Socrates

Born iu the 4th year of the TJth Olympiad. Died in the 1st of the 95th, aged 70 years.

SocRATBS, who by the suffrages of all antiquity has been pronounced one of the most virtuous and enlightened of the heathen philosophei-s, was a citizen of Athens. He was bom at Alop^ce> in the 4th year of the 77th Olympiad. Sophroniscus, his father, was a sculptor; and Pharauet^, his mother, was a midwife. He studied philosophy at first under Anaxagoras, and afterwards under Archelaus, the natui'al philosopher. Feeling a conviction, however, that all these vain speculations and inquiries into natural causes led to nothing practically useful, and no way contributed to malie those who entered into them better members of society, he turned his attention to the study of ethics, and may be regarded, as is observed by Cicero, in the third book of his Tusculan Questions, as the foim - der of m(>ral philosophy among the Greeks. He speaks of him in the first book more expressly, and particularly in these words: ''It appears to me, and I am borne out by most othera in my opinion, that Socrates was the first who turned the attention of philosophers from that inquiry into the hiddeu things in nature, to which they had hithertcr exclusively devoted themselves, and engaged them to apply to subjects connected with the duties of common life." He examined into the nature of virtue and vice, good and evil; saying, that the knowledge of the heavenly bodies was too abstruse for human investigation; and that, even could it be attained, it yet could not have the smallest influence on the regulation of our conduct. He accordingly dedicated his exclusive attention to those branches of philosophy which concern morality, and which equally afl!ect every age and every condition in life; and this new system was all the better received, from the consideration that he by whom it was introduced exemplified the excellence of it in his own person, by acquitting himself wHh the most scrupulous fidelity of all the duties required of him as a good citizen, whether in peace or in war. He was the only one, as Luclan remarks in his dialogue of the Parasite, of all the philosophers who hare acquired renown, who ever took an active part in military matters. He served in two campaigns; and though they were both unsuccessful, yet he gained reputation in them on account of the personal courage he exhibited. In one he saved the life of Xenophon, who, in the act of retreating, had fallen from his horse, and must inevitably have been killed by the enemy, had not So-crates rescued him from danger, by taking him on his shoulders, and carrying him several paces, during the heat of the action, until his horse which had escaped could be brought back to him. This fact is related by Plato. In the other, the Athenians being totaUy defeated and put to flighty Siocrates was the last to quit the field, and put on so determined an aspect^ that those who were in pursuit of the fugitives, seeing him ready to face them, had not the courage to attack him. lliis testimony in favour of his courage is borne by Athensui.

When these two expeditions were finished, So-crates returned to Athens, and never quitted it again; in which his conduct was entirely opposite to that of other philosophers, who all spent a portion of their lives in travel,' in order that they might increase their knowledge by acquuntance Mrith the learned of other countries. The species of philosophy to which Socrates bounded his inquiries, was one which rather induced him sedulously to endeavour to know hunself, than to load his mind with knowledge-which had no connexion with the regulation of conduct: he therefore thought himself at liberty to dispense with the tedious journeys, which after all would have taught him nothing more than he could have learned at Athens, among his fellow-citizens, for whose reformation, rather than for that of strangers, he felt it his duty to labour. He likewise, as moral philosophy is a science better taught by actions than by words, took care to practise aU that the most dispassionate reason and the severest virtue could require of him. In compliance with the rule he had laid down to himself, it was, that being elected one of the senators of the city, and having subscribed to the oath which required him to give his opinion according to the laws, he steadfastly refused his consent to the decree by which the people had illegally condemned nine officers to death; and though they were much offended at his re^al, some of the most considerable among them even going ao far an to threaten him on account of it^ he yet would not secede from his resolution, deeming it unworthy of a man of honour to swerve from his principles, merely to court favour with the people, it does not appear whether he ever acted in a civil capacity any other time than this once $ but, private as was his condition, he nevertheless, by his virtues and probity, rendered himself more respected than the magistrates themselves. With regard to his person, Socrates was sufficiently attentive, and blamed those who took no care of their appearance, or affected negligence respecting it. He was always neat and well dressed; preserving the happy medium between what might appear gross and vulgar, and what might seem to bordeion pride or effeminacy. Though scantily provided with the goods of fortune, he yet was so admirably disinterested, that he never would receive any emolument from those whom he instructed; affording by his conduct in this respect a direct condemnation of that of other philosophers, who were in the habit of selling their lessons, and taxing their scholars more or less, according to the degree of their own reputation. Xenophon relates of So-crates, that he used to say, it was astonishing to him how a man who professed to inculcate the practice of virtue, could ever think of turning his instructions to the account of profit; as if the greatest advantage and most solid gain that could

Inward his labours, did not consist in making his pupil an estimable character, and converting him moreover into a friend, lliis disinterestedness in Socrates, drew upon him the dtslilre of a certain sophist named Antiphon, who, wishing to decry a virtue he had no desire to practise, told him that it was perfectly right in him to talie nothing from those to whom he could teach nothing; for that, by so doing, he proved himself to be at any rate an honest man; ** But," added the sophist, ''if it came to the question of selling your house, your clothes, or your furniture, far from asking little or nothing for them, you would try to get as much as they mig^t be worth, nor would you take one farthing less than their value. It is because you feel conscious that you know nothing yourself, consequently are not competent to instruct others, ^at you have scruples in asking payment for what yon cannot teadi, which is a ci^dit to your honesty rather than to your disinterestedness." Socrates, however, was at no great loss for arguments to prove to hfan, that there are two ways of doing every thing—- handsomely or unhandsomely; and that to sell the fruits of his garden to a fiiend was very different from presenting him with thera. It must, moreover, be observed, that Socrates did not keep a regular dass, as those philosophers did who had fixed places to assemble their disciples in, and wherein they delivered lectures to lliem at regular periods. The method of philosophizing adopted by Socrates was simply conversing with those who came to visit him^ wherever or at whatever time it might chance to occur.

One of the principal grounds of accusation which Melitus brought against Socrates was, that he had introduced new deities, into Athens, instead of acIcnowledging those already esteemed as such in that city. Never was there a more unfounded calumny: so far from it, Socrates laid it down as a rule to himself, and impressed it upon all who asked his advice on the subject, to conform to the iigunction of the oracle of ]>elpho8, which being consulted as to the manner in which the gods ought to be worshipped, replied, ** That every one ought in that respect to act according to the custom and manner of his own country." This was what So-crates did himself: from the little that he possessed, he presented oblations and saa-lfices; and though his o£ferings were of little value, he believed them to be as acceptable to the gods as the more costly ones offered up by the rich; for his were proportionate to his ability, and he could not imagine for a moment that the gods looked with more complacency on the tributes of the wealthy than of the poor. On the contrary, he believed that the most acceptable of all offerings to the deities was the sincere reverence of a good man. It is impossible to find a more pious yet concise form of prayer, than that which he made use of. He specified nothing particular in his supplication to the gods, but merely besought them to grant him such things as they themselves might deem good and useful for him. '' For,*' said he, '< as to asking for riches and honours indiscriminately, it would be just as mse to petidon for an opportunity of ruahing into battle, or of playbg at ^oe, without Itnowing liow far we might be favoured dther by victory or chance."

Instead of discouraging any one from the worship of the gods, who had been accustomed to observe it, Socrates, on the contrary, made it a duty to lead those who had forsalcen religion baclc into its paths. We learn from Xenophon the method he made use of to instil piety into the mind of a certain person named Aristodemus, who not only professed that he pidd no deference to the gods, but even ridiculed those who sacrificed to them. It is impossible to read the arguments which, as Xenophon relates, were made use of by Socrates on this occasion, respecting the providence of the gods over men, without being astonished to find such sublime and just notions of the Divinity in one whose life was passed in the midst of Paganism.

Socrates was always poor, but so contented in his poverty, that though riehes mig^t be said to court his acceptance in the form of presents which his friends and disciples would have forced him to accept, he always refused them, to the no small displeasure of his wife, who had no relish whatever for that branch of his philosophy. With r^ gard to food and clothing his habits were so simple, that Antlphon,the sophist already mentioned, would sometimes reproach him with it, and tell him that there was not a slave, however poor and wretched his condition, who would be contented with it. '<For," sidd he, "your diet is the coarsest imaginable; and you are not only always meanly habited, but you even wear the same robe winter and summer, without a change; and moreover, constantly go barefoot."

Socrates explained to him, that he deceived him* self if he thought thaCt happiness consisted only in riches and luxury; and that poor as he himself might appear, he was in fact the happier of the two. " I reason thus," continued he: '* to have no wants is the privilege of the gods alone; therefore, he that has the fewest, approaches nearest to them in independence of condition."

It was not possible that virtue so pure as that of Socrates could be contemplated without admiration, especially in a city like Athens, where sucji an example must have appealed very extraordinary; for even those who have not sufficient strength of mind to practise virtue themselves, are generally ready to {H^se and admire it in others. Socrates soon gained the unqualified esteem of all his fellow-citizens, and drew around him disciples of every age, who preferred the pleasure of hearing him spes^, and of conversing with him, to any othei' amusement, however attractive. The peculiar charm of Socrates's manners was, that he tempered the most rigid austerity towards himself with the kindest and gentlest consideration for others. Piety and reverence for the gods was the first principle which he endeavoured to instil into the minds of his youthful hearers. His next care was to persuade them, by every argument he could make use. of, to practise temperance, and to shun voluptuous enjoyments, which rob man of his best treasure, the power to regulate his- aetKOus. His uanner of treating the subject of morality waa the wore persaasiyey as he always conveyed his histruc* ttons in conyersation, without any formal plan; and followed whatever idea might be started^ without proposing any one for regular discussion. At first he would ask a question, as if he himself stood in need of information; and then wresting the concessions of the respondent to his own advantage, he would draw him into a proposition exactly contradictory to that which he might have maintained in the banning of the argument. He spent a part of every day in discoursing in this manner on morality; every one was welcome to enter at such times, and no one ever left him without feeling himself, according to the expression of Xenophon, " a better man," for all that he had heard.

Though Socrates left no written worlcs behind him, it is yet easy to judge both of his system of ethics, and his manner of expUdning it, by the acoounta of them contained in Xenophon and Plato. The similarity of the relations given by these two disciples of Socrates, especially respecting his mode of disputing, is an indisputable testimony in fa» your of their truth. With respect to his principles it is not so easy to decide, particularly as* for as Plato is concerned; for he often mingled his own doctrines along with those of his master, as Socrates himself told him one day on reading his dialogue of Lpsii. * Xenophon appears to have been more faithful; for he expressly tells us, in relating certain portions of conversations between Socrates and another speaker, that he only performs the part of an historian, in relating what he has heard.

p

It is difficult to comprehend how a person who was continually exhorting mankind to honour the gods, and who preached, as we may term it, to the young to fly from vice, could ever be condemned to death for impiety towards the gods acknowledged at Athens, and for corrupting youth. This flagrant injustice could only have taken place in a time of disorder, and under the tumultuous government of the thirty tyrants; accordingly we find it to have arisen in the following manner: —

Critias, the most powerful of these thirty tyrants, had formerly been a scholar of Socrates, along with Alcibiades. Both of them, however, became weary of a philosophy, the maxims of which were in direct opposition to their ambition and intemperance, and they finally renounced it entirely. Critias, in particular, became, from the disciple of Socrates, his greatest enemy, which is to be attributed to the firmness with which that philosopher reproached him with his propensity to an odious vice, and the means he took to thwart him in the indulgence of it. Hence, when Critias, became one of the thirty tyrants, no object lay so near to his heart as the destruction of Socrates; who, besides being unable to brook the tyranny of these men, always uttered his opinions against them with the greatest freedom. Seeing the most rich and powerful among the citizens daily condemned to death by the tyrants, he could not resist saying in company, '* that if a flock of sheep were observed every day to become leaner and leaner, and to decrease in number, the least that could be remarked of those to whom the care of them might have been confided, was.

that they must be bad shepherds." Critias and Charicles, the leaden of the party, feeling that the allusion was directed in its fiill force to them, straight enacted a law by which it was forbidden to teach the art of reasoning in Athens. Socrates had never professed any such art; but it was easy to discover that the decree was levelled at him alone^ and was intended to deprive him of the liberty of discussing points of morality, in the way he was accustomed to do, with those who resorted to him. In order t!hat he might have this law clearly defined to him, Socrates went to the two authors for an explanation of it; but they, finding themselves embarrassed by the subtlety of his interrogations, told him plainly that they forbade him to enter into conversation with young people. He then asked what he was to understand by the term young people: they answered, that they included all who were under thirty years of age in that denunciation. '^But," demanded Socrates, ** if any one chance to ask me where is Charicles, or where is Critias, shall I not answer?"— << You may," repUed Charicles; "But," added Critias, "We forbid you more especially to harangue a knot of artisans, and weary their ears with your definitions." — ** But," answered Socrates, " suppose that those who are around me shall inquire what is piety, or what is justice?" — "Oh, doubtless," said Charicles, " you must instruct shepherds also, and teU them to take special care not to diminish the number of their flock." Socrates needed no further information to show him the extent of l^s danger under these two tyrants, and how mortally he had offended them by his comparison of the shepherd. It was thought advisable, however, as the reputation of Socrates was so great that to accuse him at once would have been a matter of public odium, to begin by injuring his credit in the estimation of thie people. Accordingly this was attempted to be done, through the medium of a comedy, by'Aristophanes, entitled " The Qouds," in wldch Socrates was introduced as one well skilled

" To make the worse appear the better reason,**

and who' taught the art of making that seem just, which was in itself unjust. This comedy answering the end proposed, by throwing a certain degree of ridicule upon the philosopher, Melitus came forward with a capital accusation against him, in which it was alleged, first, that he did not acknowledge the gods which were honoured at Athens, and that he was endeavouring to introduce new ones; and secondly, that he was a corruptor of youth, by teaching them to throw off their respect both for their parents and for the magistrates: and for these two crimes the accuser required that So-crates should be condemned to die. Inimical as the thirty tyrants, especially Critias and Charicles, were to Socrates, it is certain that they would have felt considerable reluctance in condemning him. If he had been in the smallest degree anxious to save himself; but the intrepidity and independence with which he braved the accusation, refusing to pay even the most trifling fine, because he cbnsidered that to do so would be to acknowledge himself in jMime degree culpable; aud especially the firmness with which he addressed the judges — ^replying, when called upon by them to state the punishment he believed himself to have incurred, be believed he ought to be supported at the pubUc cost for the re-m^der of his days: all this roused afresh the resentment of the thirty tyrants agMnst him i and the decree for his condemnation was passed. A philosopher named Lysias had composed an apology for Socrates, which he wished him to make use ot, and to deliver before the judges. Socrates read it, and acknowledged the composition to be good, but returned it to the author^ saying '* it did not exactly suit him."— -<' How can that be?" said Lysias, ** when you acknowledge that it is good!" — <' My friend," replied Socrates, '* there are shoes and coats which may be very good in themselves, and yet may not fit me." The fact was, the oration, though touching and energetic, yet turned upon a straun of argument that did not accord with the candour and uprightness of Socrates.

Having received sentence of death, Socrates was taken to prison^ and died some days after, by swallowing arsenic,— the usual mode resorted to by the Athenians for dispatching those who were condemned to death.

It is asserted by Diogenes Laertius, that Socrates was twice married; but of the two wives thus assigned him we know nothing, except of the famous Xanttppe, who has immortalized her name by her Hl-humour, and by the exercise it afforded to the patience of Socrates: indeed, he married her, according to his own account, from a persuasion that p3

162 socaATfig.

if he could bring himself to bear with her violenc^ of temper, he could not meet with any thing which he might not be able to support. By this wife he had a son named Tamprocles.

Socrates pretended to have a genius, by whose secret inspirations he was directed on particular occasions. Plato, Xenophon, and other ancient authors, make mentiotiof it; and Plutarch, Apuleius, and Maximus of l^re, have each written a work expressly on the genius, or demon, of Socrates. Hiis philosopher died in the 1st year of the 95 th Olympiad^ aged sixty-eight years.