The Historical Context of Socrates Trial and Execution

The Historical Context of Socrates Trial and Execution

Socrates Trial and Execution Came on the Heels of Social Crisis. In the final years of the 5 th century BCE that is, just a couple of years before Socrates execution Ancient Athens was undergoing a multi-faceted social crisis. The consequences of a devastating military defeat were compounded by crippling economic turmoil and violent civil strife, not to mention the spread of famine and disease throughout the city. Not only was the Athenian empire in shambles as a consequence of losing to Sparta in the Peloponnesian War, but a murderous and tyrannical, pro-spartan oligarchy known as the Thirty Tyrants, had taken control of the city in 404 BC. The rule of the Thirty, while short, could not have been crueler, as they murdered over fifteen hundred innocent Athenians and exiled countless more. Times like these, times of severe social crisis, are often marked by a period of religious fundamentalism and reactionary politics Early 4 th century Athens was no different. Many common Athenians believed that the gods, perhaps angered by the Athenian people, had abandoned the city to its ruin. And as we know from some of its more elaborate religious rituals, Athens was no stranger to a sacrificial logic : the misguided belief that a few people, or even a single individual, could be held responsible for a social crisis. Because of his reputation as a troublemaker and intellectual agitator (if not a political conspirator), in political and religious matters, Socrates might have represented, to many post-war Athenians, a sort of impious cancer in the city, which had infected the polis, angered the gods, and consequently undermined the link between Athens and the divine patrons who protected the city. The War that Brought Athens Low The Peloponnesian War (431 404 BC) was an ancient Greek war fought in three phases, between Athens and its empire and Sparta and its allies. Athens made a series of devastating mistakes late in the conflict, in particular a failed naval expedition to Sicily that ended 1

in the treason of a prominent, young Generals named Alcibiades. After his treason, Alcibiades defected to the Spartan side of the conflict. In 414, this failed military expedition along with the treason of Alcibiades (who was also a former student of Socrates) contributed to Athens defeat. In the final years of the war, Athens subject states revolted, tearing the empire apart and destroying much of Athens economic base, which relied on the influx of tributes from its colonies. Facing starvation and disease, Athens surrendered to Sparta in 404. Once the strongest city-state in Ancient Greece, Athens had now been reduced to subjugation. The city-state never regained its former prosperity. The loss of the war, and its associated calamities, signaled the twilight of the Athenian Golden Age. But worse was to come. The Thirty Tyrants In the immediate aftermath of the war, Athens fell under the rule of a pro-spartan oligarchic regime known as the Thirty Tyrants. The Thirty Tyrants came from a group of Aristocratic Athenians who had long despised Athens democratic constitution. The Thirty whose leader Critias was also former disciple of Socrates (as well as Plato s uncle) were eager to implement a Spartan-like political system: that is, a system of central, militarized authority, where a few highly educated, elite rulers would have nearly total control over the city s affairs. The Thirty Tyrants controlled Athens for only thirteen months, but their rule was as brutal as it was short. In fact, their rule was so cruel that even some of Athens former enemies helped overthrow the oligarchy in 403 and restore the Athenian democracy. Under the rule of Thirty, the directly democratic Citizen Assembly was, obviously, suspended along with other democratic institutions. In fact, the oligarchy s primary goal was the revision or erasure of all the democratic laws. Only 3,000 Athenians who were perceived as loyal to the new government were allowed to retain the status and rights of citizens. Many Athenians were exiled; others fled to join the resistance movement. A prominent leader of the democratic 2

resistance was Anytus, who would a few years later join (and most likely orchestrate) the prosecutions of Socrates for impiety. Over their thirteen-month rule, the Thirty killed five percent of the total Athenian population, employed 300 "lash-bearers" to intimidate Athenian citizens, confiscated the property of wealthy democrats, and exiled anyone who appeared loyal to the democracy. Socrates was among the 3,000 citizens who was allowed to remain in the city as a rightsbearing citizen. Return of the Democracy and the General Amnesty The extraordinary violence of the Thirty Tyrants produced, in turn, an extraordinary resistance effort (in which Anytus played a major role). The oligarchy was overthrown in 403 BCE, and the democracy restored. In order to bring some degree of healing to Athens, a general amnesty was passed, saving many Athenians from being charged with sedition or treason to the city this included the group of 3,000 of which Socrates was a member. Thus, if politicians believed that Socrates was, in no small way, guilty of treason by remaining in Athens or by being a teacher to the tyrant Critias, the general amnesty would have prevented Socrates from being charged with a political crime. Some scholars argue that the charge of impiety against Socrates was simply a religious cover for what were, essentially, political animosities. A Scapegoat It is not possible to understand why Socrates was charged with impiety and corrupting the youth unless we take into account the turbulent aftermath of the Peloponnesian war. When we take into account the failed war, the loss of Athenian life, wealth, and empire; when we take into account the treason of the young Alcibiades, who was beloved by many Athenians and thought to be the next Pericles that is, the next great leader and statesmen to lead Athens to glory; when we take into account the spread of famine and disease at the end of the Peloponnesian War; and above all, when we take into account the loss of Athens imperial glory, we begin to see that a 3

profound blight had settled over Athens. That is, everyday Athenians would have interpreted this social crisis as having religious significance. Why had the gods forsaken Athens? The relevant Greek concept here is loimos. Commonly translated plague, loimos indicated a whole complex of disasters which resulted from divine anger or divine neglect. Not only were great storms and pestilences indicative of a loimos-crisis, but also civil wars, communal strife, and even military defeat. At the end of the 5 th century, leading up to Socrates trial, it is quite possible that many common sense Athenians believed that they were the victims of divine punishment, that the gods had taken sides with Sparta against the city (this sort of thinking is not so alien even to our time: many evangelical leaders in the US argued that the spread of homosexuality and other sins had resulted in God s allowing the 9/11 terrorist attacks.) Some scholars argue that Socrates functioned as a scapegoat a single individual who could be identified as the source of a loimoscrisis. Exiling or putting to death the scapegoat (according to the sacrificial logic of the time) would purify the city from his pollution and hopefully reestablish the city s harmony with the gods. If we take this approach to the trial, we can interpret Socrates execution as having to do not only with crime and punishment but also communal crisis and communal redemption. Socrates was perhaps the clearest target for this sacrificial thinking. After all, Socrates was a teacher of or at least an associate of, Critias and Alcibiades. Sophistry and the Socratified Youth This social crisis, or divine loimos, settling over Athens also had much to do with the emergence of a cultural breakdown in the sphere of education and traditional morality. The waning authority of Athenian traditions, particularly its educational traditions, had signaled a serious breakdown in the ability of one generation to transmit cultural values to the next. This crisis was spearheaded by an intellectual and sophistical assault on the authority of nomos. 4

The Greek concept of Nomos signifies the traditions, the customs, and the laws in short, the accepted way of doing things that held together Athenian life. Up until the middle of the 5 th century, one s parents and society generally had been recognized as the proper educators of Athenian youth. Nomos along with one s parents were sources of authority regarding religious and political matters. But gradually (and peaking around the year 420) professional teachers began to encroach on this site of authority generating something of a felt crisis for the social institution of traditional, parental education. It is no surprise that in both Plato s and Xenophon s account of Socrates defense speech, Meletus places a great deal of significance on parental education, and he likely targeted Socrates as a sophistical agitator during his prosecution speech. Sophists were paid teachers who began flooding Athens in the middle of the 5 th century. Sophists were widely distrusted and seen as deceptive. Sophists were nomadic, traveling throughout Greece, making good money by training young aristocrats on the art of rhetoric and public speaking, before skipping town to the next city. The young aristocrats sought out these sophists in order to improve their rhetorical skills, so that they might make a name for themselves in the citizen assemblies. While the philosopher did not typically teach for money, the philosopher and the sophist were not easily distinguished in the eyes of most Athenians. This is because both the sophist and the philosopher denied the absolute authority of nomos. And because of this, the two were often lumped together. From the common Athenian perspective, the sophists and the philosophers were two sides of the same coin, if not the same side of the same coin. They were the movers of a radical intellectual revolution that challenged the basic authority of Athenian traditions and usurped the role of parents as meaningful educators. Moreover, as far as Socrates was concerned, his was a revolution that also promoted a sort of dangerous and hitherto unseen ethical and religious individualism. 5

Now, whatever else it might mean to say that Socrates trained individuals to think for themselves, the primary implication is that Socrates taught others to place the autonomy of individual reflection above the established authority of King Nomos. It seems Socrates made no secret of this either. So, just imagine the Athenian perspective when the Socratic ethos of individual reflection and nonconformism begins to take root among the wealthy aristocrats of the city members of an upper class who were inherently feared by the larger public in times of social instability. (In Athens, there would have always been mistrust of the powerful aristocrats, who many suspected would plot a coup and overthrow the democracy.) Unfortunately some of Socrates young associates will become the worst traitors and tyrants Athens will ever know. The young followers of Socrates were labeled the socratified youth by the playwright Aristophanes. Greek Religion and Miasma Greek piety, or religious duty, consisted in a sort apotropaic ( black magic or white magic ) economy. That is, there was something of an economic bartering mechanism that governed the relations between gods and mortals. This economy between mortals and gods consisted of the offerings of private and public sacrifices in exchange for divine favor. Being skilled in this economy was a matter of knowing how to entreat divine rewards and how to avoid divine scorn. More often than not, this is the general conception (even if it s a tad reductionist) of Athenian religion as such. Broadly speaking, Athenian religious customs were not so much about the production of theological dogmas and principles, but more about the production of attitudes of reverence, in other words: piety. As the character Euthyphro says in one of Plato s dialogues, piety is the kind of care that slaves take of their masters. The pious Athenian always takes care not to insult or bring harm to the gods, because the pious Athenian knows, as Euthyphro says, what the god loves and what the god hates. But the primary religious 6

concern here was not about maintaining piety for the sake of simply honoring the god, but for the sake maintaining the bartering game between the two, performing sacrifices in order to secure divine rewards. This is also important because impiety was often understood as activities that exposed the gods to harm, to insult, to pollution. Miasma (usually translated as pollution) was a Greek religious concept that implied religious defilement. Miasma was a metaphysical stain that was incurred either by doing something impious or coming into contact with a person who was already polluted. Impiety and its stain of miasma jeopardized the economy between gods and mortals, which established the very link between the city and the gods. Impiety and sources of impiety (sources of pollution) offended and even harmed the gods such that they were not likely to participate in the religious economy which, again, was about making ritual sacrifices in the right way in order to entreat divine rewards and avoid divine punishments. Vindictive Gods As far as Athenian religious belief went, the gods were not only likely to meddle in human affairs (often violently) but the gods were also, like the city-states of which they were patrons, in constant turmoil with one another, feuding among themselves and often going to war. Gods who had been offended or neglected by mortals would repay that offense by bringing famine or military disaster upon an impious community. Thus, the Greek gods were exemplars of vindictiveness and revenge. One of Socrates major philosophical principles was that it was always wrong to exchange a wrong for a wrong. Yet, this principle of retaliation and revenge the principle of exchanging one wrong for another was in many ways at the basis of Greek religion. It was a core political and religious value. Socrates believed that within the existing framework of Athenian religious and political traditions, it was 7

impossible for a rational (that is, non myth-based) conception of justice to flourish. Socrates probes the sources of religious and political authority in Athens in search of a coherent basis to articulate the meaning of justice and piety. But none can be found. Socrates then exposes the impossibility of mythos (identity-forming religious stories) to account for the logos (organizing principle) of piety, or justice, or the good, or the beautiful. The myths and stories often told about the gods contained contradictory lessons. That is, the gods and the heroes upon which Greek education was based contained contradictory lessons concerning what was good, what was pious, what was just. In exposing the baselessness at the core of Athenian values, Socrates exposes a veritable abyss at the heart of Athenian life. And though the philosopher did not yet possess a logos concerning these matters, he was inviting Athenians to be courageous, to be awake, and to join hands with him, so they might confront that abyss together. Socrates had religious faith. He based this faith in what he interpreted as a divine calling from the god. He had faith that if the Athenians persisted collectively in philosophy, that a logos would be forthcoming. And even if not, this persistence was an ethic in itself, a new value that should be substituted for the toxic Athenian traditions which, themselves, were ruining and corrupting Athenian citizens. If there were to be any moral progress in Athens, then the traditions must be abandoned. Socratic Gods In demonstrating the impossibility of mythos to account for logos, Socrates, re-evaluates the values of Athenian life and culture. Part of this re-evaluation included Socrates unorthodox interpretation of the Greek gods. 8

Socrates rejected the traditional stories told about the gods. As Socrates sees matters, if there were gods and all the evidence points to the fact Socrates believed there were then they were, above all else, rational and moral beings, subjected to the same ethical standards to which human mortals were subjected. In the Apology, Socrates argues that it would be illegitimate for the god to lie. But Why? In the myths, the gods lie and deceive humans all the time, often for the most questionable of reasons (to make love to those human beings they found most beautiful). The gods mislead one another, and often went to war for the most petty of reasons. Socrates rejected all this as false religion. An important Plato scholar, Gregory Vlastos, in his article Socratic Piety, goes so far as to suggest that Socrates is indeed guilty of the charge of impiety, precisely because of Socrates unorthodox conception of the Greek gods. This is what Vlastos has to say: For Socrates, since god can only be good, never evil, god can only cause good, and can never be the cause of evil to anyone, man or god. To heirs of the Hebraic and Christian traditions this will hardly seem a bold conclusion. For those bred on Greek beliefs about the gods it would be shattering. It would obliterate that whole range of divine activity which torments and destroys the innocent no less than the guilty. What would be left of Hera and of other Olympians if they were required to observe the stringent norms of Socratic virtue that require every moral agent, human or divine, to act only to cause good to others, never evil, regardless of provocation. And more: If required to meet these austere standards, the city s gods would have become unrecognizable. Their 9

ethical transformation would be tantamount to the destruction of the old gods, the creation of new ones which is precisely what Socrates takes to be the sum and substance of the accusation at his trial. This is, in fact, how Socrates relates to Euthyphro the charges brought against him: Meletus says that I am the maker of gods, and on the ground that I create new gods while not believing in the old gods, he has indicted me for their sake, as he puts it. Little would have been more foreign to a Greek than the ethical, and morally principled, Socratic gods, gods who were incapable of retribution, incapable of committing any action that would harm human beings. 10

11