Socrates^ Schleiermacher^ and Delbrueck. 583 Kaiva caLfxoina eicxcpepeiv. 'O ce ovcev Kaivorepov eiaecbepe Twv aWcoi/ oGoi ^apTLKrjv vojull^ovtss oi(jovo7^ re y^pwvTai kol (prumai^ kul av/uif3ooi^ Kai Ovrriat^, According to this opinion of Xenophon, which was probably also that of Socrates, it was extremely natviral for the latter to interpret the language of the indictment as he is made to do in our Apology. At the same time it is not necessary to suppose that Meletus either himself had any clear and definite notion on the subject, or ' wished to convey any. He adopted an expression of the greatest possible latitude, not particularly caring perhaps what conceptions it suggested, so long as they were such as would excite the rage of bigotry and fanaticism against So- crates; and for this he sufficiently provided by the two ac- companying epithets, eVejOa, and Kmvci It mattered little what it was that Socrates had introduced, so long as it was proved to be something connected with religion, which was newj and different from the received opinions. Mr Ast's next objection has even less appearance of force. He contends that our author has entirely mistaken the nature of the supernatural sign by which Socrates was guided, when he represents it as exerting a merely restraining power, and Cicero who, de Divinat. i. 54, has adopted the same view of it, loses in consequence all credit for discernment with Mr Ast. A passage in the Phaedrus, which gives exactly the same account of the supernatural sign, (p. 242. B. ael ^e jjie e'TVL(T')(ei^ o av fxeXXw TrpdrTeiv^) is for no other reason supposed to be interpolated. Mr Ast conceives that it is in itself incredible, that the divine intimation should never have manifested itself except in warning or deterring ; a point on which, until we obtain some more accurate information about its nature, it will perhaps be safer not to pronounce an opinion. He also contends that the contrary is stated by Xenophon in several passages of the Memorabilia, where the sign is said to have announced to Socrates, as well what he was to do as what to avoid: for instance, i. 1.4. iv. 8. 1. But there is really no inconsistency between these and similar passages and the assertion in our Apology, and in the Phaedrus. For it is evident that a sign which only forbade might, by its absence, shew what was permitted, and thus a positive kind of guidance might not improperly be ascribed to it: as in the case before
