Ictcsl.32486.123456.So what should we do in the face of all of this?

Should we just conclude that Socrates is, in the end, just a convenient vehicle for our own beliefs and convictions, or (as perhaps in Plato's case) as part of a rhetoric designed to change our beliefs? In short, does Socrates have any real use for us? Couldn't we use someone else just as well? He can be a model for emulation, or an example of something to avoid, as he is for de Bono, and as he might be for a feminist: 'typical man', one might say (one has said), because of his treatment of his wife (one account says he was a bigamist, and there was evidently a comic opera on that theme put on in 1680: this information I cull from an essay by Paddy Fitzpatrick of this University, in a book edited by my Chairman, Barry Gower, and Michael Stokes [Socratic Questions, London 1992]). But there are plenty of other examples, unfortunately, that would do just as well as Socrates, perhaps even better - though admittedly his fame, and the fact that he's used as a model in so many other respects, is likely to make him an effective choice. 'Well, there are many other things too that one could find to say in praise of Socrates, and amazing things at that; but whereas in the case of the other aspects of his behaviour, one might perhaps also say such things about someone else, the fact that there is no human being like him, whether among past generations or among those alive now - that's what deserves our complete amazement. With the sort of man Achilles was, one could compare Brasidas and others, and for Pericles' sort there'd be Nestor and Antenor ... But as for the sort of man this one is, so strange is he, both in himself and in the things he says, one wouldn't come even close to finding anyone like him if one looked ...'

NOTES
[*] This is the oral text of Christopher Rowe's inaugural as Professor of Greek at the University of Durham, as delivered on 3rd February 1999, with minimal modification/supplementation. The issues considered seemed sufficiently close to those of historiography to justify publication on HISTOS, especially given our publication of Thomas Johansen's 'Truth, Lies and History in Plato's Timaeus-Critias'. [Return to text] [1] Richard Janko, 'New light on the religion of Socrates', Classical Association meeting, Durham, 29th January 1999. [Return to text] [2] Christopher Rowe was awarded a five-year Leverhulme Research Professorship as from October 1999. [Return to text]

Socrates
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also

I know that I know nothing Plato

Notes
1. ^ a b "Socrates". 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1911. http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Socrates_%28philosopher%29. Retrieved 2007-11-14. 2. ^ Sarah Kofman, Socrates: Fictions of a Philosopher (1998) ISBN 0-8014-3551-X 3. ^ Martin Cohen, Philosophical Tales (2008) ISBN 1405140372 4. ^ Many other writers added to the fashion of Socratic dialogues (called Skratikoi logoi) at the time. In addition to Plato and Xenophon, each of the following is credited by some source as having added to the genre: Aeschines of Sphettus, Antisthenes, Aristippus, Bryson, Cebes, Crito, Euclid of Megara, and Phaedo. It is unlikely Plato was the first in this field (Vlastos, p. 52). 5. ^ There are several reasons this is the case. For one, Socrates is credited as an intellectual by almost every existing primary source. It is more likely then, that a fellow intellectual (i.e., Plato) would be more capable of understanding Socrates's ideas than a comic playwright, like Aristophanes. Furthermore, Socrates - as he is depicted by Xenophon's works - does nothing that would lead one to conclude he was a revolutionary or a threat to Athens (both Socrates and Xenophon served in military forces). Plato's Socrates behaves in ways that would explain why he was condemned for impiety (May, On Socrates). 6. ^ Ong, pp. 7879. 7. ^ Plato, Laches 180d [1], Euthydemus 297e [2], Hippias Major 298c [3] 8. ^ Plato, Theaetetus 149a [4], Alcibiades 1 131e [5] 9. ^ Xenophon, Symposium 2.10 10. ^ Plato, Phaedo 116b 11. ^ Plato, Crito 45c-45e 12. ^ The ancient tradition is attested in Pausanias, 1.22.8; for a modern denial, see Kleine Pauly, "Sokrates" 7; the tradition is a confusion with the sculptor, Socrates of Thebes, mentioned in Pausanias 9.25.3, a contemporary of Pindar. 13. ^ Here it is telling to refer to Thucydides (3.82.8): "Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence, became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of selfdefense. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected." 14. ^ a b Waterfield,Robin. Why Socrates Died:Dispelling the Myths. New York:W.W.Norton and Company, 2009 15. ^ Brun (1978). 16. ^ Plato. Apology, 24 - 27. 17. ^ Coppens. 18. ^ Popper, K. (1962) The Open Society and its Enemies, Volume 1 Plato, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, p133. 19. ^ Hadot, P. (1995) Philosophy as a Way of Life, Oxford, Blackwells, p93. 20. ^ Plato, Republic 336c & 337a, Theaetetus 150c, Apology 23a; Xenophon, Memorabilia 4.4.9; Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations 183b7.

21. ^ Plato, Menexenus 235e 22. ^ p. 14, Terence Irwin, The Development of Ethics, vol. 1, Oxford University Press 2007; p. 147, Gerasimos Santas, "The Socratic Paradoxes", Philosophical Review 73 (1964), pp. 147-64. 23. ^ Apology of Socrates 21d. 24. ^ Kagen (1978). 25. ^ Hughes, Bettany. Socrates: The Hemlock Cup. (Random House, 2009)

References

Brun, Jean (1978 (sixth edition)). Socrate. Presses universitaires de France. pp. 3940. ISBN 2-13-035620-6. (French) Coppens, Philip, "Socrates, thats the question" Feature Articles - Biographies, PhilipCoppens.com. May, Hope (2000). On Socrates. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. ISBN 0534576044. Ong, Walter (2002). Orality and Literacy. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415281296. Kagan, Donald. The Fall of the Athenian Empire. First. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1987. Pausanias, Description of Greece. W. H. S. Jones (translator). Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. (1918). Vol. 1. Books III: ISBN 0-674-99104-4. Vol. 4. Books VIII.22X: ISBN 0-674-99328-4. Thucydides; The Peloponnesian War. London, J. M. Dent; New York, E. P. Dutton. 1910. Vlastos, Gregory (1991). Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801497876.

Further reading

Bernas, Richard, cond. Socrate. By Erik Satie. LTM/Boutique, 2006 Bruell, C. (1994). On Platos Political Philosophy, Review of Politics, 56: 261-82. Bruell, C. (1999). On the Socratic Education: An Introduction to the Shorter Platonic Dialogues, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Grube, G.M.A.(2002). "Plato, Five Dialogues". Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Hanson, V.D. (2001). "Socrates Dies at Delium, 424 B.C.", What If? 2, Robert Cowley, editor, G.P. Putnam's Sons, NY. Egan, K. The educated mind : how cognitive tools shape our understanding. (1997) University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-226-19036-6 p. 137-144 Kierkegaard, Sren (1968). The Concept of Irony: with Constant Reference to Socrates. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253201119. Levinson, Paul (2007). The Plot to Save Socrates. New York: Tor Books. ISBN 0765311976. Luce, J.V. (1992). An Introduction to Greek Philosophy, Thames & Hudson, NY. Maritain, J. (1930, 1991). Introduction to Philosophy, Christian Classics, Inc., Westminster, MD. Robinson, R (1953). Plato's Earlier Dialectic. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780198247777. Ch. 2: "Elenchus", Ch. 3: "Elenchus: Direct and Indirect" Taylor, C.C.W. , Hare, R.M. & Barnes, J. (1998). Greek Philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, Oxford University Press, NY. Taylor, C.C.W. (2001). Socrates: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

The trial of Socrates refers to the trial and the subsequent execution of the classical Athenian philosopher Socrates in 399 BC. Socrates was trailed on the basis of two notoriously ambiguous charges: corrupting the youth and impiety (in Greek, asebeia). More specifically, Socrates accusers cited two "impious" acts: "failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges" and "introducing new deities." A majority of the 501 dikasts (Athenian citizens chosen by lot to serve as jurors) voted to convict him. Consistent with common practice, the dikasts determined Socrates punishment with another vote. Socrates was ultimately sentenced to death by drinking a hemlock-based liquid. Primary sources for accounts of the trial are given by two of Socrates students, Plato and Xenophon; well known later interpretations include those of the journalist I.F. Stone and the classics scholar Robin Waterfield.[1] The trial is one of the most famous of all time.

[edit] See also

Brun, Jean (1978 (sixth edition)). Socrate. Presses universitaires de France. pp. 3940. ISBN 2-13-035620-6. (French) Coppens, Philip, "Socrates, thats the question" Feature Articles - Biographies, PhilipCoppens.com. May, Hope (2000). On Socrates. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. ISBN 0534576044.

Ong, Walter (2002). Orality and Literacy. New York: Routledge [edit] References
1. ^ Stone, I.F. (1988). The Trial of Socrates. New York: Little, Brown. Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths by Robin Waterfield, Norton, 2009 2. ^ Kerferd, G.B.The Sophistic Movement. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.6. 3. ^ a b c d e f g Waterfield, Robin. Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. 4. ^ Plato. Apology, 21d-e, 23a, 23e. 5. ^ Plato. Apology, 30e-31a. 6. ^ Plato. Apology, 23c. 7. ^ Xenophon. Memorabilia, 1.2.29-38. 8. ^ Plato. Apology, 32c. 9. ^ Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.2.9; Plato, Crito 47c-d, Laches 184e. 10. ^ Gorgias 503c-d, 515d-517c. 11. ^ Apology of Socrates 25a-b. 12. ^ Plato, Crito 52e. 13. ^ Martin, Thomas R. Ancient Greece: From Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times. Yale University, 2009. p. 162.

14. ^ The second point can be supported only if Socrates' claim at 35a-b entails that Meletus, Lycon, and Anytus were each responsible for a third of the votes against Socrates; Socrates implies that Meletus alone failed to win over even a "fifth" of all the judges. Some scholars simply presume that Socrates' judges numbered 500 or 501, based (perhaps) on Diogenes Laertius 2.41 or more generally on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia 68. But Diogenes does not give a total number, and his account has in any case been contested. And the Athenaion Politeia is an account of predominantly fourth century procedures, which may not even been in effect at the time of Socrates' trial. See P. Rhodes, 1981, Commentary on the Aristotelian "Athenaion Politeia", p. 729. 15. ^ Douglas O. Linder (2002). "The Trial of Socrates". Trial Watch 2002. http://www.trialwatch.com/socrates/socrates.HTM. Retrieved 2009-11-08. 16. ^ I.F. Stone. The Trial of Socrates, 1988.

[edit] Further reading

Allen, Reginald E. (1980). Socrates and Legal Obligation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Brickhouse, Thomas C. (1989). Socrates on Trial. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Brickhouse, Thomas C.; Smith, Nicholas D. (2002). The Trial and Execution of Socrates: Sources and Controversies. New York: Oxford University. Brickhouse, Thomas C.; Smith, Nicholas D. (2004). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Trial of Socrates. New York: Routledge. Cameron, Alister (1978). Platos Affair with Tragedy. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati. Colaiaco, James A. (2001). Socrates Against Athens. New York: Routledge. Fagan, Patricia; Russon, John (2009). Reexaming Socrates in the Apology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Hackforth, Reginald (1933). The Composition of Platos Apology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kamtekar, ed., Rachana (2005). Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Kraut, Richard (1984). Socrates and the State. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University. McNeal, Richard A. (1992). Law and Rhetoric in the Crito. New York: Peter Lang. Reeve, C.D.C. (1989). Socrates in the Apology. Indianapolis: Hackett. Stokes, Michael C. (2005). Dialectic in Action: An Examination of Plato's Crito. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Stone, I.F. (1988). The Trial of Socrates. New York: Little, Brown. Waterfield, Robin (2009). Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths. New York: Norton. Weiss, Roslyn (1998). Socrates Dissatisfied: An Analysis of Plato's Crito. New York: Oxford University. West, Thomas G. (1979). Platos Apology of Socrates. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Woozley, A.D. (1979). Law and Obedience: The Arguments of Plato's Crito. London: Duckworth.

[edit] External links

University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) School of Law, The Trial of Socrates Socrates This page includes photographs of archaeological remains, including containers which may have held the hemlock that Socrates drank.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates" Categories: Ancient Greek law | Socrates | Ancient Greek society | Trials | 399 BC | Classical Athens

Socrates

(c. 469-399 BC)

Trial and Execution

Socrates had a tendency to point out the shortcomings of certain officials who were, according to him, unprepared for their duties. He usually received harsh resentment from the officials he had offended. This was the case when Socrates pointed out the shortcomings in Meletus, a member of the governing council. In 399 B.C., Meletus and his fellow aristocrats Anytus and Lycon launched accusations at him. They accused him of being a menace to society. They said that he was corrupting the minds of the young men and that he rejected the gods of Athens. Meletus also accused Socrates of being an atheist and said that his teachings would eventually bring about the collapse of public morality. At the trial, Socrates defended himself and his manner of living and presented sufficient evidence to show that the accusations brought against him were without adequate foundations. However, when the jury voted, the majority voted against him. Socrates was given the chance to come up with a punishment for himself, but he did not consider himself guilty and proposed some very light sentences for himself. The jury did, however, considered him guilty and sentenced him to death by drinking a poisonous plant extract known as hemlock.

essays

2004%2F7%2F26%

http%3A%2F%2Fw

essays

The+Death+Penalt

The Death Penalty and Socrates's Execution

Summary: Discusses the unjustness of the death penalty, relating it to the execution of Socrates.

Literature

Law Research Papers

The Death Of Socrates

"Crito, you and other people who claimed to be friends to Socrates are all useless! How could you have been so cowardly, or lazy, or stingy, as to allow you 'friend' to die? Surely, with a little courage, energy, and money, you could have saved him."Those are strong accusations coming from someone who obviously did not know Socrates as well as his other students or me. Although, I expected that people would react this way to my actions, or lack of actions, regarding Socrates death.For Socrates, being executed was the only option available to him. Of course we, his friends, could have helped him to escape, but what would that prove? It would only go against everything that Socrates has taught us. It would also defy everything that Socrates stood for in life. Escaping punishment, would have been an unjust and cowardly act for him. Disobeying the law would set a bad example for his fellow citizens. In addition, it would ruin his reputation for being just and following the laws of the government
GET BETTER GRADES

Socrates believed that, although he was wrongfully accused, he was given a fair trial through the eyes of the law. The fact that he was given a fair trial means that he was given a fair punishment. If this punishment is not carried out, justice will not be served. Escaping punishment would cause a conflict between his teachings and his actions. This would eradicate the moral reputation that Socrates had built for himself throughout his life. The question he would have asked himself would have been, "What kind of example would I be setting if I dishonored my own teachings?" He saw his punishment as a contract between he and the government, and he firmly believed that agreements should not be broken. This is the same government that allowed him to live life as he chose, so why harm an institution that benefited him?In addition, what kind of student would I be if I disregarded everything I learned from my teacher and helped him to escape? That would go against my own principles...

Essay, Research Paper: The Last Days Of Socrates - An Unlawful Execution

History: Ancient
Free History: Ancient essays posted on this site were donated by users and are provided for informational use only. The free essay on this page was not written by our writers and should not be viewed as a sample of our writing service. We are neither affiliated with the author of this essay nor responsible for its content. If you need high quality, fresh and competent research / writing done on the subject of History: Ancient, use the professional writing service offered by our company.

Socrates, considered by many historians as the greatest mind to ever live, spent his final days under the false accusations of the law. These accusation were that Socrates was not worshipping the gods of the popular ancient culture, and was also corrupting the young with his constant questioning of the truths of other philosophers. Socrates defended himself under the eyes of the court, and proved to all through reason that the accusations of the court were false. However, the jury had found Socrates guilty, and sentenced him to death by drinking hemlock. Socrates friend, Crito, argues with the philosopher to escape his eminent death, and flee the city, but Socrates argues that the state has the right to put him to death, and agrees to his execution, forever making him a martyr to truth and justice. I believe, however, that Socrates himself acted unjustly by letting the state execute him since he was an innocent man, the same kind of person the law is supposed to protect. Even though the arguments that Socrates provides for his own death are reasonable, he himself would do more good for more people if he himself escaped, even if it meant going against what he truly believed was the right thing to do. The Last Days of Socrates is an account written by Plato of the sentencing and death of Socrates. Not only a famous philosopher himself, Plato is a follower of Socrates. Plato s

hatred of the democracy that killed his mentor is the motivator for the writing of the book. Not only does it give a strong message against democracy (Plato believed in rule by one Philosopher King), it also provides insight into the mind of Socrates (through the eyes and mind of Plato). By reading his method of thought and reason, one can gather that Socrates is a believer in truth, and that one come to it by reason alone. Socrates argues that the truth of the matter is that the state has the right to put an innocent man to death. Socrates is a citizen of Athens, and must abide by the law it has put upon all its people. Socrates claims escaping would be unjust because it would constitute a step in their own destruction and there is an agree between him and the Laws like that between parent and child, requiring obedience in return for his upbringing. These are not solid arguments against that of an innocent man. First, if Socrates were to escape, he would not harm the state in any way, but save its soul. Allowing the death of an innocent man would harm the souls of the state, so by escaping, Socrates would be doing them a favour. This outlines the argument of state versus the individual; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Socrates would be selfish if he were to allow his own death for the saving of his own soul when the goodness of so many would be destroyed. The argument for the filial relationship between citizen and the state is also weak. It is one thing to punish a child for disobedience, but to allow his death for the purpose of convenience is another thing. The death of Socrates is a matter of convenience because the only solid reason for killing him was because he annoyed everyone with his constant questions and contradictions. He was called the gadfly of Athens because he was considered a pest. To say that it is okay to kill a child for personal relief, Socrates is arguing that abortion is okay, and one needs not to write about how abortion is morally wrong, and only leads to the destruction of ignorant, yet important souls. Socrates goes on to argue that as a citizen who remains in the city of Athens, he is obliged to follow the Laws of the state. Crito argues, however that the laws that he obliged to are unjust, and Socrates would be furthering an injustice, and therefore would verify the laws are just by abiding to them whole-heartedly. If laws are supposed to protect the innocent, who or what are the people protecting themselves from if they send an innocent man to his death? Following the law, in this case, is, in essence, putting the law above the truth, rather than having them inherent in each other. Socrates would not submit himself to the truth, but to a false witness, and is therefore not seeking truth and choosing good by allowing an injustice against himself to continue, and thereby harming the souls of the state. Socrates has not lived a good life, or a long life, if his life is ended by him furthering injustice. Socrates has not fully done good until the end of his life. Though the great Socrates provides a strong argument for his death, to many will suffer in return. Though he believes in absolute law, his citizen s abortion cannot be allowed, it is too costly for the state, and even his soul. Some people argue that Socrates needed to be a martyr in order to get the message across about either the necessary reformation of the law, or the futility of democracy, but their could also be a third option that I believe may be true. Perhaps Socrates wanted to be remembered forever. Maybe fame after death was his motive. Whatever the case, Socrates was wrong, and did not help others in the end, only himself. His death, did however, make him famous, but at what cost? Let us hope he chose the right thing to do, and his life was not wasted.

0 0

More essays on History: Ancient:

0 0 0 0

Ancient / Classical History

Up

Execution of Socrates
Socrates' Execution by Ingestion of Poison Hemlock
By N.S. Gill , About.com Guide

See More About:

Socrates

socrates

Sponsored Links
What Happens When You DieEvidence suggests death isn't the terminal event we thinkrobertlanza.com Athens Survival GuideRestaurants, Hotels, Great Photos Informative and Entertaining!www.athensguide.com God Can Give You New LifeLearn From This True Life Story How God Can Change Your Lifewww.LifesGreatestQuestion.com Ancient / Classical History Ads The execution of Socrates did not involve a hanging, firing squad, or lethal injection. Nor did it necessitate binding his hands to force him to comply unwillingly with the sentence of execution from the polis of Athens. Instead, according to reports by contemporaries Plato and Xenophon, Socrates explained why he was sentenced and must die. This report was written up differently by the two survivors in their separate works both named the Apology.

Socrates finished his explanation, then drank the cup of hemlock and succumbed to its effects.

In his dialogue Phaedo, Plato gives us an eyewitness account of the final moments of Socrates' life. The following passage on the execution of Socrates comes from Jowett's translation of Phaedo:

Crito made a sign to the servant, who was standing by; and he went out, and having been absent for some time, returned with the jailer carrying the cup of poison. Socrates said: You, my good friend, who are experienced in these matters, shall give me directions how I am to proceed. The man answered: You have only to walk about until your legs are heavy, and then to lie down, and the poison will act. At the same time he handed the cup to Socrates, who in the easiest and gentlest manner, without the least fear or change of colour or feature, looking at the man with all his eyes, Echecrates, as his manner was, took the cup and said: What do you say about making a libation out of this cup to any god? May I, or not? The man answered: We only prepare, Socrates, just so much as we deem enough. I understand, he said: but I may and must ask the gods to prosper my journey from this to the other worldeven soand so be it according to my prayer. Then raising the cup to his lips, quite readily and cheerfully he drank off the poison. And hitherto most of us had been able to control our sorrow; but now when we saw him drinking, and saw too that he had finished the draught, we could no longer forbear, and in spite of myself my own tears were flowing fast; so that I covered my face and wept, not for him, but at the thought of my own calamity in having to part from such a friend. Nor was I the first; for Crito, when he found himself unable to restrain his tears, had got up, and I followed; and at that moment, Apollodorus, who had been weeping all the time, broke out in a loud and passionate cry which made cowards of us all. Socrates alone retained his calmness: What is this strange outcry? he said. I sent away the women mainly in order that they might not misbehave in this way, for I have been told that a man should die in peace. Be quiet then, and have patience. When we heard his words we were ashamed, and refrained our tears; and he walked about until, as he said, his legs began to fail, and then he lay on his back, according to the directions, and the man who gave him the poison now and then looked at his feet and legs; and after a while he pressed his foot hard, and asked him if he could feel; and he said, No; and then his leg, and so upwards and 118upwards, and showed us that he was cold and stiff. And he felt them himself, and said: When the poison reaches the heart, that will be the end. He was beginning to grow cold about the groin, when he uncovered his face, for he had covered himself up, and saidthey were his last wordshe said: Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt? The debt shall be paid, said Crito; is there anything else? There was no answer to this question; but in a minute or two a movement was heard, and the attendants uncovered him; his eyes were set, and Crito closed his eyes and mouth.

Such was the end, Echecrates, of our friend; concerning whom I may truly say, that of all the men of his time whom I have known, he was the wisest and justest and best.

More on Socrates
Socrates - Greek Philosopher Socrates Socrates Sources - Ancient Sources on Socrates Socrates - What Was the Charge Against Socrates?

Why Jesus is the Only Way to Union? The Answer May Surprise You.www.hallvworthington.com Father Son Holy SpiritHistory and Evolution of Trinity 78 page - Free book offerwww.BibleToday.com A Warning for 2011:A significant turning point with Gods dealings with mankind.www.SoppMinistries.org Nabulsi EncyclopediaIslamic ideology & believes - Divine Names - Attributes of Allahwww.nabulsi.com Extra-terrestrial MessageUFO sightings are increasing. Why? Free eBook Download - Get Answers!bn.rael.org/download.php?lis Related Searches phaedo plato crito eyewitness account jailer xenophon lethal injection

Explore Ancient / Classical History

Must Reads

Ancient Maps Major Gods and Goddesses From A to Z What Are the 10 Plagues of Egypt? Why Did Rome Fall? Which Greek Goddess Are You?

The Trial of Socrates

by Doug Linder (2002)

The trial and execution of 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 cl. An examination of that history may not provide final answers, but it does provide important ues. 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 propertyowning 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 selfgoverning; they were like a herd of sheep that needed the direction of a wise shepherd. He denied that citizens had 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 antidemocratic 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 Athen'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 Athen's most prominent democrats. 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, unchastened 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 an 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. The trial of Socrates took place over a nine-to-ten hour period in the People's Court, located in the agora, the civic center of Athens. The jury consisted of 500 male citizens over the age of thirty, chosen by lot. Most of the jurors were probably farmers. The jurors sat on wooden benches separated from the large crowd of spectators--including a twenty-seven-year-old pupil of Socrates named Plato--by some sort of barrier or railing.

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 waterclock, 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 has 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 chamberpot--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 son 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 would 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 onefifth 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 is 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.
The trial of Socrates, the most interesting suicide the world has ever seen, produced the first martyr for free speech. As I. F. Stone observed, just as Jesus needed the cross to fulfill his mission, Socrates needed his hemlock to fulfill his.

My Account How It Works Guides & Resources

Essays Home

More coursework: 1 - A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I - J | K - L | M | N - O | P - S | T | U - Y

The Unjust Execution Of Socrates

Home Guides and resources The Unjust Execution Of Socrates

THE UNJUST EXECUTION OF SOCRATES Michael Turack Professor Pierson History 101.02N The University of Toledo 4/28/92 In the vortex of life, many evils have transpired. Vices such as plagues, unforeseen deaths, and corruptness. Among the tragic acts of malefic proportion was the death of the Greek philosopher, Socrates. He tried to prove and invalidate many theories through reasoning, and he was murdered for his beliefs. His execution was not justified because the charges that were brought against him were false and unfounded. The fist crime that Socrates was charged with was that of impiety. This charge was invented primarily to discredit him and make him unpopular with the citizens. The charge was that of not acknowledging the same gods that the state believed in. Throughout the book, Socrates refers numerous times to the fact that it is because of the gods that things are as they seem to be. "Do you suggest that I do not believe that the sun and moon are gods, as is the general belief of all of mankind?" (57). The fact that Socrates did not publicly speak about the gods attributed to the fact

that the charge was heresy. Socrates maintains that he is not like other philosohers. He is a free-thinker, and his beliefs are those of private and intimate thoughts of Gods. Socrates also states that he is not a teacher, however he was not at all happy with the analogy, but took it as a compliment and used it in his defense. He used these accusations to his advantage by saying that he never charged -2charged anyone for believing or listening to them. The combination of these arguments should have cleared Socrates of the charge of heresy. The second charge brought against Socrates was that of corrupting minors. Socrates battled this charge through the use of the same arguments. The argument that he did not consider himself a teacher, the fact that he never accepted any money for talking or listening to people, and the fact that he believes in gods are what Socrates used to defend himself. By confronting the accusation that he was corrupting the minors, Socrates tried to clear himself by manipulating his arguments so that Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon (the men who brought both charges against Socrates) had to answer questions about these charges. When the questions of Socrates were placed before Meletus, his answers seemed to have proven that Socrates was innocent. However, when the verdict was announced, it demonstrated the opposite. Upon hearing the verdict, GUILTY, it was plain to see that the Greek assembly was like every other political assembly, corrupt. "I should never have believed that it would be such a close thing; but now it seems to me that if a mere thirty

votes had gone the other way, I would have been acquitted. Even as it is, I feel that so far Meletus' part is concerned I have been acquitted; and not only that, but anyone can see that if Anytus and Lycon had not come forward to accuse me, Meletus would have actually lost a thousand drachmae for not having obtained one-fifth of the votes" (69). -3People in todays society need not look any further than their own governments (especially in the United States) to see how ancient were governments really immoral. Once the verdict of guilty had been announced, Meletus demanded the death penalty. Socrates could have easily persuaded the assembly that it was too harsh and taken a lesser sentence, but Socrates took the sentence of the death penalty in stride. Unlike all other executions, Socrates could not be penalized immediately due to a religious ceremony during which it is forbidden to carry out executions. Socrates' execution would not take place immediately because the ceremony ended upon the return of a ship to a distant island. He was incarcerated, and was entitled to have visitors. He permitted many of his friends to see him, and even though Socrates was urged many times to try to escape (because it could be arranged) he would not attempt it. When confronted as to why he would not do as his friends advised, he replied that it would be breaking laws and his code of ethics. Crito had this to say, "And will no one comment on the fact that an old man of your age, probably with only a short time to live, should dare to cling so greedily to life, at the price of violating the most stringent laws?" (95). At the conclusion of this, Socrates

said that if he compromised his beliefs, then he would be compromising his soul. Upon that, Crito did not discuss the -4over that issue anymore. Then came the day when the boat arrived. All of Socrates' friends gathered to be with him one last time. After a long discussion, Socrates took the poison that was to end his life before it was mandatory for him to do so. His reasoning was that the inevitable can not be put off. Minutes later Socrates died, and the punishment had been carried out. If it was not for the fact that a corrupt government existed as well as those who wish harm upon others, many of the travesties, such as the death of Socrates, could have been avoided. It is only now that people can reflect back upon what Socrates thought and admire him for the true philosopher that he was.

Socrates' execution requires that he drink a cup of hemlock. Found in Europe and parts of Asia, hemlock is a poisonous herb that looks a great deal like parsley. You would not, however, want this "fool's-parsley" dressing the side of your dinner plate! It is bad enough that Socrates is unjustly sentenced to death, but to carry out his own execution is a bit much! Indeed, for many of us, it would seem that he is committing suicide. Bear in mind, however, that a sense of honor meant something different in his day than it does in our own. It would have been unthinkable for Socrates to have been forced to consume the deadly brew or for him to go to his death like a coward, kicking and screaming.
Pharmaceutical Vials for Preparing Hemlock Steven S. Tigner

15 Feb So last week Thursday I remember professor Raz telling us the reason why Socrates allowed himself to be unjustly imprisoned and killed was because of his outlook on life. He said that Socrates believed that if he broke out of jail or broke the law that unjustly accused him then others would follow suit and disobey the law too. I think that Socrates did not fully think this

through if that is the case. Couldnt he have looked at his situation from another perspective? Okay if he disobeys others may follow, but if the law unjustly imprisoned and executed him whats to stop them from doing the same to other innocent citizens? If you look at it this way then it makes no sense to die in vain.

Telegraph.co.uk

Submit

Home News Sport Finance Comment Blogs Culture Travel Lifestyle Fashion Tech Jobs Dating Offers UK World Politics Obituaries Earth Science Defence Health News Education Royal Family Celebrities Weird News USA US Politics Asia China Central Asia

Europe Australasia Middle East Africa South America

Greece

Socrates trial and execution was completely justified, says new study
The trial of Socrates was justified by the laws of the time, a Cambridge University classicist has concluded, dismissing suggestions that the Athenian philosopher's death was the result of one of the greatest miscarriages of justice ever.
It has been claimed that Socrates was made a scapegoat for a series of disasters to strike Athens, including a plague and major military defeat Photo: GETTY

By Simon Johnson 8:00AM BST 08 Jun 2009 Through the centuries, historians have portrayed the 399BC trial as a travesty, with Socrates forced to face charges invented by his ignorant fellow citizens. He was found guilty of "impiety" and "corrupting the young", sentenced to death, and then required to carry out his own execution by consuming a deadly potion of the poisonous plant hemlock. But, in a new study launched today, Professor Paul Cartledge has concluded that the trial was legally just and Socrates was guilty as charged. Prof Cartledge said: "Everyone knows that the Greeks invented democracy, but it was not democracy as we know it, and we have misread history as a result "The charges Socrates faced seem ridiculous to us, but in Ancient Athens they were genuinely felt to serve the communal good."

Historians have traditionally claimed that Socrates' open criticism of prominent Athenian politicians had made him many enemies, who used the trial to get rid of him. Socrates was made a scapegoat for a series of disasters to strike Athens, including a plague and major military defeat, it has been claimed. But Prof Cartledge pointed out that many citizens would have seen these events as a sign that their gods had been offended by undesirable elements. He argued that Socrates, who had questioned the legitimacy and authority of many deities, fitted the latter description. With the gods clearly furious and more disasters perhaps just around the corner, Prof Cartledge said that a charge of impiety was seen not only as appropriate, but in the public interest. The professor's study also concluded that Socrates essentially invited his own death. Under the Athenian system, in this kind of trial a defendant could suggest his own penalty. Socrates first joked that he should be rewarded, and eventually suggested a small fine but his jurors did not see the funny side and passed the death sentence. "By removing him, society had in, Athenians' eyes, been cleansed and reaffirmed," Prof Cartledge concluded. The study is included in the professor's new book, Ancient Greek Political Thought in Practice.