In ‘The dating of the Cratylus’ I wrote with a reference to
the Euthyphro: ‘Socrates’ emphasis on his accuser’s youth deserves
attention. The question is, how such a young man could take it to his head to
accuse Socrates of impiety?
There are good reasons to believe that behind Meletus’
indictment of Socrates stood Anytus, a leading Athenian politician, whose
pomposity and ignorance Socrates subjected to his irony, as Plato recorded it
in the Meno, some 4 years prior to Meletus’ indictment of Socrates. See
‘Enters Anytus’, posted on my blog on September 22, 2020’
After posting ‘The dating of the Cratylus’ it occurred to me
to look into Diogenes Laertius, whether in his Lives of Eminent Philosophers,
in his ‘Life of Socrates’, to be more precise, there is any reference to
Anytus. I was rewarded for my curiosity; he comes to prominence in II. 38.
In the preceding paragraphs Diogenes gives examples of
Socrates’ wisdom, which he ends, at the end of II. 37, with a testimony
concerning it, which the Pythian priestess gave to Chaerephon: ‘Of all men
living Socrates most wise’ (a0ndrw~n a9pa/ntwn Swkra/thj sofw&tatoj). Then comes II. 38:
‘For this he was most envied (a0f’ ou] dh\ kai\
e0fqonh/qh ma/lista);
and especially because (kai\ dh\ kai\ o3ti) he would take to task (dih/legxe) those who thought highly (tou\j me/ga
fronou=ntaj) of
themselves (e0f’ e9autoi=j), proving them to be fools (w(j a0noh/touj), as to be sure he treated Anytus (kaqa/per a0me/lei
kai\ to\n A!nuton),
according to Plato’s Meno (w(j kai\ e0n tw~| Pla/twno/j e0sti
Me/nwni). For Anytus
could not endure to be ridiculed by Socrates (ou[toj ga\r ou0
fe/rwn to\n u9po\ Swkra/touj xleuasmo/n), and so in the first place (prw~ton me/n) stirred up (e0ph/leiyen) against him (au0tw~|) Aristophanes and his friends (tou\j peri\
A)ristofa/nhn);
***
At this point I can’t help referring to Socrates at II. 36:
‘We ought not to object, he used to say, to be subjects for the Comic poets (e1lege de\ toi=j
kwmikoi=j dei=n e0pi/thdej e9auto\n dido/nai), for if they satirize our faults (ei0 me\n ga/r ti
tw~n proso/ntwn le/ceian)
they will do us good (diorqw&sontai), and if not (ei0 d’ ou1) they do not touch us (ou0de\n pro\j
h9ma=j).
***
‘then afterwards (e1peita) he helped to persuade Meletus (kai\ Me/lhton
sune/peisen) to indict
him (a0pene/gkasqai
kat’ au0tou=) on a charge of impiety (grafh\n
a0sebei/aj) and
corrupting the youth (kai\ tw~n ne/wn diafqora/j).
***
Clearly, in this paragraph Diogenes Laertius implicitly dates
the Meno as a dialogue written prior to the death of Socrates. But in
all my reading of the secondary literature – I read a great amount of it after
I came to Oxford, in early September 1980, and before I left Oxford in mid
1990s – I never came across any mentioning of this fact.
Diogenes does not give reference to any source of his
information about Anytus, and the way the paragraph is written gives us the
reason for it. At the time Diogenes wrote his ‘Life of Socrates’ it was common
knowledge that it was Socrates’ ridicule of him in the Meno that aroused
Anytus’ insatiable enmity.
The second part of II. 38 discusses Meletus’ indictment of
Socrates:
‘The indictment was brought by Meletus (A)phne/gkato me\n
ou]n th\n grafh\n o9 Me/lhtoj) … The speech was written (sune/graye de\ to\n lo/gon) by Polycrates the sophist (Polukra/thj o9
sofisth/j), according to
Hermippus (w#j fhsin E#rmippoj); or Anytus (h2 A!nutoj), as say some (w#j tinej).’
Polycrates’ epideictic (display) ‘Accusation of Socrates’
appears to have misled Hermippus, and presumably many others, into believing
that it was the speech that Meletus presented at the trial. Favorinus corrected
this misapprehension, as Diogenes says in II. 39: ‘Favorinus declares (Fabwri/noj de/
fhsin) in the first book
of his Memorabilia (e0n tw~| prw&tw| tw~n A)pomnhmoneuma/twn) that the speech of Polycrates
against Socrates is not authentic (mh\ ei]nai a0lhqh= to\n lo/gon to\n
Polukra/touj kata\ Swkra/touj); for he mentions the rebuilding of the walls by Conon (mnhmoneu/ei tw~n
u9po\ Ko/nwnoj teixw~n a0nastaqe/ntwn), which did not take place till six years after the death of
Socrates (a9 ge/gonen e1tesin e4c th=j tou= Swkra/touj teleuth=j u3steron).’
Those, who knew Isocrates, did not have to wait for Favorinus
(2nd century AD). For Isocrates in his Busiris (4-6)
criticised Polycrates for his epideictic Accusation of Socrates:
‘Having observed (Ai0sqo/menoj), therefore (ou]n), that you take special pride (ou0x h3kista/ se
megalauxou/menon) in
your Defence of Busiris (e0pi/ te th=| Bousiri/doj a0pologi/a|) and in your Accusation of
Socrates (kai\ th=| Swkra/touj kategwri/a|), I shall try (peira/somai/) to make it clear to you (soi poih=sai
katafane/j) that in both
these discourses you have fallen far short of what the subject demands (o3ti polu\ tou=
de/ontoj e0n a0mfote/roij toi=j lo/goij dih/martej) … And when your purpose was to
accuse Socrates (Swkra/touj de\ kathgorei=n e0pixeirh/saj), as if you wished to praise him (w#sper
e0gkomia/sai boulo/menoj),
you gave Alcibiades to him as a pupil (A)lkibia/dhn e1dwkaj au0tw~| maqhth/n) who (o4n), as far as anybody observed, never was taught by
Socrates (u9p’ e0kei/nou me\n ou0dei\j h1|sqeto paideuo/menon), but that Alcibiades far excelled
all his contemporaries (o3ti de\ polu\ dih/negke tw~n a1llwn) all would agree (a3pantej a2n
o9mologh/seian). Hence
(toigarou=n), if the dead should acquire the
power of judging (ei0 ge/noit’ e0cousi/a toi=j
teteleuthko/si bouleu/sasqai) what has been said of them (peri\ tw~n
ei0rhme/nwn),
Socrates would be so grateful to you (o9 me\n a1n soi tosau/thn e1xoi
xa/rin) for your
accusation (u9pe\r th=j kathgori/aj) as to no one of those (o3shn ou0deni/) who have been wont to eulogise him (tw~n e0painei=n
au0to\n ei0qisme/nwn).’
No comments:
Post a Comment