Talk:Trial of Socrates

Comments

There was no senate in Athens. You might be thinking of Rome. The Jury of Socrates, though, was 500, not 501. 280 found him guilty, 220 found him innocent, but if he had 30 more votes of innocent(a number which he harped upon in reference to the thirty tyrants), he would have been acquitted, because if there was a tie vote, the resolution (Socrates corrupts the youth and is not pious to the gods of Athens, which was the most important charge) would have failed for lack of sufficient guilty votes. Juries were randomly selected from the Athenian (male) citizens. The Assembly of Athens, which was the legislative body passed, debated, and amended all laws, as well as appointed generals and judged plays, among many other functions. Juries, though, varied in size. Some had only 30, others had more, but 500 was the biggest size that they could fit into one room, and this allowed for multiple trials to be conducted simultaneously.

...before a "jury" of 501 Athenian citizens--which constituted the Athenian Senate...

Are you sure of this? From everything I have read, Athenian juries were randomly selected from amidst the population, with legislation handled by the assembly. I do not see how the word senate really applies to them.

---

Not absolutely sure, but have a look at this: http://appliedphilosophy.mtsu.edu/intro_to_phil/PlatosApology.htm

Basically, I thought the legislative body of Athens (called the Senate) also simply had a judicial function. I think that's what I taught my students, but I might have taught them wrongly and I might have forgotten what I taught them.  :-) Anyone else? --LMS

Hm. I don't know anything about the period specifically after the thirty tyrants, but the general statement that democracy was restored suggests that legislation was passed the same way - by the assembly of all free men, not by a senate. I'm not even sure what the Athenian senate would refer to, except possibly the areopagus, who had an extremely reduced function. Some double-checking confirms Socrates was tried before a randomly selected jury, so what I'm going to do is change the statement unless someone provides evidence to the contrary, and add a few more details as well.

The jury numbered 501, voting 281-220 in favour of conviction. -- Spock he was also a teacher who tought kids by asking questions and that is another reason he was put to death.

The number 501 is from Diogenes Laertius, who can often be unreliable, especially when he doesn't cite his source. There is no earlier account which gives the exact number of Socrates' jurors. We know that 500 was the size of a typical jury; but we also know that the number in some cases went as high as 2000. There was no problem in the case of a tie, because a tie meant acquittal. (Trials weren't always held in a room; they were sometimes held in the open air; so there was never a problem of fitting jurors into a room.) From Plato's Apology 36a, we know the ratio (but not the exact numbers) of jurors who voted for and against conviction.

What brought me to look at this talk page was the comment "Socrates faced a jury of 500 citizens - the large size of the jury showing that the trial was seen as important - " which caught my attention. I do believe that the trial consisted of 501 jurors who were, yes, randomly selected as a lottery. My main beef is that the reason the jury was so large was not because this was an important trial necessarily (as is noted above, juries were sometimes much larger than this one). A large jury proves more difficult to corrupt and "buy" than a smaller jury; it would be extremely difficult and costly to quietly go around paying off 250 jurors before a verdict has been rendered. Thus, the Athenians chose large juries because they believed them to be more democratic and that a large jury would ensure that the verdict could not be bought or otherwise tainted.

I suggest editing the statement that the jury was large because the trial was important, because that's not what the large jury represents. BareAss 19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Adjective: Sokratean or Socratic?

Consider the Greek one, sokratikos, when deciding. —6birc, 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No. It's just Socratic. This is the English wiki and, as a general rule, we write it in English. — LlywelynII 17:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Genitive: always Sokrates's, never Sokrates'

Reference: The Apostrophe Protection Society. —6birc, 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

...except that it is in practice almost universally written as Sokrates', as are most classical names ending in s. Isokrates 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah. It's almost universally written Socrates because English is based on German, French, and Latin, not directly from classical Greek. Some people pronounce it one way and write it (illogically but phonetically) without the third S; others write it consistently and logically with the S, generally pronouncing it accordingly. — LlywelynII 17:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Free speech?

Since his execution? I doubt it. Free speech is a very recent concept. I'd have said he was revered for most of that time as an example of 1. logic 2. rationality 3. principle. Maybe free speech in the US in the last 200 years or so. But I'd like to see more here in the light of Stone's analylsis (Stone taught himself Greek in his retirement specificially to write his book) that Socrates was seriously anti-democratic, had failed to stand up to the tyrants (merely going home when ordered to execute a dissident) and never went into exile with all the real dissidents. Stone also argues that Socrates wanted to die, perhaps (like Alan Turing, perhaps) to explore the next world, or to avoid both the pains of old age and the impiety of suicide. --Hugh7 01:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

l

POV?

"It was, indeed, a dangerous time for a man such as Socrates." What exactly is this sentence doing here? It doesn't seem to be conveying any information at all except that the author sympathizes with Socrates and his position. 128.135.157.109 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    response from Obugov: The writer of the article may be referring to the facts that Anaxagoras  was said to have been charged with impiety  and banished from the city c. 437-436 b c e ; and that   Aristotle   was charged with impiety in  323 b c e .   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obugov (talk • contribs) 17:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC) 

Socrates was more than strictly intellectual; he had a religious side as well, along with ideas which would go on to be intergral to Christianity. unsigned

wow a man who didnt believe in god and lived centuries before jesus of nazareth makes his ideas integral to christianity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Like the notion that morality precedes religion? Nina202.43.236.242 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is wrong?````

Athens had just come through a difficult period, where a Spartan-supported group, called the Thirty Tyrants had overturned the city's participatory democracy and sought to impose oligarchic rule. That Kritias, the leader of the Tyrants, was one of Socrates's pupils was not seen as a coincidence.

If the Thirty Tyrants Oligarchy was imposed at 404 BC, and Socrates trial was at 399BC, then this sentence is rendered invalid!

Aeschines some years later, when, in a prosecution speech, he wrote: "Did you not put to death Socrates the sophist, fellow citizens, because he was shown to have been the teacher of Critias, one of the Thirty who overthrew the democracy?

How would this have been possible if there was no "the Thirty" in the first place

Jo-Gr11 Avondale```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.93.47 (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Not quite sure I follow ... my understanding isn't great (and my main source a bit dodgy), but as follows

404BC

     Spartans overrun Athens, place in power a group of 30 who where sympathetic to them
     The 30 create a group 3000 nominal voters
     Spartans send a garrison to Athens to prop up the 30

403BC

     Civil war as the exiled democrats return
     Leader of the 30 executed
     Spartans help broker peace and take their garrison back

399BC

     Socrates goes on trial

Socrates had connections with the 30, and was a vocal critic of democracy, but to try him for his connections with the 30 would have been an illegal breach of an amnesty in place. As I understand it, the assertion Aeschines made was more along the lines of "come on, thats why you really did him!" rather than a historical reference. Wiki benguin 09:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Wiki_Benguin

I can confirm this timeline. The 30 tyrants were not in power for very long, but while they were in power, Socrates exhibited some close ties to them. Thus, when those in favor of democracy overthrew the 30, they continued to carry out their vengeful wrath on Socrates for his anti-democratic sentiment. He was tried for corrupting the youth and glorifying false gods. BareAss 18:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Socrates' connection with prominent members of the Thirty cannot be questioned; Plato in his dialogue the Charmides - whose dramatic date is 429 - makes it clear that Socrates, at least at that time, associated closely with Critias and Charmides. It's also true that Socrates' trial closely followed the reign of the Thirty which ended in the middle of 403. Consider what John Burnet has said of the timing of Socrates' trial: "After the restoration of the democracy in 403 B.C., the laws of Solon and Draco were provisionally adopted, but there was great uncertainty about their application, and a commission was appointed to revise and codify the laws of Athens, whcih did not complete its work till the archonship of Xenaenetus, i.e. 401/0 B.C. ([Burnet here cites the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia 40.4]), and it seems that the courts were practically inactive till that date. It is no doubt for this reason that the trials of Andocides and Socrates did not come on till 399 B.C." (p. 25, Plato: Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, Crito). However, there is no evidence for BareAss's statement that while the Thirty were in power "Socrates exhibited some close ties to them"; in fact, the evidence we do have tells against it (Plato's Apology of Socrates 32c-d, Xenophon's Memorabilia 1.2.12-39). Still, the Athenians would remember his earlier association with them, and this probably was one of the many factors that fostered his prosecution. Isokrates (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

References?

Why no references? GofG _|^|_| Talk 11:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article at least hints at the sources, but yeah, it would be better to cite them more explicitly. Or in other words, WP:SOFIXIT - you should be able to find what you need from articles such as Apology (Xenophon), Conium#Socrates, etc and the sources that they mention. Kingdon 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

World Book Encyclopedia

I have a copy of the World Book Encyclopedia, and the entry at the end of it disagrees with the last entry of this article.

If you look at the World Book Encyclopedia under the letter "S," and look up "Socrates," the article clearly states that he was a supporter of Athenian democracy, not Oligarchial rule.

Please get your facts straight.

Socrates praised the Spartans because even though they were simple men and women, they were men and women who, as far as character, were better than the Athenians. Socrates did not praise Spartan form of government so much as he did Spartan moral character. Please get your facts straight, and stop smearing the name of a great scholar.

His stand against tyranny, is the reason we have the freedoms we now have; had his school been snuffed by selfish, self-serving ignorant tyrants, the whole notions of "doing what is right," and the very concept of human rights would not even exist today. The idea of Human rights can be traced to the Socratic school of Philosophy.

One thing more; the majority of ancient and modern Greek peoples belong to genetic haplogroup J, meaning, genetically the ancient greeks had nothing in common with the other peoples of the European peninsula.

Meaning, they were not white. Someone better tell that to the people at Stormfront, that racist white power bullcrap website.

(The above comments were entered here by 206.63.78.97 who forgot to sign them). In one sense, there is indeed some evidence for the claim that Socrates was "a supporter of Athenian democracy": in Plato's dialogue the Crito, Plato makes it appear that his main reason for abiding by the court's decision to execute him (rather than escaping Athens with the help of his wealthy friends) was his indebtedness to Athens and his commitment to its laws. But there is also good evidence for concluding that Socrates had sympathies with nondemocratic forms of government and even that he praised the Spartan form of government: in Plato's Crito, Socrates imagines the Laws of Athens addressing him, and at one point they mention Sparta and Crete "which you [i.e. Socrates] actually all the time assert to have good laws" (52e). And in Xenophon's Memorabilia, we find the following claim attributed to Socrates, and it is noteworthy that Xenophon never denies that Socrates said things like it: "it is foolish for the rulers of the city to be established in office by lot, when nobody would want to use a pilot chosen by lot or a builder or a flutist or anyone for any other task of the sort, although far less harm is caused when mistakes are made in them than when they are made concerning the city" (1.2.9). Plato's portrait of Socrates agrees with this; in Plato's Laches Socrates says, "...I think it is by knowledge that one ought to make decisions, if one is to make them well, and not by majority rule" (184e). Also, in Plato's Gorgias, Socrates is portrayed as being very critical of some of Athens' leading politicians, especailly for carrying out policies that pandered to its masses, the tendency for which was particularly high given the Athenian system of governance (503c-d, 515d-517c). So it may be that although Socrates had respect for the laws of Athens, he did not particularly like its form of government. Honestly, I wouldn't look to either Stormfront or World Book Encyclopedia for reliable information about Socrates. Why not actually read Plato and Xenophon for starters? As for whether or not the ancient Greeks were white: who cares? Aren't their ideas far more interesting than their "genetic haplogroup"? Isokrates (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I.F. Stone on the trial of Socrates

"For others, notably I.F. Stone in his book The Trial of Socrates, the Athenians' action was a justifiable defense of their recently re-established democracy." This contravenes Stone's statement in the preface: "I could not defend the verdict when I started and I cannot defend it now." (p. xi of Stone's The Trial of Socrates, Pimlico, London, ISBN 0712673148.) It would help if contributors actually bothered to read the books that they presume to précis. Lexo (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Stone's work appropriate for the "modern interpretations" section? While he's certainly a worthy popular or public intellectual, he's not a scholar nor should his work be considered an legitimate source this section. There are other, more prominent figure who have contributed much to the study of Socrates.ELH76345 (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

First author speaking about political character of Socrates' judgment and condemnation was Fran Yerby

The very possible political character of Socrates' judgment and condemnation was already pointed out by American novelist and Madrid resident Frank Yerby. In his book "The song of the goat" of 1967 already indicates the democratic character, well-tried, of its accuser Antito. This merit is usually attributed to I.F. Stone in his work of 1988 that handles a similar argumentation. Raúl Alía. Greek teacher. Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raúl Alía Alía (talk • contribs) 18:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

what the heck is this?

"but the myth of Socrates and his execution has taken on a distinct existence, apart from the historical man, whose true views and politics we are never likely to know"

What kind of amateurish and nonsense, bias and unoriginal, unresearched statement is that? There are so many things wrong with this statement:

• Scorates was not a myth
• Neither was his death
• There is no positive reason, nor are there are cited texts, to counter the above two
• It sounds very cheesy "we are never likely to know". Isn't it right to say, "we are likely never to know?" And whose "we"?
• Why are Socrates' views and politics not to be known? Aristotle himself clarifies for us what Plato added on to Socrates' views.

I recommend deleting this garbage. Gabr-el 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"whose true views and politics we are never likely to know" - We don't know what Socrates said, Its his student Plato who told us of Socrates teaching, and if you read Plato's writings, you will see he had very different views (In fact very crazy like : No man should be allowed to think or dream even, he should listen to his master only ... such kind of thoughts [This kind of a thought is prevalent in military, and given the fact that was time of war, I think we can understand why Plato thought that way]), so this can create a huge amount of doubt whether what Plato tells us about Socrates is indeed true or not, and hence "we may never know his true views". Firehawk895 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Drink deep or not at all. There are other sources besides Plato on Soc's ideas, and the main lines and politics are clear. — LlywelynII 17:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

More amateurish garbage

Is there any reason this should not be deleted? It sounds like an excerpt from a student's last-minute paper:

"Why then did he take the poison? It is an interesting feature of most accounts of his death that they ignore the fact that Socrates last musings where concerned with the immortal soul and the afterlife in direct response to his pupils requests for him to hang around. The overall movement is difficult to follow for many modern observers because it represents the apex of religious conceptions around death and therefore directly undermining his conviction. The issue for the modern observer is not "how could they have got it so wrong?" But the fact that they did. In a democratic culture, founded on reason but blind to larger theological conceptions that transcend death it is understandable that the real reason why Socrates took the poison passes even most academics by despite the fact it is all there to read in any translation of the Phaedo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.3.251 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Location

Per the NY Times and presumably Plato, the Stoa Basileios. On the other hand, the number 500 and various early modern references seem to suggest it was the Areopagus. Is this a thing where people used to think it was the Areopagus but it turns out to have been an ad hoc jury of a similar number instead, held in a different venue because it wasn't a murder trial? — LlywelynII 17:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)