SOCIIATES 8
5; Plato, SophUt. xhii; Erasmus, CAt/.— "Non est bea- tu*. esse (iiii se nesciat;" "Nil passus es mali si dissi- niiilavcris"). It was in this coiuliiioii of the State and of (Jnck society that Socrates tVlt himself uri^ed. as by a divine vi>ice, to interpose for the reclamation and re- generation of his countrymen, and to ajipear as a per- sistent missionary in the cause of justice, honesty, and truth (I'lato, Apolofi. xxii). It has already been ob- served that his career must have l)een ijradually devel- ojK'd. lie may have proceeded at lirst in an intuitive, unconscious, tentative sort of way. foliowinj; his natu- ral iuipuise to inciuiry, to the pursuit of information, to love of company and conversation, till his course shaped itself out l>efore him, beset him as the special duty of his life, and assumetl the imperative ft)rm of a divine munition. The increasinj^ perception of the decline of pulilic ami [irivate faith anil morals would conduce to such a result in a nature liiijhly sensitive to all intel- lectual and moral demands. Wiiatever ojiinion may be entertained of the claim of the Platonic Apology to be refjarded as a just representation of the actual defence made liy Socrates, it is very remarkalile that Plato puts into the mouth of the accused the distinct declaration that he had received his mission from the divinity, and that if his life were taken another divine me.ssenger niii;ht be sent [Apn/^if/. xviii). This sjiecial and con- trolliuf^ intliicnce is familiarly known as the d<tmon of Socrates. What that divmon was is still under discns- Bion, S<irae critics, commentators, and historians of philosophy conceive it to have been a personal genius, or, at least, to have been so regarded by Socrates. Oth- ers look upon it as simply a divine pressure or mysteri- ous suggestion. Those who recognise the direct action of the Holy Spirit ami the divine call to Christian be- lievers cannot utterly reject the possibility of the like agency even in pagan times (Kom. ii, 1.')). ( >thers, again, consider the .Socratic Saipi'ivioi' to have l)een "the still, small voice of conscience" gradually transmuting itself into a prepossessi(»n. Others, finally, regard the alle- gation of such divine guidance or restraint as halluci- nation, hypocrisy, or pretence. Neither pretence nor hy()ocrisy would have been apt to assume such a form in those sceptical times, and would be at variance with any (jlausible or consistent concejiiion of the character of Socrates. Pure hallucination is not consonant with the singular sobriety of miml and sentiment which dis- tinguished him from all other enthusiasts. That this da-mon was sometimes regarde<l by him and by his dis- cijiles as personal cannot be denied. As Socrates says thai every earnest servant of the gods may have a like divine illumination, as Plato speaks of the ihemon of ev- ery man leading him after death to the judgment {Phml. Ivii), it is ajiparent that it was regarded, at an early perioil, as a guardian or atteiiclant angel. This conclu- sion scarcely militates against the secon<l supposition, which will not ajipear extravagant or inireasonable to thrtse who reuiemljer the numerous echoes, through all ages and all creeds, and from the most eminent men in all lines of thought, of the Homeric phrase tviirvivrjt tpittni Caipuiv {(hli/sn. xix, 13N), Says Cicero (De Mnl. yM(r, ii, «;•;, l(i7), " Nemo vir inagiius sine alicpio di- vino alllatu inmpiam fiiit." The testimonies arc eiid- lcH.H, and from sources that would not l»e aiuieipated; but there in no room to cite them. Waiving, h<iwever, such transcendental speculations, and ailmitting that there may lie delusion in imagining any special inspiration, it will not ilo to resolve the .S»cratic iliPinimism into practical wis<loui with (Jrote, or into moral tact with TelMTweg. TlH-se minht be the residts of the moni- lioiiH of the diemon, or indepenilent of them; but they are wholly distiiu:t from them. There is a curious psv- ehological phenoinenoii, rarely noted because of infre- c|u«nl occurrence aiul less frequently subjected to crit- ical ob-MTvatiou, which merits grave estimation in this connection. A mind nnd nature ipiick, earnest, com- preheu-ive, and iinpresj,ible_witli uuiisu;il facidties of intuition — fervi Nil V M,-,iipied with anv serious moral
2 SOCRATES
or intellectual pursuit, has visions of the day "which have elsewhere their rising," and spring neither from the reason nor from the volition; hears voices in the si- lence which others never hear; has sudden convictions which descend upon him without logical inducement or antecedent evidence; has lirm assurances which rest upon inexplicable faith; and is led reverently to pre- sume that "it is the Lord which giveth him under- standing" by an immediate revelation. Of such men was Socrates.
In the assurance of a heavenly vocation, Socrates put aside all other thoughts, cares, interests, employments, aims, and devoted himself exclusively to the task of reforming his fellow-citizens by disclosing their intel- lectual procedure and by enlightening their consciences. He pretended to be seeking everywhere for knowledge to improve himself and to acquire fixed knowledge. He disclirimed any pretence of teaching, for ignorance was his profession and the ground, as he alleged, of his being declared by Apollo " the wisest of men." He spent the whole day and every daj-, from early morn till set of sun, amid the gatherings of men, inquiring into the opinions, and the grounds of their opinions, of persons in every profession and of every grade. He was never tired of asking questions, and he did nothing but ask questions, drawing out by the answers obtained the fallacy and inconsistency of dogmas, and making every one confute himself and apprehend the baseless- ness of his supposed knowledge. Hence he always pro- fessed to do nothing more than practice intellectual ob- stetrics, and to deliver men of their own intellectual progeny, for the most part monstrously deformed. This was the method of Socrates, and his method was his whole philosophy. The curtain was the picture. Yet this method was productive of nearly all the philosophy that followed, and was then the one thing needful — the effectual exposure of the false conceit of knowle<lge, "Dum falsas mentis vires mirantur homines et cele- brant, veras ejusdera, qu.ne esse possint, , , . pnetereunt et perdunt. Kestabat illud unum, ut res de integro ten- tetur, melioribus prssidiis" (Bacon, Nov. Org. Monilnm ; corap. I Aph. ix, 31). To those who were subjected to this catechising process it may have appeared <i preconcerted scheme for their confusion. Such it may idtimately have become, being scarcely disguised by the pretension of ignorance and the solicitude for en- lightenment. So the practice was regarded and pre- sented by Xenophon and Plato, So it has been uni- versally esteemed by later writers, who have explained it by the Socratic iron}'. Is it not more reasonable and more consistent with every probabilitj' to suppose that this interrogatory inquisition was begun in simple honesty with the view of gaining information, and that it assumed its definite purpose as a crilerium faldtatis only after those who were consulted were found to be witliout settled principles or tenable doctrines? With the |)revalent arrogance of knowledge which was no knowledge, with the conse(iuent substitution of blunt assurance for intelligent investigation, with such a bliiul indifference to logical proof that the possibility of ei- ther rational or moral priiicii)les was often theoretically denied, with the vitiation of all intellectual procedure and of all authoritative rules of moral conduct thence ensuing, the first duty of the reforming missionary was to discover the reality aiul the basis of trutli. What is truth? was the great (juestion. What, is true? was the question that Socrates propounded. There was, however, a ))reliniinary task to be iierformed before such in(|uiries coidd lie hopefully prosecuted. It was neces- sary to purge the minds of the iiu|uirers, to disclose the nature and the sources of inieerlainty, to reveal the liol- lowuess and fallacy of current maxims, postulates, de- ductions, aiul argumentations, to ex()ose the ambiguity and deception of popular phrases and received terms, and to establish the elementary principles of valid rea- soning: lUaXfKTtKi] yi'if) inxvij oviru} tot' i'/v (Aristot. Mdiiph. xiii, 4). .Socrates never got beyond the pre-