THE STORY Journalist I.F. Stone sheds surprising light on the mystery which still surrounds the trial o f Greek philosopher Socrates. Here— in a self-interview— Stone sets forth his discovery and takes us on an armchair tour o f the complex politics o f fifth-century A thens. Isn't it a little late in the day to he re-examining the trial o f Socrates? I ’ thought that was 25 centuries ago? It was held, to be exact, in 399 B.C. And now, in A.D. 1979, you think you have discovered something newsworthy — excuse the expression — about a trial that the wire services covered 2,373 years ago? This obsession with the trial of Socrates is not mine alone. Scholars and historians have been puzzled by it for centuries, and still are. What's the puzzle? The Athens of Socrates's time has gone down in history as the very place where democracy and freedom of speech were born. Yet that city put Socrates, its most famous philosopher, to death. Presumably this was because its citizens did not like what he was teaching. Yet he had been teaching there all his life, unmolested. Why did rthey wait until he was 70, and had only a few years to live, before executing him? Why should this fascinate an old Washington muckraker like you? Because it's a black eye for all I believe in, for democracy and free speech. Anyone who starts out to study the problem of free speech in depth — as 1did after ill health forced me to give up my Weekly — is irresistibly drawn back to ancient Athens, where it all began. Isn’t that pretty far from home base, from current concerns and difficulties ? Not really. All our basic problems are there in miniature. I fell in love with the Athenians and the participatory democracy they developed. Free discussion was the rule everywhere — in the Assembly, the law courts, the theater, and the gymnasiums where they spent much of their leisure. Free speech — what the Greeks called parrhasia — was as much taken for granted as breathing. But then I was stopped, or stumped, by this contradictory and traumatic spectacle of what they did to Socrates. These people and this city, to which I look back for inspiration — how could they have condemned this philosopher to death? How could so blatant a violation of free speech occur in a city that prided itself on freedom of inquiry and expression? But why should we care at this late date? Because Plato turned the trial of his master. Socrates, into a trial of Athens and of democracy. He used it to demonstrate that the common people were too ignorant, benighted and fickle to entrust with political power. In Plato’s “Apology,” the contrast drawn between the nobility of Socrates and the grim verdict of his juror-judges indicted democracy in the eyes of posterity. And thanks to his genius, no other trial except that of Jesus has so captured the imagination of Western man. Plato made Socrates the secular martyred saint of the struggle against democracy. He stigmatized it as “mobocracy.” Yet this was the very same “mob” which applauded the anti-war plays of Aristophanes when Athens was fighting for its life against Sparta. (No such antiwar plays were allowed, by either side, during our last two World Wars.) This was the same “mob” whose eagerness for new ideas, and its readiness to hear them, drew philosophers from all over the ancient world. It made Athens — in the proud words of Pericles — “the school of Hellas,” the university of the Greek world. It is the high repute of Athens that makes the trial of Socrates so puzzling. And now you think you can throw a little fresh light upon it? I’ve been happily bogged down in ancient Athens for several years, trying to explore all of Greek thought and civilization, in order to reach a better understanding of the trial. In my researches amid the ancient documents, I recently stumbled on a crucial bit of evidence, hitherto overlooked, which makes the trial and its outcome a little less inexplicable. I hope your life-insurance policies are fully paid up. The classical scholars will he lying in wait for you, with knives sharpened. No trial in history has been more minutely studied, pored over and speculated upon. And you, an interloper and — most horrid o f academic epithets — a “journalist, ” believe you have found something they all overlooked! Have you seen any unidentified flying objects lately? Sneer if you will, but I’ve been encouraged by a remark of Jakob Burckhardt, the great Swiss historian of the Renaissance and of Greek culture. To emphasize the importance of restudying the classics in every generation, Burckhardt once said that, in a hundred years, someone would reread Thucydides and find something in his history “we had all overlooked.” How can a newspaperman find something new to report about a trial that took place so long ago? You re-examine all the source material for yourself. You go back to the texts in the original language, so that you can evaluate every nuance. You search out internal contradictions and curious evasions. It’s not so different from digging the real truth out of a Pentagon or State Department document. Could you fill me in on the sources for the trial — and do it, please in less than three volumes? I can do it in one sentence: The sources are scanty and one-sided. The only contemporary accounts are by two disciples of Socrates, Plato and Xenophon, both anxious to put their beloved master in as good a light as possible. But they do not give us a transcript of the actual trial. They give us their own conception of what Socrates said, or perhaps their own conception of what he should have said in his own defense. Plato’s exquisite, polished version, like his Socratic dialogues, can more reasonably be read as fictionalized biography. In Xenophon, we are told that Socrates’s “ inner voice” forbade him to prepare a defense. There is even one ancient tradition that tells us he was silent before his judges. What o f the prosecution's side? We have no record of it. We know it only by indirection from the two “Apologies,” one by Plato, the other by Xenophon — the word "apology” in Greek means defense — and from the “Memorabilia,” or memoir, of Socrates by Xenophon. It’s like trying to cover a trial when one is barred from the courtroom except to hear the defendant’s summation to the jury. Do we know the actual charges against Socrates? There were two charges: first, that Socrates violated the law by “refusing to do reverence to the gods recognized by the city, and introducing other new divinities,” and second by “corrupting the youth.” But we do not have the text of the laws on which these charges were based, nor the specific allegations. So we do not know just what Socrates is supposed to have said or done that made him seem disrespectful of the city gods. Nor do we know what was meant by the charge of corrupting the youth. Under Athenian legal procedure such specifics were required in a preliminary complaint and hearing before a magistrate, who then- decided whether the allegations and the evidence were sufficient to warrant aerial. But we have no account of this preliminary procedure, the equivalent of our grand jury. Didn 't Plato's dialogue the “Euthy- phro" cover the preliminary examination ? 16
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz