The Trial of Socrates [Paperback]

I.F. Stone (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: February 1, 1989

In unraveling the long-hidden issues of the most famous free speech case of all time, noted author I.F. Stone ranges far and wide over Roman as well as Greek history to present an engaging and rewarding introduction to classical antiquity and its relevance to society today. The New York Times called this national best-seller an "intellectual thriller."

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.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 304 pages
• Publisher: Anchor; First Edition edition (February 1, 1989)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0385260326
• ISBN-13: 978-0385260329
• Product Dimensions: 5.1 x 0.6 x 8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (37 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #236,351 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

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

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

49 of 56 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A brilliant book, May 22, 2000

By 

"lexo-2" - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Trial of Socrates (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_.) He especially hated Pericles, one of the greatest statesmen of all time, because Pericles was popular, and Socrates hated the power of popular opinion (he considered anybody who didn't have philosophical training to be simply unworthy of having a say in how the state ought to be organised. He was, in short, the first great elitist of western political theory.)

Stone shows how Socratic dialogues are frequently weighted in Socrates' favour - the game is rigged. Socrates is constantly arguing with dimwitted yes-men who can't come up with the obvious counter-arguments. This is a sobering and a sweetly rigorous book; for many years, Stone applied his intelligence to sorting out the manifold lies from the grubby truth in American politics (he was no more a Communist than John Milton) and it's a pleasure to see him apply that intelligence to another great untouchable.

For all the passages of wonderful poetry in Plato, there are times when the Sage comes across as little more than a more intelligent, toga-clad William F. Buckley. Good for Stone, that he told this story.

30 of 36 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars It should really be the trial of Plato..., September 1, 2003

By 

Fazal Majid (San Francisco, CA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Trial of Socrates (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.

22 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Not scholarly, but a worthwhile central premise, August 21, 2005

By 

Aristotle Bury (Canada) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Trial of Socrates (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. Scholars have long called Socrates a scapegoat for the loss of the Peloponessian War. Even ancient sources (e.g., Aeschines in Against Timarchus) acknowledged this, more or less. Stone, however, attempts to reverse our sympathies. To him, Socrates is less a scapegoat than a traitor and an enemy of the people. Unfortunately, the "evidence" for his interpretation is really his perception of human nature as viewed through the lens of the Cold War, rather any actual factual contemporary Greek accounts supporting his point of view. This lack of evidence is why classical scholars have, correctly, been less assertive in their interpretations of Socrates execution. Stone is much too certain, as should be expected from someone who styles himself a "maverick" and "non-conformist".

To his credit, however, he calls on us to remember how turbulent and emotional were the times in Athens following their defeat at the hands of the Spartans and after having endured the tyranny of the Spartan-installed government of the Thirty. He brings this feeling to life for modern readers by imagining how America would react had it lost the Cold War to the Soviet Union, subsequently enduring and then defeating a Soviet-installed tyranny. Might not Americans be forgiven for prosecuting and executing some of the more vocal and influential pro-Soviet academics, especially if their most famous students were active Soviet collaborators?

In summary, then, this book gets low marks for scholarship and style, but high marks for bringing a turbulent period in western civilization to life in terms that the average person can relate to. I give it four stars because it is worth reading.