Customer Reviews

Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Those fascinated by ancient Athenian politics and culture should enjoy this rather wide-ranging book. Unfortunately for me, it was not at all what I expected. I was anticipating a book focussing on Socrates - his life and accomplishments - culminating is his trial and execution. Instead, the author discusses Socrates mainly in the first chapter and last two. The rest is devoted primarily to Athenian politics, its legal system, the Peloponnesian War and its aftermath as well as other important individuals - particularly Alcibiades for whom much more space has been devoted than that devoted to Socrates. Also, the Peloponnesian War is discussed from a political viewpoint and not one that focuses on military equipment, tactics and battle strategies. However, if one is careful not to lose sight of the book's title, then perhaps one can ultimately get a richer perspective on the reasons for Socrates' trial and execution; in my case, I'm afraid that I got lost along the way. The writing style is certainly clear and very authoritative. Despite my experience in reading this book, I am giving it four stars because I feel that it does contribute important political information on that period of Athenian history.

...than the title indicates. The author is tremendously intelligent, knowledgeable and thoughtful. His tone is scholarly but never dry. He's simply a great writer. The big surprise, however, is how much is not directly about Socrates at all, but about Athens. And not the iconic Athens of stately, silent, yellowing marble.

The famous are there along with the less known sons of "billionaire" families who helped bring down Socrates. These young rowdies, with way too much time on their hands, dressed and acted outlandishly, formed drinking clubs, went on destructive rampages, gambled and cruised the gymnasia and baths looking for boys. They liked girls too, and the stories of Alcibiades alone could explain why Athenian women were kept hidden.

And fortunately Alcibiades rates as many pages as his teacher and antithesis Socrates. Considered the handsomest man in Greece, Alcibiades was apparently a rich, reckless, narcissistic satyr. Once Socrates' lover, and later a general, he learned rhetoric from the older man and used it to become the idol of the Greek world. Before he was murdered he seems to have double-crossed at least twice everyone who trusted him. Having a hearty sexual appetite, he seduced men and women alike and was even reputed to have had orgies with his mother and sisters; fleeing Athens, he sought safety in Sparta, but then had to light out again after he impregnated the king's wife. Obviously the book is not dull.

In this Athens Waterfield finds unexpected parallels with our world today: As wealth increases, so does the stress of empire. The population is bitterly divided by competing interests, and struggles erupt between elites and democrats, rich and poor, young and old, farmers and businessmen. Then there's the religious strife of 2,000 cults in a city of 350,000 and the seemingly endless war between Sparta and Athens that spreads to Sicily and Asia Minor as both sides insanely try to goad the Persian Empire to join in. These Greeks are not models of classical good sense and rational action, and Alcibiades seems to have had a hand in everything that went wrong.

Readability is gained partly at the expense of footnotes; there are none -- although the end notes and the extensive bibliography are good. There's also a useful glossary for those unfamiliar with Greek.

This is above all a book of ideas, and believe me, it will leave you with plenty to think about.

Waterfield's book pleases me from multiple vantage points. First, it establishes an historical context so that the reader can develop a feel for what was going on prior to Socrates' trial. Now, I have read a great deal about the times leading upto Socrates' trial, as well as reading all of Plato's dialogues (note: at the time of reading I had not read Xenophon), so I only had modest idea of how it all came together. What Waterfield does is establish an overall frame work from largely a socio-political vantage point, and he does so with sophistication and style. The second thing that I deeply appreciate is the original idea (or two) that Waterfield builds to, and it is this primary thesis which serves as the crescendo for the work. Don't be confused if you find yourself half way through the book, asking, "I still don't know why Waterfield thinks Socrates died." The entire book is building to it, and once you realize what he is doing, you will be pleased with the end result.

This book is next-level scholarship, in that it takes a broad base of knowledge and, through reason, presents a very likely conclusion, which, by the way, does not contradict current scholarly thought; it is simply a new idea, as far as I know, and it complements popular scholarly thought.

Another important aspect of this book is the relationship between history and philosophy. I am staunchly in the camp that believes that there is an innate importance to understanding history for the sake of understanding philosophy. While this is one of the smaller details regarding this book, I still think that Waterfield serves in advancing our understanding of the relationship between history and philosophy. Furthermore, Waterfields subtle insights are rather interesting when put into perspective.

I think my one complaint is that I wished Waterfield applied a number at the end of sentences that correspond to his references in the bibliography. Of course, Waterfield's mastery of the subject matter is probably such that he didn't actually refer to the books while writing this book, but it would have been helpful to me.

There is something very refreshing I find in academics that are not associated with a university, and Waterfield is another example of this.

Robin Waterfield has written a solid, short book of history about the trial of Socrates. And the key point about this book is that it is meant mainly as a historical description of Athenian society and culture during Socrates' time in order to better understand the trial itself. Readers should understand that the protagonist is off stage for major sections of this book.

I'd recommend this book especially for students beginning their studies of Socrates before they dive into the source materials. In addition, for a book of this size and scope, it has an excellent bibliography.

Robin Waterfield does a great job of getting past the typical Philosophy 101 views on Socrates and attempts to take a serious look at what really drove the people of Athens to order the execution of Socrates.

There is a good bit of Athenian history the author provides, as well as a balanced attempt at integrating the contradictory versions of Socrates trial by two of his students, Plato being the one best known.

In the end, much of what is provided is a reasonable answer to this 2,400 year question: that basically Socrates was consistently anti-democratic and quite pro-Spartan. This puts him in a leading intellectual role after Sparta's victory against Athens and during the reign of the Thirty Tyrants. But when the Spartans withdrawal and Athenian revolutionaries topple the Thirty, democracy returns to power, Socrates has to face the music for his treason.

Certainly not a view taught in Philosophy departments around the nation, since they have basically deified Socrates and vilified those who convicted him.

But, a convincingly realistic view, nonetheless.

If you are looking for a quick and succinct answer to the question as to why Socrates died, this book may not be for you. However if you want a scholar's account, this is your ticket.

After an introduction which outlines his reasoning, Waterfield begins with a relatively long, albeit substantive, narrative on Athenian law and its procedures. Also included is a scholarly construct of the Athenian democracy and its politics. This is followed by a a good summation of the work of Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War. Waterfield provides all of this as a basis for his learned speculation in the the final two chapters as to why the 'first philosopher' died. You will find his thinking interesting and rewarding but you may also find the journey to get there arduous.

This book is highly recommended for anyone who, like me, has always questioned what the real story was behind Socates' trial and death. Not that the author claims to truly know the full story, but he does a thorough and compelling job of laying out the history preceding Socrates' death and how it was likely to have influenced Socrates' last days and led to his trial/etc. The book was a page turner, and I finished it with a much better understanding of the period than I began with.

I've always enjoyed reading about the ancient Greek world, and when I picked up this book I couldn't put it down. I have an interest in the subject but am no expert on it, yet I found this book so skillfully worded and explained that I had no trouble following it. Waterfield seemlessly presents a complex story brimful of fascinating characters and events and ties it all together to paint a vivid portrait of the political environmnet in which Socrates' execution took place. For the modern reader without much background knowledge of this world, Socrates' death has always been so puzzling. How can this greatest of philosophers and much-admired man have been found guilty of corrupting youth and then executed? Waterfield's book seeks to answer that question. Chapter by chapter he depicts the characters and events which are pertinent to the story, building his case beautifully. This book would probably appeal to people who don't know much about Socrates already, but it would also appeal to people like me who have read a lot about Socrates but still need an expert to help us put the whole story in context.

When I was in school, I wrote a paper for a political science class arguing that only societies employing an Athenian model of democracy - that is to say direct involvement in politics and, literally, "rule of the people" - should be able to use the nomenclature "democratic." As an admirer of Athens, as Waterfield points out, I glossed over the fact that such a high level of involvement in politics and society was possible only because the 30,000 male citizens had 70,000 slaves that allowed them this leisure. Plato contends that the rule of people results in the rule of a mob, one that stupidly killed Socrates. However, evidence has shown Athenians prosecuted court cases only when they themselves were victims or personally involved, and the two sources of Socrates' trial oppose each other. So why was he sentenced to death?

In order to answer this question, Waterfield places Socrates in historical context. Following two Persian invasions, Athens effectively established an imperial democracy over which Sparta and Athens fought the protracted Peloponnesian Wars, pitting oligarchs against democrats both at home and abroad. After its defeat, and immediately preceding the death of Socrates, Athens underwent a decades-long social crisis during which Sparta established a puppet regime of "The Thirty" who controlled government through oligarchic reforms and a reign of terror that left 1500 dead in a matter of weeks. Democracy was eventually restored but the early years were tense, as Athenians struggled to forget their collective guilt and widespread aristocratic culpability in overturning their democracy. A pseudo-amnesty was established, and in the conservative era that followed, the "young," and those who educated the young, were seen as subversives who had undermined Athenian prosperity.

Socrates was sentenced to death for a number of reasons - including the paradoxical claim of religious impiety and innovation - but none more so than his "corruption" of the youth. Imagine a world without widespread literacy, where children are taught, if at all, at home. Suddenly sophists and Socrates pop up and start selling education at a premium. Their students rise to power and "trick" the democracy into fighting a disastrous war that ends in a full-blown social crisis with even the gods withdrawing their favor from the city. Waterfield argues, given that many of his students were involved in the oligarchic reforms, Socrates was most likely antidemocratic and the charge of corrupting the youth was actually a charge of turning the youths against democracy in favor of an aristocracy.

Though this book is about a philosopher, it isn't about philosophy. If you're looking for the philosophical side of Socrates, you'll have to look elsewhere, but good luck: Waterfield has effectively turned on its head many of the attributes that the philosophical community ascribes to Scorates.

An entertaining and convincing exploration of the military and political milieu of 5th century Athens and its implications for understanding the trial and execution of Socrates. It benefits from being refreshing clear sighted about Socrates, portraying him as a flawed person, tainted by association with oligarchic and tyrannical Athenian factions, rather than the unimpeachably innocent victim of Platonic myth.