This week in class we learned about the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates. Socrates was put on trial for not worshipping the Greek gods and “corrupting the youth.” The trial was in the year 399 B.C., after the Peloponnesian War. The prosecutors were Lycon, Anytus, and Meletus. Socrates conducted his own defense. Socrates was found guilty of the charges brought against him and drank poison as his punishment.
As an assignment this week, we had to summarize the two readings that we read in class about Socrates and his trial. We divided the information into four parts and presented the summaries as descriptions for episodes of a Netflix show. We used a Google Slides template to put in our own pictures and write the descriptions of the episodes. Then we published our slides to the web, embedded the code in a Canvas discussion, and posted our finished “show.” As I was summarizing, I realized the need to convey the important information in as few words as possible. Many times I had to go back and reword phrases so that the summary would not be too long. When there were multiple pieces of information that I wanted to include, I had to prioritize what was most necessary to include in the summary. It was definitely a different type of assignment than we typically have in this class, but it was good to have some variety.
Regarding the trial of Socrates, something stood out to me about the jury. “Corrupting Athenian Youth,” one of the two readings from class, says, “…in addition to the three formal prosecutors, there existed a vast body of hidden accusers in Athens, who had influenced the climate of opinion against [Socrates] for the previous 20 years. These detractors… created a steady drip of prejudicial opinion against Socrates.” This quote makes it seem like the atmosphere of the trial was not unbiased. This does not automatically mean that the jury was biased, but I wonder how the trial would have been different if Socrates did not have such a reputation before the trial began. I also noted that one of the prosecutors’ main arguments was about Critias and Charmides. They were pupils of Socrates who led the Spartan overthrow of Athens during the Peloponnesian War. The prosecutors were using this to say that Socrates had “corrupted the youth” since he had worked with them in the past. It seems like this argument worked because Socrates was already disliked by so many people. He also did not agree with the democratic government of Athens. It may have been believable, but this still brings up the question of how Socrates’ reputation may have played a role in the outcome of the trial.
In seventh grade history, I learned a little bit about the Peloponnesian War, but I had never learned about Socrates or his trial. It was interesting that there was a reading about Socrates in our religions unit since what we learned was not to teach us about a specific religion. Even still, it helped to broaden my knowledge about Socrates’ famous trial in 399 B.C.