How to Defend the Defense of Socrates? From the Apology to Memorabilia Book 1

Pierre Pontier Sorbonne University

In the Apology of Socrates and the first part of Book 1 of the Memorabilia Xenophon assumes the role of a witness in order to rebut accusations and to correct representations of Socrates that he believed to be wrong. This straight- forward rhetorical choice, which distinguishesXenophon from Plato,1 positions the portrait of Socrates that emerges from these two writings near judicial rhetoric and toward the rhetoric of prose eulogy. The literary form of the two works is different. The Apology of Socrates is Xenophon’s shortest writing; and in contrast to what the title might lead one to think,2 it does not just present Socrates’ discourse before his judges. It devotes itself above all to justifying the way Socrates chose to defend himself and to die, as we will show by first analysing the use and the real meaning of the word megalegoria in the Apology. Book 1 of the Memorabilia is conceived in two parts, a division which for a long time seemed proof of different dates of composition: the first two chapters relate to the accusations made against Socrates, while the last five seek to demonstrate the philosopher’s “utility” in both word and deed. Beside the aspect of apology common to the two works, the Memorabilia and the Apology of Socrates are a rare example of rewriting in the ancient world: at the beginning and at the end of the Memorabilia3 Xenophon borrows and adapts passages

1 See Vander Waerdt 1994, 10–12; Bandini and Dorion 2000, lxvii–lxix; and Danzig 2010, 5–8 on this point. Oeconomicus and Symposium lack the direct apologetic orientation of the Apology and Memorabilia. 2 Wilamowitz 1897, 99. 3 1.1–2 and 4.8. On these “parallel passages” see Bandini and Dorion 2011b, annexe 6, 243–250. Xenophon, like Isocrates in his Antidosis, is familiar with rewriting his own work, since he picks up elements of Hellenica in the Agesilaus (the eulogy of the king of Sparta, like the Apology, was considered suspect in the nineteenth century because of these repetitions; see Breitenbach 1967, col. 1894). On the Apology supposedly antedating Memorabilia, we take the prevailing view, even if as Bandini and Dorion 2011b, 243, emphasises, “it is a matter of little interest in that there are no doctrinal discrepancies between the two texts.” See also Stokes 2012 on this chronological question.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004341227_022 436 pontier from the Apology. The Memorabilia is inscribed within the apologetic context of Socrates’ end but also has much larger aspirations: the choice of discussants and the place and form of the discussions aim to situate Socrates in his time and in relation to his city as well as to provide a portrait of him. This we shall show by examining the case of his three dialogues with “Antiphon the Sophist” (1.6).

1 Socrates’ Megalegoria and Xenophon’s Defense

In the Apology of Socrates Xenophon treats what is common to all those who have reported Socrates’ language as evidence of his megalegoria, and then reproaches them for failing to represent that language as anything other than insupportable arrogance (1–2). Xenophon, who was absent at the time of Socra- tes’ trial, relies on the evidence of Hermogenes to report a conversation be- tween him and Socrates. During that conversation Socrates justifies his deci- sion not to prepare his defense by appeal to being twice opposed by his dai- monion (2–9). Then there is a selection of utterances of Socrates at the time of his trial, responding to the two principal accusations of impiety and the cor- ruption of youth (10–26), and contrasting portraits of the attitude of Socrates after the trial and that of his accuser Anytos (27–31). Xenophon concludes with a short recapitulation in the form of an enkômion (32–34). The purpose of Xenophon’s Apology of Socrates is not to report the entirety of Socrates’ discourse in his defense before the judges, but to make sense of his megalegoria, by demonstrating the coherence between his utterance and his conduct.4 This is the rhetorical attitude Xenophon seeks to clarify. What is the meaning of the term? Etymologically, the second part of the compound word refers to public utterance.5 The first part of the term draws close to the often pejorative μέγα λέγειν, “to speak big” (lsj). The implications of the term in the rhetorical sense, as “elevation,” are post-classical.6 The solutions vari- ous translators and commentators have adopted are by no means uniform. They reveal three possible semantic orientations: one (“pride in language”7) gives primacy to Socrates’ posture and tone (the loftiness of his views), perhaps because it is mindful of the term’s rhetorical future; another (“big talk,” “high-

4 See Ap. 1–2. On the possible rhetorical background to this idea, see Gray 1989. 5 Cf. Chantraine, delg, s.v. ἀγορά, 13. 6 See, e.g., Dem. De Eloc. 29. 7 See Talbot 1859; Chambry 1933–1935; Ollier 1961.