A WIDE CANVAS
THE TRIAL OF SOCRATES
Philosophers live philosophy
The trial and the last days of Socrates are moving. They exert a strong civilising influence on any serious student of life and letters. Any one can talk philosophy, but that does not make one a philosopher. A philosopher has to LIVE philosophy. That is what Socrates did. That is why we study his life and words.
The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being.
"Socrates": licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia commons.
The trial and the last days are covered in several dialogues of Plato and we must study them to gain true understanding. I will present here some extracts from the work of Xenophon.He was not a philosopher like Plato and hence his account is more down to earth. He was not present at the trial, but he relies on the record of Hermogenes who was. He constantly assures us of their accuracy. Besides, his account tallies in all essential respects with that of Plato, though lacking his philosophical flourish. In several areas Xenophon gives his reasoning about why Socrates did the things he did, whereas Plato merely confines himself to recording what Socrates said. Scholars say that since Socrates did not keep any notes or follow a prepared speech, the high philosophical tone that we observe in Plato's dialogues might be reflection of his own philosophical position.
Xenophon,Greek historian. 439- 354 BC
He was also a student of Socrates,like Plato.
Socrates charged
The charges brought against Socrates were:
Not recognising the gods recognised by the State, and introducing new gods; and corrupting the youth.
(This does not mean that the charge of corruption was related to not recognising the old gods. These were two separate charges.)
It is necessary to understand the nature of the first charge in the context of the then Athenian society. The foundation of Athenian law was "Nomos", which can be translated as custom, tradition, law, convention, etc. This could be codified as law, or present strong in the collective memory and common belief and behaviour of the society. Recognising- ie worshipping and honouring the gods was an essential aspect of the society. It meant not only that the common festivals and public sacrifices and celebrations had to be properly observed, in which citizens had to participate, but the gods had to be properly honoured and worshipped by individuals. And this was considered an important duty of the citizens. Anyone violating or disrupting it was thus failing in his civic duties. That someone has a particular philosophy or belief did not seem to have mattered, so long as the religious obligation was fulfilled.
Socrates refuted both charges strongly.
Xenophon gives many examples from the day to day conversations of Socrates to show how he was always talking from a sense of noble conduct born of a high sense and standard of self-discipline. Once talking to Aristodemus who said that the gods were too magnificent to need our worship, Socrates said:
Now, God was not content with merely caring for the body; what is far more important, he also endowed man with mind in its higher form. What other animal, in the first place, has a mind that is aware of the existence of the gods, who have set in order the greatest beauty on the grandest scale? What kind of creatures except man worships the gods?
Isn't it quite evident to you that compared with other creatures, men live like gods, naturally supreme both in body and in mind?
....how can you think that the gods have no concern for you? Can't you see that the most enduring and wise of human things- States and nations- are the most devout, and that the most intelligent times of life are the ones which are the most full of regard for the gods?
get into your head that your own mind , which is inside you,controls your body as it wills; and in the same way you must believe that the intelligence which is in the universe disposes all things just as it pleases.
He thus impressed on Aristodemus the necessity of honouring the gods. Xenophon records that with such a teaching, he made his associates refrain from irreverent, wrong and discreditable actions not only in public but even when they were alone " for the simple reason that they had made up their minds that none of their actions could ever escape the knowledge of the gods". Thus, the fear of the gods was instilled in them, which became the basis of self-discipline.
Socrates said addressing Antiphon:
you identify happiness with luxury and extravagance, but I have always thought that to need nothing is divine, and to need as little as possible is the nearest approach to the divine, and that what is divine is best, and what is nearest to the divine is the next best.
A man who sells his favours for a price to anyone who wants them is called a catamite;.... those who sell wisdom at a price to anyone who wants it are called sophists; but if anyone, by imparting any edifying knowledge ...makes a friend of one whom he knows to be naturally gifted, we consider that he is behaving as a truly good citizen should behave....And in company with good friends, I open and read from beginning to end the books in which the wise men of past times have written down and bequeathed to us their treasures.
The Trial and Defence
These are the kinds of conversations Socrates used to have with friends throughout his life. So when the trial came, and he had to defend himself, he said that 'his whole life had been a preparation for his defence'! Asked to explain how, he said:
Because I have consistently done no wrong. and this, I think is the finest preparation for a defence.
Socrates claimed that twice he prepared to make a defence, but the divine opposed him! He said (mentioning one of his accusers):
Meletus himself could, if he had chosen, have seen me sacrificing during the communal festivals and at the public altars. As for my claim that a divine voice comes to me and communicates what I must do, how in claiming this am I introducing new deities? Those who rely on bird-calls and the utterances of men are, I suppose, receiving guidance from voices. Can there be any doubt that thunder has a voice or that it is an omen of the greatest significance?... whereas others state that it is birds and utterances and chance meetings and oracles which forewarn them, I call it divine. I think that in using this description I am being more accurate and more devout than those who ascribe the power of the gods to birds.
Do you know anyone who is less of a slave to bodily desires than I am?
Do you know anyone more free, since I accept no gratuities or payment from anyone?
Could you possibly regard anyone as more upright than the man who is so in tune with his immediate circumstances that he has no need of anything extraneous?
.....while others acquire their shop-bought luxuries at high price, I arrange for greater, mental luxuries at no cost at all.
... tell me of anyone who has stopped worshipping the gods because of me, or who has substituted arrogance for humility, or extravagance for economy, or drunkenness for moderate drinking, or flabbiness for exercise, or who has given to any base indulgence because of me?
Here, Xenophon gives a bit of his own reasoning . He says that though Socrates was neither irreligious nor unfair towards others, still he did not believe that he should beg for his life, as he felt that his time had come! Socrates also felt that to propose a counter-penalty (lesser punishment) would amount to admission of his guilt. When friends urged him to escape, he refused saying whether they knew of any place which was free from death!
Socrates summed up his defence thus:
it has not been proved that I committed any of the crimes mentioned in the indictment. It has not been shown that I sacrifice to any new deities or swear by them, or recognise other deities instead of Zeus and Hera and their divine companions. How could I corrupt the young by making endurance and economy second nature to them?
the shame falls not on me but on those who condemned me.
Thus, throughout the trial, Socrates was defiant, though defending himself. He was arguing his case, but was not apologetic. He was certain he was not wrong and there was no need to seek any favour by way of pleading for lesser penalty. Above all, he had a sense of being guided by the divine force, and he submitted to it without hesitation. He had probably an intimation of his end and so he did not want to defy or seek to dodge the divine will.##
Xenophon feels that this strong stand of Socrates was arrogance, which annoyed the jurors and thus Socrates forced them to condemn him! Xenophon ends his account of the trial with these words:
When I consider how wise the man was, and how high-minded, I am bound to remember him, and when I remember him, I am bound to admire him.
Well, Xenophon could not know that not only he but the entire civilised world was bound to remember Socrates, and by remembering him, honour him for two thousand five hundred years!
(Quotations here are from the edition by Robin Waterfield of Xenophon: Conversations of Socrates. Penguin Classics,1990. Robin Waterfield's translations are, I have found, the best and his introductions are full of helpful insights.)
Human affairs and Divine Voice
## Is it possible that some one got such divine guidance, when charged with a serious offence, not to prepare his own defence? Is such a claim credible?
Let us leave all theory and
speculation aside.It has actually happened. In 1908, Sri Aurobindo was implicated in the Alipore Bomb case, and was lodged in the Alipore Jail. The case was going on in the court.One day, the earlier counsel went, and C.R.Das came in his place , started arguing the case. Sri Aurobindo used to follow the arguments keenly, take notes and pass them on to Das. Then the Divine voice intervened. This is how Sri Aurobindo himself described it:
Sri Aurobindo, Uttarpara Speech. Delivered on 30 May,1909. Published on 1 June 1909.Sri Aurobindo was acquitted by the English Judge.When the trial opened in the Sessions Court, I began to write many instructions for my Counsel as to what was false in the evidence against me and on what points the witness might be cross-examined. Then something happened which I had not expected. The arrangements which had been made for my defence were suddenly changed and another counsel stood there to defend me......Srijut Chittaranjan Das.When I saw him, I was satisfied, but I still thought it necessary to write instructions. Then all that was put away, and I heard the message from within, "This is the man who will save you....Put aside these papers.It is not you who will instruct him. I will instruct him." From that time I did not of myself speak a word to my Counsel....with what result you know. I knew all along what HE meant for me, for I heard it again and again, always I listened to the voice within: " I am guiding, therefore fear not."
Wisemen and the world
Socrates's trial raises an important question, relevant even today. Can a man of knowledge or wisdom afford to conduct his public life in such a way as to defy the customs and traditions of the society, or even give such an impression? To day it is common for our 'intellectuals' and progressive politicians to ridicule the people for their religious practices, while they themselves are introducing new practices in many fields. The Indian tradition is also like the Greek: society depends on some basic customs and practices.These are all not enacted by the State and enforced by its power. While there could be people who by their education or other attainments could pass the stage where they need such customs for their own personal edification or satisfaction, there are many others who have not attained such a state who need them. But the example of the top few could unsettle the minds of the common man, and undermine the society's cohesion. The Gita says clearly in this regard:
Yad yadacharati sreshta:
tattadeve taro jana:
Sa yat pramaanam kurutae
loka:tat anuvartate 3.21
Whatever the superior person does, that is followed by others. What he demonstrates by action, that people follow.
Na mae parthasthi kartavyam
trishu lokeshu kinchana.
Naanavaaptam avaaptavyam
varta eva cha karmani 3.22
O Partha! I have no duty , there is nothing I have not gained, there is nothing I have to gain in all the three worlds. Yet I continue in Karma.
Yadi aham na varteyam
jaatu karmani atindrata:
Mama vartamanuvartantae
manushyaa: partha sarvasha: 3.23
O Partha! If ever I did not continue in Karma without relaxation, men would in every way follow in My wake!
Saktaa: karmani avidvaamso
yataa kurvanti bharata
Kuryaat vidvaams tatha asakta:
chikirshu: lokasangraham. 3.25
As the unwise perform karma out of attachment, so should the wise one act, but without attachment, desirous of the welfare (Lokasangraham- social cohesion, integrity of the society) of the world.
Prakrutaer guna sammoodha:
sajjante guna karmasu:
Taan krutsnavido mandaan
krtsnavinna vichaala aet. 3.29
Men of perfect knowledge should not unsettle the understanding of the people of dull wit and imperfect knowledge, who deluded by the gunas of prakriti attach themselves to the functions of the gunas.
There can be no clearer exposition of the importance of the wise people setting a good example by their action in following the common practices, even while not needing them personally, as these are meant for the common people.This is said in the Gita in the context of explaining the 'Yajnas' which were the ancient, eternal bonds between man and the 'devas' (gods) for their mutual benefit. Society should not discontinue them.
Today, not only the intellectuals, atheists, 'progressive' etc elements are discouraging people from performing their religious duties; even some of the new age gurus are advocating abandonment of traditional practices and adoption of new ones. We can appreciate if the ancient Athenian society felt that Socrates was perhaps setting a bad example by speaking against the gods.
But Socrates did no such thing. Socrates was not irreligious, or disrespectful of the gods. His teaching did not involve social religion but private ethics- virtue. Socrates was teaching people to adopt virtuous conduct as the foundation of worldly happiness and other worldly rewards. He did not criticise the religion of the land, or their traditional practices. He only wanted them to even exceed the 'nomos'- the customary standards or practices, not abandon them. When people were in difficulties which they could not solve with their intellect, he even advised them to seek divination! He even warned people against too much research into astronomy , as he said that it was not possible for man to know everything, and they should not be eager to learn things which the gods had not chosen to reveal, as they could not please the gods thereby!
Xenophon records an instance when Socrates found his eldest son Lamprocles getting angry with his mother. He asked him whether he knew of people being called ungrateful and why. The boy replied that he knew and that was because they had not returned a kindness received. Was ingratitude then wrong? Yes, it was wrong, said the boy. He led the boy by further questioning to admit that it was wrong to be ungrateful even to an enemy. Was not ingratitude unmitigated injustice? Yes, agreed the boy. Then, the greater the favour received without gratitude, greater the injustice? Yes, said the boy.
Well, said Socrates: who enjoys greater benefits than children from their parents? Their parents have brought them into existence, taught them all the good things, and to see beauty . They undergo lot of suffering, face many hardships and incur many sacrifices. He tells Lamprocles that the mother is constantly praying to the gods for blessings on the son, and undertaking vows on his account.Yet he says the mother is difficult to put up with! He tells him: "if you can't bear a mother like her, you can't bear what is good for you". He advises him to pray to the gods for forgiveness for the disregard shown to the mother!
When he found two bothers quarrelling, he would tell them that 'brothers were intended by God to be more helpful to each other than hands or feet or even eyes ". Thus in every situation of life, he was teaching basic morality , courtesy, gratitude,- all the basic virtues and reminding people about God and virtuous conduct.
Socrates and Athens: the bond
Socrates was not a social reformer, as that category is understood. He was a moral reformer. He wanted people to lead a virtuous life, not merely follow the traditional customs.He wanted them to base such conduct on wisdom which they could themselves discover. Their conviction should exceed the conventions. He felt it was his divine mission to teach this to Athens. He said at his trial:
I was attached to this city by the god- though it seems a ridiculous thing to say- as upon a great and noble horse which was sluggish because of its size and needed to be stirred by a kind of gadfly. It is to fulfill some such function that I believe the god has placed me in this city. (Tr.G.M.A.Grube)
So his love for Athens was not merely because of his civic affections- it was his divine charge. That explains why he refused to escape, when his friends suggested it. More than civic duty, or moral obligation, ( which he certainly respected),he was fulfilling a divine command that he felt he had.
Spiritual but not religious?
There are many today who call themselves 'spiritual but not religious'. They are sincere in wanting to lead a 'virtuous' life, but do not feel like following an organised religion, or observe its rites and rituals, or even accept its dogma. Socrates has shown us how one could be traditional in religion, and yet free in spirit, devoted to a life of wisdom and virtue!
In this sense, he strongly reminds us of the Upanishadic seers or Masters. They have sprung from the tradition, but have outgrown the need for the early forms and practices. But they do not decry them on this account but show how they could be given a different meaning , thereby enlarging their scope and reach! This is what we see perfected in the Gita- ancient terms like yajna, karma, yoga, jnana,sankhya etc are taken up and given new significance! This way, one could be religious, and yet spiritual!
Why exactly such a charge that he was dishonouring the gods was brought against Socrates is intriguing.There is a view that Socrates held some unpopular views on political matters- for instance, he was considered pro-Spartan in his sympathies, and did not favour the democratic polity- and that he was really tried for those views. But the way he met the charge, and met his end puts the seal on the noblest of lives that the West has seen.
The tallest figure in Western civilisation.
By Joanbanjo (Own work)CC BY-SA 3.0 creative commons via Wikimedia commons.
NOTE:
Our knowledge of Socrates is derived entirely from the West. Western scholars always look at things through their prejudiced glasses. They dispute facts when known, and theorise and guess, when they do not know. Unfortunately, not many Indian scholars ( I mean scholars who have studied our systems, not Indians following the Westerners) have studied Socrates and Plato from our perspective. When one comes to Socrates or Plato with knowledge of our own tradition, one is struck by the strong similarities in many areas, though may be not a complete identity.. But this is a subject waiting to be studied. In the meantime, we should take the work of Western scholars with a generous pinch of salt. There is huge scholarship, but very little real understanding.For, when it comes to philosophy, trust the West to muck it up! Ancient Athens killed Socrates. Modern West has mutilated and murdered philosophy-considered as the pursuit of wisdom..
Plato deals with the trial and last days of Socrates in four of his dialogues. But that deserves separate coverage.
Those who are interested in detailed study of why Socrates was put to death will find Robin Waterfield's book: Why Socrates Died (W.W.Norton&Co,2009) rewarding. Even more detailed is : The Hemlock Cup by Bettany Hughes (Alfred A.Knopf,2010). It reveals to us the Athens as it was, as it shaped Socrates and as it was in turn affected by Socrates.This is a tremendous book.
No comments:
Post a Comment