Who Killed Socrates?

By Professor Loren J Samons II

In 399 BC, a jury of some 500 Athenians voted to convict and execute the philosopher Socrates. The charges against him: corrupting youth, not believing in Athens' gods and introducing new gods. According to Plato's account of the trial, in Socrates' last speech to the jury he predicted that those in the future who wished to blacken Athens' reputation would claim that the Athenians had executed a wise man.

However, in the last two decades or so, it has been at least as common to hear a defence of their actions as condemnation of them. As an outspoken critic of democracy and the principles that underlie it – for example, the notion that the majority will tend to choose wisely – Socrates (or perhaps his pupil Plato, who is our main source about the great philosopher) seems to attract fewer and fewer fans. Even Socrates' execution can be seen as understandable given that he had spoken critically of democratic regimes and fraternised with some of the Athenians responsible for overthrowing the government. In a world where the term 'democratic' has come to stand for whatever is good in government (just as 'undemocratic' stands for whatever is bad), such a potential opponent of democracy hardly seems to deserve a defence.

The Athenian politeia

The modern article of faith that proclaims democracy the ultimate (or at least the best practical) form of government would have surprised both Socrates and the Athenians who voted to condemn him. As far as we are able to gauge, his accusers and enemies did not see his actions as violating some universal principle – say, that democracy is the only legitimate form of government. Indeed, the charges against Socrates were primarily social and religious. Many citizens apparently saw Socrates as hostile to something that was peculiarly Athenian.

Here we must remember that the Athenians drew no hard lines between 'religion' and 'politics', or attempted to separate their society into discreet zones as we moderns do. Athens' society and its form of government (which together the Greeks called politeia), together with its gods were identified closely with the city-state itself. And the Athenians looked to both their gods and their politeia to make Athens more prosperous and successful.

Socrates' execution had been preceded by two brief and troubled periods in which the democratic regime had been replaced by oligarchy – government by the self-interested few. After this, the Athenians apparently came to associate 'Athenian-ness' with democracy almost as much as with the worship of Athena and the celebration of the two main festivals – the City Dionysia, at which tragedies and comedies were performed, and the Panathenaea – as well as the protection of suppliants and the city-state's hegemony in the Aegean, all of which had earlier claims as defining elements of Athens' national character or self-image.

A dangerous form of government

Most classical Greeks never adopted the principle that democracy was the only legitimate or best form of government. Indeed, the idea that democracy and only democracy reflects political and social justice is relatively new, postdating, for example, the American Revolution. The founders of the United States viewed democracy of the Athenian type, where citizens exercise direct control over state policy through votes at an assembly, as a particularly unstable form of government. They therefore worked to create buffers between the popular will and legislative or policy decisions.

In the 19th century, the word 'democracy' began to lose the connotation of mob rule that it had often carried. By the 20th century, world wars could be claimed to be fought (in part) to make the world 'safe' for a form of government that most in the West had traditionally seen as dangerous. In the early 21st century, we have witnessed an attempt to export democracy by force and heard a new British prime minister propose that the UK create a 'more open 21st-century British democracy' by 'devolving more power directly to the people.' This proposal rests on 'the conviction that the best answer to disengagement from our democracy is to strengthen our democracy.'

Power to 'the people'

What has happened, of course, is that the word 'democracy' no longer stands for the type of direct democracy practised by the Athenians. Having been redefined as something like 'government by elected officials that ensures the sovereignty and benefit of the people while protecting their rights,' democracy as a form of regime – and, perhaps more importantly, as an ideology – has been able to dominate utterly the political landscape of the West.

Modern Western politicians almost universally adopt the rhetoric of democracy, praising what they say 'the people' like or want and condemning what they claim 'the people' condemn. In short, modern Westerners do not live in Athenian-style democracies, but political leaders speak (and we sometimes act or speak) as if they do. The idea that a state should be 'more democratic' receives universal praise, and some leaders or theorists have gone so far as to propose that modern regimes should operate more like the Athenians by giving the people more direct power over policies.

Always a good thing?

But does Athenian history teach us that 'what the people want' is always or even usually a good thing? The execution of Socrates should give us pause. However, as already noted, it has become fashionable to understand and to excuse the Athenians' action.

Perhaps if the only misdeed of which we could accuse the democratic Athenians was the execution of Socrates, we moderns might be excused for looking to more direct or purer democracy for the answers to contemporary political and social problems. But in fact, Socrates' execution represents merely one entry in a very long list of mistakes, misdeeds and atrocities under Athenian democracy.

The Delian League

The democratic Athenians and the oligarchic Spartans shared primary responsibility for defeating the great Persian invasion of 480-479 BC. But after the Persians had been put to flight, the Athenians continued operations in the Aegean, while the Spartans returned to mainland Greece. Heading a new and initially voluntary alliance of Greek states that supplied ships or money to oppose and punish the Persians, the Athenians moved quickly to consolidate their long-standing interests in the northern Aegean. They expelled both Persians and non-Persians from strategic locations and settled these areas themselves.

Within a decade of the Delian League's formation, some states tried to leave it. However, Athens would not permit this and those states that attempted to secede were attacked and forced to pay tribute. Even after the Athenians and their allies won a great victory against the Persians at the battle of Eurymedon (c. 466BC) in what is now known as Anatolia, which effectively ended the Persian threat in the Aegean, the league was not disbanded and tribute collection not stopped.

Voting for pay

By 454BC, the Athenians had transferred the league's treasury to Athens. Shortly thereafter they began the expensive programme of public adornment that produced the Parthenon, the Propylaea (the Acropolis's monumental gateway) and much else.

At about the same time, the general and statesman Pericles proposed that Athenians serving on large juries (like the one that would convict Socrates) should be paid for their services, and subsequently most Athenians public offices were paid for at an increasing rate. By the early 4th century BC, the Athenians had even voted to pay themselves for voting.

An expanding empire

Under the Athenian empire, almost all of Athens' formerly free allies eventually accepted or were reduced to the status of tribute payers. Athenian settlers occupied prime lands in former allies' states, local legal cases were transferred to Athens (where Athenian juries would render decisions), garrisons were established in some cities and the allies were required to play the role (and make the contributions) of Athenian colonists at certain Athenian festivals.

The Athenians provoked hostilities with Sparta and Corinth, their former allies against Persia, fighting with one or both states (and their allies) off and on from about 460 to 404BC. During that period, the Athenians undertook military actions virtually every year, often attempting to expand their empire (invading Sicily in 415), reduce recalcitrant allies or force others into the Delian League.

In the course of these conflicts, the Athenians bankrupted themselves while killing thousands of fellow Greeks and selling thousands more into slavery. In 416, when the island of Melos (where the Venus de Milo would be found in 1820) refused to join the alliance, the Athenians besieged the city and then slaughtered all the Melian men and enslaved the women and children. Afterwards, refusing offers of peace on favourable terms from their foes, the Athenians eventually lost the war, their fleet and their empire.

Democracy but not justice

It cannot be over-emphasised that Athens' citizens met in assembly and openly voted in favour of every action listed above. Democracy gave them the power to put the popular will into immediate action. That will often proved to be not only misguided but also acquisitive, belligerent and bloody. Athenian leaders who opposed the people's will or generals who failed to carry it out successfully ran the risk of fines, exile or execution.

It was the citizens of this Athens whom Socrates criticised, reminding them that they bore responsibility for their individual actions and that too often these actions had fallen short of their city's reputation for wisdom. For Socrates, the question of an action's justice ranked far above its popularity. Such views plus his known association with some of those who conspired to overthrow Athenian democracy, his unorthodox religious beliefs and his annoying habit of making those in authority (and 'the people' themselves) look ridiculous made him unpopular and eventually led to his execution.

Choices and consequences

Ancient critics of democracy such as Socrates and Plato, Aristophanes and Thucydides (all Athenians) can be dismissed by moderns as prejudiced aristocrats who sought to thwart the empowerment of the poor. Such a view, while perhaps comforting, ignores a central fact of Athenian history, a fact that many living before the 20th century recognised. We can only hold up democratic Athens as a model for government if we rate the citizens' ability to choose their state's actions as more important than the choices actually made and their consequences.

Present-day calls for more democracy will undoubtedly continue. Athens' history suggests that we would do well to consider the perils, as well as the benefits, of democratic government.

---

Loren J Samons II is professor and chairman of classical studies at Boston University (US) and the author of 'What's Wrong with Democracy? From Athenian Practice to American Worship' and editor of 'The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles.'

More on these books