notions
on morals, and
theology, thanks to his knowledge
of philosophy.
Bimonides,3 so far as his views can be
gathered from
scattered fragments, appears
mainly to insist on that

noderation and self-restraint which
result from a
jonsideration of human weakness and
frailty.
Our
ife is full
ain
swiftly it
asily lost
ect
of toils
by
and cares its fortune is uncerhurries away; even prudence Ms

too
men
and unstable
he best
man
erity.
is
() Simo''''^''''
their hardly-won virtue is imper-
it
changes with circumstances
whom the Oods bestow prosman must not be looked for;
he on
faultless
nough to find one moderately
righteous.^^
The same
ein of feeling is
found in Bacchylides, on whom

escended the mantle of Simonides. He
knows that
one is altogether happy, that few are
spared some
eavy changes of fortune, and bursts,
yet not alone,
ito the complaint
'
Not to have been
born were'
happiest
le
lot.'^
Hence the highest
\Zellcr's
Geschichte
der
ulosophie, Part I. p. 925, and
mck. Trag. Frag. 599.
^ Zeller's
Philosopliie
der
eichen. Part
I.
p.
427 (Ger-
m).
'
Called by later writers, as
practical
well as by ^schvlus a Dopt of

the good old
^^n^r^j^/i.,
Clouds, 1352.
^
Fr 32 3fi ^s qo ^^
c~
^
Fr.' 42
Ue 'ISL
'
6
^
'
Yx. 5.
Fr. 1,2 3 21,
'
(i)
Bac-
'-'^''J^^'^<^''
22
Chap,
'_
mind, in equanimity, in a
contentment with the present, and absence of care
At the same time he shares the
for the future J
wisdom
his
consists, in
conviction that
man
can discover what
is
right,
that Zeus, the all-seeing ruler of the world,
is
and
not
blame for the misfortunes of mortals.^ These

are the same sentiments as in the older moral poets,
without any noticeable change in the moral platto
form.^
(6-)
Fin-
more peculiar and more powerful,
spirit far
and more nearly akin to ^schylus, finds utterance

At the bottom of Pindar's
in the poems of Pindar.
as of that of Êschylus, lies a
view of the world,
most exalted notion of the

nothing
for
is
Him
deity.
He
is
the
all ;"^
all
bestows success or
law, which governs mortals and immortals,
Grod
Zeus governs
impossible.
things according to his will

failure
'
accomplishes
its
are the deeds of
Nor
purposes with mighty hand.^
men
hid from the all-seeing eyes of
Only beautiful and noble traits can be attrihe who accuses it of human
buted to the deity
Such being the
vices cannot escape punishment.^
God."^
(Trach. 1278) ovSej/ tovtuv H ti

Zei;s, to express, All depends
Fr. 19.
Fr. 29.
Zeller, Part
fJ^h
I. p.
llivhapos
upon God.
90.
Clemens, Stromat.
avriKpvs
v.
610:
elirwv,
Fr. 119;
Nem.
Although
Fr. 146.
to give the
words beginning t/ as a quotalion, it seems hardly likely
that they can have stood in
'
01.
Tt
9^6$
8ti
rh
irav.
Clement appears
Pindar. Perhaps Pindar used

the words dehs rh irav in the
same sense that Sophocles said
Pyth.
ii.
49,
88;
iii.
28
x. 29.
i.
64
Pyth.
ix. 42.
^ 01.
i.
28, where, with a
curious combination of credulity and rationalism, the story
of the feast of the Gods in the
house of Tantalus is declared
'
BY DIDACTIC
ILLUSTRATED
exalted position of God,
On
attitude.
fold
the
related to that of the
the race of Gods

the
is
man
POETRY.
occupies thereto a two-
one hand he has a nature
Gods
one
the race of men,^
is
another, yet both descend from
same mother; hence
in nature
and
spirit
are not altogether unlike immortals.
hand, looking at their power, there

difference,^ for changeful is
sorrow
lie for
23
our
lot,
us ever near together.^
On
the other
an
is
mortals
infinite
and joy and

True wisdom,
therefore, consists in not transgressing the
what
is
bounds of
Gods for all that is
taking with contentment what they bestow.
human,
good, in
in looking to the
'Seek not to be a God,' exclaims the poet: mortality becomes mortals

he who soars to heaven will,
like Bellerophon, have a precipitate fall.^
Only
where God leads is blessing and success ^ in His
;
hand
rests the issue of our labour, according as it is
determined by
virtue
destiny.^'
and knowledge
From
the deity comes
all
and doubtless for this very

being a gift of God, natural talent is
placed by Pindar far above all acquirements, and
tlie creative spirits on whom it has been bestowed,
above all other spirits, as the eagle of Zeus is above
;
reason, as
to be a fable, the occasion for
which
was supplied by the

carrying off of Pelops by Poseidon.
'
This, rather than the identity of both sexes, must be the
meaning- of the words av^pwv
%v e^wv yevos
men form a race
by themselves, the Gods form
another different therefrom.
^
Nem.
According to
Frag. 108, the soul, the fUuAov
-
vi. 1.
alCivos, comes from God alone,

and proves its higher nature
during the sleep of the body in
prophetic dreams.
^
oi_ ^^^ 3q
Yx. 210.
^
01. v. 24; Isthm.
.
14;
v.
vii. 42.
^
Fr. 85,
stands for
where probably
l\yth. xii. 28.
OL
Fr. 118.
eV
es.
ix. 28,
103
Pyth.
i.
41
Chap.
^^
"24
Chap.
I.
We
the croaking ravens.^
what Grod
whatever
must resign ourselves to
disposes, content ourselves with our lot,
Strive not against
it be.
God
bear His
yoke without kicking against the pricks

yourself to circumstances
sible
seek not what
in all things observe moderation
adapt
impos-
is
beware of
envy, which deals the strongest blow to those most
highly placed
Nay more,
these
counsels, he
greater weight to
give
to
are the counsels of the poet.^
moral
his
not unfrequently appeals to a future
retribution, of the wicked as well as of the good,
sometimes following
herein
the
received
notions
respecting Tartarus, Elysium, and the islands^ of
the blest,
at
belief in the
other
times connecting therewith a
migration of
souls.^
In the main,
Pindar's platform, both religious and moral,
is
not
different from that of ^schylus, albeit the thought
of divine vengeance does not stand out with
him
in
such tragic guise.

(3) Historians.
(a) Herodotus.
Would we
see this
view of
life
in transition to
the later form, no better example can be selected
than Herodotus. This friend of Sophocles, in writing

history,
01.
25
iii.
ii.
often allows himself to

86
ix.
100
Nem.
i.
40.
2 Pyth. ii. 34, 88

iii. 21, 59,
103; xi. 50; Fr. 201.
3 01.
ii.
56; Fr. 106, 120.
Fr. 108 seems only to presuppose the current notions, with
this difference, that a more
intense life is attributed to
souls in Hades than was the
view of Homer and the mass
of the people.
Fr. 109 is pro;
be guided by the
bably interpolated
Alexandrian Jew.
"
Fr. 110, 01.
ii.
68.
by some
Accor-
ding to the latter passage, in

which Pindar is m.ost explicit,
reward or punishment follows
in Hades.
Some few distinguished men are allowed to
return to life, and may, by a
threefold life of
innocence,
enjoy the higher bliss on the
islands of the blessed.
ILLUSTRATED BY HISTORIANS.
He
of olden times.
notions
2o
admits the rule of
divine providence in the order of nature,^ and equally

fortunes of men, and especially in
the
clearly in
punishment, which overtakes the guilty, even though

he have acted in the excess of an excusable passion.^
Popular forms of worship are honoured by him,^

knowing as he does that every nation likes its own
rites best
with
only a
Credulous,
disdain.''
to relate, in all
phecies,^
good
says,
can treat these
he
too,
is,
so
far
as
wonders and pro-
faith, divers
among them some
Even
kind.
madman, he
of the most extraordinary
an antique type, affected
his piety is of
with that fear of the divine powers which
is
so
peculiarly suited to natural religion, where the ex-
men
altation of Grods above
but
essentia] difference,
Man
his
is
not destined to
life
may
better for a
man than
jealous of
Her.
iii.
Mi. 120;
He who
life.^
129;
is
quite
111.
vi.
84;
vii. 133.
^^,
in
*
205;
For this reason he hesitates

to utter the names of Egyptian
Gods in a context which might
desecrate them, ii. 86, or to
speak of Egyptian mysteries.
^
it
even
is
is
not
in prosperity
lot of
men,
is
in-
by the envy of the Deity, which,
108.
iv.
nay
privileges, will not brook a
its
All this
rival.'^
before
doubt whether death
imagination soars above the
variably struck
viii.
more physical than moral.

enjoy perfect good fortune
is
be called happy
a general matter for
'
not conceived of as an
exposed to changes innumerable
is
death no one
or
is
mortal
agreement with the

12,57;
vii.
viii. 37,
65;
ix.
100.
Here belong the propliecies of Bakis and Musajus,
viii.
77
ix. 43,
respecting the
genuineness of which he entertains no doubt,
''
i.
ii.
On
31.
the Qiiov (pBovepov, conf.

iii. 40
vii. 10, 5, 46.
32. 34
Chap.
I.
26
CHAr.
spirit,
_J
Grreece.
For
which breathes through the older poetry of
Herodotus neither can nor will

conceal from us the fact that he is the son of an
epoch, in which thought has already begun to shake
all that,
the foundations of a simple faith. Notwithstanding

the naivete with which he tells many a wonder ;i there
are times
when he cannot
the impulse to exaway the marvels of legend, either referring
plain
resist
them
to natural causes in the rationalising spirit of

the Sophists, or at least mentioning such explana-
given by others with approval.

Thus the
wanderings of lo and the rape of Europa are ex-
tions
plained at the very beginning of his work to mean

the carrying off by pirates of these two royal
daughters.
In the story of Gryges the wonderful
power of
his ring
is
referred
to
a very
common
The prophetic doves of Dodona turn into

Egyptian priestesses.^
The Egyptian stories re-
trick.2
specting Paris and Helena are preferred to those of

Homer, and the general tradition of the Greeks/ on
grounds
far
removed from ancient poetry.
When
Poseidon interposes in the Thessalian legend, he sees

the working of an earthquake,^ and remarks not
without irony, that those who believe Poseidon
wrought the earthquake, may believe he interposed

also.
Add to this that he occasionally expresses the
opinion that all
men know
equally
'
i-
60.
ii
1-
8.
vii. 129.
ii.
56.
120.
little
about
'
the'
..i
ILLUSTRATED BY HISTORIANS.
(iods,^
and
it will
27
how much doubt had
be patent,
Chap.
^'
already taken the place of the ancient faith.
In Thucydides, the next great historian, doubt

bas gone over into the matter of fact treatment of
The high moral tone of his

deny. Even in its unfinished form
no one
history.
style
will
his history of
the Peloponnesian war has all the effect of a touching
This
tragedy.
effect,
however,
secured simply
is
by a plain setting forth of historical
facts,
without
introducing the interposition of 'the Grods to explain

events.
Thucydides knows how indispensable religion
for the public
is
scription,
He
good.
how deeply he
shows, by his very de-
deplores the decay, not only
moral but religious of his country.^ Yet the rule of

the deity and of moral order in the world is only
apparent in his
Convinced that
pages by the progress of events.
human
nature
is
always the same,
he exhibits moral laws by showing

before
him
how
in the case
ruin naturally resulted from the weakness
and the passions of men, which he knows so well

and can judge so impartially.^ Nowhere is a belief
betrayed in those extraordinary occm-rences, in whicli
the hand of Grod manifests itself in Herodotus.
Where
cotemporaries
his
see
the
fulfilment of a
prophecy, he contents himself with sober
To depend on
calls
ii.
the folly of the masses

3 (Schl.).
See the well-known passages ii. 53; iii. 82.

iii. 82, 84
and in the description of the Sicilian expcdition, its moti\es and results.
=*
criticism.'*
oracles instead of using remedies, he

;
he openly expresses
vi. 15, 24,

<
is,
30
vii. 75, 87.
For instance, ii. 17, 54.

v. 103, where the Athenian
without doubt, expressing-
the writer's opinion,
(h)
Tlm-
^y^^'^''^-
28
Chap.
his
disapproval of
the
disastrous
superstition
I.
Nicias.^
quite as
of
In the panegyric of the dead,^ which is

much a memorial of his own spirit as of the
spirit of Pericles, there is
not a word of the legendary
history of Athens, that hackneyed
panegyrists
theme of
earlier
but instead thereof, there is a statesman's mind dealing with facts, and practical problems.
His history is a brilliant evidence of a mature judg;
ment, of high intellectual culture, of a many-sided

experience of
life,
f a calm, unimpassioned, pene-
and morally sober view of the world. It is a

work which kindles the highest respect not only for the
writer, but for the whole period, which could rear up
trating,
such a genius.
Nor yet does this work conceal the darker sides

that period.
Eead only the descriptions it gives ^
of
of
the confusion of
all moral notions in the factious

struggles of the Peloponnesian war, of the desolation
of Athens by the plague, of the decline of piety and
self-sacrifice,
of the running riot of all the selfish
passions, to be satisfied of the decay of
moral excel-
lence, even in that period of
might and culture. Beyond all question, along with this outward change of
conduct, universal convictions were shaken also in
proof of which, Thucydides puts in the mouth of
;
several
of his
and particularly of those

coming from Athens, naked avowals of the most
selfish principles, such as could only come from
the
lips of some one of the younger Sophists.
All who
have the power seek to rule no one is restrained by
speakers,
'
BY COMEDY.
ILLUSTRATED
29
considerations of right from pursuing his advantage
by hook and by crook
the rule of the stronger
the universal law of nature
judges what
states act
^"
is
bottom every one

right and honourable by his own
is
and enjoyments
interests
Chap.
at
even the best regulated
on this idea, at
least,
in their foreign rela-
These and such like utterances are put into

the mouths of Athenian popular men and ambassadors on every opportunity.^
Even those who have to
tions.
from Athenian self-seeking are in the end

hardly able to blame it.^ Have we not here moral
and political conditions keeping exact pace with the
suffer
sophistic character of philosophy
Nor were other prudent men blind

which
to the dangers (4) Th^
this course of things
however
little
counter
to
was bringing upon them, âZm.

they were able to control it, or to run
the spirit
of their
times.
Take, for
This poet, an enthusiastic
admirer of the good old time, as he paints it with its
example, Aristophanes.
steady
morality,
prowess,
warms
its
strict
education, its
military
and prudent administration,^

subject whenever he speaks of the days
orderly
its
to his
With implacable satire, now in the

bantering jest, now in that of bitter earnest-
of Marathon.'*
form of
he lashes the innovations which have taken the

iplace
of time-honoured institutions;
democracy
running riot with its demagogues and sycophants ^
ness,
'
^1.]
i.
76
'
iii.
40
v.
89,
105,
vi. 85.
nians, 676.
5
;.
^V o^ ,,
Clouds, 882 Knights,
!y,-
'
Wasps, 1071
the
1316.
Achar-
Wasps; Clouds,
568.
The
Sycophants are taken to task

on every opportunity
Aristo^''^''^''
30
Chap,
'
poetry, empty, effeminate, free-tbinking, faithless to
moral
its
idea,
sophistic
from
fallen
cultm-e
with
fruitless
its
height
artistic
its
speculations,
dangerous alike to faith and morals, the produce of

shameless quibblers, atheistic rationalisers,^ or conscienceless perverters of justice, instead of steady
and sober-minded men.
citizens
ancient
is
with him undeniably an
conviction.
and
classic
Of this
for
is
affair of personal
beauty of those passages which
still lies
what
his zeal is proof, the excitement
the praise of the olden time and

proof
Love
its
customs.
set forth
Grreater
in the general tone of his comedies.
Boastful himself, with reason, of the courage with
which he discharged his duty as a citizen against

Cleon,^ he extracts even from us the testimony of his
being an honourable
man
fighting for a principle.
Whilst warmly taking the

of innovation, he at the
poses
this
spirit
in
field
against the spirit
same time not only presup-
his
audience,
but
actually
Demagogues and sycophants he lashes yet whilst lashing them he tells

us that every place is full of them that democracy
furthers and promotes
it.
has a hundred heads, ever full of vitality; that the
Athenian people, like a childish old man, are always

the victim of the most impudent of their flatterers
that the steady
men
of the older generation are just
as eager for their judicial dues as the
whole body of
worshipful citizens are for their law-suits
Frogs Achar. 393.

Clouds Birds, 1282, 1553
Frogs, 1491.
that the
Wasps, 1029, 1284

Peace,
Achar, 959 Clouds, 542.
;
951
ILLUSTRATED BY COMEDY.
31
young champions of Spartan severity are as debauched as the demagogues

that the sovereign
Chap.
I.
people, after the re-establishment of Solon's constitution, has
gone on
as'
capriciously as
before,
only
wanting female government to complete the folly.^

Even in his plays he indulges in the arts of the
demagogue and the sycophant Socrates he slanders,
and many another as heartily as any rhetorician could
;
and to outbid those who squandered the public

property in order to bribe the people, he tells the
citizens of Athens that if things were fairly done,-"^
hey ought to receive far more than they did.
For
do
reform in religion and morals, the prospects with

him are bad. He praises the moral training of the
ancients, but observes with a smile that morality

little
home amongst
at
is
his hearers,'*
and finds the

from which his people suffered at bottom very
natural.^
Women he brings on the stage to lash
heir licentiousness
but that licentiousness he represents as so deep and so general, that there
can
hardly be hope of improvement.
He makes an onvices
slaught on the philosophers
who deny the Grods, but

comedies he gives us to understand,
(hat belief in his time rested on trembling
feet.^
Not only here and there,^ but in whole acts
and
plays, he exposes the Grods,
together with their
one of his
111
Wasps
first
Birds, 38.
Eccles. V. 456 conf. Plato,
lu;p. yiii. 563 B.
Wasps, 05o.
'
'
Clouds, 1055
Birds, 137; Frogs,
18; Knights, 1384.
;
Compare
Knights, 32.
Clouds, 369, 396, 900, 1075

Birds, 554, 1608
Eccles. 778
Plut. 123, 697.
In
the Frogs, Peace, and
the Birds.
'
';
'
32
Chap.
I.
with audacious recklessness, bringing them

down with rough wit to a human level and to what
priests,
is
low and
common
holding up the moral weaknesses
in which they resemble
making the world
men nakedly and minutely
of Grods, like that of
men, turn in
such a wild whirl, that neither the spectator
who
takes delight in this perverted world, nor yet the

poet, can
have
any real
respect
beings
for
who
are so readily and recklessly at the service of his
imagination.
license of
Much
comedy
of this
may
be attributed to the
yet more than enough remains
show that the poet himself, as well as his

audience, had strayed far from the ancient morality
which he so regretfully wishes to recall that his
to
fanatical devotion,
like Eousseau's
returning to a state of nature,
is
of discontent with the present,

sion
of a
The
C.
problem
,wlved hy
the new
forms of
religious
ri'orshi]).
only the outcome

only
the
romantic idea, not a sentiment
feelings.
expres-
pene-
and ruling his thought

Thus everywhere where we touch
trating his every day
and
wild dream of
life,
upon them, the age and the surroundings from which

Attic philosophy came forth appear penetrated
by a spirit of innovation, rendering it impossible for
the most decided lovers of antiquity to adhere to the
life and beliefs of their ancestors.
Amongst other signs of this change, one phenomenon deserves to be noticed, which appears about
the time of the Peloponnesian war
the
increasing!
spread of the worship of the mysteries, and of soothsaying
in
connection therewith.
Phut, 665.
Hitherto,
the
BY NEW RELIGIOUS
ILLUSTRATED
IDEAS.
reputed predictions of the older prophets had been

appealed to indeed,^ as is the wont of men, but only in
now the mischief and abuse which

was perpetrated by such appeals reached an incredible
pitch.2
To judge by the numerous allusions in the
exceptional cases
and the following generation, the

Orphic and Corybantic mysteries probably gained
at
this time both ground and supporters.^
Such an
writers of this
extension, however, was an innovation in
more than
one respect.
Looking at it from an outside point of

view, it was one thing to seek counsel from
public
and make use of ancient rites naturalised
from time immemorial in fixed spots a very
differoracles
Herod, viii. 7
ix.
437,
mentions prophecies of Bakis
and Musasus respecting the
to the polemic of Euripides.

8 Amongst others,
Philolaus
Persian war.
2 This is particularly
evident
in Aristophanes, who loses no
opportunity of lashing the prophets. Not to mention cursory
attacks, as in Clouds, 330
Birds, 521
in Knights, 109,
(Phasdo, 69, C. Eep. ii. 363, C.

364, B.
Laws, vi. 782, C), and
more particularly Euripides and
Aristophanes.
The
former
(Hippol. 949) describes Hippolytus as a pupil of Orpheus,
and (Fr. 475) introduces a
mystic, who, initiated into the
orgies of IdiBan Zeus, of Zagreus, and the Curetes, devotes
himself to an Orphic life. The
'
818,
767),
t30,
967 (comp. Lysist.

he shows what liberal use
fOleon and other demagogues

made of superstition to flatter
the self-love of the people, and
to direct its will by the socalled prophecies of Bakis.
In
Peace, 1047, he introduces a
prophet Hierocles, who, from
interested motives, opposes the
inclusion of peace, and is
evidently meant for a real
aerson; in the Birds, 959, a
arophet, who thrusts himself in
it the founding of a city,
to
Part
{Zeller,
388) and Plato
I.
;
latter not only depicts (in the

Frogs, 145, 312) the life of the
initiated and iminiliated in

Hades as rudely and vividly as
the consecrated priests do in
Plato, but also (in Peace,
374)
hints at the opinion that man
cannot die quietly without receiving initiation before death,
and (in Wasps, 119) alludes to
the custom of initiating the

sick for the purpose of healino-
;atch a trifle.
Such like phenomena may have given occasion
them.
,'J3
Chap.
I.
STATE OF CULTURE IN GREECE,
34
Chap,
__Jl__
ent thing to have recourse to the so-called answers

of individual prophets and to a private worship
f
without fixed locality, propagated by vagrant priests,

practised
in
confraternities,
self-constituted
and
claiming to elevate all who took part in it as the

special elect above the mass of mankind, both in this
world and in the next. What was this increasing
fondness for private worship and irregular prophecy

but a proof that the public religion was not altogether satisfactory, whilst
it
contributed at the same
Looking
time to intensify the evil?
at
its real
nature, this mystical piety has diverged from the

In it, the notions
received form of faith and life.
of the gods, flowing into each other, begin to lose

perhaps even the tendency to
their distinctness
^
may be already seen

in individuals in the fifth century, may be referred
The conception of human life and of
thereto.'^
human nature has assumed an altered character,
resolve all into pantheism, wiiich
'
'
owing to a clearer belief in immortality, introduced

by the dogmas of the migration of souls and of
1
This is more immediately
true in the case of Dionysus,
In mystic theology this God,

as the representative of the
changing life of nature, dying
in winter, reviving in spring,
was honoured under the name
Zagreus, and
Dionysus
of
treated as one of the Gods of
On this
the nether world.
account the Dionysus-mysteries
are so important for the future
To the initiated in them
life.
69, C. comp.
(^Plato, Phsedo,
Aristoph., Frogs) may be promised life in Hades with the
Gods,
among whom must
surely
be found the God in whose

service they were enlisted. At
a later time, following Heraclitus' example, Dionysus was
See
identified with Plato.
Zeller's Gesch. d. Phil. Vol.
51, 3
592,
I.
5.
Besides the extracts from

Euripides already quoted, p. 19,
fragment in
1, compare the
Clemens, Stromat. v. 603, D,
^
NaucTt, Fragm. Trag.

588, attributes in all probability to ^schylus' son EuphoZews tcniv aidrip,^ Zevs Sc
rion
yrj, Zeis r ovpavhs Zevs roi to
which
Trdyro. x^'<- '^'y^'
(VeoTeooi/,
ILLUSTRATED
future retribution
BY NEW RELIGIOUS
and even of
^
;
this
IDEAS.
change traces
may be
seen in the poetry of the time of Euripides.^

Lastly, in connection herewith an ascetic code of
morals
has come into vogue, enjoining abstinence
from animal food,^ celibacy ,Hhe avoidance of certain

defilements,^ and the wearing of white clothing.
Philosophy,
could only appropriate in an

intellectual form the general idea of this asceticism,
it is true,
the renunciation of
till
a later
all
its
what belongs
time did it embrace
external
it as
Not
a whole with
belongings,
in the system of the

Before that time came, thanks to
Neopythagoreans.
the state of intellectual

in Greece, it
to the senses.
and mental development

itself on another and a more
life
had entered
brilliant career.
'
Comp. Zellei\
388, 581, 654.
Vol.
I.
54,
2 Besides Euripides
(p. 19, 1),
Melanippides (Fr. 6 in Bergli,
Lyr. Gr. p. 982) appears to have
regarded the soul as immortal.
lo, too (Fr. 4 in Bergh, p. 464),
appro])riates the Pythagorean

belief in immortality.
reso-
lution of souls into aether may

also be implied in the popular
belief
mentioned
of
Empedocles and
Pythagoras.
*
Probably EiiHp., Fr. 884,
refers to this.
* That
this was a part of
Orphic perfection may be ga-
thered
from
typical
Euripides,
who
chastity,
reminds
of
of
chastity also occurs in Electra,
V. 254, and it is well known
Orphic virginity.
A vow
that marriage was forbidden to
many
priestesses,
though more
rarely to priests.
by Aristo-
phanes (Peace, 832), that the

dead become stars.
' See Euripid.y Hippol.
949
Fr. 475; Plato, Laws, vi. 782,
C, comparing therewith the
principles
holds up Hippolytus as a type

of an Orphic, probably only
because this despiser of Aphrodite (Hippol. 10, 101), by his
*eu7a) 7eVeo-tV t6 ^porwv koI

oh xp^/^'^rdfievos (Eu-
v^KpoQr}Ky]s
rip., Fr. 475, 16), consequently

the same KaOapeveiv airh K-fiSovs
Kal Xexovs (toucliing a corpse
or woman who has been confined), which the P^'thagorean
of Alexander
Polyhister
in
Dior/., viii. 88 requires.
Birtli
and death, for reasons closely
allied, are regarded as polluting.

Compare Eimp., Iphig.
Taur. 372; Thuc.iii. 104.
D 2
.35
Off A
I.
I'
STATE OF CULTUliE IN GREECE.
36
CHAPTEK
II.
CHARACTER AND PROGRESS OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY IN

THE FIFTH CENTURY.
Chap.
J^
of Socrates inherited from that which had

gone before it a rich treasure of religious ideas, of
moral principles, and scientific conceptions ; at the
The age
had declined at every point from the

Traditional
tone of thought and custom.
same time
earlier
lines
it
seemed now to be
had been discovered;
all
too narrow
new problems
new paths
pressed
for
ideas respecting the Grods
solution.
The legendary
and the
state after death,
had
meaning
lost all
for
the great majority of the educated ^ the very existence of the Grods had been denied by many; ancient!
;
customs had fallen into disuse

civil life, the simplicity
the orderliness
and purity of domestic
ofl
lifej
had given place to a wanton dissoluteness of conduct,'

and an unscrupulous pursuit of pleasure and profit/'
Principles subversive of all law and of all right werd
being unblushingly advocated with
approval of the younger generation.
and grandeur of the
the
The
cheerful
severity^
earlier art, the lucid beauty, th
classic grace, the self-contained dignity of the late

art,
began to resolve themselves into the study o

1
Conf. PUto, Eep.
i.
330, D.
ILLUSTRATED
mere
effect
BY PROGRESS OF PHILOSOPHY.
whilst under the influence of sophistry,
philosophy had come to disbelieve, not only in individual systems, but
also
the whole course of
in
previous enquiry, and even in the possibility of
ledge at
know-
all.
Far, however, from being exhausted hereby, the

spirit of Grreece
was only completely delivered by
the throes and struggles of the fifth century.
mental horizon was widened

ened
its
Its
thought was sharp-
views and conceptions enriched.
Its whole
had gained a new field since its sucrenowned exploits and glorious undertakings.
its
consciousness
cess in
If the meridian of classic art
and of free political

was past towards the close of this period, still
the newly-awakened culture of the understanding
life
was
full
of intellectual promise for the future
sophistry
for
had been destructive, not constructive, only
suggesting,
not accomplishing.
Some new and
thorough change was called for to satisfy not only

practical but also intellectual requirements.
Ancient
propriety of conduct, and the received philosophic
teaching having been once ousted by the altered
the times, simple return thereto became impossible.

But to despair on this account of all
spirit of
knowledge, and of
all
principles of morality, was
most
Allowing even that the received view

of both was inadequate, it by no means followed,
precipitate.
that all science,
and
morality was impossible.

On the contrary, the more the pernicious consequences of such a view were exposed, the more urgent
all
became the duty of avoiding them by a thorough
37
Chap
_L1___
38
transformation of
CJHAP.
_
the
whole tone of feeling and
thought, without, however, attempting the impos-
sible task of
simply restoring the past.
For this purpose some new path must be struck out.
A. Distino'
What
that path should be, a far-sighted eye could
Soaratio
from, pre-
discern with sufficient clearness by the aid of the
jMloeo-
experience of the past.
i^%-
duct had given way before the spirit of innovation,
p)'o-Soc?ntic tradi-
Socraiic ^
resting on
Knonledge.
iiiasmuch
as
it
and not on any
Traditional propriety of con^
rested
upon
instinct
and custom,
clear recognition of necessity.
He!
who would undertake a permanent restoration of moral

must found it upon
Earlier philo-|
knowledsfe.
^
^
*
sophy had been unable to satisfy the requirements
of the times, because it had been directed exclusively
Yiie
to a study of nature
because to the mass of
men
it
did not give sufficient preliminary education for the
work of life, nor to the thinking spirit any clue tc

the problem of its being and destiny. New philosophy must meet this want, must direct its attentioE
to the sphere of mind and morals, and work intc
shape the ample supply of ethical ideas underlying
Earlier sys-'
religion, poetry and received custom.
tems had succumbed before the doubts of sophistry
inasmuch as their method was too one-sided, depending too
little
on
definite conceptions respecting th(
nature and problem of knowledge to be able to with

stand a searching criticism which destroyed thei
means of each other, aud argue(

from the change and uncertainty of the phenomen;
of the senses that knowledge must be impossible
several platforms by
No
building that would last could be erected excep
ILLUSTRATED BY FROG BESS OF BHILOSOBHY.
ao
by laying the foundations deeper, except by finding
Chap.
'
some means of supplementing these several points

of view by each other, of harmonising them when
contradictory in some higher bond of union,^ and of
grasping the unchangeable essence of things amid
changing appearances.
The means wanted was sup-
plied by Dialectic, the
art of
forming conceptions,
and the result was philosophical Idealism. Thus the

knowledge of the faults and deficiencies in existing
circumstances led naturally to the turn taken by
time of Socrates.
[)hilosophy after the

ethics
Scientifi c
became necessary because of the tottering of
moral convictions
a wider enquiry, because of the
narrowness of the philosophy of nature
a critical
method, because of the contradiction of dogmatic

a philosophy of conceptions, because of the
systems
;
uncertainty of the observations of the senses
Ideal-
ism, because of the unsatisfactory nature of a materialistic
view of the world.
Precisely these features distinguish the Socratic
philosophy from that of the previous period.

pre-Socratic
simply and
philosophy was
philosophy of nature
and
to
leave
dialectical questions.
the dialectical tendency
solely
is
supreme.
and enquiries respecting
nature for
After
Socrates
His own attenvirtue.
With
rare exceptions the imperfect Socratic schools con'
Comp.
Zeller^s
Griechen, Part
I. p.
ticpUlo-
a ^^P^ *
tion was exclusively occupied with determining conceptions,
The
the transitional philosophy nature;
of the Sophists was the first

ethical
The
(2)
Phil, der
854, 860.
155.
In the sense given, Ihid.
I.
^Jl^^H^',
cejytions.
40
Chap,
II
fined themselves to the
same
field
;
'
Plato,' foundino;
fc)
his system in conceptions, completing it in morals,
forms a marked contrast to the natural philosophers,

who went before him. Even in Aristotle who treats
of physics
in
detail
and with an evident prefer-
ence for the subject, they are only a single branch

of a system, and in point of value subordinate to
metaphysics.
Such an increase of territory showed that the

whole platform of philosophy had changed.
Why
else should
thought have embraced other and more

extended materials, had it not been chano-ed in it-
and therefore no longer contented itself with

what had been before ? For the same reason the
philosophic method was a diiBferent one.
In previous
philosophy thought had dealt directly with its obself,
ley'StiTof
thisperiod
'trine tf^'
concep-
^^^^'
Systems
'^ ^^^ Socratic and post-Socratic

deals in the first place with conceptions
^^^^'
^^
it
^^^ ^^^^
^^^
objects indirectly, through the
The
of conceptions.
medium
older systems asked, without
further ado, what predicates belonged to things

instance, whether
not
what
is
real admits of
how and out of what the world
Socratic philosophy ever asks, in the
is
motion
or
The
made.
first
for
what
place,
things are in themselves according to their conception,
thinking not otherwise to obtain information
respecting their properties and conditions than by

the help of the conception of things thoroughly
mastered.^
No
conception of a thing can, however,
Compare, not to mention

other passages, the clear state*
ment in the Phgedo,
99,
Af ter
having vainly busied himself
BY PROGRESS OF PHILOSOPHY.
ILLUSTRATED
[)e
obtained, except by grouping together
its
41
various
Chap.
^ ^'
by smoothing down apparent
contradictions, by separating what is lasting from
what is changing, in a word, by that critical method, 0) Definiwliich Socrates introduced, and which Plato and Aris^conc'î-''
totle elaborated and developed.
Former philosophers ^'^'*-
and
;ispects
liaving
\o
qualities,
gone forth from particular prominent features

and having failed
arrive at the essence of things,
l)ecause of their one-sidedness

iliat
it
was now required
the properties of an object should be taken
all
and weighed from every side, before a

judgment could be formed thereupon.
Thus the
into account
[)hilosophy of conceptions steps into the place of dog-
matism.
In this way reflection which by means

of sophistry had destroyed the older philosophy was
taken into the service of the new philosophy the
'
various aspects under
which things may be regarded,

were brought together and referred to each other but
;
not content with the negative conclusion that

our
notions cannot be true because they contain opposite
determinations, the new philosophy aimed at uniting
these opposites in one,
and showing that true science

IS not affected by contradiction,
inasmuch as it only
refers to that which unites opposites
in itself, and
excludes contradiction.
i
This pursuit of knowledge
with the enquiries of the natural pliilosophers he declares

himself convinced, that he has
only got into deeper darkness
by directing his enquiries into
things in themselves,
(rh.
fTKOTrwv
irphs
trpAyfiara tois
Âe'TTft,;/
QfXfjLaa-i
6ura
rb.
koI eKdarr}
ruu
alaOijcrfwu ^mxîpo)^ dTTTeadai
a,)Tcov.)ISo^Si] /moixpvt'ai etsrobs

Kdyovs Karacpvyd^ra eV e'/cetVots
<TKoire7y tuv ovtwv tt/j/ aK-hOuav
(the true essence of thino-s)
i.e. instead of irpdyîara
xdyoi
instead of 6vra, dATj^Jm tUv
oyrwu.
42
through conceptions
Chap,
the
is
common
peculiarity of
the Socratic, the Platonic, and the Aristotelian philo-
'_
That the
sophy.
same bent
lesser Socratic
schools follow the:
will be seen hereafter.
If only conceptions can give true knowledge,
it'
follows that true being can only belong to that which

is
known by means
of conceptions
that
to the
is,
essence of things, as this presents itself in thought.
This essential being cannot, however, be
sought
Anaxagoras had early realised that
for in matter.
matter could only become a world by means of
spirit
then the old materialistic physics had been
since
discredited by sophistry
nothing remained but to
regard the form and purpose of things, the immaterial,

part in
them
most
as
conceptions, nay, even
essential for
determining
the,
to assign to it a true reality
underlying the appearance.
In this way the Socraticj
philosophy led logically to Idealism.

(2)
The beginnings
Theory
of concep-
^^-^^
tions ex-
of this Idealism are unmistak-,
even in Socrates.
His indifference to physical
panded hy enquiries and his preference for ethical ones prove

'piato 'ând
Aristotle,
conclusively that he attributed to the inner world
much higher
value than to the outer world.
Resolve
his theory of final causes applied to nature into the,
metaphysical elements out of which

the conclusion
is
which a thing
gives
shape,
it
is
and
in
is
it
made, but the conception which
makes a thing what
more pronounced
Plato
composed
inevitable that not the material of
this accordingly represents its
Idealism
it is
it
is,
and
true nature.
that
in the school of Megara
runs through
all parts
Thi^
;
of his philo-
ILLUSTRATED BY PROGRESS OF PHILOSOPHY.
4.",
sophy side by side with a current of pre-Socratic
Even Aristotle is not
doctrines.
Chap,
faithless to this view.
'___
Whilst denying the independent existence of the

ideas,
he nevertheless asserts that reality
consists not in
matter but in form, and that the
Platonic
highest reality belongs to
On
ground he
this
spirit free
from matter.
states even in his physics, agree-
ing herein with his predecessors, that hnal causes are
Compared
higher than material causes.
with the
natural
therefore
philosophers of the pre-Socratic
period, even Aristotle
may fairly
be called an Idealist.
Starting from a consideration of nature, the preSocratic philosophy
made
it its
chief business to en-
quire into the essence and causes of external things,

for this
ties.
purpose going back to their material proper-
An
entirely different character
is
the philosophy founded by Socrates.
with the study of

Jiaitjlire
with
rather
g^git
displayed in
This begins
than the study of
ethics rather than physics.
It
aims at
of all by means of conand only in the second place naturally. It

substitutes an attitude of enquiry for dogmatic state
explaining phenomena,
first
ceptions,
Mind
now regarded as the higher element compared with
matter.
The philosophy of nature has developed
ment, idealism in the place of materialism.
is
into a philosophy of conceptions.
Not that
half of the
as yet the claim
human mind
and the end of science.

in
modern
0. Di.s^^
to be the measure of truth socnit'L

Far from reaching the sub- frompo^t-
an idealism in fact only

times the philosophy of this
jective idealism of Fichte

possible
was advanced on be-
i\an
phih-
^'^P^'J-
44
Chap.
II.
period
not nearly so subjective as the post- Aristo-
is
telian schools.^
In them the interests of speculation
are subordinated to those of morals
knowledge
is
regarded only as a means to virtue and liappiness;
whereas the independent value of science is fully admitted by the great philosophers of the present
To them knowledge
period.
speculation
made
is
is
an end in
the highest and noblest thing
itself;
;
action
depend upon knowledge, not knowledge

to depend upon the aims of active life.
Only a few
is
to
one-sided followers of Socrates, who, however, prove
nothing as to the general tendency, are an exception

to this rule.
{I) It still
heUeves
the attain-
ment of
knowledge
to he
pomhle.
simple belief in the possibility of knowledge

here displayed which was wanting in the post-
is
The doubts of the Sophists

are refuted, but in the mind of the philosopher
there is no need of overcoming doubt.
The problem
Aristotelian philosophy.
proposed
is.
How
can true knowledge be obtained,
in what kind of mental representations
sought,
how must the conception
No doubt
mined?
really possible.
The
is
to
the
knowledge
(e7rt(rTrj)U,Tj
8,
ri irore
rvydxvci ov
Theaetet. 145, E.)
is quite different from the doubt
;
is
Equally
are the answers to that problem.
question raised
there as to the conception of
;
is
the fundaschools
altogether
to the thinkers of this time.
them
be
be deter-
but that knowledge
later
Take for instance the The-
aetetus
it
it
search for a test
mental question of the
unknown
unknown
felt
of
must
as to the possibility of knowledge involved in the enquiry

for a standard.
2
Compare
Zeller,
duction to Part
III.
1. c.
and
Intro137.
I.
'
ILLUSTRATED BY PROGRESS OF PHILOSOPHY,

and Stoics, cut
They
short the question by practically begging it.
They did
not, as did the Epicureans
45
Chap.
'
did not, as did the Sceptics, despair of knowledge.
They did
not, as did the Neoplatonists, resort to
higher revelations.
They were content
well-regulated thought
Even
the
for
to look to
source
of
truth.
that branch of science, the independent pui'-
which was much neglected by later thinkers
suit of
physics
was
studied
in
this
epoch with success.
Socrates and the majority of his pupils
neglected
it,
but not so Plato
to a point final in the
main
may have
and Aristotle carries
for nearly
it
two thousand
If the post- Aristotelian Ethics proved at last
years.
faithless to the principles of the old Grreek morality,
partly under the influence of a world-wide extension,
partly
owing to their severance from
politics,
owing
withdrawal of the moral consciousness from
to the
the outer world, owing to a

sour asceticism
respect
is
dumb
resignation and a
the difference of epochs in this
simply seen by recalling the many-sided
sympathies of Socrates, with his cheerful enjoyment

of
life,
and his devoted attachment to
or the teaching of
his country,
Plato concerning the state, or
and society, or
the Epicurean doc-
that of Aristotle concerning virtue
the relation of the Cyrenaic to

trine of happiness.^
Is
it
true that the philosophy of this
second
(2) Dis-
period attempts in ethics to get beyond the established

ÊthilT
bounds ? It supplements the propriety of custom by a
theory of morals and conscious action. It distinguishes

'
ComiD. Zellcr,
1.
c,
i.
139.
'
4P)
more
Chap,
TT
between the
definitely than the ordinary view
outward deed and the
It requires
intention.
what is ideal.
thrown on the meaning and motives of
rising above the life of the senses to
Light
is
moral consciousness.
taught, which
is
universal
philanthropy
is
not lost in local patriotism; and
accordingly the state
only regarded as an institu-
is
tion for the attainment of virtue and happiness, and
not as the
final
moral cause. For
all
that this period
removed from the apathy of either Stoic or

Epicurean, from the imperturbability of the Sceptic,
is far
from the asceticism of the Neoplatonist. It seeks

not to sever man in his moral activity from nature
regards virtue as the perfection of
with Aristotle
it
a natm-al gift
with Plato
of
what
is
advances from the love
sensibly beautiful, to the love of
work
for his fellowmen.
later
time
is
absent
political life.
mean between
The
is
world-citizenship of a
absent too
Even
what
requires the philosopher to
It
morally beautiful.
classic
it
is its
nationality and
in this respect,
it
holds the
a slavish surrender to the outer
world, and a narrow withdrawal therefrom.
Compared with the pre-Socratic era, the age of

Socrates is characterised by the diversion of philosophy from external nature to thought or to ideas.
Compared with the following age, it is marked by
the real character of its thought, that is, by the fact
that the thinker is not ultimately thrown back on
;
himself and the certainty of his own knowing, but
on attaining to the knowledge of what is in itself

In short its theory of a knowledge of
real and true.

conceptions
determines
may
be deduced
theory
its
its
character.
From
this
'
breadth of view reaching
beyond the physical one-sidedness of the preSocratic, and the moral one-sidedness of the post-
Chap.
"_
alike
method
dogmatism, and
Aristotelian schools, its critical

to the earlier
and
later
in opposition
its
idealism,
transfiguring the whole aspect of the outer world,
without, however, entailing any withdrawal therefrom.
The development
of
this
theory was carried
^' ^<i-
out in a simple and natural order by three philoso-
^^ %IT"^
phic schools, the founders of which belong- to three Socratic
and are personally connected

teachers and pupils.^ First comes Socrates assert-
successive generations,
as
ing that the standard of

lies
his
human thought and
action
knowledge of conceptions, and teaching

followers to acquire this knowledge by dealing
in a
with notions critically.
j?hi/.
Hence Plato concluded that
objective conceptions are in the true sense the only

real
things, a derivative
reality
belonging to
all
other things, a view which

critical
he upheld by a more
analvsis, and developed to a system.
Lastly,
Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that in a thing
the conception itself constitutes its real essence and
moving power.
By an
exhaustive analysis of the
method, he showed how conceptions were to

be formed and applied to particulars, and by a most
scientific
comprehensive enquiry into the several parts of the

universe, he examined the laws and connection of
conceptions, and the thoughts which determine all
that really
is.
'
Sagrates had as yet no system.

^
Comp. Zeller, 1, 9, 136, 142.
He
(i) Socrates.
'
48
Chap,
had not even any material groundwork.
'
that only in acquiring conceptions

to
^
be found, that true virtue
is
Convinced
true knowledge
in
consists
acting
according to conceptions, that even the world has
been ordered in accordance with definite conceptions,

and therefore shows design, in any given case he
tries
by a
prevailing notions to
critical testing of
gain a conception of the object with which he has

to deal,
and to
this
he devotes
all his
conclusion of every other interest.
powers, to the
But he never
went beyond this formal treatment. His teaching

was confined to general requirements and presumpHis importance lies not in a new view of
tions.
things, but in a new conception of knowledge, and
way he forms this conception, in his view of

the problem and method of science, in the strength
of his philosophical bent, and in the simplicity of his
in the
philosophical
(2) Plato.
The
life.
Socratic search for conceptions has
grown in
Plato to a discovery of them, to a certainty of pos-*

sessing them,
and gazing upon them.
With him
objective thoughts or ideas are the only real things.
Mere
non-existent
what
matter as such
idealess existence or
is
all
made up
things else are
and partly of what
is
not
is
simply
partly of
they therefore are
only real in proportion to the part they have in the

Granting that this is in advance of the
idea.
8ocratic view,
logically
it
is
no
less
from that view.
certain that it follows
The Platonic
ideas, as
Aristotle rightly understood them,^ are the general

'
Met.
i.
6,
987, b,
1.
ILLUSTRATED
BY PROGRESS OF PIIILOSOPIIY.
conceptions, which Socrates had arrived at, separated
from the world of appearance.
They
are also the
central point of the speculations of Aristotle.
him the
conception or the form
essence, the reality,
things
only form
thinking of
and
is
as it
absolutely real
constitutes
were the soul of
only thought
is
between Aristotle and Plato, that whereas

Plato separates the conception from the appearance,
difference
independent as an Ihsa, Aristotle,

in things themselves, without, however,
implying that form stands in need of matter to beplaces
come
it
as
it
actual, since it
Aristotle will not
is
in itself actual.
Moreover,
remove the idea out of the world
of
appearances, because it cannot in a state of

separation serve as a connecting link between individual things, nor can it be the cause and substance
Thus the theory is seen to be one and the

same which Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle represent
of things.
at different stages of growth.
In Socrates
it is
un-
developed, but full of vitality, pushing itself forward

through the husk of earlier philosophy in Plato it
;
lias
grown
to a pure
and independent existence
and
Aristotle it has overspread the whole world of

êing and consciousness, exhausting itself in the
in
effort,
and moving towards a perfect transformation
later systems.
lant
Socrates, so to speak,
is
the preg-
germ, Plato the rich bloom, Aristotle the ripe
(3) Ao-is*''^^^'
the most intense reality, and therefore also

the most intense pleasure in life.
Yet there is this
regarding
^^'
the
man
to
Chap.
With
without matter, simple spirit
itself, is
4J)
50
Chap.
II.
(4) Difficulty
caused hy
Socratic
Schools.
fruit
of
Greek philosophy at the perfection of
its
historical growth.
One phenomenon only
will not fall into this his-
but threatens to break the continuity

of Grreek thought, viz. the imperfect attempts to
expand the Socratic principle which are seen in the
Megarian, the Cynic, and the Cyrenaic schools. In
torical chain,
a real and essential progress of the

philosophic consciousness was not indeed to be found,
inasmuch as philosophy, which had arrived at any
these
schools
rate in principle even in the time of
Socrates at
objective knowledge, such as could only be found

in a system, was by them limited to subjective train-i'
ing of thought and character. Nor yet can they be!

For not only were:
said to be wholly unimportant.
they, at a later period starting points for Stoicism,
Epicureanism, and Scepticism, but they also pro-'
moted, independently of this, many scientific enqui-j

ries, by means of which they exercised an undeniable
influence on Plato and Aristotle.
occurs elsewhere, and
is
met
The same
casei
with, even in this epoch,
Academy, and in the Peripatetic schools,

which had no independent influence on the;
in the older
both of
growth of philosophy, but yet cannot be overlooked

Of all these phenomena one and the
in its history.
same thing must be said. Their chief importance lies

not in their having expanded a principle theoretically,
but in their having been practically helpful in advancing it, by preserving the older forms of culture
for cotemporaries to see, here
and there improvin,^
and widening them, and by thus keeping the
philu-

mind
sopher's
in sight of a many-sidedness, without
which later systems would never have included the

products of the earlier ones.
This permanence of philosophic schools is not

therefore met with until philosophy had attained a
certain general extension, in Grreece not until
the
time of Socrates and Plato.
ming up
all
Whereas Plato, by sumthe pre-Socratic schools, put an end to
their existence
time no theory was put forward which did not propagate itself in a school until
the time that Neoplatonism put the coping-stone on
;
after his
Greek philosophy, in and with which all previous

systems were extinguished.
In later times, however
many intellectual varieties rise up side by side, only a
few of
them
possess a distinct life of their own.
rest are a traditional revival of previous

views,
cannot,
in
The
and
considering
the peculiar philosophical

character of an age, be taken further into account.
They need therefore only to be mentioned by the
historian in a passing way.
This statement applies
to the imperfect followers of Socrates.

Their doctrines are not an advancement in principle,
but only
incomplete reproductions of Socratic views, and connected with Socrates in the same way that the elder
Academy is with Plato, or the Peripatetic school
with Aristotle.
'1
51
Chap.
^^'
PART
II.
SOCRATES.
CHAPTER
III.
THE LIFE OF SOCRATES.

|
Chap.
^^^'
There
no instance on record of a philosopher

whose importance as a thinker is so closely bound
is
up with
his personal character as a
man
Every system,
the case of Socrates.
being the work of a definite person,

studied in the light of
it
of their intellectual
they grew
is
it is
true, as
may
best be
the peculiarities, culture,
misfortunes and circumstances of
the case of others
was in
as it
its
author
yet in
easier to separate the fruits
life
from the stock on which
doctrines can generally be received and
handed down quite unchanged by men of very
dif-j
In the case of Socrates this
ferent characters.
not nearly so easy.
His teaching aimed
is
far less ati
which can be equally well em-|

braced by different men, than at a special tone of
definite doctrines,
life
and thought,
at a philosophic character
art of intellectual enquiry, in short, at a
to be directly imparted and
and
thej
something not|
handed down unaltered,
HIS LIFE.
but
to
be propagated freely,
others being stirred
up to an analogous development of their

peculiarities.
So much the more anxious should this
make us for
detailed information as to the training
of a character
which has had so powerful an influence

on history.
Here a very common difficulty meets
What
us.
Socrates was, and
how he
acted in his riper years, is

well known; but only the roughest
outline is preserved of the circumstances of his
life.
Over the
earlier part of it deep darkness
rests. For the history
of his intellectual and moral
training, if
we except a
few scanty and for the most part
untrustworthy
statements of earlier writers, we are
left
entirely to
conjecture.
The youth and
manhood of Socrates
the most brilliant period of
Grecian history.
during the last years of the Persian
early
wmV
J i^!^\îT\^T''^î''^^-
^""^^
Apollodorusiin Biog. a.
44),
in the
fe of Socrates is the
date of his death
According
to nemetrius
Phulereus
1
and
i{JJwd. XIV
61),
probably
the second half of the month

Ihaigehon
For at this time
must be placed the return of
Dehan e,c.ph, which, according to Pluto (Pha^do,

59,
day before the
?i;^'-''^'V^.^
execution
of Socrates.
Comp.
the
DeliL^ndTohof
r^:r^
'^^hol- '^Gôttmg.
184fi
846.
;r ; a month
About
(Xenophon,
definitely
the
Mem.
thirty days),
month Munychion,
dicial
earlier
iv. 8, 2,
says
in
tlie jui.e.
enquiry
took
pla'ce.
must accordingly liave
bocrates
fall
in
Born
he was
condemned in April or
399 B.C., and have suffered death inMay or June the
same year. Since at the tinip
of his death LTad passed
Ss
^^^^
May
17, D.), but not lono- rCrito

,2, E. cLlls him in round n^"'
bers seventy), his birth
canZt
have fallenYater than 01? 7^

or 469 B.C. If his birthdav
/
is
rightly fixed for tie Gt^ Thar

gelion (Apoll. in Dion
Pint. Qn.
Conv. viii
i
i
^^''^"' ^^- ^' '^' ^5)' ^^^ '^'^^
not past at the time of the
judicial enquiry, we should
iiu
have to go back for it ?o 470

or even %7l
b.c
rComr.
Pockh. Corp. Inscnpt i
3?f:
^
mr,na,m, L c. 7)
The question then arises whe'
Chap.
^^^'
SOCRATES.
54
Chap.
III.
nearly cotemporary with
those great
all
As a
adorned the age of Pericles.

he participated in
which thanks to
its
all
men who
citizen of
Athens
elements of cultm-e,
those
imrivalled fertility of thought,
congregated in that great metropolis. If poverty and

low birth somewhat impeded his using them,^ still
ther these statements respecting the time of his birth are
guage of the Thesetet. 183, F.,

and the Parmen. 127, C, ttolw
a mere fiction; and

whether the birthday of Socrates, the fiaievTiKos, was not
placed on the 6th of Thargelion
to make it agree with that of
Artemis, as Plato's was made
to agree with Apollo's. If so,
he may have been born in
Any469 B.C. (Olym. 77, 3).
how, Apollodorus, placing it in
v4os, (TcpoSpa veos.
facts or
468 B.C. (01. 77, 4), {Diog. 1. c.)

Nor can the stateis wrong.
ment noticed by Diogenes that
he was only sixty years of age
weigh against the clear language of Plato, and probably
rests upon a transcriber's misHermann's observation
take.
De Philos. Jon.
A. 39) that Socrates
could not have been born in the
third or fourth year of an
Olympiad, since he was twentyfive {Synes. Calv. Enc. c. 17)
at the time of his interview
with Protagoras, which interview happened {Plato, Parm.)
at the time of the Panathenaea,
and consequently in the third
year of an Olympiad, will not
Supposing the
hold water.
interview to be even a fact,
which is very doubtful, the
remark of Synesius (Calv. Enc.
respecting the age of
c. 17)
Socrates is a pure guess, and
altogether refuted by the lan(Plat. Phil. 666,
^êtat.
ii.
'
That his father Sophronis-
{Xen. Hellen. i. 7, 15
Lach. 180, D.
how
Epiphanius, Exp. Fid. 1087, A.,
cus
Plato,
comes to
call
him
Elbaglus,
is
was a sculptor,
may be gathered from Piog. ii.
The services of his mother
18.
Phgenarete as a midwife are
known from Plato's Thesetetus,
As regards circum149, A.
stances, it is stated by Demetdifficult to say)
rius Phaler. in PkitarcJi^sLiife of

Aristides, c. 1, that he not only
possessed land, but had seventy
minse a considerable sum at
but this statement
interest
is at variance with the testimony of the best witnesses.
The reasons for it are without
doubt quite as weak as those
for a similar statement respecting Aristides, and arose seemingly from some Peripatetic's
wish to find authorities for his
view of the worth of riches.
Plato (Apol. 23, B., 38, A.;
Rep.
((Ec.
i.
337, D.)
2 xi. 3
ii.
and Xenophon
;
Mem.
i. 2,
1)
represent him not only as very

poor, vdvv fiiKpa KKTT}fx4yos and
iv
Trivia
fivpia,
but they also
give reasons for thinking so.

Plato makes him say, perhaps
he could pay a fine of a mina,
and Xenophon depicts him as
HIS LIFE.
in the
55
Athens of Pericles, not even the lowest on the
city roll
was debarred from enjoying the rich pro-
most part devoted

nor yet from associating
fusion of art, which was for the

to the purposes of the state,
with
men
in the highest ranks of
personal intercourse did far
more
This free
life.
to advance intel-
lectual culture at that
time than teaching in schools
Socrates had reached
manhood
before the
Sophists
introduced a formal system of instruction.
Intelli-
gible as
it
thus becomes,
how an
energetic
man in
the
many incitements to
and how even he could be
position of Socrates could find
and means of culture,

carried
away by the wonderful elevation of
city, still
nothing very accurate
his native
known
is
respect-
ing the routes by which he advanced to his subse-
quent greatness.^
We may
suppose that he enjoyed
the usual education in gymnastics and music,^ al-
though the
stories
which are told of
estimating his whole property,

inclusive of his cottage, at five
min}\3.
The story of Libaniiis
(Apol. Socr. t. iii. p. 7), accord-
ing to which Socrates inherited

eighty minae from his father,
and lost them by lending, bearing his loss with extreme composure, looks like a story intended to show the indifference
of a philosopher to wealth,
Had Plato and Xenophon
known the story, we may be
sure they would not
have
omitted to tell it.
See the work of K. F. Hermami, De Socratis magistris et
disci plina juvenili, Marb. 1887.
- Plato says so plainly in the
his teachers in
Crito, 50, D.
Even apart from
this testimony there could be
no doubt.
Porphyry's state(in Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff.

i. 29,
a statement unp. 8)
doubtedly derived from Aris-
ment
toxenus that Socrates was too

uneducated to be able to read,
need scarcely be refuted by
authorities such as Xen. Mem.
i.
6,
14
iv. 7, 3, 5.
It is clearly
an exaggeration of the well-
known
a7rai5eu<rta {Plato,
221, E.,
which
1!);),
only
S3nnp.
A., Apol. 17, B.),
belongs
to
the
satirical outside of the philoso-
was readily taken

and exaggerated by
pher, but
hold of
jealousy in later times.
Chap.
i
SOCRATES.
66
Chap.
III.
music
deserve no credit.
We
hear further that he
enough of geometry to be able to gTapple with

difficult problems, and that he was not ignorant of
astronomy ^ but whether he acquired this knowledge
in his youth, or only in later years, and who was his
We see him, in mature
teacher, we cannot tell.^
learnt
more or less close with a number

of characters who must have exerted a most varied
and stirring influence on his mind/ It is beyond
years, in relations
According to Max. Tyr.

Connus was his
4,
xxxviii.
teacher in music, and Euenus

in
Alexander (in
poetry.
ii. 19) calls him a pupil
B'log.
of
Damon,
whereas
Sextus
13) makes Lampo

his teacher. All these notices
(Matth.
have
vi.
undoubtedly come from
passages in Plato, which are irrelevant. Socrates calls Connus

his teacher (Menex. 235, E.,
and Euthyd. 272, C), but according to the latter passage
he was a man at the time, so
that he must have gone to
Connus simply with a view to
revive a skill long since acquired.
It is more probable
(however often such notices
are given as historical, and
with further details
Cic. ad
Quint, i. 10
Fam. ix. 22
Diog. ii. 32
Val. Max. viii. 7
Flor. 29, 68) that the
Stoh.
passages in Plato refer to the
Connus of the comic poet
Ameipsias, from which the
whole fabrication comes.
See
Damon's
Herviann, p. 24.
name is mentioned in the
Laches, 180, D., 197, D.
Eep.
:
cian appears as the friend

rather than as the instructor of
Socrates, and as an important
political
iii. 400, B., 424,

C, in which
passages, however, this musi-
his
lastly, the Lampo of Sextus probably owes his existence

to a mistake. Sextus may have
written Damon instead of Connus {StotcBus, Flor. 29, 68, has
Connus in the same connection)
or else Lamprus (a name
which occurs in the Menexenus,
though not as that of a teacher
of Socrates), and transcribers
made it Lampo. The celebrated
prophet of this name cannot of
course have been intended.
2
^
from
And
character,
connection with Pericles. The

Phsedo, 60, C, and the Apology,
20, A., mention Euenus, yet not
as a teacher, and hardly even
as an acquaintance of Socrates.
Mem. iv. 7, 3, 5.
Maximus 1. c. says Theodore
Xen..
of Cyrene, but this is only an

inference from Plato's Theaetetus,
*
and not warranted by it.

For instance, the Sophists
PoluS;
Gorgias,
Protagoras,
Thrasymachus, but
Hippias,
Cf Plato,
especially Prodicus.
Prot., Gorg., Hip., Eep. i. Xe//.
.
Mem.
Also
ii. 1,
21
Euripides,
iv.
4,
5,
&ic.
who was on
HliS LIFE.
67
doubt that he owed much to such relations

but
these friends cannot in strict accuracy be described
;
as his teachers,
so-called
although we
neither
is
may
them
often find
any light derived hence
the history of his early training.
We
for
meet
with expressions which show that he must have had
a general acquaintance with the views of Parmenides
and Heraclitus, of the Atomists, of Anaxagoras, and
further
Whence he derived
impossible to say.
The stories
perhaps of Empedocles.'^
this
knowledge,
that
it is
he received instruction in his younger years from

Anaxagoras and Archelaus, can neither be supported
by satisfactory evidence, nor are they probable in

themselves.^ Still more uncertain
such intimate terms with him
that the comic poets charged
him with borrowing his tragedies
from Socrates.
(Cf. Bioff.
18; JElian, V. H. ii. 13.

Also Aspasia
cf Xoi. CEc. 3,
14
Mem. ii. 6, 36 J^schines
in Cic. de Invent, i. 31
in
Max. Tyr. xxxviii. 4
conf
Ilerr/iann De ^sch. relig. 16
ii.
Hermesianax in Athen. xiii.

599, a; Diotima (P^jô, 8ymp.).
Respecting several of these
we
know not whether Plato was

true to facts in bringing them
into connection with Socrates.
'
Socrates calls himself in
Plato a pupil
of
Prodicus
{Zeller, 1. c. i. S73, D.), of Aspasia (Menex. 235, E.), and of
Diotima (Symp. 201, D.), all of
times.
Mag.
in
p, 11.
the two ladies consisted in free

personal intercourse, even allowing that Diotima is a real
person, and the Menexenus a
genuine dialogue
not only
this, but
the same applies
equally to Prodicus. Maximus
calls Ischomachus his teacher
;
in agriculture, but he probably

arrived at this conclusion hj
misunderstanding Xen. QEc. 6,

17.
The story that he was a
pupil of Diagoras of Melos (the
Scholiast on jWistojjJi. Nubes, v.
828), is obviously false.
- Xen. Mem. i. 1, 14
iv. 7, 6.
* The
authorities are
for
Anaxagoras, Aristid. Or. xlv.,
;
p. 21,
and the nameless authoriby Dioff. ii. 19
ties referred to
and 45, whom Suidas 'S.uiKpa.T.

according to custom follows
and present
Hermann, Soc.
for Archelaus, I>wg. ii. 16, 19,

23, X. 12, and those mentioned
past
See
his supposed inter-
re-
which statements have been

peated
is
We may
suppose
that the instruction given
by
by him,
Diodes.
Aristoxenus, and
Besides these Cicero,
lo,
(Jhap.
III.
'
;
SOCRATES.
58
Chap.
III.
course with Zeno and Parmenides.
known
Even
little
is
of the philosophical writings with which he
Sextus, Porphyry (in Theod.

Cur. Gr. Aif. xii. 67, p. 175),
Clement of Alexandria (Strom,
i. 302, A.), Simplicius, Eusebius
(Pr. Ev. X. 14, 13, xiv. 15, 11,
XV. 61, 11), Hippolytus, the spurious Galen, and a few others
Forsch. 210.
conf.
Krisclie,
The evidence in favour of
;
Anaxagoras
very insufficient,
is
and the language respecting

him used by Socrates {Plato,
Pheedo, 97, B. and Xenophmi,
Mem. iv. 7, 6) makes it improbable that he knew him personally, or was acquainted with
his views, except from books
and hearsay, which of course
does not exclude any casual or
accidental intercourse.
The
traditions respecting his relations to Archelaus are better
yet even here
authenticated
there is much that is suspicious.
Of the two earliest authorities,
lo and Aristoxenus, the former,
who was an older contemporary
of Socrates, does not make Archelaus his instructor. All that
is stated in Biog. ii. 23, on his
authority, is that Socrates, when
a young man, travelled with
Archelaus to Samos. This assertion, however, flatly contradicts
Plato (Crito, 52, B.), who says
that Socrates never left Athens,
except once to go to the Isthmian games, or when on military duty.
Miiller, however,
gets over the difficulty (Frag.
Hist. Gr. ii. 49, N. 9) "by supposing that Plato was only referring to Socrates when grown
up.
It is just possible that Plato
;
may
not have known of a journey which Socrates took in his

earlier years.
That he should
have knowingly omitted to
mention it, as Alherti Socr. 40
supposes, is hardly likely. It
is also possible some mistake
may have been made. lo may
not have meant a journey to
Samos, but his taking part in
the expedition to Samos of 441
B.C., which, strange to say, is
not mentioned in the Apology,
Or the error may lie
28, E.
with Diogenes, who applied to
Socrates what lo had said of
j
some one
else.
Or
it
may
not
be the lo of Chios, but some

individual
who thus
Certain it
writes of Socrates.
is, that lo's testimony does not
prove Socrates to have been a
pupil of Archelaus. Even if the
relation were proved to have
existed in Socrates' younger
days, it would still be a question whether his philosophy:
was influenced thereby.
Aristoxenus goes further. According to his account in Diog.
Socrates was the fa-'
ii.
16,
vourite of Archelaus, or as
Porphyry represents the mat-;
ter, he became acquainted with^
Archelaus in his seventeenthi
year, lived with him many
later
'
'
years, and was by him initiated

shall haveji
into philosophy.
occasion to notice hereafter ho:
We
dependence can be place

on the statements of Aristoxe
nus respecting Socrates. Wen
the other statement which
to be found in Diogenes closely
little
ii
connected with this one, that
HIS LIFE.
was acquainted.^
Phaedo
him
describes
.5t)
well-known passage in Plato's
advancing from the older
as
natural science and the philosophy of Anaxagoras to

his
own
But
peculiar views.
it
most improbable
is
that this passage gives a historical account of his in-
no other reason, at
one,^ that the course of development
tellectual development, if
least for this
for
there leads to the Platonic theory of conceptions; let
alone the fact that
it is
by no means certain that
Plato himself possessed any fuller information respecting the intellectual progress of his teacher.
No doubt
trade,'*
he began
worthlessness would be
shown for Socrates
was seventeen when Anaxagoras left Athens, and had long
passed his years of pupilage.
The assertions of Aristoxenus,
however, are in themselves improbable.
For supposing Socrates to have been on intimate
terms with Archelaus, when
young, twenty years before
Anaxagoras was banished, how
IS it conceivable that he should
ras, its
tlioroug-lily
md
have known Anaxagoras 1

if he was instructed by
lim in philosophy, how is it

hat neither Xenophon nor
Plato nor Aristotle ever menion Archelaus ?
All the later
I'luthorities for the relation of
he two philosophers appear to
rest on Aristoxenus.
As there
js nothing in the teaching of
"Vrchelaus, with which the SoI
father's
a trade which he probably never practised,
Socrates did not become a

pupil of Archelaus till after
the condemnation of Anaxago-
lot
by learning his
life
cratic teaching can be connec-
seems probable that he

do with the philosophy of Socrates, even though
Socrates may have known him
and his teaching.
Besides,
Socrates (in Xen. Sym.) calls
himself an avrovpyhs rris (piXoted, it
had
little to
<ro(f>ias,
self-taught
philoso-
pher.
'
He
seems to have known
those of Anaxagoras.
A supposed allusion to the writings
of Heraclitus (in Dioff. ii. 22),
is uncertain, nor is it established that he ever studied the
Pythagorean doctrines (Plut.
Curios. 2).
2 96, A.
^ As
Volqvardsen, (Rhein.
Mus. N.F. xix. 514; AlheHi
Socr. 13
Uebei'weg, Unters
d. Plat. Schr. 94
Steinhar'ty
;
Plat, L., 297.
Timon and Duris
in Diog.
Timiuus, according to
Porpliyry in CyHl c. Jul. 208,
ii.
19.
Chap.
III.
SOCRATES.
00
Chap.
III.
and certainly soon gave up.^
Considering
his special calling to labour for the
it to
moral and
be
intel-j
improvement of himself and others, this conviction forced itself so strongly upon him, as to
lectual
appear to him in the light of a divine revelation.*
He
was, moreover, confirmed therein by a Delphic
oracle, which, of course,
must not be regarded
as the
but rather as an additional support to, his

reforming zeal.^ How and when this conviction first;
cause
A.
of,
Plato (Eep.
vi.
496,
B.)
seems to have had the case of
writers, the matter stands thus

Chserephon had asked at Delphi
if there were a wiser man thani
Socrates, and the priestess had
answered in the
negative.!
The Iambics which purport to
Socrates in view.
Porphyry leaves it open
whether Socrates or his father
practised sculpture nor is anything proved by the story that
the Graces on the Acropolis
were his work {Biog. Paus. i.
No allusions are found in
22).
Aristophanes, Plato, and Xenophon to the sculptor's art.
Hence we may conclude that
if Socrates ever practised it, he
gave it up long before the play
of the Clouds was acted. Duris
'
and Demetrius
(in Biog.
ii.
of
Byzantium
19), in stating that
he was a slave, and that Crito

removed him from a workshop
and cared
for his education,
appear to confound him with

Phaedo.
2 Plato, Apol. 38, C.
eVol 8^
rovro
irpoffT^raKraL vnh
Tov deov irpaTTeiv Kal e'/c ixavTeiuv
:
....
KOL e| ivvirvLOiv Kou Tvavrl TpSirc^,

ipirep ris irore
avQpdiTcp
Koi &XX7} deia (xo7pa
KaX
briovv
irpoaeraê
iroieTu.
According
the wellknown story in the Apol. 20,

E., which has been repeated
countless times by succeeding
^
to
answer in DiogS
and Suid. aocj)6s belong'
contain the
ii.
37,
of course to a much laterperiod.

Whereupon, says So-'
crates, he had thought over'
the sense of the oracle, and, in'
the hope of finding it, he had
conversed with all who made
pretensions to knowledge. At
last he has found that neither
he himself nor any other manwas wise, but that others believed themselves to be wise,
whilst he was conscious of his
want of wisdom.
He considered
himself
therefore
pledged in the service of
Apollo to a similar sifting of
men, to save the honour of the
oracle, which declared him, although one so wanting in wisdom, to be the wisest of men.
Allowing that Socrates really
said this and there is no
doubt that he uttered it in
substance it by no means follows that his philosophical
activity dated from the time
>
HIS LIFE.
61
dawned on him, cannot be determined. Most probably it grew gradually in proportion as he gained
more knowledge of the moral and intellectual circumand soon after the beginning of
the Peloponnesian war he had found in the main his
stances of his time,
philosophical centre of gravity.'
From
that time forward he devoted himself to

the mission he had assumed, regardless of everything
His means of support were extremely scanty,^

and his domestic life, in company with Xanthippe,
else.
was far from happy.^
Yet neither her passionate
Pythian oracle.
Else
what should have led Chserephon to put the question, or
the oracle to give the answer
of the
it did 1
So that if in the apology he speaks as though the
Delphic oracle had first aroused
him to sift men, it must be a
figure
of
speech.
Without
going so far as Colotes (in
Plut. adv.
Col. 17, 1), and
Athenreus (v. 218) and many
modern writers (B?-ueker, Hist.
Phil.
i.
534,
Van Dalen and
Ileumann), and denying the

historical
character
of the
oracle altogether and certainly it cannot be very rigidly
proved we must at least attach no great importance to it.
It may have done a similar
service to Socrates as his doctor's degree did to Luther, assuring him of his inward call,
but it had just as little to do
with making
him a
philosophi-
cal reformer as the doctor's de-
gree had with making Luther a

religious reformer.
The story
of the response given to his
father when he was a boy
{Pint. Gen. Socr. c. 20) is altogether a fiction.

This is proved by the part
which Aristophanes assigns to
Socrates in the Clouds. If at
that time, 424 B.C., he could be
described as the chief of the
'
new
learning, he must have

for years according to
a definite method, and have
worked
gathered about him a circle of

friends.
In the Connus of
Ameipsias, which seems to have
been acted at the same time as
the Clouds, he likewise appears
as a well-known person, and lo
in his travelling memorials had
previously alluded to him. See
p. 56, 1
57, 3.
See
The name of Xanthippe
p. 54, 1.
is
not only proverbial now. Later

writers of antiquity {Teles, in
Stoh. Flor. 5, 64; Seneca De
Const. 18,5, Epist. 104, 177;
Porphyi'y (in Theod. Cur. Gr.
Aff. xii. 65)
Bioqenes (ii. 36)
Plutarch (Coh. Ira, 13, 461),
;
who however tells the same of

the wife of Pittacus, Tranq. An.
ii. 471
jElian (V. H. xi. 12)
;
Chap.
III.
SOCRATES.
t)2
Chap.
character would he allow
to ruffle his philosophic
III.
AtliencBus
(v.
219);
many
&c.), tell so
St/nesius,
little stories
and disgraceful traits of her

that one almost feels inclined
to take up the cudgels in her
behalf, as Heumann has actually done (Acta Phil. i. 103).
What Xenophon (Mem.
ii.
and Plato (Phajdo,

60, A.) say of her, shows that
she cannot have been altogether
badly disposed. At least she
was solicitous about her family,
though at the same time she
was extremely violent, overbearing, and hard to deal with.
Sym.
10)
2,
It is remarkable that Aristophanes in the Clouds says nothing of the married life of
Socrates, which might have afforded him material for many a
joke. Probably Socrates was not
then married. His eldest son is
called twenty-five years later

(Plato, Apol. 34, D. Phsedo, 60,
A.) fieipcLKiov ^St), and there are
two young children. Besides
Xanthippe, Socrates is said to
have had another wife, Myi'to,
;
a daughter or grand-daughter
of Aristides: after Xanthippe
according to Aristotle (in Diog.
conf Stoh. Floril 86, 25,
ii. 26
Posidon in Ps. Pint. De Nob.
18, 3 less accurate is Plutarch's
.
which Athen. xiii.

555 follows) hefoi-e her according to another view (also in
Diog.) and at the same time
with her according to ArisAristid. 27
toxenus,
Demetrius
Phaler.,
Hieronymus Rhod., Satyrus,

and Porphyry, in Cyril, c. Jul.,
so that he had two
vi. 186, D.
wives at once. The fallacy of
;
the last view has been already

exposed by Pangetius (accord-
ing to Plut.), and in modern

times most thoroughly by Luzac
Atticae,
Leyden
(Lectiones
Not only is such a
1809).
thing incompatible with the
but
Socrates,
character of
amongst his cotemporaries
foes and friends, Xenophon
Plato, Aristophanes, and other
comic poets, including Timon
there is no allusion to a rela^
tion,
which would most
im^
doubtedly have, had it existed

caused a great sensation and
have provoked attack and de
fence, and derision in the high
est degree. The laws of Athens
never allowed bigamy, and the
decree purporting to be vd
favour of it, by which Hie
ronymus attempts to give pro
bability to his story (the same
which reference is made bj

Gell N. A. XV. 20, 6, from the
supposed bigamy of Euripides'
either never was passed, o]
must bear a different meaning
The only question is, whethei
there can be any foundatioi
for the story, and how its ris<
Shall th(
can be explained.
Pseudo-Aristotle be believed
to
who
says that Myrto
was
hi;
second wife, and the tw(

younger sons her children
But this cannot be reconcilec
with' the Phaedo 60, A., let alon
the fact that Myrto, as
daughter of Aristides, must havj^
been older than Socrates (whosi
j
father in Laches, 180, D,is men

tioned as a school companion o
her brother), and far too old the)
to bear children. Or shall it, oi
the contrary, be conceded (witj
Luzac) that Myrto was Socrates
first wife, and that he marriec
HIS LIFE.
ejî
composure,' nor could domestic cares hinder the oc-
Chap.
III.
Xanthippe
her death ?
This, too, is highly improbable.
For, in the first place, neither
Xenophon nor Plato know anything about two wives of Socrates, although the Symposium
would have invited some mention of them.
In the second
place, all the biographers (a
few unknown ones in Diogenes
excei)ted), and particularly the
after
Pseudo-Aristotle, from whom

the rest appear to have taken
the story, say that he married
Myrto after Xanthippe, and
that Sophroniscus and Menexenus were her children. Thirdly,
Socrates cannot possibly have
married the sister or the niece
of
Lysimachus, the son of
Aristides, before the battle of
Delium, since at the time of
the battle (Lach. 180, D.) he
did not know Lysimachus perall
sonally.
Nor can
his first
mar-
riage have been contracted

after that date, since Xanthippe's eldest son was grown
up at the time of his death.
And
150,
lastly, in Plato's Theitet.

E.,
shortly before his
death, Socrates mentions this

Aristides, as one of those who
had withdrawn from his intellectual influence without detriment to his relationship as a
kinsman.
Thus the connection between

Socrates and Myrto seems to
belong altogether to the region of fable. The most probable account of the origin
of the story is the following.
We
of
gather from the remains

the
iStob.
treatise
Flor. 86,
Trepi
24,
(vyeviias
25;
88,
For note
'
the genuineness of which

was doubted by Plutarch, and
certainly cannot be allowed,
that this dialogue was concerned with
the question,
wnether nobility belonged to
those whose parents were vir1
3),
tuous.
Now
none were more
celebrated for their spotless

virtue
and their voluntary
poverty than Aristides and So-
Accordingly the writer

brought the two into connec-
crates.
tion.
Socrates was made to
marry a daughter of Aristides,
and
since
Xanthippe was
known to be his wife, Myrto
was made to be his second
wife and the mother of his
younger children.
Others,
however,
remembered
that
Xanthippe survived her husband.
They thought it un-
likely that Socrates should be

the son-in-law of a man dead
before he was born, and they
tried to surmount these difficulties in various ways.
As
regards the first difficulty,
either it was maintained that
Myrto was his second wife and

that the younger cliildren were
hers, in which case it was
necessary to place her side by
side with Xanthippe, as HierouA^mus actually did, and Invented a decree' of the people
to make it probable
or to
avoid romance, this supposition
;
was given
up, and Myrto was

to be his first wife, who
then can liave borne him no
cliildren, since Lamprocles, his
eldest son, according to Xeno-
made
phon, was a child of Xanthippe.

The second difficulty could he
see next page.
SOCRATES.
(14
Chap.
III.
cupation which he recognised to be the business of

His own concerns were neglected lest he
his life.
To be
should omit anything in the service of God.^
independent, he tried, like the Grods, to rise superior

to wants ; ^ and by an uncommon degree of self-denial
and abstemiousness,^ he
so
succeeded that he
far
could boast of living more pleasantly and more free

from troubles than any one else.^ It was thus possible
for
him
to devote his whole powers to the service of
others without asking or taking reward

over either by making
Myrto a grand-daughter instead of a daughter of Aristides, the grandson of Aristides the Just. PUto, Lach. 179,
The former
A.; Theaet., &c.
was the usual way. The latter
is the view of Athengeus.
1
See Xenoplion 1. c, not to
mention later anecdotes respecting this subject.
2 Plato, Apol. 23, B.
31, B.
3 Conf. Xen. Mem. i. 6, 1-10,
where he argues against Antiphon, that his is a thoroughly
got
happy mode of life, ending

with the celebrated words
rh Sh ws iAaxiarcov iyyvraro} tov
deiov.
of Sosimplicity of his
life, his abstinence from sensual pleasures of every kind,
his scanty clothing, his walking bare-foot, his endurance of
*
The contentment
crates, the
hunger and
thirst, of
heat and
cold, of deprivations and hardConf.

ships, are well known.
Plato,
Xe7i. Mem. i. 2, 1 3, 5
Symp. 174, A., 219, B. Ph^dAristojyh. Clouds,
rus, 229, A.
103, 361, 409, 828, Birds 1282.
;
Xen.
Mem.
i.
6,
iv. 8, 6.
and
this
Mem. i. 2, 5 i. 5, 6
Plato, Apol. 19, D. 31
3
Euthypro, 3, D.
B.
33, A.
Symp. 219, B. In the face of
these distinct testimonies, the
statement of Aristoxenus {Diog.
ii. 20) that from time to time
he collected money from his
pupils, can only be regarded as
i.
Xe?i.
6,
a slander. It is possible that

he did not always refuse the
presents of opulent friends
{Diog. ii. 74, 121, 34 Sen. de
Benef i. 8 vii. 24 Quintil.
Questionable
Inst. xii. 7, 9).
anecdotes (JDiog. ii. 24, 31, 65
;
Stob. Flor. 3, 61
17, 17)
would
prove nothing, to the contrary,

but no dependence can be
placed on these authorities.
He is said to have refused the
splendid offers of the Macedonian Archelaus and the Thessalian Scopas {Diog. ii. 25
Arrian or
Sen. Benef. v. 6
Pint, in Stoh. Floril. 97, 28;
Dio Chrys. Or. xiii. 30), and
this tale is confirmed as far ay
the first-named individual is
concerned by Aristotle, Rhet.
ii. 23, in a passage which Bayle,
Diet. Archelaus Eem. D. disputes without reason.
;
SIS LIFE.
65
occupation so confined liim to his native city

that he
rarely passed its boundaries or even
^
its gates.
To take part
in the affairs of the state
not, however, feel a call
not only holding
impossible to act as a statesman

that day without violating his
it
he did
to be
in the
Athens of
principles, and loath-
ing submission to the demands of a

pampered mob ;^
but far more because he recognised
his own peculiar
task to lie in something very
different.
Any one
sharing his conviction that care for
one's own culture
must be preferred to all care for public
affairs, and
that a thorough knowledge of
self, together with a
deep and many-sided experience, is
a necessary qualification for public life,^ must
regard the influencing
'
of individuals as a fiir more
important business
than
the influencing of the
community, which without the

must consider it
a better
other would be profitless

service
to
country to educate able statesmen

than actually to discharge a
statesman's duties ^
Any one so thoroughly fitted by
nature, taste, tone
3f thought and character,
to elevate the morality
md develop the intellect in others by
means of
3ersonal intercourse, could hardly
feel at home in
his
'In the Crito, 52, P..; 58, A.,

e says, tliat except on military
uty he has only once left
Uhens, going as a deputy to the
sthmian games
From the
^haedrus,
230,
C, we gather
"
hat he rarely went outside the

\
m Apol
Pto,
^
pj^^
^ j^ 33 ,
the Gorgias (473, E.j ironical?^
expresses it\ because he was
too plain for a statesman
''^'^''^"Conf. Gorg. 521 D
^ P/../., Apol.
36,' Symp
210
A. Xen. Mem. i v. 2,
îii 6
" I^lato, Apol.
29, C. 'dO d"33, C. Go;g. 513. E
4
31
C.
'
'
'
Chap.
; ;
SOCRATES.
66
Chap.
III.
any other line of
life.^
Accordingly, Socrates never
attempted to move from bis position as a private

By serving in several campaigns with tli
citizen.
bif
greatest bravery and endurance,^ be discharged
As a citizen he met miduties to bis country.
Socrates asserts this in

Plato quite explicitly. In Apol.
31, D., lie remarks that his
ZaifjiSviov sent him back from a
public life, and wisely too
for in a career spent in opposing the passionate impulses of
the masses he would long- since
have been ruined. The Sai/A(5viov which deters him is the
sense of what is suited to his
individuality. That this sense
^
him rightly, is
conducted
proved by the consideration
that a public career, had he
taken to it, would not only
have been unsuccessful in his
case, but would also have been
most injurious for himself
and Socrates usually estimates
the moral value of conduct by
If this consideration,
success.
as it no doubt did, confirmed
his dislike to a public career,
still the primary cause of this
dislike, the source of that insuperable feeling, which as a

haiix6viov preceded every estimate of consequences, was without doubt something immediate. Had a public position suited his character as well as the
he chose, he would as little

have been deterred by its dangers, as he was by the dangers of that which he adopted
life
(Apol. 29, B.). He states, however, that his occupation afforded him great satisfaction
with wliicU he could not dis-
pense, Apol.
'6rL
38, A.^
oi
ayadhv
Ti/yxavei jxiyierov
avOpuTTQ} rovro, iKatrTTjs 'hfi^pa
Trepl aperris
Koi
ifjLOv
rovs XSyovs Troielada
&Woi}v, -n-ept uv vîel

aKovT diaXeyoixivov Ka
ruv
i/xavrhv kol &\Xovs iC^rdôvros,

Se aj/eleVao'TOS )3tos ov ^lurhs av
OpWTTCf}.
2
See the stories in PhiU
Apol. 28, E.
219, E.
Lach. 181, .^
i.
Chai-m.
Of the three expeditions mer
tioned in the Apology, thn
to Potidsea, 432 B.C., that t
Delium, 424 B.C., and that t
Amphipolis, 422 B.C., the t\\
^
first are fully described.
Potidfea Socrates rescued Ale
blades, but gave vip in h
favour his claim to the pri:
Symp.
His fearless retre;

from the battle of Delium
A
mentioned with praise.
for valour.
tisthenes (in Athen. v. 216,

refers the afEair of the prize
the time after the battle
Probably Plato
Delium.
right, being generally well-i
formed on these matters. T
doubts which Athenasus rait

respecting Plato's account a
Naturally, howevi
trivial.
other accounts derived frc
his account cannot be quot
in support of it. The stc
that Socrates rescued Xer
phon at Delium
{Straho, ix.
seems to confou.
7;
Xenophon with Alcibiades.
Diog.)
HIS LIFE.
67
demands alike of an infuriated populace

and of tyrannical oligarchs, in every case
of danger,^
firmly and fearlessly; but in the
conduct
righteous
of affairs
he declined to take part.
Nor would he appear as a public

teacher after
manner of the Sophists. He not only
took no
the
pay, but he gave
no methodical course,^ not professing to teach, but only to learn

in common with
others; not to force his convictions
upon
them, but
examine theirs not to pass the truth
that came
to hand like a coin fresh
from the mint, but to
awaken a taste for truth and virtue, to
show the way
thereto, to overthrow spurious,
and to discover real
knowledge.3 Never weary of
converse, he eagerly
to
every opportunity of giving

an instructive
and moral turn to conversation.
Day by
Iseized
day he was
public promenades, in
schools and workshops, ever ready
to have a word
[about
in
the market and
^th
mi
friend or stranger, with citizen

or foreigner,
always prepared to give an
intellectual or
ûrn to the conversation.^

X6;.
^htJ'Atl
5
^,
V? A
ep^^^^^^
epiist.
1 lat. vii.
1, 18,
and
'
^'
1ST'
^24, D.
2,
IrV
^^''
sec
'''^'''
12t-Tv./.?.V?'''/r.
eX:t".^
L
7^1 Of/.riv
.1.C
t
()6
'''''\ ^'^'^^
Tis
Epicurean
ixov
X^yovTos
lac^^^
moral
Whilst thus servin- God
and of Favorinus
in Dior,. ...
ii.
-?' *'^^' ^'^ ^-^^^ instruction in
?"'"3-i' eeds
tutation.
'
^^'^''^-^
^'^'''''''
no further
re-
"^ ^11 ie dialogues.
-^^1
^^^
discussed
h:?
after.
ScL^.V, b
LtT^ZX: t^^
Chap.
"
J^
SOCRATES.
g8
Chap
'-
;
-
Ws
he was persuaded that he

country in away that no one
wii>
hic'lier calling',
also serving his
else
he deplored the decline of

his native city,^ on the
discipline and education in
Sophists,' he could
moral teachers of his time, the
For deeply
could do.'
The
place no reliance.
won
for
him
a circle of
consisting of
as
attractiveness of his discourse

admirers, for the most part
young men of
family,^
drawn
to
him by
him
various
longer,
part,
he was
standing to
the most varied motives,
and coming to him, some

a shorter time.^ For his
relations,
others for
for
these friends, but to

anxious not only to educate
pertaining to their good.
advise them in everything
of this changing, anc
even in worldly matters.^ Out
society, a nulceus wa;
in part only loosely connected
admirers, a Socratii
gradually formed of decided
o
less by a common set
school, united, however, far
love for the person o
doctrines, than by a common
more intimate friends he tre
With
quently had common
founder.
its
have been a fixed institution.
scarcely
in- 4- 56
'"
5,
Such
ca,
a
of ui
to require other branches
him
appeared to
<?
meals,' which, however,
42, is no-
^ÔToXoueoWTts
/ô.
ols
Aii\>ff->
tot
ardent admirers, not only
thenes, bnt also ApoUodor
Aristodemns, who appe
i
rt^fl n^dence
"'i "p;i^
36,
''''x;.
r
a, Z%
Mem
Conf.
30^'a
Gorg.
d":
i).,
41
^^
o
41,
^3
3,
Mem.
iii. 5,
iv. 4,
.5,
13.
.
which
is
not
at variance with Plato, Apol. 19,
B, nor yet with the passages
"""'^Kp
i.
23,
C,
oi
.'0.
and
^^^g^3igto PUU, Symp. I.

^*
i- A
''T Xen. Mem. 'iTl
= Conf.
iv 2 40
{^^^'
;
S Zm
~^^^1.
^î^T
'''x..Mem.iii.l4.
HIS LIFE,
strueiion, or
69
whom
he believed unsuited for intercourse with himself, he urged to apply to other

teachers, either in addition to or in place of himself
J
Until his seventieth year he followed this course
of
iction with his
powers of mind unimpaired.^ The

an end to his life and his
olow which then put

ictivity will
be mentioned hereafter.
Plato, Thecctet.
len. Mem. in. 1
'-
'
.,
151,
Symp.
B.
4,
Aenophon and^ Plato most-
represent Socrates as an old

aan (such as he was when they
ly
knew him), without showing

any trace of weakness in his
mental powers up to the last
moment. That it was a wronoview is distinctly stated in
Mem.
iv. 8, 8.
Chap.
^"
SOCRATES.
70
CHAPTER
IV.
THE CHARACTER OF SOCRATES.
Chap.
IV.
Ancient writers speak of the character of Socrates in

terms of the greatest respect. There are, however,
A. The
greatness
of the character of
some exceptions, quite apart from the prejudice

occasioned by his condemnation, which no doubt
Followers of
survived some time after his death.
Socrates.
Epicurus indulged their love of slander even at his

expense,^ and one voice from the Peripatetic School
has scandalous stories to
tell
respecting his
life
as
a boy he was disobedient and refractory ; as a youth,

profligate ; as a man, coarse, importunate, given tc
sudden bursts of anger, and of

Cicero de N. D. i. 34, says
that Ms teacher, the Epicurean
Zeno, called him an Attic bvifEpicurus, however, acfoon.
cording- to Diog. X. 8, appears
to have spared him, although
depreciated every other

philosopher.
- The source from which these
unfavourable reports, collected
by Luzac, come is Aristoxenus,
Lect. Att. 246 (from whom we
have already heard similar
64,
61, 3
things, p. 58, note
From this writer come
5).
the following statements that
ws
mentioned in Pori)hyry
yeyovoi rpaxvs els opyrju,
<l>{iffi
he
Bui
fiery passions.^
Kul onoTC KpuTTjOeirf
r^
irddei Su
t^dSiêv
Synesins (Enc. Galv. 81) wil
have this limited to his younge
years that of Cyril, c. Jul. vi
Theod. Cvir. Gr. Afl
185, C.
Sre Se (|)Aex06i
xii., 63, p. 174
(mh rov irdOovs tovtov Seiv%
-ndcTTjs
a.(Txr]fxo(rvv'i]s
elvai
ydp
7T]v
ovT
ovhevl
a<TXf]P-0(rvv7]V
ovS/xaTOS
airoffx^f^^*
ovT -Kpdyjxaros and another c

Cyril. 186, C. Theod. 1. c.) thi
;
Socrates was in
temperate, irphs
other
5e
t))v
waj
to
(r<po5p6Tep
XP^^*-^
fxkv elvai, aîKiau Se /x't] irpoff^lvc
^ yap rais yap-erals ^ Ta7s KOivo
Xpvordai fidvais, and then aft
a(ppo5i(ri(i}V
HIS CHARACTER.
we have
the stories
and the chief
of this kind are so improbable,
relater is so untrustworthy,
that
we
cannot even with certainty^ infer that Socrates only

became what he was after a severe struggle^ with his
the lii.story of his bigamy he
concludes Îvai 54 (prjaiv ahrhv
:
iv TOAS
6/ni\iais
avexBôya
alvcos
re
<îA-
koI \oidopov Kal v^pia-
From the same source,

may be gathered from Pint.
tik6v.
as
Mai. Her. c. 0, p. 856, comes

the charge which Thcod. 1. c.
quotes from Porphyry,

naming Aristoxenus,
1.29, p. 8
vvithout
avThv
6e
e?j/at
ov5ey
irphs
fxev
airaiSevTou oe irepX irduTa,
o.<pvr\,
so that he was
read,
besides
hardly able to
what
follows
(Ibid. xii. 66, p. 174

conf. iv.
iXeyiTo 54 irepl avrov
2, p. 56)
us &pa ira7s Sov ovk e5 fiiaxreiej/ ovSe
euTuKTus' irpuTov (Xiv yap (paaiv
ahrhv TCf Trarpl SLureXeaai, aireiBovvra kou OTrdre /ceAeucetej/ avrhv
;
Kafi6vTa
Te'xfr/j/
opyava ra
TO.
irepl
airaj/rau OTTovSrîroTe
tt?;/
6\i-
yopwavra
rov
irpoaTdyixaTos
irtpiTpexav
avrhv
OTrovd-n-nore
S6êiu .... ^v
5e
/cat
ruv
iiriTifxuiJ.4vuv Kal raSc '^coKpdrei
'6ti (Is rovs uxôvs daoiQuro
Kal
ras Siarpiâs iiroiuro rrphs ra7s
rpaneâis Kal
Herewith
irphs raTs
'Ep/ta?s.
to illustrate the
power of readefective natural

disposition, as illustrated in
Plato, Symp. 215, 221, B. If
the story was current in the
time of Aristoxenus, he may
have used it for his picture;
but it is also possible that his
description produced the story,
which in this case would have
an apologetic meaning.
The
son over a
name
of Zopyrus would' lead us

to think of the Syrian magician, who, according to Aristotle
in Diog. ii. 45, had
foretold the
Socrates.
violent death of
As may be already seen

from the stories respecting the
bigamy, the gross ignorance,
the violent temper, and the
'
sensual
indulgences
of
So-
crates.
2 As Hermann does,
De Socr.
Mag. 30.
3 Though
this is in itself
possible, we have no certain
authority for such an assertion.
The anecdote of Zopj-rus is,
connected the
the physiognomist
as already remarked, very uncertain, and where is the war-
(Cic. Tusc. vi. 37,

Fat. iv. 10 Alex. Aph.
De Fato, vi., Peru. Sat. IV. 24
Conf. Max. Tyr. xxxi. 3), who
rant that Aristoxenus followed

a really credible tradition?
story of
Zopyrus.
83
is
De
He
refers,
father
declared Socrates to be stupid

and profligate, and received
from him the answer, that by
nature he had been so, but had
been changed by reason. This
account can hardly be true. It
still
looks as if
stance
it
had been devised
it
true,
is
Spintharus, an
to
his
actual
acquaintance of Socrates. But

the question arises whether
this statement is more trustworthy than the rest.
The
chronology is against it, and
more
of
so
is
what
the
sub-
Spintharus
Chap.
IV.
'
SOCRATES.
72
Chap.
IV.
as the perfect
Our best authorities only know

man, to whom they look up with
whom
they regard as the exemplar of
natural disposition.
him
and
respect,
humanity and morality.

'
'
No
one,' says
Xenophon,
ever heard or saw anything wicked in Socrates
pious was he that he never did anything without
consulting the Gods
any one
in the least
so just that
so
so
first
he never injured
master of himself that he
never preferred pleasure to goodness
so sensible that
he never erred in his choice between what was better

and what was worse. In a word, he was of men the
best
and
He
happiest.'
further represents Socrates as a pattern of
hardiness, of self-denial, of self-mastery; as a
It may also be asked

whether Spintharus spoke the
truth, when he professed to
His
and inferences.
overdrawn imagination makes
Socrates as a boy dissatisfied
with his father's business, and
says.
sions
witnessed outbursts of
anger in Socrates, who must
then have been in the last
as a
liave
years
of
his
life.
we have no more
believe him than
Certainly
reason to
his
son.
Aristoxenus does not

his remarks to the
youth of Socrates, but they
are of a most general character,
Lastly,
confine
or refer distinctly to his later

Luzac, 1. c. 261, would
appear to have hit the truth
3êars.
when he makes Aristoxenus

responsible for all these statements. For Aristoxenus appears not only to have carried
his warfare with the Socratic
Schools against the person of
Socrates, but also to have indulged in the most capricious
and unfounded misapprehen-
man
man
pass his life in the

In the same way he
finds that Socrates must have
been a man without culture,
because of expressions such as
that in the Apology, 17, B., or
that in the Symp. 221, E. 19!),
A. violent in temper, in support of which he refers to
Symp. 214, D. and dissolute
because of his supposed bigamy,
and the words in Xen. Mem. i.
ii. 2, 4, and p. 51, 2.
3, 14
Mem. i. 1, 11; iv. 8, 11.
R. Lange's objections to the
genuineness of the concluding
chapters of the Memorabilia
(iv. 8) (De Xenoph. Apol. Berl,
1873) do not appear sufficiently
strong to preclude their being
streets.
'
cited as an authority.
HIS CIIAliACTER.
of piety and love for his
coimtiy,
fidelity to his convictions, as
73
of
unbending
a sensible and trust-
worthy adviser both for the bodies and souls of his

friends
as an agreeable and affable companion,
with a happy combination of cheerfulness and
;
seriousness
above
all,
as
an untiring educator of
embracing every opportunity of bringing

all with whom he came into contact to self-knowledge
and virtue, and especially opposing the conceit and
character,
thoughtlessness of youth.
Plato says the same of him.

He too calls his
teacher the best, the most sensible, and the most
just man of his age,' and never tires of praising his
simplicity, his moderation, his control over the wants
and desires of the senses ; imbued with the deepest
religious feeling in all his doings,' devoting his
life
whole
to the service of the Gods,
and dying a martyr's

death because of his obedience to the divine voice
and like Xenophon, he describes this service as the
exercise of a universal moral influence on others, and
particularly on youth.
In his picture, too, the more
serious side in the character of Socrates is relieved
by a
real kindness,
an Athenian polish, a sparkling

cheerfulness and a pleasing humour.
Of his social
virtues and his political courage Plato speaks in
the
same terms as Xenophon, and adds thereto an admirable description of Socrates on military service.^
Every
which he mentions adds to the clearness

of that picture of moral greatness, so wonderful
for
'
trait
See the end of
tlie
Phiedo.
g^g p^g.^ gg^ ^^^^
2.
Chap.
^^'
:
;
SOCRATES.
74
Chap.
very originality, for the absence of
its
studied and artificial about

self-glorification
Hh
B.
character
refectin<i
Greek iJcculia^ntie,^.
Owing
and
that
all
is
for its exclusion of
it,
affectation.^
to its being a native growth, the Socratic
type of virtue bears, throughout, the peculiar impress
Greek mind. Socrates is not the insipid ideal

of virtue, which a superficial rationalism would make
of him, but he is a thorough Greek and Athenian,
taken, as it were, from the very marrow of his nation,
possessed of flesh and blood, and not merely the universal moral standard for all time. His much-lauded
moderation is free from the ascetic element, which it
of the
seems always to suggest in modern times. Socrates

enjoys good company, although he avoids noisy
carousals
and
he does not
if
the senses an object in
life,
make
the pleasures of
no more does he
.avoid
them, when they are offered to him, nay, not even
when
Thus the
in excess.
Xenophon's banquet
'
Most
is
not
the traits and

recorded by later
of
anecdotes
writers are in harmony with

Some
this view of Socrates.
of them are certainly tictions.
may be taken from wri-
Others
tings of
Socrates,
pupils of
which have been since lost, or

from other trustworthy sources.
They may be f omid in the following places. Cic. Tusc. iii.
Oif. i. 26 and 90
15, 31
;
Be
Seneca,
Ira,
i.
15, 3
Const.
;
iii.
5;
18,
11, 2
De
ii. 7, 1
Tranqu. An. 5, 2 17, 4 Epist.

Plin. H. Nat. vii. 18;
104, 27
Plut. Educ. Pu. 14, p. 10 De
;
small cups in
call for
made for
fear of indulging
Adulat. 32, p. 70 Coh. Ira, 4,

455 Tranqu. An. 10, p. 471
Garruiit. 20 Dioff. ii. 21, 24
vi. 8
Gell N. A. ii. 1
27, 30
;
p.
xix.
9,
Val.
9;
^lian, V. H.
36
iii.
xiii. 27,
Stoh.
28
32
i.
ix.
Max.
16
7,
29
viii.
ii.
;
11, 13
15
xii.
AtJien. iv. 157
17, 17 and
leg. Graeo. libr.
Flor.
c.
22
Op
Basil. De
179, a. Themist. Orat. vii
95, a. S'wqyl. in Epict. Enchir.
few others
c, 20, p. 218.
II.
have been or will be referred

to.
- Plato,
174, A.
Symp. 220, A.
conf
HIS CHARACTER.
too largely, but that exhilaration
Plato describes
rapid.'
much
equally well take
him
75
may
not be too
as boasting that he can
or little, that he can surpass
drinking, without ever being intoxicated him-
all in
and represents him at the close of the banquet

leaving all his companions under the table, and
self,^
as
pursuing his daily work, after a night spent over the
had happened.
bowl, as if nothing
appears with
him not
Moderation here
to consist in total abstinence
from pleasure, but in perfect mental freedom, neither

requiring pleasure, nor being ever overtaken by
its
seductive influence.
points
is
His abstemiousness in other

also recorded with admiration.^
Numerous
passages, however, in Xenophon's
prove that his morality was far
standard of principles.
affection
for
The
'Memorabilia''^
below our
strict
Grrecian peculiarity of
boys marks, indeed, his relations
youth, but his character
is
above
all
to
suspicion of
actual vice,^ and he treats with irony a supposed

Xen. Mem.
^v
2, 26
\
T}tuv^ oi TraTSes fxiKpais kxiKi^l ttvkva
e7ni|/e:aâ)(Ti>/,
virh
(6fj.evoL
dAA'
tov
avaTrei96fj.ej/oi
uUnrcpov
ovrws
ov
oXvov
fiia-
/xedveiv,
nphs rh iraiyvi-
a<pL^6ix(da.
Symp.
17(5,
C.
A.;
220,
J^
K.
^l'>>
"^
Xen. Mem. i. 2, 1 3, U.
have already seen that
;
We
Aristoxenus and his followers

cannot prove the contrary.
i. 3, 14;
ii. 1, 5
iii.
2, 4
11; iv. 5, 1).
Conf. Conv. iv.
^
'^8.
^
"
Tlie
crates
cotemporaries of So-
seem
to have found nothing to object to in Socratic
affection.
Not only
is
there
no allusion to it in the judicial

charge, but not even in Aristophanes, who would undoubtedly have magnified the smallest suspicion into the gravest
charge. The other comic poets,
according to Athen., v. 21 1>,
knew nothing of
Xenophon deem
it.
it
Nor does
necessary
refute this calumny, and

therefore the well-known story
of Plato's banquet has for it's
object far more the glorification tlian the justification of
his teacher.
On the other
hand, the relations of Socrates
to Alcibiades, in the verses
to
Chap.
TV
'
SOCRATES.
76
Chap,
^'
love-afiair
At the same time, what
of his own.^
Grreek in the presence of youthful beauty was proof
agaiEst a certain element of aesthetic pleasure, which

at least was the ground and origin, even though (as in
his case)
an innocent one, of deeper affection ? ^
The
odious excrescences of Grreek morality called forth

his severest censure
yet at the same time, accord-
ing to Xenophon,^ and ^schines,'* and Plato,^ Socrates described
relations to
by the name of Eros,
friends
ment grounded on
wise
own
his
may
or a passionate attach-
Not other-
sesthetic attractions.
be noticed in his
peculiarities
Grrecian
ethical or political views, nor
his theology free
is
from the trammels of the popular

not only in his simple obedience
life,
How deeply
belief.
these lines had influenced his character
country throughout
younger
his
may
be seen
to the laws of his
and his genuine respect for
the state religion,^ but far more also in the trials of

purporting- to be written by
Aspasia, which AtJienceiis communicates on the authority of
have a very susand Tertiillian

ApoL c. 46 mistakenly applies
the words SiacpOelpeiv rovs viovs
In Juvenal
to paederastia.
Herodicus,
look,
picious
(Sat. ii. 10) Socratici c'unedi

refer to the manners of his
own time.
*
Xen. Mem. iv. 1, 2 Symp.
4, 27: Plato, Symp. 213, C.
Charm, loo,
222, B.
216, D.
;
* In his Alcibiades he speaks

of the love of Socrates for
Alcibiades.
8ee A'^-istid. Or.
xlv, Trepi prjTopiKTJs, p. 30, 34.
* Prot.
beginning; Symp.
not
218, B. 222, A.
177, D.
to mention other expressions
for which Plato is answerable.
^ Plato, Apol. 28, E.
Xe)W2)hoii, Mem. i. 1, 2, assures us not only that Socrates
took part in the public sacri-
Xen. Mem. i. 2, 29 3, 8
Sym. 8, 19, 32, with which
2
Plato agrees.
'
Symp.
iv. 1, 2.
8,
and 24
Mem.
'
but that he
in the habit of
lices,
home.
D.
was frequently
In Plato
sacrilicing at
he invokes
Helios, Symp. 220, D.
and his
words, according to the

Phaedo, 118, A., were an earnest
last
commission to Crito to
cock to ^sculapius.
offer
Often
a
is
"
HIS CHARACTER.
his last days,
when
77
of violating the laws,
for fear
Chap.
IV.
he scorned the ordinary practices of defence, and

after
his
condemnation
refused
escape from
to
The epitaph which Simonides inscribed on

the tomb of Leonidas might very well be inscribed
prison.*
on that of Socrates
Deeply
as
He
died to obey the state.^
Socrates
rooted
is
in
the
national
C'.
about him a something decidedly milike a Greek, presenting a foreip-n

and even almost modern appearance. This it wa&
character of Grreece, there
which made him
appear to
thoroughly eccentric and

a
for
G-reek
is
so
cotemporaries
his
singular
person.
^raitTin
^^^^ ^^^-
This,
something, which
he described by one word as his singularity,^ consisted, according to Plato's account,^ in a want of
unintelligible,
agreement between
his
outward appearance and his
belief in oracles mentioned,

whicli he
always conscientionsly obeyed (Mem. i. 8, 4
Plato, Apoi. 21, B.) and the
use of which he recommended
to his friends {Xen. Mem. ii.
;
8;
6,
5).
iv.
He
10; Anabas. iii. 1,

was himself fully per-
good to
harm
himself, and much

his friends and de-
to
pendants. The Apology speaks

as if entreating the judges
were unworthy of the speaker
and his country.
7,
Xcii. says: irpo^lx^To ixaXXov
'^
ro7s
v6/j.ois
suaded that he possessed an
Trapavo/xwv
oracle in the truest sense, in

the inward voice of his lmix.6-
Xa
viov, and he also believed in

dreams and similar prognosti-
cations.
(Plato, Crito, 44, A.

Pliiedo, (50, 1). Ai)ol. 'M\, C.)
This motive
is
represented
by X<;noj)hon (Mem.
and Plato (Apol. M, D.
iv.
4,
4)
Phiudo,
the decisive one,
although the Crito makes it
appear that a flight
from
98,
C.)
as
Athens would
have done no
ifxixivuv airodaveTy
^rjv.
Plato, Symp. 221, C.

UoXovu &v Tis Kol &XXa exoi
'
fjL^v
Soj/cpctTTj
.
'djxoiov
fxr\r
rh
5e
ilvai,
Twu vvv
irai/rhs
Ka\ dav/j-da-ia
iiraivicrai.
avQpunrwv
/xTjSej/l
ixTirc
rwu
6vto)u,
Qavfxaros
iraXaicov
rovro
....
&,îov
5e
ouToal yeyove tt]v aroirlau &vdp(oTTOs Koi avrhs ol x6yoi avrov ov5*
iyyvs ttv evpoi tis ^tjtoji/, ovt rwv
vvv ovTC Twv iraXaiccv.
Sym]i. 215, A.
221, E.
'
oTos
Pro-
SOCRATES.
78
Chap,
inward and real nature. In this respect he contrasts

most strikingly with the mutual interpenetration of
both, which constitutes the usual classic ideal.
we behold
the one hand
On
in Socrates indifference to
the outer world, originally foreign to the habits of

his countrymen ; on the other hand, a meditative-
unknown
ness
there
is
before.
to the former feature
about him a something prosy and dry, and,
may be
the expression
if
Owing
allowed, philistine-like,
sharply contrasting with the contained beauty and

Owing to the
the artistic grace of life in Oreece.
latter
there
about him something akin to the
is
revelation of a higher
life,
having
its
seat within,
in the recesses of the soul, and not fully explained in

its manifestations, and which even Socrates him-
regarded as superhuman. In their account of

these two peculiarities both Plato and Xenophon
self
Even from an outward point
are agreed.
of view,
the Silenus-like appearance of Socrates, which Plato's

Alcibiades,^ and Xenophon's Socrates himself^ describe with so
much humour, must
rather have con-
cealed than exposed the presence of genius to the

But more than this, a certain
eye of a Greek.
amount of intellectual stiffness, and an indifference

to what is sensibly beautiful, is unmistakeable in his
speech and behaviour. Take for instance the process
of catechising given in the
'
Memorabilia,'
by which
j
a general of cavalry
1
Symp. 215
is
brought to a knowledge of his
conf. Thfeet.
"^
]^4
^
tiis
E.
Synip.
(Diss.
crates a pleasing appearance,

this is of course quite imtenable.
t)^^t
4,
iv.
19
2,
19
Epicte-
11, 19) gives So-
iii. 8.
HIS CHARACTER.
duties, or the
formality with which
71)
things,^
familiar to his hearers, are proved, or
tlie
long
way
in
which the idea of the beautiful is resolved into that

Or hear him, on grounds of expediof the useful.2
ency, advising conduct, which to us seems simply
abominable,^ or in the Phgedrus
refusing to walk
but because he can learn nothing from trees and the

country, and taking exception in the Apology^ to the
works of poets and
artists,
because they are the re-
genius and inspiration, and not of
sults of natural
Or
him
Xenophon's Symposium,^
despite the universal custom of the ancients,* dancing-
reflection.*^
see
in
alone at home, in order to gain healthful exercise,
and justifying his conduct by the strangest of reflections

unable even at table ^ to forget considerations
;
Taking these and similar
of utility.
account, there appears in
him a
traits
certain
into
want of
imagination, a one-sided prominence of the critical
and intellectual
faculties,
in short
a prosiness
which clashes with the poetry of Grecian

'
Symp.
iii; 8, 4.
230, D.
i'
10, 9;
iii.
'^
iii.
11.
'^ 14.
C.
and the
M. Crasso, in foro, mihi crede,

saltaret; Plut. De vit. jud. 16,
533, also the expressions in
Xcnoplion, 'Opxrifro/jiat rr? Aia.
ÊvTavda Sr] 4ye\aaav airauTes.
:
This point will be subsequently discussed.

*
life,
And
22, C.
wlien Charmides
Socrates dancingt^
2, 17.
irpcoTov eêiT\a.yr)u
Compare Menexenus,
236,
ye 5^7 xapikUv oXiyov d jj.e
aWa
fxivToi aoi
ware
anoSvvTa
Cfo-Bai,
KfKevoLs
&v
Xapi(raifxr]v
Mur. 6
brius,
Nemo
nisi
Offic. iii.
opxvo'aadai,
and Cicero pro
10
fere saltat soforte insanit

De
;
Dares banc vim
found
/teV
ye
Kal eSeiaa,
/j.^
ixaivoio, k. t. a.
Of the same
character was his instruction
in music under Connus, if the
story were only true of ]iis
having received lessons with
the sclioolboys.
Plato, Eu-
tliyd. 272, C.
"
Xen. 8ymp.
3, 2.
(Jhap.
_ ^Zl_
SOCRATES.
80
Ghai'.
^1
Even Plato's
refined taste of an Athenian.
_ allows, that at
Alcibiades'
sight the discourses of Socrates
first
appear ridiculous and rude, dealing as they invariably do with beasts of burden, smiths, tailors, and
and apparently saying the same thing in the
tanners,
same words. Was not this the very objection raised

by Xenophon ? ^ How strange that plain unadorned
common sense must have appeared to his cotemporaries carefully avoiding all choice figures, and
using the simplest and most
common
expressions.
This peculiarity was not, however, the result of

any lack of taste, bat of the profound originality of
j
which customary figures were insuffiYet again, sometimes the soul of the philo-
his ideas, for

cient.
into
sopher, diving
its
own
far
so
recesses,
lost
labour as to be insensible to external
itself in this
impressions, and at other times gave utterance to

enigmatical sayings, which appeared strange to it iu
*
Serious and fond of meditation
a wakeful state.
was Socrates,
as
it
not unfrequently happened that

\
Conf. KalSjTnp. 221, E.

Trepl
licles in Gorgias 490, C.
(Tiria Keyeis koL trora Koi larpovs
Koi (pXvapias .... arexJ'cDs 76
oeJ aKVTeas re Koi yuapeas koL /xa1
yeipous
Travel
\6ywv
cos
koL larpovs
rovrwu
Trepl
ouSei-
T]ixiv
ovra
Tou \6yov.
-
Mem.
a\xi
i.
rS)v 5e roi
Sei]<TL,
<p'n.
2,
37
d)
'O 5e Kpirias-
(re
airexeffQaL,
'S.wKpaTes,
rwr
cKvriwv Kai twj/ reKTovuv

Tuv yahKeuv, Ka\ yap ol/xaL
'
Toi/s
-^Stj
Xov/xevovs
4,
6: Koi
KaTaTeTf>T(/)0ai
uTi-b ffov.
av-
5ia0pu-
Again in
(xeu 'linrias-
Koi
in.
iv.
yap
cru,
%^7],
&
2'iKpaTes,
avra \4yeLS a iyw
eKelva
trdKai.
rh
irore
The like complaint

and the like answer is met,
ffov i^Kovcra.
with in Plato's Gorgias, 490,

E.
Conf. 497,
anva
C.
fftiiKpa
koI
ipuT-fifMara.
^ Accordingly in the Aristotelian problems, xxx. 1, 953, a,
26, he is reckoned amongst the

melancholy, which is not at
variance with the gentle firmness (rh ffraffLfiov) which Aristotle (PJiet.
him.
ii.
15) assigns to
///* CIlAJtACTEll.
.
I.p in
81
thought he remained,
line, indifferent to
for a longer or shorter

the outer world,' and stood
there
one absent in mind. According

to Plato, he once
lomained in this state, standing
on the same spot
from one day to the next.^
So energetically did he
struggle with himself to
attain an insight into his
every motive.
In doing this, he discovered
a resiMS
duum
of feelings
and impulses, which he watched
'with conscientious attention

without being able to
explain them from what he
knew of his own inner
life.
Hence arose his belief in those
divine revelations, which he thought
to enjoy.
And not only
was he generally convinced
that he stood and acted
in the service of God,
but he also held that supernatural suggestions were
communicated to him not
only through the medium
of public oracles,' but
also
dreams,' and more particularly
by a peculiar kind
i)f
higher inspiration, which

goes by the
name
of the
"locratic baiixoviovJ"
.'6.
63 and Anerti
Sorr
lis
.ave
entirely Îstatn !,te

.
neaning of the text in snppo^.ng that it attributes
to'^SoTates any ecstatic stqtp
he authority wliich he
follow-
lêlurinl^
-ion
' ^^^^^ ''
Mi.'"'"
=
Onnf n tc t
^^60 '
CoSf
ûxu '^
bu,
p.
his deai
"S^t^^^ ^^VT'
ini-'
-- .i^-
K?-
wtn
fn
occa-
"^"'^
'"^
"^
f f
in
2.
*.
the
*''f*
"" "'^
^.:r.^^-
chap
^'
SOCRATES.
82
Even among the
Chap.
IV.
(a)
The
intercourse with a special

suggestions as derived from
which Socrates
personally-existing genius,^ of
and
Zaiix6vioy
7wt a 2)cr
sonal
regarded these
many
ancients
boasted
in
modern times
time the dominant one.^
was for a long

It was no doubt somewhat
this view
(Socratische Stiidien II., UpATskrift,

Universitets
sala
1870.
accusation
of
bill
to have
seems
Socrates
against
understood the ZaijxSviov in this
him
sense, since it charges
1
The
eVepa Kaiva
of the
place
the
in
UiixSvia
Gods of the state; nor does
BiUing'M (Socrat. Stud. II. 1)
with introducing
this, that
Apol.
26, B.)
Plato
Meletus (in
Sothus explained his language
Gods
the
denies
crates not only
Athens but all and every
remark make against
cratis, c.
xiv. H
Socratis, the
Max. Tyr.
ApuUvus, De Deo
Neoplatonists, and the Fathers,

who, however, are not agreed
whether his genius was a good
Plutarch,
one or a bad one.
and after him Apuleius, menSoition the view that by the
must be understood a
power of vague apprehension,
by means of which he could
ouess the future from prognos-
,x6viov
tications or natural signs.
Compare Tiedenmnn,
of
20
Geisi
Philosophic, ii
MeAnerii, Ueber den Genius
(Verm. Schriften
Sokr.
der spekulat.
16
des
God; the heavenly beings,
Wissensch
1); Gesch. d.
iii
attrihe
introduction
whose
Gesch. d.
Bnlile,
899, 538,
II
butes to him not being regarded
Gesch. d
Krug,
388
371,
Phil.
time
as Gods, Just as at a later
to.
iMmulr,
158,
alten Phil. p.
Sêoj
Christians were called
1858,
p. 20
Leben,
(Socrates,
though worshipping God and
uncritical and unsatis
Afterwards this view in his
Christ.
treatise respecting th
factory
appears to have been dropped,
be a res
Zai}ji6viov, believes it to
thanks to the descriptions of
deity, or eve
the
of
revelation
Xenophon and Plato, and does
even Fo.
even a real genius, and
not recur for some time,
the cor
as
gathers
qiiardseri
;
attributed to
in spurious works
Cicero,
Even
writers.
these
not
does
122,
Divin. i. 54,
by genius,
by 'divinum quoddam,
and doubtless Antipater, whose
work he was quoting, took it
But in
in the same sense.
translate Zaifx6viov
but
Christian times the belief
ma
universal, bein with the current

For inbelief in daemons.
Sostance, Pint, De Genio
o-enius
cause
became
it fell
elusion of his careful, and

many respects meritorious, di!
divir^
quisition, that a real
ifi
Socrates,
warned
voice
older literature inOlearnis, 14J
which ij
185, JBrucker, I. 543,
tl
eludes many supporters of
i
genius
that the
re_
Socrates was only his own
particulars
Further
son.
opinion
Erug,
1.
c.
and Lehd, Demon
Socrates, 163.
<
Iim CHAIiACTEIl.
83
humiliatiDg- in the eyes of

rationalising- admirers,
that a man otherwise so sensible
as Socrates should
have allowed himself to be ensnared
by such a superstitious delusion.
Hence attempts were not wanting
to excuse him, either on the

ground of the universal
superstition of his age and nation,
or else of his
having a physical tendency to

fanaticism J
Some
even went so far as to assert
that the so-called
supernatural revelations were a
shrewd invention,^
or a result of his celebrated
irony.3
'
The first-named excuse
condition of the brain during

rapture affects the nerves o^f
the abdomen and
irritates
is
universal.
Marsilius Ficinus
(Tlieol. Platon. xiii.
2, p. 287)
!iad assumed in
Socrates, as
well as in other i)hilosophers,
a
)eculiar bodil}- disposition for
3cstasy, referrino- their suscej>
ibility for su})ernatural reveations to tlieir
melancholy
them. To exercise the intellect

immediately after a meal or to
indulge in deep thought produces peculiar sensations in
the hypochondriacal.' In
the
strain is Meiner,^ Verm
Schr. iii. 48, Gesch. d. Wissensch. ii. .5-38. Conf. Schwarze,
same
emperament.
The personality
the dfiimon is not however
-ailed in question by him
or by
lis supporters {Olem-ius,
147).
Modern writers took refuge in
he same hypothesis in order
o explain in Socrates the
posibility of a superstitious
belief
II
a âin6viov. For instance,
"iedcmaiin, ''J'he degree of
exrtion, which the analysisof
ab)f
fract conception requires,

has,
some bodies, the effect of
II
lechanically predisposing to
cstasy and enthusiasm.'
<
SoI'ates was so cultivated
that
eep thought produced in him

dulness of sense, and came
ear to the sweet dreams
of
\e iKarartKoV 'Those
inclined
ecstasy mistake suddenly
>
sing thoughts for insi)iraons.'
'The
exlraordiiiarv
Such a view.
HistoriscTie
Untersuchung war
:
Socrates
ein
H^7)ochondrist ?
quoted by A'ruf/, Gesch. d. alten
Phil. 2 A. p. 168.
-
Plessinr/,
Osiris
and
Sothat
Socrates had bribed the Delphic oracle in order to produce
a political revolution, and
vaunted his intercourse with a
higher spirit.
Chauvin in
crates, 185,
who supposes
Oleariua.
^ Fra(/uier,
Sur I'ironie
Socrate in the Memoires
TAcademie des
Inscriptions,
de
de
iv.
expresses the view that So-'

crates understood by the SojH-6viov his own natural
intelli.}(38,
gence
and power of combination, which rendered it

possible for him to make
riirht
G 2
ClfAP.
IV.
SOCRATES.
81
hard to reconcile with the tone in which,

Soon the testimony of both Plato and Xenophon,
however,
is
the hatfioviovj
crates speaks of the suggestions of
these suggesor with the value which he attaches to
To explain
tions on the most important occasions.^
sickly body
the phenomenon by the irritability of a
of a
not far short of deiiving it from the fancy
monomaniac, and reduces the great reformer of
these
philosophy to the level of a madman.^ All
with,
explanations, however, can now be dispensed
falls
Schleiermacher having shown,^ with the general ap^S^ê^L probation of the most competent judges,^ that by
an inward
(b)
Be-
oracle.
guesses respecting the future
somewhat ironically he had

represented this as a matter
Qfiov
pure instinct, of
of
or
and employed for

purpose la^v-bviov and simi-
eela
^.otpo^,
this
lar expressions.
He
remarks,
however, that Socrates had no
thouo-ht of a genius familiaris,"5atM'5vtovhere being used
as an adjective and not as a
Similarly BolVm
substantive.
in his Histoire ancienne, ix. 4,
2 and BaHMlemy, Voyage du
jeune Anacharsis, treats the
expressions used respecting the
;
laip.6viov in Plato's Apology as

plaisanterie, and considers it
an open question whether Socrates really believed in his
others sharing the
On
genius.
view, see Lclut.
p. 163.
1. c.
Xen. Mem. iv. 8, 4. Plato,

Apol 31, C. 40, A. 41, D
* Manv have spoken of the
superstition and famticism of
Socrates in a more modest way,
recently
but comparatively
Belut (Du Demon de Socrate,
'
1836) has boldly asserted, 'que

a cateSocrate etait un fou
"
he
places
in
amongst others not only Cardan and Swedenborg, but
which
gory,
Luther, Pascal, Rousseau and
His chief argument
others.
is
that Socrates not only believed in a real and personal

genius, but in his hallucmations believed that he audiThose
bly heard its voice.
who
rightly understand Plato.
and can distinguish what i^

genuine from what is false.
will not need a refutation oi
these untruths
3 Platoiis Werke, i. 2, 432.
< Brandis,
Gesch. d. Gri
Rom.
Phil.
ii.
a.
60.
Bitter
Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 40. Ser

mann, Gesch. u. Syst. d. Plat<
Socher, Uber Platon;
236.
Cousin in thi
Schriften p. 99.
notes to his translation o
i.
Apology p. 335. Kruclu

Bxb&in
Forschun-en, 227.
Conf. Hegel Gesch
16.
Ast too (Platon
Phil. ii. 77.
Plato's
HIS CHARACTER.
86
the haifiovLov in the sense of Socrates, no genius, no

separate and distinct person, can be understood, but
only indefinitely some heavenly voice or divine
No
revelation.
passage in Plato or Xenophon speaks

of Socrates holding intercourse with a genius.
We
only hear of a divine or heavenly sign,^ of a voice

heard by Socrates,^ of some supernatural guidance
many warnings were
by which
All that these expressions
vouchsafed to him.^
imply
that Socrates was
is,
conscious
within of divine revelations, but how

produced and whence coming they say absolutely
nothing,'^ nay their very indefiniteness
proves clearly
enough, that neither Socrates nor his pupils had
any
Leben and Sclniften,
Saifxouiuv.
who takes
yiyvSfx^vdy
p. 482),
for a subthe deity,
dai/xomoi/
stantive
meaningdocs not see therein a genius

but only a deTov.
The passage Mem. i. 4. 14
Urav ol Oeol
ire/xTTwa-Lj/,
S)oirep
(To),
irefXTreiv avrovs aufifiovkovs,

proven nothing, as o-y^jSouXows
is used as a metonym
for crv/x-
pTJs
3ou\ds.
:
rh âijiSvLuv a-nixiiov.
E.
eyeuero rh dco'^s (TTjuclov, 7h SaL/jLOuioi/.
Apol.
rh Tov dôv arifx^lov
)0;
t^
iaflby o-TjjueW.
Ibid. 41, D. c.
y. 4J)(), C.
'iUtliy. 272,
:
(rr]iJ.e7of.
Pluto, Apol. ;n, D.
e>oi
4k TraiShs ap^dfxevov,
>uvri ris yiyvofxfvr].
Xc//. Apol.
2
6(ov (pcovT}.
I
icTTiu
Plato,
1.
a\ haiij.6uioi>
^'^.
ri
c.
on
fxoi
yiyviTai.
fludv^d. fxoi
duSy ri
Also 40
fxavriK^
rj
rov
/aoi
3,
fxdvLov (pfjs
rjuaundoOr]
8, 5.
Mem.
i.
rh
1,
i(pr] (rrnxaiyeiv.
Saifioriou.
and
with
rh
:
Hymp.
writ-
Apology and
do not go
the
all
iv. 8, 5.
Even the spurious
D.,
Eu-
ings, Xenophon 's

Plato's Alcibiades
128,
A.: rh
151,
5aL,u6uiov.
B.
on dr) <rv rh 5aiaavTui cKaarore yly.
veadai.Xen.
daLôuiou
further;
Plato, Phjedr. 242, B. t6

)aiix6viov re koL rh eioodhs (rr]/j.i76t/
101
yiyufadai iyh^ro, Kai rua
bwv^v e5o|a avrooe aKovaai. Hep.
-
ovr'
thyphro
Thea3t.
its
Theages.
romance
respecting the prophecies of

the Saifx6vioy, expresses itself
throughout indefinitely, nor

need the (pcm/T] rod Sai/xouiov p.
1 28,
E. be taken for a person.
The spuriousness of the Theages.
notwithstanding Socher"s defence needs no further proof,
especially after being exhaustively shown by Hermann, p.
427.
*
Doubtless Socrates regarded

or the deity as its ultimate
God
source.
But lie expresses nc
opinion as to whether it came
herefrom.
1\'.
SOCRATES.
80
Chap.
IV.
These revelations,
moreover,, always refer to particularâctions,^ and
very clear notion on the subject.^
ovT iîduTi eco0ej/ o'lKoOiv ijuavTiTh rov 0eoi} (T-nixelov, ovre

TjvLKa av4âivov iuTav6o7 iirl rh
\6yc^
rep
iv
ovr
SLKaarrjpiov,
mvich the same thin

daiixouiou be taken
for a substantive or an adjecThe probable rights of
tive.
the case are, as Krische, Forsch.
229 remarks, that Xenophon
uses it as a substantive = rh
deiov or 6 dehs, whereas Plato
1
It is
wQt)
whether rh
ov?iaixov
fiiWovri
ri ipeiv
'
iv 'dWois A07019 TToAAaxoC
XeyovTa
eTreVxe
[xera^v.
Kalroi
St]
fx.e
(4)
if such
Plato, Theeet. 151, A.
as have withdrawn from
again return, eVtois
society,
Baifx6vLOV
ixv rh yiyvoixevSv fMOi
diroKwKvei ^vvdvai, iviois Se ia.
Add to these cases a few others
in which Socrates himself more
or less jokes about the Saiixdviov^
which deserve to be mentioned
because it there appears in the
:
my
uses it as an adjective, explaining it as Saifxoviov o-rnLielGU,

and says Saiix6ui6v fioi yiyv^rai.
The grammar will admit of
either. Conf Arist. Rhet. ii. 23,
1398 a, 15. When, therefore,
Ast cites Xenophon against
.
Plato's explanation of Sai/xSvia

as SaifxSuLa irpAryixara, he probably
same character as elsewhere.

Symp. 8, 5, where
(5) Xen.
commits a ixirdfiaais els aAAo

The very difference bey4vos.
tween Xenophon and Plato
Antisthenes throws in Socrates'

rh duLfiSviou
ovdia\4yp fioi roT\
5'ÂAoy rov icpii/xevos. (6) Plato
Phsedr. 242, B., when Socrates
teeth
proves how
spoke of the Saiixovtou.
2 This applies to all the inintervention
its
stances of
mentioned by Plato and Xenophon. They are the following
loosely
Socrates
totc
ixhv
irpoepaaiCoiiievos
wished to depart
rh Saiti6vi6v
Mem. iv. 8, 5, where

when urged to pre-
T6 Koi eluOhs o-nixelov fioi ylyvea-dai

iyfvcTO del 5e jue eTTiffX^' ^
ê'AAco Trpdrreiv Kai riva (f)(tiV7]v
aWa
pare a defence, replies
v)} Thv Aia, -J/Srj jj-ov iirixîpovvros,
/xe ovK
edoâ avrSdev aKovcrai,
ia airievaL 7rp\v h.v aôaicijarwfxai.
(1) Xen.
Socrates,
^'^'
if}
irphs
(ppovriffai rris
a7roAo7ias
rovs St/cao-r^s
rh dai/xoviop.
S)s
D.
(2) Plato Apol. 31,
Why
did not Socrates busy himself

The
with political matters ?
tout'
BaifxovLov was the reason
iffrtv
ixoi ivavTiovrai ra iroXi:
'6
riKo, irpdrreiv.
(3) Ibid, (after
a singular
his condemnation)
occurrence took place, rj yhp
du)9v7d jxoi ixavTiK^ rj rov Saifxoviou
:
iv fx\v
irdvv
T(^ Trp6(rdev
TTVKVT]
fffxiKpoTs
aet
"fjv
XP^^V
''^^vti
Koi irdvv
ivavTiov/jLevr),
et
4it\
ti fxeA-
Koijxi fx^ bpQois TTpdêiv uvv) 5e,
ri
rjjj.aprrjKora
(is
rh
Beiov.
as
(7) Ihid. Euthyd. 272, E.
leave
to
about
Socrates was
the Lyceum, ijevero rh elwOh.
ort
ff-nixilov rh oaifiSviov, he theref
sat down again, and soon af te:
;
rjuavricadr]
Euthydemus and Dionysodoru

In all thesi
really came in.
cases the 5a,fjL6viov appears t^
have been an inward voice de
terring the philosopher from
Even th
particular action.
more general statement tha
the daiixSviov always made it
:
warnings heard whenever
Sc
HIS CHARACTER.
87
according to Plato assume the form of prohibitions.
Sometimes the
doing something.
him from saying
stops
hai^jLovLov
or
only indirectly points out

what should be done, by approving what it does not
It
forbid.
In a similar way
>Socrates
to
advise
him from approving

or by silence.-^
The
his
Socrates re-
viov only liave reference to particular future actions (not only

of Socrates, but of others), from
which it dissuades. Tlie two
latter authorities are, however,
worthless.
TL
other interests, unless peculiar
fxevou
circumstances kept them, such

as sickness, which was a hindrance to political life.
rh
y^v7)rai
^jnerepoi'
ovk
dai/j.uviov cnixilov
6.Ww
ovd^pl
7]
Socrates
[)hilosophical
posing
Tcov
^jx-KpoaQcv
The heavenly sign
76701/6.
kee])s
Xiyîv rh
^ yap ttov rivi
true
calling,
to
his
by op-
him whenever he
con-
tem[)lates taking up anything

else, as for instance, politics.
(Jouseciuently, not even this
j)assa.ge
compels
anotlier
meaning
us to give
to its utter-
ances tlian they bear according

to riato's express words, as
conveying a judgment respecting the

admissibility of a
definite action, eitlier contem-
commenced by SoEven at tlie commence-
plated or
crates.
ment of
'
the
spurious 'Alcithat is discussed, and in tlie Theages. 128,

1)., the prophecies of the 5at/iJ-
aiades,' this is all
Apol. 31, D. '6ri /jlol

Kol âiixoviov ylyverai
:
deldp
....
ifiol
5e toGt' iarlv
(pcovi)
e/c
iraiShs ao|a-
tls yiyvofJiivT],
del
awoTpeirei
/xe
^ 'drav
tovtov
^ h.v /iieXha) TrpuTTeiv, irpoTpenei

Se otjirore.
Phfedr. 242, C.
6.^loi/
not hindering
schemes, either by word
marks that most of those who

had the capacity for philosophy
were diverted therefrom by
5'
by
enables
subjects respecting which the
crates thought of a political

with this concoi)tion of it.
In a similar
sense the passage in the Republic vi. 496, D. should be
when
friends
their
CJireer, falls in
understood,
indirectly
it
From
the Platonic state-
ments respecting the 8aiix6j/iou

which have just been given,
Xenophon's statements differ,
making it not only restraining

but preventing, and not onl}having reference to the actions
of Socrates but to those of other
people. Mem. i. 1, 4 (Apol. 12)
rh yap Sai/xSuiov (pr] arjixaiueiv,
Kai TToAAoiS Tcit' ^vvduTwu irpoffi]ydpevf rik fihp Troteti/, rd Se /x^
TTOLiiv, cos Tov Saijxov'iov TTpOCTTJfJ.aivovros Ka\ rols /xku ireLOofieuois
'
avT<S (Tvvecpepe,
rols Se
fx4vois lUereVfAe.
(To\
5'
e<^77
/177
ireido-
Ibid. iv. 3, 12
(Euth3-demus),
&
^wKpares, io'iKacni/ 6T (piXiKtarepov

^ To7s &\Aoi5 xpTjflât (scot deol)
etye /ATjSe iTrepwruifxevoi inrS aov
irpoariixaivovai
Kal &
may
ctqi
a re ^.ph TTOieTy
both statements
be harmonised as in the
fx-f].
Still
Chap
IV.
SOCRATES.
88
Chap
IV,
heavenly voice makes
and character very
itself
heard are in point of value

Besides a concern of
different.
such deep personal interest to Socrates as his judicial
condemnation, besides a question having such a farreaching influence on
his
whole activity as that
whether he should take part in public
life
or not,
expresses itself on occasions quite unimportant.^
it.
It
friends,^ that whilst regarded as
and hi^
a something enigma-
unknown
before, affording, too.
is
in fact a voice so familiar to Socrates
tical,
mysterious, and
a special proof of divine providence,
it
can neverthe-
be discussed without awe and mystery in easy

and even in flippant language. The facts of the
phenomenon resolve themselves into this, that not
less
unfrequently Socrates was kept back by a
dim feeling-
based on no conscious consideration, in which he

discerned a heavenly sign and a divine hint, from
carrying out some thought or intention.
Were he
had been vouchsafed to him,

from his point of view the reply would be, because
that from which it deterred him would be harmful to
asked
why
this sign
himself or others.^
text.
Evident^ Plato
is
In order, therefore, to justify

more
His language is far

more definite than that of
Xenophon, and is throughout
accurate.
consistent, witness the various

cases mentioned in the previous
note. Xenophon, as is his wont,
confined himself to what caught
the eye, to the fact that the
dai/jLoviop
enabled Socrates to
judge of actions whose consequences were uncertain, all the
more so because
he
aimed
before all things at proving

Socrates' divination to be the
same as other divinations, and
so defending his teacher from the
charge of religious innovation,
As to the special peculiarity of
the Socratic 8aifx6uiov and its
inner processes, we can look to
Plato for better information.
^
See p.
iraw iirl cixiKpots.
86, 2.
-
Traiû irvKv-f].
It
will
be
Ibid.
subsequently
'
;
'
ins CHARACTER
the
utterances
raison
cVetre,
which
it
beneficial
therefore
of
tlie
61)
and to give
Sal/uLouLop,
its
he attempted to prove that tlie actions

approved or occasioned were the most
and advantageous.
to
him
as
The Salfioviov appeared

an internal revelation from
^
heaven respecting the result of his actions, in a word

as an internal oracle.
As such it is expressly
included, both by
Xenophon ^ and
Plato,^ under the
general conception of divination, and placed on a par

with divination by sacrifice and the flight of birds.
Of
it
is
therefore true what Xenophon's Socrates
remarks respecting
all
divination, that
be resorted to for cases which

himself by reflection.''
man
i.
vinced of the care of God for

to the
smallest
matters, and on the other
Euthyphro, 3, B.
Xon. Mom. i.
man down
hand was accustomed to estimate the value of every action

by its consequences.
It followed herefrom that to his
mind the only ground on which
(rod could forbid an action
was because of its ill-consequences.
See Xe>i. Mem. iv. 8, 5,
where Socrates observes that
the Saiix6i/iov forbad him to prepare a defence, and then proceeds to discuss the reasons
why the deity found an innocent death better for him than
a longer life. In Rlato, Apol.
40, 3, he concludes, from the
silence of the Sai/xdi/iou during
his defence, that tlie condemna"'
tion to which it led

for him a benelit.
would be
only
cannot discover
shown that Socrates was, on

the one hand thorouglily con-
may
it
Xen. Mem.
i. 1, 8
iv. 3, 12
Conf. Apol. 12.
Apol. 40, A. Phajd. 242, C.
;
4, 14.
^
'
6
tA êy
1
auayKaTa (ruj/t/BcuAei/e Kal Tvparreiv
us iv6ij.i(i,v dpiar' a.v npaxdrjuai
TTcpl oh Toov aSriAcDj/
onoos av airo-
fir^croLTO
el
/j-avTevaofxevovi iTreiinrey
iroinrda.
For this reason,
therefore,
qiTired:
divination was reyap f)

fxeu
TKroviKhi>
XaA/ceuTtK^f ^ yeoopyiKhu
audpuapx^Khu
rcou roiovTwv epyccv
iêraaTLKhu ^ KoyicniKhv ?) oIkovofxiKbv
(TTpaTTjyiKhy yiviadai
^
iravra ra roiavra fxaQr)ixara koI
TTcau
avOpcvirov yvco/xr)
eJpai
rois
'/)
-/)
TO,
alperea
5e /uLeytara
ivdfxiê
rwv eV tov-
Tovs 6(ovs eavrols Karawv ov^kv hriXov eJvai

ro7s audpwnois.
Tlie greatest
things, however, as is" imme(p7i
Aelireadai
diately explained, are the consequences of actions, the question whether they are useful
Chap.
IV.
SOCRATES.
)()
Chap.
^^'
(c)
Limi-
^?ilc^'
^^^"'
Herewith the whole field of philosophical inquiry

is excluded from the province of the Baifiovcov, This
field Socrates, more than any one of his predecessors,
claimed for intelligent knowledge and a thorough
understanding. As a matter of fact, no instance
occurs of a scientific principle or a general moral law
being referred to the
Nor must the sage's
SaL/xoviov.
own higher mission be confounded
conviction of his
with his belief in the heavenly sign, nor the deity by

whom he considered himself commissioned ta sift
The fact
be identified with the haLfxovLov?
that Socrates thought to hear the heavenly voice
from the time when he was a boy, ought to be
men
sufficient evidence to
warn against such an
error
^
;
time he cannot possibly have had any

thought of a philosophic calling. That voice, more-
for at that
over, according
to
Plato,
always deterring, never
prompting,^ cannot have been the source of the.

positive command of the deity to which Socrates
detrimental to the doer.

Accordingly Socrates observes
that it is madness to think to
be able to dispense with divination, and to do everything
or
by means
of one's
gence (and as he
adds,
Se
own
afterwards
aOeixiffTa iroteô)
rovs
SLaKpiveiv,
Saiixovau
to7s
e^coKuv ot Oeol ixadovai
examples of which
are then given. Conf.
where
iJ.avreuofxvovs,
avQpoiirois
intelli-
fxavriKr},
and
tlie
yiyvoivTo).
This was often done in

former times for instance by,
Meiners, Verm. Hchrift. iii. 24,'
*
and
still
113,
p.
more
who
whom
from
so by Lelut, 1. c.
sees in the Behs
Socrates
derived
his vocation a proof of his

The same
belief in a genius.
mistake
committed by
is
quardsen,
1.
c. p.
12,
whose view see AlheHi,
also
the
56.
ra air o firmer 6 fxeva), and

appropriate means (i) Uv
'^
^k
iraiUs.
87, 1.
^
See
p. 87, 2.
Vol-,
9, 12, againstj
iv. 3,
Socratic /xavriKr], is said to

refer to consequences {ra (Tvjx<p4povTa,
'apiffTo.
See
Socr^
above
'
HIS CHARACTER.
91
Nor is it ever
deduced therefrom, either by Xenophon or by Plato.
Socrates indeed says that the deity had given him the
task of sifting men, that the deity had forced him to
referred his activity as a teacher.^
this line of life
but he never says that he had
received this commission from the Sat/jLopcov.^

this
he
To
only indebted for peculiar assistance in his
is
philosophic calling, which consists

in its dissuading liim
calling by
more
from proving
meddling with
particular!}^
faithless to his
politics.'*
Lastly, the haiixoviov has been often regarded as
the voice of conscience,^ but this view
wide and too narrow.
in the
at once too
Understanding by conscience
the moral consciousness in general, and

larly the
is
moral sense as
far as
more particu-
this finds expression
moral estimate of our every action,
its
moni-
tions are not confined to future things as are
monitions of
the Socratic
more frequently makes
Bat/jLoviov.
the
Nay, more,
the
first
place by the approval or disapproval following
upon
it
itself
felt
in
8ee p. 60, 2 82, 1.

Plato, Apol. 2'A, V>.
28, D.
:j:5, C.
Theiet. 150, C.
^ It
is
not true, as Volqmrdseii, 1. c. E., says, that
in Plato, Apol. 'M, D., Socrates
mentions the dai/j-Sviou as the
first and exchisivc ai'Tio// of his
mode of life. He tliere only
attributes to the Saiîduiov his
i. 243 is a modithe above). Breitenhach, Zeitschriit fiir das Gjinnasialwesen,

491)
1868,
p.
Rotschei; Arist. 256. Ribbing,
too, 1. c. 27, defends tliis view,
ol)ser\ing-, liowever, that the
Sai/xoviov
(1) only manifests
itself as conscientia antecedens
and concomitans, not as con-
abstinence from politics, not

his attention to pliilosophy.
Seep. 86, 2.
Stajffe?; Biogr. Univers. T.
xlii. Socrate, ]). 531
Rrandis,
Gesch. d. Griccli. Mum. Phil.
ii. a, 60 (Gescli. d. Entwick, d.
scientia subsequens
and (2)
that its meaning- is not exhausted with the conception of
conscience, but that it figures
as practical moral tact in resi)ect of personal relations and
particular actions.'
'
'^
'
Griecli. Phil.
iicat ion of
'
Chap.
J_
SOCRATES.
iJ2
Chap.
Again,
actions.
the
^J
>
conscience
exclusively
moral value or wortlilessness
refers
an
of
action,
whereas the heavenly sign in Socrates always bears

reference to the consequences of actions.
Plato, no less than
of prophecy.
Xenophon,
Therein
sees a peculiar
kind
Allowing that Socrates was occasion-
mistaken as to the character of the feelings and
ally
impulses which appeared to
to
him
revelations, that
now and then he was of opinion that the deity had

forbidden him something for the sake of its prejudicial consequences when the really forbidding power
was his moral sense, yet the same cannot be said of
all the
utterances of the
deterring
Sac/juovLov,
him from taking
up
Doubtless in
the real
politics,
motive lay in the feeling that a political career was

incompatible with his conviction
of an important
higher calling, to which he had devoted his
life.
It
may, therefore, be said that in this case a scruple of

conscience had assumed the form of a heavenly voice.
But in forbidding
to prepare a speech for judicial
defence, this explanation will no longer apply.
only explanation which can be given of the
the
heavenly voice,
own
is
personal interests did not
him
and that
commend
it
itself to the
appeared unworthy
to defend himself otherwise than
by a plain
statement of the truth requiring no preparation.^,

^
two
Volquardsen
1.
c.
'
that such a taking in hand of his
sage's line of thought,
of
Here
confounds
tilings in explaining
the
prohibition, mentioned by Xen.

Mem. iv. 8, 4, to prepare a
defence in the sense of Plato,
Apol. 17, A., as meaning that it

was not a question of a simple
defence, but of a defence in
the usual legal style with all
the tricks and manoeuvres of
ins CHARACTER.
w.-;.
All this, however, has little to do with
judgments
Cha7>
morally admissible or not, and

to do with the questions as to what is
J^
respecting what
has
much
is
suited or unsuited to the individual cliaracter of the

philosopher.
Still less can the decision respecting
the receiving back pupils
who have once deserted

him, be referred to conscience. The question here
really was as to the capacity of the respective persons
by his instructions.
to profit
'
criticism
It involved, therefore,
of character.
The
jokes,
too,
which
Socrates and his friends permitted themselves as tothe Satfioi'tov^ were wholly out of place, if the
Baifiomov were conscience.
on
fact,
far as
they are founded
they afford a proof that the
be distinguished from
and
As
Bac/juovLov
must
moral sense or conscience
harmony herewith to hear Socrates

say,3 that the heavenly voice often made itself
heard
on quite unimportant occasions.
Eemembering further that Socrates was more than anyone else,
perhaps^
it is
quite in
bent on referring actions to clear conceptions, and

accordingly excluded from the field of prophecy, and
therefore from the province of the Bafjuoviov, everyixw 01-atoi-.
count there
tliis.
mg-,
In Xenophon's acis not a word of
Had
It
this been his meanmust someliow have
been indicated in tlie sequel

would have been said tliat
the Saj/icî/joj/ kept liim from deendino- himself, l)ecause a detence in keopino- with his principles would have l>een useless
it is by no means a matter
of
course that he would not have
been able to get up a speech
;
It
very
much worthy
But
as
of himself
Eos. i. 175
observes: what idea must we
form to ourselves of Socrates
if he recjuired tlie assistance
of
the haiixouiov to keep him back
from that which he clearlv
saw to be incompatible witli
his principles ?
See above p. 86, 2, No. 4.
~'
2 Ihid. No.
5, 7.
' Th'uJ.
No. 'd.
>
Cron in
SOCRATES.
<)4
Chap.
^ ^Zl
thing that might be known by personal reflection,'

we shall see how little right we have to understand
the Saifjbovtov as having principally or wholly to do
(d)
with the moral value of an action.

PMlnThe heavenly voice appears rather to be the
general form, which a vivid, but in its origin unexfionofflH'

piored sense of the propriety of a particular action
1^:!-^na-
daifiouiou.
assumed
The
for
the personal consciousness of Socrates.'^
actions to which this sense referred could, as
we
have seen, be most varied in content and importance.

Quite as varied must the inward processes and
motives
have
been out
of
which
it
grew.
It
might be some conscientious scruple pressing on the

sense of the sage without his being fully conscious
It might be some apprehension of the
thereof.
consequences of a step, such as sometimes rises as a

first impression with all decidedness in the experi-
enced observer of
men and of circumstances, before it
even possible for him to account to himself for the

reasons of his misgiving. It might be that an action
is
in itself neither immoral nor inappropriate, jarred

on Socrates' feelings, as not being in harmony with
his peculiar
mode
of being
and conduct.
It mighty
be that on unimportant occasions all those unaccount-,

able influences and impulses came into play, which
contribute so much to our mental attitude and de^
\
1
The
last
remark follows
not only from what has been

stated, p. 89, 4,
which he had discovcredi

Nor does it conflict herewith,
of
<^gg p^ 39^ 4.
but
it is
also
Socrates
inconceivable that
higher
to
a
referred
have
could
inspiration impulses the sources
that after the heavenly voice^

has made itself heard, heafter-[
wards considers what can hav
led the Gods to thus reveal
their will.
HIS CHARACTER.
cisions
the
all
more
'.)r>
so in proportion as the object
itself affords less definite
grounds
this respect the Bac/jbdvwv has
In
for decision.
been rightly called
the
understanding by tact
a general sense of propriety in word and action as
inner voice of individual
tact,'
'
'
exemplified in the most varied relations of life in

small things as well as in great. ^ This sense Socrates early noticed in
himself as unusually strong,^
and subsequently by his peculiarly keen and unwearied

observation of himself and other men he developed
it
to such a pitch of accuracy, that
or as he believed
cal origin
was,
consciousness.
never at fault.
was seldom
it
Its psychologi-
however, concealed from his own

It
assumed
for
him from the
beo-in-
ning the appearance of a foreign influence, a higher

revelation,
an
Herein
is
oracle.'*
seen the strength of the hold which
the beliefs of his
Hermann,
countrymen had over Socrates
Platonismus
i.
236
similarly Krische, Forschung. i. 281.
2 The objections hereto raised
by Volquardsen, pp. 5(5, 63, and
Alberti, Socr. 68, are partly
answered by the argument
which has preceded. Besides,
tliey have more reference to
words than to things. So far
as this is the case, there is no
use in disputing.
By tact we
imderstand not only social but
moral tact, not only acquired
but natural tact, and this word
seems very appropriate to express the sense which Socrates
described as the haifxdviov.
Sec p. 88, 3.
* Hegel, Gesch. d. Phil.
ii. 77
:
^
;
The pcnius
of Socrates is not
Socrates himself.
but an
.
oracle, wliich, however, is not

external, but subjective, his
o]-acle.
It l)ore the form of
knowledg-e, which was,
how-
ever, connected witli a certain
unconsciousness.
Kriitche 1. c.
Wliat is not
our power, what our nature
cannot bear, and wliat is not
naturally found in our impulses <')r our reflections, is
involuntary, or according to
the notion of the ancients,
heavenly to this category belong enthusiasm and prophecy,
the violent throb of desire, the
^
in
miulity force of feelings.
chai'.
^^'
SO CBATES.
f)(;
Chap,
herewith, too, are exposed to view the limits of his

Feelings whose origin he has not
self-knowledge.
discovered are seen to exercise over him an irresistible
On the other hand, the hainovLov when it does
power.
speak, takes the place of the usual signs and portents. Hegel ^ not without reason sees herein a proof
that the determining motives of action, which in the

case of the Greek oracles were things purely exter-
have come to be sought in man himself. To

misgivings incapable of being resolved into clear
nal,
conceptions, a high importance was here attached

in
them a very
most
revelation of deity was seen, proving
clearly that the
human mind,
foreign to Grreeks, had
in a
way hitherto
to occupy itself with
come
and carefully to observe what transpired within.

The power which these feelings early exercised over
Socrates, the devotion Avith which he even then
itself,
listened for the voice within, affords an insight into

the depths of his emotional natiure. In the boy we,
embryo of the man, for whom self-knowledge,

was the most pressing business of life, for whom untiring observation of his moral and mental conas
ditions, analysis of notions and actions, reasoning
see the
were
to their character and testing of their value
primary
necessities.
The same tone
of
mind
also shows itself in othei
peculiarities of Socrates, to his contemporaries appearthought,

so strange. At times he was seen lost in
ing
so as to be unconscious of
Hegel 1. c. and Eecht's
PMlosophie, 279, p. 369.
what transpired aroimc

^
Conf. Plato, Apol.
See above,
p. 60, 3.
38,
lUH CHARACTER.
him;
at times going
habits of his fellows
on
his
liis
97
way regardless of the
whole appearance displaying
a far-reaching indifference to
external things, a onesided preference of the useftd
to the
beautiful. What
these traits show if not the
importance which
he attached to the study of
self, to the
do
all
solitary
work
of thought, to a free
determination of self independent of foreign judgments
?
Remarkable
as it
may
^.om to find the dryness of the

man of intellect and
the enthusiasm of the
man of feeling imited in one
and the same person, both
features may be referred
to
common
source.
What
distinguishes Socrates
general conduct from his
fellow-citizens was
-his power of inward
concentration.
Tliis struck his
iotemporaries as being so foreign
an element, and
-hereby an irreparable
breach was made in the artistic
inity of Greek life.
>n his
What the general importance of

this peculiarity
nay be, and what traces
it has left
in history, are
uestions to answer which

'Ocratic philosophy.
we must enquire
into the
ch^
(""HAP.
"'
SOCRATES.
98
CHAPTER
V.
OF THE PHILOSOPHY,
THE SOURCES AND CHAEAC rERISTICS
OF SOCRATES.
Chap.
V.
A. Xenoj)J(on
and
Plato.
the philosopliy of
give an accurate account of
owing to the wellSocrates is a work of some difficulty,
Socrates
known divergence of the earliest accounts.
works
to writing himself; ' of the
To
committed nothing
of his pupils, in which he
is
introduced as
speakmg
and Plato are preserved.*

only those of Xenophon
alike, that we gather
These are, however, so little
view of the teaching
from the one quite a different
Amon^
other gives us.
of Socrates to what the
philosophy it was the fashion t,
early historians of
Athenian sage, withoi^
construct a picture of the
indiscriminately from th
principles and criticism,
Plato, no less than froi.
writings of Xenophon and
The unimportant poetical
attempts of his last days {Plato,

be
Phsedo, 60, C.) can hardly
counted as writinsjs, even if they
They appear,
were extant.
however, to have been very soon
The Psean at least,
lost.
which Themist. (Or. ii. 27, c.)
considers genuine, was rejected
by the ancient
critics,
ing to Diog.
spuriousness of
ii.
accord-
^^2.
The
the Socratic
and
letters is beyond question,
that Socrates committed no-
thing to writing is clear froi

the silence of Xenophon, Plat
and all antiquity, not to mei
tion the positive testimony
Dio.
Cic. de Orat. iii. 16, 60
16; Plut. De Alex. Virt.

A conclusive discussion i
4.
t
this point in refutation of
givj
is
Allatius
Leo
views of
by Olearius in Stanl. Hil
i.
Phil. 198.
2 For instance, those ot m,
'
chines, Antisthenes, Phaedo.
AUTIIORITim FOR HIS PHILOSOPHY.

later,
ami
for the
most part indifferent,

authorities.
Since the time of Brucker,

however, Xenophon came
'
to be regarded as the only
authority to be perfectly
for the philosophy of
Socrates; to all others,
Plato included, at most only
a supplementary value
was allowed. Quite recently,
however, Schleiermaicher has lodged a
protest against this
preference of
Xenophon J Xenophon, he argues,
not being a phi-
Wed
losopher
himself,
was scarcely capable

of understanding a philosopher
like Socrates.
The object
moreover, of the Memorabilia
was a limited one, to
lefend his teacher from
definite charges.
are
-herefore justified
vas
more
We
in
assuming a priori that

there
in
Socrates than Xenophon

describes,
ndeed there must have been
more, or he could not
.ave played the part
he did in the history of
philoophy nor have exerted
so marvellous a
power of
ttraction on the most
intellectual
and cultivated
character, too, which
Plato
ives him would otherwise
have too flatly contradicted
^>e picture of him
present to the mind of
his reader,
len of his time.
The
.esides
Xenophon's dialogues create

the impression
philosophic matter has,
with detriment to its
meaning, been put into
the unphilosophic
langua<.e
every day life; and
that there are gaps
left, to
TOly which we are obliged to go to
Plato Not tLat
e can go so far
as Meiners,'^ and say
that only those
lat
.Socrates,
Schlmcnmirl,,;;
If
*^'-''=''\,
'2
81
^-
""'
,j.j
Chap,
V.
SOCRATES.
100
Chap.
__^
parts of the dialog'ues of Plato can be considered historical, which are either to be found in Xenophon, or
immediately follow from what Xenophon says, or which

This hypothesis
are opposed to Plato's own views.
would only give us the Socrates of Xenophon slightly

modified, whilst the deeper spring of Socratic thought
would
safe course to
that adopted by Schleiermacher to ask,

may Socrates have been, in addition to what
pursue
What
The only
be wanting.
still
is
Xenophon reports, without gainsaying the character

assigns to
and maxims which Xenophon distinctly
him? and what must he have been to call for and
is given of him in the
to justify such a description as
Schleiermacher's estimate of
dialogues of Plato?
Xenophon has been

^
since adopted
by several other
even previously to Schleiermacher^

in the
Dissen ^ had declared that he could only see
outward
pages of Xenophon a description of the
appearance of Socrates. The like approval has been
writers
and
bestowed on Schleiermacher's canon

J
5m?i<î.5,inIlhein.Mus. von
mehnhr und Brandh,
i.
b. 122.
Conf Gesch. d. Gr.-Rom. Philos.

'20
BiUer, Gesch. d. Phil,
ii a
44" RihUng, Ueber d. Verii*
h-iltniLs zwischen den Xenonhont. und den Platon. Berichten iiber Socrates. Upsala
1870,
TJniversitets Arskrift,
AlUHi,
specially p. 1, 125.
too (Socrates, 5), takes in the
main the side of Schleiermacher, whilst allowing that
Plato's account can only be
used for history with extreme
caution a caution which he
for finding out
has himself failed to observe

in using the Phêdo (see above,
p. 59). In respect of the personality of Socrates rather than h\>
teaching, Van Heusde (Characterismi principum philosophornm veterum, p. 54) gives a
preference to Plato s pictuK
as being truer to life thar
Xenophon's Apology,
*
De
philosophia
morah
ir
Xenophontis de Socrate com

mentariis
m9.se/i'5
87).
tradita,
Klemeren
p.
28
(n
bchrif ten, p
AUTIIOIUTIES FOR Iim I'UILOSOFIIY.

lie
real Socrates
jyj
only to supplement it
has the
remark been made,' that the
language used by
;
Aristotle respecting the

teaching of Socrates may be
also employed to determine
its outside aspect.
On
the other hand, Xenophon's
authority has
warmly supported by several

critics.^
In deciding between these
two views, a
aowever, presents
itself.
been
difficulty
The authority of the one
or
other of our accounts can only
be ascertained by
I reference to
the true historical picture
of Socrates
ind tlie true historical
picture can
-he
rom these
only be known
conflicting
accounts.
This difficulty
rould be insra-mountable,
if the two narratives
had
he same claim to be
considered historical in
points
'Inch they state varyingly.
Indeed, Aristotle's
=anty notices respecting
the Socratio
ould have been insufficient

to
ren on the assumption
that he
itormation
at
command
philosophy
settle the question,
had other sources of
beside
the
enophon and Plato- -an assumption
writinc^s
of
for which^'there
not the least evidence.

But if one thing is clearer
lan another, it is
this,-that Plato only claims
to be
ue to facts
those descriptions in which
he agrees
th Xenophon, as for
instance, in the Apology and
e Symposium.
On other jwints no one could well
<ert that he wished
all to be
taken as historical
By Braudis.
iu,jci.
la di
1.
99
c.
Gesch. d. Phil.
ii.
8ocrate (Napoli, 1871)
n^. r
î, i^Tss
rr
'^'orfn,?r''i.''-
^ôorng,
l.
c.
ChuV-
'
;;
SOCRATES.
102
Chap.
__J'
he puts into the mouth of Socrates. Of Xeno-phon, on the contrary, it may be granted that,
wliicli
whether from his deficiency in philosophic sense, or

from his exclusively practical tastes, not unfrequently
the scientific meaning and the inner connection of
the principles of Socrates escape his notice. Nor
must we ever forget that the Memorabilia
are prima-
intended to be a defence of his teacher against

the charges brought against him, which charges were
the cause of his condemnation, and passed current
rily
years after his death.
For
this
purpose a description
was requisite, not so much of his philosophy as of

his morals and religion, setting forth his piety, his^
integrity, his obedience to the laws, his services to
and fellow-citizens rather than his inteland Xenophon candidly conlectual convictions
his friends
the main object of his
fesses that this is
treatise.'^
Even the question, whether, with the means at

command, a life-like reproduction of the dialogues
of
Socrates can be expected from Xenophon, cannot hi
answered affirmatively without some limitation.
Hii
was not written until six years after the

death of Socrates, and we have not the least indica
tion that it was based on notes made either by him
self or others in the time immediately following th(
treatise
What was committed
dialogues.^
'
.3,
1
2
Mem.
:
it
i.
1, 1
and 20;
2, 1
8, 11.
25 5, 1
cannot be inferred from
iv. 4,
173, B.
C.
Thejet. 143, A., that Socrates'
friends (as Volquardsen, Daemon
a. Sokr. 6, says) took down his
PUto, Symp. 172,
to writing year
discourses at home and fill&

up their sketches by furthe
enquiries. Nay, the very dif
courses which are vouched fc
by this supposed care, cannc
Sue
possibly be historical.
statements
cannot
therefoi
AUTHORITIES FOR HIS PHILOSOPHY.

afterwards from his
own
103
memory has
not the claim to accuracy of a verbal report, but
rather owes to himself its more definite form and
No
doubt
or his friends'
was his intention to give a true

account of Socrates and his teaching. He says that
he writes from his own recollection. He expressly
setting.
it
observes in a few cases that he was present during

the dialogue, but had heard similar things from
others,
mentioning his authority.^
Socratic discourse is
his
memory,
if
unknown
to
If,
him
many
then,
or has escaped
one or other line of thought has not
been
thoroughly understood, or
importance misunderstood by him,
philosophical
its
it may neverthebe assumed that a pupil of Socrates, accustomed

to consort with him for years, and able to communicate all that Xenophon actually communicates,
less
neither repeats on the whole
what is false, nor leaves

any essential side of the Socratic teaching untouched.
From
Plato, indeed, so far as his description
his-
is
permits a reference to the Socrates of history,

many a trait supplementary of Xenophon's narra-
torical or
tive
may
be expected, and
the real
meaning of
reports
as
which his fellow-pupil

understood only from the standpoint of
more than similar ones

n Parm. 126, B. Neither does
Mem. i. 4, I refer to writings
pupils of Socrates, but to
he views of opponents. Mem.
V. 8, 2 appears to refer not
iven to writings, but to oral
)f
''Ommunications.
^
i.
iSSKei
3,
fxoi
is Se 8^ kuI
rovs
....
|ui/(J>/Tas
roiTotv
Siafxvr]fiouv(r(v.
5}}
ypd^pu 6ir6cra hv
iv.
8,
2; others
have reported similar conversations respecting- the Gods, at

wliich they were present iyi,
:
5e
Ue
-nphs
rotdSe
iv 8 4
Evdiid-n/jLov
8i\4yTo irapeyfudix-nu
5^ kuI & 'Epixoy^pov^ rod 'Inttovikov iJKovaa nepl avTov.
Ae'lco
Mem.
explanation of
sayings,
oiean
i>ÂcTj/
many an
Cha
SOCRATES.
104
Chap.
Henceobjectioncanhardly be taken
Neto the above-quoted canon of Schleiermacher.^
vertheless, it is highly improbable that in essential
practical utility.
points there should be an irreconcilable difference
between Xenophon's description and that which we
may
take for historically established as Plato's.^ The
real state of the case, however, can only be ascer-
tained
by examining
authorities
of various
statements
the
in detail to test their worth
and their
agreement, and this enquiry naturally coincides with

the exposition of the Socratic teaching, from which it
could only be distinguished in point of form.
not, therefore, be separated from
it
here.
It will
Socrates.
be described from the three accounts of Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle. If the attempt to form
will
a harmonious picture from these sources succeeds,
Xenophon
it will
will be vindicated.
Should
it
not succeed,
then be necessary to ask, which of the tradi-
tional accounts is the true one.^
To begin with the
B. Phllo-
^Ûtform
Supposed
^pMlo^^'
sophy.
question as to the philosophi-
and fundamental principle of Socrates.

Here the sketches of our main authorities seem to
According
giv6 ground for the most opposite views.
^^^ platform
P. 100.
As RihUng,
1.
c.
asserts,
Hard is it to reconcile herewith

that Kibbing declines to question the essentially historical
accuracy of Xenophon's de'
'
scription.
The course here followed

is also in the main that taken
by Striimpell, Gesch. d. Prakt.
^
He conPhilos. d. Gr. i. 116.

siders it impossible to distin-
guish in point of speculation

what belongs to Socrates and
A>
what belongs to Plato.
regards morals, he hopes to
gain a true general view ol
Socrates by taking the maxims
which are attributed to hirii

unanimously
by Xenophon.
Plato, and Aristotle, following
them out to their
consequences,
and testing the traditions by

these.
(JHARACTEUmTKjlS OF HIS VIIILOSOIUIY.
iU5
to Plato, Socrates appears as

an expert thinker, at
home in all branches of knowledge;
whereas, in
Xenophon he
is
represented far
less as
a philosopher
man innocent and excellent, fnll of piety

and common sense. Hence Xenophon's
account is
than as a
specially appealed to in support

of the conception of
Socrates as a popular moral man,
holding aloof from
all speculative questions,
and in fact as far less of
philosopher than a teacher of morality

and instructor
of youthJ
It certainly cannot be
denied that
Socrates was full of the most lively
enthusiasm for
morality, and made it the business
of his life to
exercise a moral influence upon
others.^
Had he
only discliarged this function
after the unscientific
manner of a popular teacher, by
imparting and
inculcating the received notions
of duty and virtue,
the influence would be inexplicable
which he exerted,
not only over weaklings and
hairbrains, but over the
most talented and cultivated of his
cotemporaries. It
would be a mystery what induced Plato
to
connect
the deepest pliilosophical enquiries with

his person, or
what led all later philosopliers, down to

Aristotle,
nay even down to the Stoics and
Neoplatonists, to
'How common
this view
times, needs not to
be proved by authorities which
abound from Cicero down to
wasMn past
Wipers and Keinhold

It
IS
not
yet
That
altooether ex-
plodedmaybeg^therednotonly
from writers hke Tr^;.y/.,,.rf,,
Charactêrismi p. o3, but even
disciple
of the
Hegelian philosophy, asserts in
bis Gesch. d. Philos. i. 1
74, 1 78,
Marhmh, a
181, that Socrates 're-arded the

speculative philosophy which
aimed at general knowledge
'
as useless, vain, and loo^Sli
and that he took the heM not
only a-ainst the Sophists as
prefenders to knowffi: but
against all philosophy ;' hi
short, that
he was no philo"
'
sopher
'
Conf. Ai.ol. 215, D

30
38, A., and Ibove, p 4t).
"^
'
'
chaf.
'
^-
SOCRATES.
10(;
Chap,
regard
him
trace their
set
own
peculiar
on foot by him.
Even
feature
it
new epoch, and to

systems to the movement
as the founder of a
is
in himself
and
his doings
more than one

Whereasr
at variance with this conception.
would follow herefrom that knowledge
value in as far as
it is
is
only of
instrumental for action, so far
was Socrates from sharing this belief that he considered actions only then to have a value when they
proceed from correct knowledge; that he referred
moral action or virtue to knowledge, making its perfection depend on perfection of knowledge. Whereas,
according to the ordinary assumption, he would in
his
intercourse with others have before ali things
aimed at moral training, so far was it otherwise that

it appears from his own words that love of knowledge
was the original motive
we observe him
for his activity.^
Accordingly
in his dialogues pursuing enquiries,
which not only have no moral purpose,^ but which,

'
Plato, Apol. 21, where Socrates deduces his whole activity from the fact that he pursued a real knowledge.
Examples are to be found
in the conversations (Mem. iii.
10), in which Socrates conducts
the painter Parrhasius, the
sculptor Clito, and Pistias, the
forger of armour, to the conceptions of their respective
arts.
It is true Xenophon introduces these conversations
with the remark that Socrates
knew how to make himself
But the
useful to artisans.
desire to make himself useful
can only have
been
very
subordinate one; he was no

doubt really actuated by the
motive mentioned in the Apology, a praiseworthy curiosity
to learn from intercourse with
all classes, whether they were
clearlj- conscious of what their
Xenophon himarts were for.
self attests this,
Mem.
iv.
6^,
aKoirwi/ ovv ro'is avvoixri, ri %Ka-
crov
etrj
rcDr/
ovrtav
ovSeirttyiror
This pursuit of the

conceptions of things, aiming
not at the application of knowledge, but at knowledge itself,
is qviite enough to prove that
Socrates was not only a preacher
ekrtyev.
of
virtue,
but a philosopher.
CHARACTERISTICS OF HIS PHILOSOPHY.

in their practical application,
moral purposes.^
These
107
could only serve im-
traits are
not met with ex-
clusively in one or other of our authorities, but they
are equally diffused through the accounts given
the three main sources.
by
Socrates can therefore not
possibly have been the unscientific moral teacher for
which he was formerly taken. Knowledge must have

had for him a very different value and importance from
what it would have had on such a supposition. It may
not even be assumed that the knowledge which he
sought was ultimately only pursued for the sake of
and only valued as a means to morality.^ He

who pursues knowledge in this sense, only as a means
to an end whicli lies beyond him, not from an indeaction,
pendent impulse and love of knowing, will never

study so carefully and so independently the problem
and method of philosophic research

will
as Socrates did
never be a reformer of philosophy as he was.
Even Xenophon found

difficidty in
some
bringing it into har-
monj^ with his practical view

of things, as his words show
from which
JSocrates
critical.
it
made
may be
seen that
his friends
But criticism
more
is
the
organ of knowledge.
Mem. iii. 1 1 contains a

paragraph adapted more than
any otlicr to refute the idea
that Socrates was only a popular teacher.
Socrates hears one
'
of his companions commending

the beauty of Theodota, and at
once goes with his company to
see her.
He tinds her acting
as a painter's model, and he
tliercupon enters into a convcr-
sation with her, in which he

endeavours to lead her to a
conception of her trade, and
shows her how she will best be
able to
win
lovers.
Now,
al-
though such a step would not

give that offence to a Greek
which it would to us, still
tliere is not the least trace of a
moral purpose in his conduct,
Prandis' (Gesch. d. Entw. i.
286) remarks are little to the
point.
A purely critical interest leads Socrates to refer to
its general
conception ever^'
action across which he comes,
regardless of its moral value,
"PihhhKj, Socrat. Stud. i. 4G.
Chap.
^'
^0^
SOCRATES.
Nay more,
Chap.
would have been incapable of exertingdeep reforming influence over Ethics which,
according to the testimony of history, he did exert,
lie
tJie
had he thus confined himself to practical interests.

His importance for Ethics is derived not so much
from the fact that he insisted on a re-establishment
of moral
life
many
others
scientific
this Aristophanes
did, but from
basis for
'
and without doubt
his recognising that a
moral convictions must
be an
indispensable condition for any real reform of morals.
Herewith
it
presupposed that practical problems
is
are determined and vindicated by knowledge
in other
words, that knowledge not merely subserves action,
but leads and governs it a view never as yet held

by any one who did not attribute to knowledge an
independent value of
as
we
shall note,
its
own.
If,
therefore, Socrates,
confined himself in principle to
enquiries having for
man
a practical value,
it
can
only be inferred that he was not himself fully conscious of the range of his thought.
went beyond these

in such a
manner
In practice he
limits, treating ethical questions
as
no one could do unless
fired
with an independent love of knowledge.
The
area
is
thus determined within which the fun-
damental conception of the Socratic philosophy must

be looked for. True knowledge is the treasure to
discover which Socrates goes forth in the service of
the Delphic G-od;
to gain the
knowledge of the
essence of things, he, with his friends, unweariedly

labom's
to true
moral demands.
knowledge he ultimately
The
force with
refers all
which he asserted
CHARACTERISTICS OF
demand
this
constitutes
IILS RIIILOSOPIIY.
him
t]ie
creator in Greece
of an independent system of
morality.
is not enough that men
should do
what
must
know why they do
also
it.
lOO
For him
is
it
right; they ^
He demands
Chap.
V.
^'m.
^S^'
'^^
that
they should not follow a dark
impulse, an undefined
enthusiasm or the aptitude of
habit, but should act
ff.::""^"
trom clear consciousness ; and
because it was deficient
this characteristiche refuses
to allow true wisdom
to
the art of his time, however
high it otherwise stood ^
In a word, the idea of knowledge
forms the central "^
point of the Socratic philosophy.^
All philosophy aiming at knowledge, this point
must be further circumscribed to give it precision,
which was done in this wise
that, whereas the pursuit
of true knowledge had
been'
'
In Plato, Apol. 22,
B.,
Socrates observes In his sift-
with
in.? of
men
had turned
lie
to
the poets, but had soon

found
that they were usually not
able
to account for their
own works
"Eyvccv
iroioiev
oZu
&
TTotoIej/,
Uri
^\\^
oh
aocpia
(p{,a-u
rivl
Kal iveovaidCoPTcs, Sxrirfp

ol Oeofidvreis Kal xpWIJ-VôikoX yap
avrol \4yov(ri yuev TroAAa
Kal Ka\a,
To-oo-i 5e ovHv &v
\4yovaiv.
Beno one knows the limits

of his knowledge, but
thinks
to understand all th ino-s.
He
had also observed the
same
sides,
in
the xîpoT^xvai, the

presentatives of sculpture
re-
and
art.
SchleiervMcher, Werke, iii.

300:
The awakenino- of the
*
'iy
<
idea of knowledge,
and its
J^t utterances, must have been
the substance of the
philosojihy
Socrates.'
RiUer ao-rees
11-
Gesch. d. Philosophies
only differs
unessential points, Rhein.
iUus.
1.
this,
.->0.
<;,
Brandis
von Nxehvlivund BrandU

Gr.-Bom. Phil, ii '^
i:50;
To him the origin of

'J'l
the
doctnne of Socrates appears
to
be a desire to vindicate
against
the Sophists the absolute
worth
moral determinations;
and
then he adds to secure
this
purpose the first aim of
Socrates was to gain
a deeper
ot
insight into his own

consciousness,
order to be able to distinguish false and true
knowledge with certainty.
Similarlv
Bnunss, Gesch. d. Phils.
Kant
155.
The important feature
in Nocrates was
this, that to
iiim morality
appeared to be
a certain kind of
knowledge
1.
proceeding from the

thoulht
ot the good inborn
in the soul
SOCRATES.
110
Chap.
^-
with earlier philosophers an immediate and instinc-
became conscious and

methodical. By him the idea of knowledge as knowledge was first brought out, and having been brought
tive activity, with Socrates it
out, took precedence of every other idea.^

This statement, again, requires further explanation.
knowledge was shared also by previous

philosophers, why, it may be asked, did it not before
develope into a conscious and critical pursuit ? The
reason which may be assigned is this The knowledge
If the love of
which
philosophers
earlier
pursued, was, in
itself,
from the knowledge which Socrates required.

They were not compelled by their idea of knowledge
as Socrates was to direct their attention to the intellectual processes and conditions, by which it was
different
Such a necessity was, however,

imposed on Socrates by the principle which the most
trustworthy accounts unanimously report as the soul of
must proall his teaching that all true knowledge
truly to be acquired.
ceed from correct conceptions, and that nothing can

be known, unless it can be referred to its general
In this principle,
conception, and judged thereby.^
Schlelermacher.
c.
1.
299
Xen'oph.
Mem.
yap rohs
:Sa}KpdTvs
iv.
rols
6,
fihv il^^Tui,
eKaffTov eU-roov ovTcop,

Ce Koi
as
explained by the conreferred all doubtful
is
text, lie
Bmndis.
2
i.e.,
&KÔLS Uv
ri
v6tii-
l^r}y^7(reai
Uvaadai Tovs d ix^ elUras ovdhv

^7} eavîaarhv elvai aurovs re
'
(TcpdWeaeai Ka\ &\\ovs 0(pd\\iv

S}V V^Ka (XKOTtS^V aVV TOIS (TVUOVCTl
rl e/cao-TOj/ e^Tj ruv ovtuv, ovSeeVl tV
13
xciTTOT' :^\T,7e.
^,iT69nv iTrdvriy^ TrduTarhi^\6yo^,
.
points to universal conceptions,

in order to settle them by
means of these; iv. 5, 12:
Kal rb SiaXeyeadai ovo-^
ec^T? 5e
/uLaadrivaL ea toG (TvvidvTas Koiv^
dLa\4yQVTas ^ Kara
ôvKeveaOai,
y4vr\ra
paaOai
kavrov
Comp.
SeTv oiv ttci-
-npixyiiara.
fldKKTTa
'6rL
froiixou
i.
instances
1,
Vphs
TOVTO
Trapatr/ceyaCeJP.
U, and
tlie
many
tne Memorabilia.
'

simple as
111
may
appear, an entire change was dein the intellectual procedure.' The ordinary
it
manded
way is to take things
as being
what they appear to

or
if
contradictory experiences for;
bid doing so, to cling to those appearances which make
the senses to be
the strongest impression on the observer, declaring

these to be the essence, and thence proceeding
to
further conclusions.
Hitherto this was exactly what
philosophers had done.
Even those who attacked the
senses as imtrustworthy
had invariably started from

one-sided observations, without being conscious
of
the necessity of grounding every judgment on
an
Ariatotle (Met. xiii. 4, 1078, b,
2tt/cpaTous 5e irepi ras
17, 27)
7]6iKa^ apeTas irpayâT^vofxivov Kal
:
irepl
TovTcou
^riTOvvTos
dpiêaOai Ka66\ou
irpwTOv .... e/ce?foy
fvXoryoJS
eî^ret
iio yap
4<rTiv
rh ri iariv
a ris hv airoSoirj
.
"SuKpaTei SiKaicos, rovs t' eiraKriKovs \uyovs

Koi
rh oplêaOai
KaB6Kov.
Both are, liowever, at
bottom the same.

iircMTiKol
The Koyoi
are only the means
for finding
universal concep-
and therefore Aristotle
tions,
elsewhere (Met.
i.
G, 1)87, b, 1
1080, b, 3; De Part.
Anim., i. 1, 642, a, 28) justly
observes that tlie seeking- for
universal conceptions or for the
essence of things is the real
service rendered to ])hilosophy
by Socrates.
Accordingly, in
xiii.
9,
the dialogues which Xenophon

âs i)reserved, we always see
lim making straight for
the
general conception, tlie tI ea-nv.

Even in Plato's Ajiology, 22, B.,
18 describes his sifting of men
IS litpur^v ri Xfyuiff, that is
to
he asks for the conceptioii

deeds of the practical
man, or of the poetry of the
say,
of
t]e
poet.
Conf.
Meno, 70, A.
262, B.
It
265, D.
can, liowever, hardly be proved
Phffidr.
from Plato that Socrates
reallx
distinguished
iTna-r'fi/x-n
from
S6â,
as
Brandis (Gr.-Rom.
Phil. ii. a, ;J6
Gesch. d. Entw.
i. 235) would have it
for we
cannot decide whetlier passages
like Meno, 98, B. represent the
view of Socrates or that of
Plato.
Antisthenes, too, wh.o.
according to IJiof/eftcs, vi, ]7,
wrote a treatise nepl So^rjs kuI
;
may owe
this disEleatics.
It
can hardly be found in Xen.
Mem. iv. 2, 33. In point of
iiriiTT'fiij.rjs,
tinction
to
the
substance, no d()ul)t tlje distinction was im])lied in the

whole conduct of Socrates, and
in passages sucli as Xen. Mem.
iv. 6, 1 ; P/ato, Apol. 21, B.
'
Conf. wJiat has been said
above,
Pliil.
i.
p. 39,
860.
and
in Gesch. d.
C'HAi'
V.
SOCRATES.
112
exhaustive enquiry into
Chap.
^\
its
By means of
subject.
dogmatism had been overthrown. Ifc

was felt that all impressions derived from the senses
were relative and personal, that they do not represent
sophistry this
things as they are, but as they appear and, that,

consequently, whatever we may assert, the opposite
;
may be
asserted with equal justice.
moment this is true,

moment that is true.
person at this
at another
Similar
sentiments
relative to the value of
are
For, if for one
for another
expressed
common
person
by Socrates
opinions.
He
is
aware that they cannot furnish us with knowledge,

but only involve us in contradictions. But he does
not hence draw the inference of the Sophists, that ne
knowledge is possible, but only that ifc is not possible
in that way. The majority of mankind have no true
'
knowledge, because they confine themselves to suppothey have never

sitions, the accuracy of which
only taking into consideration one or
examined
'
another property of things, but not their essence, \

Amend this fault ; consider every object in all its
bearings, and endeavour from this many-sided observation to determine the true essence ; you have
'
i\
then conceptions instead of vague notions a regular

examination, instead of an unmethodical and unconscious procedure a true, instead of an imaginary
In thus requiring knowledge of conceptions, Socrates not only broke away from the current
Wiew, but, generally speaking, from all previous
knowledge.
philosophy.
A thorough
observation from every side,
a critical examination, a methodical enquiry conscious

of
own
113
basis, was demanded all that had

hitherto
been regarded as knowledge was rejected,
because it
its
short of these conditions
fell
Chap.
'
^-
and at the same time

the conviction was expressed that, by
observing these
;
knowledge could be secured.
rules, real
For Socrates
this principle
had not only an inbut a more immediate moral value. It

is
one of the most striking things
about him
D. Moral
tellectual,
.
in fact
Hhat
he
unable to distinguish between morality

and knowledge, and can neither imagine
^^^^P"'''^'
Tcor!,!^''
is
knowledge
>
without virtue, nor virtue without

knowledge.
In
this respect also he is the child of
his age, his great^
ness consisting herein, that with

great penetration
and
spirit
he gave
effect to its
requirements and
its
legitimate endeavours. Advancing

civilisation having
created the demand for a higher
education
amongst
the Greeks, and the course of

intellectual development having diverted attention from the
study of
nature and fixed it on that of mind,
a closer connection became necessary between
conduct.
Only in
philosophy and
could philosophy find its
man
highest object; only in philosophy

could the support
be found which was needed for
had endeavoured
great
skill
life.
The Sophists
meet this requirement with

and vigour; hence their extraordinary
to
success.
Nevertheless, their moral philosophy

was
too deficient in tenable
ground ; by doubting
it
had loosened
hence
'
it
its
intellectual roots only too efFectually
degenerated with
terrific speed,
entering th J
Particular proof of this will be given

subsequently.
I
'
SOCRATES.
1X4
Chap,
wicked and
service of every
selfish
impulse.
Instead
of philoof moral life being raised by the influence
had taken the

sophy, both conduct and philosophy
same downward course.
This
sad state
of
things
Socrates
thoroughly
Whilst, however, his contemporaries,

Sophistic teacheither blind with admiration for the
or else through
ing, were insensible to its dangers,
indifference to the
dread of these, and with a singular
history, dewants of the times and the march of
the innovators in the tone of Aristophanes,
understood.
nounced
he with keener penetration could distinguish

what was right and what was wrong in the
the age.
want
The
between
spirit of;
insufficiency of the older culture, the
obscurity of the
of basis in ordinary virtue, the
notions so full of contradictions, the ne-
prevailing
all were felt and

cessity for intellectual education,
the Sophists.
taught by him as much as by anyone of
and higher ends,

But* to this teaching he set other
but rather to
not seeking to destroy belief in truth,
how truth might be acquired by a new intel-
show
lectual process.
selfishness of the
from
selfishness
His aim was not to minister to the

age, but rather to rescue the age
and sloth, by teaching it what was
undermine morality
truly good and useful ; not to
foundation o
and piety, but to build them on a new
^>
"
knowledge.
Thus Socrates was
at once a moral anc
great thought wa
an intellectual reformer. His one
mean
how to transform and restore moral conduct by
elements were so closel;
of knowledge and these two
he could fin(
associated together in his mind, that
;
CIIARACTEIilSriCS OF IILS PIIILOSOPIIY,
115
no other object for knowledge

save human conduct
'
and no guarantee for conduct
save
in
How great the services were which
knowledo-e
he rendered to both
morality and science by this
effort, how wholesome
was the influence which he
exercised on the intellectual condition of his people
and of mankind generally
history attests. If in the
sequel, the difference
between
morality and intellect was
recognised quite as fully
as their unity, yet the
tie by which he
connected
them has never been broken
;
and if in the last
cen unes of the old world,
philosophy took the place
of the waning religion,
giving a stay to morality,
purifying and quickening
the moral consciousness
To revert to
mooted above, as
tlie
question
to
whether
other liand, R/ihlmfs

(Socrat.
Studien, i. 46) view does
not
seem to carry conviction,
that, according to
both Plato
and Xenophon, Socrates took
the first place a
pi-actical
view of life, and that nhe
theory of knowledge
was only
developed by him for the sake
he primarily reo-arded
knowledge as a means to
moral
action, or moral action
as a
result of knowledge, so
much
may be said: that his peculiarity
for
consisted
him
herein
that
this
dilemma did
not exist, that for him
knowledge as such was at
once a
moral need and a moral
force,
an<l that therefore virtue,
as
shall find, was neitlier
'
know-
we
a simple
coiisecjuonce of knowledg-e,
nor
an end to be attained bv
means
ot knowledge, but
was directly
and in itself knowledo-e
If
therefore, Labriola
(Uottrina
di ocrate, 40)
describes the
only inner motive of
Socratesaction as
the m(n-al need of
certainty, and the
conviction
tnat this IS only
attainable bv
a clear and indubitably
certaiii
knowledge,' his statement
may
be accepted as true.
On
'
of a practical purpose.'
We
have already seen that,
according to Socrates, true
ledge coincides with right

intention.
But, for the reasons
set
forth on p. 105, we cannot

allow that knowledge witli
him
has no inde])endent value,
and
IS only pursued
as a means to
a practical pui-pose which
must
be the view of Ribbing,
in as
far as he contradicts
the one
given above. Nor do the
passages quoted l)y Ribbing
(Plato
Apol 22,p.; 28, D.;
;
A.
view.
thJ-
29, E.
A.) suggest this
';
î,
38,
Chap.
V.
SOCRATES.
11(3
Chap.
this great
^'
and beneficial
result, in as far as it
can be
assigned to any one individual, was due to the teach-
ing of Socrates.
The interest of philosophy being thus turned

^ây from the outer world and directed towards man
E. The
llmrfctcr
of the
and
his moral nature,
man
and
only regarding things
and binding of the truth of which he has

convinced himself by intellectual research, there
appears necessarily in Socrates a deeper importance
as true
SoamtX
attached
this
to the
modern
personality
of
writers have thought to
peculiar character of his philosophy.^
however,
is
thinker.
the
In
discern the
Very
different,
the personal importance of the thinker
with Socrates from the caprice of the Sophists, different too from the extreme individualism of the
Socrates was aware, that
post-Aristotelian schools.
each individual must seek the grounds of his own
conviction for himself, that truth is not something
given from without, but must be found by the exerHe required all opinions
cise of individual thought.
examined anew, no matter how old or how

common they were, proofs only and not authorities
Still, he was far from making man,
claiming belief.
to be
He
as Protagoras did, the measure of all things.
declare
did not even as the Stoics and Epicureans
the
personal conviction and practical need to be
ultimate standard of truth, nor yet as the Sceptics,
him knowresolve all truth into probability ; but to

persuaded
ledge was an end in itself; so too he was
J
Hegel, Gescb. d. Phil.
ii.
40
Kotscher, Aristoph., pp. 246, 388.
CHARACTJEIilSTICS OF HIS PHILOSOPHY.
117
true knowledge could be obtained by a

thoughtful consideration of things.
Moreover he saw in man
the proper object of philosophy, but instead
of making
tliat
of personal caprice a law, as the Sophists

did, he
subordinated caprice to the general law residing
in the
nature of things and of moral relations.^
Instead
too of making, with later philosophers, the
self-contentment of the wise man his highest end, he
conhimself to the point of view of old

Greek
morality, which could not conceive of the
individual
apart from the community,^ and which
accordingly
fined
regarded activity for the state as the first

duty of a
itizen,3 and ihe law of the state as the
natural rule
of conduct.^
Hence the Stoic apathy and
to country were entirely alien
be truly said
<jan
indifference
from Socrates.
If
it
him commences an unbounded reference to the person, to the freedom

of
the inner life,' ^ it must also be added that
this statement by no means exhausts the theory of
Socrates.
Thus the disputes as to whether the Socratic
'
that in
doctrine
on a purely personal or a really independent

basis will have to be settled, by
allowing indeed that,
rests
compared with former systems,

Proofs
maybe found
"^'^'
f-^^'-'^^'
^^'
'
:.
Kc^^'^'
*' *^^-
Xen.
"^'
^'
compare the conversation

with Aristippus, Xeii. Mem. ii.
,
K{
1,
and
Plato's Crito, 53, A.
^^^^ been ah-eady seen

Socrates placed his own
activity under this point of
view See pp. 65, 68 Xen. Mem.
1. t*, J5
Plato, Apol. 30, A.
ti,
iJiHi
,
Mem.
iv.
4,
12,
and
3, 15,
his teaching exhibits
with which the previous re^^""^^ respecting the peculiar

conduct of the sage may be
compared,
^
Hegel,
1.
c.
Compare the views of Rotscher, 1. c, and Braadu for the

opposite view.
Ueber die
<
vorgebliche Subjektivitat der

Sokrat. Lehre,' iii Khein. Mu"'
ii.
l,
85.
Chap.
SOCRATES.
118
a deeper importance attaching to the personality of
Chap.
'
the thinker, without, however, by any means belonging
which are purely
to those
It
relative.
aims at gaining
a knowledge which shall do more than satisfy a per-
and desirable for

but the ground on which it
sonal want, and which shall be true
more than the thinker

is
sought
is
the personal thought
This theory
Socrates.
is
He has
of the individual.
indeed not further expanded by

established the principle, that only
the knowledge which has to do with conceptions

true knowledge.
To the
being of conceptions
is
further inference that only the

true being,^ and that there-
fore only conceptions are true,

'
exposition
of
is
conceptions
and to a systematic
true in
themselves
sa
Knowledge is here something

sought, a problem to be solved by the thinker philosophy is philosophic impulse, and philosophic method,
a seeking for truth, not yet a possessing it and this
far
he never advanced.
deficiency countenances the view that the platform

'
Hegel
saj^s
nothing very
but
the
which
Socrates from the Sophists he

in Socrates the creation
says
of thought is at once clad with
an independent existence of its
own,' and what is purely personal is externalised and made
universal by him as the good.'
Socrates is said to have substithinking man is the
tuted
measure of all things,' in place
man
of the Sophistic doctrine
is the measure of all things.'
In a word, his leading thought
not the individual as he
is
knows himself experimentally,
agree also
when
'
'
'
'
all
universal
element
found running through

individuals. With this view
in distinguishing (Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 40, 166)
different,
is
Ilotsclier,
1.
c. p.
246,
392, and Hermann, Gesch. und

Syst. des Plat. i. 239.
The objections of AUertiy
Sokr. 94, to the above vanish
'^
only is properly
if the word
emphasised. He only assorts
what is already well know%
that Socrates did not develope
his theory of conceptions to the
theory of ideas, nor contrast
the universal thought in the
conception, as being the only
thing truly real with individual
'
things.
'
CIIARACTEliWnCS OF HIS PIIILOSOPHY.

of Socrates was that of a narrow reference to
person.
Still it
the
should never be forgotten, that the
aim of Socrates was always to discover and set forth

that which is in itself true and good. Mankind is to be
intellectually
and morally educated, but the one and
only means thereto
is
The primary aim
to attain a knowledge of truth.
of Socrates being to train
men
to think, rather
than to construct a system, the main

point with him was a philosophic method to determine the way which would lead to truth. The substance of his teaching thus
partly
appears to have been
confined to questions having an immediate
bearing on
human conduct
partly
it
does not go
beyond the general and theoretical demand, that

action should be determined by a
ceptions.
There
is
knowledge of con-
no systematic development of
individual points of morality
a reason for them.
all
and no attempt to give
119
Chap.
^'
SOCRATES.
120
CHAPTER YI
THE PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD OF SOCRATES.
Chap.
\
The
peculiarity of the
method pursued by Socrates
consists, generally speaking, in
deducing conceptions
from the common opinions of men.
Beyond the
formation of conceptions, however, and the intellectual exercise of individuals his
nor
is
method did not go
there any systematic treatment of the concep-
tions gained.
The theory
of a knowledge of concep-
tions appearing here as a claim, the
of
its
necessity
must be presupposed
consciousness
as existing,
and
an insight into the essence of things be sought.
At
the same time, thought does not advance further
than this seeking.

to
It has not the
power to develop^
a system of absolute knowledge, nor has
it
method sufficiently matured to form a system. For

the same reason, the process of induction is not
reduced
within
clearly
defined
Socrates has clearly expressed

late,
tion.
is
rules.
All
that
the general postu-
that every thing must be reduced to
its
concep-
Further details as to the mode and manner of
and its strict logical forms, were not

yet worked out by him into a science, but were
applied by him practically by dint of individual skill.
this reduction
The only thing about him
at all resembling a logical
KNOWLEDGE OF
rule,
the
maxim
ÊLF.
]2I
that the process of critical enquiry
must always confine
itself
to
what
is
universally
Chap.
^^'
admitted/ sounds far too indefinite to invalidate our

assertion.
This process involves three particular steps. The

first is the Socratic knowledge of
self.
Holding as he
did that only the knowledge of conceptions constitutes
(f-'<''Â
true knowledge, Socrates was fain to look at all sup-
TS-*''
posed knowledge, asking whether it agreed with his

idea of knowledge, or not. Nothing appeared to him
more perverse, nothing more obstructive to true
knowledge from the very outset, than the belief thatyou know what you do not know.^ Nothing is so
necessary as self-examination, to show what
we
know and what we only think we know.^
Nothing,
too,
is
more indispensable
^'
^'
J'\V ^""^l"
cLu^"^'"'.'''
"'I''
^"^":'
^'"Z""
lltV'
M.d\^Taof.o\oyovf.eua>ue7rope{>eTo,
Vô^fiiôoyjavrnuTvuaacpaêLauehai
V\'',, Tv/r
^?'''., .r /
""'"''
liaol
VLT
^'"T"'
'"'"
'>",
,.
\/^''^''
'>^
''""' ""'-
'\'- ?'
-^^'
'5e
,twr
coîeiP re KatoUadai yiyi^ciaKeiy,
g2^ZI
cLnp^
'Called
'^''"'-
^""'"'i '^"-y'^^r'
'"^' ^^'"'^ ^^'^
"^/^?
mad
who
are mistaken
about what IS commonly known,
mistaken
about things
t?n-n r of
fwhich
i""'^,
most men
are ignorant. Also Plato,
Apol.
"""' c^'T'' '""' '''"' "^^'
^^>
,
^'^;,''"*
l"
in
tins
'""^ '^^^^
sense
practical
relations
speaking in PUto, Apol. 21,

^^^^t
'^^y'
according-
to
B.,
the
oracle he had interrogated all

with wliom he was ^brought
^^^^^ contact, to discover whether they had any kind of know^^^^^ ^''^ tlât in all cases he
had found along with some kind
^*"
knowledge an ignorance,
which he would not take in exchange for any kind of knowledge-an opinion that they
^"^'^ ^^lât they did not kno^v^
On the other hand, he considered
'
''Jl^^^^^^ôTVfô-
"^
Iw/7"1
^^^'^T
'"'^^^%'^"; ^ ^^
for
really
Socrates,
be his vocation, cptAoao^povp4êrdCoura iâvrh. Kal

robs &\Aovs (28, EoTand he
says elsewhere (38, AO that
*^'ere could be no higher p-ood
it to
ra
(fl^ Kal
'
lie
did
6 Sk
a.,i4raaros
ISicvrhs avOpcoTrcf.
fiios
ou
A. The
kZê
re-
^<^<^(i<ôfnot
"-"'''"'''
SOCRATES.
[22
Chap.
VI.
than to become acquainted with the state of our inner

capacities,
self, with the extent of our knowledge and
with
oui'
defects
One
and requirements.^
result of
the discovery that the
this self-examination being
actual knowledge of the philosopher does not correspond with his idea of knowledge, there follows
further that consciousness of knowing nothing, which
Socrates declared to be his only knowledge. For any
other knowledge he denied possessing,^ and therefore

refused to be the teacher of his friends,^ only wishing.
Mem.
Xe)iojjhon,
>
2, 24,
iv.
Delpliic
enquiring- into the
yvuQi ffiavTov, says that self-
attended wdtli
the greatest advantages, want
of it" with the greatest disadol
p.y yap clZores
vantages
knowledge
is
ovdirepos ovdev Ka\hj/ Kayo.dov etSeVai. aW' ovtqs (xev oUtuI

Tt elSevai ovk eiSws, iyu) Se oJcirep
23, B. :
ouv OVK oiBa, ovSe oXofxai.
riixwv
ovTos
vfjiiov, S) 6.v6p(t}Troi,
oaTis,
iffTLV,
<ro(pd)raros'
ScoKpdTTjS',.
Sicrirfp
OTL ovêvhs a|ios iCTi rp
g-yj/oj/cei',
eavrovs rd re iiTLTTjSeia eauTots

diayiyvctXTKovaLV a re
i(ra(ri Koi
ZvvavTai
Koi
4iri(TTavTai
b.
ixrj-
kuI
&
fxhv
(self-
irpaTTovres
examination always refers in

the first place to knowledge,
because with knowledge right
action is given) TropiCovrai re
wv deovTUi Koi eu -npdrrovcTiv.
8ee also Plato, Phsdrus, 229,
he had not time to give
E.
to the explanation of mji:hs of
which others were so fond, not
being even able to knov\' himself according to the Delphic
oracle; Sj-mp. 216, A.; when
avaycomplains
Alcibiades
KOêt yap fie bjjioKoyelv, on iroKAou ivSerjs &V avrbs en ifxavrov ixev dâeAw, rd 5' 'Adrjvaiuv
before
And a
crotpiav.
Trpos
d\r)0eta
little
rh 8e Kiv^vvevei,
3>.
&vdpes 'AO-qvaioi, T<^ ovri 6 dehs

aocpos
elvai,
iv
Kal
Tourcp TOVTO Xeyîv,

TTij/rj
eVri
D.
0)5
t^
on
oKiyov
cro(pia
xpV^^H-V
avOpco-
rj
tiiA)S
a|ia
S}Tnp. 216,'
07^06! Tvavra koX ovSev olSev,
rh (TX^f^^ avTov, Thesetet.
ouSej/os.
KoX
150, C.
ayovos
elfjn
ffo<pias,
Kol
OTrep ^Stj ttoKKol /aoi ajveidiaav, a>S
TrpaTTco.
iyco
Flato, Apol. 21, B.
5rj ovre fxeya ovre a/xiKpov
avvoLca i/xavTw aocpos cov.'Il,
D. TOVTOV fxkv Tov di/QpcoTTou iyci}
-
yap
ao(pwTep6s dfiL- KivBvvevei fxhu yap
robs ixkv aXKovs ipwrw, avrbs 5^

ov8eu aiTOKpivoixai irepl ovdevhs Sio
rb ^7)Sei/ exeiv ao(p6v, dArj0es 6êthiCovai- Th Se a%nov tovtov Tt^Se"
fiaieveaOai
fxe
Oehs
avayKd(ei,
Comp.
yevvdv 5e d'neKuKvffev.
Rep' i. 337, E. Men. 98, B.
That this trait in Plato has
been taken from the Socrates
of history, may be gathered
from the Platonic dialogues, in
;
which his teacher is by no

means represented as so ignorant.
^
See above,
p. 67.
KNOWLEDGE OF
SELF.
common
123
with them, to learn and enquire.

This
(.onfession of his ignorance was certainly far from
lacing a sceptical denial of knowledge,^ with which
the whole philosophic career of Socrates would be
ill
On
irreconcilable.
a\-owal as to his
the contrary,
own
contains a simple
it
personal state, and collaterally
the state of those whose knowledge he had had

the opportunity of testing.^
Nor again must it be
regarded as mere irony or exaggerated modesty.^
as to
Socrates really
knew nothmg,
or to express it other-
he had no developed theory, and no positive

dogmatic principles. The demand for a knowledge
wise,
of conceptions having once

i\
all
fulness,
dawned upon him in
ail
he missed the marks of true knowledge in
that hitherto passed for
wisdom and knowledge.

first to make this demand,
lie had as yet attained no
definite content for knowledge.
The idea of knowledge was to him an
i)eing,
however, also the
unfathomable problem, in the face of which he could

not but be conscious of his ignorance.^
And in so far
a
certain affinity between his view
Koiv^ fiooXeveaeai, kolvtJ oKenreadoi, Koivfi Cvreh, (rv^-nre-if,

'
^c. JêfL, Mem. iv. 5, 12;

6,
1; I'lato, Theait. 151, E. ; Prot.
,'
r?''^'''-'"^-
B.
Meno,
^^^89 E.
^'
^^'^*-
As the Aew Academicians

u^.uld have it, Cic. Acad. i. 12,
-
.'
i]' ^'^'Z'^-
.
already
quoted Ianguage of the Apology, 23, A.,
does not contradict this; the
I'osxxhUity of knowledge not
Ixing there denied, but only
llie
and the sophistic
the limited character of human

knowledge being asserted in
compai-ison with the divine.
^
As
Cerate
remarks (Plato,
i.
referring to A7îst.
Soph. El. 34, 183, b, 7: ^Trel
Kal 5m toCto :^wKpdrr]s rjouTa
dAA' oi,K a-rreKpiuero- i:îo\6yiyhp
^^0,
^'^'^
323),
^'^^'"'''
Coi^f- Flato,
Rep.
337.
^
Compare
Phil.
32G.
ii.
Ileael,
Gescli. d.
54; Hermann, Plato,
chap.
^^'
'
1
SOCRATES.
in
Chap.
VI.
may
scepticism
In as
be observed.
the possibility of
denied
far as it
knowledge, Socrates opposed this
all
scepticism, whilst agreeing with
in as far as
it
re-
it
Natural philosophers,
ferred to previous philosophy.
he believed, transcended in their enquiries the limits

of
human knowledge.
clear proof of this fact is
that they are at variance with one another respecting

Some hold being to
the most important questions.
be one, others
make
of
it
a boundless variety
some
teach that everything, others that nothing, is subject

to motion some that all things, others that nothing;
;
comes into being or
Just as the Sophists;
perishes.^
destroyed the conflicting statements of the natural!'
means of each
philosophers by
from the contest of systems, that no one of
infers
them
Socratesf
other, so
is
ference
Their great
in possession of the truth.

herein, the
consists
Sophists
making
dif-
Not-,
knowing into a principle, and considering the highest)

wisdom to consist in doubting everything Socrates
;
adhering to his demand
for knowledge, clinging to the
belief in its possibility, consequently regarding igno-
rance as the greatest

B. The
search for
knowledge.
Sifting of
evil.
Such being the importance of the Socratic Notknowing, it involves in itself a demand for enlightenment the knowledge of ignorance leads to a searcl
;
Ms fellowmen. Eros
and
irony.
Xen. Mem.
that
Socrates
1,
i.
did
13,
not
says
busy
of
with questions
natural science, but on the
contrary he held those who
ieavfiaê 5'
did to be foolish
liimself
ei
fiT]
(pavephv
avrois
eariv,
ravra ov dvvarov iariv
'6ti
avQpoo-
TTOts'
upe7v
iirel
(TTOV (ppouovvras
Twv
\4yciv
aKX-^Kois
ofioiccs
ov
ahXa
/cat
robs
tm
e^ri
rahrb.
rots
/xeyi-
Trepi
rov
5o|aêti
jxatvoniuoi:
SiaKeiadai. irphs dA\^\ous'
then follows what

the text.
is
quoted
ii
SEARCH FOR TRUE KJSOWLEDGE.

The
knowledge.
for true
125
consciousness of our
own
Not-knowing continuing, and the philosopher having

:in idea of knowledge without finding
it realised in
the searcli for knowledge naturally assumes
form of an application to others, with a view
of
liimself,
lie
ascertaining whether the knowledge wanting

at home
is to be found with them.i
Hence the necessity of
enquiry in common by means of the dialogue.^
For
SocrateF', this
mode
of intercourse has not merely an
educational value, procuring easier access and

a
fruitful
an
effect for his
ideas, but it
is
to his
more
mind
indispensable condition of the
development of
and one from which the Socrates of history
departs.3 Speaking more accurately, its
nature
lought,
IK 'ver
men such as it is described in

Apology,^ or in a bringing to the birth,
as it is
called in the Theaetetus
in other words, the philoconsists in a sifting of
(lie
'^
x'pher by his questions obliges others to

unfold their
inner self before him ^ he asks
after their real
:
The connection
'
lan-n
is
very ap-
in tlie Apol. 21,
B.,
if
inner thou-ht of the

I'liilosophy of Socrates is put
m the place of the oracular
nl.ytlie
'"*-'Î'*^"-'ê.
Compare
p.
U^,
irpoa-nKoicrais
^p&l,<nv ahrohs duac

.V.m6A.?to
and the enquiry
into human nature has this
meaning- in Mem. iii. 6 iv 2
but clearly this is not its orie-i-'
^
nal object.
:
2.
^^^ p. 149 122, 2

Plato, Lach. 187, E
he
wlio enters into conversation
with Socrates /.^ Traieaeai imh
;
(.omi)are, besides the Men-.rabilia

Apol. 24, C.
i'>tao-. 33o, B.,
336, B. Theajt.
Pto
Mm.larly
Xe>,. ^Mem. iv.

â^Tco, f,,vyap cû.y^ oTda
aA^<rTa ./xeAei' avrc, uSeuuL '6rov
.
eU rwu avySurccu
Xenophon only took it
eiricrr^fâû
^f
^^V.
"
|)rovc
'6ri
avrdpKfis iv
ra7s
^^h hu i^^îav Îs rh ScLac Zol

airod A6you, bynua rpiirov vdv re
nor is there any escape
(fj,
from the most thorough Ba(raviCâdai.
Chap.
^^-
SOCRATES.
126
hap.
^'^'
opinions, after the reasons of their beliefs
and in
this
and actions,
way attempts by an interrogatory analysis^
of their notions to bring out the thought latent

therein, of which they are themselves unconscious.*
In as
far as this process presupposes that the
know-
ledge which the quesHoner lacks
may
others, it resembles an impulse to
supplement one's
own
defects by their help.
others
is,
for a philosopher
be found in
Tliis intercourse
with
whom knowing
coin-
with
cides with purposing, not only an intellectual but also

To enquire in common
a moral and personal need.
is
at once to live in
at once impulse to
Love of knowledge is
friendship, and in the blending
common.
together of these two sides consists the peculiarity of
the Socratic Eros.^

In as far as others do not possess the knowledge
sought
for,
and the questions of Socrates only serve
to
expose their ignorance, the process bears also the

Irony, however, must not be
character of irony.
understood to be merely a conversational trick
1
It is assumed as a matter
of course, that every one can
2:ive an account of what he
knows and is, Phto, 1. c. 190, C.
Charm. 158, E.
2 See above, p. 75.
Besides
Brandis ii. a, 64, reminds us
with justice that treatises on
fpws are mentioned not only by
Plato and Xenophon, but also
by Euclid, Crito, Simmias, and
Antisthenes, which shows the
importance of it for the So-
The chief passage is in Xenophon, Symp. c.

of a
.S, where the advantages
cratic schools.
still
spiritual and the disadvantaires

of a sensual love are unfolded,
apparently (as a careful surve\
of the Platonic Symposion wil.

show) by Xenophon, speaking
for himself, but undoubtedlj
followin<j: in the train
of So;
Even Êschines ant

Cebes had treated of epcos ]i
crates.
the Socratic sense. See Plut

Puer. Ed. c. 15, p. 11, and th.
fragment of iEschines in Aris
7^?VZ.
Or. xlv. p. 34.
Gesch. d. Phil,
53, 57; Conf. Arist. Eth.
13; 1127, b, 22.
^
jferjel,
ii
OF EROS AND
f/W
less
IJiOxXr.
12;
that derisive condescension

or affected simphcity which as it were
lures others on to the
ice in
order to laugh at their
falls; or that absoh.te
reference to the person and
destruction of all general
truth which for a
time bore this name
it
c
Chai'.
Tn7l
romantic school.
Its proper nature
consists rather
herem
that without any

positive knowledge, and
prompted only by a desire
for knowledge,
addresses himself to
others, in the hope
lo^rate.
learning
from them what they

know, but that in' the
atteTpf
to discover it, upon
a critical analysis
of their notions,even' their supposed

knowledge vanishes. This
S Zf
feê::i^t,^Zr^S
Socrates.
See Rep.
*a)
roiro^s
337 a
^poi^Keyou
tipwv,6aoco 5h Kal nr6,vTa

^P<ora.
And
Arfyo./cai
aoain
V2
aaXXou
s-fv
387
^]!'
^'^""l"''^
^^
.'
""'^^'l
^vepd,.ovs
har.X,:,
wliich
as
context shows refeinart?^

to the fact that
Socrates m-e
tended to be in
-.1^
:
being sfAn t,ie G
: k's^n i'of
the term, and
partly to t,e
wJ
words
oKJe.
I
word
a^.oe?
4.r .alo/s^^
The same, omitting

the
..>co,,.r,
Pasâge of the
is
said in the
The.tetus
l^l!
In
after
the
fô^J^yûacri
^""J^^'^^'^
e'|eAeV|a,.
^^-^-
('Oni
-'
1.
.
"-
u^jtSs
goes on to
^''
AA..
1"
ttWo^
.'^^"^'
"^^"^"^ '^C,^' it
e'A^^-TwWcfso^ ^J'''
âTaf;'" 4?'^''
tlie
o^^^''
crates replies'^'^Ls
'"
"''%'
\-
2,
Likewise
^'^0: 5..
36
kXXd
^-xp-r.s, .rêas
1> ''^'^t'
"''' !^'' ^ '^^^^'^^^ ^V^^S".
^
"^^"^^
(Mtilian,
"^
ix.
t^?'
'''''' '''^
cauThV'T'^
^'^^'^'"^
.n
^^^^^r
wTsdo^ n? ,f
Part
tl
of
>
4^
^^^-^^ l^ê of
"^^^""^^' ^^-
-''^^''^r-
^J^'^^^^
of
^^ê
the
^^""ected
-;-^;ch
.
'
'''
'
SOCRATES.
lit*
.r.
Chap
^^_
irony
is,
the dialectical
therefore, speaking generally,
the Socratic method, assumor the critical factor in

to the presuppeculiar form it here does owing
ing the
posed ignorance of
C.
no
,^.,pssio-
"'-i'-
'"""
instrument
of
knowledge, he must at least have

method
possessed the notion and the
real
t,::Z Lieêd that he
'^Z!X
for his
Socrates might he of
Doubtless, however conscious
ri,o
fo,-,mtion
him who uses it
true knowledge.
Without
this
conviction
he
to confess his own ignowould neither have been able
that of others, both being only

ranee, nor to expose
comparing the knowledge he

rendered possible by
knowledge residing within
found with the idea of
where to b.,
The fact that this idea was no
himself
a challenge to him to set;
found realised was in itself
resulted as the third point
about realising it; and hence
the attempt to create real,
in his philosophic course
he could only allow
knowledge. For real knowledge
from the conception of
that to pass which emanated
step here is the formation of
a thing, hence the first
For even if Socrates does
conceptions or induction.'
definitions, he at least
not always make for formal
quality applicable to the
always seeks some universal
of the object, in order
conception and to the essence
|
referring the
question under notice by
to settle the
universal quaUty.^ The classparticular case to this
fi?"
f'nnf
i,
ic
Plat
2i8fD
T^p
Only
M
also Leop. Schmid

Marbnrg 1873
Lection,
in Ind.
Compare the remarks o
already mentroned
tlic
word
^Z^S^r^-^ A^^
A,^fl
S^r;t;lS45,:fGrcl,
.....W^V. eep.nO,.
*l'^-
iv
its
the use ot
d. Phil. 83, and for
T
FORMATION OF COycEPTIOXS.
quality
The
is
therefore to hin. of
the greatest import-
starting- point for

this
by the commonest notions.

taken from daily Hfe,
.i,,
admitted truths. On
inducMan
is supplied
beoins with .
,
He
^..^ l^^^
every disputed
pointTe go"^
back to such mstances,
and hopes in this
way to
attam a universal
agreement
All
^,^.'^''^'i'All
previous science
oeng donTrffi.i
beinodoubtful, nothing
remains but to begin
anew
'
,-,
: h the simplest experiences.

On the o
.nduotion has not as yet
so far advanced
S^ hand
Jenving conceptions
from an exhaustive
and
^mX
as to
tested series of
observations.
This
is
being
the'
a later! quir!
nent due partly to

Aristotle, and partly
nodern philosophy.
The wider basis of a
hensive knowledge of
facts being as yet
'en
an
JZl
L^re
wantingna
despised,
and
Socrates
abit of
being
the'
expanding his thoughts

in personal convem
|on wi h distinct
reference to the' case
befoêh
I'd to the capacity
and needs of his
fellow-speakerT
confined to the
assumptions which
>fances and his own
limited experience
supply Te"
"lust take isolated
notions and admissions
'h;
Pomt of departure, and
can onlv ô a flras
oh
an oUow. Hence
l;e IS
tLTcum
4
r^C^lT^^^
in most cases h^
-ular instances than
on an exhaustive
;
I
i
Compare
'
what
looted, pp. 80, 2:

;e
has
12],
been
1
IZ
whole of the Memorabiâ
':'to,
too,
gives instances of
1"^ procedure.
See
CFc
Xm
-'^
%..
.
.
... ..
u ,. ,,,
anaS;;-
^^'^
f.^^T^''
^71/
Vs
Vo
fL\
"^'''" ^'''^^^'^ ^''^'5e.;c.^.
'^'^'"'
';i;
^-ra^â., dva.e/-
"' "'^ "^"^^^ ^''^^--^-Pi'mciple that from
^^^^^:::i^^^,a
SOCRATi:S.
1?.0
Chap.
VI.
in his principles
This chance element
experience.*
by collectrng
endeavours to eliminate
^h wever,
supplement
to correct and
opposite instances, so as
ron,
one another. The ques
varying experiences by
of mhim being the conception
for instance, before
who has,
He is unjnst, says Euthydemus,
iustice
Yet, rejmns Socrates,
like.
deceives, robs, and such
and to rob an enemy.
lie, to deceive,
it is right to
must be more accurately
Accordingly the conception
who does such thmg.,
ttus: He is unjnst
perEven such action is, however,
to his friends.
A general rs not uryu t
fitted under circumstances.
army by a lie, nor a father
when he encourages his
by deception, nor a fnend
who gives his son medicine
which he
the weapon with
robs his friend of
:
delS
who
suicide.
would have committed
fore,
We ^^^^^'^^^
Unjust s he
limitation.
introduce a further
them
friends in ord.r to do
deceives or robs his
ruler has to be disthe conception of a
who
harm^
Or
ruler as one who

General opinion regards a
But this power,
give orders.
has tbe power to
steersman on
conceded only to the
Socrates shows, is
covered.
physician in case of sickship, only to the

conversan
other case only to those
ness, and in every
Only he, therefore, is
the special subject.
board
with
who
ruler
ruling
'
knowledge necessary fo.

belongs k
must be determined what
The smith says, it must be^
possesses
Or
it
the
a good suit of armour.
in the comwith
politician
the
paiison
&c.
the physician, pilot,
.
As
to e^mple
'
2. Jl;
1^-^"i- '
IM-
'
METHOD OF INDUCTION.
therefore has the

proper size
apposing a .a wishes
fit exactly?
Not so n.
hi.s
what
R f ""'
raZ,,''""^*
Isfthe
^^^le f
armour
it fits
r,
We'm i\r
moveLnts
fitting
to
when
''"^"^'^
'^
'"
"^^^.^^
is
comfortable for use ^

way we see Socrates
analysing thoTougWy
thl
men notions of his friends
'^ ^^"^ comW.
"f
^ -lu
leiauon to some
other
^rÂ
\.r.
."?'
"'
by additional
observations
""*'*^'^^^"ois, assumptions
resting on a n^ .-a a
tbem 'and
teV^P^-^-' ^* --Pleting
'^"^^^-By this prfoes'
correcting,
gLH
essence of every
captions are
ra:L\rwT r^f
^''^'
obieotTT t
^lîtoT.:^^
In order'to
invitigate
tt
''''
""
Mem.
iii.
10,9.
'
' iv.
6, B.
' t'or instance,
in order tn
;;eprove Lamproctes
fori fs con?
^'^^
-""
'
'T'''^'
"" ^"'''''S conceptions

'
* t'ê
*^'"^^-
he always
,.
that his conduct

JT" "^lôws
'^'"' *'"^
conception
fn
IJ''"""f
K 2
P"]' '''*
"^'''ic'
before
SOCRATES.
_-
CHAP
vt
kuowB and universally adprogresses from what is

Hence hrs method o
here.
>
so, too, he does
2ed
as.
varied turns,; according
He
another point of departure.
starts from one or
granted,
to he taken for
a general principle
particular ca.e ; = he refutes
^ndlncludes under it the
corjrabringing home to them
foreign assertions by
undoubted
or with other
dTctions with themselves
builds up the premrsse
assumptions or facts- he
conclusions by means o
;: UUhe'most
Sws
his
torn which he deduces
by an apparent
straight off
nduction, or concludes
proof he has
A theory of this method of
analogy.^
the various krnds o
:: g!ven, nor distinguished
this that
point about it is only
The
Zool
Everything
To
find
essential
is
conceptrons.
measured and decided by
end rs reached .s
turns by which this
a matter of personal
LIL,
Anstotle,
critical dexterity.
from
chief merit of Socrates
in rSaking the
-ncepti-and
in the formation of
h side'consist
on the whole be allowed
in induction,<> must
"^'Isking further
as to the objects
practised lis method,
SaofXenophon
in the
Memora-
materrals-xna motley array of
Pf
have
on which Socrates
we encounter
the
in order to prove
begxns
he
Gods,
teing of the
<>
with the general
*f^
an end must
all that serves
cause
intelligent
pts
to be
an
enquires
better citizen, he first
of a
features
peculiar
into the
l*;good citizen (iv. 6,
^^^îJi^M^S^ d.
-^
"'in
p.
}fj-^^^,^^^^^ Mem.
Mem.
>.
j21.
tte cases quoted o
2, i^^
^_
i.
2,
34
APPLICATION OF HIS METHOD.
133
vc^tigutions into the

essence of virtue, the
duties of
man, the existence of
Gods, disputes with
Sophists
""
""'
^"'^'
^^'
^-- ^ f-Js and'
acquaintances, conversations
with generals as to the
-ponsibilities of their
office,
tradesmen as to their
o thexr mode of life.
wlh ar^lers
arts,
id
even with loose
Nothing
is
women as
too small to arouse
the curiosity of
the philosophy and
to call for a
^^-'--- As Plata
^Z^\^TT''^'
"^ ^" """^^ -*^-t
tL cl
T'
-ception
^0
1^S^'lf"â
""'^"^
r;
''' "'^^^ "^^ educational

'^''
apparent, referred
everything to
ts conception..
He looked upon the life'and
pu
misof man as the real
object of his enquiries,
and
her things only
as far as they
affected the conJit ons and
problems of human life.
Hence his
philosophy, which in
point of scientific
form
was a
application a science of
'
human
8ee p
10*
actions (^ft.^).
Chap.
VI.
SOCRATES.
j3^
CHAPTER
VII.
OF SOCRATES: ETHICS.
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TEACHING
not discourse concemSocrates, says Xenophon,' did
Uke most other philosophers
ing the nature of the All,
the essence ot
him; he did not enquire into
.HAP
Chap.
TO.'
TFâ.
mental
before
re.
tjê
phenomena; on
world and the laws of natural
such
it folly to search into
f^'^lT"-^ the contrary,

ject-mat-
MMos.
g^ygg^g
.
he declared
quiz things divme

for it is unreasonable to
things human ; besides,
before f^ly understanding

philosophers prove
conflicting opinions of natural
the
research transcends the capathat the object of their

After all, these enqiuries
city of human knowledge.
Quite in keeping with this
are of no practical use.
Xenophon tests even geometry
view, the Socrates of
utility,
'
by the standard of immediate
and astronomy
as
respectively reqmsite tor

being the knowledge
surveying and navigation.
To
carry
them
fui-ther
a useless waste of time,,^

than this he considers to be
man can never come upon the
or even impious ; for
the
of the Gods, nor do
track of the mighty works
attempt such knowledge.
desire that he should
Gods
.
Mem.
i.
1,11.
Conf. p. 124,
1.
Ibid. iv. 7.
HIS TEACHING CONFINED TO ETHICS.

Hence
in
such attempts, extravagances such

as
all
those of Anaxagoras are sure to come to

view.^
The accuracy of this description of Socrates
has,
however, not passed unchallenged by
modern
Granting,
it is
these and
said, that Socrates really
similar sentiments, can
writers.^
expressed
they be right-
fully so understood as
though he would altogether

deprecate speculative enquiry into
nature ? Would
not such an assertion too manifestly
contradict his
o^vn fundamental view,
the idea of the oneness of all
knowledge
Would
it
not lead,
if
propounded
as
Xenophon has done, to consequences

manifestly unreasonable ?
Even Plato ^ bears testimony to
the
fact that Socrates did not

attack natural science in
but only the ordinary treatment

of it nor can
Xenophon himself conceal the fact that
he did devote
Itself,
his attention to nature,^

"'''
<,uplT-i" J^j;-" 'Tel:

'
YaVarr'
Ji t^^-îa-rov
83
130
cppou-fjcra,
7^.w:/m
uescn.
&.fGeth
*
^^r
m";
rr P-'
inl
0^5^;,
t^s
tc5
'^:'
^^'''-
P-
^-'
\v
d'^'phiV'
Phil. n.
ii' 48,
ct.
f
^^^
'
^'^'
^nly lead to absurdities,
hoping by considering the
^"^'"''^
^^^^' ^'^ Wolken
Aristophanes,
Pha^do 96
Leg. xii 966
A*"'
97
p.
Pi
t?
'
^'^^XMa*, for these ao<po\\,evd

'^^^
^^
necessarily be the oarHer
r-^^p^^î^^'p^--also
used of poets,
clironiclers,
''hap.
...
-
^^^^
SOCRATES.
13(5
relations of
Chap.
__XE:
means
to ends in nature to gain an in-
Allowing,
reasonable arrangement.
no
therefore, that Socrates, as was the fact, had
not
special talent for natural science, and hence did
into
sight
its
any great extent, at least the germ of a new

form of this science may be discovered in him. In
study
it to
his notion
of the
means
of
relation
ends in
to
the thought of a universal

whole of
diffusion of intelligence throughout the
of man
nature,' ' the theory of an absolute harlnony
nature must have lain
'
and nature, and of man's occupying such a position

V If he
in nature as to be a microcosm of the world.'
to
stopped at the germ, confining his study of nature
mere practical requirements, this must have been, ac-cording to his own opinion, only as a preliminary step.
He must
have only intended that
man
ought not to
reach into the distance until a critical foundation

inner
has been securely laid in the depths of his own
life
or else it
must have reference to popular and
not to philosophical study.^

Unfortunately this view of modern writers rests
on assumptions which cannot be supported. In the
first
place, not only
mention
to
Xenophon, but Aristotle also,3not
later writers,^ asserts that Socrates
it is expressly stated
their
that Socrates perused
works, in order to find in them
what was morally useful for
.^c,
Met.
and
cp^xreccs
SArjs
De
as though
Krische, 208,
Socrates made any distinction
l)etween training for a philosopher and training for a good
bpiaaaQai
man.
(987,
Se^ Trepl
irpayfiarevofievov,
himself and his friends.

ScJdeiermacher and Bitter.
'
i.
^(^Kpirovs
Part.
irept
oheû
Anim.
1.
eVl 2co/cpciToi;s be
tV
fi^v^
never
l)r
b,
ra 7,0tK*
5e
xiii.
ttjs
i;
(642, a, 28)
Tovrofiev [t^
ov<nav\ VHvSjl,
^d.
Cw^:v rh irepl <pj><rws eXvê.

Conf Eth. Eud. i. 5 1^16, b, A
^
Cic. Tus v 4, 10; Acad.
De Fm,
iv. 29, 123
i. 4, 15
Sh
ms
TEACHING CONFINED TO ETHICS.
pursued the study of nature.
Aristotle
the very autliority called in

to arbitrate
phon and Plato differ. What
right
to
stand
aghast at his
declares against Plato
is,
IS
however,
when Xeno-
have we, then,

testimony as soon as he
Even
Plato, however, indi-
rectly admits
in the Timajus that

natural science
was foreign to Socrates. If
he elsewhere puts in
his
mouth sayings
referring to nature, there is
still
no evidence that these

utterances are historically
true.
Not even in the passage in the
Phsdo can
such evidence be found,
unless what follows that
Socrates had fallen back on
the theory of Ideas
can be taken to be historical.'
In one respect Xenophon fully agrees with Plato, in
saying that Socrates
demanded a consideration of the

ends in nature.
relation of
If it
is
relation of
means
to
further required that the
means
to ends should not be

understood
the lower sense of a later age,
in which it was
indeed
understood by Xenophon, but
that higher speculative
Ideas should be sought
therein, where, we ask, is the
historical justification of
this view ?
Lastly, if an
appeal is made to the logical
consequences of the
feocratic theory,
do they not prove that Socrates

must
have been quite in earnest in

disparaging a speculative study of nature, and
in his popular notion of the
relation of means to ends ?
Had he indeed placed
at the
head of his system, in this

xdea of the mutual dependence
of
Ep^71^7-' sw'
(Ml. N. A. xiv.
Lt?' ^""T
6,
S,
and, ac-
"'"'^'"S
explicit form, the

all
knowledge,
it
Demetrius of By-
Phsedo, 100,
Chap
SOCRATES.
Chap.
VII.
would be impossible to account for Ms low estimate

If, on the contrary, he was concerned,
of physics.
not about knowledge in general, but about the education and training of men by means of knowledge,
is it not very natural that his enquiries should be
exclusively directed to the conditions and activities
of man,i nature being only taken into account in as
far as it
was useful to
man ?
Doubtless this view of
the relation of means to ends was, for natural and

scientific enquiries, like a seed sown broadcast, which
sprang up and bore fruit in the systems of Plato and

but to Socrates himself this new departAristotle
ment of natural science presented itself only as a
;
subsidiary branch of ethical
enquiry, without his
in his
In this respect Socrates is necessary consequence,
witli
principles
intellectual
in
position
Kant's
Kant,
like
said
it
be
may
justice
same
the
history being also not unlike
notwithstanding
that,
Kant,
of
destroying
after
Kant,
As
his.
reason, he
the older Metaphysics, only his critic of pm'e
disputing the
whilst
must,
Socrates,
so
Ethics,
retained
aside natural Metaphysics of Wolff, have
after setting
that his prinscience, turned his attention necessarily seen
him consisexclusively to morals. In the ciples would lead
of Fichtc
Idealism
the
to
tently
the
other,
one case, as in the
philosophy of
one-sidedness with which the and the natural
whom, and
founder begins has been sup- Schelling both of
against
plemented by the disciples, and the first-named even
appealed
protests,
own
Kant's
the treatment at first adopted
consequences. For all
for Ethics has been extended to these
it
is
a dangerous business,
that,
to the whole of philosophy.
of logical
consideration
from
a
of
said
be
may
it
Just as
historical
the
and
consequences
Socrates, that, despite his so
principle, to correct
definitely attested declining of results of a
statements as to
clearest
the
all cosmical and theological
of its originator,
doctrine
the
he
principle,
speculation on
question really being,
nevertheless, whilst actually the
to what extent
refraining from such enquiries, whether and
realised these concould not conceal from himself the founder
that they were involved, as a sequences.
JUS TEACHING CONFINED TO ETHICS.

being conscious of
its
range.
applies only to Ethics.
tion of
l;J9
His conscious interest
Even the study
Chap.
^^^_
of the rela-
means
to ends in nature was, according to

his
view, subservient to a moral purpose
that of urging
his friends to piety.
It cannot be altogether neg-
lected in considering his teaching

;
nor yet can w(^
allow it, in the sense in which it
was used by Socrates,
an independent value, nor for this reason
prefer it to
Ethics.
The same remark
applies to theology, which here

coincides with natural science.
The motives
which deterred him from the one must
have deterred
him from the other also.^ If, notwithstanding,
still
he
expressed
definite
views
as
to
the Gods and the
worship of the G-ods, these views

were the outcome
of a practical love of piety.
Theology then can only
be treated by him as an appendix
to Ethics.
Even then, there are comparatively

very few
definite opinions in theology
home
to
could
it
Socrates
be
with
otherwise,
certainty.
considering
matic treatment of Ethics

basis either
rest
upon
iv'si'andT?*
Aentlem\
\ynrZf
ÔCvMe^
aT65i/c/i;6.
^'
1
ovSe yap
Ta ro.au.a [or,âs
The
''
Indeed,
that
how
syste-
impossible without a
"^
metaphysics or psychology for it to
in
which can be brought
chief service which Socrates here
' ""'"'^
'^
'
,^.
^''ot^"^g*
'}^
'
-^.p]
it is
*is
rvs Tu>u
said^]5
He asked
wliethcr
^^^ fully mastered human

^^ ^^''^^^ advanced to
^^^'T^'^
'}^^^
such enquiries, ^ ri
u'ey iudocc-
aKoirodvres
rk
vyodura,
y.ro,a.on^. riel>ae^k,
iroocr-h
rhae^s
;:
SOCRATES.
140
rendered was a formal
Chap.
^'"-
onethat
of generally refer-
no sooner, however,
moral acts and
is it a question of deducing particular
himself
relations from knowledge, than he contents
or
partly with falling back upon prevailing custom,
ring moral action to knowledge
an accidental reference to pur-
else there intervenes
of which are certainly partially
poses, the defects
corrected in the sequel.

15.
The leading thought
n.
-^^y be expressed in the
leadvuii
"^
Êmcs:
^-g
.^j^
the
sentence
All
virtue
is
most closely connected

His efforts aim from
Î^Qlg ^,|g^^ of things.
it
at re-establishing morality and rooting
This assertion
knowledge.^
AlUiHnc
ledge.
of the ethics of Socrates
first
more deeply by means
is
The
of knowledge.
experi-
the conences of his time have convinced him that

it does
ventional probity of moral conduct, resting as
and authority, cannot hold its ground*
on custom
His sifting of
most
'iscovered, even in the
men
cele-
place
brated of his contemporaries,^ a pretended in
Arist. Eth. N. vi. 13
o-ets
1144,
(ppovv-
28: ScoKpciTTjs
^ro ^hai trdTas ras aperds
:ZwKpdT'ns fJi.y olv x6yovs
b, 17,
'
Ths 'aperhs <iiero dual, iirifTT-hficis

yhp dvai 'j.daas, Ibid. iii. 11;
Eth. End. i. 5 1216,
1116, b, 4
ehai -ndaas
iTTLar^fias cêr
b, 6
;
ehar
ayaQh.
Kal
ovdh
irpo\4(rdai,
eVto-TO^weVous
a\Xa Koi
oHf
hWo
radra d56ras
&*/
jobs
avrl rovrwP
ovre
5vvacr0o:
rovs
irparTeiv,
Vav e^X^'P^f '" a/xapra-
he always con16
versed of justice, piety, Kaljepi
rS^v dXK^v, h rovs fxev^ etSdras
''eiv.
i. 1,
rh.s
ap^rds,
âO'
ffv[xâivuu
ZiKaioa^^v-nu KaX
'diia
T6 T>tiv
Conf Ihid. iii. 1
dvai ZiKawv.
1229, a, 14; vii. 13; M. Mor.
1- 1182, a, 16; i. 35 ; 1198,
i
erSei/J
10
Xen.
Mem.
iii.
9,
koI
I^TJ 5^ Koi r^v diKuioaivw
(Tocpiav
dp^r^v
traaav
&XK'nv
rvv
ehat rd r yap Skaia Ka\ irdvTa
offa apcT^ KparreroLi Kohd re Kal
'
vy^^ro Ka\ohs Kai ayaQovs

to\js 8^
^v
elvoi,
h.-^voovvTas a/5pa7ro5S6
înaio^s K^KK^crQai.
The
latter
Plato, Lach. 194, D..

iv. 2, 22.
iroXKdKis h.Ky\Koa a ov Mn/ovjosJri
Tavra ayadhs eKaaros w^p airep

^Sh ^fxad^s ravrade KUKds.
Euthyd. 278, E.
^9, !<..
^ piafo, Apol. 21, 0.
(ro<(>6s,
MOltAL VALVE OF
KNOWLEDGE
141
oi a genuine virtue. To
attain true morality
must seek he standard of action
in clear
knowledge.'
man
and certain
The
principle which has thus

dawned
upon him IS, however, only
understood in a narrow
and exclusive spirit.
Knowledge is for him not only

an indispensable condition
and a means to true
morality, but it is the
whole of
morality.
''""
Trr""^'
peTt
ect, but there
p
I totr.
'
is
""''
absolutely no
"'
Anstotle, to improve
only-
'''" '^^
Where
virtue im-
virtue at
all.
^"^
--Pl^tely
upon the Socratic doctrine
of
the point that without

right knowledge right
action ^
IS impossible, and
conversely, that wble
fnowTedg
exists, right action
follows as a matter
of course
the former because no
action or possession
is of any
use, unless it be
directed by intelligence
to a proper
object ^ the latter,
because everyone only
;
doesTi
See p. 113.
It is only in
'
'
Plato fEuth
B.; Meno, 87, C)^
d at
Socrates expressly takes
tMs
280,
ground.
Hence ^he
MoraHa
:Magna(i. 35; 1198, a,

10)
appear to have derived
the
corresponding- view but
it no?
only sounds very Ike
Socle^^^
ût
it is
'3hon
;
also implied in Xeno.'

Socrates there (Mem iv
,26) explaining mole iSme-'

liately in connection
with sPlf
ôwledge, that itaone
cin
ell us what we
need and
wW
ect...
ana
U^^^^^^
Slff^^.^'''''^'''''^^^''^^^ action.
^^''^^^ tliat
fZnl'A
-S^
]^^R
'
i^^^^f^^
afterwards it is
f;!^^
*^^' ^^'^^"^ ^^^ ^" '^-^-
--tntli^r,,
l1''^ and Pala-Dasdalus
m!dol^
t^,n
o p
'
'
'
1
^^^" ^^"êd for

^T""'^
^^.f^ôm. For this is
''and'^ ^^
'^'^
TcSl'.
eve ra'^t"^^^^
men
V^^^
^^^^^
^^'^^^
*^^^^ in
^^^"^^
its
kind of
^^ knowledge, in
IT]}^^^^''^'''^
""^^'
'"
lljâ!
^ê
term,
C -X
,
Chap.
VII.
;.
SOCJRATHS.
J^2
Chap.
YU.
of use to himself:
he believes he must do, what is
for this would" be
no one intentionally does wrong;
oneself intentionally unthe same thing as making
always the strongest
happy i^ knowledge is, therefore,
by passion.^
power in man, and cannot be overcome
does.
identical therewith, also
respect14,
iii.
9,
said,
^Vhat is
to
ing viTpaîa in contrast
KpanffTov
is
it
evrvxia, that
knowimri)êvfj.a, also refers to
in
consists
euTrpaîa
For
ledge.
cZ
uadSvra ti koL txeXer-hcravra
Euthydemns
TToielu, or as Plato's
eTrio-rfi^T?
281, A, explains it:
nseôf
teaches to make a right
KaTopBovffa
as
and
goods,
all
T7JJ/
irpa^Lv it
and
i.
expresses this view
1,
Phil. ii. a, 39) that

this refers in the first place to
the arguments of the Platonic
Socrates (see Meno, 77, B.
(Gr.-rom.
Prot. 345, D.
the same
more
how
he inherit the knowledge
?
see
4
elUras
above, p. 140,1; iw.6,6:
oUadai
Se a 56? TT0L7v oUi rivas
Mem.
Xeii.
SeTj/ (J.^
-n-oteTv
ras^h
olovr ai
Ibid.
^<^.
Ouk oXofiai,
rivas &\â iroiouvOvk 670:7',
SeTv
radra
Ol5a- 8e
icb-T].
9,
iii.
and 11
Pla,to, Prot.
Tb
t
elj/a:
(T-novZaiovs
'yap
ris,
bvriuaovv,
ZUaios
(pV^^lv,
<pav\ovs'
ipur-hcreiev
fioihoiro
&v
BiKos, ovdels hv
TrSrepov
hai ^
More
T^v adiKiav.
definite are the remarks
14;
Eth. Nic. iii. 7; 1113, h,
1223, b,
conf. Eth. End. ii. 7
in-
'dxoiro
353, C),
asserted
iii. 9, 4
but that
by Xenoiv. 6,
6-
and by PUto, ApoL
(pOcipu
Dial,
de
'6
iravaofxai
driXov
'6ti
76 &Kcav
iav fxiQay
Conf
rroica.
justo, Schl. IHoff.
LaeH,
31.
ii.
3
Ka\
Plato, Prot. 352, C.

(To\
T0wvr6u
dp
oty-
auTTjs
rrepl
ri
[ttjs eVto-Tirj/xrjs] 5oKe?,
^ KaXdu re
iinffThlJ-t], Koi oJov &pxîy

T]
rod avepuTTOV hal i&virep yiyvuxncij
^vris rayaOa Koi to kok& fih^
eivai
Kparv6r}vai
'd\\'
ehai
riju
h.
<pp6vr\<nu
ti.v
t]
tfcav^J^
a\\'
KiXeir,,
iiriffr-hfJi-n
(txrre
jwrjSevos,
virh
&rra irpdmiv
ôtiQeiv
rcf
then
affirmed with the consent of
(The further reasonSocrates.
ing is probably only Platonic.)
The
h.vdpuit(f',
358, C.
n
^
22 Arist. M. Mor. 1. 9
76J/6V0at
i<p>' W^v
OVK
Kodrvs e<p-n
rovro toe'7w 5e .
25, E.
TOffovrov KaKbv kK^v ttoiw, us <P]is
ravra iycv (toi oh ireidofxai,
(TV
MeA7)T6 . . . t 5e &Ka}V StaS)
11
3,
is
Mem.
2)liun,
question
Gr. ix. 122, puts the
Socrates
into the mouth of
rich inthe
of
.when speaking
Did
heritance of Alcibiades:
fioKap.
^KOOV
OuS'
TTOV-nphs
Brandis remarks with justice
^schines, too,
definitely,
Demetrius de Elocu. 297, Rhet.
to use it
ovZels
on the statement ws
kKblV
fvirpayiâ
produces
XenopJto/i,
evTvxâ.
6, 4,
3,
latter is
eiriffraArist. Eth. Nic. vii. 3

rives oTov re
ixivov ju-ev olv ov (pacri
:
ehai. IdKpareveffdai'].
iTTiffr-hfiris
ivoiiff-ns,
deivov ydp,
us
^T0
Eth.
SwKparrjs, &^ô ri Kparelv.
Eud. vii. 13 opQws rh :ûKpari:
k6v, Sti
ovUv
iffxvp'^'repov <ppovi\-
MORAL VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE.

As regards
that
virtue which
appears to
be
furthest
removed from knowledge, the

virtue of
bravery, he more especially
insisted upon it,
that in
he who knows the true nature

of an apparent danger and the means
of avoiding
all cases,
braver
it, is
than he
who has not such knowledge.^
concludes that
knowledge
virtue
entirely
is
and accordingly he defines
ticular virtues in such a way,

as to
sist
Hence he
dependent upon
the par-
all
make them
conm knowledge of some kind, their difference being*
determined by the difference of

their objects.
who knows what is right towards

God
who knows what is right towards
pious
just
Teus-
men.^
aW
'6ti
iwKTTrjfx-nv
e(f>7],
ovK opeSu, aper}} ydp icrri

Kal ovK
iiriaTrjfiT}.
If, therefore, anyone seems to act contrary to
his better judgment,
Socrates
does not allow that is really
the case.
contrary.
He
rather infers the
His conduct being

opposed to right reason, he
concludes that he is wanting
in this quality
Mem.
'-po<Tepu}Tci,fj.euos Se, et
f.(vovs^ fieu
ras
56
iii. d,
robs
& Se? irpdrTeiv,
ravavTia,
iiriffra-
iroiovu-
ao(povs re
koX
hKpaT7s eluai vofj.i(oi

owSeV 76
fâWov, ^-q ^ a.76<povs re Kal
aicpaTfTs. In Xenophon,
indeed,
tins IS so put, as if
Socrates
iiad admitted the
possibility of
a case of knowing right
and
doing wrong.
The real meanof the answer, however,
can only be the one
given
inj?
above.
He
is
he
is
He
is
points ovToi roi^ y^

eûfi^vovs
raSe avri\4êiu hi o'hâi,
ds ovxl
:
Kai
7)
auSpda
Prot. 341), E.,

by_ various
SiSafcroV.
where
it is
Plato
proved
examples divers
kniglits, peltasti^ that

ol eV*Tiiv fx^
^'^Î'oyes
liTiaraixht^v
Oa^pa\(iTpoi daiv.
Az-ist Eth
Nic.
iii.
11;
1116, b, H:'5oK.?
^ Trepi '^Karrra
avSpeia ris duai
Hd^v Kal 6 2-
de
/coi
7]
ifiTreipia
Kpar-qs
c^-f^dr}
auSpeiap.
dvai r^v
Conf. Eth. Eud. iii 1
iri(rT'fifM'r]v
1221), a, 14.
- (bae^^s =
6 rh. wepl robs deobs
vdîîaelUs- 5lKaios = 6 el8ci>s
rit
Tovs avepdjTTovs v6îixa.
Trpl
Mem
the definition of which

is here
given, is the same as the
SaiSTm
the conception of
sought in Plato's
If,
therefore,
which is
Euthyphro.
Grofe,
Plato,
i.
remarks a propos of the

latter,
that Xenophon's Socrates was neither asking
after
^28,
^'^'^' "^- ^' 2;

9 ',.^''t
Symp.
IS
sword
-, IL: Socrates remarks, in

reference to a dancing girl wh()
deliberating
about
the general conception

of the
nor indeed could pre-sup-
iioly,
Chap.
vn.
'
SOCRATES.
144
Chap.
VII.
how
brave who knows
he
is
to treat dangers properly
prudent and wise who knows how to use what

evil.^
good and noble, and how to avoid what is
is
or knowIn a word, all virtues are referred to wisdom

The ordinary
ledge, which are one and the same.^
virtue is incornotion that there are many kinds of
Virtue
rect.
pose it, liis observation is

contradicted by appearances.
follow
It does not, however,
wished
Socrates
that
herefrom
the Gods to be honoured v6ixw
Why could he not
irdKeois.
have said, piety or holiness
consists in the knowledoê of
that which is ri^ht towards the
Gods, and to this belongs, in
respect of the honouring of
God, that each one pray to them
after the custom of his country.
not the same

thing as worship. That may
remain the same when the
forms of worship are different.
A pious mind
Xe)>.
is
Mem.
iv.
iirKTrafMCfoi
&pa
fi,
toTs
11
oj fx^v
deivo7s
re
xpffQai
Kol iiriKivdvi/oLS KaKu>s
hiafxapTavovres
5e
ol
elaiv,
dfSpeToi
TovTov
D. 71
:
fx^
SetXoi.
(ro<pia
beivccv
Pkito, Prot. 360,

&pa ruv 5e7v(av koI
a/'Speia
same thing
is
iffriv.
The
conveyed by the
definition' in Laches, 194, E.

(which is not much imperilled
by the objections raised thereto
from a Socratic point of view).
Courage
is
rj
rwv
Scluuv
koI
only Bapparendered
\4os must not be
*bold' (as ScJiaarschmidl,âm.m\.
ea^paXiwv
imar-hfJi.V
Nor does the
in truth but one.^
is
It
d. plat. Schr. 409, does).
means rather, according to
198, B., as it so often does, & fi-n
5eos
Conf.
Trape'xet.
Bouit:,
441.
2 Mem. iii. 9, 4
(rocpiau 5e koI
(ru(ppoTvvnv ov SiwpiCev, aWa tuv
Plat. Stud.
iii.
TO. fXu
Ka\d re kol ayada
yiyvo}-
(TKOvra XPT/O'Sat auro7s Koi rhv ra.

aiVxpa 6t5oTa evKaêiffQai ffo<p6v
re KOL (Tiicppova eKpive.

:Mem. iv. 6, 7 iTrKTr-hM
'^
&f>"-
No
man can know everything, t &pa
(Tocpia
iariu
'Eixoiye SoKei.
eKaarosrovro Koi ao(p6s
iiriararai
eariv.
Plato developes this thought

earlier writings, Prot.
his
in
360, E.
349, B.
329, B.
*
kept much
which,
more closely to the platform
however,
of Socrates
it is
also evidently
His
contained in Xenophon.
gathered
be
may
as
meaning,
from Mem. iii. 9, 4, is certainly

not some one may possess the
knowledge in which one virtue
:
consists,'
whilst
lacking
the
knowledge in which another

consists but he assumes, just
;
as Plato's Socrates does in tlic

Protagoras, that where one
virtue is, all must be there, all
depending on the knowledge of
the good. From this doctrine

of Socrates the Cynic and Megarian notions of the oneness
of virtue arose.
MORAL VALVE OF KNOWLEDGE.
145
difference between
one person
and another, one time

''"; ""-^ ^^^ ^"'^ -*'>-' affect tTe
question
For mall cases it is
one and the same
thing, which makes
the conduct virtuous,'
and inTu
persons the same natural
capacity for vir ue
be
assumed to exist.^ The
main nnint fi,
11 r
1"
i^
to
eWte
this
disposrn
may
^^^^
bring with them more,

others fewer gift for
anv
particular activity
yet all alike require
;
exercS an J
Serobll"t:;~:Xdge tr^- ^^^-Wledge, nothing can inTmlTpr

oHLT
more
the
urgently necessaiy than

self-kno'wledge toipe
unfounded semblance of
knowledge and Vl
toman hiswants and

edge, just as
'
Plato,
needs.
wrong action
Meno,
71,
i^r^
llowmg- the passao-e

in Plato
216, a, 20,
>mo
^th
way
the
which he must in
have harmonised
Socratic
teaching
X ^ a^T^ ^cc^poo-^.^
y,,iX
7P ^,...0. a4.'.;
'fet,ovuT,srhs6.p,Tds.
^^
'Pf^,
âUAAo.s
Eigh^Srn ac
5Â..,
'ol
TafeV
o.Se^ xe/pc^ rijs

rov û8phs
'^-r^xd.u, f>^^r^, sh Kal
r*s
,vX
follows
Î
/d
from absence of
x ...
^'m^^
iv 2 2
virtno
re u?t
V;.
fnIS*'t^
1' 3;
question whether
^'
"^^^
Ji.^
î
^^'""'-^^
'''
^^'
^ ^
*^^^î^gh discussion
thank^ to ^tb "^ ^^^ûssion,

tbo^ni. ..^^ appeaiance of
''"'^.
Pindar L;i'
!'
and
^^3^^^^^^^^
"' ^^^^ ^^^^^-
^.^^^'^'^n
:ifts.
natural
See above.
'
Chap.
vn.
SOCRATES.
fail,
himself will, without
knowledge he who knows

r:h:tfshealthful>stashewhoisignorant^^^^^^^^
Only the
is harmful.'
without fail, do what
;
Chap.
VII.
self will
knowledge can do anything

as the
In short, knowledge
useful and esteemed.^
knowledg^ rs the
action.; want of
moral
all
of
root
wrttmgly to
and were it possible
vice;
every
of
cause
wrong uuwrtbetter than doing
wrong, that were
of ngh
^lol
f^^^^^Z
'
r
Wrtor
the first condition

in the latter case
wanting whilst inthe
moral sentiment, is
only faiththere, the doer being
case it would be
What, however, the knowthe moment.^
IS'the
tme
Srilf"
I
For examwhich
conversations,
Mem.
ples of
iv. 2, 24.
to bring
Socrates endeavoured
of
to a knowledp
m.
Hem.
^
see
themselves,
Srlnds
accuser
^''^'Mem i. 2, 52 the
with inducing
charged Socrates
t
:
to
followers to despise
tor ne
friends and relations
Ms
AtjXoJ/
.'âuar^v oT5ev, ^ b &Ko:u
5e L4>?'^
AiKaiSrepoP
'6ti dlKcl^v.
^mcrra^x^vov to Z^KaiO.
ehai-] rhv
Sclared,thoseonlyd^^^^^^^
who can make
to be honoured
useful by means of
themselves
theS knowledge.
*-.o^cu.
e..aT^M-ov
rov
in.
382,
u.
Eep.
Plato,
Cont.
53.o,
vii.
C.
iv. 459,
S89 B.
It is
E 7 Hipp. Min. 371, E. to supcase
an imaginary
Xenoiîon
only
can knowpose that any one
do
intentionally
ino-lv and
according
for
wrong;
is
what
of
to the principles
to
impossible
is
it
bocrates,
conceive
possesses
should, bj
such
as
knowledge
d(
virtue of his knowledge,
what is right, o
man who
that the
showed how
ignorant
and
TittlT useless
their
were esteemed by
anvthins but
relatives :biit
spontane
and
^Tfoiends
that anV one should
not
did
Socrates
wrong
is
that
what
h^savs
them ouslv choose
Inows
that
he
We
teach
thereby intend to
dependants, but
despise
to
that understand-
onlyto^show
aimed
ing must be^
"^'
Mem
iv.
2,
19
at,cir:
ro
to^v 5e 5,
an untruth i
intention
told knowingly and
apparer
an
be
only
can
it
allv,
whic
untruth,
and seeming
t
If
therefore,
allows as a means
n
higher ends (Rep. ii. 382
where?
C),
459,
iv.
B89, B.
on
want of knowledge is the
lie beir
proper
a
lie,
proper
Plato
question is after
^ b Lu>v The
-rk S.â.a
settled
lards thus
;
ms
ledge
THEORY ABOUT THE GOOD.
I47
in which virtue
consists, whether
experime-.
alor speculative, purely
theoretical orpractiXia
quest:on upon which
Socrates has not entered.
In
Xenophon at least he
places learning and
exercise
is
gu.shed them,^ and to

prove that virtue
consists in
knowkdge, that it requires
knowledge, and
a
qu>red by instruction,
he chooses by preference
evel
the pages of Plato,
examples
^"1
CiJAP.
vu.
of practical ac uTre-
ments and of mechanical

dexterity.'
As yet, however, all that
has been laid down

is in c w
he nature of a formal
definition. All virtue
", ^ôTa.,
is kn"
ledge, but of what
is it the knowledge ?
To this
if'"^-
He ts
what
""'^*^''' '^""^'^^'g^
of thegood.
!virtuous, ^'''''''
just, brave, and so
forth, who knows
rs good and
right.^
Even this
addition
de and indefinite as those

always unintentional
382; V. 535, E. lee
Phil. Stud. p. 152.
'
At the
Meno.
'
Mem.
beffinnino-
iii. 9,
1,
TJpr,
ii
of
""^
^^''^^Y^^
t?
and
generally required,
"o /difference
proof of which it
may bo
ôtod that no
natio^
o.p
IZ'
'
'
^^^'^
i, \^
i"""
biit
made
^^'"^"
are
even
be-
^'re
in spinnir.o,
^"^^^^'e*^
^s
î-
^y ^^'^^m-Il,
a
1/'^^*' '' ^- ^^^'^r
1
^v-rist. J
t 2
Mem.
"^^'^ ^^^'^
^-^f^^^ôn,
un
is
In
TraiSeia
'^^"^' ^"d athletics,

^^^ê it th.nr
T women
Tf
?Z''f 2^T^
with
en
mastery.
'
'n
ôunter those wh6

are familiar
ri^l'them.
So, too, in eve
y.
-^
nniir else it i! ti,L ^
'f
îfts are really do-
^^^f%^
^' *^'/^'?'^*s
ih^
^^^
power
weapons to which it
is
accustomed ventures
to
Knowledge which
^^J'J
^^'''
Socrates an
as various as is
bodily
before.
isT
46.
(1)
r,.
f'^^T'
^^X-
SOCRATES.
148
OH.P.
"ll
-
virtue, is
makes
the ffood'
e?ed
as
knowledge of the good
whaUs
but
of a thing
conception
The good is the
.hat is good, is acting
an end.' Doing
uj>
action
of the corresponding
to the conception
The
application.
in its practical
short, knowledge
explained by
is therefore not
ten'ce of moral action
of the
that it is a knowledge
the general definition,
so forth.
good! the right, and
advance
^;i^-l''^llZt
Socrates did not
definition, however,
philoso^y
Just as his speculative

the general
stopped short with
^^^^-^^^t.X;;ly:
to
h
,
pMloôphy.
---P^--
knowledge belonged
^J^ ^
indefinite
short with the
ticM Tjhilosophy stopped
conformable to concepUons.
tllatcLduct
Clch
a theory
it is
impossible to deduce defin-
^-^-^""^hiT:\orf;;t:misi:
to louirv iv^
QUprnative remains but
the necessary princieither by adopting
^
ieTway,
;t%rom^he
prevailing
m.a^-^^^^^^
rhtxir-rkîedjr---^^^^^^
and to
to experience
thought, by a reference
of actions.
well-known consequences
courses were followed
matter of fact both
explained the
On the one hand he
*?<?4 ; by S crates.
The
of the lawful.
the right by that
aH
Sif
cither hy
custom or
'Utmty.
inception of
...
Mem.
iv.
?,
^^
*/.
8^
A;^'J^
olaQa,
ecpv,
oiro.o,
'^^^'^'*'^. .
,,,
In
Mem.
IV 4
oi;
crates says:
<;>rjf<.i
7P
2
^7"'
SfKaioj; etrnt,
^(^jt.t/xoi/
Hrppias asks for

as to
^ mation
So-
cratês
^^^.
and when
f urther
what
IS
mfor-
meant by
.^,^^^ ,^^ ,^^^^^. ^^.
APPEAL TO CUSTOM AND UTILITY.

best service of God, he says,
with custom
and he
will not
from an unjust sentence,
lest
On
laws.^
that which agrees
is
the other hand, as a necessaiy

consequence of this view of things,
he could not be content with existing moral
sanctions,
but was
fain to
seek an intellectual basis

for morality.
This he
could only take from a
consideration of consequences
and
so doing he frequently
proceeds most superhcally, deriving his ethical
principles by a line of
argument, which taken by itself

differs in results
more than in principles, from
the moral philosophy
oftheSophists.3 When asked
whether there could
be a good, which is not
good for a definite purpose,
he distinctly stated that he
neitlier knew, nor desired
to knov of such a one ^
everything is good and beau:
Sip z.:x t:^z '^:i:^ --> ".r:X.:r^lTi.fj;

'
Ôas
Mem
'van
'At,
V
a
2,.
ciple is attrihutea
^'Seep. 77,
/,Tv.
ifi
^^
T
/,
^^^
withTS'
it is
J"J',
statement^
l^P^f^TîTTTrosj
Ka\a re
Kal
^.t ^t^ttS ^^^

f^^
Philosophia Mor. Socr.

Orote
:Hist. of
Greece viii fiott
agrees
where
'l^^^^^Z%
amongst other things
ToL
^""'^
7T^
^
?
^''^^^'
Ch^p
withdraw himself even _

he should violate the
are the
^
'I
^^^^ ^
'^^^
same), but
"^"
'^''
^---
^'
'''''''
'î
<
SOCRATES.
,gQ
it subthe special needs which

and the same thing may be
serves, and therefore one
He declared
for another.
tiful in relation to
CHAP,
V"-
one and bad

that the good is nothing
a manner most pronounced,
the beautiful nothing else
else but the advantageous,
therefore is good and
but the useful ; everything
which it_ is
to the objects for
<.ood for
beautiful in relation
confirming his doctrine
advantageous and useful;'
of evil-one of the leadmg |
of the involuntary nature
remark that everyone
principles of his ethics-bythe
for himself.
which he thinks advantageous
, does that
to his view no absoThere is, therefore, according
and disadrelative good ; advantage
\ lute, but only a
Hence
of good and evil.'
vantage are the measures
Xenophon he almost always bases .
in the dialogues of
e 1
utihty.
precepts on the motive of
, his moral
because the abstinent man
should aim at abstinence,
than the incontinent: we
has a more pleasant life
because the hardy
inure ouselves to hardships,
.hould
can more
more healthy, and because he
honour and glory
avoid dangers, and gain
man
easily
is
we
found in Plato's
con..Sp,^,.'X..a.i.ae^.
eluding:
thing similar
"T
importance can be attached to

as
the treatment of happiness
Xen. Mem.
'''"
ir.
8.
6,
LlxiH/r;
"'''^^"J^T'
xp^criôv apa
.pb.1
Symp.
Plato, irot.
5,
6;
6,
3;
"fl.
and afterwards explains

good to be that which affords
pleasure or averts pam.
Joes,
xen. Mem.
iii. 9,
some-
is
^*Si"the 'ott^" hand,
xue
'^
Mem.
iv.^5
little
philoso-
i.
5,
n.
i,
9.
ii.
i. b.
confff^'
.
1,
18
'
INCONSISTENCY OF SOCRATIC J^ÔRALITF,
should be modest, because

boasting does harm and
brings disgrace.
We should be on good terms with
our relatives, because it is
absurd to use for
Chip
_J^
>
harm
what has been given us for our

good;^ we should
try to secure good friends,
since a good friend is the
most useful possession 3 we
should not withdraw
from public affairs, since the
well-being of the community is the well-being of
'
:
the individual ;
we
should obey the laws, since
obedience is productive of
the greatest good to ourselves
and to the state; and
we should abstain from wrong,
wrong is always
should live virtuously,
since
punished in the end.^
We
because virtue carries off the

greatest rewards both
from God and man. To
argue that all such-like
expressions do not contain
the personal conviction
of the philosopher, but
are intended to bring those
to virtue by meeting
them on their own ground
who cannot be got
by higher motives,
at
laboured, considering
the definiteness
bocrates expresses himself.^
phon
evidently
is
with which
Unless, therefore,
Xeno-
misleading on essential points,

we must
allow that Socrates was in
earnest in explaining the
good as the useful, and
consequently in the corresponding derivation of moral
is
duties.
True
it
is
utterances are
'
-'
^^
:
Mem.
i.
that in the
met
mouth of Socrates other

with, leading us beyond this
suner"
7.
Ibid. ii. 3, 19.

Ib.d. ,,.4,
5; u. 6, 4
Ibid.
iii. 7.
ii. 1,
and
'
iii.
o^
^^l^""^^ an ex-
tract fmn,''
dicus, the substance
taTt
14.
Mb,d..v.4,land20;
at o^
ôfwhih
appropriates.
^%p ^^ ^^
quently discussed.
Conf.
i.
,, ,,^^.
(3) j..
'"''^'-
tency of
Soeratic
Momlify.
SOCRATES.
J59
CHAP.
_ZL__
essential
ground of moral duties, by placing the
it serves and
advantage of virtue, the purpose which
ficial
good and beautiful in its inMost unof man.^

fluence on the intellectual life
be the view of
doubtedly and decidedly would this
because of which
Socrates could
it is
we
attribute to
him the maxim
so
that righteousness
familiar to the Socrates of Plato,^
disease of the soul, and
is health, unrighteousness
invariably injures
consequently that all wrong-doing
and
does it, whereas the right is necessarily
him who
always useful.
Language
of this kind occurring in
not justify our bethe Republic and Oorgias does

the
In these dialogues much is put into
lieving it.
never can
mouth of Socrates, which he never said and
have
said.
Nor can
it
be pleaded that Plato would
conceptions, unless
never have held such pine moral
them from his teacher. Otherwise the|
he had had
theory of ideas and
much
besides which
is
found in
We
to Socrates.
Plato would have to be attributed
contained in
cannot even vouch for it that everything
author not having
the Crito comes from Socrates, its
it describes.
been present at the conversation which
committed to
the death of Socrates, and
Having apparently, however, been

writing no long time after
not going beyond his point of view,
it is
noteworthy
same principles
that this dialogue contains the
>
On what
follows compare
RiUing, p. 83, 91, 105, whose

researches are here thankfiilly
Icknowledcred, whilst all his
c
Sion? are not accepted.
See Z.Z/^r-.Phil.d.Griech.
p. 561 of second edition.
2
^
:
as in the
^
Crito 47 D
treatment of the body, the
physicians advice must be
:
questions of
followed, so
^d vi.e
wrong
and
right
J^ê
him
a.
e.
^t, ^ a/coAo.07,(roêj,
îa<pQ^povti.v .kuvo koX Ki,^D<r6-
'
INCOmiSTENCr OF SOCRATIC MOItALITY.
153
circumstance which at least shows

that they have a
support
the teaching of Socrates.
To the same effect
lilcewise the Apology
expresses itself,
Chap
_^"-
Socrates therein
summing up
the purpose of his
life as that of convincing his fellow-citizens

that the education of the.
soul
IS more important
than money or property
honour or glory ; declaring
at the same time in
plainest terms, that
whether death is an ill or not
he knows not, but that
injustice is, he knows
>
'
well.^
Similar language is found in

Xenophon.
pages too Socrates declares
In his
the soul to be the most

the divine part of his
beine
valuable thing in man,

because it is the seat of
able IS of value.^
ftrst
He
reason and only the Eeasonrequires, therefore, that

the
care should be for the

soul.^
He
convinced
is
^^L % %î^: ^-^:~' ^^

moreover,
If,
life in
body has no value
oou
a diseased
'
êr' iKeiuou
than that 49, A

wrono3oing always in/ures 'aiTd
d^f
?rac?s
him'who JomLit
AeV;/
oF^Trep ''ccda
aj/dpa;;/
I
" ovK
aiaxviêi
i
'
^^^>
"
thT^fac^'^rh:?"'
'6ri
^J'
xpVfâTwu
Imnn
^"^
Mem
'"'^.'''""''
^m
m^
i.
53 and
" T''^ ^^
J'^'^P^lou
tov Odov uere'vet

*
i
9
f^
:hireTwLTce"
'
iq
.-^-
*^^^^^^t Sn rh
it
imfie\o6/jLeuos,
ould rather blame
-ry case
^f'J9(r^,
kk
Ibid 29
Mem
-^
ye x^vxh,
+.xfls imi.4Kav
"te'^Sr'ihf^
'>^?'"^'?^
SOCRATES.
Chap.
^^-
more you aim at the^

the more
education of the soul, and more enjoyable,
perfecyou are conscious thereof.^ The intellectual
on his knowtion of man depending in the first place
wisdom is the highest good, without compare
that conduct
is
better, the
ledge,
more valuable than ought besides.^ Learning

but
recommended not only on account of its utility,
which it directly
far more because of the enjoyment
These expressions fully agree with what
is
confers.^
has been quoted from Plato

consistent in a philosopher
they also appear quite

who bases the whole of
and so
moral conduct so decidedly upon knowledge,
and to dealing
expressly leads man to knowledge of
with
self, as
Socrates does.^
in which
A\ât then must be made of accounts
entirely on grounds
Socrates recommends moral duties
purpose, such as we freof outward adaptation to a
Are we to assume that
in Xenophon?
quently find
only intended for those who
all such explanations are
sage's real meanwere too unripe to understand the
hypothesis of the ordiing, to show that even on the
purpose, virtuous
nary unsatisfactory definition of
mcomisTJs^cr of sochatic morality.
154
conduct
is the best ?
that Xenophon took
these
preliminary and introductory
discussions for the
whole of the Socratic philosophy
of life, and hence
drew a picture of the
latter, representing,
it
true, his
own but not the platform of

the
Ch.p
Û.'
is
real SoThis view has no doubt its

truth, but it is
bardly the whole truth.
We can readily believe that
Xenophon found the more
tangible foundation for
noral precepts which
judges them by their conseluences both clearer and
more intelligible than the
leeper one which regards
their working on the
inner
ondition of man.
We naturally, therefore, expect
IS
description to give the
preference to this
crates ?
'-itelligible
'
.
st
le
T.."""'!
of
the other;
explanation even at the
and to throw the other

more into
backgi-ound than the actual
state of
the case
must, therefore, allow
double value
such Socratic utterances
as he reports implying
deeper moral life.
We cannot, however, consider
m so bad a guide as to report
utterances which
)crates never expressed,
nor can we give to
these
terances a meaning by
means of which they can
brought into full accord
with Plato's description
We
arrants.
'
>
the Socratic ethics.
Take
lere
for instance the

dialogues
Socrates
is
with Aristippus,^
asked to point out a thing
good,
**"V.
it^S'
ff vf
htud. ^^116
Volqmrd-
lat.
I.
Mem.
iii. 8.
'
SOCRATES.
jgg
CHAP,
^11'
and both times

and afterwards a thing beautiful,
nothing
consist
answers that goodness and beairty
certain purposes.'
else save a subserviency to
^^
hat
withhold his own

inducement had Socrates here t
of the unripe unopinion? Was Aristippus one
condition to understand
philosophic heads, not in a
Plate
Was he not rather in addition to
his views?
independent and mteland Euclid one of the most
thinkers in the Socratu
lectually best educated
Why should Socrates say to him everything
circle ?
bears
for that to which it
is good and beautiful
:
rela
and hence the same thing may
h
another an evil ?
tion to one be a good, to
there is which is alway
does he not add one thing
which improves th
and unconditionally good, that
Xenophon omit
Or did he add it, and
souP
otto
^
was this so
although the main point ? and
We could only be justified in such a
cases?'
o-ood relation,
assumption, were
it
shown that Socrates could
n.
makes him spea
Xenophon
possibly have spoken as
cannot possibly have had tl
or that his utterances
Xenophoi
they have according to
meaning, which
not sufficient to appe

account; * to prove which it is
which Socrates is otherw.
to the contradiction with
contradiction to ci
charged. ( It is certainly a
tii
life, and at the same
virtue the highest end of
advantages itbrmgs
it because of the
to
recommend
.
""
E:^.^"Sh'n"70.''
'
What
Brandis
has
wen, and that he
el
'INCONSISTENCY OF SOCRATIC MORALITY.
md
t.^
Plato recognising this

contradiction has avoided
Still the question really
is, whether
and to what
extent
Socrates has
avoided
ustify our assuming,

that
)een involved in it.^
liction
he cannot possibly have
For
Kant
and nothing can
it,
is
there not
rejecting most
a contradecidedly for the
aoral estimate of our

actions every standard based
Hows
happiness in its ordiary sense a

place amonglings relatively good.
The
rmer statement 'is in
Mem.
but this distinction

'en by a decided
advocate
Eudfemonism, such as Arisppus, could be admitted,
asi.
9,
14
mmg
that true and lastingis to be attained not

the uncertain favour
of
ppmess
ance, but
-'Y
at
by one's own actiand understanding, and

man must not make himdependent on extreme
cumstances, but ensure a

ting enjoyment of life
by
ing superior to himself
and
surroundings. If Brandis
atw.
237) declares
i.
possible,
this
he need simply be
arred to the fact that in

the
^naic and Epicurean schools

h views are actually
met
h.
See below, ch. xiv. B,
and
Zeller's
Stoics, Epi3ans, &c., p. 44. For
the lat-
statement Brandis appeals

êm. iv.2,34. Here Euthylus has to
be convinced
his ignorance in
respect
good
and evil. After it

been proved that all thino-s
iidcred
by Eutliydemus
goods,
under
to
wisdom included,
certain
circum-
stances,
be
on
disadvantageous,
Euthydemus
says
Kiv^vvîu
avafx<pL\oyd}Tarov ayaOhv dvai
t5
:
(vSaiôueTv, to which
Socrates
replies
e^ y, f,-fj ^s airh
e'|
a^<piK6y(cv ayadwv (TupTiedr],
or
as it is immediately
:
explained,
7 fx-q Trpoa-eija-ofieu avrcf kcHWos
fj
KTXvv ^ irXodTOv
56âu ^ Kai
ri
aWo Tuv toiovtwv, since
among all these things there
is none which is not
the source
of much evil. Far from
e<
-f)
mg,
deny,
this proceeds
on the distinct understanding

that hap-
piness
the highest good

ethi^cs invariablv
presuppose neither is it called
simply an afi(f>i\oyou ayadhv
except in the case that it is
comis
which Greek
;
pounded
of afi<t>i\oya ^yaSa, i.e

of such things as mider
certain
circumstances lead to evil, and

are not simply ^.yadh, but
some-
times KaKi. Still less is

this
statement at variance
with
passages which estimate
the
value of every thing
and of
every action by its
consequences, a standard beinothe
very thing which
SocratSs is
here laying down.
As riato has already remarked, Rep. ii. 362, E.
PhcTdo
Jîi'tuo,
68 D.
^
'
167
Chap.
Yll.
SOCRATES.
J58
CHAP,
_I^
deciding the question as

experience, and afterwards
unisuited to the principle of
to what maxims are
the consequences
legislation, having regard to
versal'
universally adopted
which would follow were they
contradiction in the same writer, at
Is there not a
outrance against Eudtemoone time waging war a
the belief in the existnc<
nism, at another founding
of
God on
the
to
worth?
Is
asserting the
\
"^
'.
at the
demand
a bliss
for
corresponding
reason, ii
not the critic of pure
anc
independent existence of a thing
denying that
same time unconditionally
it ca,
contradiction so blatant
be known, entangled in a
opinion that if it real!
that Fichte was of the
existence of a thing, h
assumed the independent
a strange coir
work of
would rather regard it as the
Can the historia
cadence, than of human brains?
sa
the philosopher of Konigsberg
make
therefore
what he did not say
Can he
violently set asid
instead of explaimng them

these contradictions
that the same thm
would it be so inconceivable
And
doctrine ? The phil<

should be true of the Socratic
conduct upon knowledg
sopher wishes to build moral
conception of knowledge
In point of form his
includes besides philosophic

so indefinite, that it
skill derived from e
convictions, every kind of
In point of matter
perience.'
similar indetimteness.
tical
what is
Cont
r,
from
subject matter of pra
is
147
suffers
the u.
the good, and the good is
But
the same thing the expedient.^
knowledge
f d, or
The
it
149, 4
and
2.
good o
Tlie identity of the
presappo:
the useful is also
i^co3,sisrs^-cr
of sochatic morality.
]o9
what
this consists,
Socrates according
to all accounts
has no expressed
with sufficient
pLsion
all
ambig-uity in his pfhiVc

from whiJh we can
avot
IttrT;
of History,
ot
historv
to
^ ^^^*
^"""T'
^'''''
^ ^^"^ S-ates
^
wTh sonae
with
certainty, he does
not even ô
''"P'*""' ''"^
""^
eSr all h
"''"'^^
nate
natetndl
and iinal^ purpose is
^0
''^^
*'^'
*''
^-"-
Still
their ulti-
impossible for his

unsvste
naticand casual ethical

theories, nnsuppor
ed bTlnv'
omprehensive psychological
research.
other
nds having to do
with man's well-being
Vnce
ntt
^^^"^""^
portThatXhT '"'""'
-depenUy
P"-P^' '-"^d moral

appears as a means
towards
'""'"'as attaining
,iu^w.l
leseends.'
,.
If (,hprpfi^v<>
'
+ J. "^'^^-ê'ôp'ôn reports a number
<?
Socratic
dialogues in which
thing are so^pr
-tivity
^tivitv Itself
i t,f
tHe feocratic basis

of '^LJiicb,
ethics
hui
w^ have
i.
out we
^^^
no
to question the
accnmp^
^f
^
of his description,
^^^"^^^J
PDorterl as
n n>t is i.
pported
by many traces in
Plato, nor yet to
lust
yhi?lit
re only the
^y
beginnings of dialogues
the renl
on the contrary
is
vouched
;epion of tl.e useful

s
ewliat extended
tliere.
Compare the sound
remarks
^rnmpell, Gesch. d
Prak-t
.
:
'
r. 138, resuitin^lln
bocrates made no
^^-
such
for
nK.'
by the circum-
*o
i^S th/'""^"^^^ T'^'''
belonging to
'-^^
^'x
virtue.
otler .ood
r.i
f'''''^
'^^
/^^'
^-^^^
'a"
for the
''^^^^
^^X^'t'"^ T''^'^^''
"'"^^^
expedient
^'
^^^
<
Chap.
vn.
SOCRATES.
160
Chap.
VII.
side
the Socratic schools side by
and the criticism of
with the morals of the Cynics
found too for the Cyrenaie
the Megarians, a place was
that the founders of these
doctrine of pleasure ; and
were firmly persuaded that
schools to all appearance
Socratic teachreproduced the true spirit of the
Stance,' that
among
they
this
no foothold,
that teaching afforded them
In
phenomenon would be hard to understand.
its
essence
ing.
Had
selfish
the
Socratic
morality
is
anything but
prevent its
fact does not, however,
theoretical
form of Eudaemonism in its
That
assuming the
not complain of it as wanting

as wanting in philosophicin moral content, but
explanation.
We do
precision.
D. FarticuXar
moral
re-
of moral actions was

give a systematic account
His views
of Socrates.
not a part of the intention
To
lations.
To which Hermann, Plat. i.

attention.
257, rightly draws
writer
this
however,
When,
^
of utility
finds in the principle
(Ibid. p. 254 Ges. Abh. 232)

call it
or as he prefers to
predominence of relative
found in
(iii. 8, 4-7;
Memorabilia
the
in
10,12; iv. 6,9; 2, 13), nor
Plato
of
(p.
Major
the Hippias
trine neither to be
latter by the way a

It if
very doubtful authority.
288)the
indeed stated in these passages^,

the
beautithat the good and the
point
value not merely a weak
beautifa
and
good
only
are
Socrates, ful
in the philosophy of
by virtue
an infor certain purposes
time
same
the
at
but
ever]
that
not
but
use,
one of their
stance of Socratic modesty,
of these attribute;
application
wherein
feels inclined to ask,
only a relativ(
consist/ to a subject has
does this modesty
no circum
Under
validity.
And when he connects here- stances would the passag'
with the more general doctrine, authorise a distinction betweêi
the
constituting in his view
bo
Socratic and the
bo- the
the
between
main difEerence
one of tii
philosophy
phistic
Sophiscratic dialectic and the
of the Sophist
foundation ot characteristics
tic, and also the
their allowm
in
consisting
on_ the
the Socratic teaching
value to a
conceptions, only a relative
truth of universal
principles
moral
and
scientific
appears to advocate a doc;
he
CENTAL INDEPENDENCE.
161
were fi-om time to time

expanded as occasion
required
Chance has to a certain
extent, decided which
oflt
dialogues should come
down to us
Still ,f
v
that Socrates kept
thos^bjermo::;^;
cially
view, to which he
preference according
to
is
seciired
^^^ ^"-i "^^^
by the control of his

wants and delt;.
3Sr;1r'"'''^'
'"'""^^'^"''^ '^f
ship
Lrel 3d^
Xenophon.
:\::rrrr
s
constantly revertlnl
bv
e^d'ated commonwealth.
regulated
"''^'^^
-ninfrien
the public weal

by a
To these maybe
added
exceeded the range

of the ordinary
morality of the
ffreeks by requiring
love for
enemies
Not only was Socrates

himself
lenial
ntr
,.
<
a mnH.i
"''ând abstemiousness
""*'"ess, but
Dut he endeavoured
,,
to
ânabstemio^nessinthetir^^^
ill:!
In tt,^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-^'--^
P'* "^' ^^d

occupied
P eu was nearlv
neaily the same as
that which aft,ards gamed such
importance for the
s;hoo,f ;
e
.1
" *'^
'^''**""' P!'
.Sp,
y,/^^X,
^f
'PT. Ap,,^, ,7,,
fmto,t9,
diet the
k'nd of knowledge.
S!'''"t
" /'bove quoted passage
'"
This does not eon
assertion that aU
te consist, in
knowledî'
Socrates had at a.,

reflected
.,.,
conviction
of
the
ZlT''"?'' ''''''"'''' ^^J-VS^rafCwlX'*'^^'-^"*-
S'^f'"'''^
"^"^^
SOCRATES.
162
Chap.
vn.
man can only become master

the Cjnics and Stoics;
by the
independent of wants, and
of Mmself by being
conwhile depending on the
exercise of his powers;
resembles a
of the body, he
ditions and pleasures
slave
'
philosopher
who
considers knowledge to
highest good, will

--^^^^''^'^^'ZlZ
by the desu^^
uninterrupted
mind's devoting itself,
pursuit of truth
senses,^ to the
and appetites of the
thing; and the less value
^preference to every other
more
things as such and the
he attaches to external
happiness to be bound^ .^
exclusively he conceives
mo e
condition of man,' the
with the intellectual
into
carry these principles
feel the call to
Lthe
îU he
of
himself independent
by really making
which
Other motives, however,
xternal worli
Practice
erv d
moralists of a later epoch,

a standard for
He was not only an
Socrates.
were unknown to
but
pleasures of the senses,
to the
Iscetic in relation
than
delayed less strictness
-ig^^t^-^-^f;;;
from -Jypied, neither shrinking

himseh
To continue master of
needful.
f '/^^^
feeling it
clearness of
by the lucid
enjoyment,
iu he midst of
moderation
the aim which his
his thought-that^was
proposed to
itself."^
11 i. 2, 29
in particular, iv.
ii. 1,
111-
5,
l^^^^^^g'
bymp- o,
^J^^^^^^
iSes'îrd ^hiwithatTaSa
ormodevation mates man
makes
whilst moderation
"lave,
free,
Mm
^,p,îa
he continues
ffo*'""
S rohuav.ioucanahrohs
any one
.M;
^^^
^^^
what,
?uled by the desire of
Plf-fJ
|ee pp.
^ P-
3. 15,.
i
,
' '
FUIENDSHIP.
163
Strongest appears this

character of the So.v.f
ôcratic
abstinence in the
tne language
lano-ncr.^ v.
he uses in referpnp^ f^
-sensual impulses.
However exemplarv hi
^"^^^^'^ ^^'^ wn conduct in this respect
<
m.v h.
^rr-
MnXl
prove a
eet
thought of his moral
teachlg
purity as freedom
of mind
not so
is
îiÎ
". "^
I ^'^ '*"''*
alit?ree:ive?1tsT''r"^'''^"" ^^"-'^ "^
^^^âaj lemarked,
can only de.
-nd thiQ
-na
tnis v.i
relation on the o-rmmr] ^^ -^
"^
g^ôînd of Its
advantas-es
iill thprp
..o
1.
têre can be no
^
mistaking the foot fi.
l'
-,
fern.
1.
-5...c^re.
3,
U:
..i.,
oi;'tco
^>
5^ âi
,^;^
th.
the
-;
SeoMe.ou ToC ^c^â,,,

>^ ^^
ô.|.ro;;;/..;,^,5e^..o,5^,/
râyâra Trapeyoi
The lt
l-^-k applied partly
to tte
luchcial working/of
pis!
which makes a slave
'>
of
and deters him
;>
from
^t
IS good,
and partly /S
.
J^
harm
i
it
does to property,
incm danger and
trouble
^^ ^"Joyment,
.vjiich oof n
f"^"^'^ ^^^ procured in n
ZTo"'' ^^"^P^^^" "tanner from
^""^
5%T"'n
^^'^
Pvn?.
^'^^^- "'
"^"^
will
^^^" b'
be .een hereafter.
2
^^lîch t)ie
"''"^","^ ^^^^^
Principles
SOCRATES.
164
community
:h.p.
Chap.
more extended
inconceivable without a
become, too a
These personal relations
of life.
arls
proportion as the thrnker
he more necessary in
and feels a
his own thinking
to be satisfied with
others and
in common w.th
need for investigation
the caje
Just as
of ideas.
for mutual interchange
pursuit
league, from a common
of the Pythagorean
of clanreUgion, a lively feeling
of mLlIty and
and brotherhood was
fondness for friendship
like causes produced
tdoped, as in other cases, too,
the blendmg
the Socratic school
like results, so, in
the ground of.
intellectual interests was
of moral and
with the
connection of the pupils
a more intimate
than could hav
teacher, and amongst themselves,
intellectual
association of a purely
ira
edited from an
be aske
The .uestion can hardly
character.
whjc
whether the
with him, which afterwards ;
condetermined Socrates to a
need of friendship
-,uuy
need of a common
tinuous dialogue, or the
having a natural turn
drew him towards all
came
first
t^-a
the
this-and this it is
b
philosophic lover dra^n
consists
His peculiarity rather
lich makes him
his research dispense

nor in his intercourse
in
Plato-that he could neither
others,
with association with
with research.
are found impressive
Accordingly in Socrates
eusst;:
^
a.
fo\he value and nature
a\o
dis-
of friendship^^
tm
that
comes back to the point,
In these he always
virtuous met.
exist amongst
friendship can only
necessary
altogether natural and
S"
for
them
Mem.
ii. 4:-6.
FRIENDSJIIP.
166
true fnends he
..y., will do everything for
o.e anotiier.
Virtue and active
benevolence are the only
means for securing friends.
From this platform the
'
prevaihng custom
Ch...
V"-
'~
then criticised. Socrates

not
only allows friendship
to assume the Greek
form oU
atfection for boys and
men, but he adopts that
form
of .t lm,lf, hardly
only out of mere
deference to
others.
In applying, however,
his own moral princples to this relation,
he opposes the prevaSing
errors and demands
a reformation, in order
that the
sensual conception cf
Eros may be transformed
into
he moral conception
of Friendship.^
True love he
Glares can only then be
said to exist when the
g'ood
rf the loved
olyect is sought
disinterestedly ; not
hen, with reckless
selfishness, aims are
pursued and
is
ineans
employed by which both

persons become con-
'
"" "7 '*'""

^"^y ^y ^" ""-Ifi^l^ Jove
!
an fidelity
and constancy be secured.
The plea that
e complaisance of
the one buys the
kindly offices
f another for
its complete training
is wholly a mis^lên one
for immorality and
immodesty can never
irS
means
moral ends.*
seems that with these
principles Socrates
enunciating to his
cotemporaries
to
It really
>
a new truth or
'
'Similar
explanations are
rked into the
Platonic Lysis,
t probably
in too free a man
'
for ns to be able
t^âfn
tlienr
any
in/ormS
Pecting Socrales
ê,i.
Symp.
ôcratic.
8, 12,
Mem.
the lead
'^
90
ii
31
27
'>7
Svmp ^,
'^piP-
17"'^'"
^
".
ov yap
oi6v re
'
-^^''--oC.ra
i^yaBhu rh.
'''' ^^
<^Xvi^rlau
.T::i:/::^'^"''
nal aKpaai'au
?''"'
''^"^'"'"^ ""'
^^^
P- ^^'
"-
'irapex6-
"'^^-^/^^ô"
rhv
r
%^
r,,
the State.
SOCRATES.
266
memories one long sinc^

On the other hand, in his low estimate
at least recalling to their
Chap.
^n.
forgotten.^
of marriage he agreed with his fellow-countrymen.

This was no doubt partly the cause of the Greek
affection for boys
partly, too,
was a consequence,
it
Whilst assuming in women a

even
moral disposition similar to that of men,^ whilst
maintaining with intellectual women an instructive
favoured thereby.^
interchange of opinions, he still speaks of married,

the husband of
life in terms more in keeping with
He
Xanthippe, than with the friend of Aspasia.

allows that a clever
woman
is as
useful for the house-
hold as a man, and he reproaches
men for
not caring^
about the education of their wives,^ but he considers

and
the procreation of children the end of marriage/
life.^
his own conduct shows little love for domestic
His
social
and his personal
instincts are satisfied
men
friendly intercoru'se with
by
in their society he
means of fulfilling his peculiar mission as an

educator of mankind apart herefrom, with the pecuand not the
liarity of a Grreek, he considers the state,
sees a
"
family, to be the chief object of moral action.
Conf. Plato, Symp. 178, C.
217 E
Conf. Plato, Symp. 192, A.
3
gge p. 145, 2.
*
Xen CEc' 3, 10 but the
question may be raised, in how
far the substance of these re-
ISO C
'
'
marks applies to Socrates himSymp. 2, 9.

self.
5
Mem.
ii. 2, 4.
If in addition to the trait

described by Plato, Phado, 60,
e
Xanthipp
(which has no pretensions t(
great tenderness) be consider
A., the character of
the joking character ot tn<

conversation in Xen. Symp. ^:
into tbil
10, being thrown
scale against the passages ii;
Plato, Apol. 34, D., the balanc
of probability is, that Socrate
public
lived almost entirely
and almost never at home,
THE STATE.
j^.^
Of the importance
of the state, and the obligaChap

tions towards the same, a very
high notion indeed is _ ^"''
entertained by Socrates
he who would live amongst
:
men, he
must
says,
He
as ruled. 1
live in a state, be it as a ruler

or
requires, therefore, the
tional obedience to the laws, to

such
most uncondian extent that
the conception of justice is

reduced to that of obedience to law,2 but he desires every
competent
man
to take part in the administration

of the state, the
well-being of
all
individuals depending on the well-
being of the community.3
These principles were

by him throughout life.
really carried into practice
With devoted
were
self-sacrifice his duties as
citizen
even death being endured in order

that
he might not violate the laws.^
Even his philosophic
labours were regarded as the
fulfilment of a duty to
fulfilled,
the state ;^ and in Xenophon's

Memorabilia
we see
him using every opportunity of
impressing able
people for political services, of
deterring the incompetent, of awakening officials
to a sense of their
duties, and of giving them
help in the administration of their offices.^
He himself expresses the
political character of these
efforts most tellingly, by
including 7 all virtues under the
conception ""of 'the
ruling art.^
Mem.
'
Sep
ê^v
'
11
'76
''
111.
â..A.,
. 1^
'
'^'
'
,
001
], 12.
iiQ
See PD 65 7
mem.
^
ii.
r9
j_,
Wx.^ in Mem. ii.

IV. 2, n. Plato, Euthyd.
^l
^,
'
'^0^''^"^^
-1
stands
for
Accordingly the story told

^'''''"^
^^^^-
^-
^7, 108,
and
,
j^
^ j^.
son. in Stab. Flodl 40
9) tha^
in answer to the questîon,
to
'
'
;;
SOCRATES.
68
Whilst thus doing homage to the old Greek view

of the state, in other respects he deviates from it
If knowledge is the condition of all true
widely.
Chap.
J]h-^
^
virtue, it
is
also the condition of all political virtue
the more so in proportion as the conception of

Hence everyone
political virtue is the higher one.
all
who
,
aspires to the position of a statesman is required
by a thorough
and a course of intellectual labour and
to prepare himself for this calling

self-sifting
conversely, Socrates only recognises capacity or right

to political position where this condition is fulfilled.
Neither the possession of power, nor the good fortune
of acquiring
it
by
lot or
knowledge makes the
popular election, but only
ruler.^
what countrv he belonged, he

replied that he was a citizen of
the
command
cannot
world,
credit,
and the question
itself
sounds strange as addressed to

Socrates in Athens. In Plato's
Crito and Apol. 37, C, he uses
language very different from
Ihe later cosmopolitan philosoProbably one of these
phers.
attributed to him the above
giQjy^
1
Mem.
iii.
6,
particularly
towards the end; iv. 2, 6

See p.
Plato, Symp. 216, A.
55 Q
10 âaiXels 5e
Tovs ra ffKriTTTpa
^yovras <pv ^hai, ov5h rovs virh
ru^v TvxovTU'u aipêivras. ov8h
Tovs KK-r]po> Kaxovras, ouSe rovs
fiiaaafiiuovs, ou5e robs iâTrari}a-auras, a\\a tovs i-Kicxranhovs
&pxeiv in all other cases obedience is given to men of pro2
Mem.
iii. 9,
Kal &pxot''ras
oi)
'
fessional
knowledge ;which
As regards the
rule of
then iUustrated by the example of physicians, pilots,

and others. Similarly in Mem.
is
iii.
iv. 2, 2
4
iii. 5, 21
1,^^
Ihid. 4, 6 K^w I7W76, ws otov
&p ns Trpoarareirj ihv yiyvâiq}
re Siv Se? koX Tavra îropiieo-eai
:
ayadhs h.u e^rj TrporrraSimilar views are advocated by Plato with the same
Uv-qTai,
rvs.
illustrations,
Polit.
297,
D.,
and they appear to have been

in the school
Accordingly the
generally held
of Socrates.
accuser Xen. Mem. 1. 2, 9,

charges Socrates with having
contributed to bring existing
contempt^:
into
institutions
XiyoiV ws fiu}pa>u is robs fxh' Trjs
ttSkô^s 6.pxovTas airh Kvdfiov KaBSc /x^Seô
KvlBepwhrr]
iffTaffQai,
QiMiv Kexcvaeai Kvafxevr^^ ^r,Se

reKTOvi jutjS' avKv^V H-V^' ^'^ '^^roiadra, and Xeuophon does
not deny the accuracy of this
statement, but only attempts
THE
the majority, his
lor a
{STATE.
judgment
is, that it is impossible

Chap
statesman desirous for right and justice
to hold _J^^-
his
own
else
can an upright
against it; hence, where
man
it prevails,
what
do but withdraw to private
life?
political principle
was here advocated, which

brought Socrates not only into
collision with the
Athenian democracy, but with the
whole political
administration of Greece.
In place of the equality
of all, or the preference
accorded to birth and
wealth, he demanded an aristocracy
of intelligence
in place of citizen-rulers, a
race of intellectually educated officials in place of a
government of tribes
and people, a government by
professional
;
adepts,
which Plato, consistently developing

the principles
of Socrates, attempted to
realise in his philosophic
community.'
Socrates is here
observed
in
the track which the Sophists

being themselves the first to
first
offer
following
struck out,
and to declare
necessary a preparatory intellectual

training for a
statesman's career.
Still what he aimed at was
in
pomt of substance very different from
what they
aimed
For him the aim of
at.
politics was not

power of the individual, but the well-being
of the'
community the object of training was
not to acquire
tlie
personal dexterity, but to attain

truth ; the means of
3ulture was not the art of
persuasion, but the science
)f what really is.
Socrates aimed at a knowledge
by
neans of which the state might

be reformed, the
SOCRATES.
170
Sophists
Chap.
vn.
at
one by means of which
it
might
be-
governed.
The
aristocratic tone of this view of the state-
appears to be contradicted by the ease with which

rose
Socrates
above the
social
of his
prejudices
by the
what it may,
nation, meeting the ruling contempt for trade
maxim
that no useful activity, be
it
but only idleness and activity need call forth shame.

For just as
Still both come from a common source.
Socrates will have the position of the individual in
the state settled according to his achievements, so
conversely he will have every action appreciated
which leads to any good result.^ Here, as elsewhere,

the conception of good is his highest standard.
One consequence of the political character of

Greek morality was that the problem proposed to the
virtuous man was customarily summed up as doing
(4) Love
for enemies.
'
good to friends and harm to foes. This very definition is put into the mouth of Socrates ^ by XenophoUj
who likewise considers it most natural to feel pain
the success of enemies.^
of the earliest
On
and most
the other hand, in onj
historical of Plato's dij
In keeping as the son of a poor labourer.

2, 56.
he urges a friend Xenophon and Plato as men of
rank and property.
(ii. 7) to employ the maids of
2 Mem. ii. 6, 35
koI '6ti iyvoihis house in wool work, and
1
Mem.
with
i.
this,
another (ii. 8) to seek for occupation as a steward, refuting

in both cases the objection,
that such an occupation was
unbecoming
Xenophon
view
and
for
held
men.
free
diiferent
(see (Ec. 4. 2,
and
6, 5),
well known that

Plato did also. Socrates speaks
it
is
Kas avSphs aperrjv eivai viKav rovs

fxhv ipiXovs u TToiovfra rovs Se
i^(^dpovs KaKcJJs.
'
Mem.
iii.
9,
<^Q6vov
8e-
êV tiio,
iîipi(XKv avrhv ovra, ovr fiipTOiTTjr iirl (p'lKuv aTUX'C'S ovre tV
aKOTTwv
eV
o,ri.
e'lr},
Kvirriv
^x^pSov iVTvxiais yiyuo[J.epriv.
LOVE FOR ENEMIES.

logues,^ Socrates declares it
to be
wrong to injure
Chap
the same thing as wrong-cloinoand wrong-doing may never be

permitted, not even
towards one from whom wrong-doing
has been suffered.
The contradiction of these two
accounts is
hard to get over ^ for assuming
it to be
_J^
another
injury
is
granted
that the Socrates of Xenophon

is only speakinofrom
a popular point of view, still
the fact would Temain
that Xenophon cannot have
been conversant with
explanations such as those given
by Plato. No
doubt
Plato's account even in the

Crito cannot be regarded
as strictly conformable to
truth
still it may well be

;
questioned whether he can be
credited with such a
flagrant deviation from his
master's teaching 3
as this
would
That there is such a possibility

cannot be
we must then be content to leave
be.
denied
;
it in
uncertainty as to which were
the real principles of
Socrates on this subject.'^
334 b"*''
^^' ^'
^^^"^
''The remarV nf
^^1'-
^'
M.-
456) will not pass muster that
fhlf
f ^"f
enemies,
enemicTs
<
'iHii
''''"'^.,
"
''"^^-
*"
not ^to*""^^
to
injure
but
bu^Z
"'
as rth" ab
cî^se^nng
lin
"
T^.r/'"'^
Hxldelmmd
umi. er. AiKst. d:i^r;^""-'Krei'i'îir'

ae LLconomia
.
ica Doctrina, part

.
l84S)-that Socrates
i.
Marb.
was
P^nciple opposed to slavery.

^ê held many things
which
-^^
in
unworthy of a free-man Tt bv
">=> follow ttat he d^^
^^^'"''"^ "' slavery fand the
view that slaverv U eonfrsr-.^
""
vrould undoubtedly have

been
the whole
connection does not snit ^.^
'" mentioned.
'"
r^-^'
between
vZ
">'- -diZctfon
Oilna
a,-,/i
i
foreign
rathe*
think of the Cynfcs.
^0,,^^
to
SOCRATES.
172
CHAPTER
^^^^'
A. Suhor-
means
t/
ends in
GOD AND MAN.
ON NATURE.
CONTINUATION.
Chap.
VIII.
Enquiries into nature, we have seen, did not form

Nevertheless, the
part of the scheme of Socrates.
him to a peculiar view of

One who so thoughtfully
design.
problem of human life from all sides
Iy^q of his speculations led
nature and
its
turned over the
he did, could not leave unnoticed its countless reand judging them by the
lations to the outer world
as
standard which was his highest type the standard

could not but come to the conof utility for man
viction that the whole arrangement of nature was

subservient to the well-being of the human race, in
To
short that it was adapted to a purpose and good.^

his
mind, however,
that
all
good and expedient
is
appears of necessity to be the work of reason for

just as man cannot do what is useful without intelli;
gence, no more
exist
'
is
it
without intelligence.^
^For Socrates, as has been
already shown, understands by

the good what is useful for
gee
is
useful to
His view of nature,
crates
is
desirous of convincing-
a friend of the existence of the

Gods, and hence proposes the
question Whether more intelligence is not required to produce living beings than to produce paintings like those ot
:
T^2in.
2
what
possible for
Mem.
i.
4, 2,
in
which
the argument from analogy
most clearly brought
out.
is
So-
VIUWS OF NATURE
1
therefore,
was essentially that of a

relation of means
to ends, and that not
a deeper relation going
into the
inner bearings of the

several parts, and the
purpose
of Its existence and
growth inherent in every
natural
being. On the contrary,
all things are
referred as a
the. highest end, and

that they serve this
purpose is
also set forth simply
as a matter of fact,
and as due
to a reason which, like
an artificer, has endued
them
with this accidental
reference to purpose.
As in the
Socrafc ethics, the wisdom
regulating human actions
becomes a superficial reflection
as to the use of
particular acts, so, too,
Socrates can only conceive
of the
wisdom which formed the
world in a manner equally
p-fic.al.
He shows what care has been
taken to
'
air,
in that not only the

sun shines
by day, but
also
in that the heavenly
bodies serve for divisions
of seasons, that the
earth
the
moon and
ctZ
the stars by night
''"''
^"' "''-'
"~^^^^'
--l
"^'
^'^
change of
o? seasons prevents
excessive heat or cold
*'' '''''''''''' "'"''^

- derived
from cattle, from oxen,
from pigs, horses, and
other
tmZal
Sr^nrt^rralLv^ltS tl:
ê,.r..pîV^,,^/:,:f--!
.0
i.
fates
immediately
by S
with the ^êstioj^'.
aT;u<f,Ta,s^;^,(^^^3^.V^
^^
.'-* ' cofes, r, ...
9,71-'-
.also
P/uto,
TsTfJl "'"'."".' "'^'^ ''^<

''''^,P''^S-o as SItl historical
'f
ac?>^
'"'^^
'
mnnt
Ji
Chap.
ch.z
^^
~~
SOCRATES.
^^4
To prove
animals.
Chap.
ÛI-
made man,^ he
the
wisdom
refers to the
of the Craftsman
who
human
organism of the
of sense, to the
body, to the structm-e of the organs
dexterity of his
erect posture of man, to the priceless
He
hands.
the natural
in
sees a proof of a divine Provicjence
impulse for propagation and self-preser-
the fear of death.

vation, in the love for children, in
wearies of exalting the intellectual advan-
He
never
tages of man, his ingenuity, his
memory,
his intelli-
He
disposition.
gence, his language, his religious
God and in
considers it incredible that a belief in
men,
Providence should be naturally inborn in

immemorial,
and have maintained itself from time
the ripest years
clinging not to individuals only in
communities,
age, but to whole nations and
all
of their
unless
it
were true.
He
revelations vouchsafed to
appeals
men
to
also
special
for their good, either
Unscientific, doubtless,
by prophecy or portent.
became in the
these arguments may appear, still they
sequel of importance for philosophy.

As Socrates by his moral enquiries, notwithstandscientific
their defects, is the founder of a
ing
all
of the relation
doctrine of morals, so by his theory
popular
its
of means to ends, notwithstanding
the founder of that ideal view of
/ character, he is
ever after reigned supreme in the
\
'
nature which
and which with^
natural philosophy of the Greeks,
itself of so much value
all its abuses has proved
1
In
Mem
4, 12,
a remark
thepopnis found indicative of

lar character of these general
tI 5^ koX ras
considerations
:
tC^v
cK^podiaiu^v 7}dovb,s
C^fo^s Zoiva.^
&Xôjs
rov irovs xpovov,
toTs
h^v
T^^'^^tTyS',
Se <rvv.x<^^^
-niîu
Trapexe..'.
m^XP^ 7^P^ ^"^-^^
'
CONCEPTION OF GOD.
for the empxr,cal study
of nature.
17.5
True, he was not

himself aware that he
was .êngaged on natural
^cience, having only
considered the relation of
means
to ends in the world,
in the moral interest
of piety,
fetill from our
previous remarks it follows
how closely
his view of nature
was connected with the
theory of
fhe knowledge of
conceptions, how even its
.
Chap
^"r'
defects
were due to the universal

imperfection of his intellectual method.
'"?"
"'"' '''" "'
most
y speaks of Gods
in a popular
doubt thinking, in the
t o- B. Ooa
that Socrates "'^^''^
^'^""''^
selvet of"''
selves
of creative reason, the
reply
is,
way
as many,-
no
'Zt'
"'
first place,
of the Gods of the ?^ ^<'-^'';

multiplicity the idea of he
oneness of God,' an idea
""*
not unknown to the
Greek
re igion, rises with
him into prominence, as is
not
infrequently met with at
that time.< In one
passage
he draws a curious
distinction between the
creator
ad ruler of the universe and
the rest of the God.
Have we not here that
union of polytheism
and
popular faith.^
Mem.
i.
'
Mem.
iv. 3
Compare
'
'-on
to
1,
19
Mem.
Zeller's
invisible
":;
iv. 3,
1 1
.""' ""^"^^
Introdnc
GriecheiT
H7-
-/ê.raêa,t,t
'
16
Philos. d.
ov <pp6ur^cr,v.
Sl^/
Outof this
13
;'o?t
'
Tlie
^^
^^"^
Pn^
It txt
f TT^"^" '"'^^" ^^^--
li'^^'r'
L"
"'^"^^ '^'
"^' Mî/
"^^'^^
^^ i hu.
-^^'x-. 6-rroy
V'P'''''^
-g;-t(Forsch. 220) to prove

that this language
^^/^^'^^^.^^ôn i"s
Pi
''^'
'TT
inconctus've
'
is
spurious,
own
^"
sliowing
^^^^^ru^s
""'''
"^^^^^^^
SOCRATES.
176
a Greek by his
monotheism, so readily suggested to
VIIL^ mythology, which consisted in reducmg the many
CHAP
Oods
(2)
many instruments
of the
One Supreme
to the notion of One

In as far as Socrates was led
of the
by the reasonable arrangement
God
conceived
as the
Reason of
the world.
to be the
Supreme Being
formed to himself of this

world, the idea which he
Heraclitus and Anaxagoras)
Being (herein resembling
which he conceives
was as the reason of the world,
relation to the world that the
of as holding the same
Herewith are most closely
soul does to the body.^
and pure ideas of Ood as a being
connected his high
present everywhere.;
invisible, all-wise, all-powerful,
visible, produces visible
As the soul, without being
As
the world.
the body, so does G-od in
dominion over the small
the soul exercises unlimited
belongs to it, its indiviportion of the world which
dominion over the whole
dual body, so Ood exercises
in all parts of its body,
world As the soul is present
And li
Universe.
present throughout the
effects in
so
God
is
confined, can perceive
is
the limitations by which li

the soul, notwithstanding
what is distant, and have
kinds, surely the
thoughts of the most varied
(hp6viiJ.6v
S^
cw 5e ffahrhv
&\\0dL
TL SoKeTs ^xîu,
Mem.
i.
4,
ohdafxod
Ktt'
dual
ohd'eu
cppdvitiov
oXei
-^"S^ '^^ v-rrepfieyee-n
(the elements,
KoX TTXrieos &ireipa
parts of the
or generally, the
Ttva outcos
acppoaiuvv
world) 5i'
KaratiaOe
17
ixîv
ehrdKTCVs
oUi
rb (Xbv
ivuu
vovs
6 (Ths
:
'6ri
KoL
C^rai
ôvMrai
oUffOai oZv XP^
Sttcos
ffSiixa
ixtraxîpi' '^'J" ^^
Tcp 7ra(/Ti (ppSu-ncriv
know
ra irdura
o-K(t>
Uv ahr-^ T]^v ^, ovrca rlOeffdai
kc
UvaffQai h
fx^ rh 'ahv ixiv ofxixa
TToXKa ffrddia iiiKvelaOai, rhvj^
eJvi,
Tov dOv o<p9a\tJ.hv aUvarov
(T\
jWTjSe,
afxa izavra bpav
^
Twv
UvaaOai
Trept
tV
iv AlyinrTCf) Koi 2iKA.

(ppovriCîv, t)?*' 6 re,
deov (ppou-nffiu 1X7] iKavû eivai

irdvTwv iirifji.iM'io'Oai.
a/-,
'
WORSHIP OF GOD.
ledge and care of
I77
God must be
able to embrace all

Besides had not a belief in the
providential care of G-od been already 2
taken for granted,
in the argument for His existence
from the relation
of means to ends ?
Was not the best explanation of
this care to be found in
the analogous care which
the human soul has for the
body ? A special proof
of this providence Socrates
thought to discern in
oracles ^ by them the most
important things, which
could not otherwise be known,
are revealed to man
It must then be equally
foolish to despise oracles,
or
to consult them in cases
capable of being solved by
and moreJ
Chap.
__Z^
Dur
is
own
From this conviction followed

a matter of course, the
worship of God, prayer'
reflection/
iacrifices,
and
obedience.-^
As to the form and manner of

worship, Socrates,
^ we already know, wished every one to
follow the
ustom of his people. At the same
time he propounds
.urer
maxims corresponding with
rod
He would
âst
of
hat IS
'Compare the words in Mem.

18
If you apply to the
ds for prophecy, yvd,<rv rh
ov STi^TOfTodrou Ka\ ToiodrSu
rS>u
4,
cicrff
'dfxa irdura bpau koX
vra uKovfiv Kal irauTaxov Trape?-
em tiv
e,S.>u
X^s
Mem.
iv.
2.\so
i.
Conf
1, 6.
yvdxrri,
tus fiopcpas
Compare
Seep. 149,
19
Mem
iv
r,
P-
76 7
'",<
4
4,
77
Q
'
o
q
^'
2, 14.
ii.
ad-
and 1
12 ^d
i^
and iT
/
i.
16
i
Ibid. iv. 3,
^,
Ibid.
is
And, with
65, 5.
,Ka\ S,fMa. nduTcû iir,f.,\,:adai

i the words, Ibid. iv. 3, 12:
dvafxeprjs,
it so fully ?
14.
Tiu,
S4yh\-nev\eya,
idea of
who but God knows what
for
intageous for man, or knows
own
his
men pray
for particular,
external goods, but only
to ask for
all for
good
not have
' ,
ii
^^'
C^) The
Zt"^"^
SOCRATES.
178
Chap.
^^J^-
of
regard to sacrifices, he declared that the greatness
the spirit
the sacrifice is unimportant compared with
pious the man,

of the sacrificer, and that the more
so that it
the more acceptable will the offering be,
correspond with his means.^
Abstaining on principle
seeking
from theological speculations,^ and not
to
fellow men
explore the nature of Grod,but to lead his
combining the
to piety, he never felt the need of
into one
various elements of his religious belief
consistunited conception, or of forming a perfectly
which
ent picture, and so avoiding the contradictions
that belief may easily be shown to contain.^
0. Dignity
qfrruin.
mo7i;ality.
A
T^gfore
man.^
certain divine element Socrates, like others

Mm, thouffht to discern within the soul of
Perhaps with this thought
is
connected
his
immediate revelations of God to the human

vouchsafed to himself.
soul, such as he imagined were
Welcome as this theory must have been to a philosomoral and
pher paying so close an attention to the
belief in
nature of man,
spiritual
it
appear that
does not
argument.
Socrates ever attempted to support it by
proof of
Just as little do we find in him a scientific
was inclined
the immortality of the soul, although he
opinion of the dignity
to this belief partly by his high
'
Mem.
i.
3,
ggg p 139^
iv. 3, 17.
2.
have all'tbe less reason

for supposing with Denis (His3
We
toire des Thiories et des Idees

morales dans I'Antiquite, Paris
Soet Strasb. 1856, i. 79), that
crates, like Antisthenes, spared
polytheism from regard to the
needs of the masses, whilst
believing in only one God.

This assumption would belie
not only the definite and re-
peated assertions of Xenophon,

but also Socrates' unflmchmg
love of truth.
Mem.
iv.
,,,^
kKXa
m^j
Kai audpwirov ye ^pvx^, ezTrep ri Ml

&\\o rHu avOpo^mvccv, tov dmv
ixir4xî.
iMMORrALirr of the soul.

of
man,
partly, too,
on grounds of expediency.'
Nay
^'' ^P'g7,ât a moment when
tie
.r?." of a
witholdmg
conviction can least
be supposed he
expressed himself on this
question with
dtb
and caut.on.3 The
language, too, used by
the
Cyrus .n Xenophon ^
agrees so well herewith,
thai w!
are dnven to assume
that Socrates
mS
dig
considered
tê
existence of the soul
after death to be
indeed pro!
belonged no doubt to
those problems
which surpass
sZas
the powers of man.
'
Compare Hermann
P^f
in
Mar-
'^1.?'^'"' description of
*
Socrates
rel ^'^T"^^^
exclusive autho,
rifv of Xenophon,
rity
Plato, and
Aristotle,
later wdters
'"" -""^t P'^rt token
trom these sources,
and when-
''L^''''^''''^^^^ôg, 1835-6,
40, C.
tion.
after his
tt,
nfV"*
condemna-
mat
" Death is either

an external
sleep or a transition
to a new
lite,
but
m neither case
is it
evil.
Z''lr
an
ever
S J\
sible that
(It
particularly
8
IQ
with Plato's. Phaido,
.u, 105
,, ,.,
C)
In conclusion, the
possibili'tv of
the sours dying
^'^f^ro
^^^
Conf. 37 B
IS feared as the
greatest
evil,
whilst It mav be
the
greatest good
iych 5h
têm
them
oOtw Kai
oXofiai
.
:
104^..
104, 7 (travelling
K
^^j^^
^'?^""'^^^ between
?>.
the statements
in Cic
mLî V.V^^'^^^^-^v?v ;V^' ^f- Cyrop.

^'/^^'^P^t-^8'2;
oijK
ovk e/StVat.
the
(Ûlt. 111.
-^
'i
A +u lo
;>,n;,
that hocrates tauo-ht
thp
^dentity of justice
and happi!
PP
ness cursm^ th,
death
place
ty^ZZtl,?'''''^'' ^*^^
'
A.
utter-
^schines and others,

whijh
by our authorities!
category
either case death is

stated to
be the end of all evils.
21),
however, just pos-
some genuine
^"""ed
w'ith1heSdy
Apol.
"*'
ances of Socrates
may have
been preserved in the
writings
proofs.
(Compare
It goes beyond
them, there
no guarantee for
its acu-
.s
Cyrop. viii. 7, 10.

Several
reasons are first adduced
in fa
vour of immorlality,
but they
need to be <,n-eatly
strengthened
to be anything like
rigid
*
i.
is
of no gôd
Chap.
VIJI.
SOCRATES.
is the only good,
ignorance the only evil, and
that riches and noble birth do
intelligence
to fools); 71, 16 (truth and

virtue are identical) in Pint.
Ed. Pu. c. 7, p. 4, on education
(the passage in c. 9 is an inaccurate reference to Plato, Gorg.
Cons, ad Apoll. c. 9,
470, D.)
106, that if all sufferings
;
more harm than good in Diog.

or to abii. 32, that to marry
stain from marriage is equally
bad: in Gell. xix. 2, 7 {Athei).
;
p.
iv.
be equally divided,
every one would gladly pre-
had
to
Pint.
own:
God
tion of
Floril.
Legg.
Num.
E.), that selfthe best form of
c. 5,
p. 550,
Dam.
Jo.
ii.
13,
126,
Mein, that philosophy

ought to confine itself to o, ri
p. 221,
TOi iv ixeydpoicn, kukou t ayaGou

(others attribute
re Te'ruKTai
;
the words to Diogenes or Aristippus) Cic. de Orat. i. 47, 204

Socrates said that his only wish
was to stimulate to virtue
where this succeeded, the rest
:
followed of itself (a statement

thoroughly agreeing with the
views of the Stoic Aristo, and
probablv coming from him.
Conf Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans,
.
&c., p. 60; in Diog. ii. 30, blaming

thesophistrv of Euclid in Diog.
;
31 (undoubtedly from some

Cynic or Stoic treatise) that
ii.
is
in
40, 8,
apud
blaming the
Teles,
Athenians for banishing their

best, and honouring their worst
Floril.
626,
government
%ob. Floril.
deprecating
in Demct. Byz. quoted
ano-er
h/niog. ii. 21,(Gell N. A. xiv.
Exc. e
6, 5), 3Iuson. in the
Vind.
i.
restraint
Ibid. ii. 356,

(conf. Plato,
26
48,
the looking glass
4,
live to
;
Ser.
And. Poet.
men
Conj. Prsec.
ii.
33
c. 25,
p. 140 {Diog.
Exc. e Floril. Joan. Damasc. ii.
Stoh. Floril. ed. Mein.
B. 98
on the moral use of
202),
iv.,
his
serve
158
p. 21), that most

in
eat. whilst he eats to live
Stob. Ekl. i. 54, giving a defini-
men, and the apophthegmata

in Valer. Max. vii. 2, Ext. 1.
large number of sayings
purporting to come from Socrates are quoted by Plutarch
in his treatises and by Stobaeus

some, too,
in his Florilegium
howthem,
of
Most
Seneca.
by
ever, are colourless, or else
;
they aim at
being epigram-
matic, which is a poor substitute for being genuine. Altogether their number makes
them very suspicious. Probably
they were taken from a collection of proverbs which some

under
later writer published
the
name
of Socratic proverbs.
ACCUHACY of XENOPJIONS description,
CHAPTEK
EETROSPECT.
18
IX.
XENOPHON AND PLATO.

AND THE SOPHISTS.
SOCRATES
Looking back from the point now reached

to the
Chap.
question raised before, as to which of his
biographers _^'
we must look to for a historically accurate
account ATrruthof Socrates and his teaching, we
must indeed admit, ^xZt' '^
that no one of
them
so satisfectory an authority as
any original writings or verbal reports
of the utteris
P^>ô!>'-'^
de-
'''''^'^''"^
ances of the great teacher would

have been.^ So
much, however, is patent at once, that
the personal
character of Socrates, as pourtrayed
by
both Xenophon
and Plato,
in all essential points, one and

the same.
Their descriptions supplement one
another
is
in
some
few points, contradicting each

other in none.
Nay
more, the supplementary portions
may be easily inserted in the general picture,
present before the eyes
of both.
Moreover the philosophy of Socrates is not
pl^^'
main represented by Plato and Aristotle

'''
in a f''
a different light from what it is
by Xenophon, pro- >^S"S
the
vided those parts only in the

writings of Plato be
t^,]frh.
"
taken into account which undoubtedly
belong to So- '^"^^''^-
"
Conf. p. 98.
SOCRATES.
and in the Socrates of Xenophon a distinction
be drawn between the thought underlying his utterances and the commonplace language in which it was
crates,
Xenophon, Socrates expresses the

opinion that true knowledge is the highest thing, and
that this knowledge consists in a knowledge of con-
Even
clothed.
in
ceptions only. In Xenophon, too,
may
be observed
all
the characteristics of that method by means of which

In his pages
Socrates strove to produce knowledge.
position
reduced to knowledge, and this

supported by the same arguments, and
virtue
likewise,
is
is
therefrom are deduced the same conclusions, as in

Aristotle and Plato. In short, all the leading features
of the philosophy of Socrates are preserved by Xenophon ; granting as we always must that he did not
understand the deeper meaning of many a saying, and

therefore failed to give it the prominence it deserved.
then for the same reason he used a <ômmonplace expression instead of a philosophical oaej
Now and
for instance, substituting for,

ing,'
with
less
Nor need we
accuracy,
'
'
All virtue
All virtue
feel surprise
is
is
a know-
knowledge.'
that the defects of the
Socratic philosophy, its popular and prosaic way of

treating things, the want of system in its method,
the utilitarian basis of
its
moral teaching should
appear more prominently in Xenophon than in Plato

and Aristotle, considering the brevity with which
Aristotle speaks of Socrates, and the liberty with
which Plato expands the Socratic teaching both in

On the other hand,
point of substance and form.
Xenophon's description is confirmed partly by indi-
XENOPHON VINDICATED.
vidual admissions
of Plato,^
partly by
183
its
truth and conformity to that picture which
make
inward
Chap.
we must
_^1
to ourselves of the first appearance of Socrates'
newly discovered principle. All then that can be conceded to the detractors of Xenophon is, that not fully
understanding the philosophical importance of his
teacher, 'he kept it in the
background in his description, and that in so far Plato and Aristotle are
most
welcome as supplementary authorities. But it cannot be allowed for one
in
Xenophon has
account of Socrates, or
impossible to gather from his description
any respect given a
that
moment
it is
that
false
the true character and importance of the doctrine of

his master.
It
phon
is
may
is
indeed be said that this estimate of Xenoat variance with the position which Socrates
known
observes
to
;
have held in history.

'
Had
As Schleiermacher
Socrates done nothing but discourse
on subjects beyond which the Memorabilia of Xenophon never go, albeit in finer and more brilliant
language,
hard to understand how it was, that

in so many years he did not empty the marketplace
and the workshop, the public walks and the schools,
by the fear of his presence how he so long satisfied
it is
an Alcibiades and a Critias, a Plato, and a Euclid

how he played the part assigned to him in the dialogues of Plato
in short, how he became the founder

and type of the philosophy of Athens.' Fortunately
in Plato himself we have a valuable testimony
to the
'
See above, pp. 80
150,
1.
Werke,
iii. 2,
250, 287.
(2) Sclilei.
""ohTctimi'
answered.
SOCRATES.
184
Chap.
IX.
To what
accuracy of Xenophon's description.
element
divine
to disclose the
when anxious
his Alcibiades appeal
concealed
does
Silenus-like
under the
appearance of the Socratic discourses ? To what

does his admirable description of the impression
What is it
produced on him by Socrates go back ?
which to his mind has been the cause of the revolu^
tion and change in the inner life of Greece
What
but the moral observations which in Xenophon form

Symp.
E.
'6Tav
'yap
aKOVu [SwKpctTOUs] iroKv /xoi

XOV ^ TOOV KOpvâVTKjOVTWV
/xaX-
>
KopSia
215,
7]
T6
KoX SoLKpva eKX^^TCtl-
TTTjSa
virh Toov
x6ya}U
rwv rovrov.
6pa>
iSd}v
&v
[jevos
ns
Kal ivrhs
irpoorov
ouSe Tedopv^rird fxov r) ûxv ouS'

TjyavaKTei ens av^pairoBcadcHs 5ia-
yadu) eo-eadai.
TTafiTrdAKovs
(similarly Euthydemus
in Xen. Mem. iv. 2, 39) aXA.'
virh Tovrovt rov Mapffvov iroWaKLS
KLfji.evov,
îwrhu
ju.7y
.
SotTTe
outco dire6r)p,
Stj
TToKKov
(JTi
yap
auajKOLêi
fxoi
5o|at
exouri ws
Îvai
ivde7)S
ifxavTOv fxev afiiKu
/ue
exa)
btxoKoy^lv
tav
avTos
ra
5'
'
en
AQrivaiwv
Mem. iv.
(conf.
6) TreirovOa 5e ivphs rovrov
[x6vov avOpdoTTUv, h oiiK &!/ ris
otoiro iv ifjLol ive^vai, rh al(TX^-
Trpdrrco
iii.
....
vecrdai birivovv
ovv
avrhv Kal
(pevyco,
tSo)
alax^Jôfxai
ra
hpairerevoj
Kal
'6rav
wij.oXoyrjfj.4va'
Kal TToXXdKis ixev 7}d4oi)s tt.v

avrhv jutj ovra iv avOpcoirois
Idoi/J-i
et S'
av ruvro yevoiro, ev ol5^ on iroXv

fxelôv Uv ax0olixT}v, ware ovk ex^,
'6
xp'hôyLai rovrca rca avQpwircf.
tiaX ol Xoyoi avrov

lb. 221, D.
ofioiSraroi elai roh îXriPo7s ro7s
Sioiyofj-ivovs Se
5ioLyojj.vois
:
exovras
TTX<H(Trov reivovras, ixaXi
Ka\ eVi
&KKOVS
avrwv yiyvo-
vovv
evdov fiovvovs evp'f](ri rwv X6ywv

Kal irXeio-i
deiordrovs
eireira
aydXfiUT aperris iv avrols exorTas!
ra
avTU iTa.(TXovTO.s\ this was not
the case with other speakers,
Koi
Se
fiev
Xov 5e
eTrl
ffKOTreiv
rw [jeXXovn KaX^
irav
offov
Trpoa'fjKet
AlberWs
Ktti
78)
objections to the above use of
these passages resolve themselves into this, that those 'elements of conversation which
rivet the soul,' which are not
altogether wanting in Xenophon, are more frequent and
noticeable in Plato, that therefore the spirit of the Socratic
philosophy
clearly in
comes
Plato.
we
(p.
more
Far from
out
grant
denying
this,
readily.
are not
The above remarks
it
directed against the
statement that Plato gives a

deeper insight than Xenophon
into the spirit of the Socratic
teaching, but against Schleiermacher's statement that the
Socrates were
discourses of
different in substance and subject matter from
those reported by Xenophon.
essentially
VALUE OF HLS METHOD.

the substance of the Socratic dialogues.
these only are dwelt upon by Socrates,
Apology
Plato's
vices
to his
1^5
These, and
Chap.
_^-
speaking in
of his higher calling and his ser-
country;
it
is
his
business to exhort
others to virtue;
and if he considers the attraction

of his conversation to consist also
in its critical attempts,2 the reference is to a process
of which many
examples are to be found in Xenophon,
that of convincing people of ignorance in the
affairs of their
calling.
The
produced by the discourses of Socrates

us, were they only of the kind
reported by Xenophon.
The investigations of Socrates
as he gives them, may often
appear trivial and
tedious
and looking at the result with reference
to
the particular case, they may really
be so.
That
effect
need not surprise
the forger of armour
who has
to wear it
attended with
must
suit the
armour
to
:^
^wl'^"
teaching
^^mT
^'"^
him
that the care of the body
many advantages
'B.lmijort-
is
that friends
be secured by kind acts and

attention
must
these and
such-like
maxims, which are often lengthily discussed

by Socrates, neither contain for us,
nor can they have
contained for his cotemporaries, anything
new.
The
important element in these inquiries,
however, does
not consist in their substance, but in
their method,
Apol. 16,
rmo*
ols
.o.
MO*
-rrphs Se rovejraK.Ao.0o.>r6.
naXiara axoKv
^'jr.^
ol
rihu
ir\ovaicoTaTU3v avTo/îaToi
ffw
aKovouTes
x^'^povi^tTttCofxûcou ruu
avepwirwv, Kal auTol TroKXdKis e>e

liifiowTai iha îrtxetpovaiu 6,\Aovs
ample of such sifting is to be

found in the conve?sation of
Alcibiades with Pericles, Mem
i.
^'
40.
Mem.
iii.
10 9
12 '4.'
<
Ibid.
i\j{^^ ii.'io'^'e
iii.
0.
'J^
^"*^'^-
SOCRATES.
18G
what was formerly unexplored hypothesis and unconscious guesswork, was now arrived
at by a process of thinking. In making a too minute
Chap.
in the fact that
^^'
pedantic application of this method, Socrates

would not give the same offence to his cotemporaries
or
they to learn for the first

time the art of conscious thinking and emancipaNay, did
tion from the authority of blind custom.^
not the enquiries of the Sophists for the most part
as to us,
who have not
much
contain very
as
less,
which notwithstanding their
imparted an almost electrical shock to

their age, simply and solely because even in its partial application, a power, new to the Greek mind,
empty
cavils,
and a new method of
reflection
had dawned upon
therefore Socrates only dealt with those

unimportant topics, upon which so many of his diait?
Had
logues exclusively turn, his immediate influence, at

least
on his cotemporaries, would
still
be
intelligi-
ble.
These unimportant topics, however, hold a subEven in

ordinate position in Xenophon's dialogues.
these dialogues the main thing seems to be real ininto
vestigations
the necessity of knowledge, into
the nature of morality, into the conceptions of the

various
analysis
virtues,
;
into
moral
and intellectual
practical directions for
conceptions
self-
the formation of
critical discussions obliging the speakers
what their notions implied, and at what

Can we wonder that such investheir actions aimed.
to consider
Comp. Hegel, Gesch.
d. Phil.
ii.
59.
HIS RELATION TO THE SOPHISTS.
17
tigations should have produced a deep

impression on
the cotemporaries of Socrates, and anênti^
Chap.
change ^_i!L__
in the Grreek
nimously
mode
tell
us
of thought, as theîstorians unaor,
that a keener vision should
have anticipated behind those apparently

commonplace and unimportant expressions of
Socrates, which
his biographers
unanimously record, a newly discovered world ?

For Plato and Aristotle it was reserved to conquer this new world, but
Socrates was ^
the
first
Plainly
to discover
as
and to point the way thereto.

see the shortcomings of his
it,
we may
achievements, and the limits which his

individual
nature imposed on him, still enough
remains to
stamp him
as the originator of the philosophy

of con-
ceptions, as the reformer of
method, and as the
first
founder of a scientific doctrine of

morals.
The
relation, too, of the Socratic philosophy

to
Sophistry will only become clear
by considering
the
c.
Hu
^^^^'''"
and unsatisfactory element in its method

^.j/L.
is well as its greatness
and importance. This relation as is well known has,
during the last thirty years,
5een examined in various
directions.
There
3iie-sided
being
general agreement previously in

accepting Plato's
'iew, and looking on
Socrates as the opponent of
he Sophists, Hegel first obtained
currency for the
ontrary opinion, that Socrates
shared with the
sophists the same ground in
attaching
I
importance
the person and to

'hat different sense,
introspection.^
Grote^ has
^^^ 122, 2.
^ ""''^-^
PfHist, of P^'
Greece, viii. 479, 606.
S?f
'
'
still
In a some-
more recently
=
See ^
p. 116.
SOCRATES.
188
Chap.
^^'
contradicted the traditional notion of the antithesis

If
the Socratic philosophy and Sophistry.
Sophist means what the word from its history alone
_ between
mean, a public teacher educating youth
can
practical
life,
Socrates
is
for
himself the true type of a
hand it denotes the character of certain individuals and their teaching, it

is an abuse to appropriate the term Sophistry to
Sophist.
If on the other
this purpose, or to
group together under one
the different individuals
all
Sophists.
The
school, but a
who came forward
Sophists were
profession,
class
men
not a
of the
sect
as
or
most varied
most part highly deserving and meritorious people, at whose views we have not the
If then, Hegel and
least reason to take offence.
views, for the
his followers attacked the
common
notion of the
re-
lation of Socrates to the Sophists, because Socrates
one respect, agreed with the Sophists, G-rot^

attacks it for the very opposite reason, because the
in
most distinguished of the
so-called Sophists are
ai
one with Socrates.
Our previous enquiries
will
have shown, that botl
views have their justification, but that neither

altogether right.
It is indeed a false
view of his
tory to contrast Socrates with the Sophists, in th(

same sense that true and false philosophy are con
trasted, or
good and evil:
and in
this respect
deserves notice that in Xenophon, the contrast be

tween Socrates and the Sophists is not so great as i
Plato, ^ nor yet in Plato nearly so great as it
1
Compare Xen. Mem. iv. 4,

69, 1 and Zeller's
besides p.
Phil. d. Griech. Part

1, 2.
is
I.,
draw
p. 87.
HIS RELATION TO THE SOPHISTS.
modem
by several
previous enquiries
writers.^
^
]8!
the results of our

will not allow of our bringing
Still
Socrates, as Grote does in his

valuable work, into so
close a connection with men
who are grouped to-
gether under the
m their whole tone
name
of Sophists, and
and method bear
so
who
really
much resem-
blance to him.
The scepticism of a Protagoras and

Gorgias cannot for a moment be
placed on the same
with the Socratic philosophy
of conceptions,
nor the Sophistic art of controversy
with the Socratic
siftmg of men ; the maxim that
man is the measure
level
of all things, cannot be
demand
for
Proofs
compared with the Socratic

action based on personal
conviction,^
in
Protao-oras
and
iorgias, Thaeetet. 151, D.

; 162,
D'>. 164, D. ; 165, E. ; Rep. i.
'>4,
A.
vi.
Zeller,
'
As
498, C.
Part
882, 938.
1.
done by Grote, Plato
is
305.
Respecting Socrates'
ixplanation in Plato's Crito
49,
^., that he was convinced
that
aider no
circumstances is
vrong-doing allowed, it is
iiere observed
here we have
he Protagorcan dogma Homo
;
y/ensura
which Socrates
be found combating in
he Thieetetus
proclaimed
y Socrates himself. How unike the two are will
however
e seen at once by a moment's
iitiectionon Protagoras' saying
'onf. Part I. 809 ..
p. 259,'
.
v'ill
'55;
479.
Grote even asu'ts that not the Sophists

but
ocrates was the chief quibbler
Greece he was the first to
^stroy the beliefs of ordinary
linds by his negative
criti1
iii.
cism, whereas Protagoras,

Prodicus and Hippias used
previous authorities as they
found
them leaving untouched the
moral notions current. II. 410
and 428 he observes respecting Plato's statement
(Soph.
232, B.) that the Sophists talk
themselves and teach others to
talk of things which they
do
not know, which Socrates did

all his life long.
In so saying,
he forgets that Socrates
in
the opinions
of men neither pretends
to
better knowledge himself
nor
is content with the
negative
purpose of perplexing o'thers.
His aim was rather to substitute permanent conceptions
for
examining into
unscientific notions.
He forgets, also, that in the case
of the
Sophists, owing to their
want
of earnest intellectual
feeling
owing to the shallowness of
their method, owing to
their
denial of any absolute
truth,
Chap.
IX.
SOCRATES.
190
nor can the rhetorical display of the older Sophists,

the dangerous and unscientific character of their later
Chap,
ethics
be
lost sight
As regards the Hegelian
of.
grouping of Socrates among the Sophists, this has

called forth a greater opposition than it deserves.
The authors of
view do not deny that the Socratic
this
reference of truth to the person differed essentially
from that of the Sophists.^ Neither they nor their

opponents can deny that the Sophists were the first
and
to divert philosophy away from nature to morals
the
human mind,
that they
first
required a basis
foi
practical conduct in knowledge, a sifting of existing

customs and laws, that they first referred to personal
conviction the settling of truth and falsehood, righl

and wi'ong. Hence the dispute with them resolves
itself into
the question.
Shall
we say that
Socrates
and the Sophists resembled one another, both taking

personal truth as their ground, but differing in theii
views of personal truth? or that they differed, th<

nature of their treatment being a different one
whilst they agreed in
making
it
relative ?
Or
t(
put the question in another shape : There bein^

both points of agreement and difference betweei
them, which of the two elements is the more impor
tant and decisive?
explained, only one
difference
Here
for the reasons alread;
reply can be given,^ that th
between the Socratic and Sophistic philo
together with an incapacity for

positive intellectual achievements, those practical consequences were sure to result
which soon enough came to
view. See Part I. 920.

*
See p. 118, 1.
^
^ See p. 110, and Part
938.
.,
iq'
1. \6i
'
HIS RELATION TO TUB SOPHISTS.

Sophies
far
exceeds
their
points
of
101
resemblance.
The Sophists are wanting in that very

thing which is
the root of the philosophical
greatness of Socrates
the quest of an absolutely true
and universally valid
knowledge, and a method for
attaining it.
They
could question
all
that had
previously parsed for
but they could not strike out

a new and surer
road to truth.
Agreeing as they do with Socrates
in
concermng themselves not so much
with the
truth,
study of
nature, as with training for

practical
this culture has a different
character,
with them
and a different
life,
importance from what it bears

with Socrates. The
ultimate end of their instruction
is a formal dexterity
the use of which to be
consistent must be
left to'
individual caprice, since

absolute truth is despaired
of; whereas with Socrates,
on the contrary, the acquisition of truth is the ultimate
end, wherein alone
the rule for the conduct of
the individual is to be
found.
Hence in its further course,
the Sophistic
teaching could not fail to
break away from the philosophy which preceded it,
and indeed from every
intellectual enquiry.
Had
it
succeeded in gaining
^disputed sway, it would have dealt

the death stroke
to Greek philosophy.
Socrates alone bore in himself
the
germ of a new
life for thought.

He alone
oy his philosophical
principles was qualified
to be
.he reformer of philosophy.'
he history of philosophy
,nst
gathered
far
more from
hi.
tryim^S
from
of'socrat^: on
'^"Pj"''
t'S;
^^ t'heUfof"
Chap.
u.,
_if
SOCRATES.
192
Chap.
IX.
germ. But how is

tî^ admission consistent with
making the second period of
philosophy commence with the
Sophists instead of with SoOn the other hand,
crates ?
the latest treatise on the question before us (Sieheck, Untersuchung zur Philos. d. Griech.
p. 1, Ueber Socr.Verhaltniss zur
iSophistik) is decidedly of the
and
opinion here expressed
fruit -bearing
likewise most of the later editors of the history of Greek philosophy. Strilmpell, too (Gesch.
d. Pralit. Phil. d. Griech. p. 26),
writes to the same effect, al-
though his
phists differs
view of the Sofrom ours in that
he denies a closer connection
between their scepticism and

their ethics.
He makes the dis-
tinctive peculiarity of Socrates

to consist in the desire to
reform ethics by a thorough
and methodical intellectual
treatment, whereas the Sophists aspiring indeed to be
teachers of virtue, accomniodated themselves in their instruction without independent

inquiry to the tendencies and
notions of the time.
nm
TRAGIC END.
GHAPTEE
193
X.
THE DEATH OF SOCRATES.
Wb
now
are
for the first
correct
time in a position to
form
opm:on of the circumstances

which led t^
Ae tragic end of Socrates.
The actual history of
hat event
well known.
.eached
when
^/.w'
never judicial"
in the year
nfaithfulness to
tl>e
399
b.c.,3
t! A-~-
an accuîon
religion
of his country, with

itroducmg new Gods, and
with exercising a harmful
inuence on youth
T]ip
n\^\c.f
-^^ê chief accuser 5?
was Mele.06
-^T,
is,
with whom were associated
Anytus, one of the
'*
->-,'-.,
part of 6^n>f^>, Plato i.

283, to
consider the parody of
the in-
See p! 53, 1
'The indictment, accordin..
Favorinus in Bun, ii.
?\^^^^,"^ ^^'hich .Socrates puts
,E.
^
whole lifetime had been

labours at Athens, during
which Socrates T"^""'
been often attacked
but
pent
ad
:s
c.
x""
PUto, Apol. 17
'
D
'
'
4(5:
01. 24, B.,
was
rciSe
eWitaro
M^^ ^.c;a. .opT- ^.oT'oi

.>^.^..-
aa,r /,.
accuser^ a^'Tn'oH "^
^^^^^
^^^^
u" ud7d" ^T.^"
^""""
/'
b!S
9Q
'
'
t,^
Ti
'
^^
^*'
'''"^^^ Accusatori-
n..j"yts:"i:s*'?
'""^
;^S
""^''^
;;
SOCRATES.
194
Chap.
X.
leaders
cracy,^
and re-introducers of the Athenian demoand Lyco,2 an orator otherwise unknown. The
have considered
friends of Socrates appear at first to
condemnation impossible
his
was formerly the

Hermann. It ap-
as
custom, see
Me'XiTos,
pears by a comparison of
various passages, that the accuser of Socrates is neither the
Forchhammer
as
to be, nor the op-
politician,
makes him
ponent
with
Andocides,
of
others have identified

yet the poet mennor
him,
tioned by Aristophanes (Frogs,
whom
1302), but some younger man,

perhaps the son of the poet.
1
Further particulars about
him are given by Forchliammer,
They
and Hermann, 9.
79
are gathered from Plato, Meno,
Schol. in Plat. Apol. 18,
90, A.
adv.
adv. Dard. 8
lAfsias
B.
hoc. adv. Callim,
Agorat. >78
;
23
p.
Pint. Herod, malign. 26, 6.

862; Coriol.c.l4; Aristotle in
;
Haiyoh-ates v. 5eKaC<a'' Schol.in

^schin. adv. Tim. 87 Diod.
He is mentioned by
xiii. 64.
;
Xenopli. Hell. ii. 3, 42, 44, as

well as by hocrates, 1. c, as a
leader of the Democratic party,
together with Thrasybiilus.
2 For the various conjectures
about him
Hermann,
above-named
consult
p. 12. Besides the
persons a certain Polyeuctus,

according to Favorinus in Diog.
in assisting
ii. 38, took part
"Plwtos
ProDably
accuser.
the
ought to be written in this
passage instead of UoXievKTos,
in the following passage
noAueuKTos instead of "'Avuros,
TloXvevKTos being here probably
and
he was himself
still
transcriber's
mistake
for
See Hermann, p.
But the words as they
14.
stand must be incorrect. The
Polycrates
celebrated orator
is said to have composed the
speech of Anytus, JDiog. 1. c.
Hermippus
to
according
Or. xxiii. 296, 6;
Themist.
TVo\vKparT]s.
Hypoth. in
Quintil. ii. 17, 4
^jsch. Socrat.
Busir.
Epist. 14, p. 84 Or. Suidas,
two
of
knows
UoXvKpdTTis
;
Isoc.
and it is proved
speeches
beyond doubt by Isocr. Bus. 4
uân, V. H. xi. 10, that he
drew up an indictment against
But it is also clear
Socrates.
from Favorinus, that this indictment was not used at the
Indeed it would appear
trial.
from Favorinus that it was not
written till some time after
;
the death of Socrates. Conf.

Ueherweg, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 94.
3 This is proved by the Euthyphro, allowing, as Scldeiermacher, PI. Werke, i. a, 52, and
Werke, ii. 191

and 199 do., that this dialogue
was hastily penned after the be-
SteinliaH, Plato's
ginning of the trial, its object

being to prove that Socrates,
though accused of impiety, had
a deeper piety and a keener
appreciation of the nature ol
piety, than one who had incurred ridicule by his extravagances, but had nevertheless
brought himself into the odour
of sanctity a view which, not;
THE ACCUSATION.
under no misapprehension as
to the danger which
threatened him.' To get up a
defence, however, went
contrary to his nature.^
Partly considering
and undignified to attempt

anything
simple truth
it
wro^g
except
bv
partly finding it impossible

to move
out of his accustomed groove,
and to wear a form of
artificial oratory strange
to his nature, he tliought
trustfully to leave tl,e
issue in the hands of
God
convinced that all would turn
out for the best ; and
m_ this conviction
confidently familiarising
;
himself
with the thought that death
would probably bring
him more good than harm, and
that an unjust condemnation would only save him
the pressure of tlie
weakness of age, leaving his
fair name
unsullied.'
and
dialo<?ue to
when' the
Ms
'
k n?
GroteWHato
""""'
se?ioiLes.^>f
''
wL felt
Comp. Xen
Plato,
Apol
iv R
19^?
a
ÎnXen.ilem
c^n
say"] at when'hewtw
tothinklboiftM Te^ce \^^
âiix6v,ou opposed him
wl t
cording to
Sr
ii
To'-
ctt
30; xi. 1, 11 ./î^,'!'"; ^4'

2; .W. Floi'il 7 56 he dp
clined a speech which Tv^t"
offered hinJ 'it i^
^serted
Plato, Apol. 17
B
bv
tW S
^^^^^^^>'
' truth
"'''
P^^'
^-
'
iv.
^'^
3*' C.,
'
8,
4-10.
however,
^"^^^'edit for a great deal

^Îculation than can be
0?^^'"^
1
^^'^^^
^' ^' N^n^";.''

^^' ^-
fern.
^^^
Cousm and Grote,
^"'"^^
iv
crates
'='-''
.^^''-
A '-*,
9"i V:
A.
39
'^-"^
-Vf
a^^
"""
Mem
^! "*"^
crates the above seems

to fol-
belono- in ^ \\-^
full
position
28, A.; 86
"/'^
''''^.
?""''''' ^'"
t^'^^'^"^'
^^^^^
i""'^
^^^^
V^^
"^'^^^
'^^^^^^".^-
*^^^
êst of
Cousin ((Euvres
'î-'^tes
was aware
must perish
in the con-
I
f/^Vyj^h his age, but
f. ^\
lie for^êts
explanation given in
^^^'^^f.^^Pi".^y, 29. B., is only
Chap.
X.
SOCRATES.
196
Such was the tone of mind which dictated
Chap.
X.
defence.^
(2) Socrates' de-
fence of
himself.
sen
(Damon,
The language
d. Sokr.
15),
is
in
attempting to prove from Mem.
Apol. 19, A., that So4

crates had predicted his condemnation, forgets that in these
passages the question is only as
iv. 4,
Even
probable guesses.
asserting,
in
far
too
goes
Grote
in his excellent description of
the trial (Hist, of Greece, viii.
654), that Socrates was hardly
anxious to be acquitted, and
that his speech was addressed
far more to posterity than to
his judges. History only warto
rants the belief, that with magnanimous devotion to his cause

Socrates was indifferent to the
result of his words, and endeavoured from the first to
reconcile himself to a probably
It does
unfavourable result.
he
that
follow
however,
not,
was anxious to be condemned
nor have we reason to suppose
wished
so, since he could have
for nothing which he considered
to be wrong, and his modesty
kept him uncertain as to what
was the best for himself. See
Plato, Apol. 19, A.; 29, A.;
We cannot,
30, D.; 35, D.
;
therefore, believe with Grote,

had well
p. 668, that Socrates
considered his line of defence,
and chosen it with a full conthat
sciousness of the result
;
in his conduct before the court

lie
was actuated only by a wish
to display his personal greatness and the greatness of his
mission in the most emphatic

and that by departing
this life when at the summit
to
of his greatness he desired
manner
his
not that of a criminal,
give a lesson to youth the most

impressive which it was in the
power
of
man
to give.
To pre-
suppose such calculation on the

part of Socrates is not only
contradictory to the statement
that he uttered his defence
without preparation, but it
appears to be opposed to the
picture which we are accustomed to see of his character.
As far as we can judge, his conduct does not appear to be a
work of calculation, but a
thing of immediate conviction,
a consequence of that uprightness of character which would
not allow him to go one step
His
beyond his principles.
principles, however, did not
allow him to consider results,
since he could not know what

result would be beneficial to
It was his concern to
him.
speak only the truth, and to
despise anything like corrupt-
ing the judges by eloquence.

This, may appear a narrowminded view, but no other
course of conduct would so
well have corresponded with
the bearing and character of
and herein consists
Socrates
his greatness, that he chose
what was in harmony with
himself in the face of extreme
danger, with classic composure
and unruffled brow.
We possess two accounts of
the speech of Socrates before
his judges, a shorter one in
Xenophon and a longer one in
Xenophon's
Plato's Apology.
;
'
Apology is certainly spurious,

and with it any value attach-
HIS DEFENCE.
wishing to save his
biter,
ing to
who would
tlie
mogenes, to
life,
but that of an impartial ar-
dispel erroneous notions
testimony of Her-
whom the compiler,
by a simple
tation of
prejudices, which
lasted undeniably (according
to the testimony of Xemplwn,
imitating the Mem. IV. \ 4,

professes to be indebted for
his information, is lost. Touch-
Mem.
i.
Symp.
ing Plato's, the current view

seems well established, that
this Apology is not a mere
creation of his own, but that
6,
much to his condemnation.

He misses, with Steinhart in
Plato, many things which So-
in all substantial points

it
faithfully records what Socrates
said and the attempt of Georgii,
in the
introduction to his
;
'translation
1, 11;
(Eg. 12, 8:
6) till after his own
death, and perhaps contributed
might have said in his

defence, and did actually say
according to the Apology of
crates
Xenophon.
But to
this state-
the Apology ment no importance

can be
(conf. SteinJiart, Platon.Werke,
attached, and it is probable
ii. 235) to prove the
contrary that in an unprepared
speech
will not stand.
Georgii com- Socrates omitted
much
which
plains that in the Socrates of might
have told in his favour.
Plato that fieyaKrjyopia is want- He
can hardly be convinced
ing,which Xenophon commends that
Socrates cross-questioned
in him a j udgment with which
Miletus so searchingly as Plato
few will agree, not even the describes
but this passage
writer of the Apology attriagrees with the usual character
buted to Xenophon. He also of the
discourse of Socrates,
considers
the sophism with and the sophism
by which Sowhich the charge of atheism crates
proved that he did not
was met, improbable in the corrupt
youth is quite his own.
mouth of Socrates, though it See
p. 141.
That Socrates
may just as likely have come should have
met the cliarge of
of
from him as from one of his atheism

by quibbles, instead
He doubts whether appealing to the fact of of
his
Socrates could have maintained reverence
for the Gods of the
a composure so perfect
alstate, he can only understand,
though all that we know of by supposing
that we have here
Socrates shows unruliled calm an
expression of Plato's relias a main trait in his character.
gious views
altliough Plato
He sees in the prominent fea- would have
had no reason for
disciples.
tures of that character a diplomatic calculation, which otiiers

will look for in vain.
He considers it incredible that Socrates should have begun with
a studied (j notation from the

Clouds of Aristophanes, aiming
at nothing else than tJio
refu-
suppressing the fact, supposing

Socrates had really made such
an appeal
he even describes
the devotion of his master to
the Gods of his country, and is
himself anxious to continue
that service.
Touchino- the
sophisms, even Aristotle^ m\QX.
:
Chap.
X.
SOCRATES.
198
Chap.
^'
setting forth of the truth, or of a patriot warning
He
and overhaste.
against wrong-doing
seeks to
convince the accuser of his ignorance, to refute the

At the same time dignity
accusation by criticism.
so far forgotten as to address
and principle are never
the judges in terms of entreaty.
not feared, whatever

service of Grod,
and
may
it
is
His
Gondemna'
(3)
tion.
He
is
stands in the
determined to keep
faithless to his higher calling, or
his post in
make
prevent him
No commands
the face of every danger.
him
be.
Their sentence
shall
from obeying G-od rather than the Athenians.

The result of his speech was what might have
have' been expected.
The majority
of the judges
would most unmistakeably have been disposed to

pronounce him innocent,^ had not the proud bearing
of the accused brought
members of a popular
him
into collision with the
tribunal, accustomed to a very
deportment from the most eminent statesMany who would otherwise have been on his
different
men.^
ii.
23
1419,
iii.
a, 8,
18
1398,
a,
15
has no fault to find,
Plato's
literallj-
intention to record
the words of Socrates,
may be satisfied witt
The same may be said in reply

most of the reasoning of
and we
comparinghis Apology with the
On the contrary, the

Georgii.
difEerence in style between the
Apology and Plato's usual writings, seems to prove that this
speeches in Thucydides, as
bearing ir
Steinhart does,
mind what Thucydides, i. 22,
says of himself,that he hac
kept as close as possible to tht
sense and substance of what
and applying i1
was said
equally to Plato. Conf Uehcrweg, Unters. d. Plat. Schr. 237
*
Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 4.
- Let the attitude of Pericles
be remembered on the occasior
of the accusation of Aspasia
and that depicted by Plato ir
to
Apology was not drawn up with

his usual artistic freedom, and
the notion of Georgii referring
as the
it to the same time
Phsedo appears altogether inconsidering the
conceivable
great difference between the
two in regard to their philosophical contents and their artisIt certainly was not
tic form.
HIS SENTENCE
AND DEATH.
199
side were set against him,
the sentence of
Griiilty
and by a small majority

was pronounced.^ According
the Apology, 34, C. Indeed it

a well-known fact that judging- was
a special hobby of
the Athenian people
(conf.
Aristophanes in the "Wasps,
Clouds, 207), and that
it
watched with peculiar jealousy
this attribute
of its
sovereignty.
How VolquarcUen,
Diimon. d. Sokr. 15, can conclude from the above words
that Hcgels judgment respecting Socrates' rebellion against
the people's power is shared
here, is inconceivable.
According to Plato, Apol.
is
'
he would have been acquitted if 3, or as another

reading has it, if 80 of his
judges had been of a diflPerent
mind. But how can this be
reconciled with the statement
36, A.,
of
Diog.
ii.
41
KarediKoia-dr}
oySo-qKoyTa fxia TrXeloai

ruu avoKvovauiu ? Either
SittKocriais
^r]<pois
the text here must be corrupt,

or a true statement of Diogenes
must have been strangely perverted.
Which is really the
case it is difficult to say.
It is
generally believed that
the
whole number of judges who
condemned him was 281. But
since the Heliaja always consisted of so many hundreds,
most probably witli the addition of
one deciding voice
(400, 600, 600, or 401, 501, 601),
on this hjôthesis no proportion of votes can be made out
which
compatible
with
whichever
reading is adopted. We should
have then to suppose with
Plato's
is
assertion,
Bock, in Siivern on Aristoph.
Clouds, 87, tliat a number of

the Judges had abstained from
voting, a course which may be
possible.
Out of 600 Heliasts,
281 may have voted against
and 275 or 276 for him. It is,
however, possible, as Bockh
suggests, that in Diogenes, 251
may have originally stood instead of 281.
In this case
there might have been 251
against and 245 or 246 for the
accused,
making
together
nearly 500
and some few,
supposing the board to have
;
been complete at first, may

have absented themselves during the proceedings, or have
refrained from voting.
Or, if
the reading rpiaKovra, which
has many of the best MSS. in
its favour, is established in
Plato, we may suppose that the
original text in Diogenes was
as follows
/toTeSucao-^Tj 5m/co:
oySoriKovTa xprjcpois,
ruv airoAvovauv.
(Tiais
We
|'
irkeio(n
should
then have 280 against 220,
together 500, and if 30 more
had declared for the accused,
he would have been acquitted,
the votes being equal.
2 This course of events is
not
only in itself probable, taking
into account the character of
the speech of Socrates and the
nature of the circumstances,
but Xenophon (Mem. iv. 4, 4)
distinctly asserts that he would
certainly have been acquitted
if he had in any way condescended to the usual attitude
of deference to his judges. See
also Fl(ito, Apol. 38, D.
chap.
^
200
SOCRATES,
Chap,
X.
to the
Athenian mode of procedure, the next thing

was to treat of the measure of the penalty. Socrates,
however, spoke out with undaunted courage were
he to move for what he had deserved, he could only
:
move
for a public
entertainment in the Prytaneum.

repeated the assurance that he could not on any
account renounce his previous course of life. At
He
length, yielding to the entreaties of his friends, he

was willing to consent to a fine of thirty minse, be-
cause he could pay this without owning himself to

It may be readily understood that to
the majority of the judges such language in the accused could only appear in the light of incorrigible
be guilty.
obstinacy and contempt for the judicial office

f hence
the penalty claimed by the accusers was awarded
sentence of death
(4) Hix
death.
.^
The sentence was received by Socrates with

composure corresponding with
He
persisted in not in any
his previous conduct.
way repenting of
his con-
duct, frequently expressing before the judges

conviction, that for
tune.^
him death would be no
his
misfor-
The execution of the sentence being delayed
'
The above is stated on the
authority of Plato's Apolog}-,
in opposition to which the less
accurate assertion of Xenophon, that he rejected any
pecuniary composition, and
that of Diog. ii. 41, cannot be
allowed to be of any weight.
2 How
distinctly
Socrates
foresaw this effect of his conduct is unknown. It may have
appeared probable to him but
he may also have anticipated
;
the more readily a contraiy

he thought such conduct imperative.
Nietzsche's
idea (Sokrates Bas. 1871, p. 17)
that Socrates, with full consciousness, carried through his
condemnation to death, appears
untenable for the same reasons
as the above.
^ According to Biog. ii. 42, it
was carried by eighty more
votes than his condemnation.
* Plato, Apol.
38, C.
all
effect, if
'
lim SENTENCE
AND DEATH.
pending the return of the sacred-ship from Delos,^

he
continued in prison thirty days, holding his
accus-
tomed intercourse with
his friends,
and retaining
during the whole period his unclouded

brightness
of disposition.^ Flight from prison,
for which his
had made every preparation, was scorned as

wrong and undignified.^ His last day was spent in
quiet intellectual conversation, and when
the evening
came the hemlock draught was drunk with a strength
of mind so unshaken, and a
resignation so entire,
friends
that a feeling of wonder and admiration

overcame
the feeling of grief, even in his
nearest relatives.^
Among the Athenians, too, no long time after his
death, discontent with the troublesome
preacher of
morals is said to have given way before
remorse,
m^ consequence of which his accusers

were visited
with severe penalties ; ^ these statements,
however,
Mem.iv.8,2;Pî2ô,Phffido,
2^*1
J
^r.
T.
Phffido, 59, D.
^^
Mem. 1. c.
^^lV:JT,l-^GCordmgio
^.
J^to
Crito urged him to flight.

ine .picurean Idomeneus, who
saysitwas ^schines(Z>/^.^. ii.
Du; 111. 6b) IS not a trustworthy authority.
bompare the Phasdo, the

iccoimt in which appears to be
nâ
^,
t^t"^^"'- ^^^ ^^' ^?

A.; Xe,i. Mem. iv. 8, 2.
J^nether
the
statements
^n. Apol2S 'Dioff.

^han, V. H. i. 16, are
'^?
t\\^loril. 5,
^Too.
if
P'"'''^-
ii.
in
35;
liistori-
'-^^^'^^^
'"^
67, are certainly
xaggerations.
JJiodor. XIV.
lie
37, says that

people repented of having
put Socrates to death, and

attacked his accusers, puttinethem to death without a judi^
cial sentence.
Sni das msiVes
M4\r]Tos (Meletus) die by stoning.
Pint, de Invid. c. 6, p
538, says that the slanderous
accusers of Socrates became so
hated at Athens that the citi-
zens would not light their fires

or answer their questions, or
ba^lê in the same water with
them, and that at last they
were driven in despair to hane
themselves. Dior/, ii. 43, conf
vi. 9, says that the Athenians
^ô" ''^fêi'' overcome with compunction, condemned Meletus

to death, banished the other
accusers, and erected a brazen
statue to Socrates, and that
201
Chap.
^'
SOCRATES.
202
Chap.
X.
are not to be trusted, and appear on the whole improbable.^
B. The
cause of
this sen-
tence of
condemna-
of
The circumstances which brought about the deatt

Socrates are among the clearest facts of history
Nevertheless the greatest difference of opinion prevails
^'^*
(X) I^
justice of his
not the
work of
the Sojfhists.
which led thereto and tht

condemnation. In former times it was
as to the causes
tion.
Anytus was forbidden to

foot in their city.
Or. XX. 239, says
set
Themist.
The Athenians soon repented of this

Meletus was punished,
deed
Anytus tied, and was stoned at
Heraclea, where his grave may
still
be seen.
TcHullian,
Apologet. 14, states that the
Athenians punished the accusers of Socrates, and erected
to him a golden statue in a
temple. Aug. De Civ. Dei, viii.
3, reports that one of the accusers was slain by the people
and the other banished for
:
life.
This view, already expressed by Forchammer (1. c. 66)

and Grote, viii. 683, appears
to be the correct one notwithstanding Hermann's (I.e. 8, 11)
arguments to the contrary.
For though it is possible that
political or personal opponents
'
of Anytus and his fellow-accusers may have turned against

them their action against Socrates, and so procured their
condemnation, yet (1) the authorities are by no means so

ancient or so unimpeachable
that we can depend upon them.
(2) They contradict one another in
all their details,
not to
mention Diogenes' anachronism

respecting Lysippus.
And
(3)
the main point
is, that neithe:

Plato, nor Xenophon, nor th(
writer of Xenophon 's Apology
ever mention this occurrence
which they could not hav(
failed to regard with grea1
satisfaction.
On the contrary
five years after the death oj
Socrates Xenophon thought 11

necessary to defend him againsi
the attacks of his accusers
while Ji^schines appealed to th(
sentence on Socrates withoul
dreading the very obvious
answer, that his accusers had
met with
their deserts. Thai

Isocrates is referring to this
occurrence rather than to anj
other (Trepi avri^Sff. 19) is not
established, nor need the passage contain a reference to anj
event in particular. And lastly,
nothing can be made of the apocryphal story coming from some
editor of Isocrates, to the eifect
that the Athenians, ashamed

of having put Socrates tc
death, forbad any public mention of him, and that when
Euripides (who died sevec
years before Socrates) alluded
to him in the Palamedes, all tht
audience burst into tears. H
is only lost labour to suggesi
that these scenes took place a1
some later time, when the pla}
was performed.
CAUSES OF THE SENTENCE.
203
thought quite natural to refer it to an accidental out-
Were Socrates the colourless
burst of passion.
ideal of
virtue he was represented to be
by those lacking a
deeper insight into his position in history, it would indeed be inconceivable that any vested interests could
have been sufficiently injured by him to warrant a
serious attack.
If then, he was nevertheless accused
and condemned, what
else can have been the cause

but the lowest of motives personal hatred ? Now
who can have had so much reason for hatred as the Sophists, whose movements Socrates was so effective
in
thwarting, and who were otherwise supposed to be caipable of
any crime
Accordingly
at their instigation that
it
must have been
Anytus and Meletus induced
Aristophanes to write his play of the Clouds, and afterwards themselves brought Socrates to trial.
This was the general view of the learned in former

times.
Nevertheless its erroneousness was already
'
pointed out by Freret.^

child
much
He
proved that Meletus was

when the Clouds was acted, and that at a
later period
Anytus was on good terms with Sothat neither Anytus can have had anything to
lowith the Sophists Plato always representing
him
Jrates
their inveterate
IS
J^rith
'
i49,
Aristophanes
enemy and
;
r\i,
In
the admirable treatise:
)bservations sur les Causes et
-,
urquelquesCirconstancesdela
.ondamnation de Socrate, in
lie
Mem de 1 Academic des
nscript.
1.
47, 6, 209.
nor Meletus
and he showed, that no writer
Reference to Brucker, i.
in preference to
any
despiser
Meno, J)2, A.
Aristophanes often amuses
himself at tlie expense of the
poet Meletus, but, as has been
remarked, this Meletus was
probably an older man than
the accuser of Socrates. See
Hermann, De Socr. Accus 5
SOCRATES.
204
Chap,
of credit knows anything of the part taken by

Sophists, in the accusation of Socrates.^
the Sophists,
who had
little or
no
th<
Besides
political influenc<
in Athens,^ could never have procured the condeni'
nation of Socrates.
preferred
against
recoiled on their
would they hav(

charges which immediately
Least of
him
own
all,
These arguments o
unnoticed/ have latterh
heads.^
Freret's, after long passing
met with general reception.^ Opinions are other

wise still much divided, and it is an open questioi
whether the condemnation of Socrates was a work o

private revenge, or whether it resulted from mor(
general motives
were
if
the latter, whether these motivei
or moral, or religious
and lastly
whether the sentence was, according to the popula:
view, a crying wrong, or whether it may admit of
political,
partial justification.^
In one quarter even the lengtl
JEJlicm (V. H. ii. 13), the

\
chief authority for the previous hypothesis, knows nothing about a suborning of
Anytus by the Sophists.
2 The political career of Damon, who according to the use
of the Greek language can be
called a Sophist, establishes
nothing to the contrary.
^Protagorashadbeenindicted
for atheism before Socrates, and
on the same plea Socrates was

attacked by Aristophanes, who
never spared any partizans of
sophistry.
* The treatise of Freret was
written as early as 1736, but
not published till 1809, when
it appeared together with several other of his writings.
See
Mem. de
I'Acad.
i.
47. 6, 1.
was therefore unknown
to
th(
German writers of the las

century, who for the most par
follow the old view
for in
stance, Meiners, Gesch. d. Wis
senschaft, ii. 476
Tiedemann
Geist d. spek. Phil. ii. 21
Others, such as Buhle, Gesch
;
Phil.
i.
372
Tenneman
Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 40, confin<
themselves to stating genC'
rally, that Socrates made man]
d.
enemies by his zeal for mO'

without mentioning t"i(
rality,
Sophists.
^ There are a few exceptions
such as Heinsms, p. 26.
^ ForcUlmmmer: Die Athene]
und Socrates, die Gesetzlicher

und der Kevolutionar.
PERSONAL HATRED NOT THE ONLY CAUSE.

been reached of asserting with Cato,i
that of all
;entences ever passed, this was the
most strictly legal.
Among these views the one lying nearest to hand,
205
las
that of
some older
ution of Socrates
who
writers,
to
attribute the exe-
personal animosity
always
up the unfounded idea that the

Sophists were
any way connected therewith.^
A great
:iving
Q
deal
favour of this aspect of the
case.
Socrates expressly declares that
said
'lato,3
may
is
however
lato hints
said,
Even Anytus,
owed him a personal grudge!
at his
being aggrieved with the judgments passed by Socrates

on Athenian statesmen
ad, according to Xenophon's
Apology,-' took it amiss
^
This* is^^fiunf 'in
^sch
d 'phn
940
7,
^:T'
those who considered

philosophy incompatible
^h ancient
discipline and
rahty, and those who could
endure his moral earnesttte
inclines to the same'
vSw]
how unpopular Sotes must have made

himself
his siftino- of men
Ho
proves
iarks
that^Âthenrwas the
r^^
^^^^^ '""^^'^
^*
^^^^1^ have
it on so
,^^^^P|bleto carry
lations to CritL and

Alcibia
des, and partly in the
hatred o^
""^ ""^^^^^
of
-^
^
Anytus.
3
^
^pol. 28, A.
Meno,
U m
22
Commro t-M^Vt-
Gesch
Phi7 V
2'?
reievit
fJ^Ûr .irô^^
09'
.^^'
Hi!t Af n
"' ""''''"' ""^- ^^^'
rr
__5l__
(2) It did
'efedfroui
P^^'-'ôml'
~''y'
^Z^
In ^Zrlh'!'
''^''"'^''
he is not the
ictim of Anytus or Meletus, but
of the ill-will which
e incurred by his criticism
of men.
.
Chap
to
^^''
,
/^'^'
^''''^^
SOCRATES.
206
him
that Socrates urged
Chap.
^'
to give his competent soe
a higher training than that of a dealer in leather,
Anytus
tent with his trade. ^
moved Aristophanes
man
young
the
thereby encouraging in
discon-
said to have
is
firsi
to his comedy, and afterwards
ii
with Meletus to have brought against hin

That such motives cam(
the formal accusation. ^
common
into play in the attack on Socrates, and contributec

in no small degree to the success of this attack
antecedently probable.^
"
ignorance
is
To convince men
ii
of thei]
the most thankless task you can choose
Anyone who can persevere in
it for
a life-time so re
gardless of consequences as Socrates did,
must mak(
many enemies dangerous enemies too, if he takes fo:

his mark men of distinguished position or talents.
;
(&)
Still personal
But
^haveUen
other
txon.
cause of his condemnation.
statements
worktT
lead to
^^^^
animosity cannot have been
are Plato'
Indeed the mor<

upon us.
pupils became convinced of th(
binding
Socrates and his
Ms justice of
Nor
thi
Ms
cause, the less were they able to dis
cover any grounds in fact for the accusation.
Th(
one wish of Socrates being to will and to do what wa

best, what reason could anyone possibly have had fo
Ale.
762
writers
Later
details.
c.
;
give
According
4 Amator.
and
to
more
Pint,
17, 27, p.
Satyi'us in Atlienceus,
;
Anytns was a lover

of Alcibiades, but was rejected
xii. 534, e,
by him, whilst Alcibiades

showed every attention to Socrates, and hence the enmity
Such
of Anytus to Socrates.
an improbable story ought no

to have deceived lAizac (D
Socr.
since
Give,
133)
Xenophon
especiall;
and
Pl?.t
would never have omitted
i]
silence such a reason for th

accusation,
^
1.
jEliaiiy V.
H.
ii.
13.
Dio(f
c.
^
Compare
Grote,
1.
c.
638.
PERSONAL HATRED NOT THE ONLY CAUSE.

apposing him, except wounded pride
The narrative
ofXenophon's Apology would at most only

explain
the hatred of Anytus
it would not account for
the
;
wddely spread prejudice against
pestion whether
Socrates.
It is a
is true at all ;
and whether,
granting its truth, this personal injury
was the only
3ause which arrayed Anytus as
accuser against him.^
Lastly, allowing, as was undoubtedly
the case, that
Socrates made enemies of many
influential people, is
it
t not strange that their personal

animosity should
mly have attained its object after the

re-establishnentof order in Athens?
In the most unsettled
tnd corrupt times no serious
persecution had been
et on foot against him.
Neither at the time of the
Qutilation of the Hermae, had
his relations witli
dcibiades
nor after the battle of Arginus*,^

;
had
he incensed state of popular
feeling been turned
gainst him.
Plato, too, says ^ that what told
against
cerates at the trial, was the
general conviction that
teaching was of a dangerous character
;
and he
:ates that as matters then
stood, it was impossible for
ay one to speak the truth in
political matters withiit being persecuted
as a vain babbler and
corrupter
is
ê
.t
This is just possible. That

character of Anytus was
ummpeachable we gather
om
the story (Anstot.m//.,,.-
'^'^'r/^'^^^'^^.^Tfr'^^^^Plut. Coriol.
14), that
hen he was tirst charged
jh treason he corrupted the
,
^r
'rVin^l;:
(in caliira. 2,\)
'.n'n'"^'
praises
for
being together wi(h
Thrasybuhis
faithful
to
the
and not abusinos

j,olitical power to make
amends
for his losses durinothToli
^'"
treaties,
feârchical
^''
governmenf.
The astonishment exnres

sed by Tenneman at th^s i"
'^
fro^lX |x.in of ew
his solutionT^l^'dTffi.-
rmtural
Only
culty
is hardly satisfactory
Apol. 18, B. ; 19 B. 23, D.
;
207
SOCRATES.
208
Chap.
^-
testimony of writers so
of youtli.^
On
opposite as
Xenophon and Aristophanes proves that
this point the
the prejudice against Socrates was not merely a passing prejudice, at least not in Athens, but that it
lasted a whole life-time, not confined only to the
masses, but shared also by
and influence in the
state.
the feeling against
Athens,
men
of high importance
Very deeply, indeed, must
Socrates have been rooted in
Xenophon found it necessary six years

death to defend him against the charges on
if
after his
which the indictment was framed.
\Yith regard to Aristophanes, it was an obvious

blot in his plays to allow here and there such a pro-
minence to political motives as to forget the claims

of art, and for a comedian, who in his mad way holds
up to ridicule all authorities divine and human, tc
clothe himself with the tragic seriousness of a poliYet it is no less an error to lose
tical prophet.2
sight of the grave vein which underlies the comi(

license of his plays, and to mistake his occasiona
pathos for thoughtless play. Were it only this, th(

hollowness of the sentiment would soon show itsel
in artistic defects.
patriotic sentiment
496
Instead of this, a sincerity o
may be
Polit. 299, B. Kep. vi. 488,

C -Apol. 32, E. ; Gorg.
473'
521
D.
'R5t'scher's spirited description suffers from this onesided-
and even Hegel, in his

passage on the fate of Socrates,
Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 82, is not
quite free from it, although
ness,
observed in Aristophanes
both of them justly recognisi

560
{Hegel, Phanomeno 1.
JEsthetik, 537, 562 Botscher
p. 365), that there is an ele
ment subversive of Greek life
quite as much in the comedie
in th
of Aristophanes, as
;
things of
complains.
state of
which
h^
PERSONAL HATRED NOT THE SOLE

CAUSE
not only in the unsullied
beauty of
utterances;' but the same
many
individual
patriotic interest sounds
through
all
his plays, in
some of the earlier ones

even disturbing the purity
of the poetic tone,^ but
provmg
all
the
more
conclusively,
how near
ot his
the love
country lay to his heart.

This interest only could have
brought him to give

comedies that political turn,
by means of
which, as he justly takes
credit to
to his
himself,'
comedy
?ained a far higher ground

than had been allowed to it
by his predecessors. At the
same time it must be
rranted that Aristophanes is
as
)thers
much
deficient as
the morality and the faith

of an earlier
ige," and that it
was preposterous to demand
the
'Men time back, men and
circumstances having so
horoughly changed. Only it

does not follow hererom that he was not sincere
in this demand.
His
'as rather one of
those cases so frequently
met with
3 history, in which
a man attacks a principle
in
thers to which he has
himself fallen a victim, withat
owning
it
^.novations in
to himself.
Aristophanes combats
morals, politics,
religion,
and
art.
lemg, however, in his inmost

soul the offspring
of
age, he can only combat
3
>d
them with the weapons

With the thorouoh
the spirit of this age.

slike of the narrow
practical
,'
fêe p. 29.
Compare
ScJimtzer,
mjelcker,
Suvern
trans-
and
man
unable to giveâ
CloudTS?
seems io go too
'
^^^'P''
"''
far.
^^^^J
*^'"''
209
SOCRATES.
2JQ
CHAP,
S-
immediate needs, he
thought to anything beyond
analyse moral and poliproscribes every attempt to
their reasonableness or the
tical motives, or to test
he thinks nothmg of
reverse; whilst as a poet
provided the
with truth and good manners,
He thus becomes entangled
desired end is reached.
demanding back, and yet bj
in the inconsistency of
the old morality
one and the same act destroying,
inconsistency cannot b(
That he committed this
it wai
And what a proof of shortsightedness
denied
of culture whicl
attempt to charm back a form
trifling
to
had been
ii-retrievably lost
'.
That he was consciou
cannot be believed. Hardl;

of this inconsistency
which is what som
would a thoughtless scoffer
upon the dangei
would make of him have ventured
Hardly would Plat
Cleon.
ous path of attacking
th
him into the society of Socrates
have brought
a speech full (
Symposium, putting into his mouth
seen in him only a despic
spirited humour, had he
upon Socrat(
If, however, the attack
Lble character.
is
seriously meant,
and Aristophanes
really thougl
rel
a Sophist dangerous alike to
morality-with which character he cloth
to discern in
him
gion and
charges preferred at tl
him in the Cloudsthen the
pretence, and something mo:
trial were not a mere
led to the condemnation
than personal motives
Socrates.
,3. ,r.
ke
the victim,
were ? I
ask further what those motives
charaot
known of the trial and the personal
Do we
that
is
us a choice between t,
:{;y:"y.' of the accusers only leaves
attack on Socrates w
alternatives: either the
NOT CONDEMNED FOR POLITICAL

directed against his
political creed
more generally against his
VIEWS.
in particular, or
whole mode of thought
and teaching in respect

to morals, religion
and
politics.^
Both alternatives are
somewhat alike, still
they are not so alike
that we can avoid
distinguishing
*^^^^ ""^^ ^"^ '^^^ i"
fevour of the view
.K
tF""^^
that
the attack on Socrates
was in the first place
set
on foot : the interest
of the democratic
party.
Amongst the accusers, Anytus
is known as one
of the
leading democrats of
that time.3 The
judges, too
are described as men,
who had
been banished and
had returned with

Thrasybulus.^
over, that one of
the charges
We
know, more-
preferred
Igainst
Socrates was, that he
had educated Critias, the

most
unscrupulous and the most
hated of the oligarchical
party ;^ ^schines
tells
the Athenians
'pltty
lou have put to death the
Sophist
Socrates, because'
among the
friends and pupils of

Socrates, who must
have been hated by the
democrats becau.^ of
Zl
^St^t!e^l^^
De
"^^-^^-V-U.
lamnato (Lips. 1738)!'^^

erii (notes to
Clouds, p. 86) of
niJtt
lisseitation
ma;
Gescli. d.
eruml
l>l,il^ ii
Socrates, p. Iw).
otscker,
mal
p.
2o6,
268,
30
^'''^^^'i*'
S'
""
''
2'
P 2
^' '^^^ ^^^^^'^t
sivs
.!.{'
.^ an
ora^'tof'
^^^'' ''^^ ^
ij
l^; i-toc
..idvTimir"
with
mr,
Kpo%, io^ ,
p, F' ?\^-
.Apof
i.
reference to the Clouds

Aristophanes
mnninff,
;
More
i<lehmtc,s //.,, Plat.
Con.,
ff 'T^f "V^?'='* "nd Chris,
Socrate n,stP
''
'^^^
',^?^^^
^"stor-

SOCRATES.
Chap
^-
Such were Charmides,^

^
and Xenophon, who was banished from Athens
sympathies.
aristocratical
about the time of the
of Socrates, perhaps
trial
even in connection therewith, because of his intimacy

with Sparta and the Spartans' friend, Cyrus the
younger. Lastly, one of the formal indictments is
referred to as charging Socrates with speaking disparagingly of the democratic form of election by lot,^
and with teaching his audience to treat the poor with
insolence,'*
by
so frequently quoting the
Each prince
He
fired
of
name
with praise,
arms approved,
or with persuasion moved.
or chief in
words
But if a clamorous vile plebeian rose,

Him with reproof he check'd, or tam'd with blows.*
Charmides, the uncle of
Plato, one of the thirty, was,
according to Xen. Hell. ii. 4,
19, one of the ten commanders
at the Peirteus, and fell on
the same day with Critias in
conflict with the exiled Athe1
nians.
2 Foreliliammer,
p.
84:
he
also mentions Theramenes, the

supporter of the thirty tyrants,
who may have been a pupil of
Socrates without, as Forch-
hammer
will have
it,
adopting
the political opinions of
his
But Biodor., xiv. 5,

from whom the story comes, is
a very uncertain authority.
For Diodorus combines with
teacher.
it the very improbable story that

Socrates tried to rescvie Thera-
menes from the clutches of the

thirty, and could only be dissuaded from this audacious attempt
by
many
entreaties.
Neither
Xenophon nor Plato
mention
Theramenes
among
the pupils of Socrates. Neither

of them mentions an intervention of Socrates on his behalf,
as Plato, Apol. 32, G. does in
another case. In the accusasation brought against the victors at Arginusae, it was Socrates who espoused their cause,
and Theramenes who by his intrigues brought about their
Pseudoplut.
condemnation.
Vit.
Decrhet.
iv.
3,
tells
similar and more credible story

Probably it was
of Socrates.
of him and then
first told
transferred to Socrates.
3
Mem.
Ibid.
i.
i.
2, 9.
2, 58.
5 Iliad, ii.
Forcliham188.
mer, p. 52, detects a great deal
He
more in these verses.
thinks that Socrates was here
expressing his conviction of
CONDEMNEL ON GENERAL GROUNDS.

Taking
all
these facts into account,

there can be no
doubt that, in the trial
of Socrates, the interests
of
the democratic party did
come into play.
Still these motives were
not all.
The indictment
by no means places the
anti-republican sentiments of
feocrates
the foreground. What is
brought against
him
his rejection of the
IS
213
his corruption of youth.i
Gods of his country, and

Those Gods were, however
(4) Be nag
the victim
of Trior e
general
causes.
{a)
were
the necessity of an oligarchical
constitution, and was usinPthe words of Hesiod ^pyov 5'
The
chm'ges
riot
directed
stance, he enumerates
not only against
the
Cntias but Alcibiades
among political
the anti-democratical
pupils of element
ohUu 6vlSos (which the
in
acSocrates ; and he speaks
of the his
cusers also took advantage
teachof),
political activity of
Socrates ing only.
as a plea for not delaying,
but after the battle of
Arginus*
for striking when the time
for
by remarking that the
oliaction came. The real imporgarchs elected on the
council
tance of the quotation
from board their brethren
in politiHomer, he contends, must not
cal sentiments.
It is true the
be sought in the verses
quoted levity of Alcibiades
made him
by Xenophon, but in
those dangerous to the
democratic
omitted by him (II. ii. 192-197,
party, but
his own time he
203-205) the charge was not
never passed for an oligarch,
brought against Socrates
for but for a democrat.
See Xen.
spreading anti -democratic
senMem. i. 2, 12; Tkuc. viii.
timents, which Xenophon
63,
alone 48 and 68. With
regard to the
mentions, but for promoting
condemnation of the victors of
the establishment of
an oli- Argmusai, Athens
had then not
garchical form of government.
only partially, as Forchhammer
This is, however, the very
op- says, but altogether
shaken oif
posite of historical
criticism.
the oligarchical constitution
of
If t orchhammer
relies upon the
Pisander. This may be
gathered
statements of Xenophon, how
he at the same time assert

hat they are false in most
imwrtant points?
And if on
he other hand he wishes
to
trengthon these statements,
10 w can he use
them to upJan
hold
the
ondemns
^'vvever,
view,
by wliich he
them?
^'iidencies elsewliere,
faces of
He
has,
detected oligarcliical
ihem
exist.
where no
For in-
from Fverefs remark, 1. c.

p.
from the account of the
243,
trial
{Xen. Hell.
i.
7), as
well
from the distinct statement
as
of
Plato (Apol.
^
ravTa (Xiu i)v ^ri
rrjs
Tr6\iu>s);
32, C.
koL
^fxoKpaTovfi4urts
not to mention
:
the fact that these

generals
were decided democrats,
and
hence could not have
been
elected by oligarchs.
Rlato,
Apol
2i,
13.
p. 193, 1
SOCRATES.
214
Chap.
X.
not only the Grods of the republican party, but the

If in some few instances, as in the
G-ods of Athens.
trial for the mutilation of the Hermse, insult to the
was brought into connection with attacks on a

republican constitution, the connection was neither a
Grods
necessary one, nor was
it
Further, as
Socrates.
named
in the indictment of
regards
the corruption
of
youth,^ this charge was certainly supported by the
young men contempt

for republican forms of government and aristocratic
insolence, and also that he' was the teacher of Critias.
But the training of Alcibiades was also laid to his
charge, who had injured the city by republican
plea that Socrates instilled into
rather
by
than
opinions.
aristocratic
further
count was, that he taught sons to despise their

action need
fathers,^ and said that no wrong or base
be shunned
Herefrom
(&) Biii
be of advantage.^
would appear that not so
only
if
it
it
much the
the narrower sense of the term, as

the moral and religious character of his teaching was
extended
political character in
toitsnwral
and
re-
ligious
hearings.
The latter
the subject of attack.
aspects exclusively
draw down the wrath of Aristophanes. After all the

ancient and modern discussions as to the scope of the
Clouds,^
it
may
crates of this
be taken
comedy
drawn with a
1
Mem.
Xen. Mem,
i.
for established that
is
2,
49
Apol.
Mem.
i.
2, 56.
Rotscher (Aristophanes, p.
272) gives a review of previous
<
of a
mode of thought
Since then, Droysen]

opinions.
and Schnitzer, Forchhammer,
and Kochly, Akad. Vortr.^

have further gone into the'
p. 25,
20 and 29.
3
not only a representative
poet's license
2, 9.
the So-
1,
question.
CONDEMNED ON GENERAL GROUNDS.
216
which Aristophanes knew to be foreign to the real

man
nor yet was only a general attack thereby
intended on the fondness for metaphysical subtleties,
;
'
;md the absurdity of sophistry and useless learning

but the play was distinctly aimed at the
philosophic
;
tendency of Socrates.
Just as
little
can
it
be sup-
posed, after
what has been said, that this attack

proceeded only from malice or from personal
animosity
Plato's description in the
out of the question.

are
also
Eeisig's
untenable.
Reisig
which Aristophanes
assigns
Symposium puts this

and Wolfs ^ opinions
distributes
to
the traits
Socrates,
between
himself and the whole body of his pupils, Euripides'*

in particular; still the spectators
could not do
otherwise than refer them all to Socrates;
hence
Aristophanes
must have intended
this
reference.
Wolf supposes that the
portrait drawn in the Clouds

of Socrates in his younger years, when
he was
given to natural philosophy.
But the very same
charges were repeated against him eighteen
years
IS
in
later
Apology
the Frogs
and we gather from Plato's
that the current view of Socrates and his

teaching up to the time of his death agreed
substantially with that of Aristophanes
not to mention the
6
As
assumed by G. Herad Nubes, p.

srf, 11, and
by others.
Com)are, on the other hand, Rot'
is
iiann.
elier,
Praaf
p.
294,
273,
307,
311;
mwv/,
p. 3
ITaat. ad
ISubes
Rhein.
(1828) i. K. S. 191.
' In
his translation of the
'louds,
see
Rotschcr,
297.
ilus. ii.
Similarly Van Hensde, CharacConf. Win-
terismi, p. 19, 24.

gers' Sokr. p. 20
*
Who
was
fy^m
'
10 vears^ older
than Socrates, and certainly
not his pupil, although possibly
an acquaintance,
Frogs, 1491.
'->
See'p.' 18.
Chap
X.
^
SOCRATES.
216
Chap.
fact
Socrates
that
natural
attacked
probably never was a lover of
philosophy, and that

as
Sophist
in the Clouds he
is
rather than as a natural
'
philosopher,
(c) Tills is
flwJmH^
a.^sifjfiedto
Aristophanes must, then, really have thought to

discern in the Socrates whom the history of philosohis attack.
p^y sketches features deserving
tlTcioudl this, however,
not
is,
caricature
attributing to
all that,
it
Saying
of course, not saying that he did
the
many
consciously
really foreign features.
we may suppose
his picture agreed
figure,
historical
with
that the
thcj
main
For
features in
idea he had formed to
himself of Socrates, and also with common opinion.!

Siivern, therefore, in supposing that the Socrates of
"^
not meant for an individual, but for a

symbol, and that the poet's attack was not aimed at
the Clouds
is
and rhetorical school in

Far from it, Socrates was
Socrates, but at the sophistic

general,^ cannot be right.
champion of sophistry, because in

Aristophanes' mind he really was that the poet be-
made
to be the
lieved that, taken in his public capacity, he was
he represents him to
Not a single line of his picture has an exclube.
Independently of some
sively political colour.
really the dangerous innovator
things which are obviously not seriously meant,^ the

charges against him are threefold, his being occupied
Clouds, 98.
In the treatise already ref erred to, pp. 19, 26, 30, 55.
3 Not to mention
the false
opinion, which however is supported by Zr<?7'fc&e?'/7 (Alcibiades,
p. 67), that the play was aimed
'
at Alcibiades, who is concealed

under the name of Phidippides.
See, on the contrary, Droysen,
Schnitzer, p. 34.
p. 180
* Such as the calculation ofi
'
flea-jumps.
217
with useless physical and intellectual subtleties,' his

rejecting the Gods of the city,^ and what is the
corner-point of the whole play, his sophistic facility
Chap.
of speech, which can gain for the wrong side the

victory over the right, and make the weaker argu-
ment the
stronger.3
In other words, the unpractical,

irreligious, and sophistical elements in the
Socratic
teaching are attacked there is not a word about his
;
anti-republican tendency, which Aristophanes, we may

suppose, had he observed, would before all things
have
exposed.
Even
at a later time,'* Aristophanes brings
no other complaints against Socrates than

these.
Only these points, too, according to Plato, constituted
the standing charges against Socrates,
causing him
special danger.*
And there is every reason for believing his assurance.
If then the
theless,
this
impeachment of Socrates has, neverbeen set down to a political motive, how can
admission be made to agree with the previous
{d) Sacra]'^jf/^
'^^^
^'^^k
because of
his anti-
^^^'
2
qfi?~i?n
A
<îouas,
Al
oon
r.
Droysen,
y.
AowdB, p. 177, unfairly blames
his play for making a stronger
irgument into a right one.
cue hdyos Kpelrrwu is the really
tronger case in point of jusice, according to tlie original
oeaning of the word (Xenoph.
Eg 11. 25 Artst. Rhet. ii. 24),
rtich is however t n-own into
he S],ade by the X6yos Vro,.
nd what
6yoy
meant by rhv t^tto,

Kpelrra, ôi,7u is, making
IS
le case
which in point of
ce
weaker,
is
to
be
jus-
the
stronger as to the actual re- 'r^^îblicaii

suit, giving to an unjust act ^^^'''^^' *"^^
as being aii
the colour of justice.
enemy of
Frogs, 1491.
* Apol. 23, D.
hiyovciv i,s ^^^^ 'lood
Sco/cp^TTjy -vis
Siacpdeip^t
ân
tîapd^rarol Kal
Ka\ eVeiSd,/
robs piovs
ns
ahrohs 4p<,ra,
S,5da,ccoy,
'6
^x'^vai
iroiiiu Ka\
,r,u
'6
oddkv
diruu, dAA' ayvooZcnu, ha 5^ ah

BoKu>a.. anope7u, -rh Kara nduZl
ri)^ <pi\oao<{>o{>uTa,u irpove^pa
rav-
ra KeyooaJ, '6r. .^ '^..'idpJZx

tA
y9,s, Ka\ e.ohs ah uoÛ\,^
Ka\ rhu ^rro,
Ibid. 18, B.
Xoyov Hp.irr^
ttol.Tu
^^^ time.
SOCRATES.
218
Chap.
true answer to this question has

The conbeen already hinted at by other writers.^
statement
The
viction of the guilt of Socrates rested on the assumed
dangerous character of his teaching for morality and

religion the reason that this offence was judicially
prosecuted lay without doubt in the special political

The rationalism of the
circumstances of the time.
Sophists was neither the sole nor the chief cause of
the
fall
of Athens in the Peloponnesian war
still it
contributed unmistakeably to that result, and the opponents of the new culture were naturally disposed to
make
Had
guilt out to be greater than it really was.
its
not the schools of the Sophists sent forth not a
few of the modern statesmen, who either as the leaders

of oligarchy or democracy had torn the state to pieces ?
Was not in those schools a corrupt form of morality
publicly taught, which substituted the wishes and
caprice of the individual in place of existing custom
and
religion,
taught
men
summit
of
put gain in the place of right, and

to
desire absolute sovereignty as the
human happiness?
Were not
those
unscrupulous eloquence,
which employed a variety of technical tricks for any
purpose, no matter what, considering it the highest
schools
the
cradle of an
triumph to make the wrong side the winning side ?

Gan we then wonder that Aristophanes thought the
new-fangled education responsible for
tunes of the commonwealth
ymtter,
p.
31.
Ifarhach,
and
185, 9
Schwegler, Gesch. d. Phil. 30.
Gesch. d. Phil.
i.
all
the misfor-
that Anytus in Plato

Clouds, 910; Knights, 1373,
Further
details
Clonds, 24.
in
Suvern.

cannot find
terms strong
219
enough to express his
Chap.
'
horror of the pernicious influence of the Sophists
good old time believed that in

Sophistry lay the chief malady of the state; and
that all friends of the
that this feeling was intensified during the last years

of the Peloponnesian war,
reign of force
those
Was
it
and under the oligarchial
then other than natural that
who had rescued Athens from the
oligarchy,
re-establishing with the old constitution her political
independence, should wish by suppressing the education of the Sophists to
stop the evil at its source.
jNow Socrates passed not only for a teacher of the
modern Sophistic school, but the
evil effects of his
leaching were thought to be seen in several of his
among whom Critias and Alcibiades were

prominent.^
What more intelligible under such
:'ircumstances, than that just those who were bent
|)iipils,
upon restoring a popular form of government, and

ancient glory of Athens, should see in
the
'orrupter of youth,
le
and a dangerous citizen
him a
Thus
certainly fell a victim to the republican reaction
ikvhich set
E'ôr
that his political views were not in them-
all
elvcs
in after the overthrow of the thirty tyrants.
the
ittack.
principal
motives which provoked the
His guilt was rather supposed to consist in
he subversion of ancestral customs
and piety, of
vhich the anti-republican tendency of his teaching

I
Meno,
How
1)1,
C.
largely this
circumtance contributed towards the

''ondemnation of Socrates is
I
'
'
proved by Xen. Mem.
i,
2, 12,
as well as by the above-mentioned authority, ^schines.
SOCRATES.
220
Chap.
X.
was partly an indirect consequence, partly an

manifestation.
How
Justice
of the
C.
sentence.
(1) Unfounded
cliarges.
(a) In relation to
Ids teaching, life,
and
ence.
influ-
isolated
then does
it really
and of the sentence to which

And what must be thought of the moderE
tice of this accusation

it
led
stand touching the jus-
Most of the charges which
attempts to justify it?
were preferred against Socrates, rest undeniably od

misunderstandings, perversions, or false inferencesj
is
said to have rejected the G-ods of the
We
have already seen this statement contran
Socrates
state.
dieted by
all historical
have substituted his
testimonies.^
He
is
said to
Bai/jLovtov in their place.
however, likewise know that he neither put

known
that Hegel
on the side of
Greek law, and Dresig, a hundred years earlier, maintained
in a very superficial treatise,
that Socrates, as an opponent
of a republican government,
had been justly condemned.
*
It is well
has defended
it
Forchhammer goes a great deal

further in his treatise, and so
See p. 178, 3.
does Denis.
Kochly, on the other hand,
confines himself, in Acad.Vortr.
i. 382, to the assertion that in
the indictment of Socrates
guilt was equally divided and
minimum on
to a
The answer of
either side.
Heinsius to Forchhammer (So-
reduced
crates nach dem Grade seiner

Schuld. Lips, 1839) is unimportant, and the learned Apologia
Socratis contra Meliti redivivi
Calumniam, by P. van Limburg

Brouwer (Gron. 1838), is deinto the
in insight
general questions involved, and
ficient
We.)
it
ir
inferior to the treatise o1

Preller (Haller, A. L. Z. 1838;
No. 87), although many of its
Luzae
details are valuable.
de Socrate cive 1796, despite
his usual learning, does little
for the question. Grote's re^
is
marks, on the other hand

touching the extenuating cir
which, withoul
cumstances,
altogether justifying, excuse
the condemnation of Socrates
are deserving of all attention
Grote, Hist, of Greece, viii
678, 653.
2
Forchhammer
repeats
th(
charge without proof, as if it;

truth were obvious of itself
and he speaks of orthodoxy anc
heresy like a modern theolo
But a Greek though
gian.
far less of belief than of out;
ward service, and hence X<?W(?[
phon, Mem. i. 1, 2, refutes th(
charge by an appeal to the fac
that he had sacrificed to tin
Gods.
JUSTICE OF THE SENTENCE.

;he place of the
m the
221
Gods, nor sought thereby to encroach
ground of
Chap.
^'
It was a private oracle
oracles.^
n addition to those publicly recognised and in a

jountry where divine revelations were not
the exclu;
property of the priesthood, a private oracle

could
live
He
refused to no one.^
)e
moted to the
is
said to have
been deheavenly wisdom of Anaxa-
atheistic,
although he expressly declared it to be absurd.^

said according to Aristophanes to
have given
nstruction in the Sophistic art of oratorya
charge
foras,^
le
is
untrue, that to
appearances even Meletus did
all
venture to prefer
lot
He
it.
een the teacher of Critias
is
blamed
for having
and Alcibiades, to which
harge even Xenophon justly replied ^ that

these
aen did not learn their vices from
Socrates, nor
egenerate, until after being separated
from him.
dlowing, too, that a teacher must
instil into his
upils a lasting turn for the good,^ is
it
necessarily
is
fault if
Compare
he does not succeed in some few

cases
p. 76,
7; 89; 149,
\4jr.
X
Xenoplion ^1,
therefore
appeals
1
goodfaih
cratjes'
Id Plato
belief
(Mem.
as
i.
2)
proof of
1,
the Gods,
compares his revela-
P^'^l'^^^^^^^
of
B).
nn
ivthyphro ;j?^
(Euthyphro, 3,
IS indeed known, from
other
urces, how much private dination was practised, besides

>pealing to public oracles.
Not only Aristophanes
but
eletus brings
this
charge
ainst
I,
p.
him
10,
Leben und Schriften,
p. 480).
considers it
Forchhammer
-^^
the 5a.ô.o.
in Plato, Apol. 26,

like Ast (Platon's
incredible that Meletus should
have
given
such
careless
reply to Socrates, he forcêtl

that it is always' the wajof
tlie world to confound
relative
^îth positive atheism,
doubts
about particular religiourno!

tions with the denial of all re
ligion.
This is quite universal
in the nations of ant in
uitv
and therefore the early Christ'

^
ians were called i.e,o^
*
See p. 135,
Mem.
Forchhammer,
i.
2,
12
p. 43
SOCRATES.
222
CHAP.
X-
estimated
of any instruction can only be
these bear as bright a
^^y its collective effects, and
of Socrates
testimony to the value of the instruction
A man whose beneficial influence
wished.
The value
can be
not only reached to
as
many
by whom
which served
individuals,^ but
morals was laid

as a matter of course,
his people for centuries, was,
the verses o:
'no corrupter of youth. If further
promote usefu
Hesiod, by which Socrates sought to
^ Xenophon has conare alleged against him
a
new foundation
for
activity
clusively proved that an
ill
use has been
made
of these
he has been accused of teaching

h(
men to despise parents and relations, because
worth
maintained that only knowledge constituted
inference from principles
surely this is a most unfair
mouth. Am
which had a simple meaning in his
verses.
If lastly,
teacher
who makes
his
pupil
understand that
become a usefu
must learn something in order to
Onh
in order.
and estimable man, is surely quite
a grudge for making
the rabble can bear the teacher
'
Very different woub

sons wiser than their fathers.
Socrates spoken disparagingly o
it have been had
set lightly by the dut;
the ignorance of parents, or
of children; but
from
so
Plato s Apol. 33, D., menalso

tions a whole string
1
X^rMem.
i.
2, 48.
t\em
.2,56; PZ^l^., Char,

Conf.
p. 212, 4.
163 B
sM^rn i 2 49
A
Mem.'ii. 2, 3.
further charge is connected
w?th the above, viz., that he
4
Tnduced many young
men
to
doing he was far removed.

follow his training rather tlja:
Th
that of their parents.
s Apology al
and attempts to just.
order to decid
But
fy.
whether it is an establishe
fact, and whether Socrates
here to blame, it is mdee
quite possible we need a mor
trustworthy authority, and w
fact
lows,
Xenophon
UNFOUNDED CHARGES.
223
might be replied that one who judged the value of

a man simply and solely by his knowledge, and who at
the same time found all wanting in true knowledge,
was making his pupils self-conceited, and teachIt
ing them to consider themselves above

by their own imaginary knowledge.
all
Chap.
authority
But whilst
with partial eye overrating the importance of knowledge, Socrates avoided this practically harmful inference by above all endeavouring to
conscious of their
make his friends
own want
of knowledge, and laying

no claim to knowledge himself, but only professing
to pursue it.
No fear that any one imbued with
this
of humility and modesty, would misuse

the Socratic teaching.
For its misconstruction and
spirit
for the
consequences of a superficial and defective

conception of it Socrates is as little responsible as
any other teacher.
in
Of more moment is another point touched upon

the judicial proceedings the relation of Socrates
himself to
the
Athenian democracy.
As
is
(J)
affJJ[-'n
well huposi-
known, Socrates considered the existing constitution

llZdTthe
a complete failure.^
He would not have the power ^^^^^^
in the state awarded by lot or by election,
but by the
qualification of the individuals
;
and he occasionally
sxpressed opinions respecting the masses who thronged
the
Pnyx and
filled
the theatre at assemblies of the
people containing no doubt a great deal of truth,

night
to
know
the circumIn the single

Jasc there mentioned, that of
^he son of Anytus, the trutli
)t which appears doubtful.
Sourates probably did not set the
stances
better.
son
against his father, but

urged the father to give him
a better education, or else expressed himself to a third party
to that effect,
See p. 167.
SOCRATES.
224
Chap.^
^-
but coming very near to treason against the soveIt was natural that his
reignty of the people.^
use of such expressions, and
on the
that they should not be without influence
Still a free censure of existing institutions
judges.
accusers should
make
may
by no means treason. Some Grrecian states
very
have confined the liberty of speech within
narrow limits, but at Athens the freedom of thought
and of speecli was unlimited it formed an integral
is
Athenian
portion of the republican constitution ; the
regarded it as an inalienable right and was proud to
be herein distinguished from every other
state.^
In
quarrels there is
the time of the most violent party
no instance of interference with either

or political teaching.
political viewsj
The outspoken
friends of al
Spartan aristocracy could openly stick to theirf

actual attacks^
colours, so long as they refrained from
on the existing state of things
and was
Socratesji
^
not to be allowed the same privilege ?
In the shape of actual deeds nothing, however^
He had never trans-t
could be laid to his charge.
I
In Mem. iii. 7, Socrates attempts to relieve Charmides of

his dread of appearing in publie by reminding him, that the
1
people
whom
he
is
afraid of,
consist of peasants, shoemakers,

nedlars, &c., and therefore do
not deserve such consideration.
The charge preferred by the

Mem. i. 2, 58, that
accuser
Socrates thought it was reasonable for the rich to abuse the
poor, is clearly a misrepresen\lli^^
2
Compare
Plato, Gorg. 461,
E.
603
Demosth. in Androt.
Funebr. 1396.
G.pte s reference to the
il
Platonic state,
1.
c. p.
679,^ in^
which no freedom of mdividual opinion was allowed i^

not altogether to the pomtJ
fundamental ideas ofi
The
Plato's state are different td
Athensii
those then prevailing
reckon^
B.,
viii.
557,
Kep.
Plato,
freedom of speech among thf
evils of a democracy, a type o^
which was the Athenian form
of government.
UNFOUNDED CHABOBS.
g,,^
gressed the laws of the

state.
had
been conscientiously
t.:
"^" ""^*
z. "^H
acUon
On"
His duties as a citizen

fulfilled.
His avowed
.>,
'^^^ ^^
^^- -2
*^^
" P"''*""" '
^'''^
oligarchical
''^^ ^'^'''^ '^^^ '"'^^ ''--dad his

oncel
once
to rescue the victors
at Arginusee
o-ond
lemocrats-fron. the
extrajudicial mer!i s
ofTn i^
îte,
ffe
unated populace, the

other
ained out
His school,
tin>e
to
prevent an
too, in as far as
it
a school, had no
decided political
e greater nunnber
of his pupils were
lied
e upper
cWs,3
and hence Jrobably
can he
bi"
If
taken from
beWedT
Lt iS,L
:tosrofr:r::j7or-^^
e
aristocratic
'ê^
party,
one of his
^t
no decided
^htical inactivity
has
TX^Tf
been brought against
odern times.
On this head,
ay be passed on him
from
d^fferenT^grn
different poin/s
ZZ]
rr
Mm in
"'^ P^^'^
o/v"e"
'"- forcontinrg
^' "* ""^^^^^g his powers

hi, Ufc
d his
hfe on a career, in
which he would have
a.ned no success,
and for which he
was unfitted
unthtje"o7'
able
offence
*^'^^"'
"
^^
-^^-'y -^
of all to avoid it
under the conviction
that you
do more good to
the state in other
^st
>
''^
to avoid a
statesman's career;
'Z
ways.
^^n.
See
i.
1,
pp.
17.
66;
67;
148;
17^
*
'
^P""^-
^"^'
^'
Chjerephon, ibid.
21,
^^^
P-
r...
"
"
'
"
SOCRATES.
22(3
was to Socrates an
help the state in his own way
His
deepest interest.^
object of the highest and
corresponded with
theories may not have
CH^p
_^1__
political
character as a citizen
existing institutions, but his
according to the
must be admitted to be pure ; and
of no crime against the
laws of Athens, he was guilty
Nor were the
(2) ReUtion home
t^
His whole position was

at variance with th(
as Hegel has so well indicated,^
Th(
morality.
occupied by the old Greek
national form of life
moral life of Greece, like every
It relied partly oi
rested originally on authority.
^^-^^g
to
theancient
""^''''
.-
onlj
political views of Socrates the
^;tiich
gave offence.
the laws of the stat(

the unquestioned authority of
influence of custor^
and partly on the all-powerful
convictions to tb
training, which raised general
and
traceable by no one
rank of written laws of God,
a definite origin.
To oppose
this traditional moralitl
conceit, an offenc
was regarded as a crime and
To doubt i^
against God and the commonweal.
any one, nor wi
rfghtfulness never occurred to
indeed permitted
an
enquiry into
^^
and
its
for this
reason, the need^^
foundations,
of proving
i'
But this law had lo]!

fallen into disuse, if indee^
force, a
had ever been
who can blame Socrates for
rio-Ms.
RK
.TlnM'li
period it
that
offence,
given
mio-ht have
Soorates appeared to hold aloof
questions of
froTthe
Ms time and an appeal might
have been made to the old law
Arist.
of Solon, pL. Sol. c. 20
threaten12,
1,
in Gell. N. A. ii.
ing neutrals in case of an mcivil
ternal quarrel with loss of
pSal
--^-^ --*-\^"ji
conscientiously side withnc
of the conflicting parties

haps it was a pol
^%^' ^^^^V
'
/pU
?P
na^
!
81
i
Gesch. d. PhU. n.
im
llELATION TO THE ANCIENT MORALITY.
necessity, or even of supporting it

spection, was never felt.
227
by personal intro-
Chap.
X.
Socrates, however,
demanded such an enquiry.

allow nothing to be believed, and
have nothing done, until men were first
fully convinced of its
truth or expediency.
For him it is not
ia^~p^
He would
enough
rule, universally recognised
lished,
but the individual must think out

each subject
and discover
its
JXf
to
have a
for himself,
''''*^^
T^,{Ze
and legally estab-
^^ '^^^*^'''^^'
reasons: true virtue and
right action are only possible
when they spring from
personal conviction.
Hence his whole life was spent

examining the. current notions touching
morals, in
nesting their truth, and seeking
for their reasons,
rhis examination brought him
in nearly all points to
:he same results as those
which were
in
established
)y
custom and opinion.
espects clearer
and
7hich he shared in
'f
If his notions were in many

sharper, this advantage was one
common
with the best and wisest
his contemporaries.
Nevertheless, tried by the

tandard of the old Greek morality, his
position seems
ery critical. In the first place the
ordinary morality,
nd the received rules of conduct resting

on authority
nd tradition, were by him deprived
of their chief
In comparison with knowledge, and

the connous virtue of Socrates, they were
so much depreiated, that not only was the
self-love of individuals
urt, but the actual validity
of the laws of
alue.
the state
as called in question.
If
man
has only to follow his
mi convictions, he will agree with

the popular will
ily when, and in as far as,
it agi-ees with his convic-*
ons.
If the two come into collision,
there can be
Q 2
'''
'
SOCRATES.
228
This
which side he will espouse.
Socrates in his deprinciple is candidly avowed by
j
that he would
in his celebrated declaration
no doubt
Chap.
X.
as to
fence,
And thus his

rather than the Athenians.^
and irreconcileviews stand, even in theory, in sharp
It was imposable contradiction to the older view.
aod
obey
therefore
sible
to guarantee, indeed it was highly
agreement
improbable that there would be, a perfect
matter of
between the two in their results, and as a
undeniably
Socrates by his political views was
fact,
opposed to the existing form of constitution.^

the
There can moreover be no mistaking
Less
importance attached to
(Z>)
fact,
Socratic philosophy
that the whole character of the
preponderance given to politi-|
is at variance with the
without which the Greek states could
politics.
cal interests,
range, have achieved,

never, considering their limited
The duty of the individual towards the!
greatness.
was indeed recognised by Socrates to itsf
community
extent.
full
Even
his
friends he
mged
to devote'
when any of them!

their attention to public affairs
keeping back'
showed ability for the task,^ and in
those who were young ^ and unformed,"
meritoriously from the point of view ol
from public
he acted
'
life
Still the maxim that man must be

ancient Greece.
sure of his own mora?
clear about himself, and be
that of others and
well-being before meddling with
of Socratee
the community;^ the conviction
with
only alien to his owr

that a political career was not
^
2
3
Plat. Apol. 29, C.

See p. 167 and 223.
See
p. 167, 3.
Mem.
iii.
216, A.
Plato, 1. c.
Symp.
iv.
Plato
Hm
RELATION TO THE ANCIENT MORALITY.
'2n
character, but impossible, in the

then state of things,
to a man of integrity ;
the whole inward turn
Chap.
given
thought and pursuits, the demand for
self-knowledge, for moral knowledge, for
self-training- all
bo
^_
this
3ould not
but weaken in himself and his pupils

the
nclination for political life.
It could not fail to
nake the moral perfection of the individual
the
main
)oint,
while
reducing activity for the state that

lighest and most immediate
duty of a citizen accordng to the ancient view to a
subordinate and de-
ivative rank.
And,
lastly, if
the charge of rejecting his country's

rods was, as he believed, unjustly
preferred against
Derates, still his theory, it must
be admitted,
was an
xtremely perilous one, as was

seen in the case of
.ntisthenes,
when once the Socratic demand for
nowledge was developed to its

consequences, and
ihgious notions were similarly
dealt with in order
discover what people understood
thereby.
This is
)
ue also
of his 8aifi6vcou,
ideed a place
its
As a kind of oracle it had

on the ground of the Greek faith, but
internal character it
made the decision depend

the subject instead of depending
on external pornts.
And yet how dangerous was this
7
I
proceeding
a country in which oracles were

not only a religious
It a political
institution
How easily might others
led to imitate the example
of Socrates, taking
unsel,
iad of
however, with their own understanding

int
with an undefined inward feeling,
and thus
inking little of belief in the

'
Gods
Rluto, Apol. 31, C.
or of their utter-
{c)
His
^'"''^''"'
7î.
SOCJRATES.
230
indeed be convinced that Socrates

main, and it is
was in all these points right in the
and founder of
quite true that he was the precursor
could this new
our moral view of the world ; but how
who shared the
idea of right be admitted by any one
the ancient Greek world ? How could
ances
CHAP.
X
*
We may
traditions of
upon these traditions allow such an idea

an act of suicide ?
to be spread, without commiting
and
Even remembering, then, that Socrates laboured
a state built
Sparta oi;
taught in his simple manner, not in the
generation
Lycurgus, but in Athens and amongst the
shall still find it,
that had fought at Marathon, we
to restraii^^^
quite natural for the state to endeavour
For Athens was absolutely ignorant o_
his action.
which Socratej
that freedom of personal conviction,
In such a com
required, nor could she endure it.^
can cans
munity the punishment of the innovator
no surprise.
For was not a dangerous doctrine, ac
the state
cording to old notions, a crime against
tlj
And if the criminal resolutely refused to obey
actually di^
sentence of the judges, as Socrates
T
follow ?
could the penalty of death fail to
Greek view
one therefore starting from the old
of Socrat
right and the state, the condemnation
how
<
cannot appear to be unjust.

To say that the line adopted by Socrates was not opposed
'
to the constitution of Solon,

but was instead a return to
old Greek custom, as Georgii
(Uebersetzung
o-ie,
p.
129)
d. Plat. Apoloasserts, is not
For not only did he

of appointdisapproval
express
ing by lot to public offices.
Correct.
which was,
it is
true,
an inj
tution later than Solon s tin

but he disliked the popu
and
elections of Solon
^nvestigat
free
of
principle
;
is
widely
^^f'^^^f
s times.
spirit of Solon
the remai;ks
^ Compare
Koch on Aristophanes, i. 7.
HIS RELATION TO
A
that
very different question
whether Athens at
it
is
TIME.
time had a right to this opinion, a point which
the defenders of
LIS
THE MORALITY OF HIS
Athens assume
far too readily.^
To
the question appears to deserve an unqualified
legation.
Had
and
a Socrates appeared in the time of
231
Chap.
X.
(3) Relation home
hy his
theory to
the times
in whicJb
he lived.
and had he been condemned

:hen, the sentence might be regarded as a simple
{a)Theold
let of defence on the part of the old morality against
morality
Miltiades
Aristides,
In the period after the was already in a

Peloponnesian war such a view can no longer be state of
admitted.
For where was the solid morality which decay.
he
spirit of
innovation.
Vnytus and Meletus were supposed to defend
kinds of relations, views, and modes of
lot all
Had
life
ong since been penetrated by an individualising

endency far more dangerous than that of Socrates ?
iad not men been long accustomed in place of the
Hegel, 1. c. -g. 100, is here
nost nearly right, although he
'
egards the Athenians excluively as the representatives

tf
the old Greek morality,
rorchhammer, on the contrary,
anything but impartial, in

Qaking the Athenians conservative, and Socrates a revolus
ionary,
and attributing to the

extreme consequences
atter the
those principles, notwithtandinghisprotest. Nietzsche,

00 (Sokr. u. d. Griech.Tragodie,
29), overlooks the difference
'f times in tliinkingthat, when
iocrates had once been imf
).
leached,
liis
condemnation was
were allowed,
[uite just. If this
a word could be said against

he sentence of death.
For,
according to Athenian custom,
lot
when a verdict of guilty had

been brought in, the judges
could only choose between the
jienalty
plaintiff
demanded by the
and that asked for by
the defendant
in the present
case between death and an illusorj fine.
But the question
really is whether Socrates de;
served punishment at all, and

to this question a negative
answer must be given both
from our point of view as well
as from that of his cotemporaries
from ours, because we
take liberty of judgment to be
something sacred and inviolable from theirs, because the
Athenians had long since departed from the ancient state
;
of things.
^
i
SOCRATES.
232
Chap.
great statesmen of old to see demagogues and aristo-
'
on every other point,
crats in feud with each other
but agreeing in the thoughtless play of rivalry and
ambition
Had
not
men
of that
time passed through a school of rationalism which
had entirely pulled to pieces the
and the
for a gene-
the cultivated
all
morals of their ancestors
Had
beliefs
not
men
ration lived themselves into the belief that laws are
the creations of caprice, and that natural right and

positive right are very different things
What had
become of the olden chastity when Aristophanes

could
tell his
hearers in the midst of his attacks
on Socrates, half in joke, half in

were one and
all
What had become
adulterers?^
when the
ancient piety at a time
derision, that they

of;
sceptical verses of'
Euripides were in every one's mouth, when everyyear the happy sallies of Aristophanes and other
comedians in
successful derision of the inhabitants!
Olympus were clapped, when the most unprejudiced

complained that fear of Grod, trust, and faith, had|'
vanished,^ and when the stories of future retribution!
of
were universally derided
This state of things Socrates did not
(h) So-
Tir^ ^'^'ti ^^^^^
i^ existing.
What
sists
existim.
time, trying to reform
making the
blamed
it
he
for really con-
by means of
hisj
itself, inste?
and silly attempt to bring i1

a type of culture which was gone for ever^
back to
useless
was an obviously
It
is
in this, that he entered into the spirit of
wluit he
of
he
make
Conf
Clouds, 1083.
p. 29.
opponents
false attack of his

3
Thuc.
Plato, Rep.
iii.
82
i.
ii.
53.
330, D.
t(
>
HIS liELA TION TO THE MORALITY OF HIS TIME.

hold
him
responsible for the corruption of faith
and
morals, which he was trying to stem in the only

possible way.
It was a clumsy self-deception on
their part to
imagine themselves men of the good old

time. His condemnation is not only a great injustice
according to our conceptions of right, but it
also according to the standard of his own time
is
;
so
it is
a crying political anachronism, one of those unfortunate measures, by which a policy of restauration is
ever sure to expose its incompetence and
shortsightedness.
Socrates
certainly
left
the
original
ground of Greek thought, and transported it beyond

the bounds, within which this particular
form of
aational life was alone possible.
50
)f
But he did not do
before it was time, nor before the untenableness

the old position had been amply demonstrated,
rhe revolution which was going forward in

the whole
spirit of the Greeks, was not
the fault of one individual, but it was the fault of destiny,
or rather it
vas the general fault of the time.
The Athenians
n punishing him condemned themselves, and

comnitted the injustice of making him pay
the penalty^
>f what was historically the
fault of all.
The conlemnation therefore was not of the least use :
intead of being banished, the spirit of innovation
was,
'n the contrary, thereby all the
more aroused. We
lave
aoral
then here not a simple collision between two

powers equally justified and equally limited,
and innocence are not equally divided between

he parties.
On the one hand was a principle his3rically necessary and higher in
respect of importhiilt
2Z:\
Chap.
^-
SOCRATES.
234
Chap.
X.
ance, of which Socrates had an unquestioned claim

On the other hand, one
to be the representative.
far
to
more
by
limited, represented
his opponents,
which they have no longer a just
do not faithfully adhere to
it.
but
right, since they
This constitutes the
turn in the fate of Socrates. A

is truly conservative is attacked by
peculiar
tragic
reformer
who
nominal and imaginary restorers of old times. The

Athenians in punishing him give themselves up as
lost; for in reality it is not for destroying morals
that he is punished, but for attempting to restore
them.
(6-)
hreacU
hetween
Socratas
and
his
countrym,en was
tihsolutelif
nccessarij.
To form a correct judgment of the whole occurrence, we must not forget that Socrates was condemned by only a very small majority, that to all
appearances it lay in his own power to secure his
and that undoubtedly he would have escaped with a far less punishment than death, had he
not challenged his judges by the appearance of pride.
acquittal,
These circumstances must make us doubly doubtful

of regarding his ruin as an unavoidable consequence
AsJ
of his rebellion against the spirit of his nation.
they place the guilt of the Athenians in a milder;
light,
by laying
it
in part on the head of the accused,,*
they at the same time prove that accidental

events, in no way connected with the leading charao
so too
had great weight in the fini

No doubt Socrates was at variance wiiiP
decision.
the position and the demands of the ancient moralit}
ter of his teaching,
in essential points
but
it
was not necessary in
then state of opinion at Athens, that

to a breach between
him and
it
th<
should com*
his nation.
Althoug|
RESULTS OF HIS DEATH.
235
the political reaction after the expulsion of the thirty

tyrants was sufficiently powerful to bring about
Chap.
^'
an
attack on him, the conviction of his guilt was not so
might have been possible for

punishment of death.
honour and his cause it was a happy
universal but that
him
it
to escape the
For
his
thing that he did not escape.
What
(4)
Socrates in hu^fth.
that
pious faith expressed after his condemnation

die would be better for
has
him than to live

been fully realised in his work. The picture of the
dying Socrates must have afforded to his pupils, in
to
the highest degree,

to us
it
now
after centuries affords
simple testimony to the greatness of the
human mind,
victory
what
of a
to the
spirit
clear conviction.
It
power of philosophy, and to the

pious and pure, reposing" on
must have stood before them
in
glory, as the guiding star of their inner life,
all its
as it is depicted
by Plato's master hand.
It
must
have increased their admiration for their teacher,

their zeal to imitate him, their devotion to his teaching.
By
his death the
impressed on his
life
stamp of higher truth was
and words.
and happy cheerfulness
The sublime repose

with which he met death,
was the strongest corroboration of
all his
the zenith of a long life devoted to

virtue.
convictions,
knowledge and
Death did not add to the substance of
teaching, but it greatly strengthened
The
its
his
influence.
had been spent in sowing the seeds of knowledge with a zeal unequalled by any other philosopher
life
either before or after; his death greatly forwarded
the harvest, so that they brouglit forth fruit abundantly in the Socratic Schools.
1 ,
PAET
III.
THE IMPERFECT FOLLO WERS OF SOCRATES,
CHAPTEE XL
THE SCHOOL OF SOCKATES
XENOPHON
Chap.
XI.
A. School
(>f Socrates.
MIND
SO great
HIS POPULAR
PHILOSOPHY.
^SCHINES.
and active in every way
Socrates could not fail to
make
as that of
a lasting impression
it came into
most
perfect
contact.
systems are often
all
their
adherents in the same
not understood by
might
not
much
a
greater divergence and"
sense,
apprehension
be expected, in a case where
variety of
no system lay ready to hand, but only the fragments
and germs of what might be one a person, a principle, a method, a mass of individual utterances and of!
The greater part of the foldesultory discussions ?
lowers of Socrates confined their attention to what
was most obvious and lay nearest to an ordinary in-
on every kind of character with which

If then the
telligence
the
originality, the purity of character,
the intelligent view of

beautiful moral
smaller
life,
maxims
the deep piety and the
of their teacher.
number gave more
Only
at
careful attention to the'
THE SOCRATIC SCHOOLS.
2'67
deeper thoughts, which often appeared

under so unpretentious an outside, and even
of these nearly all
took a very narrow view of the
subjects which occupied Socrates.
Combining older theories with the

teaching of their master, which it
is true needed to
be thus supplemented, they did
so in such a manner
as almost to lose the distinctive
merits of his philosophy.
One only with a deeper insight into
the spirit
of Socrates has succeeded in
creating a system which
presents in a most brilliant and
extended
Socrates had attempted in another
more limited scale.
In the
form what
manner and on a
of these classes must be placed

without doubt by far the greater
number of those who are
known to us as the pupils of Socrates.
The writinsfs
first
Besides the Socratists who

be presently mentioned,
are Crito {Xen. Mem. ii.
9
Plato, Crito, Pheedo, 59, B., 60,'
A--,
63, D., 115, A.
Euthydeoaus
Ding. ii. 121, who makes
iim the author of seventeen
looks, which, however,
belong
'
will
him
as little as his supposchildren Hermogenes, and

>thers), and Clitobulus his
son
;o
ed
Xen. Mem. i. J],

-6 Symp. 4, 10
;
8. ii. 6
(Ec.
Plato, Apol.
PhsKdo, 59, B.
;
D., 38, B.
Esch. in Athenceus v. 220, a.)
'hasrephon (Mem. 2, 48 ii. 3
i.%
Apol. 20, E.
Charm!
Gorgias, Aristophanes,
clouds, Birds, 1296)
and his
rother
Chserecrates
(Mem.
""lata,
IJS,
c.)
1,
B.
also Apollodorus (Mem.

11, 17;
Plato, Apol. 34,
38, B.
Phasdo, 59, B., 117,
;
.
;
Symp.) Aristodemus (Mem.

;
Plato, Symp. 173, B.,

174,
223,
B.);
Euthydemus
(Mem. iv. 2
5 ; 6 ; PL,
3
Sym. 222 B.) ; Theages (PI
Apol. 33 E.
Kep. vi. 496, B )
1.
Hermogenes {Xen. Mem.

4
h}\?'
PL Phffido,
Sym.
ii.
lo'
46 Apol. 2,
59, B).
In Mem. i.
2, 48, perhaps "Epixoy^v-ns
should
be read for Hermocrates
bui
;
4,
any rate this Hermocrates

must be distinguished from the
Hermocrates
mentioned PI
Tim 19, C, 20, A, Krit. 108,'
at
the latter being a stranger

stays at Athens on
who only
his way.
Compare Steinhart,
PI. W. vi. 39 and 235
Phaido;
nides (Mem.
59,
C.)
33, E.)
?;
48 PI. Ph^do,
Theodotus {PL Apol.
i.
2,
Epigenes (Ph^do, 59,
Mem.
iii. 12);
Menexenus
(Phasdo, 59, B. Lysis, 206,
D.'^
Ctesippus
(Phaedo, Euthyde;
SOCRATES.
238
Chap.
XI.
too which are attributed to
Socrates
amongst
many of these
followers of
which, however, there
is
much
spurious were, on an average doubtless little

more than summaries of popular moral maxims.'
that
is
underof the best illustrations of this mode of

standing and applying the doctrines of Socrates may
One
be found in Xenophon.^
mus,
and
Lysis);
Jud. de Thuc. c. 31, p. 941,

reckons among the followers of
Socrates and Alcibiades in
their younger years (Mem. i.
2, 12, Plato); not to mention
others who were acquainted
with Socrates, but did not join
his way of thinking, such as
Phsedrus the friend of Sophistry
{Plato, Fhied., Symp.); Callias
(Xeti. Symp., Plato, Phot.) the
Theaetetus
Prod, in
the younger
(Theajtet. Soph. Pol.
Euclid. 19, m. 20)

Socrates {Plat. Theaet. 147, E
Soph. 218, 8 Polit. 257, C
Arist. Metaph. vii. 11, 1036, 6
25 conf Rerinann, Plat. i. 661)
;
Terpsion (PI. Theast. PhfBdo

59, C.) Charmides (Xen. Mem
Symp. 4, 29
6, 14;
iii. 7;
;
19 Plato, Charm
Sym. 222, B. Prot. 315, A.)
Glaucon the brother of Plato
(Mem. iii. 6; the same individual to whom Bioff. ii. 124,
Hellen.
ii. 4,
younger Pericles (Mem.
iv.
attributes
nine
genuine
Aristarchus (Mem. ii. 7.)

therus (Mem. ii. 8) and
;
and
thirty-two spurious dialogues,

and who is identical with the
Glauco of Plato's Republic, and
the Parmenides, as we assume
following Bockh; conf. Abhandlung d. Berliner Acad.
1873, Hist. Philos. Kl. p. 86)
Cleombrotus (Phd. 59, C.

perhaps the same who is said
;
by Callim. in Cic. Tusc. i.

84, and Sext. Math. i.
34,
48;
Bavid, Proleg. in Cat. 9 Schol.
in Arist. 13, b, 35 Ammon in
Porphyr. Isag. 2, b, to have
committed suicide over the
;
Phsedo, probably not from niisunderstanding the exhortation

to a philosophic death, but
from shame for his conduct
there blamed) Diodorus (Mem.
;
ii.
10)
Critias,
whom
Dionys.
5)
Eu-
many
others.
1
Crito
and Glaucon.
Xenophon, the son of the
Athenian Gryllus, died accord2
ing
ii.
to a statement in
56,
360-359
B.C.
Pioff
Froir
Hellen. vi. 4, 35, however, ii

appears that he survived th(
murder of Alexander of Phera
If the treatise respecting
357.
the public revenues of Athen;
belongs to the year 355, h<
must also have outlived tha
On the authority of Pi
year.
Macrob. 21, his birtl

placed in 450,^ o
formerly
was
on account of his participation
in the battle of Delium, p. 66
The first of thes
2, in 445 B.C.
extremel
however,
is,
passages
untrustworthy, as giving ir
Ltician.
formation depending on th
date of his death which is ver
XENOPIION.
2?A)
impossible in
It is
reading the works of this

author not to be struck with the purity and loftiness
uncertain.
The latter
much at variance with
is
so
what
8ymp. 220, D. says, that
it is a most uncertain foundation on which to build.
Neither passage agrees with
what Xenophon himself says
(Anab. iii. 1, 4 and 25, ouSej/
Plato,
Trpo(paaiÔ(xai
rrjv riAiKiau) 2,
87,
where he mentions himself and

Timasion as the two youngest
amongst the generals.
These
passages place it beyond dispute,
that at the time of the expedition he is describing, 401-400
B.C., he was about 45 years of
age and not much older than
his friend Proxenus, who fell
in it about 30.
(So Grote,
Plato iii. 56.3;

Cobet, Novie
Lect. 635 Bevffk in Ersch. u.
Gruber's Encyl. i. 81, 392
;
_^*/.75msGriech. Gesch.iii. 772,
;
The circumstances of
31,)
life
He
he
died
that he was banished by the

Eleans (probably in 370 B.C.,
when they joined the Thebans
after the battle of Leuctra
Diodor. xv. 62), and spent the
rest of his life at Corinth
{Diog. 53).
His banishment
appears to have ended, when
Athens joined Sparta against
Thebes, as the treatise on the
revenues indicates,
whether
before or after the battle of
Mantinasa, in which his two
sons fought among the Athenian cavalry, and the elder one
Gryllus fell {Bwg. 54; Plut.
Consol. ad Apoll. 33, p. 118),
Xenophon 's writings are distinguished for purity and grace
of language, and the unadorned
clearness of the description
his
Tliey appear to have been pre-
served entire.
The Apology,
however, the Agesilaus, and
the treatise on the Athenian
constitution are certainly spu-
iii. 1, 4, Memorabilia and

(Economicus of his relations
to Socrates, as to the origin of
which Piog. ii. 48, tells a
doubtful story, and
in the
Anabasis of his activity and

experience in the retreat of
the 10,000.
After his return
he entered the Spartan army
in
Asia Minor, and fought
under Agesilaus at Coronea
against his own countrymen.
Banished for this from Athens,

he settled in the Elean Scillus,
colonised by Spartans (Xen.
Anab.
De
More
v. 3,
v.
6,
6 Pior/. ii. 51 Pan4; Pint. Agesil. 18;

;
Exil. 10, p. 603).

According to an ill-accredited story
XI.
B. Xenohere. plioii
credible authorities state
Pausanias
imperfectly.
speaks himself in the Ana-
we only know
basis
.w;t.
in
Chap.
and several others of the

smaller treatises are either
spurious or have large interrious
polations. Stc'mha7't,'^ Flat. I.

300, wrongly doubts the
i)5,
Symposium.
For his
life
and
writings
consult Krilger, De
Xenoph. Vita, Halle, 1832, also
in 2nd vol. of Historisch. philol.
Studien, Panke, De. Xenoph.
Vita et Scriptis, Berlin, 1851.

Grote, Plato iii. 562; Pergk, I.e.
Pdh7' in I'auly's Kealencyclop.
vi. 6, 2791.
For other literature on the subject Ibid, and
Ueberweg, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 95.
240
Chap.
_^^'_
of the sentiment, with his chivalrous character, and
mind
the healthy tone of his
his philosophical
still
capacities cannot be estimated at a very high rate.
His description of Socrates
full of
is
character
the greatness of his
admiration for
philosophical
his
merit and his intellectual labours he has only imNot only does he share the|
perfectly understood.
narrowness of the position of Socrates
as for instance
when he quotes the derogatory opinions
of his mastery
respecting natural science in proof of his piety and

but he misunderstands the true phiintelligence,^
losophic worth of the discussions he reports.
The
formation of conceptions, constituting as it does the

germ of the whole teaching of Socrates, is only acci-
him
dentally mentioned by
in order to show what^
care his master devoted to the critical culture of his

All that he gathers from Socrates' peculiarj
friends.2
habit of asking every one

thirst for
whom
he came across, in his
knowledge, as to his mode of
life, is
that
he tried to make himself useful to people of everyj

The importance of those!
class, craftsmen included.^
maxims
which the whole
too, relative to virtue, in
peculiarity of the Socratic ethics consists, can only

be gathered with so much difficulty from his account,
that
it
Xenophon
how
obvious
is
was understood by
it
Many echoes and reminiscences
himself.^
of teaching are indeed to be
mode
of the Socratic
little
found in his independent sketches

>
Mem.
Ibid.
Mem.
i. 1,
iii.
11
10, 1
iii. 9,
and
conf. 106,
p. 140.
i.
but he
^
iv. 7.
2.
is
Ibid. iv.
too ex-
6.
XENOPHON.
241
cliisively
occupied with their practical application

to
engage in any really scientific researches.
He
de-
scribes the catechetical
mode
of teaching,' in which
he seems to have been somewhat

skilled; but his
dialogues do not aim, like those of
the genuine Socratic type, at the formation
of conceptions, and are
often far too easy in their
proofs and deductions.
He recommends self-knowledge,^ but primarily
only
in its popular sense, meaning,
that no one ought to
attempt what is beyond his powers.
He
piety, self-restraint,3
to hold
maxim
the
consist in
and
so forth,
on
but he appears not
insists
of Socrates,^ that all these

virtues
knowledge.
Following the method used

by Socrates he proves that nothing
is a good of which
you do not make a right use ^ that
every one readily
submits to the wise,^ that right and
law are synonymous terms,7 and that the rich are
not more happy
;
than the poor, that the true

measure of riches and
poverty is not simple possession,
but a possession proportionate to the needs of the
possessor.^
He repeats
what Socrates had said about
truth and error,io yet
not without hinting that
these principles are 'liable
to be abused.
With the same decision as his master,
lie
!
-
declares against the sensual

p^^- ^^' ^}'
Cyrop. vii. 2, 20.

Ihid. viii. i;23.
Compare the conversation

Cyrus and Tigranes,
vrop. 111. I, 10^ and Mem. i.
2,
in which the ordinarv
view is
'
e
p.
>etween
J>,
riven rather
he ffier.'^''
than the Socratic,

^^"^"'^' ''^""^'^
and unnatural abuses

See above, p. 141, 2
' %.^\^
c^,.^^,,
'
li^l'T
'
jjfi
148,1.
29
"'
'"
(Ec 9
^^
6 4
9**
^^-^^P-^-"^' ^^'^
^^^ ^^^''
^^
^^^
'
li,id viii
Mem
^^-
^'
la
^.-^^
'
'
P"
,
^' ^'
Mem. iv. 2,13.
Chap
_J^
242
of thought, he
and, following out his train
have a recognised, social
requires that woman should
more care spent on her education,
of love
...
Chap.
^^
'
and have
position,
made into a real comand that her union should be

based on a recipropanionship for life, and should be
city of capacities
He
and performances.^
exhorts to
liis teacher condemning

work, without, however, like
manual labour.^ By
the Greek prejudice against
us to know what is
of his expressions he gives
many
he
but
and happy life ;
his ideal of a beautiful
philosophic reason for his
neither attempts to give a
ideal,
nor does he place
it
outside the platform ot
Touching the knowledge

care for mankind,
and omnipotence of the Gods, their
piety,^ he expresses
the blessing consequent upon
time he fullj
with warmth but at the same
Greek
traditional
ethics.
himself
shares the belief of his nation

tions
and
in regard to predic-
himself understanding their intermakes Cyrus express the hope of
sacrifices,
He
pretation.
higher
after
life
that view
death, confirming
however, venturing
several considerations, without,
He reminds us tha
to assert it with full assurance.
the soul
is
invisible
that vengeance surely comes
oi
and that honour is du

the murderers of the innocent,
He cannot believe that the soul whic
to the dead.
^
Symp.
165.
7; see p. 166 4.
8, 7, p.
(EC. 313, c.
amongst
Compare
passages,
Cyrop.
i.
6,
othc
23
''"''' ^p^.^.l 5,U;VÛ

\^:',%V'^
''
'?Vem'
Iv'-
i 7. (Vo
8,
"V-J;^ '. t-iV;

2;(Ec.7,
18.
11;
Cyrop.
V^/'
and
6, 28,
'cyrop.
Cyrop^
i.
6,
i.
with Mem.
11.
also pp. I-.''r''ll
65, 5
6,
1.
23
1, 6.
agrees
f^
'
XENOPHON.
gives
243
body should be itself mortal, or that

Chap.
reason should not survive in greater purity
after its _
separation from the body, seeing a sign thereof
in
prophesying in sleep.
In all these explanations we
life
to the
_^_
may
discern the faithful and thoughtful follower

of
Socrates, but there is not a trace of original
thought.
Indeed
it
doubtful whether
is
the few passages in
which Xenophon seems to have somewhat

amplified
the teaching of his master, ought not really
to be attributed to Socrates.
His larger work on politics, the Cyropgedeia, is,

as
a book of political philosophy, unimportant.
Xenophon here proposes to pourtray the Socratic
ideal
of a ruler
cares
who understands
for his
flock
people as
his business,^
a shepherd
but what he really gives,
is
and who
cares
for his
a description of
a valiant and prudent general,^ of an

upright man,
and of a chivalrous conqueror. Not an attempt
is
made
mark out more
to
clearly the province of go-
vernment, to give a higher meaning to the state,

or
by fixed institutions. The demand
for a careful education ^ may reveal
the follower of
to fulfil its object
Socrates, but there is so little reference in that

education to knowledge,^^ that it might more
easily pass for
a Spartan
2
^
-'
Cyrop.
.,
r,
Ihid.
Ibid.
than for a Socratic education.
viii.
7, 17.
See
may be the nameless

friend referred to in this pas-
p.
phon
i.
saye.
^^
Cj-rop.
1.
1, 3.
viii.
2,
See
14
p. 167.
Mem.
Every
i.
2,
viii.
8,
13
vii. 5, 72.
f^L.
Ibid. G, 12, speaks of these

auties ni language similar to
Ûem. 111. 1.
Perhaps Xeno-
A weak
ciple of
4, 3.
eclio of tlie prin-
Socrates
is
found
244
CHAP,
^_
The state
prince.
thing centres in the person of the
The highest aim to which
is an Asiatic kingdom.
tend,^ is the strength and wealth
all its
institutions
of the sovereign
and
his courtiers.
Even
this view is
many important
very imperfectly carried out, and
omitted.^
departments of government are altogether
dia-
In this
The same remarks apply to the Hiero.
enough, how little the
logue Xenophon shows plainly
sovereign is
supposed good-fortune of an absolute
touching the means
really to be envied. His remarks
and his
such a sovereign can make himself
whereby
of his proposals
people happy-allowing that many
beyond a benevolent
are expedient- do not advance
successful is his smaller treatise on
More
despotism.
family
It bears witness to
life.
an intelligent mind
out particularly
and a benevolent heart, which comes
the position assigned toj
in its utterances respecting
it makes
woman ^ and the treatment of slaves.^ But
no pretensions to be a philosophical
treatise,
though
thoughts
may contain many individual Socratic
j
can
From Xenophon, then, the history of philosophy
it
gain but
little.^
Compare viii.!. The treaty

between Cyrus and the Per.Tans îi. 5, 24, has for its
obTect uri^y by the advan>
?ages if governmJnt.
^ Compare the spirited remarks of Mohl, Gesch. d.
Sr^swiienschaf t,
3 r
^ IS o 7
4
Vo s
14*
9'-
i.
c.
204.
21
7,
37
9 11
.r.d 41
5
Qp J
-n
242 2
Xe
faôîrable view of
^^^^P^^^^^y/Yrf
4^6^^^^
d. Prakt. Phil. d. Gr. 466-509!
^
sees in him the develop
of Socratic thought fr on.
the point of applied ethics
He
ment
and a ^^PPl^^^^^V^f*,
^^,
pure speculations. Yet he to.
th
excepting
that
says
OEconomica there can oe n
trace of a systematic develop
ênt in Xenophon (p. 481
bis ethical teaching is extremel
simple, almost entirely devoi
^f
m
.ESCHINES.
24/5
^schines* would appear to have treated the

teaching of Socrates in the same way. The writings
among
of this disciple,2 are reckoned

of Attic prose/ and are by
Xenophon.^
It
is
philosophic language (p.

he never really proves
484)
anything, nor employs
any
form for deduction, not even
the favourite method with Socrates, that of definition (p.
;
In what then does his

importance for philosophy and
467).
history consist 1
The application of the thoughts of others,
without
verifying their contents or observing their method, may in many respects be

very meritorious, but it cannot
be regarded as a service rendered to philosophy.
iEschines, son of Lysanias
{Plato, Apol. 33 E), against
'
IJiug.
ii.
60,
can have no
weight, is praised for his adherence to Hocrates {Biog. ii.

31
ISeiiec. Benef, i. 8).
Plato
mentions him (Phaido, 59, R.),
among those who were present
at the deatli of Socrates.
Idomeneus, however {Diog. ii. 60,
35 iii. 36), transferred to him
the part played by Crito in
Plato, probably only out of
;
spite to Plato.
We afterwards
encounter him in the company
of tlie
younger Dionj^sius {Dioq.
63
Pint. Adul. et Am.
26, p. 67 PMlost. v. Apollon.
135, p. 43
Lnciaiiy Paras, c.
32, conf. Diodor. xv. 76), to
li.
61
c.
whom he had been recommended by Plato, according to

Plutarch, by Arstippus according
to
Diogenes.
some preferred
to those of
Aristippus
appears as his friend in JDiog.

82: Plut. Coh. Ira, 14.
Poor
to begin with {Diog. ii. 34, 62)
he was still poor in after-life
on his return to Athens. He
did not venture it is said to
found a school, but delivered a
few speeches and treatises for
money {Diog. ii. 62; what
ii.
Atlwri. xi. 507, c. and Bxog. ii.

20 say is not credible). Whether
the dirty stories are true which
Lysias in Atheii. xiii. 611, tells
of him is a moot point.
His
writings according to Athc/i.

give the impression of an honourable man. The time of his
death is not known.
2
64,
According to Diog. ii. 61,

Phrgtdchus in PJwt. Biblio-
thek, c. 151, p. 101, seven of

these were considered to be
genuine.
The scanty remains
of them have been collected by

IIcvDiann, De ^schin. Socr.
Reliquiis, Gott. 1850. ^Qelhid.
p. 8.
^
Longin.
irepl
ewpe's.
Ehet.
Gr. ix. 559 (ed. Walz).

* Phrgnich. in
Phot. Cod. 61,
Schl. 158, g. E; Hermogenes,
Form. Orat. ii. 3 Rhet. Gr. iii.
394.
M. Psellos in Con. Catal.
of Bodl. M8S. p. 743 quoted by
;
Grote,
Plato,
iii.
XL
C. jfjs^''^'^'^'"'^
moreover asserted that they repro-
of
whom
the best models
Chap.
469, against
which authority Timon in Diog.

ii.
55 Q2 carries no weight.
He is said to have imitated
;
Gorgias in speech, Diog.
ii.
63.
o40
Chap.
XI.
with wonderful fidelity,^

and the few fragments which remain confirm this
Nevertheless they appear to have been singuview.
dace the
spirit of Socrates
Their strength
larly poor in real philosophic thought.
consists far
in the grace
more
and elegance of their
language than in an independent treatment of the

Socratic teaching.
D. Simntias
and
Cedes.
jMore philosophic characters were the two TheBoth were pupils of

bans, Simmias^ and Cebes.^
Philolaus
men.
ful
as
thought-
known
of their
both are described by Plato
Still
nothing certain
is
The
philosophical opinions and performances.
writ-l
them ^ were already rejected by'

as he knew them, and the single
ings attributed to
^
Pansetius
as far
one extant, known as the

tainly spurious.^
Demetr. De Interpret. 297.

Hence the story {Diog. ii. 60,
62; Athen.yiiii. 611), that his
speeches had been composed
by Socrates, and given to
him by Xanthippe. D'wg. ii.
47 ranks him among the most
distinguished followers of So2
17
Xen. Mem. i. 2, 48 iii. 11,

PM.o, Phasdo, 59, C, 63 A.
;
Mem.
Ph^do,
Mirror
Still less
Aristid. Or. [\.]). So. Conf.
'
59,
C,
60,
C.
phgedo, 61, D.
It is said (Phajdo, 242, B.),
that Simmias delivered and
composed more philosophical
4
speeches than any one else. In

the Phaedo, 85, C, he is made
to utter the maxim, that every
question should be pursued as
Of Cebes, it
far as possible.
'
of Cebes,
is
cer-
can any dependence
be^
is said (Phsdo, 63, A., 77, A.),

that he could always raise'
objections, arnd wâs the most
and the
inveterate doubter
part which he and Simmias
play in the Phfedo correspond'
;
with this description.

Bioq.
ii.
124, mention!
twenty-three lectures of Sim
mias and three of Cebes, in
eluding the Mirror. Other test!
monies for the latter in Schmeig
Muscr, Epictete Enchiridion e
Cebetes tabula, p. 261.
^
Diog. ii. 64 iravToiv /xevri
ruv 'ZotiKpariKc!}]/ SiaXoycov Uavdi
:
rios aArjfleTs elvai 5oKe? Tobs TIAd

Twvos, "Etvoôivros, 'AvTiffOevov
Al(Tx'i-vov
4>aihoivos
^KTrdêi
KoX
8e
Eu/cAeiSou,
Trepi
rS
rovs ?
&\\ovs avaip^l vdvTas.

^
In modern times its ge

nuineness has been maintained
8
SIMMIAS AND CEBES.
247
placed on the genuineness of the writings which were
name
circulated at a later time under the
shoemaker Simon.
Probably he
is
of the
altogether an
imaginary person.^
In addition to Plato, four founders of Socratic
known to us Euclid, Phsedo, Antisthenes,

and Aristippus. Of these the two former are much
schools are
alike
the two
follow
courses
peculiar
There arose thus from them three
themselves.
Socratic
tinct
others
schools
Cynic, and the Cyrenaic.
dis-
Megarian-Elean, the
the
to
All these are derived from
One-sided liowever in their aims, and
Socrates.
dependent themselves on earlier theories, they only

imperfectly
by
catch
the
Bdhr {Pauhfs Real-Ency-
Cebes) and
Schweighauser, c. 13, 33; but
their assumption is refuted by
two passages in it, one of
kvhich mentions a Peripatetic,
ind tlie other quotes from
Plato's Laws.
In other respects too, notwithstanding its
clop.
vol.
Art.
general colourlessness, traces

ippear of later times, e.g. in
ts Stoic morality and attacks
false culture.
'
8ee
Dio(f.
ii.
122;
Snid.
Epist. Socrat. 12, 13

^^lut. c. Prin. Philos. c. 1, p.
76 Bockh. in Plat. Minoem.
:2.
Simonis Socrat. Dialogi
V. Hermann, Plat. i. 419, 585.
ScuKpciTTjs-
What Diogenes
lira is
unsatisfactorj',
says
of
and the
the teaching
of
spirit
of
likely to be true.
Of the
dialogues attributed to him a
great part are found in writings belonging to other people
{Hermann, 1. c). It is suspicious, that he is not mentioned by any ancient authority, and that both Plato and
Xenophon should be silent
about an old and very remarkable pupil of Socrates.
In
addition to the above, Svidug
(SwKâT. p. 813) mentions also
Bryso of Heraclea as a pupil of
Socrates.
Others, however, as
Suidas remarks, called him a
pupil of
Euclid's, and the
comedian Ephippus in At/ten.

xi. 501), c. calls him an Academician.
Theopompus' state-
ment
(1.
c.
508, D.) that Plato

hi^ writings,
tory tliat Pericles asked to be
copied some of
aken in by him, but tliat he

efuscd, besides being chrono>gically suspicious, is hardly
would harmonise with either

view but it is in any case
;
false.
Chap
XI.
248
Chap.
Socrates,
and diverge from him and from one another
'
in the
most opposite
directions.
man
Socrates placed
knowing the good.

What that good was he could not mark out more
the highest business of
in
accurately, being partly satisfied with
description of
of
it,
a practical
being partly restricted to a theory
relative pleasure.
These various sides of the
now diverge, and are rounded

One party confines itself to the
Socratic philosophy
into
systems.
general burden
of the
abstract idea of the good.
pleasure which
is its
the
teaching of Socrates
result
Others starting from
make
that the gauge of the
good, and the good itself something relative.
within the former class some
make
Again
the theoretical,
others the practical treatment of the good, to be the
Thus the Socratic teaching gave rise

the three schools just named, which in so far as
main
to
point.
they bring into prominence individual elements

the spirit of Socrates to the detriment of the
in
rest,
revert to older lines of thought, long since passed
in the historical development of philosophy.
The
Megarians and Cynics go back to the Eleatic doctrine of the One and All, and to the Sophistry oJ
Grorgias
the Cyrenaics to
the negative teaching
of Protagoras, and to the early scepticism of Heraclitus.
THE MEGARIANS.
CHAPTEE
249
XII.
THE MEGARIAN AND THE ELEAN-ERETRIAN SCHOOLS.
The founder
of the Megarian school
is
Euclid.^
Chap.
XII.
De
Megaricorum
Doctrina, Bonn, 1827, whose
careful work
has not been
added to by Mallut's Histoire
he was educated at Gela. That

I. The Mehe also possessed property in
yarians.
Attica,
Grote, Plat. iii. 471,
A. History
concludes, but without suffi-
de TEcole de Megare, Par. 1845.

More independent, but sometimes too diffuse, is Ilenne^
Ecole de Megare, Par. 1843.
mttcr, Ueber die Philosophic
der Meg. Schule in
Rhein.
Mus. ii. (1828), p. 295 Harten-
cient reason,
Judic. de Isao,
Deyclis,
'
Ueber die Bedeutung

der Meg. Schule fur die Gesch.
stciii,
Metaphys. Probleme,
d.
Ver-
handl. der ISachs. Gesellschaft

der Wissensch. 1848, p. 190;
Prantl, Gesch. d. Logik, i. 33,
whicli enters most deeply into
the logical teaching of the
Megarians.
Euclid's
{PlatOy
home was Megara
Phjedo, 59,
that it was his birth-place
is asserted by Cic. Acad. iv. 42,
129; Strahu, ix. 1, 8, p. 393;
C.)
The.-Btet.
crat.
from
c.
14
on ra iiriKiqpvTT.
Bionys.
;
Karjm-
Poll. viii.
Dionysus only refers to a

judicial speech of Isssus irphs
EvicKeiSrjv aprojJos of a piece
of land, but that this Euclid
48.
was the follower
of Socrates is
pure conjecture. The time of

his birth cannot be accurately
determined, nor does the anecdote in Gell. vi. 10 help for
this.
He was, however, probably older than Plato. This
seems to be proved by the fact
that on the death of Socrates
he served for some time as a
centre to his disciples.
time of his death
The
I>io(f. ii. 106.

The statement
that he came from Gela {nvh
in Diotj.) doubtless rests on a
also uncertain.
If Stilpo and Pasicles
were his personal pupils, he
must have lived at least till
360 B.C.; but this is ver}'- uncertain.
On the whole little is
misunderstanding. Deyclis, p.
4, imagines it arose from confounding him with Euclid the
known of him. A celebrated

saying of his to his brother,
which bears witness to a gentle
whom, how-
cjuoted by Plut. de
Frat. Am. 18,
Stoh. Flor. 84, 15;
p. 489;
Dioy. ii. 108, mentions six discourses of his.
jester, yiXolas, to
ever,
does
Atken. vi. 242,

not give this
b, 250, e,
epithet.
conjectures, but
without sufficient reason, that
He line,
p. 32,
character,
Ira, 14, p.
is
462;
is
of the
School.
250
Chap.
XII.
faithful friend
and admirer of
Socrates,^
same time familiar with the Eleatic
made
but at the
doctrine,^ Euclid
use of the latter to develope the Socratic phi-
losophy as he understood
it.
He
thus established
separate branch of the Socratic School,^ which con-
tinued to
exist
century.'^
Ichthyas'^
vmtil
the early part of the

is
'
The story told by GelL, N.
A. vi. 10, of his nightly visits
to Athens is well known. It
cannot, however, go for much,
though not in itself improbable. On the contrary, it maj^
be gathered from Plato's Thetetet. 142, C. that Euclid constantly visited Socrates from
Megara, and from the Phasdo,
59, C. that he was present at
his death.
A further proof of
his close connection with the
followers of Socrates will be
found in the fact (^Diog. ii. 106;
iii. 6) that Plato and other followers of Socrates stayed with
him for a considerable time
after the death of their master.
He is usually spoken of as a
disciple of Socrates, and has a
place amongst his most dis-
tinguished disciples.
2 As may be gathered from
his system with greater certainty than from Cic. and Dioij.
When Euclid became acquainted with the Eleatic Philosophy
is inicertain.
It is
most pro-
bable that he was under its

influence before he came under
that of Socrates, although the
story in Diog. ii. 30, is too uncertain to prove much.
^ The
cxoAt? Eu/cAeiSoi (for
which the Cynic Diogenes in
JDiog.
N. 31,substitutes Eu/cAeiSou
named
as
his
thirc^
pupil and
Megarian oi
called
XoA^),
Eristic or Dialectic, Diog. ii.'
Consult Beychs as to
106.
these names. He proves that
the terms Eristic and Dialectic
were not confined to the Me-I
garian School. Compare Sex
tus Empiricus, who generalljj
understands by Dialecticians
Stoics, for instance, Pyrrh. ii
146, 166, 229, 235.
^ How
early Euclid was a1
the head of a special circle oi
and whether he appeared

formally as a Sophist, or likt
Socrates onlygraduallygathereo
about him men desirous tc
learn, we are not told. Perhapi
the emigration of many foli
lowers of Socrates to Megar;
gave occasion for the estabi,
lishment of this school, i. e.
for the formation of a society
pupils,
which
at
first
moved
aboui,
house and personi

busying itself with discussions;
There is no ground for sup|,
posing that Plato and hiji
Euclid's
friends removed to Megara

attracted by the fame of th|
School of Euclid, as Hen
maintains, pp. 27 and 30.
5 Siiid.
Diog. i\
EvKXei^-ns
112, only makes the generi
remark, that he belonged tl
the School of Euclid.
HISTORY OF THE MEGARIANS.

successor, respecting
251
whom, however, nothing
further
Of greater note was Eubulicles,^ the

3elebrated dialectician,^ who wrote against Aristotle,'*
ind who is mentioned as the teacher of Demosthenes.^
Cotemporary with him were Thrasyma3hus^ of Corinth, and Dioclides,^ perhaps also
known.
is
Clinomachus.^
be younger.
)f
Pasicles,^ however,
Cyrene, surnamed Cronus, * the
teacher of the
His name
15, p.
is still found in
12
vi. 80 (Diogenes
iedicated to him a dialogue
'
Diog.
ii.
;alled Iclithyas).
Atlien. viii.
535, a.
Of Miletus according to
108.
Whether he was
he head of a school, or whether
le was an immediate disciple
)f
Euclid, we do not know.
^
Diof/. ii.
3iogcnes
only
says,
CuKAeiSou StaSox^y
Compare
'
Math.
Sesc-t.
Dior/, ii.
5'w.s.
'iii.
^^''''-
Biog.
rris
'^"*
ii.
5'
Eu/3.
108
109
Aristocles in
Pr. Ev. XV. 2, 5 ; Athen.

354, b. Themist. Or. xxiii.
From these passages it

seen that the attack of Eumlides was very violent, and
lot free from personal abuse.
s
Ve also hear from Athen. x.

37 of a comedy of Eubulides.
Uit he can hardly be the indiidual whose
work on the
Diogenes
'ynic
ôg.
is
quoted by
vi. 20, 30.
* The fact seems pretty

well
stablished (although it is conpicuously omitted by Plutarch
his
eing
>iog.
>ec.
life
Demosthenes),
only attested by
'Pseiidoj}Ivt.
viii.
21
v.
Ajnilei.
c.
478
Sttid.
and Phot. Cod. 265,

but being also alluded to by
the Comedian in Diog., who
can hardly have called a bare
acquaintance a disciple.
* According to IJiog. ii.
121,
a friend of Ichthyas, and a
teacher of Htilpo's.
^ Sitid.
STtATTcuf, a pupil of
Euclid, and the teacher of
Pasicles.
Thurian (according to
112), and a teacher of
Stilpo's son Bryso, Suid. Uvppcoi^,
Diog. says he was the first to
write on predicates, sentences,
and such like.
^ According to Suid. StiAttw^,
a brother of the Cj-nic Crates,
who had also Dioclides, a jûpil
of Euclid's, for teacher, and
^
ii.
Stilpo for pupil.

Diog. vi. 89,
in calling Crates his brother
and Euclid his teacher, pro-
bably confounded Euclid with

Dioclides, unless this be tlie
work of a transcriber and
AioKXeiSov should be read for
EvK\eidoy.
of
not
ii.
108;
Orat.
De Mag.
ATJiaoadeuTis,
Diog.
vii. 13.
{85, c.
would appear to
pupil of Eubulides was Apollonius
'"
2,
Diof/.
21,
838.
p.
ii.
Go8;
Ill
Strabo, xiv.
xvii.
3,
22, p.
Chap
XII.
252
Chap.
XII.
sharp-witted
Diodoms
pupils was Euphantus,
and
Cronus,^
and another of
known only
his
to us as a poet
historian.^
All other
members
of this school were, however,

Stilpo,^ a pupil of Thrasy-
thrown into the shade by

'
Diodorus, a native of lasos
in Caria, belongs to the most
distinguished dialecticians of
the Megarian School. Cic. De
Fato, 6, 12, calls him 'valens
made
a gross mistake,
must be read
Mallet, p. 96.
irpcSrou
See
for rpirov.
Callicrates, also
mentioned by Athenseus, iknown from IJwdor. xx. 21, aa favourite of Ptolemy Soter.
Sext. Math. i.
dialecticus
* Stilpo of Megara {Diog. ii
Seoct.
SiaAeKTt/caTaTOS
309,
and Diog. ii. Ill, give two 113) must have lived until tht
epigrams of Callimachus ad- end of the fourth century. At
dressed to him. His fallacies least he survived the capture oi
and his researches into motion, Megara by Ptolemy Lagi, anc
and into h\3)othetical sen- his defeat by Demetrius Poliorcetes, two events which hap'
tences, will be mentioned herePique at a dialectical pened 307 and 306 B.C. respecafter.
defeat inflicted by Stilpo at tively, Diodor. xx. 37 and 45
the table of Ptolemy Soter, is On the former occasion th(
interview with Diodorus Cronu;
said to have killed him {Diog.
may have happened for Stilp(
Pliii. Hist. Xat. vii. 53, 180).
He bequeathed his dialectic to never visited Egypt {Diog. 115)
Since he died at an advancec
his five daughter^; Clem. Al.
'
Strom,
iv.
adv. Jovin.
523,
A.
t.
iv.
i.
Hieroii.
186.
His
Kronos, is differexplained by Strabo and

Diog., and in modern times by
Panzerhieter in Jahn's Jahrb.
Philol. Supplement b. V.
f.
223, f., who, however, does not
explain it altogether satisfacConsult, also, Steinhart
torily.
in Ersch. und Gritber"s Ency-
nickname,
entlj'
clop.
Sec.
i.
B., 25, p. 286.
All we know of him is from

Diog. ii. 110, who calls him the
tutor of King Antigonus, and
says that to Antigonus he addressed a book, Trepl jSacriAetoy.
Atheii. vi. 251 quotes an extract
from the fourth book of his
history, in which if he has not
'^
age,
we may
approximateh
place his birth in 380, and hi:

death in 300 B.C. Probably w<
ought to place the date of botl
later, for the notices about hi
pupils in Diog. ii. 113-12C
Senec. Epist. 10, 1, lead us t'
believe that his activity wa
cotemporary with that of Thee
and accordingly i
phrastus
cannot have begun long befor
the death of Aristotle. Siiio
EvK\dd. calls him successor t
Some of the pupil
Ichthyas.
of Euclid are mentioned as hi
teachers, and {Diog. ii. 11B;
in particular ThrasjTnachuj
{Suid. EvK\ei5. and SrlAiro.
Even Euclid himself is name
;
by some, but none
of
thes
STILPO THE MEGARIAK.
2otl
His spirited lectures made him an object of

lavender to his cotemporaries, and the crowds who
jlocked from all sides to listen to them gained for
the
inachus.
|Megarian School a lusti-e such as
it had not hitherto

At the same time the development of their
linjoyed.i
took with him a new turn, the principles of

fhe Cynic School, into which Diogenes had initiated
iim,2 being incorporated with his
own to such an exlioctrine
ent, that
doubts
may
be felt whether Stilpo rather bejOngs to the Cynics or to the Megarians.^

Thereby he
pecame the immediate precursor of the Stoa,
j
into
vhich these two branches of the Socratic
philosophy
iêre carried over by his pupil
Zeno.^ Other
Mega-
ians,
however, continued faithful to the exclusively
ritical
character of this School.
tatements are probable.
His
haracter,
as to which more
all be said hereafter, is comtended as upright,
gentle,
ersevering, open,
generous,
nd unselfish, Dioff. ii. 117

Hut Vit. Pud. c. 18, p. 536
P; ^}\^^"^
.rUr^vi
irly life ^l'dissipated, he enrely mastered this tendency
y^ strength
of will (Cic. De
mo, o, 10).
He also took
ut in public business, Dior/.
xNme of his dialogues are
11.
^'
entioned by
û'r/.
I
11.
Dioff. ii. 120.

113, exaggerates
saymg,TO(rodTop
5'
el>pe(riAoyla
il(ro({>L(rriaTrporjyeTohs
^w/'T'' ^^'^'^-'
\\\a5a aôpoxra,/
e/s
id
'^^''*
a{,Thu /ê-
^^' mentions (110

the pupils, who joined
from other philosophers,
the universal admiration
''îî'^-N?^
llo)
l>U
dWovs,
'^"'^"''
Alexinus of Elis, a
bestowed on him at Athens and
by several princes.
the more strikino-
It
tliat
120 call his speeches

2
;I.yypt
^-
later.
^^^^^
Stilpo
120
all
Dior,
j^
The proof of this will be
j)^^^^^
given
'
is
is
^ô
^^
stated
by
a pupil of
Dior/
ii
on the authority
of Heraclides.
The same pei
son is no doubt referred to in
Dior;,
ii.
116,
as Zeno the
Phoenician.
The founder of
the Stoa is frequentlv called a
;
vii. 2, 24,
Phoenician, i?/^;^. vii. 15, 2o, 30

In no case can it be Zeno of
Sidon, the pupil of ApoUo-
ôs as J/allet, p. 62, supposes, who was himself a punil

of Epicurus, and who, according to Dior/, x. 25 vii 35
continued faithful to' Epicureanism.
Chap
__^"
i>54
Chap.
XII.
cotemporary of
Stilpo,^
but somewhat younger,
notorious for his captiousness and logical subtletiei

Othe:
are recorded ^ of Philo, the pupil of Diodorus.^
;
Megarians of this and the following age are onb

known to us by name/ With the verbal criticism o
1
Diofj.
ii.
109, spealis of
him
as a pupil of Eubulides
5e 'dXKcou uUTwu rris EvfiovXiSovdia'HAetos).
Sox'^s 'AAe|t;/o- iyevero
can
lived
he
which
The age in
(fxeTa^v
approximately determined
by his disputes with Stilpo
(Pint. Vit. Pud. c. 18, p._ 536)
be
with Menedemus (Bioff.ii. 135),

and with Zeno, whose strongest
opponent he was, Biog. ii. 109
Plut.
Sext. Math. ix. 108
;
Comm.
Not. 10,
3, p.
1063.
He
must have been younger than

Stilpo, and have flourished
the first ten years of the third

century. His love of contention and his malicious ways
chained for him the nickname
'EAe7|rj/os, Biog. Plut. Vit. Pud.
Eu. xv.
18 Aristotle in Ens. Pr.
We also learn from Her2, 4.
mippus in Diog. that he retired
to Olympia in his last years, in
order to establish a new school
This place of abode not
there.
Clemens, Stromal, iv. 523, am

Jeo'ome adv. Jov. i., quote fror
his Menexenus the informa
tion already given respectin,
Diodorus
the daughters of
whom
he must then hav

spoken of in terms of prais(
It is a clear mistake on th
part of Jerome to make hii
the teacher of Carneades. Sti
stranger is Mallet's mistak(
disputai
the
confounding
Philo with Philo of Lariss:
the founder of the fourth Ac?
demy. The latter lived son:
N(
150 to 200 years later.
can Philo be reckoned amor^
the Stoics, although this hf
been done by Fabricius in Sex
Pyrrh. ii. 110, and by Pram
Gesch. d, Logik, i. 404.
3 Biog.
vii. 191, 194, me:
tions Philo's writings Trepl c
ixaaioiu, and vrepl rp6irwv, again
which Chrysippus wrote, wit
out doubt meaning this Phil
To the same individual mnbe referred what Cic. Acad.
suiting his pupils, he remained

there alone, but soon died of
an injury. For his writings consult Biog. ii. 110 vii.163 Athen.
Aristotle in JSus. 1. c.
XV. 696
2 Biog.
16, a passage
vii.
which does not appear so ambiguous as RiUer, Kh. Mus. ii.
30; Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 145,
;
47, 143, and Sext. Math, vi

113, Pyrrh. ii. 110, say respec
ing his views of hypothetic
would have
when
it,
particularly
the subsequent accounts
are taken into consideration.

Zeno of
Diog. relates that
Cittium was fond of his society;
'
'
'
sentences diff erring from thd

of Diodorus, and Alex. Apl
in Anal. pr. 59, b, says respej
ing their differences in respfl
By Biog. y
of the possible.
16,
and
named
Clemens he
is
si'
6 SiaXeKriKSs.
* A dialectician Panthoid^
doubtless the same person
MEGARIAN BOCTHINE.
the Megarians
doubt, Pyrrho,
and
i>5r,
connected Pyrrho's philosophy of

whom Bryso is said to have taught,'
is
chap.
^^^
Timon, who
studied under Stilpo himself,^

being the connecting links, in the same way
that the
scepticism of Gorgias
is
connected with
tlie critical
subtleties of the Eleatics.
The Megarian philosophy
is only partially known

b. tIwA;
us from the fragmentary notices of the
;
(^ctnnr.
ancients
ind frequently it is impossible to
decide
to
whether
statements refer to the founder and

the older
Gaembers, or only to the later followers
of the School.
:heir
Math
ScH.
vii.
Diodorus
in
2:^ ^m
Diss.
bpictot.
Ih
.8,
18,
mentions,
whose disagreement with
ind
respect
the
of
""^
'
11
\
\'o'
f^
19, 5, speaks
ZTZ
^'
/.f
is the teacher of the '%

as
Pen-
Lyco, and must thereore have flourished 280 to 270

i.e.
A dialectician Aristides
s also mentioned hy Diog. ii.
)atetic
13,
;
among the cotemporaries

and an Aristotle
btilpo,
^
^^'^
oZ^xfî
Lvt. Arat.
here
^^'""T-^^^''V
Lmias
3.
who
mentioned
with
is
him
^^^''
f ! younger
bomewhat
^"^
'K?nn
leoaiian.
..
aust have been Art emidorus,

.ho wrote against Chrysippus,
log.ix.bi)
Jhog. ix. (>1
Uvpp(vv ^Kovac
:
fvacûos rov :ZTl\na>uos,

:û5pos
e,
Am5oxa?s.
i^s 'AA^'-
Suid.
[vpl^<û:^ ht.-nKovcre ^pvcru^vos, rod
Aeivoâxo^Ââ^r/ToG. Instead of
.ryso, Apvaoû
was formerly
^
,3aa
i^
in
Uwg.
however
ryso.
Sext. Math. vii.

also
calls him
Suid.
atements
are
Uip^'^t-.
not
These
without
their difficulties.
Allowing it
to be possible that Clinoma-
chus and not Stilpo instructed

J'^^^^' ^^ *^-^ be enjoved the
instruction of both, the chro'^
""^ troublesome.
T^""^^
For how can Pvrrho, before
Alexander's expedition to Asii
as Diog^ exprisdf "yl? tve
studied under the son' of a
man, whose own professional

career probably comes after
tlmt expedition ? It êems as
though the relation of Pyrrho
to Bryso as pupil and teacher
were an
imaginary combinaconnect the

school of Pyrrho with the Me^^^"' ^le^î^êd to
garian.
Possible it also is that
Bryso, the teacher of Pyrrho
has been wrongly identified
with the son of this Stilno
,Stnd. 2a,/cpaT. calls Bryso
the
teacher of Pyrrho, a pupil of
Socrates, or according to other.
a pupil of Euclid.
lioper
Philol. xxx. 462, ijroposes
to
read in the pas.sage of Dio!'
instead of Bp^n-côsroO St/At;.'
pos, Bpia. ^^ ^rix^
*
IJioy. ix. 10^.
25G
Chap.
XII.
;;
It is all the
from Plato
satisfactory to be able to learn
more
particulars respecting a theory in which

j
Schleiermacher^
which, in
first
recognised Megarian views, and
with most writers,^ we
common
Plato deSoph. 242, B.

fined Sophistry as the art of
deception. The difficulty immediately arises, that deceponly then possible,
tion is
when not -being, to which all
deception refers, admits a certain kind of being. It may
then be asked, how is the
being of the not-being posTo answer this question
sible ?
Plato reviews various opinions
respecting being. In the first
place he examines the two
most opposite statements, that
being is the many, and that it is
1
the one, and after having shown

that neither a manifoldness of
original substances without a
substratum of unity, nor the
unity of the Eleatics excluding
the many, can be admitted, he
continues, p.
2-15, E.:TouS;uej/ T0-
vvu 5iaKpiô\oyovix4vov5 ovtos re

Trept KoX jxh iravras fJ.ev oh oteArjXvOafiev, o/jLcos 5e iKauws e'xeTW
Tovs 5e &\\03S Xiyovras av dear4ov.
These are again di\aded
those who only

allow reality to what is material, and others who are called
Of
248, A. ol rciu el^wv cpiKoi.
the latter it is stated 246, B.
into
classes,
roiyapovv ol irpos avTOvs (the

materialists) a^4)i(ri8r)Tot} vres^/xaKa euAajSws dvwdev e| aopArov
TToOep auvvovrai voTjra arra Kai
a.(T6yLara d^t] ^La(6p.^voi.
Bivrjv
ovaiav ivaL
(TcofxaTa
Koi
rr]u
ra
tV
5e
Ae-yoêVrji'
avTWU aXriOeiav Kara
oKt]-
iKeivwv
fffxiKpa
wtt'
lia-
OpavovTes eV toTs XSyois yiê<nv
ahr' ova'ias
yopevovaiv.
feel justi-j
Tiua
(pepoix^vrji/
irpoffa-
Platon's Werke, ii. 2.

Leben u.
Platon's
Ast,
Beycli, 37
Schreiben, 201
Hcindoof on Soph. 246, B.
2
Bra/idis, ii.
Plat. 339;
SUllhanm,
114 Hermann,
246;
Ges. Abh.
a.,
Plat.
Parm.
60;
Smemild,
Soph. f. Polit. 61
Genet. Entw. i. 298 StcinhartAllg. Encyk. i. 29, 53 Platon's
Werke, iii. 204, 423, 554
Henne, Ecole de Megare, 84158 Po-anfl, Gesch. d. Log. 1
Against Schleiermachei
37.
are Ritter, Rhein. Mus. voi
;
Xiebuhr und Brandis
ii.
305'
Petersen, Zeitschrift f. Alter':

thiimer, 1836, 892, Heiine, p
49, and Mallet, p. xxx., refer|
the description in Theaetet
185, C. of the formation o
conceptions, to the Megarians
on the ground that it does no
agree with Plato's ownmethoc
But it would seem that he i
wrong in so doing, since w
have no reason to think c
others besides Plato and Sc

Just as little may th
crates.
passage in Parm. 131, B. be re
f erred to the Megarians, as bf
been done by Sclileiermachc"

PL Werke, i. 2, 409, and Deych
The question whethe

42.
things participate in Ideas,
one which the Megarians di
not examine, and it is widel
remote from the view discusse
in the Sophistes.
p.
MEGARIAN TEACHING.
Bed in applying to themJ
testimony of Plato, and
By making
'm
use of the
by considering the inward
The followingf are the reaIt IS clear and

generally
ons.
-Ilowed that Plato's description

s too minute to
be without
eference to some philosophic
chool then existing.
Even
leum, De
Plat.
Sophistes
larb. 1869, p. 44, is
reduced to
dmit
this.
There
is
also defi-
ite reference to
a
chool in the passage
where an
pmion
Socratic
IS
attributed to certain
hilosophers, to the effect
that
ueexislence only belongs
Qmatenal things.
ly
to
philoso-
of
conceptions was unlown before the time of

Soates,
and the description
Tees witli no one of the
preSchools.
The philoof conceptions
are
'cratic
phers
iarly
distinguished from the

featics, and
are manifestly
ite
different
from them.
can the Pythagoreans
thought of, as Mallet has
Ill
'
less
ne
p.
liii.;
for
they had
a philosophy of conDtions, nor did they
indulge
ither
that subtle
3onents,
refutation
which Plato
of
attri-
es
r
'
to these philosophers.
can the language of
Plato,
^., be quoted to prove
contrary,
where speaking
t'le
dispute between the

lalists and the
materialists
ays that
^v ^licrc^
^^pl
|Ta
I
wl
fiTTAfTos
dfi(poTpoou
fxdxv
ly/'eVrr^/ce,/.
This does
mean that this dispute has
ays existed, but
that it was
old as the
Schools themes, or that,
every time the
It
was touched upon,
a
violent altercation
ensued bethe parties.
We are
tween
not
obliged
by this stateto refer this view

to an
earlier period than
that of
Socrates. And among
the Socratic Schools there
is none to
ment
which it can be
attributed
with so much probability
as to
the Megarian.
Some think
that
the passage refers to

Plato
{as Soaker, Plat.
Schriften, 265
and Sc/Ma9'sc/m4dt, Die

SammungderPlat.Sch.,210,do);and
tills
reference
commends
itself
most to those who with

them
declare that the

Sophistes is
not the work of
Plato.
The
reference would of course
to
be
an earlier form of
Plato's
teaching or to such
Platonists
as had failed to
advance with
their school. This is
the view of
l^'hern-eff Unters. Plat.
Schrif.
P,lffer, Ueber d.
a. Plat. Soph. Berlin,
^77
Orote,
Plato,
Athetese
1869, 21
468
iii. 482
Campbell, the Sophistes
and
Pohticus of Plato, Soph.
Ixxiv.
i125.
But is it likely that
1 lato can have treated a
theory
ot his own with so
much ironv
as he lavishes, p.
246, A.
i.
B.,
on
these etSft),/ (piKoi ? Is it

Plato's
teaching, or have we
reason
for thinking that it
ever was
Plato s teaching, that
the Sivafxis rov noieTu does
not belono-
to Being but to the

Becoming"?
In his system, as far
as it is
known to us, it does belong to
the idea of the good,
to the
creative povs of Timreus,
to the
airla of Pliilebus,
which must
at any rate be reckoned
as ovaia
Chap.
XII.
THE SOCEATIC SCHOOL.
258
we hope a picconnection of the several doctrines,

the Megarian doctrine..
ture will be produced of
and not
as y4ue(ns,
and in Phaido
ideas in
95, E., it belongs to
mises, the contradiction is noi

greater than that involved ii
Moreover, if the congeneral.

tested theory only belonged to
small portion of Plato's
denying every change, and yd

speaking of an action, an iuep
scholars, how could the little

fraction be opposed to the materialists as the chief supporters of the idealistic point
Does not the whole
of view ?
description create the impresone
sion that the contrast was
before
saw
writer
which the
him, and not one made from
different conceptions of his own
metaphysic?
It
Indeed, ho\
can he have ad
vanced from the Socratic phi
losophy of conceptions to hi
doctrine of unity? And does nc
the language of the Sophistei
76?i/
might seem
that by friends of ei'Sr? in this

passage Eviclid cannot have
been meant, because (1) ac-
cording to Aristotle's definite

assertion (Metaph. i. 6, 987, b,
Eth. N.
xiii. 4, 1078, b, 9
7
Plato first
1. 4, 1096, a, 13)
brought up the doctrine of
ideas, and (2) the Megarians
held one and not many primary
substances. The first reason is
Doubtless
not very cogent.
;
Plato first brought into notice

the doctrine of ideas to which
Aristotle refers, allowing that
Euclid agreed with him in declaring the ddos to be the only

Neireal element in things.
argument
second
the
ther is
Euclid may well
conclusive.
have
materialism
of
in cases
insisted, that in every object
the incorporeal form was the
only real thing, and yet have
gathered all these forms together under the one substance

good. If the latter assertion involved him in contradiction with his original pre-
the
of
being.
otherwise
246, B, telling, how that th

friends of ideas destroy mattf
by resolving it into its sma
lest particles, best correspou
with Euclid and his school

Does it not best harmoni;
with the statement of Ari
respecting the Meg
that the latter shou
have refused to being t
capacity to act or to suffe
whereas this would not at
tocles
rians,
harmonise with Plato.
Tl:
these philosophers are includ

245, E., among those hWas
yovres is not true, ÂXw? \eyopmeaning here literally th<;
/
who speak
differently,
does not turn

with the philosophers in<,
tioned 243, D) upon the /
tithesisof being andnot-beiil
With the philosophers to wh
Plato comes 245, E., the qv
tion is not whether there is
or more than one formi
being, everj^hing else be
whom
all
<
not-being, but whether th

thai
is only the corporeal or
Conf. p. 243,|
corporeal.
with 246, A.
Compare
ffe^
Bo/iitz, Plat. Stud, ii.'

105
In the explanation of diuKpf
;
Koyovixfvovs,
no one appear;
have exactly hit the mark.
MEGARIAN TEACHING.
which
shall,
in
"im
the main, faithfully represent

the
Chap.
facts.
Xli.
The
starting-point of
must be looked
ledge
tlie
for in Socrates'
of conceptions.
demand for a knowWith this demand Euclid
.3ombmed the Eleatic doctrine of a

contrast between
sensational and rational knowledge.
Distinguishing
;hese two kinds of knowledge
far more by their
objects than by their form, he
arrived at the convicwn that the senses show us wliat is capable
of change
ind becoming, and that only
thought can supply us
vith the knowledge of
what is unchangeable and
eally existing.'
He
stood, therefore, in general,
on
he same footing as Plato, and

it is possible that this
lew was arrived at by both
philosophers in common
a their intellectual
intercourse,
and that owing to
Euclid was influenced by

Heraclitus' view of
he world of sense.
Socrates had indeed made
the
mmediate business of thought to
be the acquisition
f a knowledge of
conceptions.
Conceptions, accordigly, represent that
'
part of a thing which
never
aanges.
Not material things, but only
'lato
incorporeal
Jecies,
'Ti
Hfi^
taught Euclid, admit of true

being
tjfius
yeuca-ei
("^7^
Megarian phiiosophy
5i'
aladv-
'^
Tn
iu^
The
'"i'*'""
"''
&V,^
.
THE SOCRATIC SCHOOL.
260
Chap.
XII.
to allow
same view Stilpo expressed, when he refused
individual things,
the general conception to apply to
implies someon the ground that a general conception
individual thing,
thing quite different from every
definite timeJ
not like these only existing from a
and
again agree witt

In this respect the Megarians
aj
Whilst Plato, however, regarded species
Plato.2
following in the steps
living spiritual forces, Euclid,
kind of motion to being
of Parmenides, denied every
passion to th(
He, therefore, reduced action and
Of being, he asserted, jo\
sphere of the becoming.
passion, nor ye
can neither predicate action, nor
motion.^
'
Biog.
ii.
119, says of
him
ihai
eAeye, rhu Xeyoura 'dvOpuTrov
which we
suggest
fivUucL (in
yap
ovre
elvai),
of
instead
etTreTv
yap
ToVSe X4yeiv ovre rdvde. rl
ovre dpa
fxaWov
Koi TrdKiW rh Ka-xa-vov ouk
TocSe.
TOJ/56
6(TTt
fxev
TOj/Se;
deiKUvfJicvov.
rh
yhp ^v irpb juvptwj/
Kaxavov
eVwj/
ovk
sal
and
from an
different
particular
that what
man.
is
He
shown
to
denit_
him
i|
there W!
cabbage,
cabbage 10,000 years ago i;
other words, because the gene
cabbag
conception of
ral
unchangi
something
means
because
able, not
something which
hi
We
mi
Dio- come into
dpa eo-Ti rovTO xdxavov.
Ilegel, Gesc
with
believe
then
the
genes introduces this with
Phil. ii. 123, and Stallbaw
remark Setfbs 5e ^7av tbv ivrols d.
Parm. 65, that either Di
Plat.
and
ipKXTiKols dvripei Kol ra eUr],
or his authority mu
genes
possible,
be
it would in itself
some mistake her
made
have
had
that Stilpo and others
2 Probably
expressions Ii
geneto
hostility
derived their
mult
a in Platon
quoque
Hi
especially
ral conceptions, and
by C
Megarians
the
of
said
the
from
.to the Platonic ideas,
su
to
refer
129,
iv.
42,
Acad.
Cynic School. But the above
similarity.
of
points
directed
examples are not
3 PlatOy
Soph. 248, C.
against the reality of groups
yevi(TL fxiU fire(
OTi
yovfXLU,
conexpressed by a general
Swdêi
reality rov Trao-xeiv Kal Troieti/
ception, but against the
ouSeTe/'
Stilpo irphs Se ovcriau rovrwv
being.
'
'
of
particular things.
a
denies that the individual is
man, because the expression
man means something univer-
T^v Uvajxiv apixoTTiiv (paff'iP.

;-.
is accordingly afterwards
ne^
their
as
stated
peatedly
MEGARIAN TEACHING,
jhe
261
Connected with this denial of the becoming is

assertion, probably coming from Euclid, certainly
srom his school, that capacity does not exist
he time of
its
exercise
alone possible.
and that thus what
What
beyond
is
actual
simply possible but not

ctual, would at the same time be and not be.
Here
70uld be the very contradiction which Parmenides
5
is
bought to discover in the becoming, and the change

rom the possible to the actual would be one of those
hanges which Euclid could not harmonise with the
onception of being.^
rh TTOJ/TeAcDs
*ov~\
Hence, only what
aKlvi\Tov ecTThs
rh Trapdirav ecrivai, and in opposition to this

evv Plato requires
'âX
rh
vai.
aKiuTfTOv
vovfievou
iTfov
5rj
Kal Kivricriv axryx'^-
ws ovra
KoX TvoXKa
....
1x^)7 ^
raiu
Xeydt/ruv t6
iv eo-TTjKbs airoSexôrdai.
Ariscl. in Uus. Pr. Ev. xiv.
17, 1.
le proofs by which the Me7]
e'lSr]
denied motion will be

It does
however, seem likely that
irians
scribed hereafter.
t,
e objections raised to the

eory of ideas in the first part
Plato's Parmenides are of
3garian origin, as IStallbauvi,
Parra. 57 and 65, supposes.
.
'
AH.st.
Metaph.
Ttj/es o'i(paaiv,
ix.
8:
e/o-2
oTov ol MeyapiKol,
iv^pyrj ^6vov hvuaadai, OTau

M^ fi^fpyf] ov 5vuaa6ai. oXou
nh olKodofiovfra ov hvi/aadai
oBo/xui/, aWa rhu olKoSofiovyra
iv
'
IV
>
oIkoSo/x^
HXAuv.
tement
dfioicas
5e
Kal
eTTi
In refuting this
Aristotle observes
would make all motion

becoming
impossible
ich was just what the
Melans wanted.
Further par-
It it
is
imma-
ticulars on this point will be

quoted from Diodorus in the
sequel.
The passage
Hophistes,
248,
C,
He fine,
that
p. 133,
of
something
^
in the
which
connects with
Aristotle, refers
different.
Hai'tetistei/i, p.
to
205, is of
opinion that the above statement is made in direct contradiction to Aristotle. It would
in this case belong to Eubulides.
But the Aristotelian
technical terms Svvaadai, ii/epy^'ty,
do not prove much.
Aristotle often expressed the
statements of others in his
own terminology. On the
other hand, no very great importance for the system of
Aristotle must be attached to
the Megarian doctrine already
quoted, even if it comes from
Euclid. It is only a peculiar
way of understanding the
Eleatic doctrine against becoming and motion. Still less
can we here support the Megarians against Aristotle as
Grate, Plato, iii. 491, does
because a builder without ma:
Chap.
XII.
262
Chap.
terial
XII.
actual,
(2)
and regarded
allowed by
is
him
to
b'
as the subject matter of science
Socrates had described the good as the highes
The
Good.
and unchangeable
In this he was followed b
object of knowledge.^
mos
the highest object of knowledg
Eegarding, however, that which
Euclid.^
essentially real as
in accordance with his
is
principles, Euclid though
himself justified in transferring to the good
all tb
had assigned to rej

good is there, unchangeabL
attributes which Parmenides
being.
One only
real
ever the same, of which our highest conceptions ai

Whether we speak of God,
only different names.
of Intelligence, or of Eeason,
terials,
tools
and intentions,
cannot build, and when these
and other conditions are there,

must build. For this is not at
all the point on which the
dispute between Aristotle and
ArisMegarians turns.
on the contrary says in
the connection of the above
enquiry (Metaph. iv. 5, c. 7
the
totle
1049, a. 5), that if the necessary conditions for the exercise

of a capacity are given (among
which besides the Zuvdixîs Ao-
the intention must be

included), its exercise always
yiKoX
This, according to
follows.
Grote, is likewise the meaning
sentence,
Megarian
of the
which he disputes. Its real
meaning that a capacity until
shows itself by action is not

only kept in abeyance by the
absence of the necessary means,
and conditions, but is not even
existing maybe gathered from
the objections urged by Aristotle, c. 3, and from the quota-
it
we always mean
oi
Grote to defei
Megarians attributes
them reflections, which we ha
no right to attribute to them
See p. 133 and 147.
2 That
his assertions abo
the good should have nothi:
to do with the Socratic kno
ledge {Hermann, Ges. Abhan
tions, p. 230, 2.
the
242) could only be i

cepted on the supposition tt
that knowledge was not kno
ledge about the good, and tl
Euclid was not a pupil of i
Nor can it be read
crates.
conceded that a pure Elea
philosopher, if he had oi
moved in an ethical sphere
ideas, would have treated t!
part of philosophy in the sa:
way as Euclid. As long as^
remained a pure Eleatic phi
sopher, he could not hi
taken this ethical direct:
and have placed the concept
of the good at the head of
system.
lung,
MEGARIAN VIEW OF THE GOOD.
263
For the same reason
and the same thing, the Good.^
the moral aim, as Socrates had already shown,
always one
the knowledge
speak of
many
virtues,
of the Good,
and
if
names for one and the same virtue.^

What, however, is the relation of other things
one Good?
Even Euclid,
denied any existence to what
this
which
it follows
nothing real
XII.
is
we
these are but varying
all
to
as accounts tell us,

is
not good
from
immediately, that besides the Good

This statement
exists.
on better
is
authority attributed to the later Megarian School/
Therewith
many
conceptions, the reality of which
had been originally assumed, were destroyed as such,
and reduced, in
as far as
any
reality
was admitted
about them, to mere names of the Good.^

*
Acad.
Cic.
iv. 42,
29
Me-
bonum solum esse

quod esset unum et
garici qui id
dicebant,
simile et
says
idem semper
ravrSu).
'onoiov
Diof/.
Euclid
of
ovtos tu
ayakht/ a.TrCpaluero
(pp6D'riaiu,
vovv
^
Ko.\
ra
TToWas
rh
6v6-
Aristo
161, says of the

aperds t' oUtc
elariyei/,
fxiav TToWo'is
us
Z'f]iccu, oijre
v6fxaaL KaAovfiei/rju,
us 01 MeyapiKoi.
That this one
virtue was the knowledge of
the good, appears not only
from the internal connection
of the system and its external
relation to Socrates, but also
from Cicero 1. c. who asserts
Menedemo autem
Erequorum omne
bonum in mente posit um et
a
triaci ap})ellati
acie,
Here,
qua verum cerne-
Illi
(the Megarians)
retur.
similia, sed, opinor, explicata
Conf.
uberius et ornatius.
Plato, Rep. vi. 505, B., in
is mentioned in addition to Euclid.

^ Uiof/.
ii.
106 ra 5e avriKfiixeua tw ayad<^ av/jpei yuTj eluai
which Antisthenes
<pd(TKWV.
Xoiird.
I)iu(j. vii.
Stoic
ttoAA-oTs
106,
ore /jlcv yap

ore 5e Oehu, Kal &\\or
KaXov/xevo}/
fiaai
{oiov,
ii.
mentis
Arist. in Ens. Pr. Ev. xiv.

oQ(v r]îovv ovroi ye [ôl
17, 1
2T(\7rwva Kal tovs MeyapiKovs'\ rh hu eu dual Kal rh ût; ou

eiepou (Ivai, nrjBe yevvao'dal ri
Trepl
fxrjSk
(pOeipfddai.
/uTjSe
Chap.
Kiudffdai
Arist. Metaph. xiv.

4
101)1, b, 13, refers to Plato,
and can hardly be applied to
Toirapairav.
;
the Megarians.
* PrantVs view, p. 35, that
the conceptions of the Megarians must invariably have
a nominalistic meaning, does
264
Chap.
XII.
probably, traces of gradual development in the Megarian doctrine are to be found.

Euclid apparently
first
spoke of a plurality of essential conceptions in
contrast to objects of sense, and this form of teach-
ing belongs primarily to a time in which his system

was being developed out of this contrast.^ At a later
period the Megarians appear to have used the mani-'
foldness of conceptions for the purpose of attacking
popular notions,^ otherwise keeping it in the background, and confining themselves to the essential
oneness of being and the Grood.
Inconsistent, no"
doubt, they were
became involved
we can understand how
yet
in this contradiction
they!!
by gradually
pushing the Socratic theory of conceptions to
the^
abstract doctrine of the Eleatic One.^
The sharper the
C. Eristic.
contrast which they presented
not agree with the statements

of Plato.
If the Megarians
declared conceptions and only
conceptions to be aXrjdiv^ oucria,
surely they were Realists, not
Nominalists. Not even Stilpo
can, accordingly, be called a
Nominalist.
He had, moreover, absorbed too much of
the Cynic doctrines for us to
be able to form from him any
conclusion respecting the original Megarian views.
Plato, at least in the passage before quoted, does not
^
mention a good which is One.

On the contrary, he speaks of
his philosophers of conceptions
differing from the Eleatics in
assuming many conceptions.

2
gge p_ 260,
'
He/i/ie, p. 121, tries to
1.
get
over the difficulty in another

The Megarians, he believes, attributed being to each
particular idea, in as far as it
was a unity, and various conceptions were used by them to
express various kinds of the
good.
But this very pointthe being of various kinds of
good was what the Megarians
denied. Starting with tlê oneness of being they cannot have
arrived at the notion of a manifoldness of conceptions, since
this oneness excludes in its abj
stract form any development'"
or subordinate distinction. But
it is quite possible that the
Socratic
may|'|
conceptions
gradually have been lost in
the Eleatic unity.
way.
'
'
MEGARIAN
to the current
mode
ERISTIC.
of thought, the greater
the necessity of fortifying their
own
example of the Eleatics.
became
Chap.
^^^'
position against
Here again they had only
assault.
i>Orj
the
follow
to
To prove the soundness
of
their position directly, as
Parmenides had done, was

More important results might be
no easy matter.
expected, if their opponents' ground was assailed by

jthe criticism of Zeno and Gorgias.
From Zeno the
(founder of the School
had appropriated the Eleatic
doctrine precisely in this
its
critical function,
Zeno
and the Sophists being the principal persons who

drew attention hereto in central Greece. This path
of criticism the Megarians now struck out with such
preference, that the whole school herefrom derived
its
name.^
We
the practice
are assured
in
explanations
by Socrates
pakes nothing
ased
rrelevant.
was
%
other words, to refute by a
ad absurdum.
rejected
it
even of Euclid, to attack conclusions
and not premises

[reductio
by Diogenes,^ that
It
is
also said that Euclid
by analogies
form much
(l) TJuit
"f
^^^^^^f^-
because a similar thing when cited

clearer,
The most
and a dissimilar thing
is
telling description of Euclid's
nethod will probably be found in Plato, who, speakSee p. 250,^3.

roAs re aTroSeiêo-ij/
107
'vlffraTo oif Kara X-nfifiara aWa
car' iiricpopdu.
Since in Stoical
erminology which we are of
'-ourse not justified in ascribing
o Euclid on the strength of
his passage AtjjUjuo means the
uajor premiss, or more often
>oth premises, and 4-ni(popa the
.onclusion {Deychs, 34 Prantl,
^
li.
470), it
most probable that
is
meaning given above is the

real meaning of these words,
^ iMd. kuI rhu 5ia irapalSoXiis
the
Adyov
ainjpei,
avrhi^ ^
/cot
Se7v
ei
'e|
Aeywj/ ^tol i^ SfMoiwu
avo/xoioov a-wia-Taaeai
fxev e^
fiaAAov
aiâaTpecpeaOai
-KapiKKîv
tV
6i.Loicov,
t)
oh
5'
irepl
o/xoid
e'l
TrapaQâv.
avra
ioTiv
avofiolccu,
2G6
Chap.
VTT
ing in the Sophistes of the philosophers of conceptions, says that in their discourses
they destroy matter
piecemeal, in order to prove that
it
but
has no real being
subject to flux and change.^
is
This
is
exactly
the line which Zeno adopted, in order to prove the

uncertainty of the perceptions of the senses
which we notice
Megarians
is
in
no limit to
Sorites
of the later
component parts, and there being

the division, and no ultimate atom
its
contemplation
which
the
and
the apparently substantial bodily mass
divided into
on
also
;2
can
rest,
it
is
argued
must be itself unreal, and a mere passEuclid is accordingly rightly reing phenomenon.
garded as the founder of the Megarian criticism.
Still, with him criticism does not seem to have atthat matter
tained the character of formal captiousness, although

objection
may
would appear
be taken to his controversial tone

that, like
:^
it
Zeno before him, he wa?
primarily anxious to maintain his positive princi-
and that he only used tlie subtleties of argument

Nothing, at least, is knowD
as a means to this end.
of him which would lead to an opposite conclusion,
ples,
nor
is
any one of the quibbling
fallacies laid to his
charge, for which the Megarian school was afterwards

notorious.
See p. 256,
1 ; 259, 2.
SeeZeller, G. d. Griecli. Part
I., 496.
3 According to Dior/, ii. 30,
'
Socrates had already observed,

that because of his captiousness,
sibly
he might associate poswith Sophists, but not
with human beings.
But
this
statement
proves
but
little,
since it uses the term Sophist

in a way peculiar to post- Socratic times. It is more worth}
of belief {JDiog. ii. 107) that
Timon called him a quarrelsome person, who introduced
amongst the Megarians a

for disputes.
rage
MEGARIAN CAPTIOUSNESS.
Among
the immediate successors of Euclid, how-
element of
the
ever,
positive teaching.
too scanty to
abstract to
267
captiousness
Such teaching
command
had was
long, and too
as they
attention for
On
admit of further development.
other hand a polemic
over
prevailed
the
against prevailing opinions
presented to the sharp-witted, to the contentious, and

to those
ambitious of intellectual distinction, an un-
which the Megarians eagerly
over
explored
field,
ranged.'
Not seldom
their metaphysical assumptions
served only as occasions for hard-fighting with words.
Among
the fallacies which are attributed to
though they probably belong to an
lides,^
The ordinary form of these

captious proofs is that of askHence the
ing questions.
regular expression xSyov ipwrav (to raise a point) in IJiofj.
IIG Se.H. Math. x. 87
ii. 108
and the McyapiKa epcoT'^/iora in
the fragment of Chrysippus
in Pint. Sto. Rep. 10, 9, p. 103(5.
Conf. Arist. Phys. viii. 8 2(53,
Anal. Pr. ii. IJ), 6(5, a,
a, 4, 7
But
i. 32, 47, a, 21.
36
2(5
like the Sophists, they refused
every answer but Yes or No.
Diog. ii. 135.
- Diog.
ii.
108, enumerates
that called v/zeuSd/Aei'os, that
7
called ^laKauQaviav, the Elect ra,
the iyKKa\vixfxiuo9, the trwptTTjs,
the /ceparti/Tjs, the <pa\aKp6s. The
:
of them is given as follows in Ai^st. Soph. El. 25, 180,

Alex, ad loc. Cic.
a, 34, b, 2
Acad. ii. 29, 95 If a man says
he is at the moment telling a
lie, is he telling a lie, or is he
speaking truth ? The îuKavdd-
first
Eubuearlier
the iyKeKa\vixfieuos, and the
vwy,
Elect ra are only different forms

Do you
of the same fallacy.
know who is concealed ? Do

you know who is behind the
veil ?
Did Elect ra know her
brother before he announced
himself to her ? and the solution of them all consists in
the fact, that he who was concealed, or behind the veil, or
announced himwas known

but not immediately recog-
had
not.
self
respectively,
to,
jêt
nised by, the lookers on.
Arut.
S. El.
c.
See
24, 179, a, 33;
Lucian,
Alex, in loc. and 49
Vit. Auct. 22, and Prantl. The
Have
Kparip7)s is as follows
you lost your horns ? If you
say Yes, you allow that you had
;
If you saj' No, you

allow that you have them still.
vi. 38
Seneoay
I)iog. vii. 187
Gell. xvi. 2, 9;
Ep.' 45, 8;
Prantl, p. 53. The Sorites conHow
sists in the question:
horns.
Chap,
XII.
26S
Chap.
^pEnhu-''
I ides.
time,^ only one, the Sorites, has
argument
belongs
it
to
intelligible rela-
of this form of
could be proved that no enduring being

objects of sense, but
object passes into
its
that
every such
and represents what is

real and unchangeable.
opposite,
changing, and not what
The
any
By means
tion to their metaphysics.
is
appear to be simple sophisms, having no

other object than to involve opponents in difficulties/
rest
critical
works of
art,
which made indeed the need
of an accurate investigation into the laws of

thought, but in the pursuit of which the desire of
felt
conducing to a right intellectual method by pointing

out difficulties and refuting untenable opinions
altogether into the background.
(3)
The powers of Alexinus
TiMtof
falls
argument seem
in
to
Alexitms.
many
grains
make
a heap
or
more generally
With what
number does Many begin ? Of
:
course
impossible to assign
it is
a number. See Cic. Acad. ii. 2S,

92 16, 49 Diog. vii. 82 Pers.
;
Sat. vi. 78 ; Prantl, p. 54. The

(paXaKphs is another form of the
same How many hairs must

you lose to become a bald-head ?
:
See Hor. Ep.
ii. 1,
45
Prantl,
Dei/cks, 51.
are, for instance, indications of
the Sorites in
1. c.
'
There
Zeno and Euclid.

it is
difficult
In general
to say who are
the
discoverers of
quibbles,
which are taken seriously at
the time they are produced,
but are after all only bad jokes.
Seneca, Ep. 45, 10, says that
many books had been written

on the \pevB6ixvos, among which
those
of
Theophrastus
and
Chrysippus
are
known
to us
196
v. 49.
Chrysippus, according to Bioff.
vii. 198, 192, also wrote on the
5ia\au6dvcav, the iyKeKaXv/x/jLivos,
and the awpirrjs. Philetus of
Cos is said to have worked
himself to death in writing
about the \l/ev56iJ.uos, Athen.
from
ix.
Dioff.
401,
e.
vii.
The /cepoTiVrjs and

were also attri-
iyK^KaXv/xixei/os
buted
Ill),
Diodorus {Diog.
ii.
and the former {Diog.
vii.
to
187) as also the Sorites {Diog.

82) to Chrysippus, certainly
without reason to Chrysippus.
^ Compare what will be later
said about Diodorus' proofs in
vii.
denying motion.
^ The
motive which Prantl,
p. 52, sees in the iyKcKaKvfxfxevos
is not so patent, and the as-
sumptions of Brandts,
do not seem accurate.
p. 122,
DIODORUS THE MEGARIAN.

have been of a similar kind.
known
to
us
further
is
known
He, at
m.)
only
least, is
Nothing
of him beyond an argument in
which he vainly attempted to entangle Menedemus
in what is called the ' horned fallacy,^ and a refutation of Xenophon's proofs of the reasonable arrangea
as
captious disputant.^
Chai'.
^^^'
'
ment
of the world, ^ which was subsequently repeated
by the Academicians."
In close connection with the
Megarian doctrines may be placed the discussions of

Diodorus on motion and destruction, on the possible,
and on hypothetical sentences.
Tradition has preserved four arguments, by which
Diodorus attempted to
support
the fundamental
{i)
That of
^*'''^^''*''''-
teaching of his school on the impossibility of motion. MotioL

The first,^ which in the main is the same as that of
Zeno,
must
Supposing anything
is as follows.
either
move
in
the space in which
to
the space in which
it
is
it is,
In the former
not.
not room to move, because
move,
it entirely fills it
latter it
can neither act nor be acted upon
motion
is
'
'^
The second
inconceivable.^
Zeno
concluded, because the

world is the best possible, and
reason is higher than the absence of reason, that the world
must have reason.
See Cic.
De N. D. ii. 8, 21; iii. 9, 22.
To this Alexinus replied
rh
TToiT^TiKhu Tov jxi] TTotTjTiKoD Koi rh
:
tov fi^ ypafj-ixaTiKov

KpuTr6y fVrt /cat rh Kara ras
&\\as Tc'xi'as Qiwpovixivuv Kp(:ht6v ia-Ti TOV ju?^ TOLovTov.
ou5e
*
it
has
in the
hence
a less
is
6 K6<r/xos.
had
ypap.fxa.TiKhu
or in
%v Se kSct/ulov Kp^lrrov iarr ttoitjTiKhv apa koI ypaiuL/xaTiKoy iariv
See p. 254, 1.
In Diog. ii. 135.
Sext. Math. ix. 107
it
N. D.
Cic.
21
242
iii, 8,
10, 26
11, 27.
*
Sext. P\'rrh,
Math.
x.
85
i.
ii.
iii.
71
311.
^ Sext. Pyrrh. iii, 243, mentions a similar argument against

becoming in general, in immedlatc conncctiou with the proof
given above
is
come
Neither can what
into being, for
it
exists
already nor can what is not,

for nothing can happen to it
;
THE SOCHATIC SCHOOL.
270
Chap.
XII
'
accurate form of the same proof. ^

.
is
in space
what
is
What
moved
moves
All that
is in space reposes
reposes.
Therefore
third proofs
is
based on
the assumption of infinitesimal atoms and particles.

It
is
generally attributed to Diodorus.^
Probably he
Zeno did
his argument,
only used
it
hypothetically, as
to refute ordinary notions.'*
the particle a
is
does
space, B
it
completely
it
move when
for
no sooner
it is
is
Accordingly
has ceased.
As long
as
in the corresponding space a, it does
not move, because

little
It is this
it
it
fills
Just as
it.
in the next following
there than
move
does not
In this conclusion one cannot
fail
motion
its
at
all.
to discover the
note of Zeno's inferences, and of that critical process
which had been already described by Plato.^ The

fourth proof,^ besides assuming the existence of atoms,
distinguishes between partial and complete motion.^
Every moving body must first have the majority of
consequentlj- nothing at all is,
It is possible that this argument also belongs to Diodorus,
But Steinlidvt is wrong in attributing to him (Allg. Encykl
Sect. i. vol. XXV. p. 288) the
distinction between space in
the wider and in the narrower
sense, which is found in Scxt.
Math. x. 95,
Pyrrh. iii. 75
since it would appear from
these passages that the distinction was made with a view
to meet Diodorus' objections,
;
Sext. Math. x. 112.

Id. X. 143 and 119.
Alexander, too, De Sensu, 125, b,

mentions Diodorus, X6yos irepl
'^
T&'i/ kfj.<:p<i)v.
^ Id. ix. 362

Pyrrh, iii. 32
Dionys. in Bus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 23,
Pseudo4 ; Stob. Ekl i. 103
clement, Eecogn. viii. 15, all of
which point to one common
source.
Simjjl. Phys. 216, b
;
Schol.
in
Arist.
Diodorus called
405,
these
a,
21.
atoms
afx^prj,
*
Even the
first
proof, accor-
ding to Sext. Math. x. 85, was

put in such a shape as to prove
that every atom fully occupied 11

but this is unim- l'
its space
portant here.
^ See p. 265.
;
'
Sext. Math. x. 113.
Kivncris
nar
iirifcpdrfiap
Kifijais kt' elKiKpiv^MV.
and
DlOnOHUS THE MEGAUIAN.

moved, before
particles
its
that
should
it
can
it
move
271
as a
move with the majority
whole
Chap.
however,
is,
For supposing a body to consist of

three atoms, two of which move whilst the third is
at rest, such a body must move, because the majority
not conceivable.
move.
of its particles
atom
fourth
moved kut
consists are
at rest
is
applies,
added:
the body being
for
airiKpdrsiav^ the three
atoms of which
it
rest
Why
not
when a
equall}^
moved, consequently the fourth at
added to the three moving atoms.
is
when
The same
fifth
and a sixth atom
added
is
So
body consisting of 10,000 particles must be

moved, if only two of these first move. If this is, howthat a
ever, absurd, a
movement of
the majority of particles
and therefore a movement

That there is an inconclusiveof the whole body.
ness in this argument Sextus has already noticed.^
is
therefore inconceivable,
Diodorus, however, appears
to
have considered
unanswerable, and hence, he concludes
all
his
it
re-
searches by saying that it never can be said of a
thing. It
was,
in
senses
is
moving, but only. It has
other words,
prepared to allow wliat the
seemed to prove,^ that a body
place and
now
in
He
moved.'-^
now
is
one
in
but he declared the
another,
from the one to the other to be impossible.

indeed a contradiction, and as such it was
transition
This
is
A
Scft. Math. X. 112, 118.
further argument, the first
argument of Zeno's, is not attributed to Diodorus by Scxt.
Math. X. 47. He onl}'^ says as
to its result, that
Diodorus
'
aiirccd therein with the Eleatics.

-
Se.rt.
07-102.
^ This
Math.
x.
reason
mentioned 1y
48; 85
is
>V'.rf.
J)l
specially
x, 80.
Math,
i^7^
Chap.
by the ancients, and by him very

inadequately met.^
At the same time it is a deviation from the original teaching of his school.
Euclid
denied motion absolutely, and would just as little
laid to his charge
have allowed a completed motion as a transition
Idi
the present.
On
(J))
With
Destrncfiori.
the third of these arsfuments

agrees
sub^
stantially the argument of Diodorus that nothing

.
perishes.
not perish
stands
It is as follows.
;
so
Wall, he says, does
long as the stones keep together,
but when the stones are separated
That
longer exists.^
it
may however hxwe
it
it
no
perished,,
he appears to have likewise allowed.

{c)
On
Closely related to the enquiry into motion, are,
the
on what
his discussions
possible.
is
the conceivability of change

in
one case
the
other
is
In both cases
the point raised, but
raised in reference to somethino', in
it is
abstractedly.
In both
cases,
Diodorus
stands on exactly the same footing with regard to

his School.
The
older Megarians allowed as possible
only what actually
is,
understanding by actual what
was before them in the present.^ To this Diodorus'

added what might be in the future, by saying Pos-'
:
sible is
what either
is
actual or what will be actual.*
'
êe Sext. ^1, ^1
Diodorus
here proves the assertion that
anything predicated of the past
may be true, whilst it is not
true predicated of the present
by such irrelevant statements
as that it can be said of Helen
that she Jmd three husbands
(one after another), but never
that she lias three (cotempora,
This example is^

show how erroneous,
Grote"s view (Plato iii. 501) is,'
neously).
sufficient to
that Diodorus only intended to

assert that present motion is
only the transition point between the past and the present,
^ ggxt. Math. x. 347.
^ See p. 261.
*
Cic.
De
Fato,
6,
12;
7,
13;
'
PHILO THE MEGARIAN.
273
proof of this statement he used an argument,

v^hich goes by the name of icvpiBV(dv,
and is still
.n
Chap.
^^
idmired after centuries,' as a masterpiece of

subtle
riticism.
It is in the main as follows
From any:
hing possible nothing impossible can result 2

but
b is impossible that the past
can be different from
;
had this been possible at a past

loment, something impossible would have resulted
rem something possible.
It was therefore never
^hat
it
is;
for
And speaking
ossible.
generally
it
impossible
is
anything should happen differently from what

happened.^
iat
as
Far less exacting was Philo, a pupil of Diodorus, (5) Thatr

hen he declared everything to be possible,
even â^ôn,
lould outward circumstances prevent it
from being Poi^nU,:.
Ep. ad Fam. ix. 4 Phut.
Rep. 46, p. 1055; Alex.
3h. in Anal. Pr. 59, b
Schol.
Arist. 163, b, 29; Simpl.,
17
the
id. 65, b,
19
Philip, ibid. 163,

Boeha, de Interpret. Op.
Basil,
364
19.
)g. i.
Prantl, Gesch. d.
The above sentence
expressed here thus Possible

^TTfp ^ eVxij/ aATjOes ^ iffrai..
Comp. Epict. Diss. ii. 18,
we ought to be proud of
)ral actions, ovk eVi tw rhv
HfvouTa ipwrrjaai, and just
:
'
fore
Kojxrphu (ro^Kr/LidTiov eAu-
i,'JTo\v KOfM\p6Tepou
.
He
rod Kvpievou-
also mentions,
ii.
:reatises of Cleanthes,
'pus,
Antipater,
Chry-
and Archi-
on the Kvpidcov.
pus could only meet
iBus
19,
Chryit (ac-
ding to Alex, in Anal. Pr.

h, in Schol. in Arist.
163, a,
by asserting that possibly
impossible
from the
.0.
might
possible.
result
Other pas-
sages are quoted by PrantL r>.

^
40, 36.
^ So aKo\ovd7u is
rendered,
thus keeping up the ambiguity
of^ the original, where d/coAouBf'iv means not only
sequence
in time, but causal sequence.
Epict. Diss. ii. 19, 1

6
\6yos airh toiovtoou Tivuy
Kvpivoou
acpopixHv vpcvTrirrOai (paivcrai

V7)s
yap
koi-
/ndxvs roh rpial

Toinoi<s TTphs ÂATjAa, tw 'ttSj/
-ap\7]Xv6bs a\r]6h avayKoiov cluai
oijarjs
'
Kai T(2
'
\ovde7u,'
oijT
Sviarw aSvyaroi'
Koi Tc?
'
a\7]dh
ea-TLu
a-vviSwu
tV
araaiu
rov
fih
Suj/arb*/
out'
olko-
dvai h
eo-rai,'
ixdxvt' ravTt]u 6 Ai6Supos rfj ruv rrpcoTwv SvoTu iriQavorriTi

o-vvfxpVfreTO irphs irapdt>
oijT
ûrjSej/
^(TTiv
Conf. Cic.
De
dATjflej
Fato,
dvai
oUt'
6.
Swarhu
eo-Tai.
274
Chap.
realised,^
^^^-
therefor.
provided a thing has only the capacity

This was undeniably a departure from
the Megarian teaching.

(&) Onhij^sfrdences
In regard, too, to the truth of hypothetical senfences, Philo laid down criteria different from those
Diodorus declared those conditional
of his teacher.2
sentences to be true, in which the apodosis neither
can be
false,
nor ever could be false
true in which there

apodosis.
only the pro-
Philo says more vaguely, those are
be true.
tasis
if
is
not a true protasis and a
The question here
false
appears, however, to
have been one of formal correctness in expressing

logical rules.^
(c)
On
With
the
Diodorus' view of the possible the assertion
that no words are meaningZmZI^^^'^ appears to be connected,

less or ambiguous, each one always meaning some-
thing, and everyone requiring to be understood ac- j

cording to this meaning ^ he will only allow that j
:
to be possible
meaning of a word
present to the speaker's mind.
which
is actually
Eespecting Diodorus
however, and the whole Megarian School, our

in
Categ.Alex.-^\m^\.
Schol. in Arist. 65, a, 39, b, 6
1
Pantlioides, according to Exnct. Diss. ii. 19, 5,

attempted by another turn to
BoeTiSy
1. c.
avoid Diodorus' argument, by

disputing the sentence that
every thing past must be of
necessity.
2 See
Sext.
Math.
Acad.
viii.
113
Philo,
do not
infor-
affect his rea
however mucl
they may follow from the word
of his definition. Hence Pranti
meaning
at
all,
can hardly have quit>

grasped the meaning of Philo.
p. 454,
*
Ammon., D
Gell. xi. 12
Interpret. 32, a Schol. in Ar: s1
Simpl. Categ. f. C I
1103, b, 15
In order to show that everj J
h.
word has a meaning, DiodorujJ
;
Pyrrh.
;
i.
ii.
309
110;
Cic.
iv. 47, 143.
The inferences by which

M. viii. 115, refutes
Sextus,
according to Ammon., gave

name aXKafir\v to one of
th'
hi
slaves.
STILPO THE MEGARIAN.
276
mation
is far too scanty to enable us

to bring the
fragments of their teaching into a perfectly
satisfactory context/ granting that enough is
known
Chap.
^^-
to
evidence one and the
same tendency in all these

thinkers.
It may then be assumed as probable,
that
the Megarians did not confine themselves
to those
logical subtleties
which are known to us
our notices
however, too deficient for us to be able to
attribute others to them with anything like
certainty.2
;
are,
peculiar position in the Megarian philosophy
is
(6)
That
that occupied by Stilpo.
Ever ready to defend the

^Mclr'
teaching of the School at the head of which
he stood, 'adopud
-clinging to universal conceptions,
maintaining the imbecoming, the unity of being,^ and the

difference between sensuous and rational
perceptions,^
possibility of
J^^^^^^'^'^^
^V'^'''^-
^comuZ^
he at the same time combines with his

Meo-arian ^^^.^/
views theories and aims which originally
belonged to '^"êdithe Cynics.
In the first place he rejected, as did An-
Jf/J^,
im,j)08sible,
muer^s (Rh Mus
Cxesch. der. Phil.
ii.
ii.
310,
140) con-
seem m many respects

to go beyond historical probabihty and beyond the spirit of
the Meganan teaching.
To
aiustrate this here would take
jeclures
.t^\i
PrantU
Kr
.,
.
P- 43, believes that
majority of the sophisms
3numeratcd by Aristotle really
Delongto the Megarians. Most
)f them, however,
would ap3ear to come from the So3hists; in proof of which a
cference may be
made to
the
Euthydemus, which
'.an hardly have the Megarians
nvievv.
Towards Euclid Plato
Plato s
would not have used such language, as may be gathered

from the Sophistes 246 C
and the introduction to' the
The^tetus and Eubulides had
not appeared when Plato composed the Euthydemus
That
*^^ Megarians made use of
;
many of
the Sophistic fallacies

of course not denied
Onfv
nothing for certain is 'known
of such use.
is
ggg pp ggQ, 3-263 4

Compare the' passage in
Aristoclcs quoted p 250 l in
^
which
o.'
^repl
M7ap.oi;s
Sr/ATrco.a Kal Toi.s
are spoken of
addition to the Eleatics
T 2
in
270
Chap.
XII.
combination of subject and predicate,

since the conception of the one is different from the
conception of the other, and two things with different
tisthenes, every
conceptions can never be declared to be the same.^

The doctrine of the unity of being,^ in as far as it can
be shown to have originated
may
with Stilpo,
deduced as a corollary from this \dew

can be predicated of anything else,
being can alone be predicated of
for if
it
be
nothing
follows that
itself.
Truly cynical are also Stilpo's moral principles.

The captious logic to which other Megarians devoted
themselves with speculative onesidedness, to the entire
neglect of the ethical element,^ was also a charac-
In Pint. adv. Col. 22, 1, p.

1119, theUpicvrean Stilpo raises
the objection rbv dehv avaipu(rQai utt' auToG, K^yovros erepop
erepov
fxr)
KaTTjyopelcrOai.
ttuis
\4yovTS &vaW' avOpwdpct3TTOV ayaQhv

ayaOhv
irov ^.uOpcoTTOV Koi X^P^5
and again, c. 23
ayadov
ou ix7]i' aWa rh iir\ 2Ti\7rcoj/os
el Trept 'Ittttov rh
roiovTOV icrriv.
yap
5(aj(rd/x60a,
[x^
rpXiv Karriyopovfieu, ov (piqai

ravrhv eJpai to? irepl ov Karr^yopelrai rh KaT7}yopovfXVOV, aAA.'
'itepov fj.eu avOpcaTTcp tov ti "^v
erepov 5e rw
elvai rhv Koyov,
ayaQw koX -rrdXiu rh "ttttov eivai
rov rp^xovra dvai diacpepeiv hKaripov yap airaiTOvuevoi rbv \oyov
'
'
ov
rhv
avrhv airodiboixev v-nlp

aâprdveivrovs 'drep^v
aiKpotv. odev
krioov Karriyopovvras. The very

will be found in the
case of Antisthenes. All the less
reason has Plutarch to regard
same thing
Stilpo's assertion as a mere

The same proof is given
joke.
by Sim-pl Phys. 26, a. Sia Sh
Tepi ravra (the distinction
between the different categories and the ambiguity of
words) 6.yvoiav Kal ol MeyapiKoi
K\7}64vres (pi\6cro(poi Kaôvres us
ivapyrj TrporacTLv, ori uv ol \6yoi
:
tV
ravra eVepa icrri Kal 3t

erepa /cexcopjCTai ctA-A-iÂcuv,
idoKovv BeiKvvvaL avrov avrov Kei.e. since
eKacrrov
XC'pi-o'lJi-dvov
the conception of SwKpoTTjs
fxovariKos is a different one to
that of 'S.wKpdrTjs \vk6s, the
one according to Megarian
hypothesis must be a different
person to the other.
2 See p. 263.
3 Excepting
Euclid's doctrine of the oneness of virtue,
eVepoi
ra
nothing bearing on Ethics is

as belonging to the
Megarians.
known
;:
STILPO THE MEGAlilAN.

teristic of Stilpo
and perhaps
'
it is
277
only an accident
that no captious assertion or discovery of his
Ch.a
on __îl_
His character, however, is not only always (*) ^^'
mentioned by biographers with the greatest respect,=^ gHod^
but many traits are recorded of him, which identify '^^^^^^ ^"
nis morality with that of the Cynics.
The highest
good he placed in that apathy, which forbids the
is
record.
feeHng of pain even to
The wise man
exist.
is
re-
quired to be in himself independent, and not even to

stand in need of friends to secure happiness.^ When
Demetrius Poliorcetes enquired after his losses by the

plunder of Megara, he gave for answer that he had
seen no one carrying off his knowledge."*
When re-
minded of the immoral
life of his daughter, he rehe could not bring honour on her, she
could not bring disgrace on him.^
Banishment he
joined, that if
See Chrysipp. in Plut. Sto.

Rep. 10, 11, p. 1036, and pp. 211,
t ; 210, 6.
2 See p. 251, note 3.
* Sen. Ep.
* An
merito
9, 1
-eprehendat in quadam epistola
'
Epicurus eos, qui dicunt sapi-
contentum
propter hoc amico non indi-
intern se ipso esse

3t
Hoc obStilboni ab Epicuro et
?ere desideras scire.

jicitur
is,
quibus summum bonum
/isum est animus impatiens.'
\nd a little further on
Hoc
nter nos et illos
interest
loster sapiens vincit quidem
ncommodum omne sed sentit
llonmi ne
sentit quidem.'
Ilonnected herewith is the ob:
'
iervation of Stilpo in Teles, in

'itoh. Floril.
103, 83, in order
o wain from excessive grief
at
the
death of relative^;.
Aphr. De An. 103,
remarks also probably applies
What AUx.
a,
to Stilpo, that
look
on
the Megarian.s
as irpuTou
do-xATjaio
oIkÎov.
Plutarch, Demet. c. 9
Tranquil. An, c. 17, p. 475
Puer. Ed. c. 8, p. 6 Seti. de
Const. 5, 6
Epis. 9, 18 Diog.
ii. 115
Floril. Joan. Damasc.
13, 153 {Stoh. Floril. ed.

Mein. iv. 227).
That Stilpo
thereby lost his
wife and
daughter is probably a rhetorical exaggeration of Seneca,
ii.
The well-known
mecum
Seneca
'
omnia mea
porto,' attributed by
to Stilpo, is by Cicero
referred to Bias of Prisne.

* Plut. An. Tran. c.
Diog.
6
;
ii.
114.
278
Chap.
"VTT
would not allow to be an evil.^ To be independent

of everything without, and to be absolutely free from
wants this highest standard of Cynicism for the wise
man was
And
also his ideal.
lastly,
the free attitude
towards religion adopted by the Cynics was also shared
(c)
The
by him, and finds expression in many of his utterances.^

Whether, and if so, in what way, he attempted
to set up a logical connection between the Cynic and
we
In
such a
mgaHan
Megariau
theories
task was not difficult.
oaMy har-
subject can admit a predicate, Euclid's hostile attitude
theories,
wonised by towards proof

rests
are not told.
With
by analogy
is
itself,
the assertion that no,
closely related
too
tliis
on the general proposition that things dissimilar
cannot be compared.
It
is
also quite in
harmony
with the negative criticism of the Megarians
and
if
Euclid denied to the good any form of manifoldness,

others might add, as Antisthenes really did, that the
one and not the manifold could alone
exist.
More-
over from the oneness of the good the apathy of the

wise
man might
else besides the
be deduced, by considering that
good
is
unreal and indifferent.^
The'
denial of the popular faith was also involved in
doctrine of the one, even as
Xenophanes.
>
was
first
8.
2 According to Diog. ii.

116,
he proved that the Athene of
Phidias was not a God, and
then before the Areopagus
evasively replied that she was
not a Bibs but a Sea, and when

Crates asked him as to prayers
and sacrifices, replied that
thei
taught b}
In the Cynic element as adopted
In the fragment in Sioh.
Flor. 40,
it
all,
b}
these subjects could not

discussed in the street. TL
story in Pliit. Prof, in Virt
12, p. 83, of the dream in whicl
he conversed with Poseidon ii
apparently invented to justify
his omission to sacrifice.
^ Conf. Diog. ii. 106, and
j|
1
263, 3
ELEAN-ERETRIAN SCHOOL.
Stilpo, there
approach
were not wanting,
to the Megarians,
it
but
true, points of
is
it
270
Chap.
XII.
was a deviation
from the original form of the Megarian teaching to

allow explicitly such an element to exist.
Closely connected with the
Megarian school
is
the Elean-Eretrian, respecting which, however, very

little
information
was Phsedo of
^
and
reached
has
Elis,^
the well-known
See Preller's Phasdo's Life

Mus.
Writings, Rhein.
Pheedo,
fur Phiiol. iv. 391.
the scion of a noble Elean
family, had been taken captive not long before the death
of Socrates, probably 400 or
Preller concludes
B.C.
401
from Phaedo, 89, B,, that he
was not eighteen years of age
at the time of the death of
Socrates it may, however, be
;
asked whether Phaedo followed

Athenian customs in his dress.
He was employed as a slave
in most humiliating services at
Athens, until one of Socrates'
friends (besides Crito, Cebes
and Alcibiades are both mentioned, the latter certainly not
being at Athens at the time,
and probably not being alive)
redeemed him at the intercession of Socrates.
See Diog. ii.
Suid. under âiZwv
31, 105
and Hesych. Vir Ulustr. 4>a(5coj/
Macroh. Sat.
Gell. N. A. ii. 18
i.
11; Lact. Inst. iii. 25, 15;
Orig. c. Gels. iii. 67 Cic. N. D.
i.
Athen. xi. 507, c.
33, 93
Preller not improbably finds
the source of the story in
Ilermippu^, Trepl tuv Stairpe;
^6,v((iiv
(Plato,
iv TraiSeia ôvKoov.
iii.
us.
Gi'Ote
503) objects to this
Its
founder
favourite
of
no conquest of Elis
took place at that time, whereas Diog. says of Phaedo
(tvstory, that
vedXo} rfi Trarpidi.
He
therefore
infers that M-f^Kios should be

read for 'HAeTos in Diog. ii. 105.
Yet Phfedo is called an Elean
by both (rell. 1. c. and Straho,
ix. 1, 8, p. 393, and his school
called Elean.
If Elis itself
did not fall into an enemy's
hand, its suburbs were occupied by the Spartan army in
the Elean- Spartan war, probably in the spring of 408 B.C.
{Xen. Hell. iii. 2, 21, and Preller, on the passage, Curtms, Gr.
Gesch. iii. 149. 757.) Phajdo
appears to have been taken
captive at that time.
Most
probably Phaedo left Athens on
the death of Socrates. But
whether he at once returned
home, or repaired with others
to Euclid at Megara, is im-
known. Diog. ii. 105, mentions

two genuine and four spurious
dialogues of his. His Zopyrus
is even quoted by Pollux, iii.
18, and the Antiatheista in
Bekhers Anecdot. i. 1 07. Panaetius seems to have had doubts
as to all the treatises passing
under his name, Diog. ii. 64.
He is called by Gellius * philo-
11.
Elean-
school^^''
a. Its
^'^'^^^(^'y-
1
.;
280
Chap.
On
Socrates.^
the
death of his
Phsedo
teacher,
XII.
collected a circle of disciples in his native town,
name
thence received the
named
who
of the Elean philosophers.^
and Archipylus
and Moschus as his pupils.'* Beyond the names we,
however, know nothing of any one of them. By
Menedemus and Asclepiades,^ the school was removed
Plistanus
is
Eretria,
to
sophus
and
illustris,'
was then called the Eretrian.^
it
and
his writ-
ings are spoken of as
dum
as his successor,-^
'
Even
elegantes.'
admoDiog.
enumerates him among

the most distinguished Socra47,
ii.
ti cists.
^
Compare for his relations
to Socrates the Phsedo, 58, D.
89,
2
H.
Straho, ix. 1, 8, p.
Diog. ii. 105, 126.
' Diog. ii. 105.
* 126.
Perhaps these men
were not immediate pupils of
his.
Since nothing is said of
393
'HAeto/coi,
Menedemus'
studying under
the latter, we may
suppose, was no longer alive.
^ The account given by Diog.
ii. 125 of these philosophers in
his life of Menedemus (probably
taken from Antigonus of Carystus and Heraclides Lembus) is
as follows Menedemus of ErePlistanus,
tria, originally
had been sent as a
tradesman,
soldier to
Megara. There he became acquainted with the school of

Plato (so Diog. says with Plato
but this is chronologically im;
possible) and joined it together

with his friend Asclepiades, both
cf them (according to Athen.
iv. 168, a) earning a living by
working at night. Soon, how-
they joined Stilpo at

Megara, and thence went to
Moschus and Archipylus at
Elis, by whom they were in-i
troduced to the Elean doctrines.
Returning to theirj:
ever,
native city and becoming con-'

nected by marriage, they continued together in faithful
friendship until the death of
Asclepiades, even after Mene-ti
demus had risen to highest
rank in the state, and had'
attained wealth and influence
with the Macedonian princes.
The sympathetic, noble and
firm character of Menedemus,
his pungent wit (on which)
Plut. Prof, in Virt. 10, p. 81;
Vit. Pud. 18, p. 536), his moderation ^Diog. ii. 129; Athen.
X, 419, e), his liberality and
his merits towards his country,
are a subject of
frequent
panegyric.
Soon after the
battle of Lysimachia, which
took place 278 B.C., he died,
possibly by suicide the result
of a grief which is differently
stated at the age of sevent}'four.
According to Antigonus
in Diog. ii. 136, he left no
writings,
* Straho, ix.
1,8 Diog. ii.
105, 126 Cic. Acad. iv. 42, 129.
ELEAN-EIiETIilAN SCHOOL.
Flourishing as was
!>i
condition here for a time,
its
it
Among
its
adherents
Chap.
-^-^^-
appears soon to have died out.*
Phuedo and Menedemus are
b. Re-
the only two respecting whose opinions any informa-
^'^^^J^" ''f
tion
teaclnu<j.
be had, and that information
to
is
is
little
By Timon ^ Phsedo
enough.
is classed with Euclid

which points to an argumentative tenPerhaps, however, he devoted himself to
as a babbler,
dency.4
Ethics
more than Euclid
did.
Menedemus,
at least,
appears to have been distinguished from his cotemporary quibblers by having directed his attention to
life
and
He
moral questions.
to
is,
however, spoken
and skilful disputant.''^ If he hardly

went the length of Antisthenes in declaring every combination of subject and predicate impossible,^ it still
of as a sharp
sounds captious enough to hear that he only allowed
judgments to be
afiBrmative
Phit. Tranqu.
'
An.
13,
p.
^72.
valid,
of morals,
41, quotes
Athen. iv. 162, e, mentions

Ctesibius as a pupil
of Menedemus, but what
he
>ays of him has nothing: to do
with philosophy.
A treatise
3f the Stoic iSphasrus against
:he Eretrian School in 260
B.C. is the last trace of the
3xistence
of the
Eretrian
2
a certain
school.
=
but rejected nega-
Diog.
Bxog.
ii.
vii. 178.
107.
The Platonic Phaedo does

give the slightest ground
I)\og.
which Sen. Ep.

from Pha^do.
ii.
tcj/otjtos b
184
M.
noiX
iv
i]v
94,
5e Zvana-
rw awdfa-eai
SvaavTaydcvKXTOS.
irphs irdvTa Koi
eVrpeêro re
eupeaiKdyei' ipia-
TiKdoraTds re, Kadd <pr]aiu 'Ai'rtaQ4vif]s iv

hiaboxah, iiv.
The
verses of
Epicrates in Athen.
cannot well refer to this
Menedemus, since they are also
ii.
59,
directed
against
was then
'
Even
still living.
Plato,
who
Steiuhai-tyVlsil.
this is asserted.
According to Phvs. 20, a (Schol.
in Arist. 330/a, 3), the Ere-
397, does, tliat. Pha^do

vas inclined to a sceptical
vithholding of judgment.
trians asserted /xrjSev Kara /xehevhs KaTnyopitaeai.

They appear in this passage to be con-
lot
01 i\nnV\x\^,
^.
2is
iv.
Compare the
:lever
short
but
fragment on the subject
founded with the Cynics and

the later Meirarians.
282
Chap.
XII
tive
and hypothetical
Chrysippus^ blames
ones.^
him
as well as Stilpo, for their obsolete fallacies.^
may
also
be true that he disputed the view that pro-
perties exist apart

spirit of
It
from particular
On
Cynic nominalism/
objects,
in the
the other hand,
it is
asserted that in positive opinions he was a Platonist,
and only employed argument for amusement.^ From

what has been already stated, this seems incredible,
nor can it be deduced from his disputes with Alexinus.^ Indeed, it is in itself most improbable.^ Still
much seems
so
Stilpo,
to be ascertained, that, together with
he attributed
doctrines a value
to ethical
For we not only hear that he ad-j

mired Stilpo, who was his teacher, more than any
other philosopher/ and that he was himself often
above criticism.
us
oufTtcoSes Iv Se ro'is
Diog. ii. 135.

Pint. Sto. Kep. 10, 11, p.
1036.
3 Hermann^
Ges. Abh. 253,
refers to Menedemus the verses
of John Salisbury (Enthet. ed.
Peters, p. 41), in which a certain
Endymion
is
mentioned,
who
called fides, opinio vera, and

error, opinio fallax, and who
denied that you could know
what was false, for no knowledge could be deceptive. The
not, however,
allusion does
appear probable. The continuation, that the sun corresponds
to truth, and the moon to falsehood, that error and change
bear rule under the moon, but
truth and immutability in the
domain of the sun, certainly
does not come from Menedemus.

* Simpl.
Categ. Schol. in
Arist. 68, a, 24 oX airh ttjs
:
'Eperpias avfjpovv
ras rroioTrjTas
ovdafxus
i:Xovo'o-s
ri
Koivhi
KadiKaara
/cot
(TvvOeTOis vTrapxovffas.
^ Heraclides in JDioff. ii. 135.
Ritter's conjecture, Gesch. d.'
Phil. ii. 155, that this Mene-
demus is confounded with Menedemus the Pyrrhsean, whom
we know from
Plut. adv. Col.

1126, 8, and Athen., it
Foi'
hardly to be trusted.
Heraclides Lembus had treated
the Eretrians in detail, as w
learn from Biog., so that it is
difficult to imagine such a conThe context also tells
fusion.
32, p.
against that view.

" Diog. 135, 136, says that h(
was constantly attacking Alexii
nus with violent derision, bu]
yet did him some service.
^
Diog. 134 twj/ Se 5t5a(rK('
:
Koiv rcav Trepl

KpoiTTju
8
UAdrava
KarecppSvei.
Diog. 134.
Koi
s,Po'
ELEAN-ERETRIAN TEACHING.
derided
for
know
being a Cynic,^ but we
2^Sl
that he
Chap.
busied himself with enquiring as to the chief good
He
in a practical way.
one good
affirmed that there was only
intelligence,^
which,
to
his
mind, was
identical with a rational direction of the will.^
commonly spoken
are
What
of as distinct virtues, are, he
maintained, only different names of this one virtue
by
^'^
his activity as a statesman,'^
he proved that
he did not
aim at dead knowledge.
In his free views
of religion
he likewise reminds us of Stilpo and the
and,
Zeno, however,
Cynics.^
having about this time
tmited the most valuable and lasting parts of the
Megarian and Cynic teaching in the more comprehensive system of the Stoics, stragglers, such as the
Eretrians, soon found themselves unable to exercise
iny important influence.

to
kvuv
Diog. 140
'
can(ppoue7TO,
fx^v
oZv irpura
kol \T]pos virh
ruu 'EpcTpeioou aKovccv.

^
Cic.
Acad.
ii.
42
Diog.
irphs 5e rov lTr6vTa TroAAa

ayaQa iirvBero -niaa rhv apiQ-
123
r^
rwu Ka-
ihv KaX il voixiôi TfAeiu)
'6v and in 134 are some ques-ions to prove that the useful
s not the good.
' Diog.
136: /cat Trore rivos
iKovaas, ws fx4yiaTov ayadhv U7]
h iravTwv i-nnvyxd-viiv wv tis
'niQvfx^l,
elirc
'
iroKv
Se
iJ.i7(ov
iTTidvixelu Siv Se?.

^
Pint. Virt. Mor. 2
r]fxo<i
wv
juei/
ia<popa.s,
cl's
.i/rh
Kaddwep
' That
he exercised a considerable
influence
on his
friends by his teaching and
his personalty is shown by
Plutarch, Adnl. et Am. c. 11,
Diog. ii. 127-129.
p. 55
Biog. 125 Bicavos re eVt^neAa)$ KararpexovTos twv jxavr^wv,
veKpohs avrhv iiri(r(pdTTiu \y'
against which a trait of personal fear, such as is described
by Diog. 132, proves nothing.
Josephtis, Antiquit. Jud. xii. 2,
12.
Tertullian'n Apologet. 18,
;
<*
language on Menedemus and
t6 TrKyjOos kuI ras
belief
in Providence, is
probably as worthless as the
whole fable of Aristeas.
Kol
iJ.ias ofja-qs
ivqs TToAAoTs,
XeyeffOoi,
avijpî
4^ 'Eperpias
ap^TOtiu Koi
Meve-
SiKaiocrvvrjv
fiporhu koI 6.udpcoirov.
6v6fxaai
<T(a<ppoavvi]v koL
'
xp^rd yap
ai'dp^Lav Kal
liis
!^84
CHAPTER
XIIT.
THE CYNICS.
Chap.
XIII
L^
The
Cynic,^ like the Me2:arian

School,7 arose from <
O
fusion of the teaching of Socrates with the doctrines
c/
A. History
of the
Cynics.
been already remarked, were united by Stilpo, anc
and Sophists.
^
Eleatics
^|^g
Both
schools,' as ha^
The founder
passed over into the Stoa in Zeno.^
o:
Cynicism, Antisthenes, a native of Athens,^ appear;

'
It is
accordingly not com-
patible with an insight into

the historical connection of
these schools to insert the
Cyrenaics between the Cynics
and the Megarians, as Tennemann, Hegel, Marbach, Braniss,
Brandis, and Striimpell have
Otherwise it is of no
done.
moment whether we advance

from the Megarians to Antisthenes and thence to Aristipfor these
pus, or vice versa
three schools were not being
developed from one another,
;
but grew up side by side from
The order
the same origin.
followed above appears, however, to be the more natural
one the Megarians condning
themselves more closely to the
;
fundamental
crates
ing
its
position of
So-
Antisthenes considerpractical consequences
and Aristippus its effects oi

happiness, according to his owr
imperfect conception of it.
- Antisthenes was the son oi
an Athenian and a Thraciai
slave {Diog. vi. 1 ii. 31
Sen
De Const. 18, 5 Pkit. De Exil
17, p. 607, calling his mother
and Clemens, Strom, i. 302, C. ii
calling himself a Phyrgian, ar(
;
him with
confounding
Dio
genes, or else must have beei

thinking of the anecdote ii
Diog. vi. 1
Sen. and Phit.
1.
for further particular
c.
consult WinJtelmann, Antisth
Fr. p. 7
Miiller, De Antisth
vita et scriptis Marb. 1860, p. 3)
He lived, according to Xen
;
Mem. ii. 5 Sym. 3, 8 4, 34

in extreme poverty.
The tim
of his birth and death is no
further known to us. Diodo')
XV. 76, mentions him as one o
;
;;
HISTORY OF THE
CYNICS.
28/
have become acquainted with Socrates only late

life,' but ever afterwards to have clung to him ^
to
in
with
enthusiastic devotion,^ imitating
his
critical
though not always without an element of

captiousness and quibbling.
Early in life he had
reasoning,
9njoyed the instruction of Grorgias,^ and included other

Sophists likewise among his friends.^ Indeed he had
iiimself appeared Sophist-like as a pleader
and teacher,
the acquaintance of Socrates.^
It
therefore only a going back to his old mode
of
before he
wâs
made
when on the death of Socrates he opened a

School.^
At the same time he did not neglect to
life,
men
living about 866 B.C.

Plut. Lycurg. 30, Sch.,
quotes a remark of his on the
jattle of Leuctra.
According
o Eudocia ( Villoison's Anecd.
:he
md
56),
he attained the age of
years,
rO
which would place
birtli in 436 B.C., but the

nrcumstance is vmcertain.
We have every reason to
lis
'
efer Plato's yepSvrcov tois 6\pLfid'co-i,
Soph. 251, B., to him, as
be subsequently seen. The

miy thing against it is the
iccount in Biof/. vi. 1, that Anisthenes was praised by Sovill
rates
for
his valour in the

Tanagra. This objecion applies even if the battle
eferred to was not the victory
'f the Athenians
in the year
56 B.C. (in which it is imposible that Antisthenes can have
aken part), but the battle
uentioned by Thncyd. iii. 91
n 426 B.C., or that which was
ought late in the autumn of
)attle of
23 B.C. between Delium and

'anagra {TJmc. iv. 91), which
usually called the battle of
is
Delium.
The
story, however,
of no account, for Biog. ii.

31 quotes the same words of
Socrates in a different way.
is
Xen. Mem.
44
iii.
11,
17
Sym.
4-6.
Plato, Phsdo,
59, B.
Diog. vi. 2; Ibid. 9.
^ This at least is
the description given of him by Xen.
4,
8,
Symp.
5
6,
2,
10; 3,4; 6; 4,2; 6;
8.
* Diog. vi.
1, referring to the
rhetorical school of Grorgias
nor does Antisthenes deny his

teaching.
At a later period
Antisthenes wrote against Gorgias, Atheii. v. 220, d.
According to Xen. Symp. 4,

he introduced Prodicus and
Hippias to Callias, and recommended to Socrates an unknown
Sophist from Heraclea.
^
62,
^ Hermippus
in Diog. vi. 2
HieroH. c. Jovin. ii. 14.
' In the yvfii/da-iou
of Cyno-
sarges, Diog. vi. 13

Gottling,
Ges. Abh. i. 253, which was
intended for those who, like
;
Chap
XIII.
286
numerous treatises,"
of which are most highly
his views to writing in
Chap.
commit
XIII.
the language and style

praised.^
Among
the pupils
of Antisthenes, Diogenes
himself were of mixed Athenian

blood, Pint. Themist. c. 1. According to Diog. vi. 4, he had
but few pupils because of his
harsh and severe treatment of
them. It is not reported that
he required payment, but he
appears to have received voluntary presents. Diog. vi. 9.
Diog. vi. 15 (comp. Miiller,
1. c, p. 25) gives a list of these
writings, which, according to
Diog. ii. 64, was in the main
,
approved of by Panaetius. They

are by him di\aded into 10
Excepting a few
volumes.
fragments, the only ones which
are the two
are preserved
small and comparatively worthless declamations, Ajax and
Ulysses, the genuineness of
which is fully ascertained.

(Antisthenis
Winckelmann
Fragmenta, Zur. 1842) has
collected
all
fragments.
the
Because of his many writings^
Timon
called
him
iravTO(pm\
(pXeSova, Diog. vi. 18.

2 See Theopomp. in Diog. vi.
14 and 15, and vii. 19 Dionys.
Jud. de Thuc. c. 31, p. 941
PhryEpictet. Diss. ii. 17, 35
nich. in Phot. Cod. 158, p. 101,
b ; Fronto, De Orat. i. p. 218
Longin. De Invent. Rhet. Gr.
Cic. ad Att. xii. 38
ix. 559
and Lucian adv. Indoct. c. 27
Theopompus passes the same
opinion on his spoken ad;
Called by Aridotle, Metaph.
viii. 3
1043, b, 24, 'Aj/Tr0eVetot,
of
but in later times universally,

and probably even in the time
of Antisthenes, called KuvikoI,
partly from their place of meeting, partly because of their
mode of life. Conf. Diog. vi.
13; Lact. Inst. iii. 15. g. E.
35,
Schol. in Arist. 23 a, 42
Antisthenes was already
a, 5.
called airXoKvav (Diog. 1. c),
and Brutus speaks disparagingly of a Cynic (Plut. Brut.
Diogenes boasted of the
34).
name (Diog. 33 40 45 55-60
;
Stob. Eel.
ii.
dog on
348, u, a),
Corinthians placed
and
the,
marble
(Diog. 78.)
his grave.
SteinhaH, Diogenes, AUg.

Encyc. sect. i. bd. xxx. 301
GUtling, Diogenes der Cyniker.
Ges. Abh. i. 251 Bayle, Diet.
Art. Diogene is always worth
Diogenes was the^
reading.
son of the money- changei
In his
Kikosios at Sinope.
youth he had been engaged
*
father in issuing
counterfeit coin, and in conse-.
quence was obliged to leave his
Diog. vi. 20, quoting
country.
authorities, gives further parnot alwayf
ticulars, but is
with his
faithfully explained by GottConf. Ihid. 49, 56

ling, 251.
D(
Plut. Inimic. Util. c. 2
Exil. c. 7, p. 602; Musoniuf
in Stoh. Floril. 40, 9 Dwcim
Bis Accus., 24 Dio Chrys. Or
;
viii.
We
have no
reason
ti
as Steinhar
does, p. 302, although the ac
coimts may disagree in a fev
doubt this
dresses.
fact,
HISTORY OF THE
Sinope
tric
is
alone
known
imperturbable
details.
In Athens he became
acquainted with Antisthenes,
who, for some reason or other,
droê him away with a stick,
but was at length overcome by
his perseverance.
^lian, Y. H.
x.
{Dior/.
16
21
Ilieron.
When this
;
adv. Jovin. ii. 206.)

took place is unknown, and
Bayle's conjecture
that the
condemnation of Socrates was
the cause
of
Antisthenes'
hatred of mankind, is not to
be depended upon for chronological reasons. Diogenes now
devoted himself to philosophy
in the Cynic sense of the term,
and soon surpassed his master
in self-denial and abstemiousness.
He himself mentions
Antisthenes as his teacher, in
the verses in Plat. Qu. Conv. ii.
He appears to have
1, 7, 1.
lived a very long time at Athens,
at least if the account of his
meeting with Philip before the
battle of Chseronea may be
trusted {Diog. 43;
Plut. de
Adulat. c. 30, p. 70
De Exil.
c. 16, p. 606
Epict. Diss. iii.
22, 24
it is not, however,
stated that Diogenes fought at
;
Clueronea, as Gottlimj, p. 265,

nor is this probable of a
Cynic), according to which he
was then still living at Athens.
But it is also possible and
this agrees with his principle
of having no home
that he
may have visited other places
as a wandering preacher of
morals, particularly Corinth.
{Diog. 44
Pint. Prof, in
63
Virt. 6, p. 78
Dio Chrys. Or.
vi.
Val. Max. iv. 3
Diog. ii.
says,
287
and eccen-
to fame, that witty
whose
individual,
CYNICS.
Q()
vi.
According
50.)
Diogenes,
in
originality.
Syracuse.
journey he
to
met Aristippus
On some such
he
fell into
the hands
who
sold him to
Xeniades, a Corinthian.
For
this event see Diog. vi. 29 74
Plut. Tran. An. 4, p. 466
An.
Vitios, s. 3, p. 499
Stoh. Floril.
3,63; 40, 9; Epict. Diss. iii.
24, 66
Pldlo, Qu. Omni. Prob.
Lib. 883, C.
Julian^ Or. vii.
212, d.
Xeniades appointed
him the instructor of his sons,
and he is said to have admirably discharged this duty.
Highly esteemed by his pupils
and by their parents, he remained with them till his
death. At this time occurred
of
pirates,
the meeting with the younger

Dionysius, mentioned by Plut.
Timol. 15, and the conversation with Alexander, so greatly
exaggerated
by
tradition.
{Biog. 32; 38; 60; 68; Sen.
Benef. v. 4, 3; Juvenal, xiv.
311 TJieo. Progym. c. 5 Julian,
Or. vii. 212.)
The most simple
version of it is that found in
;
Plut.
Alex.
c.
14;
De
Alex.
Virt. c. 10, p. 331

Inerud. c. 5, p. 702.
ad Princ.
Diogenes
died at Corinth, on the same
day, it is said, as Alexander
;
{Plut. Qu. Conv. viii. 1, 4, p.

Demetr. in IHog. 79), i.e.
B.C., at an advanced age
{Diog. 76, says almost ninety,
Cens. Di. Nat. 15, 2,
says
eighty-one). The story of his
death is differently told. {Diog.
76 31 Plut. Consol. ad Apoll.
717
323
c. 12, p.
14;
107
Cem.
1.
^lian,,Y.B..
c.
2'atian
viii.
adv.
Chap
XIII.
::
288
Chap.
XIII.
coarse humour, strength of character, admirable even
and vigorous mind, have made
in its excesses, fresh
him
the most typical figure of ancient Grreece.^
Of the
By
celebrated.^
influence,
his
2 Hieron. adv. Jovin. ii.

207, m; lALcian, Dial. Mort. 21,
Stoh.
Cic. Tusc. i. 34, 104
2
Floril. 123, 11.) Most probably
he succumbed to old age. The
Grr. c.
Corinthians honoured him with

a solemn burial and a tomb,
and Sinope erected a monument to his memory {Biog. 78
Anth. Gr. iii.
Pausan. ii. 2, 4
;
558).
JDiog. 80,
mentions
many
writings which bear his name.

A portion of them were, however, rejected by Sotion. Others
denied that he left any writTheophrastus' treatise
ings.
ru>v Aioyevovs avuayooyr] (in Dior/.
by Grote,
Plato,
508,
to the Cynic Diogenes, certainly refers to Diogenes of
V.
43),
iii.
Apollonia.
That he exercised an
'
irre-
charm over many persons by his manners and words

is attested by Diog. 75, and
confirmed by examples like that
of Xeniades, Onesicritus, and
sistible
his sons.
2 Amongst them are linown,
besides Crates and Stilpo
companion
the
Onesicritus,
and biographer of Alexander,
with his sons Androsthenes and
Philiscus {Dioq. vi. 75 73 80
84
Pint. Alex. 65 for particulars respecting Onesicritus
in 3Iuller, Script. Rer. Alex.
M. p. 47) Monimus of Syracuse, the slave of a Corinthian
money-changer, who was driven
;
is
the most
wife
Hippar-
pupils of Diogenes,^ Crates
his
away by his master for throwing money out of the window

in Cynic fanaticism, one of thej
most distinguished Cynics, and

the author of several treatises,
amongst them
XaX7]dvia
of
iraiyi/ia a-irovSy
ixefxiy/xeva
Menander
82)
(Diog. vi. 84),
;
(^Diog.
vi.
and Hegesias
and perhaps
Bryson the Achgean (Ibid. 85).

Phocion is also said to have
been a pupil of his {Diog. 76
Phoc. c. 9) but Plutarch was[
not aware of it and as Phocionj
adhered to the Academy, therej
is probably no truth in thej
;
story beyond the fact of a passing acquaintance.

^ The Theban Crates, generally called a pupil of DiogeneS;
but by Hippobotus, a pupil of
Bryson the Achaean {Diog. vij
78), flourished about 328-324
B.C. {Diog. vi. 87). Since, however, stories are current not
only of his tilting with Stilpo
{Diog. ii. 117), but also of his
quarrelling with Menedemus
in his later years {Diog. ii. 131;
vi. 91), his life must have lasted
to the third century. Anothei,
Crates, a pupil of Stilpo, whQ
is mentioned Diog. ii. 114, must]
not be confounded with thd

Cynic Crates. He is probabli
the same as the Peripatetic oil
that name in Diog. iv. 23. In
zeal for the Cynic philosophy,
Crates gave away his considerr
able property. For the different
HISTORY OF THE
chia
'
and her brother Metrocles
CYNICS.
289
were gained for the

The names of several immediate and
remote pupils of Metrocles ^ are known,
through whom
:he School may be traced down
to the end of
^
Chap.
Cynic School.
the third
nobler features were cultivated
3y the Stoics from the beginning of the third
century,
mly toned down and supplemented
bv the addition'
)f other elements also.
Henceforth
Yet
century.
all its
Cynicism was
a special branch of the Socratic

philosophy.
nibsequent attempts which were
made to preserve
ts distinct
character only resulted in
caricatures.
iseless as
nd yerj conflicting accounts

Diog.
je
87; Plut. Vit.

er. Al. 8, 7, p. 831
Apul. De
[ag. 22
Floril. ii. 14
>Simj?l.
I
Epict. Enchir. p. 64
Pkivi.
Apoll. i. 13. 2
Ilieron.
iv. Jovin. ii. 203.
He died at
V.
'Str.
advanced age (IMor/. 92, <J8).

98 mentions some letters
iog.
his,
the style of which re-
mbled Plato's, and some traidies, and Demetr. De Elocut.

'0, 259, also
mentions moral
d
ng
satirical poems.
Accorto Julian, Or. vi. 200, b,
utarch also wrote an account

his life.
From Dioq. 91
oul. Floril. 14, we learii
that
;
was ugly and deformed.

The daughter of an opulent
truly from Maronea in
Thrace,
10 from love to Crates
reunccd her prospects and
bits of comfort, and followed
'
n in his beggar's
;
Apiil. Floril.
ii.
life,
Diog.
Formerly a pupil of Theorastus and Xenocrates,

but
n over to Cynicism by
31,
vol.
after having been cured

by him
of his childish idea of
suicide.
At a
later period, however, he

to escape the
burdens of age, Diog. 94. Respecting his apathy, see
Plut.
An. Vitios. Ad. Infelic. c.
3, p.
499 for a conversation of his
with Stilpo see Plut. Tranqu
hung himself
An.
(5,
p. 468.
Diog. 95.
His pupils were

Iheombrotus and Cleomenes
the former was the teacher
of
^^
Demetrius, the latter of Timarchus, and both of them of

Echecles.
Contemporary with
Echecles was Colotes, Diog.
in Stoh. Floril.
214, Mein.),
iii.
vi.
102.
Contemporary with Metrocles was Diodorus of
Aspendus, mentioned in Zeller's
Phil,
d. Griech. vol. i. 289.
At an
earlier period, under
Antigonus
the Great, lived the

Cynic
Thrasylus {Pint. Reir. Apophtheg. Antig. 15, p. i82
Vit
Pud. 7, p. 531); under one
of
tîe Ptolemies, Sotades,
whose
Cynical
abstinence Nonmii<
Exeg. Histor. Greg. Naz.
26
(Greg, in Julian. Invect
ed
Eton. 1610, p. 136) mentions.
;
14.
'
ites (Telos.
XIII.
'
'
290
Chap.
XIII.
are
of the basest of its later representatives
known to us in the persons of Menedemus and Me-
Two
nippus .2
Soon
after it
became extinct
cian Ikaromen. 15, who make;

Menippus an eye-witness of
number of things, all of whicl
pupil of Echecles, and

previously, as it would seem,
of the Epicurean Colotes {Diog.
only
vi. 95, 102), of whom we
hear that he occasionally appeared in the mask of a fury,
to add greater force to_ his
A pupil of his is
philippics.
Ktesibius, whom Athen. i. 15,
a
as
162, e, names
iv.
c.
cotemporary of Antigonus (Go-
happened about 280
to
Menippus was,
Diog.
vi.
99,
B.C.
Ii
face of so many cleaj

proofs, the language of Diog
vi, 99, who, speaking of Me;
leager living about 100 B.C
says, rov Kar' avrhu yefiofi4voi
the
cannot go for much. There i\

probably here a mistake in th
text; perhaps Kar' is writte^
natas).
2
as a School
for fier', or as Nitsche, p. 32, pre

poses, we ought to read rod K^
according
Gell.
conf.
originally a
He is said to
kvvikov.
Pk
avTOV yevofieuov
N. A. 'ii. 18, 6,
this Menippus is tl
bably
slave.
Phoenician
as Menippus (
person
have amassed a considerable same
by Diog. vi. 9
called
Sinope,
money-lending
by
fortune
distinguishe
most
the
(Hermippus in Diog. 1. c), the one of
of Metr*
school
the
of
men
much
so
took
loss of which he
Diog. vi. 101
for
to heart that he hung himself. cles
the various
His career must fall in the first counting up
does not mention hi
half of the third century. Dio- nippuses
this Menippus, b'
genes indicates that, placing as well as
as Athen. xiv. 629,
him
calls
and
Metrocles
between
him
Meviinros
Menedemus, it being his habit 664, e, likewise does
%vci)ir(hs
name
The
kvvik6s.
of
philosophers
the
mention
to
explained his master w
this school in chronological thus
Baton of Pont
certain
he
a
that
story
the
also
order
Diog. vi. 99), wi
in
(Achaicus
was the author of a treatise
probably lived
he
whom
of
festivities
the
respecting
also
Epicurus' birthday {Diog. vi. Sinope. (Compare
Quellenkun
z.
Beitr.
sche's
Arcesilaus
an
of
101), and
Laert. Diogen
{Athen. xiv. 664, c; the Acade- u. Kritik des
According
28.)
p.
Basel,
1870,
at
a
died
name
mician of this
Diog. 13 treatises of Menip^
also
great age in 240 B.C.)
circulation, of which
the circumstance that a portion were in
the titles of seven, a
gives
attributed
was
writings
his
of
the titles of two mc
to a Zopyrus (Diog. vi. 100), Athen.
not his o,
probably the friend of the Sil- That they were
o:'
probably
is
production
ix.
114)
lograph Timon {Ihid.
All th'
slander.
enemy's
vi.
Eel.
(Virg.
who
Probus
also
Menippus much writings appear to have b
calls
31)
His proficiency
satires.
also Luearlier than Varro
i
Me
CYNIC TEACHING.
md
only reappeared at a very

)ffshoot of Stoicism.'
much
2fa
later
time as an
The Cynic philosophy claims to be the

genuine
eaching of Socrates.^ The many-sidedness,
however,
Socrates,
whereby the intellectual and the moral

dements were completely fused, and the
foundations
hus laid of a more comprehensive and
deeper-going
cience, was above the powers of
Antisthenes. Naturaf
lly
narrow and
trength
iiings
of will,
but fortified with singular

Antisthenes admired^ above all
dull,^
the independence of his master's

character,
ê strictness of his principles,

his self-control,
and
universal cheerfuhiess in every

position in life,
bw these moral traits could be in a great
measure'
16 result of free enquiry on the part
of Socrates, and
is
DW they could thus be preserved from

narrowness,
tirist may be gathered from
school.
It would fnllv Pvnlîr,
e fact that
utated
he was not only

ancient times by
eleager (i>.-^^. vi. 1)9), but

>o by. Varro in his
Satiric
enippe3 {Cic. Acad. i. 2, 8
rciot). râtnTn.
5f;/s'fturni''^'l'^^'T
conf.
1
11,'ohus, 1. c.)
and that even
Cian gives him a prominent
Varr. Sat. Eel p. 7.

Besides the above, Meger of Gadara should be
ntioned, could
^^^ be sure
tt
he was a member of the
ese^
^'"^
tthat Athen.
HhiTT^l
W'^T'
these
stateCn ts
at
^ t^
attaching himself as a wn'tPr

' ^'
to Menippus.
2 See d '1^^
9 ^""^
^rÂ n,-
^'
^'
'
II
^'"^f'
'
'/his liis teaching proves

independently of the o^înion^
of opponents, such as
Thea^tet. Ios/e., in which
tl^
^S
6.vep^ôvs
and
^câ'
,Z &uovcroi
refer without doubt to

AntTs
thenes and not to the Att"
mists; Soph. 251, B
roh
'''
4",pZ..\7i.:ri
iv. 15y, 6, in
Iressing a Cynic calls him
p6yopos bfiwu, and that he is
taph.
haps mentioned by Diogenes

a Cynic, does not prove
continuance of the Cynic
and
raadra
As
rÔavâKScrt.
v.
2J),
1043 b 23
*
y%6tZ
LT
JJ^
dibiudd.trL
'cic.
De
Orat.
Bioff. vi. 2,
rently on the
-irhf
M^!
b 33 viii%
'
iii
I7 62
remark a^na
same au'LttT'
Chap.
XUI.
^^^^^
'^'^^;.,.
"^^^'^ "f
w2^f
L'02
did he see that the prinhe did not understand nor

far beof conceptions reached
ciple of a knowledge
All knowplatform.
yond the limits of the Socratic
subservient to ethical purposeledge not immediately
;
Chap.
.^P
XIII.
aas unnecessary, or eveu

he accordingly rejected
and love of pleaas the offspring of vanity
injurious,
Virtue, he maintained,
sure
is
an
affair of action
and with wisdom.

and can dispense with words
Al
(
strength of will of a Socrates.

that it needs is the
only regarded logical an(
Thus he and his School not
worthless, but passed the sam.^
physical enquiries as
-
opinion on
all arts
moral improvement
Tws TOF
"""
^r".'
'^
and sciences which have not th

immediat
of mankind ^ for their
'Apt-
lu.sei>m
sf rp..'x'jCu^Vo,
7.^1 "ordinc to Dio-
Ts"
Sr,
others
said-what
Diogenes
to Socrates
Attribute
attribute lo
p. 150 and
(see
or Aristippus
tât
that
ougni.
we ought
to
.. .V /'^^P"'^;;;,"
T.Tvra..
learn
J7i ,a
,^
'"''"'3''
-^, 5j
^V'""'Zoi..' atZZZ
""'"TroCra
xa^TaraTornvTa.
Srr.
-!
Whenadial
"^
T^*r?
uâs
was not a bad
jbeing ate
instrument *
27iW^
-'
for meals
plied, that It
^7*
irpiTTeiy Se H7j5afta,s.
The pa
sage on astronomers may po,

sibly have been supported I
the%try of Thales fallu,
into a well whilst contempla
heavens. An answ
g^^^^ .^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ .^
The^tetus 174 A, 176, D, ontl
Thracian maiden who upbrai

ed him for so doing. T
mother of Antisthenes was j
Thracian slave, and the wor
whieh Plato puts into t
ôth of the Thracian g
closely resemble those quot,
It would &.
Diogenes.
by i.
s,^^
^^^ ^^^^^^^^
Antisthenes, that he as
^
CYNIC TEACHING,
>bject;
said
for,
2f);i
Diogenes,' as soon as any other
bject intervenes, self is
Even reading and
neglected.
writing Antisthenes declared could
The
be dispensed with.^
statement must in any case be taken
last
considerable
/ith
nor can the Cynic

whole be regarded as so hostile to culture
s this language would seem to imply.
In fact, some
ecided language as to the value of culture is on
limitation,*^
ichool as a
coming from
3cord
not
ith
troubling
Antisthenes,"* Diogenes,^ Crates/
himself
Dout the general conception

I things.
iJiog. 73 says of Di(j3nes: ixovaiKrjs re KalyeoofierpLKris
i\ aarpoKoyias koL twv toioutwu
xeAuv ws axpVffrccu kuI ovk avaytlau.
Conf
ulian,
Or. vi. 190, a
24
39
Seneca,
88, particularly 7, 32
p.
Dioff.
Floril. 33, 14
tob.
id.
80, 6
man
in a
fJ.V (Tuifxa
nt
Se
jxi]
^v5ov
TIP
ol
16
saying
oif
yap
ovto'l
yvfjivaaiois
irXovniois
aight line.
Floril. Jo.
'
of
Diogenes
Excerp. e Joan. Damasc.
ii.
61. (Stob. Floril. ed. Mein.)

Dior/. 103
ypd/x/naTa yovv
:
fxavQaviiv
fvrjs
fX.^
k'âtTKcv
'AfT<-
Tovs crdcppoi/as yevo/x4uovs,

dia(TTp4(pOLVTO ro7s
aWOT-
IS.
'
It
anXKiiv,
answer to the question trolos

crrecpavos
KaWiaT6s i(Triu, lie
replied
*
^
e/Tre
6 a-nh -rraiSdas.
Diof/.
68
rrjv
iraiSeiau
to7s /lev viois aoocppocrvvqu,
:
TOis 5e Trpeo-jSurepots irapafxvdiav,

To7s 5e TreVrjcrt -nAovrou, to7s 5e
Kda/jLOv
jraiSeia
S/xoia
(pdvtf
Koi
'
earl
yap
TToAureAetai/.
^
IHof/.
e/xaOop Ka\
Movauu
ehai.
Damasc.
Exc.
29:
r]
13,
y^pvaw
<tt(:-
^êi Kal
rifx^v
Ibid. 74, 75.
86
raiJT
i(pp6uTiaa
(rejuLv
4hdr]v.
6x
Kal
to.
Kal vAfiia rvcpos f/xapype.
would be hardly credible
tt^v
Ibid. 33, in
y\ii>xiiv TratSevetj/.
a\?C ovroi.
in
mpl De Coelo, 33, b,"Schol. in
ist. 476, b, 35, that even an
s takes the shortest cut to
s food and to the viâtcr, was
obably meant as a hit at
ometry and its axiom of the
irKavdofi^voi,
writing.
it may either rest upon some

individual expression, such as,
that it would be better not to
read at all than to read sucli
nonsense, or it is based upon
more general statements such
as that quoted by Dioff. 5, that
wisdom must not be written in
books, but in the soul.
"
Exc. e Floril. Jo. Damasc.
li.
Se? rovs fxeWovras
13, 68
ayaOovs &i/5pas yV7}a(r6ai rh
astronomer pointing to a
ap of the heavens says
rol flcriv 01 irXavdjjxevoi rwu
Tfpuv upon which Diogenes
plies, pointing to those pre1
so fond of
not altogether a fancy,
If it is
rody of this verse
is
5e
oVo-'
fM^TO.
iroWa
pathe epitaph
XJIL
394
Chap.
Xlll.
and Monimus.^ Diogenes too is said to have zealously

impressed on his pupils the sayings of poets and oi
Besides,
prose writers.^
it
cannot be conceived that
men, who wrote so much that was good, should have

One thing we maj
declared war against all culture.
for established, that the value of culture
however take
producin^c
was exclusively estimated by its efficacy in
Hence this School depre
the Cynic type of virtue.
logi.
ciated all speculative knowledge, only studying
and physics, in as far as these sciences seemed neces
From
sary for ethical purposes.^
this
judgment
w.
founder.
are not justified in exempting even the
on Sardanapalus in Clem. Stro1
ii.
Damasc.
ii.
13,
^4>V Kpelrrov
88: M6vi}xos
ehai rv(pKhv ^ airaidevTOU' rhv
5'
fxkv yap ets rhu ^dOpov, Thu
19 rh ^dpadpov ifxiriiTTeiv.
2 Dior/. 31, according- to Eubulus KareTxov 5e ot TraTSes ttoX.
\a
TTOiriTwv
tS)v
Kol
avyypacp^cev kol
avTOv Aioyevovs,
iracrau
<poôv avvTOjxov irphs rh evfxprjô-
vevffrov
*
eTrr/crKet.
KrUclie, Forschungen, 237.
See Bitter,
ii.
rod 5mA.
rod apt
Aiyetu, Uepl 5iaKKTov, Uepl ovi
ovojxdroiv XP^""^"
(xdroov, Uepl
nepi epcoTr?(Tews koX aTTOKpicrea
Aeêojs, 'AXijdeia, Uepl
yeaOai,
411, D.
Floril. Jo.
mat.
120.
Although the division of philosophy into Logic, Ethics, and

Physics can have been hardly
introduced in the time of Antisthenes, and hence the words
in Biog. 103 cannot be his, it
1
does not thence follow that the

statement there made is false.
Amongst the writings of Antisthenes some are known to us,
which would be
called logical
writings, to use a later division

others are on physical subjects.
To the first class belong Hept
Ilepl
^ddwv ^
Koi
8o|i7s
Trepl
iin(ni]ixi]S, A({|
ipiariKhs,
Uepl rov fiavddve
irpo^K-fiuara.
To the second, Ue
^coctiv
(pvffecos,
Uepl (pvaews (pe
haps the same which CiG&

mentions N. D. i. 13, 32), 'Epi
Trjjua irepl
(pvaeoos.
commei
tary on the writings of Her

clitus, which Bioff. ix. 15 me;
tions, does not belong to hii
See Zeller, Phil. d. Griech.
527, and Krische, p. 238.
I
little,
however,
is
known
these writings, that no co

elusions can be arrived
which contradict the aboi
assumptions. His logical WTl
ings, to judge by their titlf
appear to have contained thd
polemical dissertations on cc
ceptions, judgments, and _e

pressions, which were requir.
as a foundation for criti
Of the writir
researches.
CYNIC LOGIC.
205
riie
utterances of Antisthenes on logic, so far as they
ire
known
to us, consist in a polenaic against the
jhilosophy of conceptions, the object of which
is
Chap.
^^^^-
to
the impossibility of speculative knowledge.
orove
L<ikewise his
remarks upon nature have
for their ob-
what is natural for man. For this no

research seemed necessary to him or his fol-
act to show,
leep
owers
a healthy intelligence
^
;
know
vhat he ought to
can
tell
everyone
anything further
is
only
iseless subtlety.
In support of these views Antisthenes put forward

theory, based it is true on a leading position of
>ocrates,2
orm and
lisciple
but one, nevertheless, which in
its
expanded
in its sceptical results plainly shows the
of Grorgias.
Socrates having required the
and conception of every object to be investibefore anything further could be predicated
ssence
gated
Antisthenes likewise required the conception of

hings what they are or were to be determined.^
i
it,
n Physics, it is not known

whether they treat of other
han those natural subjects,
^hich Antisthenes required imlediately for his Ethics, in
rder to bring out the ditfer-
nee between nature and cusDm and the conditions of a

ife
of nature.
Even the
reatise Trepi
(îxav
(pvaeoos
may
ave had this object.

Proably Plato, Phileb. 44, C,
3ckoncd
tie
Antisthenes
among
^ctAa SciVous A^yo/jLcvovs to.
only because in all

uestions about morals and
revailing customs, he invaribly referred to the require(pl
(pvaiv,
lents of nature.
'
Even
Cicero ad Attic, xii.
Antisthenes 'homo
acutus magis quam eruditus."
^
Compare the relation of
this theory to the doctrine of
88,
calls
and what Z>%. 39, ;6"jm^/.

m, 278, b, u, says of
Diogenes, with what the 8choideas,
236, b,
Hast on Arist. Categor. p. 22, b,

40 sa3^s of Antisthenes. Seu^.
Pyrrh. iii. 66, only asserts of a
Cynic in general that he refutes the arguments against
motion by walking up and

down. Similarly Diogenes in
LHog. 38.
"
Bioff. vi. 3
naro \6yov
to tI
?];/^
eliruf
irpwrds re
i>pi.
hdyos iarlu
eo-n drjXuw.
Alexander
(2)
Logic.
'
296
Confining himself, however, exclusively to this point
Chap.
xni.
>
of view, he arrived at the conclusion of the Sophists,^

that every object can only be called by
its
own pecu-
name, and consequently that no subject can admit

a predicate differing from the conception of the subThus it cannot be said that a man is good, but
ject.
liar
man
only that a
is
human,
or that the Grood
is
good.^
Every explanation, moreover, of a conception consisting in making one conception clearer by means oi
another, he rejected all definitions, on the ground
in Top. 24, m, Scliol. in Arist.
256, b, 12, on the Aristotelian
Ti ^v ehai says that the simple
a great progress as proving

that Antisthenes recognised all
analytical judgments a priori
which Antisthenes want-
as such to be true, but has^

since been obliged to modifj
his opinion (Plat. i. 217, Ges
Ti ^v,
ed, is not sufficient.
See Zeller, Phil.
d. Griech.
Abh. 239), on being reminded
904.
2
b,
Arist. Metaph. v. 29
33 ÂvTKxQiVQs Ssto
ev-fjBcos
X6yo) eu
oiKeio}
crvt/eâiv,
oxe5b^' 5e
iv6s
i(p'
Soph. 251,
re
B.
viois
Plato,
odev ye,
tccv
koX
(hu
Alex-
/urjSe i|/eu5ecr0a:,
ander on the passage.

rails
e|
'
auTiAeyeit^,
^Juai
fjLi]
1024,
olfxai,
yepoirwu
rols o\|/t/to0eVi Qolvriv irapeaxVKa-
fiev ev&vs yap avTiXafiiaOanrauTL

re
TvpSxîpov Q3S aSvvarov ra
TToWa
V Koi rb
iroWa
ej/
elvai,
ovk ioovres
ayadhf Kfyeiv avOpwirov, dWa rh
jxkv dyadhv dyadbu, rhv 8e audpojKoi
irov
5i]
-xâipovcTiV
Cf Philebus 14,
Soph. El. c. 17, 175,
Phys. i. 2, 185, b, 25
b, 15
Simpl. in loc. p. 20 Isokr. Hel.
and particularly what is
i. 1,
said p. 276, 1, respecting Stilpo.
irov ûdpoDirop.
C.
Ari.<it.
;
Hermann,
Sokr.
Syst. p. 30,
to discern in
these sentences of Antisthenes,
once
thought
by BiUer (Gesch.
d.
Phil,
ii
Antisthenes coulc
only be speaking of identica
judgments. Still he adheres
to it so far as to state that by
the teaching of Antisthenes
philosophy for the first tim(
133)
that
gave to identical judgments ar

In wha'
independent value.
this value consists, it is han
to say, for nothing is gainec
by recognising identical judg
ments, nor has it ever occurred
to any philosopher to dei
them, as Hermann, Ges. Abi.
asserted though without quot
ing a single instance in supper
Still less can it be
of it.
forward step in philosophy tdeny all but identical judg
ments. On the contrary, sue)
a denial is the result of ai
imperfect view of things, an(
destructive of all know
is
ledge.
;
CYNIC LOGIC.
'2ii7
that they are language which does not touch the

thing itself.
Allowing with regard to composite
things, that their
component parts could be enumeand that they could in this way be themselves
rated,
explained, with regard to simple ones, he insisted

all
the more strongly that this was impossible.
Compared these might be with others, but not de-
Names
fined.
there might be of them, but not con-
ceptions of qualities, a correct notion but no
The
ledge.'
characteristic of a thing, however, the
Jrist. Metaph. viii. 3

1043, b, 23
wo-re rj airopia, %v
01 ÂvTKrO^pdoi Kol oi ovTcos airai'
SevTOi rjirdpOLU, eêi riva Kaiphi/,

OTi ovK
(an TO
know-
ri eoriv dpicraaOai,
TdAAa, \6yov ovk exot.

aurc) yap
Kad avih CKacTTOP opofxdaai fMOPop
eirj,
TTpoa-enreTp
Se ovSeu aWo
SvpaThp, ovO' us ^(TTLp ovO' ws ovk
taTip .... eVei oi/5e t^ avTh
ovSe Tb iK(7po oiiSh rh eKaaTop
ovde Th fidpov irpoaoLiTTôp, ou5'
rhvyap opop \6yov eJvai /xaKpSp

see Metaph. xiv. 3
I091, a, 7
and Schvveg-ler on this passage a\Aa iTo7ov fxep ri ^crriv
aAAa TroAAa Toiav'ra raDra /xep

yap irepiTpexovTa iraffi Trpocr(p4p-
Î'Sexerai
uxrirep ap-
crdai,
oTi
6eTaL.
yvpov Ti
koI
fjLip
Zihaâi,
4(niv, ov^
S'
oTov
KarriTcpos.
uxtt' uvaia^ ctTTt fxeu

eVSexerai ehai opov kol K6yov,
ciov T7]s o-vvdeTov, idu re alcrdrfr^
(du re voriTT) ^
S>v S' avrrj
e'l
TTpWTWV OVK ^(TTIV.
Tliat thls,
f}S
too, belongs to tlie description

of the teaching of Antisthenes,
appears from Plato, Theajtet.

201, E.,
and
is
wrongly denied
by lirandis, ii. b, 503 the expressions are indeed Aristotelian.

Alexander, on the passage, explains it more fully,
;
but without adding anything
That this view was not

put forward by the disciples of Antisthenes, appears
from Plato's Theêtet. 201, E.
fresh.
lirst
yap aS e^6Kovv olkovîv tivwu

TO /xip TrpuTa coairepil (TTotXfâ,
UP ijfius re (rvyKdjjL(0a Kal
(yu)
OTI
f^
'
Tpa uptu iKîpcap oh irpoaTiS(7p 5e, eXirep i)P SvpaThp
avTo \4ycrdai Kal

avTov \6yop, 6,p(v
airdpTODP Aeyetrflat.
TOP
Clpal
oik7ov
elxez/
twp
6.kAup
pvp 8e dSvpa-
OTIOVP
TCOP irpuToop
ov -âp ejpai avTw
aAA* v) opoixd^caQai ix6pop opo/xa
yap fxSpop exetf to, Se e/c tovtcop
priOrtiai
Koyw
^Stj (TvyKel/jLipa, uxrwtp
aura Tren-ovtw Kal to. opS/jLaia avTup

(Tu/xir\aK4pTa Koyop
y^yopipai.
opofiaTUP yap av^xTrKoKr]p dpai
Koyov oixrlap.
And 201, C: Ic^t?
Ae/crai,
5e Tr]p /xfPixeTo. \6yop Sdâp d\r)6ri

iTnaTT)uj]p dpai, t^p dk 6.Ko-)Op
(KThs eiria-TTjfMrjs
eVri Aoyos, ovk
Kal
wp
is.'kp
iir l(xtt]t a.
/lu)
dpai,
ovTwal Kal opofid^wp,

eVjo-TTjTa.
& 5' ex^,

This whole descrip-
tion agrees witli what ha.s been

quoted from Aristotle so entirely, trait for trait, thai
we
Chap.
XIII.
jm
defined, the conception of
name which can never be
Chai'.
XIII.
the subject which
is
borrowed frona nothing
else,
and
therefore can never be a predicate, consists only in

its
By
proper nanie.
explained by nothing
known when
All that
it
can be
is real is strictly
nature of things, but they express men's thoughts

about them. Plato having derived from the Socratic
demand
,
else.
is
Greneral conceptions do not express the
individual.
V
this it
for a
knowledge of conceptions a system of
the most decided Eealism, Antisthenes derives therefrom a Nominalism quite as decided. Greneral conceptions are only fictions of thought.
cannot possibly refer it to any
one else but Antisthenes, It
the more remarkable
is all
that Plato repeatedly (201, C.
202, C.) affirms the truth of his
In modern times,
description.
;
Sclileierniacher, PI.
was the
W.
ii.
and
to recognise
the reference to Antisthenes.
184,
first
His opinion is shared by Brandis, Gr.-Rom. Phil. ii. a, 202, f

Susemihl, Genet. Entw. d. Plat.
and
ScJi/iveglei'
Phil. i. 200
Boiiitz on Arist., 1. c, but con;
tradicted by Hermann (Plat.

499, 659) and Stallhaum (De
Arg. Theastet. ii. f). Steinliart
(Plat. W. iii. ] 6, 204, 20) finds
that the explanation of knowledge, as here given, corresponds with the mind of Antisthenes, but refuses notwith-
standing to deduce it from him.

Hchleiermacher (as Brandis, ii.
Susemihl, pp. 200, 341,
a, 203
remark) has not the slightest
right to think the reference is
to the Megarians in Theget.
;
201, D.
What
is
there stated
Horses and
agrees most fully with the

statements of Aristotle touching Antisthenes, whereas no
such principle is known of the
School of Megara. We may,
Schleierendorse
therefore,
macher's conjecture (PI. W. ii.
b, 19) that the Cratylus was
in ;reat part directed against
conjecture
Antisthenes
a
which appears to harmonise
with the view that Antisthenes
was the expounder of HeracliIt is opposed by Brandis,
tus.
Nor yet would
ii. a, 285, f.
we venture to attribute to Antisthenes a theory of monads
connecting it with the theory
of ideas (Susemihl, i. 202, in
connection with Hermann, Ges.
What we know of
him does not go beyond the
Abh. 240).
principle, that the simple elements of things cannot be
what he understood
by simple elements may be
gathered from the example
quoted from Arist. Metaph. viil A
1
3, of the silver and the tin.
defined
CYNIC LOGIC.
men
are
201)
not, however, the
seen,
From
horse or a man.'
campaign against
for other reasons
conception of a
this position he
opened a
whom
his fellow pupil, with
he was
not on good terms,^ but his
met with corresponding
spirit.^
fire was
Holding these views
Simpl. in Categ. Schol. in

rwu 8e
45, says
iraXaioov ol yikv avripovv ras ttol6tt]-
The character and position

of the two men was
widely different.
Plato must
rh iroibv (Tvy)(ûpovvTes
(the terminology of course
belongs to the Stoics) wrnrep
have felt himself as much repelled by the plebeian roughness

of a proletarian philosopher
as Antisthenes would
have
been annoyed by the refined
delicacy of Plato.
^ Compare (besides what is
said, p. 292, 2) Plato, Soph. 251,
C, and the anecdotes in Bioff.
iii. 35, vi. 7
also the corresponding ones about Plato and
Diogenes, which are partially
fictions, in vi. 25
40 54 58
JELiaHy V. H. xiv. 33
Theo.
'
Arist, Q&^ b,
Ttts TeAecos,
elvai
'AvTiadevr]S,
os
Siaixcpia^nrSju,
'
'
'iirirou /uihu ^pco,
Trore
&
TlkaToci'L
UXdrcDV,'
e(p7),
tTTTror/jTa 5e ovx,
which Plato gave the

answer
True, for
you have the eye with which
you see a horse, but you are
dericient in the eye with which
6pw,' to
excellent
you
the
see
Ibid.
idea
of
horse.
b, 18 ; Ibid. 68, b, 26
'AvTiaOevrju Koi rovs ircpl avrhv
Xiyovras, ûOpcoirou opca auOpuirdfi7,
ovx
Se
TTjTo
Quite
opco.
yame, Ibid. 20, 2, a.

53, tells the same
the
Bioff. vi.
story of
Diogenes and Plato, with this

difference, that he uses rpaire-
and
CoTTjs
KvaQSrins
Isag.
22, b,
Ta
lAcye
instead of
in Porph.
Amman,
av6p(air6Tr]s.
says
yeur)
koI
'AvTiad&rjs
ra
etS?;
ip
and then
he mentions av6puir6Tr)5 and
tTTJTf^TTjs as examples.
The same
language, almost
word for
el\a7s iiTivoiais ehai,
word,
is found in Tzetz. Chil.

605, f.
Plato is no doubt
referring to this assertion of
vii.
Antisthenes, when in the Parm.

132, B,, he quotes an objection
to the theory of ideas, ^r? tw;/
in
life
Progym. p. 205 Stoh. Floril. 13,

37.
As to the picked fowl
story in Diog. 40,
compare
;
Plato, Polit. 266, B.
Gottlin^,
For the Cynical attack

which Antisthenes made on
p. 264.
Plato in his ^dQcav, see Diog. iii.

Athen. v. 220, d,
xi. 507, a.
A trace of Antsthenes' polemic against the
doctrine of ideas is found in
the Euthydemus of Plato, 301,
A. Plato there meets the assertion of the Sophist that the
beautiful is only beautiful by
the presence of beauty, by saying
iau ovv irapay4ur]Tai <Toi
35, vi. 16;
fiovs, fiovs
Trdpeifxi
el,
Koi oTi vvv (yd)
Aiouv(r65u,pos el;
oroi
We may
ovSafiov avTCfi Trpocrjicr] iyyiyvâdai
suppose that Antistlienes really

made use of the illustration of
the ox, to which Plato then
&KKo9i
replied by
nSwu
'^Kaarov
i)
ij
tovtcov u6r]fxa koI
(V \pux,a7s.
making use
of tlie
Chap.
xm.
;5()0
Chap.
XIII.
only natural that Antistlienes should have at-
it is
tached the greatest importance to enquiries respecting
names.
Stopping at names and refusing to allow
any further utterances respecting things, he in truth

made all scientific enquiry impossible. This fact he
drawing from his premises the
partially admitted,
conclusion that
Taken
self.^
impossible to contradict your-
it is
same
illustration in the person

of
Dionysodorus.
Steinhart
(Plato's Leben, 14, 266) considers the 'ZdQoov spurious. He
will not credit Antisthenes
with such a scurrilous production.
Antisth. in Epict. Diss. i.
'
17, 12
OLpxh
ovofiaTuv TriaKe\pis.
TraiSeucrews
tup
7]
a pity
that we do not know more accurately the sense and the connection of this saying. As it
is,
It is
we cannot judge whether
it
required an individual enquiry

into 1 he most important names,
or only a general enquiry into
nature and the meaning of
names, which the principles
contained in the above should
develope.
the
Respecting
theory that Antisthenes held
to the etymologies of Heraclitus, see p. 297, 1.
-
296, 1; Top.
oiiK
e^Tj
'
see
104, b, 20:
v.
11
avTi\yiv,
effTLV
i.
AuT i<T 6 4 i>r]s,
29
Kaddirep
which Alex.
(Schol. in Arist. 732, a, 30;

similarly as the passage in the
topics, Ibid. 259, b, 13) thus
explains
Ka(rrov
Se 6 'Auncrdevris
(pero
ruv uvtwv \4yeadaL r^
olKelcp
Xoyca
A6yoy
iJi/ai
yiouai
.
yeiv eireiparo
keyeiv rovs
on
eamu
fxr}
auTi-
yap dpTi\youras
(jl^v
rivos Sidipopa X4yeiv ocpeiXeiv,

Svuaadai 5e Trepl avrov Sia(p6povs Tovs Koyovs (pep^crOai, rep kva
rhv otKe?oj/. iKdffTov eivai Hva yap
kvhs elvai Ka\ rhv Xiyovra Trept
avTov K4yeiu (xSvov oJcTe t jjikv
TTpdyjxaros rov avrov
Trepi ToO
Aeyniev, rd
avrd oli/ \4yoiev
irepi
(x))
'
(eis
yap 6 irepl euhs
Xoyos) Xiyovr^s 8e ravrd ovk av
dXK'f]\OLS
et 5e 5taduriXeyoieu dAAiÂois
(pioovra
\4yoLev, ovKeri
X4êip
avrovs Trept rov avrov.
Prantl,
Gesch. d. Log.
i.
mentions
33,
writers, who, however,

only repeat Aristotle's sayings.
In exactly the same way Plato's
Dionysodorus (Euthyd. 285,
E.) establishes his assertion,
that it is impossible to contra(l(x\v eKdarca rwv
ovrccv
dict
Ovkovj/ ws effrif
XoyoL Tldvv ye.
eKaarov ^ ws ovk ecrriv 'fls earip.
later
Metaph.
Arist.
from these pre-
strictly the inference
KoX %va eKuarov

c|
uy
Koi avvd-
yap
Et
ix4)xvr\(xai, ecpr], S)
Krrjffnnre,
Kal 'dpTi iireêiâixev firiêva Xiyov-
ra
d'S
OVK
rh yap
effri.
fih ^v
TlSrepov ovv
ovhels icpdvT) X4yci}v.

.
dvriX4yoijxev
irpdyfj.aros
XSyov
h-v
rov
avrov
df.L(p6repoi
X4-
yovres, ri o^ro} fxkv Uu Srjirov

ravrd x4yoijxev '%vvex<^p^^. 'AAA'
;
'6rav
iJ.riB4repos,
Trpdyfiaros
x6yov
^(pV,
X4yri,
'J"^"
TO''
r6r dvri-
CYNIC MORALS,
mises
301
not only that drawn by Aristotle' that no
is
false propositions,
Chap.
bnt also that no propositions of
any kind are possible.
The doctrine of Antisthenes
was logically destructive of
knowledge and every
all
kind of judgment.
Not that the Cynics were themselves disposed to c. Thenri^

renounce knowledge in consequence.
Four books %oodand
came from the pen of Antisthenes, respecting the ^^''^
difference between
knowledge and opinion.^
Indeed,
the whole School prided itself in no small degree on
having advanced beyond the deceptive sphere of

opinions,^ and being in full possession of truth.
KiyoLixiv
Kav
6.V
ou5'
Trpa.yij.aros
Tovro
&j/
f;
ovTut ye rh irapd-
ixefjiv-q/xevos
ovSerepos
ffuvwiJ.o\6yei.
tirav
Ae-yoi fj.hu
iyiii
etrj
7}(iS)v
'AW'
rh
rod
Koi
&pa,
irpayfja,
irapdwav b
X^ywv rw K^yovri ttoos tiV
avTiXeyoi
Plato probably had
Antisthenes in his eye, although
this line of argument had not
originated with him.
Conf.
(TV
5e ouSe Xeyeis rh
Se
ixr]
See
296, 1, Prod, in
'AvTiaOtv-ns eAeyev fi^
avTiXeyeit/
vas yap, (prjai,
'
p.
Crat. 37
Seiv
X6yos dKr]6evi
Aeyei
6 Se rl
6 yap \4ycov rl
Xeywv rh hu Ae-
6 Be rh iv \4ycou aXrjdevei.
Conf. Plato, Crat. 429, D.
yei
'^
riepi
So^rjs
Kal
eVtrrTTj/iTjs,
Zeller,
Doubtless this treatise contained the explanation

given p. 253, 1.
^^ IHoff. 83 says of Monimus
53
ovros fxev ifx^pLOeararos eyeVero,
I. c. i. 905, and Biof/. ix.

rbu ÂvTicrOei/ovs \6yov rhv
Vfipwfxevou oLTTodeiKuveiu ws ovk
iariv avTi\4yiu, outos (Protagoras) TtpwTos SteiAeKxat KUTii
:
(prjcri
nxdrwu
eV
Ev9udr]fj.C}}
(286,
Here, too, belongs the

saying of Antisthenes in Stob.
Flor. 82, 8, that contradiction
ought never to be used, but
only persuasion. A madman
will not be brought to his
senses by another's
raving.
Contradiction is madness for
he who contradicts, does what
is in the nature of things impossible. Of this subject the ^ddwi/
c).
jrepi
Toy auir\4y(iv treated.
17.
Bioff.
(oare b6^r]s /xeu Kara^povelv., -rrphs

dXijOfiau irapopfxav.
Metian-
5'
Ihid. says of tlie same

nic t^ yap viroK-q^Qev rvcpov
dcr,
C}'
elyai irav
viii.
eiircii/
Ttt
Ic^tj,
and
MSvifios
Sext.
Math,
kvoov
rv<pov
irdura. o-nep
ol'Tjo'ts
rwu OVK ovrwv ws ovrwv.
eVrl
Conf.
31. Aurel. irp. kavr. ii. 15: Srt
TTav vTr6\r}\pis
Srj\a /xev yap rh
wphs rod KuviKov Moviixov \ey6ixeva.
On this ground the later
Sceptics wished to reckon Monimus one of themselves, but
wrongly so. Wliat he says has
only reference to the worthless
ao2
Chap.
XIII.
With them, however, knowledge is directed entirely

to a practical end, that of making men virtuous, and
happy in being virtuous,^ As the highest object iu
the Cynics, herein agreeing with
life
philosophers, regarded happiness.^

in general distinguished
united
to
Nothing
lutely identical.
an
but vice
evil
other
man
is for
what
is
is
good but
common
See p. 292.
Diog. ii. ahrapK-r)
Trpbs
SO
evBaifxoviau,
kpe-
that
happiness
is
the
end,
and
virtue the
means.
Stob.
Eel.
103, 20, 21.

^
auTOiS
104
vi.
Dioff.
r4Kos
Kai
cnKiffLv
Ihid. 105
KaKias
Koi
dfxoiois
apeT^v \pvxas aya6hp fi6vov

aSe yhp avdpuiv
fxovva KoX ^lorhu pilxraro Kal
According to Diogenes it wouldi

appear as though the Stoic
doctrine that virtue is the only
good were therein attributed
to the Cjmics.
apeaKei
rh
elvai
S'
8e fiera^b dper^s
adidcpopa
Aeyovaiu
rh.
rep
Xicp.
Dio-
des, in Diog. vi. 12 says of Antisthenes TorâQh Kaha rh kuko.

aiffxpa.
Epipk. Exp. Fid. 1089,
C e</)77(re [Diogenes] t^ kyaQhv
olarhv TOt/cetoi/ iravTl aocpa elpai,
:
rh
maxim follows from

who states as the
This
Kar''
o/uoioos rols aTU}iKo7s.
"'KpicTTwvi
5'
&AXa irdvra ovSej/
Whether
rj
(p\vap[as
the
epiof Athen. in Diog. vi. 14,

refers to the Cynics or the
Stoics is not quite clear.
virdpxî-v.
gram
iravapuna
ivd4iXvoi\
'
Tixu
12,
teaching of
'HpaKKel,
The only real
it.'*
Myixara tqus hpa7s
Dioff.
T^
virtue, nothing
iroAids.
rrjv
rr}!/
abso-
as
For each thing that
it
and freedom.
^
two
neither the one nor the
indifferent.^
opinion and
considers a good. In
Lucian v. Auct. 8, Diogenes
calls himself a prophet of truth
what
not
or, at least,
the
only can be a good which belongs to

ness of
other moral
Happiness being
from virtue,
they regard
virtue,
all
TTovTjph
Antisthenes
fSfxiC^
Compare
Trdvra
Plato, Sjiaip.
oh yap rh eavrcou,
affnaôvrai, et fj.7j
olfiat
ri
êviKd.\
20.5,
E.
eKcurroil
ef tls rh juevj
ayadhv oIk^'lov /caAot koI eauroG, rh
5
Kanhv aWSrpiov.
In the
Charm.
163,
C. Critias
says,,
only the useful and good
isj
Although Antisthenes!
is not here mentioned by name,
yet the passage in Diogenes
olKelov.
makes
it
probable
that
the
antithesis of ayaOhv and olnelop

belongs to him, even if he wasj
not the first to introduce it.
CYNIC MORALS.
man
thing which belongs to
matter of chance.
else is a
moral powers
30;3
Only in
he independent.
is
virtue constitute the only
attacks of fortune recoil
;^
Everything
mind.*
is
mental and
his
Intelligence and
armour from which

that
man
only
is
all
the
free
who
the servant of no external ties and no desires for
is
things without.^
Thus man requires nothing

but
All else he
virtue.'*
make him happy
to
may
learn to despise, in
order to content himself with virtue alone.^
Compare p. 293, 6; Xen.

Symp. 4, 34, puts words to the
same effect in the mouth of
ro7s
Antisthenes
yovcrav
vo(.iiô>,
Sj
AvSpes,
ovk iu rc^
robs audpwTTovs
o^Ka)
rhv ttKovtov kol tt^v Tr^viau exf',

iAA' eV rais t^vxo^s this is then
further expanded and Epictet.
Diss. iii. 24, 68, makes Diogenes
say of Antisthenes iîhali /ue
TO ^jxk KoL rit ovk ifid KTTJcris
OVK iixT]
(rvyyeve7s, oIkcToi, (pi\oi,
'
Ekl.
rSiroiy
(Tvvrjdeis,
<P'flfxr])
ravra
iravra
oZu
'rl
TT]v
e5ei|e
'6ti
p.oi
aWdrpia.
(pavracTioiu.
p^prjcTts
Siarpi^rj,
'6ti
(rhv
rav-
bLKuiKvTov ^X^>
We
have,
however, certainly not got the
very words of Diogenes or
Antisthenes.
^ Diog. 12 (teaching of AnkvavayKaffTov, k.t,\.
tisthenes)
kper'f]
(pp6uir](T IV
UriTf
avaâlpTov SttAo;/
re^x^^ k(T<paX4(T'r arov
yhp
/UtJtc
'
TfpodidocrOat.
The same
is
ip<i)Tr}6f\s
ri
avru ircpiycyovev
<l>i\o(ro(pias, i<pT]'
tvxv^ nap:
apeaKei
aii-
'
This
says
is
what
himself
of
Diss.
iii.
24,
67
Diogenes
in
e| o5
Epict.
/*'
'Ar-
Ti(Td4vT)s r]\vd4p(t)(rv, ovk^ti 4Sov-
Xevaa,
JJioff.
and he also asserts in

71 that he led the life of
Hercules,
/UTjSej/
iAevdepla^
Crates in
Clem.
Strom, ii. 413, A. {Theod. Cur.
Gr. Aff. xii. 49, p. 172) praises
the C3mics
irpoKpivwv.
tjSout}
avSpa-rroBcodfi
d.Sov\o)Toi
Kal ^KafxiTToi
addvarov
âaiKiiav
iAevOepiav
t' ayaTTwffiv,
and he exhorts his Hipparchia

TcDfSe Kpdrei
^vxvs
^dei
ayaX-
Kofx4vr],
oijff
d Kal firiSev Â\o,
TO yovv TTphs iraffav

(TKfvaaOai
and 105
e/c
^vopwcrav avT(f Koi Aerovrov 5' ou 5uvap.ai
$a\6eiv Kvva \va<rii]Tr)pa.

(The
same verse is applied by David,
Schol. in Arist. 23, to Antisthenes.)
Conf. Stoh. Floril.
108, 71.
Kara^ûv
a little differently expressed

by Epiph. Exp. Fid. 1089, C.
63 says of Diogenes
Dwfjf.
rvxV /HTjSei/ eTrtrp4irti/. Stah.

ii. 348
Aioy4vr]s e<^7j Spav
rV Tuî?*'
For
virh
oCiO' uir'
*
XP^^^^^
SovKovfievj]
4pwT(DV 6rf^nr6diov.
See note 2.
See Dioff. 105:
iip4aKei
5'
(JUAP.
xiu.
cm
Chap,
XIII.
what
is
wealth without virtue
and venal menials, a temptation
prey for flatterers
for avarice, this root
of all evil, a fountain of untold crimes and deeds of
shame, a possession for ants and dung-beetles, a thing

bringing neither glory nor enjoyment.^
can wealth be,
else
if it
Indeed what
be true that wealth and virtue
can never dwell together,^ the Cynic's beggar-life

being the only straight way to wisdom
honour and shame
no child of reason
The
? ^
What
are
talk of fools, about which
will trouble himself ?
For in truth
what we think. Honour

an evil. To be despised by them is
keeps us back from vain attempts.
facts are the very opposite of
amongst men
is
a good, since
it
Glory only
falls to his lot,
avrols Koi Xircas ^lovv, irKovrov

KOL d6^T]s Koi evyeveias Karacppo-
Diog. 24.
vovai.
i.
Ejpict.
Diss,
Antisth
in Stoh. Floril. i.
30; 10, 42; Xeii. Sym. 4, 35
Diog. in Diog. 47; 50; 60;
Galen Exhort, c. 7, i. 10, K.

Metrocles in Diog. 95 Crates
in Stoh. 97, 27; 15, 10; the
same in Julian, Or. vi. 199, D.
2 Stoh. Floril. 93, 35
Aioyi;
j/rjs
eAeye,
eV irdAei kKoiktIo.
û'l^re
olKia ap^rvv oIkuu SvvaCrates therefore disposed

of his property, and is said to
have settled that it should
only be restored to his children
when they ceased to be philosophers {Diog. 88, on the authotxr\r^ eu
adai.
Demetrius Magnes).
Unfortunately, however, Crates
can at that time have neither
had a wife nor children.
rity
of
Diog. 104
Floril. 95, 11
Diog. in Stoh.
êe Ducian
19.
seeks it
What
not.'*
V. Auct. 11
Crates in Bpiph.
Exp. Fid. 1089, C. i\veepias\
;
elpai T^jv aKT-r]jxoavv7]v

*
24, 6.
who
Epict. Diss.
761/775) Ae76i,
elmann,
p.
i. 24, 6
(Ato-I
oTt eiSo|ia ( Winck:
47, suggests d5o|iaJ
which certainly might be ex4

pected from what preceded)'
i\i6pos
icnl
iJ.aivoiJ.evwi/
avOpcviruv.
Diog. 11 says of Antisth.: riiv

t' adoîav ayaOhv
Koi Xaov t^'
TTOvcp, and 72
evyeveias 8e Koi
Soâs Kal ra roiavra ndvra Sie7rai(e (Diogenes), TrpoKoapi.'fffxaTa
KaKias ilvai \4ycav.
In 41 he
:
speaks of SS^r^s iâvB-fiiJ.ara.

92: eAeye 5e (Crates) jJi-^xp'80V
(piKoffocpuv,
Setj/
SS^coaiv
Aarai.
oi
arparriyol
Compare
^V
)U^XP'
elvai ov^-
also 93.
pater in Aphthon.
c.
In
'''O'^-
2,
DoxoRhet.
Gr. i. 192, says that Diogenes,

in answer to the question, How
is
honour to be gained 1 replied ' By not troubling yourself at all about honour.'
CYNIC MORALS.
is
death
18
an
i05
Clearly not an evil.
For only what is bad

and death we do not experience to
be an
since we have no further
experience when
?
Chap.
evil
evil,
we
dead.*
All these things are then only
nothing more.
Wisdom
consists
iîfi
"
are
empty fancies,^
in holding one's
thoughts free from them.^

the
The most worthless and

most harmful thing is-what men
most covet-^
'
pleasure.
Pleasure the Cynics not only

deny to be
good,* but they declare it to be
the greatest evil
md a saying is preserved of Antisthenes,
that he'
vould rather be mad than pleased.*
Where the desire
)f pleasure becomes
unbridled passion, as in love,
i
Epict.
1. c.
Aeye/, on 6 OdvaovK 0-T6 KaKoy, oifdh yhp alSee p. 302, 3,
XP^v.
'
os
Diogenes
''
in
Dior/.
68.
Tusc. i. 43, 104.
ividently the Cynic here is
ot thinking of immortality,
or does it follow from the
relark of Antisthenes on II. xxiii.
(8chol. Venet. in Winckel>
a/m, p. 28) to the effect that
le souls have the
same forms
their bodies.
' Or
as the Cjrnics techni!onf.
call
0OS.
id p.
it,
mere smoke,
See Mioff, 26, 83,

301, 3.
AvTiffB4vr]s fxkv
t^v
oltv-
Cratesprobably the
-nic proves in
Teles, in Stoh.
72 by the considera'U, that the human

life from
?inning to end brings far
oril.
re
Ih. ix.
1)8,
unhappiness than plea-
'e; if
101.
Â76 t6 awe-
Conf. Sext. Math.*
XI.
741:
[^ Ûv)) Uli.i^To.iX
KCLKbv xm Avriaeivovs.
The sam^
in Gell. ix. 5, 3
Clemens. StroT
mat. n. 412, D. Eits. Pr.

Ev
XV. 13, 7 {Theod.
Cur. Gr. Aff
;
xii. 47, p. 172).
Conf. 7>i^^. vi.

258,4. Plato is
no doubt referring
to this
Cynical dictum, Phileb.
44, C.
AtW fMfii(Tr]K6Tuu Tû Trjs
rjSop'vs
8,
14,
and
p.
therefore the ttMouo-
Kal
VV0fJLlK6TWV
obSh
vyus, Sxrre Kal a{>Th tovto

a^r^s
rh iirayaiyhv yo-fjrcvfxu
ohx
(Ivai,
a,
As
Bioff. vi.
SvuaîlJ,
Clemens. Strom, ii. 417, B.

lieod. Cur. Gr. Aff. xi.
8, p!
:'
86,
2)
were the measure

happiness, a happy man
could not be found.
Oic.
lly
Covffai rjSoual
of
and
27:
oi
Arist. Eth. x.
T}dov^v
1 172
fih y^p rayadhv^Zov^l
],
}^noy<riv, ol 5'
e'l iuavrias KofxiSij

lb. vii. 12, 1152, b, 8*Toh fi\v oZv SoK(7 ovSeula
ijSov^
luai icyadhu oUre kuO'
abrh oih^
(pavKov.
Kara avnfie07}K6s
rahrhv ayadhv Kal
pare p. 296.
ov
yhp
T]Zovriv
that,
Com-
'
THE SOCBATIC SCHOOLS.
of his delowers himself to be the slave

can be too violent to eradicate
sires, there no means
'
fear, labour and
1
Conversely, what most men
it
they only bring man to that
toil, are good, because
be independent.^ Hercules'
state, in which he can
patron-saint and pattern for the
is therefore the
where
CHAP
I-
man
way through sc
no one else having fought his
for the good of mankmd
arduous and toilsome a life
vigour. In support of thii
with so much courage and
argued that plea.
Antisthenes appears to have
Cynic,*
view,
sure
pain.^
nothing but the pause after
is
C iyii
:iut?:<reill,
^
,,'
aSvol
4-nfi
A4>po5^r,v
^V 'aStv
k&v
Xe-yo.Ta
Xejo^T
susceptible of culture.
y-; -J^;^ 2r^lpL

TO. re .p
0...a.Ks 5.ec|>0e.p6.^
Or. vi. 198, D.)
?pTa
5e
et
Kiî^s,
Travel
i^.)],
fxh divri xPô'^''
On the same subject compare

TsoBiog. vi. 38 51 67 StoK
;
6,
64 i
66 To\;
:Jo^^5.^^<Jra.s.
4v
toJ;s
18,
ol'c^ra.
kSITu!
.o...
-It^
2,
27
e>,
5^ <pa{>ôvs
Ta X'-SouA.^-qô q
^'iion. vi.
Who
had
says of
Seep,
Anti-
Diogenes
.oC K^po'
Fvo e Floril. Jo.
ed. Mein. iv. 200)
that boys,
also
tempi
near Cynosarges.
^ Antisthenes speaks of
tv,
Therefo
]x,,0ep/as Trpo/cptVcov.
cal
j^^^^ p^. Ev. xv. 13, 7,
Antisthenes
XpSvosihu Se TouTOLS
Ppdxos.
Floril
oVt
.oXXhs
Mian,
thi
they are to come to an

to be educated b
good,
abstemiousness, as early as the
if
Aaô^M^
e.
KaTaTo|e.(ra.Ac.
On
'UpaKXeuriKds
'
rh (t>p6uwa and in lAicia

V. Auct. 8, Diogenes replies
the query as to whom he w
imitating rhv 'HpaKXea, at t
same time showing his sti
dvrjp
a club, and his philosophe

cloak f or a lion^ k^^'
the addition which probal
comes from a Cynic wrinr
f or
arparîôfxa^ê licrêp
eKel.os
^H
pcor^s ^.: -''^^^P^-^^

bee JJens. i^yn.
rtov iraBuv.
'
Plato, Phileb. 44,
15.
(be
CYNIC MORALS.
307
supposition it will appear absurd

to pursue pleasure
which can only be attained by having

previously experienced a corresponding
From
to
his
amount of pain.
rigid development of their
principles
this
which Antisthenes had been brought,

partly by
own natural temperament,^ partly
from regard
to
61, A.
Rep.
ix. 583, B.)
speaks
without
including
pleasure
thereunder.
If
the further
objection is raised, that
the
opponents of pleasure here
referred to, hate (according
to
of people, as âAa lîvovs Aeyo\i.ivovs^ Ttt
irav
they
7rep2
TjSoi/as
(^vcriv,
ov
maintain
(pacriu
ot roirapd-
ehai,
Xviraiu
for
ravras
fluai irda-as airocpvyas &s

vvv ot
repl 4>i\r}l3oy -rjSouas iirovojxdôv-
ihiL 46, A) Toy Twv

aax-nnducou
vSoms, whereas the Cynics
al-
This passage refers withto

Antisthenes.
Wendt (Phil. Cyren. 3 7, 1)
applies it to philosophers who
declare freedom from pain to
be the highest good.
Grote,
Plato, ii. 609, thinks of the
Pythagoreans, from whom he
<riv.
out
lowed no
doubt
.^"t'^thenes
from pain the highest

As to tfe PythagorlaS
'reedoffi
rood.
ve
lut
s
know
of
with so mn^h ./
he h/reTes
at one thno of li'fp.
their asceticism
no ethical theory of theirs

known to us fhoroughi;
ejectrng
'ther
piea,e.
hand we know
his
Lrn^
TucTTZ
v a^
ZH
'^'^
'
.ZXlL7%>T'Z't
doesnot
On
the
that Anti-
thenes did reject pleasure,

'he probability is, therefore,
hat Plato in writing this pasage had Antisthenes in his
ye.
That the expression
^
iivo\rh.Trcp\(l)V(Tivis no obstacle
3 this view, has been already
idicated, p. 294, 4
the exression not referring to phycal research, but to the
praccal enquiry as to what
is con>rmable to nature, to which
ntisthenes wanted to go back
difference between
things seemly and

unseemly,
this rests on a
misapprehension; for the 7}Soval rwv
k(rxnti6vwv are,
as the
context
shows, condemned by the
opponents of pleasure, not because
ot their unseemliness,
but be-
it
followThaVafter the
lapse of years, and in

respect
ot a question on which
their
views more nearly approximated, he could not express

himself more gently and
appreciatingly.
Yet even here
he will not allow to him
the
properly scientitic capacity,

the
Plato,
roh oZv
1. c,
ijfxas
continues
Tr6Tpa
<TVfifij,v\evis.J) TTws,
S,
tovTrddeaBai
^d^KpaT^s;
:
OvK, a\?C wanep /xduTeai

irpoaXPWOa.1 rm, fiantvrxivois ov
X 2
chap
^^^^
'~
308
it as
CHAP.
^^
education,^ the Cynics, however, so.

pleasure
to recognise a certain kind of
means of
far departed, as
Pleasure which
to be legitimate.
remorse') or
-
is
not followed by
more accurately, pleasure resulting from
been called a good,

labour and effort,-^ is said to have
Diogenes recomeven by Antisthenes. In Stobseus,^
same time
justice as the most useful and at the
mends
most pleasant thing, because it alone affords

and sickness,
peace of mind, protects from trouUe
as the
He
and even secures bodily enjoyments.
also asserts,^'
joy which can

that happiness consists in that true
mind.
cheerfulness of
only be obtained by an unruffled
forth thd:
Moreover, the Cynics when wishing to set
fail to follow
advantages of their pMlosophy, did not
that life with
in the steps of Socrates, by asserting
than
them was far more pleasant and independent
gave the
other men, that their abstemiousness
with
mental delight^;
right flavour to enjoyment, and that
Te>7,, aWd TLVL Zvcrx^pîa
,ls ohK ayevvods, Xiav, k.t.K.
See V 305 6
'
'
jirist
X.
Etli.
aBhr^s
ol6f.evoL
aivo^ oD'ro, Ka\ %x^^^^ ol
fieXriov eha^ -Kphs rhu filou vt^S,u
anocpaiveiv t^v Vôvh^ rocp <pafpeneiv yap
\f.>v
Koi t uh iffriv
xîeiv Ta7s
iidouah, d^h
Kal
5eT.
U.is
rh^âov. JJlog. vi. 35

rohs
t.,l.,tcreai, ix.y, {C.ioyiv-ns)
yopoZiZaffKaXovs Kal yhp Ik^'ivovs
imtp r6vov eVStSoVai eVeKaToDrous
Xoiirovs aâaOai rov Trpo(X'i]KOUTOS
aires
iirl
r6vov.
o'e
(pdaKccv,
Home
hold pleasure to be altooetber

a mistake: ol t^'^v tcrc.s 7r.7re.0--
"Zs .oTx^Lîpbs alrC
jUhcn
'^
cpi-
xii
513,
t^ fovw ayadou .Im

7rpoa-e0ri/ce rw afx^racfn
we
require to kno\'
the context in ^îcb Anti>
thenes uttered this
in Sfoh. Floi 2.
' Antisth
65 ^fovhs ras êra rovs '^6,ov
SicvKreov, aX\ ovxl ras irph t
X-nrov,
but
-kovwv.
^
Floril 9, 49
24, 14
wher
probably the Cyiiic Diogend
question whether ^he wo^l

are taken from a genuine
writing ot his.
Ibid. lOii, Û ; /i.
CYNIC MORALS.
.-afforded
309
higher pleasure than sensual ones.

Still all that this language proves is,
that their theory
was imperfectly developed, and that their
mode of
expression was inaccurate, their meaning
being thjff
pleasure as such ought in no case to
be an end,^
flir
and
that
when
it is
anything more than a natural conse-
Tims in Xen. 8ymp. 4, 34,

where tlie description appears
on the whole to l)e true, Anti'
sthenes demonstrates that in

his poverty he was the happiest
of men.
Food, drink, and
he
enjoyed
better
clothes he did not need and
from all these things he had
more enjoyment than he liked
so little did he need that he
was never embarrassed to think
how he sliould find sujjjôrt he
had plenty of leisure to associate with Socrates, and if he
wanted a pleasant da}', there
was no need to purchase the
requisite materials in the market, but he Jiad them ready
in
the soul.
Diogenes in IJiofj.
n, speaks in a similar strain
;not to mention Dio Cliry^. Qr.
n. 12 33) he who has learned
-sleep
o despise pleasure, finds theren his highest pleasure ; and in

^lut. De Exil. 12,
p. 605, he
ongratulates himself on not
aving, like Aristotle, to wait
or Philip for breakfast;
or
ike Callisthenes for Alexander

I^n)ffA5) to the virtuous
:
man
ccording to Diogenes (Pint.

ranq. An. 20, p. 477) every
dav
a festival. In like manner
^lut. Tranquil. An.
4, says tliat
rates passed his life in jesting
!
id joking, like
stival;
and
one perpetual
Mctrocles (in
Plutarch, An. Vitios. ad Infelic.

3,
p.
499), like
Diogenes (in
Lncian, V. Auct. 9), blesses himself for being happier than

the Persian king.
<êe Dion.
'
44, 78.
''
As
Bitter,
ii.
12], has re-
marked, the difference between

the
teaching of
Antisthenes
and that of Aristippus might

be thus expressed: Aristippus
considered the result of the
emotion of the soul to be the
good Antisthenes considered
the emotion itself to be the
end, and the value of the
action to consist in the doing
of it.
Eitter, however, asks
with justice whether Antisthenes ever went back so far
as this, since it is never distinctly imputed to him. And
in the same way it will Ijo
found that Aristippus never
regarded pleasure as a state of
rest, but as a state of motion
for the soul.
The contrary is
not established by what Her;
mann,
Ges.
Abh. 237,
f.
al-
leges.
Hermann proves, it is
true,
that Antisthenes con-
sidered the good to be virtuous activity, and that Aristippus took it to be pleasure, but
he does not prove that Antisthenes and Aristippus spoke
in explicit terms of the rest
and the motion of the soul.
Ohap.
xin.
310
Chap.
quence of action and of satisfying essential wants,
XIII.
is
it
a thing to be avoided.
From these considerations followed the
conclusion,
that everything else excepting virtue and vice
is
in-
and that we in turn ought to be

indifferent thereto.
Only those who soar above
poverty and wealth, shame and honour, ease and
fatigue, life and death, and who are prepared to
submit to any work and state in life, who fear no
different for us^
one, troubling themselves about nothing
only such
no exposed places to fortune, and can
as these offer
therefore be free and happy.^

(1
As
Virtve.
yet, here are only the negative
What
happiness.
thereto
conditions of
the positive side corresponding^
is
Virtue alone bringing happiness, and tb
goods of the soul being alone worth possessing, in
what does virtue
consist
Virtue, replies Antis-
and Euclid, consists]

and Eeason is the only
thenes, herein following Socrates
wisdom
in
prudence
or
Diog. in Stoh. Floril. 86,

19 (89, 4), says the noblest
men are ol Karacppovovures ttAovI
rov
5o|7js
ivavTioov
Tjdovrjs
twv 5e
C'^Jjs,
ovtss,
virepdvo}
irevlas
Diog.
iiryvet
29 says of the same
rovs /meWovras yafiuv /cat fi)]
yafxelv, Koi Tovs /xeWovras Karaadoîas
Bavdrov.
irouov
TrAetv KoX
fXT]
[x4x\ovTas
KarairX^lu, Kol rohs
tovs
TToXtreveadai, Koi
(I>e7u
Kol
fxTj
(xtj
iraiôrpo-
TraLdoTpo(pe7u, Kal rovs
irapacTKevaôiuLevov^
Swdarais
koX
TToXiTiveaOai
kol
ffvfiîovv
toTs
fx)]
Trpoffiovras.
86,
says
that
what he had gained by
philo-
Crates,
Ibid.
sophy was
Qipjxoov
TO
fx4XLu.
re X^'"'!
Antis.
*^^
in
oaTLs 51
Sfob. Floril. 8,
cTepovs 545oiK hovXos wv \4Kiq9ei
iavTov.
Diogenes in Dio(/. 75
(xr)Bevhs
SovXov Th (pofi7cr6ai.
See pp.
302, 2
303, 2 and 3
305, 4.
This follows from Biogl
13
Teixos aacpaXecTTaTou (ppSVT](Tiv
Teix,V KUTaaKeuaaTeok
;
iu
To7s
afjio^s,
if
o-vTuiu
ôyi-
avaXcoTOis
we connect with
it \A&
maxims about the oneness and

the
teachableness
and his doctrine

man.
of
of
virtue.'
the wise
CYNIC VIRTUE.
311
thing which gives a value to life.^ Hence, as his

Chap.
teacher had done before him, he concludes that virtue __^^'__
is one and indivisible,^ that the same moral problem
is
presented to every class of men,^ and that virtue
is
the result of teaching.^
virtue
is
He further
maintains that
an inalienable possession ; for what
known can never
He
be forgotten.^
once
is
thus bridges
over a gulf in the teaching of Socrates by a system

in which Sophistical views ^ contributed no less than
practical interests to
make
virtue in itself indepen-
dent of everything external.^

Compare the saying attributed to Antisthenes in Pint.
Sto. Rep. 14, 7, p. 1040, and to
Diogenes in Biog. 24 eis Thv
fiiou irapea-KevdCca-dat. Se7u \6you
^
Bp6xov.
Also Dior/. 3.
- ISchol.
Lips, on II. 0. 128
(Winckelmann, p. 28): 'Avti'
crdevrjs
(prforlu,
ws
et ri Trpdrrei 6
Kara iraaav [dpeTTjj/ eVepye?.

Diog. 12 according to Dio-
aocphs
^
des
avZphs Kal yvvaiKhs
tj
auri}
aper-f].
Biof/. 10 SiSaKTû anedelKwe

{'AvTiadcvrjs) ttju ap^rqu.
105
'
apecTKî 5'
Kad^
Trepl
Wherein, however.
andyTuv icxTiv dXKoL 5e
rds epidas diarpi0ov(n k.t.A.
The expression
ol
/ueu,
ol
does not prove that the first

of these statements belongs to
a different school from that
to which the second belongs.
5e
"*
Diofj.
dperi]^
12
dvacpaipeToy '6ir\ov
Mem.
Xen.
i.
2, 19
Uv iroXXol rcou
<pa<TK6vToov (pi\oaoê7u, on
ovk
hv irore 6 SiKaios ddiKOs yei/oLTo,
ou5e auxppwu vl3piaT7]s, ou5e dWo
rj
laws ovv
iXiroiû
ovShv, oov jxdQriais icTLV, 6 /naduv

az/eTTiCTTTjyUCoj/ a*/
avTo7s Kal rriv aper^v
"
Trore ydpoiro.
The maxim that prudence
Si5aK7T]v clvai,
Ka6a (pT]alv 'AvTiiu T65 'HpaK\e7, Kal duaT6fihr)Tou

virapxeiv.
Without
is
TQivi]s
loubt the reference in Isocr.

i. 1 is also to Antisthenes.
[socrates quotes the passages
just given, with the sentence
)f Antisthenes which was dis-
The maxim that you cannot

forget what you know is only
the converse; of the Sophistic
that jôu cannot learn
what you do not know.
^ It is only independent
of
external circumstances, when
it cannot be lost
for since the
wise and virtuous man will
never, as long as he continues
wise and virtuous, forego his
Hel.
Jussod p. 300, 2, added: KaraY^yvpaKaaiv ol /xcv ov (pdaKouTcs

>i6i>
t' thai \l/vSri \4yciu ouS'
iVTiXiyeiu.
OS
01
5e
dieîoures
auSpla Kal aocpia Kal diKaioavur]
avr6v iarr Kal

vTwu
exoêj/,
(pvaei /j.^ ovSeu
fj.ia
5'
eVio-ri^/iTj
insuperable.
See p. 142,
3.
'
maxim
wisdom and
virtue,
and
since,
according to the teaching of

Socrates, no one intentionally
812
true prudence consisted
Chap.
1_ more
If
precisely.
were described as knowledge
it
concerning the good,^
the Cynics could not say
was simply a tautology.
on the contrary,
If,
what
consist in unlearning
said to
does
Plato justly observed,^
this, as
negative
this
expression
So much only
further.
lead
is clear,
it
were
bad/ neither
is
single
step
that the prudence of
Antisthenes and his School invariably coincides with
a right state of will, of firmness, of self-control and

of uprightness,'^
V
thus
bringing
back
us
know-
Socratic doctrine of the oneness of virtue and
Hence by learning
ledge.
intellectual
They would not have recognised
they understood
virtue,
moral exercise rather than
the
to
research.*)
the Platonic and
Aristotelian distinction between a conventional and

^
a philosophical, an ethical and an intellectual virtue

does wrong, it follows that
knowledge can only be taken
away by a cause foreign to the
will of the individual.
Plato, Kep. vi. 505, B.
'
ec/)??,
rh KaKa
same
is
Floril. ed.
IJLu
rSê ye
fXT]v
oilada,
'7:oX\o7s Tjôur]
on
5ok6? elvai rh
ayaOhv, rots 5e KOfxôripoLs

(Tis
rovTo
OTL ye,
Ka\
to7s
&
<pp6vr)-
<^tA6, ol
ovK %xov<n Se?|ai

aAA' avayKaôvTai.
ayadov
rov
reKevTwvTes r^v
(pavai.
If the Cynics are not
T]rLS
TjyoviJLepoi
(ppov-riais,
here exclusively meant, the

passage at any rate refers to
them.
2
1. c.
Diog.
nias
rov
%(ToiTO,
8,
according to Pha-
TL
e(p7]'
Kokhs Kayadhs
Ttt KaKo. h exîs
TToiitiv
el
OTL (t)evKTd ia-ri /j-deois irapa

elSdroov.
ruv
and
Ibid.
/JLttdrjudrccv
Twv
ipwrndels ti
avayKai6Tarov,
7:
iv. 193).
292, 1
303, 2
3.
,
Here it may suffice to call.

to mind what has been said p.
292, 1, and what Diogenes in
^
Diog. 70 says
îtttiv
eJuat riju &(rKr}(nv,

tt]u
kt)v,
5e
r^v
5'
eXeyev
fihv J'ux*"
(ToofxaTiK-fiv
ravrrfV
(the text here appears

faulty) K:a0' '7]v iv yvfxvaffla <Tvi/e-[
.
x^*^ [o'wexet"] ? yipS/xeuai

(pavraaiai ei/Xvaiav irphs ra
[ai]|
r^si
epya irapexovrai'
6?j/at 5'
dreAT] tV erepai' x'"'?'^ t^s ere'/joy
iraperldeTO 5e reK/xripia rov
paSlws airb rrjs yv/xvafflas iv rf
aperrj Karayiveadai (to be atl
home in); for in every art practice makes perfect; 71: ouSeV 76
/x^v eXeye rh irapdvav iv r^ fiio)
aperris
{Âvri(Tdiv7]s) ipwryiQeh inrh
Mein.
Compare pp.
aWa
The'
airoixaBuv.
found in Exc. e Floril.'

Joan. Damasc. ii. 13, 34 (Stob,
CYNIC WISDOM AND FOLLY.

and
in answer to
Meno's
813
question, whether virtue

was produced by exercise or instruction, they would
have replied, that practice was the best instruction.
Chap.
._^^
.
He who
has attained to virtue by the help of the

ynic teaching, is a wise man.
Everyone else is
To
lacking in wisdom.
tell
(2) Wis-
'^l}i^^^
the advantages of the
one, and the misery of the other, no words are too
The wise man never suffers

all things are his.
He is at home everywhere, and can accommodate himself to any circumstrong for the Cynics.
want, for
stances.
and love-inspiring, fortune cannot

An image of the divinity, he lives with
His whole life is a festival, and the Gods,
Faultless
touch him.2
the Grods.
whose friend he
reverse
is
bestow on him everything.^ The

the case with the great bulk of mankind.
is,
Most of them are mentally crippled, slaves of fancy,

severed only by a finger's breadth from madness.
To find a real man, you must look for him with a
lantern in broad daylight.
Xoph
dtr/cTjo-ews KaTopdovaQai, 5uI'ar^v Se ravrrju irav iKuiKriaai.

'
J*lato,
IJitif/.
Menu,
init.
11
avrdpKv t' ehai
(Toôv^ irdvra yap
avrov
rhv
ilmi
TO,
ruv
&\\a}u.
Ibid.
12
(according
to
Diodes): r^
ovdeu ov5' &Tropov.
h-Ûpacrros 6 ayae6s.
Ibid. 10.")
ûpaarou re Thf ao(phv kol ava<TO(pw
|eVo;/
^dpT7]rou Ka\(pi\ovr^ 6ij.oiw,Tvxv

re nr]5h iirirpiir^Lv.
Sec p. 803,
2.
The passage
^. vii.
in Arist. Eth.
U,
1053, b, 19, probably

ilso refers to the Cynics
ol 5e
rbi/ Tpo\i(6fivou Ka\
rhv Svarv:
jCaij
fieydXois
)aifiova
Trepnriirrovra
(pd(TKoj/Ts
dvai,
idv
v-
Misery and stupidity are

hyaBhs, ^ eKdvres
\4yov(nv.
Yet
&KOUTes ovSev
rj
Diogenes (in
Diof/. 89) allows that^no one is
perfectly free from faults.
^ Diogenes, in Dior/. 51
rovs
ayadovs &pSpa5 Bcmv Mvas dvai.
Bnd. 37, 72: ruy Otuu ia-ri
:
iravra-
Bôh
(piKoi
Se
ot
ao(po\
tols
ruv (p'lKwv.
Trctj/r'
&pa eVrl rwv (Xocpuv.
Diog. in Pint. Tran. An. 20:
Koiva
8e
to,
dyuOhs ov iraaav rj/xepav

eopT7> 7]yCirai
Exc. e Floril.
Joan. Damasc. ii. 13, 76 'hvriad^v-ns ipur-qe^h vir6 rivos r[ 5i5a|ei rhv vlhu, dircu el jxeu Bio^s
/xdWei (Tu/xfiiovy, <pi\6ao'pov, d 5e
dv)}p
'
duBpwnois, ^VTOpa.
814
Chap.
XTTT.
Accorclingiy
the universal fate of mortals.^
kind are divided into two

stand opposite
to
Only a very few are
all
man-
Innumerable fools
classes.
menhappy through prudence and

small
number
of
wise
All the rest live in misfortune and folly,
virtue.
only the fewest of
all
being aware of their deplorable
state.
D. The
practical
effects of
their
teaching.
Following out these principles, the Cynics conceived it to be their special mission to set an example
themselves of strict morality, of abstemiousness, of
the independence of the wise man, and also to exercise
a beneficial and strengthening influence on others.
To this mission they devoted themselves with extranot,
ordinary self-denial,
however, without falling
into such extravagances and absurdities, such offensive;,

coarseness, utter shamelessness, overbearing self-cons
hard to say
whether their strength of mind rather calls for adceit,
and empty boasting, that
it is
miration, or their eccentricities for ridicule;
33
Diog.
a.va;ji\povs
^Xeye
rovs Kcocpovs Koi

rvcpXovs, aKKa rovs fxr} i^^vras
tovs vrAeiIhid. 35
irripav.
ffTOVs eKeye irapa ZolktoKov fjuaive{Ai.oy4v7]s)
oh
and
had found nowhere, bnt boys

he had found in Lacedeemon.
Compare what has been
Tbid. 41 the story of Diogenes

Tbid. 86
with his lantern.
verses of Crates on the stupiCompare
dity of mankind.
said of Socrates p. 121, 2, Tbid.

47 rovs p7]Topas Koi iravras tovs
ivôôKoyovuTas rpicrai'dpdnrovs arpiaadXlovs,
tov
di^rl
TTCKaAei
Tbid. 71 Instead of becoming
happy by practice of virtue,
Dioalso Stob. Floril. 4, 52.

genes in Exc. e Floril. Joan.
Damasc. ii. 13, 75, says that
the vilest thing upon earth is a
man without culture. Eitheii
Diogenes or Philiscus asserts iij
(xdai.
men
irapa rr^v &uoLav
vovffi.
elirovTa
likv
ovv,
SpoLTToda.
Tbid.
Uvdia
eiiTV,
33:
KaKoSaifxoirîhs
rhv
&v^pas, eyu)
6,ydpas, ffv 8' avvlkS)
Tbid. 27
Stob.
vi.
80)
Flor. 22, 41 (Conf.

:
rdcpos
0eAet [tovs ttoTvXovs]
pare p. 292,
mog\
cbarirep iroifXTju
Ixyei.
ol
Com-^
2.
men he
CYNIC SELF-RENUNCIATION.
whether they rather
commiseration.
command
esteem, or dislike, or
Previous enquiries, however,
Chap.
^^^
make
possible for us to refer these various peculiarities
it
to
common
one
source.
The leading thought of Cynicism
is
the
self-suffi-
Blunt and onesided in their conseption of this principle, the Cynics were not content
mth a mere inward independence of the enjoyments
md wants of life. Their aim, they thought, could
ciency of virtue. ^
(i) Self-
uoZ^'^^'''
3nly be reached
by entirely renouncing all enjoyment,

by limiting their wants to what is absolutely indispensable, by deadening their feelings to outward
impressions,
and by cultivating indifference to
all
own power. The Socratic independence of wants 2 became with them a renunciation
that is not in their
:>f
their
'
Poor to begin with,^ or renouncing

property voluntarily,-'^ they lived as beggars.^
the world.^
8ee p. 302.
.vhich
)4,
we saw
Socrates used, p.
To the same
3.
effect is
he story that Diogenes, at the

beginning of his Cynic career,
:efused to look for a runaway
ilave,
because he could do
vithout his slave as well as
he slave could do without
lim. Diog. 55
Stub. Floril. 62,
[1.
Ihid. 97, 31, p. 215 Mein.
' See
pp. 303; 310, 1.
^
Such as Antisthenes, Dio;
and Monimus.
Such as Crates and Hip-
iênes,
*
larchia.
^
According
Diog.
eady
to
Diodes
in
Antisthenes alassumed the beggar's
vi.
13,
guise, the staff and scrip nor

the truth of his account impugned by Sosicrates, in saying
that Diodorus of Aspendus
was the first to do so ; for this
statement is not very accurate,
;
According to Biog. vi. 105,

ônf. Lvcian, Cyn.
12, Dioênes repeated the language
2
is
both Antisthenes and Diogenes

being older than Dioclorus.
Nevertheless, in Diog. 22, Diois described with great
probability as the originator
of the full mendicant garb,
and he is also said to have been
the first to gain his living by
begging.
Uiog. 38; 46; 49;
Teles, in Stub. Flor. v. 67;
Hieron. adv. Jovin. ii. 207.
His followers Crates (see the
verses in Diog. 85 and 90) and
Monimus (Diog. 82) adopted
the same course.
genes
316
Chap.
xin.
Possessing no houses of their own, tliey passed the
day in the
nights
or in other public places;
streets,
the
they spent in porticoes, or wherever else
chance might guide them.^
need,^
Furniture they did not
bed seemed superfluous.^
G-reek dress was
by them made
were content with the tribon
still
The simple
and they
simpler,
of Socrates, the ordi-
nary dress of the lower orders,^ without any underDiogenes must have been
the first to act thus. For Antisthenes in Xot. Symp. 4, 38,

still speaks of having a house,
although its furniture was confined to the bare walls.
Diogenes, however, and the later
Cynics lived as described. See
Diog. 22; 38 76 105: Teles.
;
and
in Stoh. Floril. 97, 31,

p. 215 Mein. Hieron. lAician,
V. Auct. 9. Diogenes for a
time took up his abode in a
tub which stood in the entrance-court of Metroon, at
Athens, as had been done by
homeless folk before.
Biog.
23 43 105 Sen. Ep. 90, 14.
But it cannot have been, as
Juvenal^ xiv. 208, and Lucian,
Consc. His. 3, represent it, that
he sj)ent his whole life there
1. c.
without any other home, even

carrying his tub about with
him, as a snail does its shell.
Compare SteinliaH, 1. c. p. 302
Gbttling, Ges. Abh. 258, and
Brucker's report of the discussions between

Kasaius, Hist.
Equally
tic
Hermann and
Phil.
i.
872.
romanstory that Crates and Hipfictitious is the
67, 20, p. 4, Mein. says is that

they spent day and night in
the open porticoes. In southern countries they even now
often spend the night in a
portico.
- The
story that Diogenes
threw away his cup, when he
had seen a boy drinking with
the hollow of his hand, is well
known.
Biog. 37 Phut. Prof,
;
in Virt. 8, p. 79 Seneca, Ep.

Hier. 1. c. He is also
90, 14
reported to have trampled on
Plato's costly carpets with the
words, Trarcy rhv TIXoltcduos tv<pou, to which
Plato replied,
irepcfye rv(p(a, Aioyii/es.
Biog.
;
26.
Antisthenes in Xen. Symp.

boasts that he slept admirably on the simplest bed.
And the fragment in Bemetr.
de Elocut. 249 (Winckelmann,
As far a^
p. 52), belongs here.
Diogenes {Ejpict. Dido. i. 24, 7,
^
4, 38,
distinctly asserts this of Dio-
genes) and Crates are concerned, they slept, as a matter of

course, on the bare ground.
^
Compare
the
passages
quioted p. 54, 4.
^ That
is
at
parchia lived in a tub. Simpl.

in Ej)ict. Enchir. p. 270. All
Sparta the
that ]VIasonius in Stoh. Floril.
sal
Athens
Gottling,
at
was imiver256 Hermann^
rplficav
CYNIC SELF-RENUNCIATION.
317
clothing.i
In scantiness of diet they even surpassed

the very limited requirements of their
fellow countrymen.2
Rre,
by
It
said that Diogenes tried to do

without
eating his meat raw,3and he is credited
is
with
jaying that everything, without exception,

human
lesh included, might be used for
purposes of food.^
Even in extreme age he refused to depart
from his
iccustomed manner of living,^ and lest

his friends
ihould expend any unnecessary care on
his corpse, he
brbad their burying it at all. A life
harmony
in
bitiquit.
iii.
from
21, 14),
vhioh it will be seen, that the

vord did not originally' mean
omethino- worn out, but a
ough dress which rubbed the
kin an Ifxanou rpifiov not an
;
xdTiou
rerpififM^vov,
and that
iiariou rpifiuv yevS/xeuoi/
in Stob.
means a covering
/hich had grown rough.
This was often done by the
^loril. 5, 67,
'
oor (Hermann, 1. c.)

Antithen es, however, or Diogenes,
cco]-ding to others, made this
ress the dress of his order,
llowing the rpil3uv to be
oubled for better protection
gainst the cold.
13
Bioff. G
2
76 ; 105.
Teles 'in Sfoh.
'lorih
1)7,
;}],
p. 215.
Cyniic ladies
tme dress, Dioff.
lie
iigle
'ten
article
in the
mdition.
Moin.
adopted the
93.
This
was
most miserable
of
dress
See the anecdotes
30ut Crates, Dior/. 90, and tlie

jrses on him. Ibid. 87.
BeLusc of tlie self-satisfaction
ith whiclv Antisthenes ex)sed to view the holes in his
oak, Socrates is said to have
)served that his vanity peered
irough tliem.
Dioff, 8.
Their ordinary food con-
'
sisted of bread, tigs, onions,

garlic, linseed, but particularly
of the dcpfMoi, or beans of some
kind.
Their drink was cold
water. Dior/. 105 25 48 85
90; Teles in Stob. FloriL 97^
31 Ibid. p. 215, M. Af/n.'/i. iv.'
c; lAudan, V. Auct. 9
nio Chry^. Or. vi. 12 and 21
^
and Gottling, p. 255. But, iu
order to prove their freedom,
156,
they occasionally allowed

a
pleasure to thems(>lves and
others.
Diog. 55 Aristid. Or.
XXV. o60 (Wi//r7,'el7)i(f/i/f,p.
28).
^ Dior/. :U
76 PHciido-Plut
;
de Esu Cam.
6,
995; Lio
Chrt/x. Or. vi. 25.

" In niof/.
73, this
principle
i.
supported by the argument,

that ever^-thing is in everything else, even flesh in bread,
is
&c.
Diog. refers for this to a
tragedy of Thycstes, the ^vriter
of which was not Diogenes,
but Philiscus. A similar statement was subsequently made
by the Stoics.
Sec Zeller's
Stoics, kc.
^
^
Sec
See
dift'er
Diofj. .34.
the
accoimts
which
in details in Dio>j.
79;
Chap.
xni.
318
Chap.
XIII.
with nature,^ the suppression of everything artificial,

is the
the most simple satisfaction of all natural wants,
watchword of his School.^ They never weary of belaud-
which they
ing the good fortune and the independence
owe to this freedom from wants.^ To attain thereto,
a principle.*
bodily and mental hardships are made
A Diogenes whose teacher did not appear to treat him
with sufacient severity/
is
said to have undertaken
Even the scorn

of
and contempt necessarily incurred by this manner
with the greatest comlife were borne by the Cynics
self-mortification in this behalf.^
do. Tusc. i. 43, 104;

^lian, V. H. viii. 14; Stoh.
52;
Floril. 123, 11.
The same
is
in
Chrysippus
Math.
iii.
258;
Pyrrh.
Sext.
by
repeated
xi. 194.
Which Diogenes
also
re-
quired, witness for instance

^ôv
his saying in Dioff. 71
:
ovu avrl roiv aXP'h'^rcau irovwv

Tohs Kara (pvffiv hXofxivovs Cv^
euSai/xovws, iraph rrjv 'dvoiav kuko-
subject
the expressions of Diogenes in
Diog. 44; 35; StoJ). Floril. 5,
41 67, the hymn of Crates on
fhrehiia, and his prayer to the
Compare on
and 3.
Compare
303, 2
*
this
p.
250,
and
1,
Diogenes' training
appears to have been described
by Eubulus in the same glowing terms as that of Cyrus was
by Xenophon. Exc. e Floril.
67.
Joan. Damasc. ii. 13, 68
Diog. 30.
Diogenes in Stol. Floril. 7, 18,

expresses the view that mental
vigour
daiixovovcTi.
2
Teles in Stoh. Floril. p7, 31,

Mein. and the quotations p.
is
exercise,
body.
5 Bio
{Stol.
the only object of all

even that of the
Chrys.
Floril.
13,
Or.
viii.
19);
conf,
Muses in Julian, Or. vi. 199,

addition to what Pint, de
93,
125, Diog. 85
and 8tol)a;us tell of him. Compare also Liician, V. Auct. 9,
and the anecdote of the mouse,
Sanit. 7, p.
the sight of which confirmed

Diogenes in his renunciation of
the world in Phut. Prof, in Virtut. 6
Diog. 22, 40.
Compare the language used

by Crates and Metrocles in
3
Diog. 18.
According to Diog. 23
34
he was in the habit of rolling
;
in the summer in the burning

sand, and in winter of walking
barefoot in the snow, and em^
bracing icy columns. On th(
other hand, Philemon's wordi
about Crates in Diog. 87, thaf
he went about wrapped up
summer and
ii'
in rags in winteif
are probably only a comedian'
jest on his beggarly covering.)
CYNIC RENUNCIATION OF SOCIETY.

posure ;
319
nay, they accustomed themselves thereto,^ on

the ground that the reproaches of enemies teach man
^
Chap.
xin.
know himself,^ and the best revenge you can take

to amend your faults.'*
Should life from any
to
is
reason become insupportable, they reserved to themselves the right, as the Stoics did at a later time,^ of
securing their freedom by means of suicide.
Among
external things of which
it is
necessary to
he independent, the Cynics included several matters

which other men are in the habit of regarding as
morally good and as duties.
man must
respect, the wise
by no relations to others.
Antisthenes
requires
repuu
Xoiro.
in
Biog.
7,
KaKoos aKovovras KapjxaXXov ri et Xldois ris ^dX-
He
also says in Epict.

Diss. iv. 6, 20 (conf Diog. 3)
fiaffiXiKhv, S> Kvpe, TrpdrTeiv fikv
KaKm
v,
S'
aKoveiv.
It is said
of Diogenes,
Diog. 33, and
also of Crates, Diog. 89, that
when his body had been illtreated, he only wrote by the
side of his blains the names of
those
by whom they had been
inflicted.
Diog. 90 says of Crates, tAs

iirhrjSes eXoiBSpci, avyyvfxvdôiv eavrhv irphs ras /8Aa*
irSpvas
Antisthenes remarks, Diog.
12
irpoadxeiv to7s ix^P^^^' Trpu)Toi yap roou afxapTrm.drwv alcrOd:
vQvrai.
Inim.
He
also says in Pint.
Util. 6,
same saying
p. 89,
and the
attributed to
p. 74
Virt. ii. p. 82: rots
is
Diogenes in De Adul. 36
Prof,
in
free in every
be fettered and hampered
He must
To be
fieXXovai
yvrjfficov
*
ri
satisfy his social
aco^cadai
r)
(plXwv
Siairvpwu ixOpcov.
Se?
Diog. in Plut. Inimic. Util.

88 and Poet. 4, p. 21.
When Antisthenes in his
4, p.
^
last illness
under his
became impatient
sufferings,
Diogenes
offered him a dagger (Diog.

18) to put an end to his life,
which Antisthenes had not the

courage to use. That Diogenes
made away with himself is
indeed asserted in several of
the accounts to which reference has been made, but cannot be proved. In ^lian, V.
H. X. 11, he refuses the contemptuous challenge to put an
end to his sufferings by suicide for the wise man ought

to live. Nevertheless, Metro;
cles
put
(Diog.
an end
to-
himself
not
to mention
Menedemus (Ihid. 100). So
also Crates in Diog. 86
Clemens. Strom, ii. 412, D.
95),
(2) Re'"^'^^^^^^^
Ufe.
THE SOCEATIC SCHOOLS.
320
Chap.
xni.
(a)
Of
family
life.
wants by himself alone,^ or lie will be dependent on

others, and nothing which is out of his power ought
To these matters belongs
to influence his happiness.
family
Xot that Antisthenes would do away
life.
with marriage, because he thought it useful to keep'

up the race of men;^ but Diogenes early discovered
that this object might be attained by a community
of wives.^ Deeply imbued as these philosophers were
with Grecian peculiarities,
it
never occmTed to them
to require, in the spirit of a later asceticism, the en-tire
uprooting of
all
might, however, be
sexual desires.
satisfied in a far
6, Antisthenes in
reply to the question, What
good philosophy had donejiim,
answers rh ZvvaaQai kaxn^ bfxiOnt of this came the
Xetv.
caricature of later Cynicism,
described by Lucian, V. Auct.
Yet Diogenes and Crates
10.
were anything but haters of
their fellow-men.
ya/jL-fjcreLV re \_tov
Biog. 1 1
1
In
Dioff.
Natural impulses
more simple way.*
Chrysip]3us, according to Biog.

vii.33, 131, projected the same
state of things for their ideal
state.
"]
Something of the same

kind has been already observed
^
With
in Socrates, p. 163, 1.
the Cynics this treatment of
the relation between the sexes
becomes an extravagance and
a deformity. In Xefi. S>Tnp.

4, 38, Antisthenes boasts of his
reKVonoiias
(r6(pou']
X-P^^
comforts, since he only assoyvuaiî.
ffvuiSvra
evtpveffTOLTaLS
ciates with those fair dames to
d(pvcrTdTaLS
conjectiu'e
The
whom others would have noaccording
29,
(Winkelmaim, p.
mis- thing to say. That he did so
to Hermann) appears
in JDiog,
taken Antisthenes might well on principle is stated
declared adultery,
require eixpyea-rarai -rrphs t^kvo- 3. That he
permissible, as Clemens. Floril.
TTouau, women most suited for
no means cer-,
child-bearing, whilst consider- V. 18 says, is by
said to havel
even
is
He
tain.
a
for
ing anyone good enough
satisfied his lusts in a coarsei^
plaything.
3 Dior/. 72
eKeye 5e koX Koiva^ way, complaining that hungei^
could not be treated in thel
ydfiov fx-qyvva7Kas,
TCts
5iz/
elvai
same way. Brucher, i. 880,{
izeiffavra
S4va voixlCcov, aXKa rhv
Steinhm-t, p. 305, and GoUling^
Se
KOivovs
(Tvveivai
rf) ireiadeiar)
The p. 275, doubt the truth of thes3
5ta TouTO Koi rovs vt4as.
and similar stories. Without;
supported
is
this
correctness of
accuracy, i%
bv the fact that Zeno and vouching for their
:
"^^^^
CYNIC RENUNCIATION OF
SOCIETY.
Their mendicant
life,
an opportunity'
fo home
-m
moreover, not affording

them
pleasures, it
is
readily
understood that they were

in general averse to
mar!
nage,2
^ to feminine
family
society, or at least
treated
life as
a thing indifferent.^
may be enough to say that they
Diogenes
is
said
also accused
of having
publicly practised
unchastity,
I^tog. 69
Theod. Cur. Gr Aff
xii. 48, p. 172.
In Corinth the
10; GaUn. Loc. Affect, vi 5younger Lais, according
nii. 419, K. Atken. iv.
to
158 f
Athen xiii. 588, b, or
Dio Chrys. 34 Horn, in
Ph?yne,
Matli' p'
according to Tertull.
Apol 46
|98 a.,s'. ^,,^;, Civ. Dei,xiv:
IS said to have
had a whim to
.0 but also, according to
Plat
bestow on him her
5tob. Rep. 21, 1, p.
favours
1044, Chry- gratuitously,
whereas the philoiippus had on this score
vindi- sopher did
not despise others.
jated the Cynics, and
accorCleviens (Hom. V.
ling to Sext. Phyrrh.
18) repreiii. 206,
sents him as purchasing
Jeno ajDpears to have
them
done the by scandalous
conditions
ame. Dio. probably borrowed
In
his tragedies
(according to
lis
revolting
extracts from Juuan
Ov. vii. 210, c)
>hrysippus.
stood
The things are things
t^hat one might
owever, not so out of keepin<^
believe
ath the ways of Antisthenes% vjr^p<poKnu a^^rjrovpyUs ovSh raTs
fTaipais ctwoheAe^cpeai.
hat we could call
On the
them im- other hand his
morality is comossible; and the very
thino- mended,
Bemefr. de Eloc 261
inch to us appears so
unin*''^'\'^ <âse of
Crates is an
3lhgible, this public
want of exception, and
even Crates had
lodesty,
makes them very not
wooed Hipioarchia.
kely to be true of
He
Diogenes\ only married
her, when she
true, they were an
attempt would not
renounce her affec1 his part to expose
the folly tion for him,
but was prepared
mankind.
It is from this
\
to share his mode
of life
)mt of view rather than
He
on certainly married
his cliildren
ly moral grounds
that the
^'^y' according
y^nics conduct
their attacks to
l"^ Bioy.
n-^'"''^}'''''
*
88 93.
adulterers and stupid spend-
not only quoted by Dion

46, 49
IJio Chrys. Or. vi.
16,
K.
p. 2C;3,
Lucian, Y. Auct'
are
IS
'
To them it seemed
olish m llie extreme
to incur
iicli toil, danger,
and expense
r an enjoyment,
wbich might
liad much more
easily.
See
rifts.
0U-^\ 61; 60; 66 89 P/,,^.

IPu 7, Schl. p. 5; Sôh.
""! 6; 39; 52.
Diogenes
;
^Popl^thegms
in
ni^^'t
^^'l
3, and Zueian, V.
Auct.
J^ôff.
.i
yafiou Se afie\-f,aei^ kuI
:^
TraiSuv
Ka^ narpiSos.
Far less objec-
tionable
IS
thenes in
the
maxim of
Antis-
i>;W/. J2: rh^

5^^^,^^
T6pi TTAetoros iroie7<Tdai
roD avrvt.
'
yovi.
'
'See
pp. 310,
1,
and 277.
Chap
XIII.
THE SOCRATIC SCHOOLS,
^22
to
(^HAP.
^^^(b)
between
have seen nothing revolting^ in marriage
the nearest relations.

to be
Another matter which they considered
for the wise man,
equally indifferent with family life
contrast between
was civil life. Indeed the sharp
affect the wise man.
slavery and freedom does not
who is really free can never be a slave
Oj-
'''""^ ^'^'
The man
one who is afraid and for the same

The wise man is
reason a slave can never be free.
although he may b('
the natural ruler of others,
for a slave is
'
called a slave, in the
same way that the physician
i{
thai
Accordingly it is said
the ruler of the sick.
had the questioi
Diogenes, when about to be sold,
declining the offer o
asked Who wants a master ?
buy him back.^ Not that such condue
:
his friends to
the contrary, th.

was a vindication of slavery. On
among Greeks t
Cynics seem to have been the first
.
declare
>
T)in
it
quite
an institution opposed to nature,^
Clmn
Or. x. 29,
whose
fpreeTnTwUh the universal

See
doctr nf oT the Stoics.
STstoics, &c.,
2
T>n
moa
286
to'X:
29
4
16,
p. 4.
Compare
74.
According
Antisthenes wrote
332,
4.
T/e.e.;âs Ko^^ 5ovAe(as, and

;:'rh:ps th?s is the origin of the
in Stoh. Flor. 8, 14.
account
'
For his we have certainly
Still (as
direct authority.
111
no
has been alreadv observed, p.

re171 rfit is probably in
that
Cvnics
the
ference to
irS
Tavs
PoYit.
i.
TeJollL.o..'.a
llpic
1253, b, 20,
toSm^. 5oereWT7V^Te'
îL
rh Sea.SCe^p
ro:s 5^
'
v6i.^
7P
"'^^
i*^^"
^'^''^^^
^/''f '
5.W
S.c^.ep o^^
p...
ii
T^"
^.au
The contrast betwee

t-Pv6,. and ^âe. is -t fon^^^
strongly drawn at that tin
except
among
Cynics.
Nor
the Sophists an
is it only m<
with in their religious
vie^'
heir who
On
politics, and even their prac.
cal philosophy, are governe
the contrary
.^ê effort to brin^^^^^^

society from an artificial sia
^^
recognised by law and custO;|

Vl
to a pure state of nature
sophist
should hardly look
circles for the opponents
slavery
tions,
whom
Aristotle m.
where the rule
of
CYNIC RENUNCIATION OF CIVIL LIFE.
o2'i
conformity with their principle, that every

diflference
between men other than that of virtue and
chap.
vice is
unimportant and has nothing to do with the

law of
nature and reason.
Yet they did not go so far as to
attempt even in a small circle (as the
Essenes did
at a later time) the abolition of slavery,

regarding the
outward state as something indifferent, the
wise'^man
even in slavery being a free man. Nor

was
wise with civil life.
The wise man of
it
other-
the Cynics
himself above the restraints which
civil life
imposes, without therefore feeling any
impulse to
mix himself up in such matters for
where could be a
3onstitution which would satisfy his
requirements?'
feels
popular government
(V
:henes.
ihese
An
is
severely censured by Antis-
absolute
monarch only appeared to

freedom-loving philosophers a bad and
miser-
over the weaker was

egarded as the most conform^ble to nature.
But the view
sail the more
keeping with
tron,Q,er
which do not distinguish the

good from the bad iBior, 5 6)
must be intended for a hit av
democracy.
The sayin- in
m
_
^'^'"'^
''^
'^^^
^'''(f' 8, tliat
?? ^^T^^
'f^ allow
ould
that one portion of
nanKmdeiwthe right, quite
'
nians
nd
fool resting
upon reason,
naturally all
men
being
izens of one state between

low-citizens the relation of
laster and slave cannot exist.
1
the fable-the applicawhich to a democracy

obvious-of the hares sug-
5, tells
.on ot
esting umvêrsal
le
hons
attaches to
equality to
The blame which

those
states,
asses horses
would be quite as Jooc'

as choosing incompetent
gC:
rals-must also be d ricted
against a popular form of
it
ndependenlly of their moral

ate, to govern the rest, the
laimot the wise man to govern
he
should the ?the.
call their
government.
Athen.
v.
Accordino^
220, d
to
AntSenes
had made a shLrp attack
nal
the popular leaders at At

en
Likewise in Diog. 24 41 Dk>-'
and he amuses himself at

DemoSen^^^^
IHd. M, on which Tee
vovs,
the expense of
Diss.
iii. 2,
^"w
See also wlft*

was said of Socrates
Socrates, nl
fir
p. I6(,.
T 2
11.
^"^'
324
Aristocratical institutions
able man.^
XIII.
fell far
below
none being adapted for the rule of wise

what law or custom can fetter him, whose
their ideal,
men
for
regulated by the laws of virtue ?2 What

country can be large enough for those who regard
is
life
Allowing
of the world ?^
themselves as citizens
and laws/
the Cynics^ refused in their homelessness to take any
part in civil life. They wished to be citizens of the
there-fore a conditional necessity for a state
world, not of any one state their ideal state, as far

as they do sketch it, is a destruction of all civil life.*^
;
Compare Xen. Symp.
Or.
Dio Chrys.
vi.
97, 26
Also Plut. Adul. et
Floril. 49, 47
4,
36
a negative answer to
Alexander's question, whether
he did not wish to see Thebes
given
Stol.
Diog. 50.
47;
;
Am.
c.
rebuilt
27,
^X^^^ ^^ irarpida a5ottj tux??
ireviav avdhcara
p. 68.
|tai/ /cat
2 Antisthenes,
in Diog. 11,
rbj/ aocpov oh Kara rovs
says
hoX Aioyevovs eJyai tioAittjs aveiri-
PovKevToi'
KCLfjifVOvs
See
(pdofcf.
JEpict. Diss.
TToXiTevaeaOai
vojiiovs
iii.
also
24, 66. Lucia/if
DioecpaaK^ 5' avTigenes, ihid. 38

riOevaL rvxv t^^^^ Odpaos, vo^w 5e
This
Se Xdyov.
(pvaiv, irdOei
Also the Stoic

V. Auct. 8.
doctrine in Zeller's Stoics, &c.,
chap, on Stoics, and what has
been said above, p. 278, 1.
antithesis of vSfios and <pvais

seems to be what Plato has in
view, PML 44, C. See p. 294, 4.
5 hiog. 63 says of Diogenes
*
The confused remarks of
Diogenes in Diog. 72 support
aWa
Ku-â rhu rrjs aperris.

:
epa)Trj0eis Troflev
See
e<pv.
(j.6vr}u
Te
eiTj,
KO(Tjj.OTroX'm]S,
IMd. 72
p. 167, 8.
6p6^v iroXireiav eiuai
:
T^v iu Koafxw. Antisthenes, ibid.

12: TJp (TocpCf) êvov ovdei/ ou5'
Crates, ihid. 98
&TTopov.
:
OVX
e^y
Trdrpas ôi irvpyos, ov fxia
(rreyr),
irdarjs 8e x^pffov
Ka\
irSKicriJ.a
Koi
Soixos
TO/iOS
T/jU?*/
iudiairaadai irapa.
The same individual in Plut.

de Adul. 28, p. 69, shows that
banishment is no evil, and according to JDiog. 93 (conf. Ael.
Y. H. iii. 6) he is said to have
this statement.
^ Antisthenes was not without
a citizen's rights (see Hermann,
Antiquit. 1, 118), although a
by birth and cirDiogenes was

cumstances.
banished from Sinope, and
lived at Athens as a foreigner.
Crates had chosen this life;
after his native town had
proletarian
been destroyed.
Monimus
was'
a slave whom his master had[

driven away.
Stoh. Floril. 45, 28
'Aj/t*-
cOeVrjs epojTrjflels trws dv tis nrpoff'
eXQoi TToKiTeia, eiire KaddTrep Trvpl,

fi-fjre Xiav iyyvs 'iva ixh Kafis^fxilTi
irSppco 'Iva
fj.r]
piydicnjs.
CYNIC DENUNCIATION OF CIVIL LIFE.

mankind
All
nation
are to live together like a flock.
may have
severing
its
own
iV2b
No
and boundaries
special laws
from others.
it
Confining themselves to
the barest necessaries of life, needing no
gold, that
source of so much mischief, abstaining from
marriage
and family
life,
they wished to return to the simplithe leading thought of
city of a state of nature

their
enlarged political sympathies being not so

the oneness and the union of all mankind,
much
the freedom
social life
of the individual
'
and silYerÂthen.
We know
iv. 159, e.
further that Zone's
ToAirem ran to this effect 'iva

i^ Kara irSKcis /UTjSe Kara dri/xovs
:
tlKWflCU, iSioiS KCi(TTOl Stc>}pL(riJ.evoi
aAAa
UKaiois,
'Tycvfxeea
'e
Rios
Traj/ray
S-qfjiSras
ri tcai
avO pwrrovs
Kal rroXiras efr
K6crfxos,
rvvv6fiou vSjxco
ucnrep aye'Arjs
KOLv<f
Tpe(t)oiJ.4vr]S,
Alex. Vit. i. 6, p. 829;

.nd since this treatise of Zeno
vas always considered to ex-
^Hut.
cess the opinions of the Cj-nic

Ichool,
we have every reason
look in
'hat
it for a Cynic's views,

such views were on the
'hole
tiencs,
but
from the bonds of
and the limits of nationality.
The above description rests

only in part on direct testimony, but the combination
which is the basis of it does
not lack great probability. We
know on authority that Diogenes in his iroAireta {Diog.
80) demanded a community of
wives and children, and that
in the same treatise he proposed a coinage of bones or
atones {aa-ToayaKoi) instead of
ifold
advocated by Antisprobably in the treatise
Trcpl
vSjxov
Here again
TTcpl
TToAtTefay,
which appears to be identical

with the -ToAiTiifhs did\oyos mentioned by At/ten. v. 220, d, is
in itself probable, and is contirmed
by Plato's Politicus.
Rejecting, as his dialogue does,
the analogy between states-
manship and the superintena flock, we might

naturally think that Plato was
provoked to it by some such
theory; and since we know
from Plutarch's account of
dence of
Zeno, that the Cynics reduced

the idea of the state to that of
a herd
natural
of men, it is most
to
think of
them.
IMoreover, the description of
the natural state, Kep. ii. 372,

appears also to refer to Antisthenes.
Plato at first describes
though from himself, but

afterwards clearly intimates
that it belongs to another,
when he calls it a state tit
for ]ugs.
Nor do we know of
anyone else to whom it could
be better referred than to the
founder of the Stoic School.
it
lie
as
Cha p
Xllf.
THE SO CRATIO SCHOOLS.
:V2Q
be seen the negative spirit of their morality,

destitute of all creative power.
may
Chap.
XIII.
The same
Str
'^
character
may be
recognised in a feature
^^^ ^^^^ revolting in Cynicism their deliberate suppression of the natural feeling of shame.
f^^'
îs
not consider altogether unreasonable,^ but they urged that you need only be
ashamed of what is bad, and that what is in itself
This feeling they did
good may not only be unblushingiy discussed, but

done without reserve before the eyes of all.^ They
therefore permitted themselves what they considered
natural, without regard to places, not shrinking even
from doing in the public streets ^ what other men
It is expressly told of Diogenes, B\og. 37 54, that he expostulated with a woman who
lay in an indecent position in
a temple, and that he called
blushes the colour of virtue.
2 See the following note, and
Nee vero
Cic. Off. i. 35, 128
audiendi sunt Cynici aut si qui
fuerunt Stoici pfene Cynici,
'
qui reprehendunt et irrident,

quod ea, qu turpia non sint
(for instance, the begetting of
children) nominibus ac verbis
tlagitiosa
consider
dicamus (that we
imseemly to name
it
them), ilia autem qute turpia

sunt (stealing, &c.) nominibus
appellemus suis.
3 This is especially said of
Diogenes, Diog. 22 Travrl Tp6-n(f
:
ixpwo
eis Trdura, api<nci}U ti koI
Kadev^ccv
Koi
dia\ey6ijLuos,
and
according to JDiog. 69, he supported this by the argument.

If it is at all allowable to
breakfast, it must be allowable
to
Fol-
breakfast in public.
lowing out this principle, he

not only took his meals in public in
the streets (Diog. 48
but he also
did
many
58),
other
eccentric and startling things,

in the sight of all passers by
It is even,
(Biog. 35; 36).
asserted of him,^ JDiog. 69
TroteTi/ iv r^ f^^cTf,
Koi TO Ar^firiTpos Koi to ' A^poSirtjs.
Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff. xii. 48, p.
elwOei 5e ttuj/to
172,
says
the same of
him,
We
mentioning an instance.
have already, p. 320, 4, observed
caO'
that these statements
hardly be altogether fictitious.
But it is incredible that Crates,
and Hipparchia, as is said tC;
have been the case, consum-f
mated their nuptials in thQ
midst of numerous spectators^

There are, however, not a fe^
authorities for it
Sext. Pyrrh. i. 153
Diog. 97
iii.
Clemens Strom at. iv. 523, A.

Apul. Floril. 14; Lact. Inst
;
200.
CYNIC RENUNCIATION OF RELIGION

prefer
way
do in
iV>7
Lest he should in
any
Chap.
forego his independence, the Cynic puts out of
sight
to
all
regard
secret.
for
others,
and what he
not
is
ashamed of by himseK, he thinks he need not be

ashamed of before others. The opinion of men is to
him indifferent. He is neither hurt by their familiarity
with his personal
life,
nor need he fear
sucli
familiarity.
To the same
may be referred the Cynic

attitude towards religion.
Xo course of study under
Antisthenes was needed to make men doubt the truth
jf
source
the popular faith.
Such doubts were raised on
all
and since the appearance of the Sophists, had

permeated the educated classes. Not even the Socratic circle had passed unscathed.^
From his intersides,
course with Grorgias and the other Sophists, Antis-
thenes in particular must have been familiar with

freer views respecting the Grods
and their worship,

and specially with the principles of the Eleatics,
whose teaching in other respects he also worked into
his
For him, however, these views had a pecumeaning.

Hence, too, may be explained the
own.
liar
iii. 15, who mentions it as the

common practice of the Cynics;
S. Aug. Civ. Dei, xiv. 20, who
does not altogether credit it,

but does not improve it by his
interpretation.
Yet all these
authorities.
The
story may rest upon
sorae such story as that this
niarried couple once passed a
night in the aroa TroiKiK-q, or
else upon the theoretical assertion of some Cynic pbiloso-
are
later
whole
phers, tliat a public consummation of nuptials was permissible.

On the other hand, we
have no reason to doubt what
Diog. 97 states, that Hipparchia went about in
public
dressed as a man.
As we gather from the dialogues of Socrates with Aristodemus and Euthydemus, Xen.
Mem. i. 4 iv. 3 not to men'
tion Critias.
{d) Re-
^.'f^^^J^f

Chap.
XIII.
and
sharp
popular
hostile
attitude
of the
Cynics to the
which they so distinctly deviated

from the example of Socrates. The wise man, indefaith, in
pendent of everything external, cannot possibly be

dependent on a traditional faith. He cannot feel
pledged to follow popular opinions, or to connect his
well-being with
customs and devotional practices,

which have nothing to do with his moral state.
Thus in religious matters the Cynics are decidedly on
the side of free thought.
The
existence of a G-od
they do not deny, nor can their wise
one
without
but they object to a number of gods resembling

popular gods, owing, as they say,^ their existence
men
man do
to tradition
in reality there
is
but one God, who
resembles nothing visible, and cannot be represented
by any symbol.^
The same reasoning holds good
In this way we must explain the free thought of Aristodemus, Mem. i. 4, 2, 9-11
14 who is also described by
Plato, Symp. 173, B., as a kindred spirit to Antisthenes.
Cie. N. D. i. 13, 32: 'Antisthenes in eo libro, qui physicus
inscribitur,
populares
\_v6ix(i}']
Deos multos, natura'
lem [(^vaet] unum esse dicens,'

which is repeated by Minnc.
Fel. Oct. 19, 8, and Lact. Inst.
i. 5,
Clemens, Protrept.
epit. 4.
46, C, and also Stromat. v.

"
Apt icr 9 evrjs
601, A., says:
Oehu ou5ej/t ioiKeuai (prjaiv 5i07rep
.
'
axnhv ohZels
Svyarai.
i.
p. 14
ToD 0oD
75,
Trepi
iKiJ.a9e7u
Ik6vos
e|
cIkovos
Tlieod. Cur. Gr. Affect.

:
'AvTto'fle'i/Tjs
TcDi/
....
oXoov j8o5
o.ir)i
oh yt/wpiêTai, ocpdaXfxois
oux dparai, ovSeul
eoiKe
dionep
avThv ovSels
iKjxaBelv e|
of
elKoyos
Ad
Xat. ii. 2:.

In reply to the question. Quid'
dvuarai.
Te-rtull.
in coelis ag-atur ? Diogenes replied

Xunquam ascendi to;
the question, Whether there;
;
were any Gods ? he answered
Nescio nisi ut sint exj)edire.

No very great dependence can,
it is true, be placed in Tertullian's sayings.
Id. Apol. 14
Ad. Nat. i. 10 Diogenes nescis

quid in Hereulem ludit, without, however, giving furthei,
particulars.
Compare whai
r
was said
' The
of Socrates, p. 175.
CiTiics are therefore
Atheists in the ancient sens(

of the term, i.e. they deniec
the Gods of the state, althougl
from their point of view thej
were certainly right in reject
ing the charge of atheisBi
CYNIC RENUNCIATION OF RELIGION.

the worship of the gods.
pleasing
God by
stition.
Wisdom and
virtue
wise
is
but one way of

everything else is superis
make
uprightness
and friends of the gods.

secure their favour
There
329
What
is
us followers
generally done fo
worthless and unmeaning.
The
man
honours Grcd by virtue, and not by sacriwhich Grod does not require.^ He knows that a
temple is not more holy than any other place.^ He
does not pray for things which are considered goods
fice,i
by the unwise
not for riches, but for righteousness.^
Herewith the ordinary notion respecting prayer

is also surrendered
for everyone owes virtue to his
own exertions. Hence Diogenes may be understood
ridiculing prayers and vows.^
The same sweeping
;
judgment
prophets.^
biting
pronounced on
is
The mystic
oracles, prophecy,
rites
also
and
were assailed with
scorn/ both by Diogenes and Antisthenes
these philosophers, as far as religious views are

conNothing folio ws from the anec-
and
Dwg. 37 42.
\Julmn, Or. vi. 199, B., excusmg Diogenes because of his
man the most intelligent
dotes
povcrt}^
entercd
sacrifice.
says that
he never
temple or offered
Crates, {h\d. 200, A.,
promises to honour Hermes and

the Muses oh â.ix6.vais rpvip^pats,
oAA ap.rahdaiais.
philosophers,
he
thinks
beinff
but looking at interpreters of

dreams, or prophets, or credulous l)elievers in them, he considers him the most foolish of
creatures.
Similar statements
in Z>?V>.7. 43
48; Theod. Cur
Gr. Alf. vi. 20, p.' 88
and IXo
Or. x. 2
17.
Antisthenes ap^
pears also in Xen. Sym. 8, 5, to
have doubts upon the subject
;
bee p. 315, 2.
/iTjSeV
^QQ^Dwf). 73
rt
ftTOTTov ilvai e'l Upoi rt Ka^tlv
* See the prayer of Crates in
-
Juhan 1. c. and Diog. 42.

* Compare the anecdotes
^TiIn'Û
^'^'o.
Biog.
24
in
of the âiix6viou of Socrates, but

no conclusion can be formed
from a joassage so jocular.
'
Diog. 4 39 4'^- Pint Aud
.
he says that,
1
looking at pilots, physicians.
^^'^^-
^'
P-
trept. 49, C.
21
;'
Clemens', Pro^
Chap.
^"-
'
330
Chap.
^^"-
holding a perfectly independent attitude

towards the popular faith. Not but that they gladly
took hold of points which mythology supplied for their
cerned,
own arguments, taking all the more occasion to do so,in

proportion to the earnestness of their desire to influence
the masses Antisthenes being aided in so doing by the
:
which he had previously enjoyed.^

The various traditions must all be explained in har-
sophistical training
mony
with this view.
Hence we
find Antisthenes
in no small degree engaged in allegorical interpretations of the myths and the poets, and in an expla-
nation of Homer, which he committed to writing in

^
numerous volumes.^ Looking for a hidden meaning
disin legendary stories, he was everywhere able to
cover moral teaching,and to build on moral reflections.*
Indeed, by laying down the further axiom, that the

he
poet does not always express his own sentiments,^
1
Symp.
For the allegorical inter-
pretations of that period consuit Krische, Forsch. 234 Xen.

Sym. 3, 6 Plato, The^tet. 153,
G' Rep ii 378, D. lo, 530,
a! Phsedrus, 229, C. and
ZeUer\<i Phil. d. Griech. i. 930,
3; also pp. 755, 831; Stoics,
D.
3,
Plato, Rep.
lo, 530, C.
ii.
378,
he enquired in what sense iroXvrpoOn,

Tria was meant for praise.
Od. v. 211; vii. 257, he remarked, that no rehance could
be placed upon lovers' promises. In II. xv. 123, he found
^^
^
his doctrine of the oneness of
twelve
Bioo 17, mentions
See the passages
virtue.
on
his
of
volumes
thirteen
or
WinTielmann,
p. 23-28.
of
Homer and various portions
' Bio Chrys. Or. lin. 5, says
one
and
poems,
Homeric
the
Here, too, that whereas the same had been
on Amphiaraus.
on Hercu- previously said of Zeno, 6 Sc
treatises
belong the
x6yos olros 'Kvnfevovs .(TtI
Julian, Or. vii. 209, A.
les.
irpSTcpov, on ra fiev SO^v "ra <>
testifies
also
A.,
217,
215, C
etp'orai to) Troivrfj- a\\
to the 'fact of his frequently aX-nO^la.
iêipyaffaro avrhv, o 5
ovk
&
Xrische,
See
n.^
myths.
usin<^
"^
rwv inl fi^povs eOT)eKua-rov
Kaff
243
Xaxnv,
The virSvoia 01 îdpoia. Xen.
;
'
Thus on Od.
i.
1,
CYNIC INFLUENCE ON THE WORLD.

had
no
difficulty
Traces of
tliis
finding
in
anything anywhere.
allegorical interpretation
found in Diogenes.
.331
may
^^^^'
also be
Yet the Cynics do not seem
Chap.
to
have carried this process nearly so ftir as the Stoics \^

which is also quite natural, Cynic teaching being
very imperfectly expanded,^ and
activity being with
From
the above
them very
tlie taste for
learned
small.
be seen in what sense the
it will
E. Their
Cynics spoke of the self-sufficingness of virtue.

The
wise man must be absolutely and in every respect
independent; independent of wants, of desires, of
prejudices and of after-thoughts.
l^'flfie''^
tvorld.
The devotion and
strength of will with which they compassed this end,

has certainly something grand about it.
Disregarding, however, the limits of individual existence,
and putting out of sight the conditions of a natural

and a moral life, the Cynic grandeur borders on pride,
and their strength of principle on
out of all proportion
is
self-will.
value
attached to the form of
life,
to such an extent that they again
become dependent
The sublime becomes
and every humour at last claims to be
on external circumstances.
ridiculous,
honoured as being higher wisdom.
who-
Plato, or
who called Diogenes a Socrates gone mad,

was not far wrong in what he said.'^
ever it was
According: to Stoh. Floril.

he explained the legend
Medea boiling up the old
29, 02,
pf
into young to mean that, by

bodily exercise, she made effeminate men young again.
2 Dio
says this expressly,
ind little has come down to us
Df Cynic interpretations.
Even their Ethics are

scanty enough, and their systern gave no opportunity for
those lengthy, physical discussions, on which the Stoics
=>
were so great.
^JUany V.
H.
xiv. 33
Diog,
vi. 54.
'^
THE SO CRATIO
332
SOTIOOLS.
Chap.
Notwithstanding these pretensions, the indepen-
r___!
dence of these philosophers was not so great that they

could dispense with every relation to others.
It
was
only natural that they should wish to see all virtuous

persons united as friends*/ and, besides, they considered
the wise man's business to raise
it
mankind
own
to his
others, they sought for
people,
desiring,
work
them
bring a lax and
to
effeminate nation back to the days of moral
slaves of pleasure,
The Cynic
pride.2
of
he considers
Biog. 11
koX
yap
Se fxdvov
ipaaBTja-ea-Oai
(lb4uai
rhi/
are
fools,'
a physician to heal their dis-
is
his mission
it
men
strict--
from self-conceit and
suffering
a guide to lead them to what
ease,^
The mass
and simplicity.
ness
with'
as educators of their
possible,
if
of
Anxious not to monopo-
level.
the blessings of virtue, but to share
lise
tlie rest
crocphv,
Hence
is good."*
to care for the outcast
praising the Spartans, replied

uvSe yap laTpha vyieias &v TToimi-
ripccv -xpv ^p4^.

12: aîepafrros
ayados
ai
ffnovdaôi (piKoL.
6
Khs eu to7s vyiaivovffi t)]v diarpi-
Antislhenes
genes
'
wrote
and an
'EpwTjKos
{Diog.
14;
both
an
'Epw/xevos
and he had
18),
mentioned love in his Hercules

{Prool. in Ale. 98, 6
Winckelmanti, p. 16), An 'EpwriKbs of
Diogenes is also mentioned,
Diog. 80.
See p. 314.
^ Biog. 4
'h.wriaQfvns ipaoTn;
jS'/jv
Troielrai.
calls
V. Auct.
8,
Accordingly, Diohimself in Lucian^

iXevOepwTT^s roov av-,
twv iva6uv,BXidi
he expresses astonishment in
Bpuircav Kollarphs
Dio. Or. viii. 7, that men le s

frequently apply to him, the
healer of souls, than they do to
an
oculist or dentist.
when asked why he remained
When Diogenes was purchased by Xeniades, he is said

to have told Xeniades that he.
would have to obey his slave,
just as in another case hej
would have to obey a pilot or'
physician. JDiog. 30 36 conf.i
Flut. An. Vitios. c. 3, p.(
74
Philo^'
499 Stob. Flor. 3, 63
in Athens, whilst he was always
Qu.
Qeis
Sm
ti
eVtTTA.i^TTet,
iriKpcbs
Kal
Tots Kdjxvovaiv
ol
rots fxadr^ra'Ls
larpoi,
Ihid, 6:
larpoi
(pi}(n,
fxera
elaip,
dAA.'
oi)
rwy
<py](Ti,
Ka\ oi
vocrovuTcov
irvperTovcriv.
In
Stab. Floril. 13, 25, Diogenes,
Omn.
Pr. Lib. 833, E.
CYNIC INFLUENCE ON THE WORLD.
and despised, only the sick needing a physician,^

and
no more fears contamination from such
intercourse
Chap.
i^L
than the sun fears impurity from shining

in the
dirtiest haunts.
The improvement of mankind, however, is no

easy task.^
He who will be saved must hear the
truth nothing being more destructive
than flattery.-*
;
Yet truth
always unpleasant
is
an incensed
enemy
friendly service,
or a real friend dare tell
This
it.^
the Cynics propose
them
a good kind of
Agreeable to bear with

)f
no good to any
one.ô
man
being always dishe who annoys no one is
was moreover a principle

)f theirs to pitch their demands
both in word and
example above what they really wanted,
because
It
men
)nly imperfectly
conform to them.^^ Thus they pressed

.hemselves on friends and strangers alike
with their
^xhortations,i2
^j^^^j^
Diogenes,
According to Ejyict. iii. 24,

Diogenes read a lesson to
he pirates who captured him.
t cannot however, liave
done
luch good, for they sold him
>
'6,
'
otwithstanding; and the story
and above, p. 332, 3.

and p. 332, 3.
'^-'
^"^/'?; 1;. ^\'
in
V?//
P 'a ^"^j-^^h^^Jf
hU. VH
\it. Pud.
c. 18,
E.,
^J/>y. 63,
nwg.
4,
p.
g,
Diogenes
Damasc.
ân.
Exc. e Floril.
31, 22
rh
ii.
Kvees^^LKpdu iaTL Hal i.vdh roTs

'OT/To.j
It IS like light to
lose
to render to
If in so doing they give offence,
matters
tnankind.7
aot to
none save either
;5
who have weak
eyes.
in
particular,
in-
See p. 319, 3
Diogenes in Stoh. Flor 13
26:
ol fi'.v
Opohs
&\Xol
k{,v,s
SdKuovaiu,
iycb
rohs eV8k rohs
<pi\ovs, 'Lva aciao,.
Seep 818
TeTo^.-Antisth.
in Philo
Omn.
'
On
Pr. Lib. 869, C

'" IriPlut.
Virt. Mort. c 12
g, E., p. 452, Diogenes say.s of
Plato rl 5' eVeu-oj lê. alf^yhv,
:
ovUua
K,\{,iry^K,u
" See
p.
308,
1.
'^
Compare what Dioq vi 10
saysofAntisthenes,andvi'4
46; 65 of Diogenes
also
;
XIII.
a34
Chap.
manner,^ although more gentle

traits are not altogether wanting.^ At the same time
stilled in the coarsest
the coarseness of their manner was somewhat relieved by their humour in which Diogenes and Crates
more
They loved
particularly excelled.
serious teaching in the
to clothe
form of a joke, or of poetry,'
to hurl sharp-pointed words* at the folly of mankind ;^ Diogenes even, like the oriental prophets,
and
giving greater force to his utterances by symbolical
and thus attracting
actions,
No
them
for
attention.^
doubt the position occupied by the Cynics
the Greek world
a peculiar one.
is
Eidiculed because
of their eccentricities,^ and admired for their

Lucian V. Auct.
Because
10.
gym,
5
self-
Progym. c. 3;
Mcol. Pro5
Hermog.
Theo. Progym.
of his importunity, Crates received the name of Qvpeiro.voiPhut. Qu.

86
Kr-ns.D'wg.
in
c.
c. 3.
Abundant
examples
of
Conv.
ii.
632
4, p.
1, 7,
these ways of the Cynics are*

to be found in the a7ro(p6hixa'a
of Diogenes, in his sixth book,
Hee
and in Stobaûs' Floril.
Apul-
'
Floril. iv. 22.

1
24
Diog.
32
46
Damasc.
Floril. Jo.
Ex. e
7, 43.
i.
The
attractiveconversation of
ness of the
Antisthenes and
also
Diogenes
commended,
Biog.
is
14.
Conf. Xen. Symp. 4, 61.

3 See Diog. 27
85 De83
261
259
170
Blocut.
de
metr.
Plut. Tranqu. An. 4, p. 466;
Jidian, Or. vii. 209, a Antisth.
;
;_
^fia
Sia
rwv
Similarly,
fxvOcou
IMd.
a'n-^77fXAe.
215, c
217, a.
Frag. Plut. Prof, in Virt. c. 11,

Virt. Doc. c. 2, p. 439
p. 82
Coh. Ira, c. 12, p. 460 Curios.
Cup. Div. c. 7,
c. 12, p. 521
An.
Exil. c. 7, p. 602
p. 526
Seni. s. Ger. Rep. i. 5, p. 783
De Alex,
conf. Prrec. c. 26, 141
Epict. Diss
Virt. c. 3, p. 336
;
being received with friendly

words of warm com fort instead of the violent language
he expected.
Antisth.
Winckelmann,
also
2 Plut. De Adul. 28, p. 69,

relates that when Demetrius
Phalerius, after his banishment, fell in with Crates, he
was not a little surprised at
'.
iii.
2,
11
xviii. 13, 7
Gell.
not
TeHuUian, Apol. 39;

mention others.
tc
6 See Diog. 26
31
39 64
41 (the lantern) Stoh. Flor. 4
This eccentricity become
84.
a caricature in Menedemm^
;
Diog. 102.
' Diog. 83, 87, 93.
CYNIC INFLUENCE ON THE WOULD.

denial, despised as beggars,
oor:
and feared as moralists,
Chap.
of contempt for the follies, of pity for the moral

miseries of their fellow men, they met both the
_J^^
full
wisdom and the effeminacy of
their time with the
rude vigour of a resolute will, hardened even to insensibility. Possessing the pungent, ever ready native
wit of the plebeian, benevolent, with few wants, full
of whims and jokes, and national even to their very
they resemble in
the Middle Ages;i nor can
dirtiness,
withstanding
all their
many ways
in
many
it
points the friars of ^
be doubted that, not-
extravagances, their action was
For all that, philosophy

could expect but little from this mendicant philosophy.
Not until it had been supplemented by other
elements,
beneficial.
regulated
and received into connection
with a wider
view of the world in the Stoa, was

Cynicism able to bear fruit on a large scale. The
Oynic School, as such, appears to have had only a very
aarrow extension, a fact which will not appear strange,
ionsidering
the
terrible
seAêrity
of
its
demands.
Besides it was incapable of philosophic expansion,*
md
even
was chiefly of a negative

and the follies of
nen.
It required independence and self-denial, but
t separated man from man. It placed the individual
entirely by himself, thus offering play to moral pride,
character.
its
practical action
It attacked the vices
Cynics really have a

connection with the
aonks of Christendom.
The
\^^. ^ct'^'een the two is tlie
'ynicism of the time of the
'aesars, and the late Pythago'
Tlie
listorical
rean asceticism, which exercised,

panly directly and
partly through the Essenes, so
important an
influence 'on
eastern monasticism.
\
'
336
Chap.
^^"-
vanity,
and the most capricious whims, which were
not
miindulged.
left
The
abstract sovereignty of the
personal will resulted ultimately in individual caprice,

jand thus Cynicism trenched on the ground of the
/
philosophy of pleasure, to which as a system

diametrically opposed.
it
was
THE CYREXAICS.
CHAPTER
337
XIV.
THE CYEENAICS.l
Respecting the Cyrenaic branch
of the Socratic
school, the information
we possess is quite a imperfect, or even more
so, than that which
we
have touching the Cynics.
Aristippus ^ of Cyrene ^
the founder, had been
brought to Athens^ by a call
from Socrates, whose
extraordinary personal
3nce
had unusual attractions
See Wendt,
be Philosophia
.yrenaica, Gott. 1841.

yihe accounts of ancient
md the views of modern
mters on the life of Aristip|us
are found in detail in
y. V. Stein's De Philosophia
^yrenaica, Part, prior, de
vita
^nstippi (Gott. 1855),
which
light to have proceeded
somewhat
more
sceptically.
There
30 are
references to the earlier

terature.
' All authorities
without exJption state this.
His father
called Aritadas by ^wt^.
'Ad/
riTTTros.
^schin. in Biog. ii. Q5, says

'at he came to
Athens /cara
ôy
2.<*>Kp6.Tovs,
and Plut
*
^nos.
2,
516, gives full

^rticulars how at the
Olympic
mes he heard of Socrates
and
p.
influ-
for him,^
although his
his teaching from

Ischomachus,
at once so taken by
and was
it
that he did not rest till

he had
made his acquaintance.
See
Biog. ii. 78 80.
^ Aristippus is
not only universally described as a
follower
or Socrates {Biog. ii.
47 74
80; Strabo, xvii. 3, 22, p.' 837
^'^^^^Êv.xiv. 18,31; Stein.\
;
but he also regarded

himself as such, and
paid a
tribute of most genuine
respect
to his teacher.
According to
Biog li 76, he prayed that
he
p.
-^b),
might die
like Socrates.
Ibid
he says that if anvthing

good can be truly repeated
of
himself, he owes it to
Socrates,
71,
and Ar int. Khet.

b,
29,
says,
riAara-i/a
(i^di'Ta,
ii.
23
'Aplamriros
1398
nphs
eVaryeAri/raSrep^,/
d,s
^fTO-
aWa
;*,>
ri
Chap.
XIV.
A. History
of the
Cijrenaics.
338
Chap.
XIV.
weak
character was too
to endure in the last
trial.'
at that time
Cyrene, his luxurious home, which
and power,^ he had
at the height of its wealth
From
was
removed from the simplicity and

Perhaps he had been
abstemiousness of Socrates.^
Sophistical influences which
already touched by those
At any
in his subsequent career.^
brought habits
far
may
be observed
rate
attained
we may assume that he had
^ra7p6s
W<^v,
^<pyi,
ob^P 7010V.
(which
AeV "^^^ 2KpciTr)i/
TOf,
17,
Steinlmrt, Plat. Leben, 308,
sense,
contrary to the natural
sanguine
refers to Plato's too
expectations of the younger
also see from
Dionysius).
We
that he
Xen. Mem. 1. 2, iii. 8,

was on an intimate footing
and Plato
with Socrates
blaming him, Phaedo, 59, C.,
the circle
for being absent from
the day
of friends who met on
Socrates' death, evidently

to
reckons him as belonging
of
25,
Conf.
circle.
this
who
also, pp.
Stein.,
p.
50 and 74,
groups together the authorities

relations
respecting Aristippus'
Socrates.
to the pupils of
'
Phto,
1.
who however
c,
and
only savs that Aristippus
Cleombrotus
had
been
fertile
MQivi^', that on this
the
on
caroused
they
island
as
day of their master's death,
asserts,
288,
Elocut.
de
Bemetr.
The accuis barely possible.
is
statement
Plato's
racy of
indisputable, notwithstanding
ii.
^5; but
Bioq. iii. 56
whether Aristippus left Athens
his
from excessive regard for
or whether his
;
own
saie+Y,
weakness led
him
to
escape
to a certam
painful
the
interval
pending the death of Socrates

cannot be ascertained.
Cyrenen
2 See Thrifje, Res
slum, 191.
3 This may be gathered tron
Xeii.
Mem.
ii. 1,
1,
in additioi
hi
to the proof afforded by
Aristippu
That
later conduct.
belonged to a wealthy famil;
would seem to be establishec
his whole mode of living
by
and by the journey which h
undertook to Athens.
We might have imagine
that a city so rich and culti
vated as Cyrene (on this poir
see Thrige,
1.
c, p. 340, 354
would not have been neglecte

by the Sophists, even if thei
were no express evidence
prove it. It is, however, know
1
from Plato,
Theastet. 161, B
the celebrate
162, A., that
mathematician, Theodf^rus
Cyrene, was a friend of Pt'
tagoras, and the principles
Proto2:oras are also afterwar
met with in Aristippus. Frof
the zeal with which Aristippj
'^
followed Socrates it may

t^
further conjectured that
study of philosophy was to hi
no new thing.
wish to
HISTORY OF THE CYRENAICS,

maturity of thought when
he
with Socrates.^
It is,
first
therefore,
.339
became acquainted
no cause
for wonder
young man ^ met his teacher
with
considerable amount of
independence,3
that this talented

a
^hole so blindly following
He
is
afterwards
is
peculiarities.
is
lid
not on the
him
as to sacrifice his
own
even said to have come

forward
a teacher before the
death of Socrates;^ that
he
so
ilso
a better established
fact, and
that, contrary to the

principles of his gTeatest
nend, but quite in harmony
with the
practice usual
tmong the Sophists, he

required payment
nstruction.-^
The chronology of his life

very uncertain. Neither the
ime of his birth nor of
have
pay for his instruction.

How
dependence can be placed
upon this story will be
seen
from the fact that Aristippus
which is placed in 361

But Diodorus probably
3rived from
Dionysius his
lecdote about the interview
says in his reply, that

Socrates
did the same, only taking
therefore be relied upon

we are ignorant how old
-istippus was at the
time,
ese accounts are anythino-
)uld appear,
veral years
of Phanias, that
Aristippus
offered to give Socrates
some
ot the money he had
o-ained in
this way
Perhaps,
satisfactory.
IHng. ii. 83,
however,
Phanias said was, that
Aristippus had taken pay,
and
offered it to his teacher,
without however bringing
the two
tacts into closer
temporal con-
According
however, it
an
he was older by
than ^schines
;
It
at
would also appear, from'

has been said p. 337
tJiat
nection.
that at the time he

followed
urates he was independent
his civil relations, and
fur-
that he was connected

h him for several years.
This is what he appears
to
le-<s
Another passage, Diog. ii. 60'

seems to imply, on the authority
accuracy can-
)t
It
is
little
C.
id as
that
;
icily,
Its
all
See Stein., p. 29.

' See Xen.
Mem. ii, 1 iii g
According to Diog] ii. 'so

Socrates blamed him
fortakin-
his
Plato.
been from
ioiown.
eath is known to us.

Accoring to Diodorua, x.v.
76, he
as living in 866 B.C.,
and
'Int. Dio. 19, tells
us that he
let Plato on his
third visit to
ith
for his
In yet another point he

followed the
Phanias
in
Ihid. 72
74
also stated in
Diog.
ii
where
80,
6.5
it
is
what wav he defended this conduct. Alexis

in
Athen.
Pu.
z2
xii. .544, e
7, p.
Phtt.
Edu
Stoh. Exc. e Floril'
Chap,
XIV.
340
Chap.
XIV.
example of the Sophists, by passing a great portion

any fixed abode.'
of his life in various places without
Joan. Damasc. ii. 13, 145 (that
Aristippus is meant here appears from 146 conf. Diog. ii.
Also Xeyi. Mem. i. 2, 60,
68).
appears to have an eye on him.
The amount of these fees is
estimated at 1000 drachmae by
Plutarch, at 500 by Diog. 72.
He says of himself in Xen.

Mem. ii. 1, 13 ouS' ets7ro\/Te/a'
l^vos
KaraifXeico, oXKa
eju-aurbj/
In Plut Virt.
irauToxov d[xi.
Doc. p. 2, p. 439, sorne one asks
;
time the elder Dionysius, at

another the younger Dionysius,
at another simply Dionysius, is
spoken of. Conf. Stein., p. 57.
It is asserted
by the Scholiast
13, that Aristippus was at Syracuse under

This
the elder Dionysius.
statement is borne out by
Hegesander in Athen. xii. 544,
c for the Antiphon there mentioned was (according to Pint.
De Adulat. 27, p. 68) executed
command of the elder
by
to
ei
apa
him iravraxov (fv
The anecdote of
Dionysius.
bad
a
with
replies
which he
in Galen. Exshipwreck
his
later
joke. He is mentioned by
hort, c. 5, must be referred to
bad
doubt
no
often
writers,
It can only
same time.
authorities, as having been in the
first visit to
his
to
belong
Megara,
in
different places:
by Vitruv. vi. Praswhere he met with iEschines Sicily, but
transferred to the
was
fat.
Socr.
Ep.
conf.
(Diog. ii. 62
On this
he island of Khodes.
29) in Asia Minor, where
On the
61.
Stein.
see
point
Persians,
the
was imprisoned by
Dio.
19,
Plut.
hand,
in Corinth, other
(Diog. ii. 79)
with
contact
into
him
brings
Lais
with
where he revelled
third journey
(Hermesianax in Ath. xiii. 599, Plato on Plato's
361
B.C., in the time
Sicily,
to
^gina,
in
Diog. ii. 71)
b
Dionysius. The
where he not only lived for a of the younger
xi. 507, b:
Athen.
in
notices
Soof
time after the death
ii. 66-69, 73, 75, 77-82.
Diog.
to
according
where,
but
crates,
are indefinite, although the
conf. xii.
Athen. xiii. 588, e
there told harmonise
stories
up
took
year
every
544, d, he
the court of the
with
better
with
his residence in company
than witl
Dionysius
younger
where
Scillus,
at
Lais: and
Nothing
father.
his
of
that
him his Me-
on lAician, Men.
Xenophon read
to
morabilia, Ep. Socr. 18. Much

in particular is told of his stay
his
at the court of Syracuse, of
hostile encounter with Plato,
and of many other adventures,
which he there experienced.

But in these notices there is
great confusion, since at one
can however be laid down wit
certainty respecting the visit;

of Aristippus to Sicily. Thai
he visited Sicily may be he
lieved on tradition. That h(
there met Plato is not impos
sible, though it is also possibU
that the account of this meet
HISTORY OF THE CYRENAICS.
Ui
Subsequently he appears to have returned

to his
native city, and to have taken
up his permanent
residence there.^
Here
we
it is
that
The
heiress to his principles
family and his School.^
hear of his
first
was a daughter, Arete, a lady of sufficient

education
to instruct her son,^ the younger
Aristippus,^ in his
ing was invented in order to
out the contrast between
both philosophers.
In fact,
Plato's journeys to Sicily
were
a favourite topic for later
anecbring-
dote mongers.
.he
above
But anyone of
taken by
must be accepted
stories,
tself alone,
caution
nor is it even
jertain that he visited
both
he Dionysiuses.
When the
ounger one came to the throne
368 B.C.) he was at least 60
-ears of age, and yet most
of
he stories which are told
apAîth
'car to
have reference to him.
)n the other
hand, Aristippus
here appears in a character
etter suited to his years
of
ravel than to his later
years,
'lie
valueless as a historical testi-
mony, nor does
it even render
the existence of a corresponding tradition probable; and
the hypothesis based on Diog.
ii. 62, that Aristippus
flourished
at Athens in 356 has been with
justice refuted by Stein., p. 82.
accidents of
Aristippus
nd Plato probably went the
)und as anecdotes, without
ly attention having been paid
between
their historical connection

id when this was done
)
by
ibscquent biographers, it beime impossible to find out

bat was fact.
Whether this stay was

ortened by frequent travels,
blether Aristippus
died in
rrene or elsewhere, and
how
Qg he lived, are points unlown.
For the journey to
eily in 361 b.c. is,
as we
Leben, 305, 33,
Stei)iliart, Plat.
proposes to read
'Api(rTor4\r} for
'Aplariinroi/ in Bioff. ii. 62, but
the chronology
correction,
be better.
supposed
leeting
'
have seen, uncertain.

The
twenty-ninth letter, which Socrates is
supposed to have
addressed to his daughter from
Lipara after his return, and
in expectation of death, is
is
against this
îrevannroy
Generally called Cyrenaics,
more rarely Hedonists,

Athen.
^
would
vii.
312, f
Who was
as in
xiii. 588, a.
thence called
jxti-
TpoSlSuKTOS.
* Strabo, xvii.
3, 22, p. 837
Clemens, Strom, iv. 523, A.
Ens. Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 32 Theod.
Cur. Gr. Aff. xi. 1
Dwg, ii.
72, 84, 86; Suid. 'ApiaTimros
The mist.
Or.
xxi.
therefore, uElian, H.
244.
Anim.
If,
iii!
Arete the sister of

Aristippus, it must be through
an oversight.
Besides this
daughter he is said to have had
another son, whom he did not
40,
calls
Chap.
XIV.
:>42
<'HAP.
XIV.
grandfather's
Besides
philosophy.
of the elder Aristippus.^

is
said
called the Atheist
daughter,
mentioned as pupils
His grandson, the younger
^thiops and Antipater are

Aristippus,
this
also
have instructed Theodoras,
to
the fruits of Antipater's teaching^
;2
What
Diog. 103.
particularly notorious was his atheism. Indicted
on this account at Athens, he
own, Diog. 81 Stoh. Floril. 76,

Most likely this was only
14.
the child of an kraipa, although
Stobaeus calls his mother a
governor,
wife.
'
know
Diog. ii. 86.
further from Cic. Tusc. v. 38,
112, that Antipater bore the
loss of sight with resignation.
was rescued by Demetrius, but
made him
We
obliged to leave the city (Diog.

The assertion
Philo.).
101
;
of Amphicrates (in Diog. and

Atheri. xiii. 611, a), that he was
put to death by a hemlock-f
draught, is contradictory to all
Cicero tells a somewhat tame

joke.
2 Diog. 86.
This Theodorus
appears to have belonged to
the Optimates, who were driven
from Cyrene in the party
quarrels immediately after the
death of Alexander, and took
refuge with the Egyptian soveThrige, Res. Cyren.
reigns.
We hear of him as an
206.
exile in the last years of the
fourth century (Plut. Be Exil.
Philo,
Diog. 103
16, p. 606
Qu. Omn. Pr. Lib. 884, C), in
Greece, and particularly at
iv.
Athens (Diog. ii. 100, 116
52 vi. 97), where a friend of
Ptolemy's, Demetrius Phalereus, helped him, between 316
and 306 B.C., and subsequently
at the court of Ptolemy, on
whose behalf he xmdertook an
;
embassy to Lysimachus (Diog.

102;
Philo, 1. c,
Valer. vi. 2, 3
Plut. An. Vittos. 3, p. 499
At last he
Stob. Floril. 2, 33).
returned to his own country,
and was there held in great
102;
Cic.
Tusc.
i.
43,
honour by Magus, the Egyptian
we know of him. According

to Antisth. in Diog. 98, he was
a pupil not only of Aristippus
the younger, but also of Anniceris and of the dialectician
however diffi-
Dionysius.
It is
cult to see
how he can
been younger than

Suid. 0eo5.
and Bryso
chers,
have
Anniceris.'
makes Zeno, Pyrrhoi

(see p. 255, 1) his tea^
the
first
one
probablj
reason, the two

mistake.
quite by
with
otheif
Unde:
'kutipar. he makes him a pupi
of Socrates, at the same Htm
confounding him with a mathe'
matician from Cyrene of tb
same name
(see p. 338, 4), whJ

to us through Plate
In Diog. ii. 102, iv. 52, he
called a Sophist, i. e., one wh
took pay for his instruction.
^ According
Diog. 8(
to
through Epitimides of Cyren
and his pupil Paraebates, thlatter of whom is said to havi
studied under Aristippus. Sniii
is
known
ii
'Avi^'iKepis.
HISTORY OF THE CYRENAICS,

were Hegesias
and Anniceris.^
343
These three
men
established separate ])ranches of the Cyrenaic School,

which bore their respective names.^ Amongst the
pupils of Theodorus were Bio the Borysthenite,'' and
perhaps Euemerus, the well-known Greek

'
A cotemporary of Ptolemy
Lagi, who is said to have prohibited him from lecturing,
because he described the ills
jf life so graphically that many
were led to commit suicide.
Cic. Tusc. i. 34, 83
Valer. Max.
/iii. 9, 3;
Plut. Am. Prol. 5,
5. 497.
Suicide was also the
iubject of his book 'AiroKap;
'fpwv,
lame
"iuid.
Cic.
1.
c.
U^KnedvaTos,
Hence
his
Biog.
86,
'Apiar.
Probably also under Ptoleny L, although Suidas, 'Awik.,

)laces him in the time of Alex'^
mder.
i.
Conf. Antisth. in Bioa.

"^
88.
' For the Qeo^dpeioi

and their
caching see Bioff. 97
Calliaachus in Athen. vi. 252, c for
he '\iyii](naKoi, Biog. 93 for the
KvviKipîoi, ibid.
96;
Strabo,
vii. 3, 22, p. 837;
Clemens,
;
trom. ii. 417, B. ; Suid. "Avv'ik.

trabo calls Anniceris 6 doKcbu
TavopBuxrai rrju Kvprji/a'iKrju a'lpeIV KaX Tvapayay^tv avr' avrris t))v
To the Annicereans
elonged Posidonius the pupil,
ad probably also Nicoteles, the
rotlier of Anniceris. Siiid. 1. c.
*
This individual lived at
thens and other places (Bior/.
46, 49, 53
ii. 135). AccordivviKepdav.
'.
ig to
ler,
Biog. iv. 10, wliere, howthe Borysthenite appears
be meant, he was acquainted

Xenocrates.
In Biog. iv.
), 54, ii. 35
Athen. iv. 162, d,
>
ith
rationalist,'^
he appears as a cotemporary of
Menedemus
(see p. 281), and

PersEeus (Zeller's
Stoics, &c.). He appears, therefore, to have lived to the middle
of the third century.
Accord-
the
Stoic
ing to Biog.
iv. 51,
he left the
Academy, which he first frequented, and joined the Cynics

(which reads in our text of
Diogenes as if he had deserted
the Academician Crates, in
order to become a Cynic, but
this is not possible in point of
time
perhaps the original
text meant that by the agency
of Crates he was brought over
from the Academy to Cynicism).
He then turned to Theodore,
and at last to Theophrastus,
Biog. iv. 151. His free thought
and the instability of his moral
;
principles (Biog. iv. 49, 53)

recall the School of Theodore,
in which Numenius in Ens. Pr.
E V. xi V. 6, 5, actually places him.

In other respects he is rather a
literary wit than a philosopher.
See Biog. iv. 46-57, various
sayings of his in Plutarch.
* Euemerus of Messene,
according to the most numerous
and approved authorities according to others, of Agrigent um, Cos, or Tegea (see
;
Sieroka,
De Euhemero. Konigsbg. 1869, p. 27), is often
mentioned in connection with
Theodorus, Diagoras, and otlier

Atheists {Sieroka, 19, 31). The
Chap.
XIV.
844
Chap.
XIV.
B. Teaching of the
while amongst his
contemporaries was Aristotle of
Cyrene.^
The Cyrenaic teaching, the leading
which
traits of
i^ndoubtedly belonsf to Aristippus,^ like the Cynic,

notion that Theodore was his
teacher rests solely on hypo-
For we have no busi-
thesis.
ness to write Eu-lîxepov in Biog.

ii. 97 instead of 'E-Ki^vpov (with
Nietzsche, Khein. Mus. N. F.
Epicurus derived
XXV. 231).
his views respecting the Gods
mostly from Theodorus' treaA connection

tise irepl deau.
with the Cyrenaic School is
not in itself probable, since
this was the only School which
at that time busied itself with
combating the popular belief.
Doubtless, too, that tame resolution of the myths into history,
for which Euemerus is known,
is also quite after their taste; indeed, the Cynics who, together
with the Cyrenaics, were at
that time the representatives
of free thoiight, did not resort
to natural explanations, but to
In point of time
allegory.
Euemerus may easily have
been a pupil of Theodorus. He
lived under the Macedonian
Cassander (311 to 298 B.C.),
the latter having sent him on
that journey on which he
visited the fabulous island of
pretended to
Panchsea, and
have discovered in a temple
there the history of the Gods,
the account of which is given
Diodor.
in his hpa avaypa<p-f].
Phd.
in Bus. Pr. Ev. ii. 2, 55
'
De
Is.
23,
p.
360.
this
Copious
work are
extracts from
found in Diodorus,v. 41-46, and
fragments of the translation
undertaken by Ennius, or of a
revision of this translation in
Lactant. Inst. i. 11, 13 (see
Vahlen, Ennian. Poes. Eeliq.,
p. xciii. f)
17, 22,
c.
1.
169.
Shorter notices of the contents of his treatise in Cic.

N. D. i. 42, 119, followed by
also
Minue. Fel. Octav. 21, 2
in Straho, ii. 3, 5
4, 2
p. 102,
104; vii. 3, 6, p. 299; Plut.
Athen. xiv. 658, e Sext.
1. c.
Math. ix. 171, 34 Aug. C. D.
Ep. 18 Serm. 273, 3
vii. 26
Higgin. Poet. Astron. ii. 12, 13,
See also SieroTta and
42, D.
Encykl. v.
Steinhart, Allg.
Ersch. d. Gr. i. vol. 39, 50;
3IuUer, Frag. Hist, Graec. ii.
;
100.
According to Diog. ii. 113,

president of a philosophical
School in the time of Stilpo,
Dioapparently at Athens.
genes there calls him Kuprivaik6s.
jElian, however, V. H.
X. 3, in recording a saying of
his, calls
him
Kvp-qvaios.
He
is
probably the Cyrenaic, who,

according to Diog. v. 35, wrote
a treatise Trepl koi-qti.kwv. A saying in Stoh. Floril. 63, 32, belongs to him according to some
MSS., but to Aristippus according to Cod. B.
2 The thing is not altogether
undisputed. Eus. Pr. Ev. xi^.
18, 31, f, says of the elder
Aristippus, without doubt on
the authority of Aristocles
aAA.' ou5e* txkv ovrws eV t^ (pauepw
irepl TeAous SteAeâro, Svyd/J-ei. 5e
TEACHING OF THE CYRENAICS.

up the practical side of the philosophy of Socrates.
Of Aristippus too, and his pupils, it was
takes
T^s evSaifiovlas rr]u v-nScraaiu

eKeyfv iv r}5ova7s Keladai.
del
yap \6yovs irepl rjdoi^rjs Troiovfie-
lists of the
of
Aristippus, which
agree in the main, and one of
vovs (Is VTToypiav 7^76 tovs irpoaiSu-
which was acknowledged by

Sotion and Panaetius.
Theo-
Tos avrcf rov \4yeiv reXos iivai

Th 7]^((ios Cfjf^ and of the younger
one, ts Kal (Tacpws wpiaaro t4\os
ehai rh ijdeoos (rju, r]Sovy}v iuToiTrwv t)]v Kara Kivrjoiv.
This
testimony appears to be further
corroborated by the fact that
Aristotle, in refuting the doctrine of pleasure, Eth. x. 2,
does not mention Aristippus,
but Eudoxus, as its representative.
To this must be added
what Sosicrates and others,
according to Diog. 84, maintained, that Aristippus left no
'
writings which would at least

point to a lower development
of his teaching.
Diog. ii. 64
does not quite prove so much
;
iravTcav
/xeuToi
ruu
'S.wKpariKuiu
Sia\6ya)u Trauairios aXridels dvai

SoK(7 TOVS UKaTuuos, s.euocpcovTOs,
ÂvTiaOei/ovs, AjVx'Vou
for, ac:
cording
to
84
our
in
text,
Pansetius is quoted as an authority for a number of dialogues of Aristippus. It may

therefore be asked with Bran-
whether in 64,
Aristippus' name has not been
omitted by some oversight on
the other hand, Aiarpiâl were
dis,
ii.
a,
92,
hardly dialogues cf. SuseviiJil,

Rhein. Mus. N. F. xxvi. 338.
For these reasons Bitter, ii. 93,
supposes that the views of
Aristippus were not reduced to
a connected form till a later
:
time.
crates
The assertion of Sosihowever appears to be
without foundation
for Dio-
genes gives two
works
pompus knew
of writings of
according to AtJien. xi.
508, c, he accused Plato of
plagiarism from the diatribes
of Aristippus.
Allowing then
that subsequent additions were
made to the writings of Aristippus, it cannot be supposed
that the whole collection is
spurious.
Perhaps in ancient
times, and in Greece proper,
these writings were less diffused
than those of the other followers of Socrates. This fact
may easily be explained, supposing the greater part of them
not to have been written till
Aristippus had returned to his
native country. It may also be
the reason why Aristotle never
mentions Aristippus; perhaps
he omitted him because he included him among the Sophists,
his, for
Metaph. iii. 2, 996, a, 32. The

remarks of Eusebius can only
be true in one sense, viz., that
the elder Aristippus does not
use of the expression
Te'Aos, and does not put his sentences in the form which subsequently prevailed in the
make
Schools. That he recommended

pleasure, that he declared it to
be a good in the most decided
manner, that thus the leading
features of the Cyrenaic teaching are due to him, cannot be
doubted, taking into account
the numerous witnesses which

it, nor would the unity
affirm
345
Chap.
XIV.
346
asserted, as well as of the Cynics, that they neglected
Chap.
XIV.
questions touching nature and logic, giving to the
(1) Their
general
gtudy of ethics
Nor is
exclusive value.
this assertion
*^
disproved by the fact that they were themselves unable to keep clear of theory, the sole object of their
teaching being to establish ethics, and indeed their

own exclusive pursuit of ethics.^ The end to be secured
by philosophy
is
the happiness of mankind.
point Aristippus and Antisthenes agree.
On
this
Antisthenes,
his School be otherwise

Doubtless
comprehensible.
Plato wrote the Philebus with
an eye to this philosopher, and
Speusippus had written on
Tii/es
Aristippus, Diog.
Diog. ii. 92
fieXriov ^ X^'fo*' Xiyeadai irdvra,

Ttts Se fiaQ-qpLariKOLS ovQiva iroiila6ai x6yov Trept ayadcou /cot KaKcav.
of
acpiaravTo
Te'xJ'ais,
8s
(pvaiKwi/ 5ia
fxivr]v aKaraKri^îlav, tccv St
KoX SeicnSaiixovias iKxhs eluai Koi
rhu
rhv
TTcpl
irepl
Qai/oLTOv (pdjSov
11
^K^^vynv
a7a0a)V Koi KaKoov x6yov
eKfieixad-qKOTa.
hoKOvcTL 8e
Sext. Math. vii.
Kara rivas Koi
ot
airh T7}9 Kvp-i]vr\s fxovov hairdêaOai
rh
riOinhu fxepos TrapairefXTreiv 5e rb
Kol rh KoyiKhv ws fx-qhev

rh euBaiiJioyws fiiovp crvvepPlut. in Dus. Pr. Ev. i.
yovvra.
'ApldTLinros 6 Kvpr]va7os
8, 9
(pvcriiihu
irphs
5e
KaKwu
&Wr]v
irepiypd<pei,
ôvov
Tf'Aos ayat^cou rriu ridovrju,
Se T7)V
aXyri^6va,
(pvaioKoyiav
t')]]/
uxpÂifMOV eJvai XkytJiv rb frjTeij/
/cat
[ret?
"Otti Toi eV jxeydpoKTi Ka.K6u t'

hyaddv re rervKrai, which is also
told of Socrates and Diogenes.
Arist. Met. ii. 2, 996, a, 32:
&cre Sia ravra r&y ffoipicruv
fxadrj/JLaTiKas
ydp Tats 6.Wais
rals fiavavaois,
KoX
T^KTOVIKY)
r^" e/xâivoAoyiKwu
Me5ia Try*' euxpTVcrrmv TjTrrotTO.
'koI KAetrdâxos
\4aypos Se
(paalu avrovs axpi?o'Ta r)ye7<rQoLi 76 re (pvaiKhv fxfpos koI rh
8ia\eKTiK6u. dvi/acrdai yapev Keyîv
ruv
Kcu
avrds
eTTicTTi^/ias] iv jjiif
iv. 5.
:
oiou ÂpicrTiinro^ TrpoeTrrjAa-
Ki(ou
oiov
8l6ri
aKVTlKTJ,
The same in Alex, on the passage Schol. in Arist. 609, b, 1

1078,
Ps. Alex, on Met. xiii. 3
Syrian
Ihid. 817, a, 11
a, 33
in Metaph. Arist. T. V. 814, b,
Compare the
6; 889, b, 19.
language of Aristippus in Diog.
Plut. Ed. Pr. 10, 7.
ii. 71, 79
2 According to the sense in
which it is understood, it is
equally true to say that they
set logic aside and that they
made use of it. See p. 347, 2.
Of what was afterwards called
logic, they appropriated just as
much as was necessary for their
theory of knowledge, but they
assigned no independent value
to it, nor did they extend their
study of it beyond what was
wanted for their purposes.
Conf. Sen. Ep. 89, 12 Cyrenaici naturalia cum rationalibus
sustulerunt et contenti f uerunt
moralibus, sed hi quoque, quae
removent, aliter inducunt.
;
GENERAL POSITION OF THE CYRENAICS.

however, knows of no happiness which does not immediately coincide with virtue, and thus makes virtue
the only object in
life.
U7
Chap.
XIV.
Aristippus, on the other hand,
considers only enjoyment an end in itself,
and only
pleasure an unconditional good,^ regarding everything
good and desirable only in as far as it is a
means to enjoyment.^ Both Schools therefore at the
else as
commencement diverge
very
in opposite directions,
their divergence, however, not preventing their subse-
quent approach to a greater extent than might seem

at first sight to be possible.
The ground thus occupied was worked out by

Aristippus and his pupils as follows.^
Perceptions,
(2) Feelthe
only object
in-/s
of know-
Aristippus in Xeii. Mem. ii.

iâvrhv tolwv totto) ets
1, 9
Tovs ôvAofjLfvos ]7 paara re Kal
'
^Siarra fiioreveiu.
Cio. Acad. iv.

voluptatem sumbonum esse voluerunt
131
42,
mum
alii
quorum princeps
Ibid.
Fin.
87
Biof/.
ii.
6,
rjSopiiv
Aristippus.
18;
39;
13,
...
Kal
pus in mind will be presently
shown in- respect of the Philebus, and it is therewith proved

for the Republic, which refers
to the Philebus.
' Biog.
ii. 91
ayadhv
/xey
tV
^p6vr\(nv
Kiyovaiv. ov Si
:
eJiâi
aWa
eavTTju 8e aipT7}v,
avTTJs irfpLyivo/xeya.
Slo,
92
rh e|
Kal rhy
t4Aos ehai, 88
i] tjSovt] Sl' avrr\v
alpeT-)] Kal ayaddu.
Athen. xii.
vAovTOv
644,a:['Api(rTt7r7ros] d7ro5e|a|Uej/05
116 Cyrenaici atque Annicerei philosophi nominati omne bonum in voluptate

posuerunt virtutemque censuerunt ob eam rem esse laudan-
tV
T]^vTTaQiiau ravrriv
Ka\
f<p-n
iv avrrj
PefiKrjaOai.
tû
Emeb.
r4\os eiuai
evSai/jLOviav
1.
296,
c. p.
The same view is mentioned

and attacked by Plato, Gorg.
I.
491, E.
Rep.
vi. 505, B.
(See
above
p. 312,. 1), and Pliilebus,

B., where it is thus des-
II,
cribed
(hai
Kal
4>iA7?/3os fxfv To'ivvv
(pr](Ti
tV
ayaOhu
to x^'^P^^v iraai
(^wois
Kal Tepxpiu Kal
7]Sovr,i/
oaa
Tov yfvous eVri tovtou (Tvyicpwva,

Ibid. (iO, i).
TayaBhu iridfTu
'n^'iv 7]5oi/^v ehai iraaav Kal iravrtXri.
Tluit Plato had Aristip:
oil
5t'
be TToi-qriKhv rjdouris elyai
aurhi/ alperhv
Off. iii. 33,
oi^ra.
C'ic.
dam, quod efficiens esset volTo this sentence of
uptatis.
Aristippus,
28, and Ast
the Phffido,
reason.
It
Wendt, Phil. Cyr.

tlie passage of
68, E., but without
refer
refers
to
common
unphilosophical virtue.
^ The Cyrenaics divided
their
ethics into live parts.
Math.
TTfadai
11
T0VT0V5
vii.
Sejct.
Kahoi Trfpnpf.
ivioi vevofi'iKaaiv
ledge.
348
Chap,
'
a change within ourselves, do not

supply us with the least information as to things in
beinsf
feelins^s of
We may
themselves.
be indeed conscious of having
a sensation of sweetness, whiteness, and so forth
but whether the object which causes the sensation

sweet, or white,
is
unknown to
is
One and the same
us.
thing often produces an entirely different effect upon

different persons.
How
then can we be sure, that in
any given case, whether owing to the nature of our

organism or to the circumstances under which we
receive the impression, things do not appear to us
entirely different
from what they are in themselves
Knowledge, therefore,
is
limited to our
own
feelings
we are never mistaken but of things

themselves we know absolutely nothing.^
Just
as to these
e| S}v rh 7]Qlkov ^laipovffiu eXs re
rhp
alpeTWf Koi (pivKT^v

Toirov KoX els rhv irepl tuii/ iraOcci/
Koi eri els rhv rrepl toov Trpdêwu
Koi ^Stj rbv irepl loiv alrioo!/, Kal
reXevralov eh rhv Trepl rcou iriareuiw ev tovtois yap 6 irepX alriwv
Trepl twj/
T6'iros,<paa\v, 4k
tov
4>v(tlkov fiepovs
irvyxay^y, o 5e irepl iriffreuu eK

TOV AoyiKov. Sen. Ep. 89, 12
(according to what has been
said, p. 346, 2) in quinque enim
partes moralia dividunt, ut una
sit de fugiendis et expetendis,
altera de adfectibus, tertia de
actionibus, quarta de causis,
:
quinta de argumentis caus

rerum ex naturali parte sunt,
argumenta ex rationali, actiones ex morali. We cannot,
however, tie our faith to this
account, not knowing how the
subject was divided among
these several parts, nor how old
:
?
;
in
as
and universal the division is.

That it was not made by Aristippus may be gathered from
the statements as to his writings.
In the division irepl iriffTecau probably the theory of
knowledge was treated, and in

the preceding one the theory of
motion.
Cic. Acad. ii. 46, 143 aliud
judicium Protagore est, qui
putet id cuique rerum esse, quod
cuique videatur aliud Cyrenaicorum, qui prseter permotiones intimas nihil putant esse
judicii.
Ibid. 7, 20 de tactu,
et eo quidem, quem philosophi
interiorem vocant, aut doloris
aut voluptatis, in quo Cyren^
putant veri esse judiPhit. adv. Col. 24, 2, p.
aici solo
cium.
1120
\_ol
KvprjuaiKoll
t^
ira0rj
koI ras (pauraaias ev avrois Tidev-
res
ovk ôvto rriv
a-rro
tovtwv
FEELINGS THE SUBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE.
349
do we know of the feelings of other

people.
There may be common names, but there are no
comlittle
vtffTiv
TcDy
elvai SiapKrj irphs
ras
uTrep
TvpayixaTuv
KaraPf/SatcCaeis,
&AA.' LiJTTfp iu KoXiopiiia rcbv eKrhs
aTToa-rdi/Tfs elsra irddrj
rh
avTOvs.
TO
5'
iarl
fxT}
ruv eKrhs
TTfpl
Kar^KK^Kxav
(pait/erai
riOe/xeuoiy
TrpoaaTro(paiy6/xi/oi
.
yAvKaiyeaOai
yap Xeyovcri Kal niKpalueadai Kal

(p(t}Ti(eaeai
Kal
aKOTovcrdai
rcvu
vadwy Tovruv eKoiffTOv Tr)i/ î (pyeiau

oiKeiay iv avT^ Kal anfpicnraaToi/
eXOfTOi ft Se yAvKv rh fieAi Kal
'
eaWos
iriKphs 6
vnh iroKXcou
k-.t.A.
ayTifiapTVf)e7<jdai
nal
Bripiov Kal
irpay/xdrui/ Kal dv9piLiv(av, twu jx^v
yXvKavdrivai, just as
a diseased
eye or a mad brain always sees
things different from what they
are.
outu Kal tj/jlcls ^vXo^wTarSu
irXeov
icrri
/UTjSev
rSov
olKeicou
Xa/ii^dueiv
individual impressions
must be said ndyra
rb. <paiv/)fiiva aXridrj
Kal
KaraXr)Trrd. If, on the contrary,
every
name means the thing by which
the impression is produced, all
<paip6(j.va are false and cannot
(paivSneiâ
(Trde-n),
it
be known.
Strictly speaking,
rh irddos T)fuv icni <paiv6Hevov rh 5' Ktos Kal tov irdOovs
fx.6vov
aTTOKaofxeucDV virh ttjs

X^^^-Cvs, Kal
TTOirjTiKhv -rdxa ûeV
$\TrouTwy.
irddeaii/
tj
oOev
5(/|a
ndpTTjTou-
i/xfjLeuouaa
SiaTrjpe?
eKâiuovaa
-rh
tols
ava-
Se
Kal
voXvirpay/uLOuovaa tcJ Kpivîv Kal
iLno<paivendai wepl tcDj/ eKrhs, avTr\v
Te -noXXduis Tapdacrei Kal fxdx^rai
TTphs erepous awh rwv avTwv
ivavTia -rradr} Kal diacpopovs (pavTacrias
XafiRdvouTas.
Math.
Sext.
vii.
who gives the most
19],
detailed
account, but probably to a great
extent jn his own language
(paalv uZv
01
KvprjuaiKol Kpirr}pia
flmi TO, Trddr] Kal fiSua KaraXa/xâvfaBai Kal dxpevara rvyxaj/eii/,
T^v
Se Tr(iroi7]K6TUV
KaToXrjinhv
(Ivai
a-Tov
'6ti
<pa(rl,
Kal
ra
7ra0r? /XTjSer
yap XevKaivoneea,
yXvKaCdfieOa, Swarhv
[x\v
^ yXvKv
a7ro0a(j/ea-0at.
^"^^
i(TTiv,
elKhs
ovx oUu t'

yap (an Kal
XfVHOv riua XevKavrtKus

haTidijpai Kal vnh ht) yXvKios
fJ.^
(paivofx^vop
?e
eVxij/
Kal
t]ix7v.
%v
ov
ravTTj
TTepl fxiv TO. irddr] rd yc

oiKîa
irdures ia/xeu dirXavi7s, Trcpl Se rh
(Krhs vnoKîjxevov irdvT^s irXavu)-
fieBa- KaKfTiva fx4u iari KaraX-qTrra,
rovTO Se aKaTdXT]TTruv, rrjs ^vxrjs

daQevovs Kaden-rcoa-qs irpos
îdyvwaiv aurov irapa tovs tottovs,
iravu
irapd
rd
Kivr)(Tîs,
dXXas
Pyrrh.
re
SiaaTV/uLaTa,
irapd
tus
-napd rds jUerajSoAas, irapd
irafiirXridels
215;
i.
irddr)
KaTaX-qirrd,
avrd, ovK
93
ray
air'ias.
Dior/,
dXrjdfieiu.
d(p'
92
ii.
See
rd
eXtyov oZp
Ibid.
Sou yii/erai.
alaerjaeis
irdtn-ore
fxr}
Ibid. 95 of the School
of Hegesias, w^liich does not

in
this res})ect differ from others
:
ddid\pv-
yitTjSe
Xeyeiu aSiaxl/evarcos
'6ti
Se
rh ffxiroi7]TiHhv Tov irddovs X(vk6v
4(TTi
If,
we understand by
therefore,
Svaxipatydi/rwu [add Th fieu^ ruv

5e irpocriefxeycop tt)v OaXXiav, Kal
KaTa\pvxoiJ.i'wi' virh dtvov, Kal irphs
ftXlOV ajX^XvOOTTOVTCOV Kal vvktuio
iraQuv
SivaaOat.
avijpovv Se Kal rds
aKpiôvaas
tV
ovk
Aris-
alcre-fjaeis
iiri-yvwaiv.
totle in Enft. Priep. Ev. xiv.

19,
e|^s S" tv eUu oi Xiyovres fiova
1
:
rd
irdOi]
e?7roj/
(VIOL
KaraXTjirrd.
TU)v
e/c
ttjs
tovto
S'
Kvp-^vrjs
(whicli in the face of tlie definite statements of Cicero, Plutarch ajid Sextus, does not prove
Chap,
XIV.
THE
350
Chap.
XIV.
moD
feelings,
S OCR A TIC SCHOOLS.
and when two persons say that they
them can be cerhave felt the same

tain that he has experienced the same feeling as the
other, since he is only conscious of his own state and
thing, neither of
not of that of another.^
Thus, like Protagoras,^ the Cyrenaics regard all

notions as relative and individual their view differ;
ing from his in this respect only that they refer

notions
directly to internal feelings,
more
^
out of sight
Heraclitus' doctrine of perpetual flow
that this doctrine did not belong to the whole School, nor
can this be intended. Conf c.
Ka.djxevoi yap eXeyou
18, 31)
.
/cat reixvSfxevoL
yvcopiCîv,
'6ti -na-
ttSt^pou 5e rh Kouov ^1,ri

rh r4fxvov ai5r]pos ovk eêtv
Sextns, Math. vi. 53,
(TXoi^v Ti
irvp
t)
dit^7v.
says
irddr],
akXa
irdOos
ru)v
But
The Cyrenaics, we gather
this is
denied the existence of things,

but only our knowledge of their
This whole theory
existence.
probably belongs to the elder
Aristippus, as will be probable
from a passage in Plato soon to
be mentioned. Against Temieman's notion (Gesch. d. Phil. ii.
106) that it first came from
Theodorus, see Weiidt, Phil.
4.5.
Sext. Math. vii. 195
^vB^v
Koivhv
avdpciiivwv, ouSfxara Se KOLi'd TiOeadai
ouSe
Kpiri\pi6v
(f>a<n
eluai
\VKhu jxev ydp ri

yAvKu KaXovcri kolvws irdures,
KOivhv 5e Ti KfVKOV t) yXvKu ovk
rois Kpifiaffi.
Kal
kol
rdxo.
Tov
M yiveadai
inaccu-
tSiou
rh 5e et
XevKov iyyi-
t^
ovt^
TreAas,
avTh^ dvvarai Xiynv, /xr) dvah^x^'

fx^t'os rh rod ireXas trdOos, ovre 6
ireAas, firj di'adexoixuos rh iKeivov
5e
from the above, cannot have
Trddos dirh
avT(3
VTai
'dWo
virapKTwv.
Cyr.
TOVTO rh
fxoua
ol'crav
ydp rod
e/carTToy
crvyKlKpLfxai
vnapxî-v to,
ovQ4v. oOev Ka>
irdOous TTotTjTi/cV,
rate.
X"V<TLU'
Trddovs dvriXaixfiaVf-rai.
(paalu
T'î/ (j)wvrjv, ix^
and leave
e^ci^deu
ydp
ojs
iyu}
ovroo
jx\v
'S^vnaiuefrQai
Tvpoairi-movrcs,
virh
hrepos
Sh ovTOD Kar^(TKeva(rjx4v7}v exei rrjv

aiaQriffiv, &(rr
ir4p(as
Siarcdrivai,
in support of which the example

of a jaundiced or diseased eyesight is adduced. It follows
then
Koiud
ix\i>
yjfxas
ovofiara
riOeuai rocs irpdyiian, trdQi] Se 76

exeii/ 'iîa.
-
Zeller's Phil.
d. Griech,
i.
869.
3
last point has been too

lost sight of by Schleier-
The
much
macher (Plato's Werke,
ii.
1,
who
considers the description of the Protagorean

teaching in the Theastetus to be
chiefly meant for Aristippus,
whose view does not absolutely
coincide with that of ProtagoSee Wê)idt, Phil. Cyr. 37.
ras,
On the other hand, the differ1
3),
ence between them
is
exagger-
j.
'
FEELINGS THE SUBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE.

as
something not wanted
for
their
purposes and
transcending the limits of human knowledge.'

If
knowledge, however, be confined to knowledge of
feelings, it follows on the one hand that it
would be
absui-d to seek for a
knowledge of things, such knowledge being once for all impossible; and thus
the
sceptical attitude assumed by the Cyrenaics in
respect
to knowledge, was the ground of their
conviction of
the worthlessness of all physical enquiries.^
On the
other hand, for this very reason feeling only can
give
ated by
the
Academician in
Cic. (see p. 348, 1),
who
ascribes
to Prota<joras a view entirely
different from that of the Cyrenaics, and by Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv.
19, 5, who after discussing the
Cyrenaics introduces Protagoras
with these words
eVeTat tovtois
ovv (TwefêToicraL koI tovs tt;!/ ij/avriav âdiôuras, Koi Travra
XP^'0'
TriaTViv Ta?s tov crdfxaTos aiaOr]:
Hermann appeals,for they do not

make Protagoras more subjective than Aristippus, but Aristippusmore subjective than Protagoras. In the next place it is
not correct. Of course Protagoras did not deny that certain
names were used by all, he even
treated himself of the apddrris

ovofidruu (Zelle?''s Phil. d. Griech.
i. 933, 1), but what
is the use
a-fCTLu 6pi(TafA.4uov?, for
Protagoras of agreeing in names when the
only asserted the truth of all things differ
?
The Cyrenaics
perceptions in the sense that are only
more accurate than
they were all true for him who Protagoras
in asserting tl at
perceived them, that things perceptions
which are called by
were to each one what they ap- the same name
are not the same
peared to him to be. In this in ditferent
persons. But there
sense the Cyrenaics, as Sextus is no
disagreement in the teachhas rightly sliown, declared all ing of the
two.
to be true, but both they and
Had they acted consistently
Protagoras said nothing about they must have
regarded as such
objective
truth.
Hermann's every attempt at a natural exobjection here to Ges. Ab.
planation of our perceptions.
235, on the ground that ProtaWe must, therefore, not be misgoras was far more subjective led by
Pint. N. P. Suav. Vivi
than Aristipj)us, since AristipSec. Epic. 4, 5, p. 1069, so as to
pus presupposed an agreement attribute
to them the view of
iraongst men in describing their
Democritus about pictures and
mpressions, is still more at emanating
forms.
/ariance with the statements of
As Diflff. ii. 92 remarks.
picero and Eusebius, to which (See
p. 346, 1.)
'
351
Chap.
352
Chap.
XIV.
the rule by which the aim of actions is determined

and their value tested. For things being only known
own
to us in our
feelings, the production of certain
that can be attained by action hence

the best thing for us will be what is most gratifying
Here from the Cyrenaic theory of
our feelings.^
feelings
is all
to
knowledge follow those ethical principles, which in

establish.
other ways also it was their main object to
(3) Pleasiire
and
pai)i.
All feeling, as Aristippus assumes, following Proexperitagoras, consisting in an emotion in him who
the motion be gentle, there arises a feeling

again
if rough and violent,^ of pain ; if
of pleasure
ences
it, if
Ka\ rrju Aeiav rris crapKhs Kivriffiv

rehos ihai Aeyei. Math. vii. 199 :
Sext. Math. vii. 199 audXoya

5e dvai SoKet to7s -jrepl KpLTT]piov
Xeyofi^vois Kara tovtovs tovs &vSpas Koi TO. TTepl TeAwj' XeySixeva
>
TCtiv
'
TO.
yap
8fc
irddcou
ra
fxev 'z^riv ri84a,
dXyeLvd, ra Se [xira^v.
That
these statements come, on the

yap ra irddr)
Si-^/cei
whole, from the elder AristipIbid. 200.
reATj.
appears to be established by
pus,
2 Emeb. Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 32,
passages in the Philebus.
several
Aristippus
younger
the
of
says
Socrates
(p. 31, B.) has
After
on the authority of Aristocles
that pain consists
shown
there
eivai
/caTacrTaTets
e<pr)
yap
Tcets
in a violation, and pleasure in
irepl r^v r/pterepaj/ (XvyKpaaiv fxiav
rc^
a restoration, of the natural
ioiKulau
aXyovfxev,
fihv Ka9'
between the parts of
Kara da\a(rffav x^'MWi'' Irepoj/Se connection
he appends (p.
being,
living
a
Kvâri
Aeiqy
rw
Kad' %v T]Z6iJLeQa,
What
question
the
D.)
42,
elvai yap Keiau Kii(poiJLOiovfJLeur]V
if neither of these
happen
would
irapaâXovpicp
vqffiv T-r]U r/5oj/V
changes were to take place?
Se toIttjv
tt]v
XofjLevnv avefj-u)
The representative of the theory:
KaO'
fie(n\v (Ivai Karda-Tan-iu,
of pleasure having answered in a
ovT d\yov[Xv ovT rid6iJt.ea,ya\wV
by
Diog. ii. 86, way afterwards repeated
TrapairK-fiaiov ovcrav.
Plato, Rep. ix. 583, C, that in
of
thing
same
the
almost
says
case there would be neither,
the older Cyrenaic school 5yo this
nor pain, he continues
pleasure
t]ôvt}u,
Ka\
ir6vou
v(pi<rTavTO,
7rd0rj
Koi
ini,
ra
'
'
:j
tV M^''
Aeiai/ Kivr\(TLV
tV
KdWiar'
7]ôvf}U,
rhu 5e Tr6vou rpax^'âv KLUT^cnv.

Ibid. 89, 90: fxeaas re Kara(TTda-cis
[t]
asvofxaCov
ar]do/i.av
Sext. Pyrrh. i.
Kvp-nvaiKT) a7W7rj] rrjv
airoviav.
koi
215
^SorV
eln-es
aWa
yap, olfAM;
rode Aeyeis, ws aei ri rovruv

auayKa7ou 7)fx7u ffufxâlveiv, ws ot
auvs
aocpoi (paaiV aei yap dnavia
re Kal
Kdrai
the answer
is
Accordingly
modified to mean
ptTi.
PLEASUHE AND PAIN.
353
we are in a
state of repose, or the

motion is so
as to be imperceptible,
there is no
feeling either of
pleasure or pain.
of pleasure
weak
Of
these three states, only

that
absolutely desirable.
is
bears witness
all
Hereto nature
following pleasure as the
highest
end, and avoiding nothing

so carefully as pain,i
unless
indeed their judgment be
perverted by unfounded
fancies.^
To put freedom from pain
^hat great changes

produce
Pleasure and pain, but
small
ones neither. To the same
tion IS felt or
produces pleasure. Perhaps it is in
reference
to this that Arist.
view
comes back (on

vith the words apa
le
^v/c
6.KnHodp.iu,
<rTiv,
ovaia Be
Sourjs;
0V7 0U
p. 53, C.),
13,
-ncpl ^Sov9il
KaXm
oel
o{,k ((Tti
Ho/xôl
rhu
Wveiu
ws
yap
A6yoi;
y4uâis
riês
iirixîpovai
i]ûv,
when
wrote the Philebus and

nee with the exception
of
nstippus no one is known to
horn they could be
referred
^rotagoras did not draw the
;
hical conclusions of his

prinmoreover this asrtion is universally
did not Aristippus say

VVeare atall times in a
ot gentle or violent
motion, but
pleasure or pain only
arises,
when we become
most pro-
this
id tlie
same
all
n.
-js
to
the remark, that

changes make no impres-
Likewise, Diog. ii. 85,

of Aristippus
t4\os S'
makes
r)]v
\dav
Kivnaiv
e/y
Hoîv avaSiZoniv-qv,
accordino-
Which not every slight

ino
his
representative say,
though certainly not

without
some conversational help
'
I)iog.^^; 87; Plato,

Phil.
bee above
-iJ, i5.
'xpaivc
conscious of
motion ? Yet this is exactly

what he did say accordinto
Diogenes,
and what Plato
that both this passage
plies
state
attributed
the School of Aristippus,
ince too the epithet
i<ofx^\>hs
passage connected with

on the two kinds of
motion
a rest, are his. The
yivâiv
Nor can
Why
'
iible
Vôv-fju.
jecture that Aristippus

actiuired
from Plato the more
accurate
limitation of his
teaching.
ples), since
best, it is
tV
ala-d-hTTiv
lan-
;lato
him
r^fi rh
guage of Plato, p. 42, D.,

and
the statements which
attribute
to Aristippus the
assumption of
an intermediate state
between
pleasure and pain.
Hence we
cannot countenance the
con-
hat the assertion, all

pleasure
onsists in motion, had
been
ttered by some one else,
Its
Etb. N. vii.
says Sih koI o'v
a, 12,
we allow that there is a discrepancy (as SusemiJil,

Genet
Entw.d. Plat. Phil. ii.
35, note'
720 asserts) between the
av
oU Su xapiy ^xîv.
latter words clearly prove
'hese
1153,
(payai eiuai
rh itapdirau
Si]
in the place of
"'
(parrt
Diog.
Ka\
aipeiadai
A A
ii.
tV
Kara
347 1
UvaadaL S^
vSou-fjy
riuas uh
8i>
p.
ha(rTpo(p-f]y
Chap.
XIV.
354
.HAP.
Chap.
>-iy-
for where there is no

pleasure would not be correct,
pam the
enjoyment is as little possible as
emotion,
as in sleep.'
condition being one of insensibility,
Thus
with what is agree-the good comes to be identical

is disagreepleasure ; the evil, with what
able-with
what affords neither pleasure nor

evil.^
pain can be neither good nor
able, or unpleasant
(4)
From
The
this
view
a matter of coiuse,
pleasure must, as such, be
it follows, as
that individual feelings of
'"i'"'^
Simple repose of mind, that

Epicurus at a later time
freedom from pain, in which
'
the ends of all actions.
cannot, for the reason just

placed the highest good,
appeared to the Cyrenaics
given,be this good.= It also
happiness of the whok
unsatisfactory to make the
view, and to
the point to be kept in
life
explicitstatementsprobablybeprincipally to
curus,
^ ff'.^M.
vii
oirep
âeos
ij5o.^,s
dA7.5^.os.
^^-ri
'^'' 2
352,
8ee
p. 300, 1.
i?%-
Ateja^
cee
ii-
^f.^^^J/
39^
ai
sensus dulciter ac ]ucunde m(

qv
vetur ... nee Aristippus,
199- raêv
Kal
^.'/^
it the
^^^ voluptatem tm
HaKbv,
'
.cbooi
the
accomm^
make
p.
87
summum bonum p
^;;^^^fj^,^^^,^tes istam v
cuitatem doloris.
THE HIGHEST GOOD.

aim of mankind
sum
355
to procure for themselves

the highest
total of
enjoyments that can be in this life.

Such a principle requires the
past and the future as
well as the present to
be included in the pursuit,
neither of which are in our
power, and which certainly
afford no enjoyment.
A future feeling of pleasure is
an emotion which has not

yet begun a past one is
one which has already ceased.^
The one only rule of
life is to cultivate
the art of enjoying the
present
moment.
Only the present is ours. Forbear
then
to trouble for that which
is already past and
for that
what may never be yours.
;
Dioji.
87
5o/c6? S' ai-rols koX
Tf Aos ^hlaiixovias
5ia(l)peip.
tV
t^h yap dvai
KaTo.
V0ov7]u, (vSaifjLouiau 5e
fx4po<:
rh in ruv
fJ-epiKwu T)ôvSov (Tvarri/na.
ah
rruj/a-
pieunvvTai Ka\ al Trapcf^xVKvTai

Kal
Oi êA-Aouo-ai.
ehai re
fx.fpi-
tV
K^v
S'
rjhovT^v 5i' avT7}v alp^Trji/

evBaifj-oviau ov di avT-qv,
5ia ras
Kara
î4pos riôvds.
'
r^v
aXha
89
oXXhixî; ovdk Kara fxi'Tj/u-qv twv

ayadwu ^ irpooSoKiav r)hovT]v (paaif
airoTfXeloeai,
^Kovpcv,
birfp
ijpeaKeu 'Ettj-
iKKikadai yap tw ^p6uco

Kivinixa.
Ibid. 1)]':
rh TVS ipvxvs
!ap/C?5 Ktiv
Kara
filav [tjSoj/t/i']
Tis irpoa-irlirTovo-ap rjd4ws
inaudyr)
Idthen.xii. 544, a: ['ApiariTîrosj
i-ToScâêuos
r-ny
'Vv
rhv
Tf'Aos efi/at
fvdaifioviau
TjSvirddeiav lav-
Kal eV avri)
e</)7j
fi^^Krifrdai
Kal
iov6xpovov avr'qv dvai TrapaTr\nriusroTs aacoTois ovtc rr]u

y.urjixr)v
CO./ ycyouviwu
aTroAavaewu irphs
vrhu^ V-yGvfxiuos oi/Ve
ov
iaofxevojv,
yaehv
dAA'
tV
iul
ovK ^t'
r4\us
e'ATrtSa
rh 6
ovTTO) Kal
xiv. 6
&5n\ov
-wdw acpSBpa
eppufxeucos
(fKi \eyeiv 6 'Apiirapiyyvuv, fj.-f]r roTi

irapeXeodaiu iitLKaixvciv. /xr)re
ariinros,^
rwu
a.TîovrwviTpoKdfjLVLv
5f?7â rh roiovro,
yotas anoBeiîs
W/pa Tû
TraAij/
T^y
;Ufpet
KaQ'
'
eudvLLias
yap
Kal '/Aew Sid-
irpoaerarre Se e>'
yvciifjLT]^
7]^l4pas
|;^6<j/
eV
Kal o5
e'/ce(V(y
tw
Kaaro5 ^ trpdrrL
Tt 77 eV/zoe?
fjidvov yap eâo-zcej/
Vfi^repoi/ elvai rh iraphv, /xrjre
Se
rh (pedvou fxT]r^ rh TrpoaSoKcofxûov
rh [x'û yap anokwXduai. rh 5e
ddr]kou ehai eJfTrep iarai.
There
h
can
be no doubt that Aristippus
had already propounded these
views, his whole life presupposing them, and his other
views immediately Icadinoto
them, p. 852, 2. The precise'formularising of them may very
possibly belong to the
period
of Epicurus.
fxovw rh
Kplvocv ru> irdpovri, rh 6e

irokiKavK^vai Kal a-Kohavaîv
ov^v vofuûy TTphs
aurhi^, rh /xh is
hu,
^lian. V.H.
Diof/.
66
['Apio-TiTTTToy]
aneXave juh yap
rjSofy^s
rcov Trap6v-
rwu, o^K (dvpa Se ttSvcv r^v

diroKavaiv ruv oii irapovrocv oO^v
A A 2
Kal
Chap.
XIV.
35(3
(Jhap.
^^1_
pleasure arises
in itself
is
whence the feeling of

unimportant. Every plea-
of the things
The character
there in this respect

and another.
any difference between one enjoyment
from opposite
They may spring from various, even
themselves, they are all
sources, but considered by
sure as such
alike,
one
is
is
a good, nor
as
good as the other, a pleasurable emo-
is
object of desire.^
tim, and as such always a natural
that there
The Cyrenaics therefore can never allow
by law and custom
are pleasures not only declared
In their
very nature.
to be bad, but bad by their
by a disreputable
view pleasure may be occasioned
nevertheless good and deaction, but in itself it is
sirable.^
several
(5)
Modi.
pedform
^''"
""'"
thin exof
treme
rien'.
received
At the same time this principle
its seventy was con-^
limitations by means of which
application restricted.
siderably toned down, and its
In the
place, the Cyrenaics could not
first
Aro7eV7,s iSattXtKb^
Kiva iX.'êv
wheie the champion
of plea.
tarchus replies: ^Ss
^^ ^'
ZlZ''l^sy^pvBo.hy^Vôuv
yi.vra,M<Pvaû
\t'\k
riXys^ble
yap kyaOa
Ae'7e:.
Ûa
how
is
Z the^JTthe
worst pleasures
to
which Pro-
little will
Just as
13
Ae^s
^lotaicnus
^^^^^^Z:^'
of
mire answers the objection
SocraSs that goocl pleasures
from
,n'St be distinguished
Thid
deny that
allow that there is

imaginary pleasure and pain.
(36,
^5o.^
C.)
St'
-^|--
a{>7û aiperv Ka\
To the same
^^^
ay aOjv.
effect is the pas-
sage quoted from the Philebus
on
p.
io^,
1.
CYRENAIC THEORY OF PLEASURE.
357
notwithstanding the essential likeness there were yet

differences of degree in feelings of pleasure: for
Chap.
__^^J'
allowing that every pleasure as such is good, it does

not follow that the same amount of good belongs to
as a matter of fact one affords more enjoyment
;
than another, and therefore deserves to be preferred
all
to
it.'
Just as
little
many enjoyments
greater pain
it
escape their notice, that
are only purchased at the cost of
They
therefore required
the
consequences of an action to be taken into account
thus endeavouring again to secure by an indirect
method the contrast between good and

they would not at first allow to attach
evil
which
to actions
An action should be avoided when therefrom more pain follows than pleasure hence a man
themselves.
of sense will abstain from things which

Diog. 87 says that the Cyrenaics denied a difference in
degrees of pleasure, but this is
'
undoubtedly a mistake. JDiog.

11. 90,
says that they taught
that bodily feelings of pleasure and pain were stronger
than mental ones. See p. 358, 3.

Pkito too, Phil. 45, A.
65 E.,
in the spirit of this School,
:
talks ot fieyi(TTai rtou rjSoyuu, nor

there the slightest reason
tor equalising all enjojTnents in
their system.
They could not
is
allow that there was an absolute difference of value between them, some being good
and others bad but they had
no occasion to deny a relative
aiiterence between the more or
less good, and they might even
;
hence they argue mibroken happiness
so hard to gain.^
is
did
con-
are
allow of different kinds of pleasure,
those of the body
mind
for
and
instance.
RiUer's
remarks on JJiog. ii. 103, do
not appear conclusive.
Just
as little can those of Wendt
(Phil. Cyr. 34, Gott. Aug. 1835,
789) be entertained.
According to Diogenes the Cyrenaics
only denied that anv object
taken by itself and independent ly of our feelings was more
pleasant than another
^ lHog. 90
Sib [?] kuI Kaff ain^v
a/per^s o^(n]s ttjs t)Uv7is ra noi-q:
riKh.
\6.kis
iviwv
^Sova,v
ox^mh
iuaunoOadat- iy
rarou avTo7s cpaiueaQai

a/^hu ruû v5ouu,u
oOi^rwy.
bee t"
p
'
iro\.
Swcr/coAci-rhv
adpoi-
{j5aifioi>lai^ ttoi-
355
1
>
THE SOCRATIC SCHOOL^.
558
Chap.
XIV.
demned by the laws

Lastly,
of the state and public opinion.*
they also directed their attention to the
and mental
bodily
between
difference
pleasures.^
Holding bodily pains and pleasures to be more pungent than those of the mind ^ perhaps even attempt;
ing to show that
all
pleasure and
its
opposite are in
conditioned by bodily feelings;*
the last resource
Srepov 5e rh riBeffOai inreXd/xâvov

iivai.
(x-qUv
Diog. 93
o6V Kal irAeioya o'lKovofxiav irepi
KaKhv
al<TXP^v,
7)
dUaiov
^
^vffei
the value of every action de- 6drepov iiroiovpro.
* This is indicated by the expending on the pleasure which
above
follows it, aKXa vofxcp Koi eGet, pression oiKeidrepov in the
2.
See
359,
also.
p.
passage
&TOTrov
ovbi^
b ix4uT0i a-TTOvdaios
To say that not all pleasure and
7rpa|ei 5ia t^s 7rtKet;aeVas C''?^'*^^
Wendt (Phil. Cyr. pain is connected with bodily
Kal BSâs.
statement in states, may be harmonised
this
calls
25)
taking
question without reason. It is with this statement by
that not
meaning,
their
be
it
to
Aristippus,
in
consistent
quite
every feeling has its immediate
and is met with in Epicurus
object in the body, without,
is
he
but
&c.
Stoics,
Zeller,
remote
right {Ihid. 36, 42) in reject- however, denying more
ing Schleiermacher's hypotheii. 2, 18),

sis (PI. W. ii. 1, 183
that in the Gorgias Aristippus
is being refuted under the name
of Callicles, and in the Cratylus 384, Diogenes under that
;
of Hermogenes.
2
Which,
strictly
speaking,
they could only have done by

saying that one portion of our
impressions appears to us to
come from the body, another
not; for they had long since
given up all real knowledge of
things.
But their consistency
hardly went so far as this.

3 Diog.
ttoAu jx^vtol
90
ii.
:
ras (roo/xariKas afxîvovs eJvai Koi ras oxA'^Jo'ets X^'P*^"^

ras (ToijfiariKas oQ^v koI ravrais
Tcov
;|/uxt/ccDi/
'
KoXa^âQai [xaWov
poyras.
roiis afxaprd-
(The same, Jii^.x. 137.)
jfoAeTTwrepoj/
yap rh
irovilv, oiKei.'
connection between such feelings and the body. Joy for one's
country's prosperity might in
their minds be connected with
the thought that our own happiness depends on that of our
country. It can only be considered an opponent's exaggeration for Paneetius and Cicero
to assert that the Cyrenaics
made bodily pleasure the end
ac
(See p. 354, 3.)
of life.
Acad. iv. 45, 139 Aristippus
quasi animum nullum habea^
mus, corpus solum tuetur. Th(,
highest good Aristippus de,
clared consists not in bodih,
pleasure, but in pleasure gene
:
rally.
If
he regarded bodil;
pleasure as the strongest, an<

in this sense as the best, it b
no means follows that he ea
eluded mental pleasures froi
CYRENAIC THEORY OF PLEASURE.
S59
they nevertheless contended that there must be a

something besides sensuous feelings, or it would be
how unequal impressions
impossible to explain
produced by perceptions altogether alike
for instance, of the sufferings of others,
a painful impression
real, gives
the
Chap.
-^^-
are
sight,
they are
if
only seen on the
if
They even allowed that

and pains of the mind which have
stage, a pleasurable one.^
there are pleasures
no immediate reference to any states of the body.
The
prosperity, for instance, of our country
with as
much
our own.^
pleasiu-e as does
therefore pleasure
is
in general
made
fills
us
Although
to coincide with
the good, and pain with evil, the Cyrenaics are far
from expecting happiness to result from the mere

satisfaction of animal instincts.
For a true enjoy-
ment of
you not only need to weigh the value

and the consequences of every enjoyment, but you
need also to acquire the proper disposition of mind.
life,
The most essential help

not only because
which
is
it
never at a
loss for means,"* but,
to
the idea of good.

Indeed, his
remarks respecting the value
)f prudence make this probable.
see neudt, 22.
x4yov(TL Se yurjSe
iJioff.
90
cara \\/i\i}i/ rrjv Upairiu
r^v olko^v
Y'tpea-dai TjSovas, ruu yovv iiiîovUvuv 6pT]vovs Tjdeuis aKovofifv,
uv 54 kot' dA7)0iai/ arjScos. The
;ame is found in Mat. Qu.
'
y)
Jonv.
v. 1, 2, 7,
p.
)elono:s Cic. Tusc.

'^
Liog. 89
674.
ii.
is
prudence,^
supplies that presence of
how
3ause it teaches
to a pleasant life
Here
13, 28.
ov irdcras nivroi
make
tos
mind
mainly, be-
a proper use of the
y\ivxi^Ka.s
7]doms koI a\yr}56vas
eVi awfxariKols 7]Sot/a7s kuI aAyrjS6jl yheadai

Kal yap iirl \Pi\f)
Tf;s
T17
ttJ tSi'a
iraTpiBos
ciirj/xepia
Si(nrfp
x^P-^ iyyiveadai.
See p. 347, 2.
See the anecdotes and proverbs in JJioff. (JS 73 79 82,
and what Galen. Exhort, c. 5,
^
i.
8, K., and Vitruv. vi.
Pnef. i., say of his shipwreck.
Conf. Exc. e Floril. Joan. Damasc. ii. 13, 138.
vol.
THE SOCRATIC SCHOOLS,
BO
(ÂP.
good things of
life
freeing from the prejudices and
L_ fancies which stand in the way of success, such as

envy, passionate love, superstition
preserving from
regret for the past, from desire for the future, from
dependence on present enjoyment and guaranteeing

that freedom of soul of which we stand in need would
;
we
moment
at every
rest
contented with our present
lot.3
Hence the
mind is urgently
advocated by these philosophers,"* and philosophy in
cultivation of the
particular pointed to as the

life.^
They even
way
to a truly
human
assert that therein lies the essential
condition of happiness; for although
mankind
are'
too far dependent on external circumstances for the

wise
man
man
be invariably happy, and the
to
invariably miserable,^ yet as a rule so
foolishi
Nor
it is.
^ Bemetr. (Elocut. 296) mentions as an ^Mostov \6yov'Api<TTLTnre7ov '6ri ol 'duOpwiroi. xp^fâTa
pus in Biog.
fieu aiTokelirova-i rols Traialv iiricr-
e Floril. Joan. Damasc. ii. 13,

146) as the author of the saj'ing, which Cic. Rep. i. 2 Plut.
adv. Col. 30, 2, p. 1124, attribute to Xenocrates, that the,
conduct of the philosopher
would remain the same, supposing all laws to be abolished.;
" Biog.
91 apioKH 5' aiirots
ju^re rhv (ro<phv irdura ^Seojs 0y,
irdvra
nijre
<pavKov
iirnrdyooSy
dWa Kard rh irKela-rov. In the:
Trifxr^v
Se
ov avvaTroXciTrova-i
Xpv(Jôfx4v7jv avTols.
See
is Socratic.
2
Biog.
tû
The thought
91
p. 141, 2.
Thv aocphv
ix-i]Te
(on
point compare the Ianguage used by Aristippus respecting his relations to Lais)
^ Seto-iSatjUoj/Tja-etj/, whereas he is
not preserved from fear and
sorrow as being natural consequences.
^ See p. 355, 2.
* Many
expressions to this
(pQovhffeiv fiijTc ipaa6i](ra6ai
this
on record, particularly those of Aristippus, Biog.

ii. 69, 70, 72, 80.
Plut. Frag,
9, 1, and comment, in Hes.
5
See the saying of Aristipeffect are
72 Pint. Ed.
also mentioned
Diogenes ii. 68 (Conf. Exc.
Pu. 74.
by
He
ii.
is
same way the Cyrenaics would

not deny that the &(ppoves were
capable of
certain virtues.1
Probably this was only expressly stated by later members of the School in agreement with the Cynics and
Stoics.
PRACTICAL LIFE OF CYRENAICS.
361
this a departure
from the fundamental principle of

the School, the pursuit of pleasure,
but certainly
is
Chap.
^^^-
something very different has come of it from

what
might at first have been expected.
Herewith agrees all that is further known
c. Prac-
the views and conduct of Aristippus.
^^"^^^
'
as to
thought
His leading
^'/f
comprised in the adage, that life offers tmics:^'

most to him who, without ever denying
himself a
is
pleasure, at every
moment continues master of him-^

and his surroundings. The Cynic freedom
from
wants is not his concern. Prudent enjoyment
he says V
self
a greater art
is
than abstinence. He lived not only

comfortably, but even luxuriously.^ A
good table he
enjoyed,3 wore costly clothing,-^ scented
himself with
perfumes,^ and caroused with mistresses.^
Nor were
>
StoK
nôv-ns
Floril. 17, 18
ovx 6
/cpareZ
airex6f.,uos, aX\' 6
according to Alexis; Ibid, viii

343, according to Soter Timon
:
Xfx^H-^'ôs f..u
nTap,K<pep6f.epos
firj
'^^7'^'^'"^^^^
.
-^^^^^'^;J^=
VrTa(rdai
tjSouuv Kpariarou, ov rh
'*2^Zf"M
' Xen. Mem.
in
Dioff.
ii.
(i6
Ibid.
ii.
40; Lvcian. V. Auct

Clemens, Piedao- ii ije
iv.
69
12'
^'^^Pr.Ev.xivri8,31;4nÂ:
.
.
already
Exp. Fid. 1089 A.; Steelefxi.
calls nim aKoKaffToripcos xovTa
41 71.
irphs T^ roiadra [irphs imdv^lav
'
See the anecdotes in Dion
apuTOv Kal iroTov Kal \ayveias^, ii. e6,
68, 69, 75 76
3tc He says himself then.
* Max.
1, 9,
Tyr. Diss, vii 9
'
that his object IS t) âard n Kal Lucian,
I. c.
Ibid. Cic. Ace 23
^biara fiioreveiu
and Socrates Tatia/i adv. Grac. c 2 Tert
isks whether he depended for
Apol. 46
lis homelcssness on
^ That
the cirhe made use of fra,
mmstance that no one could grant perfumes, and
defended
1
ii. 1, 1,
'
Ike to have him even as a

lave / ris yap hy iOeXoi &vepooTTov
V oiKia
^hu fx^Sh
yeAoz/ra, ry Se iroXvreAârdrv
ialTT, xcipoura;
this picture
^î^^wa;*^s iore deeply
!.f
oloured by later writers, and
ertainly not without exagge'exîu iTov,7u
atiou. bee Atheii. sii. 544,
6, e.
this practice, is told by Seneca,

Benef vii. 25, 1
Clem Pad
ii. 176 D., 179 B.,'
Z>i-fl<7. '76, all
.
apparently
from
the
same
source, the others mentioned bv

Stein, 43, 1, probably doini
likewise.
His relations
to Lais are
well known.
Hermesianax
in
362
Chap.
XIV.
the means neglected by which this mode of life was

rendered possible. On the contrary, he argued that
you.
the more of these you possess, the better for
Riches are not like shoes, which when too large can
He accordingly not only demanded
not be worn.^
but did not hesitate

this purpose to
to "ênrich himself by means, and for
submit to things which any other philosopher would
payment
for his instruction
have considered below his dignity.^

Athen.
xiii.
599, b, 588 c
173 Lact. Inst. iii. 15. A few

other stories of the same kind
may be found, Diog. 67 69
;
81
iv. 40.
Stol. Floril. 94, 32.
See
fear of
found in StoT). Floril. 3, 46,

and in a somewhat different
connection, Diog. 70 and 81.
Yet Svhleiei'viacher on Plato's
is
xii.
Cic. ad Fam. ix. 26

544, b, d.
Plut. Erot. 4, 5, p. 750 Diog. 74,
85 Clemens, Strom, ii. 411, C.
Theod. Cur. Gr. AfC. xii. 50, p.
;
The
p. 339, 5.
Here belong many of the

anecdotes which relate to Aris3
stay at the court of

Dionysius. According to Diog.
77, Aristippus is said to have
announced to Dionysius, on his
arrival, that he came to impart
what he had, and to receive
tippus'
what he had not or, according

to a more probable version,
Ihid. 78, when he wanted in;
struction he used to go to Socrates for it, now that he

wanted money, he had come to
Dionysius. To the same person,
too, according to Diog. 69, his
remark was addressed that the
reason why philosophers appeared before the doors of the
rich, and not the contrary, was
knew
philosophers
because
what they wanted, whilst the
rich did not. The same story
Kepublic, vi. 489, has no business to refer this passage to

this remark, because of Arist,
Rhet. ii. 16, 1391, a, 8, but he
is quite right in setting down
the Scholiast who wished to
attribute the remark of Socrates to Aristippus. Of the liberal
offer made by Dionysius to
Plato, he remarks in Plut. Dio.
19 aaâXSiS /j-ey a\6\pvxoi^ eli/at
avTOLS iJ.v yap fXLKpb.
AiovixTLov
:
Sidouai TTKeiSvctiV
dioixûois,
XlAdr
r-oWa jU7]5ei/ Xafx^duovri.

Dionysius at first refusing to,
give him any money because
the wise man, on his own showing, was never in difficulties,
he replied, Give me the money
this once, and I will explain to
you how it is; but no sooner
hadhe got it, than he exclaimed,
Ah was I not right ? Diog.
82, Diog. 67, 73, and Athen. xii.
544, tell further, on the authority of Hegesander, that once
having been placed at the
bottom of the table by Dionysius because of some free expression, he contented himsell
TUi/i Se
PRACTICAL LIFE OF CYRENAIC8.
303
death too, from which his teaching professed to deliver,

was not so fully overcome by him that he
Chap.
XIV.
could face danger with the composure of a Socrates.^

It would, nevertheless, be doing Aristippus a
great
him an
injustice to consider
ordinary, or at
most a somewhat more intellectual pleasure-seeker.

Enjoy he will, but, at the same time, he will be
He
above enjoyment.
possesses not only the skill of
adapting himself to circumstances and making use of

persons and things,^ not only the wit which is never at
with remarking, To-day, this
is
the place of honour which he
Another time he is
said to have taken it quite
assigns.
quietly
when Dionysius
spat in
fisher-
his face,
observing
man must put up with more

moisture, to catch even a smaller
Once, when begging a favour for a friend, he fell at the

feet of Dionysius, Diog. 71), and
fish.
when reproached
for so doing.
Wherefore, he asked, has Dionysius ears on his legs ?
It is a
lommon story that Dionysius
Dnce asked him and Plato to
ippear dressed in purple Plato
refused to do so, but Aristippus
icceded with a smile. Sext.
Pyrrh. iii. 204, i. 155 Diog. 78
:
Siiid.
i6
'Apio-r.;
Stob.
Floril.
5,
Greg, JVaz. Carm. ii. 10,

the latter unskilfully
places the incident at the court
of Archelaus.
Stein, 67.
The
observation in Diog. 81, is likewise referred to Plato, that Jie
;
324:
He
ests.
flatterer
sius, by
is
represented as a
and parasite
of DionyLucia n V. Aut. 12;

Parasit. 33, Bis Accus. 23 Men.
;
13.
See Diog. 76 at the same

the Cyrenaics consider
fear to be something natural
and unavoidable. See p. 360, 2.
^ On the occasion of a storm
at sea he was charged with displaying more fear than others,
notwithstanding his philosophy, to which he adroith' replied oh yap Tvepl o/ioias ^vxvs
'
time
ayoiviujx^v aficporepoi,
Gell. xix.
ix.
3
Diog. 71 ;
10; ^lian, V. H.
20.
Diog.
apiLLocraaOai
KoX
1,
66
^v
koI tSttco
iKavhs
koI
xP^^V
Traaav ncpiaraaiu
ap/xobiws vTTOKpivanOai 5ib Koi irapa
Aiovvaicc tcov
&A\wy eu5oi,uet
Trpo(Ta>Trct},Kal
IxaWou, del rh irpocrneahv

Siaridefxevos. A few instances of this
have been already seen

Here, too, belongs
what is told by (ralen. and Vi-
skill
(p. 362, 3).
allowed himself to be abused

by Dionysius for the same
truv.
reasons that others abused him

a preacher of morals after all
is only pursuing his own inter-
having suffered shipwreck, and

lost everything, he immediately
contrived in Syracuse or Rho-
(see p. 340), that after

Chap,
XIV.
a loss for repartee,^ but he possesses also calmness of
mind and freedom
of spirit, which can forego pleasure
without a pang, bear

with what
it
His maxim
is
loss
with composure, be content
hath, and feel happy in any position.

to enjoy the present, leaving care either
for the future or the
past,
des to procure an ample supply

Further, it is
of necessities.
stated in Plutarch, Dio. 19,
that he was the first to notice
the growing estrangement between Dionysius and Plato. In
Dioff. 68, he answers the question, AVhat good he has got
from philosophy, by saying:
and under
dish of
avu iyu
fish
all
bpas
circum-
ovv
on
aXKa av ffi\apAnother time he argues

yvpos.
that if good living were wrong,
it would not be employed to
honour the festivals of the gods.
Another time, when
Ibid. 68.
some one took him to task for
his good living, he asked him
rh Svvarrdai iraai dappovvrojs Oju-iX- to dinner. The invitation being
ciu
and Bioff. 79, relates that accepted, he at once drew the
when brought as a captive be- conclusion that he must be too
fore Artaphernes, some one stingy to live well himself.
When Dionysius
76.
asked him how he liked his Tbid.
situation, to which he replied, offered him the choice between
that now he was perfectly three mistresses, he chose them
at rest. Well-known is the all, with the gallant observaanswer which he is reported to tion, that it had been a bad
have given to Diogenes (which, thing for Paris to prefer one oi
however, is told of others), three goddesses, but bade them
Ibid
etTrep yjSeis
all farewell at his door.
Diofj/. vi. 58, ii. 102
When attacked for his re^
67.
avdpJoirois 6fiiX7u, ovk tt.v Xdxo-i'OHor. Ep. i. lations to Lais, he answerec
Dio(/. 68
cTTAuj/es.
with the well-known x ko
Valer. 3IaxAv. 3, Ext. 4.
17, 13
See p. 362, 1 363, 2. In a OVK %x^P--'-' The same relatioi
similar way he could defend is said to have given rise t<
d\^0(pd'yos,
his luxuriousness. When blamed

for giving fifty drachmae for a
partridge, Aristippus asked if
.
he would have given a farthing

The reply being in the
for it.
afiirmative I, said Aristippus,
do not care more for fifty
drachmse than you do for a farthing.
Bioff. 66, 75 or with a
different turn in Athen. viii.
343, c, where the story is told
pi him and Plato apropos of a
;
it was all th
same to him whether the hous
in which he lived had bee:
occupied by others before h
other light jokes
did not care whether a fish likev

him, if he liked the fish. Th
Cynicism is betrayed by tb
anecdotes in Diog. 81, p. 34".
4, although they are not othei
wise at variance with Grecia'
morals.

stances to keep cheerful.
365
Come what may, there is

a bright side to things,^ and he knows how to
wear
the beggar's rags and the robe of state with
equal
^
grace.3
Pleasure he loves, but he can also dispense

therewith.^
He will continue master of his desires.*
His temper shall not be ruffled by any risings
of
Some importance
passion.^
is attached to riches,
but hardly any independent value,^ and therefore
the
want of them
felt.
He is lavish of them
because he does not cling to them.^
If necessary, he
can do without them,^ and is readily consoled
for
never
is
See pp. 355 and 360.

Hot.
Ep. i. 17, 23 omnis
\
Aristippum decuit color et sta'
tus at res,
fere,
ie
tentantem majora
prfesentibus .-equum. Plut.
Vit.
Horn.
150:
B.,
'A^fo--
Ti-n-nos KcCi
irepiaKOL irSvois avurjve-
IXPâaTo.
Uioff.66. p! 163, 3;
355, 2.
said
.3
lim
See p. 360, 2 & 3. Plut.

N. P.
Suav. V. sec. Epic. 4, 5, p. 1089
:
KvpT)vaXKa\
01
According to Z>%. 67, Plato

to have remarked to
'
a saying of the same kind

which Aristippus uttered on
paying a visit to his mistress,
to the effect that there was no
need to be ashamed of going
there, but there was of not
being able to get away.
tells
aol fiSvcv dcborai Kai
PfpcLv Kal ^(XKos.
xAaviSa
The same
re-
acppodiaiois
(pwThs,
birws
TO.
)urple
Kis amKa'iri
Plut.
Virt.
way
Alex.
p.
8,
330:
ApiaTLirirou daujxdôixai
âriKhv
'6tl
Ai\T)a'ia
rhv Sw/cKai TpifiwvL Kircf koX
xô-H-^^t-
H<\>OTfpwv
iT-npei
XP^Î^^ôs
ri
5i'
(vnxvH-oi',
.nd Ilor. Ep. i. 17, 27, on which

)assage the Scholiast tells how
\.ristippus carried off
the suroat of Diogenes from the bath,

raying Ids purple cloak intead, which Diogenes refused
wear at any
price.
Liog. 67, p. 363,
'
^X ovK
ixo/âi.
4.
nio(j.
ovî
u/xiXe7}/
etSuXa
t^v
t'os
7)
rrpdêws
rrjs
oi/êws
Sidi/oia
iroWd-
Slo.
Cpeîy.
The same
of thinking is expressed in
his definition of pleasure as a
gentle motion of the mind. The
storms of passion would change
this gentle motion into a violent
one, and turn pleasure into pain.
'
See
See
p. 347, 1
and the story

that he bade his servant who
was carrying a heavy burden
of gold cast away what was too
mucli for him. Ilor. Serm. ii
3, 99
IJwf/. 77.
' Finding himself
on board a
^
69,
îlv
/uLerh
(tkotos irpod/j.4vovs
avaKaixfioLvovaa
evepycis eV avTij
and not the story of the

dress, is referred to by
nark,
oUvrai
aWa
IJ.7]
p. 363, 4,
Chap.
XJV.
366
Chap.
XIY.
their
To him no
loss.^
appears
possession
more
valuable than contentment,^ no disease worse than
He
avarice.^
lives
an easy
life,
but he
is
not on that
account afraid of exertion, and approves of bodily

exercise.
His
'^
that of the flatterer, but he
is
life
often expresses himself with unexpected
candour.^
and hence will

neither rule nor be ruled, nor belong to any community, being unwilling to forfeit freedom at any
Freedom he esteems above
price.
"^
pirate
he threw his
into the sea with the
vessel,
money
words
rnrwov
&ixîvov
diet
r)
ravra
raiira
5i'
'Apia-
'AplcXTiinrov
Diog. 77
airoXeffOai.
Cic. In-
ii. 58,176; Alison. Idyl. iii.

13 Stoh. Floril, 57, 13, taking
care to read with Menage and
vent,
;
Stein, p.
39,
rh
for
ap-yvpiov
InPM.Tranq. An.8,p.469,
Aristippus having lost an estate,

one of his friends expresses
sympathy with him, upon which
Aristippus replies Have I not
now three estates, whilst you
have only one ? Ought I not
rather to sj-mpathise with you ?
:
ii.
p. 365, 2, Biog
&pi(TTa vTreridero irj 6v-
Hor. see
72
yarpl
* Several free expressions of

his towards Dionysius are told
by Biog, 73, 77 Stob. Floril.
;
Naz. Carm.
voh ii. 430 Codd.;
not to mention the anecdotes
49, 22
TCI
^Rprjrrj,
awaaKccu
avrriv
rod irXeiouos eivai.

Hence the same story in Ep.
8ocrat. 29, the compiler of this
late and miserable counterfeit
not having used the earlier
genuine letters to Aret. menvTrepoiTTiKiiu
tioned by Suid 'Apiar.

^ See further details in Plut.
Cupid. Div. 3, p. 524.
^
See p. 365, 2, Biog. 91 tt)v
:
(jo^jxaTiKTiv
irphs apeTv)s
&(rKr)(nv crvfx^dW^crOai
a.ya.A.rixl/ii'.
conf
G7'eg.
10, 419,
ii.
in Biog. 75, repeated Ihid. vi.

32 Galen. Exhort, ad Art. c. 8,
:
i.
18, k.
On
the principle mentioned

i. 1,
18 nunc in
Aristippi f urtim prgecepta relabor, et mihi res, non me rebuf
subjungere conor. According
to the context, however, th(
principle should not be confined to Aristippus' relationst<
outward possessions. Here, too
the saying belongs Plut. ii
Hes. 9,"" vol. xiv. 296, Hu. (Tw/a
^
ay îhs.
>
all things,^
by Hor. Ep.
fiovXov
Se7a9ai
Trpoaaire7y.
^
Xefi.
xîpdv elvai
Conf. p. 363, 3.
rO'
Mem. ii. 1, 8. In repl;

who asked whethe
to Socrates,
he considered himself amonj

the number of those who rule
or those who are ruled, Aris
tippus states: 67017' ov5" o\wsy
TctTTCo i/xairhv et9
ttjj/
raiu ^PX^^
For, as is ex
plained here and p. 17, there i
no man who is more trouble
fiovXofxevuv rdîu.
than a statesman
ifiavrhv roi
367
did he allow himself to be restrained by

religious considerations or traditions.
have at
Still less
We
least every reason for asserting this
personally,
and of
bably the
first
his School.
both of Aristippus
Theodorus was progain notoriety for his wanton

attacks on the popular faith; 2 still a connection
between the Cyrenaic philosophy and the insipid
to
rationalism of Euemerus^
ought
it
make
life
ovdh eis
TT/;/
rarrco
aAA'
SovAday av ifxavrhv
TOVTCov
ehai ris
dShs, %v
/xol
So/ce?
ireipcvfxai
âSiêiu,
uvre
5i'
dpyf/y oijre dia
SovAeias,
aWa
5l'
eAevdepias,
fiaXicrra
irphs
evâijxoviau
rjTrep
ct.-yei.
And after further objections:

aAA' iyd) rot, 'Iva /xi] Trdcrxcc ravra
noKiniav ijxavrhi/ KaradAAd êvos irai/rayov elfj.i.
Quite in keeping with this
homeless life is the language
used by Aristippus, according
oy5' els
K\eio},
to Teles in >Stob. Floril. 40,

8,
ii. 69, Mein., that to him it
was of no moment to die in his
CJountry; from every country
the way to Hades was the same.
vol.
His address
to
Dionysius in
Stab. Floril. 49, 22, is also quite

in harmony with Xenophons
iescription
lught
shake
sease.
-0
live
from
oft'
from
far
certain.
Nor
easy not only for himself, but also for
When Socrates met this by observing that those who rule are
better off than those who are
ruled, he rejoined dAA.' iyco roi
is
to be forgotten, that Aristippus strove

to
vvv rdrrco e? rohs $ov\ofx.evovs rj

P^ffTo. re Kol T^S^rra
Bioreveii/.
/ieVrj
Had you
learnt
me,
would
you
despotic rule as a di-
Being obliged, however,

under some form of ^ro-
vernment, a good one is naturally preferable to a bad one

;
and accordingly the saying
attributed
to
Floril.
18,
him
in
Stob.
touching the
difference between a despotic
and a monarchical form of government has about it nothing
improbable.
Nevertheless, at
a later period Aristippus may
have relaxed his views on civil
life to a certain extent. At any
rate he formed a connection
with a family with which he
would previously have nothing
to do. Certainly Dioff. 81, proves
nothing. Seep. 341, 4.
It was a natural consequence of their scepticism, that
they followed Protagoras in his
attitude towards religion; and
49,
'
by means of their" practical

turn that freedom from religious prejudices was decidedly
promoted, which they especially
required
man.
Dior/.
in
the
wise
91, see p. 360, 2.

Strom, vii. 722, D.
Clemens,
says more generally that 'they
rejected prayer.
2 Particuhirs of
this below.
^
See
p. 843, 5.
Chap.
XIV.
368
Chap.
XIV.
man-
Possessed of pleasing and attractive
others.
an enemy of vanity and boasting,^ he could

comfort friends with sympathy,^ and bear injuries
ners,^
He
with calmness.*
could avoid
anger ,^ and conciliate an offended friend.'^

extraordinary spectacle to his thinking
have been a virtuous
man
in the midst of the vicious
shown by
his opinion is
may
It
therefore be
mitigate
strife,^
The most
is
steadily pursuing his course

;
and that such was
really
his reverence for Socrates,
that he congratulated
true,^
himself on having become, thanks to Socrates, a

capable of being praised in
word, with
all
his
to
said
love
all
good conscience.
man
In a
of enjoyment, Aristippus
the name which

Greg. Naz. 307, gives him, and
*
5
Pint. Prof, in Virt. 9, p. 80.

Diog. 70 Stoh. Floril. 19, 6.
Ihid. 323, he commends him for

rb eu xdpiaToy rov rponov Koi (XTpcc-
Stoh. Floril. 20, 63.
7]^L(rros is
fivXov.
^
Khet. ii. 23;

See also p. 363, 3.
Arist.
See
Diog. 71, 73.
3 Athe/i. V.
H. vii. 3. mentions a letter of sympathy addressed to some friends, who
had met with a severe misfor-
quotes from the introduction the words: dA\'

iycoye rjKu irphs vjut-as ovx ws
(XvKKvnovixevos vfuv,aKX'
'Iva iTavffo}
In theory,
Aristippus could only estimate
the value of friendship by its
utility, as Epicurus did at a
tIv <piKov
later time. Diog. 91
rris XPf's '(Ev^Ka^ Koi yap u4pos
AuTTou/xeVous.
o-wixaros,
H-^XP^^
"*'
'^'^PV^
aaira-
Something similar is
also found in Socrates, see pp.
151, 3 222, 3 and he employs
the same argument Xe>i. Mem.
Câ-dat.
i.
See the adventure with

^schines in Pint. Coh. Ira. 14,
p. 462, Diog. 82, which Stoh.
Flor. 84, 19, probably by mis'
take, refers to the brother of

Aristippus.
Stoh. Floril.
37, 25: 'hpi(TTtTTTTos ipcoTTjOelsri
aîo6avixaar6v
He
tune.
bfjius
i,
2, 5-1.
koI ixirpios,
elire,
on
['o?
or
'6(rTis1'\
eV 7r,)A\oij vTTdpx<^v p.oxQf)poh oV

Sic'trTpairTat.
Which
Few
is
told
by Diog.
71.
the anecdotes about

Aristippus rest on good authority. Agreeing, however, as they
all do, in portraying a certain
character, they have been usedt
as the material for a historicall
They may be spurious
sketch.
in parts, but on the whole they
give a faithful representation of'
the man.
of

appears to have been a
man of high feelings and a

cuhvated mmd, a man
knowing how to preserve
calmness and freedom
of mind in the
p rpetual
change of human affairs,

how to govern
and mcWions, and how
to
events of
make
Chap.
XIV.
his^ln
the best of all

""'-"''
the
The strength
str<>no-tV, of
^f -ii
uwill which
can beard
!
destin V the
th. earnestness
destiny
of high feelings intent
upon
gêat ends, and strictness
of principles
life.
may not be
a proiicient in the
rare art of content
ment and moderation, while
the pleasing kindness
and the cheerful brightness
of his manners attract
fa
more than the superficial
and effeminate chara^r
hs moral views repel.
Nor are these traits
pm-ely
personal; they lie in
the very nature of
his systn
but he
his
IS
orudence.
,ui
e as
1?
much
"^^^^
From
with Aristippus as
with Diogener and
' ^^^'^ ^'^^
" -P'-ed by
indeed both are i^v ^

Hi. was a theory of a
kno^let
fT^
senses.
His was an insatiable

thirsting for know-
HS), that if Socrates

or
nstippus placed themselves
in
ilag-onism with tradition,
thcT
ght not to be imitated
the.e^
1.
magnis
-^
Socrates
emoved.
tie
Theory and practice

cover one another
iUi et divinis bonis
nc licentiam
assequebantur
oere audientib.
fflti^Zl
exS
schola
bu ed to ?!
d on ?he
^nnn^ r.
? I'
phiU^tos
'
^1 ""
rf
V" '^"'-
? """'^
,V'
SS^"!!
'^
-^'"- -'"S,
of Anti-
"^^ -"o mis-
;^^>r.t:ir
B B
"^"'o^'
^"^ " ^"'--'

'"""'' '^ ""ri-
-""
tX.
370
CHAP,
XlV-_
exercise; theirs a tota

ledge, an untiring critical
indifference to al
renunciation of knowledge, an
a scrupulous conscientheoretical enquiries. His was
submission to moral retiousness, an unconditional
of man upon himquirements, an unceasing toiling
was a comfortable theory of
self and others ; theirs
and treatmg even

never going beyond enjoyment,
On his side
indifference.
the means thereto with
moral strictness,
were self-denial, abstemiousness,
were luxurious indulpatriotism, piety ; on, theirs
a citizenship of the
gence, mischievous versatility,
a rationalism needing
world needing no country, and
allowed that Aristippus
no Gods. Nor yet can it be
of Socrates, or that his
was only a degenerate pupil
surface-deep by that
teaching had only been touched
life,
of his master.
Not only was he
classed
among
fol-
unanimous voice of antiquity,

lowers of Socrates by the
immediate reference to
which, no doubt, had more
with him ; not only did h
his external connection
of Socrates and regard his
always call himself a pupil
devotion '-a proof stronge,
teacher with unchanging
showing that he was able tx
than the former, and
his friend ; but his phi
appreciate the greatness of
that the spirit of his teache
losophy leaves no doubt
at work. The intellect,^
had in him been mightily
intellectual aims of Socratesh
convictions and the
stramii);
^ Socrates, on the one hand,
did not share ;
,
1
~
o
v,
^^7 5
p. dJT, 8See above,
?'"t'd
Sed
Piat
to br ng
Mê
2^3), in:
intellectual
teaching of Aristippus in(

connection witli tliat
(,
whe,f supporK'
arguments
additional
the
by
fecC 'even
'
helation of cyrenaics to sochatus.

every nerve to attain to
knowledge
the other hand, denying that
in
Aristippus, on
knowledge was possible;
his Ges. Abh. 233, nor are

they
regarded as such by liiUer
Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 106. Hermann thinks that Aristippus
was only lacking in the religious and moral tone of
Socrates, but that he steadily
adhered to his logical principles.
Socrates declared all judgments
to be relative, and only
conceptions 'to be universally
valid
in the same way, the
Cyrenaics
denied only the universal validity of judgments,
but not
that of conceptions ; for
they
allowed that all men receive
from the same things the same
declared the corresponding crn-
ceptions for instance, that of

the good to be relative.
In
the next place it is equally

untrue to say that the
Cyrenaics
only denied the universal
validity of judgments but

not that
of conceptions; for they
declared most emphatically

that
all our notions only
express our
personal feelings. They did
impressions, as to the names of

which they were agreed. These
names, however, were identical
with the conceptions of Socrates, conceptions having
been
by them as by the Cynics
and
Megarians reduced to empty

Qames and deprived of all real
mbstance. There is indeed a
loticeable advance in entirely
separating conceptions from
ippearances, and in more preiisely deHningthe highest
good
ts
the
lirst
ally
valid.
lace
it
judgment univerBut in the first
never occurred to Soto deny the universal

ahdity of judgments and it is
s certain that he allowed
uniersally valid judgments as
that
e allowed universally valid
rates
3nceptions such, for instance,

'All virtue is knowledge,'
5
every one pursues the good
id if he called some
judgments
ilative such as, This is good,'
;
<
-it is
no
less certain that
he
even allow that
same impressions
way
all
feel
not
the
in the same
unless in this passage
we
are to understand by
impressions, feelings themselves,
which caê
in
this language
would
be as unquestionable as it
would
be unmeaning but they
main;
tained that
we cannot know
whether others have the same

feelings as ourselves. And
that
they practically admitted
tl
common meaning of names thee
use of which they could
not
of course deny, is of
little account ; for they left it an
open
question, whether common
impressions and notions
corresponded to these names. It
will
be seen at once what has
become of the advance
Hermann
which
finds
in Aristippus.
decided distinction
between
conceptions and
appearances
can least of all be attributed
to
tfie Cyrenaics, seeing
that thev
know of nothing but apnea/ances and it will appear,
after
what has been said, to
be
eqiially a mistake
to say that
Pleasure is the hio-hcst
good
IS the first
judgment univer;
'
sally valid.
n 2
Chap.
XIV.

Socrates taking
up a new
position and a
new method
no
Aristippus allowing of
of gaining knowledge;
serve a practical end.
knowledge which does not
inagreatmeasure indebted tohisteacher
Still
he was
credit
with which we can readily
chaunprejudiced sobriety which
him,^ and for that
bearing.
racterises his whole
and
his moral teaching
The same may be said of
respect he was below So-
skill
for that critical
How
conduct.
far in this
to lum
Yet in truth he was nearer
crates is obvious.
On the one hand,
believed.
than will be readily
Socrates, as
we have
seen,
utility the
made
ground
of:
believe
Might not Aristippus then
lo:atduties.
^
deviating from
that he was not
a diffei
held
respects
if he in some
iJnal end in view,
^-f ^^^^^
to a
instructor as to the means
ent opinion from his
about
other hand, there was
pleasant life? On the
Socratic-that comLstippus much which is truly
tha
rises above circumstances
posm:e with which he
master of himself an
Lependence with which he is
whicl
that unbroken cheerfulness
his surroundings,
feeling, that quiet assuranc
engenders a kindliness of
o
confidence in the strength
which grows out of
most importan
Knowledge is with him the
,ind.
element.
By
^t
or-coriiino-lT
^' -.^^RldualRSS.
^''^.^r^
agree with
'
Plnl.
11.
a,
mak
he would
culture and prudence
%, who
says
h^ neia
stippus appeals to
the im
that
tirm to the view
found
inustte
action
pulses to
Tntut Î^S^Snr^Sfca:;
be known, to have arrived
at
conclusion opposite to that

Socrates.
^^^ ^^^
ved
.._
..J
^^^_
^^^^
ana
"
^.^
co^.^p^
^^ ^^
in his writings.
^^^,
^^^
'
CYRENAIC MORALS AND SOCRATES.

men
:i7[
as independent of external
circumstances as their
nature allows
Nay, so
of.
Chap
^^^-
far
does he go in this
direction that he not unfrequently
trenches on the
ground of the Cynics.^ In reality his
School
was also
internally connected with theirs.

pose to philosophy the same
Both Schools pro-
problem, how to acquire

practical culture,^ rather than
theoretical knowledge.
Both, therefore, neglect logical
and physical enquiries,
justifying their procedure by
theories,
'
based it is true
on different principles, but
leading in the end to the
same
sceptical results.
Both in their ethics compass

emancipation of man by means
of prudence, and the
raising him above outward things
ind events. One thing only
makes them opponentstheir pursuing this
common end by means the most
the
same
aimthe
opposite.
The Cynic
school follows the path of selfthe Cyrenaic that of self-indulgence;

the Cynic
hspenses with the outer world,
the Cyrenaic employs
t for Its own
purposes.^
The object of both Schools
)eing, however, one
and the same, their principles
:ome back again to the same
point. The C>Tiics deive the highest pleasure
from their self-denial ; Aritippus dispenses with
property and enjoyment, in
rder the more thoroughly
to appreciate them.^
lenial,
>
'
Ime Xr!^"
Si
TliP.
attributes
^""*^^^ Antisthenesand Arl
n^^^^^^^^^
cfor,.T
294an^to
To make
quotes the contradictory^ ate-
Antisthenes says that to philo-
^^^^ '
M'"^"^'' ,4 ^^
'^^ ^'^^^ P^"
^^^^-
'
Ihis -difference
HI
'''
^^
^^

towards politi-
CHAP
Xi'S'-
For a similar reason their attitude

traditions is a kindred one.
cal life and religious
the individual
Conscious of his mental superiority,
world, needing
withdraws himself from the external
fettered by the teno country, nor feeling himself
and troubling himself tar
liefsofhis countrymen;
attempt any mouldmg mtoo little about others to
of politics or that ot
fiuence on either the sphere
there
their sharp differences,
Thus, despite
between these Schools betraymg
is a family likeness
the Socratic philosophy
their common descent from
religion.
'
alloyed with Sophistry.
Certainly
it
must be granted that Aristippus

the^
original ground of
diverged far more from the
The utili-,
Antisthenes.
Socratic teaching than did
Socrates was only anj
tarian view of life, which with
commend to the reflecting
auxiliary notion in order to
here raised to be
mind the practice of morality, was
knowledge of Socrates bemg
a leading thought, the
Philosophy became witt
pressed into its service.
for further-
.
'
a means
Aristippus, as with the Sophists,
Instead o
individuals.
ing the private objects of
was pur
knowledge, only personal culture
scientific
knowledge
in
sued and regarded as consisting
enjoyment.
world and in the art of
The
ot th
scant
origin and truth ot

remarks of Aristippus on the
most part from Vxc
impressions, borrowed for the
oi:
to a wholly un-Socrat
tagoras and ultimately leading
were only intended
destruction of all knowledge,
If not altogether annih
helps to moral doctrines.
of the Socratic philosopl
lated, the deeper meaning
;
DELATION OF AlilSTIPPUS TO SOCRATES.
375
was here at least subordinated to what with Socrates

was a bare outwork, and ahnost an obstruction to his
leading thought.
Chap.
__^^^\
Grranting that Aristippus was not
a false follower of Socrates,^ he was certainly a very

one-sided follower, or rather he, among all the followers of Socrates, was the one
who
least entered into
his master's real teaching.
Side by side with this foreign element, the genuine

Pomts
'/^'''^'"^'
Socratic teaching cannot be ignored in the
^^
Cyrenaic
In that school there are in fact two elements,

the combination of which constitutes its
peculiarity.
One of these is the doctrine of pleasure as such, the
other, the limitation of that doctrine by the
Socratic
school.
demand for intellectual circumspection the principle

that prudence
pleasure.
the only means for arriving at true

The former element, taken alone, would
is
lead to the conclusion that sensual
enjoyment is the
the latter, to the strict Socratic
doctrine of morals.
By uniting both elements Arionly object in
life
stippus arrived at the
conviction which is stamped

his language, and on which his personal
cha-
m all
standing comment that the surest way

io happiness is to be found in the art
of enjoying the
3leasures of the moment with perfect freedom
of soul.
racter is a
i\niether this is
indeed possible, whether the two

eading thoughts in his system can be harmonised
at
11, is a question which it seems never
occurred to
Iristippus.
["hat
We
freedom of
'
can only answer
it
in the negative,
soul, that philosophic
As Schleiermaoher maintains, Gesch,
independence
d. Phil. 87.

at which Aristippus aimed, can only be secured by
soaring above the impressions of the senses and the
Chap,
^^-
particular circumstances of life to such an extent that

happiness becomes independent of these surroundings
and
Conversely, when the enjoyment of the

the highest object, happiness can only be
feelings.
moment
is
proportion as circumstances give occasion to

agreeable feelings; all unpleasant impressions being
felt in
disturbers of happiness.
It is impossible to
abandon
prethe feelings freely to the enjoyment of what is

without at the same time being disagreeably
sent,
by what is unpleasant. Abstraction, whereby

forbidden ;
alone this might be done, is distinctly
to be
Aristippus requiring the past and the future
Apart
ignored and the present only to be considered.
suffers from
therefore from other defects, this theory
ij
affected
j
,
fundamental principles, the insystem could

jurious effects of which for the whole
they soon
not fail to follow. As a matter of fact
appeared in the teaching of Theodoras, Hegesias,and
contradiction in
Anniceris
E. The
Uter
Cy
'ir)'Tl'ieo'^'*''*''
its
hence the interest which the history of
the later Cyrenaics possesses.

About the same time that Epicurus was giving a
^^^^ ^^ the philosophy of pleasure, Theodoras.
^^^
School.
Hegesias, and Anniceris, within the Cyrenaic
those o1
were advocating views partly agreeing with
of pleaEpicurus, partly going beyond his doctrine

Theodoras, on the whole, adhered to the prinsure.
unscrupulous a(
of Aristippus, not hesitating,
ciples
consel
he was, to push them to their most extreme
LATER CYMENAICS. TIIEOBORUS.

The value of an
quences.i
its results
077
action depending upon
to the doer,
he concluded that any and

every action might under circumstances
be allowed.
If certain things pass for immoral, there
reason why this should be so, if the masses
is
a good
are to be
kept within bounds
:
the wise man, tied by no such
prejudice, need not, in suitable cases,
be afraid of
adultery, theft, and sacrilege.
If things
exist for use,
women and
beautiful
boys are not made only for

Friendship, it seemed to him, may be
ornament.2
dispensed with
for the
wise
man
is
self-sufficing
and needs no friends, and the fool can

make na
sensible use of them.^
Devotion to one's country he
considered ridiculous
of the world,
wisdom
and
'
for the wise
Gods and
vi. 97.
11.99.
ThatTheodorus said this and similar
things cannot be doubted after
,the dehnite and explicit testimonyot Diogenes. It is true
507, Theodorus complains
that his pupils misunderstood
p.
iim-a statement which,

I,
Itt
iî>Sriv%TVP
''"L.^^^
Pasdag.
(^lîe?is,
?\ andS yet
IK
S(|15, A.),
.
if it
be true probably refers to the

practical application of
his
lorinciples.
He may have led
'
have expressed
the logical consequences of

the
and his
of his School
Cyrenaic teaching.
But it is
undoubtedly an exao-o-eration
to charge him, 2I
kiZnZ
(Expos.
î>t.^.
The views
religion were also expressed
'
apao-^raTos is the term used
of him by I)iog. ii. 116; and
this epithet IS fully justified by
a passage like that,
a citizen
is
will not sacrifice himself
to benefit fools.^
respecting the
man
Fid. 1089, AO doe?

with inciting to theft;pirjury:
P^^J^^y,
and robbery
3
1.
c.
jj^
in
.^g
still
h.-yaQhv ix6vov
'
^^^ Epiphanim^
stronge/ terms
%x.y. rhu evSaûo-
Svarvxo'vura, kUv ,} fro<b6s- koX

alp.rhu .hai rhu &^po.a nKovaô^
6pTa nal i^êidr, (anadri ') This

statement, likewise, seems to
be rather in the nkture of a
hasty conclusion, for Theodorus
makes happiness' depend on in!
telligence, and not on thin-s
without.
Dioff. 98,
Epiph,
1.
c.
Chap.
^J^-

Chap.
XIV.
folwithout reserve;^ Bio^ and Euemerus^ herein

of
lowing his example. For all that, the theory
1
of Theodorus,
The atheism
which, besides
bringing down
him an indictment at
Athens, gained for him the
standing epithet 2t0eos (he was
called 0ebs according to Diog.
joke
ii. 86, 100, in allusion to a
of Stilpo's, but probably Kar
avricpaaii/ for at0eos), will be freIn JDiog.
quently mentioned.
on
97 he says
?iv
1089, A.) also asserts that he

denied the existence of a God.
In the face of these agreeing
testimonies, the assertion of

Clemens (Paedag. 15, A.), that
Theodorus and others had
wrongly been called atheists,
and that they only denied the
popular Gods, their lives being

otherwise good, can be of little
Theodorus no doubt
weight.
Gods of the people
the
denied
in the first place, but it was
iravrdiraaLV
avaipwv ras trepl 6ea>v 5(5|as

KoL abrov -nepiervx/'lJ-^v /3t^\iCf)
ovk
Oeav
irepl
iTnyeypafiixevcp
ijKaTa(ppovT]To:
e|
not his intention to distinguish

between them and the true God.
The anecdotes in Biog. ii. 101,
in116, give the impression of
(paaiv
ov
ra irAeTa-'â
The last statement can
elirelu.
only apply to the criticism of
belief in the Gods generally,
for Epicurus' peculiar views
about them were certainly not
Sext.
shared by Theodorus.
Pyrrh. iii. 218; Math. ix. 51,
55, mentions him among those
who deny the existence of the
Gods, with the addition 5ta
Tov Trepl deuu awTdyfiaros ra
vapa Tols "E\\t](T1 deo\oyoviJ.eva
'ETTLKovpou
Aaj3oj/Ta
sincerity.
1,
2) says
The argument quoted

by Sen. Benef. vii. 7, 1, to
prove that every one and that
no one commits sacrilege is
more a rhetorical and intellectual work of skill.
3 The view of Euemerus respecting the Gods is briefly as
follows There are two kinds of
(3-odsheavenly and incorruptible beings, who are honoured
by men as Gods, such as the
sun, the stars, the winds and
dead men, who were raised to
the rank of Gods for their
benefits to mankind. Diodorus
ments.
Cic. (N.
nullos [Deos]
esse omnino Diagoras Melius

et Theodorus Cyrenaicus putaNonne
Ibid. 23, 63
verunt.
aperte Deorum naturam sustu-
IMd. 42, 117 Omnino

?
Deos esse negabant, a statement
which Miiiuc. Fel. Oct. 8, 2, and
lerunt
iromiA.us avaffKevaffas.
i.
Diog. iv. 54 : TroWa Se koi

aOeurepov Trpoaecp^pero ro7s o/xi\ovaL TOVTO eoScopetoj/ airoXava as but in his last illness he
was overcome with remorse,
and had recourse to enchant2
D.
Lact. Ira Dei, 9, probably repeat after him. Likewise Pint.

Comm. Not. 31, 4, p. 1075, says
Even Theodorus and those who
shared his views did not declare God to be corruptible,
a\\' OVK iiriffTevaav us icrri ri
Ujnjjh. (Expos. Fid.
&<pdaprov.
:
in Hits. Pr. Ev. ii. 2, 52. Tc

the latter class of beings Euemerus referred the whole oJ
Mythology, and supposed it t<

be a history of princes anc
LATER CYRENAICS. TIIEODORUS.
379
Aristippus did not altogether satisfy him.
He was
admit that pleasure and pain do not merely
depend on ourselves and our inner state, but also in
a great measure on external circumstances and he
fain to
therefore sought such a definition of the
good
highest
as should secure happiness to the wise
man,
and make that happiness dependent on his prudence.^
This result, he thought, would be reached if happiness were
sures,
made
to consist, not in individual pleabut in a cheerful state of mind and con-
versely evil, not in individual feelings of pain, but in

an unhappy tone of mind ; for feelings being the effects
of impressions from without, states of mind are in our

own power.2 Accordingly, Theodorus asserted that
in themselves pleasure
and pain are neither good nor

goodness consists in cheerfulness, evil in sadness
the former proceeds from prudence, the latter from
bad
folly; therefore pursue
prudence and justice, eschew
princesses,
Uranus, Cronus,
Zeus, Ehea, &c.
For further
particulars respecting this rationalising history of the Gods,
con^vli Steinhart,A.\\g. Encyclo.
Art. Euhemerus.
V. Sieruka,
De Euhemero.
These reasons are not mentioned in so many words, but
they follow from Theodorus'
positions about the highest
good, and also from the stress
which, according to Diof/. 98,
he laid on the avrdpKcia of the
wise mtin, and the difference
he made between wisdom and
'
,
, .
^
irobably
what Cic.
(Tusc.
13, 28
14, 31) quotes as
^^l^Â
111.
Cyrenaic doctrine belongs to

that not every evil
engenders sorrow, but only unTiieodorus
foreseen evils, that many precautions can be taken to pre-
vent sorrow by familiarising

ourselves with the thought of
future evils. What control of
outward impressions he considered possible by prudence,
appears also from the explanatory remarks in Stob. Floril
119, 16
the wise man has
never sutHcient reason to put
an end to his own life, and it
is inconsistent to call vile the
;
^^'^^' ^"^ ^lên to put an

to life to avoid the suffcrings of life.
^^^y
end
Chap,
_^'
'
380
Occasionally he him-
ignorance and wrong-doing.^
Chap.
and an indifference to
to a Cynic.
life 2 which would have done honour
Not that the theory of pleasure was therewith surrendered, but the older setting of that theory was
self displayed a fearlessness
__^^1l_
In place of individual pleasures, a state

mere
of mind was substituted, independent of the
Instead of a
feelings of enjoyment and pleasure.
changed.
(
cheerful resignation to the impressions of the moment, the highest good was made to consist in rising
superior to circumstances.
Hegesias went a step fmrther.
(2) Hegefivas.
to the general
maxims
He,
too, adheres
With him
of Aristippus.
identical with pleasure, evil with unhappiif.

ness: all that we do, we do only for ourselves;
because
services are rendered to others, it is only
good
is
advantages are expected in return.^

Diog. 98 riKos 5' hiteXifxâve
r^v fi^ eVl
Xapav KoX Kvnr\u
'
(bpovi}<Ti,
r^v
5'
a(ppoavvri
eVl
^\<pp6v(\(riv koX 8iKaio(rw7)/,
kyaQ^
KaKx Se ras ivavrias
|6is, /xeVa
hk 7]ôu)]v Koi tT6vov. That justice

should be reckoned among
good things may be brought
into agreement with what is
quoted p. 266, 3. It is to be
recommended, because it protects us from the unpleasant
consequences of forbidden actions, and from the disquiet
which the prospect

.
of
these
alproduces,
consequences
though such actions are not in
themselves inadmissible.
2 When at the court of LyBimachus, he so enraged the
latter by his frankness (^Diog.
But on
looking:
Plut. Exil. 16 Philo, Qu.

Pr. Tib. p. 606, 884, C.)
that Lysimachus threatened to
crucify him, upon which Theo-
102
Omn.
uttered the celebrated

saying, that it was indifferent
to him whether he went to
corruption in the earth or
Cic. Tusc. i. 43, 102 ;
the air.
Phit. An.
Valer. Max. vi. 2, 3
dorus
.;
'
Stoh. Floril.
Vitios. 3, p. 499
saying
another
attribute
23,
2,
to him on the same occasion,
attributing to Anaxarchus the
above passage in Stoh. Floril.
;
2, 23.
^ Diog. ii. 93
oi Se HyrjertoKoi
MySî^voi aKoirovs fiv dxov tous
axWovs 7]Boutiu koL tthvov, ^rjre Se
:
x'^P"'
'''
^^""^
/^^7
"^'^/'"f
^T ^
euep7e(n'aj/,5idTb^r?5i auTOTauTfl
LATER CYRENAICS. HEGESIAS.
round to discover wherein true

pleasure is to be
found, Hegesias met with no
very consoling answer
Our life, he says, is full of trouble
;
sufferings of the
Its
peace
body
fortune
the numerous
affect the soul also, disturbing
in
numberless ways crosses our

cannot reckon upon a satisfactory
state
of mmd, in a word, upon
happiness.'
Even the
practical wisdom, upon which
Aristippus relied, affords to his mind no security
for perceptions,
;
wishes;
man
accord-
mg
to the old Cyrenaic
maxim, not showing us things
as they are in themselves, if
we
act according to probabilities,

our calculations will come true
cannot be
enough
if
had,
it
is
we can but
are always obliged to
who can be sure that

? ^
And if happiness
surely foolish to try for

it
fortify ourselves against
the'
sufferings of life; freedom

I
IS
our goal.3
8 world where
aipew-Sai
Ibid
from pain, not pleasure,

Yet how may this goal be
reached in
îi^ts auTct,
<i^
JIT
so
much
ixxi
trouble and pain falls to

our
8n! ris
^""-''""'fXe'":^
p.
343
a,<|,s
i,K
i^ptgoiâ! thw
M.
""*' '"^'-. "nconditionally

Exp Fid Imo H tfff/
sJe. but less ac'cuâ,^"" "" guaranteeing for it this rela^
TtapKTOV
rt),,
ev5ai/iiouiau eJuai. i>ee
Chap
XIV.
81
THE SOCEATIC SCBOOtS.
J52
CHAP
Clearly not at
lot?
all
as long as peace of
minuj
and circumstances,
depends upon external things
when we are mdi&
contentment is only then sure,
_i^^
I
produces pleasure or pam.

ferent to everything which
depend ultimately!^
These, as Hegesias observes,
our attitude towards

not upon things, but upon
pleasant or unpleasant,
things ; in itself nothing is
according to our
but makes a varied impression,
riches nor poverty
tone and condition.^ Neither
bemg
life ; the rich not
affect the happiness of
freedom, nor slavery,
happier than the poor. Neither
dishonour, are condihigh nor low rank, honour nor
Indeed,
pleasure we receive.
tions of the
a fool ; to the wise

only appears a good thing to
No Stoic or Cynic could more
indifferent.'
life
^
amount of
man
it is
sternly
things than
denounce the value of external
With these prindoes.

the pupil of Aristippus here
and thoroughly Socratic
ciples is connected the noble
anger, nor human
maxim that faults do not call for
no
for instruction, since

beings for hatred, but only
what
is wrong ;^ desirmg
one intentionally does what
what is good
pleasant, everyone desires
his peace of
wise man does not allow
is
and
as,
mmd
to
the
neither does he allow

depend on things external,
of others.
to be ruffled by the faults
.
OTecedinc note.
S^fJ 9i T^J T omv
Sp<.
tX ^ô;
i,rv
which pro.
bably only bears

given in the te^t.
...^..,
Ma^^-
it,
sense
Similarl,
the
M-5.5.1?..
LATER CYRENAICS. ANmCEHIS.
383
In the theory of Hegesias it is

seen more decidedly
even than in that of Theodoras,
that the doctrine of
pleasure is unsatisfactory.
It is even expressly admitted that human life has
about it more of sorrow
Chap
^^^
Î^''
than joy, and hence a perfect

indifference to things
outward is insisted upon. But
what right has Hegewith the good, and pain with

the good is that which is
the con-
sias to Identify pleasure
evil ?
After
all,
dition of our
well-being;
if this be indifference
rather than pleasure, indifference
and not pleasure
IS the good; the
doctrine of pleasure has come
round
to Its
opposite-the Cynic independence

of everything
external.
Not that the Cyrenaic school

could avow
this as its general principle
own
position
still it is
without sun-enderin<r
distinctly
its
avowed within that
school that pleasure
is not in all cases

the highest
Anniceris indeed maintained
that the aim (3) Anniot every action is the
pleasure resulting therefrom
"""'
and, like the older Cyrenaics,
he would not hear of a
general aim of life, nor substitute
freedom from pain
in the place of pleasure.'
He observed too that by
pleasure only our own pleasure
can be understood
;
for of the feelings of
others, according to the
old
motive.
'
'flemem, Strom,
ii.
417, B.
e^rala.,
statement in Bion
ii
or,
of S-
jpciô,.
Sk
Ziri,n.ouv.dpxe..i.d.rvs
re'Ao,, rV
Hcêsia.-and also the^ser

tion (,V./^. -A^.r^.) that
Tnni
j5o.^., o^ro.
Kvpr,ua,.o\ rhy
8pov rvs 7,50.,. 'E...u.;pou,
tout-
ino- to
Suidas, in the'
Hme
of
rV
Alexander, was an EpiciSean

Cicero and Diogenes Akew'se'
iiroKaKovures.
affirm that his School

deol^Z
pleasure to be the ^^'^P-nod
ô^T.
roy aXyovuro, ^.eâiP^jrj aêro... .e^po,-) Kardcrraa.u
See p. 354, 1. This

would justify the inaccurate
THE SOCEATIC SCHOOLS.
3g4
CHAP,
^l^-
know nothing.^ Yet I

teaching of his School, we can
enjoyments of the
pleasure is not only caused by
"
with other men and by|
senses, but by intercourse
Anniceris allowed to|
honourable pursuits.^ Hence,
affection, and patriotism
friendship, gratitude, family
apart from the benefit
an independent value, quite
He even went so
from these relations.
,
resulting
wise man would make sacrifar as to say that the

happiness suffer from his
for them, nor would his
fices
remained to him but little

This admission brought him
actual enjoyment.3
life, to which he apround to the ordinary view of
less value to
proximated still further by attaching
in the Cyrenaic doctrine
prudence, the second element
had done. In fact, he
of morals, than Aristippus
is sufficient to make us
denied that prudence alone
above the prejudices of the
safe and to raise us
as well, to overcome
masses there must be practice
so doing, even if there
the effect of perverse use.*
apervi',
M^ê
^^ZTeTl
Clemens,^
c
o
i.
The expression
continues:
wv
an action, ^^^ J^n^thereimmediately bound up there
3ia, Kal
X^P- -' -P^^
arepeaeai
r^^.
vTvo\eL7rov<Ta>v t^h
1
,
t6v
,W
a7ro5e'xe(r0ai,
I ^^y^^^^l^^l^l^%^
<t,.Afat'f
Ibid. 97
Trpiy4vnrai aur^:.
..Vuov .^ 5.^ ras XP-S
abrr}s
g^cos
^Kovaâ^s
96 ., .i.ai r. a...p^
hdyou ^phs rh 0ap^^(rat /col
rhu a^t
t5.
^J^^ 5^|//i^.pciv
'^^"^ ^'^
T ^^''
<rv.rpacl>..aay
,,.
LATER CrRBNAICS.
SUMMARY.
Thus the Cjrenaic doctrine
vanish away.
he on
is seen gradually
to
Aristippus declared
that
^W ^
, good, understanding by pleasu.'

actuTli;
joyment, and not mere
freedom from pain
and
moreover,
making the pleasure of

the moment and
^ '"'''''^'^ bethe
"SôTVT
Itf
abandoned.
Theodoras denied the last

one, 'êgêsias
Heeesias
the second, and even th^ i
ceris
'* '^^' ''''^''^d
Tt tV
b
bme
"e the
by Anni-
'" '"P^^^^'^l^ ^* s!c"r "T"'

Socratic
demand for prudence and
--
indenen
dance o the external
world, with the
leading thought'
of the theory of
pleasure.
The Socratic elemfnt
r
OddlyTn^VL-^ry^nt
or;:Siiec?u:i^~ir:^^^^^^^
-ults Wrom.
drtotrrv^
-^ ^^-^
^^"^-
"""^^^pp-'-^'i^ other r:;ec:
C c
Chap.
XIV.
CHAPTER XV.
KETROSPECT.
have been common to

Inconsistencies appear to
an inIt was, without doubt,
the Socratic Schools.
confine
of the Megarians to
consistency on the part
same time o
conceptions, and at the
all
knowledge to
do away with
all possibility of
development and with

concep-
or definiteness in
anything like multiplicity
the
being is the good, and, at
tions ; to declare that
being
variety and motion to
same time, by denying
alone can
that creative power which
to deprive it of
with the Socratic

a position; to begin
unmeaning hair-splittmg.
wisdom, and to end in
on the part of Antisthenes
It was an inconsistency
fomidation
build all human life on a
to endeavour to
destroying all
at the same time
of knowledge, whilst
meaning
statements touching the
Ltify-h
knowledge by his
conceptions.
and connection of
and
Lsistency both in himself
It
was no small in-
his followers to
a^
world, and
independence of the outer
at a perfect
external
exaggerated value to the
yet to attribute an
war against
of life ; to declare
of the Cynic mode
to
and at the same ime
pleasure and selfishness,
the mos sacred
flounce the wise man free from
and yet
all enjoyments,
moral duties; to renounce
SOCnATIC SCHOOLS RELATEB

TO SOCRATES.
'
3,
to revel in the
enjoyment of a moral
self-exaltation.
In these inconsistencies
and in their unintentional
contradictions appears the
unsatisfactory nature
of
the principles from which
all these Schools
.started
It IS seen how far they
were removed from the
perfect moderation, from
the ready
Chap
^^
susceptibility of
the living versatility
of Socrates, all
clinging to particular sides
of his personal character,
but unable to comprehend
it as a whole
mmd, from
The same
fact will also,
tendency to Sophistry which

philosophers.
nans the
no doubt, explain that

is
B. rte,,
so striking in these '"^""^
The captious reasoning of

^he
Meg"
"'
wf^
indifference of the Cynics

to all speculative
tZTtJ
knowledge, and their contempt
for the whole theorv *-^*'-*-'
of conceptions, no less than
the doctrines of Aristippus relative to knowledge and
pleasure, savour more
the Sophists than of

Socrates.
Yet all these
schools professed to follow
Socrates, nor was there
one of them which did not
place some element of
the
Socratic philosophy at the
head of its system. It
IS therefore hardly
correct for
of
modern
writers to find
nothing but sophistical views

in their teaching,
supplemented and corrected by
what is Socratic, and,

instead of deducing their
differences from the manyl
sidedness of Socrates, to refer
them to the diversities
of the Sophists converging
from
many
the Socratic philosophy as

a centre.
aS
there .ays thaf the

in matter between these
schools
and the Socratic teaching ought
'
sides towards
With decided
^^'^^.^^^1'^''"'''^^
rived from
Z^
T"..'*''-
^:l^7o^^:.^^"i:^

Antisthenes and Euclid,,
admirers of Socrates, such as
shadow of support for this
there can be not even a
at a faithSuch men conscientiously aimmg
view
Socrates
life and teaching of
ful reproduction of the
to him they were first
must have been conscious that
centre, and that from
indebted for an intellectual
germ of a true
him they had first received the living
be clearly observed in
philosophy ;-indeed this may
speak
In their case it is wrong to
their philosophy.
of Socrates on sophistical
of the ennobling influence
to speak of the influence
principles; we ought rather
treatment of the teachmg of
of sophistry on their
the substance of
Socrates, as it were, gave
Socrates.
only a narrower limitathe teaching, sophistry being
a School like that of the
tion of it ; for this reason
that
to connect itself with
Stoics was able in the end
of the Cynics.
With Aristippus the case
Yet even
of
respect
in
is
him
somewhat
it
,-
f
difterent..
has been already
he professed to be a fol-he really was one, although

lower of Socrates, but that
others into the deeper meanhe penetrated less than
and showed the influthe founder's teaching,
established, not only that
ing of
ence of sophistical
to act
sophistry, endeavouring
equipoise to bocratic
an
teaming &c
as
agrees
ill
Yet
J*
this
remak
'fi^s whicS
^^
ce ^^lSi:S^^\^:>fZ
f
^^^
^^
tte
i
Eost.e o
f .)
StSrf/ÂS^s
and
a'il^Sime.
370, 2),
^^^
Far more correct and more
^'^-pinf
^^^^
t:^ :L'^toSsceruin
(see pp. 296, 1
If then,
views most, plainly.
w^^^^^^^^^
^.^ 257.)
IMPORTANCE OF SOCRATIC SCHOOLS.

besides lower capacities, previous
sophistical training
may be the cause which prevented the founders of
the imperfect Schools from entering
so deeply or
fully into -the spirit of their master
as Plato did, it
:î
chap.
^^'
should also be remembered that Socrates

himself
gave occasion to this variety in the Schools
which
were connected with him.
On the one hand, his

personal character afforded so rich a field
as to invite
investigation in the most opposite directions
;
on the
other hand, the scientific form of his
philosophy was
so imperfect and so unsystematic,
that it gave scope
for many diverging modes of
treatment.'
This disintegration of the Socratic

Schools is c. imaccordingly not without importance for
the further ^^^"^'^
progress of philosophy.
Bringing out the separate thôll
elements which were united in Socrates, and
connecting them with the corresponding elements
in the pre-
Socratic philosophy,
held them up for more careful

The problems were set for all subsequent thinkers to discuss. The logical
and ethical
consequences of the Socratic maxims
were brought
it
observation.
to light.
On
the other hand, it was seen what the

separation of the various elements in
the teaching
of Socrates, and their combination
with other
theories, would lead to, unless these
theories were
'
Cic.
de Orat.
iii.
16, Gl,
observes with some justice, but
somewhat
superficially
Cum
essentpluresortifereaSocrate,
quod ex ilhus varns et diversis
ct in
omnem partem
diffusis
'"^'"^ '"'"^^^ ''''
'^Xnf'.'^^'
prehenderat, proscminataj
sunt
quasi familiê dissentientes inter se, &c.

For instance Pla"o
and Antisthenes,
pat en^
qS
tiam et duritiam in 8o?ra Lo

sermone maxime adamarSfan
also Aristippus, quem iliac ma
voluptari^' \lispu ation;s
delectarant.
'^'^

first
recast after the
mind
of Socrates.
In this way
schools
the one-sidedness of the smaller Socratic
was indirectly instrumental in enforcing the demand
connect
for a comprehensive treatment which should
more
the different aspects of the Socratic philosophy
systems, and
closely with each other and with earlier
to the
decide the importance of each one relatively
In both ways these Schools influenced Plato
rest.
and
for
basis
Aristotle, Euclid supplying to Plato the
his theory of ideas, Antisthenes
and Aristippus
good.
the groundwork for his theory of the highest
folOf greater importance is the fact that those
the course
lowers of Socrates prepared the way for
Aristotle.
taken by philosophy after the time of
systems are
True as it is that the post-Aristotelian
imperfect
immediately connected with the
not
Socratic
Schools,
and that
those
systems
would
Aristotle
have been impossible without Plato and
that these thinkers
still it must not be forgotten
,
Socratic Schools.
are also deeply indebted to the
intellectual
The predominance of practical over
dis-
which the post- Aristotelian philosophy

which the wise
plays the moral contentment with
external, falls
man, withdrawing from everything
freedom and
back upon the consciousness of his
which can disthe citizenship of the world
interests
;
virtue
interest all these

pense with a country and political
foreshadowed in the
peculiarities of later times are
Stoa adopted the moral
lesser Socratic Schools. The
their entirety, only
principles of the Cynics almost in
softening
them down and expanding them
in applica-
IMPORTANCE OF SOCRATIC SCHOOLS.

tion.
The same School
looks for
Megarians besides Aristotle.
its logic chiefly
From
39
to the
the School of
Megara too the scepticism of Pyrrho and the Academy

branched off, albeit in a somewhat different direction.
The teaching of Aristippus reappears in Epicurus,
only changed in some details.
In short, tendencies,
which at an
lified
earlier period could only secure a
recognition, obtained the
strengthened, recast,
qua-
upper hand when
and supplemented by other
elements.
Yet even
was not possible until the

tual strength of Grreece had abated, and her
this
intellecpolitical
condition had become so far hopeless as to favour

the
view that indifference to everything external

could alone lead to peace of mind.
Previously the
had been too quick, and the Grreek

spirit too keen, to allow the hard-won results of the
Socratic philosophy to be thus frittered away.
That
philosophy according to its deeper bearings must
intellectual sense
needs issue in a science of conceptions such as was

set forth
by Plato and
Aristotle.
Only by separating the various but inwardly connected elements of the Socratic teaching, only by
confounding the form in which Socrates clothed his

teaching with that teaching itself, and mistaking
defects in
manner
for defects in matter, could phi-
losophy be limited to metaphysics so abstract and

a criticism so
empty
as the
Megarian, to morals so
unintellectual and absolutely negative as
the Cynics
those of
or could the doctrine of Aristippus pass
for truly Socratic.
Whilst therefore these Schools
Chap.
THE SO CRATIO SCHOOLS.
)iJ
Chap,
'-
are
not without
importance
for
the progress
of
Grreek philosophy, their intellectual productions can-
not be valued very highly.
truer understanding
and a more comprehensive treatment of the Socratic

philosophy, was the work of Plato.
INDEX.
ACA
CADEMICIANS,
ANT
269
spirit alone
'A
i^cademy,
I
older,
with Plato, 61
50; connected
new, 4
Accusation, the, of Socrates, 103

Eschines, view of Socrates, 76
assigns the reason for the con-
demnation of Socrates, 211; a

disciple of Socrates, 245
his
prose preferred by some to that
;
of Xenophon, 245
Eschylus, illustrating the state of
thought in the fifth century, b.c,
6 ; on the boundary line between
two periods, 9; difference be-
tween, and Sophocles, J 2 con^trasted with Euripides, 16

pthiops, a pupil of the elder Ari;
stippus, 342
gatho, the dainty elegance of,
20
Icibiaxies, of
Plato's, 78
allows
that the discourses of Socrates
seem rude, 80; fascinated by
;
Socrates, 183, 184; his connec|tion with Socrates,

207, 214 '
219,221
lexinus, a native of Elis,
notorious
for
'
221
Ancient morality, relation of Socrates to, 226
Anniceris; a Cyrenaic, pupil of
Antipater, 343, 375, 379, 385
Antigone of Sophocles, 13
Antipater, a Cyrenaic, pupil of the
elder Aristippus, 342 Hegesias
and Anniceris his pupils, 343
Antisthencs, theory of, dangerous
to the popular faith, 229 founder
of a Socratic School, the Cynic,
;
247, 284, 291 ; a nativeof Atlien.s,

rejects every combination
;
of subject and predicate, 277
284
holds that the One alone exists,

279; the teacher of Diogenes,
286
his character, 291
expresses himself in favour of cul;
ture,
his
293;
nominalistic
theory, 297; prefers madness to
pleasure, 305
how led to his
views, 307
allows that some
kinds of pleasure are good, 308
makes virtue consist in knowledge, 310, 311 ; considers marriage unnecessary, 320 censures
;
liis
captiousness, 253; two

arguments of his known, 268;
attacked byMenedemus the Ere
trian,
282
laxagoras, his teaching referred

to
can make a world out
of matter, 42 ; teaching known

to Socrates, 57; extravagant
theories of, 135 ; his view of God
as the Reason of the world, 176
his atheism charged on Socrates!
by Euripides, 19; proves that
popular government, 322 doubts

;
INDEX.
394
ARI
ANY
doctrine his,
popular faith, 327 assails mysteries, 329; makes happiness

the end of philosophy, 346 deviates from teaching of Socrates,
374 inconsistencies of, 386
Anytus, the accuser of Socrates,
193; his dislike for Socrates,
203; based on some supposed
personal injury, 205, 206, 207
vioa leading democrat, 211 a
lent opponent of the Sophists,
218 supposed to uphold ancient
morality, 231
Aphrodite, story of, in Euripides,
;
344 studied Ethi(

;
thinks happi
exclusively, 346
34'
ness the end of philosophy,
;
considers enjoymer_
376 theory
developof highest good, 391
ment of his leading thought,
348 considers feeling produced
con\)\ internal motion, 352
duct and views of, 352, 361 a
greatly infree-thinker, 367;
375, 385;
an end in
itself, 347,
'
debted to Socrates, 368 not a

degenerate pupil of Socrates,
has many Socratic
370, 375
dispenses with
372
traits,
373
enjoyment,
and
property
;
ApoUonius
of
Cyrene, surnamed
Cronos, 251
Apology, 101;
the language ot
Socrates in, 79 sifting of men

described in, 125 cautious language of, on a future life, 153
moral considerations dwelt on
by Socrates in his, 185 proves
that popular opinion about Socrates agreed with the picture
drawn by Aristophanes, 215
;
Xenophon's, 205
deviates further from Socrates

than Antisthenes, 374 his scanty
remarks on the origin of im-,
Archilaus, teaches that the spirit

returns to the ether, 19 falsely
of
said to have been a teacher
Socrates, 57
Archipylus, an Elean philosopher,
;
pressions, 374; his principles'

adhered to by Theodorus, 379
and by Hegesias, 380 teaching,
;,
reappears in Epicurus, 392

Aristippus the younger, grandsotij
of the elder Aristippus, 341
his pupils, 342
Aristophanes, illustrating the proai
blem of philosophy, 29
108
29,
innovation,
enemy of
th;
114, 217, 218 his play of
|
jj
Clouds supposed to have bee]

20'
suggested by Anytus, 203,
So
considered
[see Clouds']
crates a dangerous teacher, 207
'
'
280
.
.
AriArete, daughter of the elder
stippus, 341
.
T
Arginusse, state of public feeling
Socrates
after battle of, 207
hazarded his life to save the
.
opposes him on patriotic ground

209 charges Socrates with Sc
phistic display, 221
;
distinction betwee
victors at, 225

Aristides, the time of, 231 supposed relationship of, to So;
crates, 62, n.
Aristippus, connection of his teaching to that of Socrates, 155 doctrine of, 392 founder of a Socratic School, the Cyrenaic, 247, 337
independent in character, 339 ;
his pupils, 341 ; the Cyrenaic
;
Aristotelian
philosophy and convention, 31^

Aristotle, his physical discussion
45 subordinate to metaphysic;
40; expands the conception,
philosophy of Socrates, 42, 4^
adheres to Idealism, 4|
128
criticism of Plat(|
his
49
4',
Ideas, 49 his ethical views,
philos
Greek
of
fruit
ripe
the
phy, 60 ; influenced by imp(
;
INDEX.
395
ART
<ct Schools, 50
CLE
introduces inductive method, 129 his notices

of Socratic philosophy, 101, 104,
137 agree with those of Plato,
181, 182
and supplement tho.se
of Xenophon, 183 his view of
the chief merit of Socrates, 132
attacked by Eubulides, 251 denies that any proi)o.sitions are
false, 301
gives logic to the
Stoics, 391
ristotle of Cyrene, a contemporary of Theodore, 344
ristoxenus, account of Socrates,
58, n.
disparaging, 70, 2
sceticism of Neoplatonists, 46;
of Antisthenes, 305; of postAristotelians, 45
sclepiades removes Elean School
f
Attic prose, models of, 245 philosophy, 32

Authorities for the philosophy of
;
Socrates, 101, 105, 181, 184
for
Megarian philosophy, 249
"DACCH^,
of Euripides, 17
to Eretria,
280
Bacchylides illustrating the problem of philosophy, 21

Bacchus, story of birth of, 17
Being and Becoming, Megarian

view of, 259
Bio, the Borysthenite, a Cyrenaic,
pupil of Theodore, 343, 378
Brucker's time, a turning point in
estimate of authorities for Socrates' life, 99
Bryso, son of Stilpo, 255
the state of Xenophon an

A. kingdom, 244
;pasia, teacher of Socrates, 57 a
friend of Socrates, 166
henian polish, 73 taste, 80 de-
pAPTIOUSNESS
mocracj', 169, 194, 223; popular

men, 29; people victims, 30;
tragedians, 4
heuians, 198, 211, 228 guilt of,
Cato's view of the condemnation

of Socrates, 205
Cebes, 246
<iatic,
233, 234
repentance
of,
201
hens, central position of, 3;

^legendary history of, 28; plague
3f, 28
citizens of, 31
their advantages, 31
state of, after
;
Peloponnesian war, 28, 29, 30

ntellectual
movement going on
183 the abode of So:;rates, 193, 230; state of public

pinion, 234 political intrigues
!f, 51; not governed
by Sophists,
!04; fall of, 218; old constitu[ion re-established by enemies
f Sophists, 219
ancient glory
f, 219 Gods of, 214 Aristippus
ed to Athens, 337
mists, views of, known to Socraes, 57
It,
54, 55,
eus, story of
house
of,
[see
EHstic\
Character of Socrates, greatness

of, 70
peculiar featiures in, 77
Grecian peculiarities in, 74, 95
Characteristics of the Socratic philosophy, 102
Charges, unfounded, against Socrates, 220
charges against his
political views, 213
against his
moral and religious views, 214
Charmides, a disciple of Socrates,
212
Chronology of the life of Socrates,
;
53,
//.
Chrysippus,
blames Menedemus
and Stilpo for plausible fallacies,
282
Civil
life,
165; renunciation of,
by Cynics, 319
Cleon, 210, 30
;;
; ;
INDEX.
396
CYR
CLI
Clinomaclius, 251
ClytEenmestra, of ^schylus, 13
of Euripides, a doubter, 18
' Clouds,'
the, of Aristophanes,
ing
301
in, 215, 61, n. 1.
Comedians, illustrating the pro-
of philosophy, 29
Conceptions, theory of, characteristic of the Socratic Era, 39,

importance of, for So40, 109
comdefined, 41
crates, 131
mon to Plato and Aristotle, 42
formation of,
developed, 47
128 proof by, 128, 130; rejected
by Euclid, ^259 developed to
Nominalism by C}Tiics, 297 [see
Dialectic~\
Socrates, 198
causes of, 202 not the work of
not due to
the Sophists, 202
real
personal animosity, 205
causes of, 213 justice of, 220
Connus, reputed teacher of So-
Condemnation of
crates, 56, 1
Contemporaries, relation of Socrates to, 231

Conviction, personal, insisted on
by Socrates, 227
Corinth, 251
Corybantic mysteries, 33
Crates, a pupil of Diogenes, 288
speaks approvingly of culture,
293 displays art, 334
-ritias, Sophistic moralising of,
211 fascinated by the wisdom
a pupil of
of Socrates, 183
the most imscruSocrates, 221
pulous of the oligarchs, 211
* Crito,' the, of Plato, 152
'Cronos, surname of Apollonius,
251 and of Diodorus, 252
Custom, distinction between, and
philosophy, 312
Cynicism, traces of, in Stilpo's
moral teaching, 276, 277
;
blem
of,
suggested by Anjiius, 203, 206

attack Socrates as a Sophist,
210, 215 scope of, 214 portrait
;
284 history of 284 teacl

morality of, 16(
291
practice of, 314 influence
on the world, 331 go back to
Eleatic doctrine, 248 depreciate
Nominalism
knowledge, 295
declare contradiction
of, 300
negative side
impossible, 301
of morality, 310 positive side,
312 good and evil, 301 virtue,
310 wisdom and folly, 313 renunciation of self, 315, 358, 370
renunciation of society, 319,
379 the family, 320 civil life,
322 immodesty, 326 rejection
of religion, 276, 327 their views
combined with those of Megasaid
rians by Stilpo, 275, 284
to have studied Ethics exclusively, 344
Cjmic "^School, a development of
the Socratic, 50,162,247 follows
the path of self-denial, 373
history of, 337
Cyrenaics, 337
go back to
teaching of, 344
Protagoras, 248; practical life
of, 361 position of their system,
369 relation of their philosophy
of their
to Socrates, 369, 374
of theii
moral teaching, 372
political views, 374; later, 376
vie\\
general position of, 346
of happiness, 45, 346 importance
attached to feelings, 346, 352
358 doctrine of pleasure, 160
the highest good, 354
352
modified view of 356 conside:
as
all notions relative, 348;
sumed a sceptical attitude to
wards knowledge, 348, 351 den;
CjTiics,
any pleasures are bad ii

admit degree
themselves, 356
tliat
of pleasure, 357 happiness no

the satisfaction of animal in
;
359; philosophy hoA

connected with Euemerus, 367
employ outer world for thei
stincts,
own
ends, 373
INDEX.
397
CYR
ELE
Oyrenaic School, a development

of
the Socratic, 50, 247
separate
branches of, 343 views advocated within, 876
Dialectical tendency
Socrates, 39
Cyrene, 251
C)Topa2deia,
the,
of
245
Xenophon,
ÂIMONION,
of Socrates, 66, w. 1,
81 false views of, 82 ; not a
genius, 82
regarded as a private oracle, 84, 89, 96 its
field
limited, 90 ; instances of its
intervention, 86 not the same
as
conscience, 91;
philosophical
;
Didactic poetry illustratingphiio.

sophy in fifth century.
Be 21
Dike,^schylus' conceptions
of 8
'
Dioclides, 251
Diodorus, captiousness
of, 269views on Motion,
269; on Destruction, 272
on the Possible,
ji^; surnamed Cronos,
2b2
teacher of Philo, 254
,
Cyrus, expressions of the

dying-,
179 242 intimacy of Xenophon
with, 212
Diogenes initiates Stilpo

into
Cynic doctrine, 253 a
native of
;
Smope and pupil of Antisthenes,
-S7
uses expressions in
;
favourculture, 293;
recommends
justice, 308;
his asceticism,
320 ; averse to marriage, 321
of
A'lew of, 94
said to be substituted for God, 220 its position
in relation to the popular
belief,
;
Damon, reputed teacher of So-
crates, 56, n. 1
Death of Socrates, 200, 201

results of, 235
- Socrates' view of, 179
defence of Socrates, 196, 197
:)elos,
sacred ship, delavs the
execution of Socrates, 201
)eli3hic oracle confirms Socrates
in
his course of life,
60, and w. 3.
122, 01. 1
God, 108
)cmctrius Poliorcetes, 277
)emosthenes,apupil of Eubulides,
cpreciationjof knowledge by
Cynics, 291
limits to, 293
'ostruction, views of
Diodorus
on, 272
;
etails of the trial of

Socrates,
194-200
ialectic,
a criticism of what is,

133; the art of forming conceptions, 39: a characteristic
of Socratic period, 40
the foundafion of Plato's system, 39
[see
Conccjtfwm, Knowledge]
;
supreme in
322''?!?^''^^^^ f relations;
o22, Plato s view of,
331 ; theory
and practice overlap with,
369
testimony of, to line of
arg-ument pursued in Euclid's
time.
,
Diotima, teacher of Socrates,

57,
Uissen, view on
authorities for
Socrates' life, 100
Dodona, doves of, 26

Droyosen, view of
Aristophanes,
^L
I y
7},,
EDUCATION of Socrates,
55, 56,
J^
"1''^.4; 57, 7i. 1, 3

Egyptian priestesses inHerodotus,
Eleaii-Eretrian School, 279-983.

history of, 279;
teaching"
of,'
Eleatic doctrine of the

One and
All, 264, 265;
difference be
tween sensual and
rational
knowledge, 260; revived
bv
C^-Bics,
248
also
by Megarians,
Elcatics, subtleties of, 255doc

triricsof, 284
'
Elcctra of Euripides,
16, 17
INDEX.
398
GOD
LI
of Parmenides, 262 ;
rejects explanation by analogy,
for the
Elis, 253
Elysium,
notions
received
re-
265
specting, 24
Empedocles, views
known
of,
One
eristic of, 265
tion, 272
to
makes
denies
mo-
virtue consist
in prudence, 304
Socrates, 57
Epicharmus, 21
Epicurean view of happiness, 45
Eudsemonism of Socrates, 158, 160

Euemerus, the Greek rationalist,
;
a pupil of Theodore, 343, 378 ;

connection with Cyrenaics problematical, 367
Eumenides of ^schylus, 9, 13, 16
Euphantus, a pupil of Eubulides,
apathy, 46
an outcome ot
Epicureanism,
50
School,
Cyrenaic
of
Epicureans, on the attainment
personal
make
45
knowledge,
conviction the standard of truth,
116 fond of slander, 70
good
Epicurus, placed the highest
354
pain,
from
in freedom
philothe
to
form
new
a
gave
sophy of pleasure, 376 doctrine
in, 391
of Aristippus reappears
that of
Eristic, Megarian, 285;
Euclid, 266 of Eubulides, 268
Diodorus,
of Alexinus, 268 of
of Stilpo,
273
Philo,
of
269
;
252
Europa, rape
Euripides,
of,
in Herodotus, 26
illustrating the state
of thought in the fifth century,

sceptical verses of,
B.C., 6, 14
spirit of the
kindred
a
232
better Sophists, 15 contrasted

with iEschylus, 16 a rationalising poet, 17 despiser of prophecy, 17 tragic movement
;
'
Euthydemus, his view
274
a
Eros,
aesthetic feeling,
described, 124, 125, 165
grounded on
76
crates, 56, 1
Eretrians, 283
.
^
, ,
the teachEthics, the substance of
ing of Socrates, 132-148, 172,
exclusively
242 [see Morals'\
345
Aristippus,
by
studied
Eubulides, captiousness of, 267;
;
writes against Aristotle, 251

251
the teacher of Demosthenes,
156
thinker,
intelligent
Euclid, an
of
fascinated by the attractions
;
of a
Socrates, 183; founder
Megarian,
Socratic School, the
use ot
247, 249, 266; makes
265;
259,
doctrines,
Eleatic
influenced by Heraclitus, 259;
incorporeal
sees true being in
a counterpart to
species, 259
Platonic
Plato, 259 rejects the
capacity
Ideas, 260; denies that
exerexists beyond the time of
the Good
cise, 261 ; substitutes
;
of injustice
130
Evenus, reputed teacher of bo
attachment
passionate
20
renunciation of, b
Cynics, 320
Fichte, idealism of, not the idea,
ism of Plato, 43 criticism c
Kant, 158
Freret, view of the condemnatio
of Socrates, 203, 204
Cynic
Friars, resemblance of, to
FAMILY,
335
Friendship, 163-165 [see Eros]
'
Frogs,' 215
the oneness of, recognisj

by Socrates, 175 conceiv
world
as the Reason of the
forethought
176;
Socrates,
Go
177; identified with the
GOD,
by Euclid, 263
;;
INDEX.
390
GOD
IDE
<Jods,
Socrates charged witli rejecting the, of his country, 213
Cynic views of, 327

Good, the object of knowledge,
147 practically determined by
custom and utility according to
Socrates, 149; Megarian doctrine of, 262 placed in apathy
by Stilpo, 277 identified with
God by Euclid, 263 Cynic doc;
trine of
Good and
Evil,
301
Cyrenaic view of the highest

good, 354
Gorgias, Plato's, 152
doubts of, 189, 218, 265;
criticism of, 265 a teacher of
Antisthenes, 285, 295, 327
Grecian peculiarities in the teaching of Socrates,'74, 320
Greece, sweeping" changes in,
2
free states of, 3
gods of, in,
sulted by Persian expedition, 8

;
mental development of, 35
change in inner life of, 1 84
moral life of, 226 ; attention of,
directed to logical criticism,
;
265
Greek, mode of, thought, 186, 230
morality, 226, 229, 242 faith,
229 problem proposed to philosophy in Socrates' time, 2;
life involves a contradiction,
7
morality debased, 76 peculiarity, 166
progress of, 392 prejudice against manual labour,
242
Grote, view of Socrates

Sophists, 187, 188, 189
Gyges, story of, 26
EECTJBA
and the
to Sicily
by
Sophists, 4
views
to Socrates, 57 idea
of God, 176; early scepticism
of, 243 view of the
phenomenal
world, 259 his doctrine of the
perpetual flux of things, 350
Hercules, patron saint of the Cyof,
known
nics,
306
a doubter in Euri-
pides, 18
Hermas, mutilation of, 207, 214

Herodotus, exemplifying the state
of culture in Greece in fifth
century, b.c, 24; piety and
credulity of, 25, 27 a friend of
Sophocles, 24 but a doubter, 26
Hesiod, verses of, quoted by Socrates, 222
Hiero, the, 244
Hipparchia, a Cynic, wife of Crates.
288
;
Historians, illustrating the problem of philosophy in the fifth

century, B.C., 24
Homer, verses of, quoted by Socrates,
212;
stories
by Herodotus, 26;
by Antisthenes, 330
criticised
explained
Horned, the, fallacy, 269

H3ôthetical Sentences, view of
Philo on, 274
in
Euripides, 17;
18
Hegel's view of the SaifiStîov, 96
view of the relation of Socrates
to the Sophists, 187, 190;
considers attitude of Socrates opposed to old Greek morality, 226
doubts
Hegesias, a Cyrenaic pupil of Antipater, 343, 376; adheres to

the maxims of Aristippus,
380
considers life full of trouble,
381 identifies pleasure with the
good, 383 denies the position
of Aristippus, 385
Helen, story of, 26
Hellas united, 3
Heraclitus, doctrines of, conveyed
of,
ICHTHYAS,
the successor of
Euclid, 250
Ideal, Socrates not an insipid,
of
virtue, 74, 203
Idealism, 39
crates, 42
beginnings
of, in Soof Aristotle, 43 of

;
INDEX.
400
MEN
IDE
Plato, 48
Fichte's subjective,
43
Ideas of Plato, 48, 137
Ignorance, consciousness of, the
first result of self-knowledge,
121
Immortality of the Soul, Socrates

view of, 178
Importance of Socratic teaching,
185
Individual independence insisted
on by Socrates, 161 by Cynics
and Stoics, 162
Induction necessary to form conce^Dtions, 129
Influence of Socrates explained, 186
lo, wanderings of, 26
Iphigenia of Euripides, 16
Irony of Socrates, 126
;
Ixion, story of, 8
Love for enemies in Socrates, 170

Lyco, the accuser of Socrates, 194
Lycurgus, 230
fxaievTiKT) rexvv of Socrates, 125
Socrates' view of
MAX,nity
of, 178
the dig-
Marathon, stem race fought

the remembrance
10, 230
at,.
of,
inspires Aristophanes, 29
Meaning of words, Philo's view
of, 274
Means, relation of, to ends in nature, 172
Megara, plunder of, 277 Idealism
of School of, 42
an
Megarian School, 253, 284
imperfect expansion of Socratic
foimded by
principle, 50, 247
Euclid, 249 primarily critical,
doctrine253 history of, 249
approximated to Cyniof, 255
cism, 279 merged in Cynicism,
283; teaching, 255, 258, 269;
starting point of, 259 development in, 264
Megarians, go back to Eleatic
doctrine, 248 captious logic of,
their views of
160, 265, 266
Being and Becoming, 259 of
tlie Good, 263 agree with Plato,
260; attack popular notions,
264; fond of fallacies, 267;
later, indebted to Cynics, 275,
277 inconsistencies of, 386
Meiner's \-iew of sources of Socratic authority, 99
;
the condemnation
JUSTICE
of Socrates considered, 218
of
immortality of
soul by utilitarian argument,
157 resembles Socrates in po-
KANT
proves
sition, 138, n. 1
in,
contradiction
157
true, only
gained by
conceptions, 42, 109 [see Conceptions] virtue consists in, acdecording to Socrates, 140
So292
Cynics,
by
preciated
cratic search for true, 124, 108,
moral value of,
109, n. 2
n. 1
;
Self, the Socratic, 121

^
the fallacy called, 273
KyptetJcoj/,
Meletus, the accuser of Socrates,,

said to have
193, 203, 205, 206
suggested the Clouds to Aristophanes, 203 hesitates to accuse Socrates of Sophistry, 221
a defender of ancient morality,
231
Memorabilia,' the, of Xenophon,
72, 75, 78, 102, 132, 167, 183
attempts of
Menedemus, 281
;
'
'
story of, 8
Leonidas, 77
Life of Socrates, 52
Literature, the problem of philosophy solved by, 4
LAIUS,
145
of
Knowledge,
'
INDEX.
401
MEN
Alexmus
cies,
269
PER
to entangle, in falla;
prc-Socratic
46
removes Elean School
to Eretria, 280 directs

attention to moral questions,
;
Orreek philosophy, 51
Neoplatonists, resort to
higher
revelations, 45; their
asceticism,
46 ; later philosophers, 105
later Cynic, 290

a later Cynic, 290
Menippus,
Meno's question whether virtue
is
obtained by exercise or instruc-
Neopythagoreans, 35
time of, 4
Nicias, superstition of,
28
Niobe, story of, 8
tion, 3 13
New Academy,
Method
of Socrates, 113
Metrocles, brother of
Hipparchia,
a Cynic, 289
Military service of Socrates,
^Q,
n. 2
Miltiades, time of, 231
* MiiTor,'
the, of Cebes, 246
Nominalism
Modesty
Coloneus' of Sopho13
Olympic goddess, 9
Olympus, inhabitants of, derided,
^<J^
'
suppressed by
of Cynics, 297, 300
^rpDIPUS
Moderation, the, of Socrates,

72,
74, 161
39
Neoplatonism the coping-stone

of
281
Menedemus, a
philosophers,
cles,
Cynics,
Orphic traditions, 19
Monimus, a Cynic, expresses him-
mysteries,
self in
favour of culture, 294

theory of
conceptions, 113
particular
moral relations discussed
by
Socrates, 160
Moral importance of
PAN^TIUS,
rejected writings
of Simmias and Cebes,
246
Paris, story of, questioned
in Euripides, 17 ; in Herodotus, 2C,
Morality, practically determined,

according- to Socrates, by
Parmenides, teaching known

to
Socrates, 57, 58; followed
by
Euclid, 260; reduced
action
and passion to the sphere of the
Becoming, 260; discovered
a
contradiction in the Becoming,
261 attributes assigned bvhim
to real being, 262
proved his
position directly, 265
Party, Socrates not tlie
victim of
a political, 21
Pasicles, a Megarian, younger
than
cusutility, 149; inconsistency of Socrates, 151

sucer;
hcially treated by Socrates,
151
relation of Socrates to
torn
and
older
morality, 226; relation of
Socrates to cotemporary
morality,
Morals of the Cynics, 301

Moschus, an Elean philosopher,
280
Motion, view of Diodorus on,
269
Myrto, the supposed wife of
So-
crates, 61, 62, n.
Mysteries, spread of, after

Pelo-
ponnesian war, 32
Eubuhdes, 251
Peloponnesian War, Thucydides'

history of, 27 increasing
spread
ot mysteries about time
of, 32
views of Socrates fixed
about
time of, 61 fall of Athens
in,
218; period after, 231
Pericles, art in the time
of, 3 10
the age of, 28, 54
;
VTATURE, view
of, foreign to
Socrates^ 135, 137; held by
Socrates, 172-175; studied
i-l
by
'
Peripatetic School, 50;

connected
D D
; ;;
INDEX.
402
PLI
PER
shallowness of his discourses,

Sat/xoi/tov of
80; speaks of the
speaks
Socrates, 84, 85, 87, 89
strictures
with Aristotle, 51
on Socrates, 70
Persian War, achievements of, 3
unexpected result of, 8 Socrates
born in last years of, 53
;
Socrates' attitude towards

natural science, 137 veils the
shallowness of Socrates' theory
of
',
Persians, battles with,

*Pha3do,'Plato's, 59, 137
Socratic
Phsedo, the founder of a
247,
Elean-Eretrian,
School, the
the
279
Elis,
of
native
a
279 ;
his
280;
Socrates,
favourite of
what
of virtue, 155 mentions
at
Socrates
a2:ainst
told most
asso20^5,
217;
207,
trial,
the
Socrates with Aristociates
phanes, 210, 216 his language
about Anvtus, 203, 205, 206;
;
opinions, 281
Phfedrus,' the, 79
Philo, a Megarian
value of Plato's testimony considered, 91, 92 his agreement
<
and pupil
Diodorus,254, 273
ot
with Xenophon, 92, 154, 171,

137
181, 188 with Aristotle,
his captious-
ness, 273
puPhilolaus, Simmias and Cebes

pils of, 246
PhiUsojjhy of, considered Sohis

crates a deep thinker, 96
Socrates,
of
fruit
system the
developed,
138, 187 but more
influenced by im41, 141, 392
perfect Socratic Schools, 50, 51
Philosophic Schools, permanence
Philosophy, problem proposed

problem
in fifth century, B.C., 2
reliand
art,
politics,
by
solved
fifth
in
of,
progress
o-ion, 2-34
seq.
35
B.C.,
century,
Physical Science not dispensed
with by Plato, 45
for, by
Physics, ethics substituted
43
philosophy,
post-Aristotelian
to,
regards species as living forces,

founda260 dialectic, 270 the
his
tion of his system, 40;
advance
49;
48,
42,
idealism,
from sensible beauty
his
problem
Pindar, illustrating the
respect
23
22,
of philosopher,
for natural talent, 23
his diaPlato, Writings of, 99
hislogues, 100, 181, 183 most
Apology,
his
torical of, 170
on the Megarians,
215
Xeno257 agrees with, 260 and

;
authorities,
99;
Greek philosophy, 49
influenced by imperfect Socratic
Schools, 50; his description
24b;
of Simmias and Cebes,
definition
Cynic
of
speaks
knowledge as tautological, 312;
his view of Diogenes, 331
cusPlatonic distinction between
ideas,
312
philosophy,
tom and
bloom
'
phon as
concerning the
teaching
his physical inState, 46, 169

of concepreality
quiries, 45
between
diflierence
59
47,
tion,
the
him and Aristotle, 49
179,
moral
to
beauty, 46; essential conceptions foimd in all things, 131
de-
265
scribes Euclid's method,
101
Sonrates,
poHrait
of
~, Ilia
wisest and
calls Socrates the
his
best of men, 73; praises
him
social virtues, 75 describes
;
of
speaks
as a perfect thinker, 105
75 ;
moderation,
peculiar
his
of
Eros, 76
his use of the term
outward
his singularity, 77 ; his
;
appearance, 78;
the apparent
Platonist,
been
a,
Menedemus said
to have
283
philosopher,
Plistanus, an Elean
successor to Phsedo, 280
INDEX.
403
POL
SOC
Politics, little
importance attached
to, by 8ocrate.s, 228
Polyeuctus, said to have taken
part in accusing Socrates, 1 94,
Keisig, his view of the character

of Socrates, 215
Keligion, the position of Socrates
subversive of, 229; denied by

the Cynics, 327
Republic, Plato's, 152
Rousseau's wild fancies, 32
n.2.
Poseidon, intervention of, 2G
Possible, the view of Diodorus on,
272 view of Philo, 273
Post-Aristotelian philosophy, substitutes Ethics for Physics, 44
one-sidedness of Schools, 47;
extreme individualism of, 117'
Predicate, combination of subject
and, rejected by Stilpo, 275
Pre- Socratic philosophy resting on
tradition, 38
a study of nature,
3i), 46
aided by Plato, 51
Prodicus, teacher of Socrates, 57
Progress, rapid intellectual, of So;
OCEPTICISM
of Socratic era,
117; in Euripides, 16, 18; in
Herodotus, 26
in the masses,
an outcome of Megarian
34
School, 50
KJ
Sceptics,
knowledge,
;
cratic age, 2, 3
Prometheus of Êschylus,
1)
Protagoras, doubts of, 18, 181), 248

negative teaching of, 248 makes
man the measure of all things,
116; considers all notions relative, 350
considers feelings the
result of internal motion, 352,
Self-renimciation, the, of the Cy-
374
Providence, belief in natural, 174
Providential care of God, 177
nics, 315
Sextus criticises the arguments of
Diodorus, 271
Prytaneum, Athens the, of the wis-
Sicily visited by Sophists, 4

Sifting of men, the Socratic, 124
Silenus, appearance of
Socrates
of Greece, 4
Socrates deserved to be publicly entertained
in the, 200
Pyrrho, his pliilosophy of doubt,
;
255
branched oft" from the
School of Megara, 391
Pythagorean traditions, ] 9 league,
164
;
EEALISM, knowledge of conceptions
of
dom
desjDair
45 imperturbability, 46 resolve
truth into probability, 116
Schleiermacher, his view of the
haiix6vLop, 84
protest against tlie
preference shown for Xenoj^hon,
99; canon of, 100, 104 his objections to Xenophon jis a sole
authority, 183
discovered Megarian
views in Plato, 256
^
Self-knowledge, the Socratic, 43.
121
expanded by Plato
into,
298
Reason, God conceived as the, of
the world, 176, 262; the only
thing which gives a value to
life, 310
compared by Alcibiades
to, 78,
184
Simmias, a Theban, described by

Plato as a philosopher, 246
Simon the shoemaker, writings
circulated under the name of,
spurious, 247
Simonides, illustrating tlie pro-
blem
of philosophy, 21
his epi-
taph on Leonidas, 77
Sinope, the birthplace of Diogenes.
287
Societj', renunciation of, by tlie
Cynics, 319 influence of Cynics
on, 331
D D 2
;;
;; ;
INDEX.
404
soc
soc
quire independence from wants,
Socrates, age of, its inheritance,

36 ; characteristics, 40 ; authori-
315
155
104
Character of, 52, 212 respected
by antiquity, 70 greatness of
character, 70 supposed mental
abpurity, 72
struggles, 71
161
74,
72,
stemiousness,
courage,
political courage, 73
pious
363
201,
201 composure,
senfaith, 235; greatness, 235
74
society,
of
love
sible, 83
ties for,
Socrates, followers of, one-sided

followers, 44, 45, 51, 236, 375;
favourite follower, 280
language of, 151, 152, 163,
,
184, 185 apparently ridiculous,
79
Life of, youth and early manhood, 52, 53 date of birth and
death, 53, n. education of, 55
his instructors, 56, n. manhood

reached before the Sophists in-
love of friends, 194, 211, 164,

imbued with Greek pecu76
abstraction,
liarities, 74, 76;
of
81 not an insipid ideal
;
troduced systematic education,

life begun in trade, 159
55
contentment and simplicity of,

married relations, 61, 62,
64
63 avoided public life, 66 his
not a dry moramany-sided sympa;
serious side in, 73

cultivated tact, 94 inward concentration, 81, 96, 97 a Greek
eccenand Athenian, 74, 95
respected by
70
Xenophon, 72 military service,
personal habits, 105
66, 2, 70
dis230
teaching,
simple
society, 210 ;
courses, 102, 184
detractors,
meditativeness, 78
tricity, 77
absence, 81 modesty, 67 simof
plicity of, 338 consciousness
ignorance, 121, 122, 126; flexiimier life, 94
bility, 317
strength of will, 292; importance attaching to his person, 52,
enemies, 207; attacks on, 193,

206, 210, 211, 232; charges
his âiixoviov, 81, 66, n. 1,

his aim to train
82, 84, 89, 96
105, 240
portrait,
263
men, 114,
;
accuracy
his appearance, 77
chaldescription
of Xenophon's
;
fatal,
comedy
contemporaries
of,
185
Ethics of, 134, 172, 240 amoral

ethical princireformer, 114
ples derived from the Sophists,
doctrine of
scientific
149;
morals, 174; defends friendutility highest
ships, 163, 164
standard, 147, 372 value of instruction, 222; highest object
of knowledge, the Good, 147,
262, 263 the oneness of virtue
;
and knowledge,
113,
different
from pre-
to take a
Socratic, 38;
comprehensive view of science,
4 had no system, 47, 119, 160 ;
able
on, 203, 214
crisis,
lenged, 135
most
211, 220, 229;

217 his trial, 196,
213 condemnation, 200, 202
greatness
fate, 235
guilt, 202
of, 236; death, 200, 235, 285;
place in history, 186
_, Philosophy of, 250, 253 appearance at a philosophical
210,
against,
116
108;
thies, 45
list,
78,
virtue, 74, 203
of,
description
Plato's
312
re-
beo-ins with self-knowledge, 43

aims at life, 52 philosophical
;
platform, 104 breaks away from

pre\dous philosophy, 112; how
led to the study of philosophy,
92 ground occupied by, 104, 240
understood the tendencies of
the age, 114 breaks away from
value
current opinions, 112
assigned to them, 111, 129;
;
INDEX.
406
soc
SOC
restricted to ethics, 184, 139analytical,

131 ; opposed to
doubting, 123; his deviation
from original ground of Greek
thought, 231 ; free enquiry of,

291 new mode of thought, 182
did not discourse on the All,'
134
explanation by analogy,'
265 maxim that virtue consists
in knowledge, 241 makes
the
highest business of man knowing the Good, 248 few definite
opinions, 189; method, 120,
182,
240, 241
methodical pursuit of
;
knowledge, 106, 124, 169, 259,

372 narrowness of position of,
240 enunciated a new truth to
;
his contemporaries,
165; convinced men of ignorance, 206
spirit of,
246, 248;
always
goes back to conceptions, 93
120,
121,
48,
264,
292,
295,'
overrated knowledge, 260; introduced dialectic, 39; idealism of, 42; view of injurinoothers, 170; theory of
proof^
131; chief merit, 131; jjhilosophical greatness, 191
Socrates, Political views
of, 228
anti -republican sentiments, 168,'
211 high ideas of the State, 167
prejudice against, 205, 208
principles of, developed bv
^
J
Plato, 49, 169
-, pupils of, 211, 236, 237, 370
relation to the Sophists,
,
55, 67
tempts to expand Socratic prin-
ciple, 50, 391
starting points
;
tor Stoicism, 50,
1, 247 ; diverge
from Socrates, 248 ; disintegra-
tion
of, 389; cover the

same
ground as Socrates, 50; doctrine
of pleasure finds a place

in, 160
friendship defended bv, 163'
founders of, 247; inconsisten-'
cies of, 386
40; different from what had

preceded, 39;
developed bv
Plato, 42, 391 leads to
Idealism,
42
peculiar character of, 43
imperfectly represented in
Socratic Schools, 51;
different
aspects of, 390, 389;
scanty
notices of, in Aristotle,
101knowledge the centre of, 44,'
106; disputes about the character of, 117; moral
views of,
45, 109
comprehensive character of, 47; developed,
47subjective character of, 116two branches of, united
bv
Zeno, 258
Socratic School, a loose
association
of admirers, 68; a
branch of,
established by Euclid,
250; Cyrenaic branch of, 887
Socratic Schools, imperfect
at-
169,187,188,189, 190,203,216,
natural science, 124 value

,
of
geometry, 134 science foreign
to, 137, 172; relation
of means
and ends, 137
~, Theology of, an appendix to
ethics, 139; Reason of the
world,
175; providence, 177; divine
;
element in man, 178

Writings of, 98
-,
ocratic
What
philosophy, 374; asks

things are in themselves,
followers of So-
^^^^^ importance,
So^ôn^^î,
i5J,
390; doctrine of oneness
ot virtue and knowledge,
312
independence of wants, 315
Socratic dialogues, 159, 184doctrine of morals, 159

education,
243; Eros, 124, 126; Ethics,
;
^40
idea
of
ruler,
242
knowledge of self, 121: method,*
1^5
mode of teaching, 241
search for conceptions,
48
thoughts, 244; teaching,
I59'
182 245; view, 48; t>-pe
of
virtue, 74
doctrine of virtue
140; conception of virtue, 147circle, 327
traits in Aristippus,'
;
372
;;
INDEX.
406
STO
required pay296;
name,
liar
ment for instruction, 339 views
on knowledge and pleasure, 387;
soc
teaching, various ele391
ments
T
T
Solon's constitution re-establisliecl,
Socratic
in,
diversities of, 387

Sophistry, a narrower limitation
of Socrates' teaching, 388 ten'dency to, 387
Sophocles, illustrating problem ot
philosophy, 6, 10; difEerence
between, and iEschylus, 12
Sophroniscus, father of Socrates,
31
Sophist, Socrates taken for a, 210
meaning of the term, 190 Anot,
tisthenes in the capacity
;
285
'
Sophistes,' the, of Plato, 26b

practical
tendencies,
Sophistic
2 teaching, 2, 114
ot,
influence
2
enquiries,
views, 311, 338
quesSophists call everything
to
related
Euripides
1
tion,
the better, 16; rationalising
avow selfish prinspirit of, 26
effect of,
54 1
Sorites, the, of Megarians, 266
attributed to Eubulides, 268
Sparta, 230
Spartan education, 243
Spartans,
Cyrus
the
friend
ot,
230
introduce systematic
education, 55 public teachers,
m,
67 little dependence placed
dogmatism
66;
by Socrates,
overthrown by, 112; beheve
real knowledge impossible, 112;
meet the want of the age with
recognise unsatisskill. 113
factoriness of older culture, 114
caprice of, 116, 117 destroyed
natural
the contending views of
ignorance
124
philosophers,
contheir leading thought, 124
made education
tests with, 133
a necessary for statesmen, 169
impart an electritravellers, 4
age, 186 their
their
cal shock to
ciples, 28
on,
State, the, views of Socrates
165-168
a Megarian philosopher,
260; friend of Thrasymachus,
good in
252; placed highest
apathy, 277; his captiousness,
277 rejects every combination
of subject and predicate, 276
denies that general conceptions
can be applied to individual
Stilpo,
wonthings, 260 an object of

der to his contemporaries, 253
learnt Cynicism from Diogenes,
253 united teaching of Megarian and Cynic Schools, 284;
his free views on religion, 283^
;
of, 253.
Stoa, Stilpo the precursor
principleSf
Cynic
the
took
284
Socrates, 187, 188,

moral teaching of older,
relation to
333
190;
;
philosophy away
from nature to morals, 191
their hatred of
failure of, 191
did not take part
Socrates, 203
in his accusation, 203, 205
small political influence of, 204
of,
216
display
rhetorical
Schools of, 218 pernicious incorrupters ot
fluence of, 218
the people, 218 arguments of,
265 hold that every object can
only be called by its own pecu-
draw
335 390
of Dioj^
Stobffi'us, quotes the words
genes, 308
Stoicism, an outcome of Cynicism
50
know
Stoics, hold a standard of
ledge to be possible, 45 thei
apathy, 46, 117 later philosc
;
105; consider Socrate

phih
the inaugurator of a new
declai
100;
epoch,
sophical
personal conviction the standai
phers,
INDEX.
407
SUB
XEN
of truth, 116; views of

individual independence,
161, 882
comprehensive system of, 283
secure freedom by suicide,'
iJlO
in advance of Cynics,
381
Subjective character of the theory

of Socrates, 116, 117
^
Superficial
treatment of morals
Socrates, 155
Silvern, theory of, on the
scope of
the * Clouds,' 216
Symposium of Plato, 101, 210 of
Xenophon, 74, 79; Plato's 'description of, 215
by
Tragedy, Greek, involves

a con-
tradicfion, 7; analysis
Tribon, the, 816
Trojan War, legend
TJXITY,
of, 5
of, 3
Greek, in Socratic age.
Utility, the practical

test of virtue, 124
with Socrates,
134
VIRTUE,
Socratic type of, 73

Socratic doctrine that
virtue
J'ALTHYBIUS,
Tartarus,
notions
Teiresias explains birth of

Bacclius
17
Test science of truth, 44

'Thejetetiis,'the, 125
Tliobans, Simmias and
Cebes
won-
tonly attacks popular faith, 367

considers pleasure and pain
neithei- g-ood nor bad in

themselves, 879, 388
Phcssaly, visited by Sophists,
4
'hessalian legend of Poseidon,

^hrasybulus, 211, 225
Corinth,
'^6
of,
Folly,
Cynic
Wolf, 215
1
75
VANTHIPPE,
ol,
-^-*-
wife of Socrates,
bo
Xenophanes, his doctrine of

the
One, 278
Xenophon, 179, 289; a pupil
of
Socrates, 212; his account
of
Socrates, 72, 78, 76,
89, 91, 137
155:
![^'V_VfI'182,184,'l85
116, lo9.
161; of Xhe ha^t^SuJ,

Memorabilia,' 72 75
78,102 182, 167, 183: objection
raised by 80; SAonposium,
79,
74 and Plato bs authorities
98
84; his
'
251
'hucydides illustrating the problem of philosophy, 27 ; a matter-of-fact writer, 27

imams of Plato, 137
imon, 255
itan in ^schylus, 9, 13
ragedians, illustrating the philo-
sophy
and
ideas of, 818
tAô,
TJieodorus called the Atheist,

a
pupil of Aristippus, 842, 876
not altogether satisfied
with
Aristippus, 879 his pupils
Bio
of
WISDOM
Worship of God,
246
and Euemerus, 348, 878
or, 8i()
re-
specting-, 24
'hrasymachus
Jo2
IS
knowledge, 140; Socratic
conception of, 156 ; CjTiic
notion
in Euripides, 18
received
JJO,
.' ;
100,
Ph.y
101,
102; writing.' of;
supposed popular
of,
99;
pliilosodescrii:)tion chal-
lenged, 135, 183
true, 161, 181
on nature, 134 agreement

with
Plato and Aristotle,
181 vindi;
catêd
against
Schleiermacher,
18.>; Apology of, 205:
reply to
charges 221 .-sketch of an
ideal
ruler, 243
INDEX.
408
ZEN
ZEN
branches of Socratic philosophy, 253, 283, 284

Zeno, iEschylus' conception ot, 7,
9 Sophocles' conception of , 11
Euripides' conception of, 18
conZENO, the Eleatic, supposed

Socrates, 58,
nection with
270; criticism of,
266
united
Stoic,
Zeno, the
269,
265,
two
LONDON PRINTBD BT
SPOTTISWOODE AXD CO.. NEW-STREUT SQUARE
AND PAULIAMENT STREET
:
JTJL-Y"
1884.
GENERiU. LISTS OF
WORKS
PUBLISHED BY
Messrs.
LONGMANS, GEEEN, &
CO.
PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON.

o>fr;o
HISTORY, POLITICS, HISTORICAL MEMOIRS, &c.

Arnold's Lectures on
Modem
History.
8vo. Is. 6d.
Bagehot's Literary Studies, edited by Hutton. 2 vols. 8vo. 38i.

Beaoonafleld's (Lord) Speeches, by Kebbel. 2 vols. Svo. 32*.
Bramston & Leroy's Historic Winchester. Crown Svo. Qs.
Buckle's History of Civilisation. 3 vols, crown Svo. 24*.
Oheaney's Waterloo Lectures. Svo. 10a. 6d.
Cox's (Sir G. W.) General History of Greece. Crown Svo. Maps,
Doyle's English in America. Svo. I85.
Epocha
of
Ancient History
7^.
Qd.
Beesly's Gracchi, Marius, and Sulla, 2s. 6d.

Oapes's Age of the Antonines, 2a. Gd.
Early Roman Empire, 2s. 6d.
Cox's Athenian Emphe, 2*. 6d.
Greeks and Persians, 2s. 6d.
Curteis's Rise of the Macedonian Empire, 2s. 6d.
Ihne's Rome to its Capture by the Gauls, 2t. 6d.
Merivale's Roman Triumvirates, 2s. 6d.
Sankey's Spartan and Theban Supremacies, 2*. 6d.
Smith's Rome and Carthage, the Punic Wars, 2s. 6d.
Epochs
of
Enghsh History, complete
in One Volume. Fcp. Svo. -6*.

England, 1820-1874, 9d.
Creighton's Shilling History of England (Introductory Volume)
Modem
Browning's
Fcp. Svo. Is.

Creighton's (Mrs.) England a Continental Power, 106^1216, 9d
Creighton's (Rev. M.) Tudors and the Reformation, U86-1608, 9d.
Gardiner's (Mrs.) Struggle against Absolute Monarchy, 16031688, 9d.
Rowley's Rise of the People, 1215-1485, 9d.

Rowley's Settlement of the Constitution, 1689-1784, 9d.
Tancock's England during the American & European
1765-1820, 9rf.
York-Powell's Early England to the Conquest,
Epochs of Modern History

Church's Beginning
*^
Wars
It.
of the Middle Ages,

Cox's Crusades, 2s. 6d.
Creighton's Age of Elizabeth, 2*. 6d.
London,
LONGMANS &
2s. 6d,
[Continued on page
CO.
2.
'
General Lists of Works.

Bpochs o Modern History continued.
Gairdner's Houses of Lancaster and York,
2s. 6d.
Gardiner's Puritan Revolution, 2s. 6d.

Thirty Years' War, 2s. 6d.
(Mrs.) French Revolution, 1789-1795, 2s. Qd.
Hale's Fall of the Stuarts, 2s. 6d.
Johnson's Normans in Europe, 2s. 6d.
. -rrr
a c^
6d.
Longman's Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War, 2.
2s.
6d.
Independence,
Ludlow's "War of American
M'Carthy's Epoch of Reform, 1830-1850, 2s. 6d.
Age of Queen Anne, 2*. 6d.

Seebohm's Protestant Revolution, 2s. 6d,
Stubbs's Early Plantagenets, 2s. 6d.
Warburton's Edward III., 25. 6d.
vols, crown 8vo. 18*.
Pwmde's English in Ireland in the 18th Century. 3
8vo. 3*. 6d. each.
History of England. Popular Edition. 12 vols, crown
to the Outbreak
James
I.
of
Accession
the
Gardiner's History of England from
Morris's
War. 10 vols, crown 8vo. 605.

Fcp. 8vo. 25. 6d.
Outline of English History, B.C. 55-a.d. 1880.
Edinburgh.
of
2 vols. 8vo. 365.
University
the
of
Story
Grant's (Sir Alex.) The
8vo. d65.
vols.
IV.
William
3
&
Qreville'a Journal of the Reigns of George IV.
of the Civil
vols. 8vo. 285.

Hickson's Ireland in the Seventeenth Century. 2
1700-1760. 8vo.36i. Vols. III.
Leckys History of England. Vols. L & II.
1760-1784. 8vo. S65.
8vo. 165.
History of European Morals. 2 vols, crown
Svo. 16j.
crown
vols,
2
Europe.
in
__
nationalism
__
& IV.
Svo. 32*.
Lewea'B History of Philosophy. 2 vols.
of England.
History
the
on
Lectures
Longman's
Svo. 155.
Svo. 285.
Liie and Times of Edward IIL 2 vols.

Edition. 8 vols. Svo. 5.
Library
Works.
Complete
Macanlay's
Cabinet Edition. 16 vols, crown Svo. *4. 165.
__
History of England :
o ^ 48i.
ao.
post Svo.
8 vo
65.
4.
s.
Cabinet Edition.
125.
Student's Edition. 2 vols. cr. Svo.
Library Edition. 5 vols. Svo. ^g*.
165.
Svo.
cr.
vols.
4
Edition.
pSple's
Cheap Edition. Crown Svo 25 6d.
Mscaulav's Critical and Historical Essays.
vols, post Svo. 245.
^^!^Lt'a raftinn 1 vol cr Svo. 85. Cabinet Edition. 4 vols.
Svo. 365.
Library Edition. 3
voScr.8vo. 85.
I
pSpS
BSSon.''2
numerous
Austria. Library Edition, with

Maxwell's (Sir W. S.) Don John of
2 vols. Royal Svo. 425.
Illustrations.
1760-1870. 3 vols, crown Svo. I81.
Constitutional History of England,
0,0
May's
Democracy in Europe.
2 vols. Svo. 325.
12mo. 75. 6d.

^
^^
763-a.d. 476. Crown Svo. 75 6d.
485.
Svo.
post
vols,
Empire.
8
History of the Romans under the
Sassanians. Svo. 285.
Monarchy-The
Oriental
Rawlinson's Seventh Great
Erasmus, & More. Svo. 145.
Seebohm's Oxford Reformer^Colet,
Crown 8vo. 75. U.
England.
of
Church
the
snort's History of
Svo 105.6d.
Crown
Carthaginians.
smith's Carthage and the
bi.
of India. Crown Svo. 75.
History
the
of
Manual
Taylor's
Svo. 65.
Crown
Fox.
James
Charles
of
Twvelyan's Early History
2. 14.
W^^Hi^t^r^ of England, 1815-1841. 3 vols. 8vo.
Merivalc's Fall of the
^ 1
Roman RepubUc.
General History of
Rome,
London,
B.C.
LONGMANS &
CO.
'
BIOGRAPHICAL WORKS.
Bagehot'B Biographical Studies.
Bain's
1 vol.
8vo. 12.
Biography of James Mill. Crown 8vo. Portrait,

5*.
onticism and Recollections of J. S. Mill.
Crown 8vo.
2s. 6d.
Oarlyle'8 Reminiscences, edited by J.
A. Frcude. 2 vols, crown 8vo. 18*.
(Mrs.) Letters and Memorials. 3 vols.
8vo. 36.?
Oates'a Dictionary of General Biography.
Medium 8vo. 28*.
Froude's Luther, a short Biography. Crown
8vo Is
'^^TlTte?"'32f^'
"^^^^ ^ '^ 2, 1795-1835.'
Oleig'8 Life of the
Duke of Wellington. Crown 8vo.

Halliwell-PhiUippe's Outlines of Shakespeare's
Life"
Lecky'3 Leaders of Public Opinion in
8vo
^'^'?-^-'
^^f
Library Edition, T?^2 vols. 8vo. 36.
Marshman's Memoirs
of Havelock.
Mendelssohn's Letters.
7s
Crown
6.
8vo.
Gd
G. Otto Trevelyan,
Edition, 2 vols, ioet
8vo' 3s 6d
Translated by Lady Walla^ê.
Mm s (John Stuart) Autobiography.
and
8vo! 7s 6d.
MP'^ Pon,^*,^^^>-^'''1^"f^^^yo^y ^^ Nephew,

'^'^ ^^^
Cabinet
Svn '19:
8V0.
12i.
Portraits
Qs.
Crown
Ireland.
8vo. with
'
2 vols. or. 8yo. 5s. each.
6d.
7s.
Mozley's Reminiscences of Oriel College.

2 vols.'crown 8vo 18*
Newman's Apologia pro Vita Sua. Crown 8vo. 6j.
Skobeleff & the Slavonic Cause. By
0. K. 8vo. Portrait 14*
Bouthey's Correspondence with Caroline
Bowles. 8vo. 14*
Spedding's Letters and Life of Francis
Bacon. 7 vols. 8vo 4 4*
Stephen's Essays in EcclesiaBtical
Biography.
Crown
8vo. 7s. 6i.
MENTAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

*^ Science of Jurisprudence. 8vo. 18*
S*^ ^
Years of the BngUsh Constitution, 1830-1880.
^ty
Crown Svo
Primer
of the English Constitution.
Crown 8vo: 6*.
^'**'^
Bacon's Essays, with Annotations by Whately.

8vo 10* 6d
Promus, edited by Mrs. H. Pott. Svo. 16*
Works, edited by Spedding. 7 vols. 8vo. 73*.
6rf
Bagehot'B Economic Studies, edited by
'
Hutton.
Bain's Logic, Deductive and Inductive.
^^^"'ô"' *'
^ ..l^^"^,^'
Holland
& Lang s Aristotle's Politics.
T,
Part
Crown
Induction,
6*.
M.
Svo. 7* Gd
Greek Text, English Notes.

;
Philosophy of Reflection. 2 vols. Svo. 21*.
Kalisch's Path and Goal.
'
6d
10*
II.
Grant's Ethics of Aristotle
Hodgson
fiA
Svo. 10*. Sd.
Crown Svo
'
10*
'
2 vols Svo 32*
Svo. 12*. Gd.
Essays In Political and Moral Philosophy.

Svo. 10*. Gd.
Lewis on Authority in Matters of Opinion.
Svo. 14*.
Blacaalay's Speeches corrected by Himself.
Crown 8vo 3* Gd
Macleod's Economical Philosophy. Vol. L Svo.
15*.
Vol 11 Part I 12*
Mill's (James) Analysis of the Plienomenaof
the Human Mind. 2'vols!8vo
28*
Mill (John Stuart) on Representative
Government. Crown
Leslie's
Mill's
on Liberty. Crown Svo. 1*. id.

(John Stuart) Dissertations and Discussions.
London,
LONGMANS &
Svo. 2*.
4 vols. Svo. 46*. Gd.
CO.
Mill's
(John Stuart) Essays on Unsettled Questions
Miller's (Mrs.
of Political
8vo.
Economy.
6i. 6d.
of Hamilton's Philosophy. 8vo. 16.

8vo. 25.
Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive. 2 vols.
l vol.
30J.
Principles of PoUtical Economy. 2 vols. Svo.
crown Svo. 6.
Subjection of Women. Crown Svo. 6*.
Utilitarianism. Svo. 5j.
Readings in Social Economy. Cro-mi Svo. 5s.
Examination
Fenwick)
Bandars's Institutes of Justinian, 'with English Notes.

Seebohm's English Village Community. Svo. 165.
SuUy's Outhnes of Psychology. Svo. 12?. Cd.
Swinburne's Picture Logic. Post Svo. os.
Svo. 18j.
Thomson's Outline of Necessary Laws of Thought. Crown Svo. 6i.

vols, crown 870.
Tocqueville's Democracy in America, translated by Reeve. 2
Svo. 21*.
TwlflB'B Law of Nations in Time of War.
it, 5d.
WlateIy'B Elements of Logic. Svo. 10s. 6d. Crown Svo.
Rhetoric. Svo. 10*. 6d. Crown Svo. 4*. 6d.
English Synonymes. Fcp. Svo. 3*.
Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle translated. Crown Svo.
16*,
_ _
7s.
Williams's
History of Eclecticism in (Jreek Philosophy. Crown Svo. 10*.
Plato and the Older Academy. Crown Svo. I85.
Pre-Socratic Schools. 2 vols, crown Svo. 30s.
Crown Svo. lOi. M.
Socrates and the Socratic Schools.
Crown Svo. 16j.
Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics.
Zeller'B
6d.
M.
MISCELLANEOUS AND CRITICAL WORKS

Arnold's (Dr. Thomas) Miscellaneous Works. Svo. Is. Sd.
(T.) Manual of English Literature. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d.
Bain's Emotions and the WiU. Svo. 15*.
Mental and Moral Science. Ch-own Svo. lOi. 6d.
Senses and the Intellect. Svo. 15*.
Practical Essays. Crown Svo. 45. 6cl.
Beaconsfield (Lord), The Wit and Wisdom of. Crown Svo. 3*. ed.
(The) Birthday Book. ISmo. 2s. 6c?. cloth 4s. 6d. bound.
6d. each.
Becker's Charicles and Gallut, by Metcalfe. Post Svo. Is.
Is.
6d.
Svo.
Post
Dictionary.
English
Blackley's German and
Posx Svo. 3i. 6d.
Oontanseau's Practical French & EngUsh Dictionary.
Pocket French and English Dictionary. Square 18mo. is. 6d.
Pamir's Language and Languages. Crown Svo. 6*.

10s. M.
French's Nineteen Centuries of Drink in England. Crown Svo.
24*.
Fronde's Short Studies on Great Subjects. 4 vols, crown Svo.
vols. Svo. 36*.
Grant's (Sir A.) Story of the University of Edinburgh. 2
Hobart's Medical Language of St. Luke. Svo. 16s.
Home's Essays, edited by Green & Grose. 2 vols. Svo. 28*.
vols. Svo.
Treatise on Human Nature, edited by Green & Grose. 2
Latham's Handbook of the English Language. Crown Svo. 6*.
4to. 36*.
Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon.
_ -^ -. - .
Abridged Greek- English Lexicon. Square 12mo. 7*. 6d.
Longman's Pocket German and English Dictionary. ISmo. 5*.
28*.
....
I vol. crown Svo. 4*. 6d.

Macaulay's Miscellaneous Writings. 2 vols. Svo. 21*.
_ _
.
Miscellaneous Writings and Speeches. Crown Svo. 6*.
Rome, dw.
Miscellaneous Writings, Speeches, Lays of Ancient
Cabinet Edition. 4 vols, crown Svo. 24*.
London,
LONGMANS &
CO.
General Lists of Works

Mahafly'B Classical Greek Literature.
Vol. II. the Prose Writers, 75. 6^.
Crown
8vo.
Vol.
I.
the Poets ' 7j 6d
Grammar of Elocution. Fcp. 8vo. 3s. 6d.

Milner's Country Pleasures. Crown 8vo. 6s,
Millard's
MUUer'B (Max) Lectures on the Science of Language. 3 vols,

crown 8vo.
Lectures on India. Svo. 12*. 6d.
Rich's Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities.
Crown Svo. 7$. 6d.
16*.
Rogers's Eclipse of Faith.
Fcp. Svo. 5*.

Defence of the Eclipse of Faith
Roget'B
Theeanms
Selections
of
Fcp. Svo.
EngUsh Words and
Phra-sea.
from the Writings of Lord Macaulay.
SImoox's Latin Literature, 2 vols. Svo. 32^.

Tyndall'B Faraday as a Discoverer. Crown Svo.
Floating Matter of the Air.
Crown
3*. 6cU
Crown Svo. lOi.

Crown Svo. 6#.
3*.
6d.
6d.
Svo. 7s. 6d.
Fragments of Science. 2 vols, post Svo. 16<.

Heat a Mode of Motion. Crown Svo. 12*.
Lectures on Light delivered in America, Crown Svo.
7i. 6d.
Lessons in Electricity.
Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.

Notes on Electrical Phenomena. Crown Svo. 1<. sewed, Is.
6d. cloth.
Notes of Lectures on Light. Crown Svo. 1*. sewed, 1*. 6d. cloti.
Bound, with Frontispiece
Von Cotta on Rocks, by Lawrence.
&
203 Woodcuts.
Post Svo. 14*.
Cro\vn Svo. 10*. 6d.
White & Riddle's Large Latin-English Dictionary. 4to. 21*.

White's Concise Latin-English Dictionary. Royal Svo. 12*.
Junior Student's Lat.-Eng. and Eng.-Lat. Dictionary. Sq.
12mo. 5*.
?^5"s^-I^ Dictionary, 36.
Separately
JJ^ Latin-English Dictionary,
' jI The
3^.
Wit and Wisdom of the Rev. Sydney Smith, Crown Svo. 3*. 6d.
Witt's Myths of Hellas, translated by F. M.
Younghusband. Crown Svo. '3*. 6i.
The Trojan War. Fcp. Svo. 2.s-.
Wood's Bible Animals. With 112 Vignette^. Svo. lOt. 6d.
Common
British Insects. Crown 8vo. 3,?. 6d.

Homes Without Hands. Svo. 10*. 6d. Insect* Abroad. Svo. 10*.
Insects at Home. With 700 lUustrationa. Svo.
10*. 6d.
Out of Doors. Crown Svo. 6*.
Petland Revisited. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d.
Strange DwelUngs. Crown Svo. 5.. Popular Edition,
4to. 6d.
Gd.
Yonge's Knglish-Greek Lexicon. Square 12mo. 8*. 6d. 4to.

21*.
The Essays and Contributions of A. K. H. B. Crown Svo.
Autumn Holidays of a Country Parson. 3*. 6d.
Changed Aspects of Unchanged Truths. 3*. 6d.
Common-place Philosopher in Town and Country. 8*. M.
Counsel and Comfort spoken from a City Pulpit. 3*.
6d
Critical Essays of a Country Parson.
8*. 6d.
Graver Thoughte of a Country Parson. Three Series, 3*.
6d. each.
Landscapes, Churcnes, and Moralities. 3*. 6d.
Leisure Hours in Town. 3*. 6d. Lessons of Middle
Age. 3*. 6d
Our Little Life. Essays Consolatory and Domestic. 3*.
6d
Present-day Thoughts. 3*. 6d.
Recreations of a Country Parson. Three Series, 3*. 6d.
each.
Seaside Musings on Sundays and Week-Days.
3*. 6<i.
Sunday Afternoons in the Parish Church of a University City.
3*. 6d.
London,
LONGMANS &
CO.
ASTRONOMY, METEOROLOGY, GEOGRAPHY,

8vo. 3l5.
Freeman's Historical Geography of Europe. 2 vols.
8vo. 12*.
Herschel's Outlines of Astronomy. Square crown
&c.
6d.
.
General Gazetteer. 8vo. 42*.

Keith Johnston's Dictionary of Geography, or
8vo. 5.J.
Merrifield's Treatise on Navigation. Crown
6d.
Nelson's Work on the Moon. Medium 8vo. 31*.
ri.^,^ b in. ,?
Proctor's Moon. Crown 8vo. lOi. 6i.
Proctor'B Essays on Astronomy. 8vo. 12*.
ba.
12*.
only,
or
Maps
15*.
Folio,
Atlas.
Larger Star
Myths and Marvels of Astronomy. Crown 8vo. 6*. Crown 8vo.
7*. d.
Star Atlas. Crown 8vo. 5*. Orbs Around Us.
New
Other Worlds than Ours. Crown 8vo. 10*. 6(i.

6<f.
Sun. Crown 8vo. 145. Universe of Stars. 8vo.l0*.
Venus-Transits, 8vo.
Transits of Venus, 8vo. 8*. 6d. Studies of
,
Smith's Air and Rain. 8vo. 24*.
Imperial 8vo. 7*. ea.
The Public Schools Atlas of Ancient Geography. Imperial 8vo. 5*.
Modern Geography.
Webb's
Celestial Objects for
Common
NATURAL HISTORY
Telescopes.
8c
Crown
6*.
8vo. 9*.
POPULAR SCIENCE.
'.
and their Pedigrees. Crown 8vo. Woodcuts, 7*. Gd.

8vo. 12*. Bd.
of Physics or Natural Philosophy. Crown
Elements
Ar
8vo. 63i.
medium
vols,
Art.
and
3
Literature,
Science,
Brande's Dictionary of
of Botany. Imperial 8vo. 81*. 6d.
Decaisne and Le Maout's General System
Allen's Flowers
lOtt's
lUustrations, 5*.
Dixon's Rural Bird Life. Crown 8vo.
Edmonds's Elementary Botany. Fcp. 8vo. 2*.
8vo. 25*.
Evans's Bronze Implements of Great Britain.
crown 8vo. 15#.
Elementary Treatise on Physics, by Atkinson. Large
Gftnot'B
Natural Philosophy, by Atkinson. Crown 8vo.

8vo. 6*.
Goodeve's Elements of Mechanism. Crown
Principles of Mechanics. Crown 8vo. Gs.
7*. 6d.
8vo. 16*.
Grove's Correlation of Physical Forces.
Polar World. 8vo. 10*. 6d.
Hartwig's Aerial World. 8vo. 10*. Cd.
Sea and its Living Wonders. 8vo. 10*. 6d.
8vo. 10*.
Subterranean World. 8vo. 10*. 6d. Tropical World.
8vo. 15*.
Haughtcn's Six Lectures on Physical Geography.
M.
2 vols. 8vo. 12*.

Beer's Primieval World of Switzerland.
Subjects. 2 vols. cr. 8vo. 7* 6d. each.
Helmholtz'8 Lectures on Scientific
of Modern Music. 8vo. 8*. 6d.
Hullah's Lectures on the History
Transition Period of Musical Historj. 8vo. 10*. 6d.
Crown Svo. Ss. 6d.
Jones's The Health of the Senses.
by Lee. 2 vols, royal 8vo. 42*.
Keller's Lake DweUings of Switzerland,
Lloyd's Treatise on Magnetism. 8vo. 10*. 6d.
Loudon's Bncyclopffidia of Plants. 8vo. 42*.
8vo. ir,
18*.
Man. o
Lubbock on the Origin of Civilisation & Prunitive Cordition of
6d.
Animals.
10*.
8vo.
Vertebrate
of
Morphology
Zoology and
MacaUster's
Puzzle of Life.
Nicolfl'
Crown
Svo.
3*. 6d.
Owen's Comparative Anatomy and Physiology

8vo. 73*. 6d.
.......
.
,
,
, ^,
of the Vertebrate Animals. 8 volt.
Experimental Physiology. Crown 8vo. 5*.

Hours. 3 Series, crown 8vo.
Proctor's Light Science for Leisure
Edition. Crown 8vo. 5*.
RIvers's Orchard House. Sixteenth
Rose Amateur's Guide. Fcp. 8vo. 4*. 6d.
Stanley's Familiar History of British Birds.

Swinton's Electric Lighting I ts Principles
:
London,
Crown
8yo.
6d. each.
6*.
and Practice.
LONGMANS &
7*.
CO.
Crown
Svo. 5*.
THE 'KNOWLEDGE' LIBRARY,

Edited by Richard A. Proctoi!.
The Borderland
The Poetry
of
By R A. P.octor. Crown Svo.

R. A. Proctor. Crown Svo. 6s.
of Science.
Scienc3Bjway3.
By
Astronomy.
Cro^ Svt'e^"^'^'
Tlie stars in their Seasons.
By
R. A. Proctor.
'^'"^ ''''''''''''
By
6s.
Crown Svo. 6..

^' ^^-^ ^"-' ^^-- ^-
R. A. Proctor.
Imperial Svo.
6*.
CHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY.

Buckton'B Healtli in the House, Lectures
on Elementary Physiology. Cr
Svo is
s Inorganic Chemistry,
Theoretical and Practical. Fop Svo 2s
Ko be Short Text-Book of Inorganic Chemistry.
Crown Svo. 7.*. 6d
Mill^B Baements of Chemistry, Theoretical
and Practical. 8 vols 8vo Part T
Jago
fl
^^^^SS&i^''- ^^^^^^- Chemist^/jJ/fart^Yl. o^g^
^'IIaU.^^T"'''^
Chemistry.
Fcp. Svo.
Pt.
I.
1,.
Tilden's Practical Chemistry. Fcp.

Svo. 1* 6d
Wattfl'B Dictionary of Chemistry.
9
vols,
m'ediim Svo. 15.
THE FINE ARTS AND ILLUSTRATED

Dresser's Arts
6d.
Pt. II. 2s.
6A
2s. 6d.
EDITIONS.
and Art Manufactures of Japan.
Square crown Svo. 31* 6d

2 vols, crown Svo 16*
Eaatlake's (Lady) Five Great Painters.

Notes on the Brera Gallery, Milan.
Crown Svo. 5*
Notes on the iôuvre Gallery, Paris.
Crown Svo. 7*. 6d
Hulme's Art-Instruction iu England. Fcp. Svo.
3*.
6c?.
Jameson's Sacred and Legendary Art.
Lênds
of the
~ ~

6 vols, square
1 vol. 2ls.
Orders. 1 vol. 21i.
Madonna.
Monastic
crown
Saints and Martyrs. 2 vols." 31*.

6d
Saviour. Completed by Lady EasUake.
Svo.
2 vols iSs
Macaulay's Lays of Ancient Rome. iUustrated

by Scharf. Fcp. 4to. 10* 6d.
The same, with Ivry and the Armada, iUustrated
by Weguelin. Crown Svo. 3* 6d
Macfarren's Lectures on Harmony. Svo. 12*.
Moore's Irish Melodies. With 161 Plates by
D. Maclise, R.A.
LallaRookh,
illustrated
by Tennicl.
New Testament
Masters.
Super-royal Svo "'*

11.
Square crown Svo
lo7^
'
(The) illustrated with Woodcuts aft^r Poinf{r, u' ^C

^^^^tmgs by the Barly
4to. 21.?. clatb, or 42*. moroSo
Perry on Greek and Roman Sculpture.

Wood. Square crown Svo. 81*. 6d
London,
With 2Rn" lUustrationa

Tiii,a+,o*i^
engraved on
LONGMANS &
CO.
THE USEFUL ARTS. MANUFACTURES.

Steam Engine.
Bourne's Oatechism of the
Fcp. Svo.
Gas Engines.
Examples of Steam, Air, and
Engine. Fcp. 8vo.
Steam
the
of
Handbook
the Steam Engme.
Recent Improvements in
4to.42<.
Engine.
Steam
the
on
Treatise
_
~
6*.
4to. 70i.
9*.
Fcp. Svo.
8vo. 25*.
of Civil Engineering.
Cresy's Encyclopedia
16*.
Practical Telegraphy. 8vo.
of
Handbook
Gnlley's
Square
Taste in Furniture, &e.
iSe^Household
^Ss
3 vols,
Engineers.
Useful information for
ScC
6i.
crown 8vo 14,

crown 8yo. 31,. 6d,
1 vol. 8vo. 25,.

8vo. 52,. 6d.
Architecture.
Qwilt's Encyclopaedia of
19*.
and Rbhng. 3 vols. 8vo. 4.
Metallurgy, adapted by Grookes
Agriculture. 8vo. 21,.
Loudon's Encyclopaedia of
Gardening. 8vo. 21,.
__
Mills
and Millwork.
__
Assaying. 8vo. 31,. 6d.

MltchelTs Manual of Practical
^^''
Northoott's Lathes and T^^^^g-^.f^^;
p^,
Edited by B. H. Paul, i-n.u.
p^^
Paven's Industrial Chemistry
42,.
gvo. **
Jo-
Square crown 8vo. 21,.

Perfumery. Fourth Editxôn.
SteÊngne^
Marine
Bennett's Treatise on the
voia. medium 8vo. 7.7,.
^^s. Tvo^'
Sst"f
Manufactures, &.
Ure's Dictionary of Arts,
Manures. By Crookes, 8vo.
on
Ville
Artificial
2U
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL WORKS.

Ahbev
&
the Rev. C. P. Eden.
Calvert's Wife's Manual.
10 vols. 8vo. 5.
Crown
5*.
8vo. 6s.
MoaMte Stone.
Crown 8vo.
the
Si^tTlSSi^ '^^Pelteuo. andJhna
SS oX
Pentateuch and Book oj

ot the Bible. Poet 8vo.
Handbook
Oondert
7..
'1^{eSSe'&o?:v!?th*'a ^îction
'udS?rESS,'r:^S''and
8,0.
__
ot Mape,
Map., I-ndpe. .
Pla^, and Woodcnf.
.d Map..
oondeneed, with 46 Ulnetration,
O.lSô'^î^tT.'lpaâ-.in.the^ôâ^^^^
ot the êw Te^ten'^

Davidson's-Introdnetion to the Study
Messiah. 2 vols. STO.
the
Jesus
ot
Times
and
Lite
Edersheim-s
London,
1^
6,.
M.
^^SSf Sot'î^âS't^'S^â' iSaon,,

'
36,.
2 vols. 8vo.
the Eighteenth Century.

Overton's English Churchin
LONGMANS &
CO.
'
fKZ;&S. ?^SiTS: 6'^
J-hUippia.,.
'"
CCcelins and
Ellicotfs Lectures on the Life Of

our Lord. 8vo 12<
Bwald's Antiquities of Israel, translated
by SoUy. 8vo. 12* 6d
of Israel, translated by Carpenter
& Smith. 6 vols. 8vo. 79*.
OnZ.1 (The) for the Nineteenth
08pel
Century. 4th Edition. Svo. 10*. 6d.
Hopkins s Christ the Consoler. Fcp.
8vo. 2*. 6d
Jukes's New Man and the Eternal
Life.
Crown 8vo. 6*.
Second Death and the Restitution of all
Thinga. Crown 8vo. 3* d
Types of Genesis. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6<i.
Kaliflch'B Bible Studies.
Part L the Prophecies of Balaam. 8vo. 10*.
6d.
^^"^ ^' *^ ^^ * Jonah. Svo. 10*. 6cZ.
~~
IT-
^!^^7
N. J'^^*'^
tt't
*
To IV
Critical
Commentary on
ihe Old Testament; with a

''' ^^ ^'^^'^ ^^ ^^^^"
'''''
HeLer^2!
Vol
^d
^1f or adapts
J
Vi^
V^l II^^'
'd
";,^^^^"''
^"^
;
^^''
'
1^'-
'
"^P^^
'^'' ^
for the General Reader. 12*.

t^ CêneiBl Reade
8*
.
^^
"* ^"- ^ ^^^^^^^ ^^ '^' Gêêral Reader. 8*.

Keary s Outlines
Kear^'s
O,^;
?S'
of
Primitive Belief. 8vo 18*
Ljja Germanica Hymns translated
by Miss Wink^Torth. Fcp. Svo.
5*
:
^^^^^" '' *^^ ^^y G^^*- Crown Svc^S*.

6^
Martineau's Endeavours after the
Christian Life. Crown Svo. 7* d
Hymns of Praise and Prayer. Crown Svo. 4*.
6d. 82mo. 1* 6d
Sermons. Hours of Thought on Sacred
Things. 2 vols. 7*' 6d each
M.n."~T..
Mill
B Three Essays on
Religion. Svo. 10* 6d
M^r/ ^T'"'
.
^^'
^"^*^" *"^ Holidays. Fcp. Svo. 5*

of Religion.
Crown 8vo 7c ej!
Science of Religion. Crown Svo.
7s. Sd
Newman a Apologia pro Vita Sua. Crown
Svo. 6*
SeweU's (Miss) Pacing Thoughts on
Religion. Fcp. Svo. 3*. 6d.
Preparation for the Holy Communion.
32mo.
^hIT^"'',,?^^^"*^
MUlIer's (Max) Origin
"
^^'^
& Growth
c
Seymour's Hebrew Psalter. Crown
Svo.
Smith's Voyage and Shipwreck
,
Wha tely's
3*.
Complete Edition.
Crown Svo. 7* 6d.

3 vols. 8vo. 36*.
Lessons on the Christian Evidences.

18mo. 6d
White's Four Gospels in Greek,
with Greek-EngUsh Lexicon.
TRAVELS, VOYAGES,
Aldridge's
Ranch Notes
'
6d
2*.
of St. Paul.
Supernatural Religion.
ISmo f
in Kansas, Co:oraaa, &c.
Baker's Eight Years in Ceylon.

Crown Svo.
-Rifle and Hound in Ceylon.
Crown
32mo.
6*.
See.
Crown Svo
5,
6*.
Svo.
5.-.
aH"v^- ^^^-- - r 1^-k-Â^tr^- - w-m
BaU on Alpine
Travelling, and on the Geology

of the Alps 1*.
Sunshine and Storm In the East.
Crown Svo 7* ed
Voyage in the Yacht 'Sunbeam.' Crown
Svo 7s R,i
fcp. Svo. 2*.
Popular Edition, 4to. 6d.
Cra^N-ford's Across the Pampas
and the An.les.
Brassey
Crown
London,
LONGMANS &
Svo.
CO.
7.-.
q^>,~vi
^^*^^
U.
r-^v*
Edition,
10
Crown 8vo.
Freeman's Impressions of the United States of America.
55.
8vo.
Crown
considered.
Climatically
Hassall's San Remo
lUustrations. 7 J. 6i.
Miner's Wintering in the Riviera. Post 8vo.
The Alpine Club Map of Switzerland. In Four Sheets. 42*.
Three in Norway.
By Two
of
Them.
Crown
WORKS OF
8vo. Illustrations,
6s.
Gs.
FICTION.
S^^^. ,
Brabourne's (Lord) Higgledy-Piggledy. Crow 8^0;
6<i.
Whispers from Fairy Land. Crown 8vo. 6t.
Beaconsfield, K.G.
Edition of Novels and Tales by the Earl of
11 vols.
Cabinet
Crown 8vo. cloth extra,

Tales by Miss SeweU.
:
each
gilt edges, price 3. 6d.
A Glimpse of the World.
Amy Herbert. Cleve Hall.
Katharine Ashton.
The Earl's Daughter.
Laneton Parsonage.
Experience of Life.
Ursula.
Margaret Percival.
Ctertrude. Ivors.
Lang. 2 vols, crown 8vo. lis
Andrew
Mrs.
By
Novel.
A
View?.
Dissolving
E.G. Hughenden Edition with 2
Novels and Tales by the Earl of Beaconsfield,
11 vols crown 8vo. 2 2^
Wood.
on
Vignettes
11
^""^foâZonsdei and
OabiS7dfJon^?1tSrir and
crown 8vo.
Novelist's Library. Each Work
clotn :
complete in itself, price 2*. boards, or 2s. 6d.
The Modem
By Major
Earl of Beaconsfield, K.G.

Coningsby.
Sybil. Tancred.
Venetia. Henrietta Temple.
Contarini Fleming.
Alroy, Ixion, &c.
The Young Duke, &o.
Vivian Grey. Endymion.
By the
Bret Harte.
In the Carquinez Woods.
By
Mrs. Oliphant.
In Trust, the Story of a
and her Lover.
By Anthony
Single
Vomme,
Whyte-Melville.
Digby Grand.
Lothair.
By
General Bounce.
Kate Coventry.
The Gladiators.
Good for Nothing.
Holmby House.
The Interpreter.
The Queen's Maries.
By
Lady
Trollope.
Various Writers.
The Atelier du Lye.
Atherstone Priory.
The Burgomaster's Family.
Elsa and her Vulture.
Mademoiselle Mori.
The Six
Barchester Towers.
Sisters of the Valleys.
Unawares.
Mori.' Crown 8vo.
Mademoiselle
of
Author
the
In the Olden Time. By
G^.
8vo.
Crown
Thicker than Water. By James Payn.
6i
'
POETRY AND THE DRAMA.

12i. 6d.
BaUey's Festus, a Poem. Crown 8vo.
oi.
8vo. Us. 6 vols. fcp. 8vo. 21i.
Bowdler's Family Shakspeare. Medium
translated. 8vo. 12*. 6*.
Cayley's Iliad of Homer, Homomctrically
English Verse. Crown Svo.
into
Oonington's ^neid of VirgU, translated
Crown 8vo.95.
Prose Translation of Virgil's Poems.
Large crown Svo. 12*. 6d.

Goethe's Faust, translated by Birds.
translated by Webb. 8vo. 12*. 6d.
edited
by
Selss.
London,
Crown
8vo. 5.
LONGMANS &
CO.
9i.
General lists of Works.

Hom.s
IW.
11
-ekTc.xtwahYerseT,an,tat,onbyW.C.Grea.
iDgelow-s Poem..
New
BditiOB.
T, i
cown
vob. (cp. 8to. 12,
"'"%%.r*'-> --'r^tfo:;. 'rvor:-r^:;rSonthey's Poetical Works.
Medium
8vo. 14,.
RURAL SPORTS, HORSE AND

CATTLE ''^''^^^'^^NT,
MANAPPMpm-t
Dead Shot (The), by Marksman.

Crow. 8vo. lo/e,
Jitzwygram's Horses and Stables.
8vo. IO5 6cf
Miles 8 Horse's Foot, and

Plain Treatise on
How to Keen i*
Remarks on Horses' Teeth.
--
Stables
Milner'fl
~~
Work on
--
Ox a Manoi
the Dog.
WORKS OF
Crown8vo.6,.
^f
\,
8vo. 6s'
Horse.
8vo.
UTILITY
7,. 6d.
AND GENERAL INFORMATION

^^^^^
Acton's Modern Cookery for

Private Families.
Bnckton's Pood and Home

Cookerjr. Crown
BuU on the Maternal Management
of pmm
Burtons
My Home Fa.
Fcp 8vo
8vot
4,
a,
fi^ '
t,
În Z^',. Z^' "- " '*
Longman's Chess Openings.

Fcp.8vo.2,W
Macleod's Elements of Banking.
Fourth E^tion.
'^' '''' '''
pLsTue'd
8vo.T
Hteel s Diseases of the
Youatt's
and Stable-Fittings.
Imperial 8vo 15,
Country Pleasures. Crown
M. r^^'*^^^^-
qnnn
Ho.^-sSg ^"t Svo T?.^
0'
Economics.
^rf
Theory and
Banking.
'
Crown 8vo
. vols, small
'
Practice of
Loudon,
^^^-
^^'O.
U.
6,
crowL sTo. Vo^ I 7, .

^*^'
2 vols. 8vo.
Vol.1 12.
LONGMANS &
CO.
8cC.
8730M
Fop. 8vo
Treasury.
Sannaer-S BiograpMcal
6..
Hi.toyFcp.8vo^::
i^v>^ ' Natural
Game
3êut^^
Modern
Pol^B Theory ol the
a I*P^^ i!'^^^^^
THo Cabinet Lawy^,
. ,,.
'
.
,^ ^
vols.
M>.
gvo. 2l5.
JOHN HULUAH,
MUSICAL WORKS BY
LL.D.
oloth
Hullah-=Methô.Te.l^g^^|ing^Xoaê1;orl..M.^
Large
Slioote.opnWiimgtt'6Bx^êoli.
r^lS^^^^l-^-
B.al8vo.prioo...ewo.au......clot.;
^,^ of counterpoint. "'^"''J .V each or together,

^'^" '^T^JL^'iSJTfÎ-^ n. o, WUhe.. Manual.
or
5..
erf.
Boo..
-~"'-"^'
r^SSCôntah..-^
Wnhn.
^^??S*.'
'
^^^^,
wx
Hymns for the young,

infant Scho^Song^ 6^^
,^ Bxerd^s
in part 1.0.
"
Ay
Crown 8vo6d.
^ oîged. Qd.
for
Old BngUsh Songs
^^^' f "^0,^1 8vo. 3*.
Musical
Notation, tte
of MuBicaiar^^.
f^^î^, g.^. each 6<i.
for 3 Mid 3 yoi^3.J^
Songs
School
Mu^^^^^gvo. 8.. 6d.
o^ôdem
S-ô?
^.^^^^^ ^^^^ ,0. 6d.
Lectures on the
o
Transition Penoa
Lectures on the
Rudiments
London.
LONGMANS &
CO.
Zeller E. Socrates and the Socratic

Schools, (tr. by Heichel)
LIBRARY
r"^
Ef>ntifical
Institute
113 ST.
TORONTO,
of Med;ae^'c^l %fu<i\ei
J03EPM
ONT.,
:-J7
CANADA
^678
u.

Zeller Eduard - Socrates-And-The-Socratic-Schools PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Zeller Eduard - Socrates-And-The-Socratic-Schools PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ts

Digitized by the Internet Archive

2011 with funding from

AUTHORISED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

PHILOSOPHY OF THE GREEKS

Translated with the Author's

Translated by the Eev.

8vo. price lOs. Qd.

The STOICS, EPICUREAITS, and SCEPTICS.

Translated by Sarah Fbances Alleyne and Alfbed Goodwin,

Lately published, in cro-wn 8vo. price I85.

PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY.

Fellow and Lecturer of Balliol College, Oxford.

it can be said that in all essential respects

to the student of Plato.

of great value to students of Plato, but hitherto only

German than with Greek.

VICAR OP SPERSHOLT, BERKS

AND ENTIRELY NEW ED[TION

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND

Dr Zeller's Philosophie der Griechen

which treats of Socrates and the imperfect Socratic

not unaware of the

which he has undertaken.

on the one hand, such a translation be too

the original, and expend a labour in disentangling

on the other hand, too

allowed, the charge

preferred, that the rendering does not faithfully re-

present the original.

translator has en-

deavoured to steer a middle course between these

two extremes, aiming at reproducing the meaning of

seemed necessary, by breaking them up.

order to avoid inaccuracies, he has once more care-

gone over the whole,

as a second edition is really a

the third Grerman edition.

but believing that there

a large class of students

in the original, he submits this attempt to

their wants, soliciting for

THE GENERAL STATE OF CULTURE IN GREECE.

THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF GREECE IN

The problem proposed to philosophy

The problem solved by

Athens a centre of union

The problem solved by literature

The Historians. Herodotus

The problem solved by new forms of religious worship

CHARACTER AND PROGRESS OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY

from pre-Socratic Philosophy

Study of conceptions substituted for study of

B. Importance of the doctrine of conceptions

from post- Aristotelian Philosophy

D. The Socratic Philosophy developed

THE LIFE OF SOCRATES.

Youth and early training

THE CHARACTER OF SOCRATES.

A. Greatness of the character of Socrates

Greek peculiarities in his character

Prominent features in his character