A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

SOCRATES. SOCRATES. 851
not his purpose to develope the Socratic doctrine, But, on the other hand, in Xenophon we miss
and as he was not capable of penetrating into the every thing like a penetrating comprehension of
peculiarity of a philosophic mode of thinking. But the fundamental ideas of the Socratic doctrine to
for that very reason his representation, with all which he himself makes reference. The repreits fidelity, is not adapted to give us a sufficient sentations of Plato and Xenophon however may
picture of the man whom all antiquity regarded as be very wvell harmonised with each other, partly
the originator of a new era in philosophy, and by the assumption that Socrates, as the originator
whose life each of his disciples, especially Plato of a new era of philosophical development, must
the most distinguished of them, regarded as a have made the first steps in that which was its
model. Moreover it was the object of Xenophon, distinctive direction, and the immediate maniby way of defence against the accusers of Socrates, festation of which consisted in bringing into more
merely to paint him as the morally spotless, pious, distinct and prominent relief the idea and form
upright, temperate, clear-sighted, unjustly con- of scientific knowledge (see Schleiermacher in the
demned man, not as the founder of new philoso- above quoted treatise); partly by the careful emphical inquiry. It may easily be understood there- ployment of the remarks made by Aristotle refore that there were various opinions in antiquity specting the Socratic doctrine and the points of
as to whether the more satisfactory picture of distinction between it and that of Plato (Ch. A.
Socrates was to be found in Plato, in Xenophon, Brandis, in the above-mentioned treatise; comp.
or in Aeschines. Since the time of Brucker how- Geschichte der griechisch-7r-misclen Philosophie, ii.
ever it had become usual to go back to Xenophon, 1. p. 20, &c.). These remarks, though not numeto the exclusion of the other authorities, as the rous, are decisive on account of their acuteness
source of the only authentic delineation of the and precision, as well as by their referring to the
personal characteristics and philosophy of Socrates, most important points in the philosophy of Soor to fill up the gaps left by him by means of the crates.
accounts of Plato (Meiners, Geschichte der Wissen- III. The philosophy of the Greeks before Soschafien, ii. p. 420, &c.), till Schleiermlacher started crates had sought first (among the Ionians) after
the inquiry, " What cans Socrates have been, be- the inherent foundation- of generated existence
sides what Xenophon tells us of him, without con- and changing phenomena, and then (among the
tradicting that authority, and what azsst he have Eleatics) after the idea of absolute existence.
been, to have justified Plato in bringing him for- Afterwards, when the ideas of being and coming
ward as he does in his dialogues?" (Ueber den into being had come into hostile opposition to each
TWerth des Sokrates als Philosophew, in the Ab- other, it had made trial of various insufficient
handlungen der Berliler Akadenzie, iii. p. 50, modes of reconciling them; and lastly, raising the
&c., 1818, reprinted in Schleiermacher's Werke, inquiry after the absolutely true and certain in our
vol. iii. pt. 2, p. 293, &c.; translated in the Phi- knowledge, had arrived at the assumption that
lological Museum, vol. ii. p. 538, &c.) Dissen, too, numbers and their relations are not only the absohad already pointed out some not inconsiderable lutely true and certain, but the foundation of
contradictions in the doctrines of the Xenophontic things. Its efforts, which had been pervaded by a
Socrates (de Philosophia mlorali in Xenophontis de pure appreciation of truth, were then exposed to
Socrate Cossesentariis tradita, Gotting. 1812; re- the attacks of a sophistical system, which conprinted in Dissen's Kleine Schrifien, p. 87, &c.). cerned itself only about securing an appearance of
Now we know indeed that Socrates, the teacher knowledge, and which in the first instance indeed
of human wisdom, who, without concerning him- applied itself to the diametrically opposite theories
self with the investigation of the secrets of nature, of eternal, perpetual conzing into existence, and
wished to bring philosophy back from heaven to of unchangeable, absolutely simple and single
earth (Cic. Acad. i. 4, Tusc. v. 4; comp. Aristot. existeence, but soon directed its most dangerous
MIetaph. i. 6, de Part Aezime. i. p. 642. 28), was weapons against the ethico-religious consciousness,
fitr from intending to introduce a regularly or- which in the last ten years before the Peloponganised system of philosophy; but that he made nesian war had already been so much shaken.
no endeavours to go back to the ultimate founda- Whoever intended to oppose that sophistical sys.
tions of his doctrine, or that that doctrine was vacil- tem with any success would have, at the same
lating and not without contradictions, as Wiggers time, at least to lay the foundation for a removal
(in his Life of Socrates, p. 184, &c.) and others of the contradictions, which, having been left
assume, we cannot possibly regard as a well by the earlier philosophy without any tenable
founded view, unless his almost unexampled in- mode of reconciling them, had been employed by
fluence upon the most distinguished men of his the sophists with so much skill for their own
time is to become an inexplicable riddle, and the purposes. In order to establish, in confutation of
conviction of a Plato, a Eucleides, and others, that the sophists, that the human mind sees itself comthey were indebted to him for the fruits of their pelled to press on to truth and certainty, not only
own investigations, is to be regarded as a mere in the general but also in reference to the rules and
illusion. Now we fully admit that in the repre- laws of our actions, and is capable of doing so, it
sentation of the personal character of Socrates was necessary first of all that to the inquiries prePlato and Xenophon coincide (see Ed. Zeller's viously dealt with there should be added a new'tlilosophlie der Grieclhe, vol. ii. p. 16, &c.); and one, that after knowledge, as such. It was a ne iv
further, that Socrates adjusted his treatment of inquiry, inasmuch as previously the mind, being
the subject of his conversation according as those entirely directed towards the objective universe,
with whom he had to do entertained such or such had regarded knowledge respecting it as a necesviews, were more or less endowed, and had made sary reflection of it, without paying any closer
more or less progress; and therefore did not al- regard to that element of knowledge which is
wayas say the same on the same subject (Xenopohon, essentially subjective. Even the Pythagoreamns,
by F. Delbriick, Bonn, 1829. pp. 64, &c. 132, &c.). who came the nearest to that inquiry, had per.
31 2