quainted with his intentions, determined to inform the Lacedæmonians. As this was both difficult and dangerous, he employed the following means: he took two tablets, and erased the wax from each; then inscribed the purpose of the King on the wood. This done, he replaced the wax, that the several guards, on the road, from seeing the empty tablets, might have no suspicion of the business. When these were delivered at Lacedæmon, the people had no conception of their meaning, till, as I have been informed, Gorgo, the daughter of Cleomenes, and wife of Leonidas, removed the difficulty. Imagining what might be intended, she ordered the wax to be removed, and thus made the contents of the tablets known. The Lacedæmonians, after examining what was inscribed on the wood, circulated the intelligence through Greece.

THE DEATH OF SOCRATES.

BY PLATO.

PLATO, one of the greatest philosophers of antiquity, was the disciple of Socrates, who died about four hundred years before Christ. The remark, which was made in the introductory lines to the preceding extract, as to the succession of Greek master minds, in history and poetry,—the master kindling a sacred fire in the pupil, who rises to become a master in turn,―applies, likewise, to the philosophy of Greece. Socrates was the master of Plato, or his " mental father," as the sacred books of the Hindoos call the teacher of moral truths. Plato, in like manner, became the master of Aristotle.

When Socrates began to teach at Athens, the Sophists had greatly perverted the cultivation of the intellect, to the serious detriment of the pursuit of truth, and the stability of moral principles. They sharpened the intellect, indeed; but, like a pointed instrument, which may be used for the worst purposes. Right and Wrong, Just and Unjust, Virtuous and Vicious, became, with them, so many technical terms, only designating a degree of convenience or incon venience, according to circumstances. Socrates was the

first, who taught, once more, virtue and purity, as objects worthy of being cultivated for their own sake, and of being made the subjects of the deepest reflection of the acutest mind. With reference to these noble endeavors, and the fact that law and justice must ever look for their original foundation, for their first starting point, to the immutable principles of morality, Lord Mansfield boldly called Socrates "the great lawyer of antiquity."*

Socrates taught for many years, at Athens, in the course of which, he had naturally frequent occasion to attack or reprimand error, folly, or vice; nor did he ever hesitate fearlessly to do so, wherever he met with them, whether it was in the powerful and renowned, or the humble and unobserved. This, together with the acute manner in which he diffused information, by drawing answers from his an

* HOLLIDAY, p. 105.

tagonist, and leading him, through his own assertions, te the untenableness of his positions, and also his pure and reproachless life, created him many enemies. The vanity of the Sophists was humbled; the pride of those in power irritated the jealousy of all excited, by the increasing number of those, who openly appeared as the followers of the Sage. It happened, as it will always happen, in such cases, when vanity, conscious vice, or arrogant ignorance, feel reproached and humbled, and the spotless life of him who humbles them affords not even a handle for slander. Violence is resorted to, in order to crush, where means are lacking to defeat. When intellectual victory cannot be hoped for, physical undoing must stand in place of it.

Socrates had never taken a leading part in politics; it would have interfered with his divine career: but he had always done his duty, as a good citizen. He had bravely fought for his country at Platææ; he had gone to vote, when called upon, as a simple citizen; and had done so, conscientiously and boldly, as the reader will see from the sequel. In this point of view, he could not be attacked; nor was there any definite crime, which could be laid to his charge, with any degree of plausibility. What was more natural, than that his enemies should resort to religious charges, and endeavor to rouse the fanaticism of the multitude? He has taught other gods, than our State, by established religion, acknowledges! He corrupts the youth, by giving them a distaste to what we have enacted! He is a rebel! The power-holders were told they had been offended, and were called upon to ruin the offender!

If Socrates had led a spotless life, he showed in his death, such composure, unruffled serenity, and consciousness of purity, that, besides all the sympathy, - which its recital must awaken, in every heart, in which a spark of virtue is left, we feel amazed at the moral grandeur of this man, standing alone, and unsupported by religion, without any other reliance than that which his pure soul derived from virtue itself, for its own sake, its own purity. Socrates might have escaped his unjust death; he was pressed to do so but he would not disobey the laws of his country, now, when they weighed hard upon him, since he had enjoyed their protection so long, during life. He could not lighten the burden of death, by the joyous considerations of the Christian martyr, that even the bitterest end, endured for the profession of his Lord, is but a trifling return for the

death which his Master has suffered for him. He could not cheer and calm his soul by a firm and clear conviction of an endless life of reward, for a finite time of suffering, however admirable his great mind may also appear, in this particular, that it elevated itself to a belief in the immor tality of the soul, and a purer deity. To the last breath of his untarnished life, he appears to us as the great hero of virtue. "Socrates," says a modern philosopher,* "is a classic masterpiece of virtue;" so grand is the image, in its outlines, so perfect in its proportions.

I shall be able to give but a very brief extract from those writings of Plato, in which the last moments of his master are described; but it has ever appeared to me, that, as it is our bounden duty, not to neglect the choicest treasures, which, in the toilsome course of civilization, may have been brought to light, those Dialogues of Plato ought to be read by every one, even if the works, for the perusal of which, a man in the practical pursuits of life may find time, be reduced to the very smallest number. They have the salutary power of exalting the reader's mind, and imparting a feeling of nobleness and purity to his soul. Translations have made them accessible to all. The Apology of Plato was read and re-read by Cicero ; who says, that he could never peruse it, without tears; and, if the remarks just made were intended chiefly for the general reader, it is no less true, in my opinion, that the same writings should always belong to those few, which the growing inner and outer experience of a man of reflection and literary acquirement has taught him to select, for a regular and periodical reperusal. Some of these will always be selected, and ought to be so, with particular regard to the individuality of each man; others are alike important for all; and to these belong, I believe, 'Plato's Apology,' and the mentioned Dialogues, entitled Criton and Phædon.'

The following is taken from the second volume of 'Historical Parallels,' as offering as judicious a combination of extracts, as can be made for our purpose.

AFTER Socrates had continued to teach, at least twentyfour years, (for the date of the Clouds't informs us, that he had obtained some notoriety before the year 423, B.C., * Hegel, a late German philosopher.

† A comedy of Aristophanes, in which Socrates is ridiculed.

in which that comedy was acted,) a criminal accusation was brought against him, in 399, B. C., to the following effect: "Socrates does amiss, not recognising the gods which the State recognises, and introducing other new divine natures; and he does amiss, in that he corrupts the young." The originator of the charge was an obscure person, named Melitus,* a poet, and a bad one; but he was joined by Lycon, an orator, and Anytus, a man of wealth and consideration in Athens. The cause of that enmity, which led to this prosecution, is nowhere clearly explained. In the apology of Plato, Socrates says, that his three accusers attacked him, "Melitus being my enemy on account of the poets, but Anytus on account of the artificers and politicians, and Lycon on account of the orators. This passage would rather suggest the notion of private enmity, which is, in some degree, confirmed by another passage in the apology of Xenophon, where Socrates refers the dislike of Anytus, to a comment, made on his style of bringing up his son. The causes of hatred ascribed to Melitus and Lycon must be explained,—the one, by Socrates' avowed contempt for the fictions of poets; the other, to his equally avowed abhorrence of that system of instruction practised by the Sophists; of which one, and that the most popular branch, was the teaching oratory as an art, by which any person could be enabled to speak on any subject, however ignorant concerning the real merits of it. This desire to remove Socrates existing, whatever its origin, it could not be gratified, without finding some plausible ground to go upon. Nothing could be objected to his actions; as a soldier, he had distinguished himself for bravery; as a public officer, he had shown inflexible integrity, when the infamous vote was passed, for putting to death the generals who won the battle of Arginusæ ; and, on another occasion, as a citizen, he had refused, when ordered to apprehend Leon of Salamis,* at the hazard of life, to perform an act contrary to the laws. The real or alleged character of his philos

* Schleiermacher reads, Meletus.

† Mitford, chap. xxxi. 2.