• 2 Cf. Dupréel 1922, 337-341; see also Delebecque 1957, 392; Pontier 2006, 217-224; for the de (...)
• 3 Cf. among others Taylor 1932, 33, n. 1; Simeterre 1938, 5, n. 11; Field 1930, 145; (...)
• 4 Cf. Dorion 2000, lii-lxv, chapter 2.7.
• 5 Cf. Dorion 2000, xliii : « En raison du naufrage de cette littérature socratique, nous ne s (...)
• 6 Cf. Huss 1999, 13-18.
• 7 Cf. Dakyns 1890-1897, III 1, LX-LXVII; Hug & Schöne 1909, XXVIII-XXX; Bury 1932, LXVIII, n. (...)
• 8 Cf. de Vries 1969, 7-11; Ledger 1989, 209-210; 224; Heitsch 1993, 233; see also Thesleff 19 (...)
• 9 Cf. Marschall 1928, 72-75; 83-85, 102; Woldinga 1938, 189; Delebeque 1957, 346.

1The relationship between Plato and Xenophon has been the subject of research for many years. During the late 19^th and early 20^th century, the result of this research, especially in terms of the ‘Sokratesbild’, was always the same, and Xenophon’s dependence on the logoi Sokratikoi written by Plato and Antisthenes has always been quite obvious2. In the middle of the 20^th century, however, new studies have given rise to another opinion3, which made the case for dependence of Xenophon on other Socratics. Thus Louis-André Dorion’s statement (« Xénophon dépend des autres Socratiques : il ne constitue pas une source indépendante »4), although he attempts to refute it5, seems more appropriate today than ever before. In those writings, Xenophon obviously appears as a Socratic and is always represented as a late representative, who, among others, could draw on Plato’s already published writings. This can be seen best by examining Xenophon’s Symposium. Bernhard Huss recently6 dated Xenophon’s opus with reference to the proven dependence on Plato’s Symposium7 and Phaedrus – written 365 or 369-362 BC8 – in the second half of the 360s9.

• 10 I don’t agree with William F. Altman’s thesis that especially Xenophon’s Apology is the mod (...)

2But the influence of some earlier Platonic works is also present in Xenophon’s rather less studied first work, the Apology of Socrates, and this likewise suggests Xenophon’s dependence on Plato10. In addition to Plato’s Apology of Socrates, there are two more Platonic writings devoted to the aftermath of Socrates’ trial – Crito and Phaedo – that have influenced Xenophon’s opusculum. Where and in which manner Xenophon depended on these two Platonic dialogues in his Apology will be the subject of this short essay. First of all, the structure and the content of the Apology will be briefly considered, thereby providing easier access to the problem.

• 11 It remains inconclusive whether his friends acted as advocates for Socrates. Plato only r (...)
• 12 Apology 22,10-11.
• 13 Apology 22,11-23,14.
• 14 Apology 23,15-16.

7Xenophon’s transition from Socrates’ cross-examination by Meletus to the events after the verdict of guilty takes place in little more than a single paragraph (Apology 22-23). Xenophon himself reports that in refutating the charge of impiety, other arguments of Socrates and his friends11 – the so-called συνήγοροι in the trial – have been put forward in his interest (ἐρρήθη δῆλον ὅτι τούτων πλείω ὑπό τε αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν συναγορευόντων φίλων αὐτῷ)12, which, however, would not contribute to any further proof that Socrates had neither sinned against the gods nor treated people unfairly. This fact had already emerged from the previous conversation with Meletos (ἤρκεσέ μοι δηλῶσαι ὅτι Σωκράτης τὸ μὲν μήτε περὶ θεοὺς ἀσεβῆσαι μήτε περὶ ἀνθρώπους ἄδικος φανῆναι περὶ παντὸς ἐποιεῖτο)13. According to Socrates’ own opinion it was obvious to him that the time of his death has come (καὶ καιρὸν ἤδη ἐνόμιζεν ἑαυτῷ τελευτᾶν)14. This seems to be a result of Socrates’ grotesque conviction. In Apology 23,18-23 there are further accounts of his strange behavior:

• 15 Cf. Mensching 1963 (= fr. 51); Barigazzi 1966 (= fr. 34); also Strycker & Slings 1994, 84 (...)
• 16 In Plato’s dialogue, Socrates mentions three alternatives to capital punishment (...)

The reader of the Apology now finds himself at that point of an authentic trial. After the conviction (Apology 23,17: ἡ δίκη κατεψηφίσθη), the plaintiffs and the defendants were allowed to submit a request for punishment. This task was not very difficult for the victorious plaintiff of this trial, as he had already called for the death penalty in his written lawsuit15. The already condemned person had the right to ask for another kind of sentence, but that was all about the amount of punishment. At this point of the trial, an acquittal was out of the question, even if the defendant was truly innocent. If the accuser had requested the death penalty, the already convicted person could only demand an equivalent punishment in order to save his life. This put him in a position to give the judges the opportunity to decide for the more ‘lenient’ of the two applications. For the actual situation in the trial of Socrates, this meant that the defendant had to provide a sentence, which was equivalent to the required death sentence of the accuser16. However, according to Xenophon, Socrates did the complete opposite of what Xenophon mentions almost casually. Socrates did not even provide a counter-proposal (οὔτε αὐτὸς ὑπετιμήσατο) nor allowed one of his friends to do so (οὔτε τοὺς φίλους εἴασεν). In his view, such action would confirm that he was guilty (τὸ ὑποτιμᾶσθαι ὁμολογοῦντος εἴη ἀδικεῖν). Xenophon interprets this behavior as a justification for Socrates’ realization that the time of his death had come (καὶ καιρὸν ἤδη ἐνόμιζεν ἑαυτῷ τελευτᾶν· ὅτι δὲ οὕτως ἐγίγνωσκε καταδηλότερον ἐγένετο, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἡ δίκη κατεψηφίσθη).

• 17 Cf. Xen., Mem. 4,8,2.
• 18 Cf. Plat., Phaedο 99a: ἐπεὶ νὴ τὸν κύνα, ὡς ἐγὦμαι, πάλαι ἂν ταῦτα τὰ νεῦρα καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ ἢ (...)
• 19 It is questionable whether the performed position in the Crito should be claimed for the (...)
• 20 Cf. Kahn 1989, 32-34.

9It seems quite interesting here that at this point and for the first time in the Apology Xenophon included information that definitely could not have been part of the actual trial, but, if it is regarded as authentic, describes events that most likely fall in the 30 days17 between judgment and execution. That Xenophon probably adopted this particular information from Plato’s writings coincides with Paul Vander Waerdt’s suspicion that Plato was the model for Xenophon’s Apology. Plato himself mentions the plans of escape of Socrates’ friends in the context of two dialogues concerning the actual trial expressis verbis: in Phaedo and Crito. In the Phaedo, Plato has Socrates only allude to the thoughts of his friends organizing his escape from prison18. In the Crito, however, he treats the intentions of the protagonist and eponym explicitly. Due to the message that the fateful ship from Delos was already near Sounion (Crito 43a) and would probably reach the harbor on the day of his visit in jail, Crito thought that Socrates’ execution was imminent. From his point of view, it was therefore Socrates’ last chance to escape from prison. The following fictitious19 conversation depicts a discussion between Crito, Socrates and the personified laws. During its course, it is proved that Socrates’ escape is wrong20, because it would do harm to the polis and break an earlier agreement (49e-53a). Thus escape would repay wrong with wrong and violate a Socratic principle.

• 21 Cf. Karystios of Pergamon in Athen. 506de = Dörrie-Baltes 36.2.
• 22 Source of this fact is Idomeneus [FGrHist 338F17A und B = anecd. 40. 41 Riginos 1976 = Dö (...)

10In a tradition which was hostile towards Plato, the Crito was even cited as evidence for Plato’s unfriendly dealings with contemporaries21, and also gave rise to allegations of plagiarism against Plato. Accordingly the words spoken by Crito in 45a to 46a in his attempt to persuade Socrates to escape, were originally spoken by Aeschines of Sphettos, but because of hostility towards Aeschines, Plato assigned them to Crito22.

• 23 In general, it seems quite impossible to date the Platonic writings exactly as Brisson 20 (...)
• 24 Cf. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf 1920², 55, n. 1.
• 25 Cf. Brisson 2008, xvi sq.
• 26 Such as to the Gorgias: Crit. 46bc, in combination with Gorg. 473c-d.
• 27 E.g. after the Gorgias, Book 1 of the Republic, Meno, Phaedo or even before the Gorgias; (...)
• 28 For another opinion, see Thesleff 1982, 208-209; Thesleff 1989, 20-21 with n. 76.
• 29 Crit. 45b and 52c.
• 30 The authenticity of the Crito seems also quite difficult. Meiser 1891 doesn’t ascribe dia (...)
• 31 A time of origin for the Crito around the year 386 / 385 or shortly thereafter is suggest (...)

11The proximity between Xenophon’s anecdotal episode and Plato’s account of it in the Crito can certainly not be denied. This strengthens the presumption that Xenophon has used information offered in the Crito while writing his Apology. From a chronological point of view, this possibility seems probable as well, because the Crito has often been seen as the first dialogue Plato had written before the Apology. However, solid evidence is not available23: the reference to the ‘good constitution’ of Thebes and Megara (53b-c) cannot be dated to a time after 39524 or after 37025. Even within the Platonic works themselves, there are some points of reference26 that can permit some true statements about the chronology27. In any case, the emphasis on the compliance with the law may be seen as a response to the charges against Socrates, but the defense needs not be taken to as a response to Polycrates’ writing in the 390s28. Although it cannot clearly be proven, a temporal proximity to the Platonic Apology to which the Crito is closely related, seems quite plausible on the basis of two allusions29. A definite chronological classification, however, is not possible30. But it is quite possible that the Crito was written at the same time as the Apology31.

• 32 Since Plato, as it can be seen from a remark in Phaedo (59b), was neither present in (...)
• 33 Some stylistic reasons suggest a proximity of Phaido to the so-called middle dialogues of (...)

Phaedo reported that he sat on a stool at the bedside of Socrates (καθήμενος παρὰ τὴν κλίνην ἐπὶ χαμαιζήλου τινός), while Socrates was sitting higher than he did (ἐπὶ πολὺ ὑψηλοτέρου). Sitting there Socrates stroked the head of Phaedo (καταψήσας οὖν μου τὴν κεφαλὴν), played with his hair at the nape (συμπιέσας τὰς ἐπὶ τῷ αὐχένι τρίχας) as usual (εἰώθει γάρ, ὁπότε τύχοι) and began to speak (ἔφη). As previously seen in Xenophon, Socrates’ gesture in this context is clearly understood as an expression of affection for his companion Phaedo. Yet, one should bear in mind that Plato, in contrast to Xenophon, consciously included this short episode in his narrative. In Xenophon this episode is not connected either with the preceding or following events. This constitutes a clear contrast to Plato, where it is completely integrated in the structure of his writing. It also indicates that Plato and not Xenophon should be regarded as the creator of this fictional scene32. In short: it can be assumed that the words in the Phaedo had influenced Xenophon’s depiction of this episode. That the Phaedo was written earlier than Xenophon’s Apology33 also suggests Xenophon’s dependence on the Platonic dialogue.

• 34 I see the date of the Apology after 385 and before 371 BC [(2008) 146-147]. The (...)

16The study of the listed passages provides a clear result. As can be seen, while composing his Apology of Socrates Xenophon had used information and episodes that had already been written down in Plato’s dialogues Crito and Phaedo34.

• 35 Cf. Strycker & Slings 1994, 76.
• 36 Cf. Breitenbach 1967, 1892.

17Even if S.R. Slings’ statement that “when a passage in Xenophon is closely similar to one in Plato, Xenophon, as a rule, is the borrower and that he has no objection to deviating from his source in order to make the idea conform better to his own views”35 is true for the Apology, Xenophon should not be hastily judged as a mere plagiarist. Indeed Xenophon obviously intended his working method to create a new form of Socratic literature, and did so in quite a free manner36. He did not create a bad copy of the alleged original, but rather a work that represents in this specific case a psychological complement to the other existing logoi Sokratikoi.