578 Socrates^ Schleiermacher^ and Delbrueck. before or since Mr Ast. But at all events it must be allowed, that the rhetorician has displayed at least as much dexterity in concealing the pusillanimity of Socrates from the eyes of his readers, as dulness in not discerning it himself. We have perhaps dwelt too long on these points : for they are of such a nature, that a man ought scarcely to be listened to, who ventures to assert that mankind has been for ages labouring under a gross delusion on them. We quit this part of the subject with two remarks. One is, that every step of Mr Ast'^s argumentation increases the difficulty we find, in imagining what the conception can be which he has formed of Socrates'* real defense. The other is, that he seems never to have paused to reflect upon the question: whether human lan- guage affords any terms for innocence and virtue to use, which malice or prejudice may not wrest into signs of affectation and hypocrisy. We now proceed to consider some objections of a more tangible kind, and which interest us the more, because they rest on ground which is common to Mr Ast with Mr Delbrueck. Widely as their views diverge on other points, they agree in considering the pleas which Socrates is made to set up against the main charges brought against him, as frivolous and sophis- tical : such as neither he could have used, nor Plato have in- vented for him, unless one or the other is to forfeit our admira- tion and respect. Mr Ast was not obliged to consider this alternative: Mr Delbrueck appears to be steeled against it. We cannot contemplate it with so much equanimity : but above all we desire to know whether it is inevitable. Mr Ast despatches the first question much more briefly than Mr D., but in a very diff'erent manner, and he certainly does not appear to have considered it with equal attention. He agrees with Mr D. in saying, that the argument designed to prove that Socrates did not voluntarily corrupt the young is empty sophistry ; but does not enter into any discussion of it. He then observes, that no reply is given to the charge in the sense in which it was meant by the prosecutors, which is explained by Xenophon in the Memorabilia i. 2. 9., where it is said that Socrates was accused of elating the youth of Athens with an arrogant contempt of their hereditary
