Lastly, we find also in the Apology distinct notice of the formidable efficacy of established public impressions, generated without any ostensible author, circulated in the common talk, and passing without examination from one man to another, as portions of accredited faith. “My accusers Melêtus and Anytus (says Sokrates) are difficult enough to deal with: yet far less difficult than the prejudiced public, who have heard false reports concerning me for years past, and have contracted a settled belief about my character, from nameless authors whom I cannot summon here to be confuted.”[37]
[37] Plato, Apol. c. 2, p. 18 C-D.
It is against this ancient, established belief, passing for knowledge — communicated by unconscious contagion without any rational process — against the “[procès jugé mais non plaidé]”, whereby King Nomos governs — that the general mission of Sokrates is directed. It is against the like belief, in one of its countless manifestations, that he here defends himself before the Dikastery.
CHAPTER X.
KRITON.
General purpose of the Kriton.
The dialogue called Kriton is, in one point of view, a second part or sequel — in another point of view, an antithesis or corrective — of the Platonic Apology. For that reason, I notice it immediately after the Apology: though I do not venture to affirm confidently that it was composed immediately after: it may possibly have been later, as I believe the Phædon also to have been later.[1]
[1] Steinhart affirms with confidence that the Kriton was composed immediately after the Apology, and shortly after the death of Sokrates (Einleitung, p. 303). The fact may be so, but I do not feel thus confident of it when I look to the analogy of the later Phædon.