Xenophon memories of Socrates. Xenophon "Memories of Socrates" Xenophon memories of Socrates m 1993

Chapter V. THEORY. Xenophon. The advances in military technology also brought to life his theory. It developed when discussing the advantages of various types of weapons. A peculiar trace of how vividly this question was debated among the Athenians, we find in the tragedy of Euripides

Socrates is the first Athenian (by birth) philosopher. He came from the deme Alopeka, which was part of the Athenian policy and located at a distance of half an hour's walk from the capital of Attica. Socrates' father is Sophroniscus, a stone-cutting craftsman, and his mother, Finareta, is a midwife. During the war between Athens and Sparta, Socrates valiantly performed his military duty. He participated in battles three times, the last time at the Battle of Amphipod in 422 BC. when the Spartans defeated the Athenians. In the second period of this ill-fated war for Athens, Socrates no longer participated. But she touched him with one of her tragic events. In 406 BC. e. the Athenians, after a series of defeats, won a victory at the Arginus Islands in a naval battle, but the Athenian strategists, due to a storm, could not bury the dead. The winners were judged in a council of five hundred. Being at that time the bule priest, Socrates opposed the hasty trial of all the strategists at once. Socrates was not obeyed, and all eight strategists were executed. The defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War and the subsequent tyranny of the thirty did not pass Socrates by either. Once, being again a prytan, Socrates refused to participate in the massacre of tyrants over one honest Athenian citizen. So Socrates fulfilled his public duties, which in the conditions of ancient democracy were performed by all free Athenians. However, Socrates did not strive for active social activity. He led the life of a philosopher: he lived unpretentiously, but had leisure. Socrates devoted all his time to philosophical conversations and disputes. He had many students. Unlike the sophists, Socrates did not take money for education. Socrates considered the three main virtues: 1. Moderation 2. Courage 3. Justice

Monarchy, from the point of view of Socrates, differs from tyranny in that it relies on legal rights, and not on the forcible seizure of power, and therefore has a moral meaning that tyranny lacks. Aristocracy, which is defined as the power of a few knowledgeable and moral people, Socrates prefers to all other state forms, in particular directing the edge of his criticism against ancient democracy as an immoral form of state power unacceptable from his point of view and citizens most devoted to the common good. Socrates is on the side of the backward village - against the city with its crafts, industry and trade. This is the ideal of Socrates. It was necessary to educate adherents of this ideal. Hence the relentless, continuous, day-to-day ongoing propaganda activity of Socrates. Socrates talks about courage, prudence, justice, modesty. He would like to see in the Athenian citizens people who are brave, but modest, not exacting, prudent, fair in their relations with their friends, but not at all with enemies. In a word, a citizen must be a humble, God-fearing, obedient tool in the hands of "noble gentlemen." Finally, it should be mentioned that Socrates also outlined the classification of state forms, based on the main provisions of his ethical and political teaching. The state forms mentioned by Socrates are as follows: monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, plutocracy and democracy. Socrates was an implacable enemy of the Athenian masses. He was the ideologist of the aristocracy, his doctrine of the inviolability, eternity and immutability of moral norms expresses the ideology of this particular class. Socrates' preaching of virtue had a political purpose. He himself says about himself that he cares to prepare as many people as possible who are able to take up political activity. At the same time, the political education of the Athenian citizen was carried out by him in such a direction as to prepare for the restoration of the political domination of the aristocracy, to return to the "precepts of the fathers." Socrates, according to Xenophon, sings of agriculture. It makes it possible to promise "good promises to the slaves" and "to entertain the workers and incline them to obedience." Agriculture is the mother and nurse of all the arts, the source of the necessities of life for "for the noble master", the best occupation and the best science. It imparts beauty and strength to the body, encourages courage, and gives excellent political ideas to Socrates. Dissatisfied with the existing democracy, Socrates made very high demands on politicians. Closest to these requirements was the aristocracy. Socrates says of himself that he takes care to prepare as many people as possible who are able to take up political activity. But he also considered the will of the people, their laws, to be sacred. To follow the laws means to act fairly. According to Xenophon, Socrates admires "the most ancient and most educated states and peoples", because they are "the most pious." He even "+ thinks that he will not be ashamed to take the Persian king as a model," because the Persian king considers agriculture and military art to be the noblest occupations. Land and military art are the original property of the landowning aristocracy. Socrates sings of agriculture. At the same time, agriculture is opposed to urban occupations, crafts as harmful to business and destroying the soul. The work of Xenophon was written as an objection to the unfair accusation of political unreliability, therefore, in it the author sets out the views of Socrates in this way.

(about 444-356 BC)

Youth of Xenophon, acquaintance with Socrates

Xenophon, after the third remarkable Greek historian, was an Athenian from the demos of Ercheia, the phyla of Aygeis. He was born, according to the most probable calculation, in 444 BC (Ol. 84, 1). His father, Grill, was, it seems, a wealthy man and could spend some money on his son's education. The wealth of his family is already indicated by the fact that Xenophon served in the civil cavalry, which only people with means could enter, since the rider had to constantly maintain two combat horses at his own expense.

Diogenes Laertius, in whose work The Lives of the Philosophers also contains a biography of Xenophon, reports that in his youth he was well-behaved and modest and was distinguished by a special beauty; this was the reason why Socrates turned his attention to the young man and tried to attract him to himself. Socrates, who, in his own words, had a habit of wandering the Athenian streets and "catching people" in order to direct them to the path of virtue, especially tried to attract such young men among his students, by whose outward beauty one could conclude about the harmonious development of their spiritual forces. Diogenes tells how the philosopher "caught" the young Xenophon. Having once met a young man in a narrow street, he stretched a stick across, blocked his way and asked where he could buy such and such foodstuffs. Xenophon answered his question; then he asked again where able and good people are brought up. The young man hesitated to answer. Then Socrates said to him: "Well, then follow me and you will find out." Xenophon followed him, and since then became his most faithful follower and student, gladly accepted his teaching and tried to arrange his whole life in accordance with this teaching. Thus, the lessons of Socrates became for Xenophon the basic principles of his moral being. However, the inquisitive young man tried to improve his education, turning to other sources; so, for example, he studied eloquence with the sophist Prodicus of Ceos.

Participation of Xenophon in the Peloponnesian War

So Xenophon went with the army of Cyrus, whose friendship he had acquired, in the hope that the campaign was undertaken only against the Pisidians; since, apart from the Lacedaemonian Clearchus, the chief commander in the army of Cyrus, the real purpose of the campaign was not known to anyone. Only already in Cilicia the army was told everything. In the Battle of Kunaks, on the Euphrates, the fate of Cyrus was decided (September 3, 401). He himself was killed, his Asiatic troops defeated; but his Greek mercenaries, among whom was Xenophon, defeated the army of Artaxerxes. The death of Cyrus placed the Greek mercenary army, which consisted of more than ten thousand people, in an extremely difficult position. How, from the center of the Persian kingdom, can an army return to its homeland, located more than 2,000 miles away, surrounded on all sides by enemies preparing its death? It is necessary to go through hostile countries, to cross large rivers, through high mountains ... But they did not despair. Xenophon later described in his essay how Clearchus, who took over the leadership, with a bold offensive movement frightened King Artaxerxes and his commander Tissaphernes to such an extent that they offered the Greeks to conclude an agreement under which the Persians undertook, under the leadership of Tissaphernes, to lead the Greek army to their homeland, without inflicting no harm to him, and supply him with food. The Greeks, for their part, had to refrain from any hostile action against the Persians during the journey. But since on the straight road along which the army of Cyrus came to Kunaksa, one could fear a lack of food supplies, a detour was chosen for the retreat, leading from the Euphrates to the Tigris and through the mountains up the eastern bank of this river, through the lands of the Kardukhs and Armenians, to the Black Sea.

Thus began the famous Anabasis - the "ascent" of Ten thousand Hellenes from the lowlands of Mesopotamia to the mountain heights located to the north. Soon the Greeks noticed that Tissaphernes, accompanying them with his army, was thinking evil against them. Xenophon later described how, at the moment when the Hellenes were encamped on the Zabata, a tributary of the Tigris, Clearchus and four other generals, including Proxenus, were treacherously lured into the tent of Tissaphernes and taken prisoner, and 20 lohags or commanders of the detachments, who appeared together with the strategists, were killed right there, in front of the tent. The strategists in chains were sent to the Persian court and executed there. The Greeks in their camp on Zabat, having lost most of their leaders, found themselves in the most helpless position, completely lost heart and despaired of their salvation. None of the surviving commanders had such energy and determination in himself to become at the head of the army and arouse in him fallen courage. The savior was Xenophon, a volunteer who was with the army without any position. Encouraged by the dream, Xenophon, an energetic, practical man with an Attic education, by his decisive intervention, deft speech and clever advice, managed to inspire the army again, so that the Greeks decided to choose new commanders in place of the dead and continue the retreat. Xenophon was chosen to replace Proxenus; the Spartan Kheyrisof, who had previously been a strategist, took command of the forward detachment, and Xenophon - of the rear guard. The most difficult duty lay on him, since he was the soul of the whole enterprise. We can safely say that without Xenophon the whole army would have died. He led the troops with extraordinary skill, amid numerous difficulties, but without great losses, through the enemy country, through the mountains in the land of the Karduchi and in Armenia, to the Euxine Pontus, to the Greek city of Trebizond, where Xenophon and his associates arrived at the beginning of February 400 BC. R. Kh. The way from there to Byzantium and to Europe presented no less difficulties, although in a different way. Now, when salvation was already considered certain, and the army did not want to return home empty-handed, Xenophon had to fight against the strife, indignation, passion for robbery that had appeared, with envy, hostility and deceit of the leaders; but thanks to his intelligence, eloquence, and the strength of his education, he still managed to settle the matter again.

Anabasis of ten thousand Greeks. Map of the military expedition that served as the subject of Xenophon's work

In the autumn of 400 they arrived in Byzantium, where Xenophon wanted to leave his troops and go home. But the shamelessness of the Spartan commanders in Byzantium, who, wanting to serve the Persian satraps, wanted to destroy the army returning to their homeland, prompted him to stay with his comrades of adversity. By this Xenophon averted a great misfortune. When the soldiers, indignant at the treacherous plans of the Spartan admiral Anaxibius, began to storm Byzantium and already wanted to plunder this city, Xenophon again calmed the divergent passions with reasonable speech and saved the city, and at the same time saved the army, which, due to the revenge of the Spartans who dominated at that time in Greece, of course, it would be completely destroyed. “In the whole of Greek history,” Grot says, “one can point out very few cases in which clever speech would serve as a means to avert such a misfortune, as the extermination of an army in Byzantium was warned by the speech of Xenophon; during all the time of his command over the army, Xenophon did not render him a more important service than this time. Still pursued by the hostility of the Spartans, Xenophon with his army entered the service of the Thracian king Sevtus for the winter, who made the most brilliant proposals to the Greeks, and deceived them in reckoning.

Xenophon in the service of the Spartans

Meanwhile, the political situation changed, as a result of which the circumstances of the Greek army improved. In 399, the Spartans, as if in the interests of the Greek cities in Asia Minor, began a war against the Persian satraps Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, and wished to hire the very army against which they had previously plotted evil to help themselves. As a result of this, Xenophon led the army that remained under his command, about 500 people, back to Asia and in Mysia, in the city of Pergamum, handed it over to the Spartan accordion Timbron, who was entrusted with the main command in this war. Since then, this army has fought in Asia as a special detachment of the Spartan army, called the "Kirov" army.

When Xenophon transferred his people from Europe to Asia, he was so poor that in Lampsacus, where his army landed, he was forced to sell his horse for 50 darics. The Phliasian soothsayer Euclid, whom Xenophon had known for a long time, back in Athens, and whom he now met in Lampsacus, explained that his poverty stemmed from the fact that since his departure from Athens he had never made a complete sacrifice to Zeus Meilichius, and advised him to do so. Xenophon followed this advice the next day, and on the same day he saw the beneficial results of the sacrifice. Namely: the Spartan commissioners, who brought a deposit for hiring troops, brought Xenophon a horse sold by him as a gift, so that he immediately turned out to be rich. And since during the further campaign his troops received rich spoils and, in the form of gratitude, allocated Xenophon the best part, he acquired such a fortune that, as he himself admits, he had no reason to complain about Zeus Meilichius.

Xenophon's break with his homeland and his expulsion from Athens

For a long time Xenophon had been thinking about returning to Athens. Now he had the means to travel and did not return home empty-handed. Having handed over his troops to Timbron, he apparently took leave of them and went to Athens, where he arrived after an absence of two and a half years. A few weeks before Xenophon's return, the Athenians forced Socrates to drink a goblet of poison. This condemnation of his beloved friend and teacher, which Xenophon had to consider the greatest injustice, caused him grief and annoyance, and it is quite possible, as Grot is inclined to think, that he did not stay long in Athens and in the spring of 398, in chagrin, again left his homeland and again went to Asia to again receive command over the "Kirov" army, under the supreme command of Derkillid, who replaced Timbron. When, in 396, King Agesilaus replaced Derkillides in Asia, Xenophon, who remained in his place, became his admirer and close friend. In 394, Xenophon accompanied him on a campaign in European Greece, when there, as a result of the alliance between Thebes, Athens, Corinth and Argos, the so-called Corinthian War began against the hated and arrogant Sparta. In August of the same year, at the battle of Coronea, Xenophon fought against the allies, and therefore against his native city.

We cannot agree with those who wish to justify Xenophon for these openly hostile actions against his fellow citizens, saying that he then wished to fight only with a party hostile to him. The Athenians were extremely irritated by this act. They had long looked askance at Xenophon, and not only because he took part in the campaign of Cyrus, the enemy of Athens, against Artaxerxes, but also because he, returning from inner Asia, placed the Kirov mercenary army at the disposal of the Spartans. Now, when Xenophon became close friends with Agesilaus and, openly taking the side of the Spartans, began to fight against his native city, the Athenians, at the suggestion of Eubulus, condemned him to exile. However, Xenophon, with the sad state of Athens at that time and with his disposition towards the Spartans and their aristocratic government, did not consider expulsion from the fatherland to be too severe a punishment. The Spartans, probably at the suggestion of Agesilaus, honored Xenophon with their hospitality (προξενία) and rewarded him for the loss of his fatherland by giving him an estate near the city of Scilla (Skillunta), in southern Elis, in Triphylia. The Spartans had recently taken this Skill, along with other cities of Triphylia, from the Eleans and declared it independent. It was there that Xenophon went with his wife Philesia and two sons, Grill, and Diodorus, who, at the suggestion of Agesilaus, were brought up in Sparta, in order, as Plutarch says, to study the most important of all sciences - the science of commanding and obeying. Philesia was probably the second wife of Xenophon; the name of the first was, it seems, Soteira.

Xenophon at Skillunte

When the so-called “Ten Thousands”, returning from inner Asia, arrived in the city of Kerazunus on the Black Sea, they divided among themselves the proceeds from the sale of booty, and gave a tenth of it to Xenophon for Apollo and the Ephesian Artemis. Xenophon dedicated a gift to the Delphic Apollo, writing his name and Proxena on it. The money appointed for Artemis, he, setting off from Asia with Agesilaus on a dangerous campaign, left Megabyzus, the primate of the temple of Artemis, in Ephesus, with a request to return this money to him, Xenophon, if he survives, if he is killed during the campaign, then use them for such a gift to the temple, which, in his opinion, will be pleasing to the goddess. When Xenophon moved to Skill (Skillunt), 20 stations from Olympia, Megabyzus, who had come to the Olympic Games, came to him and handed him this money. Xenophon used them to buy land in the vicinity of Skill, in the area indicated to him by the Delphic oracle, in order to build a temple there for Artemis, modeled on Ephesus. The river that flowed through this sacred land was called Selinus, as was the one that flowed near the temple of Artemis at Ephesus; it had the same fish and the same bottom, rich in shells. Here Xenophon built a temple and erected an altar and a cypress statue of the goddess; the temple was built in miniature, after the model of Ephesus; the wooden statue of the goddess also resembled the golden statue of her at Ephesus. A grove of fruit trees was planted around the temple, and further, within the same sacred area, there was a meadow and mountains covered with forests and excellent pastures for pigs, goats, sheep and horses. There was also a lot of game - deer, fallow deer and wild boars.

Xenophon lived on his estate, next to this sacred land, and considered himself its guardian and steward. Next to the temple, Xenophon placed a column with the inscription: “This land is dedicated to Artemis. Who owns it and reaps its fruits, he must annually donate a tithe, and from the rest to maintain the temple. If someone does not fulfill this, the goddess will punish him. Xenophon annually offered a sacrifice to the goddess from the fruits of this land and arranged a holiday in honor of her, for which all the citizens of Skill gathered, as well as the surrounding residents with their wives. While their cattle were grazing in the meadow, the goddess treated them to barley stew and wheat bread, wine and sweet delicacies, as well as the meat of sacrificial animals, which were taken from the same sacred land or caught in the neighboring mountains. Hunting for this purpose was arranged by the sons of Xenophon, along with young men and citizens of Skill. (Xen., Anab. V, 3, 4 et seq.).

Flight of Xenophon from Skillunte

In this secluded estate, the exile lived quietly for many years, partly engaged in agriculture, hunting, etc., and partly writing most of his works, so that the exile of Xenophon, like the exile of Thucydides, was useful for posterity. The predominance of the Spartans in the Peloponnese ensured him the possession of his estate. But when, as a result of the battle of Leuctra (371 BC), the power of the Spartans was destroyed, then the Eleans, who never abandoned their claims to the cities of Triphylia, again took possession of Skill and drove out Xenophon, who was under the auspices of Sparta. Diogenes says that the sons of Xenophon with a small number of servants fled to Lepreon, to southern Triphylia, and Xenophon himself first went to Elis, then to Lepreon to his sons and together with them to Corinth, where he finally settled. Pausanius (in the 2nd century A.D.) reports that the Eleatic guides assured that Xenophon was brought to trial by the Olympic Council for appropriating the estate in Scylla; but that the Eleans forgave him and left him in Scilla. Not far from the sacred land, they even showed Pausanias a tomb with a statue of Pentelic marble and said that this was the tomb of Xenophon. This story hardly deserves credibility. Apparently, this is just an invention of the Eleans, who wanted to erase from history the memory of the insult inflicted by their ancestors on a famous person.

The return of Athenian citizenship to Xenophon, the death of Gryll

Soon after the battle of Leuctra, the Athenians, out of rivalry with their neighbors the Thebans, who were then beginning to gain power, entered into an alliance with the Spartans; consequently the Athenians rescinded the decree of the expulsion of Xenophon, at the suggestion of the same Eubulus, who had previously proposed to exile him. This probably happened around 369. Since then, Xenophon began to come to Athens often, but it seems that he lived permanently in Corinth, where he probably died. When Epaminondas undertook his last campaign in the Peloponnese, and the Athenians sent an army to the aid of the Spartans, Xenophon sent to the Athenian army both of his sons, Gryllus and Diodorus, young men, well educated, who were called Dioscuri. The sons of Xenophon, shortly before the battle of Mantinea (July 4, 362), took part in a skirmish of horsemen that took place near Mantinea. Epaminondas, after an unsuccessful attack on Sparta, hurried with his horsemen to Mantinea, hoping to immediately take possession of this city, devoid of defenders. But an hour before his arrival in Mantinea, horsemen already sent from Athens arrived, which he did not know. They, with a small number of Mantineans capable of combat, boldly set out to meet the enemy and, after a heated battle, repulsed the attack. The son of Xenophon Grill in this battle distinguished himself with special courage and was killed. Xenophon was offering a sacrifice when the news of his son's death came. In great grief, he took off his wreath, which was usually put on himself during the sacrifice. But when Xenophon was told that his son died bravely fighting for the fatherland, then he again put this wreath on his head. Some say that, having received this sad news, Xenophon did not even cry, and said: "I knew that I had brought into the world a mortal man." According to Aristotle, Gryll was praised by many in songs and speeches, partly to show respect to his father. The Mantaneans honored the brave warrior with a solemn burial, and at the place where he fell, they placed a column with his image. In Athens there was a picture of Euphranor, who lived at that time, who depicted this skirmish of riders and the brave Grill, killing the head of the enemy cavalry. Probably, it was precisely as a result of this picture that the Athenians had an erroneous opinion that the son of Xenophon Grill participated in the main battle of Mantinea and killed Epaminondas: the cavalry skirmish depicted in the picture was considered the main battle, and the head of the cavalry killed by Grill was considered Epaminondas himself, who, we note , never fought at the head of cavalry units. For the national pride of the Athenians, of course, it could be flattering that one of the Athenian soldiers was known as the winner of Epaminondas; but the Spartans and Mantineans disputed this honor with them. The Spartans assured that Epaminondas was killed by their compatriot Anticrates or Machairion, and showed honors to him and his descendants. The Mantineans attributed this honor to their fellow citizen Machairion.

Death of Xenophon

Xenophon died in extreme old age in Corinth, according to the testimony of Diogenes Laertius, in the 1st year of the 105th Olympiad (=360 BC). But since Xenophon, in his work Έλληνικά, mentions the death of Alexander of Ferey, who died in 358, it means that he died either in the same year, or in one of the following. His family was continued by his son Diodorus, who had a son Grill. This latter seems to have had a son, Xenophon, against whom the speech of Deinarchus was directed.

We do not have reliable images of Xenophon. We know that in his youth he was distinguished by a special beauty. In one letter, which is attributed to Chion, a student of Plato, but seems to be a rhetorical work of later times, Xenophon is also portrayed as a very handsome man with long curly locks and pleasant features.

Character of Xenophon

Xenophon was a simple man, with a soul accessible to everything good and beautiful, highly pious and God-fearing, who loved a peaceful, calm life and did not pursue positions and honor. With all the gentleness of his way of thinking and pleasantness of address wherever necessary, he showed, as can be seen from his Anabasis, a firm and resolute character, courage and composure in time of danger. At the same time, Xenophon had the gift of persuasive speech and a rare talent - to deal with people, depending on their personal qualities and to dispose of them in his favor. Although Xenophon was prone to abstract thinking and strove to fully harmonize his life and work with his convictions, he was created primarily for practical life. This is evident from the writing activity of Xenophon. History, public life, military affairs, etc. - these are the main subjects chosen by him for processing.

Xenophon and Plato

Some of his writings belong to the field of philosophy to which he has been devoted from a young age. But Xenophon did not embark on an explanation of the most difficult questions of this science, like Plato, who received philosophical knowledge from the same source as him - from the lessons of Socrates. Xenophon soberly expounded only those aspects of philosophy that had anything to do with practical life. As a result of this difference between the two disciples of Socrates, the ancients assumed the existence of mutual envy and hostility between them, which, of course, was not the case.

/.../ It was evident that Euthydemus was already listening to the words of Socrates, but he was still afraid to speak himself and thought that by silence he was giving himself an air of modesty. Then Socrates decided to discourage him from it. It is strange, he said, whoever chooses playing the cithara or the flute, or riding, etc., as his profession, tries to practice as often as possible in the field of his chosen profession, and, moreover, not alone, but in the presence of the best specialists; he makes every effort and spares no effort, so long as not to violate their advice, finding that he cannot become a large figure in any other way, and some applicants for the role of orator and statesman think that without preparation and diligence, they will suddenly have the ability to to that. Meanwhile, work in the field of public affairs is much more difficult than in the field of the above-mentioned professions - so much more difficult that, although the number of workers in this field is greater, the number of those who succeed is less; hence it is clear that the future statesman also needs studies that are longer and more intense than the future specialist in those professions.

At first, when Euthydemus began to listen, Socrates carried on such conversations; but, noticing that Euthydemus stayed more willingly during his conversations and listened with great interest, he came alone to the saddle shop.

When Euthydemus sat down next to him, he turned to him with this question:

Tell me, Euthydemus, is it true, as I heard that you collected many works of famous scientists?

Yes, I swear by Zeus, Socrates, - answered Euthydemus, - and I continue to collect until I collect as many of them as possible.

I swear by the Hero, - said Socrates, - I am delighted with you that you preferred the treasures of wisdom to silver and gold: it is clear that you are convinced that silver and gold do not make a person any better, and the teaching of the sages enriches the virtue of the one who owns it.

Euthydemus was glad to hear such praise: he thought that Socrates found the right path to education chosen by him.

Noticing that this praise pleased him, Socrates continued:

What specialty did you choose for yourself by collecting these books?

Evfidem was silent, considering the answer.

Then Socrates asked him again:

Do you want to be a doctor? After all, there are many works on medicine.

No, I swear by Zeus, answered Euthydemus.

Isn't it an architect? And for this you need a smart person.

No, - answered Evfidem.

Isn't it a great land surveyor you want to become, like Theodore? Socrates asked.

No, and not a land surveyor, - answered Evfidem.

Do you want to become an astronomer? Socrates asked.

Evfidem answered this in the negative.

Isn't it a rhapsodist? - asked Socrates. - They say you have all the poems of Homer.

No, I swear by Zeus, - answered Euthydemus, - as I know, the rhapsodes know poems by heart, and they themselves are complete fools.

Here Socrates said:

Surely, Evfidem, you are not striving to acquire those qualities that make a person able to deal with state affairs and housework, be a ruler and benefit others and yourself?

I really need such qualities, Socrates, - answered Eufidem.

I swear by Zeus, said Socrates, you are striving to acquire fine qualities and an art of paramount importance: after all, such qualities belong to kings and are called royal. Has not the question occurred to you, - added Socrates, - is it possible to have these qualities without being just?

Of course, he came, - answered Eufidem, - yes, without justice one cannot be a good citizen.

What? You, of course, have achieved this? - Socrates asked.

I think, Socrates, - answered Eufidemus, - I will be just as fair as anyone else (...)

And what do you think, there is a study and knowledge of the just, like letters?

And who do you consider more literate - who voluntarily writes and reads incorrectly or who involuntarily?

Who voluntarily, because he can, when he wants to, do it right.

So, who voluntarily writes incorrectly is literate, and who involuntarily is illiterate?

How else?

And who knows the fair - a voluntary liar and a deceiver or an involuntary one?

Undoubtedly voluntary.

So, a literate person, in your words, is more literate than an ignorant one?

And he who knows what is just is more just than he who does not know?

Obviously; but it seems that I am saying this without knowing how I arrived at this assertion.

What if a person who wants to tell the truth never says the same thing about the same thing? For example, if he, pointing the same road, points it to the east, then to the west? Or, summing up, does it show more or less in it? What do you think of such a person?

By Zeus, surely he doesn't know what he thought he knew.

Do you know that some people are called slave natures?

For knowledge or for ignorance?

Undoubtedly, for ignorance.

Well, for ignorance of blacksmithing, they get this name?

Of course not.

Well, so carpentry?

And not for that.

Well, shoemaker?

Nothing like that; on the contrary, the vast majority of those who know such crafts are slavish natures.

So, isn’t this name applied to those who do not know the beautiful, the good, the just?

I think so, - answered Evfidem.

This means that in every possible way, with all our might, we must strive to ensure that we do not become slaves.

I swear by the gods, Socrates, said Euthydemus, I was sure that I was using the method that could most contribute to an education suitable for a person striving for moral perfection. Now imagine my despair when I see that my previous labors did not give me the opportunity to answer even a question from the field that should be best known to me, and that I have no other way to moral perfection!<...>

After that, Euthydemus left in complete despair, full of contempt for himself, considering himself a truly slavish nature.

Many, brought to such a state by Socrates, no longer approached him; Socrates considered them stupid. But Euthydemus realized that he could not become any famous if he did not use the company of Socrates as often as possible; therefore he no longer departed from it, except in cases of emergency; in some ways he even imitated Socrates in his way of life. When Socrates became convinced of his such mood, he already ceased to embarrass him with various questions, but quite directly and clearly stated what, in his opinion, a person should know and what is the best way to guide his actions.

Chapter 1

I have often wondered by what arguments the people who accused Socrates convinced the Athenians that he deserved the death sentence from his fellow citizens. In the decision against him, it was said something like this: “Socrates is guilty of not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, but introducing other, new deities; guilty also of corrupting the youth."

As regards the first charge, that he does not recognize the gods recognized by the state, what evidence did they give for this? He often offered sacrifices both at home and on common state altars: everyone saw this; He did not neglect fortune-telling: this, too, was not a secret to anyone. Socrates was talking all over the city about the stories of Socrates, that the divine voice gives him instructions: this, it seems to me, served as the main basis for accusing him of introducing new deities. In fact, he introduces as little new as all others who recognize the art of knowing the future, who observe birds, voices, signs and victims: they assume that it is not the birds themselves and not the people they meet who show what is useful for fortunetellers, but that it is precisely the gods who indicate this through them; and Socrates thought the same. But for the most part, people express themselves in such a way that the birds and those they meet deviate from something or encourage them; and Socrates, as he thought, so he said: the divine voice, he said, gives instructions. He advised many of his friends in advance to do something, not to do something, referring to the indication of the divine voice, and those who followed his advice received benefit, and those who did not follow repented. However, who will not agree that he did not want to seem to his friends either a fool or a braggart? And he would seem to be both if, passing off his advice as a manifestation of the divine order, he later turned out to be lying. This shows that he would not have predicted if he had not been sure of the truth of his words. Is it possible to believe in this to anyone else, if not to God? If you believe the gods, then you must admit that the gods exist. Moreover, he still acted in this way towards his friends: he advised doing the necessary things in the way that, in their opinion, they can be done best; and in cases where the outcome of the case is unknown, he sent them to the oracle to ask whether it should be done. So, for example, who wants to successfully manage the economy or manage state affairs, he said, he still needs to tell fortunes. True, in order to become a good carpenter, a blacksmith, a farmer, or a man who looks after maids, or is capable of something like that, or a good accountant, a householder, a military leader - all such sciences, he thought, can, of course, be mastered by the human mind ; but the most important thing in them, he said, the gods leave to themselves, and people do not know anything about it. Thus, for example, he who has excellently planted a piece of land for himself with trees does not know who will gather the fruits; he who has built himself an excellent house does not know who will live in it; the strategist does not know whether it is useful to be a strategist; a person experienced in public affairs does not know whether it is useful to stand at the head of the state; he who marries a beauty for his own comfort does not know whether he will not endure grief from her; who is related through marriage with influential people in the city does not know if he will lose his fatherland because of them. Anyone who imagines that in such cases nothing depends on God, but everything depends on the human mind, he is a madman; madmen are also those who ask the oracle about what the gods left people to know and decide for themselves, as, for example, if someone began to ask which person is better to take as a charioteer - who knows how to rule or who does not know how; or which one is better to take in the helmsman of a ship who knows how to rule or who does not know how; in general, whoever asks the gods about what can be known by means of counting, measure, weight, and similar things, he, he thought, is acting impiously. What the gods left to men to know and do, that, he said, must be learned; and what people do not know, one should try to find out the will of the gods through fortune-telling: to whom the gods are merciful, they give instructions.

Then, Socrates was always in front of people: in the morning he went to places of walks and to the gymnasium, and at that time, when the square is full of people, he could be seen here; and he always spent the rest of the day where he expected to meet more people; he usually spoke so that everyone could listen to him. Nevertheless, no one ever saw or heard from him a single ungodly, godless word or deed.

Indeed, he did not argue on topics about the nature of everything, as others mostly argue; did not touch on the question of how what the sophists call "cosmos" is arranged, and according to what immutable laws each celestial phenomenon occurs. On the contrary, he even pointed out the stupidity of those who deal with such problems.

The first question he considered concerning them was this: Do they consider themselves to be sufficiently knowledgeable of what man needs, and therefore proceed to the study of such subjects, or, leaving aside everything human, and attending to what concerns the divine, do they think that act as they should? He wondered how they did not understand that it was impossible for a person to comprehend, when even those of them who are most proud of their ability to reason on these topics do not agree among themselves, but look at each other like crazy. Some madmen are not even afraid of the terrible, others are even afraid of the harmless; some do not consider it obscene to say or do anything even among a large gathering of people, others find that one should not even show oneself to people; some do not revere either the temple, or the altar, or anything divine at all, others revere all kinds of stones, pieces of wood, animals. Similar to them are those who are preoccupied with questions about the nature of the world: for some it seems that what exists is one, for others - that it is infinitely plural; to some it seems that everything is always moving, to others that nothing can ever move; to some it seems that everything is born and dies, to others that nothing can ever be born or die. Regarding them, he expressed another consideration. Whoever studies human affairs hopes to make what he learns the property of both himself and others: do the students of divine affairs think that, having learned by what laws the heavenly phenomena occur, they will do, when they want, wind, rain, seasons and the like - whatever they need, or they do not hope for anything of the kind, and it seems to them that it is sufficient only to know how each phenomenon of this kind takes place. This is how he spoke about people dealing with these issues, and he himself always led conversations about human affairs: he investigated what is pious and what is impious, what is beautiful and what is ugly, what is fair and what is unjust, what is prudence and what is madness, what - courage and what is cowardice, what is the state and what is a statesman, what is human power and what is a person capable of ruling over people, and so on; he who knows this, he thought, is a worthy person, and whoever does not know deserves the name of a low person in justice.

In cases where his convictions were not known, it is not surprising that the judges came to an erroneous conclusion about him; but is it not surprising that they did not take into account what everyone knew? Once, having become a member of the Council and having taken the oath that the members of the Council take, that they will be guided by laws in the exercise of this office, he fell into the head of the People's Assembly.

When the people wanted to condemn to death the strategists Thrasylus and Erasinides with their colleagues, all by one vote, contrary to the law, Socrates refused to put this proposal to the vote, despite the irritation of the people against him, despite the threats of many influential persons: he put the observance of the oath higher, than pleasing the people contrary to justice, and than guarding oneself from threats. Yes, his faith in the providence of the gods about people was not the same as the faith of ordinary people who think that the gods know one thing and do not know another; Socrates was convinced that the gods know everything - both words and deeds, and secret intentions, that they are everywhere present and give instructions to people about all human affairs.

In view of this, I wonder how the Athenians believed that Socrates thought foolishly about the gods - Socrates, who never said or did anything wicked, but, on the contrary, said and acted in such a way that anyone who speaks and acts so would be and would be considered the most pious person.

Chapter 2

It also seems surprising to me that some believed that Socrates corrupted the youth - Socrates, who, in addition to the qualities mentioned, first of all, more than anyone else, possessed abstinence in love pleasures and in the use of food, then the ability to endure cold, heat and all sorts of labors, and besides such a habit of moderation in needs, that, with absolutely insignificant means, he very easily had everything in sufficient quantity for him. So, if he himself was like that, how could he make others godless, lawbreakers, gluttons, voluptuaries, sissies unable to work? On the contrary, he averted many from these vices, instilling in them the desire for virtue and giving hope that if they take care of themselves, they will be moral people. Meanwhile, he never undertook to be a teacher of virtue; but, since everyone saw that he was like that, this gave hope to people who were in communion with him, that they, imitating him, would become the same.

However, he himself did not leave the body without care and did not praise those who did not take care of him. Thus, he condemned those who overeat and then overwork, and found it useful to eat as much as the soul takes with pleasure in order to digest food satisfactorily; he considered such a routine both quite healthy and not interfering with taking care of the soul. But at the same time, he did not like effeminacy and boasting either in clothes, or in shoes, or in other vital needs.

And he did not make his interlocutors greedy: he turned them away from all passions, and he did not profit from those who wanted to communicate with him. In such abstinence he saw concern for freedom; and those who take payment for their conversations, he contemptuously called those who sell themselves into slavery, since they are obliged to talk with those from whom they take payment. He wondered how a person who declares himself virtuous takes money and does not see the enormous benefit for himself in acquiring a good friend, but is afraid that he who achieves moral perfection will not give the greatest gratitude to his greatest benefactor. Socrates, on the contrary, never promised anything like this to anyone, but believed that if his interlocutors understood what was approved of them, then they would remain good friends with him and with each other for life. So how can such a person corrupt the youth? Unless concern for virtue is corruption!

“But by Zeus,” says the accuser, “Socrates taught his interlocutors to despise the established laws: he said that it was stupid to choose the rulers of the state by means of beans, while no one wants to have a helmsman chosen by beans, a carpenter, a flutist, or performing any other similar work, mistakes in which they bring much less harm than errors in public activity; such speeches, said the accuser, “excite in the youth contempt for the established state system and a propensity for violent actions.” On the contrary, I think that educated people, who feel in themselves the ability to give useful advice to fellow citizens in the future, are less inclined than anyone else to violent actions: they know that violence is fraught with hostility and danger, and by persuasion one can achieve the same results without danger, using love; whoever is forced by force, he hates, as if something had been taken away from him, and whoever is influenced by persuasion, he loves, as if he had been done a favor. Therefore, it is unusual for educated people to act with violence: such actions are characteristic of people who have strength, but without reason. Then, whoever dares to act with violence, he needs to have accomplices, and not a few; and he who can convince does not need anyone: he is sure that he alone can convince. Yes, and such people are not very inclined to murder: who wants to kill a person instead of keeping him alive and being faithful to him?

“However,” the accuser said, “two former students of Socrates, Critias and Alcibiades, did a lot of evil to the fatherland: Critias, under the oligarchy, excelled everyone in greed, bloodthirstiness, and Alcibiades, under democracy, was distinguished by intemperance, arrogance, and a tendency to violence.” If they have done any harm to the fatherland, I will not justify them; I will tell only what kind of connection they had with Socrates. As you know, both of them were by nature the most ambitious people in Athens: they wanted everything to be done through them and that everyone would talk about them. And they knew that Socrates, having less money, lives independently, that he abstains from all pleasures and that with all his interlocutors he does what he wants with his words. Can it be said that people of the kind I have described above, seeing this, in their desire to associate with Socrates, were guided by the desire to lead the life he led and to have his temperance? Or did they hope that through association with him they could become very clever speakers and businessmen? For my part, I am convinced that if God gave them the choice of either living their whole lives like Socrates or dying, they would rather die. This was evident from their actions: as soon as they felt their superiority over their comrades, they immediately recoiled from Socrates and indulged in state activities, for the sake of which they joined Socrates.

Regarding this, perhaps it can be said that Socrates should not have taught his interlocutors politics without first teaching them to rule themselves. I have no objection to this. But all teachers, as I see it, not only show their students by their own example how they themselves fulfill their teaching, but also by word try to persuade them to accept their opinions. And Socrates, I know, showed himself to his friends a model of a good-natured person and led excellent conversations about virtue and about other aspects of a person. And they, I know, while they were in communion with Socrates, knew how to control themselves - not out of fear that Socrates would punish them or beat them, but because then they really considered this course of action to be the best.

Perhaps many who call themselves philosophers will object that a just person can never become unjust, a master of himself - unbridled and, in general, whoever has learned something that can be learned can never turn into an ignorant one. I hold a different opinion on this: just as the work of the body cannot be performed by one who does not develop the body by exercise, so the work of the soul, I see, cannot be performed by one who does not develop the soul: he cannot do what to do, nor to abstain from what is to be abstained from. Therefore, fathers also remove their sons, even if they are prudent, from corrupt people: they are convinced that communication with good people serves as a school of perfection, and communication with bad people leads to its destruction. Poets also testify to this - one says:

You will learn good from noble ones; if you are with the bad ones, then you will lose your former mind,

But a virtuous husband is either good or bad.

Yes, and I agree with them: just as you forget them without repeating verses, so, I see, the words of teachers are forgotten with an inattentive attitude towards them. And when you forget the instructions, you forget those impressions under which the soul aspired to moral perfection; and having forgotten them, it is not surprising to forget about moral perfection. I also see that people who have sunk into drunkenness and succumbed to the infatuations of love can no longer take care of what should be done and abstain from what should not be done: many who could save money until they were in love, having fallen in love, they can no longer save them, and having spent money, they no longer avoid such ways of gaining that they previously avoided, considering them shameful. So what is impossible in the fact that a person, who was previously moral, then becomes immoral, and who was able to act just before, then cannot? In view of this, it seems to me that all good, perfect habits can be developed in oneself by exercise, and especially morality: desires, planted in the same body with the soul, incline it not to be moral, but to quickly please them and the body.

So, while Critias and Alcibiades were in communion with Socrates, they could, thanks to their union with him, overcome base passions; when they left him, Critias fled to Thessaly, and there spent his time among people inclined more towards iniquity than to justice; Alcibiades, who, because of his beauty, was caught in their nets by many women from respectable families, and because of his influence in his native city and among the allies, many eminent people were spoiled by servility, who was respected by the people and easily achieved primacy, ceased to observe himself, like to how athletes who easily achieve superiority in gymnastic competitions neglect exercises. Under such circumstances, magnified by birth, exalted by wealth, arrogant due to their influence, corrupted by many persons, and above all this, they have long since abandoned Socrates, what is wise, that they have become arrogant? And after that, for the mistakes made by them, the accuser holds Socrates responsible? And that Socrates made them moral people when they were young and when recklessness and intemperance are especially characteristic of a person, for which Socrates, in the opinion of the accuser, does not deserve any praise? No, in other cases it is judged differently. What kind of flutist, for example, what kind of cytharist, what kind of teacher in general, who has made his students skillful, can be held responsible if they, having gone to other teachers, turn out to be worse? If a son behaves wisely while in association with someone, and then, after making friends with someone else, becomes a villain, then what father blames the former acquaintance for this? Does he not, on the contrary, praise the former the more, the worse his son is under the influence of the latter? No, the fathers themselves, although the sons are with them, are not responsible for the mistakes of the children, if only they themselves lead a moral life. Justice demands that we judge Socrates in this way: if he himself acted badly, then there would be reason to consider him a worthless person; and if he has always led a moral life, is it fair that he should bear responsibility for vices which he did not have?

But, even if he himself did nothing wrong, but approved of their bad behavior, then even in this case he may deserve a reproach. Noticing that Critias is in love with Euthydemus and seduces him in order to be with him in such a relationship as people who use the body for love pleasures, Socrates tried to turn him away from this passion: he pointed out how humiliating and unworthy a free-born person is, like a beggar , to beg for alms from his pet, to whom he wants to seem dear, praying and asking him for a gift, and even a completely bad one. But since Critias did not heed such exhortations and did not lag behind his passion, they say that Socrates, in the presence of many people, including Euthydemus, said that Critias, as it seems to him, has a swine inclination: he wants to rub himself against Euthydemus, like pigs rubbing against stones. From that time on, Critias began to hate Socrates: being a member of the College of Thirty and getting on the legislative commission with Charicles, he remembered this to Socrates and introduced an article into the laws prohibiting the teaching of the art of the word: he wanted to harm him, but, not knowing how to to step up to him, raised a reproach against him, which is usually thrown to all philosophers, and tried to slander him before people: I myself never heard such speeches from Socrates, and no one, as far as I know, said what he had heard. Events showed this: when the Thirty masses of citizens were executed, the most prominent, and many were incited to unjust actions, Socrates once said: “It would be strange, it seems to me, if a person, having become a shepherd of a herd of cows and reducing the number and quality of cows, did not recognize himself bad shepherd; but it is even stranger that a person, having become the ruler of the state and reducing the number and quality of citizens, is not ashamed of this and does not consider himself a bad ruler of the state. When Critias and Charicles were told about this, they called Socrates, showed him the law and forbade him to talk to young people. Socrates asked them if he could ask them a question about what he did not understand about this prohibition. They answered that they could.

“Well,” said Socrates, “I am ready to obey the laws; but in order not to break the law in some way, imperceptibly to myself, out of ignorance, I want to receive precise instructions from you about this. Why do you order to refrain from the art of the word - is it because, in your opinion, it helps to speak correctly, or because it is not correct? If - to speak correctly, then, obviously, one would have to refrain from speaking correctly; if, however, to speak incorrectly, then, obviously, one must try to speak correctly.

Charikles got angry and said to him: “When, Socrates, you don’t know this, then we announce to you this, which is more understandable for you - that you don’t talk to young people at all!”

To this Socrates said: "So that there is no doubt, determine to me how old people should be considered young."

Charicles answered: “As long as they are not allowed to be members of the Council, as people are not yet reasonable; and you don't talk to people under thirty."

“And when I buy something,” Socrates asked, “if a person who sells is under thirty years old, is it also not necessary to ask how much he sells for?”

“It is possible about such things,” answered Charicles, “but you, Socrates, for the most part ask about what you know; So, don't ask about it."

“So, I shouldn’t answer,” said Socrates, “if a young man asked me about something known to me, for example, where does Charicles live or where is Critias?”

“You can talk about such things,” answered Charicles.

Then Critias said: "No, you will have to give up these shoemakers, carpenters, blacksmiths, Socrates: I think they are completely worn out because they are always on your tongue."

“So,” answered Socrates, “and from what follows them - from justice, piety and all that?”

“Yes, by Zeus,” said Charicles, “and from the shepherds; Otherwise, see that you do not reduce the number of cows.”

It was then that it became clear that they had been told the argument about cows and that they were angry with Socrates for it.

So, what kind of acquaintance Critias had with Socrates, and what kind of relationship they had with each other, has now been said. But I see that no one can learn anything from a person who does not like. And Critias and Alcibiades, all the time they were in communion with Socrates, were in communion with him, not because they liked him, but because from the very beginning they set themselves the goal of standing at the head of the state. Even when they were with Socrates, they were not so eager to talk with anyone as with politicians. So, they say, Alcibiades, when he was not yet twenty years old, had such a conversation about laws with his guardian Pericles, who was then at the head of the state:

“Tell me, Pericles,” began Alcibiades, “could you explain to me what the law is?”

"Of course," replied Pericles.

“So explain to me, for the sake of the gods,” said Alcibiades, “when I hear praise from some for their respect for the law, I think that one who does not know what the law is hardly entitled to receive such praise.”

“You want to know, Alcibiades, what the law is,” replied Pericles. “Your wish is not difficult to fulfill. The first person you meet will say: laws are everything that the majority will accept and write with instructions on what should be done and what should not be done.

“What is the thought they are guided by - good should be done or bad?”

“Good, I swear by Zeus, my boy,” replied Pericles. “Of course not bad.”

“And if not the majority, but, as happens in oligarchies, a few will get together and write down what should be done, what is that?”

“Everything,” replied Pericles, “that the ruling one writes, discussing what should be done, is called law.”

“So if the tyrant who rules in the state writes to the citizens, what should be done, and this is the law?”

“Yes,” replied Pericles, “everything that the tyrant writes, as long as the power is in his hands, is the law.”

“And violence and lawlessness,” Alcibiades asked, “what is it, Pericles? Isn't it when the strong force the weak not by persuasion, but by force to do what he pleases?

“I think so,” said Pericles.

“So, everything that the tyrant writes, not by persuasion, but by force, forcing citizens to do, is lawlessness?”

“I think so,” replied Pericles. “I take back my words that everything that a tyrant writes who has not convinced the citizens is the law.”

“And everything that the minority writes without convincing the majority, but using their power, should we call it violence or should we not?”

“It seems to me,” replied Pericles, “everything that someone forces someone to do without persuading, it doesn’t matter whether he writes it or not, there will be violence rather than law.”

“So, what the entire majority writes, using their power over wealthy people, and not convincing them, will be violence rather than law?”

“Yes, Alcibiades,” replied Pericles, “and we were masters of the same in your years; we were busy with this and came up with something similar to what, apparently, you are busy now.

Alcibiades said to this: “Oh, if only, Pericles, I was with you at a time when you surpassed yourself in this skill!”

So, as soon as they noticed their superiority over statesmen, they already stopped approaching Socrates: they did not like him at all, and besides, when they approached him, it was unpleasant for them to listen to his reprimands for their offenses. They indulged in state activity, for the sake of which they turned to Socrates.

But Crito, Chaerephon, Herecrates, Hermogenes, Simmias, Cebets, Phaedonds and other interlocutors of Socrates did not seek his company in order to become orators in the National Assembly or in court, but in order to become perfect and perform their duties well in relation to the family, servants. , relatives, friends, fatherland, fellow citizens. And none of them, either in their youth or in their old age, did anything wrong and was not subjected to any accusation.

“But Socrates,” says the accuser, “taught fathers to be treated contemptuously: he inspired his interlocutors with the conviction that he makes them wiser than their fathers, and pointed out that, according to the law, even a father can be put in chains if he proves his insanity: this served him as proof in favor of the legitimacy of the educated man holding the uneducated in chains. In fact, Socrates was of the opinion that a person who puts another in chains for lack of education can legally be put in chains by people who know what he does not know. In view of this, he often examined the question of the difference between ignorance and madness: madmen, he thought, should be kept in chains, both for their own benefit and for the benefit of their friends; and as for those who do not know what needs to be known, justice requires that they learn from those who know.

“But Socrates,” the accuser said, “inspired his interlocutors with disrespect not only for fathers, but also for other relatives: he pointed out that it is not relatives who help in case of illness or a lawsuit, but in the first case, doctors, and in the second, clever defenders” . According to the accuser, Socrates also said of friends that there was no use in their location if they were not able to help; only those, he supposedly said, have a price who know what is due and know how to explain it. Thus, he seemed to inspire young people with the conviction that he himself was smarter than everyone else and was able to make others smart too, and through this he brought them into such a mood that in their eyes all others had no value in comparison with him. Yes, I know he used to say that about fathers and other relatives and friends; not only that, he also said that, after the exodus of the soul, in which only understanding occurs, the body of the closest person is quickly taken out and hidden under the ground. “Even during life,” he said, “everyone, although he loves himself most of all, takes away everything unnecessary and useless from his own body and leaves it to another to do it. So, for example, people cut their own nails, hair, calluses and leave it to doctors to cut off and anneal (sick parts) with suffering and pain, and even consider themselves obliged to pay them a bribe for this; saliva is spit out of the mouth as far as possible, because, remaining in the mouth, it does not bring them any benefit, but rather does harm. Yes, he said that, but not in the sense that the father should be buried alive, and cut into pieces; but, proving that everything unreasonable does not deserve respect, he inspired in everyone the desire to be as reasonable and useful as possible, so that whoever wants to enjoy the respect of his father, brother, or anyone else, does not sit idly by, relying on his kinship, but tries to be useful to those from whom he wants to earn respect.

The accuser also said about him that he chose the most immoral places from the most famous poets and, citing them as evidence, inspired his interlocutors with criminal thoughts and a desire for tyranny, for example, from Hesiod the verse:

Repeating this verse, he seemed to be saying that the poet advises not to disdain any deed, neither dishonorable nor shameful, but to take on such deeds for the purpose of profit. But in fact, when Socrates in the discussion came to an agreement that being a worker is useful and good, and being an idler is harmful and bad, and that working is good and idle is bad, he said that people who do something good, they work and that they are workers, and he called those who play dice or do something bad and harmful idlers. With this understanding, the saying will turn out to be true:

The deed is by no means a disgrace, but a disgrace only idleness.

According to the accuser, Socrates often repeated the passage from Homer that Odysseus

If he met a king somewhere or a warrior of noble birth,

Standing in front of him, he stopped him with a meek speech:

“O venerable one! You shouldn't tremble like a coward.

It is better to sit down and seat others among the people.

If he met a man shouting loudly from among the people,

The scepter struck him and scolded him with a formidable speech:

“Sit down, unfortunate, motionless and listen to what others say,

Those who are wiser than you; you are unfit for war and powerless

And he never counted for anything in battle or in council.

He interpreted these verses as if in the sense that the poet approves when common people and the poor are beaten. But in fact Socrates did not say this: in that case, he thought, he himself would have to be beaten; he said that people who are not useful in word or deed, who are not able to help in case of need neither the army, nor the state, nor the people themselves, especially if they are also arrogant, must be curbed in every possible way, no matter how rich they may be . No, on the contrary, Socrates, as everyone knows, was a friend of the people and loved people. There were many people who diligently sought communication with him, both in Athens and among foreigners, but he did not demand payment from anyone for his conversations, but he generously shared his treasures with everyone; some of them sold dearly to others what little they received from him as a gift, and were not friends of the people like him: those who could not pay them money, they did not want to talk with them. Socrates, on the other hand, was known among foreigners as an adornment of his native city - to a much greater extent than in Sparta Lich, who became famous for this: Lich during the Gymnopedia treated foreigners who came to Sparta, and Socrates, spending himself throughout his life, brought enormous benefits to everyone: who used his company, left him morally improved.

So, in my opinion, Socrates, with such merit, deserved more honor than a death sentence from his fellow citizens. Yes, if you look at this case from the point of view of laws, you will come to the same conclusion. According to the laws, the death penalty is appointed as a punishment for those who are convicted of theft, stealing a dress, cutting wallets, digging through walls, selling people into slavery, sacrilege; and Socrates, more than anyone in the world, was far from such crimes. Further, before the fatherland, he was never guilty of either an unsuccessful war, or rebellion, or treason, or any other disaster. In private life, he also never took property from anyone, he never plunged anyone into misfortune; he never even incurred charges for any of the above. So how can he be sued on this complaint? Instead of not recognizing the gods, as was said in the complaint, he revered the gods more than anyone else, as everyone knew; instead of corrupting the youth, as the one who initiated the lawsuit accused him of, he turned away his friends who had vicious passions from them, as everyone knew, inspiring them with the desire for a beautiful, high virtue, thanks to which states also flourish, and families. And with such a course of action, did he not deserve great honor from his fellow citizens?

Chapter 3

That Socrates, in my opinion, also brought benefit to his friends, both by deed, showing them what he is, and by conversations, I will now write about this, what I remember.

As for the attitude towards the gods, his deeds and words - everyone knew this - agreed with the answer of Pythia, which she gives to the question of how to act regarding sacrifices, veneration of ancestors, or the like: Pythia gives the answer that one acts according to the custom of his native city he acts piously. Socrates himself did this and advised others, but those who act in any other way, they thought, are stupid and do not take up their own business.

In his prayers, he simply asked the gods to grant good, for the gods know better than anyone what good consists in; and asking the gods for gold, silver, tyranny, or anything like that, it was the same, he thought, as asking for a game of dice, a battle, or something else, the outcome of which is completely unknown.

He made small sacrifices, because his means were small, but he did not humble himself before those who make many big sacrifices from their wealth. The gods, he said, would not be perfect if they rejoiced more at great sacrifices than at small ones: in this case, often the gifts of vicious people would be more pleasing to them than the gifts of good ones; and it would not be worth living for people if the gifts of the vicious were more pleasing to the gods than the gifts of the good. According to him, the gods rejoice most of all in honor from the most pious people. He also praised the following verse:

Make sacrifices to the immortal gods according to your means.

Also in relation to friends, foreign guests, and in various other circumstances of life, he found the advice "bring according to prosperity" excellent.

If it seemed to him that he was being given some kind of instruction from the gods, then it was more difficult to persuade him to act contrary to this instruction than to persuade him to take a guide, blind and not knowing the way, instead of a sighted and knowledgeable one. Yes, and he called others fools who act contrary to the instructions of the gods for fear of notoriety among people. He himself neglected everything human in comparison with divine signs.

The way of life, to which he accustomed both soul and body, was such that under him everyone would live serenely and safely, unless, by the will of the gods, something unusual happened. Life was so cheap for him that I don't know if it is possible to earn so little so as not to receive as much as was enough for Socrates. He consumed food as much as he could eat with appetite, and he approached the meal with such preparation that hunger served him as seasoning; Every drink was delicious to him, because he did not drink if he did not feel thirsty. If, when he was invited to dinner, and he agreed to come, then he could quite easily protect himself from excessive satiety, from which it is very difficult for the vast majority of people to protect themselves. Those who could not do this, he advised them to avoid such foods that tempt a person to eat without feeling hungry, and drink without feeling thirsty: this, he said, harms the stomach, head and soul. He joked that Kirk, too, must have been turning people into pigs, feeding them such foods in abundance; and Odysseus, thanks to the instruction of Hermes and his own moderation, refrained from excessive use of them and therefore did not turn into a pig. So he talked about it jokingly and, at the same time, seriously.

From the love of handsome men, he advised carefully to abstain: it is not easy, he said, to control oneself, touching such people. Hearing once that Critobulus, the son of Crito, had kissed the handsome son of Alcibiades, he asked Xenophon in the presence of Critobulus:

Tell me, Xenophon, didn't you think Critobulus more modest than impudent, more cautious than reckless and rushing into danger?

Of course, Xenophon answered.

So consider him now in the highest degree desperate and unbridled: he will begin to tumble between swords and jump into the fire.

What did you notice in his actions that you think so badly of him? said Xenophon.

Didn't he dare to kiss the son of Alcibiades, so pretty and blooming?

Well, if this desperate act is of this kind, - said Xenophon, - then, it seems to me, I can fall into this danger!

Oh, unfortunate! Socrates said. - What do you think, what can happen to you after kissing a handsome man? Will you not immediately become a slave from a free man? Will you not be ruined by harmful pleasures? Will you have time to take care of the beautiful? Will you not be compelled to diligently engage in such things as a madman would not engage in?

Oh Hercules! said Xenophon. - What a strange power you attribute to a kiss!

And are you surprised by this? Socrates answered. “Don’t you know that phalanxes smaller than half an obol, just touching their mouths, torment people with pain and deprive them of their minds?

Yes, I swear by Zeus, - answered Xenophon, - after all, the phalanges let something in when they bite.

Fool! Socrates said. - Don't handsome men let something in when they kiss? You don't think it just because you don't see it. Don't you know that this beast, which is called the young handsome man, is all the more terrible than the phalanges, that the phalanxes let in something with a touch, and the handsome man, even without touching, if you just look at him, even from afar, lets in something that drives a person crazy? (Perhaps the Eros are also called shooters because handsome men even inflict wounds from afar.) No, I advise you, Xenophon, when you see such a handsome man, run away without looking back. And you, Critobulus, I advise you to leave here for a year: perhaps during this time, albeit with difficulty, you will recover.

Thus, in relation to love interests, he was of the opinion that people who do not feel safe from them should direct them to something that the soul will not accept without a particularly great need for the body and that, when the need arises, it will not cause trouble. . As himself, he was undoubtedly so well armed against such passions that it was easier for him to keep aloof from the most beautiful and ripe than for others from the most overripe and ugly.

These are the rules he learned for himself regarding food, drink and love pleasures and was of the opinion that he experiences enough pleasure, not at all less than those who bother about it a lot, and experiences much less sorrow.

Chapter 4

If some, on the basis of written and oral testimonies about Socrates, think that he knew how to turn people to virtue perfectly, but was not able to show the way to it, then let them consider not only those conversations of his in which he, for the sake of correction with the help of questions he refuted people who imagined that they knew everything, but also his everyday conversations with friends, and then let them judge whether he was capable of morally elevating them.

First of all, I will describe the conversation I heard with him with Aristodem, nicknamed the Small, about the deity.

Noticing that he does not make sacrifices to the gods and does not resort to fortune-telling, but, on the contrary, even laughs at those who do this, he turned to him with the following question:

Tell me, Aristodemus, are there people whose wisdom you admire?

Yes, he answered.

Tell us their names, said Socrates.

In epic poetry, I most admire Homer, in dithyramb - Melanippides, in tragedy - Sophocles, in sculpture - Polykleitos, in painting Zeuxis.

Who, in your opinion, deserves more admiration - is it the one who produces images devoid of reason and movement, or the one who creates living beings, intelligent and self-active?

I swear by Zeus, much more is he who creates living beings, if indeed they do not appear by some accident, but thanks to the mind.

What things do you recognize as a matter of chance and which as a matter of reason: those whose purpose of existence is unknown, or those that exist for some benefit?

It must be assumed, of course, that objects that, thanks to reason, come into being for some use.

So doesn’t it seem to you that the one who created people from the beginning, for the benefit of them, gave them organs through which they all feel - eyes to see what can be seen, ears to hear what can be heard? And what use would smells be to us if the nose were not given? And what would we have the feeling of sweet and spicy, and in general everything that tastes good, if the tongue, the connoisseur of this, had not been invested? In addition, what do you think, is this not similar to the business of fishing: since vision is weak, he protected it with eyelids, which, when you need to use them, dissolve, like a door is locked in a dream? And so that the winds would not harm him, he planted eyelashes in the form of a sieve; eyebrows like a canopy, separated a place above the eyes so that even the sweat from the head does not spoil them? Further, the organ of hearing perceives all kinds of sounds, but never fills up? The front teeth of all animals are adapted for cutting, and the molars for crushing the food received from them? Mouth, through which living beings introduce food, what they want, he placed near the eyes and nose? And since what comes out of a person is unpleasant, did he direct the channels of this in the other direction, as far as possible from the senses? All this is so prudently assimilated: do you really find it difficult to say that this is a matter of chance or a matter of reason?

No, I swear by Zeus, - answered Aristodemus, - if you look at it from this point of view, then it is very similar to the skillful work of some divine artist who loves living beings.

And the fact that he planted the desire for childbearing, planted in mothers the desire to feed and in breastfed children the greatest love of life and the greatest fear of death?

Without a doubt, and it looks like the skillful work of someone who has made it his goal to be living beings.

Do you recognize the presence of something intelligent in yourself?

Ask: I will answer.

And in other places there is nothing reasonable anywhere? Can you really think so, knowing that the body contains only a small part of the huge creature of the earth and an insignificant fraction of a huge amount of moisture? Similarly, from each of the other beings, undoubtedly great, you received an insignificant particle in the composition of your body; only the mind, therefore, which is nowhere to be found, by some lucky chance, do you think you took it all for yourself, and this world, huge, boundless in its multiplicity, do you think that it is in such a harmonious order thanks to some kind of madness?

Yes, I swear by Zeus, I think this way: I do not see the owners, as I know the masters in the local works.

Why, you don’t see your soul either, but it is the mistress of the body: therefore, if you reason in this way, you have the right to say that you do nothing according to reason, but everything is by chance.

Here Aristodemus said:

No, Socrates, really, I do not look with contempt at the deity, but, on the contrary, I consider him too majestic for him to need more veneration on my part.

If so, - objected Socrates, - then the more majestic the deity, who, however, honors you with his care, the more you should honor him.

Be sure, - answered Aristodemus, - if I came to the conclusion that the gods care about people in any way, I would not treat them with disdain.

So do you think they don't care? Firstly, of all living beings, they gave a direct position to only one person, and this direct position makes it possible to look further ahead, and objects located above are better seen, and through this the danger of damaging eyesight, hearing and mouth is reduced. Then, they gave to all animals legs, enabling them only to walk, and to man they also added hands, which perform most of the tasks, thanks to which we are happier than them. Not only that, although all living beings have a language, but only the language of man they made capable, by touching it to different parts of the mouth, to pronounce articulate sounds, so that we can communicate to each other what we want. Further, they limited the joys of love for animals to a certain season, but they bestow them on us continuously until old age. However, God found it insufficient to take care of only the body, but, most importantly, he planted in man the most perfect soul. So, first of all, in what other being did the soul notice that there are gods who created this great, beautiful world? What other kind of creature, besides man, honors the gods? What soul, more than a human, is able to take precautions against hunger, thirst, cold, heat, to fight diseases, to develop strength by exercise, to work on learning anything, to remember everything that it hears, sees, learns? Isn't it clear to you that in comparison with other creatures, people live like gods, already, thanks to their natural structure, far surpassing animals in body and soul? If a man had, for example, the body of a bull, but the mind of a man, he could not do what he wants; in the same way, animals that have hands, but are devoid of reason, are not in the best position for this. And you, having received these precious Gifts as your inheritance, do you think that the gods do not care about you? What must they do to make you acknowledge their concern for you?

I'll admit it when they send me, as you say they send you, advisers to tell me what to do and what not to do.

And when they, - answered Socrates, - give instructions through fortune-telling to the Athenians who want to know the future, or when the Hellenes and even all people, sending miraculous signs, they portend something, do you think they do not give you instructions, but only are you excluded and left out of their care? Do you think the gods would have implanted in people the belief that they can do good and evil, if they did not have the power to do so? Would people never notice that they are forever deceived? Don't you see that the most durable and wise human institutions - states and peoples - are the most reverent to the gods and the most intelligent ages are most devoted to the care of the gods? My dear, - he added, understand that your mind, while it is in your body, disposes of it as it wants. On this basis, one should think that the chaste mind of everything arranges the universe as it pleases: do not think that your gaze can extend to many stages, and the eye of God is too weak to see everything at once, and that your soul can take care of the local affairs, both Egyptian and Sicilian, and the mind of God is not strong enough to take care of everything at once. But by rendering services to people, you will find out who is ready to render services to you; by doing something nice for them, you will find out who is doing something nice for you; consulting with them, you will find out who is smart: similarly, if, serving the gods, you try to find out if they want to give you advice about something unknown to people, you will understand that the deity has such power and such properties that it can immediately to see everything, to hear everything, to be present everywhere and to have care about everything at once.

With these conversations, it seems to me, Socrates so influenced his friends that they moved away from all unholy, unjust and reprehensible acts, not only when people saw them, but also when they were alone, because they were convinced that not a single one of their actions may remain hidden from the gods.

Guessing what the gods are doing was part of the everyday life of the Greeks; any person himself tried to understand what this or that sign means (what we are doing with you, reader!), But there were also predictors, for example, priests in the temple of Apollo in Delphi. Astrological divination came to Hellas only at the end of the 4th century after the campaigns of Alexander the Great (see also: Xenophon's "Apology (defense) of Socrates at the trial", note on p. 93).

What follows is a most interesting discourse on freedom and the “bondage of the will” (Luther). In this insoluble philosophical dispute, Socrates seemed to take a position close to that established in late Catholicism (excluding, of course, guessing): the future and outcome of human affairs are completely in the hands of God, but a person should not fold his hands in anticipation of a decision. .

If an influential person was ostracized (exiled), which happened often, the same fate could befall a relative.

"Cosmos" - literally translated "order", "decoration"; in the philosophy of Pythagoras, Empedocles, the word received the meaning of "universe", a world plan that exists due to higher harmony (often defined by certain numbers).

In this case, Xenophon is referring to the low-flying sophists.

The doctrine of the unity of emergence and disappearance, of continuous movement, as a form of existence of the world, belongs to Heraclitus of Ephesus. Zeno of Elea put forward the hypothesis of eternal rest and the impossibility of movement (rather, the illusory nature of our ideas that everything is moving). Subsequently, a lot was said on this topic, in particular, about the "immobility" of time; Here, for example, is the stanza of the forgotten 19th-century poet Vladimir Benediktov: And there is no real end, / And there is no beginning. People talk nonsense / About time - it is for the sage / It always stands, they blow in, pass / Or float on a lifelong river / And they carry to the banks that movement, / Which on a fragile shuttle / Perform themselves. Everywhere is delusion. ("On 1861").

406, when Socrates, by the will of the lot, first became a member of the Council of Five Hundred, and then in the same way the chairman-epistate of the commission of the prytanes governing Athens. And it must be so coincidental that it was on the very day when he was chairman that the People's Assembly was convened to judge the strategists after the battle of the Arginuz Islands! According to the law, Socrates had to preside over this Popular Assembly-trial, and he did everything possible, trying to calm the raging crowd and save innocent people. Alas, again, according to the law, one person served as epistat for a day, after which he was replaced by another priest; and the other one allowed demagogues and passions to take over: six strategists were executed. This story is the outline of Xenophon's story (see also: Plato. "Apology of Socrates", note on p. 71).

The highest administrative and judicial positions in Athens, especially since the time of Solon (590s), were held by lot (“Democracy is a form of government where positions are filled by lot” - Aristotle. “Rhetoric” 1, 8, 1365 c). Voting, "show of hands", elected strategists, other military commanders, financial chiefs, etc. As for the beans, in a distant era they were used as "ballots".

Xenophon gives an exact description of both historical characters. About the brilliant, tragic and miserable fate of Alcibiades (c. 450 - c. 404) Plutarch wrote in detail in his Comparative Biographies. Oligarchy Xenophon calls the dictatorship of the Thirty Tyrants, led by Critias (c. 460-403), see also: Preface).

The first quotation is from the famous poet Theognis (second half of the 6th century); the author of the other verse is unknown.

"Fashionable" handsome in Athens.

The second most powerful leader in the College of Thirty Tyrants.

This refers to the sophists or meteorosophists, who turned the concepts around and penetrated into the secrets of the universe.

This refers to the Council of Five Hundred, which ruled Athens during periods of "normal" democracy, whose members could only be full-fledged (both by father and mother) citizens no younger than 30.

Hesiod lived ca. 700, he can be considered the first historically reliable poet; author of the epic poems "Works and Days" and "Theogony". Perhaps he, like many subsequent servants of the Muses, was led to the path of creativity by a personal drama: a brother named Persian deceived him by deceit. "Works and Days" - devoted to earthly affairs, "Theogony" - the interpretation of the universe and the mythology of the gods.

Iliad, 11, 188.

Lich is famous for his generosity. Gymnopedia - a local Spartan holiday in honor of the fallen in the battles of Fira and Argolis in 546.

The walls of the houses were not difficult to break through, since they were made of unbaked brick or wood. Kidnapping and selling into slavery is one of the trades of the then criminal "mafias".

Prophetess in the Delphic Temple.

A verse from the Works and Days of Hesiod (v. 336).

Great tragic poet-dramatist (496-406)

The famous sculptor who lived in the era of Pericles; his style is distinguished by expressiveness and dynamism, which have become exemplary.

Painter of the 4th-5th centuries. A master of chiaroscuro and perspective, his painting of the seven centaurs was legendary. He visited Athens and met with Socrates.

Apparently, they mean the same demons, geniuses in the Socratic sense.

A stadion is 177 meters.