to attend the public lectures of the representative philosophers of different schools. In short, wherever knowledge was to be had Socrates sought it with avidity, and from women as well as men. Nor was he ashamed to confess subsequently, when surrounded by such of his pupils as Plato and Xenophon, that scarcely any of his preceptors gave him more important aid in his education than Aspasia, a woman celebrated alike for her intellectual accomplishments and her personal charms, and whom Pericles honored so much that he married her when at the pinnacle of his glory.

By the wonderful progress which he made in all the learning of his time, Socrates showed in a few brief years that no one need be discouraged from the pursuit of knowledge by poverty. He also refuted the allegation that learning has a tendency to destroy physical courage, for none fought more bravely than he when his country needed his services in the field. He distinguished himself particularly at the siege of Potidæa, during the long and painful struggle between Athens and Sparta, both by his bravery and intrepidity, and the patience with which he endured the severest hardships; while none fought better, he walked bare-footed on the ice with only his usual clothing, though even the hardy Spartans found it necessary to clothe themselves with furs. And we have evidence in many forms that it was not for fame he signalized himself in this manner; but suffice it to refer to one or two illustrative facts. We are informed by Thucydides that, seeing his pupil Alcibiades fall wounded in battle, he forced his way to his defence and saved both himself and his arms. This justly entitled him to the prize of valor, and he would have received it accordingly, but he begged of the judges to give it to his young friend. On a subsequent occasion he saved Xenophon in a manner equally chivalrous. After the Athenians had been defeated at the battle of Delium, Socrates was retiring from the field as coolly as if he had been returning from one of the lectures of Anaxagoras, when he happened to observe Xenophon lying wounded on the ground; he returned at once, took him on his shoulders, and brought him beyond the reach of his enemies.

Still more manly and honorable, if possible. was the political conduct of Socrates. A man of his influence need never be without an important office in Athens; but he never consented to accept one until he was sixty years old.

He was then elected to represent his own district in the Senate of Five Hundred. No senator was more active than he; but he never cast a vote which was not on the side of justice and humanity. Not a single law or decree which was discreditable to Athens, or the design of which was to deprive any one of his rights without sufficient cause, which he did not strenuously oppose. While the majority of the senate trembled at the clamors of the people for the condemnation of the Athenian generals who conquered at the Arginusæ the only charge against them being that they had not time to bury their dead after the victory-Socrates remained firm to the last, warning both his colleagues and the people that the disgrace of such an act, to so enlightened a state as Athens, could never be wiped out.

The

This created him many enemies, and undoubtedly had its influence on his own fate some ten years later. sophists, whose charlatanism he persistently exposed and ridiculed for many years, were glad of an opportunity to show the superstitious people that he had no respect for their religion, no faith in their gods; although the only ground upon which they could say so was that, by his conduct in attempting to save the lives of the generals who had fought so well and so successfully for their country, he proved that he was not a believer in the time-honored dogma that the souls of the dead were always wandering until they received the honors of sepulture. During the sway of the Thirty Tyrants, a reign of terror scarcely less atrocious than that of the time of Robespierre and Danton, Socrates never ceased to vindicate the rights of his fellow-citizens, although well aware that he was doing so at the peril of his life.

Nor were the tyrants unmindful of the course he thus pursued, but even they were unwilling to lay violent hands. on one whose patriotism and virtue were known to all; they preferred to excite the prejudices of the people against him, by showing that, while he preached obedience to others, he openly practised disobedience himself. It was with this view they ordered him with others to arrest Leon, a wealthy citizen of Salamis. The others did as they were told, but Socrates refused, telling the tyrants that he would rather suffer death himself than be instrumental in inflicting it unjustly upon others. The fact that even then they thought it expedient not to punish him is sufficient evidence of the high esteem in which he was held by the public at large, although it is beyond question that his peculiar system of teaching made

him numerous enemies. Their caution in this case shows that, bad as the Thirty Tyrants were, they were more thoughtful than the people, who subsequently, when they got the power back into their own hands, condemned him to death and executed him.

Although we have merely alluded to the means of education possessed by Socrates, and the avidity and perseverance with which he availed himself of those means, we think we have said enough to satisfy even those who have read neither Xenophon nor Plato, that there is no reason to doubt the superior wisdom for which he has got credit from the best judges of all nations for more than two thousand years. But we do not speak of this wisdom as a mere matter of wonder, wonderful as it really is, and would have been in any age or country, in modern as well as in ancient times; we speak of it for the good it has done and is still doing, and for the aid that it affords in removing prejudices and discouraging that vanity which is the most serious obstacle to intellectual progress. None esteem more highly than we what modern thinkers have done; none more admire those thinkers themselves. But it is by no means necessary to their glory that they should get the credit of what others had taught before them. Thus, for example, we yield to none in our estimate of the writings of Bacon; we would have all read them carefully, feeling convinced that none could do so without profit. But it is quite another thing to agree with the multitude who give him the credit of having invented the inductive system. This we reject because it is not true; even had the works of Plato and Xenophon been destroyed before our era, there would still have remained in the works of other great authors abundant evidence that Socrates was a perfect master of the inductive system of reasoning. Nay, there is more of the genuine inductive philosophy in one of his dialogues, as reported by Plato, than there is in the whole Novum Organum. Bacon himself knew well how much he owed to Socrates, but he did not wish others to be equally wise, and accordingly he only makes a few casual allusions to his teachings. Even when he does speak of Socrates, it is only in connection with a "notion" or a "saying" of his.* He has evinced much more willingness to speak of Aristotle, whose system is altogether different from that of Socrates. Aristotle was not inductive in the Baconian sense, but

See Bacon's Works, London quarto edition, vol. i, pp. 189, 534.

Socrates and most of his disciples were. Hence the different points of view in which they are contemplated by both the author of the Novum Organum and his eulogists, in short. by all that numerous class who think that the wisest and most profound of the ancients were but mere smatterers in knowledge compared to the moderns.

We will now remind our readers of the opinions of Xenophon, Plato, and other illustrious thinkers of their time, in regard both to the intellectual and moral qualities of Socrates. If these were not competent judges, there were none in their day; that is, in the golden age of Pericles, Thucydides, Sophocles, Phidias, and Aristotle. But before we take any particular notice of the trial and condemnation of Socrates, let us see what he had been doing before the fatal charge was made against him; and while enlightening ourselves on this point, we shall be able to form a pretty correct opinion as to the peculiar style of reasoning used by Socrates, and determine whether it was the inductive or the syllogistic. It is recorded by Xenophon that one day two citizens of Athens, who were returning from the temple of Minerva, happened to meet Socrates in the public square. One said to the other: "Is not that the rascal who says that one may be virtuous without sacrificing either sheep or geese to the gods?" "Yes," said the other," that is the atheist who says there is but one God." Socrates approached them with his simple unpretending air. "My friends," said he, "one word, if you please. What would you call a man who prays to God, who adores him, who seeks to resemble him

• Much as Aristotle differed from Plato and his great master, he did not deny how much philosophy owed to the latter.

There are two things," says the Stagirite, "which may be justly looked upon as steps in philosophy, due to Socrates: INDUCTIVE REASONINGS and UNIVERSAL DEFINITIONS both of them steps which belong to the foundations of science." This will be found in the twelfth book and fourth chapter of Aristotle's Metaphysics; and for the satisfaction of those who think there was no inductive reasoning before Bacon's time we subjoin the original: "dúo yap tóriv d ́ τις αν αποδῳή Σωκράτει δικαίως, τους τ ̓ ἐπακτικούς λόγους καὶ τὸ ὁρίξεσθαι καθόλου· ταῦτα γὰρ ἐστιν αμφω περὶ ἀρχὴν ἐπιστήuns.'

In discussing the relative merits of the different kinds of reasoning in use in his time, Quintillian says: "Indeed, the mode of argument which Socrates chiefly used was of this nature; for when he had asked a number of questions, to which his adversary was obliged to reply in the affirmative, he at last inferred one point about which the question was raised, and to which his antagonist had already admitted something similar; this method was induction."' This was written many centuries before Bacon was born, and be it remembered that induction is the very term used in the original: "Nam illa, qua plurimum est Socrates usus, hanc habuit viam quum plura interrogasset quæ fateri adversario necesse esset, novissime id, de quo quærebatur inferebat, cui simile concessisset. Id est INDUCTIO."—Inst. Orator., lib. v., c. 11.

as much as human weakness can do, and who does all the good in his power?" "A very religious soul," said they. "Very well; we may, therefore, adore the Supreme Being, and have religion?" "Granted," said the two Athenians. "But do you believe," pursued Socrates, that, when the Divine Architect of the universe arranged all the globes which roll over our heads, when he gave motion and life to so many different beings, he made use of the arm of Hercules, the lyre of Apollo, or the flute of Pan?" It is not probable," said they. "But if it is not likely that he called in the aid of others to construct that which we see, it is not probable that he preserves it through others rather than through himself. If Neptune was the absolute master of the sea, Juno of the air, Eolus of the win, Ceres of harvests, and one would have a calm when the other would have rain, you feel clearly that the order of nature could not exist as it is. You will confess that all depends upon Him who has made all. You give four white horses to the sun, and four black ones to the noon; but is it not more likely that day and night are the effect of the motion given to the stars by their Master than that they were produced by eight horses ?" The two citizens looked at him, but answered nothing. This was the general result of the reasoning of Socrates. In nine cases out of ten he convinced even those whom his arguments made his enemies, because they could not endure the truth in regard to their follies or their crimes.

But on no subjects does the philosopher reason more persuasively than in proof of the immortality of the soul and against suicide. To these subjects he frequently recurs, and he always treats them much more like a Christian than a Pagan. Indeed, those Christians who have been most successful in treating them owe much more to him for their success than the most candid of them would care to acknowledge, if they were even aware of the fact. And the same observation will apply to his arguments against atheism; those, for example, who first read Paley's Natural Theology, and then turn to the reasoning of Socrates in Plato on the same subject, will be surprised to see how little that is new is in the former after all, excellent as it undoubtedly is. Let the following extract serve as an example:

"But it is evidently apparent that He, who at the beginning made man, endowed him with senses because they were good for him; eyes, wherewith to behold whatever was visible; and ears, to hear whatever