SOCRATES
848
SOCRATES
men. was content with the humble station in which he was horn, nuil never soiifjht ottice or command. Snr- rounilftl with o]i|)ortunitic.s for acijnirini; wc.iltli and luxurious inilulfienoes, he was heedless ol" poverty, liun- fjer. exposure, and all hanlships. He was at all times palrioiie, and oliscrvani of law in matters reliij;ious, po- litical, and siK'ial. lie was witliout superstitions other than those inse|iarahle fnun his time and coimtry. He was faithful and fearless in tiie discharsje of every pub- lic and private duty. He j;ave his thought, his heart, his enerjiies. to the improvement of his fellow-citizens, and spent his life as a missionary of moral and intel- lectual reformation. His lemiierament, at least in his later vears. was withal so serene; his dis|)osition so amiable, earnest, and unaftected; his maimer so sincere an<l winiiini;; his intercourse so kindly and sportive; Ids resolution so steadfast ; his heart at all times so simple and devoid of sellishiiess or guile, that he might well appear to .\lcibiades and the contemporaries of .\1- ciliiatles such a man as was not elsewhere to be en- countered. '• We shall not look upon his like again." He will remain, as he has remained, a unique exemplar in the history of iimnanity. In accounting for the un- equalled fascination which Socrates since death, as in life, has exercised upon all intellectual and cultivated men. to the merits and charms and singularities of his career must be added the ipiiet and unostentatious grandeur of his death, when he freely surrendered life under an undeserved sentence, in order to maintain the laws of his country, though tiiisapplied, and to seal his doctrine and his |)ractice with the most solemn of all signatures. As a missiotiary, and as a zealous, self-ab- negating and untiring moralist, Socrates suggests a comparison with the apostles and martyrs of Christian- ity, and with the founders of monastic communities in the dissolute and stormy Middle Age. As a preacher and teacher of moral regeneration, he provokes, though with reverential assertion of the vast interval, a more daring comparison, which has impressed devout Chris- tians no less than unbelievers and misbelievers like Rousseau and Baur. It adds new dignity and a loftier interest to the life and death of Socrates to contemplate his career as an essential part of the providential and patient preparation of the civilized world for the ac- ceptance of Christianity.
I. Life.— li is peculiarly needful, in the case of Soc- rates, to pay careful attention to the course and circum- stances of his life, because his remarkable personality is so strongly and so strikingly impressed upon his doc- trine and upon the whole tenor of his procedure. The Socratic iihilosophy, in its active development and in it.s theoretic import, is distinctly the product of the idiosyncrasies of Socrates, and of the reipiirements and tendencies of the memorable age in whicli he lived, and which he rendered more illustrious by his life. This has been fully recognised by Kitter, by Zeller, i)y Grote, and by other iiistorians of philosophy and historians of Athens. It may be thouglit that tluy have overlooked Home considerations not less weighty and significant than any that they have adduceil. Hut they have not f«il<?d to note the intimate correspondence between the man and his doctrine, between his teachings and his times. His life is his philosophy, his philosophy the retleclion of his life. Vei it is ditiicidt to present a true |Mirirait of the great teacher, or a just biography of him. The materials are abinnlant, are, indeed, redun- dant; but they are all presented 'in such ()uestionable Kuise" as to be of doul)tful credibility. Socrates reap- fiears in nearly all later writers, (ireek or Roman, whose Huhjects allowed any referenre to hini. or who sought "to |M>int a moral or a.lorn a tale." Incident and anec- dolo, text and comment, are nndtiplied indetinitely ; hut no contldcnce can be accorded to the traditions re- p*>ried <.r rep<-atO(l by Cicero, Seneca, or giiintilian, by I'lutanh or I)ioi;eiieH Laerlius. or by other anthorili<-s hnviiin Mtill lesH claim on our Ixlief. ' Reverent conject- ure iiivtiiled, credulous adiniruiion acceptcil, eager tra-
dition expanded, and curions repetition distorted or transmuted detail after detail, till the genuine Socrates of the .")th ante-Christian century became an accumula- tion of myths. This process of transtignration com- menced, in no respectful way, in the lifetime of the sage. Aristophanes, in his C/otnk, and Ameipsias, in his Cimniis, exposed to immortal laughter his appear- ance, his rags, his maimers, and his speculation. Yet the caricature of the comedians may be welcomed as a likeness with almost as much security as the delinea- tions of his disciples. It is fortunate that we possess the MemorahU'ut and the Si/mpoiiiiim of Xenophon and the JJialof/ui'ti of Plato. But both these biographers were manifest writers of fiction, and all their produc- tions were dyed in the brighter or more subdued colors of fancy. The author of the MemorahUia composed the Cyropadia, the A(jesilarts, and the Ilii'vo. The au- thor of the exquisite Apologia was also the dreamer of the Repiibiic and the Lmcs. All the writings of both these glories of Attic literature may be included under Pindar's category : StSaiSciXfiit'ot xl/fvcect ttoikiXoic . . . firioi. Aristippus wrote to Plato repudiating his rep- resentations of their common teacher (Aristotle, H/iet. ii, 23), and Demochares denied Plato's statements re- garding the exploits of Socrates at Delium and Am- phipolis. The contrasts and discrepancies between Xen- ophon and Plato have been long and prominently noted. They have been explained bj' diversity of aim, differ- ence of intellectual susceptibilities, and disparity of tal- ents. It has been held by Zeller, by Grote, by Mason, in an able article in Smith's Dictionary of Biography, that the apparent contradictions may be reconciled. It is alleged that Xenophon regarded only the practical side of the Socratic instructions, and sought to convince the Athenians of the innocence of the master; while Plato was always contemplating the speculative import of the Socratic doctrine, and sublimating teaching and teacher in accordance with his own philosophical fan- tasy. This may be freely admitted, but it does not leave a sufficient or a safe basis for accurate biography : " The trail of the serpent is over it all." Even those who espouse this scheme of conciliation are compelled to exclude from the Memoires pour servir the greater and the more characteristic part of the Platonic Dia- lor/ue.i, in which Socrates is evidently a mere lay fig- ure, or, rather, a tailor's mannikin for the exhibition of the Platonic robes and other finery. Agreement maj' be imagined between the representations of Xenophon and Plato by considering them as different views of the same personage. Such agreement, however, is not in- consistent with a lavish employment of decoration by each; since all forms of flattery and of caricature re- quire some observance of characteristic features. Yef it may reasonably be concluded that the Socrates of Xenophon as well as of Plato is posing or attitudiniz- ing, though there be great difference in the grace and fascination of the two figures. Still Xenoi)hon and Plato are our best, and almost our only real, authorities for the life and opinions of Socrates. They must be accepted as nearly our sole genuine sources of informa- tion. Due caution must be shown in their employ- ment; and it must be remembered that something of coherence and consistency, the softening of some asper- ities, and the exaggeration of some angularities, which were originally due to the fictitious ingredient, will re- main after all our care. There may be little real ground for regret in the want of perfect assurance of the literal truth of the |>onraiture. There is a hazy conception, and an exaggeration through the haze, of all the im- ages of the past. There will be a general truth of pres- entation, resulting from the affectionate and admiring pictures of dissimilar followers, which will be more iin- pre>.'.i\c and inspiriting than any nieclianical tlioiigli faithful daub t'ould be. At any rale, Xenophon and Plato furnish forth the Socrates who kindled, guided, charmed, the later world. Those who are satisfied of the substantial agreement of the two contcmporaiy bi-