1

ProAtheniensibus ContraSocratem

Contents

Preface

1. What is the stated accusation?

2. What is the real accusation? Historical background.

3. How did Socrates defend himself?

4. What does Socrates not say?

5. What is the other evidence?

6. In defense of the People of Athens.

PREFACE

Who would give credit to an ugly and unkempt old man who presents thefollowing characteristics?

He systematically derides his fellow citizens by attempting to prove, publically, that they are idiots who do not know what they are talking about.

He does so without taking any position whatsoever. His tactic is to question the very definitions used by his

fellow citizens in their everyday life, often by way of spurious and long-drawn examples.

He does that because he asserts that the god Apollo said that there is no man wiser than himself and he wants to prove Apollo was wrong.

He admits to hearing voices giving him instructions about what he has to do.

He generally and openly declares his contempt of rule by majority because the majority of citizens are unfit to express an opinion.

2

His main followers are either traitors to their country (Alcibiades), bloody tyrants (Critias and Charmides) or openly against democracy (Xenophon and Plato).*

Socrates was and did all that.

However, the trial of Socrates shows that it is as difficult to fight anegative presumption as it is to fight a positive one. It is hard tocondemn Socrates today because he is supported - indeed has becomesanctified- by a curious coalition of opposites. On theone hand, since the Roman Empire, all

* My text assumes a basic knowledge of the history of Athens during thatperiod. More details can be found in the bibliography or in other volumestreating ancient Athenian history and democracy, such as Jones N.F., TheAssociations of Classical Athens: the Response to Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1999.

3

intellectuals wishing to justify absolutist regimes have taken theexample of his death as evidence of how much a democracy can gowrong. Platonism has been subsumed into and has become one of thefoundations of Christianity. Socrates’ daimonion (δαιμόνιον) wasidentified with the concept of the soul. His urging that we shouldnot go after material goods but, rather, we should focus on saving our“souls” became one of the basic values of Christianity. So hisexecution foreshadows the execution of Jesus. Christianity wasadopted by the emperors of the late Roman Empire, Byzantium and thenby all the emperors and kings of Europe (notwithstanding thepossible revolutionary interpretations of the teaching of Jesus). Onthe other hand, surprisingly, certain intellectuals who supportedliberty and democracy have seen him as a martyr of free speech.Modern historical research has however started disputing both sets ofbeliefs (see more particularly Cartledge, Ober and Stone).

Socrates is neither evidence of the ills of democracy nor a martyrof free speech. He is the spiritual leader of the oligarchic-tyrannical faction of Athens. He is a friend of Sparta and anadmirer of its undemocratic constitution. He is the teacher ofAlcibiades, Critias and Charmides, all of whom caused tremendous harmto Athens and its democracy. He is contemptuous of the people andof rule by majority vote, of electoral procedures and of free speechfor anyone but himself. When he says that the best political systemwill come when rulers will become philosophers or when philosopherswill rule, he means exactly that: that simple people are unfit tohave an opinion about the affairs of state and that only specialistsshould be allowed to rule. The ship of the state must have one captainin order to find a safe port and everybody else should be relegated tothe task of rowing.

This aristocracy of the spirit is fine… if you happen to belong toit. But it is not certain that everybody will agree that you do.

The historical record is quite clear. It is apparent to any unbiasedeye that the trial of Socrates was a political trial and not a veryimportant one. Contemporary sources fail to make much out of it. Wereit not for Plato, we would hardly have heard of it.

The present text does not have the ambition of being an exhaustiveanalysis of the enormous commentary and other material which centurieshave amassed on this subject. I have chiefly examined the existing(contemporary) evidence with a lawyerly eye (acting as a prosecutorwho tries to analyse it purely to determine whether Socrates was or

4

was not guilty). Much of what I say is based on textual analysis ofthe original ancient Greek text, reading the ancient words without anybias, as far as possible, to understand what they actually say andnot how they have been interpreted. In particular, I have refrainedfrom any attempt to philosophise. This text should be read simply as alegal document.

I have also refrained from discussing the question of the deathpenalty. As will be shown, part of the blame for it being inflictedrests with Socrates actions. For myself, acting as the prosecution, Iwould have recommended exile to Sparta.

5

He:

1. What is the stated accusation against Socrates1?

a)b)c)

d)e)f)g)

does not acknowledge the gods the City acknowledges (nomizein); introduces (eisferein) other, new (kaina) divinities (daimonia); andis guilty of corrupting the young men of the City (diafteirein). But there are other looming accusations; He:is a busybody who investigates the things beneath the

2. What is the real accusation?

One of the most surprising things is that we know very littleabout what the accusers had to say against Socrates. Plato’sApology is his only text which is not in the format of a dialogue.Plato, usually takes great pains, one supposes, to render verbatimeach one of Socrates words, giving also due space and equal rightsto any opposing argument. Inexplicably, Plato does not do so inthe Apology. The same applies for Xenophon who provides a summaryof what is the accusation, supposing it is well known to thereader. Xenophon does not supply us with the arguments or evidenceof the accusers. Thus, there is no surviving record of thearguments or evidence of the accusers. The only thing thatremains, and it is a staggering fact, is that Aristophanes, afriend of Socrates, in his comedy The Clouds repeats almost the samewords of the accusations which, 24 years later, would lead Socratesto his death. So these accusations were more or less commonknowledge. Why after 24 years did they come to such a dramaticconclusion?

The real accusation against Socrates in 401 BC, as I will attempt toshow, as stated in the accusation, if read correctly, is that he isa leader or a teacher of the oligarch faction which seeks tooverthrow the constitution of the City by undemocratic means. Todo so, this faction sought the support of Sparta and was preparedto support Sparta in its aspirations against Athens. The democraticfaction had already issued an amnesty to the oligarchic factionafter the liberation of Athens from the tyranny of the Thirty. Soit could not pursue Socrates openly for his political beliefs.

6

Instead, the accusers raised three separate accusations againstSocrates:

a) First, he does not acknowledge the lesser divinities of theCity. The two critical words here are nomizein (νομίζειν)and the Gods of the city (τους Θεούς της πόλεως). The firstword is different from “believing in the Gods” and shouldmore accurately be translated as “honouring the Gods ofthe City” as an act of political allegiance. (see,Manuelle Giordano-Zecharya; as Socrates shows, the Atheniandid not believe in Gods).

1 Σωκράτη φησὶν ἀδικεῖν τούς τε νέους διαφθείροντα καὶ θεοὺς οὓς ἡ πόλις [24c]νομίζει οὐ νομίζοντα, ἕτερα δὲ δαιμόνια καινά. τὸ μὲν δὴ ἔγκλημα τοιοῦτόνἐστιν· Socrates is a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he doesnot acknowledge the gods of the state, and he believes in other new divinitiesof his own. See Plato, Apology.

7

Who were the Gods of the City in contrast to any otherGods? They were Peitho goddess of Persuasion, ZeusAgoraios (Jupiter protector of the Agora), Zeus Boulaios(Jupiter protector of the Counsil), Demos (the deificationof the City), Hermes (God of the merchants) and Hephaestus(God of craftsmen), among others. Socrates invokes andasserts he believes in Apollo and Hera (who, not bycoincidence, were the Gods of Sparta). Acknowledging(νομίζειν) the Gods of the City, as distinct from theGods of other cities, is an act of political allegiance asmuch as a religious act.

He is also accused of bringing new Gods into the City. Theword, however, is “daimonia.” In the Liddel, Scott, JonesLexicon a daimonion is defined as: divinity, inferiordivine being between a God and a mortal or evil spirit . Itis constantly invoked by Socrates as an inner voicecommanding him to do something, not as a godlikecreature. Socrates is accused of bringing such newdaimonia into the City.

From a religious-patriotic point of view the accusation canbe translated as follows:

Had the Gods deserted Athens or had Athens deserted itsGods? (Cartledge). Not duly acknowledging the City’s Godsand introducing new, non-established and harmfuldivinities, had caused the established Gods to stopsupporting Athens, thereby causing its defeat.

From a purely religious point of view:

Were Socrates and his fellow oligarchic elements supporters of the Orphean and Pythagorean cults which, at the time, had started being influential inAthens?These cults certainly influenced and were

influenced by the Platonic philosophy2.

b) Second, the accusers say Socrates corrupts the Athenianyouth by undermining their democratic belief and turns theminto Sparta-lovers and followers of the Tyrants; i.e., heturns them into traitors to the City. Again the word used

8

is “diaftheirein”, which means to destroy utterly, kill, tospoil, harm, to lead astray, corrupt, ruin, seduce. Thereal accusation is that Socrates leads the young people ofthe City astray, not morally, but in relation to theirpatriotic and democratic duties to the City. He does thatby teaching them to become “mad about Sparta”,“ελακονωμάνουν άπαντες”3 to become

2 Covering up a political prosecution under religious pretexts is notunusual both in ancient and contemporary societies.3 See Aristophanes, The Birds¸Lines 1280-1287, πρὶν μὲν γὰρ οἰκίσαι σε τήνδε τὴνπόλιν, ἐλακωνομάνουν ἅπαντεςἄνθρωποι τότε, ἐκόμων, ἐπείνων, ἐρρύπων, ἐσωκράτων, σκυτάλι’ ἐφόρουν, νυνὶδ’ ὑποστρέψαντες αὖ ὀρνιθομανοῦσι, πάντα δ’ ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς ποιοῦσιν ἅπερὄρνιθες ἐκμιμούμενοι. πρῶτον μὲν εὐθὺς πάντες ἐξ εὐνῆς ἅμα ἐπέτονθ’ ἕωθενὥσπερ ἡμεῖς ἐπὶ νομόν. Before your city was built, all men had a mania forSparta; long hair and fasting were held in honor, men went dirty likeSocrates and carried staves. Now all is changed. Firstly, as soon as it'sdawn, they all spring out of bed together to go and seek their food, the sameas you do; then they fly off towards the notices and finally devour thedecrees. The bird-madness is so clear that many actually bear the names ofbirds.

5

supporters of the anti-democratic faction seeking to change the constitution of the City in undemocratic ways.

c) Third, the accusers maintain that Socrates refuses toparticipate in the affairs of the City by refusing toprotect the Constitution; i.e., he refuses to oppose theTyrants and generally refuses to support the Atheniandemocracy. In doing so, he is guilty of not following theold law instituted by Solon whereby, in any civil strife,any citizen who did not participate in one or the othercamp would be deprived of his civil rights including hisright to vote, a punishment which was considered moresevere than the death penalty in democratic Athens.4

d) In conclusion, Socrates is accused because (1) he was aspiritual, if not an actual, leader of the faction inAthens that supported the Tyrants. In modern terms, he wasthe moral instigator of the Tyrants, (2) he had treasonablysided with Sparta, and (3) he omitted to participate in thedefense of the City and its Constitution against theTyrants.

Historical background of this period

This is a period of war and political sedition. The democratic conquests are imperiled by military defeat at the hands of Sparta which supports the oligarchy of Athens in order to establish a tyranny.

428 = Decision to kill all the people of Mytilene 423 = Aristophanes: the Clouds. Socrates is accused

in the theatre of thesame things he will be accused in 401 BC.416 = Decision to kill all the people of Milos

(proposed by Alcibiades andimplemented).415 = Episode of the desecration of the Hermes,

possibly by oligarchic youthallegedly instigated by Alciviades.Syracusan Campaign. Alcibiades appointed to lead the campaign.413 = Defeat of the Athenians at Syracuse. Alcibiades flees to Sparta.411 = Theramenes – Leader of the 400. Killed by Critias

404 = Naval Battle of Aigos Potamoi. Defeat of the Athenian fleet due totreason or incompetence. Tyranny of the

Thirty led by Critias andCharmides. Both are disciples of Socrates. Spartan garrison in Athens.403 = Restoration of Democracy. Amnesty – Kritias killed but his followersallowed to move to Eleusis.

401 = Insurrection in Eleusis. Xenophon leaves Athens for Persia as a follower

6

of his Spartan friends. Socrates is accused.

4 Τῶν δ' ἄλλων αὐτοῦ νόμων ἴδιος μὲν μάλιστα καὶ παράδοξος ὁ κελεύων ἄτιμονεἶναι τὸν ἐν στάσει μηδετέρας μερίδος γενόμενον. Βούλεται δ', ὡς ἔοικε, μὴἀπαθῶς μηδ' ἀναισθήτως ἔχειν πρὸς τὸ κοινόν, ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ θέμενον τὰ οἰκεῖα καὶτῷ μὴ συναλγεῖν μηδὲ συννοσεῖν τῇ πατρίδι καλλωπιζόμενον, ἀλλ' αὐτόθεν τοῖςτὰ βελτίω καὶ δικαιότερα πράττουσι προσθέμενον, συγκινδυνεύειν καὶ βοηθεῖν,μᾶλλον ἢ περιμένειν ἀκινδύνως τὰ τῶν κρατούντωνSee Plutarch, Solon, XXtranslated by Dryden J., http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/solon.html, “Amongsthis other laws, one is very peculiar and surprising, which disfranchises allwho stand neuter in a sedition; for it seems he would not have any oneremain insensible and regardless of the public good, and securing hisprivate affairs, glory that he has no feeling of the distempers of hiscountry; but at once join with the good party and those that have the rightupon their side, assist and venture with them, rather than keep out of harm'sway and watch who would get the better.”

7

399 = Socrates’ trial and execution. Plato leavesAthens and for years stays with Dionysius II,tyrant of Syracuse. He then returns to Athensunmolested.

3. How did Socrates defend himself?

A careful analysis of the text “Plato’s Apology” reveals that:

3.1 Socrates says that he will speak ex tempore. However, hisspeech, as recorded by Plato, in reality shows clearevidence of being crafted by a legal orator. Socratescunningly and in pure legalistic style avoids touchyissues and leaves arguments unfinished. He addresses mainlysome accusations that were not made but he forgets toaddress the real accusations. He contradicts himself whenthe argument suits him and leaves important questionsunanswered. The introduction, in particular, starts inthe way which, at the time, was customary in preparedjudicial speeches. Socrates starts by saying how he was“almost” persuaded by his accusers, a typical ploy devisedby other judicial orators to catch the ear of the jury. Hisspeech appears to be very well prepared even if heoccasionally departs from the script.

3.2 He addresses the Court as “men of Athens” (άνδρεςΑθηναίοι) (17(a) and 18(a)) rather than as jurors (άνδρεςδικασταί) as was customary as a sign of deference. Thisterm he reserves only for those who acquit him (40(a)).This insults the Court and reminds it that Socrates doesnot accept the competence of the Court. Socrates is wellknown to believe, and undoubtedly his accusers would havereminded the Court, that choosing the state officials(which included the Court) by lot, is wrong because it failsto cause the most competent men to take these positions.This was one of the fundamental achievements of thedemocratic party. Thus Socrates begins his defense byinsulting the Court by not addressing it properly and byreminding the court of his oligarchic political views.

To that we must add that Socrates often talks to the jury interms of “you” and “us”. An example, is when he tells the“men of Athens,” when “you” wanted to try the tengenerals (32(b)). It is well known that it was the

8

democratic party who led that trial. More importantly, at21(a) he states that Chaerephon “was a friend of mine... andalso a friend of your party who shared your recent exileand restoration.” Chaerephon was a member of thedemocratic party and Socrates clearly distinguisheshimself from that party.

3.3 Socrates had three accusers. Meletus is the accuser onthe charge of impiety. Socrates calls him a representativeof the poets, a pejorative term in his mind (see Plato’scontempt for poets in general). Anytus is the accuser onthe charge of corrupting the youth. Anytus, contrary toMeletus, is well-known. He is an upper middle classAthenian, a master tanner. He was an elected general and afollower of Theramenis, the leader of the Oligarchy of the400. When Theramenis was killed by Kritias, Anytus joinedthe Democrats. The 30 Tyrants confiscated all his property.Anytus was a leader of the men who overthrew the Tyranny ofthe 30 and, as such, was held in high esteem. He was alesser figure, but nevertheless an important one. The sonof Anytus was at one time a student of Socrates.According to Xenophon the son of Anytus came to

9

nothing as he became a drunkard. Socrates accused Anytusof failing in his duty as a father because he caused himto be trained as a master tanner. This is code for the sonof Anytus not following Socrates’ oligarchic ideals, butbecoming a democratic petty bourgeois.

About Lycon we know nothing.

Most of the Apology deals with refuting Meletus who was thelesser and easier target. Meletus is cross-examined twicein Plato’s Apology. Anytus is not cross-examined and isreferred to only about the end of the Apology.

3.4 Socrates starts by refuting an accusation that is notpart of the indictment because, he says, he must firstrespond to the prejudices of the jurors against him5.Socrates accepts for a fact that public opinion in Athenswas already against him, and asks the jurors to judge notby their prejudices. In the opinion of the masses he isalready guilty, Socrates concedes (Ober, 171). Theseprejudices were caused by the continuous slandering of“unnamed parties” including in the theaters. One of thepurported accusations is that “[he[ is a busybody in thathe investigates the things beneath the earth and in theheavens, makes the weaker argument the stronger, and teachesthese things to others.” (19(b)). One must note that theseexact accusations are already in the Clouds of Aristophanesperformed in 423 (24 years before the trial). (Clouds 115,185). If Aristophanes makes big fun out of Socrates doingexactly what he is accused of, it must have been prettywell known to the populace filling the theater that he wasdoing it. This was common knowledge for 24 years butSocrates remained free to continue. In fact, Socratesaccepts that he was, in the beginning, a philosopher in theform we would call today a Pre-Socratic or Naturalphilosopher. This was completely acceptable in Athens. Infact, Socrates himself says in his Apology that the books ofAnaxagoras (who was openly an atheist) are freely sold forone drachma in the Athenian agora. So was this anaccusation that was really going to condemn him?! Why isSocrates starting his defense by wasting precious time ondefending himself on this ground? Because he knows it iseasy and hopes to create goodwill by obfuscating the realprejudice against him: that he supports the Tyrants and isa Sparta lover. Nevertheless, his denial that he

1

5 “Σωκράτης ἀδικεῖ καὶ περιεργάζεται ζητῶν τά τε ὑπὸ γῆς καὶ οὐράνια καὶ τὸν ἥττω λόγον κρείττω [19c] ποιῶν καὶ ἄλλους ταὐτὰ ταῦτα διδάσκων”. τοιαύτη τίςἐστιν· ταῦτα γὰρ ἑωρᾶτε καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῇ Ἀριστοφάνους κωμῳδίᾳ, Σωκράτη τινὰ ἐκεῖ περιφερόμενον, φάσκοντά τε ἀεροβατεῖν καὶ ἄλλην πολλὴν φλυαρίαν φλυαροῦντα, ὧν ἐγὼ οὐδὲν οὔτε μέγα οὔτε μικρὸν πέρι ἐπαΐω. καὶ οὐχ ὡς ἀτιμάζων λέγω τὴν τοιαύτην ἐπιστήμην, εἴ τις περὶ τῶν τοιούτων σοφός ἐστιν--μή πως ἐγὼ ὑπὸ Μελήτου τοσαύτας δίκας φεύγοιμι-- ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἐμοὶ τούτων, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, οὐδὲν μέτεστιν. (Βλ. Πλάτων, Απολογία Σωκράτους, Ed.John Burnet, 1903, http://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%91%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B1_%CE%A3%CF% 89%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82, 20/2/2012) "Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searchesinto things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others." That is thenature of the accusation, and that is what you have seen yourselves in the comedy of Aristophanes; who has introduced a man whom he calls Socrates, going about and saying that he can walk in the air, and talking a deal of nonsense concerning matters of which I do not pretend to know either much or little - not that I mean to say anything disparaging of anyone who is a student of natural philosophy. I should be very sorry if Meletus could lay that to my charge. But the simple truth is, O Athenians, that I have nothingto do with these studies.

1

is (or was) investigating things beneath the earth and inthe heaven, making the weaker argument the stronger, isbelied by the evidence of his own friend, Aristophanes.

3.5Socrates then tries to refute another non-accusation:that he undertook to educate people and charge fees. Thisis hardly what he is accused of, but he denies it anyway.Socrates certainly states, “the young people who follow mearound of their own accord, those who have the mostleisure, the sons of the very rich, enjoy listening topeople being cross examined” (23(c)), obviously by himself.When he cross-examines Meletus (24(d)) his questioning isbased on the assumption that Socrates had followers, ifnot students. He states (33a-b) “In fact, I’ve never beenanyone’s teacher at any time. But if anyone, young or old,wanted to listen to me while I was talking and performing myown task, I never begrudged that to him... and if anyone ofthem turned out well, or did not do so, I can’t justly beheld responsible since I never at any time promised any ofthem that they’d learn anything from me or that I’d teachthem...” And (at 33c) he invokes the presence of all hisfollowers in the Court to prove that none of them acceptshe has been corrupted by him.

Effectively, Socrates accepts that he did have followers. Hesays that his followers were not technically his studentsbut were, instead, volunteers, leisurely aristocrats and(very) rich young men who had nothing to do. But they werenot students because he did not charge them a fee.

We know that teachers including Socrates, did receive“endowments” by way of gifts (see Clouds 1145). Receivinga fee made the teacher subservient to his student whichwas unseemly. Receiving a gift was the proper expressionof the student’s gratitude. Thus technically Socrates didnot lie when he said he was not receiving fees any more.He did not lie, but he was not truthful either.

Socrates refers several times to his abject poverty, butnever explains just how he pays for his sustenance. Weknow he had a wife (who was a midwife), two children, anda father (who was a stonecutter). The most that has beenascribed to Socrates was a property of about 30 minae(today we would say $300,000, as in 10 years of wages for a

1

laborer). We also know he served in the army as a hoplitewho paid for his own armor but did not have enough money tobuy a horse. So he was not rich, but not really pooreither. One is led to the conclusion that he was able tosustain himself and his family by way of the gifts of hisadmiring followers.

In conclusion, I would say that Socrates’ defense isreally mixed; he had followers but not students. He didnot receive fees but casually received gifts.

3.6 When answering the charge that he is a teacher ofstudents, Socrates denies that he has any occupation bysubverting the argument and changing the course of thediscussion to another matter. He tries to explain whythere is such hostility towards him, but his explanationleaves one incredulous. He maintains in the Apology6

that one of his

6 “I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit, and will tell youabout my wisdom - whether I have any, and of what sort - and that witnessshall be the god of Delphi. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early afriend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the exileof the people, and returned with you. Well,

1

disciples, Chaerephon, asked the Delphic oracle about“whether anyone was wiser than Socrates,” only to receivea negative answer.* Then, Socrates went on a mission toprove that the oracle was wrong, despite the piety heprofesses elsewhere. He tried to refute the pronouncementby examining all the politicians, the poets and thecraftsmen, only to find that each of them knew less thanhimself, because they knew nothing but did not realize it,although he, Socrates, at least realized that he knewnothing.

The underlying philosophical view was, in accordance toSocrates’ view, that to know something one had to be ableto make an absolute definition of it. The requirements heputs for such an absolute definition of any term make sucha definition impossible. Virtue thus becomes unattainablebecause it was impossible to define it and, therefore, “toknow it” in order to practice it. As virtue was aprerequisite for ruling a state, that made everybody in hisaudience incapable of participating in ruling the state.This point is made in the face of Anytus, who is apolitician but, more importantly, in the face of the Courtwhich consists of plain citizens, who had the gall tobelieve they could make decisions on judicial matterssitting as the Heliaia or on political matters in the Demos!

What Socrates is insinuating here is a philosophicaldefense against the real accusation against him: that hewas against the democratic constitution which provided forelections to the highest offices and appointment by lot tothe lower officers, including the Heliaia, where allcitizens had a chance to sit. Socrates tries to explainaway his disdain of this system by involving the Delphicoracle! He maintains that making all the politicians and thecitizens look stupid is a duty he owes to the God.

3.7 Socrates then turns to his first real accuser,Meletus. The first accusation is that he corrupts theyouth. The syllogism is as follows, as noted by Cartledge(88): Socrates taught Alcibiades, Κritias etc… They weretraitors. Therefore Socrates taught them to be traitors.That syllogism would be obviously false, unless one provedthat the beliefs of Socrates were in line with the actionsof the traitors.

1

Socrates does not take that eminently rational argument. Hetakes the accusation literally and attempts to refute it infine sophistical style.

His first argument in cross-examining of Meletus is asfollows:

first he asserts that everybody wants young people to beas good as possible;

Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went toDelphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether - as I was saying, Imust beg you not to interrupt - he asked the oracle to tell him whether therewas anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that therewas no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself, but his brother, who is incourt, will confirm the truth of this story”. See Plato, Apology,http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html, 19/2/2012.* Note: As the question was “is there nobody wiser than Socrates?” Theunsurprising answer was No. This is notthe same as positively saying “Socrates is the wisest man on earth”. It ispossible that nobody is wiser than Socrates because all men (includingSocrates) are equally intelligent or equally stupid or because Socrates isno more wise than anybody else, i.e. because there are other men equally (butno more) wise to Socrates.

1

then he forces Meletus to concede that all the peopleof Athens, including the jurors sitting there, thelegislators, etc. (that is, everyone except Socrates)want to improve the young;

however, all the people cannot be able to improve theyoung for thesame reason that horses, dogs, and otheranimals need qualified trainers. Not all thepeople of Athens are or can be qualifiedtrainers of horses, of dogs or of young men and women.

This argument does not lead anywhere. Socrates himselfmaintains that he is wiser than everybody else and thatpeople voluntarily follow him, even if they are not hisstudents, because they think he is wiser than them. Heagrees that he is an expert in making them better than whatthey are.

His second argument is equally spurious:

he first asserts that no one wishes to be harmed by thosearound him;

if he corrupts the young, he runs the risk of being harmedby them;

therefore, he cannot be corrupting the youngintentionally; and

it follows that if he does corrupt the young, he does sounintentionally and, therefore, he should be released.

His third and last argument is to assert that the merepresence of his students attending the Court to assist him(possibly even amongst the jurors) means that these studentsdo not agree that they have been corrupted.

Unfortunately Socrates’ teachings are well known. Hisdisciples’ names and actions are also well known, as ishis influence on them. Contemporary evidence comes fromXenophons’ “Memorabilia” written many years after. Xenophonattempts to refute the accusation of Socrates but cannothide his oligarchic leanings and importantly cannot failto be truthful.

Xenophon, (Απομνημονευμάτων Α’ ΙΙ, 9) gives a differentversion of the accusation and of Socrates’ responsethereto. Xenophon begins by refuting the false accusation

1

of immorality and depravity*. by saying that Socrates was aparagon of virtue. Xenophon relates that the accusermaintain that “[Socrates] made the young men despise theestablished laws by saying that it is stupid to elect theofficers [of the City] by lot, when nobody wants to drawby lot the captain of a ship or a carpenter or amusician or anything of this sort which, if not correctlyperformed, will cause more damage than any mistakes in theaffairs of the city. Such words, said the accuser, make theyouth become contemptuous so that they despise theconstitution of the city and, ultimately, become violent”.(« τους δε τοιούτους λόγους επαίρειν, έφη, τους νέουςκαταφρονείν της καθεστώσης πολιτείας και ποιείν βίαιους»).Socrates is then said by Xenophon to argue that anyeducated person will avoid violence. However, the accuserreports that Kritias and Alcibiades, who were hisdisciples, (Σωκράτει ομιλητά γενομένω Κριτίας τε καιΑλκιβιάδης….) caused great harm to the City. Xenophon goeson to say that he will not

* As we know this was not part of the accusation heard by the Heliaia

1

defend these two. ** Xenophon rather than being an apologistof Kritias opts to narrate how these two came to know Socrates. In so doing, he effectively concedes that they were indeed disciples of Socrates, that they were good as long as they were followers of Socrates, but started behaving badly because of their bad character when they lefthim. Xenophon lastly relates a third accusation, that Socrates taught the youth to become irreverent to their fathers. However, this accusation is probably just a general rumor against Socrates.

A more specific example of Socrates actually urging a youngman to participate in public affairs is brought by Xenophon(Απομνημονεύματα, ΩΙΙ, 4-9). Xenophon relates a discussionbetween Charmides (later one of the 30 Tyrants) andSocrates. Socrates sees Charmides as a man who shouldactively participate in the affairs of the City. AsCharmides refuses, Socrates argues that he would be a cowardand a lazy person (μαλακόν τε και δειλόν) if, while havingthe capacity to participate in civic affairs, he fails todo so. Charmides reports that it is less difficult to talkabout political matters between friends than talking inthe agora in front of the people. But Socrates promises toteach him. “I have a great urge to teach you, he said, ifyou do not feel ashamed to speak before the mostintelligent and most powerful, will you be ashamed to speakin front of the most stupid and weak. Of which will yoube ashamed, the millers, the shoemakers, the carpenters,the ironmonger, the farmers, the merchants, the salesmenwho go about the agora trying to sell what they boughtcheaply as dearly as possible? Because the assembly of thepeople consists of all of these”. (και σε διδάξω, έφη,ώρμημαι, ούτε τους ισχυροτάτους φοβούμενους εν τοιςαφρονεστάστοις τε και ασθενεστάτοις αισχύνει λέγειν.Πότερον γαρ τους γναφέας αυτών ή τους σκυτέας ή τουςτέκτονας ή τους χαλκέας ή τους γεωργούς ή τους εμπόρους, ήτους εν τη αγορώ μεταβαλλόμενοι πλείονος αποδώνταιαισχύνει; εκ γαρ τούτων απάντων ή εκκλησία συνίσταται.»)

That is direct evidence from one of Socrates’ owndisciples, Xenophon, that he instigated Charmides toparticipate actively in the politics of the City.Obviously, Socrates was successful to such an extent thatCharmides became one of the 30 Tyrants and he put to good

1

effect Socrates’ injunction to hold the rubble of thepeople in contempt.

3.8 Socrates finally refers to the second accusation ofMeletus: that of impiety. This had two prongs: thatSocrates did not believe in the Gods of the City, and thathe brought in lesser divinities. The word in Greek is“nomizein”, which is closer to acknowledging in the senseof respecting, than believing which would be “pistevein”.Again, Socrates cross-questions Meletus who accusesSocrates of being completely atheistic because Socrates“says that the sun is a stone and the moon earth.” Socratesintroduces a word that actually is not in the accusation«νομίζειν τους Θεούς εί ν αι » , i.e., “believing that Godsexist” Socrates then proceeds to question Meletus along thefollowing lines:

If one acknowledges the activities of humans, he must acknowledge the existence of humans;

** Xenophon, in his Hellenica, takes a very dim view of Kritias as a violent blood thirsty Tyrant.

1

If one acknowledges the activities of gods, he must acknowledge the existence of gods;

If, according to the accusation, Socrates acknowledges daimonic activities he must acknowledge the existence ofthese daimons;

Daimons are the offspring of Gods; Therefore, Socrates must believe in the existence of Gods.

We have, of course, to note that Socrates does in factconsistently invoke his “daimonion”, even in the Apology.The daimonion is not however a godlike creature acceptedby tradition or an offspring of the Gods in the way, forexample, of a lesser civic god such as Peitho, ZeusAgoraios or Boulaios, or of a divinity of a spring or of aforest. It is an invention of Socrates, rather an innervoice which, conveniently, spurs Socrates (he argues) tosome action not willingly chosen. The fact that Socratesdid not believe in Gods, in other words that he was anatheist, is actually attested by Aristophanes in the Clouds(423 f.) Strepsiades uses the same words “nomizein Theous”.In the Clouds, as M. Giordano Zachary argues (p. 336), themain case against Socrates is that he insults (υβρίζειν)and wrongs (αδικείν) the Gods, rather than the denial oftheir existence or the introduction of new Gods.

Socrates is eminently rational. He is widely considered(witness Aristophanes Clouds) to believing that Zeus doesnot exist and holding the same belief as Anaxagoras thatthe Sun was a rock and the Moon earth. Indeed these beliefswere not unusual in Athens at that time and were notpunished. The books of Anaxagoras and other similar bookswere openly sold in the market place, as Socrates himselfstates. In the entire Apology, Socrates refers to anabstract God, who has no name (see 23(a), 29(d) and 42 (a)for such examples). In other works of Plato, Socrates doesindeed perform some religious rituals, but they are eitherdone in jest (as when he asks for a rooster to besacrificed to Asclepius in Phaedon (118a) because he iscured of the disease of life) or have a political meaning(as when he sacrifices to Apollo who was the God ofSparta). In Xenophon’s Memorabilia, Socrates appears to besuperstitious, believing in oracles and omens. This we findhard to believe in the face of the other evidence. Moregenerally, in all the works of Plato we do not find anyplace for the gods or for traditional religion. That

1

would be consistent with an unbelieving Socrates.

As to the charge that Socrates brought into the city new,lesser divinities, that was nothing new, nor punishable.Five new cults had been introduced in Athens during the 5thCentury: Pan, Asclepius, Bendis (a non-Greek Thraciandeity), Orpheus and the Pythagorean beliefs. This, byitself, was therefore not a real charge.

Once more, however, Socrates does not answer the realaccusation against him: that he does not give allegiance,as a political act, to the gods of the City and ofDemocracy, and not that he is impious in general. TheAthenians were quite cool, for example, to the impiety ofEuripides, of Aristophanes and of the so-called Natural orpre-Socratic philosophers. (For a discussion on that see P.Cartledge, Ancient Greek Political Thought in Practice,Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 76 et seq)

3.9 The last accusation, to which Socrates turns, is again one which does not form part of the official indictment. It relates to his refusal to take part in the affairs of the City. As

1

noted, in Athens there was a law (issued by Solon) that anycitizen who, in sedition, did not support the state waspunishable by exile or death. This was a law actually nolonger in force. In any event, it can be said that theAmnesty of 403 allowed all such crimes to remainunpunished. So there was no reason for Socrates to remindhis jurors of this accusation, unless there is a differentcause!

So what does Socrates say in his defense?

He first asserts that, as in war one must standsteadfast (28c) even at the risk of death, he will notstop doing what he was doing (29d). Even if he isacquitted, he will “continue doing nothing else exceptgo around trying to persuade you, both young and oldalike, not to care about your bodies or your money asintensely as about how your soul may be in the bestpossible condition.” This is hardly an exact descriptionof what Socrates was doing. He says again (at 30c) that“I would not act in any other way not even if I were todie many times over”, creating an uproar in the jury.

However, a few paragraphs later, Socrates contradictshimself when, in order to explain why he does notparticipate in public affairs (at 31c – 32a), he says“the fact is that no man will be spared by you or byany other multitude of people if he genuinely opposes alot of unjust and unlawful actions and tries to preventthem from happening in the City. On the contrary,anyone who really fights for what is just; if indeed heis going to survive for even a short time must actprivately and not publicly.” This again causes anuproar, and justly so. Athens was a democracy wherepeople were not only allowed to speak but were, in fact,required to speak and participate in the affairs of thestate. So Socrates’ accusation is certainly not true.In fact, Socrates provides himself an example of suchfree speech. Socrates had been elected by lot to presidethe Assembly and did take up his post. On that occasionhe took a stand contrary to the majority in theincident of 10 generals (32b) at the sea battle ofArginusae and suffered no consequence7.

1

Socrates fails to take a consistent position. Either hedoes not fear death in order to continue being a gadfly tothe citizens (in order to spur them into action for thegood of themselves and of the City as he asserts) or hefears death by refusing to participate in the life of theCity.

More importantly, Socrates fails to address the realquestion which is why he, being who he was, alwayspronging the Athenians to do the right thing, consistentlyavoided participating in the Assembly of the People whenhis advice was most needed. Socrates

7 The naval Battle of Arginusae took place in 406 BC during the PeloponnesianWar. The Athenian fleet commanded by eight Generals defeated a Spartan fleetunder Callicratidas. After the battle, a storm did not allow the ships torescue the Athenians who had survived the battle and this led to theirdrowning. Six of the eight Generals who had commanded the fleet were triedand executed. Socrates, holding public office for the only time in his life,was by chance “epistates on the day that the generals were tried (See Kagan,The Peloponnesian War, p.465). Thus, Socrates happened to be on that day in acritical position and did not fail to rise to the occasion by entirelyparticipating in the proceedings, contrary to the wish of the majority andcontrary to what he says in the Apology.

1

did not intervene in the famous decision of the Atheniansto kill all the male citizens of the island of Melos andto enslave its women and children. This happened when theMelians, exercising a fundamental right, revolted againstAthens and were crushed (416 BC). A similar decisionconcerning Mytilene was reversed by the courage of anunknown citizen (428 BC). The reason may be that thedecision regarding Melos was instigated by Socrates’ lovedstudent, Alcibiades.

Socrates also failed to take any action against the 30Tyrants who, in 8 months, killed 1,500 Athenians. Hisretort to that (32c-32d) is that, when he was summoned bythe 30 to assist in killing a wealthy citizen, he refusedand went home because he did not want to do anything unjustand impious. It is hard to believe that Socrates as a truephilosopher actually maintains that it was morallysufficient to wash his hands in this way. Why, in thefirst place, did the 30 Tyrants think he was likely toassist them in a crime if he was not their friend and didnot trust him? If he knew that what he was ordered to dowas unjust and impious, should he not have tried toconvince Kritias, his disciple, not to do it? Failing that,should he not have taken steps to inform the victim so thathe could at least flee? Once more, this crime wascommitted by his students, Kritias and Charmides.

3.10So Socrates failed very selectively to participate inthe public affairs of the City. And again he fails torefute the real accusation, which is that when the Cityneeded most his advice, he was found absent. Inparticular, if the unjust decision was taken at the behestof one of his famous pupils.

Socrates failed to stop a crime being committed against hisCity by the 30 Tyrants. He failed to stop a specific crimebeing committed against a fellow citizen (Leon of Salamis).

Socrates failed to respond to the accusation that he doesnot respect the tutelary civic gods of Democracy because hedoes not respect Democracy.

Socrates failed to respond to the accusation that many of

1

his pupils were bent on overthrowing the Democratic ruleof his City by undemocratic means.

Socrates failed to refute the allegation that, inparticular, his pupils Critias and Charmides were tyrantswho in effect put his theory to action and they did so bycollaborating with Athens’ mortal enemy, Sparta. They weretraitors to their city.

Socrates confirmed that he was indeed their leader in thethird part of the Apology, after he receives the deathpenalty. This part of the Apology has no legal implicationbecause the trial is finished, but it clearly showsSocrates’ mind. At 39c he says “… I want to make a prophecyto those who convicted me… that, as soon as I am dead,vengeance will come upon you and it will be much harsher,by Zeus, than the vengeance you take in killing me… Therewill be more people to test you, whom I now restrain,though you did not notice my doing so. And they will bemuch harsher on you, since they are younger and you willresent it more.” He then goes on to mitigate his words byimputing to them a philosophical meaning, but the realityis that these words are both an admission of guilt and adirect threat to his fellow citizens.

1

4. What Socrates does not say in his defense.

4.1 Socrates does not invoke the amnesty given to him by thedemocratic faction after it had restored its power. Hedoesn’t invoke it neither in his Apology nor anywhere else.The most possible explanation for that is that the Amnestyeither didn’t cover his specific actions or that he didn’trecognize the power of the Amnesty law. If this were true,it would confirm his oligarchic identity. We tend tobelieve though that Socrates wouldn’t hesitate to state hisopinion directly. Socrates does not mention that there wasno written law that would allow his accusers to prosecutehim for his actions. Much later Diogenes Laertius refersto Diopeithes’ decree on impiety about which we knowlittle. Still, we know that other citizens of Athens hadbeen prosecuted for impiety. Besides, the pre-trial infront of King Archon would have prevented his prosecutionsince it was based on a decree that did not exist.

4.2 Socrates does not invoke the principle of free speech. There are good reasons for that:

Socrates does not believe in free speech! He is not infavor of democracy.

Socrates cannot really invoke free speech because hewas free to speak and annoy his fellow citizens forabout 30 years before his trial. He himself says thathe crossed the will of the Assembly in the matter ofthe 10 generals convicted of leaving, without help,the crewmen of ships lost in the victorious seabattle of Arginusae. He alleges that no one will bespared by the citizens of Athens “if he genuinelyopposes a list of unjust and unlawful actions...”. (at31c – 32a) This statement is untrue. Plato, Socrates’most famous follower, continued, unmolested to spreadthe message of Socrates in Athens for about 40 yearsafter Socrates’ death. We know of no example ofAthenians being put to death because of theirphilosophical beliefs.

There are certainly examples of exile and even death inperiods of political turmoil for political reasons. Thesemust be judged by the standards of the period (some ofwhich, unfortunately, still apply).

2

Athens prided itself on its toleration of free speech andfree thought within the flowing of literature, poetry,drama, history and philosophy, which is incomparable. It issomehow ironic that part of this free speech and democraticlegacy belongs to Socrates himself.

4.3 Socrates does not address the fact that he was theteacher of at least two leaders of the 30 Tyrants. Theremay be a good reason. It may have been a well-establishedand therefore undeniable fact that Socrates was not justthe teacher but the spiritual father of the 30 Tyrants. Hecould have very easily disassociated himself from theirdoings or he could have taken the easy argument that ateacher is not liable if his words go bad. He does neither.The Amnesty had cleared him of any charges dating 403 BCbut it may be that the acts for which he was accusedhappened squarely after the Amnesty, i.e., his followerswere instigators of the sedition of the oligarchic factionat Eleusis in 401B.C. The inference I draw from this is thatSocrates may have been accused of

2

something specific which remains unknown to us (Plato and Xenophon fail to mention it) but it was probably like the proverbial 900 pound gorilla in the room.

4.4 Socrates also does not address the accusation that hedid not respect the democratic lesser divinities of theCity. He does pay lip service to the Olympian Gods, inparticular Apollo and Hera, who were the gods of Sparta,but not a word is uttered for Peitho, Demos, Zeus Boulaiosand Zeus Agoraios. Again it would have been easy for him tosay so, if he did acknowledge these divinities.

4.5 Socrates eventually complies with the judgment andvoluntarily accepts the death penalty. This has to beinterpreted in the light of his preceding actions andstatements:

At the outset of the Apology he says that he wouldrather die ten times than stop what he was doing.

Then he states that he has refrained from participatingin the affairs of the City because of the fear ofdeath, as most of the time he would be opposing theunjust actions of the Athenians.

In the Platonic dialogue named after Critias (one ofPlato’s late dialogues written approximately in 360 BC),he maintains that he accepts the death penalty becauseone should not break the law even if you think it isunjust. And he would not suffer the indignities of oldage.

In Phaedo (one of Plato’s middle dialogues8), he statesthat his reason for accepting death is the ultimatefulfillment of a philosopher’s life.

Most importantly, when he makes his proposition as tothe penalty that should be imposed, Socrates contradictsboth his stated beliefs and what he has saidpreviously. He first ironically proposes to be givenwhat amounts to a lifetime honorary pension equal tothe honor bestowed to the prize-winning athletes of theOlympic Games. Then he proposes a fine of one mina, whichis a small amount, and then a fine of 30 minae, which

2

would be paid by his students and followers. Thequestion is why does Socrates reverse his position? If hedoes not acknowledge the validity of the tribunal or thereality of the accusations, as a true philosopher, heshould not have proposed any penalty. As he himself putsit, proposing a penalty implies silently that oneaccepts the tribunal and acknowledges its verdict. Apure and hard position is at first actually taken whenhe proposes to be honored by the City rather than bepunished. At the end he proposes a fine which issubstantial. If he had done so at the outset, he wouldhave been fined and that would be the end of it. Andthat is, arguably, what from the beginning theAthenians would have preferred.

8 “While the chronology of Plato’s dialogues remains controversial, it cansafely be said that the Phaedo belongs to his artistic maturity. Thoughunlikely to be among his latest compositions, it shows him both as aphilosopher and a dramatist at the height of his powers” (Plato, Phaedo,Introduction and translation by Gallop D., Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p. viii According to the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, Phaedo belongsto Plato’s second period while Critias was written during Plato’s third andfinal period.

1

However, Socrates does not play this hand. He dares theAthenians to kill him. He does so either because he thinksthat the Athenians will not convict him, or because herealizes he has painted himself into a corner, or because heis too old (70 at the time) to leave the City he had nevertraveled from except in war, or because he realized thatexile would mean going to Thessaly, Crete or Sparta, allplaces which did not allow free speech and did not likephilosophers.

4.6 A last thing that Socrates does not say is that he iscompletely indifferent towards his wife and two sons.They’re not mentioned except very briefly and coldly at thebeginning of Phaedon. It is surprising that Socrates, whoprofesses to be taking such care of making the citizens ofAthens more virtuous, has a complete lack of attention forhis two sons, not to mention his unhappy wife! It is alsosurprising that Socrates, so keen to teach aristocraticyoung men, did not take any care of his sons.

4.7 Socrates’s defense is a complete disaster. The mostintelligent man of Athens fails to take the singleargument that the Athenians would have accepted the most:free speech, democracy’s basic right. Not only that, buthe openly insults and outrages the jury, showing off hiscontempt. Why does he do it? Were his actions so clear andwell- known that free speech would have been anineffectual defense? Is it that he hoped that hissupporters in the jury would carry the day, as shown bythe short majority condemning him and in this hope failedto reign in his arrogance? One thing is certain. Socratesdoes not in his apology invoke any of the philosophicalpositions which are shown off in Critias and Euthyphro.

5. What is the other evidence?

5.1 Posterity has not preserved any record of whatSocrates’ accusers said. One should be very wary ofreports about Socrates’ flattering deeds or wordsreported by later historians such as Diogenes Laertius andPlutarch. They were removed many centuries after Socrates’trial and often said things that, if true, should have beenalso reported by Plato, Xenophon and other sources closerto the facts.

1

We know, however, a few facts:

5.2 We know from the orator Aeschines, who wrote 50 yearsafter the trial (Against Timarchos, Loeb 1.173(139)), thatSocrates was condemned because of his role in the Tyrannyof the 30 and that his condemnation was an example toothers. We know that Aristotle does not refer to the trialof Socrates although he was a student of Plato. The sameapplies with other almost contemporary sources likeLysias, Demosthenes and Isocrates. In particular thesilence of Aristotle is deafening9.

9 Aristotle mentions Socrates in his following works: On Sophistical Refutations,Part 34 ([…]we therefore proposed for our treatise not only the aforesaidaim of being able to exact an account of any view, but also the aim ofensuring that in standing up to an argument we shall defend our thesis in thesame manner by means of views as generally held as possible. The reason ofthis we have explained; for this, too, was why Socrates used to askquestions and not to answer them; for he used to confess that he did notknow.), Rhetoric, (For it is true, as

1

5.3 Socrates was the teacher of Alcibiades, who was hismost famous student. They were quite intimate as they evenspent a night under the same blanket although, apparently,nothing happened. Alcibiades is a beautiful, cultured andrich Athenian aristocrat, and an excellent orator. He wasalso a disaster to the Athenians. He convinced the Demos totake the infamous decree to put all the male citizens ofMelos to death (416). He convinced (413) the Demos toembark on the Sicilian expedition which was brilliantlyconceived, but ended in disaster. The blame for that canbe shared with Nicias, the other general, and theAthenians themselves who recalled him. The fact is thatafterwards Alcibiades committed treasons and went toSparta. He lived there for some years, adopting theSpartans’ way of life and mode of thinking. Alcibiades isalso tainted by a persistent rumor that he was behind thedesecration of the statues of the god Hermes standing atthe crossroads of Athens. This was not only a sacrilege butmainly a political act. Hermes was the patron god of themerchants of Athens who belonged to the democratic party.So, if a gang of young, rich aristocrats led by Alcibiades,desecrated the Herms, then that had a significantpolitical meaning. Alcibiades is also said to haveparticipated in a drunken parody of the EleusinianMysteries, a major religious festival.

5.4. Socrates was, closer in time to the trial, known to bea teacher and mentor or Kritias and Charmides. They werethe two leaders of the 30 Tyrants who toppled democracy in403 and killed about 1,500 Athenians (according toXenophon). Kritias had the star role in

Socrates says in the Funeral Speech, that 'the difficulty is not to praisethe Athenians at Athens but at Sparta'. & Another good moment is when onepremise of an argument is obviously true, and you can see that your opponentmust say 'yes' if you ask him whether the other is true. Having first gotthis answer about the other, do not go on to ask him about the obviouslytrue one, but just state the conclusion yourself. Thus, when Meletus deniedthat Socrates believed in the existence of gods but admitted that hetalked about a supernatural power, Socrates proceeded to ask whether'supernatural beings were not either children of the gods or in some waydivine?' 'Yes', said Meletus. 'Then', replied Socrates, 'is there anyone whobelieves in the existence of children of the gods and yet not in the

2

existence of the gods themselves?' Another good occasion is when you expectto show that your opponent is contradicting either his own words or whateveryone believes. A fourth is when it is impossible for him to meet yourquestion except by an evasive answer. If he answers 'True, and yet not true',or 'Partly true and partly not true', or 'True in one sense but not inanother', the audience thinks he is in difficulties, and applauds hisdiscomfiture. In other cases do not attempt interrogation; for if youropponent gets in an objection, you are felt to have been worsted. You cannotask a series of questions owing to the incapacity of the audience to followthem; and for this reason you should also make your enthymemes as compact aspossible.), Politics (Clearly, then, moral virtue belongs to all of them; butthe temperance of a man and of a woman, or the courage and justice of a manand of a woman, are not, as Socrates maintained, the same;), Nichomachean Ethics(Βοοκ ΙΙΙ, 8) Experience with regard to particular facts is also thought tobe courage; this is indeed the reason why Socrates thought courage wasknowledge. Other people exhibit this quality in other dangers, andprofessional soldiers exhibit it in the dangers of war; […]), Metaphysics(Socrates, however, was busying himself about ethical matters and neglectingthe world of nature as a whole but seeking the universal in these ethicalmatters, and fixed thought for the first time on definitions; Plato acceptedhis teaching, but held that the problem applied not to sensible things butto entities of another kind-for this reason, that the common definition couldnot be a definition of any sensible thing, as they were always changing.Things of this other sort, then, he called Ideas, and sensible things, hesaid, were all named after these, and in virtue of a relation to these; forthe many existed by participation in the Ideas that have the same name asthey. See Aristotle, The Works of Aristotle, on the Internet Classics Archive,http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Aristotle.html, 8/1/2012

2

the eponymous Dialogue, but also appears in another fourdialogues (Charmides, Protagoras, Timaeus and Eryxias (attributed toPlato.) Charmides also stars in an eponymous dialogue.

5.5. Plato himself, in his 7th letter, admits that he wasinvited by his relatives Kritias and Charmides toparticipate in the Tyranny as they thought he was amenableto their ways. He at first accepted. Then he left themafter seeing their corrupt regime. After Socrates deathPlato exiles himself to the Court of another Tyrant Dionysusof Syracuse.

5.6. Socrates was an admirer of Sparta, its way of lifeand its constitution. In Crito, the personification of theLaws discusses with Socrates10 whether he should go toSparta, of which he thought of well. Aristophanes, in theBirds (1281), pokes fun at Socrates and his followersbecause they are literally “mad about Sparta.” In theClouds, Aristophanes puts in the mouth of the SuperiorArgument a praise of the Spartan way of life which echoeswhat Socrates says in many of the dialogues of Plato. Manyof Socrates’ pupils fled to Sparta; Alcibiades and Xenophonare examples. Kritias was supported by a Spartan garrison.Plato remained for years with Dionysus II, the tyrant ofSyracuse. Plato in the Republic proposes a closed politicalsystem that draws a lot from Sparta’s disdain of foreignideas and both prohibits foreigners to visit the City andcitizens to travel abroad.

5.7. Socrates disdained the rabble of the Agora. Euthyphrois all about whether Euthyphro’s father should beprosecuted by his son for killing a servant. No good wordsare said about the poor servant who was left to die in aditch, or about the servant’s right to a fair trial, afair trial that Socrates did have! In the Statesman, Platoappears to be proposing as the only legitimate form ofGovernment a form or absolutism. In the Republic, Platoproposes a social and political system based on purity ofrace and eugenics.

6. In defense of Athens.

6.1 We view Socrates through the eyes of history, butthese eyes wear tainted and distorting glasses. Socrates is

2

viewed almost exclusively through what Plato has written onhis behalf. It may be that Plato’s Apology is a relativelyaccurate rendering of what Socrates has said because, aswas noted, it is not really a very flattering defense.However, it can be not excluded that Plato’s handintervened to embellish the record. Most importantly, Platohas suppressed all of the arguments of Socrates’ accusers.We know nothing about their arguments or the evidence theypresented. So much for an advocate of free speech.Xenophon does not give us any clarity on this subjecteither.

Christianity has absorbed Socrates to such a large extentthat he is virtually a proto- Christian martyr. Hisdaimonion has been said to be the first time a soul,distinct from the body, emerges. The passage in the Apology(30b), where he says that people should not care abouttheir bodies and money as intensely as about theirsoul, is pretty

10 See Plato & Gallop D. (Ed.), Defence of Socrates Euthyphro, Crito, Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks, 2008, Crito, 46b- 50a

2

Christian. So posterity has made Socrates not merely amoral model but a potentially religious one.

Thinkers hostile to democracy, in general, have also jumpedon the occasion to “prove” that democracy is bad becauseit has killed the foremost of the free speaking/freethinking philosophers! Various monarchists, fascists,absolutists, etc., seduced by Plato’s tendencies, havefound in Socrates the perfect example to disparagedemocracy.

Various people have found in Socrates an argument fortheir own views, sometimes contradicting each other:

Voltaire extolled Socrates as an anti-religious thinker. Robespierre, as well as the French Monarchists, thought

Socrates was an example of a hero killed by the populace.

John Stuart Mill considered Socrates a victim of judicial iniquity just as Jesus and a victim of the tyranny of the majority (John Stuart Mill, in Liberty (1859)).

Nietzsche thought of him as the ultimate pessimist whoaccepts death.

6.2 Athenians, however, saw him differently. The trialand death of Socrates was not a major event for thehistory of Athens. It was a major event for his followers,and it became a major event for philosophy only because ofwhat Plato wrote and/or put in the mouth of Socrates.Athenians did kill Socrates, but we can safely say thatthis was because of his political actions and not becauseof his beliefs. If Socrates, like Plato, had remainedpurely a philosopher who did not participate in the actualpolitics of his time, he would not have been found guiltyof the charges against him. Socrates’ death penalty wasprobably unintended by his accusers. It was almost forcedupon them by Socrates insulting and ironically requestingthat, rather than suffering a penalty, he should behonored as a winner at the Olympic Games. This is why morepeople found that Socrates should be put to death (360)than that he should be convicted (280). In other words,about 80 people originally thought Socrates was not guilty…but eventually condemned him to death.

2

It is his close relationship with the 30 Tyrants, and it wasthe recent event of the sedition of the oligarchic factionin Eleusis in 401 BC, which caused him to be put to trialand convicted of what we would call, in today’s terms, amoral instigation of the crimes of his followers. Being amoral instigator is a crime equal to being an actualperpetrator.

Free speech is no defense. Omitting to stop people fromdoing a crime is a crime in itself. Omitting to stoptyrants from their tyranny is morally repugnant, inparticular when it comes from somebody who professes sucha love of virtue. If the tyrants are your followers, youhave a particular duty to try to stop them.

It cannot be denied at the end of the day:

That a significant number of his disciples were eithertraitors to their country (Alcibiades), blood thirstytyrants (Critias and Charmides) or friends of Sparta(Xenophon).

2

That he actively instigated Charmides to participate in politics.

That he openly held in contempt the democraticconstitution and argued against it to such an extentthat his direct followers did in fact subvert it andinstall a bloody regime.

That in his Apology (or elsewhere) he failed to say onevery simple thing: That he honored the Gods of the Cityand its constitution, despite what his followers haddone. That he disapproved of the actions ofAlcibiades, Critias and Charmides. Nothing more wouldhave been required.

Socrates had a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers. Theyfound on the facts of the case that he was guilty. All the evidenceagainst him has been suppressed. The evidence we do have lead us tobelieve that he was rightly convicted. Even in modern democracies,where free thinking and free speech are major tenets of politicallife, there are such “speech crimes” as extolling Hitler, denyingthe Holocaust, supporting terrorism, promoting racism etc. Whatwould have been the position of the Nuremberg Tribunal if Hitler’sintellectual mentor had been sitting in front of it? The 30Tyrants cannot be compared to the absolute evil of Hitler andNazism but all other things bearing equal, a similar situationhappened in 399 BC. Should not a democracy have the right to protectitself? After 30 years of listening meekly to a firebrand arguingagainst it, when the firebrand’s acolytes take bloody action,should not democracy stop him?

The impact of the thinking of Socrates, as transmitted to us byPlato, cannot be denied. His many beautiful phrases, concepts andideas are there. They form the basis of our common humanisticheritage. Whether they belong to Plato or to Socrates ismeaningless, although we all talk about Platonism and notSocratism.

I have tried in this short presentation not so much to condemnSocrates (much less his philosophy) as to clear the name of Athens.Athens gave us philosophy, art, tragedy, comedy and history. Athensgave us Protagoras and the pre-Socratic philosophers, Aristotle andindeed Plato, Pheidias, the Parthenon, Aeschylus, Sophocles,Euripides, Aristophanes and others now lost. It gave us Herodotus,Thucydides, Xenophon, Demosthenes and Isocrates, etc., etc. It was

2

the only democracy for a long period.

Athens condemned Socrates in a fair trial by a jury of hisequals. Let us not double-guess the Athenian jurors who heard notonly Plato’s Apology, but also what the accusers of Socrates had tosay. Let us at least give Athens the benefit of the doubt. Afterall, Athens accepted and honored many others who could have beenaccused of being more of an atheist or more corruptive of theAthenian youth than Socrates.

2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Aristotle, The Works of Aristotle, on the Internet Classics Archive, http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Aristotle.html, 8/1/2012

2. Αριστοφάνης, Όρνιθες, Αθήνα: Κάκτος, 19993. Aristophanes, Birds, The Complete Greek Drama, vol. 2.

Eugene O'Neill, Jr. New York, Random House, 19384. Brickhouse T.C. & Smith., Socrates on Trial, Oxford :

Clarendon Press, 19915. Cartledge P., Ancient Greek Political Thought in

Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.6. Giordano-Zecharya M., “As Socrates shows, the

Athenians did not believe in Gods”. In the Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005.

7. Howatson M.C. (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011

8. Jones N.F., The Associations of Classical Athens: theResponse to Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999

9. Kagan D., The Peloponnesian War, New York: Viking, 200310. Lane M., Plato’s Progeny: How Plato and Socrates

Still Captivate the Modern Mind, London: Duckworth Publishers, 2001

11. Lanni A., “Transitional Justice in Ancient Athens: ACase Study”, Harvard Law School, Public Law & LegalTheory Working Paper Series, Paper No. 11-05 in theUniversity of Pennsylvania Journal of InternationalLaw, Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 551, 2010,http://ssrn.com/abstract=1740623, 9/3/2011.

12. Liddell H.G. & Scott R., A Greek-English Lexicon,revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry StuartJones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940

13. Wood E.M. & Wood N., “Socrates and Democracy: a Reply to Gregory Vlastos” in Political Theory, Vol. 14, No. 1, February 1986, pp. 55-82

14. Ober J. Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

15. Plato & Gallop D. (Ed.), Defence of Socrates Euthyphro, Crito, Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks, 2008.

16. Plato & Gallop D. (Ed.), Phaedo, Oxford: Oxford

2

University Press, 200917. Plato, Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito,

Meno, Phaedo, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co, 2002

18. Plato, Apology, http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html, Translated by Benjamin Jowett, 19/2/2012

19. Πλάτων, Απολογία, http://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%91%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B 3%CE%AF%CE%B1_%CE%A3%CF%89%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%BF %CF%85%CF%82, 19/2/2012

20. Plutarch, Solon in Parallel Lives,XX, translated by Dryden J., http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/solon.html, 8/10/2011

21. Stone I.F., The Trial of Socrates, New York: Anchor Books, 1989

22. Ξενοφών, Άπαντα 2 Απομνημονεύματα 1 α-β, Μετάφραση: Παπαγεωργίου Α., Αθήνα: Kάκτος, 1993

23. Ξενοφών, Άπαντα 2 Απομνημονεύματα 2 γ-δ, Μετάφραση: Παπαγεωργίου Α., Αθήνα: Κάκτος, 1993

2