This paper aims to explain the very sharp contrast between the portraits of Critias found in Plato and Xenophon. While depicted as a monster in Xenophon's Hellenica, Critias is described with at most mild criticism in Plato's writings. Each of these portraits is eccentric in its own way, and these eccentricities can be explained by considering the apologetic and polemic aims each author pursued. In doing so, I hope to shed light not only on the relations between these portraits and the works that contain them, but also on the personal relations between Plato and Xenophon and their manner of expressing them in literary productions.
As is well known, from some point prior to the publication of Xenophon's Memorabilia Socrates was blamed for having associated with Critias, one of the leaders of the notorious Thirty tyrants. Any portrait of Critias that was published in this period, particularly one that associated him with Socrates, would therefore play some role in the controversy concerning Socrates. As students and admirers of Socrates, both Plato and Xenophon had good reasons to take the potential effects of their portraits into account. Most scholars who discuss these portraits argue that Plato and Xenophon, in different ways and to different degrees, attempted to reduce Socrates' blame by criticizing Critias.Footnote 1 This line of reasoning, however, is defective: as long as Socrates is portrayed as enjoying close relations with Critias, any criticisms of him implicit in the narrative or voiced by characters other than Socrates would serve only to worsen Socrates' case. Anyone concerned for the reputation of Socrates must dissociate the two if portraying Critias badly, or present a more positive image of Critias if associating them closely. Criticisms of Critias in Platonic works, to the extent that there are any, may serve to distance Plato from Critias, but they cannot serve Socrates' interests very well as long as Socrates' relationship with Critias is acknowledged. In fact, Plato does not offer many criticisms of Critias, and no very serious ones. In keeping with this, he portrays Critias and Socrates as enjoying warm relations. In Memorabilia, on the other hand, while acknowledging the connection between Socrates and Critias, Xenophon emphasizes the disagreements between them. This enables him to offer a more critical portrait of Critias. In Hellenica, where he portrays Critias in an even more negative fashion, he completely ignores any connection between Socrates and Critias. This alone, however, is not enough to explain the unusual harshness of the portrait of Critias which he offers there and we will have to seek a special motive for it.
PLATO'S CRITIAS
Compared with most treatments of Critias in fourth-century literature, Plato's treatment is mild, to say the least. His Critias arguably displays some character faults: for example, when Socrates asks about the state of philosophy in Athens and about the young men, Critias responds only to the latter request (153d–154a), thus showing a lack of genuine interest in philosophy and an excessive interest in good-looking young men, a quality which is also emphasized in Xenophon's account of him in Memorabilia 1.2 and in Aristotle's Rhetoric (1.15.13). Similarly, it has been noted that Critias is portrayed as excessively flexible in arguments, always willing to accommodate or anticipate Socrates' opinions, and this too is not necessarily flattering.Footnote 2 Several scholars have noted that Critias' interpretation of a verse from Hesiod reveals that, in contrast to Socrates, he is overly attached to aristocratic prejudice and this also may, or may not, have aroused disapproval in the intended audience.Footnote 3 But while these features may show that Plato had reservations about Critias, they do not show strong hostility and they do nothing to defend Socrates from charges of having associated with a bad man. Indeed, in so far as they imply a bad Critias they make Socrates look all the more guilty by association.
Some scholars have argued therefore that, far from offering a critique of Critias, Charmides actually aims, to some degree, at improving his reputation. Dusanic has argued that Plato's main apologetic aim in Charmides is to rehabilitate Critias' reputation in the context of a general reconsideration of the Thirty that took place in Athens in the 380s.Footnote 4 He points out that the praise of Critias' noble ancestry is likely to be sincere, since Plato himself shared this ancestry.Footnote 5 To Burnet, too, it seemed obvious that the opening scenes of the dialogue are a ‘glorification’ of Plato's connection to Critias and Charmides.Footnote 6 Indeed, even if there is mild criticism, in the case of a monster such as Critias that could only work to his favour.
Not only is the portrait of Critias mild, but his relationship with Socrates is remarkably warm. One may perhaps discern a slight effort to dissociate the two men in the fact that although, as Dusanic notes, Socrates sits next to Critias, he does not choose to do so, but is directed there by someone else (153c). But he does sit next to him, joining him unhesitatingly in planning the seduction of Charmides and offering generous praise of Critias' family distinction (155a). Most significantly, Plato gratuitously draws attention to the long-standing relationship which Socrates had with Critias by having Charmides remark that he remembers seeing Socrates together with Critias when he (Charmides) was a young boy (156a). Later on, Socrates claims to prefer discussing sophrosune (moderation) with Critias rather than with the extremely beautiful young Charmides (162e). So Plato is far from denying or even minimizing their relationship. Given this willingness to associate the two men, it would be surprising indeed if Plato levelled harsh criticism at Critias.
The one significant way in which Plato arguably dissociates the two is by showing that Critias did not fully understand Socrates.Footnote 7 This may have the apologetic aim of indicating that the crimes of Critias were not a result of the faithful application of the teachings of Socrates. If such a charge was in the air, Plato denies its validity, and implies that Socrates himself had better opinions than those which Critias may have thought he had. This portrait also implies that Plato, as the author of the dialogue, understood Socrates better than Critias. But it does not constitute a serious criticism of Critias, since the inability fully to understand Socrates could be attributed to virtually every Socratic interlocutor.
Indeed, Critias is one of the best interlocutors whom Socrates meets. He displays considerable skill in dialectic argumentation, justly criticizing Socrates for seeking to compare sophrosune with arts that relate to external objects (165e, 166b).Footnote 8 This criticism could be applied not only to Socrates' arguments in this dialogue but also to a whole range of dubious analogies which Socrates employs here and elsewhere (such as the comparison of justice to the arts in Republic and of rhetoric to the arts in Gorgias). Critias' disparaged flexibility in conversation can also be seen as a willingness to follow the argument where it leads and to reject previous positions when they are shown deficient. Critias swiftly agrees when Socrates says that the aim should be understanding the argument and not merely winning it (166d), which seems an admirable sentiment.Footnote 9 In addition, unlike most Socratic interlocutors, Critias successfully surmises the direction to which Socrates' final argument is leading, suggesting on his own that what is really needed is knowledge of good and bad (174b).
When we consider Plato's treatment of Critias in other dialogues, we are similarly struck less by the criticisms which he has to offer than by their mildness. Plato does not treat Critias with the severity that he reserves for figures such as Callicles and Thrasymachus, or even such relatively innocuous figures as Ion and Euthyphro. In Timaeus, Critias is selected for the very honourable role of describing how Plato's own beautiful city will appear in action.Footnote 10 Plato introduces him by having Socrates say, ‘And here is Critias, whom we all know is no novice in the matters of which we are speaking’ (Timaeus 20a), namely how the beautiful city of Plato's Republic would make war (19c). Critias' purported military expertise would probably remind readers of his notorious role in the Thirty; but it is hard to imagine that Plato wishes to defame the political ideology he set forth in Republic by associating it with the Thirty. If he is not writing for an audience which somehow retains sympathy for the Thirty, we can perhaps speculate that he expects the reader to take the comment in its dramatic context prior to the rule of the Thirty, when it would refer to some previous political activity of Critias'. Perhaps it should be taken as a reference to his mysterious involvement in the democratic agitation in Thessaly (Xen. Mem. 1.2.24; Hell. 2.3.36). Aristotle implies that Critias had performed some good deeds at one time, although he also says that by his time these deeds had been mostly forgotten.Footnote 11 If Plato is making an oblique reference to Critias' previous merits it may be designed in part to help explain why an intelligent person such as Plato supported Critias initially. But it also contributes to the generally positive portrait of Critias in Plato's writings.
As in Charmides, so too in Protagoras we may discern signs of mild reservations about Critias. His chief act here is offering a brief comment in support of continuing the conversation between Socrates and Protagoras:
Callias seems to me to be on the side of Protagoras, and Alcibiades is always out to win when he takes up a cause. But we don't need to seek victory either for Socrates or Protagoras. Let us ask them both alike not to break up the discussion in the middle.
(336d–e)This comment is briefer than those of Alcibiades and Prodicus, who speak before and after Critias, and also less compelling than either of theirs. Critias' principle is the principle of compromise, but he offers no suggestion as to how a compromise can be achieved. His desire for compromise may suggest his belief in the importance of something like sophrosune; but he does not seem to know how to put it into practice. On the other hand, as Noburu Notomi has pointed out to me, this exchange seems designed to display Critias' cleverness as a politician: by emphasizing his own neutrality, he contrives to force Protagoras into continuing the conversation. In any case, the suggestion which he makes seems reasonable, and it is welcome to the dramatic audience as well as to the audience of the dialogue, both of whom wish the conversation to continue. Whatever criticism may be found here is quite mild, especially when we consider the reputation that Critias seems to have enjoyed in contemporary Athens.
EXPLANATIONS
One possible reason for the relatively positive treatment of Critias may be the desire to defend Socrates from the guilt of having associated with and even taught this Athenian troublemaker. It is not difficult to see that the rehabilitation of Critias, if possible, would contribute significantly to the posthumous defence of Socrates. If Socrates' student was not as bad as everyone thinks, there is all the less reason to disparage his teacher. Assuming that Plato's personal connection with Critias was well known to the public, Plato would have had an additional personal motive for rehabilitating Critias. The presence of some mild criticisms of Critias does not contradict such an aim: some degree of criticism would be necessary if the portrait is to seem at all plausible.
But Plato could not be sure that his efforts at rehabilitation would succeed, and it therefore remains perplexing that he was willing to endanger Socrates' reputation by associating him so openly and so positively with Critias. Indeed, Dorion argues that rehabilitation was impossible, and hence that it was not Plato's intention in Charmides. Instead he merely aimed to show that Critias misunderstood Socrates' teachings, despite Socrates' efforts to correct him.Footnote 12 He argues that Plato's own condemnation of Critias in the Seventh Letter shows further that his aim was not to rehabilitate him.Footnote 13 But this second argument is surely not compelling: Plato need not have been consistent over time in his public expressions concerning Critias. After having attempted to rehabilitate him in Charmides and other works, he may have felt compelled to distance himself from him in the Seventh Letter (I will suggest a reason for this change below). And Dorion's first argument is not compelling either: in the absence of clear evidence concerning public attitudes at the time of composition, we cannot be sure that rehabilitation was impossible.
Taken as a whole, Plato's writing provides a remarkably positive portrait of Critias and connects him closely with Socrates. Our question is why he did so and how he could afford to do so. This question needs to be treated in the first place within the broader context of Plato's general tendency to offer mild or even positive portraits of ill-reputed political figures and to portray Socrates on friendly terms with them. In addition to Critias, Plato depicts Socrates as enjoying close relations, bordering on the erotic, with Alcibiades, Charmides, and Meno.Footnote 14 Moreover, his Socrates is even willing to give Archelaus, the infamous tyrant of Macedonia, the benefit of the doubt.Footnote 15 Why are Socrates' relations with these problematic historical figures portrayed in this way?
Not many scholars have addressed this question recently. Popper took this feature of Plato's portrait to be historically accurate and sought to explain why the historical Socrates associated with such men. He argued that Socrates' critique of the institutions of government would have appealed to oligarchs opposed to the democracy, even if Socrates did not share their oligarchic views. And he added that Socrates ‘would have worked in any circle where his work might have benefited his city’, even an oligarchic one.Footnote 16 In other words, Socrates associated with such figures for his own idealistic purposes, and not out of any sympathy or admiration for them. But this does not begin to explain Plato's mild portraits of them.
Jaeger took a different approach. Recognizing that Plato treats these figures gently, he argued that he somehow admired them. The description of the philosophic nature in Republic (5.491a–495b) holds the key:
He [Plato] accepts them as former students of philosophy, and uses them as examples of the philosophical character which has the highest gifts, but is spoilt by its environment. There is, he admits, something ‘philosophical’ in these political adventurers. They have a dash and brilliance that raises them high above the average – for a paltry man can do nothing big, either good or bad.Footnote 17
In other words, the philosopher is attracted to figures such as these because they share a common nature: political ambition is merely the worldly expression of philosophical ambition gone astray.
This may well be true. However, while it arguably explains Plato's interest in these figures, it does not address the crucial public-relations issue. Even if he admired such figures, Plato would not have advertised Socrates' connection with them if the public were unalterably hostile to them. So it is worth recalling that Plato was not the only one who admired them; Alcibiades at least was also highly admired, and alternately despised, in Athenian society at large, albeit for no especially philosophical reasons. Moreover, as Plato points out in Republic (360d, 362e–367e), Athenians often admired those who succeeded in doing injustice. Thus, even if Athenians condemned them publicly, this would not contradict their nursing some private admiration for such figures. Given Socrates' well-known disability in the political realm, advertising his connection with some undeniably influential figures from the past may have been advantageous to his reputation in the eyes of many, rather than detrimental to it. Such connections would help offset the charges of failure and bring some retrospective glamour to Socrates' otherwise unhappy career.Footnote 18 Although one might have wished for less unsavoury characters, no better candidates were necessarily available. The fact that Socrates did offer some criticism of these figures would help insulate him from censure while allowing him to reap the beneficial effects of contact with them.Footnote 19
If this was Plato's aim, he was acting in accordance with the advice of his very successful rival, Isocrates. In his Busiris, Isocrates criticizes Polycrates' Accusation of Socrates, arguing that it was a mistake to blame Socrates by associating him with Alcibiades. Rather than implying Socrates' disgrace, such an association, in Isocrates' view, actually works in Socrates' favour (Bus. 4–5). For this reason, Socrates' apologists had an interest in portraying him in association with such figures, even when this creates complications for the depiction of Socratic innocence. Plato's portrait of Alcibiades does seem to follow this model. In addition to showing that Socrates criticized Alcibiades' political ambitions and attempted to inspire him to pursue the life of philosophy, Plato also describes Socrates' success in winning the affection and admiration of this beautiful, intelligent, and ultimately powerful political leader.Footnote 20 And there may be some of the same effect in the portrait of Socrates' relations with Critias.
There is, of course, a limit to the power of celebrity to overcome moral objections. Plato's efforts to redeem Critias only make sense if he was addressing an audience whose mind was not completely made up. Dusanic's argument that a public re-evaluation of the Thirty took place in Athens in the 380s, and that Charmides should be dated to this period,Footnote 21 helps only if we can assume that this was when Timaeus, Protagoras, and what we have of Critias were written as well. But we should also consider the possibility that Athenian attitudes were never as hostile as one would think after reading Xenophon's Hellenica. Notomi has argued that public attitudes towards Critias and the Thirty were somewhat unfair.Footnote 22 This of course would not have made Plato's job any easier, because as long as public attitudes remained hostile any rehabilitation of Critias' reputation would be difficult. But there are also some signs that that hostility was not as powerful as one might imagine.
The fact that an amnesty was proclaimed to protect supporters of the Thirty is often attributed to a commendable desire on the part of the democracy to put an end to recrimination.Footnote 23 But it may also be taken as a sign that public hostility was not as extreme as is usually assumed. Further, while the Thirty were widely blamed, individual members of the group could be rehabilitated. Lysias argues that different individuals among the three thousand citizens who remained in the city during the exile were viewed in different lights, depending on their actions (Lys. 26.16–17). Xenophon and Aristotle (and later Diodorus) provide positive portraits of Theramenes (despite some ambiguities in the case of Xenophon). Eratosthenes seems to have felt that he himself was seen as a ‘good’ member of the Thirty, since he remained in the city and tried to pass the euthunai.Footnote 24 The same holds true of Evandros.Footnote 25 Charmides, a member of the Eleven, is consistently treated by Xenophon and Plato as a less offensive figure than Critias.Footnote 26 Indeed, Xenophon portrays Socrates as having encouraged Charmides to enter political life (Mem. 3.7), which is hard to explain if he was popularly viewed as a monster. And Xenophon's portrait of Critias in Memorabilia is not one of irredeemable evil. Since we do not know how much knowledge of the inner working of the Thirty was available, it is possible that Critias' devilish role in that government, if indeed he played one, was not as widely recognized as we assume. Plato seems to have felt that Critias could be defended, or that he could make do with mild criticism.
XENOPHON'S CONTRIBUTION
Our contemporary view of Critias is influenced above all by Xenophon's portrait of him in Hellenica.Footnote 27 This portrait goes beyond those of other contemporary writers in creating an image of Critias as a monster. One would not necessarily expect expressions of sympathy for the Thirty in contemporary judicial rhetoric, our other major source of fourth-century attitudes towards Critias: it is understandable that in democratic Athens after the fall of the Thirty anyone wishing to gain sympathy with the jury would appeal to anti-oligarchic sentiments. Gaps sometimes exist between public expressions of opinions and private sentiments, and the court was not a place where any private sympathy for tyranny would have been expressed. Not only democrats but even more suspected oligarchs such as Andocides would have had good reason to make their anti-oligarchic sympathies clear in such a context (see Andocides 1.80). Even so, the Critias of the law courts is not the powerful author of evil whom we find in Xenophon. The worst we find is Demosthenes' reference to Critias as the promulgator of oppressive oligarchic legislation (Against Timocrates 90) and as the leader of the faction that invited in the Spartans (Against Theocrines 67). Lysias refers to him merely as one of the five overseers (Against Eratosthenes 12.43) or even as ‘one of the Thirty’ (Against Agoratos 13.55). So, too, does Aeschines (1.173). These are not positive descriptions, but they do not mention extraordinary evil or single out Critias for major responsibility for it. In the late fourth century, Lycurgus could refer to one of Critias' actions approvingly (Against Leocrates 113).Footnote 28
In Memorabilia, the portrait of Critias is negative, of course, but not overwhelmingly so. There is little mention of the horrors that occurred during the rule of the Thirty. Xenophon refers to them in recounting the accusation of the accuser (1.2.12; he also refers to the subject in 1.2.32), but then he says ‘if these two did any damage (τι κακὸν, 1.2.13) to the city, I will not defend them’. Although the context of this rarely cited comment implies that Xenophon acknowledges some damage, the actual wording is far from clear. Strictly speaking, he refers to the damage as only hypothetical, and the words τι κακὸν certainly do not reflect crimes of the extent recorded in Hellenica. Raising doubts about Critias' evil deeds contributes well to Xenophon's aim of excusing Socrates: if Critias' harm-doing is open to debate, Socrates is all the freer from blame. Xenophon reduces Critias' culpability in another way too: he portrays Charicles as a leader of the Thirty at least as prominent as Critias. In the conversation which he reports between Socrates and these two men, it is Charicles not Critias who takes the leading role (1.2.33–7).
While minimizing Critias' crimes, Xenophon also distances Socrates from him by showing that Socrates criticized Critias in two ways. He criticized his methods of seducing a young man (Euthydemus) by comparing him to a pig that seeks to rub itself on a stone (1.2.30), and he criticized him for reducing the size of the citizen body (1.2.32). Here is the clearest reference to the crimes of the Thirty, but, rather than highlighting the crimes, which would be counter-productive for apologetic purposes, Xenophon highlights the criticism that Socrates offered, implicitly distancing him from Critias. Yet he does not distance him altogether, and Critias' one remark to Socrates in this context (1.2.37) reveals clearly enough the hostile attitude of a former student.
In contrast to Memorabilia, the portrait in Hellenica shows Critias as a monster, and it is this superbly written portrait which has influenced our own view of him.Footnote 29 Just as Plato's portrait of Critias is eccentric in one direction, so too is Xenophon's portrait here eccentric in the other: Xenophon exaggerates the crimes, in comparison with other accounts, just as much as Plato minimizes them.Footnote 30 Not only does Hellenica provide a lurid portrait of the crimes of the Thirty, but it also places the focus directly on Critias,Footnote 31 emphasizing his leadership role and personal blemishes and, as Ostwald notes, makes little or no effort to uncover any reasonable motives underlying Critias' horrendous behaviour.Footnote 32
In an early conversation with Theramenes, when he still treats the latter as a friend, Xenophon's Critias frankly admits that his aim is πλεονεκτεῖν – taking more than one should (Hell. 2.3.16). This attributes to him the very lowest of motives, and hypocritical ones if sophrosune and virtue were central elements of Critias' political ideology (see below). It is noteworthy that Critias expresses this opinion at the very beginning of the narrative: although, like Plato, Xenophon acknowledges the initial popularity of the new government (2.3.12) he makes it clear that any talk of virtue was mere pretence. This contrasts with other sources whose accounts of the initial aims of the Thirty leave open the possibility that they had some good ones (Lys. 12.5; Ath. Pol. 35.2–3; Plato, Seventh Letter), and it discredits people such as Plato who were personally interested in claiming that the group had good aims at first.
The decision of the Thirty to kill metics at random in order to steal their wealth (2.3.21) seems an especially depraved one. It may be modelled on Spartan practices as Krentz suggests,Footnote 33 but Xenophon certainly does not present it in even a mildly sympathetic light. Who was responsible for this decision? Not wishing to contradict the facts, Xenophon does not attribute it directly to Critias; but, unlike Lysias, who names Theognis and Peison as the originators of this idea (12.6), he leaves its authorship anonymous. By omitting these names, and portraying Critias as the powerful leader of the group, Xenophon creates the impression that this too is somehow attributable to Critias, without committing himself to what would apparently be a false accusation.Footnote 34
In Xenophon's account the Thirty are in name an oligarchy but in truth the rule of the worst man.Footnote 35 The murder of Theramenes serves as a central and paradigmatic act of the administration of the Thirty, and the blame is placed squarely on Critias' shoulders. Although a majority of members side with Theramenes, they are silenced by the threat of violence by Critias' henchmen.Footnote 36 By showing how Critias enforced his will even on his fellow oligarchs, Xenophon seems to create a scapegoat for the Thirty as a whole, devolving all the guilt onto Critias alone. His action of striking Theramenes off the rolls prior to condemning him (2.3.51) illustrates not only the contempt in which he held the law but also his own hypocrisy, since the law he is evading is one of the laws that were established by the Thirty themselves. Similarly, by presenting Theramenes as a good oligarch who proposed more effective ways of maintaining oligarchic power, Xenophon makes Critias' crimes look indefensible even in the eyes of those who may sympathize with oligarchy.Footnote 37
Xenophon's treatment of Charicles here is especially significant. Sometimes Critias is treated together with Charicles as a leader of one faction of the Thirty (Lys. 12.55). Charicles appears in Memorabilia as a leader at least as prominent as Critias, playing a leading role even in a personal conflict between Socrates and Critias (1.2.33–8). Similarly, Aristotle lists Charicles rather than Critias as the leader of a small group which took control of the Thirty (Politics 5.6),Footnote 38 and omits Critias altogether from descriptions of the Thirty in the Politics, as does the author of Athenaion politeia. This omission has been attributed to Aristotle's desire to avoid mentioning the sensitive subject of Critias' participation out of consideration for the Platonists.Footnote 39 Possibly so; but the conflict in the accounts may show equally well that Xenophon had exaggerated Critias' role. Regardless of Aristotle's personal opinion or bias, it would hardly have been possible for him to omit Critias completely if the audience thought his role to have been as it is described by Xenophon.
If minimizing the role of Critias is a sign of concern for Plato's reputation, Xenophon exhibits little such concern in Hellenica. On the contrary, as if to further highlight Critias, Xenophon omits Charicles completely from the entire narrative. This is especially peculiar considering that Charicles does figure prominently in his own Memorabilia. The effect of this omission is to place the burden of leadership and guilt on Critias alone. In short, rather than minimizing Critias' guilt, in Hellenica Xenophon enhances it.Footnote 40 The influence of this account on our own conceptions is the main reason why Plato's relatively mild portrait seems peculiar. If we imagine a world in which this portrait of Critias did not exist, we may find it less surprising that Plato hoped to moderately rehabilitate the image of Critias.
XENOPHON'S MOTIVES
If Plato's mild portrait of Critias can be explained by the hypothesis that contemporary attitudes were not as severe as we usually assume, that only makes it more difficult to explain Xenophon's harshly negative portrait in Hellenica, particularly when we consider the damage it would probably have caused to his own revered teacher, Socrates. Dillery has offered a literary explanation of Xenophon's hostile treatment of the Thirty which does not invoke any debate over Socrates. He sees it as a programmatic account of the self-destruction of an evil regime.Footnote 41 This indeed seems to be an important element in Xenophon's narrative, but it does not explain the focus on the evil of Critias in particular.Footnote 42 Nor does it address the Socratic connection in any way.
As Dorion rightly points out, Xenophon treats the Socratic figures who appear in Hellenica ‘as if they had never been either students of Socrates or companions of Xenophon himself’.Footnote 43 But whatever Xenophon's reasons may have been for treating the subject in this way, it is hard to imagine that he really had no thought at all about the implications of his portrait for those members of the Socratic circle who were involved, more or less closely, with the Thirty.
Notomi and others have suggested a personal motive for the treatment of Critias and the Thirty: Xenophon may have wished to place all the guilt on Critias in order to exonerate himself and other supporters or members of the oligarchic government.Footnote 44 By emphasizing the dominant role of Critias and showing that he forced other members of the Thirty to acquiesce in his worst deeds, Xenophon implicitly excuses the other members of the Thirty, particularly those who sided with Theramenes rather than Critias.Footnote 45 But again, while this may be part of the story, it does not explain why Xenophon placed the focus on Critias rather than on Charicles, for example. Since Charicles was not a student of Socrates, placing the blame on him would have been far better from an apologetic angle. It is of course possible that Xenophon had a genuine dislike for Critias growing out of his experience with him during the reign of the Thirty. He may have held Critias to blame for ruining his own political career in Athens, for example, if indeed Critias did so, and he may have been genuinely outraged by some of Critias' deeds. In that case, however, why was this attitude not expressed in Memorabilia? And why would Xenophon have been interested in dredging up his old personal antagonism towards a long-dead oligarch in Hellenica?
Whatever explanation we put forward, Xenophon must have considered the risks which he was taking in attacking someone who was an acknowledged associate of his beloved teacher, Socrates. Later in the century, Aeschines took it for granted that Socrates was executed because of his relationship with Critias (Against Timarchos, 173). As a student of Socrates, and possibly a supporter of the Thirty himself, Xenophon must have been aware of the damage which he might do with his portrait of Critias, and must have had a strong motive to publish it nevertheless. To uncover this motive, we need to expand the range of our investigation to include other members of the Socratic circle.
As we have noted, the controversy concerning Critias involved members of the Socratic circle apart from Socrates himself, and Plato is certainly one of them. As the Seventh Letter makes clear, Plato himself was a sympathetic supporter of the Thirty, at least initially (324b–d). While his relatively positive portrait of Critias in Charmides and elsewhere may be explained in part by a concern for the honour of his family, it also helps justify his own personal association with Critias at the time of the oligarchy. Socrates was not the only one who had a Critias issue. And, at a later date, the Seventh Letter shows just how concerned Plato (or possibly someone else) was to defend his own reputation on this score (see below).
However, Plato's positive portrait of Critias, conceived perhaps for his own purposes, may have actually compounded his troubles. The publication of such a portrait was a risky and irreversible move. It would have cemented the connection between Plato and Critias in the public eye and made it impossible for Plato to repudiate that connection fully in any later publication. In effect, by publishing his relatively mild portraits of Critias, Plato tied himself and his reputation inextricably to that of Critias. This means that, in addition to causing problems for Socrates, Xenophon's negative portrait of Critias in Hellenica would also have caused severe problems for Plato, particularly after the publication of a work such as Charmides.
While it is hard to explain Xenophon's motives in creating problems for the reputation of his admired teacher, Socrates, it is not difficult at all to explain his motives in creating problems for his Platonic rival in Socratic composition. As we know, Xenophon singled out Plato's Symposium for attack in his own Symposium (8.9–11, 32–4). This is the only case we know of in which Xenophon attacks a contemporary author this openly, and to do so he virtually destroys the dramatic illusion of his own composition, portraying Socrates as reacting to speeches given in another composition. There are signs of literary and personal warfare between the two elsewhere as well, so it would be no surprise if Xenophon's portrait of Critias also reflects a personal animosity to Plato.Footnote 46 By publishing a monstrous portrait of Critias, Xenophon would have shed a sharply unflattering light on anyone who had recently demonstrated sympathy with him, as Plato so obviously did.
Critias is not the only Platonic figure to be abused by Xenophon: Meno is given similar treatment in Anabasis (2.6.21–9). Is it merely a coincidence that the two most wicked individuals described by Xenophon anywhere in his works both appear in relatively positive or innocuous roles in Platonic dialogues? Athenaeus thought that the treatment of Meno reflected a conflict between Plato and Xenophon (11.505b). If so, it was Xenophon attacking Plato. There are some interesting parallels between these two cases. It seems clear, for example, that just as Xenophon exaggerated the case against Critias, so too he exaggerated the case against Meno: the fragments of Ctesias present a much milder portrait of Meno than that found in Xenophon.Footnote 47 In both cases, the relatively positive portrait (Plato's) must have preceded the harshly negative one (Xenophon's), for it would be hard to explain Plato's decision to depict Socrates as enjoying warm relations with someone recently exposed as a very bad man. We do not know enough about Meno to say why Plato introduced him or why Xenophon attacked him, but at the very least it seems that by attacking Meno Xenophon discredits Plato, as if to say that Plato was unaware of his devilish character, or, worse, as if to accuse him of being a friend of the devil. The existence of these parallel cases strongly suggests a common explanation. But there is nothing to connect Meno and Critias other than the fact that both appear in Plato.
THE SEVENTH LETTER
Whether or not Xenophon aimed at discrediting Plato by his portrait of Critias, and whether or not he succeeded in this, it does seem clear that Plato's public presentation of his attitude towards Critias and the Thirty changes over time. In the Seventh Letter Plato no longer makes any attempt to whitewash the Thirty or its leader. Instead, he attempts to defend himself from suspicion of cooperating with them. Here we see both that these suspicions were, at the time of the letter, strong enough to demand a response, and also that it was at this time impossible for Plato to deny his connection altogether:
When I was still young, I had the same desire as many others: I thought that as soon as I became my own master, I would immediately become involved with the political life of the city. It turned out that things took the following course: since the constitution was being derided by many, a revolution occurred. Fifty-one men set themselves up as rulers of this revolution: eleven in the city, and ten in the Piraeus – both of these groups were to administer the market and the ordinary city affairs – and thirty came into power as supreme rulers of all. Some of these happened to be relatives and acquaintances of mine, who accordingly invited me to join them as someone who was competent for the task. No wonder that, on account of my youth, I believed that they would lead the city from an unjust life to a just way of life, and manage it [well]. So I was intensely interested to see what would come of it. In a short time I saw that these men made the former government look in comparison like an age of gold.
(324b–d)Unlike Xenophon, who seeks to focus the responsibility for the wicked deeds of the Thirty on one man, Plato seems intent on spreading the responsibility as widely as possible. He speaks not of the Thirty, but of fifty-one men (including here the Eleven and the ten subordinate officers). While acknowledging the participation of ‘relatives and acquaintances’, he does not mention Critias by name.Footnote 48 He claims that many were heaping abuse on the previous form of government. He apologizes for his own role, saying that he was ‘like many others’. He says that his relatives and acquaintances (not friends) ‘happened’ to be among the leaders; he mentions his youth more than once; and he says that there is no wonder at his belief that the new government would mark an improvement. He also expresses his subsequent disappointment with the oligarchs in the clearest terms. Unlike Xenophon, Plato does not accuse the Thirty of hypocrisy from the beginning: this would make his own initial sympathy look foolish or make him look like a hypocritical co-conspirator himself. In short, the passage provides an excellent example of Platonic apologetics.
Whether the Seventh Letter was written by Plato or by someone else, the need to apologize for Plato's involvement with the Thirty clearly presumes that he was vulnerable to criticism. By acknowledging that he was actually invited to join the Thirty, and then failing to claim that he declined, the author allows the inference that he was an active supporter and not merely a sympathetic observer.Footnote 49 Indeed, the very existence of a public belief that Plato was involved with the Thirty belies his claim that he was only a sympathetic observer, for private sympathy, when it is not acted upon, leaves no public impression at all.
The attitude presented here differs markedly from that underlying the portrait of Critias in the dialogues. The aim here is not to rehabilitate members of the Thirty but rather to apologize for associating with them and to dissociate the author as much as possible. It seems likely that public attitudes had changed between the publication of Charmides and the publication of the letter. In the earlier period, Plato may have still entertained hopes of rehabilitating Critias. In order to do so, he presented a mildly critical portrait of Critias in which he aimed to show that he was mistaken rather than evil, and also to distinguish his own similar-sounding ideology from that of his ill-fated cousin. But something happened to undermine this effort. An ambiguous sentiment towards Critias gave way to the unambiguously hostile sentiment familiar to us today. What caused that change?
If we did not know that Xenophon published an attack on Critias in Hellenica we would have to postulate that something like it had been circulated.Footnote 50 The publication of such a portrait would have caused considerable damage to Plato's efforts to rehabilitate his cousin's reputation. Thus the indirect disowning of Critias that we find in the Seventh Letter would have been the only course left to him.
One may ask why, if Xenophon wished to embarrass Plato, he does not mention Plato directly in this context? Several possible answers suggest themselves. First, Plato does not seem to have played an official role in the government, and this might have made it awkward to attack him directly. Second, if Xenophon was himself associated with the Thirty, such a direct attack might invite a direct response. By using an indirect attack, and focussing on connections that are openly acknowledged in Plato's publications, Xenophon keeps himself out of the range of fire. In the simplest terms, Plato had written about Critias, not about himself, so Critias is the natural object of attack. But we should also recall that Plato and Xenophon hardly ever mention the other's name, and never in a hostile manner.Footnote 51
In sum, the opposing portraits of Critias offered by Plato and Xenophon can be explained as deriving from their personal rivalry. While Plato's positive approach reflects his personal connection to Critias – and also his desire to promote ideas that resemble those of Critias in Republic (as I have argued in a recent publication)Footnote 52 – Xenophon's hostility to Critias reflects his hostility to Plato. While Plato sought to rehabilitate Critias moderately and thus to justify his own support for the Thirty and his own plans for political reform, Xenophon sought to blacken Critias' reputation in order to blacken Plato's as well. According to our reconstruction, Plato's Charmides and other dialogues containing relatively positive portraits of Critias were published before Xenophon's Hellenica. Plato's Republic, which advocates Critian-sounding slogans, should also be placed here, as should Memorabilia 1.2, with its relatively mild portrait of Critias. In reaction to Plato's publications, especially Charmides, Xenophon created a harshly critical and exaggerated portrait of Critias in Hellenica. The success of this publication would have ruined Plato's efforts to revive any ideology associated with his name, and indeed would have placed Plato himself in a highly unflattering light given his previous publications. In this context it became impossible to defend Critias any longer, and Plato was forced to distance himself from the Thirty in his Seventh Letter. These circumstances may also explain why the composition which he planned to write, entitled Critias, was broken off in the middle.Footnote 53
APPENDIX
The preceding argument does not depend on our finding textual evidence that Hellenica is a response to Plato's portrait of Critias in Charmides.Footnote 54 But, although there is no unmistakable evidence of intertextuality here, this does not preclude the possibility that Xenophon intended his portrait of Critias to be seen as a direct response to Plato's Charmides. Close verbal echoes are not always found even when direct literary references demonstrably occur. For example, in his Symposium Xenophon refers clearly to Plato's Symposium, but with almost no overlapping vocabulary.Footnote 55 While there is not enough evidence to make a strong case for intertextuality, it may be worthwhile to consider what evidence there is. First is the presence, in addition to Critias, of Charmides in both compositions. Leaving aside Plato's reasons for choosing Charmides as his leading man, why does Xenophon have to mention the death of Charmides in his Hellenica (2.4.19)? Charmides does not seem to have played a particularly prominent role in the government of the Thirty, and Xenophon finds nothing in particular to say about him except to mark his death. Many people were killed in the conflict, and the gratuitous mention of Charmides here may be a sign that Xenophon has Plato's Charmides in mind. In fact, this reference is our only source of evidence for Charmides' participation in the government of the Thirty; leaving it aside, Charmides is treated very positively not only in Plato but also in Xenophon's Memorabilia (see 3.7). Mentioning Plato's maternal uncle's participation in this government may therefore be part and parcel of Xenophon's effort to malign his Socratic rival.
Another sign is the prominence of the themes of sophrosune and self-knowledge in both texts.Footnote 56Sophrosune is, of course, the subject of Charmides, and one of the prominent definitions of this virtue offered by the character Critias is self-knowledge.Footnote 57 There is little reference to Critias' ideology in Hellenica, but Xenophon does present him as the antithesis of someone who is moderate (σώϕρων). He acknowledges frankly in private conversation that taking advantage of the citizens (πλεονεκτεῖν) was the aim of the Thirty (2.3.16). However, while speaking of his own desire to take advantage in private, in public he emphasizes the importance of moderation (σωϕροσύνη, 2.3.34) and accuses his rival Theramenes of the desire to take advantage (2.3.33). Although the references are few, this moral issue is central to Xenophon's portrait, and he clearly depicts a Critias whose moderation was at best hypocritical.
The issue of self-knowledge is raised later in the speech of Thrasybulus to the re-organized oligarchic party:Footnote 58
I advise you, men of the city, to ‘know yourselves’. And you would know [yourselves] best if you considered the basis of your high opinion of yourselves which led you to attempt to rule over us. Are you more just than we? The demos, which is poorer than you, never wronged you for the sake of money. But you, who are wealthier than everyone, have done many shameful deeds for the sake of profit …
(Hell. 2.4.40)Here and in the remainder of his speech, Thrasybulus ridicules the oligarchs for thinking that they are better than other citizens when in fact they are worse. This reference to the oligarchs' high opinion of themselves and their own virtue recalls the central topic of Charmides, which is whether or not virtue is knowable.
The most peculiar feature of Thrasybulus' speech, however, is his reference to the fact that the oligarchs do not ‘know themselves’. This appears to be an ironic reference to some ideological slogan in which they emphasized the importance of self-knowledge; but there is no previous mention of such an ideology in Hellenica.
The presence of these common themes may result from nothing more than the fact that both texts reflect a single historical reality. There is good reason to think that the historical Critias promoted his party as the party of virtue and he may well have emphasized sophrosune and self-knowledge.Footnote 59Sophrosune was a traditional feature of Athenian oligarchic ideology;Footnote 60 Lysias speaks of the Thirty as espousing an ideology of virtue and justice (12.5; see also Plato, Seventh Letter, 324d). The fragments of Critias' writings express admiration for Spartan moderation (sophrosune) and measure (metron).Footnote 61 One fragment (28) emphasizes the difference between knowing and seeming to know.Footnote 62 It makes sense that, after witnessing the catastrophic results of the hubris of the democratic war party in Athens, an oligarchic party would call for a return to virtue, moderation, and self-knowledge, in the sense of recognizing one's place and limitations. Not only would this be a plausible ideology in the wake of the military defeat, but it would also assist in the effort to convince the citizens to cede control over the city to a small group of virtuous leaders. Such a situation would lend point to Thrasybulus' rebuke. In effect he is saying that it is not the people who forgot who they were, but their supposedly wise leaders.
However, while sophrosune is at least mentioned implicitly earlier in the narrative, the theme of self-knowledge is not. The irony in Thrasybulus' rebuke, then, seems to presume an audience so familiar with this aspect of Critias' ideology that there was no need for a reminder about it. While it is no doubt possible that Xenophon expected the audience to retain a clear recollection of Critian ideology from the short period of the rule of the Thirty, regardless of when this part of Hellenica was published, it seems less likely if it was published, as most scholars believe, several decades after their fall.Footnote 63 It would be easier to explain Xenophon's presumption on his audience's knowledge if public attention had recently been drawn to Critias' concern with self-knowledge. This would have been the effect of the publication of a work such as Charmides. In such a context, the scant references which Xenophon offers would be sufficient to remind the audience of Critias' ideology and to give point to Thrasybulus' rebuke. In such a context, too, his attack would reverberate sharply to Plato's detriment.
