that socrates stood in close relationship to euripides in the tendency of his teaching, did not escape the notice of contemporaneous antiquity; the most eloquent expression of this felicitous insight being the tale current in athens, that socrates was accustomed to help euripides in poetising. both names were mentioned in one breath by the adherents of the "good old time," whenever they came to enumerating the popular agitators of the day: to whose influence they attributed the fact that the old marathonian stalwart capacity of body and soul was more and more being sacrificed to a dubious enlightenment, involving progressive degeneration of the physical and mental powers. it is in this tone, half indignantly and half contemptuously, that aristophanic comedy is wont to speak of both of them—to the consternation of modern men, who would indeed be willing enough to give up euripides, but cannot suppress their amazement that socrates should appear in aristophanes as the first and head sophist, as the mirror and epitome of all sophistical tendencies; in connection with which it offers the single consolation of putting aristophanes himself in the pillory, as a rakish, lying alcibiades of poetry. without here defending the profound instincts of aristophanes against such attacks, i shall now indicate, by means of the sentiments of the time, the close connection between socrates and euripides. with this purpose in view, it is especially to be[pg 103] remembered that socrates, as an opponent of tragic art, did not ordinarily patronise tragedy, but only appeared among the spectators when a new play of euripides was performed. the most noted thing, however, is the close juxtaposition of the two names in the delphic oracle, which designated socrates as the wisest of men, but at the same time decided that the second prize in the contest of wisdom was due to euripides.
sophocles was designated as the third in this scale of rank; he who could pride himself that, in comparison with ?schylus, he did what was right, and did it, moreover, because he knew what was right. it is evidently just the degree of clearness of this knowledge, which distinguishes these three men in common as the three "knowing ones" of their age.
the most decisive word, however, for this new and unprecedented esteem of knowledge and insight was spoken by socrates when he found that he was the only one who acknowledged to himself that he knew nothing while in his critical pilgrimage through athens, and calling on the greatest statesmen, orators, poets, and artists, he discovered everywhere the conceit of knowledge. he perceived, to his astonishment, that all these celebrities were without a proper and accurate insight, even with regard to their own callings, and practised them only by instinct. "only by instinct": with this phrase we touch upon the heart and core of the socratic tendency. socratism condemns therewith existing art as well as existing ethics; wherever socratism turns its[pg 104] searching eyes it beholds the lack of insight and the power of illusion; and from this lack infers the inner perversity and objectionableness of existing conditions. from this point onwards, socrates believed that he was called upon to, correct existence; and, with an air of disregard and superiority, as the precursor of an altogether different culture, art, and morality, he enters single-handed into a world, of which, if we reverently touched the hem, we should count it our greatest happiness.
here is the extraordinary hesitancy which always seizes upon us with regard to socrates, and again and again invites us to ascertain the sense and purpose of this most questionable phenomenon of antiquity. who is it that ventures single-handed to disown the greek character, which, as homer, pindar, and ?schylus, as phidias, as pericles, as pythia and dionysus, as the deepest abyss and the highest height, is sure of our wondering admiration? what demoniac power is it which would presume to spill this magic draught in the dust? what demigod is it to whom the chorus of spirits of the noblest of mankind must call out: "weh! weh! du hast sie zerst?rt, die sch?ne welt, mit m?chtiger faust; sie stürzt, sie zerf?llt!"[17]
[pg 105]
a key to the character of socrates is presented to us by the surprising phenomenon designated as the "daimonion" of socrates. in special circumstances, when his gigantic intellect began to stagger, he got a secure support in the utterances of a divine voice which then spake to him. this voice, whenever it comes, always dissuades. in this totally abnormal nature instinctive wisdom only appears in order to hinder the progress of conscious perception here and there. while in all productive men it is instinct which is the creatively affirmative force, consciousness only comporting itself critically and dissuasively; with socrates it is instinct which becomes critic; it is consciousness which becomes creator—a perfect monstrosity per defectum! and we do indeed observe here a monstrous defectus of all mystical aptitude, so that socrates might be designated as the specific non-mystic, in whom the logical nature is developed, through a superfoetation, to the same excess as instinctive wisdom is developed in the mystic. on the other hand, however, the logical instinct which appeared in socrates was absolutely prohibited from turning against itself; in its unchecked flow it manifests a native power such as we meet with, to our shocking surprise, only among the very greatest instinctive forces. he who has experienced even a breath of the divine na?veté and security of the socratic course of life in the platonic writings, will also feel that the enormous driving-wheel of logical socratism is in motion, as it were, behind socrates, and that it must be viewed through socrates as through a[pg 106] shadow. and that he himself had a boding of this relation is apparent from the dignified earnestness with which he everywhere, and even before his judges, insisted on his divine calling. to refute him here was really as impossible as to approve of his instinct-disintegrating influence. in view of this indissoluble conflict, when he had at last been brought before the forum of the greek state, there was only one punishment demanded, namely exile; he might have been sped across the borders as something thoroughly enigmatical, irrubricable and inexplicable, and so posterity would have been quite unjustified in charging the athenians with a deed of ignominy. but that the sentence of death, and not mere exile, was pronounced upon him, seems to have been brought about by socrates himself, with perfect knowledge of the circumstances, and without the natural fear of death: he met his death with the calmness with which, according to the description of plato, he leaves the symposium at break of day, as the last of the revellers, to begin a new day; while the sleepy companions remain behind on the benches and the floor, to dream of socrates, the true eroticist. the dying socrates became the new ideal of the noble greek youths,—an ideal they had never yet beheld,—and above all, the typical hellenic youth, plato, prostrated himself before this scene with all the fervent devotion of his visionary soul.
