Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T08:25:30.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Great Thinkers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

Extract

Any account of Socrates must necessarily begin with the admission that there is, and always will be, a “problem of Socrates”. He himself wrote nothing, and although soon after his death—possibly even before it—many of his friends and admirers began to write about him, their writings are not reports in any literal sense, but reconstructions or interpretations coloured, to a greater or less degree, by the writer's own interests and prejudices, and inevitably selective in their treatment of a complex personality. Out of the very considerable bulk of this Socratic literature there is left to us in a complete form the work of Xenophon and Plato only, together with some scanty remains of Aeschines and yet scantier fragments of Antisthenes, the reputed founder of the Cynic school. In antiquity it was Aeschines who had the reputation of giving the most faithful picture of the master, a fact which deserves to be borne in mind when we attempt to determine how much of Plato's Socrates preserves the record of the man himself.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 261 note 1 For an admirably lucid and concise discussion of this important question, see Ross, W. D. , Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Vol. I, pp. xxiiixlv.Google Scholar

page 261 note 1 This I conjecture to be the “chance” of which Plato speaks in Epistle VII, 325B, “as chance would have it, certain influential persons brought my friend Socrates to trial”.