¹ This tendency is found even in the best recent treatments of the apologetic aspect of Charmides. See e.g. Dorion, L.-A., Platon: Charmide lysis (Paris, 2004), 21Google Scholar.

² Ibid., 46.

³ The aristocratic prejudice is emphasized by Notomi, N., ‘Critias and the origin of Plato's political philosophy’, in Robinson, T.M. and Brisson, L. (edd.), Proceedings of the V Symposium Platonicum (Sankt Augustin, 2000), 237–50Google Scholar, at 247; Dorion (n. 1), 46–51. The verse under consideration is ἔργον δ'οὐδὲν ὄνειδος, ἀεργίη δέ τ'ὄνειδος (‘No work is a disgrace, but idleness is a disgrace’, Op. 309). Unlike Xenophon, who explains and defends Socrates' use of this passage (Mem. 1.2.56), Plato diverts attention from the issue by placing the vicious interpretation in Critias' mouth. This is an example of a tendency to deflect criticisms of Socrates by portraying Critias as an embodiment of vices commonly attributed to Socrates (see Sprague, R., Plato: Laches and Charmides [New York, 1973]Google Scholar, 73 n. 38, cited in Dorion, L.-A. et Bandini, M. [edd.], Xenophon: Memorables, vol. 1 [Paris, 2000]Google Scholar, 119 n. 170). But one should note that, even in Critias' mouth, the offensive interpretation arises only in order to ward off Socrates' attack on his definition of sophrosune (moderation), which somewhat mitigates any negative judgement of Critias.

⁴ Dusanic, S., ‘Critias in the Charmides’, Aevum 74 (2000), 53–63Google Scholar.

⁵ Ibid., 53.

⁶ Burnet, J., Greek Philosophy: Thales to Plato (Glasgow, 1914), 169Google Scholar. See also Gigon, O., Kommentar zum ersten Buch von Xenophons Memorabilien (Basel, 1953), 40Google Scholar.

⁷ Dorion (n. 1), 44–68, passim.

⁸ McKim, R., ‘Socratic self-knowledge and “knowledge of knowledge” in Plato's Charmides’, TAPhA 115 (1985), 59–77Google Scholar, at 60–1.

⁹ Charmides, too, displays a healthy attitude towards discussion when he asks ‘What does it matter, Socrates, from whom I heard it?’ (161c).

¹⁰ The long-standing debate concerning whether the Critias who speaks in Timaeus is the tyrant or his grandfather is summarized in Nails, D., The People of Plato: A Prosopography of Plato and Other Socratics (Indianapolis, IN, 2002), 106–7Google Scholar, and in Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther, Platon: Kritias (Göttingen, 2006), 43–50Google Scholar. The very fact that this question does not admit of a clear solution points to Plato's artistry: since the tyrant was a much more prominent memory for Plato's readers, the reference to Critias will certainly remind readers of him, regardless of which Critias fits the chronological scheme better.

¹¹ Arist. Rh. 3.16.3; but see Lycurg. Leoc. 113, where one of these deeds is remembered.

¹² Dorion (n. 1), 19–22; see also Dillery, J., Xenophon and the History of His Times (London, 1995), 144CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Dorion (n. 1), 21.

¹⁴ Although Socrates' flirtation with Meno is not always emphasized in the literature, it is there in the text (see 80b–c).

¹⁵ He cannot say for sure that the murderous tyrant is unjust: see Gorgias, 253d–e.

¹⁶ Popper, K., The Open Society and its Enemies (Princeton, NJ, 1966), 191–2Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Jaeger, W., Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, tr. Highet, G. (Oxford, 1939–45), 2.270–1Google Scholar; see Republic 6.484a–501a.

¹⁸ A similar aim seems to inform Plato's effort to associate Socrates with less controversial but equally illustrious figures such as Nicias, Laches, Gorgias, Protagoras, Parmenides, and others.

¹⁹ Plato's criticisms may also serve as a notice to ambitious young men that their place is with the philosophers not the politicians.

²⁰ One may compare Xenophon's portrait of Alcibiades' victory over Pericles in Book 1 of Memorabilia (1.2.40–6). As I intend to show in a future publication, the purpose of this interview is not to provide an example of youthful misbehaviour, as is sometimes thought, but rather to highlight Socrates' ability to teach argumentative skill and political insight. The victory over Pericles is also Socrates' victory.

²¹ Dusanic (n. 4), 59–61.

²² Notomi (n. 3), 240.

²³ Ostwald, M., From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society, and Politics in Fifth-century Athens (Los Angeles, CA, 1986), 499Google Scholar.

²⁴ See Lys. 12.21–2, 37–40, 79–81. Lys. 10.31 provides another possible instance of a member of the Thirty remaining in the city. See MacDowell, D.M., Athenian Homicide Law in the Age of the Orators (Manchester, 1963), 66–7Google Scholar.

²⁵ See Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion politeia (Oxford, 1981), 472Google Scholar.

²⁶ Dorion (n. 1), 27–30, points out the asymmetric treatment of Critias and Charmides by Plato and Xenophon. There is no word of criticism of Charmides in Plato's Charmides, and at the end of the dialogue we learn that Socrates will have unlimited opportunities to exercise influence over him in the future (176b–d).

²⁷ On the generally negative treatment of Critias, see Bultrighini, U., Maledetta democrazia: studia su Crizia (Alessandria, 1999)Google Scholar.

²⁸ Since this speech was delivered around 330 it provides only indirect evidence concerning public attitudes towards Critias in the period under consideration.

²⁹ Pownall, F., ‘Critias in Xenophon's Hellenica’, SCI 31 (2012), 1–17Google Scholar, has shown that Xenophon's portrait of Critias departs negatively from what we can surmise about his real character and views from the fragments of his writings. She highlights especially Xenophon's systematic elimination of all ideological content from the oligarchy. If, as I argue below, the portrait is designed in part to disparage Critias' nephew Plato, the purpose of this feature may be to show that, despite all his ideological clap-trap, Plato too is nothing more than a pleonectic tyrant in disguise.

³⁰ Many scholars believe that the Athenaion politeia in general provides a more reliable account than that given by Xenophon. See Ostwald (n. 23), 481–4; Krentz, P., The Thirty at Athens (Ithaca, NY, 1982)Google Scholar, 61, 65, and passim, esp. 131–47. But see also Rhodes (n. 25), 451, 454, 457, and passim. Krentz argues that Xenophon is both wrong and biased against the Thirty, but does not explain the motives for this bias.

³¹ As Pownall (n. 29), 2–4, points out, Critias is completely omitted from the description of the election of the Thirty, coming to prominence in the narrative only when things turn bad.

³² Ostwald (n. 23), 483: ‘Critias's thirst for blood is explained by the fact that the democracy had sent him into exile (Hell. 2.3.15); the wholesale slaughter of citizens and metics is prompted by power madness, greed, and the need to pay the Spartan garrison (2.3.21, 4.1); Theramenes is removed as an obstacle to the unrestrained exercise of power (2.3.23) …. There may be truth in all these allegations; but they tend to explain events as a struggle between “goodies” and “baddies”, Critias and his gang being interested only in power and money, opposed by Theramenes as the champion of good government by superior citizens …. Surely, this is too simple an explanation of a response to a very complex political development, even if it does have an inner logic and is the work of a contemporary.’ Ostwald attributes these failings to Xenophon's lack of ‘political acumen’, but it is more probable that Xenophon deliberately intended to present Critias and his gang in the worst light possible. See also Krentz (n. 30), 80.

³³ Krentz (n. 30), 64–8. See also Wolpert, A., ‘The violence of the Thirty’, in Lewis, S. (ed.), Ancient Tyranny (Edinburgh, 2006), 213–23Google Scholar.

³⁴ On this technique of implicitly attributing crimes to Critias, see also Pownall (n. 29), 5.

³⁵ See Notomi (n. 3), 240; Krentz (n. 30), 127, 140; Pownall (n. 29).

³⁶ The Thirty are commonly accused of showing disloyalty to their own supporters (see e.g. Lysias, In Defence of Mantitheus, 16.5; Ostwald [n. 23], 484–5).

³⁷ Note also Xenophon's repeated claim that the Thirty acted ‘however they wanted’ (Hell. 2.3.13; see 2.3.11, 21, 23, 52).

³⁸ Ostwald's statement (n. 23, 461) that ‘[Charicles] and Critias are described as the Thirty's extremist leaders by sources as disparate in their outlook as Andocides (1.101), Lysias (12.55) Xenophon (Hell. 2.3.2; Mem. 1.2.31), and Aristotle (Pol. 5.6, 1305b26)’ needs more precision: Critias is not mentioned in the passages from Andocides and Aristotle, and Charicles is not mentioned in Hellenica.

³⁹ See, for example, Dillery (n. 12), 142; Rhodes (n. 25), 430 with references.

⁴⁰ See Notomi (n. 3), 240.

⁴¹ Dillery (n. 12), 146–63. See also Krentz, P., Xenophon: Hellenica II.3.11–IV.2.8 (Warminster, 1995), 122–56Google Scholar.

⁴² One might argue that Xenophon wishes to offer a portrait of a friendship gone sour, thus necessitating his focus on Critias. But friendship, while mentioned, is not the central focus of the narrative.

⁴³ Dorion (n. 1), 86 n. 86. See also Weil, R., ‘Socrate au début des Helléniques’, in Mélanges Edouard Delebeque (Aix-en-Provence, 1983)Google Scholar, 468, cited by Dorion.

⁴⁴ Notomi (n. 3), 241; see also Higgins, W., Xenophon the Athenian (Albany, NY, 1977), 22–4Google Scholar; Krentz (n. 30), 145–6; Pownall (n. 29), 13–14; Tuozzo, T., Plato's Charmides (Cambridge, 2011), 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It should be noted that this would not explain Xenophon's demonization of the Thirty – which would simply be counter-productive if Xenophon did play a role in it – but only his scapegoating of Critias. Nor, as I point out below, does it even explain this, since Charicles would have provided a scapegoat that would not involve Socrates. Xenophon's need to defend himself from accusations of support for the Thirty might also offer an explanation for his flight from Athens in 401. Diogenes Laertius says that Xenophon's banishment was proclaimed in 399, and if this is so it is reasonable to see it as a result of his support for the Thirty, as Higgins (this note), 22–4, suggests. If so, this would affect the way we read his interview with Socrates concerning his Persian adventure (An. 3.1.4–7). Because of the failure of the expedition to Persia, this conversation is often seen as an acknowledgement of Socrates' superior advice. But in light of the persecution of former oligarchs, Xenophon may be pointing out that he made the right decision, in contrast to Socrates, who remained in Athens to face execution.

⁴⁵ So too Lysias aims to exculpate the others (12.92–4). See Notomi (n. 3), 242; Krentz (n. 30), 146.

⁴⁶ See Danzig, G., ‘Intra-Socratic polemics: the Symposia of Plato and Xenophon’, GRBS, 2005, 331–57Google Scholar; Danzig, G., ‘La prétendue rivalité entre Platon et Xenophon’, RFHIP, Les Lois de Platon (2002), 351–68Google Scholar (= ‘Did Plato read Xenophon's Cyropaedia?’, in Scolnicov, S. and Brisson, L. [edd.], The Laws: Selected Papers from the VI Symposium Platonicum [Sankt Augustin, 2003], 286–97Google Scholar).

⁴⁷ F. Jacoby, FGrH 688; see Nails (n. 10), 205.

⁴⁸ Nor does he mention Critias' rival, Theramenes, possibly because this would remind readers of Critias. His omission of the Spartan role in establishing and supporting the Thirty seems also to have apologetic motives.

⁴⁹ Plato maintains a studied ambiguity in these sentences concerning his own role. The sentence following his reference to the invitation opens as if it were an apology for accepting such an invitation (‘No wonder that, on account of my youth …’), but then admits only to the lesser charge of naïve expectations. All comes to pass as if Plato cannot deny his active association, in view of some members of his audience who may have known about it, but does not want to admit it either, in order not to indict himself before others who did not know about it. For the former, his statement of his hopes for the new regime would serve as an explanation for his active participation; for the latter, these hopes would remain his only crime.

⁵⁰ The date of neither of these works is certain, but the bulk of Hellenica (Books 3–7) seems to have been published after the battle of Mantinea (362) and also after Tisiphonus had come to power in Pherae (6.4.37). Badian, E., ‘Xenophon the Athenian’, in Tuplin, C. (ed.), Xenophon and His World (Stuttgart, 2004), 33–53Google Scholar at 43–8, suggests that it may have been published as late as 355–354. Assuming that Books 1–2 were published at the same time or earlier, this would put them before the Seventh Letter, which was written some time after the killing of Dion in 354; 342b implies that it was written during the reign of Hipparmus (353–351).

⁵¹ Xenophon mentions Plato only at Mem. 3.6.1, and Plato never bothers to mention Xenophon at all.

⁵² Danzig, G., ‘Plato's Charmides as a political act: apologetics and the promotion of ideology’, GRBS 53.3 (2013), 486–519Google Scholar.

⁵³ This possibility is not considered by Nesselrath (n. 10).

⁵⁴ We have no firm dating for Charmides, but most scholars would place it among the early dialogues, almost always before Republic (see Thesleff, H., Studies in Platonic Chronology [Helsinki, 1982], 8–17, 150–2Google Scholar). Given the relatively late date of Hellenica (see above n. 50), Charmides and Republic–Critias were almost certainly published first. Indeed, the portrait of Critias in Xenophon is so harsh that its acceptance by the public (if indeed they did accept it) would have made the writing of Charmides and Critias almost impossible thereafter.

⁵⁵ See Danzig (n. 46 [2005]).

⁵⁶ Xenophon's use of terms such as πολιτεία (constitution: 2.3.13, 17, 23; see also 24, 25, 32, 34) and τυραννεῖν (to behave tyrannically: 2.4.1; see also 2.3.16, 6.3.8) to describe the regime of the Thirty is not especially remarkable. But if the reader has already gathered that Xenophon is criticizing Plato, the term πολιτεία may nevertheless serve to tarnish Plato's work by that name by implying that it is a return to the principles of Critias. At 2.3.34 Xenophon's Critias refers to the Spartan constitution as the καλλίστη πολιτεία (‘most beautiful constitution’), which may recall Plato's καλλιπόλις (‘beautiful city’: e.g Resp. 527c2). At 2.3.31 he makes use of a ship analogy, which may recall Plato's famous ship analogy (Resp. 488a–e). Although Xenophon does not call the Thirty ‘tyrants’ (as Polycrates had done: see Arist. Rh. 1401a) his use of the term τυραννεῖν recalls the worst regime in Plato's Republic. As Dorion (n. 1), 101 n. 124, acutely observes, Critias' law forbidding Socrates to speak with those under thirty years of age (Mem. 1.2.35) resembles Plato's rule (Resp. 7.539a–b) that dialectic not be taught to those under thirty. He notes that Xenophon may have intended to draw a parallel here between Plato and Critias. Similarly, Theramanes' criticism of the Thirty for arbitrarily limiting the number of the citizenry (2.3.19) may also be an implicit criticism of the limitations on citizenry proposed in Plato's beautiful city.

⁵⁷ The centrality of self-knowledge in Charmides is reflected also in dramatic references to it. See e.g. 160d–e.

⁵⁸ This speech would perhaps have been more appropriate if delivered to the original oligarchs, but Xenophon did not necessarily have an opportunity to portray Thrasybulus addressing them. In any case, the re-organized oligarchic party was an extension of the oligarchs and therefore bears responsibility for the claims of their predecessors.

⁵⁹ Recent work on Critias has emphasized that he had coherent aristocratic views. See N. Notomi (n. 3), Iannucci, A., La parola e l'azione: i frammenti simposiali di Crizia (Bologna, 2002)Google Scholar, Rotstein, A., ‘Critias' invective against Archilochus’, CPh (2007), 139–54Google Scholar, Pownall, F. (n. 29), Critias on the Aetiology of the Kottabos Game,” in L'étiologie dans la pensée antique, ed. Chassignet, M. (Brepols, 2008), 17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “Critias' Commemoration of Athens,” in Commemoration in Antiquity, ed. Nagel, R., Mouseion 8 (2008) 333–354Google Scholar, T. Tuozzo (n. 45), 70–85. On the propaganda of the Thirty see Gianfrancesco, L., ‘Aspetti propogandistici della politica dei Trenta Tiranni’, in Contributi dell' Istituto di Storia Antica 2 (Milan, 1974), 20–35Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ See Notomi (n. 3), 245.

⁶¹ See Diels, H. and Kranz, W., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, (Berlin, 1952 ⁶), 2.379–80Google Scholar, frr. 6, 7.

⁶² Ostwald (n. 23), 463–4, following Krentz, emphasizes more the admiration of Sparta – which, of course, includes moderation. Xenophon does not emphasize the likelihood that Sparta served as a model for Critias, although he does mention it (2.3.34; see Pownall [n. 29]).

⁶³ See Ostwald (n. 23), 483; Dillery (n. 12), 146.