著者

納富 信留

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.46, pp.44-55, 1998

---

<p>Critias is known as the leader of the cruel "Thirty Tyrants", who governed defeated Athens after the Poloponnesian War(404/3 B.C.), and killed over 1500 people under their reign of terror. Critias raises two important issues in the history of philosophy. First, as a relative of Plato, he seems to have influenced young Plato ; Plato later says in the Seventh Letter that he was initially attracted by Critias' invitation to the oligarchic government, but soon got disappointed on seeing its evil deeds(324B-325A). Second, Critias is regarded as a major cause of the decision to bring Socrates to trial in 399 ; the Athenians believed that Socrates was guilty of "corrupting youth" because he had educated anti-democratic politicians, such as Critias and Alcibiades(cf. Aeschines, 1. 173). These events kept Plato away from real politics and forced him to contemplate politics in philosophy. I believe that Plato confronted the issues concerning Critias in his early dialogue, the Charmides, in which young Critias plays a major role in discussing sophrosyne(temperance or prudence). However, the commentators have scarcely considered political issues in this dialogue, probably because they take the "evil image of Critias" for granted. First, therefore, I reexamine the historical figure of Critias and show how his image was created. It is Xenophon who is most responsible for making up our image of Critias. He describes Critias as a cruel tyrant and ascribes all evils of the Thirty to his personal motivations. Xenophon's account in the History of Greece II. 3. 11-4. 43 reflects the strong reaction against oligarchy in democratic Athens, and originates both in his hostility against the Thirty and his intention to defend Socrates' education(Memorabilia 1. 2. 12-38, 47). This has concealed the Thirty's real political intentions under the "evil image of Critias". On the other hand, we have some positive evidence to indicate that the Thirty originally intended to restore justice and morality in Athens (Lysias 12. 5 ; P1. Ep. VII 324D) ; they executed the sycophants("villains" in democratic Athens). We cannot deny the possibility that Critias and his group seriously aimed for ideal justice, and philosophical examination of the ideology of Critias is therefore necessary. The problem lies in what they understand as justice and sophrosyne. This is the main target of Plato's examination of Critias in the Charmides. Most commentators have ignored the political aspect of the dialogue. Sophrosyne is(unlike Aristotle's definition in the Ethics)a major political virtue along with justice, and the leading ideal for the Spartans and the oligarchs. Sophrosyne is said to bring about good government(Charm. 162A, 171D-172A, D). A crucial point in interpreting the Charmides is how we can understand the shift and relationship between several definitions of sophrosyne which Critias provides. He often gives up his earlier definitions easily and presents new ones ; there seems no logical relation between these. I see his definitions not as logically consequent, but as implying and revealing Critias' underlying ideology. I focus on two shifts : the first comes when Critias abandons his first definition "to do one's own", and gives a new definition "to know oneself" (164C-D) ; the second shift explicates "to know oneself" as "knowledge of the other knowledges and of itself" (166B-C). In each case, the direct cause of shift is Socrates' using an analogy between sophrosyne and techne (skill). Critias opposes Socrates' analogy and tries to separate two kinds of knowledge : self-knowledge and particular skills. Since the relation between the two is explained in terms of "rule" and "supervise" (173C, 174D-E) , I conclude that the clear distinction between the two</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>