A. E.


wdvra tovto wpoo«/ua «mi'

ovtoiJ tov

yppov ov

Set fj.a.6iiv.

Plato, Republic 681
eiriXa/3ou T>js




vi. 12.










A. B.





etmv avrov rov

vofiov ov Set imOeiv.

Plato, Republic 531
eiriXafiov Tijs altaviov



vi. 12.




iv-z-i^r .



WITH THE CONPLinENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY COURT. St. LIBRARY EXCHANGE. 8 a . Scotland.UNIVERSITY OF ST. Q 5 Andrews. ANDREWS. Acknowledgments and publications sent be addressed to in exchange should '1 The Librarian. University Library.


.. . .. iSea in . The Words Epilogue etSos. 178 268 . Socrates and the Sura-ol Ad-yoi 4 The (fapovTurrripLov .CONTENTS PAGE Foreword 1.T-ijS in Aristotle between 40 91 AND 3. ix The Impiett op Socrates 1 2. .. pre-Pl atonic Literature . On the alleged 2(0Kj0(£tijs Distinction o 'EaKpd.129 175 Postscript 5.


is to complete completed. in the following pages. the demonstrably Orphic and Pythagorean peculiarities of Plato's hero. what Platonic in Platonism from what can be shown develop to to be the depositum fidei transmitted from Socrates. the author found increasingly impossible to exhibit what in his conception forms very soul of the special irpayfiaTeia is of Plato.FOREWORD The the following Essays form. will form their continuation. It is that the portrait drawn in the Platonic dialogues of the personal and philosophical individuality of Socrates is in all its main points strictly historical. however. so to say. and capable of being shown to be so. only first half of a in collection which the writer hopes few months. The main literary unity thesis in virtue of which the Essays now submitted for the reader's judgment form some kind of may be very succinctly stated. and discriminate. In other words. and the materials brought it is together trusted. as well as those which. without allowing the projected Introduction to such an extent as to demand five separate treatment. his conception of . were originally intended to to that appear in the Introduction projected it work. the course of a Even when to the to whole work on designed be merely of preparatory another the interpretation the Platonic Philosophy. As the to the matter grew. as their title-page shows.

but to understand him.x VAEIA SOCEATICA QCkoaofyia as an ascetic discipline in the proper meaning of the word. in the echo of them at Epistle vii. the stress laid on the imdr)fiara as a purification. to the Pythagorean or semi-Pythagorean group whose central figure twice over receives something like formal canonisation from the head of the Academy (once in the famous closing words of the Phaedo. in the later fifth and the fourth centuries. is In particular. it is urged that there not. there never was. things. be shown that these two confirm one another surprisingly detail. leading through sainthood to the attainment of everlasting life. and again. any really faithful personality of Socrates except the historical account of the Academic tradition which in goes back to Plato. the aamfiara nai as the true objects of knowledge. after many years. . as is too often thought. as their common faith. If the main results of this series of studies it and are the continuation with which I hope to follow correct. are no inventions of the idealising imagination of Plato. the up " whole of what passes in the current textbooks account of as the orthodox Socrates and the minor Socratics " will have to be rewritten. even in little matters of The conclusion is that classical . 324 e ov eyw <7%e8ov TOTe). and on which Aristotle was absolutely dependent for all that is significant his information. what the genius of Plato has is for his master not. so far as We know. to trans- him. ovk av ala'yyvolfi. and the thought brilliant caricature which Aristophanes reasonably It will his own comic sources masterpiece.iyv elirwv SiKatorarov ehcu twv done figure In a word. but belong in very truth. vehicle eternal of spiritual and the doctrine of the votjto. in a way which distorts the whole history of Greek thought substantially correct.antiquity was right in accepting the tradition as and the nineteenth century wrong. and. eiZr). in trying to get behind it.

\ov My sincerest gratitude is due to the Fellows of Merton College. main my conclusions have direct I trust. made it possible for me to devote such leisure as I have been able to enjoy in the intervals of University teaching during the past few years to the studies of which the present work records some results. that been made my own by genuine personal thought. whether for good or bad. and I to all other all works of which I have availed myself. grateful for I am particularly the generosity which they have shown in allowing me to take so long a time for reiterated study before attempting publication. Andrews for the honour which they have done me in consenting to issue this volume as one of the . E.FOREWORD In arguing xi my case I have necessarily made constant use of Diels's Domgraphi and Vorsokratiker. however. I have sought mainly to see with spectacles my own and to eyes rather than with (I the of others. be guided hope the ex- pression is not unduly self-confident) by the two watch(pvai words to Se re. I first suggestion of a train of thought have tried to make proper acknowledgment of the fact. by electing to the Fellowship vacant Warden and me in 1902 S. may follow without unnecessary to the University I have also to express my thanks Court of St. who. benefited My work might no doubt have been much closer by a study of the current literature of its subject. Where I have been conscious of owing the to others. To these. by the death of Professor Gardiner. and that the execution of the remainder delay. and perhaps to an even greater extent of my colleague Professor Burnet's work on Early Greek to express Philosophy. but. Kpariarov airav and oXlyov re <f>i. beg once for in the my grateful obligations. and I earnestly trust both that the present instalment of my projected work may prove not altogether unworthy of their acceptance.

for Herodotus.xii VAEIA SOCEATICA I series of University Publications. E. the texts of the Oxford Bibliotheca. TAYLOR. Poetics orators. December 1. text are to the edition of Professor Burnet Rhetoric. have used the texts of the Teubner and for the Ethics that of Professor Bywater. but more especially for his kindness in reading the whole of the volume in manuscript. Thucydides. 1910. as well as for the Attic series. A. I may mention here that all references to the Platonic . have finally to thank my friend and colleague Professor Burnet from his for the great help I have received both writings and from personal intercourse with him. Andrews. St. I for Aristotle's and Metaphysics. Aristophanes. Euripides. and for Xenophon (so far as the edition was available at the time of writing). In the case of quotations from other writers the text used has been regularly named when necessary. .

had been the object of until The comedians. nor why so influential and upright a person as Anytus should have lent the weight of his reputation to There is no evidence to show that Socrates. does not express the views of the democracy but of a group of literary men. 1 B . but we must remember that comedy. had attacked popular dislike. however.. "It is not clear orthodoxy was made at that particular time. as we may take Aristophanes as its representative. no one has as yet made it quite clear why Socrates should have been one of the earliest victims of the restored demo1 cracy. always been wrapped in a cloud of mystery. 581). the proceeding formally employed by the leaders of the restored democracy to get rid of Socrates was a ypa^ri d<rej3e£a<. whose bias is strongly against both the Periclean democracy and the Imperialistic policy with which the existence of the democracy was inseparably bound up. so far as we can judge. The " precise nature of the " impiety alleged against the philosopher has. were doing." The Impiety of Socrates As we all know. the time of the prosecution. some part of which it is So far as I know. at least so far the object of the present essay to dispel. to be sure. p. Its favourite butts were precisely the chosen statesmen of the democracy who set themselves to carry out the Periclean policy resolutely and with full consciousness of what they And we may add that. the prosecution. him. the attacks of the comedians on Socrates were as complete 1 As Professor Bury puts why their manifesto for it {History of Greece.

and who was on his trial for » scandalous sacrilege against the two '. was the If we turn to the subject of a regular literary warfare. a success on the stage the actual condemnation of Socrates was the work of a very small majority of the voters after his death. or an exhibition of bigotry on the part of the judges. like that of Alcibiades. Ep. K4(pa\e. we find Socrates represented as is of public curiosity. Isocrates xviii. in spite of the efforts of men like Lysias to spur it on to high-handed measures against all who had filled administrative offices 1 The fidelity with which it in the year of anarchy. 23 8/>a<nJj3ouXos wiKei. or of the real prosecutor. Neither a fanatical demagogue nor a bigoted religionist would have been likely to use his influence for Andocides. Neither can we suppose bigotry to have played any prominent part in securing the philosopher's condemnation. kt\. adhered to the terms of the general amnesty is undisputed matter of fact. The recently restored democracy was notoriously not revengeful. Anytus and Thrasybulus. and Anytus. in particular. .' deities " of Eleusis. ttoXXuv S' oi5 "Avvtos.' 150 °^ • fivriaiKaiceiv. It is idle to of the proceedings against Socrates as attempt to solve the problem by talking an act of revenge.fiovketeiv ti/up & yiyvticicovm wepl ifiov Sevpo "Avvtc. . whose political antecedents were of the worst kind. 325 b. since the influence of Nor can the judges have been Anytus and the securing rhetoric of Meletus combined only succeeded in 1 So Plato himself expressly ol says. /cal vii. Sfuns 8 Andocides els ToKixwaw airots Slims \ayx£vel >' d|ifi 5' ^ovye i. in the very year of the trial of Socrates. roirovs drives i/iiv aperfjs ffir\ tjjs fMyltTTY)s t6 tt\tj0os rb i/ih-epov IXeyxov Uoirav avapdires ivTavBot <rv/j. Platonic dialogues. or he would not be found.2 VAEIA SOCKATICA The Clouds was not . eiSires Si rods airoypdipovTas. hut there an object no sign that he was regarded with dislike. jiiyia-rav fxkv dw&fievu twv iv iireaTeprjfUiioi. a failure as their attacks on Euripides. 3 specially bigoted. with reference to the proceedings of . Anytus. using his influence on behalf of Andocides. x/'W^tw*'. that the treatment of Socrates was exceptional general 7roXX^i ixpfyavTo 2 tt/i in rbre /careXSipres (mciicdai. distinguished himself by setting the example of renouncing all demands 2 for compensation for the loss of a considerable fortune. his reputation. Anytus was assuredly no bigot.

a safe person to lend Socrates shows that. the corruption of the young. as I once used to suspect. This is clear from the pamphlet of Isocrates trepl t??s In effect this manifesto is a mere senile dvnSocrem. within the a yparfyq aaefielas. even after a person of to.evos xp^ws : weivSels 6' iir' airov rotavra Kal \iyovros Kal fi/m Trepl tovtovI KlayUiifli "ZuKparovs yeyovbra ixadTjTTfv oiiK . it is only fair to Anytus and his friends to assume that when they decided to prosecute Socrates for impiety they were honestly convinced that he was a menace to the re-established constitutional democracy. naively explains to the jury that. an Athenian money court might reasonably be expected to regard a pupil of Socrates as more than ordinary probity. The language was already dead.THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES 3 a verdict by the small majority of 280 votes against 220. It 1 Professor Bury (loc. ) has rightly called attention to this point. though Sai/r/jaruciv he seems 2 to attach irpbs no significance to the "religions" part of the accusation. therefore. Lysias Maxlviiv rbv olby. And it must be noted that the charge for technical legal purposes. offence. but in form. merely to bring the principal bounds of would have been quite feasible to lay a capital ypa<f>r) aGefieias on the latter ground alone. Aeschines might be assumed to know rather implies that all about justice. the ypafyri brought against Socrates He was indicted him of aaefteia on two distinct counts. as a pupil of Socrates. The plaintiff. charged (1) with corrupting the young. of offences against the official cultus cannot have been included. and that they knew of facts about his life which seemed to justify the conviction. 2 Taking everything into account. (2) with certain impieties in respect of the official religious cultus. who had imprudently advanced money to set up Aeschines in business. This is universally admitted about one part of the indictment . . and to be. cit. 1 One may add that the curious fragment of a speech by Lysias against Aeschines the Socratic contains some evidence to the same effect. effusion of self-praise. CTnxeipyffcu o(>6& roXjU^trat direp ol irovqpbTCLTOL Kal Adt-KibTarot &v8puiroi . as Blass has shown. and thus the famous trial. As we all know. 5ucaioa6vT]S Kal dper^s ttoWoiis Kal (refivods \4yovra \6yovs &v irore . I propose to show that it is probably equally true of the rest.

it is only reasonable to think that they believed themselves to have evidence of to ask whether we cannot still discover it. as Cobet held. fact specify a further offence." justifies on his trial for the capital offence and that the imminent danger what would otherwise be a transgression of the But there is this difference between bounds of decency. or. . whose character. in my opinion rightly. that the corrupting influence of Socrates friends this " accuser " is. as we see from Isocrates irepl rod fetfyovs. is demonstrably false. like Socrates. the author pamphlet against Socrates disparaged by Isocrates. as Blass. shows that a capital indictment could be laid on the charge of " corrupting " the young alone. probable that the accusers dwelt more on the case of Critias. maintains. asserts that the "sophist Socrates" was put to death because he had been the teacher of Critias (i. and what the evidence was. When we turn to our ancient authorities we find that. It is. as well as from the polemics ascribed to Lysias and Andocides. of "corrupting the young. had its warm defenders. as I hope to show. Polycrates. we must remember. The pains which Xenophon takes to refute the charge are 1 Aeschines also. 175). whereas the nature of the evidence adduced by the accusers in proof of the charge of "corruption of the young" is unmistakably indicated. of the Meletus. and that the "accuser" rested his case largely on the notorious fact that both Alcibiades and Critias had belonged to the Socratic 1 For my purpose it makes little difference whether circle. that with Isocrates the pretended This ypa<t>i] includes no charge of offences against cultus. for whom no one had a good word. the meaning of the other accusation is only explained in a way which. and that Anytus and his friends could have effected their object (which was. We learn from Xenophon's Memorabilia upon his young was alleged to lie in inspiring them with antidemocratic and unconstitutional sentiments. makes an occasion for self-laudation by pretending is Isocrates that he. the original and the copy. of course. merely to frighten Socrates away from Athens) without Since they did in laying anything further to his account.4 the VAKIA SOCEATICA work is a tasteless imitation of Plato's Apologia. than on that of Alcibiades.

gives the accusation in the ela<pepa>v instead same words.— ' THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES sufficient proof that it 5 was the one which most of it. In the opening sentence of the of Memorabilia." Aristotle's well-known panegyric on Thucydides. The words were ahacel ^mKpdTrj<. the charge of "corrupting the young" came first. are definitely hostile to democratic imperialism and in accord with the aims of the "moderates. the equivalent on the other hand. and reflected in their own judgment on the men of the fifth century. we must attempt. true. erepa Se Batfiovia Kauvd? If one could be sure that Favorinus had actually seen and transcribed the original indictment (though this goes beyond the mere statement that it was still extant in his day). to reconstruct the actual words of the indictment. it Plato gives us no real explanation of in the Apology. his evidence would be conclusive in favour of Xenophon's version as against that 1 For what of. According to Favorinus (Diogenes Laertius ii. 40).?. erepa Se icaiva Sai/i6via Se leal elarrjyovfjLevos aSttcei Toils veov? 8ia<p0eipcoi) ' Ti/iTjfia ddvaro?. revival of the old democratic ideals dreamed That this . as I propose to show. 1 When we come Xenophon false Pirst. Nicias and Theramenes is a witness It is significant to the preservation of this political tradition in the Academy. a Apology 24 b. only that he has elo-r/yov/jievos. that the agitation of Demosthenes and his party had no Academic support. rov<s re veov? SuxfjOeipcov Kai ttoXis vofii^ei ov vofii^cov. Xenophon Plato. and the we may be that Meletus made it whether he to particular " accuser " whom Xenophon has in mind or not not to say that would be an easy task show that the accusation was. however. told most heavily sure the is against his master with the»public. The political leanings ascribed to Socrates by both Plato and Xenophon. in fact. and absurd. it means is that the influence of Socrates was opposed to the which the leaders of the returned exiles was the case is certain. is and both one which. and the accusation ran somewhat thus 6eoi/<i ofi? : aSiicet r) StoK/aari. According to him. if we can. 5. offers to the other account. ou? p&v r\ 7ro\t? vo/ii^ei 6eoi)<i ov vofii^mv. the document was still preserved in his own day among the archives of the Metroon. makes Socrates quote the avrmfioa-ia of his prosecutors rather differently. the case is altered.

is all the more likely to have consulted the formal dvTcofioa-Ca of the prosecutors. elcrrfyoviJuevo<i). even if it were. 1 1 For the insinuation implied in elcrQipav. while Xenophon. and to have reproduced the charges as they stood in the indictment. ' | | \ . he did make a professed transcription for he actually made the blunder of declaring that Meletus did not himself speak in the prosecution. it This being the case. is that in Xenophon's version (with which that apparently derived from Favorinus agrees) Socrates is charged explicitly with " importing " a foreign cultus (etV<j>epo)p. it will follow that the offences against cultus were primarily specified as the chief legal ground for procedure. sufficient independent testimony to enable us to decide between Plato and Xenophon. for good reasons. however. in the face of the express statements of the Platonic and Xenophontic to Apologies. We have not. The insinuation is. still be a question whether as we can if trust the fidelity of Favorinus a of transcriber. a statement made explicitly in Met 987 a 30. precisely because he was absent. in fact. 353 rbv BrjM/jiopcpoii %ivov 6s claQipei vtxtov naivifv ywai%l Kal text Xv/tafrercu. Aristotle intends a similar suggestion when he speaks of those who imported (toi)s Koidcavras or eJowye^iras) the elS-r).d. either that Favorinus . eloyyoi/jtvos cf. then. I VARIA SOCRATICA must confess. which we may afterwards find to have some significance. Euripides. In this case. Another point. Bacchae 255 ai tclvt' ftreiffas. that Platonism is a mere modification of Italian Pythagoreanism. it would of the second century a. as it seems me.6 of Plato. affidavit can have been still extant and legible in the middle and. a charge which the Platonic. replaces by the less serious one of "recognising" novel divinities (erepa KMva Saipiovia being in Plato governed by vofii^ovTa). that I am not satisfied had seen the actual document or had carefully transcribed something shown to him as the actual One may reasonably doubt whether the actual document. who was actually present at the trial. seems to me most probable on the whole that Plato. it. gives us the heads of the accusation in the order in which they were actually dealt with by Socrates. Tcipeala rbvb' aS 0A«s rbv Sal/iov' ivBpilnrouriv £<r</>£pwii viov (TKoweiv irrepurois n&pirApw /uaSois <p£pew. and presumably the actual Socrates.

good reasons of his own. but should devotion to a religious eultus which has not the stamp of the State's approval. a vofii^ei. The accusation has first Socrates affects to take the for very part of it in that sense. who says in . But this cannot have been the sense originally intended by Anytus and Meletus. man who ov vo/ii^ei 6eov<. 9. 1 which means not. and 1 Lysias xii." like the one (poftoSficu oidi AvSparov iirpiiroiiai. 7 as to the precise character of the alleged offence It is reallv double-edged. Socrates is accused (a) of not " recognising " the official divinities. the Gospel rbv 9ebv ov Pison was an "unjust judge. strict sense. but reserves his recognition for certain other novel supernatural attach to What he is accused of neither atheism nor moral delinquency." Eor vo/ii^etv Oeovs does not mean merely to believe that there are gods. and the Platonic objects of eultus. no fear of either is his eyes. of course.. (b) of " importing " Plato makes him soften the charge. As Plato's Socrates goes on to argue. or atheism. An conduct. to one of " recognising " certain unauthorised — — often been misunderstood to be one of unbelief. if he is consistent in his them. as he probably did. ovre dvOpanrovs vo/xi^ei. that Pison was a philosophical solipsist. and we owe it to the very capable statesmen who were behind the prosecution of Socrates not to believe them guilty of having framed so ridiculous a charge except on the very strongest of evidence. deovt may be very far from shown by the but a man who This ov is atheism. in any sense we the words." whom our is city recognises. Similarly the charge against Socrates that " he does not recognise the gods beings. one of the Thirty. the Taken in their words of the accusation do not even imply called in question the existence of that Socrates had ever the "gods whom the city recognises. excellently fact that Lysias can say of Pison. but to " recognise " the gods by paying them the honour due to atheist is necessarily. but that he had no regard for before strictly God or man. that ovre 0eoi><.THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES Next against eultus. who disbelieved in the existence of his fellow-men. an accusation of believing in no gods whatever and believing in icawii Bai/wvia is pure nonsense.

' ' Socrates had actually neglected the formal obligations of the since such unnecessary nonconformity " is foreign to both Plato's and Xenophon's pictures of the man. have nothing This part of the Apology has thus no to do with him. which the well-known speculations of Anaxagoras had accusation on which he has caused to attach briefly to students of physical science. whatever their value may be (and he is careful not to prejudge this issue). 1 he frequents a foreign conventicle. It is disposed of by professed the consideration that. "Mine honour will I not give to another" is the rule in affairs of this kind. VAEIA SOCRATICA in fact. It its belongs altogether to the proem of the real dycov. while you content yourself with no more than the discharge of officially established politenesses to Athena of the Burg. the Anaxagorean speculations. It would not be necessary to add a positive insult to the Archbishop. This more general accusation is humorously put by him into the form of a regular dvTco/ioo-ia.8 is. and is not directed rbv dvnSiKov. if you show yourself peculiarly "devout to" a strange god. connection with the charges of offending against religion made by Meletus. as brought to trial. As our ancestors of the seventeenth century would have put it. In point of fact. of The whole the the caricatures section which deals with comic poets forms no part of the 77730? dycov proper. as Socrates has never to be able to teach Physics. and 1 We need not suppose that any evidence was adduced to show that official cultus. the proof that Socrates did not pay due reverence to the official gods would be sufficiently established by showing that he did pay special reverence to foreign and unlicensed divinities. an unlicensed importation from abroad. you are ipso facto giving Athena's proper honour to her rival. but went out of his way to be effusive to a Papal Nuncio. . and a he says. E.g. the atheism of Meletus. just as an Englishman might show disloyalty if he merely treated the Archbishop of Canterbury with ceremonial courtesy. and Plato that it is is careful to make it clear not meant as having any reference to the avreoiAocria of the prosecutors. Socrates is there made to distinguish sharply been between the specific more general accusation which. with which he deals before he comes to examine the actual dvrcofioaia This charge is one of atheism. has been informally brought against him by the comic poets. interpretation of the accusation That this is the true appears when we examine the structure of the Platonic Apology.

and goes unanswered. This being so. but Meletus. being wholly unversed in dialectic. Thus Plato neither explains what the real accusation was. which as a matter of fact contains the real complaint. it He adopts the Socrates' second alternative. precisely because he had no satisfactory defence against the charge in the avrm/jLoa-ia. to remove any which might ^prevent the audience from giving an unbiased hearing to the arguments and evidence on which the defence proper is based. or that he " recognises " none at all ? Of course what the indictment falls into really meant was the former alternative. and asks Meletus what he means by his statement that Socrates does not " recognise " the gods of Athens. and thus the original charge of disloyalty to the State religion is adroitly converted into one of pure atheism. which had been made and would have been pressed home by Meletus coherently enough if he had not allowed Socrates The Platonic Apology vindicates to cross-examine him. nor does he offer any reply to it. Socrates treats the specific allegation of religious disloyalty in a very singular fashion. He isolates the first." but silently owns that he was guilty on the real charge of unlicensed innovation in religion. indictment. When we do at simply SiaXveiv prejudice last reach the actual dsycbv. a booby-trap of the simplest kind. Does he mean that Socrates " recognises " some other god or gods. clause of the accusation from the second. that his account of what he heard Socrates say at the trial is in the main closely true to fact. no doubt because makes wickedness more astounding. we naturally ask whether any reasonable .THE IMPIETY OF SOCRATES function initial is 9 T<fc? im-o^ia?. It is easy for Socrates to show that this accusation conflicts with the very next clause of the meanwhile the really serious charge of been allowed to fall into the background. Socrates triumphantly on the score of "atheism. or negative. and that Socrates indulged his " accustomed irony " at the expense of his prosecutor to confuse the issue at stake. I can find no but disloyalty to the city's gods has reasonable explanation of his conduct but the obvious one.

lv i. &6ev Kal /idWrd poi SoKavaiv airbv alniaanBai Kaiva 5atfibvta eltr<p£puv. sound who shows himself far less adroit in maxim iraKai to aiyav <j>dp/iMicov Now Xenophon does profess to know the He says that. it should be noted that Xenophon's explanation is inherently incredible. then. following the /3Xa/3i7? e%a>. tiaot. that the statement is false and that Xenophon is uncandid if he intends to put it forward as a suggestion coming from himself. as Plato has not seen fit to enlighten us in the Apology. I hope. ground on which the accusation was based. fiavriKty voidfrovres olwuoU re xpwxTai Kal <pi)fMus Kal <rii^j3A\ois xal 9valaK kt\. and. he believed neither more probable that Xenophon 1 Memorabilia <rrjfw. What is important is to prove that the version of the matter which has been believed on his authority down to our own times is false. in his opinion. we naturally turn next to the apologetic materials supplied by Xenophon.10 VAEIA SOCKATICA conjecture can be formed about the nature of these " innovations " with regard to which Socrates could not defend himself . 2 8tcTe$p6\rtTo yap 87) lis (pair} SuxpArris rb ScupAviov eavTuii aw 1. 3 6 o' o6dt}v xaivbrepov eltritpepe tuv &\\<av. i. 2 Mem. and to ask whether the genuine facts are not to be discerned even now. Our results will. and that he himself is naive enough to point out the incredibility of it. be doubly interesting. Later on we shall see that it is at least highly knew his explanation to be untrue. and that he was well aware of the real foundation of the accusation. It is Xenophon himself who goes on to say that Socrates' belief in his oracle stands on the same level with the belief of other men in If Socrates believed that " heaven " gave him fiavTiicri? revelations by means of the a-tjfieiov. 1. Note the . it was Socrates' notorious claim to possess a " divine sign " which gave rise to the belief that he had 1 I propose to show both imported unauthorised Bai/iovta. though the degree of his unveracity is for us a minor question. First. but further present us with some curious information on the conception of " impiety " entertained by old-fashioned Athenians at the opening of the fourth century. as they not merely throw some fresh light on the most famous moments in the life of a very great man.

SyfioeLtu Se ou rofrrov 81 delbii To\p& avafialviav els to 8 i/ieis tt\t)6os tA viiirepov trv/j. just as was afterwards the case with Plato according to Ep.povXeiku' T^t w6\ei. but have laid them open to a counteraccusation of impiety which they would not have found it a successful easy to defend. 1 Apology 31 c t<rus &i> o$v avfifSovketiia SAfeiex &totov elvou 8ti Sii iyii ISitu nkv ravra 4/J.oD . or consulted a soothsaye^r about their dreams. was forced on him by God against his inclination. that Socrates ti had seriously thought of such a career. . should of itself be sufficient proof that no accusation of aaejUeia could have been put forward on the impiety. scornful echo of the indictment : " His ' importations ' were no more ' novel than those of every one else. And it follows at once that if Socrates could be charged with impiety for believing in the prophetic significance of his " sign. then. we have only Further. against the great majority of the Brj/ioi.) . and it is therefore presumable that it was not alluded to in the indictment. vii. forbade his abstention from public as he implies in Sepublic 496 c. in the real aymv. as the professed explanation of his abstention from public life. he says. up later . that is. irepuwv koI TroXuTrpayfiovw. iioi havTiovrat t4 iroXmicA Tpdrreiv kt\. that is. poi n nal Saiixomov ylyveTtu tout' (<mv S it . irri atnbv ianv ffo\\d(«s d/cij/ciare iroXXoxoC X^yoi'TOs. (We are to suppose." Anytus and Meletus could equally have brought aaefiela*. only that the Belbv life. But surely it is certain that a prosecution on such grounds would not only have made its promoters ridiculous. it nothing at all to observe that Plato is absolutely silent about the " sign deals with the accusation of in that part of his work which The subject is brought on by Socrates himself in quite a different connection. against any Athenian who <ypa<f>r) believed in dreams and omens. the " sign " is treated as falling outside the main issues of the case the whole passage about it is simply a SiaXvaK t»5? viro-^ia^. Now the mere fact that such an explanation is regarded by Plato as at least a plausible argument against the viroyfria of suspicious dicasts. To prove this." " ' THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES 11 nor less than any of his neighbours who put their faith in omens. 1 In other words. He abstained from politics. because the " sign " restrained him. seems clear from the Platonic Apologia that was said about the " sign " in the speech of Meletus.

in fact. as a leader of political discussions." as opposed to oi e/c TLeipcua>$.r)v %X a & foSpes SiKatrral.. he has' never honestly come forward and openly placed the State. was bound to be taken as a gratuitous confession of the crime laid to his charge.ei<r8e Sn 087-01 pjv 87-e 77 7r6Xis ivb t&v A-axeSai/wviiAiv ijpxero. like that in which Antiphon had played the leading part a dozen years before. if Xenophon is telling the truth. oiSi tt)s oijttjs JouXefas i/uv fieradovvai . us consider what It is that. as every one knew. And I suspect would do Socrates no good that. 2 oi yi. his gifts at the service of This inevitably creates a suspicion. should cherish such suspicions about Socrates was the most natural thing in the world. Charmides. xxvi. let lies. The virotyia is. To make the point is clearer. but the " chief contriver harms" took care to keep himself safe behind the . so. not only but apparently so well backed it by facts that Plato does not venture to put it into words. That an audience which could remember the behaviour of the oligarchical clubs of 415. shared the exile of the patriots during the Terror he was one of the " men of the city. under which Socrates though as notoriously influential in private among such young men Alcibiades. again. and what that means may be gathered from the speeches of Lysias belonging to the years 1 403— 400. 1 biun /xiv iroWty <rvyyvibp. and paid with their lives for doing of all scenes.12 VAEIA SOCEATICA Batfiovtov a-rjfieiov. that Socrates the able and danger- ous head of an anti-democratic eraipia. Cf. and had fresh in their memories two subversions of the Constitution within a dozen years. played up to their cues. he had not. Lysias xxv. the vTTotyLa. . Critias. like his friend Chaerephon.p iy0vp. reasonable enough in itself. mere strength of the A much less alert intelligence than that of either Socrates or Plato could not have failed to see the absurdity of trying to disarm suspicion by what. it might be said. His puppets. aKouovat roiofrrtav \6ytav Kal dvafiifivrfiffKo^vois tQv yeyevqp4vtav y bpoius Hirtunv ipylfraSai tois in Aaret fielvturi kt\. Aristotle o&t&v rpiaKovra. Critias and the others. 1 . if that it and here he is to-day ready to begin the old game we do not give him his deserts. though we can easily read between the is lines of his reply.

to an innocent cause. soreness of feeling between the two parties is prewhere Lysias has to argue against the presumption created in fa your of Ergooles by his having notoriously been one of the "men of Piraeus. they already knew perfectly that he had such a " sign. ri£lw<ra. that. in the friend of Critias and Charmides. and This is plain proof that." THE IMPIETY OF SOCRATES Socrates 13 lay under a false but highly natural was evidently^iis business to dispel it by assigning his abstention from public life. "ji Bi yvtifiin t&v 4% ifrreus. he must at least have described the " sign " as " something which Meletus has misrepresented. it ought to 'imply that the "sign" had never been referred to in the course of the trial until Socrates himself saw fit to " import it into the argument. the which the average dicast would be likely to take umbrage. which. He could not possibly fall back on one of the very points of the accusation as an innocent explanation of a suspicious course " of conduct .. if it were conceivable that he should have put the whole subject into the wrong division of his speech. the language of Socrates. in the hands of a writer who knows what words mean. as reproduced by Plato. would be ridiculous. (date immediately after the amnesty) for the feeling against persons who. . kt\. The cause he assigns is the action of the Sai/ioviov arj/ieiov. . Yet further. For it is introduced simply as "something you have often heard me speak of in many places" (a phrase which of itself implies that there could be no impiety in a tiling of which Socrates was always and It is assumed everywhere talking in the most open way). like Socrates. but about which you shall now hear the (TTj/jieiov was not a thing at . though the dicasts may never have heard before that the " sign " had forbidden Socrates to speak in the iicic\r}crLa.i>. thus it suspicion." and their knowledge did not come from the speeches of the If the " sign " had prosecutors. played any part in the speech of Meletus." See also xxxir. but from Socrates himself.he must necessarily have dealt with the " sign and have discussed its character in the aycov proper or. the language in which the explanation is introduced is such that. tt}i iiJkr rixt 1 T ">" £* Ilei/iaiws Tpayn&Ttov fieriaxof. looked like the cunning of unscrupulous self-preservation. The same supposed in xxviii. in Plato's opinion at least.

And when we add to the reasons already given for disbelieving that the " sign " had played any part in the accusation the further consideration that Socrates is careful not to say that the " burlesque " occurred in the speech of Meletus. Assuming. then. has been taken up seriously by Xenophon. At least. It is. an admirable stroke of humour to suggest that the tremendous charge of " importing novel Satpovia " has nothing worse than this it. we . and that it cannot therefore have been any part of the grounds for the ypafptf against Socrates. hr) him for aae^eia (o 8r/ Kal iv ewiKatfiaiSdiv Me\rjTO<i iypdyfraro). we are bound " to infer from the foregoing considerations that the " sign had never been mentioned by the prosecutors at all. it is becomes clear that the remark only an instance of the eladvla "ttoKparovs elptoveia. A suggestion humorously by and in all likelihood made by Socrates himself in the course of his address to the dicasts. the traditional account of the impiety of Socrates has grown up. trifling business of the arjfielov behind Meletus said nothing in his speech about the that cannot have been what he and Anytus meant by the accusation. most probably out of the Apology itself. and later writers have too often been content to echo this piece of pure " Pragmatismus " as if it were an ascertained fact. if o-ripelov. in fact.14 truth. but ascribes it solely to the formal indictment." VAEIA SOCEATICA When we remember that we are dealing not with the work of a botcher but with that of Plato. We have next to ask whether any probable been made out. We can see now how Plato. that the negative part of our case has may say that the "impiety" alleged against Socrates was neither atheism nor the possession of a private oracle. An objection may perhaps be made to this conclusion on the ground that Plato's Socrates immediately goes on to say that it is presumably from a misrepresentation about the " sign " that Meletus has indicted rfji ypcuprji. and given out as his own theory of the matter. itself But the warning should of suggest that the pretended explanation may not be altogether serious.

f/ | Tiraxis tXKri rats X6ovbs Ka6££ero. It must assign a ground for the following charge which is compatible with the known good sense and probity of Anytus. it again. oiSi wplis ftiav nvis. in quarters influenced must explain why be represented as an importation of These considerations enable us at once to set aside a view which has found too much favour by the Christian conception as of heresy as the holding of false " doctrines concerning the faith. proves quite unable to protect the murderer. and also with what we know of current Athenian sentiment as to what is or is not " impious. to " bowdlerise " 1 over the serpent of Pytho. after ' commanding a peculiarly theology " of the trilogy too seriously. kt\. where there . Even the astounding picture of the character of Zeus in the Prometheus. Euripides. and the very uusatisfactory morality of Loxias in the Orestean trilogy. we learn from the Euthyphro. the offence could fairly innovations in cultus. 2 Nor need Olympus poets. Myths were never held de fide in the Hellenic world. not 1 I prove that the whole chronique scandaleuse of is denounced as an impious invention of the merely by Euripides." 3 See." It frame.THE IMPIETY OF SOCKATES conjecture can be 15 made it as to its real character. "Not guilty don't do ' . Pindar could deny with impunity the story of the banquet of Tantalus. or of the war with the he wished." Socrates was not condemned because. 2 iotflri Sldoiai. and Athena only saves him by what is morally a toss-up. Any theory remembered. 8' yev49\iov S&aiv \ Qoiflwi It is a mistake to take the ' ' Loxias. doi8ffl» oi'Je Siar-qvoi \byoi. rplrm | \ \Ax eL ' > SeXodoijs. Aeschylus that of the victory of Apollo before him. treacherous murder. do not seem ever to have been felt as offences against religion. he refused to giants. Heracles 1340-1346. or because believe in the tales of the rebellion of Zeus against his father. and why Xenophon Finally it gives only a palpably false explanation. must satisfy the conditions. and there is no evidence that disbelief in them was ever regarded as impiety. let we can be must issue also explain why Plato contrives to avoid the whole in the Apology. with its thoroughly "philosophic" conclusion. " The verdict is the familiar one. like the Ionian philosophers Homer and Hesiod.3 but by the cautious and iv Si twi Eumenides 4 ff. for a sample passage.

but cultus. Orpheus were not dogmas. 6 Zei>$ Trovrip* odic dirb\u\ev rbv abrov Sijiras AIKAI02 AOrOS. 1 Even Aristophanes 2 regards fit the tale of the binding of Cronus as a blasphemy only for The notion that the contemporaries of Socrates looked on the Hesiodic Theogony as a canonical body of doctrine from which it was criminal The /xv0ot of Hesiod and to depart is an anachronism. a method of "giving to and receiving from " heaven which had not the stamp of official approval. (The insinuation.k6v S6re p. which occurs at to the prosecution foi 2 Clouds 904 AAIKOS AOrOS. in both cases. the considerations actually operative were seems to be an intentional allusion to the proverb 7roXXd if/eiSovrai aoiSoi.iat! tirTjKoXoi'^Tjaas..tbpi]ToL ye pAKurra roirwv run \6yav a^&ficvos Siaffwaadeh rbv note. The attitude of Euthyphro should dispose once for all of the notion that Euripides was risking his life by attacking popular mythology.s. and therefore might very conceivably be used to influence to Oeloi/ against the interests of the Athenian democracy. that it is this want of faith which has led . 1 Busvris 38-39 dXXi yb. We may Euthyphro expresses neither horror nor surprise when Socrates refuses to believe his stories about the " ancient and violent deeds " of the gods. I may add. alpoi. but that no one except professed mystery-mongers pretended to know whether there was any truth in them.kv ireirouiK&Tas Kai ireirovBtrras dirotpalvovtrt rods £k tuv ddavdrajf yeyovoras fj rods €k t&v avdpwirwv rwv &vo<riuT&Tiw Siitpvyov ." "We may be quite sure that what Socrates was charged with was not unbelief or over-belief.) The implication of the whole passage is that these stories were .J impiety is manifestly a part of the irony which pervades the dia^sgue. the famous case of the dot ids Stesichorus. Euthyphro 6 b. mouth of wickedness personified. rovrl nal S*i Xw/>ef rb ko. .p oiSiv <roi rijs dXijfleias ipUXfio-ev. . 5(kijs otf(n. but irregular religious practices. . oJ davorepa p. dXXi raU twv ironrrHv j3\a<r<prjp. oi pA\v &rip. but his crime lay precisely in believing Homer.commonly told as tales of what happened long ago. too. that even such a zealot as) §lov ire\eir7i<rev. We have. of course. the practice of the proper rules of "giving and receiving between God and man. who was blinded for blasphemy. 16 conventional the VAEIA SOCKATICA Isocrates. Nor.oi \iKivtjv. iirip 8>v rip> 'Op(peds 8' 6 pkv df(ai> SIktjv oix (Sotrav. . and the essential thing in Athenian religion was not dogma. " Impiety " of this kind was naturally also high treason. irfis Srp-a. except in so far as. was the case of Socrates in the least parallel with that of Anaxagoras.

dating. says no single word which would indicate that the astronomical views of Anaxagoras had been laid to his charge by his actual own merits. of Meletus we hear no more What Meletus and when he of astronomy complained of was not . in fact. fairly once explain how he be thought guilty of " impiety " by persons of high character From both of and not totally devoid of common-sense. at " about Socrates which. and the more specific accusation of Meletus. that Socrates studied astronomy. iikv A. and the chief duty of is man for this redemption of the soul by means of "philosophy. It is only after disposing of the general accusation. the Phaedo and Gorgias profess to tell us facts if authentic. accusers. in* Plato. like God and Mammon.\Ki^idSov re tov C . that Socrates ypa<f>tf it begins to consider the does come to deal with or Anaxagoras. 1 as masters b" whom no Sn iytli one can serve at once. them we learn that Socrates was a convinced of the soul. life believer in the Orphic-Pythagorean doctrine according to which this present in the life the prelude to the more real and endless to live body is only to come after the separation of soul and body. but that he " corrupted the young Now might and followed an unlicensed form of religion. which is not formally before the all.THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES political. vuv Tvrfxi. from the production of the Clouds.voii. 17 and might have been put forward largely on their For Socrates. 1 re koX iyib tri Gorgias 481 d \4y<a tpwvre ivixr/jiras. and "philosophy" and the 8rjfio<! are pitted against one another. But the line of distinction very sharply drawn between the old and more general charge. It is not Meletus but Aristophanes whom he accuses of having involved against astronomers. him in the general prejudice is This prejudice said to have represented as one of old standing. it and Meletus is is taken advantage of to involve Socrates in a fresh accusation.ev rairbr ' ti Treirovdores. made by court at persons who cannot be confronted with him. d{io Svre 5votv iK&repos." of the duty of man In the Gorgias in particular this theory is made the ground for a severe indict- ment of one and all the famous men of the fifth century who had created Imperial Athens.

Socrates is the central figure is there are Simmias group of like-minded persons pupils of Philolaus from Thebes. the allusion to Alcibiades is seen to be the expression of political hopes which would find little sympathy with the democratic leaders of a later time. and this ties us down to an " Italian " Pythagorean as the authority followed. and Eleatics were regularly reckoned in antiquity as a sort of heterodox Pythagoreans. £v&v 4v rrjt. picture by taking other dialogues into the account. for example. but also KXeiWou \dfjLirovs. the Phaedrus. special appeal is made to the authority of a " man of Italy " who of a transparent disguise for the Pythagorean refugee 1 Philolaus. is an Orphic Phaedo. . Parmenides.. koX Cf. When we remember that the conversation is supposed to take place somewhere between the trial of the generals and the final 513 c 6 d'fjfiov surrender at the Goat's River. rod re ' KB-qvaltjiv Srffiov Kal rod IIvpi- y&p tpojs. In the Phaedo. expounded in the Symposium. a and Cebes. and I hope to deal more fully with it in a second criticism of series of these studies. well-known acquaintance of the Euclides and Terpsion from Megara. the 2i/ceX6s must be regarded as a mere reference to the proverb about the 2i/ceXds KOfvpbs irf/p. Plato's own personal views must be sought more particularly in the Laws and the 7th Epistle. the whole doctrine of Eros as the impulse to philosophy. Echecrates. ffi) Se Svoiv.policy staving him in the face. it is essential to remember. We could easily add more details to the Thus. and the Hijypolytus. society figures as a who at Phlius. whose hero. the nuptial metaphor of Republic vi. and the account of " spiritual midwifery " in the Theaetetus. Comparison with Phaedo 61 b-62 b shows that Philolaus is meant. of whom we only know as Eleatics. It is important to remember that the tone in which " democracy " is criticised in the Gorgias and Bepublic is throughout carefully adapted to the dramatic character of the speaker and the circumstances of the presupposed time.18 VARIA SOCEATICA Both dialogues exhibit him as closely connected in a sort In the Gorgias a of society with Pythagorean foreigners. As Professor Burnet has remarked. who form the minor group of and among the other persons are not only interlocutors a . (piKoffOfftlas. It is the an anti-Periclean who has lived to see the outcome of the great war. 2 The quality of Echecrates as a Pythagorean is proved by his appearance in the list of Iamblichus. & KaXXf/cXeis. 2 Pythagorean from Phlius. 1 Gorgias 493. ^VXH 1 T V L crfji avriararei /ioi. and should be read in connection with the hopes and fears exhibited by Aristophanes in the Frogs. But this is no theme for a passing note. . requires to be read in the light of Hesiod.

Kai oi rbv ItaKparri. the vision of judgment to come is introduced by the thought Katpbv. 107 Bebs eirlrpoTros t£ov reataL fi-fiSeTcu ex&w tovto ica8os. the pietistic anxiety of the j unco guid. viii. a. For its religious associations cf. divine protector in so evil a world) £v fiaxpui xP^""al I Euripides. He hates. and Pindar's use of the word with special reference to a god who "watches over " his favourites. 1530 afirixavu ippovrlSos dTepr)8els eiirakanov tA/ws word. Theaetetus 142c That the "notes" . | | [ j | j | | | viroTrrtpoLS avopeacs. iii. e. is guaranteed as origin of all this. ii. which ends with an echo of the Orphic thought that our life here is but a shadow. So \ it is the function of Bromius diacreieui re ^opois juerd t' ai\ov yeXdaai airvwaviral re fieplpvas.vaicni'. I and We see thus.THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES " saint.ov.pi. ttItvovtos oIkov (the despairing cry is for . i. 2 Phaedo 59 d &\\oi Trapb. Hippolytus 375 jjl ijS-ri nor fiXXws vvicrbs Bviyr&v £<ppl>vTia' 8u-<p8apTai. 68 8s Tiiv8e vaaov etf/cXe'i jrpo<re'8T]Ke Xoywt | [ | fiepL/ivais | IlvBlov Qc6. Kai ffefivbv ay\aa?ai Ncm. one's soul " is who make their lives a meditatio mortis. exhibits the same transition. ijfie'pas eMiSe/iev tpoirav Kai ff. 2 The same point hardly be required to produce the formal proof of the Orphic It may be enough to call attention once more to the point that the doctrine of the "maieutic art. p. further illustrates the religious associations of the colour Empedocles' vr\Tnoi oi yip a<piv SoXixb'Ppovt's tin pJpt/j.g.vav | Sira Tpdirw/uu." l 19 Socrates and these communities was close enough for The Phaedo implies that the connection between some his members 1 of the school to pay frequent visits to the philo- sopher throughout I shall imprisonment. of the type glorified in the Bacchae." which is merely part of the theory of Eros as the aspiration to the immortal life. and irapa <pajT&v. that "anxiety about a distinct meaning of ^ipi/wa. Many other examples In the sense in which <ppovTiaTi)s is the opposite could be readily supplied. Eumenides 360 a-irsv8ofj. &e&i/ 5" drAaac ifitus fieXe'rais iirucpaiveLv. 'Itpoiv.. the well-known Aeschylean el rb iiirav airb (ppovrlSos ixBos XP^I PaXelv irriI think also Ag.1. think. . afSpdraros lm /My&Xas (87 ff. They may even . the word means the divot who works out his salvation with fear and trembling. since he is there speaking of men who have forgotten the "imperial palace whence" they "came. Bacchae 379. So it looks intentional that in Pindar 01. in this sense Aeschylus. fllos. requires his votaries tjotphv &ir£x elv Trpawlba <pp£va re ireptaffiov from the philosophers the whole race of kill-joys. tppovrlS' Clouds 136 I dTepi/iept/ivois t^)v Bipuv XeXctKTiKas ko. .va.va and both words with an Orphic ring about them. ktX.ha 6" d<pe\etv tlvcl rdtrde fiepifivas. [ Svap \ ivSpuiros. £\tISos irirerai tppovrls are cf. 01. The man of wealth does well to be careful as knowing that he will have to render account of his stewardship.1 ^^jSXw^as kfy]vptttLkvqv . Socratic by the j jest of Aristophanes. in fact. the whole point of the jest of the $povnaTl)piov is that in Attic Greek (ppovrifav means to "take anxious thought" about a thing. | nepiij.) b 8i Kakbv ti viov Xerotic £1.8eiav 0epei tCw re Kai tCov (58) 6 fidv ttXoutos aperais dedatdaXp^i/os {nrix wv pipwav. del yap 8^ Kai rhs irpbaBev .ov fiipqiva MKT7]pe<p£s. It can hardly be a mere coincidence that Pyth. may note that tx£pifj. that is. For fiipi/iva Agamemnon 459 nivci 8' cL/covaal ri //.eplf/. tis . iyiii . rl 8' oil ^x oJV trxias Kp^aaova ir\o6rov I /xipi/Jivav . Euripides." As for (ppovrls. (3a. eirdfiepoi • rl 8£ tis.

" i. Cebes./j.2 we should is taken by the friends of Socrates are not a pure invention of Plato it is clear . as it certainly does the Cyrenaics.e.1 KexS/wcev iir' airb tovto apyipiov iKavdv. . The evidence for this in the case of Parmenides and Zeno. a school which really belongs to the age of Epicurus and Arcesilaus. to represent Socrates as intimately connected with the Pythagorean communities of northern and central Greece. by Xenophon. Adversus Oolotem 1120 c. For obvious reasons. Parmenides and Melissus are both in the list of Iamblichus. The object is expressly buy off the "sycophants. though in disagreement with the doctrines of the others. the nominal accusers. much to the damage of own theory of Socrates. will be found in Professor Burnet's treatment of these philosophers in his Early Greek Philosophy. can hardly mean less than that the Theban Pythagoreans had made Crito.e. Note that this confirms the statements of the Theaetetus about the friendship between the two men. Mem.20 VARIA SOOEATICA them took full 1 recurs in the Theaetetus. since the con- incidentally revealed. The reason why the Eleatics were regarded as a kind of Pythagoreans is simply that. the Pythagorean geometer. no doubt with the original intention of bribing the accusers to let the prosecution drop. so far as we know. 2. 17 where they are expressly designated as Thebans. or that they GtjjScuos.1 K^j3i)s xal said just above to have been to were not in time. 11." i./j. (See Plutarch. since it is not clear to me that "Megarians " were even recognised as a sect before the time of Aristotle. then. At iv. the 2wKp<z™t6s \6yos. i. nection his is I suggest. 10 Theodoras. that. (toiixos Si ko. only their existence which explains the sudden appearance of so many examples of a new form of literature (reckoned by Aristotle as a kind of "mime" or drama). and Phaedondas (see Phaedo 59 c) are mentioned among the friends of Socrates. Simmias. I suspect popular thought antedates Stilpo and Diodorus and Eubulides. In any case. and the former two at iii. and the mention of the irdvu toXKoI shows that the foreign friends of Socrates (all of whom. with the highly probable addition that some of notes of his talk.) 1 Crito 45 b cfs Si ko. I have avoided speaking of a school of Megara. The com- panion story of the about the large sum of money which Simmias and Cebes brought from Thebes. 2t.las <? dWoi iroXXoi irdn. were members of the brotherhood. the school followed the Pythagorean "life. especially in the Phaedo. Plato says nothing as to their presence in Athens at the trial. which is quite good. 48. immediately after the philo- sopher's death. a " collection " on his account. seems to be also spoken of as a personal friend. I should add that my attention was first called to the passage of the Crito 3 by Professor Burnet. no one will deny that Plato has chosen. We must suppose either that they did not know that a man of the stamp of Anytus was the real mover. 2. were connected with Pythagoreanism) were acting together. in all probability.

the irdrpios igriyriTfy whose services were to be invoked for the ideal ir6\is and whose oracle had appointed him This is all the stranger. begins . The Pythagoreans were. Yet the special favourite of Socrates is always the Delphian Apollo.THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES accept 21 it as probably true. we must bear in mind several points. a matter which no ancient voXi? could be expected to treat lightly . and the history of these chosen associates would not tell in favour of a philosopher already known to be no admirer of the democracy which the men of " practical sense " were fruitlessly trying to to revive. belongs to a time before the war. based on mysterious beliefs about the soul. to have been active as teachers in Thebes at the end of Socrates' life. Philolaus and Lysis. fairly well serve is when a man could both Athens and Delphi. the we see from the fact sect was that the one Athenian. and the more certainly historical. as catalogue of make matters worse. The death-scene of the Phaedo The vision which warns Socrates of the orthodox in all its details. and that it may possibly afford the missing clue to the real character of the " impiety " of the philosopher. from the solution of which much Socrates. so that of Demosthenes we actually find the Athens and Hyperides reviving the claims of Dodona to escape Possibly one should regard the devotion recognising the authority of Pytho.1 though it There light is a curious difficulty about this point. moreover. The Pythagorean Apollo was. The poem to Apollo. as is natural in a religion originating with a Samian. as I could readily prove. The breaking-up of the Pythagoreans as a society in Magna Graecia was sufficiently recent for two of the survivors. This is shown by the way in which the Delian legend of the Hyperborean maidens has got mixed up with the Pythagoras legend as early as the work of Aristotle on the Pythagoreans. which the boat had just left. the Apollo of Delphi had fallen into deserved discredit at Athens for his might be thrown on the personality of partisanship throughout the Great War. as quoted by Diogenes. known have a secret cult of their own. from Delos. partly as due to the effect on his career of the oracle given to Chaerephon. members given by Iamblichus mentions only Whether Socrates went further and actually participated in the common is Pythagorean friends 1 life and peculiar worship of his more than we can say. which. of course. to not popular in Athens. To see the probable effect on an Athenian dicastery of a well-founded assertion that Socrates was an associate of the Pythagoreans. the Ionian Apollo of Delos. of Socrates to Delphi partly as indicating political sentiments. that his mission. and. approaching return of the sacred trireme conies.

elalv It is evidence perhaps for ff. k"v6a k^kvos fieXcoidbs Whatever a Pythagorean might have thought of his weakness for Delphi in life. Socrates and his friends regularly had a common table. Iph. Mem. though Xenophon Moi5ffos Bepaireiei). Socrates at least died in the faith. 1104 \LfjLvav 6' elhLo~<rov<rav k&k\iov. . ' [&s] tfeauiv eltrlv ol irepl rets TeXerds. 14. Hence his mission of awakener of the dull imposed on him by Delphi cannot be the ground for calling himself a fellow-servant with the swans of Delos." with foreign Pythagoreans. oSroi 5' 81) Kara ttjv SXXoi i) ol Tre(pt\offo<priK&res Sjv Kal £y& Kara ye rb dvvwrbv <piXbao<pos. who. would be enough to lead the inference that he shared in their practices. the known fact that he chose to make special intimates of Pythagoreans from Thebes and Phlius. vvKreph. 1 Taking all these points together. . The representation of Socrates as president of a "seance" only becomes intelligible when we suppose his close connection with the Pythagorean-Orphic mystics to have been notorious. had a private cult of their own. I suspect it does mean that Socrates shared in some way in the Pythagorean This is borne out by Xen. far astray in calling is we should not go very 'T7T6/3/3o/)£to?. probably amountrites ing to " inter-communion.: 22 is VAEIA SOCEATICA at least possible that his famous description of himself swans of Apollo should be understood in that light. ijity $b!-av oiiK |Qci/cx ot 5^ re iravpoi opOuis. vapdi]KO$6poi fxkv ToWot.) actual participation in the cult that Socrates says of himself {Phaedo 69 c yap dr/. Kdrwdev . and to expose him to the charge of neglecting the deities of the State in favour of certain " imported novelties. In any case. patronised. iidup | Taw. dXXa iravrl Tp6irwi irpoiBufi^Briv yeviadai." is And there extant evidence that some such participation in "uncanny" was popularly ascribed to him years before his trial. implies that there was no rule of vegetarianism. If we were Saifiovtov actually required to give a name to the foreign whom Socrates. this statement probably means a great Aristophanes. oS | h8a | Kal HeltravSpos iJXCe Xaipe<puiv i) Se6/ievos 'j'vxty iSetv kS. otiS^y air4\Lirov iv twl filwi. When we bear in deal. I think we are fairly justified in suggesting that the real impiety of Socrates was nothing other than an intimate connection. iii. correctly A^Xi' "AiroXXoy. in so far as it assumes that life. mind the very special significance 1 which <pi\oao<peiv bear throughout the \l\/ivi] dialogue. not recognised by any Polis nor as a fellow-servant with the confined to to members of any Polis. Birds 1553 i/»t/x&7 w 7 e ' SwK/sdTijs ' | irpbs Si tois XkiAtoviv | tis £ot' SAoutos . <j>iKoaotpla. according to his accusers. as every one knew. him 'AttoWwv But fortunately there xa '/> e > no need to " give the an ^ the swans are Delian too (Euripides.it' avrjKB' aiiriji.

This is just the kind of thing that an excited or unscrupulous \oyoyp&<pos would have been likely to say about Compare also the wild alarm created by Socrates and Cebes and the rest." 23 The Saifwviov arj/jLelov itself would acquire a new and sinister significance if men could be persuaded mixed up with unlicensed and probably rites. if the accusers had ever heard of them. let us see how "odd" they were thought.THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES real names.Attic and belonging to a different world from Athens and her Ionian connections. are neither Attic nor Ionian. 2 As I have already said. 53) of Lysias against Cinesias. would make no difference. just as " Jesus and Anastasis " seem to have been four centuries later. but that they were unofficial. Socrates' trances. and it is a singularly happy touch in the account of Socrates' conduct before Potidaea in the Symposium that it is the Ionians. in which the unlucky poet is described as belonging to a "Hell-Fire Club" (the KaKoSaiiioviarai. 2 So. since Pindar was not an Athenian. who are particularly struck by >\ kind of thing they evidently had never seen at home. at once explains why the accusation was one of " importing " religious novelties. and that the great Pindar had lavished some of his most enchanting lines on the blessedness of the Hyperboreans and the " magic road. too. and the phrase Kawa Saifiovia does not mean recentia numina but insolita iiumina. . would probably be set down as outlandish deities of some kind. 1 For an illustration of what the excited ^ the Hermocopidae. or "Sorry Devils") who met every month on a "fast day" (filav -qntpav ra^dfievoc t&v dirotppddwv) to blaspheme the gods and the laws. The objection to Socrates' alleged divinities was that its owner was discreditable foreign not that they were new. it will be seen. the catalogue of Pythagoreans in Iamblichus contains only one Whatever may Pythagoreanism. have been the home of Orphicism. and in various other relations. at Srjfios could believe when its fears were by a hint of the existence of a private cult I need only refer to the extract preserved by Athenaeus from a speech (Fr. The avra tcaS" avra etBr). was distinctly something un. any rate. 1 That Apollo." which no man can find. to their earthly Paradise. the countrymen of the originators of Greek science. This interpretation. under a different name. was a god specially honoured by the State as a 0eo? Trarp&ios. though far outdone by Epimcnides and Both Plato and Aristophanes Pythagoras.

we have. His opinions may generally be taken as typical of those of the ordinary good democrats whose ambitions are fairly in the description of the good old days given . a character if he could only who would be almost " John Bull be made a touch or two more puzzle-headed. X0709 of the Clouds case before us. that they had an that they ominous fact unlicensed private cult. He figures as the steady. summed up by the SUaio*. with his full measure of the saint's incapacity for ever understanding the sinner. The question still remains whether there is positive proof that the Orphic and Pythagorean doctrine of the life to come was regarded as impious by the average Athenian to the time of Plato and his friends. For Euripides we may naturally appeal to the Hvppolytus in which the hero is it himself a typical Orphic iea8ap6<. not over-brilliant Sfjfios. In the Theseus of the play. the stock tragic type of the character burlesqued on the comic stage as Arj/Mot. common-sense. Since the comes down means that Pythagoreanism was virtually unknown in Athens at the end of the fifth century. while from such list insignificant states as Sicyon and Phlius. Hence it is significant that the freely expressed . let it be remembered. and Plato himself. his verdict to is even when. representative of the best features in the in fact. as the sort of person Thrasybulus or Anytus was in real life. a devotee of absolute bodily purity and mental holiness. as in the is unjust thoroughly characteristic of the feelings of the best elements in the 8*7/409 towards whole given in anger and an individual. All that would definitely be known of the " brethren " would be that they held strange views on the fate of the soul after death." 24 VARIA SOCRATICA there are four each name from Athens. it is classes. and that there was no means of controlling the wildest notions which enemies might of the imported wisdom of " gifted men of Italy diffuse among the &7/A0?. Aristophanes.. and were foreigners from states which Athens had no cause to love. this '' — — opinion of the later part of the fifth century. as in the Theseus of Attic drama generally. I propose to show that was by the concurrent testimony of Euripides.

.rj\avuip. 2 The testimony 1 of Aristophanes even more to I the not I quote the MSS. More could be quoted by Euripides to illustrate the opinion of the K.8n(?) vvv av^ci kou &Y a\pv\ov fiopas KaTT-qXtv '.\\ov (ravTov 6'crta i?jo"K?jo"as ce/Jeiv tovs T€kovtols Spav St/catos &v.p. deliberate hypocrites who. as a vbBm.5. like Tartuffe.a8apol felt to be natural to an Athenian democrat.6. 1080-81. am clear. according to the Phaeclo. 1 \6youriv. however.<i) rj ye p.evoi. but I will content myself with recalling the peculiarly biting sneer directed against the aaicri<ri<.A. as necessary a part of the philosopher's life as of the saint's 7ToA.vo. aur\pa p. text with Murray's notes of corruption. It may be said that the speaker is here giving vent to a natural but mistaken anger. that there is anything wrong. tovs 8e toiovtow. Why should not a'no.kt' e\utv <rtTOts(?) f$a.T(av Tip.1 uv dvijp . is — ib." which courtesy and good nature would otherwise check.— THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES which his son belongs is 25 opinion of Theseus about the congregation of the godly to that tkey are one and all Puritans of the stage type. he had no strict claim to be brought up. his private opinion of the "saints. but not to the point. eyii (pevyeiv Trpo^xavui Trao-f cre/xvofs drjpevowt yap Hippolytus 948-957. as he had been. 'Op(pia t' o. £vvti . like The real point is that when a man Theseus is angry. (tv Si) Oeoitriv u>s irfpuTtrbs (tv (T(a<f>po>v ko. which is. mean the "grain-market"? 2 Hippolytus was under a "special obligation" to honour his father (the parent really meant) because. make their religion and its musty scriptures a cloak for licentiousness.K)(eve eTrei ttoWwv y pap. just bred English layman's private opinion of likely to be heard " as a well- parsons " when he fancies himself is most wronged by a member of the profession. gets open utterance. like a prince.(ov Kanri/ovs" y f\^<f>6rj's. kclkwv d/ojpaTOS '. founded on the false accusation of Phaedra. This is true.

in incest. ! the famous Orphic lines of Fr.r9a.Kb>V OVK CUTIOS €OT . of course. TTOLitiV ov 7r/3oay<uyoi)s Kare8ei£' oStos. preach the offending doctrine in words as plain as those of the Gorgias or Phaeclo. and we also see that we were quite justified in holding that the authority of so great a poet as Pindar made no difference as to the " impiety " of a doctrine not recognised by. the an ascending climax of iniquity. last charge refers.1 (the nurse of Phaedra) (-A-Uge) TiKTOvo-as iv rots tepois. Xewrerat al&vos ethakav to yap iari /jlovov sk dewv. Kcd (JMaKovaras ov ffiv (Canace in the Aeohis) to ffiv where the lines. since it life .veiv. — VAEIA SOCEATICA shows that the Orphic doctrine of the future was really. itself "impious" to Athenian ears. Yet here is the text 8t KO. Kal jutyviijucvas toutiv d8e\<f>oii. In the Frogs. With is regard to evidence to be derived from Plato (which all the more valuable because he consistently depicts Socrates himself as a firm believer in the faith according to Orpheus). get. pimping. 131. belief in the " life of the world to come " That the climax is intended is clear from the arrangement of the three first accusations. | ical 8' <r£>fia fiev iravTwv £a>bv | eri. an English reader may well be surprised to find the famous o-wfia-a-rjua doctrine of the world to come thrust in along with the incest of one heroine and the sacrilege of another among the crowning proofs of the " impiety " of Euripides himself." . the official cultus of the Athenian people. ko. eireTai OavaTcai TrepurOevel.— 26 point. nor consistent In fact. with. I would call special attention to the tone taken in the second priests book of the Republic towards the wandering and mystery-mongers who obviously represent a degraded religion of the same type as that of the c^tXocro^o? who is seeking his soul's health by deliverance from The difference is that servitude to the " body of death. apart from any mere accessories. Thus we sacrilege. to the well-known much in the spirit of a £iji> modern hymn Ka. Tis oTSev el to fikv «tti ktA.

and with an official cultus which aims at investing this conception of life with the The point is not whether the soul sanctions of religion. it is probable that the sectaries were only known Hence to the Athenian public at large on their worst side. there is the we find that the 'OpfaoTeXearrjs as regularly figures in Athenian literature a disreputable person. was quite incompatible with the ethical basis of Hellenic democracy. the similar charges brought against the mother of Epicurus.THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES the 27 tempts his Attic equivalent of the " begging friar " clients to look for salvation not to knowledge. but to the ritual The Laws who teach sinners how to insure themselves against the wrath to come are plainly members of the same great brotherhood. original On the one hand.) these ideas should have been Athenian democracy. Non posse similiter vivi etc. there are the <j>i\6cro(f)oi. Orpheus. the view that service of the 7roXt? is the whole duty of man. like the Athenian S^o?. Plntarcli. in Theophrastus' character of the 8ei<ri8a£/j. on the other. . whom the Phaedo whole brood of quacks who promise relief to the alarmed conscience by spells ascribed to Musaeus. and seek first and foremost through men is such as Socrates and the group to dedicated . in fact. 1105 b. 1 Cf. In the first place. the part played by the 'Op<j>eoTe\e<TTi]<. for the day when the soul will stand naked at the bar of the Judge to receive its doom. Owing to the non-existence of a school of Pythagoreans in Athens. as Socrates puts it in the Gorgias. the doctrine that the true business of man here is to prepare himself for the life beyond the grave. is it Nor hard to see why specially obnoxious to the " . regards as dangerous sectaries whom it is the duty of the city of the Imivs to suppress.a>v. soul. Plato. There are two obvious points which have to be taken into account. and these Plato. (Compare the fictions of Demosthenes about the career of Aeschines' mother. or. Eumolpus. who mean by it salvation the true health of the science. the face with two very different developments of the same Orphicism. is face to heretics in 1 performance of cheap and amusing ceremonies.

mainly foreigners. This strife between the Pythagorean and the secular ideal was in spirit identical with. and virtually adopted by modern Protestantism since the downfall of Calvinistic Evangelicalism. as a that the here means to the there it is the eternal things ordering of our our whole view which Philosophy made its own from the time of Pythagoras to that of Aristotle. the Pythagorean . and presumably promoted ." life The view " so thoroughly to look ingrained with Athenian that we have come upon it inaccurately as the " Hellenic theory. Thus the forefront in lives. one which no civilisation has been able to evade or to settle. as we know. as the jest of the Birds seems to imply.28 retains VARIA SOCRATICA . The Orphic and is . Further. be left out of our calculations. and it might fairly be argued that the objects pursued by such societies. on the part of the oligarchs. assemblies were international the Pythagorean associates of Socrates. Hence the inevitable opposition between the spirit of the Sjj/ao? and the spirit of Philosophy. in particular. Catholic Christian view. concerns the relative importance of the " here " and the " hereafter. but on that of the democrats. and the discussion in the first book of Aristotle's Ethics brings out clearly the strength of the popular objection to the theory that the dead are not touched by the good or ill fortune of their kinsmen among the living. not. The real point at issue. on the contrary. to all intents and purposes. in a violent reaction.the familiar modern strife between the Church and the State. as has been already urged. were. The only attempt in Greek history to found a church ended. the there may. matters. which should be in And it is this point of the impiety of association with the unlicensed conventicles of Pythagoreanism forms an important part of the wider charge of " corrupting the young " by inspiring them with a spirit hostile to the constitution. some kind of consciousness after death or not that it does was the foundation of the funeral rites of family worship. as is still frequently stated. its is that it is the here which matters for own sake . unless Chaerephon the "Bat" was one of them. in the end.

. and were. and be a spectator of the sacred mystery-play. Such an interpretation of the facts thus helps to make it clearer why so prominent a leader of the restored democracy as Anytus thought it right of Athens.. inconsistent with the welfare of the course.THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES by the the object of the Bfj/j. and were under the control of Athenian Hence of there could be no suspicion that they had any object 8fj/io<. all be a matter of personal knowledge with initiated. to lend his It name to the prosecution. With it the Pythagorean. was wholly The case of the They formed no seen. offered no possibility of a modern theologian. bath in the sea. century. international. Hence the Eleusinia. what they And finally. the who had been rites Pythagorean control. A man was free to believe that they taught a doctrine about the life to come or not. offer his pig. unlike the Pythagorean religion. was not dogma but ritual. Thebans. in the mysteries. opjia moreover. and at least suspected of participation in their peculiar worship. But we must remember that the Eleusinian been incorporated in the official had cultus ever since the sixth officials. and yet lay under no suspicion. except from the wildest hearsay. this respect the position of Socrates as an intimate associate of foreign Pythagoreans. the important thing were. it is part of the cultus of the State. the good estate of " That was not a probable " intention In for the prayers of Megarians. . and were not under Athenian From what we have that neither the already most the likely dicasts prosecutors of Socrates nor knew. rites may be replied that the Eleusinian life were widely believed to be concerned with the to come. were not likely to be identical with official State religion.o<i 29 their secret worship. would be closely analogous to that of an Englishman of 1690 who was known to associate daily with foreign Romanists and strongly suspected of being a " Papist " himself. different. just as What did matter was that he should take his he pleased. as with the was the dogma of the fall and redemption of the soul which was the important thing the cultus was throughout secondary. and Phliasians. dicasts and this would.

I have sufficiently indicated my opinion that Socrates was. Whatever may have been the attitude of Socrates to Pythagoreanism as a whole. and with special reference to the data furnished by Aristophanes. so far as I know. support of both theses. coupled with . up a purely and the justification of the statement is usually sought in the supposed scepticism of the Platonic Apology.'' not as an atheist. The inquiry ought to main demonstrable. he cult of the Pythagoreans. that he will find abundant evidence not yet published- —in is —much of it. actually guilty of the charge. &7/A0? parallel.30 VARIA SOCEATICA and his " secular " duties. that one chief reason for the prosecution of Socrates was that he was suspected of having been the belief that centre of an anti-democratic eTaipla. as the first Nonconformist of or a person with an odd private oracle. to say that Socrates took common position agnostic with respect to immortality. note in history. The question of the historical fidelity of Plato's portrait of his master is. was " impious. so long obliterated by ignorance and prejudice. because of the popularity of a view which can fairly be shown to be a pure mistake. if it were in the only in the hope of recovering the true lineaments of one of the greatest figures in history. be seriously taken in hand. the clash between a man's " eternal " was naturally suspicious of international secret rites for much the same reasons as the rulers of the Roman Church are to this day To take another modern hostile to Freemasonry. but as an adherent of a religio non licita. and that the suspicion was supported by the " foreign " he was addicted to the In other words. can at least promise any student who will investigate it with an open mind. I There is just one point on which must say a word. that Plato's historical accuracy Socrates. however. then. I suggest. according to law. in fact. or a disbeliever in Hesiod. if not actually a Pythagorean. it should be evident that Plato is right in ascribing to It is still him a firm belief in the cr&fAa-o-fjfia doctrine. too large a problem to be dealt with at I the tail-end of an essay. and that was next door to it.

As for Xenophon. Hence he carefully suppresses. He cannot help admitting that Socrates knew Cebes and Simmias and Theodorus. no sooner is instructive to observe that though to the made the issue decided than the Orphic ideas make their way to the front. as. but with a skill which was beyond them. even on but it requires a and tasteless reader not to see that his own sympathies are with the hope of a blessed immortality. is to show that Socrates had no dangerous originality he merely taught. And on is it has been my no reference Orphic beliefs during the defence. 17. naturally say nothing to the dicastery who gather round him in the prison-house is in the Phaedo. and the next is to have the company of a). as regards 31 Now called It is the Apology. by the one word Q^ifBev.THE IMPIETY OF SOCKATES the absolute silence of the Xenophontic Memorabilia. . none could be made. the reason relates to for his silence on everylife thing that Socrates is the Orphic element in the of His purpose. . 11. all mention of the personal peculiarities which distinguished Socrates from the average decent Athenian. but the faith itself and without it the final thesis that the ways of an upright man are not unregarded of the Lord would lose most of its meaning. theory of the matter. {Apology 41 Of the grounds like-minded few for the faith that was in him Socrates could they are kept for the there. as a true Athenian could not forget to add. Miuos and Ehadamanthys and Aeacus and. after the final condemnation. as far as he can. the false view which I have facts. Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer . as avowed by himself. the very lessons that an Anytus or Thrasybulus would have thought edifying. Triptolemus. as far as Cebes is and Simmias are concerned. 1 and says not a obvious. mistaken simply gives a self account of the true that Socrates. 1 The fact is let out at iii. but he tries to cover up the fact that these intimate friends were foreigners. which indispensable to the point of the passage. all. self The first prospect Socrates proposes to him- on the other side of the grave is to stand before the Orphic judges of the dead. shows him- the assumption that singularly dull ready to prove that death is no it is the end of evil to him.

probably he was well acquainted with the theories of that it is can hardly believe Crito. The reason for all this economy of the truth is obvious. that he was not Avi/ikoos of mathematical astronomy (i. and. those of Plato's dying Socrates as to force on us the conclusion that the whole passage was written. and these relations would appear to an ordinary Athenian burgher as going far to justify the prosecution of the hero. all and can the therefore afford show that he knows Socratic about doctrines on which silence. 7. not only knows the Orphic doctrine of awfia-a-fjfia.e. 2 and Anaxagoras a lunatic.1 oIk^tciis Kai olicetois 7r6Xei ral ttoXItcus Sivaivro fcaXfis ^p^trfiai. a passage which narrative of the early impression made on should place the truth of Plato's Socrates by Anaxagoras out of doubt. Similarly. 2. 7. But there is one work in which Xenophon is not professedly writing to a the " discourse " of Socrates. 48 the language seems to be purposely chosen to conceal the fact that three of the seven persons named were foreigners.). - Mem. inelvm awrjaav. but can expound it with arguments which agree so closely with Turn to the the Cyropaedia (viii. . so to say. 10 that Theodoras was a Pythagorean from Cyrene. Philolaus). yivolvro. no one would guess from iv. 2. ib. Chaerephon. just as we have seen that the very first chapter of the Memorabilia showed signs of a knowledge of the Apology. 6-9. iv. iv. 7.32 word about their VARIA SOCEATICA connection with Pythagoreanism. books maintain such a dying speech of Cyrus at the end of There we find that Xenophon 17 ff. despite to He labours to prove that Socrates despised mathematics.vikoI so far. though his own story implies that Socrates had a pretty accurate knowledge of the lunatic's writings. 5. with the Phacdo lying open on the table. Cebes. though he has in his own acquainted witli that he thought its allow that he was really 1 higher theoretical developments. that he was oik iireipos of the SvvovvtTwv diaypa/j. 3. 1 by mere accident that the words read as if Phaedo all belonged to one and the same ttiSXis. ovx tra Sri/iTiyopinol fj 8lko. the truth could not have been told with- out disclosing the relations of Socrates with Pythagoreanism. 1 For we learn. It may be worth while to point out the coincidences in the object being to show that Socrates' field of magnetic attraction extended In the curious list of special intimates given at i. d\\' tva Ka\ot re K&yadol yevd/xevoi Kcd <f>i\ois icai ml otKUt ko.fidruiv of geometry.

What the writer has in his mind in both cases i. earlier or later stage of existence in which the soul properly human kind. or in both. In any case. in the argument of Memorabilia i. in the great passage it is which shown that the is soul belongs to the class of the invisible.s the doctrine that the human soul began its career as a divinity. if it proves use of Plato at all.e. and that the former class akin to the eternal. the coincidence.THE IMPIETY OF SOCKATES a 33 little detail. since even in life the soul is invisible. when our souls existed trplv c). no longer seen after his death proves nothing. the body to the class of the visible. it means as a human being. So in the e'thei. as is shown D . goes to show that the Phaedo has been drawn on for the Memorabilia as well as for the Cyropaedia. dead must The next point (§ 18) is that the souls of the still "have might" (/evpiai elvai). corresponds exactly with Xenophon's dvdpanrivos /8109. since the argument turns on the establishment of one of those pairs of "' opposites " which Aristotle regarded as distinctive of the for a different purpose. owkn The appeal to the activity of the soul during life to prove that a thing may exist without being visible has again in its exact parallel in the Phaedo. the latter to the b)." and thus implies as speaking. 4 against the atheist Aristodemus. the common source of Plato and Xenophon is manifestly Pythagorean. Now the very opening phrase of this argument 6 an echo " this of Orphic ideas. and especially the point that the directing and governing work in the partnership of soul and body belongs to the soul. avQpaymvos " this fjio? life means more than present life " . and that its true destiny 0v7yro<i. is to become once more 0eb<s afiftpoTos. and only detected by her is actions. iv dvdpdnrov %a>p\s drwjiaTav (76 where iv avBpdmov e'ISei elvat. Phaedo our past existence is expressly spoken of as the time elvat. school. Cyrus begins by reminding his sons that no one can be sure that there will Ue an end of him eireiBav rod For the fact that he will be avdpoairivov fiiov Tekevrtfaco." i. the belief in transmigration or in purely discarnate existence. " of its antithesis in the writer's mind an is not. perishable (79 a— 80 Since the same points are made.

but rather orav avenging a. and the demons (iraXafivaiovs) they send against the The argument is poor enough. <rvvi<p- (edv fiev icaOapa diraWaTTtiTai. Sib Kal op&vTai. Kadapais are enough in themselves to show. fM}8ev tov . . acppcov by separation from the a<f>pov a&fia. a word used only once by Aristotle and once by Plato (speaking through the mouth of the Pythagorean Timaeus). water. This is.34 by the terrors VARIA SOCEATICA they send on the bloodguilty. The complete theory no doubt was that just as the materials of the body (the Empedoclean elements seem to be meant) return to the is which all as — at clear cosmic masses of earth. from in the end.. pure Phaedo. Kal tovto avTrjS to irddrj/jui tjtpovrja'i's is that. the words Kadapos. . etc. Ergo it is not what Xenophon meant to prove. The aim of the philosopher when the final separation comes at death. We have there too the thought that <j>p6vr)tn<. al pJ) Ka8ap&<s diroKvOeiaai aXXa. . at death. . e/ceicre ofyerai ei? to xaOapov re Kal del ov . It does not become remains in possession of its faculties. to Se ovSev aXXo io-rlv rj opd&f <pi\o<ro(povo-a Kal rmi 8vri redvdvai /ieXerwo-a paihlws. but its sources are impure. which depart unpurified which become It is the visible as ghosts.Kparo<s Kal /caOapbs 6 vovi e/cicptOfjt. not only by its character but by the appearance in it of such words as TraXa/ivaiov? and <f>difieThe next point (§ 20) is that the departed soul voi<s.6(pv\ov. clearly indicated. of course. tov oparov /ler- Where all this comes expvaai. The next argument (§ 20) — it is a pity that Aristotle never took the examination of it in hand — is that when a man of dies. But the poetical 6p. the departure of invisible as its presence.u>TaTOV avrbv etKo? elvai. 79 d). Tore Kal <ppovip. depends on the purification of the soul from the body (orav Si ye airrj icaff avTrjv aKqiriji. the soul e\icovo-a shall depart in a state of purity <7(i)fiaT0<. returns. by the same law. we can see for ourselves that all the constituents him are reunited to their kindred masses in the larger (7Tjoo9 world to 6fi6<f>v\ov) except the soul. so the soul to its " connatural " and " proper " . may give us a clue. (81 d). KeKKjjTat. souls 80 e).

— THE IMPIETY OF SOCRATES place. . irpo icap&ias | 1 sonl is. 79 d). ardp evhovreaaiv ev TroWot? oveipoK SeiKvva-i Tepirv&v efyepiroiaav ^aXeirmv I re Kp'uriv. . though of course the thought that the soul is divinest when most free from servitude to the body is fundamental in the Phaedo. The heart itself is seated. ev in the daytime the rjfxepat. ftporaiv . (pvyas BeSdev Kal &\Vjrr|s velKCi ixaivofitvui irlavi/os. ru)i> Kal tyui vvv elfu. But we can easily see where the theory that the soul is " freest " in sleep. . This doctrine is not at all Platonic. Presumably the process is better performed in sleep because. Aeschylus' allusions to clairvoyance are well it known. As neglect of the curious physiology of the poet has led to unnecessary emendations of his text. The theory is that it is the blood round the heart with which we think." Kal dxravTcos eftov. specifically Orphic. comes from. but the soul shows its divine nature above all in sleep. 1 Finally.. as the poet himself says. We have only to turn to Pindar and Aeschylus for the connection with Orphicism. re tov ifkdvov ktK. we have the argument (§ 21) that sleep and death are closely akin. eh to /cadapov re Kal del bv Kal dddvarov "native star. and reads off the pictures of things to come as they are mirrored in the never-ceasing flow of the 7repiKapSiov atfia. I may be allowed to cite one or two Agamemnon 179 orafet S' ev The wandering " of the Compare the lines of Empedocles ' ' passages in explanation. 8e fiolp' dirpo<Tico7ro<. 0' of imvai course. and therefore attains to prophecy in visions. a>? avyyevr/s oftaa avrov del fier eiceivov re yiyverai Kal ireiravTal. Kal . but should be pointed out that they assume a curious physical theory derived from the Orphic Empedocles. From an already quoted fragment of Pindar we learn of the immortal soul that evSei Be irpatraovrtov /ieXeeov. just as Plato's its 35 Timaeus makes it return in the end to The thought then will be that of the Phaedo that the soul is " naturally akin to " the eternal and invisible {otjferai. for it is then freest from the body. heart's attention is distracted by the sights and sounds of the outer world. like a (idvns on his professional chair. and can foresee the future.

like a perplexing dream. the dictionaries) stay fluttering before my prophetic heart? Nor will hardihood its to spit it away. Tr. Hence "see these wounds with thy heart " gives the very sense required. . heart is the diviner who would. and when they woke they had lost the scent (e'f ap/cvcov •KeirTtoKev o'lyerai 0" 6 Oijp — I virvtoi KpaTTjdela a'ypav w\ecra). hvaKpirav oveipdrwv " "Why does this haunting thing of ill (Setfia Bpovov . since it must mean behold the author of these wounds. unsought. take place on the wonted chair. or whatIn the case of ever may have been used for this purpose. means not " fear " but " frightful thing " for examples see . racrhe /capita? odev is less satisfactory. too." as it as the following lines show." But the Erinyes could not behold Orestes. which does not fall under any of the rules of his art." an ugly vision pictured in the " blood round The were in a bowl of ink or a crystal. I can see no difficulty in the textus receptus. The Becp. drips in front of the heart. in general. When once the underlying physiological theory has been grasped. sit in his " wonted chair " and interpret the vision in the water or ink. Clytaemnestra is calling on the leader of the Erinyes to behold her injuries in vision.. t£et | <f>pevo$ tyikov Oapaos exnrt6e<. Hermann's opare ir\7]ja<. So M. The Erinyes were not clairvoyant except in sleep. he dismisses the matter (airoBioTropirei) by the ceremony of " spitting the dream away. the wakeful sore drips. a perplexing dream. " And in sleep.36 fivrja-iinjfKov VARIA SOCRATIGA ttoi/o? ktX." Ttirre fioi roS" ifiTreSm Sei/jui \ 975 irpoarar'qpiov oiicav icapBias repair kottov | troraTai | ovB' atroirrva'ai.a is the heart. Unless possibly airoinva-av would give a slightly better sense than the infinitive." but in the present case the vision is so persistent that he has not the " face " to get rid of it so readily. The text appears to be correct. as he had been already " conveyed out of the temple by Hermes. the fidvni being supposed to " spit away " his bad dream before taking his seat for the day ? Eumenides 102 Spa Be 7r\r)ya<s rd<r8e KapBiai akdev. and so to wisdom comes men ib.

/hoi Soxei rfvot /lenvijadai . . and if Plato's portrait with a very definite creed. If we accept as genuine the Apologia ascribed to Xenophon. the possibility becomes a certainty. can be found in a host of little ways to be supported by the elaborate caricature of the Clouds. in which I can find no grounds for suspicion. we shall be left little much wider question. 1 of I must here take leave my subject.THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES 3V We may take it. irepl re rijs aToXoylas Kal Tijs TeXeurijs tov yeyp&ipatri piv oiv irepl toAtov Kal &\\oi nal iravres " hvxov rtp fieya\iiyoptas airov (Si Kal SrfKov Sti tm Svti oCtois ippi)9r) iiwi Swkp&tovs. . all of which are declared to be authentic the reading of Plato's dialogue. and in presenting us with a remarkably individual conception of a great personality If it can. such a use of it would go far to — — narratives. then. the most natural inference is that he actually owed his knowledge of the last hours of Socrates' life to That he should have made prove that he regarded it as. as fairly made out that Xenophon has utilised for the death-scene 4>i the Cyrajoaedia the very same Orphic and Pythagorean materials which Plato has employed with infinitely greater skill for the Phaedo. a faithful picture of what was done and said in the prison. that in § 28. but in doing so I would urge once more that the special problem on which I have sought to throw a part of a much-needed light is only The question is whether the Platonic account of the life and character of Socrates cannot be shown by careful study to be consistent with itself both in respect of the fairly numerous biographical details which it contains. If we consider how difficult it would have been for Xenophon to hold communications when at Scillus with members of the circle who had been present at the death of Socrates. where the incident of Socrates smoothing down Phaedo's curls and the frantic weeping of Apollodorus 6 naviic6s mentioned in Phaedo 117 d are "contaminated. in substance. must include the Phaedo. 1 The moat famous instance of borrowing from the Phaedo is." The words of § 1 referred to above are Saupdrovs Si ££(6p Plov. . of course. but the opening reference to the numerous earlier writings about the defence and end of Socrates. For not only are the Apology and to a less extent the Phaedo of Plato laid under contribution.

much like a Pythagorean and Aristotle and his hearers knew the fact. portrait individual that trait has evaporated. and (2) that he regarded numbers as something different both from physical things and from mathematical objects. This view of Platonism as simply a refined Pythagoreanism is that which in the main dominates both the Metaphysics and the Physics. In point of fact these modifications (the views which Aristotle calls Xhia HXcltcovos:) are two (1) that Plato held that the Unlimited is a duality. of may remark the vindication Plato's Socrates for history would clear up an unexplained difficulty in Aristotle's account of Plato himself. 38 without excuse if VAEIA SOCEATICA we prefer to the life-like representations of Plato and Aristophanes the commonplaces of Xenophon I of and the second-hand notices of really Aristotle. for another. an attack on Socrates could hardly have been planned so long as his influential friends among the veibrepot had to be reckoned with. no place left for them. In the well-known that it chapter his A 6 of the Metaphysics Aristotle expressly begins account of Platonism with the remark was much the same thing as Pythagoreanism. from which every Incidentally. except on one supposition. where then the story ? do the Pythagoreans come into There is. been put out of the way while Critias Socrates could hardly have and Charmides and their friends were . with a few minor changes.. indeed. We naturally ask. But the curious thing is that Aristotle has filled out a chapter intended to prove the Pythagoreanism of Plato by an account of his mental development which — appears to ascribe everything to the rival influences of Heraclitus and Socrates. part of the influence of Socrates himself. and. there would be no need to specify Pythagorean ideas as a third source of the Platonic doctrine. Professor Bury the "manifesto for orthodoxy" should have been It may help us to recollect that such a manifesto could not well have been reasons. because the hearers would at once understand that the Pythagorean influence was If Socrates was something very himself. 1 1 Oiie final is comment on the remark already quoted from that "it not clear" why made just when it was. made before the end of the Great War for several For one thing Athens had been engaged ever since the Syracusan disaster in a life-and-death struggle for existence.

But why should Socrates take it for granted that the escape would not in any case be made by sea ? Is the explanation that he would have found a band of devotees of the "philosophic life" in either of these two cities. Why this selection of places ? It may be said. it was because they wanted to feel their position fairly secure before proceedAs it was. ministers of the oligarchy. If they did not bring their accusation against the preceptor of Critias sooner. and would so have been among co-religionists " ? ing. ' ' . I should say the new democracy into working order. he would of course hare made for Megara or Thebes. because they were the nearest cities of refuge for anyone leaving Athens by land. with the business of getting and dealing with the remaining All things considered. Anytus and his friends do not seem to have let the grass grow under their feet. I ought to have added to the proofs of the connection between Socrates and the Pythagoreans the curious assumption of Phaedo 98 e. they nearly lost their case. And the year or two immediately after the fall of the "tyrants" were fairly wall taken up. that if he had escaped.THE IMPIETY OF SOCEATES 39 a serious factor in the situation. as we can see from the speeches of Lysias which belong to that time.

and regard it as a residuum of undoubted fact by the standard of which the rest of our The object of the alleged information may be tested. coming from Aristotle present essay is to establish the direct opposite of such a view. he may be trusted to give us actual facts unmixed with the fables and anecdotes of a later age. he temptation to yield to hero-worship. as is under no an immediate disciple of Plato. What I am going to maintain life is that Aristotle neither had. our safest course historical Aristotle.II On the Alleged Distinction in Akistotle BETWEEN CGOKpdTHC AND 6 CuKpaTHC It has sometimes been argued that. any and thought of Socrates. Never having known Socrates himself. to begin inquiry with Aristotle. has what for us the great advantage of being too near in time to Socrates nor too far from him to be disqualified for the part of the dispassionate student of thought and character. or read in the works of the " Socratic men." and more especially that every stateof importance ment made about 40 Socrates in the Aristotelian corpus can be traced to an existing source in the Platonic . we may as safely treat information recommended by a special guarantee of authenticity. Hence in trying to form a notion of the personality and teaching of Socrates. nor could have been particular knowledge of the expected to have. except what he learned from Plato. it an is appeal neither to the authority is of urged. in the believing at difficulty of once in the historical character of is Plato's Socrates and of Xenophon's.

and Socrates must take his place by the side of Pythagoras as at all. stitution of the one of the " great unknown " of history. deal briefly with a preliminary question of a purely linguistic kind. shall also try to show that on the one main point in which Aristotle is commonly supposed to have preserved the historical truth. but simply accepted what he read in the twKpariKol Xoyoi of Plato and others what I can to as a dramatically faithful presentation of a real historical figure. I shall show that Aristotle exercised no kind of higher criticism on his documents. when we have to aside one or two rather trivial anecdotes which have the appearance of coming from now lost " Socratic " writings. The net result of the inquiry will be to reduce us to the dilemma that either the Platonic dialogues have faithfully preserved the genuine tradition about the person and doctrine of Socrates. or to regard them as deriving any Incidentally I confirmation from coincidence with him. We to our comprehension of the also do man or his thought. as against the poetic imagination of Plato. then. the Platonic dialogues. Before I come to the investigation of Aristotle's specific statements about Socrates. that Aristotle's professed knowledge about the philosophical position of Socrates is drawn from no source except one which is equally available to ourselves. even among scholars of high eminence. that Aristotle himself has marked his sense of the distinction between Socrates the actual fifth-century philosopher and " the Socrates " who is a dramatis persona in the Platonic dialogues by his use of the definite article. amounts. however. or the tradition has not been preserved and we have no materials whatever for the reconmost influential personality in the history of Greek thought except the burlesque of the Clouds. It will follow. his meaning has probably been entirely misunderstood. and that it is a mere blunder in criticism either to correct Plato's representations by an appeal to Aristotle. There is a widespread belief. . 41 set All that is left over. and add nothing the dialogues.THE ARISTOTELIAN SOCRATES dialogues. as shall find. I must.

what is manifestly a quotation from in other cases a the Socrates of Plato 1-17? introduced by a reference to %toicpa- remark where no o SatcpaTris in special allusion to " the " Socrates of the dialogues would be possible. regularly . and that is ascribed circumstances without detriment to the sense or truth of a proposition.T7i<t means "the Socrates" who on the IBea rcvyadov. prototype." a mere blank which may be filled up. I intend to show by the following is citations is on the one hand. and other recondite themes undreamed of hy his historical said. to devote the first few pages of this essay to showing that the supposed distinction does " not really exist. and therefore that if there is any recognisable principle of difference in meaning it must be one which applies to all these cases alike. I shall. is an imaginary and purely dramatic fact of the and it would be a highest moment that such a distinction could be assumed as obvious to students within less than two generations after Socrates' death. is really founded. exclude from consideration the numerous cases in which %caicpdTT)<} is used as a " logical example. I shall then show that the text of Aristotle exhibits the same fluctuation in the presence or absence of the article with other proper names. if it destructive of my main For even Aristotle could be proved to have applied the distinction wrongly." and vice versa.. I propose. and all the rest of it discourses in Plato ttoiepa. it VARIA SOCRATICA is means Socrates who fought o at Delium. is Now if this distinction position. attributing to " the Socrates it "Socrates. then. . From the first. fiedefys. of course. and that the so-called " canon of Fitzgerald must disappear from future works on Aristotle. not one which holds good only of the name Socrates. CcoKpdTHC AND 6 CcOKpffTHC What that. the rpiros avOpcoTros. drank the hemlock. without the to article. what rightly belongs would still be true that " to in drawing the distinction at all he implicitly recognises that the Socrates of Plato character.42 SwKpaTr)!.

©eaiTJjTo? irereTai are taken as examples of a true and a false proposition that some of Aristotle's to trol respectively. but may perhaps amuse the reader as it has amused me. Callias . e. The standing instances of such a " logical ^example " are. eoTt Xet/«§s. Callias is not unlikely to be identical with of Dion. %. almost force us to the conclusion that the person meant a contemporary. which so may have any selected as to value we like to assign in a given proposition. Socrates. Socrates and Coriscus ov Siatfiepovcri t&i disquisition (irepl fauW yeve<reco<. iarl fiovai/cos. of these Coriscus is obviously identical with Aristotle's own fellow-pupil in the Academy.g. still. that every value (x x2 ) v " of the variable x shall make the proposition " x is a man true. the trick of using members of the audience as the logical subjects of sample propositions. 768) on what happens when Socrates becomes a father (which indeed reads like a characteristic piece of lecture-room " chaff " by a professor). . When we remember argument that c 25) that or the long as to povaiicwi elvai. illustrations. is and Politicus as a student of the theory of it Hence I make the suggestion for what worth that Aristotle has preserved for us a personal trick employed by Plato in lecturing. I have a suggestion to make which is not capable of strict proof. Coriscus of Scepsis Callippus. . of course. About this usage. . a Sw/c/oaTT/v mere it variable. as we all remember. since Plato employ at Sophistes 263 a. ." or. and Socrates the notorious assassin with Socrates 6 vemrepos. the Academic mathematician who appears in the Theaetetus and its continuation in the Sophistes irrationals. and the here. Coriscus. makes Socrates himself where ©eatTT/To? icdOr)- rat. trick In fact. more exactly.THE ARISTOTELIAN SOCRATES by any other proper name is 43 of a human being (%asKpdrti<i like). the elvai is not the same thing %<oia>v or the assertion (irepl \xoplwv a 644 e%8ei. the may it. be older e. as by many modern teachers of logic.g. the inference seems to that is me almost inevitable Mill's the Socrates who shares with Duke of . except that Aristotle's examples are usually imply that the variable selected must be a member of the class " men.

or in an anti-Platonic work of Antisthenes. (Can we really conceive that a man should mention together Coriscus and Socrates 6 ^axfrpovio-icov in one breath Would any the same general truth ? dream of illustrating the proposition " All men are mortal " by taking as his illustrations Alexander. but Aristotle's own classmate. To return to our point : let me take for special considerwith the name Socrates. Lysander. where he is mentioned along with other There is no absurdity when we find Achilles. irpo<. while there was a contemporary Socrates of distinction belonging to the very same body as Coriscus. true or not. I do not as examples of lecturer to-day — mean that 6 SoxppovLo-Kov could not be used as an example. their utterances But to couple Coriscus. as an example of man in general. its ation. Xeytov tov XwKpaTrjv. wtero • aXka firjv o y' ovdev toiovtov. There is . Alcibiades.? . We have 1398 b 30 wcnrep Apia-ri7nro<. because the combination of names makes a misunderstanding impossible. in the Rhetoric. TWcnasva a>? eirayyeXTtKcorepov Tt eltrovra. (a) and o Sw/c/aanj? in the Rhetoric. a specially useful book for the purpose because of the great number of anecdotes about real or supposed then historical persons contained in SiB/c/jaTi. first the use of the article employment with proper names in general. e<f>r). where Aristotle may have picked up no reason why it should not be true. and. would have been absurd. it. because it would have been to invite misunderstanding. perhaps one of the many works said in Xenophon's Apologia to have dealt with the defence and death of Socrates. especially in a case famous names of history. Socrates named together as examples of fieyaXaJrv^la. eraipot rjfiu>v. Napoleon and a reigning sovereign ?) Of course.— 44 VAEIA SOCEATICA Wellington such immortality as a text-book can bestow is not the famous philosopher at all. it may probably enough have been told in some lost Socratic discourse. with a philosopher who had long been dead. or when Socrates and Hippias are associated as persons with such a public reputation that may be regarded as evSofja. of I do not stop to ask this story. The whole point of the reproof would.

or by anybody else). and simply assumed that the historical man said pretty much what Plato makes him say. " he used to say and the " is therefore attributed to the historical philosopher. ov j(aXeirbv 'A. but it will be noted that.a)i dXrjde^. simply Socrates. fjpero el ov% oi 8aifJLoves Here.d7)vaiov$ iiraivetv. whereas in the passage where Plato's work is cited by easily name as the source of the quotation. avrbv Tyrol vofii^eiv .THE ARISTOTELIAN SOCRATES course. 1367 b 8 &airep yap 6 %<oKpdr7)<. man. . if he really meant to mark a distinction by the use of the article. (c) Even more instructive is a comparison of two passages in which the same observation is ascribed first to "the" Socrates. canon . where the saying represented as an habitual one (eXeye. question was no doubt held by Aristotle to have been put to the actual Meletus by the actual Socrates." or were taken to mean any man's Socrates except the actual ov <fido~ieovTo<. Apology 27 c. in Menexenus 235 d. eXeyev. He ought therefore. If the theory of the were sound. the speaker is called is "). 45 be lost if rbv XeoKpdrTjv " Plato's Socrates. in the other place.Or does anyone suppose that Aristotle omits the article because he had satisfied himself that this particular remark of " the Socrates " of Plato had actually been uttered before the The obvious explanation is that Aristotle depended dicasts ? on the Apology for his knowledge about the trial of Socrates. (&) 1419 a 8eoi><. we should have to suppose both that the actual Socrates delivered an eVtTa^to? (and it would then become a nice question whether this discourse is lost. . the language shows that he is directly quoting from Plato. otv ov yaXeTrbv A07]vaiov<. ev twi eTnTO<pl. SaipMVbois. 1415 b 31 ev 'A07)vaioi<. though the 6emv watSe? elev r) Qelov ri. o yap Xiyei Sm/cpdrrji. to have said 6 Swkpdrqv. ev 'Adyvaiois eTraiveiv d\X' ev Aa/ce^is What Aristotle has in mind in both places manifestly the remark of Plato's Socrates (one which might enough have been made by the actual Socrates. and afterwards to Socrates simpliciter. 8 olov Xa/cpdrris MeXifrou . is expression " 6 Xto/cpar*)?.

Socrates is by no means the only person whose name figures sometimes with and sometimes without the article. but so. "E/crap and the like should be real or supposed historical persons. and also that " Plato's Socrates " was in the habit of saying Or should we what. are purposes pretty much identical." passages. ta)/cpdTr)s " Plato's Socrates.!." or text as its sole recommendation. than his ascription of a sentence of the Menexenus to Socrates. he only says once. no doubt. once more assume that Aristotle made historical researches him that the historical Socrates had on some made the very obvious remark which the Eeally. of themselves." then A^i\\ev<s. And we surely . but took it with the proverbial foi de charbonnier. and if the difference is significant in his case. ought to lay down no rule of this kind without a previous study of Aristotle's employment of the article with proper names as a whole. would be quite indefensible. in the case and excisions of the article of a canon which depends on the alleged uniformity of our . unless it be the astounding passage of the Politics (B the 1264 b 24). and contained an account of the Corinthian war and the King's Peace). where These enough to show that Aristotle cannot have meant to mark any difference in meaning by the use or omission of the article. but o significance in others. nothing could be Menexenus ascribes to him ? which satisfied occasion stronger proof of the fact that Aristotle applied no criticism whatever to Plato's account of Socrates. I 1 the legislator .46 or VAEIA SOCEATICA whether it is identical with the Mmexenm. but 6 'AjfiWew?. in point of fact. be possible to bring the passages quoted above under the ''canon" by arbitrary insertions but the process. we ought to find that it has a kindred If 'Zm/cpdrr]? is Socrates. and that he simply treated Socrates and " the Socrates of Plato " as for all Laws are discussed as " discourses of Socrates. 1 It would. 6 "E/crcop should mean "Homer's. for the matter of that. is the lawgiver of Sparta called 6 AvKovpyos at 1270 a 7. and the Cretan king 6 Mlras at 1271 b 38. do not forget that throughout this criticism of the Laws and Republic is called 6 Su/tpdri.

easy to show from the Rhetoric alone that no such distinction can be carried out. is. here is absolutely identical in of 1399 b 6 olov 'Bevo<f>dvr)<. 6 Uevoij)dvri<.THE AEISTOTELIAN SOCEATES ing to the context. Demosthenes. be amply I. just as natural for us. but " Cleon in Thucydides. sufficient to prove my point. is the actual Demosthenes. 1365 a 28 koL o I<f>ncpaTi}<i abrbv iveKcofila^e Xeycov ii. and those of a personage in a play or poem with it. 7ro\ta'lriov. I will quote only a few examples.. accord- Similarly 6 Kkewv should not mean In Cleon. has suggested means anything different from 'I(pncpdTt]<s. iced to tov Eevo<fidvov<. but they will. . of course. etc. Hector. article. 1377a 19 22 koX to tov the Si€vo(j}dvT]<.. fieTaaTpeifravTa (paTeov Eevotfydvov. to speak of "his" Hamlet. When it is occurs it is natural to use a defining article in going on to speak of the personages in his work. when Shakespeare has been named. I think. 1398 a 17 Kai &<. without the that o article. «tX. 'I<j}iKpdT7]<i no one. to my knowledge. since a reference to the character of a play or poem is frequently preceded this by the mention of its author. it is 47 " Sophocles' " or " Euripides' " Achilles. But the exceptions are far too pronounced to allow us to suppose that Aristotle had a hard and fast rule in such matters. of on exactly the same footing. 6 I^iKjOari.) 6 AeeoSa/ia? KaTtjyop&v e<pr] 1364 a 19 mairep crTpaTov. meaning with eXeyev. who has Demades as . as is much the " historical " Here Demades. ib. " his " Cordelia. . Eeferences to historical persons with the 1401 b 34 olov a>? o Telav iravTusv t&v icaic&v the article. But this is what we should naturally expect. (o Aea>8dfia$ and KaWio-T/aaro? stand. Ay/jABr)? ttjv Arjfioaffevow.) . who without it. apfiorret kt\. KaWtcourse. and 1400 b 5 olov 'Bi€vo<f>dv7]<s 'E\eaTats avveftovkevev. The utmost we can say is that on the whole the names of famous historical persons seem to occur most commonly without the article." and so on generally. &v virrjpgev tclvto. point of fact.? Sri yevvatOTaTOS 6 (Though the name is several times used fiekTiaTo?. any more than we have ourselves. .

are indifferently that to completeness.) References to dramatis personae in literature witharticle. 1399 b 28 Kal to iic tov AIWto? tov ®eo8eKTOv (note the article) oti 6 Ato/^S?. el 1402 b 11 eva-Taaif oti ovkovv 6 TliTTaKoi alveros.? irpoeiXeTo 'OBvaaea ktX. 'EiXevi]<s 1399 a 2 Kal irepl t?j? a>s Ico/cpar^s ypd<f>ei oti o-irovBala..48 VAEIA SOCEATICA 1367 a 8 &<77rep Kal %a"7r<pob ireiroirjKev. More commonly omitted here have simply 'la-oKpdrtj'i. avToi Be p. out the (In some of these cases it might be urged that the regarded the heroes article is omitted because Aristotle of epic and tragic poetry as real men and women who had My object will none the less be once actually lived.eov£Br]<. 1368 a 20 oirep 6 'lo-oKpaTij? eiroiei Sia ttjv do-vvrfdeiav (The article before the proper name tov St/coXoyeiv.") 1392 b 11 mairep Kal 6 fiev Beivbv elvat Ei/0wo? efiadev. cuyofiivwt. (More often simply 6 fiev t&i vtei (It will dvoOavelv ovk eSd/cpvcrev.) 1396 b 14 ware Xia etraivel ?) ovBev /iciWov 6 toiovto? tov Avt\- AiofirfBrjv.) tov? 'Zvpaicoo-iovs.r) BvvrjaeTai evpelv. ore fiev eBLBov fiiadbv 0X1701/ kt\. gained by showing that the personages of myth and legend named with or without the article. elirovTO? tov 'A\«at'ou kt\. only in the inferior MSS. comparing 1389 a 16 mairep to HiTTaicov e%ei avro(pOeyfia els 'Apspidpaov. my list makes no pretence presence or absence. so no particular significance can be attributed to its As before. 1405 b 23 avT&i II. o %ip.. as in the examples given below.) we 1384 b 15 7r/)05 Bio eS e^et 17 tov ISivpnrLBov wiroKpiais TLvpi7rl8r]<s. hardly be maintained that there is here a conscious dis- 1386 a 20 Bib Kal "A/witrt? hrl etrl to tinction between the unlucky Pharaoh and 'lo-oicpdTT)<. 6 viKr\aa<i tow 6pevo~iv (Oftener simply %i/jbavlBrj<. e<f>r) "Amasis in Herodotus. eiirep ©^o-eu? eicpivev. .

you are bound either to assert some general different rule as to the difference in meaning. of which only one article. speaks to Ajax If the 'OSvo-o-evs who. the other has not. tion is And is quite clear that no distinc- made between real or supposedly real persons and personages in a play or poem.Ti)<. If " the he carried away. or to renounce the view that things. eKafie rrjv 'E\e- 1401 b 36 on VTjV.— THE AKISTOTELIAN SOCEATES 1400 Xeyei a 49 28 eV twi A'iavn tov ©eoSe/tToi/ 'OBvaaevt 7T/309 tov A'iavra. " the poets' Achilles." (I purposely leave out the numerous cases in which a single name from the the " Helen whom Achilles " of the first epic story occurs without the article. In each of these examples we have the names of a pair of persons from the epic and tragic cycle of myths . insertion or absence name in Aristotle. ^ 'A\e£av8po<. to speak of " Socrates in Plato " as a being to be discriminated from some other Socrates. the No regular rule seems to exist for the preference of one form to the In some in of the cases it is name which it stands in the nominative that takes the article. Sueatcot." example means so also must the Diomedes whose name stands without any article be " the Diomedes of the poets. since it might be pleaded that Aristotle omitted the article because he looked on the personages of the heroic stories in general as real. so is d Alas to If " Alexander " is an historical character. Where you has the get a pair of such names. in whom so is he speaks. one name other. has the article. Theodectes. if Aristotle had intended XtoKpaTrji can mean also. in some it the mentioned. it is pretty clear that he would have made his meaning unambiguous by writing E . in is others that which is first an oblique case . in others the second. " is a real person.) %a>KpaTrj<i and d Sw/e/aaT^s must mean My by the conclusion then is this : (1) The usage of the Bhetoric is inconsistent with the theory that there is any general difference of meaning intended of the article with a proper 6 %wKpa. Whatever can mean In fact.

eowi 'Avri/yovr).Tq^. and that we can almost always point with reasonable certainty to the specific passages he has in mind. some of the most famous Thus the names of the great poets usually stand without the article. but there are names names exceptions. and dismiss limbo the notion that Aristotle had any other source than the writings of Plato for his information about Socrates. Meanwhile. and that. more in others. just as he distinguishes Antigone in Sophocles from Antigone in other tragedians by calling her 17 %o(f>OK~\.50 VAEIA SOCEATICA of o TlXdrcovo? %u>Kpa. I may add a few remarks about the use of the article with proper names in the Poetics. So at 1461 b 36 mdrjicov 6 Mwwaveos tov K. before I pass to this second part of the discussion. Aristotle varies his practice in I have no answer to offer at present. we may regard as established the 2<B«/oaTi7? double equation ScoKpa. we might expect to find less uniformity in some parts of his lectures. according as any given passage has or has not been polished up for literary effect. (2) If I I am asked the matter so much. 1453 a 28 it is.Tr)<{ =o to = Socrates as depicted in Plato. even in the case of of literature. At 1452 a 6—7. if I can fulfil my promise to show that every peculiarity of doctrine or method ascribed by Aristotle to Socrates (with or without the article) is to be found in Plato. but we have 6 "Ofiijpo? at 1451 a 21 (and 6 'Hpaic\r]$ in the preceding line).aXknnrl8r)v e'«a\et . where to be dealing entirely with lecture-notes apart from we seem turbing insertion of literary purple patches. murderer iv At who is said to be rpaytKcoraTOi t&v ttoitjtcov. the person whose statue fell on his is twice 6 Mi'tu? (a>? 6 dvSpias 6 rod M1V1/0? Apyei. any disThe general as might be expected from the absence of literary and the business-like character of the document. in that case. Perhaps. that of persons occur without the article. rule here artifice is. 6 Evpnri8r)<. d7T6KT£ivev tov airtov tov Oavdrov r&t Miti/i). why must be content merely to suggest that rhythmic con- siderations may have something to do with the matter. contrary to the general rule. however.

means something different from %micpdTr)<. or of the characters of 17 (1449 a 1) and 'Duos (1462 b 2). but Insertion or omission of the article with the same result. if it meant anything. with a proper name seems to make no recognisable difference " in any other case. but we have 6 yap HapfieviSr}'} at 986b22. iv Twt 'Opecrrrji. fiev fiera wovrjpias <Se> i^airaTijOrji.. if I may be allowed to anticipate a point. . physics 1078b30 it is o 2»«/jaT?7? i. and we are naturally led to ask why if 6 XcoKpaTry. 'OSiWeia (1462 b 9) and 'OSiWeta (1451 a 23). the names usually have no articles. (1456 a and otov OiSwrou? ical ®viaTf)<i ical 01 iic twv toiovtcov yevmv iirKpaveis avhpe<s (1453 a 11). . where the use of the article. is 51 mentioned directly after without the Similarly there seems io be no fixed rule about either the names of plays and poems. and orav o <ro<po<. f. could easily " have been avoided. and it is the " most horrid arbitrariness to assume that it must make a difference in the one case of Socrates. according to who ra the " canon " I am attacking " Socrates in Plato " M — — So in the De anima. And. but also iv 'Avnyovr/i (1454 a 1) and iv 'EXetcrpat. So we have more than once iv r&t OISIttoSi.e. So in the historical sketch given in Metaphysics A. 6 TTKaToov iv rwt Tifiaicci tt\v -tyvyfrv etc t&v aroi^eimv iroiel 404 b 16. ical tt/v 'QpifyvKrjv viro 0101* rod •ny? 'OSvo-a-eiif Sia . and the Socrates of the " logical example is indifferently %eoicpdT7j<s and o SwK/aaTT/? (991a 25—27). axr-irep %iirv<po<. most philosophers are introduced without any article. 6 TlXdrmv should not equally mean something different from ItXdrmv ? The examination could be carried further. cycle. though KaOoXov ov %copi(TTa iiroiei. (1460 a 32). but ovXrjs . So with the names of the characters we have rrjv KXvrai/jLvtfo-Tpav the mythic We have 'IXta? 1 airodavovaav virb tov 'Opicrrov AXKfiaicavos (1453 b 22). aveyvrnpLaOi) (1454 b 26).THE AKISTOTELIAN SOCEATES though Callippides article. and even the combination 'I\tas ical 17 'OSvoweia (1449 a 1). 6 pjev yap HXdrav at 990 a 30. in Meta21).

ance with Atomism I than the philosophy of Democritus. that and the connections of his special intimates were all with very different quarters from the Chalcidic peninsula. is illustrated for us by the seventh Platonic letter where the fate of Socrates is described in a way only intelligible on the supposition that he was all but an unknown quantity to Plato's Sicilian friends. and the language speaks volumes for the authenticity of the letter. after the great disaster at Syracuse which destroyed the maritime supremacy of Athens. first of all. but Atomism was an older thing own belief is that the doctrine to Leucippns had been originally an who was specially interested in the . s.v. We can hardly suppose that stories about him were preserved at Potidaea for a couple of generations after his campaign there. to begin with. And. My which Plato alludes is that of Leucippus. a philosopher whom Aristotle is so well informed. we must ask the question whether in the it is in itself likely that Aristotle should have known much about Socrates except Academy. and it is only natural that Plato. if we may judge from the Timaeus. 324 e). Equally about the point is the utter absence of any demonstrable reference in Plato to Democritus. cit. "Demokrit"). but he had no taste for foreign travel. as " an elderly friend of mine. "We may be fairly he did not know much about him before his own arrival in Athens. 1 1 I am sorry not to be able to agree with Professor Natorp in finding allusions to Democritus in the Ideenlehre. He is introduced. And it is not very likely that either the inhabitants of the of Stageira or the habitues of the much coterie interest in the doings Macedonian court took mainly Pythagorean which met in the speculation-shop at Athens. Socrates was one of the" sights " of Athens." (f>[\ov iivhpa ip. How circumscribed an Athenian reputation might be. Plato would have regarded with a friendly interest.ol Trpeafivrepov %(oicpaTr) to (Joe. what he could learn sure. and whose mechanical and physical theories. Eleatic. Timaeus and Parmenides (see the index to his Platans That the passages which he cites prove acquaintam quite ready to believe.52 VAKIA SOCEATIOA We come now to the consideration of the actual sources of Aristotle's information about Socrates.

if he had been acquainted with Democritus."then. Diels). point that Platonism and Atomism most nearly probability requires us to take allusions put in the as intended for Leucippus. 116. in fact. Professor Natorp has forgotten that the very passage to which he rightly calls attention as bearing on the relations Atomism. I have been entirely obtained in Athens cannot see that in Athens there was any likely source of valuable tradition about Socrates outside the Academy. special allusion to the . since it would be a chronological blunder to make Parmenides allude to Democritus (though he would naturally be assumed to know something of the views of an ex-member of his own school). What we should expect to find somewhere in Plato. " legitimate " convictions based on rational can only account for this complete silence by what after all. is not merely an occasional allusion to Atomism. Democritus himself complains (fy\0ov <yap els 'Adrfvas kcu ov ti? fie eyvcoKev. but some notice of the peculiar contribution of Democritus to the theory. says nothing about Democritus at all. that Aristotle's information about further. We may Socrates itself. of development. take it. Aristotle. and the I is. should have been acquainted with the new development given to their theory of the One by Leucippus.. Similarly dramatic touch." THE AEISTOTELIAN SOCEATES 53 while he must have been iu absolute accord with the famous distinction between the " bastard beliefs " begotten by sensation insight. Acquaintance with the philosophy of Socrates was not to be got from anecdotes picked up in is likely to And Eleatic school and has more than once expressed his admiration for its lead- ing men. Fr. the very natural suggestion that a man might make a very big reputation in Abdera without being known at Athens. as.). especially as it is at this In any case the references in the Parmenides and Timaeus must be primarily taken to be to Leucippus. but is avowedly an account of the grounds on which Leucippus reached his conclusion (AeiVi7T7ros 6" 2x etv <*>rf9y Xfryovs kt\. but it illustrates the dangers the old physicists. attendant on the mistaken notion that Democritus was a " pre-Socratic. and other adherents of Democritus whose mere names occasionally come under our notice. Probably the same simple consideration may go far to explain the silence of our ancient sources of information about that tantalising figure Nausiphanes. his of Flatonism with epistemological attack on the value of sensation. rather than for Democritus. mouth of Timaeus of Locri who was so closely connected with the Italian line It is a mistake to see any Atomists in Timaeus' criticism of the theory of "innumerable worlds. de generatione A 325 a 23 ff." since that doctrine is a commonplace with nearly all The point is a small one.

I turn now to the detailed establishment of the point. no doubt. But first it may be worth our while to recall Aristotle's own expressed view as to the class of literature to which a A " Socratic discourse " is. and of other Socratic men. drawn in Plato's dialogues which would form of Socrates Socrates the basis not only of Aristotle's statements. The reasonable presumption is thus that the Aristotelian account of Socrates simply records familiar traits from an almost exclusively Academic school-tradition. and these. which must rest. . Euclides and Phaedo. preserved their own version of the Socratic tradition. like whole Academic tradition. and by verbal remarks made by Plato in In the main it would be the picture personal conversation. in its turn. we should expect that Aristotle's conception must come almost entirely from Academic sources. on the writings of Plato. by examining the various pieces of information preserved in the Aristotelian corpus and indicating their apparent sources. or remembered some boyhood in which his singular personality had figured. and in which a definite tradition might have been perpetuated. A of priori.54 VAKIA SOCEATIOA who had been on speakincident in their casual conversation with outsiders ing terms with him. nothing of the figure of Socrates as it may know next to have been conceived by most of those whose names have come down to us as authors of XioKpanicol \oyot. possibly amplified here and there by acquaintance with the Xm/cpaTiKol Xoyoi of Xenophon. The way in which Aristotle presents certain formal dogmas as characteristic of Socrates plainly presupposes a fixed tradition handed down by a school. to be sure. had. is that they were not connected with permanent " schools " by which their writings would have been preserved. founded philosophic coteries outside Athens. and there was no school in existence to form such a tradition except that of Plato. for \0705 2»K/3«Tt«o5 belongs. but of the Other Socratic men. then. but it must surely be clear that nothing but the foundation of the could have given one version of the tradition Academy its literary As it is. the reason why we importance and vitality.

an epic poeifl or a play its definition." (So. You cannot. or in the would be very bad fupqaeis of his Xenophon's account of him is correct. would be fiip/ycns ev Xoymi %&>/»? ap/iovia<. which would include the prose species. again. men's characters and what they 1447 a 28). what it " that all forms of mimetic art " imitate " . fl8o<s. the mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus. they " imitate 1447 b 2). if Socrates notoriously disapproved of mathematics. It should follow that Aristotle. the which has been prewe learn that one essential point in depicting the served. if So when we come to the consideration of tragedy. primarily a " imitation " just as 55 form of kind of prose drama. there ought to be a generic name for this kind of prose drama. discourses in which he theories of astronomers.g. you would not be giving a proper /dfuja-ii of " what he did or had done to him. by implication. but the language /it'/xov? ical Toil? unfortunately does not provide one. if you provided Socrates with an elaborately fictitious biography (as Plato is sometimes held to have done in the Phaedo and Pavmenid. in It is a is . is made to take a keen interest in the latest developments in arithmetic.) So. ovBev yap av e%oifiev \oyov? — ical Hevap^ov as it is implied we ought to have (Poetics is told. rightly or wrongly.es). Now we have already been ^07] ical 7rd9rj /cat -n-pagets. regards the " Socratic discourse " as a highly realistic kind of composition. are a bad /it/tijo-t?. Republic vi— vii. E. infer that he holds that the actual Socrates must have really made every remark ascribed to him in such a discourse. as Professor Bywater has put it. or thought astronomy impious. " do and have done to them " (ib. real subject of the part of the Poetics . ical In this respect it stands on the same level with pvdfiov. but it would not be a proper " imitation " of the character of Socrates unless it were in all its main points a faithful presentation.THE ARISTOTELIAN SOCEATES Aristotle. drama " . the terms employed in the Poetics. bvopAtrai koivov tov? Saxppopos "ZtoKpariKoix. of course. just mime and is the Socratic discourse as its as there a common name '' of which both tragedy and comedy are species.

never talked with them of the One and the Many. the arrival of her brother. as " Euripides " says in the poet did not make the Frogs. a drama in which the hero is one of the best-known characters of the most famous asje of to the spot). makes him a personage in a work of art.g. which means. " like the original. and Phaedo to that quaint little band of eiSrj who speak of themselves in the Phaedo as "we.. as Professor Bywater says." then the Platonic \6yoi. never threw himself with ardour (j>vo-ucol or pondered over the book of Anaxagoras. Athens. his " Socrates " must be Similarly reeognisably "like" the man whose name he bears. With much more right. the recognition and the escape as fixed elements in the story.56 VARIA SOCEATICA is ^0o? of a character that it must be o/ioiov (1454 a 23)." You must. as to incident. events to choose his own way of bringing the brother and to fill in details (e. Simmias. He is only free to invent the motivation of the successive (e. with reference to the plot of the Hippolytus). etc. shall not present us with a biography of his hero which relates things none of which.. never occupied himself with the problems of political reform which occupy the Republic.g. and of course. If Socrates never met Parmenides and Zeno. may we demand that the writer of a %wicpaTiico<. never crossed swords and exchanged compliments with Protagoras at the height of his fame. e. make your Hector. to choose the exact way in which the recognition shall be brought about). then. Socrates. and that it main fixed Aristotle's is only in the detailed illustration. her appointment as the priestess at a shrine where sacrificed. never belongpd into the studies of the believers in with Cebes. by the canons which are . in the same way.g. Xoyo?. an Iphigenia has strangers are to take as data the disappearance of the heroine. nor the like of them. if a friend of an actual man. it is regularly taken for granted in the Poetics that the done to main them outlines of " are "what the characters did or had prescribed beforehand by a story which (an a>v \6yos. Orestes. way of leading up to the incidents that the poet own In anyone who wishes to compose has a free hand. ever happened. such as the accepted story says they were.

of course.1 &d.vop. Aristotle may have been deceived into taking for fidelity to fact what is really only But what I the skill of the consummate master of fiction. as examples of the kind of prose-drama which ought to have. groups in the Phaedo.aaTm ydp Socrates. I begin with a few references which are not to statements in Plato. do not belong to this "we. whether that view was sound or not. belong. .vri<ns.ov 6 \oyos oBtos ivTiXafipdverai mi vvv ko. are bad Xoyoi. Socrates constantly includes himself in this group to which Cebes and Sinimias at least.vi. am concerned with now is merely the question what view 1 Aristotle took. to dispute the correctness of the implied view of the "taKpanicol Xoyoi. > existed only in Plato's fancy. the passage before us.). as an illustration of Plato's attention to fact. There is another " we " group who are in the habit of believing the soul to be the apfiovia rrjs f«xv'. are expressly named by the side of the mimes of Sophron as examples It is.e Pythagoreans who have been deeply interested in Sinimias the medical developments arising out of the theories of Empedocles. but I believe my list of the same kind of composition. open to anyone who likes. I may have overlooked a point here and there. 1486 a 9) where the Xw/cpaTiicol \6yot. not only in not. though it has Yet he does so.vp." and the apparent object of the whole by-play between Phaedo and Echecrates (88 d ff.ev tt]v ij/vxyv etnai). a single technical name. also Cebes. i.p. ib. that a careful reading of the Phaedo reveals the existence of two "we" There are the " we " who believe in the eifiij and also in the doctrine (fortunately traceable right back to Pythagoras) of 6. belongs to this group and speaks for it at 86 b (toiovtSv n jiiXiara inrokaixfii. and apparently p. and Aristotle hftd no right to couple them with such realistic pictures from life as the compositions of Sophron and Xenarchus seem to have been. and Echecrates had at one time shared its doctrine {airwi fwi ravra irpovSiSoKTo 88 d) and still half inclines to it {8o. contain every passage referred in to in Bonitz's Index Sw/c/aoT^? or 6 ~ZcoiepdTr)<. ) is to indicate that the difference on this point is logically the most important feature in the whole It is scarcely credible that the distinction between the two "we's" 'hoyos. Now to come to the examination of details. will be found to s. but in the fragment (61 of the Berlin edition.THE AKISTOTELIAN SOCKATES 57 assumed in the Poetics for all forms of dramatic composition.v. which the allusion to a Platonic dialogue could be called in doubt. as illustrative of the amount of information about 1 Incidentally I may note. and presumably the kw<P& Trpbviaira of the dialogue also.

. inrepopav eiroiei (sc. The closest 9 however. that very possibly we should emend the word d0XrjTa<.). Be p. so that it is hardly necessary to find a special source of parallel. in the Rhetoric to auX/j/ra? on the strength of the Xenophontic passage. a recognised example of the " professional " or t6^i/itj/?.58 VAEIA SOCRATICA Socrates which Aristotle seems to have derived from other sources than the dialogues. . the only case in which clearly shown. (I the employment of Xenophon can be would suggest. this so far as I from the Memoraknow.) 1 Thus Alcibiades was speaking vi. ov Beov tov eiriaTa/Mevov dXXa tov Xa^ovTa. it is If so. incidentally. and the same sort of thing must have been extant in many Socratic discourses now lost to us. any kind for the observation. olov oftoiov e't ti? ei Xeyoi on ov Bel KXr)pa>Toi>$ apyeiv.ev t»7? 7ro\eo>9 apyfovTas airb xvdfiov Ka6iaravai r KV^epvrjTTji. Memorabilia i. if Aristotle directly taking his from any is. of course. The correspondence is of the language suggests illustration bilia. Spartans (Thucydides as a genuine Socratic when he told the89) that the democracy was oiuiKa^oviUvji Avoid. what the avXi)Tri<i is. p. This but simply as discourses. and it is also clear that the person who is coupled with the ttXcotijp ought to be. both in Plato and Aristotle. a>? is rj t&v irXcorijpmv nva Bel icvfiepvav KKtfpwaeiev. The fact that the " pairs " in athletic contests were often determined by lot makes the aflX^T??? rather an unfortunate example for the purpose of the irapaftoXri." apparently given not as an actual remark of Socrates " the sort of argument you get in the Socratic There are. plenty of parallels with the reasoning to be found in Plato. according to the Kartfyopos) t&v toi>$ tcaOeo-TWTow vofiwv o~vvovra<. specific source. seems to be Xenophon. 2. Xeycov a>? fi&pov eirj tou? f/.r)Seva QeXeiv xprjcrOai /iijS' avXryriji fi^B' lies iir aXXa roiavra Kvafievrm fnjBe Teierovt (the same kind of saying which ing at the bottom of the famous picture of close the mutinous crew and their disastrous voyage at the openof Republic vi.r) yap coatrep av Tt? toiis a0Xr)Ta<! icXrjpoir) oi oi Bvvavrai aytovl^eaOai ov dXX av Xd'xoxnv. that. Rhetoric 1393 b 4 trapa^oXr) Be ra tancpariKa.

Eudemus seems here 2. you do not commit vfipis. Xenophon. in the time of Eudemus. According to the common view. What Socrates means is something profounder. d7ro{3d\\ovcri TOV TTTVeXoV KOI T«S OTt pnrTovfiev Odvrji- Tpi%Ct<} Kal TOW} OVVJffK.Te Kal d\yr)$6vmv Kal diroTefiveiv Kal diroKaeiv . in the common view. . %eoKpdTt)<: might have been taken to mean %a>KpaT7)<. (3Xa7rTei Be tto\v fiaX\ov. It is 59 an argument by example to prove that to yjpr\an%v SoKei <j)i\ov elvat fiovov that 'ZcoKparr}*.THE ARISTOTELIAN SOCRATES Ethica Eudemia 1235 a 37. eXeye $' oti Kal %5>v eicao-Tos eavrov. becomes do this step to But the only way to is to make the soul of Archelaus better.. if you fail to repay good with good. . Rhetoric 1398 Socrates refused to visit the court of e<pr] Archelaus on the ground that vfipiv dfivvao-Oat. tov o-fofiaTOS 6 ti av a^peiov Kal dvaxpeXes. his obligation ev iroieiv 'Ap%i\aov. KCLI TO. For. Mem. if Archelaus does me a . and the first its improvement would be that Archelaus should be punished for his crimes. to aotfia tov oiKeiOT&Tov dvdpdyirov Tr\v Tayio-Ti]v ifjevey- KavTes cupavi^ovaiv. Kal to o-LaXov e/c tov aTOfiaTOt fiev ditoTTTVovaiv do? SvvavTai TroppeoTaTco Sioti wepeXei a 24. r)i b irdvTmv fidXiara (piKei. &%eKdovo-r)<. it If Socrates ev irda-^ei at the hands of Archelaus. the uySpt? is on your side if you fail to return evil for evil. but vfipis is committed on you. Kal Tekos to oS)fia OTav diro- a^pr]o-To<i referring to yap 6 ve/cpos. should repay good with good and evil with interpretation the On this two cases contemplated are not parallel. ofioias? elvai to fir) hvvaaOai KaK&s. iraOovTas wairep Kal (The point of the remark I think. generally overlooked. 6 yipmv (apparently so called because. 6 vemTepos) said men throw away even parts of their own bodies when they cease to be of use. Socrates will not go where he can do no good. i. Te ye avToi avT&v ovv^d<} Te Kal . The mean- not that Socrates accepts the current view that one evil. r)i to be Srj 53 Kal p. fJLOpUl Ta a%pr)0~Ta. ing is As there is no hope of this. avTO<s Te d<paipel Kal aXkcoi irape^ei. Kal ev is. ovhev avTovi ivov.dvt)i Trpbs tovtok ye on TTj<i •^ru^s ev ylyveTai <ppoVT}o-t<}. T/Jt^a? Kai tv\ov<s d<pat.povo~i Kal Tot? laTpols Trapeypvai fieTa ttovcov.

e." may well have been taken from lost or may equally well be reminiscences Bui derived from actual conversation with Plato. i. but merely that he who injures the defenceless commits vfipis. and full of traits illustrating ovk eyovo~iv. but Socrates. just the touches in versation differs from the colourless which Plato's way of narrating a conmanner of a Xenophon. is not that they are didactic. The reference the characters of the personages tive.) the preceding incident " Socratic discourses. the playing with Phaedo's curls. It not Archelaus. Socrates adds that he who is not allowed to his make such a i)/3/ats.€0 wrong which of I VARIA SOCEATICA cannot requite. tion. suffers degrada- he does not try to lead Archelaus to repentance. then is vfipi£op. as The thought is he certaiuly will not be allowed to do. Gorgias and Republic. which him to punishment for his crimes. to the whole class of such \6yoi.) return for kindness as lies in power also suffers Rhetoric 1398 b 30. a 19 tovto ovk e^ovtriv ol fiaBr)- fiariKoi Xoyoi on ol ovBe irpoaLpeaiv to yap ov evetca irepl toiovtwv yap no doubt. what is their f)6o<. but that they are dramatic. if Yes. the violent sobbing of Apollodorus. dXK' %(OKpariKoi' is. says Socrates. . but is exactly the same thing happens at his hands try to I do not repay kindness to is bring by the only means in my power. if who v/3pi£erai. Xiyovatv. and it may be noted that what is meant by their exhibiting ^0o? and irpoabpearK. concerned with the ends for which we ought to act. Rhetoric 1417 rfit\. the worth my personality degraded. (The already discussed anecdote of This and the rebuke administered to Plato by Aristippus. and with what Trpoaipeo-i*} It is just what we call the "dramatic" touches in a work like the Phaedo. the picture of Socrates chafing the leg which had just been released from its chain. in which " Socratic discourses '' exhibit ^6o<s. to is not that v/3pt. who figure in the narra- and showing they act.<s is thus absolutely in accord with the ethical teaching of the The popular view of vfipis referred committed by the man who accepts a kindness which he is unable to repay or by the man who leaves an injury unavenged.ac.

all the authors refer to Aristotle. who is said to have or had.. Xanthippe. great-grandit daughter (Athenaeus) of Aristides o §Licaio<. The appearance of Aristoxenus among the authorities for this tale goes far to discredit it. Kal to Kaivorofiov KaX [to] Of the reference in the Poetics to Sa/cpanicol \6yot I have already spoken. It is a further difficulty that the various versions of wife.THE AKISTOTELIAN SOCKATES It 61 would be as absurd not to believe " that Aristotle is thinking chiefly of the Platonic " here as to suppose that he means any ethers when he says at Politics discourses 1265 a 11 that all the \oyot of Socrates exhibit to TrepiTrbv tflvryriicov. insists. but be mentions the daughter of Aristides in connection with the definition of eiy£t>a. because she had so " righteous " a father. . and Athenaeus names Callisthenes. . There is a statement in Aristotle.a. who and both Plutarch and Stobaeus 1 Diogenes (ii. mentions Satyrus and Hieronymus of Ehodes. Laertius). apparently and Diogenes. The absolute absence of any unconscious allusion to the matter in Plato and Xenophon is a serious matter. that Socrates defined e£ ayaO&v yovecov elvat. 83 (Berlin edition). on the strength of the irepl evyeveias. Demetrius. Satyrus and Aristoxenus.. Fr. As tell it to the authority for the story. with her that the definition was given a daughter of Aristides must be vjohlgeboren. evyeveia as 1490 a 21. that she brought no dowry 1 Stobaeus does not give the story. as a second wife the daughter (Diogenes was. in or granddaughter (Plutarch). and according to Stobaeus' account of what Aristotle connection said.) there was a doubt about the genuineness of this particular dialogue. quoting the But it should be remembered that according to Plutarch (Aristides xxvii. and it has considerable internal difficulties. Plutarch adds Demetrius of Phalerum and Aristoxenus. This is included in the Fragments of Aristotle is on the authority of Stobaeus. it lay stress on the poverty of the alleged second in particular. who says he dialogue irepl evyeveias. 26) further to the work irepl evyeveiw. definition is The the besides connected with the curious tale about bigamy of Socrates.

vplat -n-evlai. and Demetrius are of considerable weight. I believe. Aristotle said in his irepl iroirjTiov that the dialogues of Alexamenus of Teos were earlier than the T&aKpariicol \6yoi (from Diogenes Laertius iii. It will be seen that the number of such sayings is ridiculously small. Socrates may well have in some way charged himself with the protection of a daughter of Lysimachus (the story which makes her his sister raises chronological difficulties). or the good faith of those who professed to be citing edition). context it 48.62 with VAEIA SOCRATICA Now it is in itself a difficult question. and Athenaeus xi. and this story. Xanthippe. out of compassion Still the names of Aristotle for her impoverished condition. 505 c. which her. correctly interpreted. whatever it was. or sayings of Socrates quoted which cannot be found in Aristotelian corpus in the extant Platonic literature. at all. in the light of the testimony of the Laches Aristides. supported himself. as the story asserts. shows that Aristotle ascribed the ethical doctrine of the Gorgias to Socrates. Fragment 61 (Berlin 1486 a 2. if Plato. how Socrates. except perhaps the reason for not visiting Archelaus which is put into Socrates' mouth in the Ehetoric. who was always ev p. in which latter forms part of an abusive attack on the originality of Plato). to Our results so far are highly unfavourable the view is that Aristotle's knowledge of the tenets of independent of the tradition created by Even Xenophon only seems to have been utilised. and that none of them has any philosophical significance. and his sons. in one single passage. it. all the passages in the which reference is made to XeoKpariKol Xoyoi. On the whole should suggest. and the mystery deepens if we suppose that he married a second wife. That the tale is traced to the irepl evyevelas seems to me to the old friendship is to militate against the genuineness of the work. has not been adequately examined. into a case of bigamy. if one could only feel sure that the vrepl evyeveias I was genuine. and then only for an illustration Socrates at all . These are. that there between Socrates and the family of some foundation in fact for the story. and it was probably the mischievous genius of Aristoxenus which turned the incident.

Hippias. 183 b 7. The statement IBeas Socrates and the ol oi trpSnot left tcl<s about a difference of view between who are apparently identical with the etvai of <j>i]cravTe<. (1) The fundamental service of Socrates to science lay in his insistence on the importance of universal definition. . This is. . 1078bll. tIs anroKpivauro. it is quite tenets of Socrates. Metaphysics r)BiK. hraKTiKoi)'.aTevofievov . As of what we are told here. Trepl dp^rjv eVtar^/iT. Be. Sophist. I come now to the passages which refer to the special In every case. to. aXXov Ilals B' diroKpivofievov \a/iav. Protagoras. Be irepl ra? r/0t. Be tt)9 0X17? tyvaews ovBev. mfioXoyei yap ovk elBivai.(j)(o tow t \6yow. it is obvious that the statement might be made by a reader who knew Socrates only from his reading of Plato on the strength of almost any one of the discussions contained in.g.THE ARISTOTELIAN SOCRATES 63 of Socratic method exactly parallel with scores that might The one clear case of actual have been taken from Plato. w fieKnare. Greater i.a A 987 b 1—4 %a>Kpdrov^ Trepl Be irepi fiev ra Trpayfiarevofievou. ^eopicrTa. KaOoXov ovk xal last eiroUi oiiBe tow: opicr/Movs' 01 B' ij(a>picrav. KaX to 6pL%e<r6ai KadoXov ravra yap aXX' 6 fiev 2. d/j. pr/ 337 e) Xva ~%coKpaTr}s to eia>6b<s Biairpd^rjTai- /lev a/iroKpLvrrrai. yap fiev e<pr)v eyco. e. eTna-Tija-avTO'} S<»tf/jaT0i/? teal irepl irpwrov Ttjv Bidvoiav. ecrriv ra. quotation from Xenophon which we have detected belongs not to Aristotle. tovtcov 6pl£e<r0ai KadoXov fyTovvTO? irpaTov Bvo yap iariv a rts av airoBoitf Soj/c/saret BiKaloa. and of iiraKriKol Xoyoi. Tocavra TOiv ovtwv IBeas Trpoerrjyopevaav. fir/ fldvrji Xoyov kol i\eyxr)i.?. but to Eudemus. must be to the remainder over for special discussion. the Charmides.. Elench. 7T€j0t eV fJL&VTOl TOVTOtS TO KaOoKoV fl/TOUJ/TO? KM.Ka<. I think. easy to point to the probable or certain Platonic source of the notice.<oKpaT7}<. irpStTOv et'Sws kt\. OpUTfl&V 17. aperas irpay/j. a plain allusion to the complaint of Thrasy- machus ax)To<. it will be seen. (Rep. Bepublic (2) Socrates used to ask questions but not to answer them. M 1078 b 28 . Laches.

r/fieis Be fierd b 4 69ev koX 6 ScoKpaTrj? mirjdr] enria-Trffvrfv dvBpeiav (with which compare Eth. d>i 3) Apology 37 e ov treio-eade p. (5) There is no such state as aKpaaia. on yap 8' tj>povrj<rei<. Eth. ttji 18. elvai rr)v dvBpeiav. Xoyoi. 7ra<7a? ra? dperdf rjfidpravev. ovv Xoyov? Ta? apera? elvai ib. co? caiero %a>Kpdrif<s. 'iceivr] elmdvia elptovela %a>KpaTov<. 1183b 1 ovk opdtos Be ovB 6 %WKpdT7]<i eVtcTT^/ia? eiroiei Ta? 1190 b 2 8 oiBe %eoKpdrrj<. Nic.evau. 1116 yap TovvavTiov e%ei rj cos ioiero %aKpdrrj'. 1144 b ityjrei. r\ For possible sources see Republic 337 a .. Laches. evBoga atrapvovvTai. 1145 b 23 Beivbv yap eTna-Trifir)? evovarys.dXi<na Be %wKparr)<s avTTj kcu ovtoi Socrates a typical e'tpmv.. Gorgias 489 e elpcovevrji. 1198 a 10 Bio ovk bpOSis 2. to? yap apera? eiriaTrffia? eTroiei. Eud. ovk opOws Be ovB' o&to?. 29 koX Sta/e/jcm?? fiev ttji fiev 6p6m 8' rjfidpravev. 8 eTTiarrjp. (4) Virtue is <f>p6vr)o-i<. aperd? ktX. p. ydp oXeo? i/id%eTo irpbi rbv Xoyov fiev . <ppovrja-ei<. Be op6Si<..rjV elvai (pdar/cwv rr)v dvBpeiav.). fiev ovv 6 TrpeafivTrjs Sier elvai TeXo? to yivdxriceiv rr)v dperrjv ktX. elvai TTjv air}) yap elvai 7raera<?). on fiev ovk avev KaXws ekeyev atiero 2. oirep /cat eirolei.oi elpa>vevofjt. or %wKpaTr]<i (both forms are found with reference to the statements). citero elvai <^povrj<re(o<. while the more general view that all virtue is a " science " or " ratio " is manifestly based on Socrates' reduction of virtue to intelligent computations of pleasures and pains in the Protagoras. the several virtues are iTricrTrjfiat. ekeyev. and the Laches and Protagoras are manifestly the sources of the statement that Socrates regarded dvBpeia as a form of eirio-TrjfiT). Mh. Xoyov. N. Protagoras and Republic. very same which may not be read in the Charmides. ekeyev. dXXo ti Kparetv Kal irepiekKeiv airr/v wairep dvBpdiroBov. eiriaTrffiifv oiofievo'.64 VARIA SOCEATICA (3) Etltica Nic. eiruyevo- [Magna Moralia] 1182 a 15 fLevos fteXnov Ka\ em trXeiov elirev virep tovtcov.a>Kpdrr)<. . 1216 b 2 ZcoKparrji. fiera tovtov XcoKparr)*. 25. 1230 a 6 (eTricrTTJfia<. None 6 of these passages tells us anything about %a>Kpdrr)<. .. "taKpareis . (f>d<7Ka>v elvai ttjv dperr/v Xoyov.a)KpdTr)<. . 1127 b to. %<0KpdTr)<.

ovBels av eXoiro ttjv d&iKiav fikv 1200 b 25 ovk %(OKpa. Laertius <pr)o-iv. ypd/ipM yv&vai ifmvTov kt\.THE AEISTOTELIAN SOCKATES &>? 65 ovk QV<rr)<. el 1147 b 15 kt\. ov ttjv eTrio-Trjfirjv avTov 86 d if.ftdvovTa irpa/rreiv irapa. to 1398 a 15. The manifest Phaedrus 229 e ff ov 8vvajxal ira> KaTa. 4 (Berlin edition). is H\aTmviKoi<i source Adv. r) ovk £<p' to o-irovSaiov} elvai fj tffavKovs. Stavoov/ievoi irepl t?js iirio'Trj/ir]^ &o-irep irepl dv8pa7ro8ov. ii. 1474 b 10 = Diogenes (sc. Compare crvfiftalveiv etyq. Aristotle. yap T49. that one who believes in a 8aip. 3. 1419 a 8. (7) Aristotle. Fr.) 'ApurroTeXi. (iKpaaiat • oideva ktfyrei yap vTro\ap. Nic. zeal SuKpaTJ]? [Magna Moralia] 1187 a 7 &<nrep XtoKpaTij? rjfuv yevio~dai <fyt}triv.. to Ae\<piKov . 1 Kal t&v ev AeX^ot? ypafipMTcav BeioTaTOv eSoKei to o 8rj Yv&di XavTov.6viov or in 8aip. as mentioned there. elvai aSiKO?. 1113 b 14 no name is to oe \eyeiv ovBels exa>v Trovrjpbs ovS' olkwv p. apyeiv aU' aXXo ti . aTej(y&<. to fteKmaTov.aKapio'i eoi/ce to fiev yjrevSel. Colotem 1118 c). dvrjipei o\<»? ical e<pr] dKpao-iav elvai. TrepieXKOfiiv^ inrb t&v from aXXav a-rrdvTav) in the first of the passages cited the Ethics. Kal XwKpaTei airopia<s Kal a>? 'Apio-TOTe\i)<: ev Tot? ^rfTrjaeta'i dpyj\v iviBcoKev (Plutarch. to? We might add here Eth. . 8iicaio<. to 8 except that. Tim.ove<. eoiKev b a%ka 6V dyvoiav. 1475 a TavTt)<i eiprj/ce (6) Self-knowledge. 23 Kal THv9a>8e ikOeiv tov £.T7f<i o%v 6 irpeo~/3vT7)<. a\r}0ei.? Probably no more than an inference from the fact that Aristotle had spoken of the influence of the Delphic inscription on Socrates. one cannot be sure whether is the reference to Socrates or to Plato (who puts the doctrine not only into the of Timaeus. Both passages refer argument of Socrates in refutation of the charge of the (8) Rhetoric atheism. Fr. mouth of Socrates. but into that these allusions to Socrates' view that there That the common source of all is no vice except error is the Protagoras of Plato seems plain from the verbal echoes of Plato's language at Protagoras 352 b (eVovoT/<? troWaKK avdpwirati eTTio~Tr)fir)<i. F . eptOTijo-eiev ovTivaovv irorepov av fiovkoiTO .).

vkava Kaddtrep 'Ai/ti'Soko? (fxuriv "Zw/cpdrei. Socrates the meant.66 must necessarily VAEIA SOCEATICA believe in gods. • dyadov av priTopo? orav Se ti<s rod TreiaovTOS dymvi^qrai teal ev8oicifii]<rovTO<.) earlier of the plainly Apology 27 b ff. There remain a few allusions which do not seem to have any source in Plato. 65 (Berlin edition). Both passages. iv tom iiriTcupitoi. where we are told that 6 'repaToo-KOTrois. ' Antiphon from Socrates airov TrapeXeadai). ' Cf. 1. The sons of Socrates were (12) Rhetoric 1390 b 31. since the Sat/xoves are either the progeny or the are mentioned in the source in is (No names The two passages. and throw no light on the thought or character of Socrates. iv tovtoi? ovairep /cat iwaivei. For the sake of completeness.vio<i xal 'Avti<])&v Diogenes Laertius viii. 6 <ro<pio-r^<s tried to steal pupils (jSouXo/ievo? Toil's o-vvov(TiacrTa<. (13) Analytica. 49 rovrtoi avTnrapaTa<r<rea6at K. (10) Fr.. but that Aristotle did not discriminate the two. Socrates." The later of the two attributes this to %a>/cpaT7]<. 1486 b 26= Diogenes Laertius ii. insignificant persons. as he is coupled — . (11) Fr. and the fact that thus handiwork of gods. 27. Memorabilia i. Perhaps this comes from A. ovSev pA/ya Sojeelv e5 Xiyeiv. 6. 1479 a 14 = Diogenes Laertius ii. I add them here.posteriora great philosopher no doubt 97 is b 21. which shows that the source on which Aristotle is drawing is Menexenus 235 d el fiev yap Sioi AO-qvaiov? iv He\o' Trovvqcrloi<. Scot. allude a saying that " it is easy to deliver an encomium on Athenians before an Athenian audience. t icpiXovelicei 'AvtlXo^o<. 46 tovtgh rts.vTkko'Xpi) ( ? Xenophon. KaOd <pr)<riv 'AjOJo-roTeX^s iv y irepl iroir)Tiiefj<. " Aristotle says " that a magus from Syria told the fortune of Socrates and predicted his violent death. e«5 Xeyeiv.QrfvaLoi'i. (9) Rhetoric to 1367 b 1415 b 31. which have already been discussed in this paper. 1419 a 8 the reasoning distinction is ascribed to Xw/c/sotij? of itself proves that %eoKpdrr)<. Arjp. does not mean " the historical Socrates " in from Plato's 8. 27. rj TLekoTrovvijcrLovs iv 'A.

when all is said. direct from the XtoiepaTiieol many in Though he had no doubt read \6yoi of Plato. He comes in incidentally in the course of credited with having effected the a professed account of the origin of Platonism as a person .] (Aristotle 1 — me So far I think the reader will be inclined to agree with that there is nothing at all in Aristotle's account of the character or opinions of Socrates which he could not have taken. I will add a reflection which may or may not impress the reader.) Socrates and Plato both [(14) ProUemata 953 a 27. I cannot help feeling that he found anything in that. he stage as the one figure who flits across the a sort of mystery. was no doubt thinking of the yevvaiori) . Socrates rather perplexing problem. is remains for Aristotle a In the historical sketch of Metaphysics A. In particular. Socrates is the only important personage who is introduced into the narrative without any attempt to give a positive statement of his views about the " cause and principle. other such " discourses of Socrates/' there is no sign them which led him to modify any recognisable way the view which he might have arrived at by confining himself to the dramatic portrait drawn for us in the Platonic writings. and it is therefore a highly unreasonable assumption that he made any distinction between the portrait and its historical original. like Melchisedec. without father or mother. but no light is thrown on the question how he was led to strike out this new line for himself. he seems to have owed as good as nothing at all to the pretended portrait of Xenophon. without beginning or end of days. is He most tremendous transformation in the general character of Greek thought. or what were his relations with his predecessors and his contemporaries. This comes out more particularly in two ways. and in all probability did not take. but certainly has some weight with me.THE AKISTOTELIAN SOCKATES with Alcibiades and Lysander 67 was a typical fieyaXoylrvxps. which is more than once referred to in the Phaedo as singularly impressive. had the fieKay^okia common in men of genius." or to show how he came by them. shown by Socrates in his last hours.

by which he manifestly means Pythagoreanism. is meant to insist upon a fundamental difference in doctrine between the historical Socrates and the historical Plato." the reason is that he knew little more about the facts than what hints like we can still piece together from the given us in the dialogues of Plato. he expressly treats due to the influence of Socrates on a mind already as to the reality of the things imbued with a scepticism which our senses perceive. and. Socrates seems to be a disturbing element. in fact. " third wave. as I have urged in the previous essay. Aristotle appears. which he first sight." It is a very remarkable statement. he had none. and we are told that on one important point (the universal character of scientific propositions) he gave the impetus to Also. even in the account of Platonism. to rpirov t&i ^corfjpi us. the formation of the theory of ei8r). if Aristotle has told us so little about the place of Socrates in the development of " first philosophy. made anywhere in the Aristotelian corpus about the doctrines of Socrates which either may not or must not be traced back But the exception remains to be faced as our to Plato. and that is all. with one exception. and did not make a show of having independent knowledgewhere. Platonism is an offshoot is unmistakably to show that be holding two theories philosophical antecedents of Plato. left his He therefore." We have seen no single statement. an honest man. as On the other. to from the it " Italian " philosophy. : our hardest task yet lies before We have. at about the merely places side by side without a word to show how On the one hand his main purpose they can be reconciled. If the accepted interevery word of the preceding argument . hearer to read Plato for himself. for it I have argued in the last essay a view of the position of Socrates which would make possible to reconcile these two accounts. I hope. The inference I wish to draw here is that. as the infallibility of that there is it is commonly interpreted. disabused ourselves of the belief in " Fitzgerald's Canon. pretation is correct.68 VAEIA SOCEATICA by whom Plato was known to have been influenced..

which can only be apprehended by vov<. ovSe rovs 6pierfiov<s' oi S' ra roiavra r&v ovrmv ideas irpoo-Tjyopevffav. or distinct from. therefore. reality to universals this was done first by Plato. The further account of Plato in A it makes is it clear that Aristotle includes him is in the charge contained in the words of M. the things which are perceived by the senses. between first where Aristotle is speaking Socrates and certain persons say that there are are numbers. since the is ^copia-fjuog of the Ideas regarded as being what the Socrates of so often speaks of eiSr/ or IBeai." (It is. and we can it. there is nothing answering to the first clause of this statement. though worth noting that this accusation is nowhere unambiguously said to have been the first person to " separate the universals and definitions " or to call them I8eai.) fiev ovv ra roiavra r&v ovrmv 7rpoo-t)y6pevo-e (A 987 b 7). information of the highest value independent of the Academic tradition. He had.) Plato means when he But the apparently simple statement really bristles with difficulties. iSeat. the sentence reads " Socrates did not ascribe an independent plausibly enough. and that he that the %(OKpdrr)<} — Socrates is referred to — in spite of his being d Socrates the actual man. and yet Aristotle 69 my thesis is hopelessly ruined. What does Aristotle mean by the . and all ej(a>pi(7av. oi 8' i-)(a>pi. on the current interpretation. who also gave them the name of Ideas.ev "ZaKparrfi ra KaQoKov oi jyapio-ra irroiei. Though may depend Tor everything else he says about Socrates on Plato. apart from. In the briefer parallel account of A.THE ARISTOTELIAN SOCEATES may be accepted." the difference who had been the to but did not add that these IBeai The critical words are d\X' 6 p. the protagonist in Plato's dramas. teal that corresponds to the second clause is oiiraxs (or o5to?. allowed . only wonder why he made no is further use of The statement in question that of Metaphysics of " M 1078 b 30. authority t'Se'a? is unhappily divided. of course. the fact will remain that he knew of one absolutely vital difference between the teaohing of Socrates and that of 6 ^eoKpdrrji. Now. not brought against him by name. as %a>pt?. the MSS.aav.

then. technical terminology in which Aristotle expresses The ancient tradition of the Peripatetics does not help us in . that eiSrj are numbers. doctrine of why the Aristotle " constantly attribute as if the it numbers ? to Plato were a matter of knew that he regarded the elhtf as he really knew that Plato's Socrates misrepresented the historical Socrates on so important a point. before it we acquiesce in the current explanation. of which he speaks curtly as it meant ? though his hearers would know at why does he If it was an innovation made by Plato. In any case. we have to answer the awkward question of the if Socrates was misrepresented by the tradition Academy. I must if repeat. and Aristotle's statement about him and the difference between him and his successors a mere inference drawn by Aristotle from the Platonic writings themselves still ? If this should be the case. May not the Socrates who " did not separate " the universals after all be the Socrates of Plato." 70 VARIA SOCEATICA so operation of ^wpKr/to?. I would raise the question. why does he everywhere else apparently take Plato's course that every one If numbers Socrates as a bona fide witness to the actual teachings of the real Socrates ? In the face of problems like these we seem bound to raise the question whether the conventional is interpretation of Aristotle's statement correct. how did Aristotle find it out ? To begin with. If Plato contrive never to say so in so many words ? once what is distinguished as else " those who first said there are eiSri from some one does " who added himself. and it must be possible to make which Aristotle appears its significance clear without merely repeating the mysterious it. is an : explanation. and we may thus be led to modify our opinion as to what the view Aristotle means to ascribe to him is. what precisely is the "non-separating to be of the universals" for commending Socrates ? A logical distinction of the kind which Aristotle means to indicate is clearly something which goes down to the roots of a philosophical system. we may be able to discover the passages in Plato on which Aristotle's conclusion about Socrates is based.

THE ARISTOTELIAN SOCRATES trying to 71 repeats accomplish the his task." Socrates. exact equality is been actually something which our methods of measurement can never detect. according to this view. one approximation to a given length closer than another. though we may not is justice has ever been incarnate. in effect. but implied reasoning (a " ISeai.e." ""courage. of conceived of the as intension a significant or general name an "upper limit" not realised in actual in all scientific experience. they agree in bringing the statement into connection with the Socratic use of "arguments from example. &v opicrfiovs ifflrei. regarded " justice.g. terms which must have a definite logical intension. since we can employ them in rational discourse. Yet justice. by taking several members of a class and picking out the predicates which belong equally to each and all of them." " equal quantities." "equality" and the rest of the "universals" characteristics which are actually equally and alike present in every individual member of the classes " just men. since it merely Aristotle's statement in own words. So far as I can make out their view (and it is held by even so acute and independent a thinker as ovBe tovs are thus Professor Milhaud). iiroiei t&v aiadiyrmv." ev eVi -raw iroXK&v. equality man are ." " brave men. postulated the (I them am its purposely stating the view which I find habitually taken of Aristotle's meaning in more careful language than . i. and we thrown back on the acumen of the modern interpreters." " courage " and the like are simply as common never realised completely in the individual case a truer justice . was to insist that " justice. there is or courage than has ever exhibited by any courage. they hold. Alexander on M koX 1078 b merely Toil? says 6 (iev %ajKpdT7)<i ra icadokov. We can call one line of conduct more just than believe that pure another. or that constructed therefore a rod which and perfect anyone has ever Plato exactly a yard long. as Aristotle phrases existence of such limits and called it). ^eopia-r&v <f>vcre<ov elvai ekeyev)." and can therefore be detected and defined by a simple process of iirayeoytf. opicr/ioix. What Plato did. (e. ov yapiaTh.

he is not infrequently said to have invented end. one was a and arose outside the special philosophical circles to which he belonged. of with Socraticism.) Now the first observation that occurs to one on an interpretation of this kind is that if Socrates really believed can be found existing in absolute perfection. what even his This. On not the current interpretation of Aristotle. from beginning to In fact. the use of appeals to example ! Such a view finds no support in either connection Plato or Xenophon. he must have been.72 VAEIA SOOEATICA it defenders usually employ. if he did not see that in the realm of facts we have to put up with approximations to them. is an argument from merely subjective feeling. however. it may be said. And itself. so I proceed at once to a consideration which is not of a subjective There is no foundation whatever for the view here order. Socrates merely rendered \6yoi he knew of no other kind of reasoning his talk was iiraicTiieol \6yot. that justice. enemies never called him. ." " the hypostatization of concepts. and should not be allowed to count. a very great fool. in order that injustice may suffer no from the introduction of loose metaphorical language about confusion between "notions and things. courage. I shall show directly that the Fhaedo assumes the existence of " reasoning from example " as a well-known and logically defective method familiar to the whole EleaticPythagorean group who were present at the death of to suppose that the phrase itself might have reason familiar one before Socrates. I will add that the use of eVa/crt/col \6yoi has." and the like. implied as to the logical methods of Socrates in historical tradition. equality and that it would therefore be idle to attempt to define them by looking for the actual existence of absolutely identical common predicates in all members of a group of actual persons or things. Indeed. and the use of such an appeal did not remain unknown to mankind until Socrates arose to discover it. employing eVa/crt/eot — a service to science by . An eVa/crt/co? no special \oyo? is simply an appeal to facts to confirm a theoretical conclusion.

ifovr&i elvai. purely technical medical " sophists "). . 47) ttjv fiev ot>v x e fy a . Kal fiapTvpiov eirrf/eTO rd re 6o~rea iravra tcoi nrifflGi. on Wvtoplijv %x et if^'dXK.. p. Ka^ eSoKet ev Xeyeiv. cnr oreti tov irr/xyv ol avdpwrroi fieTpeovaiv. 73 however." ii. kot practitioner idvcopiijv elvai that he insisted tov bo-Teov. tov Kapirov. . o imSfjaat KaTairprjvea vo/j. (pvcriv ovtw<. rji 6 afUKpbs So.THE ARISTOTELIAN SOCRATES Socrates. <pvaiv) he called attention to the sensible fact that " the bone which projected along the wrist against the little finger was in a straight line with the bone from which men measure the forearm. e%et.) to support a statement by an appeal These passages show. " So immediately below. and that in order to justify his theory that this was the natural position (to kclto. I think. Kal ttjv to^ik^v he appealed also to the art of archery. I certainly un-Socratic passages to the would submit the following judgment of the reader. we read of another blundering on a fractured hand being treated with the palm upwards (vwrfof). the word means always to witnesses.L£mv iroirjaa'." ovtco<. eirTjyeTo fiapTvpiov. oti KaTa. So ib. . TavTa fiaprvpia eirrfyeTO. tu>i T6 XP 01 o~r]p. entirely independent of the speculations of 2 (Kiihlewein eSco/ei rt? ii.. (Similarly in the few instances of a logical use of iirdyeo-0ai in Plato and Aristotle.e. before the end of the fourth century. that eirdyeo-dai was already known in the medical school of Cos. again in confirmation of his theory. Kal Ta ocTea vo/ii^cov KaTa <pvaiv elvai ovt(o<. Hippocrates trepl ayji&v (a work. oti fyaiveTai to e^&xpv oo-reov to irapa.aivo[ievo<. 3 (Kiihlewein 49). > w^pi °v o \oyo?. the unskilful surgeon in who insisted on " setting the fractured the visible member an unnatural position appealed fact of the straightness of the forearm as evidence in support of his preformed theory as to the natural position of the bones of the hand. " to I. Se r)vdyica%ev ouTto? ej(eiv mairep 01 ro^evovref Kal ovrwt e^pvcrav iv eVeSet <pvo~iv.. First.'rj'Ka ktX. . eypvo-av eirehei tovto vofiL^wv to Kara (pvaiv eivat. The fact is not unimportant when we remember that the . as a technical phrase for calling in sensible facts to confirm a previously formed conclusion. . tovto avrrji to Kara to.ktv\o<.

and the same assumption that anyone who knows much about Socrates and his friends knows that they believe in ra ei8r) is a standing one with Plato. Before in we read the account of eifS^ the spiritual development of Socrates. but common to him with Simmias. and weirpayfidTevp.ai. the made their appearance all the Phaedo without a have already word of explanation. apxalrj? i^t/m/m}?. It might be conceived that Plato should have attributed to Socrates . as " those things oh i7ria-<ppayi^6/ieda . b ov&ev ir&wavfiai \eyaw. theory of logical method which is A to represented as familiar and believed in by the whole Pythagorean -Socratic community of 399 B. and the and so thoroughly understood that no word of explanation as to what it means is required. as b). elSos.. but Cebes makes haste to say that no introductory explanation is necessary.C. is not lightly to be disposed of as an artistic anachronism. avrb i<p ecovrov (Plato's airrb avrov). irepl i>Tr60ecri<. Koivaveiv. is represented not as something peculiar to Socrates. atria? to e*8o? {Phaedo 100 <$>6avoi<. already meet us full I turn next to developed in the Plato. a>? SiSovtos <roi ovk av -rrepaivmv. and Socrates had already described the " kind of cause in question " as iicetva ra n-oXvdpvXijra. 1 (1) The doctrine of the existence of avra Kaff avra eiSi]. Cebes. The doctrine is. without betraying himself somewhere. Now there are two points of supreme importance in connection with the logical doctrine of the Phaedo. described as airep ael ical aWore ical iv t&i tij? •jrapekr)\v6oTi \6ymi. a logical is theory which was actually his own creation it hardly thinkable that he should have represented a whole group of persons as holding this theory in common. as a tenet rest. to which experience only presents imperfect approximations. and needs no kind of explanation whatever.74 VARIA SOCEATIOA icaO' chief terms of Plato's logic. and as someit thing so well established and understood that technical vocabulary of its has a own. indeed. more especially with a view to determining the precise position which is ascribed by the company in the Phaedo to the logical process of eVayoyy??.

v rat? airoKpiaeaiv* avoKpivofievoi" (75 d). The very first sentence of the work to : way eTrexeipijaav irepi it)Tpi. r\ viroBecnv airol rj avTocs VTrodifievoi (jrjpbv J) rm b Xoycoi Oepfwv yjrv^pbv vypbv r\ aXXo ti av dekwaiv. the equivalence of the to " postulate.) referring to the matter is simply to remind the reader that Socrates and his friends in the Phaedo never speak of the their existence ei&T) as established by a process of induction is throughout postulated. . common ground to Socrates and his Pythagorean friends.THE ARISTOTELIAN SOCKATES " avrb Kal iv 75 ipcoTcovret to b eari " ical iv Tals ipwTr\<Teat. or simply riOeaOai elSo? ti. For example. his assumption as to the number and kind of the primary forms of body. e? ^pa^ii ayovrei ttjv . it is a technical term of Ionian science. One or two examples of the in which the author uses the word will be sufficient show that he knows it as a terminus technicus in exactly the same sense in which we find it in the Phaedo. as indeed no reader of the earliest works of the Hippocratean corpus would what the Eleatic philosophers want to be told is not what Socrates means by an etSo?. connection with Ionian philosophy in particular. the object of the irepl ap^ali)* laTpiKijf is to show that medicine is independent of any preformed virodeai'. as Plato represents.Krj<s Xeyeiv rj rypd(f>eiv. in is vir66e<n<. but how he supposes these eiBrj to be related to the world of sense. The £7ro#ea-« of a thinker means his fundamental premiss." The corresponding verbal noun One and these usages are universal in Plato.. Hence I cannot escape from the conclusion of Professor Burnet that the doctrine in its main outlines was. it will be But my object in observed. The technical phrase is vironOe. viroTi&erai the existence of avrb to koKov exactly as he vTroriOerat that all integers are even or odd." not expressions showing that the word to " means assume provisionally. Now vir66e<ri<s in the sense of " postulate " is not a word of Plato's invention. (Echecrates too. <rdai. asks for no explanation. oiroaoi /iev § 1. Similarly neither Glaucon in the Republic nor Parmenides and Zeno in the Parmenides need to have it explained to them what an eZSo? is..

7\. The writer's view is that medicine is already firmly founded on a basis of solid empirical facts. afupi is the complaint that medicine an iovaa fore needs rkyyt). §V r) Bvo inroOefievoi. is The vvodea-Ks of each of the writers censured as to his "postulate" number and kinds . begins eiri Be r&v rbv rbv 8epp.<} are superfluous.evov rbv avOpairov ktX. e'l olov irepX teal r&v perecopcov a>? r&v °^ T' yfjv "y ^X avr&i Ton Xeyovrc ovre Tots clkovovo-i BfjXa av e'irj. I. koI iravt rrjv avrr/v. Bib ovk r/tjlovv avrr)v eycoye KcuvrjS VTroQeaios Beladai &<nrep ra cupavea re ical airopeo- fieva. I. to the organism. so that all such vTTodecrei. euri d/iaprdvovTev. " a really established science. of the ingredients of the human body given is clearly one in which (as is Hippocratean books themselves) each of the four example the case in some of the the particular " elements " of Empedocles is made to contribute a special stuff. there are trustworthy practitioners (cf. r\v ri<s eTrt^eiprji ri 17 Xeyeiv. each with its own peculiar quiddity." and there- no justification by an argument from cosmological the first principles.76 VARIA SOCEATICA apxfjv Trj<i airvi)<i rolaiv dvOpwrroiai vovtratv re icai Oavdrov. re^vr/i e'ovo-77? fidXiara ktX." So § 13 Tt? Xeyoi a ywwaicoL €l ' . with its distinctive sensible quality. irepl av dvdyicr). virodeaios ecrrtv Xoyov r) ftovXofiai r) • el ri •tyvypbv tfr/pov Xvp.e. vtto VTroOeaei j^prjaOai. ev iroXXoia-i [iev ieai<voi<ri> olai Xeyovat is icara<pavie<s ort. opponents" are the school who lay it down as a principle in physics that the human body and all others consist of four primary elements. and as our observation extends our knowledge of medical fact will extend too. eXre dXrjOea early etre p.bv kclivov rporrov rr)v rkyyiyv tyjrevvetraveXQelv rj rmv yap if.e. and that all disease is caused by excess or defect of one or vypov ro his " innovating .cuvop. Be ai-iov fie/j^jraadai. Socrates' habit of testing the claims of education to be an art by asking whether there really is an accredited body of specialists in education). That is. he thinks you cannot have the evidence of the senses to establish your theory of the things " on high " or of the interior of the earth anything you say on these matters rests on " postulation.

" combinaworth noting that in this single sentence we find all the leading terms of the so-called " Ideal Theory " already in use as words of art. viroffea-is. I wonder how they manage to That is. own . or expound the nature of those his to Cebes or fundamental philosophical assumption. TavT7j<. . and fiede^K. ov eiBei yap ianv deppiov r) clvtoIs. all the remedies exhibited in practice specific characters of the " elements " in show the not in isolation." a " thing-in-itself. because they take the doctrine of the four " roots of things " as an axiom or postulate they " take it for grauted " that every disease can be traced back to one But the writer asserts that such a theory of these four." Hence I commend the passage and the whole booklet to the special study of who think that Plato is guilty of an anachronism in making Socrates argue with Parmenides and Zeno about avra icaO' aira eiSr.kvov rj aino rt fiijSevi e'<£ kmvTov tyvxpov fJT/pbv vypbv aWoot Koivmveov. in a sense only one remove from Plato's." etSo?. eycoye. and has nothing For. t?}? § 15 airopeco 8' etc KaX ayovTes 6Sov iirl viroOeaiv ttjv re^vqv riva Trore rpoirov Qepwrrevovai tow avdpamovs olfiai. general postulates of a science of nature. or dry or moist. to which the writer of the The writer of •n-epl ap%al. treat their patients in accord with their postulate. to explain. For I is am sure they have never discovered anything which merely hot or merely cold. avrb i<p' etovrov meaning "in isolation. rj watrep v7TOTi0evTai. There is virodeaw in the sense of a postulate. ol rbv \6yov iiceivov \eyovTe<.THE AKISTOTELIAN SOCKATES more of these four (the physicians 77 who to build on the theories of Empedocles). as an supposed tion. They are»said would be useless in medical practice. ir)TpiK^<s so properly objected. I may subjoin just one single example from the Hippocratean corpus of the kind of use of vTroffea-eii. It is " elementary body.ri<. ." Koivmveov meaning "in combination. theory with a "As for those who maintain that and in this way bring their profession into accord physical assumption. as he goes on in common with any other element. study their art ef virodeaem. and Simmias. efy\vpi}p.

is not to be recommended to them from sensible analogies. . of course. The postulate itself you leave untouched unless some one refuses to admit it in that to . when we come it. f) ev olcriv aKrj9r)<. theory is that all diseases have one single cause of air in the cavities of the — aggregation conditions " Socratic " series body. Socrates as his own." but constitutions carefully in which some fundamental postulate must be Further. has It consists in starting with nothing inductive about you the soundest postulate and rigidly deducing consequences from it. method of In particular they insist vehemently that the inference. (? ev dlaw viroQeaii) efyavi) (Kiihn p.<s Troiovfiivois TJJ5 XoyoK crvvoiBa oSaiv aXa^ocriv fiad^a-e(o<.78 VARIA SOCEATICA His undue an all the irepl (j>vo-&v begins his work with just such a general postulate as his wiser colleague had protested against. iycb Bk rois euKOTtov tA? . " hypothetical constitutions. So the method recommended by to it (100 b ff. choice between the doctrine that "learning is recollecting" and the theory that the soul is the " attunement " of the body. other being merely concomitant word. and often deceptive. of Socrates of in the perfectly familiar with the use eTra/criKol \6yot. Kai raiv to£? 7ro\\ot? BoKel av- 0pcoTrov<. causes (avvalria. VTrodecris i. . ijyayov Be tov \oyov eirl to yvcopia/ia Kai rmv voerrjfiaTCOv Kai rmv appajaTij/Aaroov aki)Qi)<. which are not.) from a postulate they can agree to Thus at 92 d Simmias is called on to make his accept. airoBei^ei. and at once prefers to adhere to the former because oBe fiev yap fiou yeyovev avev aTroBei^eax. et/eoro? immortality of the soul by an argument " Tivof Kai • einrpeirelas. he concludes triumphantly. what seems .). Phaedo are and regard them as an inferior. 6 Be irepl avafwrjaeca ical \6yoi oV wiroBeaewi a£ia? aTroBeljaa&ai elprjTai. 586). odev Bia." but by rigid demonstration (aTroBetfjv... a and fieraina). fiera. Precisely similar are Aristotle's iroKneiai eg virodeaeax. the friends observed. After propounding a of unproved assertions as to the particular way in which each special disease is set up by some peculiar accumulation of air.

79 •' you have. and (MroSetfts are the important features in and brings them together in a way which is all the more valuable as evidence because the triviality of his illustration shows that he is not inventing but repeating what he scarcely half understands. It is thus not induction. argument from example. Thus Xenophon knows that one was not ti . rj iroTuTiicdaTepov dvSpeiorepov aWo t&v toiovtwv. but rigidly deduced from the doctrine that there are e'iSrj. In Xenophon's own trivial example. for immortality satisfies his hearers precisely because the conclusion does not rest on parallels and analogies. and that the soul has knowledge of them. aXlC avev airoBeil-ea)? a-CHpebrepov rj AdcrKwv rj €ivai bv avrbs \eyoi. expected to speak in Socratic circles avev avroSeigeaxi the proper thing was to be prepared with an avoBeigi? of your If you had none. but the geometrical method " of Descartes and Spinoza. until you come 4o inavov ti. some postulate which satisfies both your antagonist and yourself (101 d). 6. Unless the disputants are agreed what ought to be expected it is of a good citizen. iv. but he knows that it. to deduce it from something still more primitive. clearly useless to ask whether A is a . exact scientific concepts.THE AKISTOTELIAN SOCKATES case. this assumption is some unto the "work" of a good citizen. Socrates used to bring the position. no further. if you can. iirl rr)v inroOeaiv eiravrjyev av irdvra tov \6yov. that if Socrates were contradicted Eor he says (Mem. When we turn to Xenophon we method find the accuracy of Plato's account curiously confirmed. He has nothing much to say about the logical of his master. iir6decri<. where Socrates and another speaker are supposed to be discussing which of two persons is defined conception as the more efficient citizen. and for Simmias and the rest this doctrine is an virodeais Hence they need to pursue the inquiry afjla airoSeljao-dai. which His argument is Plato represents Socrates as introducing into philosophy as the one satisfactory method of procedure. 13) by a person /MrjBev evwv j/jroi a-a<f>e<s \eyetv. problem back (? has eTravfjyev av anything to do with eTrdyeadai) to the assumption which underlay it.

and probably is. in the mind of Socrates himself more easily apprehensible to an auditor.80 VAEIA SOCKATICA vTr68eai. It cannot of itself establish a general at best. we hear no is more of these analogies . explicitly. and Socrates does his best to provide Turning back now to the statements of may. and it is not even clear that ra %a>icpaTtKa. And so we find in Plato that the " arguments Aristotle's own theory. in discussing definitions reads like. to its Socrates' reduction of the dispute thus takes the form of raising this issue eiceivo . are never put forward as proof of his by Socrates dealing with own convictions. Of course am " could necessarily only play in. he is never so absurd as to ascribe its invention to him." though often sufficient to disprove the theories of an antagonist.. iiraKTiKoi \6joi) as characteristic of Socrates. better citizen than B. as a from example. airohei^ from an virodeaif it. for we our brief the following points. n ovv ovk I irp&rov eireaice-ty-aiieOa. is of no serious The " argument from example " philosophical significance.<. and that his fondness for homely illustrations from the trades and professions was But my point is simply that this trait. Aristotle says nothing to indicate that he connected the . in the Rhetoric. ever interesting as a touch of personal %6o<." all. as iiraywyi] truth at but comes does in means of making a proposition already found by diroSei^it or assumed as an v-jr68e<ri<. The mere statement that Socrates made use of iiraicTiKol \oyot. expected. as coming under the head of TrapafSo'kri. a subordinate part in the " Socratic method. he is not referring primarily when he speaks of to the pithy comparisons put into the philosopher's mouth by Plato and the other writers of Socratic discourses. I think. urge with the more force digression Aristotle. ri eanv epyov wyaOov ttoKLtov aware that there are plenty of arguments from example " put into the mouth of Socrates both in Plato and in Xenophon. a remark suggested by the study of the dialogues themselves. howproverbial. When he is brothers in philosophy like Simmias and Cebes. Though Aristotle lays hold of the telling use of illustration (irapa^oXij.

but for the inveterate prejudice of the nineteenth century against believing in the accuracy of Plato's account of facts. then. as we suggested that he omitted account of the positive views of Socrates about rb alriov from Metaphysics A. and that the latter leaves the nature of the %a>pio-fi6<. if we suppose Aristotle to be referring to it. of course. as he appears to be of everything else which Aristotle professes to know about the views of Socrates. avro avro of an elSov or concept. and that it makes the business so simple that I believe the reference would long ago have been universally recognised. Seeing.THE AKISTOTELIAN SOCEATES 81 employment of iircvyooytf in any way with the trait he has in mind in stating that Socrates ov ^capiffra iiroiei to. and have never thought of submitting their theory to a serious test. that the current view of what Aristotle meant by the distinction between Socrates and the persons " who first said that there of Socrates are set ei&r} " seems to lead into an impasse. It is. true that Plato's Socrates icaO' is frequently made to use the expressions ^to/si?. whose views are discounted for us by the fact that they have usually started with the assumption that Plato's account is purely imaginative. which Socrates avoided all unexplained. is there anything in Plato which. The connection of the two pieces of information is entirely due to the ingenuity of modern expositors. These latter persons are represented as asserting a kind of ^cupta/io? between the e'187) and sensible things quite unlike any doctrine ever ascribed to Socrates. kclOoXov. would at once explain the whole mystery ? I answer that there is such a passage. The whole point becomes clear if we see that what Aristotle has in mind is the difference between the view ascribed to Socrates by Plato. that Plato himself is it aside at least for the purpose of it is worth while to an experiment. or that he looked upon the process of aTrdSetft? from an V7r60eat<i as un-Socratic. and that which he assigns to the el8&v <j>lXoi of the Sophistes. because his hearers were expected to know as much as he did himself from their reading of the Platonic dialogues. If we assume the real source of this state- ment. as distinct from the sensible things G .

and their common relation to called variously fiidefji<. according to Plato. Where there is humanity " is a pair of equal is They merely not the same thing as sense. c). there a common nature corresponding to the name. avrb to hliccuov. But it would be possible to hold a much more radical theory of " separation. and the like. and the same is true of «wto to koXov. he finds it beyond him to specify what the precise logical character of this relation of Trapovo-la. is what Socrates all along asserts with the utmost conviction. or justice as a significant class-name. would only be possible with reference to did hold it. things. persons the " Socratic " theory. avrb to oaiov. That common it. Even when. It is our cardinal vir66eai<s that each of these is There is an aiiTr) something avrb Kaff avro (100 c). nature. aiiTo to taov. irepl apxairj'i lr)TpiKr}<} should suggest to us that these expressions have a very harmless mean that " man " or " a man." and there were. under the pressure of the Eleatic dialectic. use of the corresponding phrase auTo &$ ecovTov in the 130 b). and the common nature is not identical with any one of the things which possess it. true universal propositions. to 'laov is neither wood nor stone nor any such thing aWa irapa ravra iravra erepov Tt. as expounded by Plato. ai>To to a<ya06v.82 VAEIA SOCEATICA which receive the same name. " science " in the full sense of the word. who On . the members of a class to the intension of the class-name is.. o/iotoTij? %<»/>'? ^9 rifiels ofLotoTrjTO'i e%p/iev (^Parmenides an avdpdoirov eZSos %to/»t? tj/jl&v ical t&v olot ^/*et? The multiplication of io-fiev trdvTdtv (ib. which makes the corresponding adjective predicable of them. xoivrnvia. he never thinks of renouncing his belief in its reality. That the common nature should be possessed by these things does not in any way prevent it being itself " distinct " from each and the members of a class do possess a that it is all of them. The worst strait to which Parmenides can reduce him is merely the admission tI aXXo Set £r)Teiv &i fieTaXafi^dvei. and all the things on which "we" set the stamp of o eo-Tt (Phaedo 75 d). or equality as a just act. But the passages to prove the point would be superfluous.

be so close that your judgment. for purposes of practice. that sensible facts are just a region in which no correspondence. and so on. but there would be no " true opinion. so that where mathematical theory assumes that you have a perfect Sphere or tetrahedron. the precise geometrical And further. since their edges get worn off and their corners rounded down." There would be " science. be taken as equivalent to truth. by our senses " are changing " they do not permanently ." because it is affected by an amount of error which is not exactly known. partake of " and for all they " are " not. in modern phrase. the elementary triangles of which a material particle is constructed can never be safely assumed to be geometrically perfect. there would be etStj. at a given moment. but there would be no relation of /iide^ti between them and "the things we perceive with our senses. 83 "always the since the things perceived . in Platonic language. in physical fact you may be dealing with a spheroid or a merely approximate pyramid. is truer than any other which could be passed upon the same facts." To put the point in the language of Plato's mathematical physics. or. though it is not " science. triangles are constantly being dissolved and reformed in different groupings. can be found with the between pure concepts which form the objectFrom such a point of view matter of the ftaOrffiara. it may be turning into a sphere." Now this is precisely the view ascribed in the Sophistes to the unnamed elB&v </u\ot whose doctrine has to be refuted before the possibility of genuine sensation would have no cognitive value whatever be. But it would be possible to hold that there is no relation whatever between science and sensible fact . they only "become. not it would . and may. so that even while you speak of a same elSoi once corpuscle as a tetrahedron. the determination of which is impossible. relations even an approximate one. motor reactions on stimulus. a mere complex of ." and its contents would extend just as far as the Pythagorean arithmetic did. But you can at least have " true opinion " the approximation of sensible fact to the ideal geometrical scheme may.. THE AKISTOTELIAN SOCEATES e'&T).

assert (Sophistes 248 a) is that there is an absolute severance between ye"ve<n<i (process. Hence Plato can refute these el8a>v <pi\oi by the simple argument that " to come to know " a thing. not a cognitive process at it is merely having your body affected in various ways by interaction with other bodies (and no reference is made to Soga as a psychical result of such interrelation). and that the attack of the Eleatic philosophers on the youthful Socrates is meant embody objections to the doctrine of /iide^i<!. unless you can produce a logically unexceptional account of the relation of /*e0eft?. where every word is of being affected by or affecting something else which occurs as the result of an activity in things which are coming into relation with one another"). airo t&v aWrfka awiovrmv significant. pushed to itsconsequences. Bia Xoyicrfiov Be yfrvxfji " sharing in •n-pb<: rrjv ovrm ovalav). would have to be described! as a relation which simply and always subsists between the other hand. and the meaning of be. fact) and ovtrta." 84 VAKIA SOCRATICA What they "synthetic" propositions can be established. We " share in process with our body through sensation but in real being with our soul by means of calculation yeviaei " (<ra>fuiTi fiev f]fia<i oV at'cr^crew? KOivcoveZv. "a condition yiyvofievov. shows that we are dealing there with the same type of doctrine. if the theory were soul and the eiSrj which are its objects. should lead to the view that knowledge is as impossible as Sofa.'* to . acting or being is explained immediately below to acted on (jradtifia Trpbi r) iroirjfia iic Swd[ieeb<. Knowledge. rivo<. The view perception of these is unnamed persons is then clearly that all . as Mr. on the thought out in terms of modern philosophical systems. The fact that this very same argument appears in the Parmenides as one from which you cannot escape. or. a simple " aware. ness " of eternally subsisting relations it. and that their theory. or " to become known " i& itself a form of process. and the consequent recognition of the cognitive worth of " opinion. Bertrand Kussell has put the relation of knower to known would have the peculiarity that one of its terms is nothing but the awareness of the relation between the terms.

the dative plural. and ohoosing a form of S\j/i/ia0^s. so far as Antisthenes 2 is concerned. And. mathematicos. (2) disciples of Plato who had failed to apprehend him opdr) 861-a as is correctly. his earlier writings.. 251 b) contain if a.). the most probable approximate date for the For reasons into which I need not go fully here. Bryson connection. point out that we may probably exclude from consideration the identification of the persons criticized with either (1) Plato himself. the Platonic and I should agree Sophistes. as well as view so far as to admit that Plato's special occupa- tion with them in the Parmenides and his anxiety in the closely connected Theaetetus to give the fullest possible recognition to the claims of e 7ria-T^fir]<. Compare what we are told 145) about Speusippus' doctrine ol by Sextus Empiricus (Adv. however. as represented by . but I do not wish to argue the question in this I may.KT) at<rdri<ns.ovi. vii. 147) about the views of Xenocrates on 8b%a. Antisthenes were dead when the dialogue was written (which is at least probable). ' 2 I o\f<ifia0ris can see nothing in the accidental prosodical correspondence between and A. with complete rejection of a means . the Tift same school of (Parmenides 133 b question then arises who these thinkers may have been. which has no metrically equivalent case in the declension of 'Avrur8hris. tinarqp. i 6p0^ Boga avev does show that the issue was a live one about the year 359. its The extreme rationalism of the el85>v fyiXoi. entirely unlike anything where in Plato followers seems and all that we know 1 . Similarly the supposed personal allusion. some school who were busy doctrine in Plato's middle and •with the in later attacking life. and (vii. of information about the sensible which can be found anyof his immediate to show that their tendency was to extend rather than to narrow the sphere in which Sofa is per1 missible.vnaBivi\s to warrant the view that the words tok t« vtou nal ' r&v yepbvTuw rots 6\//ifm0i<n Bdvr\v irape<riiev&Ka/Ki> (Soph. and Plato has avoided allowing the allusion to be felt both by inserting the riot. there world. It is often held that they represent some development posterior to the age of Socrates. reference The would be impossible . (3) Antisthenes.THE AKISTOTELIAN SOCKATES which originated 85 thinkers with ff. I should be inclined to identify the actual opponents whom Plato has specially in mind with the circle connected with Polyxenus and the mathematician composition of these dialogues.

Note how differently Plato proceeds in the myth of Er. Itttrov /iiv . The names correspond in their first syllable. and compare Eusebius. where he plainly does mean "Ardiaeus" the Great to be a disguise for Archelaus. was held in 399 just before the trial of Socrates (ib. 210 d). xiv. world the " Cyrenaics " seem to have been unknown as a. who is assumed to be a peipaiciov (Theaetetus 142 c) at the time of the conversation. and as easier to convince because they are rjpepmrepot. since the doctrine attacked is shown by the allusions of Aristotle to be that of Eudoxus. on any one of these three supposiwould be hard to explain the prominence given Parmenides and the Eleatic following in general in connection with their criticisms. they are manifestly a body of subtle dialecticians. who include not only Plato and Aristotle. or of some followers of Plato unknown Still to history. learn that Theaetetus. opw. Plutarch expressly distinguishes them as contemporaries of Epicurus from his predecessors. ought never to have been confused with the airal- Bevroi of Aristotle. Contrast the well-known anecdote of Antisthenes' objection to Plato. or of Antisthenes. reader can hardly miss it. not so obscure that it takes a German professor to discover 1 it. sect before the younger Aristippus. there were no representatives of the view in question in Socrates' own time and if we read the Sophistes carefully we may From 248 b we perhaps find out something about them. which . ev\a/3m avwOev aopdrov nroQkv. dr/pla 0<2<r() is purely fanciful.E. Iwirbrtira. ing the " giants " fiaXa whom Plato describes as attackit.1 tiriroi kclI tSXXo aiinravTO. but Theophrastus and Stilpo (Adversus Oolotem 1120 c. and the careers are made to correspond almost as carefully He makes the identification so obvious that the average as the names. and very closely in their vocalisation. tions it to Moreover. and Aristippus as In the ancient the head of a school seems to be a creation of the moderns. Why should the refutation of Plato himself. P. 31).86 is VAEIA SOCEATICA really no evidence at all on which to attribute to him an elaborate theory of knowledge such as Plato ascribes to the The persons elS&v faXoi. be dangerously like laying unfilial hands on " father Parmenides " ? it does not follow that because Plato's ultimate object is to meet the attacks after of a set of thinkers who were flourishing forty years the death of Socrates. might probably not have sufficient acquaintance with the reference to Aristippus at Philebus 67 b (oiS' &v 01 ir&vTes /3Aes tc ko. 5' oiSk bpGi.

who roundly asserts more than once that " there is no truth " in the Soljai fipor&v. and that two of them. wai. irefSji re CbiSe in conversation) iKiaTore V7W1/ koI nera fUrpuv. following in the steps of Parmenides himself. but the Eleatic»stranger can answer definitely them on the ground <ivvr\Qeiav. . and which is also suggested by the extreme personal reverence he feels for "his father 1 Parmenides. tAoi/s tovto dxe- HaprApcro.e. iruuriv (i. The reader will see at once to what all this That there was a group of such half-Parmenidean points. half-Pythagorean and half-Eleatic). 216 is an actual disciple of Zeno or Parmenides or which the data of the Parmenides show to be chronologically possible. of which we have no knowledge at all. about all we know of the so-called " Megarian " school before the time of Polyxenus. were among the intimates of Socrates is certain.(f>l stranger has already been introduced as a Sophistes of the school of Parmenides and Hap/ieviBrfv ical Zeno {eratpov t&v Zrjvcova [iraipeov]. of his personal knowledge of them." It seems to be meant a). Euclides and Terpsion. Bryson and Helicon. though we learn that his family was native in Elea. many but not sharing in the undue tendency of of the school to "eristic. and that (see note below) he had lived there as a boy. they are pretty definitely a school of mathematicians.THE AEISTOTELIAN SOCRATES persons in question to for 87 criticism know how they would meet of their views. for one place. and that all sensible existence is mere yive<n<." Where he comes from we are not told. ri/uv aHmv &pxbp*v6s re /ecu Sii. of course. of a school. In holding this view the school were. in the year of Socrates' death. apparently deriving from that of Parmenides. thinkers at Megara. who maintained that all knowledge is knowledge of vorjTcb icaX aaw/iara eiSrj which are eternal and unchanging. and is. in fact. Thus Plato definitely assumes the existence.e. a thing 1 Actual discipleship of Parmenides seems to be implied at 237 a Uap/ievldrit ffl Si A /W711S. in the latter days of Socrates. though they have advanced upon him by substituting " bodiless forms " and their relations with one another for the spherical " One " as the object of knowledge (i. who that he both. this Sia Now member d/j.

and permits at any rate of an approximate cosmology. Aristotle merely inferred it from the absence of any reference to the doctrine in the Sophistes . with which we have communion through our body in sensation. put into the mouths of Parmenides and Zeno in finally state person. and the first of whom. when is Plato wants to express it in the most forcible way. the "real" Socrates. and why their point of view. That he ov j^wpiaTa eiroiei ra KaOokov means that throughout Plato's dialogues. who are in fact discriminated from Plato by Aristotle on the ground that they did not hold view that these e'iSr) are " numbers " (it would be interesting to know whether this is a fact. is thus not made between Plato and between two parties both known to Aristotle from the pages of Plato. and the unchanging relations of the bodiless e'lBrj which are the sole objects of knowledge. correspondence. from the first to the last. those who <j)i\oi "first said these are IBeai" are the unnamed elB&v of the Sophistes. Its source is the we have been account of the elB&v (pl\oi in the Sophistes. what is at least as likely.88 figure in VARIA SOCRATICA Plato's according to a Platonism. of course. Socrates on the one side and the The distinction Socrates. Socrates of the sentence The but he fieOefys is is. the " real Socrates " as known to Aristotle from the whole series of dialogues in which the doctrine is of propounded. with perhaps the addition of the opening pages of the Parmenides. well-known passage in Alexander's comas a critic of mentary on the Metaphysics. We may now of the passage our suggested interpretation discussing. he insisted on that positive relation of concepts which makes sensible facts to supra -sensible "right belief" about matters of experience possible. but . achieved a name It is the fact that these ultra-rationalists were historically descended from Eleaticism which explains why they cannot be answered in the SopMstes without a critical examination of Parmenides himself. his .) the ol B' i%d>pi<rav means precisely what Plato means when he speaks of the absolute gulf set up by the elBcov <f>L\oi between the yevecri<. or whether.

in favour of the view that is. With regard to use of the article in the Rhetoric and Poetics I must leave the examples cited in the text to speak for themselves." I have tried to argue that this is so far from being the case that every view ascribed by Aristotle to Socrates comes straight out of the mouth of "Socrates. NOTE I hope it will not be ascribed to disrespect that I have made no reference in the text of my essay to Professor By water's recent remarks on SojKpaTTjs and 6 Scok/jottjs in his commentary on the Poetics (note on 1454 a 30)." seems to me to involve a petitio principii until it has been shown independently that Aristotle consciously distinguished this " Socrates " from the historical Socrates." If my contention has been made out. which was not included in the Platonic no evidence that Aristotle's I conclude. and asserts nothing tradition. is but this does not alter first meant in the in place to he appears the pages of Plato. and it seems idle to me to attempt to lay down any rule until this has been examined. that there is statements about the views of Socrates rest on any authority except the tradition created for the dialogues. it must be to the absence in the latter half of the fourth century of any view of Socrates other than that and that. The only way to show this would be to prove that Aristotle attributes to Socrates views which are inconsistent with those ascribed by Plato to " Socrates. the whole theory that Aristotle made a distinction . thoroughly historical. if presented by Plato.THE AKISTOTELIAN SOCKATES " friends of eiBrj " 89 who were personally intimate with the unnamed "stranger from Ele«" on the other. such as have therefore a right to claim is. Plato's dramatic portraiture of Socrates in all essentials. Academy by the Platonic he is allowed to count as a witness to anything. then. his We it testimony. His statement that in the Politics 6 2wk/0(£tijs "is regularly used for the Socrates in Plato's dialogues. indeed. held that Plato had laid himself open to the same criticism as these elSStv in giving anything <f»iXoi because he had never succeeded more than a metaphorical account of the all-important relation of the fact that his observation refer to Socrates as /iefleft?. especially as Professor Bywater does not apparently take into account the varying usage with other names of historical persons. Aristotle.

" Per contra. " Wolsey's advice in Henry VIII.90 VAEIA SOCKATICA falls to between the two Socrates the ground. that Aristotle is quoting from the Symposium." I am not necessarily to be understood as implying that it is only in Shakespeare that Brutus does the act. So if a modern writer spoke of " Wolsey's advice to Cromwell to shun ambition. since 2wk/x£ti/s will and the real Socrates. merely because he did not explicitly say. B 1262 b 11 " means the Aristophanes in Plato's Symposium. should certainly not have felt justified in assuming that Aristophanes did actually make this special remark if Aristotle had happened to attribute it to 'Apurro(pavr)s without the article." It is true. if I say " Brutus in Shakespeare does so and so. and there is nothing in He may have held his text which throws any light on the point. of course. and that Aristophanes really said something like the remark ascribed to him by Plato. it may be the case that mean both Plato's Socrates * Plato is partly building up his speech out of real fragments of Aristo- not. We have no means of deciding such a question. So will the remark that the o 'Apio-To^avqi of Pol. or he may have held that such a gathering as that described by Plato took place (which is likely enough). but the fact is of no moment unless you can prove that he is intentionally discriminating between the character who speaks there and the author of the comedies. And here. phanes' table talk. that Plato simply invented the speech. for one. or it may . I." it would be dangerous to assume that he consciously meant to assert that the advice was actually given. again.

Kal eyeb fioi. and that the opinion that the " eristic men " of whom we hear both in Aristotle and in the later dialogues of Plato are Megarians or Cynics contemporary of " dialectic. . when Socrates utters his warning against it is precisely those who have been most occupied in the construction of antinomies who are most in danger of ending as sceptics and misologists. fuaoXoyia. but . differs in one little point from that of an avriXoyiKof his concern is not to talk for victory. was.ar(ov ovBevb<. existence to the popularity of Socrates' who owed their own particular art Thus in must be correspondingly modified. ' Sokco ev r&i irapovn rot? too-ovtov •jrapovo-iv fiovov eKeivtov Sioiffetv ov elvai yap 07rw? a eyw Xeym So^ei 91 akTjOfj wpodufAiyo-opMi. And he goes on immediately to say that his own attitude towards the Xoyo? of the immortality of the soul. or was assumed by Plato to be. which seems at the moment to be endangered by the criticisms of Simmias and Cebes. in existence before the death of Socrates." with Plato's manhood.Ill The There diccoi Xoroi are several passages in Plato which show us that the type of the contentious epio-nKoi of whom Aristotle had so bad an opinion. to arrive at truth. Kara o~Tpe<peTai Kal %povov oiiBeva ev ovSevl fievei (90 c). the Phaedo. Hjipiircoi irdvTa \ovtcl\ dre^i/w? mawep avw aWa. he observes that Kal fiakMTTa Srj ol irepl tow? avn\oyiKoi><s Xoyov<s Sia- Tpiyjravrei ol<T0' on TeKevrtovres o'iovrai o-OfpwraTOi yeyo- vivai Kal KaravevorjKevai fiovoi on ev oiire t&v irpayp. ovSev vytes oiire fteftaiov ovre t&v \6y<ov.

Socrates is afraid that a pupil of Zeno will prove a " very devil in logic-chopping " (#eo? mv ti$ iXeyKTiKov) far above the level of the present company. and that it would be absurd to suppose that Socrates means his allusion to touch two friends who are both. The very expression singularly reminds us of Boswell's " Mr." and distinctly suggests that you would not immediEuclides or Antisthenes. as the " Yea-and-Nay of Elea " (top 'EXeartKoi/ TIaXafjLrjBrjv. we what this means. among the audience. perversion of a well- known trick in the age of Socrates. are here alluded to as a merely at well-known contemporary class. When we remember that the speaker is one see ' ' of Iamblichus's Pythagoreans. but I cannot help it. Plato thus definitely connects the rise of It is in the Eristic not with the elenchus of Socrates but with the antinomies of Zeno. and he is an associate of Parmenides and Zeno. where we are told of the stranger from Elea that " his family is of Elea. Plato assumes. d\X' 6Vg>? avT&i a). The stranger is a <j>t\6trotpos in the sense of the Gorgias and Phaedo. 1 "What you would expect may be gathered from the following sentences. until Theodorus reassures him by the information that the newcomer is more reasonable to deal with than the enthusiasts for controversy (/ieTpic!>Tepo<s icoreov. ifiol oti fiaXitrra Bo£et ovtcos e%eiv (91 It is obvious that constructors of dvriXoyiKol \6yoi. ately suppose We that a person of the antecedents specified was fidXa </>t\oo-o<£os unless you were expressly told so. a It is exactly the same thing which Timon of Phlius expressed less neatly . antinomies. and certainly does not Socratic originate in a the elenchus by meet the same set of persons again at the opening of the Sophistes. t&v Trepl rks epiBa<s eairovBa- 216 b). I do indeed come from Scotland. same spirit that he speaks of Zeno in the well-known passage. a follower of the narrow way that leadeth unto life. which aim victory. Johnson. Euclides is and Antisthenes. Phaedrus 261 d. avriXoyla then." 92 el fir) el'77 VARIA SOCEATICA irdpepyov. according to the dialogue.ai 2 ). where the commentators should point out that the jest lies in a hinted derivation of the 1 name from irdXvv and firjBop. but a very genuine philosopher " (fidXa Be dvBpa fyCKoaofyov).

that of a member of some contemporary with the life " philosophical " or " sophistic " circle closing years of the i. vl/ca 1. for no very obvious reason. formerly by Stephanus. as usual. " should still possess a large portion of a work by an " Eristic which may be even earlier than the death of Socrates.THE AISSOI AOrOl 93 and Aristotle was only repeating what was evidently the Academic school tradition when he said that Zeno was the originator of Dialectic. or ideas akin to Socraticism. But if Plato is correct in assuming that men the class before the end of no need to suspect the presence of Antisthenes whenever one comes on the traces of one of those wonderful dvri\oyiKoC who maintained oti It is fortunate. Dialexeis. there really comparatively historical. and. early origin of the avriXoyiicol \6yoi is What to I propose to do in the few pages which follow is show that we have eristic in the 8i<r<rol \6yoi such a specimen of early Eleatic origin which exhibits at once signs of and of considerable Socratic influence. in the entitled anonymous and fragmentary Bia-a-ol \6yoi. where a TmvAa/ceScuto>? av/ifid'^o)'. There are two reasons why it seems worth while to look for traces of Socratic thought. 1 I shall appeal throughout to the text given at the end of Diels's Fragments der Vorsokratiker. and from which we see that Plato's assumption as to the of this sort were a recognised is fifth century. The date is indicated by 636). As every one knows. of Socrates. that we ovk eari -^revSij \eyeiv. 2 ii.luporepoy\d><r<rov re Zrftvijivos niya aBho% oiic aKairaSvbv ir&VTtdv iTriX^irTopos. in any case. Vorsokratiker. referred to as the " when he spoke of i. . I hope by its aid also to throw a little additional light on the famous exordium of Isocrates' Encomium of Helen. is fiovLwv av iviatav 'Adrfvaltos ical most recent " (rd vecoTara) example The work was thus composed at of a considerable war. 1 The work is. the attempt has been made to find the omnipresent Antisthenes behind the satire. therefore. 2 ii. Plato has drawn a epi8a<s lively satiric picture of a couple of the irepl t«? £<77rou8aKOT6? in his Euthydemus. ' 8 (Diels. 1.

Cratylus 409 b. v. if anything. nor of the war between Sparta and Elis (399). though Plato speaks so strongly in the Phaedo of the influence of Anaxagoras as decisive at the critical moment of Socrates' early life. tells perhaps in favour of Argos. Since the author's method through- out is the formal construction of antinomies. against rather than for the theory. "here." "Cyprus. the facts strongly we are dealing. Kal 1Iv8ay6pci. Argos. as Diels says. Further. he always avoids saying anything about any personal meeting between the two. not with an by a wandering sophist. ' Sicyon. a Schuhortrag. That Polyclitus should be the only instance given of a rexvlrris who taught his re)(yv to his son. is not there. the dialect of Ihe work is Dorian. oiSi ye ra h tm Aiflvat iv Ki'/irpwt. and the argument gains by supposing that three places are considered." From vi. the proposition " what is in Libya is not in Cyprus " being then inferable." A writer who was actually in New York would hardly express himself thus. would probably have been roughly put down by the generality as Pythagoreans of a sort. since the writer evidently knows nothing of the expedition of Cyrus (401). Anaxagoras. where the existence of Aval-ay ipeioi. but with a formal lecture. and what is in Cape Town is not in New York." as you then get two distinct illustrations of the writer's point. from "what is here is not in Libya.oi is given as an argument in favour of the view that " wisdom and virtue can be taught. 8. of whom Archelaus was the head after the banishment of Anaxagoras himself. may . Cyprus before Evagoras had established himself firmly at Salamis does not seem a' likely place for " sophists." "Libya. Neither is Megara. They occur as a well-known sect in Plato." and the one reference to Cyprus in the text makes.94 VAEIA SOCEATICA the latest not long after 404. need hardly say. the latest example of a philosopher who had a regular band of pupils called after his (I name at Athens. as a simple converse. as he has brought Socrates into company with Parmenides. 1 Whether the town were Megara suggest that epideixis 1 The suggestion that the work was composed in Cyprus seems to me unhappy. you only have one. before the rise of the 'ZwKpaTucol. and its special peculiarities are said (with how much ground Phlius ?) I do not feel competent to judge.) to point to its the Argolid or neighbourhood (then why not Megara or as its origin. take this opportunity of observing that. '\ we may perhaps infer that these two schools of philosophy were those best known to the author. This is much as if one should say "What is here is not in Cape Town. Cyprus. whereas if " here " is Cyprus. would be. delivered by a "professor" resident in a Dorian-speaking town. Phlius are all well represented iu the I list of Iamblichus. and possibly before the death of Socrates. in fact. The 'Axafo^peioi are presumably those of Athens. from their connection with Parmenides. 5 ra yap tt)i5' ibvra iv rot Aiftvcu oiiK tariv. though Euclides and his friends. The temptation to bring ±hem_together.

had not met. One may add. would naturally have been so strong.. that Zeno. Anyone who compares his handling of Critias with his treatment of Alcibiades will see at once that Plato has a personal kindness for the one which he never exhibits towards the other.a. as minor personal touches. Cratylus.) . unless from pure regard to fact. when it would have been so natural to describe him as hearing Anaxagoras expound the theory in person. Thrasymachus. and seems.THE AISSOI AOrOI or Phlius or Sicyon or another is 95 moment. Of Critias he will say nothing but what can be said to his credit. \6yovs irepl 7ravT0<s avTi/ceifievow. that the writer had read his we should expect. each destructive of the as other. of no special it is The important point is simply *that a specimen of the kind of reasoning which Plato and Aristotle ascribe to the " eristics. from whom some of his examples. identity of Even the obvious illustration it is of the alleged KaXov and aiaj^pov. to have a special familiarity with Euripides. I cannot understand why he should represent Socrates as only having learned the views of Anaxagoras about vovs from hearing "some one" (no doubt Archelaus) read his book. for Satov Trponjmv tjjk dXijfleiaK. appear to be taken. as art. and the assumption that Socrates never did meet such a prominent figure of the Periclean circle is so apparently strange. itself. that I can only account for Plato's making on the supposition that he some unexplained reason. There is no more pathetic touch in Plato than the fidelity with which he clings to the memory of his kinsman Critias. and it knew it to be a fact that Anaxagoras and Socrates. Yet he never yields to the temptation to give Critias anything like the place of Alcibiades in the heart of his Socrates. 189 (from Surcr&v \6ymv e/e TravTO? av t*9 irpwyfuiTos el cvycova deir av \iyeiv eitj ao^of. Blass notes.TO<. For he knew the facts. but alaypov Prodicus. seems to allude to Euripides the Antiope) | Fr. which have been mostly noted by Diels. at the cost of a line or two of irrelevance. Gorgias. aW^Xots). and this in turn to take us of Protagoras that " back to the well-known assertion there are two sides to every case " (Bvo 7rpdy/j. Let me mention just one other. koKov at Sparta. Thus the general conception that we are everywhere in life confronted with a pair of Xoyot. E. This is only one of the curious little points which constantly arise to perplex one who will not believe that Plato's veracity about details has a." and that it shows us what the kind of thing which Plato has reproduced in a glorified form in the Hypotheses of the Parmenides could sink to in the hands of a thoroughly common-place practitioner of the Herodotus.g. prima facie claim to be admitted until he has been found falsifying them. Protagoras.

evoi<. until is it Any ravpov apra/iei ko\&<. 9). iirtrovi poets " he quotes Aeschylus conjecture we may form as to the I ultimate purport of his discourse must necessarily be deferred we have examined its contents in some detail.96 everywhere " exercises. and-Nay of Elea" which made this kind of reasoning popular. r\ tov pJr) ovros. may icopr\ be a at poetical reminiscence of the violences of Euripides' Peleus. as opens without of the " possess arguments true. It is by Aristophanes with keeping on we have said.irovai roiai." VAEIA SOCKATICA among and to Ionians for the girls to practise march about " with bare arms and no ii. that the possession of apjpoa to> \o7o> was a common accusation against all the wits. Electro. as it mutilated at the end (and possibly at the beginning. especially since. whereas in Sicily this is alo-%p6v and and cut work for menials. Spofjuovs TraXalarpas t ovk avatr^erov^ Koivas ayovtri. the is Eleatic origin of which is unmistakable. Andromache 595. Euripides. directly below it (ii. as far as we It was the logical acumen of the " Yeacan judge. ®earoS' oo"Tt? elvat t bxna^ei. But the real origin of the whole thing was. as Diels we have that the Thessalians think a point of 11) the further instance manhood to break to kill in a horse for yourself. What we work is an excellent example of the " two which the " thinkers " in general are charged their premises. becomes the easier for us to under" stand Aristophanes' ascription of the two arguments " to . ovB' av j-iiv el fiovXoiro rt? | vaxppwv yevotro "ZirapTiaTihcov | | veotcriv igeprj/iovcrai 86/movs | yv/ivoio-o firjpoi? koX 7T67r\ots i/iol | dveip. and to know how up an ox. as any adequate prooemium). Sitrtrol a further reason for referring the \6yoc to a school which drew its inspiration from if This Elea . ical ayiT(ova<i irapepirev. and we can it find marks all in the treatise of connection with Socraticism. Of the " older and Cleobuline. Eleatic. and that it is sometimes made a special charge against Protagoras. and we have an excellent example of it in what we know of the argumentation of Gorgias in his work irepl tpvaew. <ra\oi? I The reference here seems plainly to be to 815 e/c t&v icakwv Kop. notes. shifts " (axeipi8a>Ta><.

That Aristophanes' burlesque was a mere unfounded calumny is. but that there is one science of them all " (c) the " eristics " (dXkot.) identified in H . cf. since Isocrates expressly says that the persons to whom he is referring have " grown grey" in the defence of their paradoxes. most improbable.THE AI2SOI AOrOI 97 him.aTa KariKiwov rnuv .e'voiv <pi\orifiov- rots \6yois iyyeyevrjp^VTjv Kal toGtovs iiri rrji Kaw&njri tQv jU&ovs. ra<i epiSa? Starpiftovai. it must be later in date than the Republic (which. Isocrates there attacks three classes of triflers {Helena § 1) maintain that it is impossible to speak utter — (a) those who to falsely.) BaKores. Isocrates x. and belongs therefore to a time when Plato was on the sunny side of forty. irpdy/xaTa Se irapdxeiv ^ycIj 5' el /lev etliptov vetatrrl tt\v T\r}<ri&fovffi Svvap^vas. or a contradiction " or to " deliver discourses {irepl (Bvo Xoyco avTeiirelv) . as Blass has shown. but takeu it over from a much earlier work by a well-known contemporary]. ovk av dfiotus iBatifiagov avrwv ' vvv Se rls itrrtv otirws dipifmd'fis [Plato- then has not devised this epithet in the Sophistes to suggest the name Antisthenes. the Helena must be one of the earliest works of Isocrates." and that we possess none of them tpva-ei. 175 that the allusions were Plato. Zeno. two contradictory about the same matter avr&v irpayfiaTcDv) (b) those who say that " courage and wisdom and justice are one and the same. Euclides. in the nature of tHb case. 1 . to which I would add that if the Helena had been written when Plato was an elderly man. I would further suggest that the work throws some light on the exordium of Isocrates' Helena. 8e -n-epl rcov •' . 2 vepiepylav ravTqv iv evprjp. teal 4>vaei pjkv ovSev auruv e'x oti£v i & ^rtcm^/ttj Kad* atravrtav iariv dXXoe Se rdis- irepl ras £piffas SiarpL^ovffi Tds ovSev fiev tiMpeXofoas. 1 &toxov Kal irapaSo^ov iroiijcrd/ievoi Kal elai irepi dpeKTws Svvqdiaffi. however. as 1 JTor convenience' sake 1)v I rives ot TaiiTTfS pAya (ppovovaiv elweiv iirbBeeiv • quote the whole passage. KarayeyripaKaffiv oi p£v ov <paoK0VTe? oT6v t' elvai ^evSij Xtyetv ovS' fjL&Ttiiv dvnX^yeip. to three eminent " Socratic men " — Antisthenes. It was at one time held by Thompson in his edition of the Phaedrus.i6vTes dvSpla Kal /^ a ffotpla Kal SiKaioaCvrj Tavrbv ian. at least as regards Plato. p. But. Plato's irepl ra? e/»8a? iairov(e. be mistaken.). and Melissus.g.fi. ovSe S6u \6yta tl>s irepi t&v avrutv irpay- dvreLTeiVy ol Se 8tel. The identification must. ff. CHrris oiiK olSe HpwraySpav Kal *roi)s /car' iKeivov rbv xpbvov yevofitvow (rtxpurras 6ti Kal TotaSra Kal iroXi irpay/iaruSiaTepa avyypap. (The aorpiaraL contemporary with Protagoras are then the next section with Gorgias.

disputes. i. the attack may well be specially on Socrates as represented in the Phaedo and Protagoras. Sophistes 216b. on Blass's interpretation.C. I have already explained that this identification appears to there is mo groundless. but. impossible. Blass's general argument for dating the Helena not later than 393 {Altische Beredsamkeit. along perhaps with other members of the Phaedo group. I do not believe that any personal name is concealed under the tyipi. and it is no reason for suspecting this identification to urge that the tense of tearayeyTipdicaai implies that the person intended must actually have been alive. a late date for the Helena. was written 388/38 ?). even in a hostile seem therefore forced to suppose that caricature. since the plural would naturally include not only Socrates but any of his more 1 elderly associates who continued to repeat his doctrine. this does not demand. equally prove the existence of and I think the language of such a class circa 400 B. . "With these dates. and Plato is referring to the sport made in the Helena over the logicians and their . who known in the time of Socrates (Phaedo 90 b. represents the avriKoyiKoL as well completely in accord with Plato. since KaTayeyripaKcun need only refer to the first person named. (b) must be thought of also as belonging to the and same time as Socrates. 75 note 1) seems to me irresistible. Hence the other two This is classes of triflers. may have an before We Socrates himself. what is on other grounds one. to a class assumed to be numerous at the supposed date of the conversation. Euthydermis passim). who takes Antisthenes to be aimed at as the person who rejected the principle of contradiction. and that the doctrine of the identity of all the virtues could not have been ascribed to the author of the Republic in this unqualified way. The Sio-o-ol Xoyoi. ovk eariv ^JrevSi] and ascribes the doctrine on \eyeiv not only to Euthydemus.e. 2 i. 1 Very similar ia the explanation of Blass. but thinks it possible that Plato may be the person who held that all virtues are According to Blass. (c). is one of the persons attacked by Isocrates.98 I VAKIA SOCEATICA 1 opportunity to argue elsewhere. since plenty of evidence that the doctrine oix lortv avrihiyeiv goes back Moreover all the alleged personal attacks of the to the fifth century. the Helena §§ 3-4 suggests that Isocrates regards all the doctrines which he derides as those of the generation . in the Sophistes. Theaetetus and Sophistes on Antisthenes vanish under careful scrutiny.aBfy yfpuv of the Sophistes if there is an allusion it is probably to 'IffOKpdrjjs. Antisthenes..

and presupposes a fixed and universal norm. I may observe is that this abrupt opening appears to prove that our text mutilated at the beginning. tinction is is merely relative to the particular ends proposed. The pretenders whom he is denouncing have given such an impetus to the maintenance of falsehood that by now (ijSri) certain persons. This again takes us back to the time of (Socrates and the Siaaol Xoyoi? To return to the hiatrol \6yoi itself." and the same thing the same man at one time and bad at another. though the standard he uses in different dialogues . and that the Cynics cannot safely be assumed to be among them (6) to Socrates. " seeing the profit they derive from their profession. bpuvres toGtovs 4k t&v tolo6twp &<pekov[i&vovs t roX/AWfft vpd(J>EiV ws 6 tS>v I Jkmr kt\. that the allusions of Isocrates are (a) to the same persons whose denial of the possibility of contradiction is reproduced as one side of the antinomy which pervades the Suraol \byoi. in respect of this connected for the same conclusion may be founded upon what Helena § 8. Sxtt' 1 which A further argument Isocrates says in *tjSt| tlv&." and that for one for man good what is good bad for another. the Cynics are distinguished from the earlier paradox-mongers whom. we have is by Plato in several places. There always a iixed standard with him. and ascribed by Xenophon. and it is therefore not they who are meant by the persons who have grown grey in maintaining &n oin. ) TTWxevbvruv KaX (pevybvTUv it. the theory always ascribed to Socrates by Plato (&) the theory that the dis. iariv ivrMyeiv. " This seems to be a direct allusion to Cynicism. The contrasted views. to 2 Socrates. then. according to Isocrates. of whom our writer seems to be one. Plato's Socrates is always consistent on this point. (a) the distinction between good and bad is absolute. and who are. and very probably to the . we have it. both of which are very superficially conceived. presentation of his personality in the Phaedo and Protagoras . as referred to 2 (<s) to the Neoseen. as the basis of a purely dialectical argument against Aristippus. the other " that they are the " same thing. 1f it is so. (topovtov b" eiriScScWvai ireiroiijicairf to tf/evSo^oyeiii. as there are two contrasted current views about " good " and " bad that there is the one a real distinction between them. have ventured to assert in writing that the life of beggars and exiles is more enviable than any other. are. by Plato with the homo mensura doctrine of Protagoras. is since the antithesis " good-bad " actually only one of six which are discussed in the sequel. begins with the remark that is The " . is Incidentally. text. filos fijXwTArepos fi run JUw avSpwiruv take then.THE AI2SOI AOrOI 99 immediately posterior to Zeno and Melissus. The author declares himself. Eleatics. they have contrived to outdo.

a precise parallel with our argument).. " good " be either. and there are as many different standards of good as there are different ends [Prolog. but bad for the vanquished. and " bad " are different in fact as well as by the ordinary arguments which are.aia are good for the bad for the sick. 2). i. 8. Thesis : " good " and bad " are identical anything : may Antithesis in name. the argument of Socrates may have been meant merely to tell ad homiiiem. to the prevalence of XifioKTovtT) as a feature of the medical " Private vices are treatment in vogue in the fifth century. according to circumstances). as in the Phaedo. 4). (i. That this standard is "maximum of pleasure. (This refers principally. of course. drink. in fact. In general. healthy. building trade. ascribed by Socrates to Protagoras.) bad for those who practise it. specially 355-356 c). the standard of moral currency is. The pretended Hedonism of the Protagoras is no exception. wisdom. If Xenophon'a account is historical. of eourse. confused reminiscence of the passage in the Protagoras. but it is just as likely that the whole section is a mere Even Xenophon commonly assumed if he did not see that the representation of Socrates as a pure relativist in morals would seriously damage the apologetic value of his Memorabilia. iii. but simply as an assumption which the ordinary man will be ready to grant (cf. may vary with the exigencies of the situation. and the passage is. minimum of pain" he never asserts as his own conviction. since no one of them shows that a determinate thing belongs to both classes at once. ra a$pohi." What would doctors and undertakers do if A bad harvest there were no disease or death in the world ? public benefits." a/cpaala is but good for the vendor of luxuries. The thesis is defended of the relativist. ToterSe troTiridefiai. Shipwrecks make good business for the ship- break all " It is good for the smith that tools rust and good for the potter that crockery is fragile victory of kinds is good for the victor. but proposes to argue the case by appeal to experience (e'« ra " dvdpairiva) fita)." . Xenophon puts the argument. standard. quite out of harmony with the general spirit of the work. the dealer in imported corn.100 VAKIA SOCEATICA (e'ya> particular antinomy. Socrates' whole objection there is to the purely " good means relative view of Protagoras that "good per se has no meaning what is relative to an end.e. dogmatically in the mouth of Socrates against Aristippus [Mem. Thus we get as the First Antinomy. . on the side of the relativists 8e koI avrb<. It is against that view that Socrates champions the theory of an absolute . 334 c. " Luxury and waste are good for trade. all irrelevant. Food. at home is the opportunity of the e/wro/sos. must have been decidedly duller than is .

a. Again the writer expresses sympathy with the argument. The antithesis asserts that the distinction is real." The reasoning of the antithesis is of a different kind. (exists in the irpayim set . The apagogic reasoning is of the Zenonian type copied by Plato repeatedly in the Hypotheses of the Parmenides} in the Theaetetus. The thesis is regularly that a certain difference. it first becomes explicit in Parmenides. throughout the first five antinomies at least. we many of the Platonic dialogues. If I pity the poor because they have so hard a I must equally envy the sufferer. when we meet for the first time the sharp distinction. as our author puts it. them for the evil. while latent in all early Greek thought. not merely verbal It should be observed that is 1 each antinomy = 0iVei). &>? aXka tovto Si$do~ieeiv. thing. marked in common language.g.e. d\\' k/caTepov). If good and bad are the same.THE AISSOI AOrOI All that 101 seems Socratic here " life is analogy from the of tlte the stress laid on the shoemaker and mechanic. [eiy] to Kaicbv Kal TayaOov. get in This precisely the sort of conclusion e. but have satisfied ourselves that it is not the same as sensation. " For I think it would never be recognisable what kind of thing is a good and what kind an evil. but merely to deny that ov tchvtov is the same thing as " bad 7reipa>/jLai (koI ov \iya> tL icrri to ayaBov. men have given two names where there is only the one reality). in a vague way. is a merely verbal distinction (exists only vS/iai. not in the irpayim = #i)<m). and the f}poTuii> 36£cu in which there is no truth at all. there is only a difference in the Svv/i. or. and so forth. nor yet as right opinion. if they were the same and not different. since it is is a great good as well as a great it If disease bad for must equally be good for him. where the final result is that we do not know what knowledge is.between a\T)0elri=6i> = (pv<ns. This distinction of 0i)<ris and v6/ws is commonly down." There is nothing which strikes one as specially Socratic about this reasoning except perhaps the cautious remark with which the reductio ad dbsurdum ends. proceeding by reductio ad dbsurdum. fwptpiu y&p KartSevro dtio yvc&iias cvopaiav (i." but it ought to be noted that. then or to if it is true that " I have done good to will be equally true " my parents my city. that the author does not mean to assert any positive it doctrine as to is what " good " " is. as " sophistic. but a belief in the reality of distinctions which are purely verbal. simply a case of the standing "sophistic" antithesis between 0ii<r« and vdpos." I have done evil to my same my lot." it and on the same parents or to grounds that city.

etStos oix bparai. etSea tuv Bepaireiwp koX twp tpapptaxav. above.uaTa. compare the p.1 to. minerals.ovpop ip twi made of four things) koX to&twp irp&Top pip koto. ISty is (like the eTSos in the irepi Tix"V') ip ttji objective counterpart in tpio-ei of the name. ipebp tpedperat p. 353 (man tov dpdpiinrov ip fy alpo. ib. ib. airas) Sia twp bpopuLnw to. a bubrap iir' • dXX^X&w irapd pofoovs riKTei. ol/iai 8' ret etSea Xa/3eij>. apBpwirbs e'en) 7roXXd yip elaip (p twi owpari ibvra. systematically looks for For there is no oial-q or real essence corresponding to the word in things. etc. 350 pvpI Si TroXXd (sc. peraWaffaopra rty ttjs ip\tKnjs is ylveaBai iravTolov.. offre X €tpi "^aiovTL 8p. dXX' &pn}p tov ipiavrov ib.) Compare with this the polemic of the Tepl tpiaios apBpwrrov against the monists who say that man consists of only one material. tpiaiv Beppalvqral re nal yjiixrrrai koX fripalpi/rTai re Kai vypaiprrrat wore 7roXXai piip ISiai twp povffrjparwp woXX^ Si ISiijp prjSi icai i] ttjo-LS aiiriwp p. oiSc/ua iarlv (sc. Cf. o<Sre yap 6eppA 6p. iarlv. Kiihn i. etc.a. but medicine (Thus iv rots 81a rt irpopoovpApoiat. t^x "/) fi fywye ko. pip ibpra alei bparai nal yipwaxerai. tS if/vxpbp of the . povpop rbp &p$ponrov xal aXho p/)] 1} SeiKvivai abrbp TLP&. apdpwTm.102 Second identical VAEIA SOCEATICA Antinomy. &\oyop yap airb i. ttws yap ap ioiKora eii] Tavra dXXi/XoiTijt wp oUre TCt xpt6^iara Spoia tpalperai TrpoaopwpLeva. and the " elSea of the ipioei oVth investigated by medicine are the healing " properties ra fiev derii/mra. a purge. etSea 7iye!<r9<u fSKaarapeip /cat 1 yap ovbp-ara tptiatos vofwdeT^fiard. The writer is arguing that medicine is a true rixvv and that even a cure effected without professional aid is not due to accident." This is clear from the context. to. <pvaiv KexwpioSai. Si etSea oi5 vofiodXXa jSXa<m}. to pep yap airbparop oi tpaiperai oiolrp/ tx<n> oiSepirjp dXX' f) oilvofia pbpop. which exists . dvi/tara aiiTrji (leg. (It should be noted that the writer is under Eleatic influence. to exist in natura rerum. etc. So. "chance. vbpop to. Si pJ) ibvra aire bparai aire yaiwanerai. rb £qpbp. for he says. ioTi. but to the fact that the man who recovers had made use of an article of diet. a primary quiddity (e. Ip aira the Thus here again the re. Thus we get the view that things are distinct from one another pdpwi when there is a distinct recognised name for each of them they differ <ptio-ei or have distinct tpfoeis when they have each a special eTSos. blood.e. to." but "specific virtues. the difference between them purely relative).oia So/da elpai. containing the very "specific virtue " which medicine." but medicine consists in just such a search for oialai.op(j>ai of Parmenides. Study of the Hippocratean works which are dependent on the general theories of the physicists bring out the interesting point that already in the fifth century elSos had been appropriated as a terra standing to 0i)cris in the same relation as Spopa to convention. apayicq /*)) toIpvp bri TOffoSrop SirjWaKTai dXXiiXwK T^» ISir/p Te Kai rty Sipapup elxat. Hippocrates irepi t^x"'!^ Kiihn ye Ik twos aSdparop. Thesis: koKov and is ala^pov are (i. <paiperal re koX Iti 0aveiTGU oiiffl^v Uxowra.ri$ip fi d£i« Si 1-yuye rbp tpaaKOPra alpo. 7. 11 iv rois Trkelaroiai twp re tpvoptpwp ko\ twp iroievpipav IvetrTi to. etSea means not sorts " or "kinds. rb airbparov.g. tAi/ <p"t\p\ ovbp-ara Siwplffdai KoX obSevl afrrwp tw&t6 SpopM etpat ' UTreiTa tols ISias Kara. 6pop. Kal otirc rb 4>\lypa oiSip ioixipu twi aV/ian aire t6 alp. other). oiali)p (x av = <pioiv lx eiV or •picet ctcoi. to. . as an art. if t6 BeppAp is the elSos of one. ) ' ' or "virtues" specific to the various plants. etdea then are apparently the fundamental "opposites" rb Beppbp.oias iarlp oSre ipvxp& oflTefijpd oUre iypa.a Tijt xoXtJi otfre (TLP t t^v x°^t v twl fp\iypaTi.

THE AI2SOI AOrOI Antithesis: icaXov 103 as in name. in intellectv. Hence the occulta. but alaypov to do the same thing for one who is not his ipaa-rdt (the opposite. of the paradox of Lysias discussed in the Phaedrus. a Platonic before Plato. and the fundamental importeTSos or ISia ance of the meaning = body. and shows us the source of Plato's speculations on the right assignment of names in the Cratylus. but kclKov for a man to do so koXov to have intercourse with her husband in secrecy. or substantia. the proprietas "idea" long StSvafuv. which may conceivably be in the writer's mind) it is ala-^pov for a woman to bathe in public. . but ala%p6v to do so in public. it will be remembered. no Greek would darken the doors of a . The reasoning proceeds as before. The thesis is supported by instances to show that anything and everything may be either kclKov or alo-ypbv according to circumstances. but kclKov to kill the enemies of the ttoXls. among . explains why Democritus called the atoms ISiai. or that of which the sensible qualities are signs. in the irepi <pvaios ivdpdiirov we find as kclI strictly equivalent phrases Kara Sfivafiiv /card <t>uaiv and rrjv Idtyv xal tt/i- where the Qiais or ISi-q is the "thing. . ISh/ 6vo/w. Idia. and ala%p6v are • different in fact as well. alo-^pov to do them to an enemy al<r%p6v to run in battle. a regular Ding an sich. a sense too often overlooked. and ata^iarov for man or woman to commit adultery it is alo-^pbv for a man but kclKov for a woman to use cosmetics and jewellery kclKov to do kindnesses to a friend. natura naturans. the Thracians. In another essay I hope to have more it to say about the medical use of elSos. other folk regard it as the punishment of a scoundrel. The word does not passages like this " visible appearance " you prove that the ISir) of is mean in phlegm different from that of blood IU-ij is by arguing from their sensible differences. = <pi<ns vbnoi. alaypov in a Greek girl. . or. . but koKov to run in a race. So at Sparta it is koKov for the girls to exercise and go half naked and for the boys not to learn their letters both are aloypa among Ionians antenuptial unchastity is kclKov in a Macedonian girl." the Sivaixis its perceived "character. . . Thus it is icaXov for a handsome boy epaardi 'xapi^eaOai. Hence. tatooing enhances a girl's beauty. . The Scythians a drinking-cup think it kclKov to scalp an enemy and make of his skull. aia^pov to slay your fellow-citizens. man as the scholastics would say." All this past medical history of the word. resulting in the : : correspondence or analogy. vd/uoi. though actually persists in Plato and Aristotle..

the So with the Greeks regard all these practices as ala^pd. we shall Whatever is find that the two aggregates are identical. Surely. copper or lead could be taken from it. the Lydians prostitute their daughters. the very same thing which is icakov for a Spartan would also be aiaypov for the Spartan. if what had been brought together were horses or oxen or sheep or men. or according to the view of some peoples." The proof of the antithesis. merely because it is icakov MaxeSovt or Tlepercu. the Persians have intercourse with their mothers." It is amusing to find that much the same conclusion." That is. but this is absurd. or in the eyes of some other people. daughters and sisters. icakov for some one. based on identical reasoning. " They say that if men were to make a collection of the ala-ypd from all peoples. I should be much surprised if alo-%pd when formed into an aggregate turn out to be icdkd. If they were identical. That which is AaiceBaifwvicoi alo"xp6v does not cease to be so. icakov and alo-^pdv are. It does not become icakov different in fact as well as in AaiceSaifiovitoi by the mere process of being included in the . not without acuteness. "geographical expressions. what was taken away again would be no other. any more than if gold or silver were brought into the heap. icakov and alaypov are name. to anticipate Pascal. is alaxpov for another. and so forth.104 VAEIA SOCKATICA did such a thing. the argument of the thesis is a fallacy of composition. The conclusion is that if we form an aggregate of all the various alcr%pd and an aggregate of all the icaXd. and do not keep the character with which they came into the collection. everything would be carried off as icakov. The alleged argument from the identity of the two aggregates is analyzed. differences between the manners of Greeks and Egyptians (it will be seen that the writer is well up in his Herodotus). has been just recently announced by Professor Westermarck from a chair in the University of London as the last word of anthropological " science. who The Massagetae eat their fathers. proceeds as before. and then summon men together and bid each carry off what he thinks icakov.

g. and then breaks his word. death at the hands of the opposite faction. which had occurred in the thesis. e. which we have already found in Hippocrates as apparently a terminus teehnicus for " backing up an argument by an appeal to independent testimony.g.THE AI2SOI AOrOI aggregate of things which are icaXd to some one. if needs be. or that the more . if one's father was lying in prison awaiting just. and vice versa. Greeks should devote the treasures of Delphi and Olympia an invasion of barbarians. as in the case of a man who has been forced by the public enemy to swear to commit treason. Antithesis The induction is further supported by quotations from Aeschylus and Cleobuline.dp-rvpa<. Thesis just and unjust are identical. it would be just to deprive one's friend of a weapon with which he was about to do himself an injury. probably Euripides. : just and unjust are as really different as their names are (jaairep ical raivvfia ointo koX to Trpdyfia). it is right to get one's parents to take a medicated draught by Theft and violence are also saying that it is not medicine. iirar/ovTat < o'l > irorl ahovdv. to break into the gaol.since it is absurd to argue that he who commits a crime to ipso doing a virtuous act. is known in the same sense to our author. for of the State. Perjury may be just. thesis : lying is just. or e. is .." Third Antinomy. in a a-rda-i*}. whose standard in composing is not the true but the pleasing. at the bidding of God. H 250al9) '' than of anything It is. else. however. It would be just.g. Physics. since the antithesis ends by commenting on an appeal to an unknown poet. by physical force. " they bring up their reasoning the poets. and the image of the formation of the great aggregate of icakd or alo-%pd reminds one K€<yxplrr)<} more of the of Zeno (Aristotle. oi ttot akaQeiav iroievvri. by trickery. e. or. to murder one's kindred if to the defence of Hellas against as Orestes and Alcmaeou did. Proof of the in to back : : enemies one may righteously deceive the even one's nearest and dearest. Troirjras he p. Antithesis just and unjust are not identical. 105 I do not observe anything particularly Socratic about the reasoning of this antinomy. interesting that iirdjeo-Oai. as. Sacrilege may be just. It may be just.

but the line of argument is precisely similar. Not only are the special examples much the same (the inducement of a relative to take medicine by friendly falsehood.g. may be dismissed. dangerous weapon from a friend who may make a bad use of it). Trieber and Diels have pointed out that the reasoning is in the main identical with that of Xenophon (Memorabilia iv. have further. it is fair in a general not only to mislead the enemy. and it is the same point which crops up again at 382 d in the notion of the " medicinal lie. is is no ethical principle at stake (re^wi? 8" And the poets. question whether the party affected Xenophon the real object of Socrates' casuistry is to show from the inefficacy of popular conceptions the necessity of an " art " or " science of good and evil by means of which '' it can be determined by the trained " craftsman " what line . that of the removal of the weapon. The same argument. We admit that certain practices are just when adopted against an enemy. merely the taste of The genuinely " Socratic " character of the arguments adduced for the thesis of this antinomy seems indisputable. The appeal made to the analogy of the the best tragic poets or painters are just those who are worthless because there eirdyovrai. if I am not mistaken. recurs in Plato at Republic i. 2." so that we can hardly doubt that in all three cases we are dealing with echoes of the In the antithesis we actual talk of the historical Socrates. the juster he arts. iv most skilled in producing illusion. but to put heart into his own men by falsely telling them that reinforcements are close at hand). traces of polemic In Plato and against the main ethical tenet of Socrates. again. and then show that there are cases in which the same conduct would be equally just in dealing with a friend (e. and one of the same illustrations. the surreptitious or forcible removal of a. 14-18). ah ovie e<rn to Si/caiov Kal aSiicov). since the standard is on which they base their judgments their audiences. with exactly the same object of proving that the distinction between just and unjust conduct does not depend on the is "the enemy"." that is.106 unjust a " VAEIA SOCEATICA man is. 331..

thesis is that there is The view argued in the between true and lies in correspondence or want of correspondence with "fact'' In the antithesis it is urged that there is an (Trpayfia).. " if the deed happened. The same \oyo<?. because I happen to be the only person who has is really is gone through the ceremony of the same discourse is false /tui/o-t?- The conclusion is that it when . a lad. that. " I it is false. o Aoyo?. if they are consistent. may be at once true and false. oari<s < tea > 7r\eiara iii. The thesis is proved as follows. just as the same man is successively a boy. they must also hold that the statement " all truths are partially false " is . you accuse yeyevrjTai. a\adr)<. if the deed did not happen. it am a ^vo-ras. (This is like the modern argument against those who maintain that all truths are partially false." they all utter the same words. in Republic x. 2). the difference is extrinsic : course if is true . tyevSrjs 6 avro? Xoyo?. intrinsic as well as an extrinsic difference between the two. appears in our author when he appeals to the " arts " in support of the view that deceit is just because " in the drama and in painting " he who produces the completest illusion is the best artist. a man. and a greybeard. 10. but it is true when " things have happened as the words state. but may be that I only speak the truth. : Antithesis false and true discourse differ intrinsically and absolutely. or form of words. al 8e fit] Thus." So. iv. Thesis : false : discourse false and true Antithesis discourse and true discourse are not identical. The Xoyo? or discourse is the same in both cases.). falsehood present to (orav to it. igairaTiji Sfioia rois a\r)8tvoi<s iroiewv ovtos apurros. /lev it is avrmi Trapfji to yfrevSof) but when truth present true (orav Se to a\adi<. the dissome one of lepoavXia no intrinsic difference and false discourse. each of a company says. ovrm yeyevrjTai. aXaOrfs. al p." A trace of this conception of morality as a Te^as. For (1) otherwise whenever you tell the truth you are also telling a lie." false when they have not so happened (prav Xoyo? pr)6fy. Compare the attack on the /ufvqr^ Fourth Antinomy.ev w? <ica> Xeyr/rai 6 Xoyo?.THE AISSOI AOrOI of conduct is " 107 just " and what " unjust. discourse are identical.

ch. The reasoning is thus. Principia mathemalica. for the view that it is invalid. (3) Dicasts. and therefore destroys the hypothesis on which it is based. but the point seems to be that if there were only an extrinsic difference between true and false. (1) It makes it abundantly clear that the puzzles and paradoxes about predication which Plato treats humorously in the Euthydemus and seriously in the Theaetetus and were actually familiar in the lifetime of Socrates." 108 VARIA SOCEATICA 1 ) itself partially false. not of ovv/jm (i. conversation with him. and that there is a single " science " of it all (that before every one else. it seems to me to have a threefold interest. where oi irepl t«? epi&as. are bracketed together as mischievous paradox- What our passage mongers all belonging to the same age. i. who have not been present at to. seems to add is a valuable light on the history of the Platonic conception of thought as the " converse of the soul 1 I make no assumption as to the validity of this reasoning. since. apart altogether from the evidence of Plato. (2) The very assertion of the thesis is that " if the thing happened. however. apagogic. See Whitehead and Russell. we have Sophistes. tion shows that the difference between truth and falsehood is one of Trpay/Aa. can yet distinguish between a true narrative and a false one. likely enough to have formed a topic of This.e. only one who had been an to eyewitness it is " whether truth of the irpar/fiara in dispute could tell the true " or " the false " which is " present the discourse." true . the distincbetween true and false rests on an objective foundation). (The argument is apparently mutilated just after this. who hold that one. if it did not happen. is nothing fresh. of a The ability of dicasts to judge of the narrative about events which they have not personally witnessed shows this consequence to be absurd. the who deny all the possibility of contradiction. Socrates himself). 2.) Fragmentary as this section of the Sicra-ol \070t is. vol. Trpdr/fiara. the Xoyo? it is false. the facts in dispute between the parties to a law-suit. and therefore already persons drawn the same conclusion from the opening sentences of Isocrates' Helena. . and those virtue is is. as in the previous cases.

and false when you utter it. If " I am hot. not the meaning it expresses." that is because of the 1 e.t. d\V wi av p. it is obvious that X0709 is understood to mean the spoken sentence. the Phaedo explains that every subject-predicate proposition depends on a more ultimate relational proposition containing no " predicate " at all. which is." The fullest exposition of this idea does not meet us until the PMlebus (3$ c-40 c). d£l-a<r8ai throughout the same passage. " when to This exof present " (irapiji) is to the \oyos. . false discourse is identical with true discourse. . £p& &n votros. from the Phaedo alone. pooTjo'ei." The idea. .THE AISSOI AOrOI with 109 itself. different with each speaker: Before the arguments about the impossibility of falsehood was necessary to get rid of this implicit Hence the stress laid by Plato's Socrates on the conception that the content of a proposition is a " discourse of the soul with herself. but the thought occurs also at Theaetetus 189 c ff. in connection with the very problem of the nature of " false discourse " raised in the Sia-o-ol Xoyot. and when to aXa6e<s present to it pression that predication depends on the "presence" an elSos " to " the subject of predication is familiar to us 1 all as one of the technical terms of the Platonic doctrine of [iide!ji<:. is (2) Special attention i/reuSo? is due to the phrase is true. as we can now could be examined. see. oiK {put Si av 7repm-6TT)s. and the proof of their identity depends wholly upon taking \6yo<.iveiv. true that " I am hot. According to our thesis. may perfectly well be due to the Socrates of history. Instead of regarding the pre- dicative statement as ultimate. iu the sense of verbal utterance. then it is false. irepirrbs iarai. to illustrate ." there is a more ultimate ground for the truth of this proposition. KaXbv kanv bnovv Stl ofiic tovto air\us Kal arexvws Kal fows edrfdus ?xu Trap' ^Ketvov rov koKov etre napovata aXKo rt iroiel atirb she Kotvuvla [efre] Sirrji By Kal 8tus irpoayevo/jdini. after the fashion of Aristotle.ovds. of course. 105 oi'/c oi5£ av Sit £pr. in fact. it fallacy of ambiguity. SC S tl efiavrGJi. it. When it is said that /mvo-tcis elfii is one and the same Xoyo?. 100 d idv Kakbv wi av fy 7) ris 1*01 \iyqi. if it is fii0€^K. Compare the reiterated use of iirop. St av vib/ian rl &yytvri' rai. and yet may both be true when I utter it. d\V av Tvperbs oti5' &i av apidfi&L tL iyyirrfrui. TrapovGia is. the logical converse of According to the doctrine of the Phaeclo.g.

is merely verbal or conventional. own — is is. and to aXadei are regarded as is why. is that it makes logically secondary the adjective Bepfio? can only be truly is predicated about me." Its real meaning is "every man possesses mortality. to show how contrary to fact is the popular notion that evidence of the irepl ap^aiy? Plato invented ex nihilo the doctrine of eiSr} or the technical terms in which (3) It is it is expressed. to ^revBo<. between 0ep/i6v." all predication The peculiarity of this view . fact. that <f>vo-i<} an entity with a determinate scholastics put it. as the something in re." or " mortality is present in every man. other than that of to yfrevSos. in the antithesis. which I reserve for another place. '' is not that of adjective to substantive. and may and much more from the Hippocratean corpus. an adjective but a this point of view. and this saying a \oyos is true when to aXade<. substantival term or entity.110 VAEIA SOCEATICA existence of a relation between me and the entity to depfiov. which may be expressed either by saying " I partake of is to depfiov." This is precisely the view implied in the passage we are considering. is present to it. not in intellects. antithesis for hood is the argument of the between truth and falsesupported by an example which is twice made also important that an intrinsic difference . because there a logically prior rela- which me and to tion." or conversely " to depfiov present to me. the argument can be turned against the very persons who are said to employ it in support of the view that the difference between a true and a false 7wyo<. The point of the rejoinder is that in the act of substantival entities. The passage thus shows us that the fundamental notion of the "Ideal Theory. along with the IrjTpiicfjs. you by implication avow that to a\a6e<s has a In is <£voy? or objective reality of its own. tantum. was familiar possibly before be adduced. or to of its yJrevSos. it exactly the same as that of a Platonic ISea." together with a characteristic piece of its technical terminology. all from men are mortal " asserts a relation between every man and to 0v7]t6v "mortality. and to depfiov is not So. the underlying conception of to aXaOis. the death of Socrates.

Timaeus 51 e t6 p£v yap airSv 8ia dibaxfjs. Thesis: the insane and the sane. The proof of the thesis is regarded by Diels as fragmentary. et ye rairrbv £861-0. 'earth. OiiK &v. go to bed and the like. rb Be fieraireto-Tiv. They sit down. . tot' av Jtra(rrijs /Licpos S. fev 86|o Te xal £vuiTi\p. OiiSap." 2 Here. wise and the ignorant. (3) The same thing is both greater and less. toiVois Siivaadai. the establishment of th% distinction between knowIn Theaetetus 201 b ff. its force is far from clear. (4) The same man is alive and is not alive the same things are and are not. For the things which are here are not in Libya. the insistence on the difference between okr/Bevr) and Sofja may come straight from an Eleatic source. again. and the same example is obviously present to the mind of Plato's Timaeus when he makes it a fundamental distinction between knowledge and opinion that the one can be produced by "persuasion" and destroyed by the same means. tinction is illustrated by this very case of the dicasts who can be " persuaded " into a right opinion about facts which 1 are only really known to the eyewitness.T\. . the disledge and right opinion.' 'man. of course.iv iyylyverai. . more and fewer.THE AI2SOI AOrOI 111 prominent in Plato. and : . whereas the other only arises from " teaching.vev imar/nup' vvv Se Tt eKarepof elvat.Sn dXi.' 'fire. ipBi. Si <pt\e. • Kal rb piv aKlvTfrov ireiSol.}] Trapeyivovrb rives aTocrrepovp^voiS xpfuMiTa irpbs ri tfXXo jSiafojK&'Ois. IxavCn rwv yevop4nuv . d\Xd dXXo ireurai piv. in any case. ZoiKev 2 . but lighter than two talents.' And they perform the same acts. eat.' 'horse. . though with him for a rather different object. drink. though.s Oyuye . say and do the same things. and. Antithe things which the sane and wise say and do are not thesis the same as those said and done by the insane and ignorant." and is " not to be shaken by persuasion. heavier and lighter. It is the recurrence of the illustration which seems important for our purpose. the writer of the Surorol Xoyoi may be availing himself of a genuine piece of Socratic philosophy. The talent is heavier than the mina. . " (1) The sane and the insane use the same words for things. the Fifth Antinomy. 7T)» dXiJfeiai' / fjv OSap apixpbv BiBdl-ai . rb b" iwb Tetdous ijp. olpat. 1 Theaetetus 201 b ij <ri otei dewovs rivas oStw StoaanaXovs elvat ibare ij ots p.<?r. .

070? that . the present passage suggests a remark which may be worth throwing out the situation. both are and are not. irorepov &v ev Beovri toI <ra><ppovovvTe<. and of Hence <ra>(ppocrvvr) and crocpla cannot be the same He then proceeds. \6yoi iiraicTiicoL. we must call to our aid. 'HpaKXelreioi did discourse in much this fashion is notorious from the Platonic references to them. it is suggested that sanity differs from insanity by the relevance of the sane man's speech or act to the same vocabulary mal a propos. to " clinch " the argument by an appeal to sensible So the sense here seems fact or to a supposed authority. The writer first as is usual in his antitheses. " we must ." Thus. but he employs as a suggestion. if the original metaphor underis lying the later technical meaning of iiraywyq not. teal eVa/creo? 6 as fiavla and ajiaOla. and it is the want of relevancy which makes all the difference. the A. as it brings us back appeals. in logic. " We have already seen that in Hippocrates. the work of some Heracliteanising " sophist. author. and the only make that the Xoyos the writer has in view is the Heraclitean one." The to the antithesis is more interesting. ficuvofievoi . . to be." . " things both are and are not. About the use of the word eirdyetrOat. it Xenophon and our regularly means to adduce testimony " in favour of a statement already laid down." The exact purport suggestion I can of all this is is obscure. Xeyovn r\ toI the same act not at once equally a mark of sanity lunacy. further bring in. that is. to the point that we can after all make the distinction between a sane is man and a lunatic. \6yo<. parts of the sane and the insane is thus only one example That the of the allegation that " things are and are not.: 112 VARIA SOCEATICA So things the things which are in Libya are not in Cyprus. Plato." to which the antithesis would be that everything which is has Thus the antinomy becomes a definite <£va-t? of its own. as . lunatic The may have it as the sane man. the law of contradiction is invalid the law of contradiction The alleged identity of behaviour on the is not invalid. and from the kind of thing we read in the Hippocratean nrepl Stair^? a.

nothing is added Kparos. Hou^o? to from rXau/eo? to ^ovOos." the metaphor In any being from the reinforcement of one's front line or main battle by bringing up the iiraicToL or "reserves. and for believing in the presence of a Socratic element in the work. A fortiori. " do you mean relatively." (a view which is. If one says that the same man is and is not..) fiaprvpiov I = to put in affidavits. tyevherai. the repeated appearance of the verb in a technical logical sense in the Siaerol Xoyot seems a valuable link in fifth the evidence for regarding the general conception of "inductive reasoning" as familiar before the end of the century. irdvTa &v irf\i icrri. or as a whole?" If anyone says that a thing "is not" in an absolute sense. < to tI ical > ra irdvTa elircDv So Diels. not only as illustrating the same sort of preoccupation with elementary problems of prosody and etymology as we can trace in Heracliteanism. then. as from Kaprot to In these cases. y\avKo<.'' case.g.THE AISSOI AOrOI witnesses. the change made by introducing or removing the qualification of relevancy must be much greater. further interest of its The own. e.) All ravrd. 'BtdvOot to %avd6<. he says what is false. there is only a change in the dpp. suggest that may be military. change of accent or quantity. lli3 Professor Burnet once maintained. and the modified \0y05 cannot possibly remain what it was before. we must ask r\ fi rh. rest of the antithesis has a that a difference in The writer goes on to urge meaning may be effected by a mere as.. etc. So everything "is" relatively.. and confuses relative with absolute denial. we must bring into play the X070? that. strongly favoured eTrdyecrdat it by the " Hippocratean so to say. but also as indicating that Plato's own 1 . and in Plato's picture of Prodicus. or from o-a/cos to cra«o? ( = ar]Ko<s).ovia or modulation of the voice. again. irdvTa eariv . and yet have the same sum as before.. It is like thinking that you can add 1 to or subtract 1 from 10. but ? ecrTt. the legal one of " citing t% my mind. by a trifling change of letters. or from Or. Yet the meaning is entirely altered. from 01/05 to 1/005or taken away. this is interesting. Typo? to rvpos. (ovkwv ai Tt? p#) (pair] tfpev. partially.

since the whole antinomy con- cerned with the problem whether reyyai or not. The arguments for the thesis are (a) you cannot both impart a thing to another and retain it for yourself. the " wise men who have arisen throughout Hellas would have taught wisdom and virtue to their families (t«!>? <plXw<i). we know they have not done (d) as for the professed " sophists. in its Sophistes. in the antithesis. the of teachers of wisdom and a recognized class so-called " sophists. Here we come to the closest point of is contact with Socraticism." and that the existence of Anaxagoreans and Pythagoreans proves that Anaxagoras and Pythagoras did succeed in . it is implied. a it . man imparts knowledge without is against (&) that there virtue. which. it is Against (a) the case of a parting with then argued. that in teacher of ypd/ifiara. The arguments and examples of the Siaa-ol \6yoi agree so closely with those of the Protagoras that a common source seems to me certain. as must be the case if one man can impart cro^ta and apery to another by teaching (&) if wisdom and virtue were teachable. '' .— 114 VARIA SOCEATICA about predicating non-being distinction final resolution of the difficulty by the between relative and absolute denial was not. way is. there would be a recognised class of teachers of them. . the writer's insistence on the view of Eleatic that all denial " relative or qualified. while (e) many persons have risen to eminence (d^ioi \6ya> and Mend) . just as there is of music (c) on the same assumption.. a novelty when Plato wrote the Incidentally. which Protagoras tries to defend without knowing how to do so). The thesis is : aotpia and apery are wisdom and virtue cannot be acquired by teaching (the very proposition on behalf of which Plato's Socrates makes out a case in the Protagoras wisdom and virtue can be taught. •yeyivrivrat) without a sophistic education." many of their pupils have got no good from their instruction." is. antithesis : (the Socratic thesis . or of a professional professional /ci0apiard<. a mark influence. of course. main is principle. and his assertion that everything in some Sixth Antinomy.

but refuses a hearing on technical points of naval construction and the like to all but professionals (Protagoras 319 Again. that a Persian child brought among Greeks spontaneously infant talks Greek. he may be able to dispense with education. but that the alleged demonstrations do not convince me " (ov \eya) d>? BiSa/crou ecniv. we miss in the Sterol Xoyoi a parallel to the cases of Pericles. and end. We see. can always teach his rej(vri to his children. and you have is beginis ning. It will be seen at once that the arguments here canvassed are identical with those familiar to us from the Protagoras and Meno of Plato.THE AISXOI AOrOI teaching others . e. were talk similarly brought " up in up from infancy and if a Greek Persia. by which Plato's Socrates drives extends to the individual difference is that . since we see that the " best " citizens do not succeed in imparting virtue and wisdom to their sons. Thus there is nothing in the Siao-ol \6yoi answering to the picture drawn in the Protagoras of the behaviour of the eKKXijaia which will listen to any and every citizen on the point of political or moral principle. "my discourse has been delivered. without needing professional instruction. imitating its elders.g.." concludes author. in the development of the argument b-d). it would the its naturally Persian. Thucydides. d\\' ovk wrro'XpmvTi fioi Trjvai ai a7roSei£et9). that there is clearly no re^vr] of virtue and o-ofyia. 115 taught his against . For there is such a thing as <j>va^. just as a child learns to speak by of rising to proves nothing. middle. and Themistocles. and that the resemblance examples alleged. (c) (<j) that Polyclitus (e) own art to his son against and that the possibility eminence without instruction from a sophist may also learn to read without going to school but it does not follow that schoolmasters are useless. What I say not that virtue the result of teaching. whereas the rexi/iTr}*. a natural capacity. The only examples based upon the special peculiarities of Athenian life and references to specific facts of Attic history are present in the one case and absent in the other. and if one has enough of this. since you . Thus.

" This is. the Staa-ol \6yoi. attend the discourse of the ao^>i<rry<i without while another may exhibit a high degree of apery without the help of a a-o<piary<. Themistocles.) and Meno may be summarised thus. impart his own excellence to another. Sia-crol the argument home. is the already manifest point that the Xoyoi was not com- posed at Athens." is similarly Plato by Protagoras more carefully. a general argument against the possibility of communicating any kind of accomplishment by teaching. (3) The ao^iarai who claim to be such a class do no good at all to their pupils. the agreement is complete but for Plato's argument that " you and yet retain •it yourself. These are precisely the arguments (3) (2) (4) of instructed their sons in of carefully selected it.116 VARIA SOCEATICA All that this proves. the thesis which it goes to prove is on oiSev e<rri SiSatriceiv. and Aristides (93 b— 94 c). or for the instruction of Athenian scholars. Argument (5). and without being able to is prominent in . and it does not say much for the intelligence of our author that he should have served it up as a special argument against the teachability of apery and Apart from this the arguments of the Protagoras <To$ia. (2) There is no generally recognised class of professional teachers of apery (Meno 89 e). (319 e ff. by the aid That they have not done so is shown by the case of Pericles. is made both (<f>va-i<. that a man may distinguish himself in apery and ao^La without having attended the instructions of a o-ocpio-Tys. of it.) in the Protagoras (328 a) and in the Meno (91-92). dismissed Shto-oI by the writer of the considered in Xoyoi as " very silly.. (1) If apery could be taught. the heroes of history would have omission of the purely " eristic " to cannot communicate a thing another. the <ro<pio-rai. Protagoras of virtue. The appeal as explaining to an original difference in capacity why one man may profit. either personally or professionals. to which the Meno adds those of Thucydides. (Meno 92 a. So with the counter-arguments in favour of the teachability The point that there are professional teachers viz. the anti-sophistic argument of Anytus). of course. however. 327 ff. For the rest.

lectical and Socrates. To ascribe the invention of these grounds to the fourth century. and is developed with much force. in the Ethics. between Protagoras. as we may say. as Plato says they were. " classical " body of grounds for and against the teachability of aocpia and apery. but merely dependence on the Platonic tradition.g. is a pure anachronism. We must not be misled on this point by the fact that Aristotle propounds the same issue. precisely as many a teacher of philosbphy to-day looks on himself as bound in honour to discuss.. rrorepov hthaicrov ecrnv rj apery.THE AI220I AOrOI Protagoras' 117 {Protagoras defence is of his own profession 327 fit'. taught ? The very existence of " the schools implies that for thinking " men the question can virtue be had clearly found an answer. We draw the conclusion that the arguments put by Plato into the mouths of the speakers in the Protagoras and Meno are throughout no inventions of his own. The popularisation of dia- argumentation by Zeno. and the interest awakened by the appearance of Protagoras as a paid professor of the art of living. the age of the permanent schools of Plato and Isocrates.). e. in the days of the Lyceum. The illustration of unconscious learning of things from the social milieu independently of formal instruction by the analogy of the way in which a child learns to speak the language of the society in which it grows up recurs. They belong to a body of well-recognised fifth-century arguments pro and contra on the totto?. as though is it were still unsolved. still going on with his usual' What this means not that the debate was that. at Protagoras 327 e. views about number and continuity which have definitely . and provisionally Accepted in the Meno as the explanation of the existence of men who are dyadol avev 8i8a%j)<:. Aristotle thinks it part of his duty as a lecturer to take up any problem of importance raised in the Platonic text and to define his attitude to it. and there is no reason why they should not have been canvassed. are enough of themselves to account for the development in the latter half of the century of a wellrecognised and. fairly may the first person to make the teaching of apery his pro- fessional calling.

118 VARIA SOCEATICA finds become obsolete because he them playing a part in Kant's doctrine of the Schematism of the Categories. on empirical is no fundamental principle common to them all by which they are converted into a logical unity." The argument is worked out by the systematic application of what we know to have been the criticisms of the Protagoras are all based observations of a decidedly obvious kind. of course. and end. middle. and to call on Protagoras to solve them if he could. They emphatically do not form. name The of re^vr) to the sophists' we shall be struck at once by a difference of tone between the two dialogues. to my own mind. It is a sustained argument based on the conception of a re^vrj as the knowledge of demonstrable and connected truths relating to a well-defined object or " whole of discourse." But this is exactly what the polemic of the Gorgias is. either at first hand or by report. And there is one consideration which. makes for the view that the difficulties raised in the Protagoras are not of Socrates' making. Socrates was perfectly at liberty to avail himself of any generally recognised airopLai on the subject. If we compare them with the reasons given in the Gorgias for refusing the skill. But I cannot see that the inference is in any way necessary. and thus may have actually heard from the lips of Socrates the arguments in which he shows so close an approximation to the Meno and Protagoras. We are not obliged to suppose that the arguments employed " by Socrates against Protagoras and the claims of " sophistry to reckon as a genuine Tej(yr) are put forward by Plato as the invention of his hero. There would. a whole having " beginning. as they should do. The extraordinarily close resemblances with which we have just dealt may raise the further question whether our author must not have been actually acquainted with the criticisms of Socrates on the Protagorean doctrines. and as the superficial author of the Bta-a-ol \6yoi says they do. be no impossibility in the supposition that he may himself have been one of the more commonplace members of the Megarian group of dialecticians with whom Socrates had close personal relations. and there .

will. and may possibly be even a little earlier. I think. if the majority of cannot be scholars are right in seeing allusions to the Gorgias in the Meiw. as we have seen. iv rfji (pvtret.THE AI2SOI AOrOI Socratic 119 in method of classification Kara yewy. then. is will take the pains to contrast the refutation of the claims of prjTopiKrj to be a ri'yyv as gi ven in the (and it must be remembered that the argument aTiKij.. /cpdrta-rov airav. an interesting possibility left open. the work much later in date than the death of Socrates. as to which I have said nothing. There is still. and therefore. like Pindar's everlasting moralisings on the theme to those 8(7oi<. in fact. that the agreement between the arguments canvassed in the Siaa-ol \6yot. a\\' 6/xS><. be inclined to admit that the probability is that the whole series of arguments on both sides of the question whether virtue can be taught. such a supposition would require us to assign exceedingly early dates to the Protagoras and Meno. and couched the mathematical form which *Pla to regularly ascribes to Socrates. to the Gorgias also. or Hippolytus' devotion to a mistress SiSclictov who tcl accepts only the offerings of firjSiv. have to assume that all three dialogues were written and circulated almost immediately after the death of Socrates. What if the unknown author of the 8io<rol \6yoi should be actually borrowing the arguments of his antinomy from the Platonic dialogues themselves ? Since. as rehearsed in that dialogue and in the Meno. belong to the common-places of fifth-century rhetoric. of course. <f>vai. We should. Whoever Gorgias. (Since . and those of the Platonic Protagoras and Meno is not of itself enough to prove actual dependence of the former work on Socratic influence. \ to <rci)<f>poveiv eiX/r/y^ev e? •jrdvO' I take it. What it does prove is the dramatic exactitude with which Plato has reproduced for us the manner of thought and speech of the philosophical circles of the generation before his own.) expressly stated to be equally fatal to ao<jn- with the comparatively rough-and-ready popular declamations of Socrates and Protagoras in the Protagoras.

120 VAEIA SOCEATICA both the threats of Anytus in the Meno and the warnings of Callicles in the Gorgias presuppose in the reader a knowledge of the fate which actually overtook Socrates. of course. The Protagoras. in will never cease mankind kings become philosophers or philosophers kings either case this statement means that the Republic. apart from the mere a priori probability that it was the trial and death of Socrates which gave. . vii. 501 e. neither dialogue can be supposed to belong to a date before 399.) There is nothing. twv ISiurdv ir&VTO. Republic 473 d. contains nothing which might not have been written during the life-time of its hero. the Gorgias. there for denying that a number of the earlier Platonic dialogues may have been circulated while the master was still alive. was already composed as early as the year of the King's Peace. eVatpcw ttjv 6p6i]v 0t\o<ro0£ap. we have nothing beyond the existence of supposed allusions in the Gorgias to the existence of the Academy as an organized 1 Ep. on the other hand. should be assigned to a date some years earlier. while. in which the words in question occur in the very context described. 1 Whether the author of the Epistle is Plato or an immediate disciple. and there is at least one piece of evidence it. &s 4k rd re TroAiraci ditcaia nal to. We are thus thrown back for the Gorgias on a date very little later than the death of Socrates. to exclude the possibility of so early a date for the three dialogues. so far as I can see. which might be urged in favour of that I mean the well-known passage of the seventh Epistle in which the statement of the Republic from their troubles unless is quoted as coming from an " eulogy on genuine philosophy " composed before Plato's first visit to Sicily. The passages alluded allusion is to are. as the traditional anecdotes preserved first no valid reason by Diogenes Laertius presuppose. toi)t?)s t<rra> <iSv oti 326 a "ktyew re fyayK&ffdTjv. KanSelv ttaKwv ' \Jji-eu> t& els avfipixnriva ytwrj wplv av 4) to tuv tpCkoawpotivTiav upOQs ye Kai d\^#ws y4vos irSKeeiv dpx&s fiolpas e"\dTji ras ttoKltlkcls ^ rb twv Svvatrrev6vTojv iv rats Ik twos Betas &vtus (pi\ocro(p-q<rrn. and this must mean that the Protagoras. That the to a published "work" is made clear by the words iiruvav t^v 6p6)\v tpCKouoiplav. and its pendant the Meno. the is impulse to the publication of \6^ol ~ZcoiepaTiKoi. On the other side.

and which. and to aimed at the president of the nascent Academy. . . 1 Plato's picture of the relations of Socrates with the Pythagorean and Eleatic coteries. These representations are only that there on the assumption disciples it is was such an inner ring of as the more intimate communications of Socrates with the members of this little group we know their names with tolerable completeness from the Phaedo that Callicles means to allude. reflects the feelings of Plato when the loss of his_ Such views ignore the all-important point that the anti-democratic diatribes of the Gorgias and Republic are given by Plato not as his own but as those of Socrates. 14. whose figure was daily familiar in the streets. or requires to be dated late enough to admit of any. most plausible instance when Callicles describes the kind of life from which he wishes to dissuade Socrates ycovlai as tov Xoittov j3iov j3ia>vai fiera /ieipaicLav iv rpi&v rj Terrdpcov "ifriOvpt^ovra (Gorgias 485 d). But we may change our minds when we remember Xenophon's description of the ercupoi is really of Socrates as sharing a common table. and to the — — 1 See 'Memorabilia. never to recur. and Aristophanes' exhibition of the intelligible <f>povTi<rrr)piov. plained by supposing that the dialogue. came to its inevitable end when the Athenian forces surrendered to Gylippus at Syracuse. and that the Sit/WKparia assailed throughout is that of the Periclean age. 121 But it is at least posed allusions are not to take the all open to question whether the supdue to misinterpretation. 2 language of the Gorgias presupposes.THE AI220I AOrOI body. first one is tempted at to think the language singularly inappropriate to the case of Socrates. In a subsequent master was still fresh. where the anecdotes are unintelligible except on the supposition that the avvtieiirvowTts are the intimate Socratic circle. Hence I see no reason to think that the Gorgias contains any references to the establishment of the Academy. of all. iii. and that the common repast is their regular habit. before Plato was well past the years of adolescence. c. in reality.I lay no stress on the bitterness of tone shown in the attack of the This has sometimes been exdialogue on the democracy and its leaders. a state of society which passed away. being composed almost immediately after the death of Socrates. Thus. the agora. essay I shall try to show that there is every reason to believe that the Gorgias and Republic do faithfully represent the opinion of Socrates at the end of his life on the great era of Athenian imperialistic expansion through which he had lived as youth and man. fancy that the shaft and the palaestrae. bk.

towards indeed. on one side thoroughly Socratic in is at least. stands an equal chance of appointment with a loyal democrat. etc. always regarded in antiquity as The method. is. the outward symbol of S^fioKparia. The argument is thus. a hoplite to serve in the cavalry. the to be less abrupt than it transition might be found offices looks. where offices are (4) disposed of by lot. He begins with a formal attack on the system of appointto ment is by lot. though we must remember that. the system is undemocratic because. eiria-Tijfir). To ensure democratic rule it would be better for the S&fios to elect men of known . at first sight. a fiio-oSafux. putting each of abilities them over the department for which his special mark him out. since the beginning of the work is probably which. by lot. His points are (1) that no one would dream of allotting the tasks of his household servants in such a way (2) that it would be absurd to make an artisan follow a calling which he had received by lot in preference to one which he understands (iiriaTaraC) (3) that it would be equally foolish to select the performers in a musical contest. since it would often happen that an avX/^TTj? would thus be required to play Moreover. the Kiddpa. or in war. for demanded as the indispensable qualification . neither rational nor democratic. expert knowledge. nor we do not know what the author's main thesis really how large a part the assertion that two \6yoi can be put forward about everything it. insisted on vigorously enough in the Republic as a fundamental note in the character of a . the exercise of all administrative functions allowed to undertake work which he man is only to be knows how to do better a insistence on loyalty than anyone to the else. devotion to itself to all positions of trust. he says. But the further Bafiof as the second necessary qualification cannot eiivoia be called equally Socratic or Platonic.. 122 The argument topic VAEIA SOCRATICA of the Bia-a-ol \6yoi now wanders to to a have any connection with the contention that antinomies may be raised about all subjects of discourse. If we possessed his may have been related to own statement of his intention. spirit. does not seem lost. the governed is.

not whether he was elected to command by is the crew. Their maxim. are so manifestly an expanded statement of what Aristotle calls the " Socratic " criticism of the use of the " bean. 1 Memorabilia i. and treason the same thing as /uaoSajiCa. icai In particular. rcovrbv Be aya)vt(7Ta<. What is more to our present purpose is the very close illustrations used to 2 agreement of the of the use of the lot with those ascribed to Socrates show the unwisdom by BiakXapaia-ai • Xenophon Ta>9 1 and Aristotle. then. xp^^ai KvaixevrCbi pr/Si tIktovi d\\a Toiavra. that he is himself a citizen and writes for an audience of citizens of a Doric- speaking democracy. as we know. We may infer. 9 Xiyav ws p. was that so long as the best and wisest bear rule in the best interests of the whole 7ro\ts. \d%7)i dytovi^eadai avXtfcrei.Spov elrj roils /iiv ttjs iroXews apxovras &vi> Kvdfiov KaOurrdvcu. thing take is that the " man at the helm " should be a true to navigator secundum artem. seems to me a very strong confirmation of my previous suggestion that is dff\r)rd<i in the Aristotelian passage a corruption of auKi/rds. it matters nothing whether the Sj}/ios likes their rule or not the all-important spirit . the words of our ra<. 2. KT^- . ev ay&cn ical 6 ri eicacrTO<. avXrjTas tcidapll-ei rv^bv xal KtdapcoiBb<. and Plato were no lovers of the Athenian Sijfios and had no sentimental illusions as to its merits. recurs in Isocrates. Ku/SepKiJTTji Si iiijSiva $£Ktu> fnj8' ao\7jTTJt 3 /wjo" iir' 2 Rhetoric 1393 b K\7jptOToits &px^iv. and is therefore own contrary to the spirit of a BrifioKparia. olov d tis \£yoi 6Vi oi Set Kkypoly} /jltj HfLOiov yap tiitrwep av ei tis rods d0X?. Our author would appear it is be writing for a community in which that loyalty taken for granted loyalty to the Sd/Moi. The further argument that the use of the lot defeats its object by giving the oligarchical partisan as good a chance of appointment as anyone else. 4 irapajSoX^ Si ra Sawcpan/cd." that the recurrence of the avX^nfc in the example as given here." but this devotion to the best interests of the whole 7ro\t? is something quite* different from the partySocrates denoted by the phrase evvovs ran Stffiwi. fMocnicas •% author. as well as in the Xenophon tic passage.Tas (?) ol Stivavrai ayuivlfeaBai dXX' oS av Xdxwow.THE AIXSOI AOrOI 123 "guardiaD.

of the identity of the and the statesman. The next section of the hio-o-ol Xoyoi striking to to — I hope to is sufficiently deserve quotation as a whole. It represents the kind of view current towards the end of the Peloponnesian war among the " intellectuals " of Athens.ivai. tok *)(povoi<s eiipelv • toii? fiovXofiivovs ap-^eiv vvv this tow. firjhev heo/ievov<. so criticism of the ways and far as they did not belong to the party of violent reaction which got and abused the city. comparative lack probably equally iv of ambitious the candidates are reminiscent of the Socratic theory of the unwillingness of "best" men to rule (cf. ttjv he ttjv al-Lav eicaaTov TifMoarav [/cat KoXd^ovaav] §§ "irpoifipovvTO Kal hid Tavrr]<s miKovv is rr/v ttoXiv.v tjj? elvai. " I hold that it belongs to the same man and to the same art to be able dialectician . attested by Xenophon no less than by Plato. its chances after the capitulation of On the connection of Socrates with this party it the party of Theramenes as we may call have more to say in a subsequent essay. ovk fiev Solon dXXd rfjv fiev tSsv and Cleisthenes) rrjv xpri&ificaTepav. Kara' irovrfpovs cnrehoicLfiatpv a>? ov hucaiav ovaav. by the familiar Socratic argument that he who understands the theory of anything must be the most efficient practitioner. methods of the Periclean democracy comes pretty obviously from one source. 25—26. Kal tow. Its manifest object is support the peculiarly Socratic view. icai Areopagiticus rrj<s 21 Svotv laoTrjToiv vofu£o/j. from which such criticisms come. ttjv ov yap ifiiroplav dXXd Xeirovpyiav All ivofii%ov elvai tS>v koivwv eirifieXeiav). that Isocrates has immediately before " conveyed " for his own tion of the sources w may KXijpaxrei tt/v tv^tjp apxa<> tov<. § 25 %aXeTrci>Tepov fjv rj e/cetvoi<. oXiy- purpose the thought of Socrates in the Gorgias about the significance of the yecofierpiKr) 1V0T77?. avr&v d^iovaav tou? xpTjarow. as an indicaAnd one ap^iai iiridvfiovvra^. he to irpoaf/Kov ravrbv kicatnov.— 124 Areopagiticus VARIA SOCEATICA 23 iv /j. hiraaw rjyvoovv airovefLovcrr]^ (sc.ev yap rrji fipafievaeiv teal iroXXaxii XTjtfreo-ffai note.. its in which the older democracy praised because of for office.

and teach the city aright to do the good things but hinder it somehow from doing the bad. as well as the next remark that rol \6yot iravres irepl Trivrav t&v i<J>VTti>v evrt>. but the clause us tyet Kal us iyivero. the " opposites ") are the same things of discourse will also 1 Compare the boasts of Protagoras in Plato and Socrates' ironical allusions Kara fipaxb to them. Uavbs Si Kal e"pun-r)SeU airoKplvaaBai 335 b-c ao p&v y&p. And since he knows these things. know how to discourse aright about For he who is to speak aright must speak about things he knows (eirCa-rurai). 2 how they are and how they came to be. and all discourses are about all things that are. arise in political purposes a general principle of which he does not quite see the scope. That Kara fipaxi in our passage similarly refers to the question-and-answer method of " dialectic " as contrasted with the continuous Be t& iTrlSet^is of rhetoric is made certain by the 4pum!>nevov am-oKplveaBai of its concluding clause. 2 It is meant to cover. It looks as if the author were carelessly adapting to his immediate lo-ropta. Kal iv fmKpdXoyiat Kal £v $pa%vhoylai olds re el avvovaias iroiei(T0a. and the similar profession of Gorgias (Gorgias 449 b-c). ws \i~yerat irepl troO. shown by the constant appeals to it throughout Republic . 4 ra Irepa tootuv. about everything. calls for the wider reference. how should one who knows about the to nature of all things be unable <to teach the city> ? 3 to act rightly about everything Again.L voipbs yap el iyw kt\. . 3 rav irbXiv SiSaffKev is an insertion of Diels' which is justified by the recurrence of the words in the further development of the argument. is The is principle implied p. I suppose.. he who knows the arts everything. And first. for he will know everything. And he who is to know how to speak rightly must know the things about which he speaks. and to know how to give judgment rightly {8ucd£ev opdm). — — imxpa ravra aStivaros . he will know their 4 For these opposites also. and to be able to make orations to the public (Safiayopelv).e. and to teach about the nature of all things. 336 a-d. not quite clear how much the words rav t&v turavTUv <piaiv are They should strictly include the whole of the irepl <j>tiaews In the context they seem to mean "all the circumstances" which life.la is that expressed by Aristotle in the form that there Socratic iwuTT^/iri tu>v ivavrluv. That this is really i.THE AISSOI AOrOI to converse with brevity (/cara /Spa^u SiaKeyecrOat 1 ). So he will know For he knows the arts of all discourses. us aiirk St/Xoi. (p^jLS Si Kal atirbs. 125 and know the truth of things (rav^aKddeiav t&v irpayfidrcov). and to know the arts of discourse. things (i. KtiKoiis Protagoras 329 b IiparaySpas Si SSe luavos piv ixaxpois X&yous Kal elveiv.

without knowing or caring what is "absolutely" The writer is arguing by implication that the or "naturally" just. 2 The argument is that the true dicast must know the laws but if he does The force of the analogy not know ri. but I take the there is " one science of opposites " is that "in the whole" opposites are identical. for And knowit is that with which law-suits are concerned. and he who does not know It is an easy music does not know the law either.aTa is all one. so than < these >.a in question. needed with reference to the same thing If he knows how to play the flute. we only know the varying v6/j.aTa. To know the "laws" of /ioucriKi} and to know these irp6. he who knows how to plead a case at law (Sucdfeo-ffai) must have a right knowledge of justice. if he does not know the facts he will not know the laws 2 either. the mathematical ratios corresponding to the fundamental intervals in the musical scale. ing this he will also know its opposite. Similarly the "laws "in accord with which a just verdict should be given If you do not know rest upon the real objective character of to Sikcuov.126 VAEIA SOCEATICA what is in the whole (ear* yap ravra ra>v iravTwv Tr\vd)} and he will do when will called upon. — — . . On this theory a decision which is in accord with the vbjioi. you cannot really know the laws in accordance with which you ought to absolve or condemn. knowledge of the good is knowledge of the evil also. and a man who knows the "conventions" prevailing at Athens may therefore give a decision which is "conventionally" just. whole" e. he cannot know the laws.g. inference that he who knows the truth about things knows do about the meaning of the writer.oi or "conventions" as to what is just which prevail in different communities." you can no more give a just decision than you could compose a melody without knowing the fundamental harmonic intervals. and the things other And he needs also to know all the laws. necessarily .yp. irpi. viz. But these laws depend upon certain irpdypara or objective realities. The reasoning seems to be directed against the view that we do not and cannot know the 0iVis of to SUaiov. of a given tAXis is a "just" decision relatively to that to'Kls. in other words the 0iV« or eJSos of the "just. For it is the same man who knows the laws in music and who knows music. what to Slxaiov airb & (an muaiouvvq in Platonic phrase is. according to the Heraclitean doctrine Hence since " in the of which we have found traces in the Surtrol \6yoi. and therefore if you do not know the irpayp. from /iou<ri/«7 seems to be that you cannot be novain&s unless you know the laws which have to be observed in constructing a melody. he flute if it is necessary to always he able to play the so. 1 And I do not feel quite sure sense to be that the reason why good and evil are the same thing.yfi. "conventions" of society are founded on a real objective distinction between the Stuaiov and the aducov.

The conclusion therefore is that the 8iaXeKTtic6<. We must there- an influence of Hippias as well as of Socrates on our unknown author. and the foregoing sentences in which he extols (j>ins at the expense of p6/uos. to point out. too 12V And then <he is able to converse > briefly <if> hg is called on to answer a So then he must know everything. that philosophers. That the author is not Hippias himself seems clear from the difference in style between the Suraol Aifyoi and Plato's imitation of . would seem to be that the 1 Apart from the curious specimen of mnemonics. there (a£ is a further point of contact with Hippias." The appearance of the idea in the Sta-aol \6yoi seems thus to be a clear indication of Socratic influence. is The not the connection of this topic with what has gone before obvious. as it is needless same as that expressed by Plato of the in the art demand dialectic. who figures in both Xenophon and Plato as standing in a rather closer relation to Socrates than any of the other famous " sophists. the man who can play the game* of question and answer. in the conception of the master of tuv \brywv t4x" m )i as heing also a polymath and an t&v airavruv. as Diels notes. And note that Plato there makes Hippias dwell on the the art of discourse authority irepl ipitrios " brevity " required for dialogue fore probably recognise much as our writer does. and by Xenophon in the claim into which he puts makes men "fit the mouth of Socrates that dialectic to bear rule. In the few remaining lines of the fragment the writer passes on to the discussion of the value of a good memory. but passage is interesting as recalling mnemonic art of Hippias. secundum artem. Protagoras 337 d. at once with the irepl iravra etSco? or philosopher. The reasoning here is superficial enough. but what about everything should interest us identity of the is that its purport is to establish the 8iaXeKTiic6$. then." Our general result. shall the masters of be kings. is is the true philosopher. particularly give political advice (Sr/firjyopeiv). Of. and with the man who can do everything. and the true philosopher true statesman and prjrap. is the also the The as position.* THE AISSOI AOrOI everything. where Hippias speaks to the assembled "sophists" as persons who know tV (piaiv twv wpay/j-iruv." question. and the illustration of the ways in which memory may be aided by the formation the of artificial associations.

That Xenophon. but with a familiarity which would be illmannered if it did not rest on fairly close acquaintance. further serve to confirm our contention that Plato's picture of Socrates and his circle is in the main historically than it is now usual to suppose. the theory of the philosopher- Platonic. professor. should have given a whole chapter to Hippias (Memorabilia iv. as Diels says. and it is as a mere conjecture that I would suggest that his purpose in constructing his antinomies may have been to reinforce the his Eleatic doctrine that tcl iroKKd. . shows unmistakable traces of Socratic influence. seems to with the show king. much more accurate The writer gives clear indications of belonging to the class of semi-Eleatic thinkers represented for us in the Socratic circle by Euclides and Megarian associates. is any truer than its contradictory. and with points burlesqued in the Clouds of Aristophanes. of Plato and the Protagoras and Oorgias. notably the Protagoras.) that the identification of the dialectician statesman. all the probabilities He seems to have written in Attic. as most persons who had anything to say naturally did in the latter part of the fifth century. Moreover. points in the same direction.128 VARIA SOCEATICA death of Socrates at Siaa-oi \6yoi. and that no belief about them Hippias. and ii. (in other words. In the mutilated condition in which his work has been preserved all safe indications of his ultimate object have been lost. the X6701 are obviously not an " epideixis " by a travelling Schulvortrage I would add that there is no : evidence that Hippias ever used a Doric dialect. and that are against it. but. written possibly before the and the latest in the very earliest years of the fourth century. Platonic dialogues. the contents of the world of sensible experience. The statement that Socrates was more closely connected with Hippias than with other " sophists " is based upon the marked difference of tone between the Hippias i. are unknowable. and the beginnings of the doctrine of eiBy are preand presumably therefore due to Socrates and his The repeated correspondences with some early circle. seriously reckoned with in and must be any attempt it to reconstruct the history of Greek thought in the generation immediately anterior to Plato. 4). who says nothing of the interviews between Socrates and Protagoras or Gorgias. In particular. Socrates does not treat Hippias with the formal politeness which he reserves for the other distinguished foreign savants.

is one of the most precious of all documents for the study of the development of Greek philosophical thought.IV The Phrontisterion In the first essay of the present collection I have tried to show how much may be learned by a right use of Plato's Phaedo about the vie intime of Socrates and his connection with the Pythagorean societies in which " philosophy " was " pursued as a way of redemption from the " body of death into everlasting life. and how if ridiculously Aristophanes has misconceived his function the currently accepted view of Socrates as primarily a is commonplace moralist of the market-place history. so far as I know. notably in Italy. the very lineaments which we see glorified by the approach of martyrdom in the Phaedo. all serious doubt as to the historical character account of his master's pursuits and mental history should be dispelled. This is a fact which has already been recognised by some writers on Socraticism. By the tragedy of the Phaedo I now wish to set the splendid comic burlesque of the Clouds. If we can do of Plato's so. if it can be trusted at all. by the hand of a master in the art. 1 but is not. and to show how very exactly the one confirms the other. K . adequately appreciated among ourselves. we ought to be able to trace in it. veritable For if the Clouds is really a genuine caricature. with due allowance for the distortion which it is the business of the caricaturist to effect. of the hero of the Phaedo. "We are still too much in the habit of taking 1 it for granted that the 129 " Socrates " of See the Postscript to the present Essay. and for this reason the play of Aristophanes.

of and course. when the play was pro- duced. brilliantly Even Dr. but a features of of composite the leading peripatetic professors are in- geniously blended. so exactly confirms the statements of the Phaedo as to the entourage of Socrates and his early associations with the science of the I propose. that Euripides (he Rationalist. sort all man. who has shown so how much may be personality learned from the Frogs about the " Socrates " the historical it and habits of Euripides. when carefully read.) that in all probability Socrates was not well enough known in 423. 106. more especially by the protagonist is no real individual photograph in which the influence of Grote. p. to previous generation. I is doubt that the Platonic down to matters of all is To be more undertake to give reasons against the for holding that the play not directed at against " sophists " in the sense in which that word commonly group of aa/cyo-is. a general attack on the " sophists. understood persons in English. has of the thought see. fact. the work would. pretenders to specialist knowledge of has been persuasive made to mean Its any and every kind." and by " sophists the exponents of this view mean. with an entire dis- regard for historical The play. however. we are commonly told. is little curiously exact even precise. lose all its value for the student of Plato of philosophy. show in detail that it is not true. but a specific who combined 1 scientific research with is." 130 Aristophanes caricature. and a life-like which all a notable personality as a fancy-picture in the ludicrous or objectionable features of the "new is learning" have been combined. and that the Clouds. necessary to dismiss Clouds as no true caricature with the remark (as we shall a mistaken one. the travelling professors of the arts of speech. the quest of salvation from the body. Verrall. as to leave representation detail. but what it for us. 1. not what the word really signified in the Attic of Aristophanes' time. 1 If this were true. for wanton disregard of verisimilitude in the comic picture to be detected or resented by the mass of Athenian playgoers. against the note . of is VAEIA SOCEATICA not so much a caricature.

then. to " catch on cature. over. of all men. and the dialectician as the true statesman which we have come to connect more particularly with the Platonic Republic. But. — — And be believed by the public to be. To exhibit to a public who were familiar with the personality of the actual Socrates a mere composite portrait in which " the various features of half a dozen different " sophists are thrown Archelaus. it is obvious that baseless misfor representation. That because the caricature of Socrates was a bad one will be made . it is essential to Diogenes. or must is to succeed. the comedian's first object with any public " caricature must be. the likeness must be such that there can be no possible doubt in the mind of the public as to the person aimed at. To succeed at all cannot be supposed to have ignored. together. Hence. It will be my object to show that Aristophanes is only speaking the truth when he calls particular . Protagoras. would have been as feeble a jest as it would be to-day to exhibit a character made up of traits drawn from the members of five or six different Cabinets under the name It would have been to court or Balfour. — 1 I may it did not fail be reminded that the Clouds did in fact prove a failure. I must deal with one or two considerations of a general nature which seem to me is fatal to the view that the burlesque of Aristophanes aimed at a mere type. with the proper exaggerations and distortions. Prodicus and the label " Socrates " affixed to the result. apparent in the course of the present essay. as all genuine caricature should be. to begin with. not. In the first place. which a spectator or reader can detect fatal to the what it is. as Dr. that I can is specifically make it have been drawn from the point I think. -of Asquith 1 failure. Verrall has seen. and. of a perfectly individual character.attention to the minute care which he has lavished on the work he not unreasonably extols as the best of his comedies (Clouds 522 ml rairr/v . moreclear that the brunt of the attack " directed against the conception of " dialectic as the universal science. at the exhibition. must be popular success of a cari- a consideration which Aristophanes. like its original.— THE PHRONTISTERION very circle 131 whose portraits of view of a sympathizer in the Phaedo. after all.

that the famous oracle of the Pythia. we may reasonably take it for granted that Aristophanes.) should have failed in his caricature. as a man of sense. be shown both by external and by the external evidence. not to mention that. and I will merely remind my reader here that it is taken for granted in the Charmides that the public activity of Socrates among the veoi had attracted attention as early as the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. trotpilrraT' lx etv ™" its i/ufo Ktaiiuidiuv). also dealt with him and his circle. which preferred cature was too good and thorough to be fully appreciated . I submit. was on personally friendly terms with the philosopher. would not have endangered fhe popularity of his play by selecting as effect. on Plato's showing at least. to tacitly internal evidence. either from want of adequate acquaintance with its object or from carelessness bred of the knowledge that his audience would not be able to detect bad work. it made has figured already in part in a " of Socrates. Hence the to that Aristophanes (who. seems to me definitely excluded. the Kiceos. Further proof that Socrates was sufficiently wbll known in 423 to be a suitable butt for comedy is afforded by the fact that the rival play 6f Amipsias. according the Symposium. The internal evidence of the play itself is to the same For one thing. As be in drawn from the chronological assumptions the Platonic dialogues. Thus we may take as certain that Socrates and his doings were perfectly familiar to the general public of Athens years before the production of the Clouds. Socrates had been a prominent figure in the narrower circle of the " wits " who gathered round Pericles and Aspasia for a possibility still longer period.132 the theory I VARIA SOCEATICA am combating to assume that the personality of Socrates was almost an unknown quantity when the this Clouds was exhibited. false That for assumption is entirely can. that the play failed because the cari- by an audience high comedy diluted by farcical horseplay and bawdry. It would be much nearer the truth to say. from which Plato himself dates the notoriety of Socrates as a public character. as the poet himself suggests. while a combination of the data preceding essay on the " impiety afforded by different dialogues shows. it must be placed earlier still. as I shall shortly show.

and in whom his audience was interested. In almost every point of importance the character ascribed to Socrates and his fia8r}ral throughout the play is ludicrously in contrast with all that we know of Protagoras.. in point of fact. as Plato plainly hints in the Gorgias and Meno. robs AvvTroStfrovs \4yeis. like knows where to take his son as soon as ^ux«" <to^>Qii tovt iarl <j>povnart\piov kt\. but the high-born and leisured (uo-oSrjfioi whose sons sought to buy the secret of success from Protagoras or Gorgias or Thrasymachus. he has got his promise to be put to school. how could Strepsiades it for granted that the (ppoynimjpiov was the proper school to which to take his lad ? Moreover. Strepsiades at once on the other hand. it was obviously his business to attack it in the person of some one who was generally known as one of its chief representatives. The 1 <]>povTio-Tao of the Clouds.ipe<f>uv.o<.) The fame of Socrates and his friends is thus perfectly well known to a mere bumpkin. so universally known that a country bumpkin who wished his son to get a training in " cuteness " would at once think of Socrates and his friends as the natural quarter in which to apply. and their likes. that Socrates and his " notion-shop " were. Prodicus. : : \ ibxptufVTas. 102 robs dXafiras robs Clouds 94. and it is in this fact.o<s. that we must look for the real cause of the unpopu- and well-born it keepers who made up larity of " sophists " with the Srjp. \ &v 6 KaKoSalfuav XuKpdrtjs Kal Xa. and this is to me personally a very significant be represented as taking point. made large sums by their profession. the main idea of the play clearly is. It is equally familiar to the lad himself. If Aristophanes meant to attack the "new learning" at all. 1 If the Athenians of 423 scarcely knew of Socrates at all and took little interest in his doings. Further. (Note the intentional Equivoque in \pvx&v Behold yon gatheringplace of wisest spirits Sieh da den Sammelplatz gelahrter Geister. .THE PHRONTISTERION 133 Us leading figure a person of whom little was known and in Whom no one but the "intellectuals" took much interest. addressed themselves specially to the youth of the wealthy was not the small farmers and shopthe St}/j. there is as an attack no internal evidence that the Clouds is meant on the popular teachers of Ehetoric at all. class . and They were fashionable men who moved in the highest circles.

what is parodied not the " art " of Protagoras and Gorgias. and cannot he sure of a dinner from one day to the next (Clouds The instructions of Socrates are not given in the salon 175). and as always proving fatal by its novelty to the rhetoricians of established reputation to enter the lists against it. and never in the " professional if sense of teacher of plausible oratory " is — singular fact. the " eristic which Plato represents as characteristic of Socrates and his Eleatic and Pythagorean friends. but that verbal quibbling and captious questioning which. hut to judge from the performances of the two \6yoi themselves. but the ragged and fleasy Chaerephon (ib. the 7)fti0vf)Te<.ov is not that of plausible oratory. but an astronomer and cosmologist like Thales (cf. Clauds 180. as we have seen. but in his own dingy and His typical pupil is not a young fashionable. but the very as an enemy would call it. where Socrates is said to be one of the fiereuipoaiupurTat. of Aristophanes. . from Protagoras downwards. 156. were believed to deal. the son of Hipponicus. of a great man like Callias. who venture It is a-o<pia-Ti]<. 503). as well as from the behaviour of Strepsiades and Phidippides after their course of attendance at the school. 1 On the other hand. there is another name 1 To be exact. laughed at by the poet as a specimen of the Orphic seekers after salvation. perhaps worth while to note that the very word hardly occurs in the play at all. the name"Vo0i<rra( is found four times. the particular of " is '' way of performing the trick taught in the <f>povTiarripi. In a word. the " practitioners of dying " of the Phaedo. as we saw in the last essay. Socrates the main object of the comedy to use as a burlesque on the great masters of that accomplishment. It is true that the special trick of which " Socrates " is said to keep the secret is that art of making " the worse case appear the better" in which all the Professors of Rhetoric. At 359 Socrates is which does not mean a "sophist" at all in the sense in which we have unfortunately come to use the word. nor in a ruinous handsome house. goes back to the paradoxes of Master Yea-and-Nay of Elea.a " 134 VAEIA SOCRATICA live the Socrates of the Apology. palaestra." or. iv /ivpicu irevlcu. elsewhere." dialectic.

as the kb. not much later. of course.0' i)\iKlav wariip ai/iTavTO. it is meant. which has been confused by the entirely inconsistent with the notices given in Plato. which. were grown men when Socrates and his ^Xi/ces were children). may be supposed to be specially trmpurral aimed at Meton and his reform of the Calendar). iroWd fioi iariv This. is All the instances seem to show that the directed is exhaustive quotation here. does not mean merely that it would have been just ehfv." and may therefore reasonably be said to make their living out of the " weather " all reference to the popular teachers of Rhetoric is excluded by the nature of the case. but this is From Protagoras 317 <* imaginary date of the gathering in the house of Callias." spoken of as a second and greater Thales). Prodicus. irepl avdpunrov (pvaios. iiddruy.e." as an old man talking to young people may do without impropriety. fivBov \iytav £iri8el%tii kt\.C. ir&repov bfuv. At . apparently with reference to the exhibition of " eristic " which he has just given at the expense of his may judge from which the Clouds "sophistry" against something quite different in kind from the art of Protagoras and Gorgias. rbiruv. at 331 the Clouds " are said to provide support for a herd of (rapurral. are too numerous to require creditor. " notionists.. physically possible for Protagoras to have been a father at the date of Socrates' i.e. roughly some birth. and exactly reminiscent of the very gift of "dialectic" which is made so prominent in Plato's portrait of Socrates." and at 1309 Strepsiades is called tovtov tov atupusrlpi. in all probability. "dithyrambic poets. The current chronology. ws irpetrfifrrepos veurre'poLs. claim to be peculiarly acquainted with the "things aloft. (/xeTeupo- and the (pivaicas." and "astronomical quacks" a jeer which. e. dead when the play was exhibited. if we the event. " writers of medical compendia " (larpor^xvas.6' rjhuclav implies. like). and Hippias (itatroi iroWd ye tn) ij5ii el/d ev rrji Tiyyr\i. it will become more evident than ever that he can hardly be particularly aimed at in the Clouds when we consider that he was. oiSevos Stov ov Trdvriav hv ip. whether as poets or as men of science. places his death either about 415 or about 411. (i. With regard to Protagoras in particular. /col yip xal ri. as we shall shortly see.THE PHRONTISTERION 135 under which Socrates and his intimates are repeatedly held up to derision. 1111 Socrates undertakes to make Phidippides <ro<pt<rTT]v dcfaip. than 440 B. and that he was a full generation older than Socrates. tale of his prosecu- tion for impiety. irepl the trepl Stainjij irepl rixvys. though here ' ' again these " sophists " are more precisely described in the following lines as " seers " (with a special reference to Lampon). but that he was a man of the previous generation Protagoras and his contemthirty years older. The passages which show that 6 <ppavnari\% must have been a current nickname. or Anaxagoras . he does by teaching him the trick of "eristic. and that name is <j>povri<TTai. The same thing is implied at 320 c when Protagoras proposes to expound his views in a "story.wv ko. Thus the iiereuposeem to be persons who.). poraries. if at all. i. Such a proceeding would be an intolerable piece of arrogance in a speaker addressing men only some fifteen or sixteen years younger than him: elderly at the • we learn that he was already an man — — . persons like the composers of such Hippocratean works as aepow. in the light of the parabasis. presumably derived from the constant recurrence of the notion of <ppbvr)<ni in the daily discourses of Socrates.

Aristophanes. The theory which brings him down to 480-411 seems to rest on nothing better than the tale that his "accuser" was Pythodorus. ol/uu y&p airbv airoOaveiv iyyis cj35ofi-r)Koi>Ta err] yeyovbra. . These results appear to me no less certain that they are inconsistent with the story of the prosecution for impiety. which brings down the birth of Protagoras to about 485-480. This accounts.C. and.1 Plato's words. which would be absurd if supposed to be spoken within little more than ten years after the event to which they refer. ment except that of Plato in the Meno 91 e. has been so thoroughly established by Professor Burnet that we may hope in another generation or so to see it expunged even from the text-books of the history of Greek philosophy. as the probable latest date for his This fits in well with the immediately following observation of the Meno that his reputation remains undiminished in eh ri)» yiUpav Tavr-qvl. was a favourite date with the Alexandrians in fixing the d/c/«j of persons for whom no more exact data were The assumption that the d/f/ti) of Protagoras coincided with this available. we have really no trustworthy stateof thirty. in an old man talking with persons who were babies when he was in his prime it is graceful and natural. in complete accordance with Plato's assertion that he was already well on in years when he disputed with Socrates in the house of Callias. and we thus get 430 B. But it is absurd to prefer such a transparent combination to the clear and consistent indications of the Protagoras. Now the foundation of Thurii. for the way in which he addresses Socrates at the end of the dialogue as a young man of promise who self . that he lived to be about seventy. Diogenes Laertius viii." So his abode is " botherationists.) The case of Protagoras is thus similar to that of Lysias whose traditional date has notoriously been got wrong in consequence of the fixing ! of his d/f/ii) by reference to the foundation of Thurii." i. a member of the very class from whom the admirers and pupils of the " sophists " were recruited (Cf. than seventy." the problems upon which he sets his scholars to work are <f>povTl8e<. 361 e ovk &v Bav/juLfaifU el tSiv eWoytfxup ytvoio AvSpum 4irl aoiplai. most important event in his recorded career.. St. Thus the birth of Protagoras must be put back to somewhere about 500 B.136 VARIA SQOEATICA minute philosophers. for the "moderate reactionaries" of 411 as the "disciples" of the "sophistic" poet Euripides. The falsehood of this tale. rather death.e. like the fall of Sardis. may yet distinguish himself. "one of the 400.C. ko. if anything. which had been already discerned by Mr.. The current chronology. require us to suppose that the exact less number of years was. Frogs 967. These are not the words of a man of forty-five to a man As to the date of his death. taken together with Plato's express assertion that he was just under seventy when he died. again. at once gives 484-415 as his dates of birth and death. George Stock in his edition of the Meiw. 50)." " the fypovrwTTqpiov or "factory of notions. Protagoras was known to have been one of the commissioners employed by Pericles for the establishment of the important colony of Thurii in 444 (Heraclides of Pontus ap. he must be supposed for the purposes of the dialogue to be somewhere about sixty. seems to rest on nothing but one of the usual Alexandrian combinations.

since the speaker's jibe about the "geometry" by which Socrates is said to measure the jump of a flea seems to be an allusion to Clouds 144 ff. The joke lay in the fact that the tj>povn<rTr)s was at work in the open and not. grows weary of the word. in the seclusion of his "factory. this is the point lies in the reiteration of a jest already familiar to the audience. lis ttrrw ns SwKpdrijs Xenophon's allusion occurs in <ro<pbs &vrjp. to confirm this conclusion. ra re luriuipa (ppovrurr'/is kt\. If I read the an intentional hint to the audience that the coming piece is to deal with the humours of the cppovrurral and their <ppovTiaTi)piov. 2 All this shows that cognates until the modern reader. Plato's testimony to the existence of a long-standing popular joke about Socrates as a (ppovrurrfy will be found in Symposium.yp. 6. where the Syracusan maitre de ballet attacks Socrates with usual. x aM a ' t&voi xdruSev lanbirovv. it might be counted on to raise a laugh at the minimum expense of brains. The only reasonable explanation of this " damnable iteration " is. 220 c. | pluv rjSpov arpairbv oaifiovias iireptpva. where. as There was an opportunity to watch the whole process of the making of a (ppovrls.THE PHRONTISTERION " notions. iieriupa TrpA. as a summary of the popular view of Socrates. cf. but a popular term of derision already familiar to the audience as specially appropriate to Socrates and his friends. and adopted as a catchword by the poet precisely because. being so familiar." 1 137 and the changes are rung on ^povri^eiv and its may have been the feelings of the ancient spectator. 75 S\ijv tt)v viiera tppovrlfav oSov.a els ttote 8-fivpov 6p$S>s rb. So it is given in the Apology. b (ppovrurTjp iiriKahoipxvos . oil ovk &v ttoB' ri^pov £Affet 2 yap d\\' i] yr) j8/at Tpbs aOTTjv tt]v tK/j.aTa.dda ttjs tppovrldos. 227 ff. whatever 1 The keynote of the play is struck in the opening exposition when Strepsiades ends his recollections with the remark vvv o5x at 1. Fortunately we have the evidence of Plato." the words S. in fact. el fiij KpepA&as rb (bv koX tt\v (ppovrlSa \ottt)v Karap-elljas el 8' rbv opoiov aipa. when before Socrates falls into one of his trances. <D Xt&Kpares. It might be maintained that Xenophon is here merely reproducing a nickname which had been fixed on Socrates by the Clouds itself.— oi) yap av vlrqp.pa ai. Symposium vi. 18 b. and perhaps also of Xenophon. But comparison with the Platonic passage suggests rather that both the nickname and (?) the joke about the . Unless the nickname had already been in existence there would have been no point in this camp jest. For a single example of a passage which is only intelligible on the view that poet aright. the word goes round the camp Potidaea that ZwK/jdrijs tppovrifav tanjiccv. that the nickname is no invention of the poet's.

102. . The real reasons for his non-appearance are he was not a (ppovTiarfy at all. as we see from the remark of . " imagination wards off and the like. among Agamemnon " I don't give a damn. tppovnar-rii as the catch. my insatiate anxiety. and (6) that he was pretty certainly dead years before. the person caricatured has an educational system which reminds us at more points than one of the programme laid down for the philosopherking of the Republic. fi. " I don't care a curse. and is specially skilled in the controversial use of what. So again the remark made by Strepsiades at 1. or he would have - the QpovTioral. depicted not as a " sophist. and in the habit of practising the elenchus on 423. The same u. are thus presumed to be well of Socrates and his dialectic to the Athenian public with that habitually made by Plato follows at once from the following considerations. . I will add one further consideration. known That this assumption precisely agrees the youths flea are who congregated there as early as the beginning popular pleasantries which Aristophanes found ready to his hand. which should recall to an English reader Swift's ridicule of Newton and the Eoyal Society. we at once recognise as the Socratic elenchus." but rather as what a needy and tolerably dishonest " crank." oi> figured (a) that (ppovrls 'l7riro(c\e(8i)i. is singularly flat unless ippovHfeiv was already applied in a derisive sense to the supposed researches of Socrates and his friends. literary sense of cppovTlfciv in classical Greek. with Plato before us. The opening of the Charmides assumes that Socrates was already a familiar figure in the palaestrae and gymnasia." or such a passage as Aeschylus. Compare the phrases oiSev tppovrlfa.words of the play would be a little perplexing. 4\iris d/ii)ra ippovrtS' &v\i)aTov. oil KaraptSfiei Athenaeus about Protagoras. For the primary.138 VAEIA SOCEATICA is the object of the Clouds not to attack " sophists " at all. but to burlesque a group of "faddists" gathered round a particular individual with whose mental and physical peculiarities the spectators are and who is assumed to be well acquainted.ii vvv tovtS ye (ppovrtfeTe. the very choice of the words Qpovrlfav. 190. Apart from the existence of some such popular "slang" nickname. KSvvos actually had result follows from the consideration that Amipsias' chorus of tppovnaraX." we should call Besides being interested in science in a fantastic fashion. (ppovrls. is simply to be "anxious" or "worried" about a thing. 'A/uei^as 8' iv run K6vvm Athenaeus draws from this the conclusion airbv & twl t£>v (ppovrurTwv xfy m that Protagoras must have been absent from Athens in 423. in his amiable desire to save the labour of the geologizing disciples whom he supposes to be looking for truffles. as the lexicons will show." .

For the age of Alcibiades at the date assumed see 309 a. 3 ) 1 Charmides 153 a. . ib. this points to a date not more than a year or two after 440. that the narrator . farther indicated That Socrates is far from being new to d by the words avOts iyw^atiroi/s Avripurtav hie mission is ret TijiSe.evos. and apparently only just old enough to be allowed to of military age like Socrates. . 6 TOVTtavl T&v v eav Iff kwv ira7"jJ/>. As puberty was commonly supposed to occur in the male at fourteen. much who was in the Apology. could scarcely be so comfortable in Athens as the tone of his speech implies that he is. the imaginary date of which must be some time before the outbreak of the war. had already been impressed by the philosopher's discourses at a time when he was a mere boy.)} The Symposium suggests an even earlier date for the beginning of that selfimposed mission to the Athenian people of which we hear so the war began. 2 The whole story told by Alcibiades in praise of the continence of Socrates was under the age of puberty at the time of the incidents mentioned. of course. again. (Hippias. and served. for instance.THE PHRONTISTERION of the Peloponnesian war. & 5' oi5r6s ffotpds iffTiv otfre avrbs 7rcu5ei5et implies. 2 So. The eulogy of Athens would be inconceivable in the mouth of a speaker whose irarpis was at the very moment engaged in a crusade against Athens on behalf of Greek freedom." 3 Cf. and possibly a little earlier. and Alcibiades cannot have been much younger than twenty when he served at Potidaea. wept re riiv viuv. at Potidaea. We when learn there that Alcibiades. and for his extreme youth cf. and apparently in the height of his renown (319 e-320 a Jlepuc\rjs. Socrates appears in the r61e of a mentor of youth in the Protagoras. Alcibiades. 139 For we are expressly told there that on his return from Potidaea he went straight " after so long an interval " (olov Sia j^povov a^ty/iei/o?) to his "accustomed haunts" (o-wifflet? SiaTpifid*. go about without a iraiSayayy6<. . if Elis had been at the moment a member of a confederacy with which Athens was at war. ircpl <pCKoao(plas Situs Sx 01 Tt&vv. Protagoras 337 d. where he is called avijp and said to be Trifrywcos It is a minor point that Pericles is assumed to be still ijSri iiroTriixir\dp.. living. 217 a itpb rod oix Yet even at this early date elaSiis &vev &Ko\oti6ov fidvos psr airrov ylyveaBai. as the great gathering of " sophists " is scarcely conceivable except in a time of general peace. too. Socrates was so well known that Alcibiades could think it an eirtixqim davimarbv to "hear all that he knew. is described as only just showing marks of puberty.

) But. it is unintelligible why Plato should make him do so.). OrphicPythagorean followers of $t\otro<pla) who figure in the Clouds as nadryral. the brother of the deceased Chaerephon to give do not appeal for confirmation to the appearance of the story in the Apology of Xenophon. Is there anyone wiser than Socrates ? That the oracle quoted by Plato was actually given has sometimes been questioned. Socrates not merely made the story a prominent point in his defence before the judges. This of itself would be enough to show that Socrates must have been a most familiar figure long before the Clouds was put on the stage. Every one knows that. the truth of the narrative is guaranteed by the very fact that Plato makes 1 Socrates propose to put in evidence. Socrates began his missionary career in consequence of the famous answer of the Pythia to Chaerephon's question. or of the production of Pherecrates' Ayptoi. but actually called. But there is still more behind. (I since that work. say that Plato consistently assumes that the public mission of Socrates began not later than some time between 440 and 435. were Note also that it is members of rich and leisured households)." beggarly ascetics and " cranks " of the type of Chaerephon the ghost-raiser (i. Note that in 23 c it is assumed that it was only as a further consequence of Socrates' public appearances as a cross-questioner of 1 eminent men that the Wot began to gather round him. but an entirely different "set.e.140 VAEIA SOCKATICA my own we may fairly Stating the case in the least favourable terms for theory. . according to the Apology. is manifestly itself largely dependent on the Apology and Phaedo. would be idle to argue against it from dates based on conjectures as to the year of the death of Hipponious. According to Plato. but is. and possibly earlier. Unless Socrates really did tell the story at his trial and offer to prove it by witnesses. certain. genuine or not. or offered to call. I venture to think. evidence of the fact. emphatically not these vioi (who. in particular. apart from any question of external confirmation. and it The passage about Alcibiades. seems quite decisive. Apology 21 a. as Socrates explains. The tale itself might pass muster as a mere ingenious kt\. and that to exhibit a pretended burlesque pf him which could not be recognised as accurate in its fundamental points would have been to expose oneself to certain and merited failure.

but one simple inference is unavoidable. a selftrained man with no more knowledge of the science of the past than might be picked up incidentally by turning over books on a vendor's stall. but the that was put. and in the Parmenides of the impression is made and too received in his encounter with the great Eleatic dialecticians. Thus the Apology makes interested in <j)iXocro<f)ia it clear that Socrates had already a high and assured reputation in certain circles led to assume fits for his even before the date we have been appearance as a general crossof men. assuming the truth of Plato's story. and standing in no particular relations with his predecessors in the quest for " wisdom. We have thus every reason to suppose that the picture . The really interesting point about the incident is not so much the answer of the god (which fact that the question is explicable enough). let us observe what we can infer from it. If the managers of the Delphic oracle assured Chaerephon on the faith of Apollo that Socrates was the wisest of men. But now. There has been a good deal of foolish speculation about the matter. we may be sure they knew well enough that Chaerephon already thought him so.8aieTo<}.THE PKRONTISTERION fiction. This. and absolutely irreconcilable with the still common conception of him as an avroSl. The raising of it implies where an interest was taken in aofyla Socrates already had so high a reputation that the question whether he had any living superior could be asked of in circles Apollo without absurdity. 141 were produced but not the absurdity of saying that witnesses to it if every one of»the spectators of the scene could testify that no such witnesses had been called. questioner of all sorts and conditions course. of in with what Plato tells us in the Phaedo of trefil his master's early enthusiasm for the subject called $u<rea>5 laTopia." For the moment I propose to ifse these results merely to show how incredible it is that the Athenian citizens of the year 423 could have been expected by Aristophanes to applaud a caricature of Socrates which was not carefully modelled after the truth.

£0jj. attention to Accordingly. as appears from the fact that Protagoras addresses Socrates by name. supported by the Protagoras. and we shall be prepared to treat the occasional passages of autobiography which the dialogues put into the the mouth of Socrates as authentic records of the highest importance. Since Protagoras has only just arrived at Athens. since the poet takes special credit to himself in the para- shown in its composition. I invite following series of coincidences between Aristophanes and Plato. The Socrates known 1 figure in the streets cire and places of public etvai flearcks resort.ditav. if it can be shown that the leading features in the of the character of Socrates as caricature exactly correspond with traits and history vestige is delineated by Plato. irpoyiojSiJi. and we may reasonably expect to recover by close study of the caricature the main features of its original no less failure of his confidently than. and may therefore be of a thorough critical revision. ffl Siixpares. to be imposed on) koX ra&njv ffocp&TaT fyeiv tojv ifiuv is We must remember that our Clouds supposed to have had the benefit 2 a second edition." so far we might go as to suggest we have better ground for confidence in the case of the earlier play. In that dialogue Protagoras and Socrates are represented as already personally known to each other. K(afuoi. we can do that the same thing Indeed.aTeia of Socrates. then. and show their taste by appreciating that art adequately. iirip i/ioii). though a well- conception of the general character of the Trpay/j. Hence. Clouds 521 | i/tcts iryoi/ievos dermis (not likely. (1) To consider first a matter which affects our whole of Aristophanes. the last of reasonable suspicion that the Platonic portrait unhistorical will be removed. Verrall has shown. a careful and elaborate piece of a distortion into the grotesque of a figure with which both the poet and the audience upon whom the success or comedy depended were familiarly acquainted. and Socrates had not been aware of his .142 VAEIA SOCEATICA is of Socrates in the Clouds art. a piece of self-praise which would be oddly out of place if the leading personage of the drama basis for the exceptional art invites the spectators to 1 bore no close resemblance to his acknowledged prototype. though he had neither introduced himself nor been named by any member of the This conclusion again is company (316 c dpBGis. in the case of the Aristophanic "Euripides. as Dr. 2 is Aristophanes.

and they regard we presence until informed by Hippocrates. and low. we find the Aristophanic account But when we turn amply confirmed. we might be inclined to suspect Aristophanes of reckless misrepresentation. but a teacher with fiadifrai. and contrives to compel all manner is of men. since Hippocrates asks Socrates for an introduction to the great man expressly on the ground that he has never yet personally It iiipaxa Hpwray6pa.THE PHRONTISTERION 143 moreover the centre of a narrower special circle whose appearance testifies to the mortification of the flesh. this former occasion that Protagoras met him. however. oiSi must then have been on Socrates' future distinction had formed the high expectation of which he had already expressed to "many" (wpbs iroKKois S-i) dpy/co. previous visit of Protagoras to Athens which took place. and chance comers generally.v jriiTrore 068' ax-qnoa. are told at 310 when Hippocrates. If we had no description of Socrates to compare with this except that of Xenophon. and who are engaged in studies of an abstruse kind which make no appeal to the " man in the street. 361 e). craftsmen. who are represented in the play as living in his house and carrying on their studies there. like in iii. no doubt. life. who is now a young man of means. some kind had a common to Plato dining. 1). was 310 e also takes it for granted that Socrates already knows Protagoras. poets. of the deep things of the philosophic and of his own intimate experiences. He discourses with them. This. I owe the view taken above of the significance of the oracle given to Chaerephon in the first instance to conversation with Professor Burnet.table (Mem. fits in exactly with the glimpses given by the Phaedo and Parmenides of the tastes and pursuits of Socrates in his early manhood." He is no mere clever conversationalist and dialectical fencer with politicians. Thus Socrates was already a prominent figure among the rising " wits " at a time of which we can only say roughly that it must have been some years before he had reached the age of thirty. who must not. Sri &v ivrvyxiv woXi) pAXurra tiya/iai ai. the tppovTicrTtfptov. be held responsible for my combination of it with other data. as e. . the acquaintance must have been made on that a mere child. though even Xenophon incidentally reveals in a single passage the suggestive fact that Socrates was connected with a the fiadrjrai society of which. high to give account of their spiritual state. Socrates does. as he does not with the multitude at large. 14. of course. ovUv. but he has also a special circle with whom he connected in a more intimate manner. find his way into all companies.

his passing from

in the prison


as the " sons of

the prophets " did the taking the "


of Elijah.



we " in whose name Socrates talks in the Phaedo, the "we" who are always speaking of " beauty itself," "justice




" setting

the seal " of the expression

on such concepts in and answers" (Phaedo 75 d), and with whom the reality of such entities is what the reality of the " thinking thing " was for Descartes, the standard or They are sharply criterion of all other reality (ib. 77 a). distinguished from the more general public to whom Socrates addresses himself in obedience to the mandate of Delphi by the fact that they are not to be satisfied with arguments from analogy, the eiraicTiicol \6yoi which




b %ctti)

their "questions

Aristotle thought so characteristic of Socrates, but require
to be convinced



demonstration based upon an adequate

d). In their eyes the reality of and the other eiSr), is such an a\-ia viro0ecri,<s, and it is with reference to them that these concepts are called i/ceiva rcb iroXvffpvXtjTa, "those much-talked-of 1 Primarily these persons, as we meet entities" (100 b). them in the Phaedo, are not so much fiaOriTal as comrades of Socrates, Pythagorean /ladrjrai of Philolaus, and scholars But even among the younger of the Eleatics from Megara. men who might properly be called fiaOrjTai we seem to come across a few who stand in something of the same Plato's brother kind of special relation to the master. Glaucon is one of them, for all his love of dogs and sport, and this explains why, in the tenth book of the Republic,

postulate" (92







among the

"we" who


accustomed " to posit an etSo?

each class of things

which are called by a common name, and to say that it is this IBea which the workman imitates when he makes a bed or a table (Republic 596 a, b, where note the repeated insistence on the fact that the theory is one which " we " are " accustomed " to maintain, rfji dtcOviat
1 See the illuminating discussion of these passages in Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy? pp. 354-356.

This, too,











no doubt,

why Adimantus, who had been



the earlier part of
to carry


and leaves Glaucon

raya0ov is raised, on the discussion about the Good, the different grades of reality and cognition, and the principles of scientific education, and does not intervene again until at 548 d we reach the more popular subject 1 of the imperfect types of personal and national character.
silent as soon as the

topic of the ISea

Adimantus, in fact, belongs to the general public, outside the specially This point is at once made clear and accounted for by the Apology. At Apology 34 a, Socrates proposes to call Adimantus as a witness to prove that Plato, for one, has not been "corrupted " by association with him. This, of course, implies that Adimantus was not himself one of the band of vioi who were in constant attendance on Socrates, since otherwise his evidence would have been worthless. It implies further that Adimantus was considerably older than the other two, and stood, as we say, in loco parentis to them. (Plato was apparently the youngest of the three, since the apparent date assumed for the discussions of the Republic is 411 B.C., and Glaucon is already at that date a young man with dogs and horses, whereas Plato was then a mere lad, not yet even an t<prifSos.) I call attention to the point because it disposes of the fanciful theory that the choice of Glaucon as chief respondent in the profoundest parts of the Republic is due to his character as an ipariKis. Do these facts explain the curious point that in the opening scene of the dialogue Adimantus is found in company with Polemarchus, like his
Socratic circle.


brother Lysias a partisan of the
Plato's relatives,



Considering the


politics of

we should hardly have expected to find Adimantus associating so familiarly with persons "on the wrong side." But, as an older man, he may well have kept a cooler head than the young bloods of the family (including Plato, who describes himself in Epist. vii. 324 d as originally enthusiastic wi-l\8^v yap aiirois Ik twos ASIkov fliov iirl SUaiov for the revolution of 404

rpimov tLyovras

SioiK^ffetv Si]


tt6\lv, Siare airois a<p65pa Trpotreixov

tov vovv

and more alive to the advantage of having friends in both parties. He may, in fact, have belonged rather to the party of Theramenes than to that of Critias. (From Xenophon, Mem. iii. 6, where Socrates, from friendship to Plato, intervenes to prevent Glaucon from making himself ridiculous in public life, it would seem at first as though Glaucon were younger than Plato. For he is said there to have come forward as a politician "before he was twenty," and the tradition was that Plato " heard" Socrates If this is correct, Glaucon must have been at least a at the age of twenty. year or two younger. But Xenophon may have fallen into some error about or, again, the anonymous tradition of the age at which the age of Glaucon Plato "heard" Socrates may be mistaken; or, finally, the "hearing" may refer to the beginning of a period of intimate discipleship which had been preceded by a considerable time of more external connection with Socrates At any rate, it seems rash to as one of the interested and admiring vioi.




men who

It is this inner circle of Socratic


which takes


are represented account of the public

applications of the Socratic

elenchus, as the


with their teacher in the <f>povTi<rriqpiov. Xenophon's description of their common meals this description of them as living in the house of Socrates,

In view of


like the Fellows of a College, cannot he said to go

beyond the bounds of fair and legitimate (2) To come now to some details.
pointed out that
it is

I have already taken for granted in the preliminary

exposition of the
peasant. 1

drama that the



inhabitants are perfectly familiar to the dullest Athenian

Both Strepsiades and his son apparently know

a good deal about the reputed mysterious lore and odd

and Chaerephon and the other inmates. And two points, perhaps, fall to be specially noted. The only ippovTunrjs specified by name, other than Socrates, is To "grow exactly like Chaerephon" is held Chaerephon.
of Socrates


out as the highest prize of faithful attendance in the school.



in fact, the standing butt of the poet.


the particular facts about

him which

are singled out for

ridicule are two, his " mortified " appearance,

nection with " spiritist " lore and necromancy. 2
discredit the very definite representations of Mepublic

and his conChaerephon

i. on no better grounds than the combination of Xenophon with the statement about the age at which Plato " heard " Socrates. The language of Plato himself (Ep. vii. 324 e) certainly suggests that his connection with Socrates was no new

thing in the year 404.

Is it too fanciful to see in the nightly ippovrlt of Strepsiades

an allusion

to the nightly meditations of Phaedra, elsewhere burlesqued

by our



503-4 oiSiv Siol<ras For the second, I must refer again to the passage from the Birds already dealt with in Essay It may be significant also both that Xenophon is so silent about a man I. who had clearly been one of the best known of the Qporrurral, and that when he incidentally breaks through his silence it is to class Chaerephon with Simmias, Cebes, and Phaedo, and others who associated with Socrates purely

375-6) ? ruin of his fllos. 2 For the first,

XP^IM BrqT&v itppbvna' fji 8U<p8aprai /Jfos (Hippol. So Strepsiades had been awake all night reflecting on the impending
vvurbs tv fiatcpwi



besides the tale about the
otfwi Ka.Kob~n.lpMv



Socratic sense (Mem.

"for their souls' health," that they. might become koXol I take this to mean that he, i. 2. 48).


in the


was one of

thus figures as an example of the kind of



whom we

read in the Phaedo that the irdKKoL are only too

ready to admit their claim to be persons


ovZev aXKo

airoOvquricebv re koX reOvdvai



Indeed, I would not be too sure that the passage does not

contain a side glance at Aristophanes, as the person who had given the most famous literary expression to this popular estimate of the #to? $t\o<ro^o?. do not hear


anything of Chaerephon in the Phaedo, but the reason is, as we learn from the Apology, that he had finished his course between the return of the exiles from Piraeus and the trial of Socrates. We shall thus be not far wrong if we put
Hence, perhaps, his selection as the thoroughly Pythagorean and Orphic a dialogue as the Gorgias. The only other references of Xenophon to Chaerephon are insignificant. From Mem. ii. 3 we learn that there had once been ill-feeling between him and his brother Chaerechrates, and in the Apology the story of the Delphian oracle is repeated from the Platonic Apology. Hermogenes, who is another figure in Xenophon's list, also figures among the company present at the death of Socrates, and so, of course, does Crito. This leaves only Chaerecrates, out of the whole list, ^unaccounted for. As we learn from Xenophon that he was the younger of the brothers, and is thus presumably the witness called by Socrates to the facts about the oracle, the silence of Plato about him is curious. Perhaps the explanation may be that the dissension was too deep-seated to be appeased even by the intervention of Socrates, and led to a separation between Chaerecrates and the rest of the group. Or he may have been dead too, and the brother of the Apology may be a different one. It is, however, suggestive that Xenophon says nothing of the success of Socrates' attempt at a reconciliation. The leanings of Hermogenes are indicated by his delight with the derivation, called by Plato "Orphic," of trw/m fromV(iifei», as though the body were the " prisonhouse " in which the soul is "reserved" for the day of judgment (Cratylus 400 c). One may fairly conjecture that Xenophon's whole list of persons, who, unlike Alcibiades and Critias, associated with Socrates for the simple purpose of becoming nakol Kd.ya.8ol, is made up of sympathizers with Orphic and Pythagorean ideas and practices, and, in fact, that this list, the group of intimates in the Phaedo and the iiadiyral of the Clouds, are identical, when allowance has been made for the changes in personnel brought about by the Phidippides and his father do not propose lapse of a quarter of a century. to join it like Alcibiades and Oritias, in Xenophon, they mean to stay in the school only long enough to get hold of the art of success in the'elenchus, and then to return to the " world," and Strepsiades is exceedingly impatient at the magnitude of the preliminary routine through whioh Socrates insists on putting him. But Socrates is throughout no mere professor of the two \byoi, he is first and foremost the head of a permanent body of naSip-ai,
the Pythagorizing seekers after salvation.

companion of Socrates in





figure in Aristophanes as Socrates' fellow-members of an "impious" Orphic or semi-Orphic " conventicle," half a " church " and half a " hell-fire club," like that of Cinesias and his KaKoBatfiovia-rai. To proceed a few lines further. The very first words of the fia6r)rrj<; who opens the door to Strepsiades throw

down the men who

an absolutely startling light on one of the most familiar passages in Plato. He complains that, by the untimely noise, <£/>oim'8' ii;rj(ifi\(OKa<; i%r)vpr)nevT)v, " you have caused In a language so the miscarriage of a notion" (137).
chary of

metaphors as the Attic of the



such an expression

much more

vigorous and unnatural

would, unfortunately, be in a language like our

own, which has been debased by the journalistic style of which the abuse of metaphor and the inability to say a simple thing in simple words are so familiar a symptom. Yet, even in English, the phrase strikes one as a very extraordinary way of saying " you have interrupted our studies." "We should at least put down a man who expressed himself after this fashion to an intruder as an " original," given to the use of remarkably picturesque phraseology. 1 We have, therefore, the right to assume that the violent metaphor is employed for a definite purpose,

and the suspicion
organized with
like a


raised almost to certainty

when we

and meals, and even religious rites, exactly have already shown that this is also the Platonic account, and it is of supreme importance that Xenophon should be found unconsciously revealing the same thing. The avvtienrvovmes, of whom mention has already been made, are, no doubt, the members of the


Pythagorean bpaKbiov.


1 As an instance of the way in which unusually picturesque metaphor, even in English, sometimes produces this impression, I may mention having heard it recorded as a striking thing in a west-country village once visited by Tennyson that the poet had been heard to complain of some neglect of his comfort as "awaking a dormant cold." The inhabitants commented on this as a piece of diction only permissible in a poet with an established reputation, who might thus be supposed free to take liberties

with words.
Is there

absolute stillness demanded, as of a (ppovTls

any parody of the lge/w0fa ascribed to the Pythagoreans in the it would appear, for the conception and birth,

at once leads us to put a question which the Theaetetus does not answer. according to Plato. rb . still We draw a from this luckily preserved jest. as his pupil made to speak in Aristophanes of the " miscarriage of a concept. precisely because characteristic of Socrates would be recognised as and his <ppovTio~rripiov. without can. as we was all. The double use of the phrase by Aristophanes shows that the metaphor must have been so common on the lips of Socrates that it could be counted on to raise a laugh when put into the mouth of a /ia0)j7T}s whose devotion leads him to copy his teacher's pet catch. " was already traditional Now.THE PHRONTISTERION find the poet calling attention to it 149 by making Strepsiades elire repeat it. obviously as something* out-of-the-way which had touched his curiosity.words. 206 d iroWii ii TTotrjiris 7£yoi/e irepl ri na\bv Sii. a\X' fioi to irpayfia Tov^rt/M^Xtofiivov (139). Socrates did describe himself as a practitioner of the art of spiritual midwifery. The only natural explanation consistent with the belief that Aristophanes is a man of ordinary sense is that the phrase would tickle it the audience. is it young friends to the . Who. J 2 Compare particularly the references in the Symposium to the throes of intellectual delivery. one whose function to bring the ripening thoughts of his birth. more important inference The famous description in the Theaetetus of the pains of the soul which is "in travail " with a thought to which it cannot of itself.) ascribes to Diotima. or what.: and actually spoke 1 in this connection. The thoughts which Socrates helps into the world by his dialectic are the offspring of intercommunion between earnest and ardent minds. just as we could infer from the text of the Critic that Lord Burleigh's sagacious and consequential " nod in the eighteenth century. is the " only begetter " of that which the teeming soul carries in its womb ? The answer has to be sought in the wellaid. give known description of the impulse towards tokos iv kcCK&i which the Socrates of the Symposium (206 c ff. in the next line but one. The close correspondence between the language of this part of Diotima's speech and that of the Theaetetus should forbid our doubting that we are dealing throughout with the same theory. expression. I think. 2 But this 1 Theaetetus 148 e ff.know.

. and the hymn of the sixth book of the Republic. not far to seek. 1 I speak specially of the Symposium.S. yairi\aa% vovv koX dX^Betav." A point which must not be overlooked is that the spiritualisation of the doctrine of tpus into the . as we might say. 7x0/17 re dXij0£s fi6«. and his attempt to divorce the art of getting hold of effective " points of view " and putting them into neat antithetical phrases from the knowledge of man and of life. and Orpheus meet us in Plato. 150 b ivtore p. and Eros himself is a characteristically Orphic figure. in particular.iXkS. all. Bury's On the Orphic connections of the doctrine recent edition of the dialogue. G. Ian 8' 6Ve may turn &\r]8t. Sep. so well love. because the case of the Phaedrus is partly different. irplv ical . wplv 6" oil. a play with an Orphic Ka$ap6s as its hero. in fact. at least.aBi]s. vi. we are in the immediate presence of "St.iro\oyi)<T&fie8a. dre oiic elSii\ov iipairTopJvm. inasmuch as it is largely taken up with a subtle polemic against Isocrates. exactly The source of the doctrine is as the thought of the sponsa Ghristi has haunted the devout imagination of later ages." with its identification of the impulse of the lover and from the Symposium.v&. of their worst scandal against Hellenism (in spite of the fact that it remains to this day as an article of the Creed). I have urged some further reasons for regarding the Symposium picture of Socrates. not primarily Platonic at find in the first-named pey&Xris tb&ivos ground for believing that the presentation of Socrates x dialogue is strictly historical.iv rfdwXa tIktciv. we are in the region of the "mysteries " throughout her The lepos yd/jtos supplied unscrupulous Christian Fathers with discourse. As we might expect from Diotima." and a oritical review of Mr.150 VARIA SOCRATICA so-called doctrine of " Platonic means further that the whole the philosopher.j0at . "A Note on Plato's Vision of the Ideas. the tpyia. and to the possibility that one's inout to be a mere " semblance " of truth. 74). lepbs yi/iot of The careful reader will note for himself that this notion of the Mind with What Is haunts the whole of the Republic. Symp. it is sufficient to remark that in Plato it is always connected with the "wheel of birth. suggest that whenever Ipws. Socrates.1 iiroX^yoi tov Ipuros. R." and that Aristotle specially marks the point when he suggests Hesiod or Parmenides as the author of the theory of the cosmic significance of sexual attraction further worked out by Empedocles. should lament the general disregard of the godhead of tpm (top tSs much 'AQpoSlras tpCKr&TUv BaX&nwv kXijiBovxov 01) aepHfo/iev). 490 a i. &re rod dXijfloOs tyairTofUvm. 212 a tIktciv oix efSwXa dpmjs. of Eros. rat rpitpotro oiirw X^yoi wSivos. is. which forms. o ye 8crus <ptkoii. It is strictly in order that the Eippolytus. . an epithalamium to us for the soul that has known met its Bridegroom. to be singularly accurate in two papers in recent numbers of Mind (N. Thmetet. roi oiic ko. . Sn irpbs rb bv trapvKws ety ap. 69. I would.^ the Phaedrus. . and that &iro\iav rbv tellectual offspring txovra. in its inception but belongs to that And we thus paradoxical and heavenly lover. dXXi iXyBij. Socrates.

even if they are to be taken as expressing personal feeling at all. as we shall shortly see." the conception of a " holy marriage " of the soul with its Divine Bridegroom rb 6V is hardly likely to have come from any thinker who was not himself by temperament an ipoirii<6s. Diogenes Laertius iii. betray themselves by the use of the name "AXefts ("Alick").were fit. I would add that the name Phaedrus probably comes from the Platonic dialogues. & Xdnpares. they seem to me futile. but I have even the (f>povTv<} now not quite done with the matter of which miscarried. . The sense is merely that one must not be too confident that any mere man can attain to the full revelation of the beatific vision. a fflaaos or " conventicle. 209 e touto fiiv oiv ra ipumxa t<rus. while Phaedrus delivers one of the discourses on Eros in the Symposium. there are grave reasons for suspecting the authenticity of those which bear on the point. as does also that of Agathon in the lines translated by Shelley (cf. Neither could have been an ipibftaios of Plato for reasons of chronology. but we have no real evidence as to its presence in Plato. and that there should have been a. 143 Xlj-w vopXcai Si Tavra The school preserves a disdplina arcani. not likely to have been borne by an Athenian lad before Macedonian times. . 1 after a caution against "telling tales out of school. I need hardly add that these remarks are not meant to cast any aspersion on the indubitable " purity " of Socrates. since Alexander is a specifically non-Attic name. as Professor Burnet reminds me." and also a later pair of the same names who were epw/j-evoi of Plato. I homely tone he was daily talk of " fullers and shoe- am afraid I shall try the reader's patience intolerably. Thus we get another glimpse . As for the attempts to extract an admission that Plato is passing beyond the limits of his master's doctrines from the words of Diotima at Symp. In the lines which follow. This is a familiar feature of Socrates. As for the epigrams ascribed to him. This points to the conclusion that the brotherhood forms religious secrets. and its inquiries are XfA\ pvariipia. is too incredible a coincidence. The epigrams on Aster and that on Dion prove nothing at all.THE PHRONTISTERION if 151 Plato has there seen fit to make him discourse in a high poetic strain very different frosi the accustomed to use in his makers and carpenters. ovk olS' el oUs r' ox eifys. The author probably remembered that the famous figures as the host in the great "erotic dialogue. k&v ai itvr]delr}S to Si H\ea ' xal iiroirTuid. Phaedrus and an Agathon who are prominent in the chief " erotic discourses." and. &>v iveKa xal raOra lariv . and also discusses the subject with Socrates in the Phaedrus." it is because he did discourse so when the audience and the occasion. 1 140 dXX' oi Si/us 7rXV rdim iiadtyraiaai X£yeu>. The beautiful lines on Phaedrus and Alexis. The Agathon habit of reading an evil sense into part of the price all classical references to traiSepaffHa is we have to pay for coming to Greek literature full of prejudices derived from the corruptions of Imperial Borne." and is also mentioned as an 4pti/j*vos at Protagoras 315 e. Strepsiades is formally inducted into it by a regular rite of initiation. 29).

The whole group of words is absent from Aristophanes. the very subject of which Socrates tells us in the Phaedo he had. Symposium 1. in iypbv itrri. 321. irepl KaroTTpucwv ifupda-euv. Neither tpi\oo-o<pla nor QiKdtroipos seems to occur in Attic prose before the time of Plato. and not improbably by Pythagoras himself. been an enthusiastic votary. fondness for getting information and cultivating With the Pythagoreans tpiXoroQla acquired the meaning of the pursuit of science as a means to "salvation. as a specimen of the kind of thing in which Socrates was supposed to be interested. Trapixerat. 1 Phaedo 96 a. rb Xa/iTpav <t>\6ya l%eiv 0<3s irapix el > T0 (v avrwi di ^ xa^ lce ""/ Xbjw/jAi' H* 02s oi 7roiei. who are quite as much " saints " as men of science). These are. I think. In the one famous passage where the verb <pi\oiro<peiv occurs (the ^>i\otro(poG/itv is . in the Phaedrus. (For the proofs of all this see Burnet. in early life. The passage of the Phaedo implies that physical science was still known at Athens by the old name ?repl <pti<rea>s 'urropta as late as 399 B. the various opinions on the first point still form a special section of the Placita. It only less prominent in Aristotle. where Socrates propounds as subjects of interest such questions as rl irore b iiiv \ixvos Iiiv Sib. Early Greek Philosophy. Originally they had probably not meant more than their derivation implies. nal irws rb piv PXaiov vypbv 8j> atil-ei ri)V (p\bya. rb Si OSup.C. That is.152 jia6r)Trj<s VAEIA SOCEATICA proceeds to explain what the unfortunate conceit It was. the solution of a mathematical problem from the study known as irepl fyvaew." or deliverance from rebirth.) Also. Karaapivvvn rb irvp. though the same associations will be found to colour his employment of <pi\oao<pia and its cognates wherever they recur (e. what I believe to be his true character as a member regular " church.vbii. For further evidence of the interest of Socrates in such matters see the curious passage of Xenophon." 1 The of a tiurtpua..g. 4. of course. the lexicons will make it clear that the specialised sense of the words was first made current in Attic by the immediate disciples of Socrates themselves. ia-ropta. There is every reason to believe that the words 0i\o<ro0/a. and Gorgias. This is connected with an interesting piece of linguistic history.tva. we have mentioned for at the very first introduction of the school of tppovTio-ral." and so the conclusions of our essay on the Zwcpdrous are again confirmed. 2 p. <pi\o<ro<peTv were first specialised in meaning by the Pythagoreans. and the references given there. &\\a iiujiat. a sense in which it is most conspicuously used by Plato in the Phaedo one's intelligence. though the significance of such a statement has been so generally overlooked that a clever modern writer has been led by a misunderstanding of Aristotle into the remarkable observation that " he only of Socrates in knew enough " of it " to hate it. regular problems about 0ii<ris . was a device its of the length of measuring a flea's jump in terms own foot. and throughout the parts of the Republic which deal with the philosopher-kings. <pi\6<rotpos.

and is so far a confirmation of the assumption made in the Phaedo.THE PHRONTISTEBION jest of Aristophanes does not. 153 prove that by itself Socrates had really interested* himself in mathematical problems. at any rate. like so many other things. 40) the antithesis ' shows that it is used (exactly as by Herodotus in his narrative of Solon and Croesus) in the general sense. Republic. which only means that Socrates did not " specialise " on 0iVis. peculiarly "Platonic" view of inference. 10 elicbs ydp. And what others called them. as the frequenters of Socrates' tppovTurTiipt. we cultivate our intelligence. fiVws ws i\vT&rara fierax^ptovprcu. appears to be both spurious and late. His language is based. 11 ko. I suppose. A 987 b 2. and the rather reluctant admission of Xenophon. but that it does prove that his fellow-citizens believed he had done. & (3ovktf. 1 Meno 82 c ff. where Siramias. who were exempt from Pythagorean influences did not describe themselves or their studies by the names QihbaoQoi. himself a connection with <pi\oKa\ovp. rb cvufiefiTiKbs irdffos ("all who suffer from an infirmity set their intelligence at work to devise a way of making it as bearable as they can "). and this. however. . tpCKoaoQeiv occurs at least once. Thuc. The " modern writer" referred to is Dr.ev ' of Socrates airobs Trepl and his friends." Then we suddenly find the words becoming part of the current vocabulary just at the end of the fifth century. 1 And it is worthy of notice that Aristophanes has thought it worth while to echo what looks like a terminus technicus dvev imXantas of the funeral speech of Pericles. on Aristotle. aM ^ . and Meno. as we see from the references to them in Hippocrates.1 £y&> p. Those of them. Qihovcxpla.ii> • Gnurpi <pi\otro<povvTas tov wpaypuiTos ivrCKiyav tok havrlov XA70K oi 5' ti.ov undoubtedly did. appeals to "geometry" as a That this represents a field in which he and his friends are quite at home. [Lys. 173. that he had some advanced knowledge of these "useless" sciences. is a mere assumption resting on what I hope I have shown to be the mistaken theory that Aristotle is our primary source of information about the philosopher.) Lys. wishing to illustrate the danger of trusting to arguments from analogy. Phaedo 92 d. irdvTas rods ^x 0VT T( dvffT'6x 7lfla tovtq ^ryreiv Kal tovto faXofrotpelv. his TrpaypuLTela. xxiv. Then the whole group of words are familiar in the Socratics and their contemporary Isocrates. In any case the application of the name "philosophers" to the early cosmologists as a body is a misnomer. of course. in his Philosophy of Greece." as is held by Natorp and others.. points to the view that Socrates stood in a very intimate relation with the Pythagorean succession. though in no very exalted sense.pa obn AvriXeyov (The speech. The natural inference is that it was through the Socratic circle that the high significance put on these words by the Pythagoreans made its way into literary Attic. p. <pi<ris formed no part of ivriirparTov. Met. in Lysias.] viii. Benn. and amounts to something like conscious criticism of the "inductive methods" of the "historical Socrates. ii. was <ro0«rraf.

d. though the admission is fatal to his theory that Socrates took the vulgar utilitarian view of such matters.iiT<av yeu/ierplav lw. where &yav nva a proceeding which needs no explanation tG)v 8iaypa. the perverting line it. it is brought up suggests re- again in Xenophon's Symposium.154 of VARIA SOCRATICA science. to " demeasure " or " measure out. The A little farther down (177) we find Socrates again as a mathematician." an expression intended to produce all the greater impression on Strepsiades that he does not understand it. . 115.eva opoXoyetv aW^Xots.fi. ri. 7. . koItol oiK 4irap6s ye air&v i)v. o.Tti)v 2 ra 8iaypdfj. his servant. 83 a. as %a>plov never means " distance. as it does in the famous problem of the Meno} So the verb in dvefierpei to ^mpiov is also a word of art. studying things "on high. drawing figures with a compass in the ashes. nonsense.ij. a regular term of Pythagorean geometry. Meno and That such htor/pafifiaTa are familiar things to Socrates and his circle is further seen from the way in which they are mentioned without any explanation.vBA.a^ev ." and the whole phrase means " he computed the area of the rectangle. Mem. and exactly as he does in Plato for the instruction of the danger of blind confidence in them pointed out in the Phaedo and Cratylus? I would even venture to add that when we take all the passages which have just been referred to as evidence for the interest of Socrates in geometry together.. misused here for comic effect. \oiirti. See also Burnet. At in least. along with the charge of a way which production of popular gossip rather than direct literary 1 82 b.fifi6. but a current popular jest which the great comedian thought good enough to appropriate.To\\a Svra iT6/j. as his business was. Even Xenophon admits Socrates' familiarity with such diaypdfifMTa.vew aireSoKtfi. we may perhaps the flea feel is justified in guessing that the story about not the invention of Aristophanes at all. iv.aTa is referred to as Cratylus 436 d oiSiv &toitov. into which Socrates measures is described at 152 as to yapiov. note 2. ava/ieTpeiv is properly to estimate the size of an area. p. 73 b. 3 t6 8£ fiAxpi tuv Svaavvh-uv Siaypa/j." but always " area " or " rectangle " (literally "field").1 ivlore tou wptiirov cfw<pov ijSyi &8tfKov tf/etidovs yevofxtvov. Sxnrep ko. Td/j. Phaedo 92 d. cit. liri . . . 87 a al. op.

that Proclus. 20 ff. The pupils of Socrates are " discovered " in a variety of strange postures." ' If either Proclus or his authority I had seen a work believed to be by Thales. p." and making astronomical and some of them carrying on both researches at once. and implies. Aristophanes has improved more suo. had seen a mathematical work purporting to be by Thales ( Vorsokratiker? ii. (ji Stjt eicetvov rbv ®a\rjv dav/jid- The point of the comparison is. applications 2 of mathematics to problems of According to Strepsiades. We pass on a little farther.. a minor point of no real more interesting to observe that the / immediate a greater frfiev . who stole the means of providing a dinner for his society under the pretence of demonstrating a theorem with the help of the compasses. 44-46. the gloom observations. that Thales was popularly credited with a number of 180.). 5. 2. cannot understand how this notice should be introduced by a X^yercu. op. I am surprised to find that Diels infers from Proclus. said of Meton. In passing one might observe that the interests in astronomy and in the secrets of the underground world are similarly combined in the myth of the Phaedo. Birds 1009 &v$pwiros eaX?}s ("the fellow's another Newton "). It is however. . 1 Xenophon.) remarkable practical life. or a Xenophon. I can only say that Xenophon's appreciation of the poet's wit must have been very defective. using the old expression "like angles " instead of the more exact later equivalent " equal angles. 8 elir4 /u>i ttSgovs \pi\\a 7r6Sas tyov &irtx eL raOra If this is not a cruder form of a jest which ydp <r£ 0a<« yeuiixerpelv. which offers us at once a general scheme of the ovpavo? and a curious account of the subterranean rivers. and for a similar reference to Thales as the standing type of the great mathematician in Aristophanes. tit. op. all these performances are now thrown into the shade by the ingenuity of Socrates. cit. This is " applied mathematics " of a kind which appealed to the mind of an Athenian petit bourgeois. 6. significance. and are introduced to the interior of the factory. All that Proclus says in the passage is that Thales is said to have enunciated i. In Euclid. 250. of the disclosures of the /ia6 r)T'q<! is to convince Strepsiades that Athens can boast of another and — Thales.THE PHRONTISTERION allusion. of course. 2 For a concise account of the supposed facts see Burnet. vi. and possibly Eudemus. 1 155 This effect is. " searching below Tartarus.

olov irapa ttjv doOeiaav afirov ypafifity Trapareivavra tWelTeiv Toiofirai x^/itwt. 213.\\ti. It worth while to note. He was free to compose a myth for his hero. But the real question is not whether Socrates actually related a myth of this kind in the prison. Euclid's words for the pro- are irapaf}i. (3) We see. properly used of a figure " erected on is " or " applied to " a given straight line as its base. (see ing). once more. a curiosity about both of students to whom the tale is That Aristophanes means quite seriously to represent the Socratic circle as scientific men engaged in mathematical study comes out again at 1. 2 et Meno 87 a. since it is. of course. I rectangle ' ' applied " ought to have observed on neTpei<r6at. . as 1020. of course. a. such as that in the would be. olov &v a&rb rb Traparerafiivov ^t ktX. of Plato's own construction.vawell as x^p' "! i s a technicality.ov In a crude map.o-T-tipi. The presumably playing with Strepsiades much as the Squire did with Moses Primrose. Oeschichte der Mathematik. which we know to have been studied by the Pythagoreans.(pav = (vTelvav. Histoire des matJUmatiqtoes. it is deficient ' Zeuthen. fiiv iffrtv tovto rb x ta P^ ov tolovtov. the stage.). takes the laving out" in a painful metaphorical sense. "' iyypi. where the jest lies in Strepsiades' misunderstanding of a technical term of geometry. or rather over. that even before Socrates appears on. Attica and Euboea look roughly like a triangle plus to one of its sides. but he was not free. as almost exactly rectangular. 1. 152 that the fact that avanerpeiv or 6. Cantor. explains the point in Birds where Peithetaerus says to Me ton oiK Ava/j-erp^o-eis bomtov dra-Hix '> iXkaxv 1 Meton im$T)Ti)s is is dismissed with a word borrowed from his own Tt%vr\.v=irapaTetveiv. and this gives all the Euboea would be represented more point to the jest. but whether It may Plato is offending against verisimilitude in saying that he did. to invent a narrative of the last day of Socrates' life in which all the conversation turned upon topics notoriously beyond the ken of the Socratic circle. ' if (i. that the term is put into 2 the mouth of Socrates by Plato. i. the £X\ei^is. 1 therefore. Strepsiades." ' The problem is a case of the more general one of inscribed in " the circle. tppovTi. irapwrkTaTat. 1]). 37 cesses ff. Aristophanes has prepared us to expect that he will prove 1 to be in the direct line of be said that the myth of the Pkae-do proves nothing. the well-known illustration of the nature of an hypothesis. 187 [ed. iraparelveiv thus means literally to " lay out " a given area along a given baseline. and of which there are numerous examples in the constructions of Euclid ii. when one applies it to the given straight line is of it apparently to the diameter of the circle of which Socrates speak- by a rectangle similar to itself" (see the explanation of the passage given by M. as a literary artist. this rectangle is such that e. then..156 VAKIA SOCKATICA on the part of the group related. just as ivraBrivai in the same passage means "to be laid out in. ' sc.

a new and greater Thales./jAroii' 'Opipeia KariTL/J. Hesiod and Parmenides would. the custom to the Saift. Socrates " Even Xenophon admits. ascribed to Orphic literature cf.1 1 For the "higher mathematics" see Mem. 5 koLtoi oiU roirwv ye dvijKoos Ijv (of speculative astronomy) . speaks of the rebuilding of the Long Walls by Conon.6viov my say that this representation baseless fiction.THE PHMONTISTEBION succession of the Greek 157 astronomers men of science. for the interest in the writings of the "wise men of the past. and Alcestis 967 Opijurouis iv aavlmv ras KOLvijt ai>v rots ypi^avres. and that " Socrates. Euripides." on his first introduction propounder of eccentric and cosmology. come in under this head as they do in Plato. 3 oix S.. as we have seen. ib. Symposium 195 e. (The absence of any reto us. in 343. of course.&V Kairvois. only half a century before. 7." ib. according to him. that knew something " about the higher mathematics. 6. as the work of K6i>ii>i> o iraXatis. I suspect that the " friends " are Simmias and Cebes and their associates. like the "Euripides" of the Frogs. and often need to be rendered in English by words like "some while since. uveXhruiv 0f\ois 8iipxop. likely that he means the early physicists. men as the brilliant Professors of It is notorious that the expectations thus raised are fulfilled. who has his own "private mint" of divinities. they were not aotpol but ivbrp-oi. iv. Hence Xenophon's phrase might quite well cover the works of men It is not like Parmenides whom Socrates had actually seen in his youth. whereas nothing has dropped from the lips of the fiaOrjT^ which could suggest that he is to be put up as a typical representative of so different a class of Ehetoric. But I think the supposed evidence will be found inadequate to support the conclusion.ireip6s ye airiov %v (with reference to the Siaypd/i/mra of geometry). \ . is depicted as primarily a ideas about biology ference to so admirably suitable a subject for burlesque as arj/jielov may perhaps yield some support to view that the "sign" had nothing to do with the imputation of impiety. and that the books referred to are really Orphic. 6-9 . where they are cited as authorities for iraXcud wp&yimTa For the "hoary antiquity" popularly TroXXi ml jS/aia about the gods. is not fair caricature but mere and to appeal for proof of this assertion to Xenophon and the Apology of Plato. 14 Kal rods 0Tj<ravpobs t&v TrdXat oo<pG>v dvdpwv oOs iKeivoi KCLTi\nrov iv fitfiKtots It is not quite clear do not of themselves imply very remote antiquity. Hippolytus 954 iroXXuc ypa/j. for the arguments against Anaxagoras. i. which are much more redolent of Xenophon himself than of Socrates. since. and next as a heretic.) It is. the and geometers." Thus Demosthenes. 7r<£Xcu whom Xenophon has in mind. as we know.at. 7roXai6s.

). of course." whom "Socrates" is only too ready to teach his blasphemies gratis to anyone he can get hold of. and others of which he does not mention the source. was the conduct disliked in the class we call "sophists. i. is he can " make neither head nor tail of" the nonsense which has been put into his mouth by Aristophanes. and appeals to Then he comedy at " (19 d) that he makes all. since the evidence appealed to. and Hippias. make (6) that his judges to hold public 1 must know that he had never been heard discourse on these matters of cosmology (c) that it is absurd to ascribe to him doctrines which every one knew to be the time-honoured theories of Anaxagoras. \ All this is quite compatible enormous antiquity where the reference to aavlSes implies the of the "spells " in question. as Plato's Protagoras explains. 1 This is really an ingenious evasion of the issue. again. and better it. for Apparently "impiety" connected with the study of "things aloft." like Gorgias.e. to say that they may have heard from " some one a living by "educating men. He says that his judges have "seen him in the comedy of Aristophanes " talking a deal of nonsense of which he can make nothing (as. writings of the " sages of the past. besides. he does not attack him as a "sophist. as if he were no longer dealing with Aristophanes and his accusation of "educating men for a living" against Socrates at all. and never even alludes to the matter. is usually unconsciously perverted. their own personal knowledge of him in reply to this burlesque. Note that in the former passage Socrates seems to distinguish between certain misrepresentations which he definitely traces to the caricatures of the comic poets. 26 e. Aristophanes means that it shall be unintelligible). Socrates asks no fee of him." It will be noted that although in the Clouds Strepsiades expects to pay a fee ±o Socrates (98). . Aristophanes and that of "educating men for a fee." and Apology of Plato. that of "common fame." but. as we shall see directly. is another matter. the business of the caricaturist to his " Professor " talk nonsense) . That his coat and shoes vanish after initiation (856 ff. and which are. Prodicus. apparently as a Aristophanes in point of fact never makes the perquisite. " singular " {aroira)? ypa\j/ev yrjpvs. goes on. in fact." proves nothing as to the ideas which were ventilated inside the <ppovnaTJipiov." which. 158 VARIA SOCEATICA • that he was a student of the " treasure houses " of the that he knew enough ahout the system of Anaxagoras in particular to The evidence of the argue against it in some detail.. and is not responsible for What Socrates really says there (a) that it (it being. and that Thus he seems to discriminate between the charges of this also is false. 2 Apology 19 b-d. by swearing to pay whatever is asked of him (245). and offers to follow the well-known practice introduced by Protagoras.

and the inability of their originators to establish them by valid demonstration from " axioms worthy of acceptance. biography introduced into the Phaedo. &ti/jA£uiv X£yw rty roiairriv imarfi/iriv el tls irepl Toirav Plato himself might have said as much. there is a very singular coincidence between Aristophanes and Plato. Contrast the extra- . In fact. it is entirely consistent with the truth of those statements. . since he also held that cosmology is no imrrf/iri. and even that. where a more absolute disclaimer would have stood him in better stead.THE PHRONTISTERION 159 with the view that Socrates at one period of his life had taken a much greater interest in cosmology than he did in his later days (which is exactly what Plato asserts in the Phaedo). 1 19 o oix lis <ro4>6s tart. having the ideas of thirty or forty years past brought 1 forward as personal theories of his own that is all. Plato is careful to make him speak with respect of " science. could never have suspected if we had only the statements of the Apology to guide us." which led him in later life to turn away from a study of which he had once expected Though this narrative reveals much which we so much. kt\." He has not a word to say against it he merely disclaims any pretensions to it on his own part. though he never regaled the public of the streets with speculations in mathematical and physical to tbe end have been less reserved towards more intimate friends who appear in the Clouds as the fia07jral and in the Phaedo as witnesses of his last hours. It was precisely the discrepancy between the various theories. 7. and equally so with the accuracy of the general picture of Socrates drawn by Aristophanes. And even in the Apology. as I shall now proceed to show. Mem. 6. and protests against science." vagant language of Xenophon. but a "likely story. he may that group of . when they are not unwarrantably stretched beyond their plain literal meaning. What rests is more to the point is the curious piece of auto- The whole narrative on the assertion that Socrates had begun as an enthusiast for "what they call investigation about ^>vtn<s" and had made himself thoroughly at home with a variety of cosmological theories. iv.

Socrates was. at least." and exercised his dialectic on them." the popular " educators of men. but his 1 relations with them went no farther. craftsmen and others. that one part. but disappointment with the failure of cosmology. consequence of the rehabilitation of Plato's story is that the activity of the so-called " sophists. If Plato is a witness of truth. the account of the studies by which Socrates was led to desert the dogmatic empiricism of the cosmologists for his own peculiar method of ar/ce^ts iv \6<yoi<s." counts for little or nothing as a factor in determining the mental development of Socrates. He was neither a 1 The "sophists'' are not even mentioned in the Apology among the . it is only reasonable to presume the equal truth of the describes Socrates. position is borne out And this by the Platonic dialogues in general. they are also just the particular systems which would inevitably attract special attention during the early manhood of the real Socrates. As we can further mouth of the show by protagonist of the considerations of chronology. are precisely those whose conceptions and technical phrases are placed in the Clouds." or even with the ethical superficiality of Protagoras or Gorgias. rest of the narrative finally new way of thinking which adopted by I proceed to the examination of the evidence. facts. As Plato represents the and notably by the Apology. Hence the confirmation of Plato's narrative by an earlier and quite independent witness rigour as can fairly be ex- actually proves. merely remarking that an obvious. poets. brought occasionally into contact with the prominent personalities of the " sophistic movement. though often overlooked. of what Plato tells us in the Phaedo. as no member of the intellectual circle at Athens could well avoid being.160 The very systems VAKIA SOCEATICA to which special reference is made in the Phaedo as having engaged the attention of Socrates in early life. and it follows at once that. unless conclusive grounds can be produced the to the contrary. precisely as he did on politicians. with as much pected in the establishment of facts of this kind. is the plain historical truth. it was not dissatisfaction with the " scepticism. which gave birth to Socraticism.



nor, except incidentally, an antagonist of the movement, and, in fact, stoodf in no very close relation with it. His real place in the succession of Greek thinkers
which furnished Socrates with his victims, who are described as being made up of (1) politicians, (2) poets, (3) artisans {Apology 21-23). If what we may call the ministry of Socrates had been in any special way directed against " sophists " and their admirers, it is surely incredible that the fact should be ignored in his defence. One of the accusations brought by Meletus was precisely that of " educating men and taking a fee for doing so," that is,



of being himself a " sophist" in the newer sense which


to be put


the word in consequence of the success of Protagoras.
Protagoras 316 b,c seems to

Plato's language at



for the first

mean that the specialisation of meaning by came to stand for a " trainer of men " was actually introduced time by Protagoras himself. On the current theory of the nature

of Socrates' mission in

he could hardly have failed to make the obvious

reply to his accusers, "I appeal to every one present to bear witness that ' trainers of men are the very class against whom my whole life has been a

have always singled out for exposure." be pointed out once for all that the word aoQurrfp in fifth-century literature has two senses, an earlier and more In the wider sense a oofaarfp is anygeneral, and a later and more special. one who possesses a Tix v V or profession, rising above that of the ordinary In this sense, men of artisan, and requiring special professional knowledge. science, poets, sculptors, physicians, are all ampiarai, and there is nothing It may be found in Herodotus, the Hippoinvidious in calling them so. cratean writers, Xenophon, Aristophanes, no less than in Plato, and includes,

continuous protest, and


To avoid misconceptions,

let it

of course, those old cosmologists and biologists whom we most incorrectly call the " pre-Socratic " philosophers. To give one or two examples every one remembers how Herodotus speaks of Pythagoras as " far from the weakest of

the aoQuTTai," meaning that he was an eminent man of science. So Simplicius {Comm. in Pkysica, 151. 30 ff.) tells us that Diogenes of Apollonia spoke of

the pluralistic tpvaitXoyot as <ro<f>urTal in the book which he wrote against them. Aristophanes gives the name to oracle-mongers like Lampon, medical Xenophon {Mem. writers, dithyrambic poets and astronomers (Clouds 331).

which the "sophists" i.e. the cosmologists call twv <jo4>wtwv k6it/j.os). Plato (Hippias Maj. 281 c, d) makes Socrates speak of the " profession of you aoQurrai " in a way which, taken in the context, implies that Pittacus, Bias, Thales, and the whole Ionian succession down to Anaxagoras are included in the reference. At the same time the word was acquiring the narrower sense of a paid professional "trainer of men," and, as I have said, it would appear that it was fh-3t appropriated in this special sense by Protagoras. Hence Xenophon

11) speaks of that

the Kdffpos

KaXotifievos inrb

says that Socrates defined the iro^ior^s as a person


prostitutes his

13 Kal rty


"mystery," by selling



any chance comer (Mem.



rods fdv

dpyvpiov tui


bestow his

The underlying idea is that a true aotf>6s would only on a successor who had been tried and tested and found worthy to inherit it. One's "mystery" must not be cast downl like a pearl



" "



a problem on which these Essays seek to throw some light,


not that of an outcome


or a reaction against,

the development initiated by Protagoras.

We may
attempt to


turn to the text of the

Phaedo and
with Aris-

single out points


At 96 b of that dialogue Socrates not merely us that " when a young man " he had aspired to the
called " investigation of



but specifies in dewhich he found current. The questions he specially mentions are these.1 " Is the production of living creatures due, as some persons used to say, to a certain fermentation of the hot and the cold ? " Do we think with our blood, or with air or with fire ? " Or is it the brain which discharges the functions of sensation, and so indirectly those of memory, belief, and He adds that he was further interested in the knowledge ? " constitution of the " heaven " and the earth (to, irepl tov ovpavbv koI tt)v yfjv irdOr) 9 6 c), and farther on gives, as specimens of the cosmological problems thus indicated, the questions of the shape and position of the earth, and


of the conflicting theories

the motions of the heavenly bodies.




lower down


have, as further examples of the theories with which

he familiarised himself, the doctrines that the earth is kept at rest by the rotatory motion (Sivy) of the " heaven," or, 3 again, that it rests " like a broad tub " on a base of air. There are one or two general observations which are at once suggested by this passage. The problems mentioned are obviously those which are thought of as likely to be specially
before swine).


When I say that the " Socrates " of the Clouds is not a am, of course, using the word in this second sense, which coinWe cides exactly with the meaning put on the word by modern writers. must further distinguish a third sense, familiar from Plato's "dialectical" dialogues and from Aristotle's Topics, in which the aoQurrljs is one who abuses the dialectic of Zeno and Socrates for filthy lucre. 1 Phaedo 96 b. I have followed here the text indicated by our MSS., iirciSb.v rb Sepp-bv Kai rb \j/vxpbv <ri)we56va riva \ap.f3dvqi. Burnet in his first edition of the text obelizes \j/uxpbv, Sclianz omits the whole clause ko.1 tA

Sprengel suggests iypbu. My reason for retaining ij/vxpbv will be apparent immediately. (In the last edition of his text Burnet has rightly 2 Phaedo 3 97 d-98 a. withdrawn his obelus.) Phaedo 99 b.



prominent in the philosophical circles to which Plato's hero found himself introduced i» early youth. It is therefore very important to note that they are very different from those which Plato represents as exercising the minds of Such young men nearer in time to his own generation.
can be known and taught, whether the virtues are one or many, whether there can be an " art of governing," above all, whether knowledge is the same as sense-perception in a word, all the issues which the activity of the " sophists brought into prominence during the life-time of Socrates, are " conspicuous by their absence." This means that Protagoras had not yet come into his full fame, and that his 'AXrjOeia was as yet either unwritten or little known. On the other hand, the prominence given to biological and psychophysical questions shows that we are concerned with a time not long before the birth of " sophistic," when, thanks to the development of medicine, biology was beginning to displace cosmology as the fashionable subject of scientific interest. The assumed state of science, then, is precisely that which we know to have existed at the very period when Socrates, who was born about 470, would be a young man, and which was to be seriously modified in the next twenty years by the increasing fame of Protagoras and his art of " training men." This means that Plato's narrative can be intended neither 1 as an account of his own early development, nor as a purely generalised account of the progress of a soul towards philosophy. It is given in good faith as the spiritual history of Socrates himself, and constructed with definite reference to the peculiar stage of " higher culture " which Greek thought had reached about 450 B.C. This comes out even more clearly when we go on to refer the various
questions as whether " virtue


1 So taken, it would not only be at variance with the famous passages in which Aristotle professes to describe the mental development of Plato (Met. A 987 a 32 ff., and its oonnterpart in M 1078 b 12 ff., where Plato must at least be included among "those who said that there are Iditu"), but with the

seventh Platonic

letter, since it ignores

the passionate interest in public affairs

which Plato there speaks of

as so decisive for the

development of his own







The doctrine that enumerated to their authors. " is due to a " fermentation of the " hot " and the " cold " is recognisable at once as 1 that of Archelaus, the Athenian disciple of Anaxagoras, whom there is abundant evidence for regarding as the actual 2 teacher of Socrates. As for the question what it is " with
the production of living creatures

which we think," the view that it is the blood goes back, of course, to Empedocles' alfia yap avOpdairoit; irepiicapSiov ia-Ti vor)/j,a, a point which must not be forgotten when we come to consider the evidence for Socrates' acquaintance with the Italian - Sicilian scientific tradition which was subsequently so important for its influence upon Plato as for the suggestion that it is " fire," it may or may not imply


See what


said in Hippolytus



Vorsokratiker, 2



Si fauav


(Doxographi Graeci 564 = Diels, 6'n SepfuuvofUviis ttjs yrjs t&
to ipvxpbv tpitryeTO, dvetpalvero

irp&Tov iv tuh. K&rca

fitpei, Hirou

rb Bepfibv


d\\a £una 7ro\\a Kal ol &*0pW7rot, diravra rty aurty biairav ffyovTa £k r^r iXtfos Tpe<p6neva. (The last clause explains the o-vvrpiKpeTtu of the Phaedo. ) Of course, the general idea of the emergence of living beings from a primitive "slime" goes back to the oldest days of Ionian science, but the verbal coincidences seem to show that Plato is thinking specially of the version of the matter given by Archelaus. 2 Archelaus as the teacher of Socrates. The fact is asserted by Diogenes (ii. 16), Suidass.v. 'Apx^aos, Porphyry, Hist. Phil. Fr. 12, and Simplicius

{Phys. 27. 23).

See Diels, Vorsokratiker, 2







that the ultimate authority for

these statements was Theophrastus.


means that the story formed part of the Academic tradition about Socrates,, and this puts its truth beyond reasonable doubt. The calumny of Aristoxenus, who called Socrates the ircuSuci. (in an injurious sense) of Archelaus, and the
ii. 22) that Socrates accompanied Archelaus on the expedition against Samos (441/440), imply a known connection between the two men as their foundation. This well attested association of Socrateswith Archelaus explains why his early studies should have taken the line A curious point is that Plato says nothing of any described by Plato. He only makes him "hear " personal meeting of Socrates with Anaxagoras. some one (no doubt Archelaus) reading from the book of Anaxagoras. Yet the fact that they should not have met is so surprising that we cannot suppose it to be an invention on Plato's part. An author who was willing to sacrifice truth to literary and historical plausibility would certainly have described Socrates as hearing Anaxagoras expound his views in person. This makes it all the more likely that Plato is not inventing when he says that Socrates did meet Parmenides and Zeno. A minor point of interest is that it seems to be implied that the book of Anaxagoras was in existence (though possibly not in general circulation, since Archelaus may have been specially favoured with an early copy of it) while Socrates was still p&s.

story of Ion of Chios (Diogenes



Socrates might know of it study of Heraclitus. from the mysterious HippaWs who, as Professor Burnet puts it, forms the connecting link between the Pythagoreans and Heraclitus, or, more probably, from the contemporary Heracliteans, whom we gather from the Cratylus, and from Aristotle's notices of Cratylus, to have existed at Athens as a sect as late as the boyhood of Plato. Much more im-

portant are the suggestions that
or with our brains, since

we think by means

" of " air

it was just the combination of these two views (the one derived ultimately from Anaximenes, and the other from Alcmaeon,) which constituted the

peculiar theory of Diogenes of Apollonia, the " latest of the
physicists," according to which sensation and thought are due 1 to the action of the " air within the body " on the brain.


Plato's account, as has

been already pointed out

by Professor Burnet and others, is strikingly supported by For the the quite independent evidence of Aristophanes. two special biological doctrines which are picked out for
ridicule in the Clouds are (1) the doctrine that moisture is

injurious to thought, which can only





notions " are allowed to mingle freely with their " kindred


and (2) the doctrine that the great physical phenomena are due to an aWepios Bivof, a " whirligig of the heavens."

As we

know, the


of these


the property of Diogenes,

while the other comes from Anaxagoras and Archelaus.
/iot doicei rit tt\v vbi)aiv

For this view see the fragment numbered 5 by Diels ( Vorsokratiker? i. 335), %x ov elvax 6 d.ijp KaKoOfievot inrb tuv avdp&wuiv /ctX. , and the account of Diogenes in Theophrastus de Sensibus 39-45 (Doxographi 510-512). We get a further reference to this at Clouds 763 &wox&\a (this is, perhaps, an Orphic touch, reminiscent of the dea/uarfpiov) rty ippovrlS' els rbv aipa, and it is from Diogenes, too, that " Socrates" has learned to swear by "respiration, chaos, and air" as his great gods (627). 2 The theory of the bad effect of moisture, which is a corollary of the view that we think with the air in the brain, is implied in Diogenes, Fr. 5, where we are told that the "air within" is colder than that in the region of the It is fully expounded by sun, but warmer than that which surrounds us. Theophrastus {de Sensibus 44-45) as follows. "The air with which we think is pure and dry, for moisture hinders intelligence. That this is so is illustrated by the fact that other animals are of inferior intelligence. For they breathe in the air from the earth and adopt a moister nutriment. This is also the reason why children are so thoughtless. For they have a great deal of moisture, and so <the air> cannot pass throughout their bodies
. . . .


4 (Doxographi 368). That the doctrine of the irepix&pyvs reached Socrates through may perhaps be inferred from the fact that Plato speaks of the book of Anaxagoras as apparently not known to Socrates until he had already made considerable acquaintance with the theories of the tpvaumi. Perhaps one may guess that the pretended derivation of o-e\fyrj from <ri\as. at some time in his life.bv Archelaus els rb ij/vxpbv tpvirio-qi (tovto S' earlv aidipiov /tipos ds df/suScs) ktX. perhaps. ?x" kan Trepl T7)x (reXfyrjv tovto rb 0ffis. noting specially the coincidence between 1. 1 Clouds 382-407 should be compared with Placita iii. 404. when we remember that Plato himinclined to find self tells us 2 that the " Anaxagoreans " had taught the doctrine that the at Athens. side to his character. in physical questions. Cratylus 409 Svov aei a ?ouce (sc. be an allusion to the same theories in the elaborate quibbling about the description of the day of new moon as evr/ ical via.We might even.Ta.166 VAEIA SOCEATICA Traces of Anaxagorean doctrine seem also to be present in the account which " Socrates " is made to give Strepsiades of thunder and lightning. shown by his use of the non-Attic k/ids. . b viov Si irov teal ol 'kvafaybpaoi \iyovaiv." set up by of which Anaxagoras speaks in Fr. viov. and also as to the particular physical systems with which he was most closely acquainted.. as well as a scientific. (4) Moreover. for Attic bypbrr}? or to tiyp6v. the name ZeX^vi. Srav rb 8epp. explanation of see Placita 2 ^povr-fi as due to the enclosure of moisture in the clouds 376) must come from another iii. which is familiar in the medical writers and is quoted from Diogenes by Theophrastus. the Socrates of the particularly of the Phaedo and Gorgias. though the (1. etirep The context seems to suggest that the y aeXfyri airb tov i)\lov "Anaxagoreans" had made some prominent use of the expression Ivrj koX via in expounding the "novel" theory. really belongs to them. 3. . &\t\9tj ." That Aristophanes is really referring to this in the passage where "Socrates" explains that he philosophizes in mid-air in order to keep his notions fine by mingling them with the dryest air (Clouds 227-234) is. has what we but is may call a mystical. . Srav eis rairas dve/tos (fijpds fiereupurBels Ka. for which 3. The aWipios vovs. source. 12 (Diels) as the efficient cause. of course. moon shines by reflected light as a novelty Thus Aristophanes and Plato seem to be in complete agreement about the interest taken by Socrates.K\eur0rji. Clouds 1179 Plato. and this ance. He is one of a group excreted in the region of the breast. and the text of the Placita. whence they are dull and thought- less. Slvos of 380 is just that irepix&pV 1™-* or "revolution. is a point of fundamental importdialogues. 1 .) 8rj\ovPTi iraXaibrepov 8 itceivos veoiffrl £\eyev.of the nda/ios. Stl rb <pm. ff. 8. perhaps the theory of Diogenes. Ivov.

.'' %<p7i. trpanov yap first y)\uv vo/iio-fi ovk ean 247). just like the vision of the avro to kuXov in the Symposium (210 aff. when the soul will stand before the judge naked of its " chiton of strange flesh. of his character is that he is subject to inexplicable lapses into a state of trance or ecstasy. The conventicle and the first of (ppovTio-Tal. . who are. into first community.) and the Phaedrus (250 ff. figures connected with his cosmoas a daily dying. or that which held him spellbound for a day and a night before Potidaea. life 167 He is fond of speaking of the philosopher's describing it and from the Eleusinian and Another point connected with this side Orphic initiations. | 6/iel av . naturally enough. has a . .religious organisation. logical studies. their proceedings are fivar^pia (143).). 126 (Diels). He is known to cherish beliefs about the immortal soul and the judgment to come. The piece of Cf. ydp. In the Clouds. " with Empedocles. tl ol Kpivd^evoi KpivovTcu' redtfeuras yap Set ydp Kptvovrai. (1. like this candidate for baptism. holy secrets which must not be spoken of before the uninitiated. e eVeira yvpvoiis KpiTiov. aapKwv aKKayvGrri irepivTiWovaa .THE PHRONTISTERION who are seeking redemption from the body. in language borrowed . and tppovTts. we may go even farther makes prominent both parts of the accusation which was to Its prove fatal to Socrates a quarter of a century later. is a word charged with religious meaning. ffivres Kplveui Gorgias 523 c "d/jLTrextipevot. such as that which overtook him on his way to Agathon's banquet. . There is not one of these points which has escaped the eye of the caricaturist. . his associates are <ppovna-rai." 1 and he is suspected of replacing the familiar gods of the city by mysterious secret divinities of his own. (fypovria'Tijpiov. as we saw in the first Essay. the Clouds actually Nay. proceedings taken on religious the arrival of a a new pupil are intended to admit him. . Xtrwvt. Fr. hero is both a contemptuous rejecter of the tutelary divinities of the city of Athens and a devotee of iceuva Sai/xovia. The very the 0eol 1 piece of information which "Socrates" bestows is on Strepsiades that " the gods " are not " legal tender " in irolovs 6eov<.

by the proclamation of a solemn religious silence. our deities "(252-258). voidfav. and it is explained that this ceremony has to be performed on all who are to be " initiated. and the first reward of his diseipleship is " communion with the Clouds. oib" iiriBeltpi &Tex"&s toU fiXXois." ra Qela irpdyfiara (250). 4XXo n drJT ijSri to odv vo/ucis Tijv 0ebv oiSiva irXty &wep . 3 Clouds 255. | yXwTTav. rpia ravri \ — fuel's. ob8' av \i^avarbv (423-426). | rb Xdos tovtI Kal tos Ne(p{\as Kal 7' odd' av dia\ex^^V v airavT&v. ebtfnmeiv xph T °" irpeafMryr Kal t^s ebxv* iiraKobav." a thought which is constantly present in Plato. Xdos is. exactly as nowadays a person to be baptized formally bids defiance to 1 Even the occasional trances the devil and all his works. Aether. fidicxos. Air. etc. and to works (365). and we understand better makes its appearance as what was meant by the accusation 'ZwKparqs aSiKel oOs t\ ir6X« ro/icfei deobs ob As for "Socrates' " own gods.168 VAKIA SOCEATICA instruction imparted to him is to be the true knowledge of "things divine. of course. since the story of Socrates and 2 The the lizard appears to be a comic version of them. /titrrrp. as I have sufficiently observed already. the others. he has to undergo a burlesque initiatory rite of 6p6vm<ri<i (254 reject the traditional deities and all their ft). ) 1 The ritual. iitimTip. just as in the great mysteries. the Clouds. as . which would be pointless unless the $povTL<rTaL were generally reputed to be persons with 3 mysterious views about the soul and the unseen world. a. oib" &v' airelaaip. I think we have here a recognisable parody of such a Symposium 174 d. an Orphic figure. actual entrance into the (jipovTocrr^piov is accompanied by further rites intended to recall the preparations for the (Elsewhere. oiS' av Bbaaipi. descent of a mystic into the realm of Hades.eis iroioO/iCT." ravra iravra toi>s reXou/^vous i)ti. Next. the invocation of Air. Strepsiades is seated on the Upbs oKl/iirovs (note the definite article) and ritnally crowned. The hierophant propounds the formula which the candidate has to express adhesion by a response. appear not to escape notice. Aristophanes gives us a remarkable picture of Socrates and the inevitable Chaerephon as necromancers. and the Clouds is preceded. Then follows the prayer of invocation and the actual descent or (263). Thus the religious exclusiveness of the precept "thou shalt have no other gods" peculiarity of the sect.' . Anapnoe. a renunciation wbich he actually performs (423). "Matriculation" into the school is thus equivalent to admission into a religious "congregation" or "order. with whom the <j>i\b<rotj>oifs regularly spoken of scene as that described in the | 2 Clouds 169-174. are a travesty of the doctrine of Diogenes that "Air" is omniscient and divine. too. is like our own. Before he can be admitted to behold these gods or to matriculate as a pupil.

with the result that the candidate becomes an ^f47tt?. &gt\ el 7tws 2<rTut. 21-22. arrived at is meant Whether as a caricature of the professional " sophists " ? Socrates was an actual member of a religious 0MKJ-O? or not." . Could more proof receive new and startling confirmation. Entrance to the school of the ascetics who " die daily" is. in fact. 1 * Clouds Ka l Hi | el [Lvfyuav et Kal tppoPTiffTTjs Kal rb rakaiirtopov tveaTiv i»j)t6 \ iv rrji i/'uX'?'' /"} K&fwm M"' otvov Arris paSliuv. The wit of the apologue lies largely in its being an answer to criticisms like those of Aristophanes and the xoWol on the q/u$vijTes. •Oblivion and Memory of which the consultant had to drink.v iwtdvfieis. The close connection of the rites •with Orphic beliefs is shown by what Pausanias tells us of the two waters of Aristophanes. means to suggest the Karafidaeis eW'Aidov associated with the legends of Orpheus and Pythagoras. 322 tf.s. His whole tone is exactly that which a Eoyalist satirist of the seventeenth century might have taken in attacking the beliefs and character of the Puritan " godly. and assumed that his audience would think so too." and only redescends voluntarily to preach the opening of the prison to them that are bound. Ideiv a&ras ijdrj tpavep&s iindvfiw kt\. | /Mjre piy&v &x8ei \lav. Frazer's commentary on the former passage. be wanted that the <f>povTia-rai of the Clouds are no other than the tyikoa-ofyot of the Phaedo and Gorgias as seen by a master in the art of detecting and exaggerating human oddities and frailties ? Or could anything be more ridiculous than to exhibit admission into the " school " of Socrates as " involving this tremendous religious solemnity. 39. as Professor Stewart has ably shown in his treatment of the matter in The Myths of Plato. de Genio Secratis. with Dr. 4. and Plutarch. The philosopher is the only man who does not dwell in the cave. it is clear to me that Aristophanes thought he was. 1 169 is it forgotten that the " pomps and vanities of this wicked world " must also be forsaken for a life of mortifica- The character of the society as a religious sect is relief." The thought reappears as a piece of genuine Socraticism in Plato's famous apologue of the Cave.THE PHRONTISTERION Nor tion. He is already "risen. if " Socrates thus thrown into the strongest •our first Essay. and the conclusions of on entirely independent evidence. The entrance into the <ppovTusTr\piov reminds Strepsiades so strongly of the descent into the cave of Trophonius that he asks for the regular "honey-cake" which the visitors took with them as a defence against the real or imaginary serpents who infested the cavern. to live the life of a Ka$ap6s or "saint. The aspirant is. in fact. ix. t dff^xet Kal yvfivaffiuv Kal &Wwi> avoiyrwv. For the experiences of those who_ made the descent see Pausanias. tu>v /ttjT' dpi- gt$." Epiphany of the Clouds. in fact. a "descent into hell.

170 (5) I do not VAEIA SOCEATICA know whether the next suggestion I have he scouted as fanciful. And the preliminary steps in the attempted training of Strepsiades are no less reminiscent of the In the first place. as Plato's Socrates is always insisting that the first business of the philosopher is " in accord with the inscription of Delphi to know himself." As I have argued The Socrates of the Phaedo speaks of and we have found in the Suraol \&ym. Charmides 156 Protagoras 352 a. . just educational theory of the Republic. achieved by a course in the (ppovriar^piov. they are a true feature of the Socratic circle. hut it seems worth while We to make it. as we are expressly told by the " Clouds " themselves. if only to learn how it will be received. promised is that the pupil shall acquire that " art of statesmanship..uon 3 yvtxjfjLas 5if. He is to expose his soul to the scrutiny of its physician in order that the physician may decide on the kind of treatment 3 and the preliminary steps to it are represented indicated 1 The two X6701 are not really a touch borrowed from Protagoras . IV afrriiv rpoirov. Cf. c y nyxavas ijBri 'irl rofrrois irpbs at (fOiKds Tpoarpipa. Plato. \ 464-467. oddels vuctiaei. &vTi\oyu<oi as well-known characters. ciSiis Soris i<rrl b." so Aristophanes' " Socrates " first calls on Strepsiades to exhibit this self-knowledge." or "royal" art _ which Socrates. both in Plato and in Xenophon. And am inclined to think the The end to he answer ought to be in the affirmative. regards as the highest form of human wisdom. Cf. which appeared to show unmistakable marks of acquaintance with Socrates. 1 after he has passed through the factory are parodies of the Socratic This suggests the question whether the attempted education of Strepsiades the may not also be a burlesque of I some recognisable features in the paedagogical procedure of Platonic Socrates. have seen already that hoth the final suppression of the to offer will SUatos X070? and the performances of Phidippides dialectic. irXetovas not. what is a director of public affairs. is efficiency as 2 In other words. 2 Clouds 431 dXV £<rrcu trot touto irap ijp. an excellent specimen of the kind of thing Aristophanes means to parody by the exhibition of the just and unjust "arguments. 478 Hye | Kirenri ^ ab tov aavrov go. . in the last Essay. the person really responsible for such antithetic X6701 ia Zeno.u)v ' ibtrre t6 \olw6v 7' d7ro rovdl I £v roil dr}.

Granted that the right way of looking at things is that of the Attic shopkeeper or small farmer. i. pbvov i^eart. 49 ff. in my opinion. That who governs by a Tt%vi\ as that which forms the basis of the Republic seems to me clearly indicated Socrates really had some such conception of the statesman in the passage quoted above from said to make men "fitter to first command.veiv Trepi pvBp.yy. 6p8us Suupuv ko. and practice discovery of " conceits "*{$povTihe<i). does no credit to his intelligence. 5. 6. x^foios aS Kara 8&ktv\ov.." for himself whether the conversation with Glaucon in is Xenophon. " art royal " with mere knowledge of add that the coincidence between the views on deference by Phidippides after his training in the Qpovrio-T-/ipiov (Clouds 1399-1446) with those which Xenophon tells us were attributed to Socrates by the narltyopas (Mem.g. Aristophanes has hit the nail on the head. 11 tois iyKpariai. ib. Kal ko.dX£ye<rdai bvo~ pMo-drjvai £k tov irvvibvTas koivtjl fiovhetieaBai btakiyovTas Kara. If there is anything \ at all in my for suggestion it gives sufficiently discredited fancy of a death-blow to the. as we know him from Plato.0VLKUiTa. Both Plato's and Aristophanes' Socrates have clearly been to the school of Damon. That we are here dealing with an actual saying of Socrates. SiaMyovras Kara yiv-q Ta pjkv ayada Trpocupei&dai.. also One might to parental authority held .) cannot be a mere accident. 12 2<pT] 8e Kal rb 8t.. is exactly the sort of being represented in the Clouds." Mem.. hard not to think that Suupwv and o-kowQv are meant to be echoes of actual Socratic catchwords. iv. yhi\ ra irpdy\ Uym fjtara . 1 The whole con- 1 It is Clouds 741-2 irepuppbvei ra wpi.1 (tkotuv. Xenophon's attempt to explain away these caustic sayings. where training in dialectic is I would invite any reader to judge six chapters of Memorabilia iii. which apparently in the involves practice in logical classification. oi/xcu y av Strata pjs. already an earlier edition of the Republic in which the scheme the training of the philosopher-kings was not included. ovopAjfovTos avrov ativderov Kal S&ktv\ov Kal rjpuiibv ye kt\. Compare the stress which even the Xenophontic Socrates lays on the importance of classification.Qv.T0vs Kai Sia\eKTiK<jiTiTovs.vS6. Kpirurra t&v TpaypArav. but has understood so imperfectly as to confound the political statistics. twv 8e Kaxutv air^xeffBat. 2. especially the c. Clouds 650 iiraiovB' oxotbs i<m tov pvBpusv Kar' iv6-rr\iov.THE PHRONTISTERION as the study of musical 111 rhythms and grammar. {k tovtov yap ylyvetrBai dvSpas aplffrovs re Kal rjyep. .e axrjKoivai 01) 400 b with aatpm ivbwXibv t4 tivo. It is curious to note the correspondence of Republic what 84 p. seems to me to follow dialectic is identified pA] SiaKpiveiv from the exact parallel in Plato. Sophistes 253 e. For the exercises on rhythms see Clouds 647 follows in Aristophanes. Socrates.wra. Cratylus 384 b). where with the power fy re Koivuvetv iKacrra Sivarai Kal Stt/l rax>i Kara 7&0S iTlffTaaBat. the genuineness of which he does not dispute. made possibly half in jest (for the derivation can scarcely have been serious). do not give the impression that Xenophon it trying to expound the theory of the to\itikti riyy-q. precisely as a means to the "art royal.1 Ipyoii. For the reality which is burlesqued in the lesson on genders compare the numerous humorous allusions in Plato to Socrates' attendance on the "onedrachma discourse " of Prodicus (e. . aKoirelv to.

The ideal of the scientific statesman is. | vrj tov HoaeiBw. avTos 6 ti fiovket irprnTO^ igevpwv Xeye. — . Taverns ti (735)." but I cannot resist the impression that it is one and the same original which has inspired the portrait of the Republic and the caricature of the Clouds. 737 "Socrates" positively refuses to assist in the process. yvaxrei Se cravTov w? afiaOr/s el not iraj(vi. At vvv. In So we may note a coincidence with the Theaetetus. At least.'' self-knowledge. this is suggested by 200-201 where Strepsiades asks.a6^p. Another admirable hit occurs at 841 where Phidippides is promised. | So 740 ffli koXvtttov kcu u^daa^ is ttjv fypovTiha XeTTTrjv KaTa fjuicpov Trepuppovei to.-vii. KaX tI $r)T etppovncras <j>povTiet^ . but apparently also an orrery. the knowledge on which the Socrates of Xenophon and Plato is always insisting. Strepsiades is called on to devise ippovTihe? for himself. '' irpdy/utTa. ovk iyKaXvyfrdp. .. I may add a few points which have been passed over as of minor importance. So in the Clouds. manifestly about some strange object which has caught his . ti iroieis eyd> . ov^l <]>povTl£ei$ . necessarily one as degraded for the purpose of burlesque into that of an invariably successful demagogue. Socrates can give birth to no ideas of his own. (723—724). — ovtos. The <f>povTia-Tijpiov not only possesses a map (7^9 7re/>io8o?). The sole function " Socrates takes on himself that of examining the merits of Strepsiades' ^poj/r/Se? after they have been formed (746-783). professes merely the art of helping other men's thoughts into the world and testing their soundness.aTa by which he is educated are identified with such pedantries as the objection to calling a cock and a hen bird by the same name "fowl. eic^povTiaov ti t5>v creavrov irpa^fiaTcav (695). not to receive them ready-formed from an instructor.172 •ception of VAEIA SOCEATICA full what goes on in the (ppovncrTijpiov thus strikes of shafts aimed at an educational principle identical with that of Republic vi. as a first result of a course under " Socrates.evo<. of course.. Here again is an agreement which I cannot regard as the result of accident. He Plato. the employment of " science " as a means to the mastery of the 7ro\iTiicr) Tkyyi). just as the p.

divine substance within them.a^la in the Sophistes. In illustration of the point that it is really the Socratic elenchus against which the poet's shafts are aimed. the immediate suggestion of the word seems to be " atheists. as we at once remember.THE PHRONTISTERION eye.) Is it possible that in Aristophanes there is a second reference. might have Kairvov irepmi "Koycoi quoted 320—321 | teal XeirroXoyeiv 77877 ^rjrel teal Trep't vvljao-' tTTevoXea^eiv. Plato gives to the materialists in the famous passage about the yiyavrop. it is reply darpovopia p. xal yvw/iiSiwi yvmp/ryv At 853 Phidippides contemptuously speaks of the <f>povTi<rTai. In both cases." who would be likely to be the reverse of pallid. May we not regard it as probable that Aristophanes had in mind the suppression of the Pythagoreans and the burning of their a-vveSpia in with Bacchus himself. is unlikely. yijyeve2<. becomes one to which the legend can be was known to Aristophanes there is a double point in his application of the word yriyeveis to the devotees of the conventicle which meets in A more important point seems to me the <f>povn<TTijpiov." " godless " persons. apart from the obvious allusion to the impiety of the Giants and Titans ? In the myth of it was the Titans who devoured Dionysus. suggested by the finale of the play. irpbs rS>v 0e£)v. Perhaps not too extrava- gant to suppose that the icpepABpa of " Socrates " itself is a burlesque on some real simple apparatus which could be fixed on a roof for the purpose of observing the I stars. is The age traced back uncertain. but if it Italy when he represented the penitent Strepsiades as . as though they had always lived in cellars. avTikoyija-ai. a name which. ri 173 and gets the yap rdS' iartv . as the result of his purifications and mysteries. This is why the /3a/e^o?. elsewhere are always thought of as rough and brutal " sons of earth. elire fioi. and the possibility of the Orphic votarist achieving his aim of union with the Deity rests on the fact that mankind are sprung from the ashes of the Titans and still retain the Dionysus Zagreus. as yrjyeveis.ev uvttjl. (The other explanation mentioned in the Aristophanic scholia that the cppovTUTraC are called yrjyevei<i because of their unwholesome pallor.

this gives us another hint of a resemblance intended by the poet between the Pythagoreans and the worshippers of Air. in all its main points. so much so that the two representations reciprocally confirm one another in a way which compels us to believe that the Clouds is a historical document of the first rank. unless it is all baseless fancy. was that it was composed of men who were at once students of mathematics and physics. and the Clouds. seems enough to is show that the account given of Socrates in the dialogues surprisingly like the caricature of him produced by the great comedian in Plato's boyhood. in a group of permanently connected intimates whom Plato and Aristophanes ^povriaraL The peculiarity of the group. The group was thus at once a scientific "school" and a religious 6La<ro<. Eespiration. nor is it necessary for my purpose to do so: has been said. based on mystical conceptions about the soul and the world to come. and so with Pythagoreanism. the last of the Ionian succession. probably with calls ^>t\6a-o(j}oi. which had a common table.. who combined a physical monism medical Anaximenes with special biological and which connect him with the Italian medical school of Crotona. Let us recapitulate one or two of the main results which emerge from the present study. like that of interests (3) He formed the centre. on a genuinely historical basis. and that Plato's description of the entourage. (2) He possessed mathematical attainments of an advanced kind. and with Diogenes. . and early life of Socrates rests. or at least a central figure. and devotees of a private religion of an ascetic type. (1) Socrates stood from the first in very close relation with the last of his predecessors the fyvo-iicoi. particularly with Anaxagoras and Archelaus. another link with Pythagorean science. interests. I do not for a moment suppose that I have exhausted the list of points of contact between Aristophanes and What Plato. Its members were. All that we are told about it indicates that it was an Orphic-Pythagorean community of some kind.174 " VAEIA SOCEATICA " burning in Socrates and his disciples ? If we may.

as far as possible. The preparaan art of the successful use of the elenchus.THE PHBONTISTERION truth. and to test their value when . bom. put forward as long a^o as 1856 by Gbttlingin the Berichte der Sachsischen It is another matter whether Chiappelli is right in holdGesellschaft. the most important knowledge of POSTSCRIPT have purposely kept myself until recently from studying the essay ^ e le prime Nubi d' Aristofane (Rome. according to Chiappelli. an art of invincibility in argument. Dialectic is only by the study of dialectic. in order to work out my own views. however. (6) Self-knowledge all. having been. rhythm. II Naturalismo di Socrate I am also glad to find that my suggestion as to the natural sciences." (5) It is characteristic. and that the passages which represent him as a " corrupter of youth " and a devotee of strange cults were one and all introduced in an uncompleted revision of the play which was unknown The notion to Plato when he composed the Apology and Symposium. metre. with him. ing that the original Clouds depicted Socrates merely as an eccentric but harmless pedant. of the "conventicle" seems to me so inseparable from the whole general conception of the ippovruTTrjpiov. tion for it includes an encyclopaedic study of language. was known to his fellow-citizens as a student of the I of Chiappelli.C. 175 gods of the as unbelievers in the official ^ education was to arrive at an attainable (4) art of The Socratic ideal in statesmanship. is by skilful employment of question and answer to help the disciple's thoughts to birth. finale of the comedy being based on the burning of the Pythagorean crvveSpia is not a new one. that Socrates has no His pupils have to do ready-made knowledge to impart. and it is certain that the original Clouds . " things aloft. to put it on record here that a considerable number of the Aristophanic passages which I have used in the foregoing Essay were properly collected by Chiappelli and correctly interpreted as showing that Socrates in 423 B. is. regarded 7to\i? of Athens. that a play from which it was entirely absent would be something far too different from our comedy to be the original basis of it . their minds must become pregnant their own thinking What he does do with tppovTiSes without his assistance. 1886). It is therefore my duty independently and without prepossessions.

If he did not conceivable part can have been assigned to him ? appear. as a matter of dramatic construction. and that the contemporary Connus of Ameipsias depicted him in the same light. me that Chiappelli and the writers on whom he relies assume a'much more complete reconstruction of the original Clouds than the facts For instance. We have already seen that the role of cross-examiner of promising veoi had been assumed by Socrates long before the date of the original Clouds. that the scene of the actual duel between the two Xoyoi did not appear in the acted play without drawing the conclusion that the accusation of the prologue. Socrates. devoid of the episode of the education of Phidippides (according to a suggestion of Koechly. says Chiappelli. whereas the reply to Anytus and Meletus does not begin until 24 b. and this must not be forgotten when we try to form an opinion about the contents of the " first Clouds. and that his fondness for the part was notorious v«os whose as early at least as the campaign before Potidaea. Socrates already disposes of the charge that he is a paid professional rrjs yfjs . which. originally. had been notoriously perplexing the vkoi with his dialectic for the best part of ten years when Aristophanes put him on the stage. would be a splendid confirmation of his own views). the play could possibly have been. education was to be mismanaged by Socrates is therefore an indispensable figure in a telling burlesque of him dating from the year 423. shows. find little structing it. we may believe the statement warrant us in accepting. Nor do I see how. as known to us from Plato. what other not as a freshman of the ^povTurrqpiov." tv rrji ' Apurrotfidvovs KWfiuiiSlai ." I think. the "first Clouds" must have been so radically different in construction from the extant version that it is idle to dream of reconKoechly's speculation would. also said that he made rbv rjTTto Xoyov KpeiTTw. to. is to the acted Clouds. must have been added in the reconstruction. or that he did appear but If he did appear. I am sure. as I have already urged. that Chiappelli goes farther than is warranted by the text of Plato when he infers from the Apology that Socrates was only ridiculed in the acted Clouds as an astronomical crank. Hence it seems to favour with a jury of intelligent theatre-goers. And one may further ask whether we are to suppose that Phidippides A did not appear in the original Clouds at all. according to which the KptiTTinv and the ijTTbiv Xdyos are kept on the premises in the (frpovTio-Trjpiov." In fact. but he does say (Apology 18 b) that the same ancient accusers who called him a o-o<£o9 dvqp. It is true that the Socrates of Plato does not say that he had been attacked as a " corrupter of youth. koli ra virb yrp irdvTa dvefijTTjKtos. moreover. as the allusion to the study of t<x virb It should also be noted that. or that there was nothing in the acted version to support the view that Socrates depraved young men by familiarising them with the " worser argument. where the reference.176 VAEIA SOCEATICA did represent Socrates as the chief figure of a band of cfrpovTwrai. t« p-erewpa <£jOovTto-njs.

and we may well suppose that the brilliant idea of the introduction of the two Xoyoi in person was an afterthought which commended itself to the poet on its own merits without agreeing with Chiappelli that Aristophanes. came afterwards to view him as a moral pest. is. Pausanias ix. (It was the rule that visitors to the cave of Trophonius wore the linen "chiton" and special shoes. I think. . The rehandling of the play is sufficiently accounted for by the comparative failure of the acting version. 39. Aristophanes does not actually venture to charge with taking fees . even in our present version. not. The squalor of the members is a fundamental feature in the picture. or preparing for the is better explained who would "descent into hell" (508). as I have shown.) Chiappelli misses the point of this performance altogether. any more than I can see in the Frogs. "What troubles Strepsiades is not merely the dirt and squalor of the schoolroom. of which the Phaedo and Gorgias give us the serious counterpart. This then was also a part of the outstanding accusation brought againsj him by the comic poets.THE PHRONTISTERION 177 "educator of men" at 19 d ff. as Chiappelli seems to think. a matter which could not have been alleged in the original Clouds. In a word. to which Chiappelli appeals as a parallel case. Though. 1 do not myself find any evidence in the existing play that Aristophanes felt any serious hostility to Socrates. the loss of his coat Socrates and shoes of the disciples by the view that they were perquisites take part in the initiatory rite by which he is matriculated. any evidence that the representation of Euripides as a corrupter of morals is meant to be taken in earnest. but the suspicious resemblance of his position on the lepbs o-Kifiirovs to that of a person undergoing a ceremonial process of consecration to the xfloVioi deoi (257). he only hints at the possibility by Chiappelli representing Strepsiades as expecting to have to pay. It is a weakness of Chiappelli's whole discussion that he entirely overlooks the mystical and religious character which belongs to the <j>povTi<rTr)piov all through the play. who had originally treated Socrates as a harmless pedant. It is the burlesque version of the life of the <pi\6a-o<j>os. definitely wrong in asserting that any fee is taken from Strepsiades in the play as it stands . I see no evidence for holding that the Clouds ever existed in a form in which the presentation of Socrates differed in any important respect from that which we possess.

povcoi Oeara vm. Similarly. where Socrates is represented as an exceedingly young man. and. Socrates doctrine to is said to have expounded the same Parmenides and Zeno. in fact by the whole circle who were present at his death. In the Phaedo the doctrine is repeatedly spoken of as one recognised as fundamental not only by Socrates but by a whole group of his Eleatic and Pythagorean friends. which are indiscernible by sense-perception. They are represented as 178 . they are assumed to have understood its meaning from the very first. in the Parmenides. the assumption which " we " regularly make when we " put the seal of h eari " on a term. and apprehended only by a kind of non-sensuous perception And it is to be noticed of the intellect. so that there is no need to reproduce the list of them here. as is shown by the repeated assertion that it is what " we " are accustomed to believe. what is more remarkable. represents Socrates in many of his dialogues as habitually expounding the doctrine that the true objects of scientific knowledge. The passages have been already quoted with exact references in preceding essays. i&ea IN PEE-PLATONIC LITEEATUEE Plato. or. but certain IBiai.THE WOEDS ddoc. as Locke would have said. and consequently the supreme realities of the objective world. " real essences " so forth. as we all know. that he ascribes this doctrine to Socrates as one which he had maintained from a very early time in his mental history. are not sensible etSi). and things.

g.. but a Pythagoreau from as Magna something universally believed in by a community. represents group. and for knew himself the the which he had himself devised nomenclature. ethics. of and it though no member the familiar Socratic Graecia. and aesthetics. accepted by the Locrian astronomer Timaeus. to sure. presumably the Pythagorean circle to which he belongs. THE WOEDS EIAOS. IAEA cluded among these eiStj 179 being in doubt as to the range of objects which are in. e. tt^Xo?. whether etSri answering to the concepts of the ideal " norms " of mathematics." of asking is The one question they do not think €tSo? or iSea what an assumed This they are presumed to understand Similarly the doctrine is perfectly from the outset. They also raise subtle difficulties about the nature of the relation between the e^Srj and the sensible things which. to be known and he. exhibiting their " presence. " having communion with " them. get a secondary and derivative kind of existence from "participating" in these e%8r). but also in e'iSr) of the physical elements and the beings formed out of their compounds (m-vp. is. avdpayiros. it is is 8' ovSev dp' ?ji> ttXt/v \oyos To be . the characteristic technical Alexandrian author of the much as Wisdom of Solomon and Palestinian author of Ecclesiastes put thoughts demonstrably borrowed from Greek mouth literature and philosophy into the of the " sou of David.) almost universally asserted that this representation unhistorical. vBcop. Socrates believes not only in they«have to ask. and that Plato is merely making Socrates the mouthpiece of a doctrine which he well to have invented. and of apparently formless aggregates of matter such as 6pL^. and Socrates himself feels some difficulty about the matter (130 c-d). and why Aristotle should have . too. according to the doctrine of the Platonic Socrates. (Timaeus 51 C fidrrjv eicda'TOTe elvai t'u <pafiev eZSos e/cdarov votjtov.accepted the fiction so readily that he habitually treats .. pinro<s. 130 c). king over Israel in Jerusalem " still though the theory should have carried leaves it a mystery why Plato the fiction so far as to include the Pythagoreans of Magna Graecia among the " we " to whom he ascribes his doctrine.

by an examination of the use of the words el&os. and. (2) the the remains of the remains of Pythagorean mathematics. Socrates. If we can establish the point that etSo? and IBea were already familiar scientific conceptions in the fifth century. both historical and : oratorical. that it is this geometrical sense which has given rise to the technical meanings in which we find the words employed in medicine and rhetoric. have already tried to show that the evidence of which is commonly supposed to justify this theory of the etSrj as a Platonic novelty. though on this part of the question I shall content myself with a few hints. and that they occur in the Aristotle themselves. exclusive of Plato and down to the death of Alexander the and I believe that. and incidentally towards answering the question. IBea in Greek prose. is regularly misinterpreted.180 VARIA SOCRATICA Platonism as Pythagoreanism with a few peculiar modifications. Thus. have a meaning due to their significance in Pythagorean geometry. that it supplies the key to the Platonic doctrine itself. Where. technical senses in the science of the fifth century. (3) early rhetoricians. The basis from which I shall argue is what I believe to be a complete list of all occurrences of the terms in question in Greek prose literature. Great . for our purposes. and still earlier. I shall be able to show that eZSo?. the following classes of literature require to be considered (1) the ordinary non-philosophical writings of the fifth and early fourth centuries. IBea. medical writers in particular in a sense hardly distinguishwe shall have gone a long way towards rehabilitating the veracity of Plato's assumption that belief in etBi) was characteristic of able from that of Plato's earlier dialogues. wherever they occur in any but a most primitive sense. and how they acquired certain definite I Aristotle. and to show both what was the original meaning of the words. The object of the present Essay is to support the arguments which carry back the doctrine to Socrates himself. (4) the medical writers. with this material before me. then. does the originality of Plato come in ? There . outside the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle.

The . historians. as mere periphrases for a&fia. with establishing a point of some importance. e. as we shall see reason to hold. in all the various senses in which (j)V(ri<. from medicine. certain prejudices 181 very common in the minds of Plato's readers which I believe to be which I shall The chief of these is the endeavour to remove altogether. I think. to suspect that both terms are an importation from the — best proof of this — the vocabulary of Attic prose. primarily. I may best begin. no doubt. and the like. elBo<} ever really means class to at all. ingrained notion that eZSo? began by meaning a " kind " or " class. and the habitual use of such expressions as to tov <rd>fiaTo$ eZSo?. and so forth. who in reality belong to the same age and employ the same vocabulary.. as There is every reason well as from that of Aristophanes. I shall try show that the meaning " real essence " is the primary.THE WOEDS EIAOS. the facts will be presented in detail technical terminology of Ionian science. fyvaiicoi.g. and most prominently in the Gratylus. is a term of fifth-century science. and to a lesser extent from rhetoric. the etSos of a thing means the same as its (frvo-is. and that this is what explains both the correlation of etSo? and significant ovofm which we find constantly in Plato. in Plato. etBo<s and ISea are. ^vyf). expressed view. the meaning "logical class" the secondary and derivative. as I shall contend. and that this is so certain that it is worth while to raise the question whether." and that Plato thus derived his theories about e'tSr) from this sense of the word by " hypostatizing " the common nature " of a " class " As against this very frequently " into a transcendent object. It is due partly to the difficulty inherent in what. IAEA are. partly to artificial separation between. not common words The later at all in is their almost entire absence from Xenophon and from the language of Attic forensic and political oratory. in particular. is the first the necessity of making an attempt to digest the whole of the material. physicians. so far as I know. xJru^Tj? elSas. Properly. I must apologize for a certain degree of apparent incoherence in the arrangement of the following pages. which is only too generally overlooked.

the " reality " with appearance . must then. of course. 1461 a 12 koX tov AoXmva iiWa to TrpoawRov alo-^pov. his view he remarks that the Cretans use the word in euetSjj? the sense "handsome" <to The implication is." nor yet " what is Both a thing looks like " as contrasted with what it is. add. e?8o? in current Greek means the body or physique as a whole. so far as the words it makes much use of the words.182 instances in writer -who VAEIA SOCEATICA Thucydides.." but that he had an ugly of evTrpoo-wn-o'. ov to awjxa ao-v/xfieTpov . . or unfrom Plato. believe is it And hard to show that this " other source the technical terminology of Ionian science. word implied no contrast of it did not mean " what really " as contrasted with " what seems to be. to bear out this suggestion.? means what the world at large calls evirpoo-coiros. to ycip eveiSei o! KpijTe? icaXovo-i). I will cite one passage from Aristotle and another In the chapter of the Poetics which deals with removal of alleged difficulties in Homer by proper punctuation and exegesis. I think. the only Attic non-professional But. these senses. . that in the current Attic evetSj?? never meant " handsome it would be immediately assumed by an " ordinary reader that koko? to eiSo? meant not " ugly to look at. the familiar dialectical word. To establish my point sufficiently for my immediate will not be I " purpose. other source than the vocabulary of current Attic. which we find constantly in the language of science. That is. Bywater> evirpoo-oyirov . He does not mean face." unless you explained that there is a little-known dialect in which evetfii. " seems clear that the sense of etSo? at least was body " physique " " body. In support {Poet." that is. did actually occur in everyday non-professional Attic. presumably. have been drawn from some human body. will be found." but " deformed of body. . and Aristotle proposes to remove it by the suggestion that Homer is here using a yX&rra. in the special sense of the — " or The importance of this is that it shows that. in current language. that Dolon was oi " ill-formed. we are told that some students found such a difficulty in the statement that Dolon etSo? fiev erjv «a«o?.

"Wi Br/ p. IAEA The same point comes out if 183 in Plato. it a fact familiar to reason all students of psychology. where you had to«judge from a man's elBo<s of his state of health or fitness for some particular work. then. Thucydides. Timaeus goes eiBt) to explain that the is why there are no of simply that a thing is only odoriferous while it is passing from the liquid to the gaseous state. Xenophon.g. But on really means a great deal more. I pass to consider the examples of both words in Herodotus. Protagoras 352 a. you would tell him to strip and show his chest and back (IBiov to irpoa-mirov teal t«? j(eipa<. and the orators. that odoriferous objects have no such definite as is assigned by Timaeus to the Empedoclean elements. fiVKTr/pcov Bvvap. you would not be content to look at his face and hands. IBia of the Platonic philosophy have been derived from the use in which these words are mere verbals molecular structure of IBelv (so that.erd<ppevov iiriBei^ov.ai o-afyeaTepov). This might. This would be contrary to the whole spirit of the the Platonic doctrine. THE WOEDS EIA02. a-Tr^dy ical to p. at first seem to mean simply that systematic classification of smells as we cannot make a we can of colours. Premising thus much.iv. Iva Another curious illustration of the same point may be found at Timaeus 66 d. tones. e. since and tastes.. they only become odoriferous in the passage from one definite structure to another. ovk evi). The smells sense is. eiBr) p.ev sight. where we are told that smells have no eiBrj (vepl Be Br) ttjv t&v iwiaKeyJreop. a/cpas eiiroi. It is the regular geometrical structure assumed by definite and Timaeus for the corpuscles of the " elements " which is denoted here by the word etSo?.. . «a\o9 rr)v IBeav is simply equivalent to etSo? of «a\os IBelv). or vice versa when it has definitely assumed the structure characteristic of " air " or " water " it no longer gives off a smell. in which anything is precisely the one underlying reality as opposed to its many imperfect " appearances " or manifestations. I make these introductory remarks simply as illustrating the error of the supposition that the etSo?.oi airo- Socrates says that /caXvtyas icaX to.


falls to

setting aside for the present Isocrates,

be treated

rather as a theorist on style and rhetoric than as an " orator."


8 Kal




extravagantly belauding his wife's figure"

to eZSo? rfp yvvaiKos virepeiraivetov elBo<; in the sense
as the current one, "physique," not


by Aristotle

beauty of face," since Candaules insisted on exhibiting his ib. ov yap <re BoKeto irelOewife naked to prove his point)





tov etSeo?







Kal ovk aver^Tai ovre


IBerjv ttvTr}<; opemv ktX. (the horse is afraid of the camel and cannot endure the sight of its figure). 94 efjevprjdfjvai, Br/ &v Tore Kal t&v kv$wv i. Kal t&v dXXecav Tratrewv Traiyvicov ra e'iBea (the figures, shapes,
. .

of all sorts of toys).

196 ovoi









oiBev eSiovTo %pr)o-Tov (demanded no comeliness

in their wives).

1 9 9 oo~ai pAv vvv et'Seo? te iirafifiivai


Kal fieydBeos
this specific

(the possessors of a fine


stately physique).

203 tpvXXa

ToirjoSe IBir)? (leaves


property, a

sense of


word which we





in the scientific writers).
. .


53 S0ev Be eyevovTO eKao-To<; t&v Qe&v okoio'l Te Ta eiSea (and what were their figures). ib. Homer and Hesiod are responsible for the popular theology, Tip,d<s Te Kal Te%ya<; BieXovTes Kal eiBea avT&v (sc. t&v 6e&v) o-r)iirjvavTe<s {e'iBea again = their figures, their
bodily forms, not their features).

69 KpoKoBei\ov<;

Be "laves mvo/iaaav, et«a§bi>Te? axiT&v

to, e'iBea Toicri

o~$Lo~i yiyvo/Aevoicri KpoKoSetXoi.cn.


71 (of the hippopotami) <pvcnv Be irape-^ovTai IBei)? where <pv<rt<; I8er)<; is a periphasis for iBerjv, " their


as follows."




fiev t/3tos ToBe, "

the figure of the ibis
. .


as follows "


fiev Br/ fieXaivetov


rjBe IBirj.




Krjpiwi <r^>r)K&v IBer/v 6fioioTarr]v ("in figure like a

wasp's nest



iS-oftoievvres to etSo?


Swarov (reproducing

the living body as carefully as they can).






fiaKiara to


Twt Kvpov,






etSos t£>i 'ZpepSi.




of course, of physique in
is included.)

general, not

merely of features, though this


elal Be icah to elBoi ofioioTaToi (the fabulous
figure, to

Indian ants are very similar in body, or


103 to

fiev Br)

et§09 okoIov ti ej(ei




ov o-vyypd<pa).

(I give

no description of the camel's form.)
peydOea, iroucikoi



viroirTepoi, o-piicpo\ to,

tcl etSea.

109 ovBev

ttjv iBerjv opoioi

ovBe to j(pmp,a (they differ

both in their physique and in their complexion).

129 t&v

te ovav




t&v r)pi6vmv to


(the braying of the asses and the figure of the mules)


ovTe dtcova avTe<; irpoTepov


oine lBovTe<;

[to] elBos.



Be a\? avToQi


\evKo<i Kal irop$vpeo<i to

elBos opvo-aeTat (elBo<; here very exceptionally

used of the

colour of a thing, where in Attic one would say \eu«os
. .

61 eovaav ydp piv to




Tpo<pb<; avTrjs,

opS>aa Toil? yovea<; crvp(popr)v to



fievovi ktX.

diro fiev



t»?? r)p£pr)<;


to elBo<s. (The language is meant to include comeliness of form as well as beauty of feature.)




policy," a



Bifpao-ia^ IBias

had a divided

mere periphrasis




119 (to meaning seems

cppeap) to Trape^erai Tpifyao-Las


to be " supplies three different bodies," as the

three IBeav are said to be bitumen,










in other cases where

elBos refers to

physical beauty,


must be
of face

careful to bear in


that mere handsomeness

only a small part of what


Our way

of tacitly connecting /caWo? specially with the face could

only have arisen







customary for men, as well as for women, to keep the body concealed. To a G-reek, accustomed to the free exposure of the male form, such one-sided emphasis on
it is


the facial features as the chief element in beauty would be
scarcely possible.



my justification

for treating etSo?

of "



" body's


as falling under the sense


8iaX\d<rtrovTe<s el8o<;





^mvrjv Se


body from the

no whit in but only in their language and the



fashion of their hair.)

105 o«t»5 yap KTijcrairo iralSai etSeo? iira/ifievovf 199 above). viii. 113 ex Be toov aWtov avfifid^cov ifjekeyero kwt
SiaXeyav ktX.

0X1701/?, Toltri ecSed re virrjp^e

of course, selected not the best-looking, but the strongest

men, men of exceptional physique.)

my list is

complete, elSo? occurs altogether twenty-four

The words seem to be exactly synonymous. " occurs once in the sense of the " shapes " or " figures
ISst) eight.

of inanimate things
to the colour of

once, most unusually, with reference an inanimate thing; seven times of the

figure of animals

fourteen times of the human body, figure, physique; twice of the (anthropomorphic) figure ascribed


the gods. IBerj occurs in the sense of the figure or physique of an animal three times of the human physique once; once apparently in the general sense of "body,"


physical substance "


once with the meaning of prqprium,

characteristic property,

and once, in the phrase


Si^aalwi I8ea<s, in a mere periphrasis for a numeral adverb, " were minded in two ways."




Kal avroK iroXkal ISeai iroXifuop KaTeo-Tifo-av,



phases of war,"





19 iraaav



they failed to take

ireipdaavre'; ovk iSvvavTO eKelv, though they tried every scheme of



~Keya> Tt)v

re iraaav irokiv ttj? 'EXXaSo? iraiheva-iv

elvai Kal Ka6'

exaarov av



top airov avSpa Trap
yapiTuiv p,d\iaT
" I





to trw/ia aiirapices


av maintain

that our city as a whole

a school for Hellas, and that,







ourselves than any-


else for the

individual citizen to exhibit a bodily

training which


for the

most graceful performance

of the most various parts,"

being almost

equivalent to "in the most various directions," "to the

most various purposes," and


thus about synonymous
" guises "

" shapes,"



of activity,

the strictly original meaning of the word.
. . .



yhp icpeiaaov \oyov to




rwtSe eSqXtoo-e (idTuaTa















example, except that to e'So?

does not



look " nor yet the " kind " of the malady.


the whole,

I think

a case in which, as often in the medical writers,
<£vo-ts, "


real essence," with

the result that to

v. is

about equivalent in sense to


51 to



toiovtov %v eVi trav tt/v

ISiav (introductory to the account of the

of the plague of Athens).

main symptoms The general character of the
seems to mean, as el8o<; symptoms of the This meaning would come
" look," "

was as



often does in

the medical

writers, the

disease regarded collectively.

naturally from the literal one of









Potidaea impregnable, they tried to
resolving on a blockade, irao-av yctp

before finally

Iheav iirevoovv, e"

7T<bs tripUrtp

Banrdvr}<; ical

TroXtopKias irpoaa^dei/q, "


they considered every device to win the city without the expense of a blockade." iracrav IBeav is here
to be

more than a periphrasis for irdvra, and the sense of IBea appears to be simply " phase," " guise," " appearance."



Be /ir]Biaai fiev avrov<; ov (pafiev

'A0i7wu'oi/?, Trji fievroi, avTTJi IBecu vcrrepov lovrcov

Bion ovB 'KOyvawov





Jioicor&v aTTiKuaai.





" Our, reply is

that the reason


they did not take sides

with the Medes

that the Athenians did not do


when Athens attacked Hellas with the same purpose, they But were the only Boeotians who took the Attic side.
consider what was the situation in which each of the two
parties before
" pretext,"

you acted thus."

Here IBea seems







" appearance."

below clearly means the

" appearance,"

" situation," of affairs generally.

8 1 iraad re IBea

Oavdrov, not


every kind

of death,"



death in

all its

yaXeira, tcarcb crrdcnv Tat?


ical hreirecre

ical alel



yiyvo/neva fiev




avrr) <£u<7t?


fiaXXov Be




rot? eiBecri




at fieraftoXal

t&v ^vvtv^i&v
such as occur

consequences of

and always will occur while human nature but are more or less violent, and vary in
assume, according to the particular situation


it is,

the shape they
(etSo? in the

simple sense of the


shape " things wear.

The meaning

kind "

is excluded by the context). 83 iraaa IBea Karearr] KaKOTpoiria<s, "villainy in

its guises."


rrdcrd re IBea KaTecrTt)

Tr}<; <pvyr}<; ical

tov oXedpov

t&v 'A07jval,a>v, " a general flight and destruction of the Athenian forces ensued." {iraaa IBea ktX. = flight and destruction in all their phases, as in the
t&i aTparoireBoot

given just above, a sense of IB&a exactly the

reverse of that which

characteristic for Plato

and his

. affairs. = pretext. "slaughter in all its shapes/' is exactly similar to the passages already ii." . . when we see them taking to the policy of alienating some of our friends by argument. viii. dy&vi. than a periphrasis for 56 AXKifiidBr/s Tio-o-a<pepvr)V Be to? . vi." Thus we have IBea used fourteen times. 4 76 BpeiravoeiBe'} is ttjv IBeav to j^wpiov "its geometrical shape vi. IAEA fellow-Socratics. Kal w? Tavrrji Tr\i IBeai KaTaBap. Kal tovtwi Trpbi 'A&rjvaiovs. betakes himself to a policy such that .. 112 Kal Tive<s. " finding themselves involved in naval operations which lay earl." iv. avTovs. tt)i that of a sickle. quoted from vii. The repeated combination with a word of medicine. 29 IBea wacra KaOeio-rrJKei okeOpov. r&v TerpaKoalmv fidKiara ivavTioi " the leading ovre<. " would overpower and capture them even by these tactics " (ravTi)i rrjc IBeai little more 81 ivofit^ov ravrfii). 77. viii. es irdaav IBeav ^(oprjaavTe'i in rrjs " (pvyrjs irpdirovro " " fled is every ttjv way they <pvy>])." etc. but we may note that it is always IBea which is . roi/s " policy). elSo<. " A. There only one land of 55 ffweo-TWTes irapd vtvap-^ovaav a<p&v Iheav T7j9 irapaaKevr)<s vavTiK&t. could (not kinds. indicates that Thucydides has probably derived this use of the word from the Ionian medical writers. Be ^vfipA-yav eXiriSi eKTrdXe/iovv irphf aXXijXov? kt\. outside their traditioual policy. There seems to be no difference in the sense of the two words. " their melvd re ea-%ov Kal to. etc. vvv attempts here are conceived in the same spirit as their captures there " (IBea vi. seven times." Be avrfji IBeai iretprnvrai.THE WOKDS EIAOS. So again. 'AOijvaCcov fir/ Zvpfirivai. itself 189 KaTearif. rpeirerai iirl rotovhe elBo? wore rbv fieyiaTa alrovvra irapd t&v This is exactly similar to vi. 77 tous OjO&wTe? avTOvs iirl tovto to elBos Tpeirop^vov<i fiev \oyoi<: (wo"T6 r/fiwv Sutrrdvat.acrdfievoi \rjtyea6ai. . t«Si TovovTtot opponents of such a policy. . 98 and elsewhere. 90 oi Be e'lBei." The underlying notion again is " look " or " appearance " of vii.) iii.

not we -more than a periphrasis. The repeated conjunction traaa IBea tivo<s /carea-Tr) points to a borrowing by ThucyI will dides from the language of medicine. dX\' dei Kawas IBeas ei<r<fiepa)v ao<f>o^ofj.") ib." "manifestation." . as might say." " sort never required. as a "first vintage" from the particulars." philosophic sense thus presumably does not The come from the vocabulary of early Attic prose. ." wickedness " is "plan. Neither meaning bears the slightest resemblance to the sense regularly attached to the words in Plato. is The meaning " class." derived from the former. the female figures which are represented in the play as the vera corpora of the Clouds. " what a thing really of its " is. new " figures " or " Birds 993 ti? B' I8£a /3ov\ev[iaTo<i\ | ti? 17 'irlvoia (IBia fiovXeviLaTos. 190 VAEIA SOCKATICA Both IBea and etSo? " The sense " physique word. diroaetad/ievat | vefyos o/j." such as the sausage-seller of the Knights. For completeness' sake.a<. Thus..e./3piov I a- iiriBrnfieda TrfketrKoirayi ofi/ian yalav." of which the other logically a specification.e." the single reality as opposed to the variety appearances. shows." " kind. The example then belongs to the sense " (human) body. though the still more is used as the subject to KaTaarfjpai." a meaning apparently found in a particular case (2) " policy. " what's the shape of your notion ? ") much . does not occur with either general meaning of " bodily shape." with special reference to the actual "figures. from early Attic." " the special form under which a universal such as " death. add the following examples Aristophanes Clouds 6avdra<s 288 aXK ISias. (aOavaTas IBea? is " our immortal forms." " fashion. we may say that Thucydides uses the words i.ai. 546 | ovB' v/j. does." nor to the sense " sort.) (tcaivcbs I8ea<s." i. in two senses: (1) "phase. ty)T& '^airardv Bl$ ical rpli ravr elcrdywv. appear as mere verbal periphrases.

e. "their physiqite is not a whit better. so that the meaning would be " tropes (itself. of the Gorgias or to the aj^fiara T?j9 SiavoLas (rxrffiaTa " of the later rhetoric. dXXrjv 6S6v rwa.) fieXriow. and womanish voice. that meant " a fresh song. vfivov.eli eV dXX' elSo? TpeireaO'. Dindorf. in the suggests speeches or extant fragments. outside the technical vocabulary of science. " better in mind and body too. THE WOEDS EIAOS. If the text correct. IAEA ib. as a scholiast says. a fact which of that the words were not widely current. to another " style " or " line " of composition.) e^raa-ev. " our avijp jiev r)pHv ovroai man's transformed to a Sr/ woman already in his figure'' Follows an injunction to speak in elSeas is a soft ib. the sense to obscure rhetorical but the reference seems to be either Xi^ea><." Thesmophoriazusae 266 yvvrj | to y elSos. Or possibly all one on a new erepav vfivmv ISeav meaning no more than erepov though this is less likely. \ jSacriXeiav AtffiTjTpa 8eav iiriKoa/iovvres KeXaSeire (literally " in a fresh pattern of song. or the frequent Platonic equivalent popcpij. a sense borrowed from geometry). its irvuyea the air much like an oven in ical shape. Antiphon ISea. The Srjfiog ical of Athens dress no better than slaves etSrj and fieroi/coi. (Text of L.oXiral<. tc\ oiSev el<ri. The sense strictly the geometrical one. 191 | 1000 airbed yap pAXurra." subject. as we shall see. Eav. " pattern. § 1 0.'' Frogs 384 dye | vvv erepav v/ivcov ISeav rrjv icapTro<p6pov %a0eoi<. i." the rhythm being thought of as a geometrical structure.") ib. t'Sea? is edd. p. Plutus 316 tfSt) | dXX eia vvv to>v cncco/AfiaTcov airaXXayevres vp. dvSpa'i | ical ti)v yvd>fir]v ical rrjv ISeav. S' 436 irao-a? (so MSS. et? (eV dXXo is elSos means. I can find no instance of itself elSos. fifth century. exactly like those we use is to is show changes of metre)... the Orator. 558—9 irov TlXovrov irape^m j3eXrLova<. " ar\p is cart rr/v ISeav o\g>? Kara." . in the Attic of the [Xenophori\ 'AOrjvaLOJv -rroXireia.

to Blass's text. for Gorgias. and who appears from Anonymus Iamblichi (i. eiaiv ova cos ovk eicnv ova ottoiol Tivef IBeav. large fragments from whom . the unknown writer on ethics. ii. oti icdWt. Neither word is found in the two extant eVtSetfets of Antisthenes. however." Encomium Helenae 12. Further.cttov elBoi ev toi? appeal to drfKv. My references are to Diels. nroWots yvcbpifiov tjJs ywaucos. The words are not found elsewhere in the remains of Gorgias. or Antiphon the " sophist. 561) KOfiTfroTepos 6 Topyias <j>alverai Kekevcov to elBo<: dXXa rr/v Bofjav elvat.C. and Hippias. 1. (rovfwv tov/wv icapa = e/xe. which. If Blass is right in emending fir) the corrupt to yap avdyKJ] 6 elBa><. to tj}? it." Gorgias (ap. Antisthenes. to to yap tj}? trei6ov<. 627) where used in the sense of (human) physique. Plutarch. include hardly anything beyond the " Choice of Heracles" preserved by Xenophon. have been unearthed by Blass in the Protrepticus of Iamblichus. " nor what their figures (or bodies) are like. like Shakespeare's " quality of " or the common tragic periphrases with Be/ia<s. 537)." except in one elBo<s is remark ascribed to Critias (Diels ii. should be widely known. neither word occurs in the extant fragments of Thrasymachus. The same remark and Plato seems applies to the scanty remains of Hippias. irepl fiev de&v ovk eya eioevai ova ax. Neither word is found in the remains. to avoid using the words in his imitations of Protagoras. Alcidamas.e. t?)? iretOov^ e^r)v. and the like). Protagoras irepl Oe&v (Diels ii. Antisthenes. elBos e^« fiev ovofia evavTiov avcvy/crji. Prodicus. elBo<s will be a mere periphrasis mercy for r) ireiam. Diels 1. 2 ii. not her person. Critias. Be mulierum fiev virtute 242 f. VorsoJeratiker.192 VAEIA SOCKATICA The earlier Sophistic The remains of the earlier "sophists" mayalso be taken into account here as evidence for the Attic prose of the period 450—400 and B. " a woman's fame. 1. 1. icdpa Be/ias. Prodicus. 6 Be vov<s ical toi el ktK.

IAEA war. Symposium. orators.irovTe'i Bia. knows of the imderivation of ^laXe/crt/erf from 8ia\eyeiv.op<fiij 193 his style to be a " sophist " of the time of the Peloponnesian (See for the text Diels are all absent. all in the sense either of body (human) or physique.THE WOKDS EIAOS. § 7 direucdfav rb epyov rot? t&v tpsvrwv e'lZeaiv ^toTucayrepow.v. Xenophon Memorabilia. I may next take into account the language of Xenophon and the Isocrates. is probably spurious (see Blass's Antiphon. the usage of pre-Platonic Attic. rbv dvSpiavro- Trpo<reiicd£ei. the It is striking that Kara a-o<picTr&v. p. toiovtov eiSovi. and e!8o? appears (three times in all) only in the one curious chapter (iii. eZSo? is whom the naturally common enough." a phrase similar to several already quoted from Thucydides. . Troiels <j>alvecr6ai ttoiov ra. But the work. But it is remarkable that the actual word ISea never occurs in the Memorabilia. t»)s rovs avSpiavras. ib. of course. attributes to Xenophon. and in technical rhetorical sense of IBea. " by means of such a device. ii. In the Odysseus ascribed to the same author we have in § 10 irep. who is but as a teacher of prose composition. viii. ISea. *. 629-635. rd ye tcaXa eiSi} dtpofioiovvres. We have r&i three instances of elSos. as and a § sculptor.ev eUSet. 2 and then in the most literal sense. § 8 Set ifrv)(f}<} epya r&i e'iSei . 10) where Socrates is represented as discussing characterisation in art with a painter to sort. and not to be quoted for Alcidamas. since the mention of eiBrj or ISeai \6ytov would appear so natural in such a context. xxvii). /j. 26 o . and him a we have already seen. always reserving for special consideration not properly reckoned as an orator at all. or lay apart.) etSo?. rbv vovv irpwrk^wv. . 25 6 p. in neither term is found an attack on the composers of written eVtSei'fet?. though comparatively early. portance attached by Socrates to correct classification.

but body would " is the only word which a really careful translator use. these instances would be a just permissible rendering. man at that date.) This seems to be the only instance in the whole Anabasis. Only three examples. If the conception of eWij is. we may fairly suppose that Socrates did not exactly take Xenophon into his inmost confidence. Xenophon is only adhering to his regular policy of protecting his master's memory by preserving silence about all that The is books connected him with a mysterious and suspected "sect. ra eiSj] t&v 3. entire absence of any reference to the elSri from Xenophon's Socratic not so startling as it looks. In all elSei tov ipwfievov %pd>p. 14 17 wir&KTeive 8e ical tov vlbv avrfj<s.evov. so far (human) body or physique. Cyropaedia diSeTai 1 i. and that one reason why he has so little to tell about his He says he had actually master's beliefs is that he knew very little of them. . saw Socrates after his departure for the army of Cyrus. as I shall argue. (His patron still. TrpmTov e<payov ivTavda ical tov ol aTpaTi&Tai." Moreover. but then he says he had heard Socrates talk about the battle of Cunaxa. 16 elBo<. we do not know how much even of what he may have heard he has mangled because he could not understand it. e9avfiao~av " to re Ti)v its IBioTTjTa t^5 were surprised by its shape and singular taste. been present at a great many of the conversations he reports." (Note the survival of this old sense of fihovq. Oeconomicus. " beauty " " 36 tov tSh. ical know. 2. ii. it is He never quite possible that Xenophon knew nothing about the matter. ir&v ovra ical d>s eirTaicalheica. \aj3cov tow? ical Kparicrrowi ire^Siv "). ical irepl airbv fonreav &' irpofjXffe (" advanced with the iii. men of the strongest bodies ?jv 5 oiito<s (sc. No example. primarily Pythagorean. 6 AepKv\iSa<. Hellenica. Anabasis <polviico<. all 1. 1 as I in the sense of iii. so far as I know. veavi- <7ico<i Tr/v TJrv%riv (of youthful body and tov vigorous mind).194 VAEIA SOCEATICA ib. Cinadon) evpooo'Tos ical to elSo*. 3. and the Anabasis makes Taking it clear that he was quite a young thirty.) Proxenus was only this and Xenophon was presumably younger superficiality of his and the general character into account. tov eiSovs iirapK&v ap^ei tov epaarov. 1 <f>vvai Se 6 Kvpos XeyeTai ical en ical vvv virb tS»v fiapfiapasv eZSo? fiev /caWio-ro?. ical eyicetjiaXov ical ol irdWol r)Bovr]<i. Further. 2. to tg etSo? ovra 7rdyica\ov iii.

so that the has nothing that it means "sort." but it is more likely." If example of this sense in Xenophon. Hipparcfricus. the work will be better done than anywhere else.ev 3 %pr) Se rbv etKoeri. 6 vvv phrroi i^aipovpev avSpl ae. elSr} fteXrietSo? again = body (" those of the finest eKeyev ktX. 5. eviroSoi /cal layypov 2. principle of specialisation of function. " dogs of stiff and stubborn build (L. IAEA "^ v xh v iv. fj-TTco ("inferior neither in body nor mind nor in estate 2. ovre in ovre to ethos eiceivov j(eipovi ovri ovre rr/v yvcop/tjv Bwap. Agesilaus.. No example. Be Vectigalibus. physique v. 1. Cynegeticus.ro. Hie.THE WOEDS EIA02. etSo? here might mean " shape. . dXX' apicel av ev eZSos evSoKip. Apologia. itrdi <m. elSos. strong and light in body and adequately endowed in mind. Bespublica Zacedaemoniorum. supple. perhaps. physique of a horse. No example." "kind. 1. so. eip-eyedov. Be Re pd^ovre<s Equestri. (In a to household ordered on the Socratic baker do but bake loaves) ical pijSe rovrovs TravToScnrovs. 195 ^ fyiXavdpoa'iroTaTO'i. evadpicov km ." 3. " he vypo<:.) 11 ola<i Se Set elvai rod avrov yivov<s rd re eiStj . 6. eXhrj ^a\e7T(Ss dirb r&v Kwrjlyeaiav diraXXdrrovo~i. 3 ai Se <r/c\i]pal ra.ovo<. rightly class are badly used up in hunting. No example. No case of either word. & S. We have the following cases of p.ovv irapijfiji. "). like floppy in the next sentence. iayypdv." among passages in which aicXr/pos is used of the body. txavov. lithe. No case of either word.iv viii. One case of etSo? with reference to the 17 eZSos pev &rj irdiXov ovra> Sokirjpiv ical paXicr av /cal SoKovai rvy^dveiv evo--xrfp. e5 e%ovri "). etSo?. dp/cvwpbv elvai . it is the only No case of IBia or etSo?. vrov<s means body as opposed to mind. rrjv rfXiiciav vrepl err) to Se elfio? iXa<j>pov. 57 6 Se exXe^dpevo^ ai)Twv tovs ra. fyvyrp) Se must be about twenty years old. this as the opposite of 3.

a. an(i i n ^ e other. We = " sort. ev6v<s. apparently.) Se tov eiSovt Kal rod epyov rovrov evKal eviroSes e<rrw<7av Kal evpives Kal evTpij(e<." " kind. science written except in the sense of in the Ionic dialect. in one of which it means quite literally a " plan " or " diagram ." 7." contrast in usage between Thucydides and to The Xenophon seems me strongly to support the view at which I have hinted that the word. the dogs should be high-spirited. almost always means " body always the human body) save in two cases. ra. and is in Ionian science. tov \aya> evreivo- prjywvTai. 9. keen of scent. (Note the implied antithesis 4." was nonAthenian literature a loan-word from (by which I mean. " sort." that this note. independently of the place of its origin). 6 fiera. between points of body and peculiarities of face. in particular. and should have a good coat. p. opmaat. they should not be unleashed at once. '' (o-xfi/ia). evpio-Krjrai. if their bodies are well suited for coursing. "iroBtoKeif. and meaning something like the geometrical or topographical arrangement adopted. swift of foot. Attic. el&r) ovo-ai Kal eirtyv- %ov? fievai rbv Spofiov e'iSij iiriKvrji. eiSos exactly synonymous with o-yr\fi. Thus we may say generally that ISia is not a word of etSo? is relatively unfamiliar.r) avtivat." 196 Kal ra. Tfrvftoi. etrovrai io-yypai ra 61817. show is = one of the latest meanings to he acquired. I hope. of course. " when the hare has been started. 7 again = their irpos bodies as opposed to their yfrv^. 8 iav yap o/iodev KaXa*} 7rpb<. like in physique. i\a<f>pal. and Xenophon's vocabulary (except in the Cynegeticus.. " the same fashion or disposition " of the chase.oi." Further investigation will. "what they should be ievve<>. " besides having the points of body and method of working described. rwt avrm eiSei avroiii y^prjo-dai tj)? 8ripa<i. the absence of the sense etSo<t yevo<t " class. VAEIA SOCKATICA aWa Kal <ppdo-to. 2 iav mat roiavrat ai o-vfi/Merpoi." 4. and in other points. and . eiSrj. •jrpbs 7 iireiBav o \aya><. Kal airo rmv 7rpoa<l)7rcov <pai8pal Kal ev<rrop. iav fiev KaXal mat tov Spofiov ra. " body." 7.

all give the instances from Andocides of. and the meaning is not merely that he was ugly of face.) and Isocrates Andocides De Mysteriis 100 mv irparTOfievo'. but a miserable creature altogether. the following examples. then.ai. so far frdtn the eiBrj of Plato 197 If this is having been reached by the "reification of concepts. ical Tavra prostitute. eiSri. The following TrpoSitfyrjarK section " shows that the two etSr) are a or anticipatory by Demosthenes and the other speakers for Timarchus. . To take the orators next. Aeschines From Aeschines we have i. 8' (i. has no example of either word. (io%8ripb<." IBea here again = body or physique.THE WOEDS EIA02. and a 7rapd. Hyperides.e." with the usual contrast to -^v^aL Isaeus. and is nearly rehearsal " of the line of defence expected to be taken .] in a speech of more than dubious 4 ifkeov yap ehoKovv rj (sc." the notion of a " species " or " class " was obtained by the conceptualisFor the sake of completeness. Lysias rrjv IBeav. you led the life of a hired and a mighty sorry one at that. the Amazons) rwv avhpStv : rat? i|ru^at9 Bicupepeiv rat? ISeais iWeiireiv t'Seat? mean- ing here " bodies. like Antiphon and the genuine Lysias. to ing I away of Socratic e'ISrj. oil ttoXv apyvpiov eirl roll ala-^iaroK epyoc? efijs ovra><. it will follow that. means here "formal constituents" of the speech. true. eiSr) 116 Bvo Si poi t»7? Karriyopiav XeiTrerat e<£' ols ifiavrov t elirelv ev^opai rot? 0eoi<. " Only one instance authenticity. IAEA only arose under the influence of the Academy.pi)p. shall (Antiphon has been already disposed receive special treatment later on.K\i)<ri<i t&v ttoKit&v irpbi aperr\v. as a /a'wwSo?). [ii. iracri Kal rfjs -irao-ais virep 7ro\e«? 009 irpo r\i.

e'iZrj are then described as vofioi.e. which are also called indifferently See Professor Bywater's p. K.e. . el<r apSpes 'Adijvaloi." a clear instance of etSo? = " kind. The sense is thus " class. i. physique." " sort. ecrriv. his physique. more strictly. about his personality.eXkovTe<i iraihoTTOieiadau /caXous KoyaOoiif Ta? (Sea? <f>vpai. 29 ecrri w cwS/se? 'AOr/valoi.6(riov. ISea = body. i. note on the similar use of the word in Aristotle. epelv irepi T6 evTevifecos QCkiirirov or. 134 roi/<! fiev viels . yap. avrov kt\. TOVTcoi 194 jap iraplaaw iic Tpi&v elS&v (rvvrfyopoi. his bodily presence. (2) superintendents of public works. i. of State in their hands for any others who are entitled to the Thus the rare sense " class " is here affair Demosthenes In the whole collection xix. 47 et7T6 vpoeXdmv irpb<. iii. of better physique. f)yefiovla ZiKaaT-qpitov. The two of matters with which the laws of all cities deal." It is explained that these are (1) officials formally appointed by lot or election.Trjtri(pa)v aXKov." unmistakable. SOCEATICA parallel is the The nearest Platonic famous eiSr) ev rfji yjrv^rJL of the Republic. irepl &v There are two sorts ras 7ro\et?. . <o xxiv. Sv eiBr). irepl tup IBiav and vofioi ol vofMoi icara 7ra<ra? irepl t&v 7r/3o? to 8r)/j." . where the present passage should have been given as an apposite parallel. " supporters drawn from three classes. ijXt/a'as 233 192 el Si tk &>v e'</>' irepov /SeXrtaw ttjv ISiav. . tt)? lSea<. " there are three classes of officials. and all persons who " have any (3) more than a month. rrj<.eprj or fiopia. ra>v irepl ra<i ap^as then eiBrj rpla.198 equivalent to VAMA fiepij. teal tol"? ^rjfioaOevqv tjj? avr&i. ii." " kind. ical \oyov<. .. I only find two instances. i. re rival <Tvyiceifievov<. Poetics 1449 a 7. airavres eii^eade ol p." The whole speech is marked by familiarity with the ideas and language of the " sophistic " schools of composition.

" The equation = etSo? is an outcome. would go far to sustain my of Lysias." but that this purely logical sense arose from the watering down of the metaphysical meaning of the words for which we have chiefly to thank Aristotle. further. that in this handful of instances the words always mean body or physique. and one of these instances ought really to be discounted. as that of Aristotle . suggestion that these words formed no part of the " live vocabulary of Athenian life.. ISea did not begin by meaning " class " or " sort. as importations from non-Attic scientific literature. where they are found. a datum." This again bears out my assertion that et8o?.r) | | <a> ical av$pd<riv irpeiroi." yevos and et8o9 are primarily words with . " family. not any logical system which maintains. We note. implications as diverse as their derivations the one means yevo<s the other " body. and one may doubt whether. except in one passage of Demosthenes and one of Aeschines. or tMeir equivalents ayfrfia /wptfrrf." and elSoi once in the long quotation from Tyrtaeus. and occurs once in the pfjaK from Euripides' Urech- theus quoted fidj(piTO teal hy Lycurgus. even late in the fourth century. not hood. with the meaning of body." mere "outward shows of man. of the Platonic -Aristotelian philosophy." THE WORDS EIAOS.") Thus the two words are only found nine times in the whole bulk of what we may call the work-a-day forensic and political oratory of Athens. ajfflpuT a\Ae>? mere "figure-heads. e/ioiy' eir/ reicva p. Kara 8' dyhabv elBo<} i\£y%ei. I may put this point in another way. as it comes from the worthless declamation handed down to us as the 'EirtTa^to? This. dX\' fier sc. and that we must regard them. It certainly is not so in the equation is quite complete. where it has the sense of class " or " kind. IAEA Diimrchus \ Hyperides J (<r^j}/ta 199 Lycurgus INot one of these three orators ever uses 184a. " he brings shame on his family and belies his own splendid bulk of manev nroKet Tre<pvKOTa." and one where it means •' " formal constituent. even in Aristotle. ala^vvei 8e yevo<. of itself. etSos.

that the story of Demosthenes about the poverty and low station of Aeschines' parents is. So far. and perhaps of the Academy. we seem to : have reached the following results. what an Athenian audience probably took it to be. When we remember that Aeschines repeatedly boasts of possessing a iracSeia which raises him above the level of his opponents. was "body" or "physique. who mentions " the thousand drachmas as the well-known fee charged by Isocrates for his regular It would follow. " VAEIA SOCEATICA that there are infimae species incapable of further logical division. this recurrence of a technical term of rhetorical art lends some colour five to the traditions preserved in the " lives " of the orators. while they assert that Demosthenes had never been able to pay the fees demanded by Isocrates. The one sense in which they were commonly understood by persons outside the scientific schools. that of our nine (or eight) examples come from the three speeches of Aeschines. at least provisionally and ISia were not common words in the fifth.— 200 does. and that the account which Aeschines gives of his own parentage is probably. too. and particularly of the dwalSevTo? Demosthenes.or even of fourth-century Attic. then. true. in the main." most (1) etSo? vocabulary of . I would note. which make Aeschines a member of the school of Isocrates. 42. [Demosthenes] xxxv.) course. of course. pure romance. with its love of vigorous and vulgar metaphors and colloquialisms. of which Demosthenes is the most brilliant exponent. which had their own technical vocabulary. (The story that Isocrates declined to educate Demosthenes on " reduced terms " is further confirmed in one vital point by the contemporary author of the speech against Lacritus. The whole style. It is not to an Academician of the age of Xenocrates and Phoeion that we should naturally look for the attempt to revive the " demagogy " of Pericles and Cleon. goes to negative the belief of later ages that he had ever been one of the Academy. and his politics are also decidedly of the wrong colour.


usually with an implied restriction to the




Since then Plato habitually assumes that the words bore a
philosophical signification, which he cannot have invented
for himself; since

he treats


as something


his readers

quite understand for themselves,


are forced to suppose

that he derived the terms from the technical language of
pre-existing fifth-century science.

have also seen already that the words could be (2) used, as terms which an intelligent reader would understand,
in the following senses



geometrical " figure,"



symptomatology of a

disease, (c) a formal constitutive


in a speech (such as the ay<ov, the



anticipatory rehearsal of the coming

and the like), (d) a " trope " or rhetorical artificial ornament either of language or of "thought," (e) a "class'' or "kind." The word had thus
speech on the other
acquired a technical sense in geometry, in medicine, in

The problem is now to discover, if we from which of these senses the rest follow as natural derivatives i.e. we must trace the history of the words as a technicality backwards. If we do so, we shall in the end be, for the first time, in a position to answer the question whether it is likely that Plato committed a literary blunder in ascribing certain senses of the words to Socrates and his companions. We may begin by considering rhetoric, on the ground
rhetoric, iu logic.



it is

notoriously a younger science than medicine or


next attempt to give a list of the occurrences of our two words in Isocrates, with some disI will,




the meanings they bear.




throughout, the text of Blass as issued in the




have the following


and the



I trust,












Xpfjadcu fiev dficpoTepais rat? IBeaK ravrai?,
(fiopav tt)v



exarepai rrpoaovaav Bia<pevyeiv.





with dignity

but, while exhibiting both manners,

avoid the inconveniences which attach to either.

IBiai here

does not, of course,


" kinds,"


much more

ways of bearing


a sense not far removed from

the popular one.


Set toli? fiovXofievow;




ypd<j>etv ri


pta/ievov rot? 7roWot?

tov? aMpeKificoTaTowi r&v \oymv
. . .




816 ical rr)v 'Ofirjpov


kcu row; trp&rov evpovra? rpaycoiBiav d%tov davfid-

%eiv, brt





r&v dvOpdnrcov


repats rot?


ravrai? Kareyjpr^travro irpo? rr)v iroitfatv. and the discoverers of tragedy are to be commended

for their judicious combination of the


" styles

of comexciting


sound exhortation, and the






" fashion "

or " style " of writing,

a sense which, as we shall
that of a " figure

find, is

a natural extension of

of rhetoric.





"We should say genre. /lere^ovcra'i rovrav t&v IBe&v




fieyaKwv icaic&v atria? This looks like an echo of the Socratic-Platonic



and fiede^i?, and I should suppose that though we might, but for the tell-tale word fiere^ovaa?, take it to mean merely that " temperance " and " justice " are two " modes " or " appearances " in which
language about

is so,

virtue presents itself to us.


xpr) Be Boxtfid^eiv


dpera? ovk iv ralf airats
rr)v B'

tSiats dirdo-as, dXXa, rr)v fiev BiKaioa-vvrjv iv rats diroplais,
rr)v Be eroi<ppoo-vvriv iv rats


iyxpdreiav iv


t&v vemrepusv


iya> roivvv iv irao-t rot? teaipoi?

(pavtfo-o/iat nrelpav rrj? ifiavrov



various virtues should not be judged of in the same situations. His justice should be measured by his behaviour in needy circumstances, his temperance by his conduct when in

power, his


of his passions


his behaviour in

but synonymous with icatpoi, and means the different phases or aspects which a man's


affairs present.



have found some similar examples in




el fiev fn)8afia><;

olov t

r)v civ

SrjXovv ra<s avras
T(? viro\af3elv, to?

Trpdgeis ott'

Sia fuas



i<rn rbv avTov rpoirov
If the


\eyovra iraKiv

ivoj(\eiv TOis axovova-iv.

be treated of

same matters could only in one and the same manner, it might reasonto

ably be thought superfluous

try the


of the

audience again by a speech in the same style as those of

former orators.




" fashion " of selecting the topics

" style," " manner," and setting them off to

143 a\\a yap etkop^v



toio,vti)<; iSeas,

from such a style (sc. rod \6yov), i.e. from an eulogistic comparison of Philip with his predecessors.
to abstain

9 Kal irepl tovtiov Sn/jXAaai,


fiovov rot? Terayfiivoit




fiev Ijevoi,?,


8e Kaivolf,

ra Se




irapaXiireiv aXka, nraat, Tot? e'iSeai hia-

•rroiicikai Trjv -Koirjaiv.


diversify one's composition with


the stylistic embellishments, such as those mentioned

above, the use of novel or dialectical words for those current
in everyday
life, the use of metaphors. eoSrj has here the technical meaning of stylistic " graces," including apparently

not only the famous ay^fiara of Gorgias, but any other

ornaments by which one's diction may be and lifted above the level of ordinary life. Isocrates goes on to argue, in effect, that his task is harder than that of a poet because you cannot make a free use of such embellishments in prose.

(The passage has been discussed at length at




Professor Bywater's Aristotle on the Art of Poetry. Professor Bywater gives a different interpretation, which I am, with

respect, forced


believe mistaken.





mean tow


ovo/idrcov, " every


of name."

If the passage stood alone, this

might perhaps
for the use

pass muster, but compare xv.

74 (quoted below)

Besides, a metaphor of etSo? as equivalent to <rxr)fia ^efe«?. is more naturally spoken of as a "figure of speech " than as a


surely Isocrates the advantages of the poet a good deal
" every

kind of name."


freedom to use
find at xv.

kind of name."

means to include more than his He means rather "all

the resources of a heightened diction."




"kind") 280 a clear instance of x. 11. (It is easy enough to make an impression by defending a paradox, however devoid its advocate may be
of rhetorical accomplishments.)

e2So? = " class,"




koX ttkttoI

rovTot? ofioioi




ttoW&v IBe&v



evpia-Kowai re



are to


a reputation by discourses on sensible topics

with no paradoxical nonsense about them, in a word, by arguments which appeal to common-sense, you will need to

show unusual mastery of the tropes and devices of rhetoric. x. 15. (Gorgias had proposed to deliver an encomium on Helen, but managed his discourse so badly that it was rather a mere excuse for her than an eulogy.) ean S' ovk etc ra>v avrmv IBeoov oiiBe irepl t5>v avr&v [epyoav] o \oyos, a\Xa irav rovvavriov airoXoyela-Qai f^ev yap irpoarjiceL










ayaQmi rivl 8ia<f)epovTa<;. The matter and manner which would be appropriate in a " speech for the defendant " is out of place in an eulogy on admitted excellence. In both this and the last passage ISeat, means IBeat Xoyav, "styles of discourse." Hence in the first of the two, ISeai is conjoined with Kaipol:
it is

in the choice of the appropriate of his

tone for the various


and in the

observation of due proportion and strict relevancy in the












54 t&v



ovhev evprjaofiev





ravTTjs rjy? ISeas


ifKr^v oaa Here again the language

seems anticipatory of Platonic phraseology; IBea for once seems to stand for the self-identical object denoted by the

name kqWo?,

the avro b eern koKov, and Koivcovia

of the technical terms in Plato for the relation

such an avrb b eari and


is one between partial embodiments. Hence,



as I think Blass haB proved, the Helena really belongs to

a date about 390, the passage liay be used to

the characteristic language of the theory of
to Isocrates little


show that was known

more than ten years

after the death of


Believing, as I do, that the Republic

was written

before the King's Peace of 388/7, I


not surprised at

but, if a fact,




to show, irrespective of

any theory
have been
could use

as to the dates of the Platonic dialogues, that

the theory cannot have been invented by Plato;
in existence for a fairly long


time before Isocrates

technicalities as current literary coin.


same remark applies equally to x. 58 roaavrrii S' evcreftelat,
ttjv Iheav rrjv Toiavrrjv (sc.


irpovoiau %pd)fie8a irepl

rb koSXo<s) ktX., where, as


avra naff avra eiBrj, the natural English translation would be simply "thing," and the 1 pretentious bad English " entity." xi. 33 &ctt ov fiovov tj}? a\r)6et,a<; airwv dXka ical Trjs




l&ias oXt;?, Sl ^? evXoyelv


fyaivei 8ii}/j,apTr)iea>s.


says Isocrates to Polycrates, have not merely failed to prove

the truth of your statements about Busiris, but have shown

your ignorance

of the style appropriate to

an eulogy,


means ISea \6ymv, the

style appropriate to a certain literary

Isocrates describes his


discourses as



iv0vfirj/j.dTcov yefiovras,

ovk oXlycov



rmv aXKmv ISe&v t&v

iv rat? pTjTopeiacs

from this the origin of the various which we meet so many examples Primarily it means an artificial arrangein this author. ment of words or clauses adopted by the professional rhetors for the purpose of raising the style of their eVtSeifets above



rhetorical senses of ISea of

that of ordinary



Ihecu of rhetoric are, to begin

with, strictly "figures of diction" {ayfiiuna Xefews), and begin with the famous ay^fiara or artificial verbal tricks of
1 It should be observed that the whole context (Helena 54-58) presents strong affinities with the doctrine of Ipun expounded by Plato, which we have already seen reason to regard as thoroughly Sociatic.

" meaning of ISieu or (rxAlutTa (the And we see at once what the connection . it is in spirit an (See the whole context 131—134. figure of speech. we are instinctively going back to the primary sense of the phrase "a. The original ax^ara of Gorgias were quite literally "patterns. Hence we may reasonably look to a con- nection with Pythagorean science. Isocrates." "diagrams" for the arrangement of the words of a kw\ov or the Kui\a of a "period. or " figures " proper. Tpets fiovas. 1 xii.) Hence dpiaroKparia.. if it places its best men in office and obeys them. rule by one. or with spirit. of thought must have been. So the sense is " I maintain that the forms of government are three only. parisosis. Whatever be the apparent constitution of a iroKi<." by the best " to the list rests on a 1 The addition of cross-division. rule by the outward letter " rule many. Attische Beredsamkeit. e. or to show the parallelism between the Ku\a of a ireploSos. and homoeoteleuton. 63 the axhlMra of Gorgias see specially Blass. was easy and obvious. 2 It is important to note that Gorgias was not only a Sicilian.rjp. but. and can thus distinguish. i. effective and the like (a-^fiara Stavotas). rule by the few. for the original words are equivalent) as a term of rhetoric. the rhetorical question." When we employ. parallelism. The extension aposiopesis. a diagram to exhibit the nature of a chiasmus or a irapl<ru<ris. the ISicu proper in an " apology " from those suitable for an eulogy. 132 elvat iycb Se <fyrjpX to? is fiev tSea? tS>v irokiretrnv p.. and Isocrates is urging that the constitution maintained from On ff. as Gorgias. and the like) seems to be merely the collective use of the same word. 6\iyap^lav." 206 VAEIA SOCEATICA of the Gorgias.g. antithesis. through Empedocles." "shapes. a personal disciple of Empedocles. and ISia in the sense of the general " style appropriate to a given composition (eulogy. according to a tradition which seems fairly authenticated. himself did. but stylistic foppery of every kind. as our examples show. invective.ovap-^Lav. the ISecu t&v iroXtrei&v are contrasted with the <^v<rei<. Bij/MOKpanav. fcal Swdfiei? twv iroXiTetav of 134 as form with substance. I imagine. and reckoning it as a fourth ISia -rroKiTeiai. word to artificial embellishments of a less mechanical kind. The are object of the passage to argue that men in general wrong in confusing " aristocracy " with a government airo ri/j.. and that the name ISiat was given to Einpedocles' four "roots of things" by Philistion.dTcov. extends the word to cover not only the Topyieia a^fiara.

more generally. to. 16 tptj/u yap iya> ra>v fiev I8e£>v e£ &v roiis \oyov<s . . requires not merely the use of a handbook. Xafieiv rr)v eiria Tr}fj." but in subslltntial fact We have an opposition of ISea and 1 " rule by the <pvai<{ l not. 26 111. and cf. immediately below as the point these eiBrj that . 9. others which are not fitting for philosophy and such pleadings but exhibit a frank picture of its results. an identification of them. impudent attacks on Plato and the Academy in the brochure see For other §§ 5. airavras Kal Xeyofiev Kal crvvriOefiev. and something too which may be serviceable to younger men who feel the impulse towards prjdfjvai. It was Plato who had notoriously reckoned ApurroKparla as a fifth form of government by the side of the inferior rirrapa eldy (Republic 544 a. is a and training by a master who.rjv ovk elvai T&v irdvv ^aXeir&v. it is which The same things are described ra eiSr) twv Xoycov (xiii. and at how the result may be conveyed in language to once graceful and appropriate circumstances." by the many. Politicus 301). as in other cases. 1 ijv ti? clvtov irapahSib fir) tok paihlws vTria^vovfievoc ." " styles " taught by the authors of the rhetorical re'xyai as appropriate to the different conditions in a speech may he is delivered. 1 1 rocrovrov ovv firJKO<. as in Plato. 16. model in such matters. avvap/xoaai . and easy to learn how many and what are but to judge correctly how they the should be combined. Xoyov trvviSelv Kal rocravTas Kal roaovrov aWrj\a>v atyeaTcbcra*." evia fiev iv Sucaarripiau irpeirovra Be irpo<i fiev tovi toiovtovs ayS>va<s oiy 1 The whole passage reads like an effusion of petty spite against the Academy and the memory of Plato (which is insulted more than once quite gratuitously in the course of the pamphlet). and. I8ea<t Kal is avvayayeiv ov irdvv fUKpbv r)v epyov. xiii. 17). ISeat Xoymv here. What meant by the " numerous ISeat Xoycov " is shown by the preceding remark that the work contains " some things proper to be said before a dicastery. careful practice. xv. includes both the a^/MiTa of Gorgias. . learning and cultivation. IAEA the time of Theseus to that of Pisistratus was in " rule 207 form best. . aXXa tok eiSoat ti irepl avrmv. but natural capacity.THE WOEDS EIAOS. the variety of " manners. like Isocrates.

el traaa<i Ti? t«? lhea<. Euthydemus 304 d. enumerated. would be a \oyo? Precisely similar xv. iirt-^eiprja-eiev. The ical list includes genealogies of the yevq ra. e<rri he ti ical toiovtov. 2 a ii. So Blass. besides the line to which Isocrates claims to have devoted himself. • Treirapptjaiaerfieva nai SeBrfKcoKOTa rrjv hvpa/iiv avrfj*. he observes with to call him a writer of speeches for the law-courts. 60. Tofrrwv tis r(av Trepl robs \6yovs roifs els t& SiKaar^ipta Setvuv (a perfectly correct description of Isocrates' position at the time when the dialogue was written. eViSet/eTMco?). but Isocrates had neither forgotten nor forgiven it. irepX VAEIA SOCEATICA he cf>iXocro(f)la<.} 46 eirj h av ov /M/epbv epyov. indeed. ipariiaat nal diroxplacis might mean no more than the bits of feigned dialogue with the &vt18ikos which were a regular part of the . before his assumption of the part of Heaven-sent political adviser to civilisation at large). expositions poets. AUische Beredsamkeit. is described as iviip oidfio'os wdvv efrai ao<pos. The offence." and the forensic pleadings which he professes 2 to despise. We seem to have here a reference to the well-known passage. fiaOrjfiara ical rrjv ircuhelav opfiooaiv aKova-acriv av crvveveyicoi. or Zeuxis a sign-painter. where an unnamed critic of Socrates. As far as the words go. t&v ^fiidecov). hiicaviicos or forensic pleading.208 apfioTTOVTa. to? t&v \6ymv igapiff/ieiv partially in question have just been called rpoirot. those appropriate to a real \6yo<. It is 1 amusing to see how Isocrates' rancorous hatred of Plato and the Academy breaks out in the very opening words of the irepl avriSStreus. his usual vanity. The work thus exhibits three manners " of composition and construction. We must make some allowance for his annoyance at the appearance of Aristotle as a professional rival just at the very time when the pamphlet was being composed. where the ISiai ruv \6ymv and (to. o t&v vetoT&pmv rot? eVi theai. is not a model of all excellence. isolated bits of counsel to the seriously minded " young men " can be taken as coming under according to this head. " political discourses. is the \<S7os avy. was probably more than a generation old when the Antidosis was written. is and to a \oyo? irpoTpeTTTiic6<. unless. It would have been inconsisent with the general plan of the work to introduce this branch of discourse. or " to. to a discourse on the worth of philosophy (this.pov\eimic6s. Socratic dialogues (ipa>Ti]<rei<. who has long been reasonably identified with Isocrates. airoKpiaei'i). is as absurd as to call Phidias a "mudder" (/topoirXdtfos). We get the word again in a narrower sense Thus the only recognised branch of oratory in which the "speech." its author. such as it was. He complains bitterly of the insults of "some of the sophists" who had dared This. I suppose.

and the like. the-. P . on-: the Gorgias of Plato.a6r)Tai<. the De Pace. speeches.e. el'877 aKK' o\ot$ e'£8eo~i seems to have the Isocrates haa meaning \6ycov in the wider sense. al<. and moral reflections. Panegyricus. however. . ical irKeiocnv o\ov rbv Xoyov Scoikovctiv. a X0709 iTrtSeiKTiicos. apparently in dependence (i. dymviav irepl evpTjfieva <poiTa>VTa<.. Trapta-merei?. just represented himself as reciting long extracts from the Panegyrieus. 74 ov of /movov /xtKpoi'i /Mepeaiv eiSr] 7rpoetXo/j. or rather pamphlets..aTa yap \dfta>o-L ra TTpof tt\v oi Be. their weighty and various ISeai xv.i)v ^prjo-dat 7Tjoo? vfias. but complete specimens of his performances in the recognised departments of oratory. and a \oyo? jrapaiveTucos. in not and IIpo? Nt/co/eXea before an imaginary effect. The context. where we are told that " political" discourses are more affin to poetry than forensic pleadings in virtue of their more poetic and varied diction. 183. And. IAEA 20 immediately below in xv. Nicocles. f/. shows that Isocratea means to describe not something which might appear in a "discourse" oi: any and every kind. the. -47. " philosopher " the. BiSdaKovariv. o \oyo<?. Sie^ep^ovrai toZ? rhetorician's From the stock-in-trade. IBeat seems to stand here for " embellishments of the kinds introduced by Gorgias. fiev o~%r]/j. assonances. and the more brilliant which pervade them. that he has put before tha " snippets " (fiiicpa fieprj) audience mere froni his. xv. instituting a parallel between the the iraiSoTpl. \oyo$ ttoXitikos. De Pace. works. iireiBav In the the oi comparison he TraiSoTpifiai tov<. puaQiyrax. but a substantive branch of literature which can b& nothing but the Su/cpoTi/td. Isocrates is here. teacher of the art course of of effective pamphleteering). antitheses.^rj<. Tvy%dvei xpco/ievos." & THE WORDS EIA02. arts of and the says to. the address tohas carefully avoided making any quotations* from his \6yoi Sueavi/coc in pursuance of his regular habitof concealing the fact that he had begun life as an ordinary. He then says. &Tri<paveo-Tepai<. in fact. He \oyoypa<f>o<. which he selects are a. en Se ral<s aXKais I8eai<. jury. ttjv cpiXocrocpiav 6We? ra? IBeas dird<ja<i.

Epist. vi." This may then be taken as a case. such a " figure of thought " as the feigned cross-examination of the avriSiKOf. to t&v iricrTecov elSot is little more than an equivalent for iracrai at iriorei?. own proper "manner. E. then. of this passage will also include the various parts irpoolfiiov." 210 parallel VAEIA SOCEATICA with the teachers of athletes we see that the meaning is that just as the latter hegin their course by explaining the several "positions" or "figures" employed in wrestling or fence. really is. oti tovto irpSyTov .g. or the rhetorical self-question. its each of which will require Sitfyrio-is. I think we should render literally " the whole kind of thing of which eiKOTa and Texfirfpia are examples. and the only case. 280 ra fiev el/cora ical ra TeKfir/pia ical irav to tS>v iricrTemv elSos tovto fiovov mcpeXet to fiepos. " " What is meant here. The ISeai. and that he phrase ." to\><. in Isocrates in which et8o? = class. It has nothing to do with the Platonic sense. e<f> auirep av uvt&v eKturrov tvvvi prjdev. The verbal antithesis between the o-^p. what a thing irpo<. and so forth." the the counter-attack on the opponent.ai yap XeYeti' irepX ttjv <f>i\oao<plav Tr\v ^fieTepav hiaTpLfSovTa<. but since two kinds of such mo-Teis are enumerated. conscious of the metaphor underlying the is but the context proves that this only part of his meaning." "confirmation in general. xv. 8 eWio-fj. *' sort. observe that in both cases the in which the various " positions can the first instance is is the o-y^/uiTa Xefeto? of Gorgias. will be appropriate in one of these divisions but not equally so in auother.aTa of the one art and the ISeai of the other shows that what is in his mind in be used in oratory. kind. the or "constitutive elements" of a discourse. is the different manners which have to be skilfully combined in the successful composition of an actual address. so instruction by acquainting " styles " or " manners " which the " philosopher " opens his his pupils with the several He then goes on to knowledge of the way must be combined in dealing with an actual situation depends less on theory than on practice and experience.. the concluding appeal to the judges.

ras IBeat. und ferner das Enthymem und die Figur. In one case ISea means the way in which a man " carries himself.in den Gymnastik begrenzter. Altische Beredsamkett.a Xoyov. as in Plato.." This would properly fall under the only sense current in ordinary Attic. \6ycoi teal tois tov SiairpaKreov io~Tiv' i-rreiBav Be i*>v6 evpwfiev xal Bia/cpiftoa<rcofie0a. " situation. ri rat. aus deren Mischung jede Rede sich bildet. Wissen und «in Lehren derselben mbglieh Man wird . . twenty-two times in all. am in the first habit of telling students of my . oirep {nreOefieda. 2 ii. author to of the so-called Shetoric <TTOix«a) bald an die efSij und rbroi (oder denn der Ausdruck cISos besagt dem Isourates alles und nichts. und es heisst so die gange Gattung von Reden wie die Species." "state of affairs".— THE WORDS EIAOX. since shall see that in medicine too the meaning of clBos has been largely determined by the attempt to bring the Empedoclean theory of the "four roots" into harmony with Pythagorean mathematics. a determinate fyvcns or " real essence. CKk^aaQai. . 106. 211 Xoyov fxepeat. sind die Elemente. so dass ein ist. Si &v ravr i£epya" I ical X^yfrerai re\o<. . that discover the figures : IBea are in Isocrates' accounts of his theory of composition.e. 1 They occur (2) The words are completely synonymous. 100. several only after a we have to whether of language or "thought") by which our purpose may be achieved and completed. a plain proof that he regards them as technical terms belonging to the art of composition. = axw a ^us see also we ib. dabei bald an die sieben ciSy Anaximenes (i. je nach Umstanden. des Aristoteles erinnert On the special sense of ei5o." Alexander) . precise determination of this question (i. IAEA Bel . "Was diescr oder Idiot seiner Keilen uennt." In one it seems certainly to mean " class " in one. " physique. fyrrireov elvai (prjfu a-6ri<Terat. 1 Compare the remarks of etSrj Blass. entsprechend den <rxv^ aT °. the older contemporary and rival of Aristotle. p.e. The allusion to o~™x«a is very happy. they are entirely absent from his early Xoyol Si/eaviKoi. uud von <les wenn aui-h nicht kleiner Zahl." There are fifteen cases in which the meaning is ISea or o-yr\p. in three the context seems to show that. philosophy that the it is thing to be considered or by its is the end to be achieved by parts a discourse. it stands for an avrb icaO' uvto elSoi." The following points seem to emerge as results of this examination (1) It is noticeable that common as the words elBoi.

or the one remaining case. For the most part the works of this class exhibit traces of the theories of Alcmaeon. and that it is among them that we must look for the genuine treatises of the great Hippocrates. and that they came primarily from the vocabulary of mathematics.212 which may mean (o- VAEIA SOCEATICA either {a) (6) an artificial construction of words ^ given a rhetorically effective turn " style hia.vo'ua<. the immediate sense might be " figure.). There is another class in which medicine is treated as an integral part of the biology and cosmology of the cro^iarrai. and either ignore the general theories of the cosmologists and speculative biologists. or (c) the to the thought expressed (cr^fjfia In or manner " appropriate to a literary genre as a whole. Heraclitus. pretty certainly found in the (r^ij/j-ara of Gorgias. that of the eiSij jroKirei&v. or actually denounce the connection between medicine and speculation as harmful superficial observation detects to the advance of the healing art. and in which speculative theories about the $uo-t<? of the human body and of the Koa-fios are explicitly upheld. which were so called precisely because they could be exhibited Isocrates thus as actual " arrangements " or " diagrams. Xr)fia Xe'£e<o?). Diogenes. but- ." " shape. It is generally recognised that these works represent the tradition of the school of Cos. Anaxagoras. and only make one general remark upon Among the Hippocratean tracts the most two great classes. it. that elSoi and ISea were known technical termsbefore Plato began to write. There are some which are guides and textbooks of purely empirical medicine." but is probably not " class." (3) The origin of this rhetorical use of ISea and eZSos is." becomes an important witness to the conclusion I am trying to establish. I will next consider of the uses fifth of the words in the of to- medical writers the and early fourth the so-called centuries- whose writings constitute "works" Hippocrates. extensive It will not be necessary for I will my purpose enter into any discussions about the real authorship of this literature.

no less than into rhetoric. an Orphic and follower of the Pythagorean way of life. Kiihn by volume and page. and this accounts for the exceptional prominence of the theories of Empedocles.. in a sense closely akin to the Platonic. 2 pp. as well as for the fundamental principle of the Socratic-PlatonicAristotelian ethics that virtue = the health of the soul = hovoid-q in the soul. As we know now. For everything else I have had to fall back upon Kiihn. and removing one or two specially preposterous " Ionic " forms which might be felt by the reader as positive eyesores.THE WOKDS EIAOS. which thus turns out to be an application of the medical theories of the The existence of this school of -Crotona about the causes of disease. . in fact. elBo'. since to biological accounts for some part at least of the prominence given and medical questions in the " autobiographical " sections of the Phaedo. Pythagorean medical school also explains why it is that the sense-physiology of the Timaeus mainly follows Empedocles and Diogenes. but it seemed worth while to try and make the list of Hippocratean examples complete. I hope it will be understood that my quotations do not represent a Greek which I personally suppose any scientific man to have been capable of writing. are drawn. has come into medicine. 1 See Burnet. IAEA above all 213 of Empedocles. 234. Kiihlewein is quoted by volume and section. their writings. only correcting an occasional very obvious blunder in the text. As to the text of my citations. it The recent discovery is that Philolaus was one of these "eclectic" medical theorists of special importance. Early Greek Philosophy. . It is because these writers themselves are ultimately so dependent on Alcmaeon Timaeus. from the geometry of the Pythagoreans. in 1 We shall find that it is from this class of Hippocratean works that the most significant examples of ISea.expect from a Pythagorean contemporary of Socrates and Philolaus. I must apologise for the wearisomeness of the next few pages. . for the two volumes which are all that has appeared of his projected edition. whom I have had to reproduce with all his uncritical sham Ionic. 340. Thus our study will bring us round to the conclusion that the notion of ei'Si. represents exactly the trend of physiological thought which we should . I have followed Kiihlewein. This means that their authors who were actively preoccupied in making a connection between human biology and the older science of cosmology. this school was specially belong to a school connected with Italian Pythagoreanism.

" what fashion those who hold this way make the medical art depend on The Hepl ap^aLy? lr]Tpiier)<} is. Kiihlewein diet i. 12 %a\e7rov Tvy^aveiv Se roiavrr)^ e'ovo-97? 7repl ttjv alel rov drpeKeo-TaTOV. olfiai. and in being a more complicated discovery which etSos here seems. to demands more application ? mean appearance aicpi/3elri<s as contrasted with real Tey(yr)p fact. it is no easy thing always to hit on the most unfailing treatment. and in this some philosophical doctrine. fjrjpbv rj vttotl- oi yap etovTov ianv avTols. moist or dry. and shares in no other elSo<s. 7 ti Srj tovto (the discovery of rules of diet) Sia^epei and hygiene for the sick) ineivov (the older discovery of a distinctively human aU' fj [irXeov] to y elSos /cat on r) irdiKiXcorepov it pore pop koX . i<f> 8' etywye. I or cold. are going to base their treatment of their patients on their philosophy. . eycoye vypov fiTjSevl ottmi ravra ftpm/iara icai " Trofiara avroio-i inrdp^eiv olo-i irdvTe<s xpemfieda. depfibv J) ^v^pov 1) d\\' in oiofxai efJTjvprjfievov avro rt eUSeb Kowcoveov. take it. is hot No. (a serious student of the theories about virodeaei'i work indispensable to the expounded in the Phaedo). as often. they can only avail themselves of the same forms of solid and liquid nutriment which are at the service of the rest of us." " departments. the art of medicine. The meaning seems /ear vt\rpiKV)v e? roo-avTTjv aicpifteiav rjKei. by itself." like Plato's rrji i}rvxfji and rrjg Aristotle's eiSr] of tragedy. I really cannot understand theory. oi top \6yov eicelvov Xeyovre? iirl TavTv\<. For. ical 15 airopem ayovTes ex BevTCLi. Yet many branches of the art have been brought to this pitch of exactitude. they have not discovered anything which. 6B0O viroQeaiv rrjv Teyyr\v riva iba-irep 7TOT6 rpoirov depairevovo-t.214 Hepl ap%airi<s VAEIA SOCEATICA b)rpiicri<. as I have already hinted. tovs avdpwirovs. to be." eiSea would then el'Sij mean ev " constituent parts. " since such finish is required of iroWd Se eiSea irepl mv elp^aerai. 7rXeioi/o? "rrp^yfiantj^^ ap%r) Se eKeivq yevopevq How does this differ from that except in its appearance. I take it.

" themselves they are sufficient to destroy the whole current theory of the origin of the " doctrine icf>' For they show that the terms elSoi. Of of e'iS-r}. against those He argues. may be briefly explained thus. and everything else. avro xaO' avro). " Aristotelian " doctrine of the " mean. KOivavla already had emvrov (Plato's avro a known and definite meaning in the medical science of the fifth century. insist who . and unencumbered by any reference to just those four '' knowledge of the work speculations about the ultimate forms of body. IAEA of the first 215 of importance it for the whole history Greek Philosophy. To these cosmological theories about the primary body or bodies he gives the name v7ro9ea-ei<. It supplies us with the key not only to the conception of " hypotheses " which is fundamental for the understanding of the Phaedo and Republic.. the technical phrases of the Phaedo are not Plato's invention but belong to fifth-century science." so important as the lines and to the But no passage in now before us. so important indeed«that no one who has not made a study of should be esteemed competent to speak or write on the subject. His own object is to show that medical knowledge has grown and will continue to grow best when it is based on careful knowledge of empirical facts." is arguing against physicians who try to base a doctrine of diet on one of the philosophical theories (the v7ro9e<ret<.<. on treating Empedoclean cosmology as a proper basis for medicine. but also to the Platonic conception of the connection of pleasure avair\ripw<Tt.THE WOKDS EIAOS. therefore. and his illustrations show that it is specially the Empedoclean viroOeavi. is made of four such "roots. and pain the work is with and icevo)<n<. he calls them) about the elementary " body " or " bodies " of which man and other things are made. that man. In other words. Exactly what the phrases writer. that you cannot. of " mean who shows his Empedocles by his repeated opposites which correspond most closely to the four Empedoclean "roots. and science of a kind with which we have The already found that Socrates was familiar." with which he is specially concerned. clearly a technical term in this sense..

the old notion of a single primary body. as for Plato. but before anyone had clearly grasped the notion 2 Hence that a thing could be real without being a body. yfrv%p6v. As the example shows. 1 If we ask exactly how we are to translate el8o<. similar argument of Anaxagoras (ir&s y&p &v 4k fi.1 irdpf 4k /ify <rapic6s . you prescribe " something heating. if . Fr. in this connection. 1 and is." your patient will at once ask " what thing ? " and the moment you specify the " heating thing. each of these " opposites " is looked on. exactly that which Plato ascribes to Socrates. " hot. exactly the same ambiguity affects Anaxagoras' use of the word xp^/wfa. for men who could think. It is wrong in principle to ask if the ir&vTa xp^llmTa which are " in all things " are simple bodies or simple Compare the exactly T/>ixis qualities." you find that to be " heating " is not its only characteristic. It may be Oepfwv teal arpv<f)v6v or Bepfwv Kai ifKahapov or depfibv apa&ov ey^pv it will never be merely dep/iov. the actual world as e'ihrf is." " cold. not as an attribute of some still more ultimate body. of " opposites " (a " opposites " are eiSr)." 2 As Professor Burnet has shown. The call we should distinction had not yet been felt. 10.ii yivono $pl£ ko. exact equivalent of $v<w. and none of these is a pure elSo<. Oepfiov. and the rest of the say. all of " them are compounds and therefore exhibit a " combination . none of them is an "element" ." cannot prescribe a diet which consists of absolutely pure " elementary " matter. order That is. with a single specific property. an The conception of the things of constituted by a Koivwvia of several in fact. and an ultimately simple sense-quality. as he goes on to KoivavLa of ei'Sij). but also. . The discussion belongs to the time after the criticism of Parmenides and Zeno had destroyed. For. in the fashion of Empedocles or Anaxagoras." and a simple body which is a "bearer" of the quality. Diels). where the facts of nutrition are employed in exactly the same way against the belief in a finite number of simple "elements. e'So? here means at once an ultimately simple body. the answer is instructive.216 VARIA SOCRATICA him to take in actually prescribing for a sick man. rb Sepfidv is at once what a simple "quality. as a substantial thing. you "something hot" or "something cold." etc. You have to prescribe just one or more of the articles with which we are all familiar.

b%v<. Virtually e? ^vp. ovre yap av tovto ye aa-weit) ovre ira^vvdeiT). IAEA except that it 217 has not yet been suggested that the simple " reals " are incorporeal. 23 TroXXa e'iBea Be ical aXXa efjco tov awfiaTos c^rj/idrcov. the expression seems to yXvKV<.e. Here the meaning appears to be quite definitely " characteristic structure." ib. both elBea and a-^rjfiara meaning " configurations. thickness of the neck. Hence to twv oct/mwv irav rjfuyeves (is a half-formed 7t/jo? thing) e'iBei 8' ovBevl i. ^(yfiwv Brj aXXwv iravTolwv rj iravTcav tovtcov rjiciara irpoarjicet QeppJai tyvxp&i irda^eiv. fjLTj el emv p. ical a peyaXa dXXr/Xcov ical 8t. shape of the belly. the structure of an dement is not connected with any particular ical eaa> ical odour. but the full sense is. " appearances On the whole. to identify . dXXd avrb? e^icrrdpevos. .(ov elBos seems to be no more than a periphrasis for 69 %vp. the various kinds of different bodies with different types of geometrical construction. 7Ti«/j09 dXp. %v/i09 me to be purely pleonastic. I think. " What structure would 6 yXv/cii<: %iyto9 assume first of all . iradr)p.eTafidXXoi r) 69 aXXo rj elBos. width of the chest.vpb<. arpv^>vb<i 6^9. . its length..ov.a<f>epet. I have already referred to a striking example of this to be found at Plato. arise where smells are said to have no eiBrj because they only from bodies which have lost one definite structure and not yet acquired another. 77-/309 to The examples given are variations in the size of the head. in the end. to be considered later on.ara voaeovTi vyuuvovTi. so that the expression. the other periphrases of the kind. crvp.- fiefirjicev av/iperpia to two." sense. the characteristic " structure " or " pattern " presented by %u/W and similar all secretions. a^eiv bcrpJ\v. unless the seems a curious pleonasm words are to be taken in the most of structure." and the question is. and. 7-49 dirb <rvyicpri<no<.aTa. would result from the attempt.aTa>v The combination literal for cryj}p. Timaeus 6 6 d. olfiai pev. 7rot09 rj at) "7r/3WT09 yevoiTo. e'IBea <ryr)p. * ical 19 ireaaeadai Te teal Be e? perafidXXeiv et§09 St ical Xeirrvveadai elBecov ical ira^vveirQai .THE WORDS EIAOS.

highly valuable to the student of Plato.. of course. Burnet. Ta Se ical X-qyei. In the one instance of IBea the meaning seems to be " bodily shape. § 3 (Kiihlewein) qni ." pp. 218 if VAKIA SOCEATICA ' ^v/io?.r]<s lijTpiicrj<. shows). . though it contains much which is. fiev diroifrOivei. to. on other grounds. in the first instance. to re iaffletv eiSea eVi to irKrjdo? avrav dirovonTepa trlvetv. Early Greek Philosophy* roots. 234-235. Kelrai to Oepfid elvat. their " features.." Thus we seem to discern behind the uses of the word in the Uepl dpxat. 5 e'crt 1 etc. <yap vocrev/jtara fidXiara iv Tavrrjiai riJKrtv ical to. into a different spontaneously converted. xplverai. and. elvat' B ovk ayadov? ovBe eiSea = the physique. iv ravrrji irdKei ra irvevfiara . rrjiat yvvat^l Tot? eXBeat toi<s vyporaTOKTt the persons who have most 11 rd re r/fiepr)i<riv moisture in their constitutions)." in virtue of the assumption that every distinct simple quality corresponds with a definite geometrical structure. the general meaning of " structure. con- stitutions of the inhabitants (not. IBea occurs once. Here are the details. become " the sour..ev 7ro\t? rrji Trpb<. . whose speculations must not be allowed to influence the practical physician. el/co? ean ytveaBat koX (sc." Eighteen of the cases of eiSos fall under the same head the nineteenth is apparently to be rendered "characteristic stage " in the course of a disorder. p. on the whole subject. ra Be aWa iravra fiedtaraTat e? erepov elBos ereprjv ." as the reference to appetite. and elBos nineteen times. Te eiSea tcov avOpwiriov ti<s ev%pod re km dvOrjpa fiaXKov % aXKr/t rp> firj to? Be Svcrevreplas ical vovao? ko\vt]i. The work yields no fresh result for our special inquiry..) Uepl depcov vBdrcov tottuv. author's This is just what we should expect from the polemical interest in the attempt to connect medical theory and practice with the Empedoclean theory of the "four (See especially § 20 for the special prominence given to Empedocles among the theorists. 349." passing into that of '" element " or " simple real. without combination with an alien The answer is that " the stuff' ? " sweet " would.

" " structure. to 8e ^vpcoirTji to iv rrji Sidtpopov airb icavrcoi There eo~Ti Kal Kara to p. synonymous with Xoittov yevoi p. both in constitution and in size." I have the rest pass into a different p%ase. 8fj ra? •7rpo(j>d<Tia<.eva t&v Xovrr&v dvQpoairav ej^pvaiv oi (The peculiarities mentioned are great stature. Sia TaxiTa<s ra<. 219 (The context shows that the meaning is " and eZSo? = a distinct stage in an illness marked by special symptoms. well adapted to endure fatigue and to face danger).) 24 evravda et/eo? e'iSea /ieyd\a elvai Kal Trpo? to TaXaitTTcopov Kal to dvSpeiov e5 TrecpuKora (fine physiques. of course. . IAEA Karda-Taaiv. in constitution. ttoXiv eKaarrjv. because the climatic conditions are so much more variable. a sense derivative from that of " shape. 7rip. sluggishness. elvai teal to. aXKa eiBea KaX\iaTov<i Kal pueyeOea p. (for these reasons) e'iBea dTrtjXXayp. deep voice.) 12 Kal to. (The differences are. pallor.THE WOEDS EIAOS. avr&v Kal to. fieyedea 8ia<popa>TaTa (ei8ea here is avTt\ eiovTols elvai Kara. eiSea SfrjXXd^Oai vofii^a tcov ^Lvpanraicov tcov 'Aattjvwv Kal ra. at &pat) pueya cr<peoov avrecov.. Kal Kara to? /jLopcf>d<. not in features. he ffijXea ffavfiaarbv olov poiKa iort Kal fiXaBea eiSea. /teyedea (" welland presenting only slight diver").eXijv re Kal faXr/v rtjv adpua ra. to." already remarked on /cardo-rao-i? as a medical term in connection with Thucydides' frequent conjunction of ISea with KdTatTTrjvai. eiBea opotoi avTol eavrois el<ri. 20 to. grown and sities of finely formed. grossness of bulk.eyio-rov<. physique and stature Be Siacpopoi ecocri 13 r]v (sc.) 15 8ia ravTas ra.eye0o<. tov<. Te avdpmTrovs re eiSea evTpa<f>ea<. Sia. Kal a-apxcoSea ktX. [re] e'iBea koiKev dXXrjXoiai ktX. (" their bodies are fat and fleshy ib. to. Kal r\Kio~Ta e's 8ta<popov<. avdyKas ra.op<pai in the previous sentence. Sioti Kal to.. ylvovrai tois ei8eo~i. e'iSea avrcSv ira^ea icrrl "). is more variation among the nations of Europe than among those of Asia.) <f>a<rvi)voL 19 ib. 8ia<f>opal Kal 7rXeiove<. 23 Sion puaXXov rj to.

I find only a single instance of ethos and none of Ihea. (In passing. Plato in the Theaetetus. let me call attention to the use of the word iroioT7)<. I note one instance of Ihea in the sense of a visible symptom of disease. VAKIA SOCKATICA avdjKrj to roiavra eihea vpoyaa-roTepa elev teal anrkr]- vcoBea elvai. Thus we note that the meaning case but one it is body or bodily constitution. men's bodily spond ib. from the technical language of medicine and given a more extended meaning. iv TavTiji ttjv x^PV 1 Ta e'ihea et'/eo? [re] aickr)pa re etvai Kal evrova ktK." Hepl Stair??? ogeav. 39 rj he tov Ihp&Tos Iheri koivov asiravTwv: the symp- tom of sweating to (or (?) the appearance of a sweat) ISia.a\io~Ta fieipaxia. in 8 62 as a technical term for the "specific" The word is therefore not invented character of a potion. mean " sort. to the nature of the district in at [lev and mental characters correwhich they live). 1 evprjaeLs yap iirl to TrXfjOos rf)<. as has often been thought. where the eihea seem to mean the outward and visible symptoms by which the "presence of a irdOos or morbid condition is diagnosed. Hpoyveoo-TiKov. ib. evprjcreif ib. 43 oaa re rjfiecov f] <pvo~is Kai i\ e£t? eKao~Toio~iv e«t€kvo2 irddea Kal eihea iravTola. av eihea p. There are two instances of ethos. ib.) Hepl htaiTrjs ofewi> (vo&a). irKelaTOV hiacpepovo-a .220 ib.!.cov I find no instance of ethos or a. is common them all. ib. like so much of his phraseology. but by taken over. 19 eK he rSiv Kapvovrav airkQvqwrKov p. ^eop?7? Trji fyvaeL aKoXovdeovra Kal to eihea tcSv avdpwiraiv Kai TOVi rpoirowi (as a general rule. . re ivavTiwrarai (fivcries Kal IBiat e^pvaiv ouro>? (these are the most markedly contrasted examples of ethos. iicei Kal to eihea Kal to r\8ea Kal to? <pv<ria<.eyd\oi Kal ea>VTol<ri irapaifK^atoi.. ihea in every of physique and constitution). 'Ej7rtSrip." and in no case " In no case does features " or " countenance.

." which were then converted by Plato into objective types.vovTe<. t&v viroyeypamiAvav elSeav ?/aav 01 Kal Wvtjio-kov ttoXXoL The patients all exhibited " the symptoms described. eventually. "Emihrjfiicov my in which the fever recurred with these There was a personal knowledgesymptoms (lit. careless translator would be tempted to render the last words. and the deaths were numerous. Tprj^ixpcovoi. " and most of the women who died were of this sort." But the analogy the real sense this shows us that most of the women who died were also of habit of body. io-^yo<f>a>voi. i/c 221 veoi. iravre<i." " class. IAEA Tjoi^e?. "type. 3 eicdaTov ied/jt." THE WOEDS E1A02. viroXevKo^paTe'. recovery in every case coming under this figure"). It is also fatal to the view that the eWo? as a 7rapdSeiyfia is characteristic of Plato's " second theory." only as a result of become " classes a philosophical criticism which denies 64877 The finally the real existence of " types " or irapaSetyfiara iv rrji (frvaei." " physique. The linguistic history of the word is enough of itself to by talking of " classes. (eiSemv is a descriptive genitive. 20 Kal 8ieo~a>i£ovTO o&? Kayco olSa." etSo?. and the rendering were of . TpavXoi. Xeloi. (i£\avo<pQaXfj. " in y. fiekdvo- oi eiKrjm Kal iirl to pdi&v/iov opyikoi* ^e/8ta?«OT6?." for the meaning the etSo? which trapdSeiyfia is current in the fifth century is not a irapdo'eiypa is an invention of Aristotle. aKfMi£ovTe<..')(e<. properly means body. as far as refute the theory that Socrates began .. Kal yvvaiKes irXeierTai A tovtov tov e'iSeoi aireOvrjiaKov. I6vrpt." and so." The special application of this to our present subject lies in the fact that the etSo? of the Phaedo and Republic " typical is only a specialisation of the meaning " type " or structure. of previously cited passages is " then a given constitution or " habit of body. as usual.. philosophy is concerned. olaiv ai viro<rTpo<pal Sict tov eiSeo? tovtov yevoiaTo." Passages like the one before us are interesting because they show how reached the sense of " sort " the word finally by passing from the original sense of " body " or " bodily figure " through that of " type.ot. he I only note the following examples.

: rb virepvOpov. the " symptoms. . to yapoirbv. ttji eBprji Kal rjv 77817 yevryrai.a. KVKXoreprj^' Kal Kap/irvXcoTepT) Kal Wvrepr) Kal Kal iroXXal IBeai tov toiovtov rpoirov. Be eBprj aiirr} 6<BVTr)? yiverai fiaKporepr) Kal fipa^vTepri. ire<j>paaTai on 17 iroXXal iovcra IBeat. vvKrepivwv. Kal irepl fiev tpXdaioi Kal (a contusion fracture). ii. yivovrat Kal i<f>' tt}? <f>Xdo-io<. sort of Meanwound) re ing as before.. IBeai throughout is " shapes. to inroXevKov. 12 7roWa of course. I have noted no case of €*So? in the treatise. Kal rrji pa>y[ifj<." " figures." fracture may present. ireThe meaning here is. Kal yap iirl irXeov tov oareov Kal eir kXaaaov Kal fiaXXov re Kal e? fiaOvrepov Kara Kal rjao-ov n Kal iimroXatoTepov. Tpuraitov. uaoihewv. vol. Kar Ir/Tpeiov. Kiihlewein. plainly means " shape. Uepl rmv ev 5 IBeat Be Ke<j>aXP}i rpafidroav." were irTepvycoBee<i etc.222 the classes before is VAEIA SOOEATICA described " is excluded." 6 eo-<pXarat Be oareov 7roXXa<i IBias. .* 7 ev Be Twt ir\etoves pa>yfirj<. okoiov av ti Kal to arofia As the last words show. aTO/xara dcftOwBea ktX. rerapraiav. (j>aico)8e<." " geometrical figure. p. avveyewv. . XevKo^tXeyfiariai. ii. vol. Be tSjv <pdivco8ea>v ?iv to Xelov." and Hippocrates where we few cases in it is one of the could translate by " classes " without sensible detriment to the author's meaning." " bodily peculiarities. Kiihlewein. yv&vai IBerj OKOiT) ti? iariv ttjv to IBer/v Kal okoo-tj tk to fieyeOoi. since what has gone an enumeration not of classes of patients but of : the collective symptoms of the disorder /cavcroi <pcoval KaKovfievai." which the bruise or aXXai The writer's own word for " sort.) Be Kal aXXa irvpermv eireBrip/qo-ev eXBea. ktjv apj^co (pXcuri? fiovvT) which is also accompanied by a ravra irpoayevqTat.. T/307T(»t eKacrTioi (in each iBeat ylvovTai. yivovrai . t?)? <pXdo~io<i irXelov? a\V oil tovtcov riov IBemv ovBepiav eariv IBovra roio-iv 6cf>6aXfiolai. (ppevmKol.Kp&v. " class " appears to be tjootto?.. the meaning of rod /3i\eos r}t. a/caTcurrdTcov. " types. ir\avr)fieva>v. 14 to elBo<.

I find it very hard to bring this instance under any of the accepted senses of elBos. fievov iv irapi^ei." iv Trji eireiTa 6 Set o~d)^7]Tai kcl\ ayr\(ia xal eZSos tov %eipi%oefjet. Thus the . eiSea will then mean " figures. <f>vat. 7 eVtSeo-to? Bvo ib. aifKoov. apfio^ov to elBo? two eiBei koX t&i irddet tov iiriBeofiivov. iv j^eipiafiSii. icai qfiiTO/Aov. o<p0a\jj. oBoitropelv. " natwal and artificial. oBovlmv.THE WOKDS EIA02. a/ceirapvov.o<. e* tov afyeioSai. fieXeiov' tol 8" iic icecpdXaia o~X7)/j. to Be TeyyqTov. during the treatment and after treatment. to fiev koivov. elpyaarfievov kcl\ ipya£op.) ?jt. o^ryta referring perhaps to its position relatively to the rest of the body. and the ." (A bandage must be so constructed that it keeps the bandaged member " in position " in spite of the move19. ments of the body. elBof thus means quite literally the " figure. In the last sentence etSo? means. of illumination. unless we render " figure " much in the " In sense in which we speak of " figures " in a dance.evov. bandage must answer its purpose after it is on. Be Bvo ink^ei rj e'iBea tov iiuBeopAvov tV^vo? fiev ij irX^dei. KaraiceZcrOcu tov epyov. Be eiBea. of course. The meaning of the otber sentence is that there are two points to be considered in bandaging an injury the bandaging must be quickly and painlessly done. aifiov." " ways of construction..cLtcdv 'idea.e<. patient's position is to be such that the proper shape figure of the The and member to be treated is maintained as he prepares himself for treatment. making a bandage there are two figures. IAEA 3 avyr}<. fiev " 223 " two kinds ib. icai po/i/3o<. 8 aya0a><." . e'lBea. f) eVi'Sem? a>? iv twi clvtwi a^-q/uni eicdo-Tov Bia<f>vKao~o-6w. The sense seems to be that there are two ways of making a good bandage. t»? ovv Bvo el&ea. eaTavai. and it is added that the bandage selected must be determined by the shape of the injured part and the character of the injury." " shape " of the member to be operated on. the shape of the bandage. Several technical names for these different shapes are enumerated. to. either to make the pressure very great or to use a large number of ligatures. twv eiBea ex tov rpeyetv.

e . 34 dXX' ov fiovXofiai diroirXavav tov Xoyov. Kiihlewein 1 ib. Svo rj e'tSea e? TOinricrco ical e? n-TepvTjt.e. Tlepl dvaTOfifji.r)vov. y . /3 . to a/ia rj fiev e^e'xpv cviriodelv. e'lBea voo-rniaTav no doubt i. Tlepl ewTap. I find i(ij3o\r)<. etSos means " shape. 7) no instance of either word. as the matter (the anatomy of the under-jaw) has been described in a different context. but we lose nothing by rendering merely ii.e. Twancrjiav a . alfioppolBcov. I will not wander from the immediate point.. ev aXXoicriyap etSeai voo-r\p. vovamv a . The sense is thus ultimately that of geometrical figures. Tlepl OKTapA\vov. In all these three cases.aTwv irepl tovtuiv eiprjTai. may first give the list. Tlepl evvirvicov. TavTTji avOptoiro'i eir oy/cov.6 ecBea of this passage patient goes through the routine of his bodily Tlepl ayfi&v. 'Em-iSrj/iCcov a . I. Tlepl ' life. etc. a longish one." All the rest of I my quotations will be taken from Kiihn and given by volume and page. 0X17 %eip okiaddvei eo~<o rj etjw rj evQa ical ' if evOa TovToicri KaTaTaais to 8' la-yypr) iroirjTer). Tlepl irapOevicov. . Uepl f '. vyp&v ^oj?<7to?. the physician who treating a dislocated hand must push it in two directions at once. apdpwv he . elSos /covBvX&Ses 'iyov iirijjbvXiSa (of eZSo? knobby shape). so that . Tlepl Tlepl e7n. means " literally " figures of dis- orders. 27 .Kvi]o-io<. paifioetBecrTaTov t&v to £<bicov aTevoTdTO? yap fyaiveTat. erepov avrmdelv. to irXdyiov yepalv is eirl TpaTre%7]<." Mo%Xiic6v. Kiihlewein rj ii.iov diroairaaOev fiev eZSos olov irep wfiov eKTrecovTos." descriptions of their symptomatology.e'iSedmeans " figures " of motion like those of dancing.224 VAEIA SOCEATICA " seem to mean the different "'figures or "positions" assumed by the bandaged member as tb. . 6 aicpd>fjt.. fencing. I find no instance of ISia or elSos." " geometri- cal figure. of works in which It comprises Tlepi eXicmv. Hep}. kinds.

to The persons who make play with them are the sake. speculative philosophers.). <\>vat. i. vol. 225 Tiepl crvpCyycov. Be eiBea ov vo/iois.. B eytoye Kal 1 ovofiara <pvaio<. Kal dBvvarov. an adherent of the Eleatic doctrine of Being. and support them by biological analogy. der^/xara dWd ^Xaar^fiara. 1.o<s. and is also for he says just . The argument is directed against the view that the things which some or all of the sciences study exist only vo/itoi. aura *) Bid ra e'IBea \afielv. vojioderrffiard iari. before rd fiev iovra alel opdrai Kal Be jirj iovra ovre oparai ovre yivooaKerai. aXoyov yap cltto r&v ovopArmv rd eiSea qyeltrdai f3\ao~rdveiv. day. ra It is clear here that e'tBea means simply the real things or bodies which are the objects studied by a science. the words do not belong. except in a current non-technical sense. He^t ckto/a^s . list. r\ ye e/c twos ecBeo<. deeply influenced by the antithesis of vo/xo^ and (pvo-i?. contrasted with their presence in those which either expound cosmological systems ap%air)<.$opi<rfwL Truly a formidable A general consequence of im- portance which follows from the total absence of the words in all these works. but as a which they can give free scope for their love of and propound undemonstrable theories about the number and nature of the ultimate kinds of body. yvvaiKeii]<! oi/rjo?. IAEA Hepl Uepl Hepl iraQasv. rd fiev yap- 7 ovSefiia olfjLai ecrrlv (sc. yivcb&Kerai. enter into the or." who concerned solely with the practical cure of disease and has no speculative theories of c^vo-t? at the back of his mind. like the is Hepl that polemic against them. the Hegels and Schellings of their whom medicine is not interesting for its own or as a profession field in by which they have to live. ififipvov. re^vrj) oparai. A. tyrpucfji. The writer as we see. Uepl i. ov/c rd ovofiara avTtjs (sic. He argues that the "subjectively." and not fyvaei. "What this means is that e'So? and ISea have got into medicine out of " what Mtturphilosophie they call " irepl ^ucrew? Icrropia. to the language of the " is working medical man. to. rkyyt)^ (Kiihn.THE WOEDS EIAOS.

g.") Tvyrj<. • iv wt yap i7r£Tpe^rav ical eiricnevaav avrfji avTov<. periphrases for <f>alvopTai tvvij. here means not "kinds.. Here again eZSos is about equivalent the objective reality corresponding to and denoted by a significant name. ol 11 vvv he Br) twv oti irjTpcbv fiaKio-Ta eiraiveofievot Kal hiaiTijp. on view. does not in create the objects corresponding to the on the objects names it is that the names have been this dependence (E. eZ8o<? 9 to jap tt)? yjrikbv ovk r/ftovKijOi]• <rav 0ei]aao-0ai iv wi rrji ri^vrji.evoi o-<j>a<.K0Vo-a<.eva>v Kal t&v irotev- /livcov eveaTi to. as a collective mathematics. does not deal name for bodily reality (the only kind of reality known is to the early aggregate. taking <pvo-i<. but with real things. io-xeyfravro ical ty/v Svvajuv Trepav&ivTOS rov epyov ejvao-av. the <f>v<ri<. tj)s fievToi e? rr)v Teyvrjv ovk airrpCKajp. is The author's contention is that medicine not a thing of haphazard but a genuine Teyvrj or proHe is meeting the objection that cures may be fession. = things. effected without professional treatment.226 technical VARIA SOCEATICA vocabulary of a science . to ovala or <j>vo-i<i." This clear from the context." but rather "natures. ecBea e'ihea t&v 0epa7reta>v Kal t&v cpap/naKcov. a.) iv toli irXeiffTOiai t5>v tc <pvop. Thus we shall catch his meaning if we say that. etSea are the individual constituents of which the The implied contrast between e'iSea which and names which exist only vofiwt would be if exist pre- served i. a ovk av Tt? (pan). tj Teyvq. dXXoiat Te eioeaiv lhia)Ti]<. Thus to t^? >) Tvyjr/g or to T6yv7}<. iireTpe-tyav <7^>a? clutoih. blind .ev e? ttjv Tvyjr/v avaqboprj? aTrrjXKayfievoi elai. a\\ ovoe elvai. <pvaei men of science before the rise of atomism). iv tovtwv avTfjs Kal to elSo<. substances. dveiriaTij/JLtov ov t»j? Teyvrj? (eiheai ib. created. . eJSo? are i.ao'iv Icofievoi /mi) fit] Kal ii)Tpo<. -with mere names or symbols. Trj<. and the names have only obtained currency because there was something with a determinate character to be named. To this he rejoins that even such a cure is due not to to avTopuTov. we rendered fjuev eiSea " real essences. Scrre tjj? p." is " substances with a specific healing virtue.

discover. e'lBea '' re <f>aveiTai en ov<rLr)v e^ovaa. indicated by the will be passages just quoted from the Tlepl Tkyyi]^. " real essence. p. fyalveTai ovairjv aW Thus etc." the use of the word in Parmenides adds considerable strength to the evidence in favour of the view that his polemic ^is directed against the dualism of the Pythagorean geometrical philosophers. healing sought by '' medicine are the " substances or " specifics is contained in plants.. .ov (ot) \ yap KaT&devro SOo yv&fias bvQ}xa%eiVi iariM kt\." " body. 8 tt\v p£v edv &v6t)tov avibvvp. The point is simply this : what corresponds on the of vofio<i. IAEA accident. with whom nop<pJi is constantly used as identical with what they call elBos. When we bear in mind that lioptpi] also means primarily "figure." Through Empedocles. His complaint is that their theory requires them to treat "space" as a body out of which things are made by the action of something 6S6s. ovopa the but medicine iv tois Bid tl irpovoovical fjiivouri <palveTai." . or in a properly con- names for the fir. Fr. Recovery from a disease is something which has definite and assignable causes for to avro/^arov is an empty name without an "specifics. ovaia. minerals. otire tppaaais. Very interesting the connection. containing the very etSea. "material substance.ara are ex parte intellectus." it. that there are not. on the assumption that every name the name of of something. this equivalence has passed to Plato and Aristotle. side of (pvcris to ovofia on the side is e'lBea are ex parte rei what 6v6/j. way has unintentionally made use^of an article.). which medicine seeks systematically to For every disorder there are certain determinate and to recover from it you must employ them.g. any 1 Parmenides. Hence. between the conception of an elBos and the antithesis. 4 (Diels) o<he yap av | yvolt)s rb ye jitj ffrdv).. Fr. fioptpas ibv (pi yap avvyap d\7]$7]S fariv tuv filav oi XP*& V \ else (ravria 5' ixplvavTO 8£|ias Kal cr^pLar 1 fffevro J xtapls dTr' aWijKtav ktX. and confirmed by others from other medical works which v6fio<. ) | . produced eZSo? is immediately." the nearest English equivalent. and no doubt others. iov which Parmenides had taught that we cannot even speak 1 significantly. whether by medical advice or by accident.-(f>vcTi<. " specifics. " thing. the existence of ovofiara becomes in itself structed language ought not to be." THE WOEDS EIAOS. "ultimate bodily reality. to use of diet. but to the fact that the 227 man who recovers in this e." corresponding to 'iyov ovBefiiijv to r) Se avro/jLarov ov /movov.op(p-fi in the poem of Parmenides means exactly what we find tlSos meaning in the passages under our notice.

an if elSo<: means that it is an the ultimate " element " a monist. <f>vcrio<. has also to hold that With regard that yviiiiri somehow presents to the reading Kartdevro yvd>/ms dvo/i&fcir. of course. character and quality " under the stress of heat and cold. it must be remembered opposed to eZSos. Diogenes of Apollonia who ical monists in their cosmology). 228 VAEIA SOCEATICA el'Sea.& nvos. To a pluralist the recognition. The physicians who say that biologists like man is "one thing" are also (i. avOpcitirov (Kiihn's pages). the effiea regularly mean the ultimate simple essence." we often have to translate by "specific" or "distinctive" property." = " real "elements'' of body. of " air " as . Hence yv&[ms Kartdevro dvofidfeiv means simply have decided in their minds. since every Svo/ia is 6vo/i. which is This explains at once (1) why. 350...e. has no objective (pvais. .. Tlepl i. /cal ical ykv/cii Tracpbv XevKOv iravroiov n " They say that this "one thing" changes its aWo."' We have seen plenty of instances of this in the course of the present Essay. these " opposites " become ultimate " substances " or simple bodies. as so often in Thucydides. thus means " IBer) here the " form '' or " nature " of the is " supposed one thing. Parmenides' contention is that one of the two fwpfiai only exists vb/jjai.a. e. evidence of the existence of the corresponding Hence we get the equation etSo? = ovaia = <pvo-is <j)vai. ( ' in fifth-century Greek is "mind "as and therefore can have no true 6i>o/j. which distinguishes "thing" from "property. (in the sense in the aggregate which we can speak of the of all things) of an individual thing. and (2) why.g. taken in a wider sense to signify any of the supposed ultimate qualitative " opposites " of the Ionian In the hands of the pluralists. sometimes. the variety of " guises " or " aspects " themselves." to speak of. he holds that air air is primary body. "body." "have made up their minds." is The underlying sense shape. in our more developed terminology. why elSoi and ISia can sometimes mean what a thing really is as opposed to the " forms " in which it This explains appears to us. say further fieTciXkaaaeiv v7ro ttjv ISeijv ical ical ical tovto ev ibv avay/ca^ofievov <y[ve<r9ai ical ical rr)v Svvajuv /MeXav re tov teal ffepfiov rov '^rv^pov." but the word hylozoism. as contrasted with the collective (pvcn<. in the mouths of cosmologists and biologists who are also pluralists.<.

" "untransubstantiated. we have notion to introduce from a more developed philosophy the is." I think that the ttoWoX ISeai t&v vovo-rffidrcov must be rendered in a similar fashion. when a monist talks of them. wore iroXKal ij ISeai t&v d%ia> Be ical ir/cris avrecov ioTiv. Bk eycoye /ecu tov (pdcricovTa firfBev alfia eivai fiovvov firj rov dvOpcoTrov aWo r\ Bei/cvvvat. ianv o av0pa)^7^o<. disease If is necessarily diseased state of the blood. aiiTOV fieraXrj \aaaovra rivd ttjv IBerjv firjBe Tr\t yivecrOai iravroiov rfKiici7)<s dXk coprjv rov eviavrov tov dvOpwirov iv rji alfia ivebv (fxuverai fiovvov iv That is." ib.aT<ov. one and the same " thing " or " substance. since the body consisted only of blood. it would not follow that there can be only one kind of disease of the blood. fieTaWdcrcrovTa ttjv IBeijv means "without transformation of substance. If the monists who say that the human body is made only of blood were right. they should be able to point to some stage in human development in which the body exists simply in the form and with the properties of blood. either over-heated or over-cooled.r) toktsi. t&i the writer adopts the Empedoclean theory of the "four dvBpoairwi. of specific qualities or determinations of what after all.." we translate "there is more than one kind even if of disease. i. " there are many not substances in which disease arises.e. Thus fir. 354 (On [lev the four "temperaments") vofiov tc\ ical tovtcov irpa><f>rjfil tov Kara tov ovofiara Biapladai ical . of three other IBeai or " elements " (that this is meant is shown by the enumeration of four elementary activities and no more). Man is made not of blood only but roots" of things. vvvt Be iroWd (sc. vovcrov. for it might be. IAEA 229 " phases." our notice under an infinite plurality of Hence when a pluralist speaks dt e'lBr) we have usually to render the word by " bodies " or " things " .THE WOKDS itself to EIAOS. iroXK. e." " i.)• woWa yap re elcriv iv t&i crco/iaTC iovra. vovar)p. as he cannot really do without inconsistency.g. dep/iaivr)Tai a otcorav ^rv^rjrai vir ical dWrfXcov irapa %r)paivr\Tal fiev §v<riv /ecu re ical vypaivqrai." the argument loses its cogency.

and the antithesis l8ea-ovo/j. fyvo-i? object is to prove that man " is many things " both /caret vofiov and Kara §vaiv. since other- all prove to be synonyms. ISea ovofta vofios. that each of the names appealed to. roivvv toctovtov SirjXXaKrai fir) Kal rrjv Svvafiiv this passage is aXXtfXwv rrjv iherjv re To a student of Plato. one of the most illuminating in the whole Hippocratean corpus. or all of them but one might be further specific determinations of the wise they might remaining one. it If. guilty of no anachronism in assuming that Socrates might have discussed such a question as the right employment of names with Cratylus and Hermogenes. moreover. elvai oiire yeipi yjravovri ofioia yap Oep/xa avdyicrf 6[iola><. is simple and indefinable. 5>v rr\b oiire 7rd)9 yap to ^pco/iara av ioiKora ofioia Sojceei ravra aWr)\oio~iv . etc. <^Xeyfia is a ttcq<. e. "in name and in objective fact. of course. It also throws light on the connection of the views ascribed to Antisthenes about definition with earlier thought in a way which shows how far they were from being mere personal eccentricities. that Plato is to ground.o\r)v tw ovre <f)\ey[iari. the author's argument show that " man is many " Kara vofiov falls to the Hence our passage throws a flood of light on Plato's Cratylus. yfrv^pa ovre ^pa ovre vypd." " what is not cannot even be named. synonym for al/ia.a. and proves. it out. ev avra elvcu.) (2) "When we come to the further proof that " man is ." and further. (pcuverai rrpoo~opa>[ieva. . or if can be defined as alpd e^ov. where it is also maintained that in a scientific language there would be an exact correspondence of names and eiBrj.g. alfia. ovre e'ir) rrjv ~X. : : : : if you think <p\ey(j.a.230 VAEIA SOCRATICA KeywoLcrdai oiire ical ovSevl avrecov ravrb ovvofw. We see from it (1) that there is an exact correspondence between the antithesis <pvo-i^-vo/xo<.. elvaf eireira tus ioea<s Kara <pvo~iv ovre to <f>\eyfia ovBev ioiicevai r&t rrji cufiart rb al/ia ^oXiji. that every name is a " name of something." You prove the first point by showing that there are different names for different constituents of the human body.. eo-rlv oiire ori. (This implies. In fact we have a regular For the writer's avaXoyia.

Ergo they are distinct alfia are all different. is ." and <j)vai<." " monad.— THE WORDS EIAOS." the Swdfiei? ISirj have are its perceived " characters.v means the same thing as ISir/v in the former expression <pv<riv. fydivoircapov pA\aiva %o\». IAEA many 231 " Kara <f>v<nv we see that this is proved by the argument that the various sensible properties of cpXiyfia. Thus at the end of the passage. unlike the sensible qualities of things. but reveals its nature to us through its sensible properties. like fire. like air in Aristotle. binary combination of the fundamental Ionian alfia. Kara <f>vai. like and cold. we find in the Tiepl <£uo-to? dvOpwirov a constant recurrence of the notion that each of the ISeai which make up the human body corresponds with a opposites. Svvafiiv Kai Kara <f>vaiv. Thus the ISerj means that which is not directly perceptible itself. %o\?7. like earth. a " substance. Just as in Aristotle's theory of the elements." This conception of the correspondence of the antitheses ISerj-ovofia and <f>v<ris-v6fio<. water. which. is moist and hot . alfia are said to be " separated " Kara (f>\iyfia. or Nature at large is simply the aggregate of such eiSrj. The " specific " qualities of these IBecu are what the writer calls their Svvdfieis. ical ttjv ISirjv ical tt)v The (f>vai<." and we in a sense exactly equivalent to Locke's " real essence. by the name of ISeai." or " thingin-itself. that of the The underlying idea of course. and particularly the human organs of sense. as an illustration of the indispensability of a fair Merely knowledge of fifth-century medicine to the student of Greek Philosophy. where %oX»7. intimate . exist <pv<rei. . their ways of affecting other things. I directly would call attention to a point which does not bear on the present investigation. further helps us to understand why the atomists called atoms. moist and cold and hot %av0r] yoky. ISiai. dry peXaiva xoXtf. : is dry Hence we " get a regular table of correspondence between the " seasons and the constituents of the organism j^eifuov [(piXeyfia eap alfia depos ^avdrj j(pKrj is. or ISer) is the " thing " or " substance. <j>\eyfia.

and purging away the excess of any one of the four. (For the writer's adherence to Alcmaeon's doctrine of l<rovofiuq as the basis of health see what immediately precedes the words quoted. 361 to Spijtai Be gv/nrav yv&vai Bel tov IrjTpbv ivavriov iGTao~6ai toIcti KaTeareSxTi km to." The first may bear the same sense. if we regard tov vypov as a descriptive genitive. 362 a Bel Kara/j. e].) i. eiBea seems to mean no more than " types. ajufrrifiepivos. ToaavTag yap IBias e^ei o-v/M<pvea<s avdpwrros ev ewvTwi al €« km diro toutbcov m voaot yivovrai voamv BiaKpio-ie<. fundaclearly mental principle of " allopathic " e'iBeai means again the alleged " four substances " composing the human body. km rfkiKLrjitTi. geometrical.) i. km here apparently means simply constitution. km of elBeai km to. iroTe fiev koX irdXat eipr/TM d^aipeovTa iroTe Be irpoaTL0evTa. %o\?7. o 7) liBcop km (pXey/j.Bo<. ev Te Trjiai <pap/j." and might be adequately rendered "sorts. km o~Keyfrd/j. TptTalos. BiatTrjp.. km In (rvvreivovra Xveiv the km XeXv/ieva avvTeiveiv.a.. vovcrrniaai." though the actual metaphor is. " figures. . TerapTaios.a6ovra /MerafiaXXeiv. (Kiihn i. y(oXrj<i.evov TOV avOpiOTTOV T1JV CpVO~lV TTjV T6 ijkuCVqV KOI TO fitSo? KM T7]V mp^v tov fioi eVeo? km t?)? voixtov tov Tpoirov tt)v Bepaireiav •froiieaffcu. The second IBeai clearly means primary constituents of the body.232 correspondence of VAEIA SOCEATICA macrocosm and microcosm. have a case in which." i. 374 elal Be Te<ro-ape$ IBeai tov vypov. tS)v el<rl irvpeTwv yivovrai airb . 357-359. "substances of the moist <kind>." " substances.aKL7jLai irpoTpeireo-Oai. al/ia. " habit of body. The physician's duty is to produce " restoration of the bodily equilibrium" by supplying the defect. &<mrep 7Tj0o? e/tao-ra? t&v tfXiKtiav km twv ( ? d>pecov km tS)v IBecov elBetov) km twv vocrmv. eZSea <r(f>eo)v Teacrapa ovofiaTa B' avT€oio~iv Here we io-Tt crvvo^of." " individual 369 Be oi ifkelaTot.ao'iv. . ev Tolat." TLepl i. yovfj<. though the antithesis with ovo/iaTa is kept up. this statement medicine." " . no doubt.

here apparently = the shapes. •OKOcrai atf> ov to <f>vcrei. to modify his erratic punctuation. but have been careful to make no change affecting grammar or sense without due warning." suggests a false construction. but one or another •(?) is injured and therefore enfeebled (or quite natural that is injured and therefore contributes the semen in an it enfeebled condition)." (The point " it acquires the peculiar character of milk. 233 to mean " figures. fir) 394 7) rjv Be vyialvr\i r\ yvvr) firjBe fieXkr}/. fieXecov." but the writer of quality. 1 402 Kal otov "yaXa/CTO? Kal to The meaning but is Tas firjTpa^ IBerjv «o"^et tov avTov eiravpicnceTaL o\uyov." Here the Tlepl i. and the meaning would be fairly rendered by " is converted into the substance of milk. not "it takes on the appearance of milk. el8o<.THE WOKDS EIAOS." dcjsiicrjTat el<s iratBiov air The case what a thing is in its real nature. structure of the limbs. of the passage 1 is that the formation of the milk after 01V0C is much This. rrjv yovrjv oi% zeal oXrjv irape^coaiv. IBeai eovaai 382 ^i /\ /. iXdrrav Kal is TrovqpoTepr). crirepfia ev VTrrjp^av. e'lBea eiricrickr)- poTaTa yiveTat i. • yiverai. When a man has been attacked by a disease. aaQeveo-Tepov (? daOeveaTepav) Be to to ireTr7jpa)/j.ivov.e. In general I have found it necessary I think. Be Biapdpa>dr)i to iraiBiov (the embryo). oi " QSifia Be fioi Boxeet Kal irijpadrjvai Kaddirep o To/ceu?. Teaaape<. IAEA but appears rather 1 i." <j)vo-to<." i. ytopkei tcd9apcri<. . had probably no and means rather " and is of stuff" (eiBo? i. = body). We should say notion " the discharge diminished in quantity and distinct inferior inferior in quality. " the four moist constituents. vyiaiveiv. and the four IBeai of the moist (the four which were originally in his organism) do not supply the semen whole and entire. IBeai are clearly to be thought of as four bodies or •constituents of the organism. iraiBlov. ical 397 oKorav twv Ta eXBea av^ofievov clvtov tu tb bo-Tea KoCkaLveTai. then I think offspring <the > should exhibit the same injury as the father. types of moisture is rr tov vypov Kal T-rtll llftf/lnil i {genitive of material). ti oi unirviiin rrr r\r\t\ III cemni uvT&b.e\iuv." IBer] belongs to the sense of — Averts. figures. crrrnn-tt A*? iirfjv Be r^i r\t voa-rj/ia nrpocrrkor)!. Ktihn places the comma and has no stop after /i.

intended to show 1 will only that o alcov icn fully embryo is For (1) the tov dvdpdnrov eirTatffiepos. ovk rjBvvaTo tovto IBirjv eicicavQr\vat. =30x7 . and 7 months days an 8-months' child never lives. by saying. 435 Be rpcxpr) iireiBav dfpiKrjTai. but the sense clearly that we digest it is converted into the several substances composing the body. initial may call attention to the interesting statement of the writer's cosmological theory which appears to be a conflation. iyevero vevpa o-reped.) Tlepl a-apK&v. et? ra evrepa). ISer] 7) here then means bodily substance. but a child born after 9 months . and 10 odd days days . of the special theories of Empedocles with the old Milesian view of a single primary body. i. IBer) all of which are thus nourished by it. eicao-TOP roiavTTjv direhmKe ttjv IBeijv e/cdarrov OKoia irep The text seems to me to require some simple correction is such as eicddTcoi for food as kicdo-Tov. oiiBe firjv t-Tutfie aXXoioTeprjv t&v aWcov <pvo-t<:. thus = <pva-i<s. (i. agrees in its main details with 426 oKoaa Be iTvy^ave /coWcoBicrTepa eovra (more tov vypov yevea0av' ical Bia. ravra Be Bepfiaivo/ieva. Be /iot irdvTa ical to. death follows on a 7-days' course of starvation (3) a 7months' child will live. eaeadai. VAKIA SOCEATICA appearance in the breasts. in a quartan on the 18th (after 2x7 + . KaXeofiev dep/ibv aOdvarov re elvai opfjv ical voelv to. bodily substance. that + 3^ days. which only takes I than its place at birth. formed in 7 days after conception (2) . Ka\ aicox/eiv ical elBevai irdvra ical is ovra KaX /jleWovto. but in what follows he gives an account of the formation the ovpavos which Empedocles. Thus he begins 424) Boiceet. and 9 months +10 days = 40 x 7 is (4) the critical periods in fevers occur at intervals of after 7 whole or half weeks. will live. Of the many interesting features of this eclectic treatise remark that it ends with a long passage on the vital significance of the week of 7 days. This pretty pure Heracliteanism.234 earlier . of i. in a tertian on the 11th day. in genuine Milesian style. (sc. r/v. viscous) KaX tov yjrv%pov jxeTe^pvra. not very thoroughly thought out.

while the inflammation subsides either on the 14th or on the 18th day. i.acrt. dBevcav. i. the world. and that the sun. . moon. are acquired in 7 years. as determining the days after conception to which the physician must pay special attention. etSo? ada/MaTi o-Tao~iv Kal opdoTTjTa Kal el8o<. 571 .e.aTa Be e^co Be Tavra Ta ovofiaTa. i. Hepl i. The permanent teeth The prominence given to these speculations about the significance of the we are on Pythagorean There is much more of the same kind of thing in the Hepl hrTap. 492 to etSo? Xevicr) kci\ olov (pXeyfia." Ilejot i.e. vova-rjfiaTa oiBev aXkrfkoiaiv . ra fiev iv roicrt.THE WOKDS EIAOS. IAEA 3^ days). 487 irepifiokov B e^et irayyv /ecu ftodpov ep. after days.eTa%v 7?)? Te ovpavov. " It has a thick wall and hollowed into a cavity of the shape of a mortar. . i. and stars move through .aTO<. = shape. 7x360 days. . ira>/j. BoKeei p. KakeovTai.. 235 on the 4th And 3^ severe wounds begin (5) to inflame day.e. of which we read at i. Tlepl oaTeoav (f>vaio^. Ta yap o-eo/iaTa tojv dvQpomav troTa.rfvov. irvev/MZTa.e\XovTO<s Xo<yov (ppdo-ai ireiprjo-ofiai. seems to be identical with that used by Timaeus in his account of the generation of the soul of 7-days' period shows. <f)v<rai Kal e<TTi t&v aXXcov Be t9\uti £(omdv dtro Tpotyfjicri Tpicraewv Tpo<f>mv Tpe<j>ovTai. with which I will not concern myself further in this place than to throw out the hint that the dpfiovoa. that ground." i. of course. the stuff. The meaning is again clearly " stuff " or The Latin version in Kiihn oddly has foramen ! 512 Ta ocnea twi TrapkyovTai. 504 Kal elBos KapBur/f oi ve<j)pol eypvai teal ovtoi KoiXtmSeet" matter. eoiKevai eo-n Be fiia t(ov vowecov diraoSsv Kal avTr\. of a gland. Tlepl (pva&v. aura. Ta follows it is tov drip. IBer) Kal alrl/q r) ti? Be eaTiv avTt) Bid tov p. . matter. iira^ofievai Be olov elpla — i. (In what Kal stated that air fills to p. Kap8iri<./3e/3o- ffpcorai to is elBos eiKeXov oXfiwi. jrvevp. o-d>/j. 452.ev ovv to.

and we are told 572 is roXai av Kal rwv vocrecov ratal voakovcri. context." as e. | Sens tot dvaT&n-affTos eldtvai." so " that the distinction drawn in between to " cause " and necessary conditions " the the is Phaedo.g. e0vo<. Kal iravrola e? re^viovTai Kal rtjv ttolkiXXovo-vv eKacrreot re raXXa iravra Kal rov 7rd&eo<. viz. be Platonic " development. erepov = elBoi el <ri. of fwta." fifth belongs i. " for The context shows that eKdarai (not " for in e'tSea means kind. precisely as Democritus and Euripides. 1 " they ffi all yrjs change their substance into a new one. blows diravra ravra . is one elSo?. as 586 <f>Qera the principal cause of epilepsy..g. together a concrete case of epilepsy. are very nearly synonymous in this dvrjTolcriv ovro<. When rrjv the voto<. alcrddverai tov votov Kai etSo?. like so much else that has been hastily pronounced really e.236 this air. (all things which contain to vypov) SiaWdcro-et. the irvevfia or " air in the body. filov 592 vovcrov avdpcmroi ravTTjv. ra Se aXXa iravra avvaina Uepl i. " 6e£>i el'Set tt)v ahtrjv el'Set TTpoari6evre<. Apollo a third. "kind" throughout ainos rov re fiiov (The word for " class.) lepr)<. i.eraurca. Men ascribe each of these symptoms to the agency of some particular god. the foaming at the mouth another. The meaning of the statement is of all disorders one is that the substance or matter one and the same in them all. . The " Mother " sends one of them. . on i. rwi t?i<s VARIA SOCRATICA yap irvpl to irvevfia rpofyrj . Poseidon another.. popcf)/] el<." each symptom of the disease are all each The present e. of all disease. Anaxagoras. Beo/ievoi e? TroWa. 608. Ares and Hecate yet others). where men are said to be one edvo<. I may also in passing note " that avvaina.. voaov. ISerj and ah 8' it} some derangement. to medical science of the century. 574. Kal p. the falling." SjCT/ta '"''r ' Troiades 884 "YV* ^X av %8pav. 1 that the ISerj is with Anaximenes. air is likewise 7% o^Tjfia.g. — cpvo-is." which has suffered Thus i. fiopcpiyv . fierahia are carefully used for " subsidiary or "concomitant causes.

623 cmpMTav elBos thus = body. epyd^ovTai (pepopei'coi) -rrepHpepopevcov (but read irepi- iravToBaird. 645 oirio-co icepapels tov Tpoj(pv Btveovo-i ical ovTe irpoaay ovre irpo^apet' wepK^oprj'. 85. pp. ra BiaiT^p. tov o\ov dirofollowed so corrupt ev ptp-rj/jLa tj)s (So far I have is the as- reconstruction of Diels. dp. vyprj Cf.aTa So again 8iappo[r)<. . where the last clause shows that IBeat means" bodies " which differ in " appearance and in qualities. ttjv ffkiietriv ical rrjv to e8o<.." 1 Diels. <j}vaio<i VTrap%ovo-r}<t ical ra Be apaiorepa 6(809. "As the wheel revolves it. constitution. below. ovtco Be tovtcov tyovTcov." i. just yap 17 </>uo-{? r&v elBecov tovtcov.. omits the : word etBrj. avQp<oiro<. rfj<. /3'. Reference to what has is gone before shows that eXBea as contrasted with Bvvdpeif 2 about equivalent to causes. i. or constitutions. IAEA Tlepl StatViy? vyieivf}*. icper}<payeeiv .. of course with the- necessary correction of 2 to Trepttpepo^yai. The passage then proceeds) e'iBrj Be T&i avT&t. ical Tt]v ^uiprpi ical to e'iSea TroiieaOai. air iroWas ical ical ttovto- Bairati ical T-iyv ISeas diroicpivovTai dWrjKcov aireppaToav o-ifiv ovBev opoiov aWtf\oio~iv ovTe tt)v ovTe Svvap. i. 702-3 irepl ' °l M^ dytifLvaaTOL . 237 618 Tot? Be e'iBeai toicti aag/cooSeat ical pakdaicoio-t. . in the sense of bodies. as to Kiihn's text be unintelligible. where a o-wpa.iv. oicorav dvay- KafyiTai ToiavTrj<s ical . THE WOKDS EIAOS." l they fashion all kinds of images (or figures) on Tlepl BiaiTiji. Bel Be 7rpb<.<pepet Srj ical epvOpolai tov irXecova yjpbvov tov evi- avrov ijrjporipoio-i SiaiTij/iaai )(peecr8ai. i.<f>oTepaae ayei.5X\ov viropAvei. . ical toio-i veoiat t&v ' ffcofbdrmv avpcfrepei paXaKcorepoial re ical vyporipoiai XP^e aOai Tolai aprjv ical Biairrffiatriv . yiverai roiai Be rpoiros ovtos rfji t£)v irvKvoaapKoicri pakiaTa. r) Be Bvvapis avTwv &8e '' ej^ei.pet)§ay'vr)v Beyerrai ical ras TaXanrajpiaf p. 1. 703 tcl pev ovv e'iBea twv kottcov ToiavTa eaTiv. Tlepl BiaiT7]<! 631 %d>ta>v. o-vp. who gives this passage at Vorsokratiker 2 irepLtpepotitvujv i. 0i5a-ts are all used as- synonyms i. Perhaps I had better give the full quotation Bt k6tt<iJP t&v £v ToXffL ff&fmoiv iyyivop^viav &de ^x ei i. tSiv elBecov Bao-vTepa- ttjv K.

exercise. And if we understand that his working-men may be supposed in general to possess such . who can afford to make attention to business. Br) 716 eVl TavTa ra eiBea eVefet/it ical Belijm icai oteoia yiverai toictiv avOpwiroicriv vyiauveiv Boiceovcn re ijSeco?. 716 otai Si touto irapeffKeiacrrai Kal Siiyvoxrrai 6Vi oiSiv S(pc\6s (<rn ofre xPV^twv oUte (Tib/iaTos otire rwv &\\u:v ouSepos arep rijs iiyielys. fiiv oTiv etSea ktX. As an illustration of the light I may refer in passing to a point of great interest eTSos. are equal to hard work. yet the careful : regulations actually laid down for men who must work for their living strike the modern mind as meticulous. what we should consider a curiously thorough self-regulation about and " hygiene " generally. the working man.ieva. Given the notion that the geometrical " structure of a body is the underlying reality from which its sensible " effects tion of the causes icbiros by which is flow. tA Si ml airb tS>v avvifiwv yv/ivatrluv XPV- to. thrown by the medical writers on Plato. (1) that there was a class of well-to-do men in the fifth century who did make the maintenance of bodily condition end-all of existence by attention . the author explains that he could provide a much more elaborate discipline i. irpbs rodrovs ifjrl fiot Blaira These i^evprmivri as dvvarbv wpbs to aXuiSiararov tuv Suvardv irpoTiy/Uvi). <rdf. It is addressed not to physicians but to the general public. It is the former class of valetudin- arians whom Plato is proposing to get rid of in Republic iii. attack men who " seem to be in good health. and (2) to practise diet. which we find again in a more developed form in the theory of the atria expounded by Socrates in the Phaedo. which does not directly reader of Ilepl dialrr)s bear on the meaning of The y cannot fail to he struck by two interesting features of the book. this equation of elSos with atria. but an enumera- induced." 1 licavcbs e^ovaiv. is an 1 obvious and inevitable consequence. This shows two things. "fussing" about their bodily condition the chief concern of life. more precise rules are not the immediate subject of the book. the artisan or farmer or shopkeeper. and sound of constitution and complexion. iirepfioKrji iriviDv KOiriai.238 Hepl i. icrdbovai iroveew re Bwapevoiai ical eroo/taTO? /cat y^pco/iaTO<{ The eiBea meant here are the different " types " of disorder which may. from inattention to diet and exercise. VAEIA SOCEATICA BtaLrrj^ y. This is clearly not a classification of the kinds of k6ttoi. followed by an account of its " symptoms " or " effects " (Swd/ieis). to an elaborate regimen the be-all and that even the working part of the public took sufficient interest in the subject of Slaira to buy works like our author's. who must he content with simple and easily practicable rules which will not interfere with regular For the unemployed rich. a manual intended to be used by the non-professional man in the regulation of his diet and exercise to Also it is intended to be specially serviceable to suit the different seasons. Tuv dvdpwiruv irpbs dirt) iravrbs kottiumtl irbvov. in fact. ovotv oi/Siva Trbvov. have a relish for their food. and is. rk Si yeyvfivaafUva twv aajfiaruv ydp tov G&fiaTos StaireTovriTai birb rdv avediaTtav KOiriai.

and much more in accord with our own notions about the proper management of health than it looks to be. . Tpo^. Thus the sense of et8o?.THE WOEDS EIA02.ev IBl-qv IBerjv i%ej3\a<TTr)o-e (sc. bodies which I. also diminishes the amount of to substance. ii. for instance. 6 /caipbs yvcovai. Be ovyi . and so on with meat or bread." provide some rpo^rj for the works as the Uepl Bialr^s y. ical ttjv p. to vypov when taken into the system increases the amount of to vypov already existing there. criTa oacov fi&XXei to <r5sp. which are of the same milk diet will increase the quantity of these substances in the body. to. as I take their it. The meaning provide obviously nutritious bodies.. 145 a Be IqTpiicr) oKiyoicaipos icrnv. A Uepl ii. IBerj " of the second passage is that.ev(Dv to w\r}6o<s icpaTeeiv.a Trpoo-(pepofj. fjripov by converting it into its own 22 yaXa . p. viro-^wprjfiaTa ov% inro%ajpr)Tiica ical yiverai. irporepag igrjfiavpcocre. rpo<f>i]) ttjv Be irpoTeprjv ecrriv ore ical ra<. 17 fiia (lev rjt. IAEA Uepl Tpo<jyr)<. or-cure " who have not His tacit troubled to read their Hippocrates have supposed all it to be. TaXXa oti inrevavTia ecrTiv. Tpo<pr) olcri crdpices yaXa ical Tpo<prj Kara <f>vcriv aXXoicri iroXkaC. The e'iBea. mean once more the " bodies " which. The meaning with a specific seems again to be " substance quality or virtus of its own. and of these only. TocravTa. Kiihn ii. . ical o? tovto eirio~TaTai i/ceivo KaOeaTTjicev. ical on to. assumption through is that ordinary ailments will be avoided by intelligent self-regulation.-r\ icrTiv iv IrjTpacfjt. vTrevavricoTaTa oi% inrevavTUOTaTa. yevo<s ev. or than commentators accidents requiring surgical treatment or attacks of an epidemic. and. or rather certain organic substances. avBpairov. and to regulate their lives by them. there are certain parts of the body. elBos Be LyporrjTi ical ^rjporrjTi ical iv ical irocrov Tovreoiaiv IBiai earl ical e? Tiva ical e? 97 ib. fir/ e'iBea. in virtue of specific "properties. 7rpoo~<f>epeiv o Be icaipbs SB' icrTi. such as The " killmethod which Plato seems to be proposing in the Republic is thus very much less brutal. 239 Tpo<pr) ical Tpotpijs elBos jx'ia ical woXKai. tottcov r/ t&v KaTa. ical iiriaTaTai tc\ e'IBea ical to. kind as milk. we can see that they would only be likely to require a physician in rare cases. ical is aXXai IBiai Tpo(f>r}<. in some cases.e.

Toaavra<} I8ea<. unrepresented in the organism. The author is not very early as he criticizes the In connection with Plato. dirocjjai'ico Be oicocra iv eicdcrTrji rovrecov to>v IBecov t&i. vovaasv B' 324 eyei Be ical d<f> 17 yvvrj ical 6 avr/p Tea<rapa<} lBea<> vypov iv ai rail.*. 338. it may be noted that at breathe 1 373—4 he rejects the notion that drink enters if it the lungs." Success in practice depends so entirely on the particulars of the patient's constitution and the circumstances of the attack that no simple universal law can be given for the treatment of a case rulesalways require to be modified to suit the special circumstances.. " four (The whole theory of health as and the connection of lo-ovop. E. means a " universal rule" or "law. TLepl ii. curious light t ." ' with whom he agrees in so many of his views.. ical irXeico ical eKao~o~to aat/iari yCverai. re p. rj moist due to' (payeeiv -P) iriveiv toiovtov rrjicn b Tr\v ii. is then worked out in a way which coincides with the doctrine of the Philebus and Timaeus.olpr\v eicelvi)v eimrKrjo-ei." Hence long experience is required to make a man a good physician. . A . . . el<rl <p\eypa. rore ip-eiperai av6pa>-iro<? substances. and there isthus no way of dispensing with individual study of the individual "case." lo-ovo/Mirj. aoap. we could neither drink. nor speak when the is lungs were full of thrown on the history of an important group of words by a passage like ii. vypov ev vyir/pov te ical voaepov e%ei iv ecovrwi. on the ground that. and therefore incapable of being rpo<prj to any of 1 its constituents.aTi &v vovaot. yivovrat ical uo"|0&>i/r .g.• 240 VARIA SOCEATICA special " stuffs " of kindred kind found in the organism. ical iireiBf/ to ^dttov iyevero Kara tov? roicf}a<. we feel pleasure when the passages of the veins are filled with an element that is deficient in the body. . and of the view that the predominance of any one of the four forms of to vypov over the rest is always the cause of a disease. ypKri. alfia. IBeai thus = materials. Thus when there is not enough of rb vypov in the body. 141 lip-putty oil Svvardv ian raxd /iofleiv 81& riSe. ra/it) eiBea bodies of an alien kind. did. . avrai Be IBeat. views of " former physicians.it) with pleasure and pain. ical lawaei oKXtj tai.) The whole work deserves to be read as an illustration of the medical applications of the notion of a motion of avrnrepLo-Tao-t. df-n &S6vaT6v iari Kade&TTjKfa iv aiirijt (r6(f}t(rfia yev4(r0ai where ffbtpifffia.

ISeai apparently means "figures.). structure. 800 /xoXvfiBov 'UeXov e£eXa<ravTa iroirjaai to eZSo? t&i BaiSiwt t&i irayvTaTOH. tjyrjfit t«? avTa<s vecoTarov. (ISerj = <f>vo-i<. .. to = its figures. constitution. Uepl a<f>6pcov (Kiihn vol. our food 24 1: easily satisfy ourselves that highly aperient medicines would not be duly digested.a) ftdpvvei tov avOpwtrov fiaXXdv Kal ISirjv aXXoi7]v e%eiv tov eirvBrifiiov BoKeiTai a>%poTep7)v. %plo-p.rJKo<> BaiBbs tnoTaTt]^. or perhaps rather symptoms of disorder. . its outward manifestations. KaTaaTdo-iot ellBei. to the sense. irad&v. Tlepl ii. out harm iii.) So ii.a Be Xitra [lev .) /3'. the disorders. elvat. that of the Italian Pythagoreans) very general. geometrical form. 'JLTTlBlJfllOiV /8 429 toiovtov t»)s voarov Kal eKao-TT)<. ii. rj ttj? ttloXov fj. (Note' the: way t&v avdp&irwv is used apparently as a designation of the Pythagorean theorists. 799 TretpfjaBai irpoo~Tidevai t&v TvpoaQermv eo-Tto. Ta<. 465 (XevKov $Xeyp. irpb<. irXr}0o<. e£. Be BaKTvXmv .T(DV iravToBair&v eiBrj oti evasBeo~TdTG)v Kal grjpoTaTwv Ko^a<. for once. forms. render by " sorts " withiii. ii. iroteeiv elBo<. not make is their is way He admits that the belief and is 70 c. TvvaiKtjuav ii. iii.. IAEA Besides. The meaning here may be " stuffs. composition. in which t&v ivTO<. ttoXXoI phases. 463 fiev irepl Be tou Kal <f>XeyiAaTO<. 25 ap<ofia." " materials.. jusfc as Parmenides regularly alludes to them as fipoToL) 379 avTai at rpet? IBeat t&v vovo-rjp. 376 ttoXXoI /cdpra t&v ai/ffprnirmv (which therefore. ascribed to Timaeus by Plato. Be irevTe ef. to which it gives rise.oXXa<s elvai.. Se IBeat to eiriBtf/iiov iari." and hence. Kal (etSo? to etSo? ofioiov T&i BaKTvXat i% ciKpov XeirTOTaTov. Timaeus to ttotov So/ciovcriv e? tov irXev/wva ^mpieiv. no doubt.a<} e^a> a? Kal teal irepl ^oXi)<. and we can do into the lungs. = shape." but we can. Be e^ovpa. dXXrpuK otuv pJ\ ti vewTepotrourjdrjL ev t&i ava> R . yvcbfj.aTa>v airb to$> vBpw7ro<.. to Be irayxiTepov okoctov Sa«riAo? 6 Xi%av6<.THE WOKDS EIAOS. IBeat aiiTov ir.

" the body which is over our heads. twj 3 iv -^rv^ei iceiaBai vTro/3el3\r]p. 3 I do not follow either the grammar or the sense of the passage as given by Kiihn. and BdXirei in wpoaaybiyrjs seems to mean." "disposition..e. Perhaps phthisical persons constitutionally exhibit peculiarities of the voice and features which. and gave an unfavourable prognosis. fjv iii.2 kultoi virepiroXKa e<rnv ohri rdB lovra ' f/v. and to place a stop after fiaWov. . The general sense is that certain obstinate cases of diarrhoea among the writer's patients were unexpectedly relieved by sleeping on cold there were many cases in which this bedding. as the writer goes on to say. sensim magis procedit). The passage is specially concerned with diseases peculiar to the season and the general meaning of the words quoted is that the course abnormal of such diseases is as has just been described unless the weather is and unseasonable. /cal o/ifiaTa 61a av rji <fir/l> /cal •iroiiet Tapaymhea ola OTav bpyityovTai ol fir] T&Wa Kara \oyov t&v vovaav. full I venture provisionally to regard 4<m as an error for tn." *) i. fiaXKov ktX. though I suspect that the real error goes deeper. me to ava> elho? seems to " heaven. " the evacua- tions were of the same character (as those already described). He seems to be saying. in the healthy. fir) opyi^o/ievmv <pvaet. toiouti) <pvo-ei." dpX 01 2 The reference is strictly to the evacuations of the patients. r/v toiovtoi. or present a different succession of stages. <pdiv&8e<." The itm of the text cannot be translated. proceeding was beneficial " .evov eo? sXkoi fiev to t/^u^o?. it would be sufficient to omit the first fji. 620 <j)covrj oir] ylveTai dpyi^ojiivoMrtv ?ji. perhaps. olov to to eZSo?. The Latin version in Kiihn absurdly tries to make grammar by taking $&\irei as a dative ' ' (calido vero quidquid huiusce est generis. In an abnormal autumn the disorders may exhibit different symptoms. io-Ti OdXiret Se to toiovtov etSo? S" rji if. but to us. would be 1 of autumn. to toiovtov eZSos then means tovto t5 <rx%«ti " this arrangement." literally " the mean is above body over our heads. to iv rut &va etBei) Kwraaraaws &v Hence my rendering." 242 (The meaning is VARIA SOCEATICA unclear. same symptoms)." iii. e? toiovtov voo-7]fia nrapeaTai. nrpoo-ay a>yrj<. /caicov (of the iii. The sentence again seems to require some correction. fi\X?)S touto (sc." " management of affairs" (literally "figure"). " what the 445 446 'laa tG>l eiSei hiaj(wprjfiara Sia iravrb<. et di /«}. toiovto? <f>v<rei vrrap^r\i. ical T&Xka ovtw. In the following clause the text of Kiihn gives an ungrammatical The sense there is that OTav opyi^ovTai for opyi^oavTai. " produces warmth gradually.

" is (Unless. are made up. When thus used." and the eiSrj or ISeai thus conceived are from time to time contrasted." " constitution. chemical isolation. many of them apparently intended for a curious general public rather than for the specialist. to the general speculations about the structure of the icoo-fio? in we loosely call early Greek " philosophy " originated.. we find the notion of such an etSo? or ultimate form of body as existing " all by itself. and which are perceptible to the eye. airb eirl emvrov. the hand." " real essence. as I have said. " 243 means and olov to $6iv8>he<i iroieei to etSos the symptoms due to a phthisi<|fll constitution. elSos in this sense is. which aim attaching medicine. with the Swdfieis or specific properties which they exert on other things." " thing-in-itself. the sense would be " the symptoms which when make up the phthisical appearance") We may. and here we seem to recognise the germs of the doctrine ascribed by Plato to Socrates of the e?Sij and of fiede^t? in eiSr) as the mode of being of all other things. apparently as not directly perceptible. list. especially on the human sense-organs. and the other organs of sensation. They are much more common in the works. draw the following conclusions from the preceding etSo?. as the Latin translation assumes. over and above the " living common current sense of body. and the contrasted notion of a icoivcovia elSecov in which a " real " is found in composition with others. eZSo? accusative. as we should say." we both words frequently used in a sense which shows that they mean more particularly the primary bodies which are. In connection with this metaphysical meaning of the word. IAEA signs of anger. so to say. at through biology.THE WORDS EIAOS. IZeq scarcely occur at all in those Hippocratean writings which may be properly called textbooks of empirical medicine. the word often appears to take on the associations we should connect with such terms as " monad." " physique. I think." in a state of. which what In find these works. that of . the " elements " of which both the human organism and the organism of the k6o-/jlo<." " simple real.

as it appears to me. old Milesian "opposites." From this to the doctrine of eiSij described in the Phaedo is really The great originality of that theory." and it is precisely with these. sometimes the Empedoclean " elements. which appears full-blown in a. as appears to me. who tells us in verses too familiar to quote that what we are accustomed to look on as the " things " of the world around us are mere transitory combinations of the only things that really endure.." terminology of the medical men who were endeavouring to adjust their doctrine to the new theories provides us with precisely the language which Plato's Socrates employs to Nor is it any novelty when we set forth his convictions. is thought of the Phaedo that there are . . work like the Phaedo. only a single step. just as ^utrt? is the collective to eZSo?. For this is the very language of Empedocles." themselves in reality no more than a selection from the " opposites. in fact. which are immaterial there is an etSos or <pvo-i<. Under the Eleatic. of to koXov and to a<ya06v no less than of the " hot " or the " cold. say that v6fio<s is the collective to Svofia. " The great and imperishable " reals. We might. Now here." it definitely conceived as bodies. and the rest. does not lie in the conception of the The very eZSo? or of the " participation of things in it. find him insisting on the contrast between the eternal being of the eiSrj and the transitory character of everything else. we have clear indications of the way in which the belief in ecSri. The examples of such eiSrj which meet us are sometimes the ijrjpov. the objective counterpart of ovo/ia. to to vypov.244: VARIA SOCEATICA (j>vcrK ." to 0epfi6v." and of which the composite " things of the world of everyday life are the " appearances. the thing denoted by a simple well-defined name. has grown up. and the antithesis between elSo? and ovo/ia thus corresponds exactly with that between <f>v<ri<: and v6fio<. to yfrv^pov. which in its collective signification is the aggregate. criticism of -Milesianism the original single <pvo-i<s t5>v iovTav has been transformed into a belief in several simple bodies which are of the nature of metaphysical " reals '' or " things-in-themselves. the '* roots " of all things." and those the most important of all.

that I should understand the well-known statement of Aristotle that his irpajfiareia was concerned with ra rjdiKa.ia." in rhetoric. Yet these two senses of the words. defective or the bodies we see alwfys composite. and not with ^vo-t? in the Aristotelian sense. for a passing illustration of a similar transition in the meaning of a synonym of etSo?. It is in this sense.") other hand. ISea.op<pal tS>v haipovicov. It will readily come to mean the variety of shapes or phases presented " by a thing which remains in its fundamental " real essence one and the same in spite of the appearance of endless variety. the world of that which is And there is another. to the 6v6p. where the p. but because their nature is spiritual and can only be that <pi\oao(pia has chiefly to do. speaking of ISiai and e'iSr). at least. they mean the collective variety of the symptoms presented by a disease. contrast trdKX&v ovo/jmtcov p>op<pr] p. not merely because our eyes are spiritually discerned. a " figure " or " body in geometry. where fiop<prf is opposed as that which is (pvcrei." THE WOEDS EIAOS. apparently opposite sense." can manifestly be seen to be developments from a single •original. given the existences of a mathematical philosophy . Sometimes. most of whom must have been the contemporaries of Socrates. as distinguished from the one hidden source of the mischief. " trope. the constant use of floppy for the accidental variations in the manifestaThus tion of what is in truth selfsame at the core. Given the sense etSo?.op<pai are the illusions. which are only t5)i avOpoyireicoi vofimi. IAEA etSr) '245 which are invisible. (Compare.ara. we can see at once how the word can become specialised in two apparently opposite directions. though they seem at first sight to be as sharply distinguished as " reality " and " appearance. which we have also found as the origin of el&os. in the sense that Socrates was occupied in the discernment of the eiBr) of the things which are unseen. with 7ro\Xal p." which is " behind the veil. born and dies. the Baifioviov the On the mysterious " reality." " figure of diction. in which we find medical writers. one " verum corpus " under many changing names. the affairs of a man's soul.

and to show." " structure " is still manir festly felt under the specialised senses of elSo<s and ISea. that the notion expressed came into their thought and language fj-°p<f>v under the influence of Pythagorean mathematics. onr case is already established by the fact that the two fifth -century sciences in which the terms have been found to play a prominent part are Ehetoric and For both these sciences are of Italian or Medicine. and our The case will be made out if we can task is complete. Parmenides. great part. they come from the very home of Sicilian origin Pythagorean ways of thinking. ISea. side by side " with the medical writers of the fifth century." And with this conception we are on the very verge of the " ideal theory " in the form in which Plato ascribes it to Socrates and his Eleatic and Pythagoras. and only begin to to make their have been In influenced by the development of Pythagoreanism. and in both of them the primary meaning " bodily shape. appearance in systems which we can prove . show that the notion and the word are absent from the decessors. the " sophists or cosmologists who were their contemporaries and pre^- we can. earliest Milesian science. and given also a pluralism which demands that the things of the everyday world shall be regarded as composites of several such ultimate " bodies. One further stage in our journey backward from the terminology of current speech in the fourth century still remains to be taken. Empedocles. "We have to consider. if by elSo<s.246 which bodies VAEIA SOCKATICA finds the " real essence " or fons emanationis of all in their geometrical structure. What we have really still to do is simply to present the negative half of an argument of the type christened by . of the elBo<s as the reality of which all that our senses reveal forms the SvvdjieK or " effects. and illustrated by so great a host of passages in the Hippocratean writings. Socrates thus appear as the successive terms of a single development guided throughout by a single thought. that is." the way at once lies open for the conception ascribed by Plato to the fifth-century Pythagorean astronomer Timaeus. Pythagorean friends.

ISea are not " words of art " except gorean influence.TO[iov<. Colotem 8 (Diels i. and shall. with the well-established fact that Democritus used the word ISea of his atoms. 1 One may of Iamblichus is and Iamblichus Leucippus himself as a pupil add that Aristotle more than The statement barely credible on chronological grounds. i. as adherents of the school.e. a member of a sect which. quite well be the fact that Leucippus. partly to that of Plato.THE WOEDS EIAOS. ." the proof that etSbs. reason backward from the later to the earlier in time. .r)fioicpiTOS . though hostile to Pythagorean science. is of Wyttenbach against the authority of the MSS. as persons who had been "disciples of Pythagoras in their youth. and the need for a fresh edition of the Moralia from a competent hand. and shown by the fact that he also speaks of Philolans. grew up in the midst of it and lived on controversy and was moreover intimately associated with the Pythagorean life. in where we have independent evidence of PythaIn doing so. and probably than Xenophanes. . and that the terms appear in a different sense in his extant remains. For the first point see Plutarch.) That Democritus should have used this name for his "monads" is we remember the most natural thing in the world." whereas we know that Pythagoras was of an earlier But it may generation than Heraclitus. and probably Zeno and Melissus. his carelessness is . I shall take the actual of his Vorsokratiker. iSeai vir airov Krikovfieva?. Adv. IAEA and 247 Mill and his followers the "Joint Method of Agreement Difference. remains of the cosmologists according to the text of Diels the second edition as usual. 104) speaks 1 of of Pythagoras. like Parmenides and Empedocles." religious side of the " so that the catalogue of Pythagoreans used by Iamblichus mentions Parmenides and Melissus (Vit. and Lysis. 2 1. Pythag. 362) tL yap Xeyei fj A. only one of a thousand proofs of the uncritical character of his work. that the only properties ascribed to when them are purely geometrical. with it. We start. a. followed the "Pythagorean" way of life. who had been an Eleatic. elvai Sk irdpra Ta? fjwjBev. then. who belong partly to the age of Socrates. Eurytus. Archytas. erepov Be (That the Teubner editor retains the unmeaning IBloh. and that his terminology probably came down from Leucippus.

These : finds fragments are title quoted by Sextus from a work with the Tlepl l&e&v. Pr.aTo<. where the archaic expression to irepikyov suggests strongly that are dealing with a formal quotation." The famous passage all (Diels. 383) eVet to 76 a-y^/iaTa for the Ar/fAOKpiTov. /iop<pa$ iroieiv. " on differences in shape " (i. 19.e. Kaddirep icai eke%8ri. vi. 9) quoted by Sextus to show that sense- . where he says Tpoirov yap dpi0/ioi><. that our collection of examples from "Hippocrates" leads rather to the supposition that the meaning ^ is simply . Placita a-vo-rdo-ei v. Diels offers us the alternative rendering. a-xfifMa as we more commonly intrinsic was one of the three properties of the aTOfia or dp. BrfKovatv. ye ovk] told where the exactly fioptpal are are said to be possessed by that o-%i]fiaTa. '' on Primary Bodies. aa<f>6j<. between I would suggest.g. fir) a 8. 2 plant.epr) o-wfiara. de caus. however. (Diels i. In the fragments received as genuine by Diels one the following cases [6—8]. nva ical ovtoi irdvTa ovtcl iroiovaiv koi i!j api0p. A fairly case of ayr)fia as a synonym atom seems to be supplied by Theophrastus. 17. to. of " living we Of etSo? in the sense body " we seem to find an example in a passage A. 1. yeyevt) fieva to fwta of the Placita which has been emended by Diels with the aid of Lactantius. e«0Xi^rea)?. rrjv t?j? t£>v toiovtwv a-^r/fidrmv etc tov e^oSov iic tov 7repiej(pvTo<. tovto fiovXovrai There are other passages in Aristotle and the Aristotelian commentators which strongly suggest that Demoeritus used the equivalent word aj( v/JMTa no * merely for a fundamental property of the d/iepr) aco/iara. de Bespiratione 472 a 14 elvat yap el / yap tov ddvarov <r<bp. atoms) and " on figures " (Gestalten). for the unmeaning letters elSeevaarpov) clear irp&rov of the use tov vypov %toioyovovvTo<. E. 6 (so elBieov dvdpOpwv Diels. but as a synonym for them.. TeTaypAva<s [icaiTot ej(pvTa t«? ij^prjv TZToyp&va trddr).— '84S VAPJA SOCEATICA once points out the similarity between the doctrine of the atomists and that of Plato and the Pythagoreans. 11 ff. notably ut de Caelo Kal T 303 to.£>v Xiyeiv. ofim<.

<f>vo-i<. </>vo-i<} synonym 77 avaj>)]<. but the combination With Siaira seems to me to suggest rather that the sense . with whom the foundation of his •exegesis of the story of Ishmael and Isaac. Kal to iXd-^iarov a&fia." Hence to say that colour. evidence. does in the common a/conov \e%o?. From Hesychius (where is however. " as are just the things which exist cpvaei as opposed to the nomina a result taste. vop. 167 Stvov anrb tov 7rtzvrb<s awoicpiOrivcu iravroimv elSecov .given by both Diels and Burnet. (There is. elSos. iroXvrpo'ira Kal ra %£>ia real 7roXKa Kal ovre IBeav dWijXot? ioiKora ovre Blairav oiire votjciv 'ktX.) the reference to Democritus 141. a certain oxymoron in speaking of the icevov as an etSos. Epicurus' paradox. rerum quae non •of which only exist human artifice. of course. Paul's apologue. There are two forms of thinking. but the atomists were well aware that their thought " /*?) eov is just as much as eov " could not be expressed without paradox. et'Sij we have found on Hippoolatean sunt. involves just the same the primary sense of in is Body. is. in the language of the period. temperature and the like are only vo/awi. is. of Apollonia 5 (Diels) are ovv TroXvrpoTrov tt)? eTepoi<ao-io<. but it may be as well to Se o-Konrj. fiop<j}ij. while arofia and icevov are <pvo-ei. not explicitly given. and IBia. (an eddy of atoms of every kind bodies of divers structures). (The correct translation is silently . ^ point out explicitly that it ctkot'ii) here means exactly what Sense-perception . is the bastard brother of true thinking the two are like child of the freeis the child of the < bondwoman and the it is woman toy in St. This point rightly made whole Philo.THE WOKDS EIAOS. as much ss to say that the latter are eiSea. when we remember that Greek cosmology yv<up:r]<. IAEA qualities are subjective belongs really to the For. the only author whose use of IBea 77 in ques- ofioiorrjs. elSewv in the sense of Diogenes jeovo~r)<. the trueborn and the bastard. 1 1 (Diels) fj Se Svo IBeai.) elcrlv Fr. we need not suppose is that he tion). as 249 same thought. rj fiev ^vqaim).au. Diels here renders by Gestalt.

who belonged Empedocles to the Italian medical school on which Empedocles exercised the latrica p. since for those of Archytas belong to too late a date my purpose. air ^v^pov." " " unlike in body. Fr. of some importance linguistic know that Plato's friend Philistion.. earth typov. called the four " elements " of IBeat. tion of " opposites.i<.. or is a same kind of view. according to and on his which each o-Toi%eiov is a binary combination of " opposites. and those of Philolaus appear to finally me to have been history to shown It is to be spurious by Professor Burnet. in which geometrical structure is what distinguishes one body from another (Pythagoreauism). Early Greek Philosophy? dierai e« 235 n. SoKeiv ivelvai ieai in habits of life." authority by the Middle Ages." air dXkrfKwv shape." " constitution. Here the translation " shapes. fire being depfiov. eV (The sequel is interesting." " forms " seems necessitated by the conjunction with colours and savours." Anaxagoras 4 (Diels) Kal j^pi} troWd re Kal iravroia iv ifacn Tots avy/cpivofievoi'i yjpi)lLar<ov I8ea<! iravTo'ias (nrepjiara irdprcov j(poih<s eypvTa Kal Kal T/8ovd$. Thus the theory is seen to be water vypov. which we have already found in the Each of the IBeai has one special &vva/u<r fundamental property.) remains themselves we have (Diels. See the quotation from of Menon in r Burnet. as it throws light on the opposition of etSo? and Svvap. with the old Milesian concepThe later version adopted by Aristotle. where e'ISeaiv plainly means " in compared with the work of a painter who reproduces by different mixtures of the same In Fr. 22) the In the more refined version of the statement that ipiXva brings together e-^jSpa a TrXeiarov " in figure. aepos. an attempt to fuse the mathematical theory of body. /idXiaTa | yevvrji re Kptfcei re Kal etBeaiv eK/ia/croia-t. 23 the same process is . Of the alleged remains of the later Pythagweans I say nothing here. for Empedocles. 2 <S>CKurruov B reaadpav IBe&v avveffrdvai <rToi%eicov • ^/ta?. so much influence." htk-)(pvai. and in mind. 77}?. tout' eariv Te<r<rdpmv irvp6<s." medical writers.250 is VAEIA SOCKATICA body. vBaro<.

B7j\ov toLvvv on ovk op95><." The sense is thus once more " shapes. Fr." Fr. 98 etc r&v alfia re yevro ical a\Xrj<i eiBea aapicos. in fifth-century Greek. Melissus. and always in the sense of bodily shape or structure. "If you still doubt how when these things were mingled (i. and Burnet use almost exactly the same words e'IBr) re ical the one renders ical "and had forms and power of Itrypv e^ovra. dX\' ?jv olov irep iSoicei etcao-rov tovtcov. into all ypovov eiSea dvjjr&v. ical e'ISr) 8 (Diels) re teal <pa/j.vpia OvqrSiv | travToidK IBerjiaiv aprjpora." " bodily appearances. changing their bodies).ivoi<. 71 el Be tL <roi irepl r&vBe XtTrofuXo? 67t\6to marts. 125 iic fiev yap £<o6>v iridei veicpd eiBe d(iei/3<ov (made the dead from the living. beasts and birds and fishe* and gods. or that simply of body diSia rffuv (of an organized living being). . Diels translates "the blood and the other kinds of flesh. " Daemons " who fall from high estate must wander thirty thousand seasons <j>vo- fievow} iravTola Bta time wears on." Closely similar is Fr. Oavfia where the meaning is "fashioned with bodies of diverse kinds. kind.e. as manner of mortal bodies (or figures). Thus the words occur seven times in all." So again at Fr. " being born. ov yap dv fiereTrnrTev. etc iravTa erepoiovaBai SoKei ical /jLerairlirTeiv rod eKaarore ei opasfievov. . 115 (from the icadap/ioL). ' edvea p. yair)<. 6p6&<i Boxel elvai. | \ things arose. ewp&fiev ovSe eicelva •koXKcl d\rj6r) tfv. IAEA colours e't&ea 251 and men and women." Fr." the other " die ihre bestimmten Gestalten und . 7TW? vSaro<.THE WOKDS EIAOS.. " trees. . re ical alOipos rjeXiov re Kipva/xevav eiBr] re yevoiaTO \poia re Qvqr&v kt\." Eender rather " blood. their own. yap elvai jroXXd ical Ict^vv e^ovra. there seems to be a gross absurdity in making Empedocles talk of blood as a " kind of flesh. and also the stuff of which flesh Fr." But apart from what we have proved elSos as to the rarity of = species. the " elements ") the figures and tints of mortal ISia-dai. their is made " (the bodies which constitute flesh). 35 r&v Si re /iiayo/Mevtov x e ^T iraaiv aKiyicia . About the Diels trans- lation there cannot be much doubt.

" to what clause of the preceding account of our popular everyday pluralism does the it ei&rj e^ovra refer What I think refers to the " opposites " forms are meant ? which we currently believe to be real. to £5>iov. to aicKripov. to yfrvy(pov. where it seems to me ovofid^eiv. which against attempts to alter is (It is this unchanged " persistence " which persists all. the . I think we may regard the appearance of yrj and vScop among the things mistakenly believed to have el'877 to show that he and period. mentioned. \ that immediately means a "body. influence Parmenides. and to the three bodies also The " belief that these things to the conviction that each of have eiSr/ " will then amount them has a different definite tpvo-K or " real essence " of its own. vBcop. it would tell just as much against Empedocles' attempt to reconcile the facts of sense with the Eleatic principles. etSo?. these things appear to change into we are involved in hopeless contradiction with ourselves so long as we take the evidence supplied by the senses as an argument against the One of Eleaticism. The argument does not appear directed against to me to be more particularly Anaxagoras than against any form of pluralism. as we see popfyrj which ought not to have received a name is " the dark." which early Greek science And the whole regularly confuses with empty space. since their opposites. others. in the famous passage which begins the account of the "false of men. yap KwrkQevTO Bvo <yvd>fia^ t&v (iLav ov xpec6i> itmv. y% \i0os. to Oep/iov. to paXdaicov. 'point of Parmenides' criticism of other thinkers amounts fjt-op<j>ij definitely after. pop<f>rj is nor ayflfia occurs in found once. from those of the it. and.g. the poem. to /jltj £wv. his followers are partly in the writer's mind. fiop(f>a<. taking into account the important of Empedocles on the medical science of the and the link of connection indicated by the fact that Melissus as well as Empedocles was reckoned as belonging to the Pythagorean succession. E." For.) meant by the to-^u? ascribed to all them Melissus then argues that. the remains of opinions " Neither ISea.252 VAEIA SOCKATICA But we may ask ? ihre Festigkeit besassen.

specifically drawn as is possible. ayr\pM. and we may be sure that he would have said of firj fir) iov what Aristotle says of all such negative expressions^ . a-dofiar evoiovv refers. compel them to believe in the absurd view that empty space is % body. Every name is the name of an ov ti. as has been well brought out dialectic of the you must believe that it is a kindi by Professor Burnet. in the proper sense of the word. One instance of 186a. His reasoning throughout turns on the assumption that if you admit that empty space The is at all. in a purely nontechnical sense. ofioLwi Here t'Sea? eypa<pov and adfiaT eiroiovv seem to mean '* the same thing.THE WORDS EIAOS. whereof one should not receive a name. of an eZSo? or " real essence " belonging to tf>vcri<. their minds to give names to two bodies. (1) The use of etSo?. as we have so often seen." Empty space ought not to. and this means. one or more stages of Ionian science. " would have and carved their images. There is no instance of any of the groups! words I8ia. be denoted. that their theories 25$ . in the famous attack on anthropomorphism. absurdity. (Diels) Ft. fiop^rj as scientific technical terms cannot be shown to belong to the earliest On the other hand. the representative in the realm of vo/j. for the age of Parmenides. is poem one sustained exposure of the. of body. to Unless. perhaps. of | in their own image. ISea." When all allowance has been made for the scantinessof the remains of the earliest Greek science. Xenophanes. Hence with Parmenides himself space has no name it is merely iov. that it is ovk ovofia. have a name. ySoe? he re fiovaiv Kai <Ke> 8e&v ISeas eypafov Kal o-cojjuit inrolovv. elSos. Where there is no body to that it is the name of a body. fiop<pi] in any extant quotation from Heraclitus. Hence I would frankly translate. two things seem to be clearly shown by our collection of passages. sculpture. IAEA to this. " would have drawn the bodies of the gods Heraclitus.os.. there is no significant denoting name. "they have made up. their likenesses . a^rj/Ma. because the ovo/jm is. of this position. 15 Xitirot pAv 0' 'iirirotai.

that both (2) It is also noticeable among the philosophers and among the medical can really distinguish the two classes of authors. is Apollo. and Socrates. IBiai presumably inherited from Leucippus. (ppovritrt (note the word. followed a version of the Orphic doctrine in which Apollo. 29 about the "sphere" which is constituted when " love " prevails over strife and all things come For it follows that the " sphere " must with Apollo. on other grounds. the ISecu are specially prominent in the philosophies of Empedocles (in whose school the term became technical for what later usage has call the four " elements "). Anaxagoras. that the god of whom we read in Fr. the drama together into one. and Deinocritus. " by his providential care ") k6<t/jlov airavra This means that Empedocles. of the ever-repeated dismembering and rebirth of a god. Diogenes. is most prominent just where. supplied by Ammonius.254 of these VAEIA SOCRATICA words are found in Empedocles. In every one of these cases the historical connection with PythaFor Empedocles it is goreanism is beyond dispute. and more particularly by the important information.. so far as one In particular. of the "indivisible taught us to whom bodies"). 134 about "God" with that of Fr. and this result is corroborated by their frequent appearance in the fifth-century medical writers. also a theology. by the Orphicism of the theological doctrines of the KaOapfxol. . Democritus (with seems to have been the original technical name. we can assert the presence of an Italian influence. was the chief object of worship. writers. 134 (Diels) that he has not the form and figure of man but is (ppr/v leprj ical a8e<r<f>aTo<. all the more significant from the exact correpoint is spondence of the language of Fr. established by the inclusion of his name in the ancient catalogue of Pythagorean worthies reproduced by Iamblichus. the conception of ei8i} or ISeat. in the end. and that the whole cosmogony be identical of Empedocles is. /caraiaa-ova-a 0of}i<ri.. as described by Plato. in cases which show that they have already come into use as scientific technicalities. and not the more The customary Dionysus. like Pythagoras and Socrates.

129." " the One and Only.) As the for Democritus.and irdkvs. if we could be sure that Porphyry and Iamblichus are right in understanding the It is something in favour of their view lines of Pythagoras. speaks of his own early recollections of the personal teaching of Parmenides (Soph. that. as well as another there mentioned." or 6 diroXovcov." In view of the fact that the whole object of Orphicism seems to have been the re-establishment of the mystical oneness of the soul with its God. who had exceptional opportunities away 404—405). so that the word means " he who is not many.8r]<. as Professor Burnet reminds us. deliverer from bondage. & iral. 237 a Hap/j. on the unnamed wise man of the Golden Age. irauriv 17/Mv . and. who might have made his case even For Plato's Eleatic in the stronger if he had chosen. according to Theophrastus. Now Leucippus had certainly been a pupil of the Eleatics. we may fairly assume that this derivation. IAEA (No doubt the identification of the " sphere " 255 with Apollo would be aided by the popular etjynology reproduced in Plato's Gratylus where we are told that one possible derivation of the name Apollo is from a.THE WOEDS EIAOS. technical terms in which it was expressed. so that the raised difficulty by Professor Burnet in his first edition does not really exist. the assumed date of which is 399. since the conversation is feigned to have happened the very day after Socrates had put in his formal answer to the avrw^oaia of his prosecutors (Theaefetus 210 d). Physics That this is chronologically possible has been 4). Simplicius. (f>iXoo-o<f>la<i. Sophistes. and with probably. HapfieviSTji rrj<. his main doctrine goes back to Leucippus. " the washer " the of sin. of Parmenides himself (kowco- vqaas 28. pointed out by Burnet.evi." are Orphic or Pythagorean (Cratylus Important confirmation would be given by Fr. it had been held by Timaeus the historian. we have to remember that it go. of knowing what the local traditions as to the philosopher's meaning were. Of course the reference would be to Pythagoras in one of his earlier incarnations. according to which the word means either 6 airoXvav. Se 6 /iiya<s.

And it is quite certain that no one could have been an associate oi Parmenides without being exposed to the influence. re koX Sici reXovs rovro dire/iaprvparc KaX fiera fierpwv). (e/cd<rrore) listene( ii And the whole tone of the dialogue that opposed to our earlier generation assuming the "stranger" is of ar than Socrates himself. just as Plato says they are fxovcoi dearh v&t. so Democritus says that the yvrjairj ypcofirj of which they are the objects only arises when you . Socrates have had Democritus for his disciple. Leucippus or older than. who also had onc< in his early Plato's life. IBecu." " metaphysical Even in Empedocles. then. While. and they are imperceptible . as for Socrates. in a Everything contained in the state of chemical purity. no less than with Plato. thai we reject chronology altogether. It i re &8e e/cdorore \eycov clear that Plato here assumes that Parmenides was stil active as head of a school in the " stranger's " early youth and that the "stranger" had. of the Pythagoreanism against which the doctrine of the " One " is a reaction. repeatedly to his discourse." The only things that are are the the process is complete. otiatv •7re£r)i VAEIA SOCKATICA ap-xpi*ev6<. in this case a hostile one. should also be further noted that even with It Empedocles the " four roots " are beginning to assume the character which they expressly have in Democritus and in the theories ascribed by Plato to the Socratic circle.256. met Parmenides unless It follows. could not have " associated " with the Eleatic philosophers except as a personal associate and scholar of Parmenides." " things-in-themselves. and about which " we " are always making assertions. They are " monads. world in which organic creatures move and have their being is a compound exhibiting the koivcovlu of a plurality With Democritus. we have already seen that it is precisely to his Pythagorean and Eleatic friends that Plato makes him talk most freely of e'iSrj' as perfectly well known things in which "we" all believe. of " roots. it is only when " strife " has reals." for the moment completed the dismemberment of the "god" that you find a "root" existing i<j>' eavrov. who must have been to as old as.

order.Platonic philosophy. have acquired their technical character under Pythagorean influence." lies ready to hand in the notion that the Swa/tet? or properties of a body flow in the last resort from its geometrical structure. possible experience leaves off. such as the four of Empedocles. as I have tried to show more in detail in the case of the rhetorical ISeai or a^fiara. oo-to/taTa. Diels). and to the hyperphysical " monads "—the word is Plato's own It — it of the Socratic. in medicine. and can thus put at their very head such entities to ev and to wya06v.THE WOEDS EIAOX." or " opposites " conceived as primary kinds of " stuff." the " shape " of a body. How has cases ? the derived meaning been obtained in each of these seems is from our review of the evidence that through the sense of." but also hyperplvysical. We may and ISia. is that Plato always makes the limits of knowledge. assumption that his etBrj are not merely as " transcendent of sense. clear. for fjurjTe yevetrBai ^ravtrei aiaOa'veaddi. take it as established that eZSo? wherever they appear as technical terms. which are physical " elements. 11. and in metaphysics. I think. piety or beauty. Plato. It only requires the extension of this notion of structure as determining a thing's behaviour to include non-physical entities to lead to the belief in a definite law. And is the line which Greek thought followed almost too evident to s . it For Democritus. to the figures and tropes of rhetoric. thus. courage. Fr." The only difference. I think. IAEA transcend the limits of the f] 257 o-kotitj firjre yvmfirf of sense (6Vai> a-tcoTLt] /My/cert SvvijTcu opfiv eV fiifre eXarrov iv rfji yJ\re akoveiv' firfre oSfiaaOai. alike in rhetoric. in the case of the etSr) The link of connection. Prom the popular sense of " body " (especially used of the living. no less than is true to invert Kant's dictum about the and to say " knowledge is only possible where. or structure as constituting the inmost nature of that this is justice. and still more especially of the living human organism) come alike the applications of the word to supposed ultimate simple bodies. " bodily structure. but an enormous one.

." variously figured modes of which Aristotle found so extension. to mention no other source. may be by the prominence given in Plato from the Protagoras right on to the Politicus. have been subjected. we are told of them at Metaphysics A 987 b 28. place to expound the Pythagorean For one thing. it can only be adequately accomplished when the Neo-Pythagorean works on mathematics and the Neo-Platonist commentaries on Plato. physical bodies are simply identical with " mathematical bodies.258 call for VARIA SOCRATICA proof. if proof is needed. and again at ical 990 a 14 ovSev rj that ef irepl TL0evTai \iyovaiv fiaXXov &v yap virot&v f&adr)This jxanicwv \iyov(ri aco/j-aTcov wept T&v alaOrjTOiv. but should cause no amaze- ment to one who has read the Principia of Descartes. strictly speaking. For another. and measure. in a school which held that." Xoyia/ioi. puzzled Aristotle immensely. " geometrical figures " with specific modes of construction and nothing more. and by the thought of the " mean " right measure " as that on which the health of the or soul depends." is precisely because they held that "physical body" "figured extension " and nothing more. Now in what sort of school is this identification of structure with the " real essence " of a thing most likely to have arisen? Clearly in one which held that the " choir and furniture of heaven and earth " are. to a much more rigorous critical analysis This is not the doctrine itself. supplied The proof. the very view characteristic of the " so-called Pythagoreans " with whose tenets he was acquainted. weight. The Pythagoreans show no distinction between "mathematical figures " and " solid physical bodies. to " number. Philebus and Laws. the task would require not a paragraph or two at the end of an essay. just as Plato and Descartes held the same thing after them. as of no less moment for the inner " than for the outer life." or more generally to " computation. as Descartes taught. but a whole volume. ret ol S' apiO/iovs elvai <pa<riv avra. irpdy/iara. with the view of separating the genuine Pythagorean tradition from its later accretions.

a square. .D. I agree thoroughly with Professor "Burnet's treatment of Pythagoreanism in the new edition of his book on Early Greek Philosophy that I have nothing to add to it or to take away from it in any essential point. then. Their algebraical character 3 is given by the statement that 'of the successive numbers of such a series are the sums 1." There is a particular branch series which to this day •of the theory of numerical retains in our text-books on Algebra a name which takes tis back to the Pythagorean and Platonic theories discussed by Aristotle. so 259 And for a third. n . 2. seems to me to establish Professor Burnet's main contention that the use of regular geometrical patterns for the exhibition of the laws of series with which we are so familiar from the writings of Platonists and Neo-Pythagoreans of the earliest centuries A. achieved.. is a piece of old Pythagorean symbolism which probably goes back to Pythagoras himself. . a regular polygon. Whenever we come across elBr) in Pythagorean documents. . I " figurate numbers " — mean Greek the doctrine of the are so-called the very to name of which only requires to be translated into show that they no other than the elS^nKol apiOfioi of the Metaphysics. But there is one thing which may be said in bringing the present Essay to a close. Things " are " numbers. it is in connection with the doctrine numbers are the effiea stuff of which things are made " This . terms of an arithmetical progression . and a geometrical figure is precisely an arrangement of units or dots. I do not argue the case." the things which " participate in it. or one of the regular solids. ." or " transcendent of.. because I think it superfluous to repeat what I regard as work already definitely But I want to point out that the result throws a great deal of light on Plato's language about the e*8o? as something " separate from. . because they are geometrical figures. IAEA than has yet been applied. The " figurate numbers " are series of integers which have the peculiarity that each term of such an infinite series can be represented by a regular geometrical pattern. that " new are or old. an equilateral triangle. the et&ea api0fi&v.THE WOEDS EIAOS.

3 . 9.— 260 VAEIA SOCEATICA with 1 as its first term. . if not before. . 4. .. '. 5." . The 15. . According as the constant difference between the successive terms of the progression is 1. I will merely add to what Professor Burnet has The first is that we have a striking adduced two remarks. m . .equilateral triangle. . . and that the investigation of the special peculiarities of the simpler "figurate" series had been successfully prosecuted during. pp.. 21 . 3. " triangles " are the series term of this series Every 6. .I) (m . we get as our " triangles " the sums of the successive terms of the Thus. the generating . Hiller). . 7> 9 and the series resulting from the sums of its successive numbers is 1. Or again. a regular pentagon .. 2. can be exhibited geometrically as an 3.. 25 as a "square. the fifth century. 5. 3. illustration 1 of the antiquity of this way of studying of To secure numbers whose "pattern" simplicity I consider in this sentence only the case is a plane "figure. and so on without end.n (n . 1. . to show that the representation " patterns " or e'iSea of numerical series in this way by belongs to the earliest times of Pythagorean mathematics. . . series of wi-agonal numbers is always n + — . "figurate" numbers ^ a formula which "figurate (ed." Now I will not waste the reader's time by the reproduction of the evidence already adduced by Professor Burnet progression . 36-41 If we take the numbers. taking 2 as constant difference. the " pattern " is of the resultant series of an equilateral triangle. 6 . Or. And every term of this series can be exhibited 16. to take the simplest examples. 4. 10. becomes 1. a square. . 2.2) „ .. . to give the general rule for the construction of such "figurate series." the »th term of the . " triangular progression therefore 1. thus " " ." for which the constant difference of the generating arithmetical progression is 1. 1 is easily deducible numbers" given by Theon from the account of the of Smyrna.

generated was Thus the " . unchanged. ". manifest from the mere fact that in the later terminology name for a geometrical " pattern not etSos but a-^ijfia. so that the lexicon gives is "odd number" as the meaning of yvcofimv in arithmetic. technical 26 geometrical figures as patterns which symbolise arithmetical down to N«o-Pythagorean times." which are all odd. the name was given not only " figurate " to the terms of the progression of odd integers." 1 That this and not the invention of a Neo-Pythagorean. yvii/wves KaKoOvrai. but to those of any progression which generates a number. and it is this o avfyfrucos e/edarov eiBov. of the name may have arisen from special attention to the series of " squares." and so on. 19 Pistelli). ." What I want to point out is that. the were the odd integers. to the terms of the progression generating the "square numbers. " the number which by addition increases the same pattern of polygonal number. " triangles." L THE WORDS EIAOS. odd and even terms (when the fixed difference." in which the term added to each "square" to obtain the next has exactly the pattern =0 of the astronomical yvco/j. only partly correct it : when while preserving definition is old. of and of odd terms only (when the -fixed difference is even). the is name for the successive terms of the arithmetical progression by which a " figurate series " ryptbfioves. the generating' progressions of the " polygonal numbers " consist v&vres rpiyi&vovs Terpayiivom TroXifyiicous. IAEA truths in the fact that. Theo Smyrnaeus 1) (Hiller 37. 58. 5.. squares. is that pattern. since it was obviously from a study of the triangular numbers that he discovered that 10 is the TeTpaicrh par eminence. t5>v woXvymvav Kara •wpoadkaiv to avrb etSo? Sia^>v\a. iirayev- In point of fact. 11) rdi/res Si 1) oi £(pe%TJs apiS/iol. 3. Professor "gnomons " of the " Burnet has shown how the use .a>v or "pointer. It might he said that the name yviinwv itself was clearly given. in practice." that of the 1. The precise definition of a yvm/Mov has fortunately been preserved by Iamblichus in his Introduction to Nicomachus (p.TTtov. but the extension to the case of the alternately odd and even natural integers which form the generating progression of the "triangles" must be as old as Pythagoras himself. series of the natural integers gnomons 7 of the . Thus in the text of Nicomachus the very patterns we are considering are the recognised technical or figure is 1 Of. the " triangle " of the first four integers. in the first instance. alternately of alternately is the progression odd).

where the meaning seems clearly to be that. where geometry fails us.Ta. 4. I think. arithmetic. ical ra irepX Tot? e'ihetnv. the exhibition of the " pattern corresponding to a given number the drawing of the diagram is tr^fiaToypa^ia. made these The conception that what we an etSo? apidfiov.262 VAEIA SOCKATICA is " regularly called ayr\p.a. he is not likely to have been mistaken on a point of this sort. But if we ponder over the statements of Proclus in his commentary on the proposition. Since Proclus had the work of Eudemus to draw upon. we shall. which is also the of them. Diels) that the proper name for the " patterns of number " is elSt}. we . On the other hand. a i/cXeiTrei ab a yem/ierpia icaX airohel^ia'i a XoryiaTUch eVtre\el icai 6/jl&<s. over yea>fierpia. a disputed question exactly what part Pythagoras played in the discovery of except that he is known i. and aj^fiari^eiv. " patterns. and his narrative (which is repeated by the scholiast on arithmetical point of view. a call a " geometrical figure " is properly made up of units or points (the Pythagoreans. el p. Diels) e'i&ea in a passage where he is expressly insisting upon the priority of \oyicmica. My term regularly used by Aristotle in speaking other remark is one which is perhaps not It is still capable of direct proof." The solution for the case in which the given a is even he ascribes to Plato. not to have formulated the general geometrical proof which we find in Euclid. 47) strongly suggests that the whole problem was considered by Pythagoras from this The remarks pattern application with a view to which I have is an obvious one. ascribes to Pythagoras the solution of the problem. i. Xoyia-riKa establishes the results which have to do with the properties (av/ifiefiriicoTa) of the elSea.ev elBeeov rea irpwyfiareia. 47. e such that a2 + b2 = <?. " given an odd integer a to find two integers b. So the pre-Christian forger of the fragments of Philolaus still knows (Fr." if there really is a knowledge about such "patterns" at all. regard it as probable that Pythagoras approached the whole subject as a problem Por Proclus (Friedlein 428) definitely in arithmetic. the very same things are called by Archytas (Fr. 5.

that it as the fundamental property of first is the sum of the four '' natural integers. in a word as a Platonic Light is thrown too on the problem which has ISea. did not distinguish the two. In other words. " a number 1 having position. seems to give us the key to the view that the whole Ko<rfio<. or. the Swa//et? of all " things " are consequences of their geometrical form. amounts to an — identification rather than to a discrimination). 10. the modern difficulties exhibited which have been raised against admitting the notion of " class " as a logical ultimate) can at once be thought of as something which is "in them." and yet as an individual entity which is ev iirl t&v ttoWcov. puzzled so many students why Aristotle should speak of . as Aristotle puts it. is dpi0fio<. We can represent 10 in all sorts of ways (e.THE WOEDS EIAOS. If we extend this conception beyond the case of numbers and their symbolisation by diagrams.. For. is a triangle." for " triangular it is only " all one of an interminable series of numbers Thus the " pattern " is obeying the same law of formation. for by the members of a our purposes. " it leads to the view that the " common nature " class " (to pass over.g. It is only when we represent as a triangle that we see by inspection what Pythagoras regarded 10. at once "in" the individual terms and beyond them. IAEA 263 must remember. that " arithmetical number " is the stuff which things are made. the " patterns of the figurate numbers belongs to some figurate series) (and every integer exhibit a law of formation in virtue of which we can construct at will an interminable series of terms all exhibiting one and the same law of formation. but 10 is not "the triangle. it is assumed. by a row of dots placed in a straight line. of and a geometrical form such as the equilateral triangle is simply the expression of the peculiar properties of the terms of a series of numbers. in Plato's language it " partakes of triangularity" . for instance. but its proper form it is a triangle. by a rectangle with 5 dots in one side and 2 in the other)." which Proclus calls Pythagorean. but called the point and the number 1 indifferently fiovd<s the definition of the point as fiovas eypva-a deaiv.

there is two different types of original (Hence the nbn-Empedoclean doctrine that only one of the "roots" which cannot be "transof just up out muted" is because its ultimate geometrical . the sphere. the units of each etSoi are all commensurable with constituted other. structure unique. the same «8o$. not that of the corpuscles of any of A step farther along the same lines. harmony The "four roots" are accepted. or laws of number. corresponding corpuscle ? ? Why I believe that the — (in Metaphysics M e'tSr) 6) is greatly puzzled by' the question or only with the units in eifio? whether." 264 the Platonic VARIA SOCKATICA The e'tSri ended as numbers.) Now we get the difficulty that the corpuscles of the roots correspond to four regular solids. does not Plato. Just a couple of examples in illustration of this point. " spherical numbers " are (A not a series which can be generated by a progression.g. eiBrj as " numbers. But there is a a fifth regular solid. structure. like Democritus. "spherical" number was. if the are numbers. Their corpuscles are . Why is then. an entirely jiew function has to be found for the " sphere. belongs to the sect who tried to bring the new doctrine of Empedocles into of with the inherited theories the school. The account of the " elements " which Plato puts into the mouth of Timaeus is obviously in keeping with his character as a Pythagorean of the late fifth century. as his medical views show." because they had from the first begun as numbers. the rest.each . one of which the third power ends in the same digit as the original number e. we ask. in fact. since the law of formation of " spherical numbers is of a different kind from those of the numbers corresponding to the other regular solids. Aristotle its members.) Hence. recognise the sphere as having spherical molecules nothing made of answer is that the sphere cannot be constructed out of plane triangles.ultimately built triangle. to put the thing in the arithmetical way." It is the shape of the ovpavbs as a whole. 4 or 9. or. but their differences of quality are traced back to their geometrical. who. or whether one and the same may be by units which are incommensurable with .

Now a triangle is completely determined in every- thing but absolute magnitude its sides are known. struck by the more likely. Since these numerical triplets are.THE WOKDS EIA02. each etSo? constituted units which are incommensurable with one another. since it is given. 2). regarded. however. Plato's two ultimate constructions can be expressed in terms of as number the triplets 1. r any "element" into any other to which and which he could not have renounced . If we turn to the physical theories of the we may possibly find the explanation. and (1. We when the relative may therefore regard lengths of a triangle as a triplet constituted by the three numbers which express the lengths of the sides when one Thus the of the sides is taken as the unit - of measurement. and the triangle! formed by drawing perpendiculars to the sides of the equilateral triangle from the opposite angular " elements " are built points. (1. by While \f 3 the "proportion of one integer to is another. We can hardly suppose that he. of these matters which take us . the formative constituents of elBr)TiKol apifffioL is physical reality. according' to own peculiar theory about irpmrq 1 of one of the "roots " Enough. IAEA It is only reasonable to difficulty 265 which had seemed assume that he is thinking of a to hin»to be actually involved in the Platonic philosophy. isosceles right-angled triangle. for the doingso. is inventing gratuitous airopiat. without the ruin of his v\rj. by Timaeus himself as the reason for rejecting the old Milesian doctrine of the convertibility of Aristotle clung. since one of. ^/ 3. the is they are of course And elements of each etSo? since »J 2 has not to a surd. mere pleasure of Timaeus For -we are there told that the two patterns on which the corpuscles of the up are the isosceles right-angled triangle. which whatever is actualised in the shape is Bvvd/iet any one of the others. Is it not likely that this piece of apparently gratuitous airopla it is all mathematics which explains Aristotle's ? That he would be. the triangle obtained by the sub- division of the equilateral. all the end." each ethos has a constituent which incommensur- able with it is any of the units of the other. */~2). in.

appears not merely as the continuator of the religious side of Pythagoreanism. We have found that the conception of a " real essence. was generally current before the end of the fifth century wherever the influence of Pythagoreanism as modified hy the speculation of Empedocles had made itself felt and to that there is . knew nothing of such a doctrine is to commit a palpable absurdity* Exactly what part Socrates played in the development from Pythagoreanism and Eleaticism to Platonism we shall probably never know." and the use of the names etoos... neither Plato nor Socrates invented the conception of the eiBrj as the abiding reality in a world of illusions. in early life. that the remains of fifth-century science show no anachronism in Plato's assumption that Socrates held a doctrine of eiBi) such as that expounded in the Phaeclo and Republic. of the doctrine of How much it is Timaeus is is genuine fifth-century Pytha- goreanism. but also as its continuator on the more purely speculative " side as a searcher after the " real essences " and " causes His identification of " the cause " with of the world-order. the flesh and the devil. the philosophic construction of Plato's later years. in fact. " the good " all is. axfjfia. But one thing is certain. the intimate friend of Cebes and Simmias and Phaedo and Echecrates. as yet premature to decide.266 definitely VAPJA SOCKATICA into the regions of " Platonism " proper. suppose that the admirer of Philolaus. olSev e£ otov ^dvrj. or even that he had.. Plato invented Kovri<i One might as well say that %r\i God when he wrote the Timaeus. discussed its difficulties with Parmenides and Zeno. fair with a measure of But one thing we may say Socrates. legitimate philosophy has ever since had to pro- To borrow an image of his own. and how much the work of the Academy. though I have tried to indicate a conjecture about the matter. But this much we may con- fidently assert. the Olympic contest for eternal life against the world. ISea. the proclamation of the lines on which ceed. and the ravra proper objects of knowledge. study him and his age. fiopcpi] to denote it. the more we assurance. he was for all mankind the irpo/iVTiarpia of the lepb? ydfios between genuine .

Whom God has joined. . beyond what we have already learned from Isocrates. It has been omitted on the ground that it seems to add nothing to our knowledge of the history of the terms etSos. let man put asunder. 1 1 Possibly the work of Anaximenes (the so-called Rhetoric to Alexander) should have been included among the compositions examined in this Essay. IAEA knowledge and true dissolved except faith. ISia.THE WORDS EIAOS. 267 cannot be a marriage which by the destruction* of no <f>i\o<ro<f>ia.

that it forms only the half of a plan the complete execution of which has been. who lack the courage to break fully with modern fashions and to return to the Academic tradition. there is only the impenetrable night. as I trust. And behind Orpheus. realisation of the whole.EPILOGUE I have once more first to confess at the end of this series of studies. is to restore Socrates to his rightful place as the first of thoroughly intelligible figure in the great line of succession by which Greek Philosophy other. Zuccante in Italy. the Church. be our success in it what it may. studies Behind Socrates. only very temporarily interrupted. as I confessed at the Beginning. as recent historians. hardly fail But it is a night in which. as we can to recognise. we dimly discern the and behind can only just descry the mists which Pythagoras we enclose whatever may be hidden under the name of Orpheus. such as Max Wundt in Germany and G. half-obliterated features of Pythagoras of Samos. the darkness a our researches. It is indissolubly linked with the fullest little Christianity on the one side and modern science on the must be honestly Here. the main ideas of these contain truth. all have their remote and 268 unknown . for us at least. as in substantial all said rolls that even execution of such a plan only farther back. omnia abeunt if in mysterium. the organisation of science. I What hope from the complete acceptance. the University. should is its results find the dissipation of the clouds mystery which. Our task. openly confess. veils from us what is admittedly the most striking personality in the history of Greek thought.

has come bj»the faith that she is a pilgrim to a country that does not appear. as the history of her name shows. xaXbv to a&Xov km. And life. I am not merely mistaken in my main contention. this is which are seen but the things which why I have chosen as a second motto for these pages the Scriptural command to lay fast hold on eternal of God. in the favourite image of Plotinus. Philosophy. even apart from its baptism into Christ. it is if For if the things which are seen are shaken. And. & R. ." due to the teaching as much as to the life of the thinker whose last word was the message of immortal hope. began as the quest for the road that leads to the city those and she has never numbered many true lovers among " forget the way." and to grow up again into a new and profound metaphysic and ethics in the evil times of the third century of our era when the whole system of visible things seemed sinking into the " gulf of Non-being " before men's eyes. is directly Printed by R. Limited. no small part of this inextinguishable vitality which has made the Platonic Philosophy. 269 They are all " houses " of the soul that.EPILOGUE beginnings. had inherent strength to outlast all the other " philosophies. Clark. Edinburgh. a creature made to seek not the things are eternal. f) e\7Tt? fieydXrj." It was precisely because it held out the prospect of the life everlasting to be won by converse who with unseen things that Platonism. a spring of the water of life in the deserts of " becoming. that the things which are not seen may remain. by what devious route soever.