Page images


nor can the rhetorical display of the older Sophists, the dangerous and unscientific character of their later ethics be lost sight of. As regards the Hegelian grouping of Socrates among the Sophists, this has called forth a greater opposition than it deserves. The authors of this view do not deny that the Socratic reference of truth to the person differed essentially from that of the Sophists. Neither they nor their opponents can deny that the Sophists were the first to divert philosophy away from nature to morals and the human mind, that they first required a basis for practical conduct in knowledge, a sifting of existing customs and laws, that they first referred to personal conviction the settling of truth and falsehood, right and wrong. Hence the dispute with them resolves itself into the question. Shall we say that Socrates and the Sophists resembled one another, both taking personal truth as their ground, but differing in their views of personal truth? or that they differed, the nature of their treatment being a different one, whilst they agreed in making it relative? Or to put the question in another shape :- There being both points of agreement and difference between them, which of the two elements is the more important and decisive ? Here for the reasons already explained, only one reply can be given, that the difference between the Socratic and Sophistic philo

together with an incapacity for view. See Part I. 920.
positive intellectual achieve- I See p. 118, 1.
ments, those practical conse- 2 See p. 110, and Part I. 135,
quences were sure to result 938.
which soon enough came to


sophies far exceeds their points of resemblance. The Sophists are wanting in that very thing which is the root of the philosophical greatness of Socratesthe quest of an absolutely true and universally valid knowledge, and a method for attaining it. They could question all that had previously passed for truth, but they could not strike out a new and surer road to truth. Agreeing as they do with Socrates in concerning themselves not so much with the study of nature, as with training for practical life, with them this culture has a different character, and a different importance from what it bears with Socrates. The ultimate end of their instruction is a formal dexterity, the use of which to be consistent must be left to individual caprice, since absolute truth is despaired of; whereas with Socrates, on the contrary, the acquisition of truth is the ultimate end, wherein alone the rule for the conduct of the individual is to be found. Hence in its further course, the Sophistic teaching could not fail to break away from the philosophy which preceded it, and indeed from every intellectual enquiry. Had it succeeded in gaining undisputed sway, it would have dealt the death stroke to Greek philosophy. Socrates alone bore in himself the germ of a new life for thought. He alone by his philosophical principles was qualified to be the reformer of philosophy.'

| Hermann even allows this personal contrast to the Soin saying (Plato, i. 232) that phists than from his general the importance of Socrates for resemblance to them. Sophisthe history of philosophy must try differed from the wisdom be gathered far more from his of Socrates only in the want of a


fruit-bearing germ. But how is though his view of the Sothis admission consistent with phists differs from ours in that making the second period of he denies a closer connection philosophy commence with the between their scepticism and Sophists instead of with So- their ethics. He makes the discrates ? On the other hand, tinctive peculiarity of Socrates the latest treatise on the ques- to consist in the desire to tion before us (Siebeck, Unter- reform ethics by a thorough suchung zur Philos. d. Griech. and methodical intellectual p. 1, Ueber Socr. Verhältniss zur treatment, whereas the SoSophistik) is decidedly of the phists aspiring indeed to be opinion here expressed ; and teachers of virtue, accommolikewise most of the later edi. dated themselves in their intors of the history of Greek phi- struction without independent losophy. Strümpell

, too (Gesch. inquiry to the tendencies and d. Pralit. Phil. d. Griech.p. 26), notions of the time. writes to the same effect, al



We are now for the first time in a position to form CHAP. a correct opinion of the circumstances which led to

X. the tragic end of Socrates. The actual history of A. Details that event is well known. A whole lifetime had been of the ac

cusation, spent in labours at Athens, during which Socrates his dehad been often attacked, but never judicially im- fence, sen; peached,” when in the year 399 B.C., an accusation death. was preferred against him, charging him with (1) The ac

cusation. unfaithfulness to the religion of his country, with introducing new Gods, and with exercising a harmful influence on youth. The chief accuser 5 was Meletus, with whom were associated Anytus, one of the

Compare besides the Clouds νεόυς διαφθείρων" τίμημα θάνατος. . of Aristophanes, Xen. Mem. i. 2, It is clearly an oversight on the 31 ; iv. 4, 3; Plato, Apol. 32, C.; part of Grote, Plato i. 283, to 22, E.

consider the parody of the in2 Plato, Apol. 17, D.

dictment which Socrates puts • See p. 53, 1.

into the mouth of his first 4 The indictment, according accusers, as another version of to Favorinus in Diog. ii. 40, the judicial ypaon. Xen. Mem. (Begin.), Plato, 5 See Plato, Apol. 19, B.; 24, Apol. 24, B., was: ráoe dypávato B.; 28, A.; Euthyphro, 2, B. και αντωμόσατο Μέλητος Μελήτου Mar. Tyr. ix. 2, proves nothing Πιτθεύς Σωκράτει Σωφρονίσκου against this, as Hermann has 'Αλωπεκήθεν : αδικεί Σωκράτης, shown, De Socratis Accusatoriούς μέν ή πόλις νομίζει θεούς ου bus. νομίζων, έτερα δε καινά δαιμόνια . For the way in which this εισηγήμενος· αδικεί δε και τους name is written, instead of




leaders and re-introducers of the Athenian democracy,' and Lyco, an orator otherwise unknown. The friends of Socrates appear at first to have considered his condemnation impossible ; 3 still he was himself



Μέλιτος, as was formerly the transcriber's mistake for custom, see Hermann. It ap- Monukpárns. See Hermann, p. pears by a comparison of 14. But the words as they various passages, that the ac- stand must be incorrect. The cuser of Socrates is neither the celebrated orator Polycrates politician, Forchhammer is said to have composed the makes him to be, nor the op- speech of Anytus, Diog. 1. c. ponent of Andocides, with according to Hermippus; whom others have identified Themist. Or. xxiii. 296, 6; him, nor yet the poet men- Quintil. ii. 17, 4; Hypoth. in tioned by Aristophanes (Frogs, Isoc. Busir. ; Æsch. Socrat. 1302), but some younger man, Epist. 14, p. 84 Or. Suidas, perhaps the son of the poet. Πολυκράτης knows of two

i Further particulars about speeches ; and it is proved him are given by Forchhammer, beyond doubt by Isocr. Bus. 4; 79; and Hermann, 9. They Ælian, V. H. xi. 10, that he are gathered from Plato, Meno, drew up an indictment against 90, Ă. ; Schol. in Plat. Apol. 18, Socrates. But it is also clear B.; Lysias adv. Dard. 8; adv. from Favorinus, that this inAgorat. 78; Isoc. adv. Callim, dictment was not used at the 23; Plut. Herod. malign. 26, 6. trial. Indeed it would appear p. 862 ; Coriol.c.14; Aristotle in from Favorinus that it was not Harpokrates v.deká(wv; written till some time after Æschin. adv. Tim. § 87; Diod. the death of Socrates. Conf. xiii. 64. He is mentioned by Ueberweg, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 94. Xenoph. Hell. ii. 3, 42, 44, as 3 This is proved by the Euwell as by Isocrates, 1. c., as a thyphro, allowing, as Schleier. leader of the Democratic party, macher, Pl. Werke, i. a, 52, and together with Thrasybulus. Steinhart, Plato's Werke, ii. 191

2 For the various conjectures and 199 do., that this dialogue about him consult Hermann, was hastily penned after the bep. 12. Besides the above-named ginning of the trial, its object persons a certain Polyeuctus, being to prove that Socrates, according to Favorinus in Diog. though accused of impiety, had ii. 38, took part in assisting a deeper piety and a keener the accuser. Probably "Avuto appreciation of the nature of ought to be written in this piety, than one who had in. passage instead of TonúeUKTOS, curred ridicule by his extravaand in the following passage gances, but had nevertheless Πολύευκτος instead of "Ανυτος, brought himself into the odour Tonúeuktos being here probably of sanctity; a view which, not

« PreviousContinue »