NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... phones; he is mentioned explicitly shortly after this. While it may seem Aristophanes was maliciously attacking Socrates, credible evidence points to the contrary. The Clouds was an attack on the Sophists, and its plot required somebody to represent the typical Sophist.
While Socrates differed in many regards to the Sophists, the public did not make the distinction, and it was they who Aristophanes was writing for. To anybody who knew Socrates personally the portrayal was, as was it was intended to be, absurd. However, those who knew him by name and rumor only most likely took it at face value. Socrates, we know, was not phased by it. Asian tells us in his work Historical Miscellany of the first staging of the Clouds. Socrates, overhearing some foreigners ask each other in whispers who is Socrates?
stood up for the audience to see, and remained standing until the conclusion of the play. Indeed, there is much reason to believe that Aristophanes and Socrates had an amiable relationship. If they did not Plato would have been the first to damn him, and yet in the only Platonic presentation of him, the two appear very close. Aristophanes and Socrates meet in Plato's The Symposium, written in 360 BC.
There is no animosity; they are engaged in a friendly conversation about the reconciliation of comedy and tragedy. Given such a relationship we can conclude that Socrates portrayal in the Clouds was merely gentle mockery, it was not the serious attack such as Cleon is subjected to. While Aristophanes presents us with a stereotype that almost certainly does not represent the real Socrates, a stereotype is still valuable in so far as it indicates what the general public thought of him. This public conception of Socrates is confirmed by a speech Aeschines delivered in 345 BC, 50 years after Socrates' execution. When facing Timarchus in court Aeschines tells the jury: "you put to death Socrates the sophist, fellow citizens, because he was shown to have been the teacher of Cities." Aeschines won his case. He would not have made such a statement, nor would it have carried the weight it obviously did unless it was something generally accepted as true by the public.
Having already stressed the importance of taking biases into consideration, we turn to Socrates' behavior at his trial. In general where Xenophon and Plato agree on something we can be fairly certain of its accuracy. However, Xenophon wrote his Apology to address what he saw as inaccuracies in prior Apologies, he did not intend to cover every detail ("I have not made it a point to report the whole trial"). Accordingly, when discussing issues that Xenophon does not cover we must cautiously use extracts from Plato that Xenophon does not explicitly disagree with. A poor public image was what brought Socrates to trial, and his behavior at the trial did absolutely nothing to help either his image or his case.
In fact if anything it proved detrimental, pushing the jury from suspicion to rage, and while it is debatable whether it cost him the case it is quite certain that it cost him his life. Both sources begin with Socrates denying his skills as an orator ("I have not the slightest skill as a speaker") and then subsequently reducing Meletus to utter confusion upon cross-examination. Such a disparity would have been noticed by the jury. It is a characteristic feature of his electric method, and it was not a wise move to employ it when being tried by a jury already deeply suspicious that he was a Sophist. In addressing the first of the three charges, that of "refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state", we must rely on Plato's Apology. Here Socrates traps Meletus into self-contradiction by getting him to express that Socrates is an atheist; this contradicts the second charge, that he imported divinities of his own.
Such a state of contradiction was obviously achieved by verbal manipulation, again not helping the perception of him as a Sophist. Socrates essentially makes no real defense of this charge, instead merely leading Meletus in circles. Socrates was already off to a poor start defending the second charge due to his claimed daimon ion or inner voice ("I am subject to a divine or supernatural experience"). It gave reasonable cause for concern that he was in fact "importing strange divinities of his own." Again, he puts up no substantial defense against the charge.
Both sources have Socrates relating the story of the Delphic Oracle, whereby his friend Chaerophon approached the Oracle and asked if any man was wiser than Socrates. The reply was negative, which set Socrates off on his mission to both prove to himself the truth of the Oracle and to expose the ignorance of his fellow man. This was a bad move on several levels. Firstly, the Athenians at the time suspected the Delphic Oracle of being pro-Spartan.
Earlier an Athenian delegation had asked who would win the Peloponnesian war, and the Oracle correctly responded that Sparta would. Xenophon records the jurys response to this anecdote, revealing that they "made a still greater tumult on hearing this." Furthermore, all the Oracle had said was that no man was wiser than Socrates. It did not commission him to go out and expose everybody's ignorance. That undertaking was of his own volition, and if anything is a point against his piety; he did not accept Apollo's judgment and had to test it for himself.
In Plato's Apology we see Socrates liken himself to "a stinging fly" for the city which "is inclined to be lazy and needs the stimulation." However, the reign of the Thirty Tyrants was still fresh in the Athenians minds, and so was Socrates's ilene throughout it. His 'sting' was not there when the city needed it most, and as such it was another ill-considered choice of argument. His defense against the third charge, that of "corrupting the young", is equally weak. Plato has him argue that corrupting the young would cause them to be evil, and consequently cause evil to him. Given his view that nobody can intentionally cause harm to themselves, Socrates argues that he could not therefore have corrupted the young. Not only is this a weak argument, it hinges on a premise that he holds, not that the jury hold.
Given such behavior, it would seem that the only surprising part of the verdict was that he was found guilty by such a slim margin. Under Athenian law, if the accused was found guilty both the defense and the prosecution would offer a penalty, and the jury would decide between the two. In this case the prosecution suggested the death penalty, assuming that Socrates would chose exile. This would have certainly been chosen by the jury, for the idea was to punish Socrates, not to kill him. Instead Socrates jokes that as a benefactor of the city he should be rewarded with free meals for life, an honor usually reserved for winners at the Olympic games. If there was ever a time not to joke, that was it.
Eventually his friends persuaded him to offer to pay a fine instead, but the damage had already been done. More of the jury voted for the death penalty than voted for the guilty charge, indicating that his flippant attitude towards sentencing had compelled many jurors to change their minds. Was Socrates fairly condemned? Plato and Xenophon tell us of the real Socrates, while from other sources we can derive popular perception. If we are to believe Plato and Xenophon, Socrates was not guilty of the charges he faced. But the public did not know this, and Socrates was quite aware of that fact.
He faced a great deal of suspicion leading up to the trial, and during his trial he did not defend himself against the charges he faced, he behaved in a most arrogant manner and on the whole served to confirm any suspicions the jury may have held. Thus acting in the way he did invited the verdict. It may not have been accurate, but given the circumstances it was most certainly fair. But perhaps the more poignant question is whether he was fairly punished, and to this the answer is a resolute no. Certainly he had provoked the jury, but the altered margin favoring the death penalty indicates that such provocation influenced the decision.
Idealistically emotions should have been left out the decision. Realistically it is an inescapable feature of democracy. Socrates was well aware of the shortcomings of democracy, so the real puzzle is why he let it destroy him.
Free research essays on topics related to: death penalty, jury, found guilty, plato apology, socrates
Research essay sample on Plato Apology Death Penalty
