The trial and execution of Socrates in
Athens in 399 B.C.E. puzzles historians. Why,
in a society enjoying more freedom and democracy
than any the world had ever seen, would a
seventy-year-old philosopher be put to death for
what he was teaching? The puzzle is all the
greater because Socrates had taught--without
molestation--all of his adult life. What could
Socrates have said or done than prompted a jury of
500 Athenians to send him to his death just a few
years before he would have died naturally? Finding an answer to the mystery of the
trial of Socrates is complicated by the fact that
the two surviving accounts of the defense (or
apology) of Socrates both come from disciples of
his, Plato
and Xenophon.
Historians
suspect that Plato and Xenophon, intent on showing
their master in a favorable light, failed to present
in their accounts the most damning evidence against
Socrates. What appears almost certain is that the
decisions to prosecute and ultimately convict
Socrates had a lot to do with the turbulent history
of Athens in the several years preceding his
trial. An examination of that history may not
provide final answers, but it does provide important
clues. BACKGROUND Socrates,
the son of a sculptor (or stonecutter) and a
midwife, was a young boy when the rise to power of
Pericles brought on the dawning of the "Golden Age
of Greece." As a young man, Socrates saw
a fundamental power shift, as Pericles--perhaps
history's first liberal politician--acted on his
belief that the masses, and not just property-owning
aristocrats, deserved liberty. Pericles
created the people's courts and used the public
treasury to promote the arts. He pushed ahead
with an unprecedented building program designed not
only to demonstrate the glory that was Greece, but
also to ensure full employment and provide
opportunities for wealth creation among the
unpropertied class. The rebuilding of the
Acropolis and the construction of the Parthenon were
the two best known of Pericles' many ambitious
building projects. Growing to adulthood in this bastion of
liberalism and democracy, Socrates somehow developed
a set of values and beliefs that would put him at
odds with most of his fellow Athenians.
Socrates was not a democrat or an egalitarian.
To him, the people should not be self-governing;
they were like a herd of sheep that needed the
direction of a wise shepherd. He denied that
citizens had the basic virtue necessary to nurture a
good society, instead equating virtue with a
knowledge unattainable by ordinary people.
Striking at the heart of Athenian democracy, he
contemptuously criticized the right of every citizen
to speak in the Athenian assembly. Writing in the third-century C.E. in
his The Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Diogenes
Laertius reported that Socrates "discussed
moral questions in the workshops and the
marketplace." Often his unpopular views, expressed
disdainfully and with an air of condescension,
provoked his listeners to anger. Laertius
wrote that "men set upon him with their fists or
tore his hair out," but that Socrates "bore all this
ill-usage patiently." We get one contemporary view of
Socrates from playwright Aristophanes.
In
his play Clouds,
first produced in 423 B.C.E., Aristophanes presents
Socrates as an eccentric and comic headmaster of a
"thinkery" (or "thoughtery"). He is portrayed
"stalking the streets" of Athens barefoot, "rolling
his eyes" at remarks he found unintelligent, and
"gazing up" at the clouds. Socrates at the
time of Clouds must have been perceived more
as a harmless town character than as a serious
threat to Athenian values and democracy.
Socrates himself, apparently, took no offense at his
portrayal in Clouds. Plutarch, in his
Moralia, quoted Socrates as saying, "When they
break a jest upon me in the theatre, I feel as if I
were at a big party of good friends." Plato,
in his Symposium, describes Socrates and
Aristophanes engaged in friendly conversation. Other plays of the time offer
additional clues as to the reputation of Socrates in
Athens. Comic poet Eupolis has one of his
characters say: "Yes, and I loathe that
poverty-stricken windbag Socrates, who contemplates
everything in the world but does not know where his
next meal is coming from." Birds,
a play of Aristophanes written six years after his
Clouds, contains a revealing reference.
Aristophanes labels a gang of pro-Sparta
aristocratic youths as "Socratified."
Sparta--the model of a closed society--and Athens
were enemies: the remark suggests Socrates' teaching
may have started to be seen as subversive by 417
B.C.E. The standing of Socrates among his
fellow citizens suffered mightily during two periods
in which Athenian democracy was temporarily
overthrown, one four-month period in 411-410 and
another slightly longer period in 404-403. The
prime movers in both of the anti-democratic
movements were former pupils of Socrates, Alcibiades
and Critias. Athenians undoubtedly considered the
teachings of Socrates--especially his expressions of
disdain for the established constitution--partially
responsible for the resulting death and suffering.
Alcibiades, perhaps Socrates' favorite Athenian
politician, masterminded the first overthrow.
(Alcibiades had other strikes against him: four
years earlier, Alcibiades had fled to Sparta to
avoid facing trial for mutilating religious
pillars--statues
of Hermes--and, while in Sparta, had proposed
to that state's leaders that he help them defeat
Athens.) Critias, first among an oligarchy
known as the "Thirty Tyrants," led the second bloody
revolt against the restored Athenian democracy in
404. The revolt sent many of Athens's leading
democratic citizens (including Anytus, later the
driving force behind the prosecution of Socrates)
into exile, where they organized a resistance
movement. Critias, without question, was the more
frightening of the two former pupils of
Socrates. I.F.
Stone, in his The
Trial of Socrates, describes Critias (a
cousin of Plato's) as "the first Robespierre," a
cruel and inhumane man "determined to remake the
city to his own antidemocratic mold whatever the
human cost." The oligarchy confiscated the
estates of Athenian aristocrats, banished 5,000
women, children, and slaves, and summarily executed
about 1,500 of the
most prominent democrats of Athens. One incident involving Socrates and the
Thirty Tyrants would later become an issue at his
trial. Although the Thirty normally used their
own gang of thugs for such duties, the oligarchy
asked Socrates to arrest Leon of Salamis so that he
might be executed and his assets appropriated.
Socrates refused to do so. Socrates would
point to his resistance to the order as evidence of
his good conduct. On the other hand, Socrates
neither protested the decision nor took steps to
warn Leon of Salamis of the order for his arrest--he
just went home. While good citizens of Athens
were being liquidated right and left, Socrates--so
far as we know--did or said nothing to stop the
violence. The horrors brought on by the Thirty
Tyrants caused Athenians to look at Socrates in a
new light. His teachings no longer seemed so
harmless. He was no longer a lovable town
eccentric. Socrates--and his icy logic--came
to be seen as a dangerous and corrupting influence,
a breeder of tyrants and enemy of the common man.
THE
TRIAL A general amnesty issued in 403 meant
that Socrates could not be prosecuted for any of his
actions during or before the reign of the Thirty
Tyrants. He could only be charged for his
actions during the four years preceding his trial in
399 B.C.E. It appears that Socrates,
undeterred by the antidemocratic revolts and their
aftermaths, resumed his teachings and once again
began attracting a similar band of youthful
followers. The final straw may well have been
another antidemocratic uprising--this one
unsuccessful--in 401. Athens finally had
enough of "Socratified" youth. In Athens, criminal proceedings could
be initiated by any citizen. In the case of
Socrates, the proceedings began when Meletus, a
poet, delivered an oral summons to Socrates in the
presence of witnesses. The summons required
Socrates to appear before the legal magistrate, or
King Archon, in a colonnaded building in central
Athens called the Royal Stoa to
answer charges of impiety and corrupting the
youth. The Archon determined--after listening
to Socrates and Meletus
(and perhaps the other two accusers, Anytus and Lycon)--that
the lawsuit was permissible under Athenian law, set
a date for the "preliminary hearing" (anakrisis),
and posted a public notice at the Royal Stoa. The preliminary
hearing before the magistrate at the Royal
Stoa began with the reading of the written charge by
Meletus. Socrates answered the charge.
The magistrate questioned both Meletus and Socrates,
then gave both the accuser and defendant an
opportunity to question each other. Having
found merit in the accusation against Socrates, the
magistrate drew up formal charges. The document
containing the charges against Socrates survived
until at least the second century C.E.
Diogenes Laertius reports the charges as recorded in
the now-lost document: This indictment and affidavit is sworn by Meletus, the son of Meletus of Pitthos, against Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus of Alopece: Socrates is guilty of refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state, and of introducing new divinities. He is also guilty of corrupting the youth. The penalty demanded is death. Guilt
Phase of Trial The trial began in the morning with the
reading of the formal charges against Socrates by a
herald. The prosecution presented its case
first. The three accusers, Meletus, Anytus,
and Lycon, had a total of three hours, measured by a
water clock, to present from an elevated stage their
argument for guilt. No record of the
prosecution's argument against Socrates survives.
Easily the best known and most
influential of the three accusers, Anytus, is widely
believed to have been the driving force behind the
prosecution of Socrates. Plato's Meno
offers a possible clues as to the animosity between
Anytus, a politician coming from a family of
tanners, and Socrates. In the Meno,
Plato reports that Socrates' argument that the great
statesmen of Athenian history have nothing to offer
in terms of an understanding of virtue enrages
Anytus. Plato quotes Anytus as warning
Socrates: "Socrates, I think that you are too ready
to speak evil of men: and, if you will take my
advice, I would recommend you to be careful." Anytus
had an additional personal gripe concerning the
relationship Socrates had with his son. Plato quotes
Socrates as saying, "I had a brief association with
the son of Anytus, and I found him not lacking in
spirit." It is not known whether the
relationship included sex, but Socrates--as were
many men of the time in Athens--was bisexual and
slept with some of his younger students. Anytus
almost certainly disapproved of his son's
relationship with Socrates. Adding to the
displeasure of Anytus must have been the advice
Socrates gave to his son. According to
Xenophon, Socrates urged Anytus's son not to
"continue in the servile occupation [tanning hides]
that his father has provided for him." Without
a "worthy adviser," Socrates predicted, he would
"fall into some disgraceful propensity and will
surely go far in the career of vice." It is a matter of dispute among
historians whether the accusers focused more
attention on the alleged religious crimes, or the
alleged political crimes, of Socrates. I. F.
Stone attaches far more significance to the
political crimes, while other historians such as
James A. Colaiaco, author of Socrates
Against Athens, give more weight to the
charge of impiety. I. F. Stone argues that "Athenians were
accustomed to hearing the gods treated
disrespectfully in both the comic and tragic
theatre." He points out that Aristophanes, in his
Clouds, had a character speculating that rain
was Zeus urinating through a sieve, mistaking it for
a chamber pot--and that no one ever bothered to
charge Aristophanes with impiety. Stone
concludes: "One could in the same city and in
the same century worship Zeus as a promiscuous old
rake, henpecked and cuckolded by Juno or as Justice
deified. It was the political, not the
philosophical or theological, views of Socrates
which finally got him into trouble." Important support for Stone's
conclusion comes from the earliest surviving
reference to the trial of Socrates that does
not come from one of his disciples.
In 345 B.C.E., the famous orator Aechines told
a jury: "Men of Athens, you executed Socrates, the
sophist, because he was clearly responsible for the
education of Critias, one of the thirty
anti-democratic leaders." James Colaiaco's conclusion that
impiety received more prosecutorial attention than
did political sins rests on Plato's Apology.
Colaiaco sees Plato's famous account of the defense
of Socrates as being--although far from a verbatim
transcription of the words of Socrates--fairly
representative of the major points of his
defense. He notes that Plato wrote the Apology
within a few years of the trial and must have
expected many of his readers to have firsthand
knowledge of the trial. Why, Colaiaco asks,
would have Plato misrepresented the arguments of
Socrates, or hid key elements of the prosecution's
case, when his actions in doing so could so easily
be exposed? Since the Apology seems to
give great weight to the charge of impiety--and
relatively little weight to the association of
Socrates with the Thirty Tyrants--Colaiaco assumes
this must have been a fair reflection of the
trial. At the same time, Colaiaco recognizes
that because of the association of Socrates with
Critias "the prosecution could expect any Athenian
jury to harbor hostile feelings toward the city's
gadfly." Piety had, for Athenians, a broad
meaning. It included not just respect for the
gods, but also for the dead and ancestors. The
impious individual was seen as a contaminant who, if
not controlled or punished, might bring upon the
city the wrath of the gods--Athena, Zeus, or
Apollo--in the form of plague or sterility.
The ritualistic religion of Athens included no
scripture, church, or priesthood. Rather, it
required--in addition to belief in the gods--
observance of rites, prayers, and the offering of
sacrifices. Any number of words and actions of
Socrates may have contributed to his impiety
charge. Preoccupied with his moral
instruction, he probably failed to attend important
religious festivals. He may have stirred
additional resentment by offering arguments against
the collective, ritualistic view of religion shared
by most Athenians or by contending that gods could
not, as Athenians believed, behave immorally or
whimsically. Xenophon indicates that the
impiety charge stemmed primarily from the contention
of Socrates that he received divine communications
(a "voice" or a "sign") directing him to avoid
politics and concentrate on his philosophic
mission. A vague charge such as impiety
invited jurors to project their many and varied
grievances against Socrates. Dozens of accounts of the three-hour
speech (apologia) by Socrates in his defense existed
at one time. Only Plato's and Xenophon's
accounts survive. The two accounts agree on a
key point. Socrates gave a defiant--decidedly
unapologetic--speech. He seemed to
invite condemnation and death. Plato's apology describes Socrates
questioning his accuser, Meletus, about the impiety
charge. Meletus accuses Socrates of believing
the sun and moon not to be gods, but merely masses
of stone. Socrates responds not by
specifically denying the charge of atheism, but by
attacking Meletus for inconsistency: the charge
against him accused him of believing in other gods,
not in believing in no gods. If Plato's
account is accurate, Socrates could have been seen
by jurors offering a smokescreen rather than a
refutation of the charge of impiety. Plato's Socrates provocatively tells
his jury that he is a hero. He reminds them of
his exemplary service as a hoplite in three
battles. More importantly, he contends, he has
battled for decades to save the souls of
Athenians--pointing them in the direction of an
examined, ethical life. He reportedly says to
his jurors if his teaching about the nature of
virtue "corrupts the youth, I am a mischievous
person." He tells the jury, according to Plato, he
would rather be put to death than give up his
soul-saving: "Men of Athens, I honor and love you;
but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I
have life and strength I shall never cease from the
practice and teaching of philosophy." If
Plato's account is accurate, the jury knew that the
only way to stop Socrates from lecturing about the
moral weaknesses of Athenians was to kill him. If I. F. Stone is right, the most
damaging accusation against Socrates concerned his
association with Critias, the cruel leader of the
Thirty Tyrants. Socrates, in Plato's account,
points to his refusal to comply with the Tyrants'
order that he bring in Leon of Salamis for summary
execution. He argues this act of
disobedience--which might have led to his own
execution, had not the Tyrants fallen from
power--demonstrates his service as a good citizen of
Athens. Stone notes, however, that a good
citizen might have done more than simply go home to
bed--he might have warned Leon of Salamis. In
Stone's critical view, the central fact remained
that in the city's darkest hour, Socrates "never
shed a tear for Athens." As for the charge that his
moral instruction provided intellectual cover for
the anti-democratic revolt of Critias and his
cohorts, Socrates denies responsibility. He
argues that he never presumed to be a teacher, just
a figure who roamed Athens answering the questions
that were put to him. He points to his pupils
in the crowd and observes that none of them accused
him. Moreover, Socrates suggests to the jury, if
Critias really understood his words, he never would
have gone on the bloody rampage that he did in
404-403. Hannah Arendt notes that Critias
apparently concluded, from the message of Socrates
that piety cannot be defined, that it is permissible
to be impious--"pretty much the opposite of what
Socrates had hoped to achieve by talking about
piety." What is strikingly absent from the
defense of Socrates, if Plato's and Xenophon's
accounts are to be believed, is the plea for mercy
typically made to Athenian juries. It was
common practice to appeal to the sympathies of
jurors by introducing wives and children.
Socrates, however, did no more than remind the jury
that he had a family. Neither his wife
Xanthippe nor any of his three sons made a personal
appearance. On the contrary,
Socrates--according to Plato--contends that the
unmanly and pathetic practice of pleading for
clemency disgraces the justice system of Athens.
When the three-hour defense of Socrates
came to an end, the court herald asked the jurors to
render their decision by putting their ballot disks
in one of two marked urns, one for guilty votes and
one for votes for acquittal. With no judge to
offer them instructions as to how to interpret the
charges or the law, each juror struggled for himself
to come to an understanding of the case and the
guilt or innocence of Socrates. When the
ballots were counted, 280 jurors had voted to find
Socrates guilty, 220 jurors for acquittal. Penalty
Phase of Trial After the conviction of Socrates by a
relatively close vote, the trial entered its penalty
phase. Each side, the accusers and the
defendant, was given an opportunity to propose a
punishment. After listening to arguments, the
jurors would choose which of the two proposed
punishments to adopt. The accusers of Socrates proposed the
punishment of death. In proposing death, the
accusers might well have expected to counter with a
proposal for exile--a punishment that probably would
have satisfied both them and the jury.
Instead, Socrates audaciously proposes to the jury
that he be rewarded, not punished. According
to Plato, Socrates asks the jury for free meals in
the Prytaneum, a public dining hall in the center of
Athens. Socrates must have known that his
proposed "punishment" would infuriate the
jury. I. F. Stone noted that "Socrates acts
more like a picador trying to enrage a bull than a
defendant trying to mollify a jury." Why,
then, propose a punishment guaranteed to be
rejected? The only answer, Stone and others
conclude, is that Socrates was ready to die. To comply with the demand that a
genuine punishment be proposed, Socrates reluctantly
suggested a fine of one mina of silver--about
one-fifth of his modest net worth, according to
Xenophon. Plato and other supporters of
Socrates upped the offer to thirty minae by agreeing
to come up with silver of their own. Most
jurors likely believed even the heftier fine to be
far too slight of a punishment for the unrepentant
defendant. In the final vote, a larger majority of
jurors favored a punishment of death than voted in
the first instance for conviction. According
to Diogenes Laertius, 360 jurors voted for death,
140 for the fine. Under Athenian law,
execution was accomplished by drinking a cup of
poisoned hemlock. In Plato's Apology, the trial
concludes with Socrates offering a few memorable
words as court officials finished their necessary
work. He tells the crowd that his conviction
resulted from his unwillingness to "address you as
you would have liked me to do." He predicts
that history will come to see his conviction as
"shameful for Athens," though he professes to have
no ill will for the jurors who convict him.
Finally, as he is being led off to jail, Socrates
utters the memorable line: "The hour of departure
has arrived, and we go our ways--I to die, and you
to live. Which to the better fate is known
only to God." It is likely that this last
burst of eloquence comes from Plato, not
Socrates. There are no records suggesting that
Athenian practice allowed defendants to speak after
sentencing. Socrates spent his final hours in a
cell in the Athens jail. The ruins
of the jail remain today. The hemlock
that ended his life did not do so quickly or
painlessly, but rather by producing a gradual
paralysis of the central nervous system. Most scholars see the conviction and
execution of Socrates as a deliberate choice made by
the famous philosopher himself. If the
accounts of Plato and Xenophon are reasonably
accurate, Socrates sought not to persuade jurors,
but rather to lecture and provoke them.
|