DOCSLIB.ORG

Fear and Death in Plato Emily Austin Washington University in St

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fear and Death in Plato Emily Austin Washington University in St Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) January 2009 Fear and Death in Plato Emily Austin Washington University in St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd Recommended Citation Austin, Emily, "Fear and Death in Plato" (2009). All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs). 27. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd/27 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS Department of Philosophy Dissertation Examination Committee: Eric Brown, Chair Anne Margaret Baxley Dennis Des Chene John M. Doris Cathy Keane George Pepe FEAR AND DEATH IN PLATO by Emily A. Austin A dissertation presented to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2009 Saint Louis, Missouri ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would have never come to fruition without the help of many people. First, I thank my advisor, Eric Brown, whose exuberant teaching persona and keen intellect motivated me to make the radical shift from the study of Wittgenstein and Quine to the study of Plato. I thank him especially for his unflagging efforts to help me focus my wide-ranging thoughts and his consistent enthusiasm about the project. To whatever extent this dissertation expresses the virtue of cohesion, he is to be praised. Second, I thank John Doris, who has kept me level-headed and confident, and who continues to keep me focused on where the project needs to go next. Though he does not believe in character, he exhibits an exceptional one. I also thank the other members of my committee—Anne Margaret Baxley, Dennis Des Chene, Cathy Keane, and George Pepe—both for their willingness to serve in that capacity, and for their welcome comments and assistance. The fact that I have so many great friends who are also wonderful colleagues has made it possible to get through this long process. They have helped me talk through and muscle through some of these ideas in the office, in their homes, and in bars. In particular, I thank Sarah Robins, Clerk Shaw, Mariska Leunissen, and Emily Crookston. I owe a debt of gratitude to my undergraduate advisor, Mark Schantz, who initiated my death obsession. If I had not taken his seminar on the history of death in America, I would neither benefit nor suffer from this morbid curiosity. From an institutional standpoint, I am very happy to have completed my degree at Washington University in St. Louis, which has provided outstanding support during my ii graduate career. I thank the graduate school for my first-year fellowship and the Dean’s Dissertation Fellowship. I thank Mark Rollins for his impressive skills as chair of the philosophy department and his consistent advocacy for graduate students. He saved me from a shockingly large amount of library fines, among other things. Finally, I thank my husband, Brian, who more than anyone else, has sustained me through the ups and downs of this project and life at-large. Above all, though, I thank my parents, Tony and Jo Ellen Austin, to whom this dissertation is dedicated. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements 2 Abbreviations of Ancient Works and Authors 5 Introduction 6 Apology: Prudence and the Fear of Death 15 Apology: Security, Attachment, and the Fear of Death 46 Phaedo: The Philosophical Life and How to Die 68 Republic: Auxiliaries and the Problem of Early, Violent Death 112 Republic: Lawless Desires, Grief, and the Indifferent Philosopher 134 Works Cited 163 iv ABBREVIATIONS OF ANCIENT WORKS AND AUTHORS PLATO Ap. Apology [Ax.]* Axiochus Chrm. Charmides Cri. Crito Epin. Epinomis Euthphr. Euthyphro Grg. Gorgias Hp. Ma. Hippias Major La. Laches Lg. Laws Men. Meno Mx. Menexenus Phd. Phaedo Phdr. Phaedrus Ptr. Protagoras R. Republic Smp. Symposium Tht. Theatetus *Dialogues in brackets indicate that scholars generally agree that Plato is not the author of the dialogue. ARISTOTLE EN Nichomachean Ethics Pol. Politics HOMER Il. Iliad Od. Odyssey EPICURUS KD Key Doctrines Ep. Men. Letter to Menoeceus v WELL, YOU JUST WELL TO GET READY, YOU GOT TO DIE. -BLIND WILLIE MCTELL INTRODUCTION Plato should have something to say about the fear of death. First, Plato intends to offer an account of how to live well, and it does not take much imagination to see that the fear of death can affect the course of one’s life. Second, for Plato, courage is a necessary condition for living well, and the courageous person is distinguished by her ability to stand firm in the face of death. Finally, courage is as necessary for a well-ordered polis as for a well-ordered soul. In a political environment marked by frequent war, plagues, and the imminent possibility of violent regime change, death is an ever-present concern. Any polis with a hope of survival must reckon with death in order to preserve itself. Once one recognizes that Plato should say something about the fear of death, one will discover that he says quite a lot, and what he says is interesting and contentious. At the most general level, Plato consistently argues the following: 1) a virtuous person will not fear her own death; 1 2) a virtuous person will not fear or grieve the death of her family and friends; 2 and 3) a virtuous political organization will train its citizens not to fear death and will prohibit public manifestations of grief. 3 It is by no means self- evident, however, that ridding oneself of the fear of death, even if possible, is ethically or psychologically beneficial. I organize this dissertation, then, around three questions: 1 Ap. 28b-29b, 35a-b, 37b, 40a-42a; Phd. 63e-64a, 67e, 68b, 68a-69a, 84d-85b, 117a; Grg. 522de; R. 3: 386ab, 6:486a 2 Phd. 116a; 115e-116a; 117d-e; R. 3:387c-388d; 3:397d-e, 10:603e-606c 3 R. 3: 387c-388d, 9: 578a, 10:603e-606c; Ap. 35ab; Mx. 247c; Lg. 12: 958c-960b, 12:949b, 7: 732c, 7:800c-e, 2 1. Why does Plato think that the fear of death is ethically inappropriate? 2. What are the impediments to removing the fear of death? 3. Why does he think acquiring and sustaining the appropriate attitudes towards death depends on favorable political circumstances? I address these questions within the individual context of three dialogues—the Apology, Phaedo, and Republic. In this introduction, I briefly motivate the questions at a more general level, provide a chapter outline, and discuss my methodological approach to Plato’s dialogues. OVERVIEW OF THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS The fear of death is an ethical concern for Plato for two reasons. First, Plato, like most ancient ethicists, thinks the aim of a good life is achieving a harmonious soul, which is comprised of a coherent set of beliefs and desires that manifest themselves in action. It depends, in short, on psychological health. Thus, our contemporary thought that one’s attitudes towards death are a matter of psychological health makes it de facto an ethical question for the ancients. Second, an inharmonious soul is an unvirtuous soul. The fear of death not only threatens the unity of the soul, then, but it makes agents prone to unvirtuous acts. For Plato, I argue, the fear of death makes unjust activities appear prudent, as injustices both great and small can prove sufficient to save one’s own life or the lives of those for whom 3 one cares. In addition, since the traditional conception of courage involves standing firm in the face of death, an extreme fear of death compromises one’s ability to act courageously, whether in battle, in sickness, or on the sea. The fear of death can also foster intemperance, since life’s finitude tempts individuals to maximize pleasures, and one might seek to unjustly amass wealth and power with the hopes that they will protect one against violence. Finally, for Plato, the fear of death keeps one from gaining wisdom, not only because wisdom rises and falls with the other virtues, but also because the avid pursuit of goods and security cuts in on time that should be spent in study. Even if the fear of death compromises virtue, however, one might nevertheless contend that it is hard-wired into our psychology and that many manifestations of the fear of death are not open to alteration. In this dissertation, I argue that Plato believes that the fear of death, though it can be masterfully controlled, can never be eliminated, because it feeds on two desires that are beyond the reach of rational persuasion. First, human beings have a natural desire for protection against the violence of others. Second, we foster and enjoy attachments to people and projects, and death serves as the ultimate threat to those attachments. In an unstable political environment, a host of anxieties accompany efforts to defend oneself and those for whom one cares against violence and to extend the length of one’s life for the sake continuing one’s relationships. Success often depends on one’s willingness to act unjustly. Thus, I argue that Plato organizes the Republic’s ideal city with these two ineliminable desires in mind. First, the ideal city is distinguished by its freedom from faction—it is perfectly safe and secure. Citizens do not fight or seek protection against 4 one another’s violence. Second, individuals are educated from the outset in a way that fosters the appropriate attitudes towards death.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SGR VERY Final Version
    PLATO’S EXPLANATORY PREDICATION A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Saul Gordon Rosenthal January 2011 © 2011 Saul Gordon Rosenthal All rights reserved PLATO’S EXPLANATORY PREDICATION Saul Gordon Rosenthal, Ph. D. Cornell University 2011 One of the most classic puzzles in Plato’s metaphysics is how to interpret his apparently self-predicational language. Plato seems committed, at least in his middle dialogues, to the view that for all forms, the form of F “is F”. For instance, he seems to say that the form of largeness itself “is large”, and to generalize this claim to all forms. Commentators have struggled to find an interpretation of such claims that is consistent with Plato’s text and that attributes to Plato a view with some plausibility. One aim of this dissertation is to show that we have good reason to doubt all of the most influential interpretations offered by commentators. The views discussed include Narrow Self-Predication, the Tautologous Identity view, two Non- Tautologous Identity views, the Pauline Predication view, Broad Self-Predication, and a view distinguishing different kinds of predication. It is doubtful whether any of these interpretations correctly captures Plato’s self-predicational commitments. Another aim of the dissertation is to argue that the textual evidence most often thought to commit Plato to the Self-Predication Assumption (SP), that for all forms, the form of F is itself an F thing, is insufficient to establish such a commitment. One chapter focuses on Plato’s repeated discussion of the resemblance between form and participant.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roles of Solon in Plato's Dialogues
    The Roles of Solon in Plato’s Dialogues Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Samuel Ortencio Flores, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Bruce Heiden, Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Richard Fletcher Greg Anderson Copyrighy by Samuel Ortencio Flores 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a study of Plato’s use and adaptation of an earlier model and tradition of wisdom based on the thought and legacy of the sixth-century archon, legislator, and poet Solon. Solon is cited and/or quoted thirty-four times in Plato’s dialogues, and alluded to many more times. My study shows that these references and allusions have deeper meaning when contextualized within the reception of Solon in the classical period. For Plato, Solon is a rhetorically powerful figure in advancing the relatively new practice of philosophy in Athens. While Solon himself did not adequately establish justice in the city, his legacy provided a model upon which Platonic philosophy could improve. Chapter One surveys the passing references to Solon in the dialogues as an introduction to my chapters on the dialogues in which Solon is a very prominent figure, Timaeus- Critias, Republic, and Laws. Chapter Two examines Critias’ use of his ancestor Solon to establish his own philosophic credentials. Chapter Three suggests that Socrates re- appropriates the aims and themes of Solon’s political poetry for Socratic philosophy. Chapter Four suggests that Solon provides a legislative model which Plato reconstructs in the Laws for the philosopher to supplant the role of legislator in Greek thought.
    [Show full text]
  • From Hades to the Stars: Empedocles on the Cosmic Habitats of Soul', Classical Antiquity, Vol
    Edinburgh Research Explorer From Hades to the stars Citation for published version: Trepanier, S 2017, 'From Hades to the stars: Empedocles on the cosmic habitats of soul', Classical Antiquity, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 130-182. https://doi.org/10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: Classical Antiquity Publisher Rights Statement: Published as Trépanier, S. 2017. From Hades to the Stars: Empedocles on the Cosmic Habitats of Soul, Classical Antiquity, Vol. 36 No. 1, April 2017; (pp. 130-182) DOI: 10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130. © 2017 by the Regents of the University of California. Authorization to copy this content beyond fair use (as specified in Sections 107 and 108 of the U. S. Copyright Law) for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by the Regents of the University of California for libraries and other users, provided that they are registered with and pay the specified fee via Rightslink® or directly with the Copyright Clearance Center. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Bickel's Philosophy of Prudence
    The Yale Law Journal Volume 94, Number 7, June 1985 Alexander Bickel's Philosophy of Prudence Anthony T. Kronmant INTRODUCTION Six years after Alexander Bickel's death, John Hart Ely described his former teacher and colleague as "probably the most creative constitutional theorist of the past twenty years."" Many today would concur in Ely's judgment.' Indeed, among his academic peers, Bickel is widely -regarded with a measure of respect that borders on reverence. There is, however, something puzzling about Bickel's reputation, for despite the high regard in which his work is held, Bickel has few contemporary followers.' There is, today, no Bickelian school of constitutional theory, no group of scholars working to elaborate Bickel's main ideas or even to defend them, no con- tinuing and connected body of legal writing in the intellectual tradition to which Bickel claimed allegiance. In fact, just the opposite is true. In the decade since his death, constitutional theory has turned away from the ideas that Bickel championed, moving in directions he would, I believe, f Professor of Law, Yale Law School. 1. J. ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST 71 (1980). 2. See B. SCHMIDT, HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: THE JUDICI- ARY AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT 1910-21 (pt. 2) 722 (1984) (describing Bickel as "the most brilliant and influential constitutional scholar of the generation that came of age during the era of the Warren Court"); Ackerman, The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Constitution, 93 YALE L.J. 1013, 1014 (Bickel "revered as spokesman-in-chief for a school of thought that emphasizes the importance of judicial restraint").
    [Show full text]
  • Plato's "Euthyphro"
    24.231 Ethics – Handout 1 Plato, “The Euthyphro” I. Plato’s Dialogue Plato’s Question: What is it to be pious? - He is not looking for a list of things that are pious - He is not looking for a property that (even all) pious things have. Euthyphro’s (best?) answer: To be pious is to be loved by all the gods. Plato’s Argument against Euthyphro’s answer: Perhaps all and only those things/actions that are loved by the gods are pious. But why is that? Are pious things loved by the gods because they are pious, or are they pious because they are loved by the gods? Socrates and Euthyphro agree that they must be loved by the gods because they are pious. But, says Socrates, in that case, being pious cannot be the same thing as being god-beloved. Because something that is god-beloved is so because it is loved by the gods. But something that is pious isn’t so because it is loved by the gods; rather, it is loved by the gods because it is pious. Being loved by the gods causes god-belovedness, but being loved by the gods does not cause piety. So god-belovedness and piety cannot be the same thing. (This kind of argument will be relevant again in the selection from Moore that we’re reading for Wednesday.) II. The “Euthyphro Problem” Socrates’ question about whether what’s loved by the gods is pious because it is loved by them, or loved by them because it is pious, forms the lynchpin of an important contemporary debate about what moral philosophers call “Divine Command Theory.” According to DCT, morally good actions are good because they are commanded by God.
    [Show full text]
  • Emily Wilson's the Death of Socrates
    Wilson, Emily. The Death of Socrates. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Socrates would be an important figure in the history of philosophy even if all we knew about him was what Aristotle tells us: “[H]e occupied himself with ethics even though he said nothing about the universe, but in the course of his activities he searched for the general (to katholou) and was the first to understand about the concept of boundaries (horismn)” (Metaphysics 987b.1-4). Poets and thinkers before him had thought about ethics. But what made Socrates different is that he was able to devise a process for discovering it that caused him to move away from particulars to general definitions. Without that significant step forward in thought, Plato could never have devised his theory of forms, and Aristotle could not have written his treatises on ethics. But it is not because of his thinking that Socrates has been remembered, as Emily Wilson demonstrates in her lively and entertaining book. Rather, Socrates has remained an inspiration to politicians, thinkers, and artists for more than two millennia because of his death. If he had not died as he did, we would be talking about pre-Platonic rather than pre-Socratic philosophers. But as Plato describes him in the Apology and the Crito, Socrates did nothing to stop himself from being executed. He did not try to flatter and appease the jury. When given an opportunity to propose an alternative punishment, he offered only the trivial sum of one mina. His friend Crito devised a plan that would have allowed him to escape from prison and live the rest of his life in exile, but Socrates again refused to cooperate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Minotaur in Phaedo's Labyrinth: Philosophy's Necessary Myth
    Trinity College Trinity College Digital Repository Trinity Publications (Newspapers, Yearbooks, The Trinity Papers (2011 - present) Catalogs, etc.) 2016 The Minotaur in Phaedo’s Labyrinth: Philosophy’s Necessary Myth Gregory Convertito Trinity College, Hartford Connecticut Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/trinitypapers Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons Recommended Citation Convertito, Gregory, "The Minotaur in Phaedo’s Labyrinth: Philosophy’s Necessary Myth". The Trinity Papers (2011 - present) (2016). Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford, CT. https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/trinitypapers/43 The Minotaur in Phaedo’s Labyrinth: Philosophy’s Necessary Myth Gregory Convertito Plato’s Phaedo is a confusing dialogue. It takes place after the Apology and the Crito, on Socrates’s last night before his execution; Socrates has been waiting in prison for a long time due to an Athenian law barring executions during the annual ritual to celebrate Theseus’s mythical victory over the Minotaur. This story of the death of Socrates is embedded in a narration by Phaedo himself, who is relating the story to Echecrates. Socrates, after discussing the soul, the self, immortality, and death with Simmias and Cebes, Pythagorean acquaintances who have come to visit him, drinks the φαρμακον and dies. The myth of the Minotaur—a monster which has the body of a man and the head of a bull—is explicitly invoked in the text, which structurally mirrors this myth. Each has a monster, fourteen characters, and a thread which leads out of a labyrinth. In the myth, Theseus and the others are taken into the labyrinth wherein the Minotaur resides as tribute, as dictated by the Delphic Oracle, and the princess Ariadne gives Theseus a ball of thread to attach to the entrance, so he may find his way out again.
    [Show full text]
  • Teleology in the ​Phaedo's Biographical Account
    4 Teleology in the Phaedo’s Biographical Account ​ ​ José Manuel Osorio The aim of this paper is to clarify the first section of Socrates's biographical account (the 1 so-called first sailing) in Phaedo (96a-99d). ​ Specifically, the aim is to have a better ​ ​ ​ understanding regarding the teleological argument about the intellect in Socrates's speech. This is a complex and difficult passage which has been subjected to a series of what, in my view, are contradictory interpretations. Broadly speaking, it is possible to distinguish two very different groups of interpretations of the teleological arguments in the first part of the biographical section. In the first interpretation, scholars looking for the roots of the teleological arguments of the Timaeus arrive at the conclusion that they lie in the Phaedo. For this group of scholars, Plato ​ ​ ​ ​ employs a teleological argument in Socrates’s biographical account in the Phaedo, although it is ​ ​ 2 considered to be in schematic form when compared to the one employed in the Timaeus. ​ In the ​ ​ second interpretation, scholars focusing exclusively on the Phaedo’s biographical passage argue ​ ​ ​ 3 ​ that teleological arguments are not used by Plato in the Phaedo ​ since Socrates said in the first ​ ​ part of the biographical passage that he was completely incapable of finding a teleological cause (99c-d).4 ​ The upshot is this: studies of the Phaedo support the thesis that teleology is not present in ​ ​ the dialogue, while studies of the Timaeus support the opposite, namely, that in Socrates’s ​ ​ biographical account teleology is present. So there seems to be a contradiction in the literature about the place of teleology in the Phaedo.
    [Show full text]
  • Agorapicbk-17.Pdf
    Excavations of the Athenian Agora Picture Book No. 17 Prepared by Mabel L. Lang Dedicated to Eugene Vanderpool o American School of Classical Studies at Athens ISBN 87661-617-1 Produced by the Meriden Gravure Company Meriden, Connecticut COVER: Bone figure of Socrates TITLE PAGE: Hemlock SOCRATES IN THE AGORA AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 1978 ‘Everything combines to make our knowledge of Socrates himself a subject of Socratic irony. The only thing we know definitely about him is that we know nothing.’ -L. Brunschvicg As FAR AS we know Socrates himselfwrote nothing, yet not only were his life and words given dramatic attention in his own time in the Clouds of Ar- istophanes, but they have also become the subject of many others’ writing in the centuries since his death. Fourth-century B.C. writers who had first-hand knowledge of him composed either dialogues in which he was the dominant figure (Plato and Aeschines) or memories of his teaching and activities (Xe- nophon). Later authors down even to the present day have written numerous biographies based on these early sources and considering this most protean of philosophers from every possible point of view except perhaps the topograph- ical one which is attempted here. Instead of putting Socrates in the context of 5th-century B.C. philosophy, politics, ethics or rhetoric, we shall look to find him in the material world and physical surroundings of his favorite stamping- grounds, the Athenian Agora. Just as ‘agora’ in its original sense meant ‘gathering place’ but came in time to mean ‘market place’, so the agora itself was originally a gathering place I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Historicity of Plato's Apology of Socrates
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1946 The Historicity of Plato's Apology of Socrates David J. Bowman Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons Recommended Citation Bowman, David J., "The Historicity of Plato's Apology of Socrates" (1946). Master's Theses. 61. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/61 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1946 David J. Bowman !HE HISTORICITY OP PLATO'S APOLOGY OF SOCRATES BY DA.VID J. BOWJWf~ S.J• .l. !BESIS SUBMITTED Ilf PARTIAL FULFILIJIE.NT OF THB: R}gQUIRE'IIENTS POR THE DEGREE OF IIA.STER OF ARTS Ill LOYOLA UlfiVERSITY JULY 1946 -VI'fA. David J. Bowman; S.J•• was born in Oak Park, Ill1no1a, on Ma7 20, 1919. Atter b!a eleaentar7 education at Ascension School# in Oak Park, he attended LoJola AcademJ ot Chicago, graduat1DS .from. there in June, 1937. On September 1, 1937# he entered the Sacred Heart Novitiate ot the SocietJ ot Jesus at Milford~ Ohio. Por the tour Jear• he spent there, he was aoademicallJ connected with Xavier Univeraitr, Cincinnati, Ohio. In August ot 1941 he tranaterred to West Baden College o.f Lorol& Universit7, Obicago, and received the degree ot Bachelor o.f Arts with a major in Greek in Deo.aber, 1941.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato Apology of Socrates and Crito
    COLLEGE SERIES OF GREEK AUTHORS EDITED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF JOHN WILLIAMS WHITE, LEWIS R. PACKARD, a n d THOMAS D. SEYMOUR. PLATO A p o l o g y o f S o c r a t e s AND C r i t o EDITED ON THE BASIS OF CRON’S EDITION BY LOUIS DYER A s s i s t a n t ·Ρι;Οχ'ε&^ο^ ι ν ^University. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY GINN & COMPANY. 1902. I P ■ C o p · 3 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1885, by J o h n W il l ia m s W h i t e a n d T h o m a s D. S e y m o u r , In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. J . S. C u s h in g & Co., P r i n t e r s , B o s t o n . PREFACE. T his edition of the Apology of Socrates and the Crito is based upon Dr. Christian Cron’s eighth edition, Leipzig, 1882. The Notes and Introduction here given have in the main been con­ fined within the limits intelligently drawn by Dr. Cron, whose commentaries upon various dialogues of Plato have done and still do so much in Germany to make the study of our author more profitable as well as pleasanter. No scruple has been felt, how­ ever, in making changes. I trust there are few if any of these which Dr. Cron might not himself make if he were preparing his work for an English-thinking and English-speaking public.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prosecutors of Socrates and the Political Motive Theory
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 2-1981 The prosecutors of Socrates and the political motive theory Thomas Patrick Kelly Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Intellectual History Commons, and the Political History Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Kelly, Thomas Patrick, "The prosecutors of Socrates and the political motive theory" (1981). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2692. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.2689 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Thomas Patrick Kelly for the Master of Arts in History presented February 26, 1981. Title: The Prosecutors of Socrates and The Political Motive Theory. APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS CO~rnITTEE: ~~varnos, Cha1rman Charles A. Le Guin Roderlc D1man This thesis presents a critical analysis of the histor- ical roles assigned to the prosecutors of Socrates by modern historians. Ancient sources relating to the trial and the principles involved, and modern renditions, especially those of John Burnet and A. E. Taylor, originators of the theory that the trial of Socrates was politically motivated, are critically 2 analyzed and examined. The thesis concludes that the political motive theory is not supported by the evidence on which it relies. THE PROSECUTORS OF SOCRATES AND THE POLITICAL MOTIVE THEORY by THOMAS PATRICK KELLY A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in HISTORY Portland State University 1981 TO THE OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH: The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Thomas Patrick Kelly presented February 26, 1981.
    [Show full text]