Deipnosophistae

Athenaeus of Naucratis

Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists or Banquet Of The Learned Of Athenaeus. Yonge, Charles Duke, translator. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854.

There was also at Tarsus an Epicurean philosopher who had become the tyrant of that city, Lysias by name; who having been created by his countrymen Stephanephoros, that is to say, the priest of Hercules, did not lay down his command, but seized on the tyranny.[*](The Greek here is ἐξ ἱματίου τύραννος ἦν, the meaning of which is very much disputed. Casaubon thinks it means that there was a great resemblance between the priestly and royal robes. Schweighauser thinks it means, after having worn the robe of a philosopher he became a tyrant.) He put on a purple tunic with a white centre, and over that he wore a very superb and costly cloak, and he put on white Lacedæmonian sandals, and assumed also a crown of golden daphne leaves. And he distributed the property of the rich among the poor, and put many to death who did not surrender their property willingly.

These are the commanders who became such from having been philosophers; concerning whom Demochares said,—

Just as no one could make a spear out of a bulrush, so no one could make a faultless general out of Socrates.

For Plato says that Socrates served in three military expeditions, one to Potidæa, and another to Amphipolis, and another against the Bœotians, in which last it was that the battle of Delium took place. And though no one has mentioned this circumstance, he himself says that he gained the prize of the most eminent valour, since all the other Athenians fled, and many were slain. But all this is an erroneous statement. For the expedition against Amphipolis took place in the archonship of Alcæus, when Cleon was the general; and it

v.1.p.343

was composed entirely of picked men, as Thucydides relates. Socrates then, a man who had nothing but his ragged cloak and his stick, must have been one of these picked men. But what historian or poet has mentioned this fact? Or where has Thucydides made the slightest mention of Socrates, this soldier of Plato's? And what is there in common between a shield and a philosopher's staff? And when was it that Socrates bore a part in the expedition against Potidoea, as Plato has said in his Charmides, where he states that he then yielded the prize of preeminent valour to Alcibiades? though Thucydides has not mentioned it, nor has Isocrates in his Oration on the Pair-horse Chariot. And what battle ever took place when Socrates gained the prize of preeminent valour? And what eminent and notorious exploit did he perform; for indeed there was actually no battle at all at that time, as Thucydides tells us.

But Plato not being content with all these strange stories, introduces the valour which was displayed, or rather which was invented by him at Delium. For if Socrates had even taken Delium, as Herodicus the Cratetian has reported in his Treatise to Philosocrates, he would have fled disgracefully as all the rest did, when Pagondas sent two squadrons of cavalry unperceived round the hill. For then some of the Athenians fled to Delium, and some fled to the sea, and some to Oropus, and some to Mount Parnes. And the Bœotians, especially with their cavalry, pursued them and slew them; and the Locrian cavalry joined in the pursuit and slaughter. When then this disorder and alarm had seized upon the Athenians, did Socrates alone, looking proud and casting his eyes around, stand firm, turning aside the onset of the Bœotian and Locrian cavalry? And yet does Thucydides make no mention of this valour of his, nor even any poet either. And how was it that he yielded to Alcibiades the prize of preeminent valour, who had absolutely never joined in this expedition at all? But in the Crito, Plato, that favourite of Memory, says that Socrates had never once gone out of Attica, except when he, once went to the Isthmian games. And Antisthenes, the Socratic philosopher, tells the same tale as Plato about the Aristeia; but the story is not true. For this Dog flatters Socrates in many particulars, on which account we must not believe either of them, keeping Thucydides for our guide. For Antisthenes

v.1.p.344

even exaggerates this false story, saying,—

'But we hear that you also received the prize of preeminent valour in the battle which took place against the Bœotians.' 'Be quiet, my friend, the prize belongs to Alcibiades, not to me.' 'Yes, but you gave it to him as we are told.'

But Plato's Socrates says that he was present at Potidæa, and that he yielded the prize of preeminent valour to Alcibiades on that occasion. But by the universal consent of all historians the expedition against Potidæa, in which Phormio commanded, was previous to the one against Delium.

In every respect then the philosophers tell lies; and they are not aware that they commit numbers of anachronisms in the accounts which they give. And even the admirable Xenophon is not free from this error. For he in his Banquet introduces Callias, the son of Hipponicus, as the lover of Autolycus, the son of Lycon, and making an entertainment in his honour when he gained the victory in the Pancratium. And he represents himself as being present with the rest of the guests, when he perhaps was either not born, or at all events not out of childhood. And this is the time when Aristion was archon. For it was in his archonship that Eupolis exhibited the comedy Autolycus, in which, in the character of Demostratus, he ridicules the victory of Autolycus. And again Xenophon makes Socrates say at this Banquet—

And Pausanias, indeed, the lover of Agathon the poet, when speaking in excuse of those who allow themselves to indulge in intemperance, said that a most valiant army might be composed of boys and their lovers; for that of all the men in the world they would be the most ashamed to desert one another. Saying a very strange thing,—if men who are accustomed utterly to disregard all blame, and to behave with utter shamelessness to one another, would be the men above all others ashamed to do anything disgraceful.

But that Pausanias never said anything of the sort we may see from the Banquet of Plato. For I know of no book at all which is written by Pausanias. Nor is he introduced by any one else as speaking of lovers and boys, but only by Plato. But whether Xenophon has absolutely invented this story, or whether he fell in with any edition of Plato's Banquet which reports what happened in a different manner, is of no importance; still we must take notice of the blunder as far as the

v.1.p.345

time is concerned. Aristion, in whose time this banquet is represented as having taken place, was archon four years before Euphemus, in whose archonship Plato places the banquet given in honour of the victory of Agathon, at which banquet Pausanias said these things about lovers. So that it is a marvellous and incredible thing that Socrates w hen supping with Callias should find fault with things as having been said erroneously, which had not yet been said at all, and which were not said till four years afterwards at the banquet of Agathon.

But altogether Plato's Banquet is mere nonsense. For when Agathon got the victory Plato was fourteen years old. For the former was crowned at the Lenæa in the archonship of Euphemus. But Plato was born in the year of the archonship of Apollodorus, who succeeded Euthydemus. And when he was eighty-two years old he died in the archonship of Theophilus, who succeeded Callimachus; for he is the eighty-second archon after Apollodorus. But from the archonship of Apollodorus and the birth of Plato, Euphemus is the fourteenth archon; and it is in his archonship that the banquet was given in honour of the victory of Agathon. And Plato himself shows that this entertainment had taken place a long time before, saying in the Banquet . . . .

'Do you think then that this entertainment has taken place but lately, so that I could have been present at it?' 'Indeed I do,' said he. 'How could that be,' said I, 'O Glaucon? Do you not know that Agathon has not been in the city for many years?'

And then a little while after he says—

' But tell me, when did this entertainment take place?' And I replied, 'When we were still children, when Agathon gained the prize in tragedy.

' But that Plato makes many blunders in his chronology is plain from many circumstance. For as the poet said—

The man has a tongue which pays no regard to seasons;

so he writes without sufficient discernment. For he never spoke at random, but always with great consideration.

As for instance, writing in the Gorgias, he says—

'Archelaus, then, according to your definition, is a miserable man.' 'Yes, my friend, if, at least, he is an unjust one.'

And then, after expressly stating that Archelaus was possessed of the kingdom of the Macedonians, he goes on to say,

v.1.p.346

that Pericles also was lately dead

But if Pericles had only lately died, Archelaus was not yet in the enjoyment of his dominions at all; and if Archelaus was king at the time, then Pericles had been dead a long time. Now Perdiccas was king before Archelaus, according to the statement of Nicomedes of Acanthus; and he reigned forty-one years. But Theopompus says he reigned thirty-five years; Anaximenes, forty; Hieronymus, twenty-eight. But Marsyas and Philochorus say that he reigned only twenty-three years. Now, as these all vary so much in their accounts, we will take the smallest number, and say twenty-three. But Pericles died in the third year of the Peloponnesian war, in the archonship of Epameinon, in which year also Alexander died, and Perdiccas succeeded him in the kingdom. And he reigned till the archonship of Callias, in whose year Perdiccas died, and Archelaus succeeded to the kingdom. How, then, can Pericles have died lately, as Plato phrases it? And in the same Gorgias Plato represents Socrates as saying—

And last year, when I drew the lot to be one of the council, when my tribe was the presiding tribe, and I had to put the question to the vote, I caused the people to laugh, as I did not know how to put the question to the vote.

Now Socrates did not fall into this error out of ignorance, but out of his firm principles of virtue; for he did not choose to violate the laws of the democracy. And Xenophon shows this plainly in the first book of his Hellenics, where he gives the following account:—

But when some of the prytanes said that they would not put the question contrary to the laws, Callixenus again mounts the tribunal and inveighs against them; and they cried out that he should impeach those who refused. And the prytanes being alarmed, all agreed to put the question except Socrates the son of Sophroniscus; and he said that he would not, but that he would do everything according to the laws.

This was the question which was put to the vote against the generals, Erasinides and his colleagues, because they did not pick up the men who were lost in the naval battle at Arginusæ. And this battle took place in the archonship of Callias, twenty-four years after the death of Pericles.

But the dialogue in the Protagoras, which took place after the death of Hipponicus, when Callias had entered upon

v.1.p.347

his patrimonial inheritance, says that Protagoras had arrived in Athens for the second time not many days previously. But Hipponicus, in the archonship of Euthydenmus, was a colleague of Nicias in the generalship against the Tanagreans and against those Bœotians who acted as their allies; and he defeated them in a battle. And he died before Eupolis exhibited the Flatterers, which took place in the archonship of Alcæus, but probably not any long time before. For the play proves that the succession of Callias to his patrimonial inheritance was still quite recent. Now in this play Eupolis introduces Protagoras as living at Athens. And Ameipsias, in his Connus, which was exhibited two years before, does not enumerate him among the band of sophists. So it is plain that this happened in the interval between those two periods. But Plato represents Hippias the Elian also, in the Protagoras, as present with some of his own fellow-citizens, men who it is not likely could have remained long in Athens with safety, before the truce for a year was made in the archonship of Isarchus, in the month Elaphebolion. But he represents this dialogue as having taken place, not about the time when the truce had recently been made, but a long time after that; at all events he says—

For if they were savage men, such as Pherecrates the poet exhibited last year at the Lenæan festival.

But the play of The Savage Men was exhibited in the archonship of Aristion, who was succeeded as archon by Astyphilus, (being the fifth after Isarchus,) in whose archonship the truce was made; for Isarchus came first, then Ameinias, then Aristion, then Astyphilus: so that it is contrary to history that Plato in his dialogue brings to Athens Hippias and his companions, who were enemies at the time, when this truce had not yet any existence.