havelock, eric alfred_the evidence for the teaching of socrates_tapha, 65_1934_282-295

8/9/2019 Havelock, Eric Alfred_The Evidence for the Teaching of Socrates_TAPhA, 65_1934_282-295

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/havelock-eric-alfredthe-evidence-for-the-teaching-of-socratestapha-651934282-295 1/15

The Johns Hopkins University Press and American Philological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association.

http://www.jstor.org

merican Philological ssociation

The Evidence for the Teaching of SocratesAuthor(s): Eric Alfred HavelockSource: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 65 (1934), pp.

282-295Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283034Accessed: 02-03-2015 22:30 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://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 contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:30:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/283034

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/283034

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/



282

Eric

Alfred

Havelock

[1934

XVII.-

The Evidence or the Teaching

fSocrates

ERIC

ALFRED HAVELOCK

VICTORIA COLLEGE

Dramatized

onversation

as a traditionalmethod frendering

bstract

ideas,

as examples

from

he

poets

and historians how.

Hence the

So-

cratic

Logoi,

whether

f Xenophon or Plato,

owe theirform o literary

reasons, nd not to a desireto representhehistoric ocrates. It is only

modern

prejudice nd literary

ashion

whichprevents he

fact frombeing

appreciated.

If

these

ogoi

are

eliminated

s primary

vidence,we are leftwith

the

Apology

nd Clouds,

which

are

likelyto be historical n

a sense in

which

none

of

the other

material s.

These two

sources

yield a simple nd con-

sistent et

of

deas

which

an

safely

be

labelled

Socratic.

The

major material

for

reconstructing

he life

nd teachings

of Socrates is suppliedby thedialoguesofPlato and some of

the

writings

f

Xenopholn,

upplemented

y a

play

of

Ar'sto-

phanes

and someremarks

f Aristotle.

But there

s today no

agreed

methodby

which

his material

an

be

appraised,

nd

in

consequenice

he problem

of

who

was

the historic

ocrates has

been

reduced

to

lhopeless

conifusioni.

he

old

orthodoxy

relied

mainly

on Xenophon.

The heterodoxy

f the

Burnet-

Taylor theoryutilisedthe whole of the Clotuds lus Plato's

early

and

middle

dialogues.

Average opinion

now

hovers

uneasily

between

hese two

extreimes.

Socrates

s

represented

today

as

either

scientist,

r a

imioralist,

r

a

metaphysician,

or a

mystic,

r as

a combination

of

some

of

these,

according

to

the

personal preferences

f his

iinterpreter.

The confusion

('an be illustrated

by

comnparing

wo

recent

works on

the

subject,

A. E.

Taylor's

Socrates nd

A.

K.

Rogers'

The

Socratic

Problem:

the

former

epresents

ocrates as

a scientist

nd

a

metaphysician;

he

latterregards

he

science

and

metaphysics

as

Platonic,

and

represents

ocrates

only

as a

moralistand

mystic.

This

is

not

to

say

that the

two

interpretations

o

not

overlap.

But their

difference

n

emphasis

s

obvious.

The reason

forthis confusion

s

that

there

s at

present

no







Vol.

lxv]

The Evidence

or

the

Teaching f

Socrates

283

accepted

criterionby

which the

aVailable evidence

can be

evaluated. The orthodoxpreference or Xenophon did at

least

provide

uch a criterion.

No one

today

is

probablyquite

satisfied

with it. But

nothing

has taken its

place.

Every

interpreter

s

left

free

to

pick

out

of

the

available

material

what

he thinks s suitable to his own

conception,

nd the

por-

traits

of Socrates

which result are not

history

but

subjective

creations.

The chief bstaclein theway ofestablishing sound criter-

ion of

evidence

s the modern

llusion

that because Plato and

Xenophon chose

to

represent

ocrates as a

central

figure

n

dramatized

conversations,

hey

were

inspiredby

a

desire

to

reconstruct he

master's

personality.

Their

method

of

writing

philosophy

s not

the

normal

method

today.

We

therefore

assume

that

they

had some ulteriormotive in so

writing,

beyondthemerepresentation f theirown ideas. But this s

not so.

The

dialogue

form

was

chosen

for

raditional

easons.

Acteddrama,

or dramatized

onversations,

was the

traditional

Greek methodof

discussing

nd

analysing

moral

deas.

This

instinct

to

dramatize,

and hence to

subordinate the

writer's

wn

personality,

an

be traced

from

Homer

onwards,

whose

reflections

n

right

nd

wrong

and human

destiny

re

spokenthroughhis characters. Even Hesiod's Theogonys in

effect

dialogue

between himself

nd

the

Muses,

the

Muses

supplying

ll

the doctrine.

In

the Works

nd

Days, it is

true,

he

descends to personal

exhortation, ut

a vestigeof

the dra-

matic

instinct

persists;he

carrieson

his

conversationwith his

brother.

Epicharmus,

if

our

evidence

is

to be

trusted,was

among

the earliest

to

undertake analytical

discussion of

abstractmoralproblems. His mediumwas the comic stage,

and

the

audience that listened to these

discussions

filled he

theatre

t Syracuse. It is

hard to decide

whether e

was more

of

a

dramatist or a philosopher. His

successor

Sophron of

Syracuse may

or may not

have been a

moralphilosopher, ut

he was

at least responsible

for one

thing: he

developed the

dialogue

form

orpurposes ofreading, s

distinct rom

cting,







284

Eric Alfred

Havelock

[1934

thus perfecting

n instrument

or he

use

of philosophic

writers

ofthe fourth entury. It is no accidentthat Plato is reported

to have been

very

fond

of Epicharmus'

plays,

since

he adopted

the technique

of the

Sicilianmime

n constructing

is Socratic

conversations.'

It was

always

moral ideas,

concerning

he destinyand

be-

haviour

of

man,

which

found heir

mostappropriate

xpression

in such

dramatization.

This, I

would

suggest,

s one of the

main reasonsforthe preeminence f dialectic in Greek phi-

losophy,

not least in the pages

of

Plato,

who

converts t from

a

mere

iterary

echnique

nto a

philosophical

method.

If the

stage

was

the earliest

vehicle

of what

could

be called

moral

discussion,

t would be

natural

to

develop

such discussion

by

depicting

haracters

withantithetical pinions,

whose

repartee

would

amuse

an

audience,

and

might

ncidentally

evelop

a

point of view.2 As the interest n ideas increased,the dra-

matic

purpose

was

gradually

forgotten.

On the

other

hand,

the

speculation

oncerning

hysical

nature,

non-humanist

nd

non-moral,

which became

traditional

veryearly

in

Ionia,

did

not

develop

out of

a

dramatic

form,

imply

because

its

subject

matter

had

nothing

o do with

human character.

The

two

different

raditions

unite

in

Zeno,

who

applied

the

dialogue

technique

o discussion f

purely

physical

problems, nd hence

produced

a

purely

undramatic

dialectic.3

Plato,

turning

his

back,

at least

in the

early part

of his

career,

n

the

philosophy

of

nature,

nd

concentrating

nce

more,

with a new

precision,

on the

problems

f

man,

reverted

o the

drama.

The

dialogue

form,

lhen,

s not

inspired

by any

desire

to

1

Aristotle, Poet.

1447b,

2. Burnet,

Phaedo (Oxford,

Clarendon,

1911)

intro-

duction,

xxxi,

and

Taylor,

Varia

Socratica

(Oxford,

Parker,

1911),

55

assume

that

the

mime

was

realistic.

Aristotle

cites

it

as

an

example

of the

exact

opposite:

cf.

Ross'

edition

of

the

Metaphysics

(Oxford,

Clarendon,

1924)

i,

introduction,

xxxvii.

2

Cf.

Epicharmus,

frags.

1

f.

(Diels,

Fragmente

der

Vorsokratiker4

Berlin,

Weidmann,

1922)

i, 13b,

1

f.).

3

Cf.

Diog.

L. viii,

57,

ApLuToTriX7s

6'

e'P

Tr,

0o04Urjj

4Oil' 7wp

TOP

'E7rew3KXEt

pr7TOpLK77P

e

pe?V,

Z7'rwpa Ue

3LaXEKTLK7'P

(Aristotle,

frag.

65 Ross):

see

also

Plato,

Parmenides

135d.







Vol.

lxv]

The Evidence

or

the

Teaching f

Socrates

285

portray character.

It was

a

standard

literary

method

of

expressingmoralphilosophy. It is truethat actual historical

figures

f

the fifth

entury

are

portrayed

n the

dialogues.

But

hereagain we

do

not make

enough

allowance for

Greek

tradition n these matters.

Every

time

a

Greek

went to

a

play, he

saw

represented

not

some

fictitious

haracter,

the

creation

of the

artist,

but

a

thoroughly

amiliar

one,

known

to

him

from he legendsof

childhood.

Yet the

dramatist

was

expectedto adapt this given character to his own purposes.

He

was

expected

to

work

up

particular

oncrete

ituations

n

hisown

way,

and

allow his

puppets to

converse

n

what manner

suited

him.

In this

way,

Epicharmus

may

have made

Odys-

seus

the

mouthpiece

for some

amateur

philosophizing;

Euripides

certainly

did not

set the

fashion in

this regard.

Such

characters, t

is

true, were

mythical,

nd

therefore

more

easily treatedas types. But the historians ive us historical

figures

reated n

the

same

way.

Herodotus,

for

xample,

ells

a

tale of

Cyrus

and

Croesus,5which

may

have been

suggested

to him by

something e

heard, but

whichhe at

any

rate

works

up

into a

situation where he is

enabled

to

give dramatic

expression

o

a

few

entiments

oncerning

uman

destiny. So

wTehave

Croesus on his

pyre,

carrying n

what

amountsto a

conversation, espitethe painfulcircumstances,withthe

vic-

torious

Cyrus.

This

conversation s

in turn

the

report

of

another

conversation, his

time

between

Croesus and

Solon,

which

had

happened

long

ago.

This is

almost

n the

Platonic

manner. The

classic

example of

this

dialectical

use of

his-

torical

material s

of

course

theMelian

dialogue.6

Thucydides

may have had leanings towards scientifichistory,but the

Greek

nstinct

was

too much

for

him.

He

selects a

particular

situation

in

Athenian

history as

a

suitable setting

for

the

dramatic

presentation

of

the

eternal

human

problem,might

mersus

right. It is

inconceivablethat

such

a

discussion

was

4

Diels,

op.

cit.

(see

note

2)

13b, 4: cf.

Croiset, Hist.

Litt.

Gr.

Im,

471.

6

Hdt.

I, 86.

6

Thuc.

v,

85.







286

Eric

AlfredHavelock

[1934

held

in

the circumstances;

t is thus

that the

historian

hooses

to recordhis own reflections. For that matter,does anyone

believe

that

the

funeral peech

is

any

safe

guideto the

senti-

ments,

et alone the

style,of

Pericles?

Y

et Pericles

was

as

near to the

readers

of Thucvdides

as

Socrates

was to

the

readers

of

Plato, and

probably

a good

deal

nearer.

The

case of Pericles

n this

nstance

llustrates

nother

fact.

Reverence

for a

great

historic

figure

now

dead

was

no

guar-

anteethat a latergenerationwouldtake any trouble o report

him accurately.

The

reversewas

rather

he truth.

Socrates

was

very

quickly

exalted

into the

position

of

a sort

of saint.

It was

this

very

exaltation

which

in

the eyes

of the next

generation

depersonalised

him.

He

changedfrom

a human

being

nto the champion

of

a cause,

and as such ent himself

o

just

that

sort of dramatic

treatment

which the Greeks

ac-

cordedtheirheroes-a treatment he reverse of historical n

our

sense

of

the

word.

I conclude

hatthe

Socratic

Conversations were

literary

medium

used

to express

he ideas

of

the

writer,

ot of his char-

acters,

nd that

any

rea(ler

of such

conversations

n the classi-

cal

perio(l

would

not

expect

otherwise.

I have by

implication

classedl

Xenophon

with Plato

in this discussion.

I do

this

because his Memoirs are really disguised conversations.

The

narrative

n(ddescriptive

material

n them bears

a

small

proportion

o the

whole

and

in

some

important

respects

is

obviously

vitiated

by

his

apologetic purpose.8

One

may

suspect

that

only

controversy

ould at

this date

have

impelled

any

Greek

to

attempt

deliberate

biography.

If,however,we are to assumethat one ofPlato's purposes

in

writing

uch dialogues

as

the

Charmides, y?nposium,

r

7

Many

of

the

abstract

ideas,

as well

as

their antithetical

arrangement,

appear

unadorned

by genius

in the

briT0atos

of

Gorgias

(Diels.

op.

cit.

76b,

6).

The

shorter

speech

inserted

fourteen chapters

later

(Thuc.

ii,

60-64)

is

much

more

convincing

as a specimen

of

what

Pericles'

style

may

have

been.

8

E.g.

the divine

sign

wherever

mentioned

is

credited

with

positive

powers,

in

flat

contradiction

of

the

Apology:

Mem.

i,

1, 2-9;

iv, 3,

12

f.,

8,

5

f.:

Apology

31c-d,

40a-b.







Vol.

lxv]

The Evidence

or

the

Teaching f

Socrates

287

Phaedo was

to recall a historic

ituation,

we are

compelled

to

convert him from a philosopher nto an antiquarian, who

carefullyreconstructed

he

manners

and

opinions

of

an

age

which Burnet argues

was dead

by

the time he

wrote.9 I

totally

disbelieve this

judgment;

in

my opinlionl

the

contro-

versies

which

are argued

n

Plato's

pages

are

the

controversies

of his

own

day,

dramatized

through

he mouthsof men mostlv

dead

who had initiated

hese

controversies,

nd had become

as

it were the canonized representatives f philosophicalten-

dencies.

Arguing

rom he

contrary

ssumption,

he

Burnet-

Taylor theory

presents

to us

a

Socrates

who

is

not

only

a

cosmologist

nd

a

mathematician,

but

a

metaphysician, he

author

of

the

theory

of Ideas. To

arrive

at

this

conclusion,

the authors

of

it have to

involve themselves n

a

maze of

special

pleading,1

and fly

n

the face ofsome

express

estimony

of Aristotle's.1 (It seems unthinkable, argues Burnet in

discussing

the

Phaedo,

that Plato

should

have

invented

a

purely

fictitious ccount

of his

revered master's

intellectual

development,

nd inserted

t in

an

account

of

his last

hours on

earth.

12

This

only

means

that

such

a method s

unthinkable

to Mr. Burnet.

Rogers,

again,

assumes

for

his own

purposes

that what Socrates says in the Symposium s a record ofhis

own

opinions.

For

otherwise

Plato

shifts to

an

intentional

and

thorough-going

alsification

hen

he

introduces he

hero of

the

dialogue.

Such

a

procedure

must have

confusedhis

con-

temporaries s

much

as

it

confuses the

modern

reader.

13

9

Burnet,op. cit.

(see

note

1),

introduction,

xxiv-xxxvi,nd

article Soc-

rates in

Hastings,

Enc.

Rel.

and

Eth.xi.

10

Burnet,

for

example,

introd.to

Phaedo)

dismisses

he

references

o

the

Clouds in the Apology s persiflage ;

Taylor

(Var.

Soc.

158)

renders

. .

Ka

&XXv

7roXAX7v

vaplav

cOvapouvJTa,

W'V

EycW

v6ev

oTre

,ttiya

oTre /tKpJv

7rEpt

eiraltw

Apol.

19c)

as

I can

make

neitherhead

nor

tail of

this

nonsense, when

the

plain sense

s

I am

innocent

f all

knowledge

f

these

matters.

It

Met. A.

987b, 1, M.

1078b,

28

and

1086b,

2:

cf.

the

discussion fthese

n

Ross. op.

cit.

see

note

1)

introduction,

nd

in

Field,

Socrates

nd

Plato

(Oxford,

Parker,

1913).

12

Op. cit. in

note

9),

668.

13

The

Socratic

roblem

New

Haven,

Yale Press,

1933),

8.







288 Eric

AlfredHavelock

[1934

The use

of

falsification

begs

the

whole

question,

as though

the choicebefore Greekwriterweredeliberateand faithful

reporting

ersus

eliberate

ying.14

We

have

to remember

hat

classic

Greek literature

was

characterised

by

an entire

absence

of what

we would

call

fiction,

hat is, drama

or

narrative

built

around

purely

magi-

nary

characters.

This

absence

of

pure

fiction

guaranteed

thathistorical

haracters

would

be treated

n

a fictional

man-

ner,or what we would call such,and that thiswouldhappen

without

any

problem

of

historic

honesty

or

dishonesty

eing

raised thereby.

It was

the

Alexandrians,

nfluenced

y

the

disciples

of Aristotle,

he

compilers

of

the

firsthistories

of

philosophy

nd

science,

that

first

became

interested

n

biog-

raphy.

The facts

so

called

that they

began

to

collect

were

really

nferences

which they

painstakingly

rew

from ources

which werenot written n a biographical pirit t all. They

do

not seem

to

have

been

muchmorecapable

of appreciating

this

than

we

are,

and

a

mass of

apocryphal

anecdote

is

the

result.15

Correspondingly

t was

in the

same

period

that

the

purely

fictional

romance

with invented

characters

made

its

appearance.

Factual

biography

and fictional

narrative

be-

came,

as it

were,separated

off rom

ach

other.

The

worldof ettershas eversinceset a value on the actual

record

of a

man's

personal

ife.

Today

it sets

a higher

value

than

ever.

A

large

part

of modern iterature

s directly

or

indirectly

iographical.

In

a

spirit

nd

temper

uite

alien

to

that

of classic

Greece

we

seek

to know

the historic

Socrates

in relation

o

his environment,

o understand

his

psychological

development, o discoverthe influenceswhichproducedhim.

The

result

s such

a

life

ofSocrates

as A.

E.

Taylor's,

in

which

14

Cf.

similar

reasoning

by

Field,

who says,

op.

cit. (see

note

11)

4,

concerning

the

Memorabilia:

There

are

only

three

alternatives:

either

it is

substantially

true,

or

else

Xenophon

is

deliberately

lying,

or

else

he is

very

ignorant.

15

The

stories

for

example

about

Anytus'

son

(based

on

the

Meno)

and

Xanthippe

(inferences

from

the

Phaedo,

aided

by imagination)

and

perhaps

the

assertion

that

Socrates

was

a

disciple

of, .e.

had

heard

Archelaus

(an

inference

from

Phaedo

97b?).







Vol.

lxv]

The

Evidence

or

the

Teaching

f

Socrates

289

a hundred

nd

thirty ages are devoted

to the

life,

nd

forty-

four to the thoughtof the philosopher. This proportion s

the

exact reverse

of the one observed

by

the

disciples

of

Socrates.

To

amass

enough

biographical

material to

fill

the

record,

desperate

use

has to be

made

of what authorities

we

have.

Plato was

not interested n

men,

but in

ideas. He

con-

structs

dramatic situations which

will allow him

to

expose

through he mediumof a conversation omeabstractproblem.

He

projects this

conversation nto the

past, often

aking

care

to underline he

fact,

as for

example

in the

introductions o

the

Symposium

nd Phaedo.16

This

projection

has

the

same

effect

s

that

achieved

by

the

tragic

dramatist who

used a

conventionalized haracterdrawn from

mythology:

t

enabled

Plato to

subordinate

character to ideas,

expressing

his ideas

through he mouths ofhistoricfigureswho werejust remote

enough

to avoid

intruding

s a

distraction

n his

educative

mime. By

way

of

contrast, one may

compare the

modern

attitude

s

it

is

illustrated

y

the

technique

of

Lytton

Strachey,

the writerwho

perhaps has

developed

the art of

biography o

its logical

conclusion. He

deliberately

exposes the

private

life

and inner

emotionsof

his

subject,

ratherthan the

public

career whicheveryoneknows. He is interested, orexample,

to

let us

see

Queen Victoria

ess as

a queen and

moreas

a lover

of her

husband,

or

Florence

Nightingale

ess as

the lady with

the

lamp

than as

an

imperious

nvalid on a

couch,

ordering

Arthur

Hugh

Clough to

tie up

brown

paper parcels

for her.

If

we are in

sympathywith

the

modern

mood,

we applaud the

method

because we

feel

that it is

in the minute

revelationof

individualcharacter hattruth

nd meaning s to

be

found. I

cannot

imagine

an

attitudemore

alien

to that

ofGreece, as

long as

the

city

state stillretained

ignificance;

nd Plato is a

child

of

the

citystate,

remote n

spirit

rom hat

individualism

16

Symp.

172c,

iravrabraotv

EOCKE

aoL

OV&ev

&t77yEZoOaL

oaac/s

6

&t77yov'yevos,

EL

veco-rc -)y

r')v

o-vvovoLav

-ye-yovevaL

aVr77v

7'V

CpWr,as,

WorTEKaL

e

lrapa-yEv4aoaL:

Phaedo

57a

.

.

.

ovre rcs

tfvos

4c/LKTaL xp6vov

avXvoV

&KELOEV O6ars

av

7'7yzv

vaa/es

Tt

a-y-yeLXaL

o0tos 'v

7rept

o6rwv.







290

Eric Alfred

Haveloclc

[1934

which ater

became

dominant

anid

rendered

he

biograpllical

pointofview in literature opular.

One is

at liberty o

imagine

Plato

givingus

a

coniversationi

between

Queen Victoria

andl

Thomas

Huxley,

on the

suitable

subject

of

What

is piety?

The queen

aiid

the

scienitist

ileet

in the grounds

ofWindsor

Castle.

The

queen's interest

is

inl he state religioni

ndl

ts inaintenance

ini

he established

clhurch. The

scientist rgues

that

all

ethical

anid

mloral

oln-

cepts require scientific asis. The clash of thesetwopoints

of

view

allows

Plato to add

a few

light

touchesof

character

drawing.

After

protracted

rgumenit

luxley

retires

eavino

the

queen

sadder

but

a littlewiser.

I do not think

myself

hatwe can

say

that the

conversations

of Socrates

with the sophists

had any

more

basis in

historical

fact,

but

one

may

imagine

a

Burnet of

many

centuries

ater,

as he studied the literary emainsofour vanishedcivilization,

arguing

with

great

effect

hat of course

the

conversation

s

historical:

Victoria

must have

met Huxley.

His post

as

in-

spector

of

salmon

fisheries,

royal

appointment,

would render

such a meeting almost

inevitable.

If confirmationwere

wanted,

one could

see

it in the altered

policy

of the state

to-

wards

the dissenting

denominations

owards

the close

of

the

cenitury, hich reflects he impression hat this conversation

had

made.

Socrates

theni

would

remain

anl important

but

well

nigl

uiiknownquantity

in the

history

f

philosophy,

but for two

facts.

Plato

besides

his

dialogues

wrote

a

speech.

And

a

comic

dramatist

chose to

pillory

Socrates

in a

play

nearly

thirty

y-ears efore

his

death.

My

thesis

is

that

these

two

works,

an(d

these

alone,

if

rightly

used, provide

us with a

criterion

for

distinguishing

he

teaching

of Socrates.

Aris-

totle adds

a

little,

which reinforces

onclusionsdrawn

from

the

speech

and

the

play,

but

is

in itself

nadequate.

The Apology

s

the

only

work

of Plato's

which

n form s

not

a

conversation.

I take this

one

departure

from

literary

practice

to be (leliberate.

It

indicates

that

for

once he

is







Vol.

lxv]

The

Evidence

or

the

Teaching f

Socrates

291

interested

in

something

other

than

an abstract

problem.

Furthermore, he ApologypresentsSocrates in a situation

which

was

part

of his

public

career,

not

of

his

private

ife.

It

was indeed the only situation of all those in the

dialogues

whicha reader

twentyyears

after

would

instinctively

hink

of

as

historical.

Thirdly,

t

is

only

in the

Apology

that

Plato

refers

o his

own

presence t

the scene

portrayed,

nd

he does

so twice. 7

He

specifically

eliminates

himself from

the

Phaedo,'8which was perhapsthe one otherdialoguewhicha

contemporary

eader

might

have

been

tempted

to

regard

as

in any

sense

historical.

I therefore ake

the

Apology

to

be

Plato's

one

deliberate

attempt

to

reconstruct

ocrates for

his

own

sake, and am

willing

enough

to

believe

that the

motive

behind

the

attempt

was

to

refute ther

pamphlets

n

the same

subject.

This

is

not to

say

that

it

is

reporting.

On

the

con-

trary, t is veryunlikelyto be. I would be prepared to go

further or

example

than

Hackforth,

who

in

his

Composition

of

Plato's

Apology

ttempts o

distinguish

etween he

forensic

portions

actually

delivered to the

jury

and

those

added

by

Plato.

In

order

o

value

the

Apology s

a

historical

ocument,

it is

not

necessaryto

assume that

Socrates

spoke

any

of

it.

Such

reporting

mplies

a

more

violent

departure

from

Plato's

normalpracticethan I thinkhe would have been capable of.

I

take

the

speech

to

be

rather

conscious

attempton

his

part

to sum

up

the

significance f his

master's

teaching,

utilizing

for hat

purpose

a

dramatic

ituationwhich

was

historical,

nd

which

everyoneknew to

be so.

A.

E.

Taylor

rightly

ointed

out, in

his

Varia

Socratica,

he

unique

importance f

the

Clouds

as

evidence

for

the

teaching

of Socrates. It is the onlycontemporary

vidence

we

have,

and

is

contributed

by a

non-philosopher.

Unfortunately,

Taylor

tended

to

discreditthe

evidencehe

had

rediscovered

by

his

extravagant

use of it.

Obsessed

with

the

idea that

fifth-century

reeks

were

nterested n

the

objective

portrayal

17

34a,

38b.

18

59b.







292

Eric AlfredHavelock

[1934

of

individual

character,

he takes

practically

verything

n the

Cloudsto be a reminiscence fthe historic ocrates,and does

this

with the

less

excuse

because in

this case

his

authority,

while

not a philosopher,

s a comic

dramatist,

withan axe

of

his own

to grind.

A dramatist's

irst

urpose

s to amuse;

his

secondmay possibly

be to instruct

r preach

a

moral,

his

third

and last,

if

he

has it at

all,

is to

render

historical icture.

I

take

it

that

Aristophanes

hose

Socrates primarily

ecause

he

was amusing. He seemsto declarethe facthimself,whenthe

chorus,

ddressing

ocrates

forthe

first ime at

line

359,

says

0

high

priest

of

ingenious

nonsense,

declare

to us

thy

need.

For there

is none

other

of

the

highfalutin

rofessors

f

the

present

day

that

we

would

rather

isten

to,

except

Prodicus.

We would

listen

to him

because

of his wisdom

and doctrine,

but to

you,

because

you

strut

along

the streets

hooting

ide-

long glances, going barefoot,puttingup with all kinds of

trouble,

nd

maintaining

stern

front nder

ourprotection.

The play then

used

Socrates

because

he was

an eccentric

with

eccentric

habits.19

Now, part

of

a

man's

eccentricity

consists

n the phrases

he

uses,

the

argon

n which

he expresses

his ideas,

and

to

some

extent

the ideas

themselves,

f he

has

any,

though

dramatist

s an

unsafe

guide

to what

his

victim's

ideas

may

be,

as he will selectonlywhat is superficial. It is

reasonable

o

suppose

that the Clouds,

n addition

o

parodying

the

personal

habits

of

Socrates,

would

contain

a

large

amount

of his

phraseology,

which,

f

recovered,

would

be

a

valuable

guide

to

his

ideas and

methods.

But

the

play

itself

provides

no

criterion

y

means

of

which

we

can

separate

t

out.

But

this

difficulty

isappears

f we

regard

he content

f

the

Apology

s

in some

sense

a formal

definition

f what Socrates

taught

and

believed,

nd

supplement

his

outline

by

anything

in the

Clouds

which

s

not contradicted

n the

Apology.

Prob-

ably

thebiggest

ingle

mistake

made

by

Burnet

and

Taylor

was

to

ignore

he

contradictions

hat

there

re.

I am

thinking

f

19

Cf.

Apol.

34b,

aXX'

OW'v

bebo'Y/ELvop

y4

eaTrL

Tp

2wKpa?r1

bLa'epEt

rLvTW

rv

7roXXWCP&

avOpwc7rwY.







Vol.

lxv]

The Evidence

or

the

Teaching f

Socrates

293

two

statements n theApology

n

particular;

irst,

hat

Socrates

was utterly gnorantof the so called science of his day, and

second, that

he

never

taught

a

formal

body

of

doctrine

t

all,

let

alone an esotericdoctrine.20 These two

statements, nless

the

Apologydistorts

he

historic

acts,destroy

he

portrait

f

Socrates the scientist,

he

Orphic teacher,

the

metaphysician,

which has

been

laboriously

onstructed

uring

he

last

thirty

years. But

if

the

Apology

s

a

distortion,

hen

surely

the

dialogue material on which the biographicallyminded are

driven

to

rely

s

scarcely

ikely

to

be

less so. We

would

then

be left

with

no evidence at all.

The

essence, then,

of what

Socrates believed and

taughtis

containedwithin he

limits

of

the

Apology;

his

can

be

supple-

mentedby a good

deal

of

Socratic anguage

and method

from

the Clouds.

What

Aristotle

has

to

say merely onfirms

his

evidence in two

particulars.2 Having

thus constructed

a

definitepicture

of

what Socrates' ideas

were, and also what

they

were not, we are

able

to

take the

dialogues of Plato and

disentangle

from

hemthe

Socratic ideas which

in part

they

use.

This

criterion nables

us to

define he

field

of

Socraticism

fairlyprecisely. I can only indicate the resultssummarily.

Certain

negative

conclusions seem

definite:

he science and

atheism

of

the

Clouds is

eliminated. So also

are the

formal

theories

of

psychology

nd

politics,

the doctrines

of

immor-

tality,

and the technical use

of

the

Forms

which

occur

in

the

early

and middle dialogues

of

Plato. But

the positive out-

lines

of Socrates' thought emerge equally

definitely: urnet

made a greatcontributiono the history fphilosophywhen

he defined ocrates'

central dea as the

notion of the rational

soul

and its

supreme

mportance.22 To thiswe can add, as

20

Apol.

19

c-d,

26 d,

33

b.

21

See

note

11.

22

The

Socratic

Conception

of

the

Soul,

in

the Proceedings

of

the

British

Academy

VIII,

235-260,

and article Soul

(Greek)

in

Hastings,

Enc.

Rel.

and

Eth. xi,

741.







294

Eric

Alfred

Havelock

[1934

part of

the

same

idea,

the

doctrine

that

the

attainment

of

knowledge fthe self, .e. ofselfconsciousness,s the supreme

and

only

duty

of

man,a

duty

to

be achieved

bv

introspection.

The

Socratic

method

of

doingthis

was

to examine

propositions

-what

we would

class

as

moral

propositions-which

to

Socrates

were thoughts,

he

products

of

soul,but

could

vary

in quality

according

o

the

goodness

r

badness

of

oul,

and

had

to be

improved

o

that

therewith

he

soul

was

improved.

The

methodof improvement,gain,was to ask, What does this

proposition

mean? , and

in supplying

the

answer

to

trace

deductively

series

of

conclusions

which

were

then

compared

with

otherconclusions

drawn

from

nductive

llustrations,

r,

as

we

might

ay,

from

ommon

sense

or at least

common

ex-

perience.

If the

two sets

of

conclusions

idnotfit,

he original

proposition ad

to

be

improved

o that

they

would.

In

order

to

have

a

standard

basis

of

comparison,

ocrates

also

assumed

that everything

ad to stand

the

testofbeing good,

without

distinguishing

etween

the morallygood

and

the

useful

and

pleasant.

That

is,

he could

be

interpreted

s setting

up

a

single

standard

of value

as the

soul's

equipment

in passing

judgment

n

any

situation

or on

any

statemeint.

This simple

and consistent ittle systemof ideas--thoughit should not

really

be called

a

system

at

all-ha(d

two by-products:

he

liscovered

that the

proper

functioii

f the

soull

is

to

think,23

and

that the

objective

of exact thought

s

the

elaborationi

f

essential

definitions.

Such

is the contribution

f

Socraticism

to

philosophy:

very

element

n this summary

ppears

in

the

Apology,

and

is

backed

up

and sometimes explained

more

23

I.e.

supreme

virtue

consists

in

the

actual

exercise of mental powers for

their

own

sake

to

the

limit:

cf.

in

particular

Apol.

29e

and

38a

and

the use

of

cpovsL?etV

passim

in

the

Clouds.

This

is not

the

same thing

as

Virtue

is

knowledge,

i.e.

an

exact

science.

It was

Plato

himself

who

in the

early

dialogues

set

about

trying

to

produce

this

formula.

The

implications

achieved

in

the

Protagoras

became accepted

by

Aristotle and

later

authorities

as

Socratic,

and

thus

the

famous

paradox

became

traditional

as

Socratic

doctrine;

cf.

Arist.

Eth.

N.

1116b,

4,

1145b,

23,

Eth.

E.

1216b,

6, 1230a,

4,

1246b, 33;

(Arist.)

Ma.

Mor.

i,

1,

5-7;

Diog.

L.

iI,

31.







Vol. lxv] The Evidence or

the

Teaching f

Socrates 295

preciselyby corresponding

xpressions

n

the Clouds.24

One

may add two moreelements, rom heApology lone: an un-

questionedassumption

hat the

good

was

also the will of

God,

and that therefore ts

pursuit through introspection nd

definition

was also

a moral

mperative:

nd

a

hope,

but

not

a

conviction,

hat soul

persistedbeyond death,

still

exercising

its properfunction

f

thinking,

nd

preoccupied

with

ts

own

self-consciousness.

As can be readily een,Platonismconsistedmainly nwork-

ingouit he implications

f

these deas in the fields

f

psychol-

ogy, politics, epistemology,

nd, finally, osmology. But

in

so

doing

Plato

transcendedSocraticism,

which

in the

last

resortwas only a method,

and produced a set

of

positive re-

sults.

Nevertheless,

he

harvestgleaned by Socrates was not

a

meagre one,

if t is

judged in its historic

etting. European

thoughthas acceptedwhat he gave it so readily and without

question that it has grownunconscious of the gift,which is

perhaps why modernhistorical criticismhas sought to put

into his

mouth a set of

doctrineswhich may seem more ela-

borate,

n

keepingwith

the

intellectual laboration

of

our

day,

but are

scarcelymore

mDosing.

24

For soul cf. ines

94, 329,

415,

420, and also Birds

1553 ff.:

elf-knowledge,

242, 385, 695,

842:

the

proposition, 89,

757:

?rTIfsq,

728,

737, 768: &wopia,

703, 743:

bra-ywy'y,

427:

essential

definition,94, 250,

479, 742,

886.

havelock, eric alfred_the evidence for the teaching of socrates_tapha, 65_1934_282-295

Documents