DOCSLIB.ORG

Strauss on the Memorabilia: Xenophon's Socrates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strauss on the Memorabilia: Xenophon's Socrates CHAPTER 12 Strauss on the Memorabilia: Xenophon’s Socrates Amy L. Bonnette Leo Strauss devotes most of Xenophon’s Socrates to a detailed analysis of the Memorabilia, the longest, most complex, and most beautiful of Xenophon’s four Socratic works.1 By carefully compiling many short Socratic speeches and dialogues, Xenophon demonstrates in the Memorabilia that Socrates was a model teacher and human being who adorned his city by improving the peo- ple around him. The Memorabilia opens with a refutation of the two official charges against Socrates (impiety and corruption of the youth) and concludes with a glance at Socrates’ approach to his trial and a final eulogy. Xenophon begins and ends, then, by discussing Socrates’ trial—including attention to his controversial daimonion (which looks like fairly strong evidence against Socrates on the charge that he introduced new daimonia). This focus on Socrates’ daimonion is probably what prompts Strauss to observe that the work is an unusual piece of forensic rhetoric, in that it shows its vulnerabilities at the beginning and end, while placing in the (large) middle section its most publicly acceptable part, an account of Socrates’ benefactions (4, 58). In Xenophon’s Socratic Discourse, the first of his two volumes laying out his “complete” interpretation of Xenophon’s Socrates, Strauss explains why he begins with an examination of Xenophon’s dialogue on household manage- ment, the Oeconomicus, rather than with the Memorabilia (Strauss 1970, 85, cf. Strauss 1972, preface). There he argues that Xenophon limits himself in the Memorabilia to speaking about Socrates’ justice. Even if this were strictly speaking true (for the Memorabilia does discuss Socrates’ wisdom, among other virtues), the definition of justice under consideration in the Memorabilia 1 I thank Robert Bartlett and Timothy Burns for suggesting improvements to this essay. I am much indebted to Christopher Bruell’s work on Strauss and Xenophon (1984, 1994, 1998), especially his “Foreword” (1998) to the reprints of Leo Strauss’ final two books on Xenophon, Xenophon’s Socrates (Strauss 1972) and Xenophon’s Socratic Discourse (Strauss 1970). Translations of the Memorabilia are from my edition (Bonnette 1994), with occasional unnoted changes. For translations of Xenophon’s other Socratic writings I recommend Bartlett (1996). Further helpful commentary on the Memorabilia can be found in Buzzetti (2001), Lorch (2010) and Pangle (1994). References to the Memorabilia are to book and chap- ter (e.g., 1.2) or to book, chapter and section (e.g., 1.2.2). Unidentified page references are to Xenophon’s Socrates (Strauss 1972). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004�9983�_0�4 286 Bonnette is a broad one, focusing on Socrates’ benefactions to friends and not simply on his law-abidingness (1.6.11, 4.8.11). Thus, the Memorabilia must show some por- tion of Socrates’ benefits to his friend and student, Xenophon. We may reason- ably hope, then, that by reading the Memorabilia we too may be benefited—in other words, that we will not only be convinced of Socrates’ justice but also learn something by understanding Xenophon’s argument (29, 101, Strauss 1970, 85, 1.6.13, 4.1.1). Strauss’ opening assertion is very promising in this regard. He says that he expects to “transform into a certainty” his surmise, based on the title of the Memorabilia (“Recollections” or “Memoirs”), that Socrates was the model for Xenophon, or that Xenophon’s time spent with Socrates was the most memo- rable part of his very memorable life (3, Strauss 1970, 85). We can reason, then, that if Socrates was a model for Xenophon, he must have been a prudent man who understood how to conduct his own affairs. Additionally, because Strauss treats the Oeconomicus first—whereas Xenophon presents the Oeconomicus as a continuation of the Memorabilia—he makes us aware that the prudent conduct of one’s affairs must include the prudent management of one’s house- hold. Therefore, Strauss must have concluded that Socrates was a model household manager as far as Xenophon was concerned. But how could Strauss, or Xenophon, possibly arrive at such a conclusion? Socrates’ bad end would seem to raise doubts about his ability to manage his own affairs at all pru- dently. Even if we could accept Xenophon’s puzzling suggestion that Socrates preferred death in the given dire circumstances (4.8.1), how did he find him- self in such circumstances? That Socrates considered himself superior to other philosophers is clear from Xenophon’s differentiating Socrates from “the oth- ers,” on the grounds that they sought wisdom in divine matters before they understood the human things. Yet, other philosophers did not suffer Socrates’ fate. How could Socrates claim to have a superior knowledge of human things if he could not even protect himself from an ignominious death? To put it more generally, how can we believe that Socrates is any sort of model for a gentleman if he could not successfully navigate a peaceful existence among his fellow citizens in one of the most intellectually tolerant cities of his time? While Strauss himself does not raise these doubts at the opening of Xenophon’s Socrates, we must raise them for ourselves if we wish to under- stand the argument of his book, for Strauss’ treatment of the Memorabilia is difficult to follow without some prior idea of what the important questions are for us and for Socrates. In particular, we must remain aware of the importance of understanding the management of human beings for this famous founder of political philosophy. This awareness is difficult to maintain because, even though Socrates insisted that it is vital to understand the political things, he .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Moderately Ironic Reading of Xenophon's Oeconomicus
    David M. JOHNSON Ischomachus the Model Husband? A Moderately Ironic Reading of Xenophon's Oeconomicus Xenophon's Oeconomicus is usually considered a treatise on household management masquerading as a Socratic dialogue (Pomeroy). But for others the reverse is true (Strauss and the Straussians; see also Mackenzie and Nails in EMC 1985, Too's review of Pomeroy in CR 1995, and the less orthodox Straussian Stevens). How one comes down on this issue will obviously affect one's evaluation of Ischomachus' relationship with his wife, and of Xenophon as a Socratic writer. I argue that the Oeconomicus is both Socratic and economic, both didactic and ironic. Xenophon chose Ischomachus because both his virtues and his vices have much to teach Critobulus, Socrates' immediate interlocutor, and Xenophon's readers. Our Ischomachus is probably the man whose wife went on to become the Chrysilla who would marry and bear a son to her son-in-law Callias, driving her daughter to attempt suicide (Andocides 1.124-127). There may be evidence for this in Oeconomicus itself. Callias would fall for Chrysilla again when she was "an old battleaxe" (Andocides 1.127); Ischomachus promises his wife that she can maintain her status even in old age (Oec. 7.20). The scandals which would beset Chrysilla and her children may shed light on Ischomachus' otherwise odd failure to say much about children to the wife he had married in large part for the sake of children. There are other ironies. Ischomachus hardly shares Socrates' understanding of property as that one knows how to use. Critobulus, in fact, is evidently already rich enough in conventional terms: he needs another sort of help.
    [Show full text]
  • Oikos and Economy: the Greek Legacy in Economic Thought
    Oikos and Economy: The Greek Legacy in Economic Thought GREGORY CAMERON In the study of the history of economic thought, there has been a tendency to take the meaning of the term “economics” for granted. As a consequence, when considering economic thought in ancient Greece, we turn to what the Greeks said about wealth, about money or about interest. This seems relatively straightforward. Problems emerge when we consider that the term “economics” had a different meaning in ancient Greece than it does today. As a rule, we project back onto history what we mean by “economics” and more or less ignore what it meant during the period in question. On one level, there is nothing wrong with this way of proceeding; after all we have no choice, ultimately, but to study the past with the concepts that are at our disposal. But the procedure can have certain drawbacks. The tendency of positive investigations is that they risk overlooking the kinds of transformations that give rise to our own concerns and even what is essential to our own thought and assumptions. The term “economics” has a long and varied history; the following is a brief attempt to turn things on their head and consider the history of economics not from the perspective of the modern notion of economics, but from the perspective of its ancient Greek ancestor and to begin to indicate the non-obvious ways in which the Greek legacy continues to inform even our most recent economies. As such, while brief mention is made of some modern economic historians, the primary focus is on the meaning of PhaenEx 3, no.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Plato and Xenophon on the Different Reasons That Socrates Always Obeys the Law
    Plato and Xenophon on the Different Reasons that Socrates Always Obeys the Law Louis-André Dorion Plato and Xenophon agree that Socrates always obeys the law. In the Crito and the Memorabilia (4.4 and 4.6), we see that they also agree that Socrates gives reasons for his obedience to the law. Despite this common ground, Plato and Xenophon disagree about the reasons that justify obedience to the law, as can be shown by a comparative analysis of Plato and Xenophon on the important Socratic theme of obedience to the law. I intend to show, as I have done for other Socratic positions shared by Plato and Xenophon, that the Crito and the Memorabilia provide different reasons for holding the same Socratic position on obedience to the law. Although Plato’s Crito has been the subject of numer- ous studies and greater attention is now being paid to Xenophon’s Memorabilia 4.4,1 it appears that no one has yet attempted a comparative analysis of these two texts. However, I will not provide a new interpretation of the Crito. My aim is to compare the Memorabilia with the Crito in order to highlight what is unique to the argument of the Memorabilia and, consequently, to the argu- ment of the Crito as well. I will limit myself to the most noteworthy differences. The Context of the Discussion It is probably not a coincidence that Plato and Xenophon situate their respec- tive discussions of obedience to the law in an apologetic context. In the Crito, the immediate context is the prison where Socrates awaits the day of his execu- tion after his trial.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophic Life and Socratic Fatherhood in the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo
    Gib´on vol. IX (2011) pp. 35{50 c 2012 Ateneo de Naga University Regular Research Article ISSN 1655-7247 The Philosophic Life and Socratic Fatherhood in the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo Federico Jos´eT. Lagdameo Department of Philosophy Ateneo de Naga University Abstract Plato's depiction and defense of philosophy were linked to his de- piction and defense of Socrates' own life. Notably in the Early Dialogues which gave accounts of Socrates' trial and execution, Plato portrayed his mentor's life as the philosophic life which one ought to aspire for. Yet, Socrates' admission in the Apology and the Crito's reproof that the former had neglected his oikon or his household presented an image of Socrates that suggested that the paradigm of the philosophic life had been in fact remiss by being an absent father who failed to care for his own children. I indicate that this image of Socrates engendered questions and criticisms against the life devoted to philosophy, especially from those belonging to a family-centered cultural milieu such as the Philippines. I show that Socrates's fatherhood is one that prioritizes the care of the political community over that of his own family. Keywords: Plato, trial of Socrates, Early Dialogues, fatherhood, philo- sophic life From Plato we receive the notion that philosophy is not merely an activity, that it is not merely something that a man does. Philos- ophy is an ethos in which one's actions are derived ultimately from the soul's virtue. Philosophy, in other words, is a kind of life that is lived.
    [Show full text]
  • Sophrosyne in Xenophon’S Oeconomicus
    166 ECONOMIC SELF- RESTRAINT An interpretation of Ischomachus’ use of sophrosyne in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus MA Thesis Classics and Ancient Civilizations Supervisor: Dr. T.A. van Berkel Second reader: Dr. A.M. Rademaker Word count: 16.494 Date of submission: 12-08-2019 Aniek Vink s1665235 [email protected] Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Chapter 1: a semantic study of sophrosyne ............................................................................................. 4 1.1. General uses ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2. Plato’s philosophical uses ............................................................................................................ 8 1.3. Relation to enkrateia .................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Socrates’ sophrosyne ........................................................................................................... 11 2.1. Good sense to avoid harming others .......................................................................................... 11 2.1.1. Xenophon’s apologetic definition ....................................................................................... 11 2.1.2. Socrates’ philosophical definition ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Why Did Xenophon Write a Symposium? Erotica Paideia and Logos Sokratikos*
    JOSÉ VELA TEJADA Why did Xenophon write a Symposium? Erotica paideia and logos Sokratikos* 1. Xenophon, Socrates and the logos Sokratikos Xenophon bequeathed a collection of works, with philosophical con- tent, grouped under the title of Socratica, whose composing was mainly in- spired by the leading role of Socrates, or, actually, by Xenophon’s under- standing of the Athenian master’s ideas. Therefore, the Socrates’ lifetime until his condemn, and his intellectual activity – matters that are less focused in his historical works – find a proper narrative vehicle in the Socratica, ac- cording to Xenophontean tendency to thematic specialization. The topic of this essay is the effect of Socratic spirit1, also ascertained in the pedagogic aim and in the ultimate search of the individual paradigm of the Xenophon’s historical works. Nevertheless, we should not insist – as in previous analyses – in estab- lishing the epistemological superiority that results from comparison with * This article was made under the general frame of the Research-Team Byblíon H 52 (Dirección General de Investigación, Innovación y Desarrollo, Consejería de Ciencia y Tec- nología, DGA, Spain). 1 We say spirit or influence because, although Xenophon informs us of personal rela- tionship with Socrates in Anabasis (III, 1, 5), this does not mean that he was member of the closest circle of Socrates’ disciples. In relation to that, WATERFIELD 2004, 79, considers Xe- nophon as a true Socratic for “he followed Socrates’ philosophy to the best of his ability”. H istorikαv I 2011 ISSN 2240-774X e-ISSN 2039-4985 81 José Vela Tejada Plato2. Sometimes it has been suggested that the Xenophontean profile of Socrates has a more accurate historical reliability than the Platonic one; however, we cannot prove any hypothesis neither in the historian nor in the philosopher3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Plato's Crito and Phaedo on Xenophon's Apology of Socrates
    Kentron Revue pluridisciplinaire du monde antique 31 | 2015 Les Socratica de Xénophon The influence of Plato’s Crito and Phaedo on Xenophon’s Apology of Socrates Boris Hogenmüller Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kentron/347 DOI: 10.4000/kentron.347 ISSN: 2264-1459 Publisher Presses universitaires de Caen Printed version Date of publication: 1 November 2015 Number of pages: 127-138 ISBN: 978-2-84133-747-7 ISSN: 0765-0590 Electronic reference Boris Hogenmüller, « The influence of Plato’s Crito and Phaedo on Xenophon’s Apology of Socrates », Kentron [Online], 31 | 2015, Online since 19 October 2016, connection on 17 November 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/kentron/347 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/kentron.347 Kentron is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 International License. The inFluence OF Plato’S CRITO and PHAEDO Hauteur 1 du rectangle d’empagement on Xenophon’S APOLOGY OF SOCRATES T_3_Article The relationship between Plato and Xenophon has been the subject of research for many years. During the late 19th and early 20th century, the result of this research, especially in terms of the ‘Sokratesbild’, was always the same, and Xenophon’s dependence on the logoi Sokratikoi written by Plato and Antisthenes has always been quite obvious 2. In the middle of the 20th century, however, new studies have given rise to another opinion 3, which made the case for dependence of Xenophon on other Socratics. Thus L.-A. Dorion’s statement (« Xénophon dépend des autres Socratiques : il ne constitue pas une source indépendante » 4), although he attempts to refute it 5, seems more appropriate today than ever before.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Political Philosophy
    History of Political Thought: Ancient Political Philosophy Semester: Spring 2021 ECTS Credits: 6 Hours/week: 90 + 90 min Language: English Instructor: Cole Simmons, PhD Meeting: Tues: 9:00 – 10:30 (Online) Thursday: (b) 9:00 – 10:30; (a) 10:40-12:10 (Online) Office third floor, Blue building Tel: (+421 2) 59234 722 Cell: +421 944 846 840 [email protected] CONTENT The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. – Ecclesiastes 1:9 The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them. –Alfred North Whitehead We are going to read Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle. Plato and Xeonphon were friends and the pupils of Socrates. Aristotle was the pupil of Plato. Their writings have lasted for a reason. We will try to understand that reason, namely, we will try to understand their ineradicable insights into the Right of Nature. In Ancient Greece, man perfected himself. ASSIGNMENTS There will be 2 papers, each worth 25% of your grade. 25% is for attendance and participation. There will be an online message board component, worth 25%. Timeliness is of essence in this course. Assignments have to be uploaded via Google Classroom by the due date. Late submissions will incur grade penalty.
    [Show full text]
  • Cicero on the Philosophy of Religion
    CICERO ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: DE NATURA DEORUM AND DE DIVINATIONE. 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 John Patrick Frederick Wynne January 2008 CICERO ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: DE NATURA DEORUM AND DE DIVINATIONE. John Patrick Frederick Wynne, Ph. D. Cornell University, 2008 Cicero wrote de Natura Deorum (dND), de Divinatione (Div.) and de Fato (Fat.) in succession and describes the latter two as continuations of the first. I argue that the three dialogues form a trilogy, in which Cicero as author indicates a stance on the material he presents (but that too little of the fragmentary Fat. remains to be useful for my purposes). There are much-debated attributions of preferences to Cicero’s propriae personae at the conclusions of dND and Div.; I take these preferences to express Cicero’s authorial stance. I examine relevant parts of the speeches to which they react and, first, make philosophical interpretations of each (often comparing other sources for Hellenistic thought) and, second, pay attention to the interaction of Cicero’s characterization of each speaker with the arguments the speaker gives. I find that Balbus in dND advocates the avoidance of superstition and the reform of religious beliefs in line with Stoic physics and that Cotta has a strong commitment to traditional Roman religious views consistent with his sceptical epistemology. Cotta’s scepticism is elusive in its details but perhaps yields a kind of fideism. I find that Quintus Cicero’s advocacy in Div.
    [Show full text]