PART II
SOCRATES IN TRANSITION 1
IN the period from 432 to 423 Socrates seems to have gone through the social and intellectual transition which marked the turning point of his life. Plato was certainly not wrong when he asserted that at some crucial point Socrates underwent a complete intellectual reorientation. But it is of the utmost importance to establish as nearly as possible the exact period when this transition took place. We have already discussed the inadequate character of Plato's presentation of the view that Socrates' thought entered an entirely new phase at an early period in his life. The fact that he associated with Archelaus brings this fact out very sharply and shows that the change must be referred to the time of Socrates' maturity, certainly at some time later than 430. By 416 we have a clearcut picture of the idealist Socrates, preserved in Plato's Symposium and Xenophon's duplicate work. We can only infer from the evidence that Socrates in 430 was taking a peculiar interest in the philosophies that grouped themselves around the figure of Anaxagoras. It is this period, 430 to 416, which must be considered as containing the explanation for this remarkable change both of thought and personality. The period is marked in Socrates' life by an increasing material prosperity. It is fairly certain that at the battle of Delium in 424, he served in a hoplite regiment along with Alcibiades and membership in this census was limited to the three wealthiest orders in the state. 2 It is even possible that during his earlier military service at Potidaea (432429) he belonged to the hoplite rank. In any case this social position is far beyond anything which the earlier slave or artisan stonecutter might have enjoyed.
The period under review seems to have been marked by a steady / 48 / increase in wealth. Putting together two bits of evidence from Diogenes, it seems very probable that Socrates at this period was independently wealthier than at any other time in his life. "Aristoxenus, the son of Spintharus, says that he also made money [i.e., as well as being a philosopher and discoursing on the conduct of life]; he would at all events invest sums of money, collect the interest accruing, and then when this was expended, put out the principle again." 3
"Again when Charmides offered him some slaves, in order that he might derive an income from them, he declined the offer and some even say that he resisted the charms of Alcibiades." 4
The difficulty in utilizing the material of Diogenes is that there are no chronological indications. It seems to us, however, a probable conjecture that the first reference here quoted points to Socrates' participation in usurious activities in the period from 424-415; Plutarch tells us that Socrates lost 80 minas in speculation, 5 and it is tempting to connect this with the financial disaster that followed the Sicilian expedition. It may be that at this juncture Charmides offered to come to his rescue with the loan of a number of slaves. This would fit what we know of the age and chronology of Charmides.
This period of financial independence and respectable social position is also the period when Socrates "steered a middle course" politically and intellectually.
In the early years of the Peloponnesian War, the balance of political forces was somewhat as follows: On the extreme right was the oligarchical faction, in these years impotent since the banishment of Thucydides, son of Melesias (443). With this group there is connected, as we shall later show, the "underground" Pythagorean sects. At the far left is the ultra-imperialistic wing led by the extreme democrats, Cleon and later Hyperbolus. With this group we may associate the more radical philosophies of critical sophism, best represented by Prodicus, Archelaus, and Protagoras. Between these two extremes is the large and powerful group led and controlled by the Olympian figure of Pericles. This party is not, like the groups of the extreme right and extreme left, a homo- / 49 / geneous organization. It embraces several shades and tones of thought -- from that of the liberal patrician, typified by the Alcmaeonids, who were land-owners, it is true, but had in addition important financial interests which were tied up with the advance of imperialism, to that of the businessmen and entrepreneurs, factory owners and free artisans. Of this latter group Thucydides may be taken as a fairly typical example: he respects Pericles, hates Cleon, and has for Nicias a faintly patronizing contempt. He approves of democracy in moderation but sternly opposes it whenever it departs from tradition. It is this moderate group upon which we must focus our attention.
For a whole decade the life and associations of Socrates were closely bound up with this faction. He was probably introduced to Pericles a few years before the war. He became an intimate of Aspasia 6 and one of that brilliant circle which included Phidias and Anaxagoras, a host of the younger intellectuals, and such a figure as Callias, the wealthiest Athenian of his day. The house of Aspasia provided a natural gathering ground for the culture, the charm, the talent and wit of the pre-war era in Athens. Anaxagoras set the natural philosophical direction for most of these people.
In this lively and spirited circle, the many intellectual currents of the day must have found a meeting place and a group that was sensitively responsive to various shades of conflicting opinion. But as the issues of Athenian politics began to sharpen and began to impinge with varying impact upon this circle, its members began to move in different, even opposite, directions. Some individuals, like the brilliant careerist, Alcibiades, embraced in one person and one career these opposite tendencies. Alcibiades began life as an aristocrat and tried to get himself named proxenus (or representative) of Sparta at Athens. 7 Failing in this he attached himself to the democratic cause and even out-demagogued Cleon in pushing forward the Sicilian expedition. Then the attack on him for the affair of the Hermes carried with it the imputation that his affiliations at Athens had not been entirely democratic. 8 Whereupon Alcibiades went over entirely to the oligarchical side and / 50 / defended himself at Sparta in language that was blunt to the point of impertinence. 9 But by far the majority of this circle, as the war proceeded and the conflicts within Athenian politics became more and more bitter, found it advantageous to ally themselves with the oligarchical faction. Most of them were men of property; they represented the substantial elements in Pericles' support, the liberal patrician and successful artisan. But as the left went more and more "radical" in its treatment of domestic problems, the group came to find the program of the conservatives more and more attractive. For example, we find that Hagnon, who, when Pericles was accused of peculation, devised an ingenious political maneuver in his favor, 10 was one of those prominently implicated in the counter-revolution of the 400. 11
We find some difficulty in accepting the traditional interpretation that the move of Hagnon, when Pericles was impeached, was directed against Pericles. The effect of his proposals was to modify the decree of Dracontides; eliminating the religious implications, ensuring a trial before a large popular court, and keeping the traditional method of anonymous voting by means of pebbles.
Few demonstrated the talent of Alcibiades for agile maneuvering. Most moved steadily towards the right. Socrates must have been affected by this process. Indeed, the problem must have been for him particularly acute, for Archelaus, the philosopher with whom he was associated, was moving in the other direction, dropping the idealistic aspects of the philosophy of Anaxagoras and taking more and more a thoroughly materialistic position. It is in this context that we can re-examine the relation of Socrates to the philosophy of Anaxagoras -- the process as described in the Phaedo. He became, so he himself tells us, more and more dissatisfied with the use that Anaxagoras made of "mind." Instead of a supreme teleological principle which should explain what is, in terms of what ought to be, Anaxagoras had treated mind as simply an element in a mechanically causative sequence. / 51 /
At some time during this period of hesitation, compromise and intellectual incubation, he found himself heavily under attack by the comic poets and particularly by Aristophanes. The Clouds was produced in 423; it represented the counterattack of the conservatives on radical and skeptical ways of thought. It may even have been intended to complete the process of Socrates' conversion by holding up to ridicule the associates and modes of thought of his past. That Socrates was not insensitive to the criticism of the comic poets, he himself makes clear. In the tradition preserved by Diogenes, he said: "We ought to be particularly receptive to the criticism of the comic poets; for if they say anything that really applies to us, they will correct us. If not, they mean nothing to us." 12 What is at least certain is that the process of conversion was effective. By the date of the Symposium (416 or 415) Socrates and Aristophanes were on the best of terms, so much so that scholars since have refused to take seriously the earlier criticism of Socrates made by the comic poet, and in so doing they transform biting social satire into a harmless piece of horseplay.