Xenophon
continues: ‘And Theramenes rose and said (Thêramenês
de anastas elegen): “I will mention first (Alla prôton men mnêsthêsomai), gentlemen (ô andres), the last thing Critias said against me (ho teleutaion kat’ emou eipe). He says
that I (phêsi gar me) brought about
the death of the generals by my accusation (tous
stratêgous apokteinai katêgorounta). But it was not I, as you know, who
began the matter by accusing them (egô
de ouk êrchon dêpou kat’ ekeinôn logou); on the contrary, it was they
who accused me, by stating that although that duty was assigned me by them (all’ ekeinoi ephasan prostachthen moi huph’
heautôn), I failed to pick up the unfortunates in the battle of Lesbos (ouk anelesthai tous dustuchountas en tê̢
peri Lesbon naumachia̢). I said in my defence (egô de apologoumenos) that on account of the storm (hôs dia ton cheimôna) it was not
possible even to sail (oude plein),
much less to pick up the men (mê hoti
anaireisthai tous andras dunaton ên), and it was decided by the state that
my plea was a reasonable one (edoxa tê̢
polei eikota legein), while the generals were clearly accusing themselves (ekeinoi d’ heautôn katêgorein ephainonto).
For though they said it was possible to save the men (phaskontes gar hoion te einai sôsai tous andras), they
nevertheless sailed away and left them to perish (proemenoi autous apolesthai apopleontes ô̢chonto). I do not
wonder, however (ou mentoi thaumazô ge),
that Critias has misunderstood the matter (to
Kritian paranenoêkenai); for when these events took place (hote gar tauta ên), it chanced that he
was not here (ou parôn etunchanen);
he was establishing democracy in Thessaly along with Prometheus (all’ en Thettalia̢ meta Promêtheôs
dêmokratian kateskeuaze), and arming the serfs (kai tous penestas hôplizen) against their masters (epi tous despotas). God forbid that any
of the things which he was doing there should come to pass here (hôn men oun houtos ekei epratte mêden
enthade genoito).
“I quite
agree with him, however, on this point (Tade
ge mentoi homologô egô toutô̢), that if anyone is desirous of deposing
you from your office (ei tis humas men
tês archês bouletai pausai) and is making strong those who are plotting
against you (tous d’ epibouleuontas humin
ischurous poiei), it is just (dikaion
einai) for him to incur the severest punishment (tês megistês auton timôrias tunchanein). But I think you can
best judge who it is that is doing this (hostis
mentoi ho tauta prattôn estin oiomai an humas kallista krinein), if you
will consider the course which each of us two has taken and is now taking (ta te pepragmena kai ha nun prattei hekastos
hêmôn ei katanoêsete). Well then (oukoun),
up to the time (mechri men tou) when
you became members of the Senate (humas
katastêsai eis tên bouleian) and magistrates were appointed (kai archas apodeichthênai) and the
notorious informers were brought to trial (kai
tous homologoumenôs sukophantas hupagesthai), all of us held the same
views (pantes t’auta egignôskomen);
but when these Thirty (epei de ge houtoi)
began (êrxanto) to arrest men of worth and standing (andras kalous
te k’agathous sullambanein), then I, on my side, began to hold views
opposed to theirs (ek toutou k’agô
êrxamên t’anantia toutois gignôskein).” (II. iii. 35-38)
***
Brownson
translates here the term kalous te
k’agathous as ‘men of worth and standing’, which is a felicitous
translation, for it encompasses both the notion of a man’s worth, which
Socrates endeavoured to give to the term, and the notion of social standing,
which the aristocrats as a social class appropriated for themselves. Let me
note that at II. iii. 12 and 15 Brownson translated the term as ‘the
aristocrats’, and at II. iii. 19 as ‘good men and true’.
***
Theramens
continued: “For when Leon the Salaminian was put to death, – a man of capacity,
both actually and by repute, – although he was not guilty of single act of
wrong-doing, I knew that those who were like him would be fearful (ê̢dein gar hoti apothnê̢skontos men
Leontos tou Salaminiou, andros kai ontos kai dokountos hikanou einai,
adikountos d’ oude hen, hoi homoioi toutô̢ phobêsointo), and, being
fearful (phoboumenoi de), would be
enemies of this government (enantioi
tê̢de tê̢ politeia̢ esointo).” (II. iii. 39)
***
It is worth
noting that Theramenes points to the death of Leon the Salaminian as the
decisive moment at which he began to oppose the activities of Critias and the
rest of the Thirty. And it is worth remembering that it was at this point that
Socrates disobeyed the Thirty: ‘The Thirty summoned me and four others (hoi triakonta metapempsamenoi me pempton)
to the Round Chamber (eis tên tholon)
and bade us (prosetaxan) to go and
fetch Leon of Salamis from Salamis (agagein
ek Salaminos Leonta ton Salaminion), so that he would be put to death (hina apothanoi) … when we came out of
the Round Chamber (all’ epeidê ek tês
tholou exêlthomen) the other four went to Salamis (hoi men tettares ô̢chonto eis Salamina) and fetched Leon (kai êgagon Leonta), and I went home (egô de ô̢chomên apiôn oikade).’
(Plato, Apology, 32c4-d7) And as
Plato says in the Seventh Letter, it
was the attempt of the Thirty to implicate Socrates in their actions – ‘when
they tried to send him, along with others, after one of the citizens (Sôkratê … epi tina tôn politôn meth’
heterôn epempon), to fetch him by force (bia̢ axonta) so that he might be put to death (hopôs apothanoi, 324e2-3)’ – at which he severed his connections
with the Thirty: ‘I was indignant (eduscherana
te), and I withdrew myself (kai
emauton epanêgagon) from the evil practices then going on’ (apo tôn tote kakôn, 325a4-5).
***
Theramens
continued: “I also knew, when Niceratus, the son of Nicias, was arrested – a
man of wealth who, like his father, had never done anything to curry popular
favour – that those who were like him would become hostile to us.”
***
Niceratus is
mentioned by his father Nicias in Plato’s Laches.
In this little dialogue Plato takes his readers into the world that was lost in
the course of the Peloponnesian wars and in the time of the Thirty became just
a dream that the Thirty were eradicating from people’s minds with every new
killing of another kalos k’agathos,
the world that Plato hoped could be resuscitated after the defeat of the Thirty
and the restoration of democracy (see his Seventh
Letter 325a-b)’
To make sense
of Nicias’ reference to his son in the Laches,
I must digress. In the dialogue two Athenian aristocrats, Lysimachus and
Melesias asked Nicias and Laches, two foremost generals, to advise them about
the best education for their sons (180a). Laches wondered why they didn’t call
upon Socrates, who should be consulted in such matters in the first place (180b-c).
Nicias concurred with Laches in this (180c-d); they therefore turned to
Socrates (180d-e), and a discussion on education unfolded in which they all took
part. Laches said to Nicias at the end of the discussion: ‘As far as the
education of their boys goes, my advice to Lysimachus here and Melesias is to
dispense with you and me (egô
Lusimachô̢ tô̢de sumbouleuô se men kai eme peri tês paideias tôn
neaniskôn chairein ean), but not let our friend Socrates slip away, as I said
from the beginning (Sôkratê de toutoni,
hoper ex archês elegon, mê aphienai). If my sons were old enough (ei de kai emoi en hêlikia̢ êsan hoi paides),
that’s exactly what I would do (t’auta an
taut’ epoioun).’ Nicias replied: ‘On that even I agree with you (tauta men k’agô sunchôrô): if
Socrates is willing (ean ethelê̢
Sôkratês) to take charge of the boys (tôn
neaniskôn epimeleisthai), they shouldn’t look any further (mêdena allon zêtein) – I’d be only too
pleased to entrust Niceratus to him (epei
k’an egô ton Nikêraton toutô̢ hêdista epitrepoimi), if he should be
willing (ei etheloi houtos). But, you
see, every time I mention anything about it, he recommends other people (alla gar allous moi hekastote sunistêsin,
hotan ti autô̢ peri toutou mnêsthô) and isn’t willing to do it himself (autos de ouk ethelei).’ (200c2-d3, tr.
Iaion Lane)
Clearly, Socrates
did not see in Niceratus the potential for benefitting from his art of
philosophic midwifery. In the Theaetetus
he explains: ‘Those who associate with me (hoi
emoi sungignomenoi), at first (to men
prôton) some of them seem (phainontai
enioi men) quite incapable of learning (kai
panu amatheis); but, as our association advances, all those to whom God
grants it (pantes de proïousês tês
sunousias, hoisper an ho theos pareikê̢) make progress to an extraordinary
extent (thaumaston hoson epididontes)
– so it seems not only to them but to everyone else as well (hôs hautois te kai tois allois dokousi,
150d2-6) … But there are some people (eniois
de), Theaetetus (ô Theaitête),
who somehow don’t seem to me to be pregnant (hoi an moi mê doxôsi pôs enkumones einai). Once I know that they
have no need of me (gnous hoti ouden emou
deontai), with the best will I arrange matches for them (panu eumenôs promnômai), and (kai), with God’s help (sun theô̢ eipein), I guess quite
adequately (panu hikanôs topazô) whose
intercourse they’d benefit from (hois an
sungenomenoi onainto). I’ve given away several of them to Prodicus (hôs pollous men dê exedôka Prodikô̢),
and several to other wise and gifted men (pollous
de allois sophois te kai thespesiois andrasi, 151b2-6).’
Niceratus
figures in the introductory section of the Republic.
Socrates and Glaucon, Plato’s brother, were about to return from Piraeus to the
city of Athens, when Polemarchus, the son of Cephalus caught sight of them and
called them to stop: ‘and in a few minutes (Kai
oligô̢ husteron) Polemarchus appeared (ho
te Polemarchos hêke), and with him Adeimantus (kai Adeimantos), Glaucon’s brother (ho tou Glaukônos adelphos), Niceratus the son of Nicias (kai Nikêratos ho tou Nikiou), and
several others (kai alloi tines,
327c1-3, tr. Jowett).’ They all then went to the house of Polemarchus where the
discussion took place, which forms the Republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment