ABSTRACT
Since the Aristotelian testimony, on the whole, may be discarded as essentially useless, the primary Socratic source problem seems to be reduced to two apparently irreconcilable testimonials: the Socratica of Plato and those of Xenophon. In view of the seriously conflicting nature of these two reports, it has become a common, although singularly ineffective, practice of the scholar to turn to Xenophon for additional help or needed correction of Plato's testimony; or to call on Plato for some assistance in reaching the 'proper' understanding of Xenophon's accounts. Schleiermacher, despite the many and at times basic discrepancies which separate the accounts of Plato from those of Xenophon, still believed that Plato and Xenophon were reporting on the historical Socrates. Plato's literary mastery, in its artistic perfection, tends to obliterate the many component elements or motives which are at the basis of his Socratica. Xenophon, on the other hand, definitely lacks the literary skill and perfection of a Plato.
