Journal of the History of Philosophy

Book Reviews Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith. Socrates on Trial. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. Pp. xiv + 337- $35 .oo. C. D. C. Reeve. Socrates m the "Apology": An Essay on Plato's "Apology of Socrates." Indianapolis : Hackett Publishing Company, 1989. Pp. xv + 197. $24.5o. The events that constitute the Western philosophical tradition are largely intellectual and literary. A few, however, are dramatically historical, and preeminent among them is the trial of Socrates before the Athenian court in 399 B.C.Seeking to understand that event raises questions that speak to the very nature of philosophy and its relations with society, religion, morality, and politics. These two excellent books are about that event, the trial, Plato's Apology, and Socrates' defense of himself and his mission. In recent years there has been a great deal of interest in Socrates, much of it indebted to the rich and provocative work of Gregory Vlastos, whose dozen or so essays are listed in the bibliographies of both books and who is cited more often than any other commentator. But the authors are no slavish followers of Vlastos. Like Irwin, Kraut, Nehamas, and so many others, they often disagree with him as they offer a serious reconsideration of virtually every feature of Socrates' thought. But on one matter the authors agree with Vlastos, that Socrates' defense can be properly understood only by taking seriously the ways in which it is shaped by his moral theory and commitment to elenctic examination. Unlike, for example, I. F. Stone's recent book [The Trial of Socrates, Little, Brown, and Company, t988], Socrates on Trial (ST) and Socrates in the "Apology" (SA) are philosophically subtle and nuanced, textually scrupulous, and comprehensive examinations of the trial and Socrates' defense. Moreover, they share an overall conviction about Socrates' sincerity and a dedication to the use of legal and historical context to demonstrate it. Both books argue that Plato's Apology, suitably supported by evidence such as Aristophanes' Clouds and Xenophon's Socratic dialogues, portrays a genuine selfdefense in which Socrates aims to refute both the prejudices against him and the precise charges of Meletus. There may be Socratic irony present in the speeches, but it is circumscribed and does not undermine Socrates' honest effort to argue in behalf of his mission and his innocence. Stone's Socrates is a manipulative opponent of democracy , whom Athens rightly feared; the Socrates of ST and SA, however, is a person of utter moral and philosophical integrity who serves his polis by obeying the divine mandate to interrogate his fellow citizens for their own good. And whereas Stone's treatment neglects Socrates' intellectual dimension--the elenchos and his moral theory--ST and SA both feature Socrates' philosophy and its relation to Socratic piety and his political persona. [297] 298 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 29:2 APRIL 1991 The two books, then, share a good deal, and together they represent a high-water mark in recent discussion of Socrates and his trial. But they do differ, and the differences are important. First, they differ in structure and style. ST attempts to be completely comprehensive in treating each and every Socratic argument and in responding to virtually every available scholarly option. But not all proposals are worth attention, and ST does not generally distinguish the most worthy solutions from the humdrum. One result of this strategy, moreover, is that the reader must search for the large, unifying features of the portrait of Socrates; the authors do not outline that portrait clearly and completely. In addition, the bits and pieces of analysis, presented one after another, have a somewhat disjointed character, and the exhaustive use of scholarly interpretation has the effect of distancing the reader from Socrates. SA, on the other hand, deals quite thoroughly with the same arguments but is more selective about the need to confront scholarly options. Moreover, Reeve works harder to paint an integrated picture of Socrates. He sees the Apologyas not just an elaborate set of arguments, rhetorically organized or not, but also a three-stage attempt by Socrates to characterize who he is: by defending himself against the false picture that reputation has painted of him...