In the fifth century BC, Greece was home to a figure whose influence resonates through the ages—a man many regard as the archetype of the philosopher. Socrates, often seen as a scruffy misfit, roamed the bustling squares of Athens, engaging citizens in dialogues that challenged their understanding of knowledge. His method was simple yet profound: he questioned widely-held beliefs, provoking those around him to confront their own ignorance. Ultimately, this provocative style led to his condemnation and execution.
While most Icelanders have come to know Socrates through the eyes of his student Plato, a new perspective is emerging. This fall marks the first Icelandic publication of Memoirs of Socrates, penned by the ancient Greek historian Xenophon. Translator Kristján Guðjónsson spoke with Hjalti Snæ Ægisson on Rás 1, shedding light on this pivotal work.
Hjalti notes the significance of this publication, suggesting it may be the first Icelandic book on Socrates that isn’t attributed to Plato, at least from those contemporaneous with him.
“Plato and Xenophon are the primary figures from Socrates’ time whose writings remain,” Hjalti explains. “While much has been lost, their works have retained a special status.”
Socrates famously left no writings of his own, leading to debates about the reliability of recorded accounts. The nuances of his thought can become lost in translation, allowing for misinterpretation and distortion.
“The essence of his teachings lies in the spoken word,” Hjalti observes. “When Socrates conversed in the vibrant streets of Athens, he might have had texts at his side, but it was his voice that truly resonated.”
While this translation of Xenophon’s work is a first in Icelandic, the historian has previously been represented in other anthologies. Hjalti points out the stylistic differences between Xenophon and Plato: “Xenophon writes in a more narrative style, whereas Plato employs philosophical dialogue, often rendering himself invisible in his narratives.”
Plato was indeed present during Socrates’ final days, chronicling those moments with a detached elegance. In contrast, Xenophon inserted himself into the dialogue, providing a perspective that reflects their differing philosophical approaches.
Xenophon, having been a student of Socrates before embarking on campaigns in Persia—during which Socrates faced his fateful trial—relied on secondhand accounts to compose his chronicle. “This reliance has drawn criticism regarding his reliability,” Hjalti notes, “but it also enriches his portrayal of Socrates, offering a distinct character who contrasts with the philosopher depicted by Plato.”
The Socrates of Xenophon’s writings comes across as more pragmatic, seemingly grounded in reality and perhaps even more conservative than Plato’s interpretation. “He speaks with greater conviction,” Hjalti remarks.
Where Plato’s Socrates employs a playful dialectical method, engaging interlocutors in a dance of contradictions that ultimately reveals their ignorance, Xenophon’s portrayal lacks such intricacies. “His Socrates makes definitive statements, asserting how things ought to be done,” Hjalti explains. “In contrast, Plato presents a figure who questions and critiques established notions without claiming to possess all the answers.”
Plato’s works delve deeply into philosophical ideals, exploring lofty themes of beauty and virtue. Xenophon, by comparison, focuses on practical matters—war, politics, ethics, and the nuances of everyday interactions.
But which portrayal reflects the true essence of Socrates? This question brings us to a cornerstone of philosophical discourse, often referred to as the “Socrates problem.” The challenge lies in discerning the authenticity of these historical figures through the fragmented records left behind.
Historically, some scholars favored Xenophon as a more reliable storyteller due to his impartiality and direct observations. “He captures the lived experiences of Socrates,” Hjalti suggests, “and this authenticity lends believability to his account.”
In contrast, Plato’s philosophical prowess often overshadowed any inaccuracies in his depiction.
“Put simply, Plato wrote for his academic audience,” Hjalti articulates. “His audience arrived with the understanding that Socrates was a remarkable figure, worthy of meticulous study. Holding a book by Plato signifies an engagement with this profound knowledge.”
On the other hand, Xenophon’s work appeals to a wider readership. “He communicates Socrates to those who might not yet appreciate his genius,” Hjalti concludes.
As Memoirs of Socrates arrives in Icelandic for the first time, it invites readers to engage with a voice from the past, offering a fresh lens through which to understand this pivotal figure in the history of philosophy.
