only way to happiness, and every man desires happiness'. Thus virtue is a knowledge of the way to happiness, and more generally, right action is reasonable action; in other words, virtue is wisdom, and each particular virtue wisdom in reference to particular circumstances or a particular class of objects. Thus he is brave who distinguishes between what is really dangerous and what is not so, and knows how to guard against danger, as the sailor in a storm at sea; he is just who knows what is right towards men; he is pious who knows what is right towards God; he is temperate who can always distinguish between real and apparent good. Training therefore and teaching are essential to virtue, and above all the training in self-knowledge, to know what are man's needs and capacities, and what are one's own weak points. No action can be really virtuous which is not based on this self-knowledge.

In regard to religion, Socrates, while often employing language suited to the popular polytheism, held that there was one supreme God who was to the universe what the soul of man was to his body, that all things were arranged and ordered by Him for good, and that man was the object of His special providence and might look for guidance from Him in oracles and otherwise. The soul was immortal, and had in it a divine element. Socrates believed that he was himself favoured beyond others in the warning sign (rò daμóviov) which checked

1 Compare Xen. Mem. Iv. 8. § 6, 'He lives the best life who is always studying to improve himself, and he the pleasantest, who feels that he is really improving,” (ἄριστα ζῆν τοὺς ἄριστα ἐπιμελομένους τοῦ ὡς βελτίστους γίγνεσθαι, ἥδιστα δὲ τοὺς μάλιστα αἰσθανομένους ὅτι βελτίους γίγνονται).

him whenever he was about to take an ill-judgedstep'.

The personal enmity provoked by the use of the Socratic elenchus, and the more general dislike to the Socratic method as unsettling the grounds of belief and undermining authority, a dislike which showed itself in the Clouds of Aristophanes as early as 423 B.C., combined with the democratic reaction, after the overthrow of the Thirty, to bring about the execution of Socrates in the year 399 B.C. The charges on which he was con

demned were that he did not believe in the Gods of the established religion, that he introduced new Gods, and that he corrupted the young: the last charge probably referring to the fact that Socrates freely pointed out the faults of the Athenian constitution, and that many of his disciples took the anti-popular side.

Our authorities for the life of Socrates are the writings of his two disciples, Xenophon and Plato, which are

1 Much has been written on the exact nature of the dauóviov. I take nearly the same view as Zeller (Socrates tr. p. 94), that it was a quick instinctive movement, analogous in its action to what we know as conscience and presentiment, but not identical with either, combining with a natural sensitiveness for whatever was right and fitting the practised tact acquired by large experience of life. To this sudden decisive mandate of the inward monitor, Socrates ascribed a supernatural origin, because he was unable to analyse the grounds on which it rested, attributing it, as he did all other good things, to the favour and goodness of God. We note here an element of mysticism, which showed itself also in the sort of brooding trance to which he was occasionally liable (cf. Plat. Symp. 220). It belonged to his wonderful personality to unite in himself, as perhaps none other but Luther has ever done, robust commonsense with deep religious mysticism, keen speculative interest with the widest human sympathies.

related to one another much as the Gospel of St Mark to that of St John. Xenophon (440-355 B.C.) was a soldier and country gentleman with a taste for literature, who endeavoured to clear his master's memory from the imputation of impiety and immorality by publishing the Memorabilia, a collection of his noteworthy sayings and discourses. Other discourses of Socrates are given in his Apologia, Convivium, and Economicus. What has been said above as to the method and the belief of Socrates may be illustrated by the following passages from the Memorabilia. In a conversation with Euthydemus' the question arises as to the nature of justice. To discover what injustice is, it is necessary to consider what kind of actions are unjust. 'It is unjust,' says Euthydemus, 'to lie, deceive, rob, &c.' On Socrates reminding him that such actions are not thought unjust in the case of enemies, Euthydemus amended his definition by adding 'if practised on a friend.' 'But,' says Socrates, 'it is not unjust in a general to encourage his soldiers by a lie, or in a father to impose upon his child by giving medicine in his food, or in a friend to rob his friend of the weapon with which he is about to kill himself.' Euthydemus has no answer to make, so Socrates turns to another point, and asks which is the more unjust, to tell a lie intentionally or unintentionally. The answer naturally is that it is worse to lie with intention to deceive. Socrates, arguing on his principle that all virtue is knowledge, asks whether a man must not be taught to be just, as he is taught to read and write, and whether the man who misspells in

1 Mem. IV. 2.

tentionally does not know his letters better than one who misspells without intending it; whether therefore he who intentionally commits an unjust action must not have a better knowledge of what is just than he who commits it unintentionally, and consequently be a juster man, since justice consists in the knowledge of what is just. Socrates then proceeds to show that Euthydemus' ideas of what is really good are no less confused and self-contradictory than his ideas about justice, and Euthydemus goes away convinced that he knows nothing, and thinking himself no better than a slave. 'Such,' adds Xenophon, 'was a frequent result of conversing with Socrates; in many cases those who had been thus humiliated kept out of his way for the future; these he called cowards; but Euthydemus on the contrary thought his only hope of improving himself was to be continually in the society of Socrates, and Socrates, finding him thus docile and eager to improve, taught him simply and plainly what he thought it most useful for him to know.'

I have selected this conversation for the sake of comparison with a conversation on the same subject which I have quoted below from Plato's Republic. It is interesting to note that it ends with a negative conclusion, as so many of the Platonic dialogues do, its object being to destroy a false belief of knowledge and awaken interest, not to communicate any definite doctrines. The paradox as to the superior morality of intentional wrong-doing reappears in Plato. And no doubt, if we are comparing the moral condition of two persons guilty of the same act of treachery or ingratitude, one of whom did wrong knowing it to be wrong, while the other had no feeling of wrong in 3

M. P.

the matter, we should agree with Socrates in considering the latter more hopelessly immoral than the former': but it is plain, from many passages both in Xenophon and Plato, that Socrates was really carried away by his analogy between the art or science of life (which was his view of virtue) and the particular arts and sciences; and that he never gave due attention to the phenomena of human weakness (ακράτεια) and moral choice (προαίρεσις) which were afterwards so carefully analyzed by Aristotle.

One other passage from Xenophon may be cited here, as the first appearance of the argument from Final Causes*. Socrates is endeavouring to prove to Aristodemus that the world is the work of a benevolent Creator, not the result of chance. After laying down the principle that the adaptation of means to ends is an evidence of intelligent activity, he proceeds to point out the adaptations existing between the several parts of man's nature and also between his nature and his environment. Man is endowed with instincts which lead him, independently of reason, to perform those actions which are essential for self-preservation and for the continuance of the species; he has senses capable of receiving pleasure, and he finds objects around him of such a nature as to give him pleasure; he is favoured above all other animals in the possession of hands and in the faculty of speech and the power of thought, through which he is made capable of higher pleasures and brought into communication with higher objects. His consciousness of his own reason is a proof to him of a Reason outside of him, from which that reason was derived.

1 See Arist. Eth. III. i. 14.

2 Mem. I. 4, cf. IV. 3.