Table Of ContentTHE TRIAL
111
AND EXECUTION
OF SOCRATES
Sourcesa nd Controversies
THOMAS C. BRICKHOUSE
NICHOLAS D. SMITH
New York Oxford
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
2002
Oxford University Press
Oxford New York
Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Cape Town
Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi
Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi
Paris Sao Paulo Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw
and associated companies in
Berlin lbadan
Copyright© 2002 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10016
http:/ /www.oup-usa.org
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro
duced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of
OYJord University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Brickhouse, Thomas C., 1947-
The trial and execution of Socrates : sources and controversies / Thomas C. Brickhouse
and Nicholas D. Smith.
p.cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-19-511979-7- ISBN 0-19-511980-0 (pbk.)
1. Socrates-Trials, litigation, etc. 2. Socrates-Death and burial. 3. Trials
(Blasphemy)-Greece-Athens. I. Smith, Nicholas D. II. Title.
B316 .B75 2001
183'.2-dc21
2001036915
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America on add-free paper
Contents
Preface vu
Introduction 1
PART I: ORIGINAL SOURCES
1. ARISTOPHANES 17
Cloudsll.358-407,476-492,627-680,723-756,825-830 18
2. PLATO 24
Euthyphro (complete) 25
Apology of Socrates (complete) 42
Crito (c omplete) 65
Phaedo (death scene: 116a-118a) 78
3. XENOPHON 81
Apology of Socrates (c omplete) 82
Memorabilia 1.1.1-1.2.39, 1.2.47-1.3.15, 4.7.1-4.8.11 87
4. DIOGENES LAERTIUS 108
On the Lives and Opinions of Eminent Persons in Philosophy
2.18, 24, 29, 37-43 108
5. MINOR SOURCES 112
Aeschines of Sphettus (fragment 1K from Publius Aelius Aristides) 112
Isocrates, Busiris 11.4-6 113
Aeschines (Rhetor), Oratio 1.173 113
Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric 2.10.1393b4-8; Metaphysics
A 1.6.987b1-4 114
Diodorus Siculus, Book TV,3 7.7 115
Dio Chrysostum 43.8-10 116
Maximus of Tyre, Oration 3.1-8 117
• V •
Contents
6. LIBANIUS 122
Apology of Socrates 1, 13, 15-16, 22, 33, 48, 53, 59, 103-106,
110-112,127,136,142,153-154,168,170,172,174-175 122
PART II: RECENT SCHOLARSHIP
7. WHY WAS SOCRATES PROSECUTED? 133
M. F. Bumyeat, "The Impiety of Socrates" 133
Robert Parker, "The Trialo f Socrates:A nd a Religious Crisis?" 145
Mark L. McPherran, "Does Piety Pay? Socrateso n
Prayer and Sacrifice" 162
Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, from
Plato's Socrates 190
8. SOCRATES AND OBEDIENCE TO THE'LAW 224
Richard Kraut, from Socratesa nd the State 224
Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, from
Plato's Socrates 235
9. DID PLATO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE
DEATH OF SOCRATES? 251
Christopher Gill, "The Death of Socrates" 251
Enid Bloch, "HemlockP oisoning and the Death of Socrates:D id Plato Tell
the Truth?" 255
Works Cited 279
• vi •
Preface
This book is divided into two parts. The first consists of new translations
of the ancient Greek writings that shed light on how the trial and execu
tion of Socrates were viewed throughout antiquity. These writings vary
markedly in their length and in their degree of freedom from contamina
tion by other sources of qµestionable reliability. Some are complete works,
clearly polished before publication; others are quite fragmentary. Some
were written by Socrates' contemporaries, by individuals who actually
knew him well; others were written centuries after the death of the
philosopher. Perhaps most important is the fact that these sources differ,
often remarkably, in how they characterize the real animus against
Socrates or in the degree to which he could honestly defend himself. In col
lecting these sources about Socrates' condemnation in a single volume, we
wanted to provide easy access to materials of interest to those engaged in
research on the famous trial. But we also invite readers to challenge their
own understanding of Socrates' trial and its aftermath by testing their
views against what the relevant ancient sources thought the evidence
supports.
Although scholars are today deeply divided over whether any single
source, or combination of sources, provides us with a historically accurate
picture of the final episodes of Socrates' life, there is widespread agree
ment that the study of Plato's writings about the trial and execution of
Socrates pay the greatest philosophical dividends. The second part of this
book, then, concerns three issues that are fundamental to Plato's account
of the trial, imprisonment, and execution: How well did Socrates respond
to the charges against him? How did he understand his moral obligation
to obey the law and to remain in prison? How accurate is Plato's account
of Socrates' behavior when he was actually executed? To each of these
questions we offer alternative answers that scholars have advanced in the
secondary literature. By staging these three "contests of words," we hope
to deepen the reader's own understanding of these th.fee issues at the
heart of Plato's account of how Socrates' life ended.
• vii •
Preface
We would like to express our deep gratitude to those who provided
new translations appearing in Part I: Jerise Fogel (Xenophon, selections
from Memorabilia);J oel A. Martinez (Xenophon, Apology); Timothy J.
O'Neill (Aristophanes, selections from Clouds);H ope May (Libanius, selec
tions from the Apology of Socrates).A ll of the other translations provided in
this collection are our own. Finally, we would like to thank our respective
colleges for the many ways in which they have fostered our work. Thomas
C. Brickhouse wishes to express his gratitude to the Lynchburg College
Research Committee for the award of a summer grant in 1999. Nicholas D.
Smith is grateful to Unhae Langis for assistance in preparing the manu
script.
Thomas C. Brickhouse
Lynchburg College
Nicholas D. Smith
Lewis and Clark College
• viii •
THE TRIAL
AND EXECUTION
OF SOCRATES
Introduction
1. SOME QUESTIONS
The Athenian philosopher Socrates was brought to trial, convicted by the
jury, and sentenced to death in 399 B.C.E. His execution, however, was
delayed by a month because of a religious festival during which execu
tions were not permitted. 1 After this delay, he was put to death by drink
ing poison derived from hemlock. About these facts there is no disagree
ment. But as the sources collected in this book and the scholarly essays that
follow them show, several of even the most basic facts about these events
were controversial in antiquity and remain so even today. Why was
Socrates brought to trial? Why did the jurors--members of the world's
first democracy-find him guilty? When he was given an opportunity to
escape, even after he had been convicted and sentenced to death, why did
he refuse to do so? How exactly did Socrates die? Differences of opinion
on these and other questions about the trial and execution of Socrates con
tinue to arouse our curiosity and to challenge new generations of scholars.
Perhaps some of the answers given in this collection are the right ones; but
our readers will soon see quite plainly that not all of the answers provided
herein can be correct.
2. TRIALP ROCEDURES
In ancient Athens there were no public prosecutors who tried cases on
behalf of the state. Instead, private individual citizens would bring crimi
nal charges to a government official known as the King archon, who
would determine if the charges were in accordance with law and would
then forward the case to a jury trial. To prevent jury tampering or bribery,
1See section 5 of this introduction.
• 1 •
The Trial and Execution of Socrates
Athenian juries were quite large, from 200 members to perhaps ten times
that many. In Socrates' case, the number seems to have been 500.2
Socrates' prosecutor was a younger man named Meletus. Assisting
Meletus in presenting the case against Socrates were two other men: a
well-known and highly respected politician named Anytus and a poet
about whom very little is known named Lycon. The charge Meletus
brought against Socrates was impiety. Because the law against impiety did
not specify all of the ways one could be impious, as a part of his indict
ment, Meletus had to specify precisely how Socrates was supposed to be
guilty of this charge. Meletus, accordingly, provided three specifications:
Socrates was guilty of not recognizing the gods recognized by the city;
Socrates invented new divine things; and Socrates corrupted the youth. It
is sometimes said that there were three charges against Socrates, with
these three specifications of the single charge of impiety no doubt in mind.
But in fact Socrates was tried and convicted for the one charge of impi
ety-a charge made on the basis of these three claims, each of which
allegedly explained ways in which Socrates was impious.
Different sources make different claims about the kind of defense
Socrates offered against the charges. It was even claimed in later antiquity
that Socrates simply remained silent and offered no defense at all. Plato
and Xenophon-both of whom knew Socrates personally-contradict this
much later claim, however, and we see no reason to doubt them. As our
readers will soon see, however, Plato and Xenophon give somewhat dif
ferent accounts of what Socrates did say in his defense, and this has given
rise to many of our most difficult questions about the trial. One thing that
seems clear in both Plato's and Xenophon's accounts of Socrates' defense
(in fact, Xenophon makes this point explicitly) is that the general style and
tone of Socrates' speech was perceived by many to have been quite
haughty and proud-Xenophon characterized it as megalegoria,w hich
translates literally as "big talk." Plato simply gives us a version of the
speech without commentary, but readers of Plato's version have often
thought that much of it seemed like "big talk." There is much speculation
by scholars as to why Socrates would have defended himself in the way he
does in Plato and in Xenophon.
In Plato's version, Socrates claims to be surprised that he was con
victed by a fairly narrow margin: Had only thirty more jurors voted in his
favor, rather than against him, he would have been found innocent. If
indeed there were 500 jurors, as we have said, this means that the vote to
convict Socrates was 280 to 220, since a tie vote of 250 for each side would
have counted in Socrates' favor. In a much later (c. 250 c.E. or so) account,
Diogenes Laertius says that the vote to convict Socrates was by the much
2Not 501, as some scholars have suggested. Only later did the Athenians use odd-numbered
juries to avoid tie votes. When Socrates was tried, tie votes would be counted in favor of the
defendant.
• 2 •
