SOCRATES Information about the historical Socrates Socrates was the son of Sophroniscus, a stonemason, and Phaenarete, a midwife, from Alopeke, belonged to the tribe of Antiochis and was born circa 470 BC. Young Socrates initially worked as a stonemason like his father. There was an old tradition that he had crafted the statue of the Three Graces that stood by the entrance of the Acropolis (Pausanias 1,22,8 and 9,35,7 – Comments on Aristophanes’ Clouds 793) but like the rest of the information about the philosopher that we have from sources of his time, it is probably not true. Tradition has it that in his youth he showed interest in the Ionian physical sciences, which had become well known in Athens and initially they may have aroused his enthusiasm. However, later in his maturity, he was won by physical philosophy. In Plato’s Phaedo Socrates admits that he had been greatly impressed in his youth by the teachings of Anaxagoras about the Mind (he was on friendly terms with Archelaus, one of the students of Anaxagoras). In Epidimies of Ion of Chios (fr. 11 Blumenthal) it is reported that Socrates travelled to Samos with Archelaus. Of course, this refutes what Plato mentions in Crito that Socrates never travelled away from his city except when he took part in military expeditions of his city. One compromising explanation is that perhaps this journey of his had to do with the Athenian expedition to Samos in 441/440 BC. As a historical figure Socrates is mainly known through the works of two authors of antiquity: Plato and Xenophon. The former places him as the central figure of all his philosophical dialogues which have survived to this day (with the exception of the Laws, but also in this dialogue the Athenian must be Socrates). This "platonic" Socrates’ philosophical struggle to define basic concepts we watch. Xenophon, who was never a student of Socrates, refers to him in his works Memorabilia, Oeconimicus and Symposium and in his, (but with its authenticity disputed) Apology. Through his information he basically refutes the accusations against the philosopher as he presents him as a virtuous and good citizen. Xenophon's socratic books were written some time after Socrates' death. The reasonable question, which arises for every researcher of the life of the great philosopher, is which of these two sources should be considered more credible. As is usually the case with issues that relate to persons who have marked the world history with their presence, the opinions differ: for some it is Plato who, as a student of Socrates, knows the philosopher better and understands his teaching but for others precisely this relations of Socrates with Plato makes Xenophon a more reliable source. In particular, it is a fact that Plato is an earlier source than Xenophon. It is true that he himself developed a personal philosophical theory, which he even altered it at least twice. It is, therefore, sometimes difficult to distinguish among Plato’s lines referring to Socrates which concepts belong to Socrates and which to Plato. On the other hand, one point in favor of Plato is the fact that, as a sophisticated philosopher and student of Socrates, he understood his teaching to a greater depth. Xenophon, on the other hand, must have drawn on previous sources, including Plato, but, according to some scholars, presents the true face of Socrates, whether or not he has understood the teachings of the philosopher fully. However, his presentation of Socrates as a peaceful elderly person who discusses in a "low" tone of ideological confrontations with his fellow symposiasts, as he presents him in his Memorabilia, remains rather simplistic. Researchers like Burnet and Taylor (representatives of the Scottish School) accept that Socrates is presented as he really was in Plato’s dialogues, which depict, at least, the intense conflict of the Socratic teaching with that of the sophists of the time of Socrates and highlight both the philosophical personality and the moral consistency, as well as the method of his reflection that consists in the dialectic feature of the philosopher, known as "Socratic irony". Apart from these two basic sources, there was a rich literature on the personality of Socrates, which unfortunately has not survived to this day. Elements of this writing activity are the extant excerpts of reports by Phaedo, Antisthenes, Aristipus, Euclid and Aeschines. Still references to Socrates come from Aristotle, who was only indirectly associated with the Socratic thought, but who attempted to understand the life and work of Socrates with his characteristic philosophical seriousness. We also have the works of later writers, such as Porphyry (Philosopher’s History), Diogenes Laertius (Lives of Eminent Philosophers), Plutarch (About the Socratic Demon) and Libanius (Socrates’ Apology). The conclusion that is reached is that today we have a picture of Socrates which in some points is shaped by opinions and which is not always accurate. Besides, since antiquity and mainly from the comic playwrights - most notably Aristophanes in the Clouds, but also in the Birds and in the Frogs - we have a multitude of mocking and distorted reports on Socrates, who - like every extraordinary and "out of the general atmosphere and times" personality - seems that he became annoying with his particular ways, and as a result every effort to be presented through similar reports proved “unfair”. Let us first examine the information which derives from authenticated, more or less, sources. We know that the philosopher fought in the battles of Potidea where he saved the life in Alcibiades (431/29 BC), of Delion (424 BC), an of Amphipolis (422 BC) at the age of about 39,46 and 48 respectively. A man who participated in battles at this age cannot have been a "cachectic satyr", as Socrates was portrayed by some. Later, when we examine the moral teaching of the philosopher, we will return to the semiology of his appearance, and especially his poor manner of dress, as well as his "absent-mindness", which, as a common feature, was used to describe all the philosophers of the world since the era of the Pre- Socratics and especially Thales or Anaxagoras, and which was used to describe Socrates as well, when Aristophanes in the Birds cartoons him as a meteorosophist and an "out of the world "scholar. Probably Aristophanes at this point brings back to the forefront the cosmological and physical quests from the young age of the philosopher when he became a companion to the first Athenian philosopher Archelaus, a student of Anaxagoras, a relation confirmed by musician Aristoxenos and by Theophrastus, who calls Socrates a "student" of Archelaus. The truth is that we can not accurately detect the time when the shift to the philosopher's interests occured. Tradition, however, gives us the image of an elderly man with his attention focused on man and on the inside of his soul. At this point it is sufficient to note that Socrates, when he participated in banquets and drank with his companions, managed not to lose his sobriety after the traditional wine-drinking, despite the fact that in his personal-daily life he abstained from drinking. Xenophon, at least from his part, gives us this picture of Socrates in his Memorabilia. The fact that his outward appearance was not flattering is testified by different sources, while he accepted for his appearance the unflattering label of "Silenus". But this chubby man with the bulging eyes, the ugly nose and the thick lips “shone from head to toe” internally. One of the most prominent features of his personality was his ability to locate the "ridiculous". Anticipating the sentimentalism and the cynicism of his interlocutors, he was extremely tolerant of human passions, while he himself was a particularly abstemious person. Nothing on him was an exaggeration. He did not provoke with an excessively "dirty" or too "sloppy" appearance or with an ascetic or antisocial behavior. He did not seek wealth, but he mixed comfortably in the circles of the Athenians and enjoyed the good companionship of rich and poor with the same developed communicative mood. What he "saw" in his interlocutor was the man, not his social status. He did not wish to be involved in politics, he was not interested in any kind of political power. He was a member of the Council of 500 in 406-405 BC at least once and we also know that as a Prytanis in 406 BC, after the naval battle of Arginousae, where it was impossible to retrieve the dead bodies because of the rough seas, he had argued against the proposal that all generals be condemned to death for this serious omission, a proposal finally accepted to satisfy the mob (Plato, Apology 321, Xenophon, Greek 1, 7.15, Xenophon, Memorabilia 1,1,18). We also know of his resistance against the authoritarian regime of the "thirty" tyrants (Plato Apology 32c and Xenophon Memorabilia 4,4,3): In 404 BC four people and Socrates were ordered by the "Thirty" who wanted "accomplices" in the terrorism they had imposed on Athens, to capture Leo of Salamis to be executed. Socrates simply did not obey and went home. On the suggestion of Critias, his former student, the Thirtiy "issued special measures to "silence" him (Xenophon, Memorabilia 1,2,31 and 4,4,3). Of course, we cannot know the original intention of the tyrants, that is, if they wanted to impose their terrorism on the general public and started with the "annoying" citizens, such as Socrates, or they were particularly concerned with the teachings of the philosopher. It is natural, however, that old Socrates’ students, such as Crito and Alcibiades, who belonged to the oligarchic side, came in direct conflict with the moral demands of their teacher and therefore started to consider him their political opponent.