Sei sulla pagina 1di 15

American Philological Association

The Evidence for the Teaching of Socrates


Author(s): Eric Alfred Havelock
Source: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 65 (1934), pp.
282-295
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283034
Accessed: 02-03-2015 22:30 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press and American Philological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

282

Eric AlfredHavelock

[1934

XVII.- The Evidencefor the Teachingof Socrates


ERIC

ALFRED

HAVELOCK

VICTORIA COLLEGE

Dramatizedconversationwas a traditionalmethodofrenderingabstract
ideas, as examplesfromthe poets and historiansshow. Hence the "SocraticLogoi," whetherof Xenophon or Plato, owe their formto literary
reasons,and not to a desireto representthe historicSocrates. It is only
modernprejudiceand literaryfashionwhichpreventsthe fact frombeing
appreciated.
If these logoi are eliminatedas primaryevidence,we are leftwith the
Apologyand Clouds,whichare likelyto be historicalin a sense in which
none of the othermaterialis. These two sourcesyield a simpleand consistentset of ideas whichcan safelybe labelled "Socratic."

the lifeand teachings


The major materialforreconstructing
of Socrates is supplied by the dialogues of Plato and some of
the writingsof Xenopholn,supplementedby a play of Ar'stophanes and some remarksof Aristotle. But thereis today no
agreedmethodby whichthis materialcan be appraised,and in
consequenicethe problemof who was the historicSocrates has
been reduced to lhopeless conifusioni.The old orthodoxy
relied mainly on Xenophon. The heterodoxyof the BurnetTaylor theory utilised the whole of the Clotudsplus Plato's
early and middle dialogues. Average opinion now hovers
uneasilybetweenthese two extreimes. Socrates is represented
or a metaphysician,
today as eithera scientist,or a imioralist,
or a mystic,or as a combinationof some of these, according
to the personal preferencesof his iinterpreter.The confusion
two recent works on the
('an be illustrated by comnparing
subject,A. E. Taylor's Socratesand A. K. Rogers' The Socratic
Problem:the formerrepresentsSocrates as a scientistand a
metaphysician;the latterregardsthe scienceand metaphysics
as Platonic, and representsSocrates only as a moralist and
do not
mystic. This is not to say that the two interpretations
in emphasisis obvious.
overlap. But theirdifference
The reason forthis confusionis that there is at presentno
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. lxv] The Evidencefor the Teachingof Socrates

283

accepted criterionby which the aVailable evidence can be


evaluated. The orthodox preferencefor Xenophon did at
least providesuch a criterion. No one today is probablyquite
satisfiedwith it. But nothinghas taken its place. Every
interpreteris left free to pick out of the available material
what he thinksis suitable to his own conception,and the portraits of Socrates which result are not historybut subjective
creations.
The chiefobstacle in the way of establishinga sound criterion of evidence is the modernillusionthat because Plato and
Xenophon chose to representSocrates as a central figurein
dramatized conversations,they were inspiredby a desire to
reconstructthe master'spersonality. Their methodofwriting
philosophyis not the normal method today. We therefore
assume that they had some ulterior motive in so writing,
beyond the merepresentationof theirown ideas. But this is
not so. The dialogue formwas chosenfortraditionalreasons.
Acted drama, or dramatizedconversations,was the traditional
Greek methodof discussingand analysingmoral ideas.
This instinctto dramatize, and hence to subordinatethe
writer'sown personality,can be traced fromHomer onwards,
whose reflectionson rightand wrongand human destinyare
spoken throughhis characters. Even Hesiod's Theogonyis in
effecta dialogue between himselfand the Muses, the Muses
supplyingall the doctrine. In the Worksand Days, it is true,
he descends to personal exhortation,but a vestigeof the dramatic instinctpersists;he carrieson his conversationwith his
brother. Epicharmus, if our evidence is to be trusted,was
among the earliest to undertake analytical discussion of
abstract moral problems. His medium was the comic stage,
and the audience that listened to these discussionsfilledthe
theatreat Syracuse. It is hard to decide whetherhe was more
of a dramatist or a philosopher. His successor Sophron of
Syracuse may or may not have been a moral philosopher,but
he was at least responsiblefor one thing: he developed the
dialogue formforpurposesof reading,as distinctfromacting,

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[1934

Eric AlfredHavelock

284

forthe use ofphilosophicwriters


an instrument
thus perfecting
of the fourthcentury. It is no accidentthat Plato is reported
to have been veryfondof Epicharmus'plays,sincehe adopted
the techniqueof the Sicilian mimein constructinghis Socratic
conversations.'
It was always moral ideas, concerningthe destinyand behaviourofman,whichfoundtheirmostappropriateexpression
in such dramatization. This, I would suggest,is one of the
main reasons for the preeminenceof dialectic in Greek philosophy,not least in the pages of Plato, who convertsit from
a mereliterarytechniqueinto a philosophicalmethod. If the
stage was the earliest vehicle of what could be called moral
discussion,it would be natural to develop such discussionby
depictingcharacterswithantitheticalopinions,whoserepartee
would amuse an audience, and mightincidentallydevelop a
point of view.2 As the interestin ideas increased,the dramatic purpose was graduallyforgotten. On the other hand,
the speculationconcerningphysicalnature,non-humanistand
non-moral,which became traditionalvery early in Ionia, did
not develop out of a dramaticform,simplybecause its subject
matter had nothingto do with human character. The two
differenttraditionsunite in Zeno, who applied the dialogue
techniqueto discussionofpurelyphysicalproblems,and hence
produced a purely undramaticdialectic.3 Plato, turninghis
back, at least in the earlypart of his career,on the philosophy
of nature,and concentratingonce more,with a new precision,
on the problemsof man, revertedto the drama.
The dialogue form,tlhen,is not inspiredby any desire to
1 Aristotle, Poet. 1447b, 2. Burnet, Phaedo (Oxford, Clarendon, 1911) introduction, xxxi, and Taylor, Varia Socratica (Oxford, Parker, 1911), 55 assume
Aristotle cites it as an example of the exact
that the mime was "realistic."
opposite: cf. Ross' edition of the Metaphysics (Oxford, Clarendon, 1924) i,
introduction, xxxvii.
2 Cf. Epicharmus, frags. 1 f. (Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker4(Berlin,
Weidmann, 1922)
3 Cf. Diog.

pr7TOpLK77P

L.

pe?V,

i,

viii,

13b, 1 f.).

57, 'ApLuToTriX7s

Z7'rwpa

Ue

3LaXEKTLK7'P

6' e'P Tr, 0o04Urjj

4Oil'

7wp TOP

'E7rew3KXEta

(Aristotle, frag. 65 Ross): see also Plato,

Parmenides 135d.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. lxv] The Evidencefor the Teachingof Socrates

285

portray character. It was a standard literary method of


expressingmoral philosophy. It is true that actual historical
figuresof the fifthcentury are portrayedin the dialogues.
But here again we do not make enough allowance for Greek
tradition in these matters. Every time a Greek went to a
play, he saw representednot some fictitiouscharacter,the
creation of the artist,but a thoroughlyfamiliarone, known
to him fromthe legendsof childhood. Yet the dramatistwas
expected to adapt this given characterto his own purposes.
He was expected to work up particularconcretesituationsin
his own way, and allow his puppetsto conversein what manner
suited him. In this way, Epicharmus may have made Odysseus the mouthpiece for some amateur philosophizing;4
Euripides certainly did not set the fashion in this regard.
Such characters,it is true,were mythical,and thereforemore
easily treated as types. But the historiansgive us historical
figurestreatedin the same way. Herodotus,forexample,tells
a tale of Cyrus and Croesus,5whichmay have been suggested
to him by somethinghe heard,but whichhe at any rate works
up into a situation where he is enabled to give dramatic
expressionto a fewsentimentsconcerninghuman destiny. So
wTehave Croesus on his pyre,carryingon what amounts to a
conversation,despite the painfulcircumstances,with the victorious Cyrus. This conversation is in turn the report of
another conversation,this time between Croesus and Solon,
whichhad happened long ago. This is almost in the Platonic
manner. The classic example of this dialectical use of historicalmaterialis ofcoursethe Melian dialogue.6 Thucydides
may have had leanings towards scientifichistory,but the
Greek instinctwas too much forhim. He selects a particular
situation in Athenian history as a suitable setting for the
dramatic presentationof the eternal human problem,might
mersus right. It is inconceivablethat such a discussion was
4Diels, op. cit. (see note 2) 13b, 4: cf. Croiset, Hist. Litt. Gr. Im, 471.
6
6

Hdt. I, 86.

Thuc. v, 85.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

286

Eric AlfredHavelock

[1934

held in the circumstances;it is thus that the historianchooses


to recordhis own reflections. For that matter,does anyone
believe that the funeralspeech is any safe guide to the sentiYet Pericles was as
ments,let alone the style,of Pericles? Y
near to the readers of Thucvdides as Socrates was to the
readersof Plato, and probablya good deal nearer.
The case of Periclesin this instanceillustratesanotherfact.
Reverence for a great historicfigurenow dead was no guarantee that a later generationwould take any troubleto report
him accurately. The reversewas ratherthe truth. Socrates
was very quickly exalted into the position of a sort of saint.
It was this very exaltation which in the eyes of the next
generationdepersonalisedhim. He changed froma human
beinginto the championof a cause, and as such lenthimselfto
just that sort of dramatic treatmentwhich the Greeks accorded their heroes-a treatmentthe reverseof historicalin
our sense of the word.
I concludethat the " SocraticConversations" werea literary
mediumused to expressthe ideas of the writer,not ofhis characters,and that any rea(lerof such conversationsin the classical perio(lwould not expect otherwise. I have by implication
classedl Xenophon with Plato in this discussion. I do this
because his "Memoirs" are really disguised conversations.
The narrativean(ddescriptivematerialin them bears a small
proportionto the whole and in some importantrespects is
obviously vitiated by his apologetic purpose.8 One may
suspectthat only controversycould at this date have impelled
any Greek to attemptdeliberatebiography.
If, however,we are to assume that one of Plato's purposes
in writingsuch dialogues as the Charmides,Sy?nposium,or
7 Many of the abstract ideas, as well as their antithetical arrangement,
appear unadorned by genius in the briT0atos of Gorgias (Diels. op. cit. 76b, 6).
The shorter speech inserted fourteen chapters later (Thuc. ii, 60-64) is much
more convincing as a specimen of what Pericles' style may have been.
8 E.g. the divine sign wherever mentioned is credited with positive powers, in
flat contradiction of the Apology: Mem. i, 1, 2-9; iv, 3, 12 f., 8, 5 f.: Apology
31c-d, 40a-b.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. lxv]

The Evidencefor the Teachingof Socrates

287

Phaedo was to recall a historicsituation,we are compelledto


convert him from a philosopher into an antiquarian, who
carefullyreconstructedthe manners and opinions of an age
which Burnet argues was dead by the time he wrote.9 I
totally disbelieve this judgment; in my opinlionlthe controversieswhichare argued in Plato's pages are the controversies
of his own day, dramatizedthroughthe mouthsof men mostlv
dead who had initiatedthese controversies,
and had become as
it were the canonized representativesof philosophical tendencies. Arguingfromthe contraryassumption,the BurnetTaylor theory presents to us a Socrates who is not only a
cosmologistand a mathematician,but a metaphysician,the
author of the theoryof Ideas. To arrive at this conclusion,
the authors of it have to involve themselvesin a maze of
special pleading,1and flyin the face ofsome expresstestimony
of Aristotle's.1 "(It seems unthinkable,"argues Burnet in
discussing the Phaedo, "that Plato should have invented a
purely fictitiousaccount of his revered master's intellectual
development,and insertedit in an account ofhis last hourson
earth." 12 This onlymeans that such a methodis unthinkable
to Mr. Burnet. Rogers, again, assumes forhis own purposes
that what Socrates says in the Symposiumis a record of his
own opinions. For otherwisePlato "shifts to an intentional
falsification
and thorough-going
whenhe introducesthe heroof
the dialogue. Such a proceduremust have confusedhis contemporariesas much as it confuses the modern reader." 13
9 Burnet,op. cit. (see note 1), introduction,
xxxiv-xxxvi,and article"Socrates" in Hastings,Enc. Rel. and Eth. xi.
10Burnet, for example, (introd.to Phaedo) dismissesthe referencesto the
Clouds in the Apologyas "persiflage"; Taylor (Var. Soc. 158) renders. . .

Ka &XXv 7roXAX7v
Ovaplav cOvapouvJTa, W'VEycWov6ev oTre ,ttiya oTre /tKpJv 7rEpt
eiraltw(Apol. 19c) as "I can make neitherhead nor tail of this nonsense,"when

the plain sense is "I am innocentof all knowledgeof thesematters."


ItMet. A. 987b, 1, M. 1078b,28 and 1086b,2: cf. the discussionof these in
Ross. op. cit. (see note 1) introduction,
and in Field, Socratesand Plato (Oxford,
Parker,1913).
12 Op. cit. (in note 9), 668.
13 The SocraticProblem(New Haven, Yale Press, 1933), 8.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

288

Eric AlfredHavelock

[1934

The use of "falsification"begs the whole question,as though


the choice beforea Greek writerwere deliberateand faithful
reportingversusdeliberatelying.14
We have to rememberthat classic Greek literaturewas
characterisedby an entire absence of what we would call
fiction,that is, drama or narrativebuilt around purelyimaginary characters. This absence of pure fiction guaranteed
that historicalcharacterswould be treatedin a fictionalmanner,or what we would call such, and that this would happen
withoutany problemof historichonestyor dishonestybeing
raised thereby. It was the Alexandrians,influencedby the
disciples of Aristotle,the compilersof the firsthistoriesof
philosophyand science, that firstbecame interestedin biography. The "facts" so called that they began to collectwere
really inferenceswhich they painstakinglydrew fromsources
which were not writtenin a biographicalspiritat all. They
do not seem to have been much more capable of appreciating
this than we are, and a mass of apocryphal anecdote is the
result.15 Correspondinglyit was in the same period that the
purely fictionalromance with invented characters made its
appearance. Factual biography and fictionalnarrative became, as it were,separated offfromeach other.
The worldof lettershas ever since set a value on the actual
recordof a man's personallife. Today it sets a highervalue
than ever. A large part of modern literatureis directlyor
indirectlybiographical. In a spiritand temperquite alien to
that of classic Greece we seek to know the historicSocrates
to understandhis psychological
in relationto his environment,
which produced him.
influences
the
to
discover
development,
The resultis such a lifeof Socrates as A. E. Taylor's, in which
14 Cf. similar reasoning by Field, who says, op. cit. (see note 11) 4, concerning
the Memorabilia: "There are only three alternatives: either it is substantially
true, or else Xenophon is deliberately lying, or else he is very ignorant."
15 The stories for example about Anytus' son (based on the Meno) and
Xanthippe (inferences from the Phaedo, aided by imagination) and perhaps the
assertion that Socrates was a disciple of, i.e. had " heard " Archelaus (an inference

from Phaedo 97b?).

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. lxv] The Evidencefor the Teachingof Socrates

289

a hundredand thirtypages are devoted to the life,and fortyfour to the thought of the philosopher. This proportionis
the exact reverse of the one observed by the disciples of
Socrates. To amass enough biographicalmaterial to fillthe
record,a desperate use has to be made of what authoritieswe
have.
Plato was not interestedin men, but in ideas. He constructs dramatic situations which will allow him to expose
throughthe mediumof a conversationsome abstractproblem.
He projects this conversationinto the past, oftentaking care
to underlinethe fact, as for example in the introductionsto
the Symposiumand Phaedo.16 This projectionhas the same
effectas that achieved by the tragic dramatist who used a
conventionalizedcharacterdrawn frommythology:it enabled
Plato to subordinatecharacterto ideas, expressinghis ideas
throughthe mouths of historicfigureswho were just remote
enough to avoid intrudingas a distractionin his educative
mime. By way of contrast,one may compare the modern
attitudeas it is illustratedby the techniqueofLyttonStrachey,
the writerwho perhaps has developed the art of biographyto
its logical conclusion. He deliberatelyexposes the private
life and inneremotionsof his subject, ratherthan the public
career which everyoneknows. He is interested,forexample,
to let us see Queen Victorialess as a queen and moreas a lover
of her husband, or Florence Nightingaleless as the "lady with
the lamp" than as an imperiousinvalid on a couch, ordering
ArthurHugh Clough to tie up brown paper parcels for her.
If we are in sympathywiththe modernmood, we applaud the
method because we feel that it is in the minuterevelationof
individualcharacterthat truthand meaningis to be found. I
cannot imagine an attitude more alien to that of Greece, as
long as the city state still retainedsignificance;and Plato is a
child ofthe citystate, remotein spiritfromthat individualism
16Symp. 172c, iravrabraotv
aoL OV&ev
6 &t77yov'yevos,
EOCKE
EL
&t77yEZoOaL oaac/s
veco-rc -)y r')v o-vvovoLav -ye-yovevaLraVr77v 7'V CpWr,as, WorTEKaL e lrapa-yEv4aoaL:
Phaedo 57a . . . ovre rcs tfvos 4c/LKTaL xp6vov avXvoV &KELOEV O6ars av 7'7yzv vaa/es
Tt

a-y-yeLXaLo0tosr'v

ro6rwv.
7rept

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

290

Eric AlfredHaveloclc

[1934

which later became dominant anid renderedthe biograpllical


point of view in literaturepopular.
One is at libertyto imaginePlato givingus a coniversationi
betweenQueen Victoria andlThomas Huxley, on the suitable
subject of "What is piety?" The queen aiid the scienitist
ileet in the groundsof WindsorCastle. The queen's interest
is inlthe state religioniandlits inaintenance inithe established
clhurch. The scientistargues that all ethical anid mloralcolncepts requirea scientificbasis. The clash of these two points
of view allows Plato to add a few light touches of character
drawing. Afterprotractedargumenithluxleyretiresleavino
the queen sadder but a littlewiser.
I do not thinkmyselfthat we can say that the conversations
of Socrates with the sophistshad any more basis in historical
fact, but one may imagine a Burnet of many centurieslater,
as he studiedthe literaryremainsof our vanishedcivilization,
arguing with great effectthat of course the conversationis
historical:Victoria must have met Huxley. His post as ina royal appointment,would render
spectorof salmon fisheries,
such a meeting almost inevitable. If confirmationwere
wanted, one could see it in the altered policy of the state towards the dissentingdenominationstowards the close of the
which reflectsthe impressionthat this conversation
cenitury,
had made.
Socrates theniwould remain anl importantbut well nigl
uiiknownquantity in the historyof philosophy,but for two
facts. Plato besides his dialogues wrote a speech. And a
comic dramatist chose to pillory Socrates in a play nearly
thirtyy-earsbeforehis death. My thesis is that these two
works, an(d these alone, if rightlyused, provide us with a
criterionfor distinguishingthe teaching of Socrates. Aristotle adds a little,which reinforcesconclusionsdrawn from
the speech and the play, but is in itselfinadequate.
The Apologyis the onlyworkof Plato's whichin formis not
a conversation. I take this one departure from literary
practice to be (leliberate. It indicates that for once he is
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. lxv] The Evidencefor the Teachingof Socrates

291

interested in something other than an abstract problem.


Furthermore,the Apology presents Socrates in a situation
whichwas part of his public career,not of his privatelife. It
was indeed the only situation of all those in the dialogues
whicha readertwentyyears afterwould instinctivelythinkof
as historical. Thirdly, it is only in the Apologythat Plato
refersto his own presenceat the scene portrayed,and he does
so twice."7 He specifically eliminates himself from the
Phaedo,'8 which was perhaps the one other dialogue which a
contemporaryreader mighthave been tempted to regard as
in any sense historical. I thereforetake the Apologyto be
Plato's one deliberate attempt to reconstructSocrates forhis
own sake, and am willingenough to believe that the motive
behindthe attemptwas to refuteotherpamphletson the same
subject. This is not to say that it is reporting. On the contrary,it is very unlikelyto be. I would be prepared to go
furtherfor example than Hackforth,who in his Composition
ofPlato's Apologyattemptsto distinguishbetweenthe forensic
portions actually delivered to the jury and those added by
Plato. In orderto value the Apologyas a historicaldocument,
it is not necessaryto assume that Socrates spoke any of it.
Such reportingimpliesa more violentdeparturefromPlato's
normal practice than I thinkhe would have been capable of.
I take the speech to be rathera consciousattempton his part
to sum up the significanceof his master's teaching,utilizing
forthat purposea dramaticsituationwhichwas historical,and
whicheveryoneknew to be so.
A. E. Taylor rightlypointedout, in his Varia Socratica,the
unique importanceof the Clouds as evidence forthe teaching
of Socrates. It is the only contemporaryevidence we have,
and is contributed by a non-philosopher. Unfortunately,
Taylor tended to discreditthe evidence he had rediscovered
by his extravagant use of it. Obsessed with the idea that
fifth-century
Greekswere interestedin the objective portrayal
1734a, 38b.
18

59b.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Eric AlfredHavelock

292

[1934

of individualcharacter,he takes practicallyeverythingin the


Cloudsto be a reminiscenceof the historicSocrates, and does
this with the less excuse because in this case his authority,
while not a philosopher,is a comic dramatist,with an axe of
his own to grind. A dramatist'sfirstpurposeis to amuse; his
second may possiblybe to instructor preacha moral,his third
and last, ifhe has it at all, is to rendera historicalpicture. I
take it that Aristophaneschose Socrates primarilybecause he
was amusing. He seems to declare the facthimself,when the
chorus,addressingSocrates forthe firsttime at line 359, says
"0 high priestof ingeniousnonsense,declare to us thy need.
For there is none other of the highfalutinprofessorsof the
presentday that we would ratherlisten to, except Prodicus.
We would listen to him because of his wisdom and doctrine,
but to you, because you strutalong the streetsshootingsidelong glances, going barefoot,putting up with all kinds of
trouble,and maintaininga sternfrontunder our protection."
The play then used Socrates because he was an eccentric
with eccentrichabits.19 Now, part of a man's eccentricity
consistsin the phraseshe uses, the jargon in whichhe expresses
his ideas, and to some extentthe ideas themselves,if he has
any, thougha dramatistis an unsafeguide to what his victim's
ideas may be, as he will select only what is superficial. It is
reasonableto supposethat the Clouds,in additionto parodying
the personalhabits of Socrates,would contain a large amount
of his phraseology,which, if recovered,would be a valuable
guide to his ideas and methods. But the play itselfprovides
no criterionby means of whichwe can separate it out.
disappearsif we regardthe contentof the
But this difficulty
Apologyas in some sense a formaldefinitionof what Socrates
taught and believed,and supplementthis outlineby anything
in the Cloudswhichis not contradictedin the Apology. Probably the biggestsinglemistakemade by Burnetand Taylor was
to ignorethe contradictionsthat thereare. I am thinkingof
19 Cf. Apol.

34b,

aXX' OW'v bebo'Y/ELvop

y4 eaTrL

Tp

2wKpa?r1 bLa'epEt

rLvTWTrv

7roXXWCP&
YavOpwc7rwY.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. lxv] The Evidencefor the Teachingof Socrates

293

two statementsin the Apologyin particular;first,that Socrates


was utterlyignorantof the so called science of his day, and
second, that he nevertaught a formalbody of doctrineat all,
let alone an esotericdoctrine.20 These two statements,unless
the Apologydistortsthe historicfacts,destroythe portraitof
Socrates the scientist,the Orphic teacher,the metaphysician,
which has been laboriouslyconstructedduringthe last thirty
years. But if the Apology is a distortion,then surely the
dialogue material on which the biographicallyminded are
drivento rely is scarcelylikelyto be less so. We would then
be leftwith no evidence at all.
The essence, then, of what Socrates believed and taught is
containedwithinthe limitsof the Apology;this can be supplementedby a good deal of Socratic language and methodfrom
the Clouds. What Aristotlehas to say merelyconfirmsthis
evidence in two particulars.2" Having thus constructed a
definitepicture of what Socrates' ideas were, and also what
they were not, we are able to take the dialogues of Plato and
disentanglefromthem the Socratic ideas which in part they
use.
This criterionenables us to definethe fieldof Socraticism
fairlyprecisely. I can only indicate the results summarily.
Certain negative conclusions seem definite:the science and
atheism of the Clouds is eliminated. So also are the formal
theories of psychologyand politics, the doctrinesof immortality,and the technical use of the Forms which occur in the
early and middle dialogues of Plato. But the positive outlines of Socrates' thought emerge equally definitely:Burnet
made a great contributionto the historyof philosophywhen
he definedSocrates' centralidea as the notion of the rational
soul and its supreme importance.22To this we can add, as
20
21

Apol. 19 c-d, 26 d, 33 b.
See note 11.

22 "The
Socratic Conception of the Soul," in the Proceedings of the British
Academy VIII, 235-260, and article "Soul" (Greek) in Hastings, Enc. Rel. and
Eth. xi, 741.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Eric AlfredHavelock

294

[1934

part of the same idea, the doctrinethat the attainmentof


knowledgeof the self,i.e. of selfconsciousness,is the supreme
and onlyduty of man, a duty to be achieved bv introspection.
The Socraticmethodofdoingthiswas to examinepropositions
-what we would class as moral propositions-which to
Socrates were thoughts,the productsof soul, but could vary
in qualityaccordingto the goodnessor badness ofsoul,and had
to be improvedso that therewiththe soul was improved. The
method of improvement,again, was to ask, "What does this
propositionmean?", and in supplying the answer to trace
deductivelya seriesof conclusionswhichwere then compared
with otherconclusionsdrawn frominductiveillustrations,or,
as we mightsay, fromcommonsense or at least commonexperience. If the two sets ofconclusionsdid not fit,the original
propositionhad to be improvedso that theywould. In order
to have a standardbasis of comparison,Socrates also assumed
that everythinghad to stand the test ofbeing" good," without
distinguishingbetween the morallygood and the useful and
pleasant. That is, he could be interpretedas setting up a
single standard of value as the soul's equipment in passing
judgmentin any situationor on any statemeint. This simple
and consistentlittle system of ideas--though it should not
really be called a system at all-ha(d two by-products:he
liscoveredthat the properfunctioiiof the soull is to think,23
and that the objective of exact thoughtis the elaborationiof
essential definitions. Such is the contributionof Socraticism
to philosophy:everyelementin this summaryappears in the
Apology,and is backed up and sometimes explained more
23 I.e. supreme virtue consists in the actual exercise of mental powers for
their own sake to the limit: cf. in particular Apol. 29e and 38a and the use of
cpovsL?etV passim in the Clouds. This is not the same thing as "Virtue is
knowledge," i.e. an exact science. It was Plato himself who in the "early"
dialogues set about trying to produce this formula. The implications achieved
in the Protagoras became accepted by Aristotle and later authorities as Socratic,
and thus the famous paradox became traditional as Socratic doctrine; cf. Arist.
Eth. N. 1116b, 4, 1145b, 23, Eth. E. 1216b, 6, 1230a, 4, 1246b, 33; (Arist.)

Ma.

Mor.

i,

1, 5-7; Diog. L. iI, 31.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. lxv] The Evidencefor the Teachingof Socrates

295

preciselyby correspondingexpressionsin the Clouds.24 One


may add two more elements,fromthe Apologyalone: an unquestionedassumptionthat the good was also the will of God,
and that thereforeits pursuit through introspectionand
definitionwas also a moral imperative:and a hope, but not a
conviction,that soul persistedbeyond death, still exercising
its properfunctionof thinking,and preoccupiedwith its own
self-consciousness.
As can be readilyseen, Platonismconsistedmainlyin working ouitthe implicationsof these ideas in the fieldsof psychology, politics, epistemology,and, finally,cosmology. But in
so doing Plato transcended Socraticism, which in the last
resortwas only a method,and produced a set of positive results. Nevertheless,the harvestgleaned by Socrates was not
a meagreone, if it is judged in its historicsetting. European
thoughthas accepted what he gave it so readily and without
question that it has grown unconsciousof the gift,which is
perhaps why modern historicalcriticismhas sought to put
into his mouth a set of doctrineswhich may seem more elaborate,in keepingwiththe intellectualelaborationof our day,
but are scarcelymore imDosing.
24 For soul cf.lines 94, 329, 415, 420, and also Birds 1553 ff.:self-knowledge,
242, 385, 695, 842: the "proposition,"489, 757: ?rTIfsq, 728,737, 768: &wopia,
703, 743: bra-ywy'y,
1427: essentialdefinition,
194, 250, 479, 742, 886.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Potrebbero piacerti anche