Suicide by Jury in Xenophon’s Apology

Alexander Alderman (Baylor University)

According to Xenophon, Socrates made a defense he knew would provoke the jury to give him the death penalty because he wished to avoid the troubles of old age (Ap. 1).  This claim conflicts with the account Socrates gives of his mission in Plato’s Apology, but it conforms, at least nominally, to the honor-based ethics that he promotes in Xenophon’s Memorabilia.  Socrates considers his impending execution an act of divine beneficence, and Xenophon explores this paradoxical situation to depict Socrates as a peer of the gods in wisdom and justice.

The remarks Xenophon makes on the defense have been disparaged for presenting Socrates as an accomplice in his own wrongful death (Vlastos 1991, 291-293) and taken as evidence of Xenophon’s intellectual shortcomings (Burnet 1924, 145-146; RE Allen 1980, 35).  But this criticism does not take account of Socrates’ arguments for the beneficence of his death (Ap. 1-9)—especially relevant since  Xenophon’s Socrates regards beneficence as true justice (vander Waerdt, OSAPh 1993, 1-48).  At the same time, his views concerning divine law lead him to believe that his jury and accusers will face punishment for their treatment of him.  Yet, while Socrates’ acceptance of his death suits his beliefs regarding justice and divine law, the implication that he participates in a divine honor code is unique and paradoxical.

The problems with honoring the gods are more severe versions of the ones encountered in honoring social superiors and parents—subjects on which Xenophon’s Socrates also offers advice (Mem. II.ii-iii).  Xenophon has his Socrates give an account of piety modeled on reciprocal beneficence (Mem. I.iv.18), but he also shows the contradictions inherent in this idea through the character of Hermogenes, a man who claims to be a friend of the gods (Sym. IV.46-49).  But Xenophon depicts Socrates as a particularly blessed man (Mem. I.vi.14) and one capable of superhuman beneficence (Ap. 34); his dealings with the gods, therefore, are more substantial, and his ones with humans more complex.  In part, Socrates owes his special relationship with the gods to his understanding of divine law (Mem. IV.iii), which he trusts will bring justice to anyone who attempts to harm a wise man (Mem. III.ix.12-13).  But while this Socrates acts justly on a divine level, his indifference to the esteem of the jury makes him almost hybristic in regard to his fellow men.  Xenophon’s Apology thus serves as a paradoxical encomium to Socrates’ justice, rendering it problematic in order to examine its features.