The Trial of Socrates

After the defense of Socrates, the jury voted him guilty 281 to 220. Both sides proposed punishments for the jury to vote on. The prosecution proposed death while Socrates proposed his punishment in the second part of his apology. Socrates began his proposition by commenting on how close the vote was and how he could have almost escaped punishment. He later engaged in some dark humor by commenting that as a benefactor to Athens, his punishment should be free meals at the Prytaneum, an important building in Athens which housed members of council. He then considered imprisonment and banishment, before finally settling on a measly fine of 100 drachmae, a testimony of Socrates’ poverty. Realizing how small the sum was, Socrates’ supporters increased the amount to 3,000 drachmae, but this was still not enough. Socrates’ joking tone and way of speaking angered the jury and they ultimately voted on death, 361 to 140.

The jury decided that Socrates should die by drinking hemlock. After hearing his verdict and punishment, Socrates commented on it in the final part of his apology. He affirmed that it was not a lack of argument on his part that brought about his condemnation, but the fact that he decided not to stoop down to the display of emotions expected of a defendant. He insisted that he did not fear death and asked how could one know that death is bad if one knows nothing about it? To him, death was a blessing. It was either annihilation, which would bring peace from all the worries and was therefore nothing to fear. Or, death was a migration to meet the great souls of the dead, such as Homer or Hesiod, and was again nothing to be afraid of. Socrates finally concluded his apology by stating that he did not have a grudge against those that condemned him and in an amazing display of trust, he asked them to take good care of his three sons. So ends his apology and his life.

Socrates was promptly put to death shortly afterwards and his death struck a poignant chord in not only the hearts of all his followers, but in the hearts of people today. He was given many opportunities to flee and his followers encouraged him to do so, but he refused in accordance to his philosophy of obedience to the law. His death effectively made him a martyr, though he was not given the iconic status shortly after his death as he is given today. Plato and Xenophon have done their job well in portraying their master as a wise and benevolent philosopher who was completely innocent, for he seen as such today. He is seen as a man had to unjustly suffer at the hands of a partisan government. His apology as detailed by Plato made people realize what a truly amazing orator he was and how effectively he employed the devices of rhetoric. His execution brings about many questions, namely, why a free democratic society such as ancient Athens would put to death a man for teaching his beliefs? Historians have also questioned the veracity of both Plato’s and Xenophon’s account of the apology. While Plato’s apology takes a more objective stance, historians agree that is probably heavily biased, with some even contending that Plato’s account should not be treated as a historical account, but rather a work of philosophy. Xenophon’s account, on the other hand, deals mostly with Socrates’ thoughts and state of mind, which are subjective in nature. If Plato’s account holds true, it provides a dark commentary on the negative aspects of the democratic system of justice, and reminds people how even the noblest of governments can fail horribly.