Books

Partly Sunny with Showers 10° London Hi 14°C / Lo 9°C

Arrogance of Socrates made a compelling case for his death

New book questions philosopher's reputation as an innocent martyr to his beliefs

By Arifa Akbar, Arts Correspondent

The Greek philosopher Socrates (c 470- 399BC) had a just trial and his self-execution was fair, historians say

HULTON/GETTY

The Greek philosopher Socrates (c 470- 399BC) had a just trial and his self-execution was fair, historians say

The infamous trial of the ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates, has long been regarded as one of the first, most dramatic cases of a miscarriage of justice, ending in the death penalty for the founding father of Western thought.

Socrates was accused of "impiety" and "corrupting the young" in 399BC – charges many historians think were invented by his prejudiced fellow citizens – and was required to perform his own execution by consuming hemlock. But now a Cambridge University professor claims that Socrates' trial was legally just and that he was guilty as charged. What's more, Professor Paul Cartledge believes that Socrates actually invited his own death.

In his new book, Ancient Greek Political Thought In Practice, published today, Professor Cartledge says that while politicians and historians have used the trial to suggest that democracy can sometimes descend into mob rule, this was not one such example. "Everyone knows the Greeks invented democracy, but it was not democracy as we know it, and we have misread history as a result," he said. "The charges Socrates faced seem ridiculous to us but in ancient Athens they were genuinely felt to serve the communal good."

In his book, Professor Cartledge questions traditional arguments that Socrates was purely the victim of political infighting. Historians influenced by ancient writers, including Plato, have claimed that Socrates' open criticism of prominent Athenian politicians had made him many enemies, who then pinned the impiety and corruption charges on him to silence him. Other historian believe Socrates' teachings stirred political rebellion, and he was made an example at his trial by those seeking to quash dissidents in Athenian society.

Professor Cartledge said Socrates questioned the authority of many of the accepted gods and claimed to be guided by his inner "daimonon", a term which he may have intended to mean "intuition", but which could also be interpreted as a dark, supernatural influence, which would have outraged conventional believers.

The charge of "impiety" was entirely acceptable in a democracy deeply reverential of their gods, Professor Cartledge said. Accusations were brought by amateur prosecutors before a jury of 501 ordinary citizens of "good standing" who acted on behalf of what they took to be the public interest. If the prosecution could prove that a defendant was responsible for jeopardising the public good, he was likely to be found guilty.

The author also believes that Socrates invited his own death. Under the Athenian system, in this kind of trial a defendant could suggest his own penalty. Instead of taking this opportunity seriously, Socrates first joked that he should be rewarded and eventually suggested a fine that was far too small.

Unsurprisingly, his jurors did not see the funny side and passed the death sentence. Instead of fleeing, Socrates accepted the verdict, claiming that "he owed it to the city under whose laws he had been raised to honour those laws to the letter".

Professor Cartledge said: "There is no denying his bravery, and he could even be seen as an intellectual hero. But the idea that Socrates himself was not guilty, but executed by mob rule, is wrong. By removing him, society had in, Athenians' eyes, been cleansed and reaffirmed."

Professor Angie Hobbs, a philosopher at Warwick University, said that, until recently, the official charges were regarded as being a smokescreen for what the democrats really wanted, revenge for Socrates's association with the rival oligarchic party.

But she added: "Whether one thinks this was a just case or not that he was a genuine trouble-maker is open to debate. Socrates had annoyed important and influential people. He was abrupt and tactless. Philosophers were seen as dangerous at the time and he was not the only one to get into trouble. Athenians were probably right to be a little bit disturbed by what he was up to, getting the young to think for themselves.

She agreed that Socrates "didn't have to die" and that he made it very difficult for the courts not to impose the death penalty. When prison guards made it clear they would allow him to "escape", he declined.

"Socrates wanted to be some kind of martyr for philosophy," Professor Hobbs continued. "According to Plato, he gives an incredibly arrogant speech in court, saying, 'far from punishing me, they should be so grateful for the way I have helped them cleanse their souls, they should give me free meals for the rest of my life'."

Professor Mary Beard, a classicist at Cambridge University, added: "We have invested in him [Socrates], re-invented him as a beacon of honourable free-thinking, standing by what he believed (and the right to believe it) even unto death, thanks to Plato, of course, in large measure. But, in Athenian terms, it was a fair cop."

Socrates: His thoughts

*Socrates is considered one of the founding fathers of Western philosophy but, problematically for scholars, his thought is preserved only through the accounts of his students, most notably in Plato's dialogues.

His most significant contribution to Western thought is the Socratic method of debate or Method of Elenchus, a dialectical method of questioning, testing and ultimately improving a hypothesis. Through asking a series of questions, the method sought to show contradictions in the beliefs of those who posed them, and systematically move towards a hypothesis free from contradiction. As such, it is a negative method, in that it seeks to identify and demarcate that which a person does not know, rather than which he does. Socrates applied this to the testing of moral concepts, such as justice. Plato produced 13 volumes of Socratic Dialogues, in which Socrates would question a prominent Athenian on moral and philosophical issues. So often cast as the questioner, it is hard to establish any of Socrates' own philosophical beliefs. He said his wisdom was an awareness of his own ignorance, and his statement, "I know that I know nothing" is often quoted.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]nlatoh wrote:
Monday, 8 June 2009 at 09:12 am (UTC)
It is quite clear in Plato's accounts of Socrates' trial and last days that Socrates is deliberately provocative, and that he is given every opportunity to escape his execution. There are also suggestions that Socrates goes to his death willingly. The Greek word 'pharmakon', used to designate the hemlock Socrates drinks to being about his death, means both poison and cure. And in several of Plato's dialogues, Socrates argues that the philosopher, in striving for the purity of the ideal, strives for death. On taking the hemlock, Socrates asks that a gift be sent to his doctor - the implication being that he has been cured of life. In this way, and in many others, his death foreshadows that of Christ, in that his death is simultaneously his salvation.

Of course to the Athenians of the day, Socrates seemed incredibly arrogant, a nuisance, a threat to peace. The same could be argued of Christ - a seditious figure whose execution Pilate authorises in the name of day-to-day political stability. What the philosophers writing this article have overlooked is that Socrates significance lies precisely in his willingness to challenge the commonsense opinions of his day, and to strive for a new moral vigour. Yes, Socrates' execution was 'fair cop' by the standards of Athenian law, and Socrates knew this, which is why he went willingly to his death - dying for his cause in order that it should live on. This is why he lives on as 'a beacon of honourable free thinking' - because he was willing to stand up and challenge hypocrisy, and to transcend the political norms of his day.
He was abrupt and tactless, so therefore he should die
[info]mstamper wrote:
Monday, 8 June 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC)
Well, we certainly don't want anyone to challenge the authorities, especially in an "abrupt, tactless, and impious" manner. Perhaps modern-day Atheists and Agnostics should also be executed. Just think of all the "important and influential people" who are annoyed by these "free thinkers". I guess we should just kill them all. Certainly, billions of fanatical Muslims, Hindus, Christians, and Jews would be thrilled to see all of those irritating modern-day Socrates wannabees killed. As Professor Cartledge says, it would serve the "communal good". Perhaps we should stop protecting Salmon Rushdie and offer him the hemlock instead. He has certainly "outraged conventional believers".
This is already well known
[info]nicholson007 wrote:
Monday, 8 June 2009 at 10:06 am (UTC)
This view of Socrates is well known in Classical education. It is not anything new at all. It's part of a long tradition in the discussion associated with the event of his death.

The issue of Socrates choosing to die has been established because, as stated here, he used his trial to challenge Athens by ridiculing the question of a fitting punishment but also, after his trial he had ample opportunity to leave Athens and go into exile and was activly encouraged to do so by many but choose to stay and face his own death.

Socrates, when taught properly, should never be portrayed as some kind of untouchable ideal philosopher. If anything, what makes him even more extraordinary is the reality of the historical context of his own times, the pressure of war and changes in governement, his own suspicion of the democratic body, the everyday culture of civic life in the city of Athens. etc. However i find personally, that Socrates never falls from being exceptional when under scrutininy because Athens of that period was totally exceptional in terms of the shear richness of intellectual culture to which both Socrates as man and as idea are deeply rooted.


Re: This is already well known
[info]whiterabbi7 wrote:
Monday, 8 June 2009 at 12:08 pm (UTC)
I agree totally. I did a degree in Phil and Socrates was always portrayed as a rebel. If I recall correctly, Socrates was a retired warrior, having fought for Athens in the Peloponnesian War and being awarded honours for courage and ruthlessness. He was a hard man, not some shy little bookish figure. In his more advanced years (aged in his 50s), he became a pacifist as many ex-violent types often do and turned to meditation and contemplation.

With regard to the trial of Socrates, well read the dialogue! He openly baits and taunts his antagonists and, upon being found guilty, he proposes his being given rewards befitting an Athenian aristocrat as a punishment (when the verdict of guilty was passed on an Athenian defendant, said defendant would suggest his own punishment). This is akin to Abu Hamza being found guilty of inciting racial hatred and proposing that the courts give him the keys to London.

As I read it, the prosecutors did not want to execute Socrates for fear of stirring up further civil unrest in the wake of Athen's crippling loss of the Peloponnesian War. He kept pushing until they had no choice. Even after he had been condemned, every opportunity was presented for him to escape, the guards turning a blind eye when Socrates' mates showed up with ladders, etc - the prosecutors secretly hoping he would just go away: Athens was on its knees at the time.

Nobody ever taught me (nor have I ever read) that this was a miscarriage of justice (according to justice at the time) or that it was an unjust trial: these are certainly not mainstream "traditional arguments"!
Re: This is already well known
[info]kerrygold wrote:
Monday, 8 June 2009 at 08:57 pm (UTC)
I agree that much of this is well known to philosophy students who are taught that Plato's admiration for Socrates verged on the sychophantic. Plato truly worshipped Socrates and used his death to aim a few well aimed blows at Athens. I haven't heard the claim that Socrates death was due to political infighting as he was known to be an irritant and a pest. He was given the chance to escape but preferred the melodrama of the hemlock. Professor Routledge isn't even being revisionist because his arguments are standard fare and part of the adopted canon. Indeed the last days of Socrates have sometimes been compared to the death of little Nell.
[info]zoetrope1 wrote:
Monday, 8 June 2009 at 01:31 pm (UTC)
"Socrates is considered one of the founding fathers of Western philosophy but, problematically for scholars, his thought is preserved only through the accounts of his students", is exactly what one could say of that other great teacher four centuries later. Is this similarly "problematic"?

Socrates had little fear of death, more of growing old and decrepit, as shown in Xenophon's words attributed to him: "If my life is to be prolonged now, I know that I must live out my old age, seeing worse, hearing less, learning with more difficulty, and forgetting more and more of what I have learned. If I see myself growing worse and reproach myself for it, tell me, how could I continue to live pleasantly? Perhaps even the god in his kindness is offering to end my life not only at the right time, but also in the easiest way possible..."
[info]camillozzo wrote:
Monday, 8 June 2009 at 07:14 pm (UTC)

of sure , also catholic's pope , Professor Razingher claimed , the Galileo's trial was in ethical with the ascient church's though.

Galileo Galilei should had been a slave , a subordinate thinker , like socrates; their guilty was not , to make discussion about the religion with another religion , is not to profess a different deus'image (in the ascient culture's Greek also the ascient culture's Roman , as Voltaire wrote in Dictionaire philosophique about case's Calas , where wide tollerance about different religion); the matherial guilty was , to pretend to go near to jupiter , to have a doubt about the way and the mode prearrenged to remain quite distance about the matter; so , this is intollerable , for all the people want make light and maybe to discover nobody in the obscure secret place;

Socrates , was one the firsts , toke a lantern , and was one the firsts which fought against the blind sentinel.
This happens every day in the USA
[info]avraamjack wrote:
Monday, 8 June 2009 at 08:52 pm (UTC)
Unless you have done a web search for gang stalking, you probably do not know that in the USA , gang stalkers, who pretend to be protectors of society but are really just a sanctimonious protection racket, stalk, harass, poison and irradiate whomever does not meet their twisted standards.

Yes that is right.

They stalk, harass, poison and irradiate people while the police and government pretend not to notice.

A weak fearful hysterical democracy is just a lynch mob waiting to happen.

.
SOCRATES PUT 2,500 YEARS PROGRESS INTO PERSPECTIVE
[info]e_paul_imhof wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 01:10 am (UTC)
As human life expectancy improved considerably death became a taboo, more importantly a gold-mine for appelate lawyers. Civilized jurisdictions abolish the death penalty at the criminal bar's expense. By Athenian standards a cup of hemlock was humane. It did the trick in no time. By California standards depriving attorneys of endless billing opportunity is inhumane. Why are frustrated felons on death-row requesting swift execution subjected to psychatric examinations? Whom does it benefit? Couldn't repentent criminals ready to throw themself at their Lord God's mercy become rather positive rolemodels? What's cruel and unusual punishment even more costly and damaging than waterboarding? Why does society subsidize overproduction of more legal beagles, not to mention shrinks?
Thanks for reminding me 60 years after I flunked Greek finals, but graduated anyway that Socrates wisely recognized that is is hardly worse to outlive one's usefullness. Pushing 79 I count my blessings seeing no good reason to become a burden on our 5 beloved children much less to waste 7 grandchildren's inheritence. I rather provide for them to the best of my ability as Cynthia's and my ancestor's luckily did,
Not knowing the answer Ican only ask questions. Pray tell me whom benefits, whom hurts national health care's pretence that extending lives is a wortwhile goal. Politics are the art of the possible. Restoring peace is the priority. Promising overdue health reform elected President Obama with an overwhelming majority. Speaker of the House Pelosi made it a legislative priority that special interest lobbyists predictably influence for clents competitive advantage. There's nothing we can do about it.
However on the log run reason might prevail over professional profit if average people are thought to apply ancient philosophers ' wisdom to their own mundane lives. Socrates put his on life on the line. Does that make him any more credible than contempory competitors or less?
Socrates' legacy.
[info]aegian wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 02:55 pm (UTC)
Many interesting replies, thanks.

In many ways Socrates is the first role model of what we still find heroic. Soldier, rebel, truth-teller, unafraid of death, bowing to no-one. I agree that Athens was on its knees and simply wanted him to go away and stop being a political pest, always pointing out that the war had been pointless.

By his life and death he created a template which is still followed today. Brian's Friel's play Translations is a modern adaptation set in Ireland of the 1830s just before the Great Hunger which is brilliant. Socrates is portrayed by Clint Eastwood and many other hardman stars standing up against oppressors.

The Socratic system is the foundation of the our educational empirical educational system. Without his dispassionate questions and answers there would be no science.

It is at the heart of our parliamentary system, ironically, where the duality of opposition and government confront each other and try to hammer out a new system. Pity it has become so exclusive and elitist in our day. But then Socrates was elitist. Along with Diogenes who famously lived in a barrel and went through Athens in daylight carrying a flaming torch because he was looking fruitlessly for an honest man, Socrates represented what humans aspire to but hardly ever achieve. Except that thanks to his example, we are still aspiring, however imperfectly, towards higher truths which will illuminate our existence on this planet.
I love Socrates
[info]david1187 wrote:
Thursday, 11 June 2009 at 11:24 am (UTC)
Perhaps I am a hopeless idealist or just a gullible person, but having read all of Plato's dialogs (save a few books of his Laws)-including Xenophon's-I simply love Socrates more and more.

He was obviously a public servant of profound love and dedication. The arrogance stems from a deep respect for the human capacity for free choice.

Socrates in Plato & Xenophon invited his death. The jury of 501 men expected flattery and got none. "We have the power to 'squash you'." No, Socrates is saying, "You have no power over me, I am free-Your power to kill only makes my power to speak freely in the face of death all the stronger. You are free to vote for my innocence, but to do so your reason must overcome the mass hatred of me. I charge you to think for yourself." This 'arrogance' infuriated them.

Proud yes, of Athens and democracy, of criticism as a form of love and philosophy as sacrifice that makes clear our capacity for freedom. Socrates' boldness made this new wisdom visible, not only is truth worth dying for, but that thinking is now a power, the concept of "what is Just" and the emotive desire for justice is on par with raw physical force, or even greater than it.

We all can feel this, deep down you know it is true.
Alternatives to that ...??
[info]assetdk wrote:
Tuesday, 21 July 2009 at 12:09 pm (UTC)
It is well-known that Plato and Socrates was not democratic in the sense that everyone could say what he wants. The logic of Socrates was rather that that you needed to be philosopher to have a word.

Sadly the ideals of that democracy lives on in many western democracies, thus the man and the case are viewed as one and the same entity. When a politician makes a case he is bound by the ideal and norms of his party - and his ideas are not solely judged by their value. Thus even the modern politician must face the jury and as it often happens his character is at trial.

If we want something better for our kids we must realize that such heroes dies - be it by death by attack on their character. The alternative to this sad situation still to be designed?
Regards Per Feldvoss Olsen

Most popular

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date