Xenophon - The Memorable Thoughts of Socrates

X >> Xenophon >> The Memorable Thoughts of Socrates

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

THE MEMORABLE THOUGHTS OF SOCRATES.
BY XENOPHON.

_TRANSLATED BY EDWARD BYSSHE_.

CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED:
LONDON, PARIS, NEW YORK & MELBOURNE.
1888.

INTRODUCTION.

This translation of Xenophon's "Memorabilia of Socrates" was first
published in 1712, and is here printed from the revised edition of 1722.
Its author was Edward Bysshe, who had produced in 1702 "The Art of
English Poetry," a well-known work that was near its fifth edition when
its author published his translation of the "Memorabilia." This was a
translation that remained in good repute. There was another edition of
it in 1758. Bysshe translated the title of the book into "The Memorable
Things of Socrates." I have changed "Things" into "Thoughts," for
whether they be sayings or doings, the words and deeds of a wise man are
alike expressions of his thought.

Xenophon is said to have been, when young, a pupil of Socrates. Two
authorities have recorded that in the flight from the battle of Delium in
the year B.C. 424, when Xenophon fell from his horse, Socrates picked him
up and carried him on his back for a considerable distance. The time of
Xenophon's death is not known, but he was alive sixty-seven years after
the battle of Delium.

When Cyrus the Younger was preparing war against his brother Artaxerxes
Mnemon, King of Persia, Xenophon went with him. After the death of Cyrus
on the plains of Cunaxa, the barbarian auxiliaries fled, and the Greeks
were left to return as they could from the far region between the Tigris
and Euphrates. Xenophon had to take part in the conduct of the retreat,
and tells the story of it in his "Anabasis," a history of the expedition
of the younger Cyrus and of the retreat of the Greeks. His return into
Greece was in the year of the death of Socrates, B.C. 399, but his
association was now with the Spartans, with whom he fought, B.C. 394, at
Coroneia. Afterwards he settled, and lived for about twenty years, at
Scillus in Eleia with his wife and children. At Scillus he wrote
probably his "Anabasis" and some other of his books. At last he was
driven out by the Eleans. In the battle of Mantineia the Spartans and
Athenians fought as allies, and Xenophon's two sons were in the battle;
he had sent them to Athens as fellow-combatants from Sparta. His
banishment from Athens was repealed by change of times, but it does not
appear that he returned to Athens. He is said to have lived, and perhaps
died, at Corinth, after he had been driven from his home at Scillus.

Xenophon was a philosophic man of action. He could make his value felt
in a council of war, take part in battle--one of his books is on the
duties of a commander of cavalry--and show himself good sportsman in the
hunting-field. He wrote a book upon the horse; a treatise also upon dogs
and hunting. He believed in God, thought earnestly about social and
political duties, and preferred Spartan institutions to those of Athens.
He wrote a life of his friend Agesilaus II., King of Sparta. He found
exercise for his energetic mind in writing many books. In writing he was
clear and to the point; his practical mind made his work interesting. His
"Anabasis" is a true story as delightful as a fiction; his "Cyropaedia"
is a fiction full of truths. He wrote "Hellenica," that carried on the
history of Greece from the point at which Thucydides closed his history
until the battle of Mantineia. He wrote a dialogue between Hiero and
Simonides upon the position of a king, and dealt with the administration
of the little realm of a man's household in his "OEconomicus," a dialogue
between Socrates and Critobulus, which includes the praise of
agriculture. He wrote also, like Plato, a symposium, in which
philosophers over their wine reason of love and friendship, and he paints
the character of Socrates.

But his best memorial of his old guide, philosopher, and friend is this
work, in which Xenophon brought together in simple and direct form the
views of life that had been made clear to himself by the teaching of
Socrates. Xenophon is throughout opposing a plain tale to the false
accusations against Socrates. He does not idealise, but he feels
strongly, and he shows clearly the worth of the wisdom that touches at
every point the actual conduct of the lives of men.

H. M.

BOOK I.

CHAPTER I. SOCRATES NOT A CONTEMNER OF THE GODS OF HIS COUNTRY, NOR AN
INTRODUCER OF NEW ONES.

I have often wondered by what show of argument the accusers of Socrates
could persuade the Athenians he had forfeited his life to the State. For
though the crimes laid unto his charge were indeed great--"That he did
not acknowledge the gods of the Republic; that he introduced new
ones"--and, farther, "had debauched the youth;" yet none of these could,
in the least, be proved against him.

For, as to the first, "That he did not worship the deities which the
Republic adored," how could this be made out against him, since, instead
of paying no homage to the gods of his country, he was frequently seen to
assist in sacrificing to them, both in his own family and in the public
temples?--perpetually worshipping them in the most public, solemn, and
religious manner.

What, in my opinion, gave his accusers a specious pretext for alleging
against him that he introduced new deities was this--that he had
frequently declared in public he had received counsel from a _divine
voice_, which he called his Demon. But this was no proof at all of the
matter. All that Socrates advanced about his demon was no more than what
is daily advanced by those who believe in and practise divination; and if
Socrates, because he said he received intelligence from his genius, must
be accused of introducing new divinities, so also must they; for is it
not certain that those who believe in divination, and practise that
belief, do observe the flight of birds, consult the entrails of victims,
and remark even unexpected words and accidental occurrences? But they do
not, therefore, believe that either the birds whose flight they observe
or the persons they meet accidentally know either their good or ill
fortune--neither did Socrates--they only believe that the gods make use
of these things to presage the future; and such, too, was the belief of
Socrates. The vulgar, indeed, imagine it to be the very birds and things
which present themselves to them that excite them to what is good for
them, or make them avoid what may hurt them; but, as for Socrates, he
freely owned that a demon was his monitor; and he frequently told his
friends beforehand what they should do, or not do, according to the
instructions he had received from his demon; and they who believed him,
and followed his advice, always found advantage by it; as, on the
contrary, they who neglected his admonitions, never failed to repent
their incredulity. Now, it cannot be denied but that he ought to have
taken care not to pass with his friends either for a liar or a visionary;
and yet how could he avoid incurring that censure if the events had not
justified the truth of the things he pretended were revealed to him? It
is, therefore, manifest that he would not have spoken of things to come
if he had not believed he said true; but how could he believe he said
true, unless he believed that the gods, who alone ought to be trusted for
the knowledge of things to come, gave him notice of them? and, if he
believed they did so, how can it be said that he acknowledged no gods?

He likewise advised his friends to do, in the best manner they could, the
things that of necessity they were to do; but, as to those whose events
were doubtful, he sent them to the oracles to know whether they should
engage in them or not. And he thought that they who design to govern
with success their families or whole cities had great need of receiving
instructions by the help of divinations; for though he indeed held that
every man may make choice of the condition of life in which he desires to
live, and that, by his industry, he may render himself excellent in it,
whether he apply himself to architecture or to agriculture, whether he
throw himself into politics or economy, whether he engage himself in the
public revenues or in the army, yet that in all these things the gods
have reserved to themselves the most important events, into which men of
themselves can in no wise penetrate. Thus he who makes a fine plantation
of trees, knows not who shall gather the fruit; he who builds a house
cannot tell who shall inhabit it; a general is not certain that he shall
be successful in his command, nor a Minister of State in his ministry; he
who marries a beautiful woman in hopes of being happy with her knows not
but that even she herself may be the cause of all his uneasinesses; and
he who enters into a grand alliance is uncertain whether they with whom
he allies himself will not at length be the cause of his ruin. This made
him frequently say that it is a great folly to imagine there is not a
Divine Providence that presides over these things, and that they can in
the least depend on human prudence. He likewise held it to be a weakness
to importune the gods with questions which we may resolve ourselves; as
if we should ask them whether it be better to take a coachman who knows
how to drive than one who knows nothing of the matter? whether it be more
eligible to take an experienced pilot than one that is ignorant? In a
word, he counted it a kind of impiety to consult the oracles concerning
what might be numbered or weighed, because we ought to learn the things
which the gods have been pleased to capacitate us to know; but that we
ought to have recourse to the oracles to be instructed in those that
surpass our knowledge, because the gods are wont to discover them to such
men as have rendered them propitious to themselves.

Socrates stayed seldom at home. In the morning he went to the places
appointed for walking and public exercises. He never failed to be at the
hall, or courts of justice, at the usual hour of assembling there, and
the rest of the day he was at the places where the greatest companies
generally met. There it was that he discoursed for the most part, and
whoever would hear him easily might; and yet no man ever observed the
least impiety either in his actions or his words. Nor did he amuse
himself to reason of the secrets of nature, or to search into the manner
of the creation of what the sophists call the world, nor to dive into the
cause of the motions of the celestial bodies. On the contrary, he
exposed the folly of such as give themselves up to these contemplations;
and he asked whether it was, after having acquired a perfect knowledge of
human things, that they undertook to search into the divine, or if they
thought themselves very wise in neglecting what concerned them to employ
themselves in things above them? He was astonished likewise that they
did not see it was impossible for men to comprehend anything of all those
wonders, seeing they who have the reputation of being most knowing in
them are of quite different opinions, and can agree no better than so
many fools and madmen; for as some of these are not afraid of the most
dangerous and frightful accidents, while others are in dread of what is
not to be feared, so, too, among those philosophers, some are of opinion
that there is no action but what may be done in public, nor word that may
not freely be spoken before the whole world, while others, on the
contrary, believe that we ought to avoid the conversation of men and keep
in a perpetual solitude. Some have despised the temples and the altars,
and have taught not to honour the gods, while others have been so
superstitious as to worship wood, stones, and irrational creatures. And
as to the knowledge of natural things, some have confessed but one only
being; others have admitted an infinite number: some have believed that
all things are in a perpetual motion; others that nothing moves: some
have held the world to be full of continual generations and corruptions;
others maintain that nothing is engendered or destroyed. He said besides
that he should be glad to know of those persons whether they were in
hopes one day to put in practice what they learned, as men who know an
art may practise it when they please either for their own advantage or
for the service of their friends; or whether they did imagine that, after
they found out the causes of all things that happen, they should be able
to cause winds and rains, and to dispose the times and seasons as they
had occasion for them; or whether they contented themselves with the bare
knowledge without expecting any farther advantage.

This was what he said of those who delight in such studies. As for his
part, he meditated chiefly on what is useful and proper for man, and took
delight to argue of piety and impiety, of honesty and dishonesty, of
justice and injustice, of wisdom and folly, of courage and cowardice, of
the State, and of the qualifications of a Minister of State, of the
Government, and of those who are fit to govern; in short, he enlarged on
the like subjects, which it becomes men of condition to know, and of
which none but slaves should be ignorant.

It is not strange, perhaps, that the judges of Socrates mistook his
opinion in things concerning which he did not explain himself; but I am
surprised that they did not reflect on what he had said and done in the
face of the whole world; for when he was one of the Senate, and had taken
the usual oath exactly to observe the laws, being in his turn vested with
the dignity of Epistate, he bravely withstood the populace, who, against
all manner of reason, demanded that the nine captains, two of whom were
Erasinides and Thrasilus, should be put to death, he would never give
consent to this injustice, and was not daunted at the rage of the people,
nor at the menaces of the men in power, choosing rather not to violate
the oath he had taken than to yield to the violence of the multitude, and
shelter himself from the vengeance of those who threatened him. To this
purpose he said that the gods watch over men more attentively than the
vulgar imagine; for they believe there are some things which the gods
observe and others which they pass by unregarded; but he held that the
gods observe all our actions and all our words, that they penetrate even
into our most secret thoughts, that they are present at all our
deliberations, and that they inspire us in all our affairs.

It is astonishing, therefore, to consider how the Athenians could suffer
themselves to be persuaded that Socrates entertained any unworthy
thoughts of the Deity; he who never let slip one single word against the
respect due to the gods, nor was ever guilty of any action that savoured
in the least of impiety; but who, on the contrary, has done and said
things that could not proceed but from a mind truly pious, and that are
sufficient to gain a man an eternal reputation of piety and virtue.

CHAPTER II. SOCRATES NOT A DEBAUCHER OF YOUTH.

What surprises me yet more is, that some would believe that Socrates was
a debaucher of young men! Socrates the most sober and most chaste of all
men, who cheerfully supported both cold and heat; whom no inconvenience,
no hardships, no labours could startle, and who had learned to wish for
so little, that though he had scarce anything, he had always enough. Then
how could he teach impiety, injustice, gluttony, impurity, and luxury?
And so far was he from doing so, that he reclaimed many persons from
those vices, inspiring them with the love of virtue, and putting them in
hopes of coming to preferment in the world, provided they would take a
little care of themselves. Yet he never promised any man to teach him to
be virtuous; but as he made a public profession of virtue, he created in
the minds of those who frequented him the hopes of becoming virtuous by
his example.

He neglected not his own body, and praised not those that neglected
theirs. In like manner, he blamed the custom of some who eat too much,
and afterwards use violent exercises; but he approved of eating till
nature be satisfied, and of a moderate exercise after it, believing that
method to be an advantage to health, and proper to unbend and divert the
mind. In his clothes he was neither nice nor costly; and what I say of
his clothes ought likewise to be understood of his whole way of living.
Never any of his friends became covetous in his conversation, and he
reclaimed them from that sordid disposition, as well as from all others;
for he would accept of no gratuity from any who desired to confer with
him, and said that was the way to discover a noble and generous heart,
and that they who take rewards betray a meanness of soul, and sell their
own persons, because they impose on themselves a necessity of instructing
those from whom they receive a salary. He wondered, likewise, why a man,
who promises to teach virtue, should ask money; as if he believed not the
greatest of all gain to consist in the acquisition of a good friend, or,
as if he feared, that he who, by his means, should become virtuous, and
be obliged to him for so great a benefit, would not be sufficiently
grateful for it. Quite different from Socrates, who never boasted of any
such thing, and who was most certain that all who heard him and received
his maxims would love him for ever, and be capable of loving others also.
After this, whosoever says that such a man debauched the youth, must at
the same time say that the study of virtue is debauchery.

But the accuser says that Socrates taught to despise the constitution
that was established in the Republic, because he affirmed it to be a
folly to elect magistrates by lots; since if anyone had occasion for a
pilot, a musician, or an architect, he would not trust to chance for any
such person, though the faults that can be committed by men in such
capacities are far from being of so great importance as those that are
committed in the government of the Republic. He says, therefore, that
such arguments insensibly accustom the youth to despise the laws, and
render them more audacious and more violent. But, in my opinion, such as
study the art of prudence, and who believe they shall be able to render
themselves capable of giving good advice and counsel to their
fellow-citizens, seldom become men of violent tempers; because they know
that violence is hateful and full of danger; while, on the contrary, to
win by persuasion is full of love and safety. For they, whom we have
compelled, brood a secret hatred against us, believing we have done them
wrong; but those whom we have taken the trouble to persuade continue our
friends, believing we have done them a kindness. It is not, therefore,
they who apply themselves to the study of prudence that become violent,
but those brutish intractable tempers who have much power in their hands
and but little judgment to manage it.--He farther said that when a man
desires to carry anything by force, he must have many friends to assist
him: as, on the contrary, he that can persuade has need of none but
himself, and is not subject to shed blood; for who would rather choose to
kill a man than to make use of his services, after having gained his
friendship and goodwill by mildness?

The accuser adds, in proof of the ill tendency of the doctrine of
Socrates, that Critias and Alcibiades, who were two of his most intimate
friends, were very bad men, and did much mischief to their country. For
Critias was the most insatiable and cruel of all the thirty tyrants; and
Alcibiades the most dissolute, the most insolent, and the most audacious
citizen that ever the Republic had. As for me, I pretend not to justify
them, and will only relate for what reason they frequented Socrates. They
were men of an unbounded ambition, and who resolved, whatever it cost, to
govern the State, and make themselves be talked of. They had heard that
Socrates lived very content upon little or nothing, that he entirely
commanded his passions, and that his reasonings were so persuasive that
he drew all men to which side he pleased. Reflecting on this, and being
of the temper we mentioned, can it be thought that they desired the
acquaintance of Socrates, because they were in love with his way of life,
and with his temperance, or because they believed that by conversing with
him they should render themselves capable of reasoning aright, and of
well-managing the public affairs? For my part, I believe that if the
gods had proposed to them to live always like him, or to die immediately,
they would rather have chosen a sudden death. And it is easy to judge
this from their actions; for as soon as they thought themselves more
capable than their companions, they forsook Socrates, whom they had
frequented, only for the purpose I mentioned, and threw themselves wholly
into business.

It may, perhaps, be objected that he ought not to have discoursed to his
friends of things relating to the government of the State, till after he
had taught them to live virtuously. I have nothing to say to this; but I
observe that all who profess teaching do generally two things: they work
in presence of their scholars, to show them how they ought to do, and
they instruct them likewise by word of mouth. Now, in either of these
two ways, no man ever taught to live well, like Socrates; for, in his
whole life, he was an example of untainted probity; and in his discourses
he spoke of virtue and of all the duties of man in a manner that made him
admired of all his hearers. And I know too very well that Critias and
Alcibiades lived very virtuously as long as they frequented him; not that
they were afraid of him, but because they thought it most conducive to
their designs to live so at that time.

Many who pretend to philosophy will here object, that a virtuous person
is always virtuous, and that when a man has once come to be good and
temperate, he will never afterwards become wicked nor dissolute; because
habitudes that can be acquired, when once they are so, can never more be
effaced from the mind. But I am not of this opinion; for as they who use
no bodily exercises are awkward and unwieldy in the actions of the body,
so they who exercise not their minds are incapable of the noble actions
of the mind, and have not courage enough to undertake anything worthy of
praise, nor command enough over themselves to abstain from things that
are forbid. For this reason, parents, though they be well enough assured
of the good natural disposition of their children, fail not to forbid
them the conversation of the vicious, because it is the ruin of worthy
dispositions, whereas the conversation of good men is a continual
meditation of virtue. Thus a poet says,

"By those whom we frequent, we're ever led:
Example is a law by all obeyed.
Thus with the good, we are to good inclined,
But vicious company corrupts the mind."

And another in like manner:

"Virtue and vice in the same man are found,
And now they gain, and now they lose their ground."

And, in my opinion, they are in the right: for when I consider that they
who have learned verses by heart forget them unless they repeat them
often, so I believe that they who neglect the reasonings of philosophers,
insensibly lose the remembrance of them; and when they have let these
excellent notions slip out of their minds, they at the same time lose the
idea of the things that supported in the soul the love of temperance;
and, having forgot those things, what wonder is it if at length they
forget temperance likewise?

I observe, besides, that men who abandon themselves to the debauches of
wine or women find it more difficult to apply themselves to things that
are profitable, and to abstain from what is hurtful. For many who live
frugally before they fall in love become prodigal when that passion gets
the mastery over them; insomuch that after having wasted their estates,
they are reduced to gain their bread by methods they would have been
ashamed of before. What hinders then, but that a man, who has been once
temperate, should be so no longer, and that he who has led a good life at
one time should not do so at another? I should think, therefore, that
the being of all virtues, and chiefly of temperance, depends on the
practice of them: for lust, that dwells in the same body with the soul,
incites it continually to despise this virtue, and to find out the
shortest way to gratify the senses only.

Thus, whilst Alcibiades and Critias conversed with Socrates, they were
able, with so great an assistance, to tame their inclinations; but after
they had left him, Critias, being retired into Thessaly, ruined himself
entirely in the company of some libertines; and Alcibiades, seeing
himself courted by several women of quality, because of his beauty, and
suffering himself to be corrupted by soothing flatterers, who made their
court to him, in consideration of the credit he had in the city and with
the allies; in a word, finding himself respected by all the Athenians,
and that no man disputed the first rank with him, began to neglect
himself, and acted like a great wrestler, who takes not the trouble to
exercise himself, when he no longer finds an adversary who dares to
contend with him.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13