! reseña - les grands sophistes dans l'athenes de pericles
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 ! Resea - Les grands sophistes dans l'Athenes de Pericles
1/3
Les grands sophistes dans l'Athnes de Pricls by J. de RomillyReview by: G. B. KerferdThe Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 110 (1990), pp. 238-239Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/631778 .Accessed: 03/12/2011 22:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenichttp://www.jstor.org/stable/631778?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/631778?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic -
8/12/2019 ! Resea - Les grands sophistes dans l'Athenes de Pericles
2/3
NOTICE OF BOOKSOTICE OF BOOKSOTICE OF BOOKS
medieval Latin cosmological and astronomicalthinking does not bear repeating, although itsinfluence on thinking beyond strict planetary astro-nomy is less clear. Amongst the Humanist collec-tors of ancient texts of mathematical arts and
sciences, Ptolemy's enormous work rankedamongst the most prized: it cannot be presumed,however, that it was only read by court astro-nomers for the purposes of calculation. TheRenaissance reassessment f the mathematical artsand sciences ensured that even so apparently atechnical text was seen to have natural philosophi-cal content and implications. Modern studentsbeginning the required deconstruction anddemystification of Copernicus might even read theAlmagest-and wonder at just how much Coperni-cus relied on Ptolemaic thinking and style, and notjust in the mathematical model.
It isonly
to beregretted
that somany
ofPtolemy's other works remain without moderneditions of the standard f mathematical larity andreadability of this one... and, inevitably, that thehigh price of this edition will limit its circulationamongst casual purchasers f classical exts.
Pedersen's I974] study of the Almagest-whichwas more of a Proemium-should have sparked offfruitful controversy and formed the basis of furtherbroad scholarly study of the Almagest; trangelythis did not happen. Perhaps T.'s fine translationand sensitive mathematical notation will finally getthis wonderful text the wider, detailed appreciationthat its importance deserves. It is probable thatprofessional historians of ancient sciences do notneed a new English edition of the Almagest odeepen their appreciation of its contents and sig-nificance, but the wider audience that thiseminently readable and sound translation shouldreach might well find there is enough beside thegeometry to keep them up reading n bed for a fewnights.
PIERS BURSILL-HALLDepartment f Pure Mathematics, ambridge
COLPI (B.) Die TaLS6eLa es Themistios: EinBeitrag zur Geschichte der Bildung imvierten Jahrhundert nach Christus.(Europaische Hochschulschriften, Reihe I5,36.) Berne: Lang, 1987. Pp. 217. $25.05.
Themistius is a much understudied figure. A self-proclaimed philosopher, he was a Neo-Platoniststeeped in Greek cultural traditions who servedChristian Roman Emperors as publicist and politi-cian. He gave key-note addresses on numerousimportant occasions such as Imperial accessions,and headed a commission which expanded theSenate of Constantinople in the 35os. His ultimate
political reward was the Urban Prefecture of Con-stantinople in 384. His orations attempt to justifythis combination of philosophy and politics, forwhich he was criticized by contemporaries (cf. G.Dagron, Travaux et memoires ii [I968], 36 ff. & A.Cameron, CQ [1965], 221-3). Colpi's concern isnot to reassess T's life and career-a brief introduc-tion ( 3 if.) echoes Dagron (op. cit. passim)-but to
medieval Latin cosmological and astronomicalthinking does not bear repeating, although itsinfluence on thinking beyond strict planetary astro-nomy is less clear. Amongst the Humanist collec-tors of ancient texts of mathematical arts and
sciences, Ptolemy's enormous work rankedamongst the most prized: it cannot be presumed,however, that it was only read by court astro-nomers for the purposes of calculation. TheRenaissance reassessment f the mathematical artsand sciences ensured that even so apparently atechnical text was seen to have natural philosophi-cal content and implications. Modern studentsbeginning the required deconstruction anddemystification of Copernicus might even read theAlmagest-and wonder at just how much Coperni-cus relied on Ptolemaic thinking and style, and notjust in the mathematical model.
It isonly
to beregretted
that somany
ofPtolemy's other works remain without moderneditions of the standard f mathematical larity andreadability of this one... and, inevitably, that thehigh price of this edition will limit its circulationamongst casual purchasers f classical exts.
Pedersen's I974] study of the Almagest-whichwas more of a Proemium-should have sparked offfruitful controversy and formed the basis of furtherbroad scholarly study of the Almagest; trangelythis did not happen. Perhaps T.'s fine translationand sensitive mathematical notation will finally getthis wonderful text the wider, detailed appreciationthat its importance deserves. It is probable thatprofessional historians of ancient sciences do notneed a new English edition of the Almagest odeepen their appreciation of its contents and sig-nificance, but the wider audience that thiseminently readable and sound translation shouldreach might well find there is enough beside thegeometry to keep them up reading n bed for a fewnights.
PIERS BURSILL-HALLDepartment f Pure Mathematics, ambridge
COLPI (B.) Die TaLS6eLa es Themistios: EinBeitrag zur Geschichte der Bildung imvierten Jahrhundert nach Christus.(Europaische Hochschulschriften, Reihe I5,36.) Berne: Lang, 1987. Pp. 217. $25.05.
Themistius is a much understudied figure. A self-proclaimed philosopher, he was a Neo-Platoniststeeped in Greek cultural traditions who servedChristian Roman Emperors as publicist and politi-cian. He gave key-note addresses on numerousimportant occasions such as Imperial accessions,and headed a commission which expanded theSenate of Constantinople in the 35os. His ultimate
political reward was the Urban Prefecture of Con-stantinople in 384. His orations attempt to justifythis combination of philosophy and politics, forwhich he was criticized by contemporaries (cf. G.Dagron, Travaux et memoires ii [I968], 36 ff. & A.Cameron, CQ [1965], 221-3). Colpi's concern isnot to reassess T's life and career-a brief introduc-tion ( 3 if.) echoes Dagron (op. cit. passim)-but to
medieval Latin cosmological and astronomicalthinking does not bear repeating, although itsinfluence on thinking beyond strict planetary astro-nomy is less clear. Amongst the Humanist collec-tors of ancient texts of mathematical arts and
sciences, Ptolemy's enormous work rankedamongst the most prized: it cannot be presumed,however, that it was only read by court astro-nomers for the purposes of calculation. TheRenaissance reassessment f the mathematical artsand sciences ensured that even so apparently atechnical text was seen to have natural philosophi-cal content and implications. Modern studentsbeginning the required deconstruction anddemystification of Copernicus might even read theAlmagest-and wonder at just how much Coperni-cus relied on Ptolemaic thinking and style, and notjust in the mathematical model.
It isonly
to beregretted
that somany
ofPtolemy's other works remain without moderneditions of the standard f mathematical larity andreadability of this one... and, inevitably, that thehigh price of this edition will limit its circulationamongst casual purchasers f classical exts.
Pedersen's I974] study of the Almagest-whichwas more of a Proemium-should have sparked offfruitful controversy and formed the basis of furtherbroad scholarly study of the Almagest; trangelythis did not happen. Perhaps T.'s fine translationand sensitive mathematical notation will finally getthis wonderful text the wider, detailed appreciationthat its importance deserves. It is probable thatprofessional historians of ancient sciences do notneed a new English edition of the Almagest odeepen their appreciation of its contents and sig-nificance, but the wider audience that thiseminently readable and sound translation shouldreach might well find there is enough beside thegeometry to keep them up reading n bed for a fewnights.
PIERS BURSILL-HALLDepartment f Pure Mathematics, ambridge
COLPI (B.) Die TaLS6eLa es Themistios: EinBeitrag zur Geschichte der Bildung imvierten Jahrhundert nach Christus.(Europaische Hochschulschriften, Reihe I5,36.) Berne: Lang, 1987. Pp. 217. $25.05.
Themistius is a much understudied figure. A self-proclaimed philosopher, he was a Neo-Platoniststeeped in Greek cultural traditions who servedChristian Roman Emperors as publicist and politi-cian. He gave key-note addresses on numerousimportant occasions such as Imperial accessions,and headed a commission which expanded theSenate of Constantinople in the 35os. His ultimate
political reward was the Urban Prefecture of Con-stantinople in 384. His orations attempt to justifythis combination of philosophy and politics, forwhich he was criticized by contemporaries (cf. G.Dagron, Travaux et memoires ii [I968], 36 ff. & A.Cameron, CQ [1965], 221-3). Colpi's concern isnot to reassess T's life and career-a brief introduc-tion ( 3 if.) echoes Dagron (op. cit. passim)-but to
reconstruct T's reading and education from theevidence of the surviving orations. This is a tradi-tional line of enquiry, but well worthwhile. Thestandard edition (ed. in 3 vols by G. Downey &A. F. Norman, Teubner, 1965-74) identifies quo-
tations, and there have been studies of T's use ofindividual authors (e:g. J. Scharold, DioChrysostomus und Themistius, 1912), but no attemptat a general appreciation (cf. Colpi, I8 f.). C.'sstudy fills this gap successfully. Rather than presen-ting sterile cross-reference, C. is concerned todifferentiate first-hand reading from materialknown through intermediaries. Two criteria areposited (19). The context of the allusion in T'soration must echo that of the original, and theremust be some consistency in T's use of an author orwork before C. is convinced that a parallelrepresents first-hand knowledge. These seem to me
entirely sensible, and, byattention to
detail,C.
gains considerable insight into T's rraiSEla, provid-ing at the end a convenient summary of his find-ings (193 ff.). C. is particularly successful in dif-ferentiating formative influences from writers whoare simply ornaments to T's style. The former turnout to be Aristotle (95 ff.-not surprising given T'sstill extant commentaries), Homer (23 if.), Plato(85ff.-whose Socrates is for T the font of allwisdom), and Dio of Prusa (I49 ff.). This study isjust as interesting for what we learn of the materialT did not use at first hand. Throughout, andespecially from sections on Roman history inGreek (I7I f.), philosophers (III ff.), and vocabu-lary and figures of speech (183 ff.), C. illustratesmuch about the handbooks of excerpts whichcontained biographic, instructional, and apoph-thegmatic information and were the foundation ofcontemporary schooling. C. is surely right toexplain the many parallels and resemblancesbetween T, Julian, and Libanius through a com-mon grounding in such material. C.'s book is notrevolutionary, but is a well-executed addition bothto our knowledge of an important figure of theLate Empire, and to our understanding of fourth-century culture.
reconstruct T's reading and education from theevidence of the surviving orations. This is a tradi-tional line of enquiry, but well worthwhile. Thestandard edition (ed. in 3 vols by G. Downey &A. F. Norman, Teubner, 1965-74) identifies quo-
tations, and there have been studies of T's use ofindividual authors (e:g. J. Scharold, DioChrysostomus und Themistius, 1912), but no attemptat a general appreciation (cf. Colpi, I8 f.). C.'sstudy fills this gap successfully. Rather than presen-ting sterile cross-reference, C. is concerned todifferentiate first-hand reading from materialknown through intermediaries. Two criteria areposited (19). The context of the allusion in T'soration must echo that of the original, and theremust be some consistency in T's use of an author orwork before C. is convinced that a parallelrepresents first-hand knowledge. These seem to me
entirely sensible, and, byattention to
detail,C.
gains considerable insight into T's rraiSEla, provid-ing at the end a convenient summary of his find-ings (193 ff.). C. is particularly successful in dif-ferentiating formative influences from writers whoare simply ornaments to T's style. The former turnout to be Aristotle (95 ff.-not surprising given T'sstill extant commentaries), Homer (23 if.), Plato(85ff.-whose Socrates is for T the font of allwisdom), and Dio of Prusa (I49 ff.). This study isjust as interesting for what we learn of the materialT did not use at first hand. Throughout, andespecially from sections on Roman history inGreek (I7I f.), philosophers (III ff.), and vocabu-lary and figures of speech (183 ff.), C. illustratesmuch about the handbooks of excerpts whichcontained biographic, instructional, and apoph-thegmatic information and were the foundation ofcontemporary schooling. C. is surely right toexplain the many parallels and resemblancesbetween T, Julian, and Libanius through a com-mon grounding in such material. C.'s book is notrevolutionary, but is a well-executed addition bothto our knowledge of an important figure of theLate Empire, and to our understanding of fourth-century culture.
reconstruct T's reading and education from theevidence of the surviving orations. This is a tradi-tional line of enquiry, but well worthwhile. Thestandard edition (ed. in 3 vols by G. Downey &A. F. Norman, Teubner, 1965-74) identifies quo-
tations, and there have been studies of T's use ofindividual authors (e:g. J. Scharold, DioChrysostomus und Themistius, 1912), but no attemptat a general appreciation (cf. Colpi, I8 f.). C.'sstudy fills this gap successfully. Rather than presen-ting sterile cross-reference, C. is concerned todifferentiate first-hand reading from materialknown through intermediaries. Two criteria areposited (19). The context of the allusion in T'soration must echo that of the original, and theremust be some consistency in T's use of an author orwork before C. is convinced that a parallelrepresents first-hand knowledge. These seem to me
entirely sensible, and, byattention to
detail,C.
gains considerable insight into T's rraiSEla, provid-ing at the end a convenient summary of his find-ings (193 ff.). C. is particularly successful in dif-ferentiating formative influences from writers whoare simply ornaments to T's style. The former turnout to be Aristotle (95 ff.-not surprising given T'sstill extant commentaries), Homer (23 if.), Plato(85ff.-whose Socrates is for T the font of allwisdom), and Dio of Prusa (I49 ff.). This study isjust as interesting for what we learn of the materialT did not use at first hand. Throughout, andespecially from sections on Roman history inGreek (I7I f.), philosophers (III ff.), and vocabu-lary and figures of speech (183 ff.), C. illustratesmuch about the handbooks of excerpts whichcontained biographic, instructional, and apoph-thegmatic information and were the foundation ofcontemporary schooling. C. is surely right toexplain the many parallels and resemblancesbetween T, Julian, and Libanius through a com-mon grounding in such material. C.'s book is notrevolutionary, but is a well-executed addition bothto our knowledge of an important figure of theLate Empire, and to our understanding of fourth-century culture.
Worcester College, Oxford.orcester College, Oxford.orcester College, Oxford.P. J. HEATHER. J. HEATHER. J. HEATHER
ROMILLY (J. DE) Les grands sophistes dansl'Athenes de Pericles. Paris: de Fallois, I988.Pp. 335. Fr. IOO.
This is a book which needed to be written. It setsout to put right an injustice-to correct whatMoses Finley had called 'a historical untruth'(Politics in the ancient world [1983] 123)-by arguingconvincingly that the widely acknowledged list ofthe triumphs of the Periclean age is incomplete if it
fails to include the sophistic movement. The riseand success of the sophists meant that they came tofunction as the professors of the age of Pericles. Asintellectuals they were responsible for a new kindof secondary education based on reasoned discus-sion which came to replace the traditional emphasison sport and athleticism. The main theme of thebook is developed in Chapters IV to VI, where it is
ROMILLY (J. DE) Les grands sophistes dansl'Athenes de Pericles. Paris: de Fallois, I988.Pp. 335. Fr. IOO.
This is a book which needed to be written. It setsout to put right an injustice-to correct whatMoses Finley had called 'a historical untruth'(Politics in the ancient world [1983] 123)-by arguingconvincingly that the widely acknowledged list ofthe triumphs of the Periclean age is incomplete if it
fails to include the sophistic movement. The riseand success of the sophists meant that they came tofunction as the professors of the age of Pericles. Asintellectuals they were responsible for a new kindof secondary education based on reasoned discus-sion which came to replace the traditional emphasison sport and athleticism. The main theme of thebook is developed in Chapters IV to VI, where it is
ROMILLY (J. DE) Les grands sophistes dansl'Athenes de Pericles. Paris: de Fallois, I988.Pp. 335. Fr. IOO.
This is a book which needed to be written. It setsout to put right an injustice-to correct whatMoses Finley had called 'a historical untruth'(Politics in the ancient world [1983] 123)-by arguingconvincingly that the widely acknowledged list ofthe triumphs of the Periclean age is incomplete if it
fails to include the sophistic movement. The riseand success of the sophists meant that they came tofunction as the professors of the age of Pericles. Asintellectuals they were responsible for a new kindof secondary education based on reasoned discus-sion which came to replace the traditional emphasison sport and athleticism. The main theme of thebook is developed in Chapters IV to VI, where it is
2383838
-
8/12/2019 ! Resea - Les grands sophistes dans l'Athenes de Pericles
3/3
NOTICE OF BOOKSOTICE OF BOOKS
argued first that the radical criticism of all previousbeliefs by the sophists had the effect of clearing theboard and sweeping away all previous preconcep-tions, thus establishing la table rase. The dangersthat resulted from this however constituted one
element in a grave crisis for Athens in the lastquarter of the fifth century BC, in that it opened theway for immoralism-the rejection of all morality.This in turn created a need for reconstruction, andthe working out of a new morality-all wasdestroyed to make way for a reconstruction ondifferent bases. This schematized analysis is pres-ented in three successive stages, and it might beobjected that there was surely no period in the fifthcentury when there was actually a tabula rasa inmatters of morality, only confusion anduncertainty. This objection is met rather late in theanalysis however, when we are told (p. 248) that
the analysisis
onlyan artifice of
presentation-there were not two inverse movements in differentdirections-it was the same authors who at one andthe same time were re-creating with one handwhat they were overthrowing with the other.
A valuable feature of the present book is itsemphasis on the positive doctrines of the sophists-these are outlined in detail. Inevitably some of thepoints made are controversial. The figure of Cal-licles is excluded from the main analysis of themovement on the grounds that whether or not hewas an invention of Plato he was not a sophist as hedid not teach. Yet surely in some sense Plato did
regardhim as
typifyingthe movement. Also it is
argued that the sophists, while attacking traditionalreligious beliefs, in fact were re-introducing reli-gion on a new basis, which meant proceedingfrommen in the direction of the gods, rather thanfrom gods in the direction of men. This seems tome certainly well-intentioned as an argument indefence of the sophists, but probably mistaken-the attacks on religion were more profound thanthis would suggest. Again the attitude of thegroup, that is the attitude and esteem of one'sneighbours, it is suggested, was for the sophists thefinal justification of moral behaviour. This prob-ably underrates the importance of the doctrine ofarete as the fulfilment of the function of theindividual. Finally I believe that Protagoras' doc-trine is in some danger of misrepresentation on thebasis of a not uncommon mistranslation ofTheaetet. I67d given on p. 257. For Protagoras thewise man does not replace bad views by otherswhich seem beneficial; he replaces bad views byviews which are beneficial.
But these are details. What is to be welcomedwithout reserve is the beautifully written and clearhistorical perspective which sees the sophists asoffering a radical criticism of all beliefs in the nameof reason, relating all to an understanding of the
function of man, and the resounding final words-without the sophists the other Greeks of the fifthand fourth centuries could not have been what theywere. And no more could we be what we are
G. B. KERFERDManchester
argued first that the radical criticism of all previousbeliefs by the sophists had the effect of clearing theboard and sweeping away all previous preconcep-tions, thus establishing la table rase. The dangersthat resulted from this however constituted one
element in a grave crisis for Athens in the lastquarter of the fifth century BC, in that it opened theway for immoralism-the rejection of all morality.This in turn created a need for reconstruction, andthe working out of a new morality-all wasdestroyed to make way for a reconstruction ondifferent bases. This schematized analysis is pres-ented in three successive stages, and it might beobjected that there was surely no period in the fifthcentury when there was actually a tabula rasa inmatters of morality, only confusion anduncertainty. This objection is met rather late in theanalysis however, when we are told (p. 248) that
the analysisis
onlyan artifice of
presentation-there were not two inverse movements in differentdirections-it was the same authors who at one andthe same time were re-creating with one handwhat they were overthrowing with the other.
A valuable feature of the present book is itsemphasis on the positive doctrines of the sophists-these are outlined in detail. Inevitably some of thepoints made are controversial. The figure of Cal-licles is excluded from the main analysis of themovement on the grounds that whether or not hewas an invention of Plato he was not a sophist as hedid not teach. Yet surely in some sense Plato did
regardhim as
typifyingthe movement. Also it is
argued that the sophists, while attacking traditionalreligious beliefs, in fact were re-introducing reli-gion on a new basis, which meant proceedingfrommen in the direction of the gods, rather thanfrom gods in the direction of men. This seems tome certainly well-intentioned as an argument indefence of the sophists, but probably mistaken-the attacks on religion were more profound thanthis would suggest. Again the attitude of thegroup, that is the attitude and esteem of one'sneighbours, it is suggested, was for the sophists thefinal justification of moral behaviour. This prob-ably underrates the importance of the doctrine ofarete as the fulfilment of the function of theindividual. Finally I believe that Protagoras' doc-trine is in some danger of misrepresentation on thebasis of a not uncommon mistranslation ofTheaetet. I67d given on p. 257. For Protagoras thewise man does not replace bad views by otherswhich seem beneficial; he replaces bad views byviews which are beneficial.
But these are details. What is to be welcomedwithout reserve is the beautifully written and clearhistorical perspective which sees the sophists asoffering a radical criticism of all beliefs in the nameof reason, relating all to an understanding of the
function of man, and the resounding final words-without the sophists the other Greeks of the fifthand fourth centuries could not have been what theywere. And no more could we be what we are
G. B. KERFERDManchester
STONE (I. F.) The trial of Socrates. London:Jonathan Cape, 1988. Pp. xi+282. ?I2.95.
I. F. Stone, a splendid journalist and politicalcommentator, turned back in his old age to Greek,
in which he had taken a one-semester course as ayoung student, and The trial of Socrates has thevirtues one expects to find in a book by a level-headed amateur. The impression made by theSocrates of Plato and Xenophon on a mature mindvirtually innocent of philosophical training butworldly-wise and deeply loyal to democratic prac-tice deserves o be taken seriously, not least becauseStone has a sharp eye for what is absent-notably,compassion-as well as what is present. Inevitablythe book has some of the faults of amateurism oo:excessive respect for LSJ ('the court of final judg-ment') and the OCD; ignorance of one or two
highlyrelevant data
(e.g. Lysiasr.
1.2);some wild
mistakes on peripheral matters (e.g. [p. 236] theeclipse of the moon at Syracuse) and even on somelessperipheral e.g. [pp. 99 f.] confusion of aXpEioswith iSlcoTTis); nd a persistent endency to find itsurprising or sinister f ancient authors do not goout of their way to bring in a mention of peopleand events (e.g. the fate of Melos) which haveassumed mportance n our eyes.
The problem Stone tackles s this: Socrates wascondemned in spite of the fact that the Athens ofhis time attached the highest importance tofreedom of speech and easily tolerated a relaxedand sceptical attitude to theological propositions.Why did the Athenians betray a fundamentalprinciple of their own society? Stone's answer istwofold: that Socrates incurred enmity by hislifelong contempt for democratic government andincurred the death penalty because, determined onmartyrdom (X. Ap. 5-8), he showed his contemptflamboyantly at his trial. To invoke the Atheniantradition of rrapprlalia would have been to accordit a respect which he had never felt for a mob oflittle people uninterested in the metaphysicalknowledge which alone could generate goodgovernment.
I do not think this answer is necessarily wrong asfar as it goes, but it is only a partial answer. Therewere other ingredients in the situation. The reli-gious ingredient deserves pride of place, because itwas after all the substance of the charge, and itwould be unwise to say flatly either that theAthenians were consistently tolerant or that theywere not. Tolerance comes and goes with goodtimes and bad, and the predicament of Athens atthe end of the Peloponnesian War must haveprovoked questions which strike fear into easy-going sceptics and give heart to fanatics: 'What hasgone wrong? Suppose that there really are godswho take offence? Who is to blame?'
The second ingredient is political; Socrates wasdamned by his association with the wrong people,and fifty years later (Aeschines i 173, rightlyemphasized by Stone [p. 178]) his condemnationcould be treated as political. The oath of amnestysworn in 403 could not eradicate from the minds ofthe jurors what they had suffered at the hands ofKritias, nor could it change their assessment of the
STONE (I. F.) The trial of Socrates. London:Jonathan Cape, 1988. Pp. xi+282. ?I2.95.
I. F. Stone, a splendid journalist and politicalcommentator, turned back in his old age to Greek,
in which he had taken a one-semester course as ayoung student, and The trial of Socrates has thevirtues one expects to find in a book by a level-headed amateur. The impression made by theSocrates of Plato and Xenophon on a mature mindvirtually innocent of philosophical training butworldly-wise and deeply loyal to democratic prac-tice deserves o be taken seriously, not least becauseStone has a sharp eye for what is absent-notably,compassion-as well as what is present. Inevitablythe book has some of the faults of amateurism oo:excessive respect for LSJ ('the court of final judg-ment') and the OCD; ignorance of one or two
highlyrelevant data
(e.g. Lysiasr.
1.2);some wild
mistakes on peripheral matters (e.g. [p. 236] theeclipse of the moon at Syracuse) and even on somelessperipheral e.g. [pp. 99 f.] confusion of aXpEioswith iSlcoTTis); nd a persistent endency to find itsurprising or sinister f ancient authors do not goout of their way to bring in a mention of peopleand events (e.g. the fate of Melos) which haveassumed mportance n our eyes.
The problem Stone tackles s this: Socrates wascondemned in spite of the fact that the Athens ofhis time attached the highest importance tofreedom of speech and easily tolerated a relaxedand sceptical attitude to theological propositions.Why did the Athenians betray a fundamentalprinciple of their own society? Stone's answer istwofold: that Socrates incurred enmity by hislifelong contempt for democratic government andincurred the death penalty because, determined onmartyrdom (X. Ap. 5-8), he showed his contemptflamboyantly at his trial. To invoke the Atheniantradition of rrapprlalia would have been to accordit a respect which he had never felt for a mob oflittle people uninterested in the metaphysicalknowledge which alone could generate goodgovernment.
I do not think this answer is necessarily wrong asfar as it goes, but it is only a partial answer. Therewere other ingredients in the situation. The reli-gious ingredient deserves pride of place, because itwas after all the substance of the charge, and itwould be unwise to say flatly either that theAthenians were consistently tolerant or that theywere not. Tolerance comes and goes with goodtimes and bad, and the predicament of Athens atthe end of the Peloponnesian War must haveprovoked questions which strike fear into easy-going sceptics and give heart to fanatics: 'What hasgone wrong? Suppose that there really are godswho take offence? Who is to blame?'
The second ingredient is political; Socrates wasdamned by his association with the wrong people,and fifty years later (Aeschines i 173, rightlyemphasized by Stone [p. 178]) his condemnationcould be treated as political. The oath of amnestysworn in 403 could not eradicate from the minds ofthe jurors what they had suffered at the hands ofKritias, nor could it change their assessment of the
23939