The Life of Alcibiades

by Jacqueline de Romilly

  was prosecuted primarily because he had failed in his duties to the state;

  he claimed to have served in the cavalry without undergoing an exam.

  This legal affair comes a few years later than the one for which Isocrates

  had written his speech. The speeches Against Alcibiades have come down

  to us under the name of Lysias: their authenticity has been challenged but

  not by everyone. In any event, this case should not have been about the

  father. Yet there is Alcibiades again at the center of the debate.

  Certainly, it is in these speeches that we discover all the scandals involv-

  ing the son (25–28). Questionable morals, dinners with courtesans, prison

  time, massacres, incest, it is all there, with names. It is easy to recognize

  the paternal habit of doing whatever he pleased. But besides these attacks

  on the son, there were others, many of them, against the father—either to

  show that he offered no defense of the conduct of his son, or to affi rm that

  the latter had a lot to account for. Alcibiades should have been executed as

  a young man. He moved against Athens; he enabled the Lacedaemonians to

  occupy Decelea. He stirred the islands to revolt. And the author responded

  to Isocrates’s argument that compared Alcibiades in exile to the democrats

  of 404; he refuted it. He even denied the competence of the man: betrayal is

  easy, and once he came back, Alcibiades actually failed in everything (36–

  37). 5 The speech goes so far as to accuse Alcibiades of having handed over the Athenian fl eet to Lysander (38). The political attacks knew no limits.

  In some ways, these speeches by Isocrates and Lysias provide a pas-

  sionate postwar enactment of the trial of Alcibiades. And these speeches

  oppose one another: the speech in favor recognized nothing wrong; the

  one opposed found nothing right. Alcibiades’s friends and enemies were

  still confronting each other, as they had during his lifetime. 6

  There was something more serious than the trials: there was the ques-

  tion of Socrates. Here the repercussions were enormous.

  Socrates had never hidden his interest in the young Alcibiades. Now,

  the democracy restored, some people were beginning to think that Socrates

  had actually had some dubious characters in his circle. This suspicion was

  no doubt in the minds of those who attacked him.

  5. Cf. above, chapter 10.

  6. Lysias’s speech was delivered against important fi gures who were coming out in favor of the young Alcibiades, urging that they be ignored; the city was still just as passionately divided as it had been during the life of the great man.

  Repercussions 181

  Socrates’s trial took place in 399, fi ve years after Alcibiades’s death.

  There were two charges foremost in the accusation: Socrates was guilty

  of failing to recognize the city’s gods as gods and introducing new ones;

  and he was guilty of corrupting the youth. The crimes were punishable

  by death.

  We can put aside the accusation about the gods and Socrates’s famous

  “daemon.” But how are we to understand the charge of corrupting the

  youth?

  It was not simply a matter of talking with them about his so-called

  impiety. 7 It may have been about taking the place of their fathers and leading them away from practical pursuits. Xenophon’s Apology of Socrates

  suggests that this was the case for at least one of his accusers, Anytus:

  Socrates had turned his son away from working as a tanner as his family

  wished (29).

  That alone, however, would not have warranted death. Anytus had

  other reasons for complaint. At this time, at least, he was a confi rmed

  democrat, among those who had returned by force after the tyranny of

  the Thirty. Some of the people around Socrates (as well as Plato) were se-

  riously compromised, among them Critias, the most important and com-

  mitted of the Thirty. In Socrates’s trial, was there a political aspect? Yes,

  probably. 8 In letter 7, Plato contrasts the trial with the moderation shown in general by the victorious democrats. 9 It is diffi cult, however, to separate the political from the moral. Even today, who can say what part each

  of these aspects plays when accusing someone of having “collaborated”?

  Corrupting the youth meant taking away their respect for democratic in-

  stitutions, making them enemies of the people, or men without principles.

  In any case, Alcibiades could be cited on both accounts: Alcibiades,

  who had spent time with Socrates and later acted out of unscrupulous am-

  bition, to the great regret of Athens; and who had been accused of aspiring

  to tyranny and who had at one time plotted with the oligarchs of 411.

  7. The order of these two charges differs in Plato and Xenophon: in the Apology 24b, Plato puts the corruption of the youth fi rst.

  8. Paul Cloché refuses to see in the trial any attack on the oaths of reconciliation ( La res-tauration démocratique à Athènes en 403 av. J-C. [Paris, 1915]). For a more political point of view, see J. Luccioni, Les idées politiques et sociales de Xénophon (Orphrys, 1918); and Delebecque, Essai, 87.

  9. Plato, letter 7, 325c–d.

  182 Chapter

  12

  Alcibiades and Critias were dead, one in 404, the other in 403; but

  both names were recalled with dread and counted, in every way, as com-

  promised disciples of Socrates.

  We can assume that the speeches made at the trial were specifi cally

  aimed at these two men. Perhaps Polycrates’s pamphlet against Socrates,

  published a few years after the trial, was even clearer. Nevertheless, it is

  Xenophon who is the clearest. The day he wished to defend the memory

  of his teacher by writing the Memorabilia , he began with two chapters

  responding directly to the two main charges: the gods and the corruption

  of the youth. The second part of his response is formal: “Among the asso-

  ciates of Socrates were Critias and Alcibiades; and none wrought so many

  evils to the state. For Critias, in the days of the oligarchy, bore the palm

  for greed and violence; Alcibiades, for his part, exceeded all in licentious-

  ness and insolence under the democracy” (1.2.12).

  This is why Alcibiades became a grievance against Socrates, how he

  contributed to his death, and how the defense of Socrates will always

  involve ruling on the case of Alcibiades.

  This may seem unjust and simplistic: no one today would dream of

  incriminating a teacher (much less condemn him to death) simply be-

  cause some of his students turned out to be bad people. But there are

  several things to remember: fi rst of all, the fundamental importance of

  the city at that time; second, that it was not simply a matter of the les-

  sons but of the deep, personal bond involving adults, and even more

  that Alcibiades had been a beloved student, a fact seen and known by

  everyone. Finally, and most important, in Socrates’s teachings, which

  were heard by many or heard about, he had frequently attacked the

  leaders of democratic Athens, talked about the dangers of incompetent

  voters, and said other things that seemed a threat to Athenian democ-

  racy. It is enough to recall the play Aristophanes devoted to Socrates

  in 423, the Clouds , and all the injustices included in it, to imagine the

  shape that words like these
could take when delivered, correctly for the

  most part, into the political realm. In his own way, Socrates did teach

  politics since he taught about justice: it was easy to think that this teach-

  ing involved partisan ideas.

  In all of this there was something to fear, and reason to think Socrates

  capable of inspiring a Critias and an Alcibiades, to the great misfortune

  of Athens.

  Repercussions 183

  According to the sources, we sometimes fi nd the two names, sometimes

  only that of Critias. 10 However, there is no doubt about the basis for the accusation of corrupting the youth.

  Xenophon’s response is simple and insistent. He said that both Cri-

  tias and Alcibiades were ambitious men; they wished to associate with

  Socrates only to prepare themselves for success, and then went their own

  way; they never wanted to live like Socrates. People change during their

  lives. If Socrates had had a bad infl uence on them, they would have been

  at their worst during the time they were around him. What happened was

  just the opposite. Both of them were drunk with self-importance, ceded to

  temptations, and turned away from Socrates, who, moreover, had never

  approved of their inclinations. Nevertheless, Alcibiades had developed a

  taste for political discussions at a young age. Politics turned him away

  from Socrates (47). To address this issue, Xenophon named a whole list of

  good disciples of Socrates, those who followed his teaching in pursuit of

  the good and who were above reproach.

  This straightforward text deserves to be cited fi rst. But it is far from

  being an isolated case and far from being the earliest. It is actually less di-

  rectly about Alcibiades than many others. Besides the works of Xenophon

  himself that deal with Socrates’s case without speaking of Alcibiades by

  name—for example, his short Apology of Socrates and his Symposium —

  we confront, beginning with the trial of Socrates, a series of impressive

  works, as if suddenly everyone wanted to have a say about Alcibiades.

  In fact, who did not? It is enough to enumerate the titles. For most of

  these works, there is only a title. But that testimony suffi ces.

  Alcibiades of Plato.

  A second Alcibiades, also attributed to Plato, the authenticity of

  which is dubious.

  Alcibiades by a friend of Socrates named Aeschines of Sphettus (not

  to be confused with the orator Aeschines): the text is lost, but a

  rhetor of the second century CE preserved extracts from it. 11

  10. See Aeschines, Against Timarchus 173: “Did you put to death Socrates the sophist, fellow citizens, because he was shown to have been the teacher of Critias, one of the Thirty who put down the democracy?”

  11. About Aeschines of Sphettus, see H. Ditmar’s article in Philologische Untersuchungen 21 (1912): 65–173, which, for the titles cited here, challenges the authenticity of various texts.

  184 Chapter

  12

  Axiochus by the same Aeschines of Sphettus, concerning an uncle of

  Alcibiades and mentioning Alcibiades only in passing; we know

  about this work thanks to Athenaeus, an author of the third cen-

  tury CE.

  Alcibiades by Antisthenes, fragments of which relating to Alcibiades

  are also in Athenaeus.

  Alcibiades by Phaedo, the same Phaedo who gave his name to a dia-

  logue by Plato; the entire text has disappeared and is simply men-

  tioned in Diogenes Laertius.

  Alcibiades by Euclid of Megara, another Socratic and not to be confused

  with the mathematician; this work, like the previous one, is lost.

  That is quite a list: and no doubt incomplete. The vague fragments that

  have survived indicate that a legend is being born. For a good example

  of the kind cited above regarding Socrates, 12 we fi nd gratuitous accusations like those of Antisthenes who accused Alcibiades of incest with his

  mother, daughter, and sister!

  As we can tell, Socrates’s disciples were not always kind to someone

  whose life had brought shame on their master. Still, we should not try to

  make too much of these long-lost texts, except to note that they testify to

  unprecedented interest in a single individual.

  It is, however, worth considering just what Alcibiades signifi ed in Pla-

  to’s work.

  First of all, it is possible, from the standpoint of this book, to recognize

  a number of those traits I described earlier that now fi nd full justifi cation.

  At the moment when Alcibiades entered politics, the choice put before

  him had been clearly indicated in Plato’s Alcibiades . 13 This dialogue now joins a series and assumes its true meaning, that of a defense.

  Of course, there is Plato’s famous Apology of Socrates . But it does not

  name Alcibiades.

  If, like me (and others, including Maurice Croiset), 14 you believe the Alcibiades is a work by Plato, you will agree that it was written very early,

  12. Above, chapter 2.

  13. Above, “First Interlude.”

  14. Also Friedländer; but many others are opposed. Dittmar believes that this dialogue

  was inspired by some passages in Socratic texts, among those that are enumerated here. See R.

  S. Bluck, Classical Quarterly, n.s., 3 (1953): 46–52.

  Repercussions 185

  no doubt during Plato’s time in Megara (and thus before the Apology ). In

  that case, it constituted a separate response, entirely focused on the ques-

  tion of Alcibiades.

  In fact, Plato here portrays Alcibiades as a man of unbounded ambi-

  tion. But Socrates makes clear that Alcibiades was not ready to pursue his

  ambitions because he knew too little: fi rst, he would need to understand

  justice. Alcibiades agrees to that. But Socrates remains doubtful—which

  Plato’s knowledge of the ending clearly refl ects: “I fear, not because I dis-

  trust anything in your nature, but because I see the power of this city, that

  it will overcome me and you.”

  There could be no better defense of Socrates than to show the intention

  of all his efforts and the nature of Alcibiades’s ambition and of the popu-

  lar will that would prevent those efforts from succeeding.

  We can also now understand why all these texts emphasized the ex-

  treme youth of Alcibiades. We saw it in the Symposium . 15 Naturally, this was even more evident in the Alcibiades , a dialogue in which we hear

  almost the entire exchange between Socrates and Alcibiades and in which

  the latter is preparing to address the people “very soon.” 16

  In addition, the young man is naive and compliant. It is the very lack

  of boldness that has misled some critics. But in the series of texts we have

  just surveyed, the meaning of this extreme youth is very clear: it brings out

  the fact that Alcibiades was close to Socrates only long before his political

  career, and that his subsequent faults did not correspond to the teaching

  of Socrates but rather to his rejection of that teaching.

  And why did he reject it? It is important to note that, from Socrates’s

  very fi rst words, the main question was ambition, and in the next dia-

  logue, Socrates contrasts that with justice. This central theme of Platonism

  starts right here, in relation to Alcibiades.

  Finally, we see emerging the idea that a life led in ignoranc
e and in

  pursuit only of material wealth is a life of misery. This eminently Socratic

  idea suggests, indirectly, that ambition can be the ruin of a man or of a

  state. In the case of Alcibiades, who did not listen to Socrates, these miser-

  ies, his own and that of the state, were in fact realized with great potency.

  15. See above, chapter 1.

  16. Plato, Alcibiades 106c. See also 123d: “before he was even twenty years old.” On the fact that previously Socrates had followed Alcibiades “in silence,” see 106a.

  186 Chapter

  12

  Plato avoids all allusion: he adheres to the ideal and would not rely on

  arguments of a practical interest; he offers only at the end a shining image

  of the man and the city that would choose not absolute power, but virtue.

  If I am insisting on this point, it is because many of the writings and

  teachings of Plato will later depend on it: everything happens as if the case

  of Alcibiades had haunted him and then had, from near or far, nourished

  this perception.

  I know that the Alcibiades may not be authentic. In that case, encoun-

  ters with a variety of Platonic dialogues would have been the inspiration

  for the author of the Alcibiades . Even in such a case, however, the sugges-

  tion made here remains valid. That is the important point. Because in the

  end, we can remove the Alcibiades the way one might remove the tracing

  paper that fi xes the place names on a geographical map, while the map is

  silent; still, the names remain useful for reading the map, giving it meaning

  and precision. In the same way, we can remove the suspect dialogue. There

  remains Alcibiades the personage, clearly named in the dialogue, with all

  the problems raised by his association with Socrates, who provides a line

  of argument that holds up and—is surprisingly satisfying. It would still be

  about Alcibiades even in a text where he is not named.

  This is most of all true in the Gorgias .

  The links are obvious. In this—a dialogue whose authenticity is not in

  doubt—can be found all the various questions and themes found in the

  Alcibiades : the great men, like Pericles, never transmitted to their sons

  their political powers. And the city had no need of walls, navies, roads,

  or greatness, only virtue. These themes are renewed, fi lled out, vividly