Talk:Trial of Socrates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Adjective: Sokratean or Socratic?

Consider the Greek one, sokratikos, when deciding.

—6birc, 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.