Page images


in the Athens of Pericles, not even the lowest on the city roll was debarred from enjoying the rich profusion of art, which was for the most part devoted to the purposes of the state, nor yet from associating with men in the highest ranks of life. This free personal intercourse did far more to advance intellectual culture at that time than teaching in schools ; Socrates had reached manhood before the Sophists introduced a formal system of instruction. Intelligible as it thus becomes, how an energetic man in the position of Socrates could find many incitements to and means of culture, and how even he could be carried away by the wonderful elevation of his native city, still nothing very accurate is known respecting the routes by which he advanced to his subsequent greatness. We may suppose that he enjoyed the usual education in gymnastics and music,although the stories which are told of his teachers in

estimating his whole property, Crito, 50, D. Even apart from inclusive of his cottage, at five this testimony there could be minæ. The story of Libanius no doubt.

Porphyry's state(Apol. Socr. t. iii. p. 7), accord- ment (in Thood. Cur. Gr. Aff. ing to which Socrates inherited i. 29, p. 8)—a statement uneighty minæ from his father, doubtedly derived from Arisand lost them by lending, bear- toxenus—that Socrates was too ing his loss with extreme com- uneducated to be able to read, posure, looks like a story in- need scarcely be refuted by tended to show the indifference authorities such as Xen. Mem. of a philosopher to wealth. i. 6,14; iv. 7,3, 5. It is clearly Had Plato and Xenophon an exaggeration of the wellknown the story, we may be known å taidevo la (Plato, Symp. sure they would not have 221, E., 199, A., Apol. 17, B.), omitted to tell it,

which only belongs to the i See the work of K. F. Her- satirical outside of the philosomann, De Socratis magistris et pher, but was readily taken disciplina juvenili, Marb. 1837. hold of and exaggerated by

2 Plato says so plainly in the jealousy in later times,


music ' deserve no credit. We hear further that he learnt enough of geometry to be able to grapple with difficult problems, and that he was not ignorant of astronomy; but whether he acquired this knowledge in his youth, or only in later years, and who was his teacher, we cannot tell. We see him, in mature years,

in relations more or less close with a number of characters who must have exerted a most varied and stirring influence on his mind. It is beyond


According to Max. Tyr. cian appears as the friend xxxviii. 4, Connus was his rather than as the instructor of teacher in music, and Euenus Socrates, and as an important in poetry.

Alexander (in political character, from his Diog. ii. 19) calls him a pupil connection with Pericles. The of Damon, whereas Sextus Phædo, 60, C., and the Apology, (Matth. vi. 13) makes Lampo 20, A., mention Euenus, yet not his teacher. All these notices as a teacher, and hardly even have undoubtedly come from as an acquaintance of Socrates. passages in Plato, which are ir- And lastly, the Lampo of Sex. relevant. Socrates calls Connus tus probably owes his existence his teacher (Menex. 235, E., to a mistake. Sextus may have and Euthyd. 272, C.), but ac- written Damon instead of Concording to the latter passage nus (Stobæus, Flor. 29, 68, has he was a man at the time, so Connus in the same connection) that he must have gone to -or else Lamprus (a name Connus simply with a view to which occurs in the Menexenus, revive a skill long since ac- though not as that of a teacher quired. It is more probable of Socrates), and transcribers (however often such notices made it Lampo. The celebrated are given as historical, and prophet of this name cannot of with further details: Cic. ad course have been intended. Fam. ix. 22; Quint. i. 10; 2 Xen. Mem. iv. 7, 3, 5. Val. Max. viii. 7; Diog. ii. 32 ; 3 Maximus 1. c. says Theodore Stob. Flor. 29, 68) that the of Cyrene, but this is only an passages in Plato refer to the inference from Plato's TheateConnus of the comic poet tus, and not warranted by it. Ameipsias, from which the 4 For instance, the Sophists whole fabrication comes. See Protagoras, Gorgias, Polus, Hermann, p. 24. Damon's Hippias, Thrasymachus, but name is mentioned in the especially Prodicus. Cf. Plato, Laches, 180, D., 197, D.; Rep. Prot., Gorg., Hip., Rep. i. Xen. iii. 400, B., 424, C., in which Mem. ii. 1, 21; iv. 4, 5, &c. passages, bowever, this musi. Also Euripides, who was



doubt that he owed much to such relations; but these friends cannot in strict accuracy be described as his teachers, although we may often find them so-called ;' neither is any light derived hence for the history of his early training. We further meet with expressions which show that he must have had a general acquaintance with the views of Parmenides and Heraclitus, of the Atomists, of Anaxagoras, and perhaps of Empedocles. Whence he derived this knowledge, it is impossible to say. The stories that he received instruction in his younger years from Anaxagoras and Archelaus, can neither be supported by satisfactory evidence, nor are they probable in themselves. Stillmore uncertain is his supposed inter


such intimate terms with him the two ladies consisted in free that the comic poets charged personal intercourse, even alhim with borrowing his trage- lowing that Diotima is a real dies from Socrates. (Cf. Diog. person, and the Menexenus a ii. 18; Ælian, V. H. ii. 13. genuine dialogue ; not only Also Aspasia; cf. Xen. (Ec. 3, this, but the same applies

Mem. ii. 6, 36; Æschines equally to Prodicus. Maximus in Cic. de Invent. i. 31 ; in calls Ischomachus his teacher Max. Tyr. xxxviii. 4; conf. in agriculture, but he probably Hermann De Æsch. relig. 16 arrived at this conclusion by Hermesianax in Athen. xiii. misunderstanding Xen. (Ec. 6, 599, a ; Diotima (Plato, Symp.). 17. The story that he was a Respecting several of these we pupil of Diagoras of Melos (the know not whether Plato was Scholiast on Aristoph. Nubes, v. true to facts in bringing them 828), is obviously false. into connection with Socrates. 2 Xen. Mem. i. 1, 14; iv. 7, 6.

1 Socrates calls himself in 3 The authorities are: for Plato a pupil of Prodicus Anaxagoras, Aristid. Or. xlv., (Zeller, 1. c. i. 873, D.), of Aspa- p. 21, and the nameless authori. sia (Menex. 235, E.), and of ties referred by Diog. ii. 19 Diotima (Symp. 201, D.), all of and 45, whom Suidas Ewkpát. which statements have been re- according to custom follows; peated in past and present for Archelaus, Diog. ii. 16, 19, times. See Hermann, Soc. 23, x. 12, and those mentioned Mag. p. 11. We may suppose by him, Io, Aristoxenus, and that the instruction given by Diocles. Besides these Cicero,


course with Zeno and Parmenides. Even little is known of the philosophical writings with which he


Io may

Sextus, Porphyry (in Theod. may not have known of a jour-
Cur. Gr. Aff. xii. 67, p. 175), ney which Socrates took in his
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. earlier years. That he should
i. 302, A.), Simplicius, Eusebius have knowingly omitted
(Pr. Ev. x. 14, 13, xiv. 15, 11, mention it, as Alberti Socr. 40
xv. 61, 11), Hippolytus, the spu- supposes, is hardly likely. It
rious Galen, and a few others; is also possible some mistake
conf. Krische, Forsch. 210. may have been made.
The evidence in favour of not have meant a journey to
Anaxagoras is very insufficient, Samos, but his taking part in
and the language respecting the expedition to Samos of 441
him used by Socrates (Plato, B.C., which, strange to say, is
Phædo, 97, B. and Xenophon, not mentioned in the Apology,
Mem. iv. 7, 6) makes it impro- 28, E. Or the error may lie
bable that he knew him person- with Diogenes, who applied to
ally, or was acquainted with Socrates what Io had said of
his views, except from books some one else. Or it may not
and hearsay, which of course be the Io of Chios, but some
does not exclude any casual or later individual who thus
accidental intercourse. The writes of Socrates. Certain it
traditions respecting his rela- is, that Io's testimony does not
tions to Archelaus are better prove Socrates to have been a
authenticated; yet even here pupil of Archelaus. Even if the
there is much that is suspicious. relation were proved to have
Of the two earliest authorities, existed in Socrates' younger
Io and Aristoxenus, the former, days, it would still be a ques-
who was an older contemporary tion whether his philosophy
of Socrates, does not make Ar- was influenced thereby.
chelaus his instructor. All that Aristoxenus goes further. AC-
is stated in Diog. ii. 23, on his cording to his account in Diog.
authority, is that Socrates, when ii. 16, Socrates was the fa-
a young man, travelled with vourite of Archelaus, or
Archelaus to Samos. This asser- Porphyry represents the mat-
tion, however, flatly contradicts ter, he became acquainted with
Plato (Crito, 52, B.), who says Archelaus in his seventeenth
that Socrates never left Athens, year, lived with him many
except once to go to the Isth- years, and was by him initiated
mian games, or when on mili- into philosophy. We shall have
tary duty. Müller, however, occasion to notice hereafter how
gets over the difficulty (Frag. little dependence can be placed
Hist. Gr. ii. 49, N. 9) by sup- on the statements of Aristoxe-
posing that Plato was only re- nus respecting Socrates. Were
ferring to Socrates when grown the other statement which is

to be found in Diogenes closely It is just possible that Plato connected with this one, that



was acquainted. A well-known passage in Plato's Phaedo ? describes him as advancing from the older natural science and the philosophy of Anaxagoras to his own peculiar views. But it is most improbable that this passage gives a historical account of his intellectual development, if for no other reason, at least for this one, that the course of development there leads to the Platonic theory of conceptions; let alone the fact that it is by no means certain that Plato himself possessed any fuller information respecting the intellectual progress of his teacher.

No doubt he began life by learning his father's trade, a trade which he probably never practised,

A sup

Socrates did not become a cratic teaching can be connec-
pupil of Archelaus till after ted, it seems probable that he
the condemnation of Anaxago- had little to do with the philo-
ras, its worthlessness would be sophy of Socrates, even though
thoroughly shown; for Socrates Socrates may have known him
was seventeen when Anaxago- and his teaching. Besides,
ras left Athens, and had long Socrates (in Xen. Sym.) calls
passed his years of pupilage. himself an aŭtoupyds ras pido-
The assertions of Aristoxenus, copías, a self-taught philoso-
however, are in themselves im- pher.
probable. For supposing So- I He seems to have known
crates to have been on intimate those of Anaxagoras.
terms with Archelaus, when posed allusion to the writings
young, twenty years before of Heraclitus (in Diog. ii. 22),
Anaxagoras was banished, how is uncertain, nor is it estab-
is it conceivable that he should lished that he ever studied the
not have known Anaxagoras ?- Pythagorean doctrines (Plut.
and if he was instructed by Curios. 2).
him in philosophy, how is it
that neither Xenophon nor 3 As Volquardsen, (Rhein.
Plato nor Aristotle ever men. Mus. N.F. xix. 514; Alberti
tion Archelaus ? All the later Socr. 13; Ueberweg, Unters
authorities for the relation of d. Plat. Schr. 94; Steinhart,
the two philosophers appear to

Plat. L., 297.
rest on Aristoxenus. As there 4 Timon and Duris in Diog.
is nothing in the teaching of ii. 19. Timæus, according to
Archelaus, with which the So- Porphyry in Cyril c. Jul. 208,


96, A.

« PreviousContinue »