• List Price: $16.00
  • Save: $4.12 (26%)
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
Only 15 left in stock (more on the way).
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Gift-wrap available.
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: This book has already been loved by someone else. It MIGHT have some wear and tear on the edges, have some markings in it, or be an ex-library book. Over-all itâ?TMs still a good book at a great price! (if it is supposed to contain a CD or access code, that may be missing)
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

The Trial of Socrates Paperback – February 1, 1989

See all 15 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
"Please retry"
$4.94 $0.01
Unknown Binding
"Please retry"

Frequently Bought Together

The Trial of Socrates + The Last Days of Socrates (Penguin Classics)
Price for both: $21.43

Buy the selected items together

Best Books of the Year
Best Books of 2014
Looking for something great to read? Browse our editors' picks for 2014's Best Books of the Year in fiction, nonfiction, mysteries, children's books, and much more.

Product Details

  • Paperback: 304 pages
  • Publisher: Anchor; Reprint edition (February 1, 1989)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0385260326
  • ISBN-13: 978-0385260329
  • Product Dimensions: 5.1 x 0.7 x 8 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 10.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (42 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #468,501 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

"The philosopher we meet on these pages is an arrogant, bullying elitist who welcomed death and did his best to antagonize the jury that sentenced him," stated PW. "In this iconoclastic portrait of a secular saint, Socrates emerges as a thoroughly dislikable, albeit superior, man who upheld unpopular truths."
Copyright 1988 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Since his retirement in 1971, former muckraker Stone has turned classicist. He is especially fascinated by Socrates's trial because it represents a "black mark" for the free and democratic Athens that he admires. Stone argues that while the Athenian verdict cannot be defended, it can be understood: Socrates was an anti-democratic reactionary whose philosophy posed a genuine threat to liberal ideals. Stone's portrait of Socrates sharply contrasts with the popular hagiographies and will stimulate a wide range of readers, although specialists will find much to argue with. Recommended for general collections.Richard Hogan, Southeastern Massachusetts Univ., North Dartmouth
Copyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

4.0 out of 5 stars

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

57 of 66 people found the following review helpful By "lexo-2" on May 22, 2000
Format: Paperback
I.F. Stone, one of the few honourable journalists in recent US history, wrote this book in his retirement as an attempt to answer a question that had dogged him for years: How could Athens, a genuine democracy, condemn a man like Socrates to death? I mean, this was Socrates, the first major hero of western philosophy (if you don't count the pre-Socratics), the master of dialectic, the hero of all those who value intellectual independence, right?
Wrong. Stone's initial puzzlement hardens into a damaging case against Socrates. He never defends the Athenians' decision to execute him (because he finds it indefensible), but he produces a case for the prosecution that's hard to answer. If, like me, you'd always vaguely considered Socrates to be a model upholder of free thought, free speech and liberty in general, you're in for a shock. Socrates' contempt for democracy and the democratic process was all but a gauntlet thrown in the Athenians' faces. He claimed at his trial to be a gadfly, a reminder of uncomfortable moral truths which the polis was inclined to forget, but on the occasions when Athens was faced with tough moral decisions, Socrates was nowhere to be seen, and had nothing to say. His favourite disciple, Alcibiades, was a right-wing thug. He never ceased to praise the totalitarian government of Sparta, and to heap contempt on the participatory government of Athens (okay, women and slaves didn't have the vote in Athens, but it would be a couple of thousand years before they got it _anywhere_.
Read more ›
4 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
33 of 38 people found the following review helpful By Aristotle Bury on August 21, 2005
Format: Hardcover
It might as well be said right off the top: Stone is clearly not a scholar of classical Greece. Although Stone acknowledges his amateur status, it is clear that it is false modesty: he clearly believes that his lack of formal training in classics is a point in his favour. An enlightened amateurism, supposedly uncorrupted by years of indoctrination into the hagiocracy of accepted scholarship, is a pretension he shares with many journalists, who seem to think that an entertaining and provocative story is more important, interesting and "true" than a complete and accurate story. So much for Stone, but what about his book?

I first read Plato's Apology, Crito, and Phaedo (Plato's description of the trial and death of Socrates) in first or second year university. As it is to many young people, it was a moving experience, and one that set the stage for much of my later interest in Greek history and philosophy. The execution of Socrates has usually been treated as a stain on the otherwise monumental achievements of Athens. The contrast between the Athenians' receptiveness to a multiplicity of ideas has always seemed to me, and to many others, to stand in stark contrast to their handling of Socrates. (This seeming contradiction is a useful one, however, since it reminds us that ancient Greek culture, while incomparably influential on Western civilization, was not a uniformly noble affair). Stone questions this seeming contradiction as a journalist would and finds more worldly reasons for the execution, namely that the Athenians believed Socrates to be an active opponent of the democracy, whose teachings directly counseled his pupils (especially Critias and Alcibiades) to commit treason by siding with the Spartans to install an oligarchy in Athens.

Stone's central premise is not new.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
37 of 44 people found the following review helpful By Fazal Majid on September 1, 2003
Format: Paperback
Read the editorial reviews for books on or by Plato and you will find the fawning hagiolatry that too many professional philosophers have bestowed upon one of their own (comparable only to the scorn heaped upon the Sophists, who demonstrated by example how philosophical methods can lead to absurd conclusions, and are thus suspect). Anyone reading "The Republic" in earnest cannot fail to be horrified by prescriptions that are eerily reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution in China or Pol Pot's reign of terror in Cambodia.
I.F. Stone's book demonstrates how Plato's views were those of a disgruntled aristocrat railing against the (relative) democracy of classical Athens who stripped his class of many of its privileges. Some of his associates went beyond railing and actually committed treason in an attempt at restoring the said privileges.
Unfortunately, Stone misses his target, and actually believes Plato when the latter fraudulently ascribed his own opinions to Socrates. Most of Stone's scathing criticism and debunking of Socrates should really be understood as applying to Plato. There is very little we can know about Socrates himself and his views, as he did not write, and any speculations on the man are likely to be fruitless or unsupported by hard evidence.
A much more rigorous (and devastating) critique of Plato is Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies", but it is certainly less accessible to the layman. For all its flaws, Stone's book is a good read and a first step in reversing centuries of undeserved praise granted to Plato.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Most Recent Customer Reviews

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?