Essay: Political environment of Athens – why did Socrates receive a death sentence?

We should look at the political environment of Athens to understand why Socrates received a death sentence. To the modern person, Athen seems very liberal compared to other ancient civilizations. Yet, Socrates was put to death for philosophizing and asking questions. To understand why, it is important to see what kind of environment Socrates lived in.
Athens was in its Golden Age at the time that Socrates was alive. Direct democracy demanded that educated men in Athens participate in political decisions daily. This meant that there was constant involvement as well as a multitude of persons to act as jury. In modern America, a jury of twelve people exists for serious felonies, while in Athens it would be up to 50 people. The goal for Athenian politics was to figure out how to all live a good life together.
The Athenian theory for political legitimacy demanded loyalty from its citizens. It’s citizens accepted all that it provided – From education to health to private property. A large jury ensured that no one person could make the decision and it gave a fair trial to the convicted person. Athenian politics much was different from the political sphere in the Italian Renaissance. If Athenians were so dedicated to the welfare of the people, why did they let Socrates, someone who was not a criminal, die? Thus, it is important to look at the crime and how it affected Athens.
Socrates was convicted of impiety and corrupting the youth. Athenians deemed Socrates a threat to their culture, politics and community. By virtue, Socrates received an unjust punishment. From a Machiavellian aspect, this was a fair punishment. Socrates did not inflict physical harm onto anybody nor did he force anyone to listen to anything he had to say. He did not do anything with an evil agenda nor did he do any real harm to the citizens of Athens. The worst case was Socrates made Athenians feel uncomfortable with his ethnocentrism. Death, in this case, seems unjust. Yet, Socrates was his own lawyer and the things he said only pushed him further into perceived guilt. This is not unlike our modern
Socrates did question many people, and in fact, he questioned everything. What hurt Socrates was his poor wording during trial. He considered himself someone with supernatural abilities. He made it a point to state that he would do just fine if exiled to any other city, “It would be a fine life at my age to be driven out of one city after another for I know that wherever I go the young men will listen to my talk as they do here (Apology, pg 39, part 37-38).” He asked not just for freedom but also for free food, “The Olympian victor makes you think yourself happy; I make you be happy. Besides, he does not need food and I do.” Yet, Socrates also admitted to knowing what Athens was all about saying, “Is it your wisdom such as not to realize that your country is to be honored more than ones own mother and father?” (Crito, pg 51, part 51a).  Socrates made it a point to say that, while he believes in justice and the Athenian government, the government needs him more than he needs it. Socrates also said that he will not stop talking – no matter what they do to punish him. The decision made by the Athenian government is like Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. The similarities are in the following paragraphs. 
 By saying that he did not need the Athenian government, Socrates threatened the power of Athenian politics. Like in “The Prince”, Athens aimed to be strong, respected and great, like a lion but also keen to threats, like the fox. It would then, do anything it had to do to get rid of anyone who wanted to destabilize the state. Athens did everything to keep its people happy. They did so by providing health, education, liberty and property. These choices existed to maintain citizen happiness  and state homeostasis.
The concept of stability in statehood is mentioned in “The Prince.”  The topic that the people must have your back no matter what, even if you have a large army, many knights and noblemen, it is the support of the majority that is very important to the maintenance of power is included in “The Prince” quite often. Socrates himself said that nothing can stop him from philosophizing and talking. Just how The Prince would tackle this, so did the Athenians. The concept is this, “You talk too much about our power – We have to kill you.” You can cut off a man’s hand to prevent him from stealing. You can cut off a man’s ears to prevent him from listening. You can blind a man to prevent him from seeing but the only way to stop a man from talking is to kill him. Socrates was accepting of this punishment because Athens had been successful in making him feel good as an Athenian.
The city that you were from defined part of your identity at that age, it still matters to this day. For one to be a real Athenian, one must be born in Athens. Athens was also a very powerful center for the arts, social sciences, philosophy and mathematics. This being said , to be an Athenian meant that you were from what was at the time a very high-end city. Yet, Socrates did not focus on this. His reason for caring so much about Athenian law was more about social responsibility. By staying there for most of his life, he had accepted a social deal with Athens. A kind of, “you take care of me, I take care of you” deal existed. Socrates believed that escaping Athens would be a breach of contract. A breach of contract would mean that Socrates went against his own values, which were also Athenian values. Even if this punishment was unjust, he believed that by following it he would remain a good Athenian and a good person because he is not rebelling against Athenian rule. No government is correct all the time and it just so happened that this time it was Socrates, (and the Athenian warriors who failed to get their surviving comrades due to weather).  He included this all even as he made statements about his own ideology. This concludes that while Socrates saw himself as an Athenian citizen, he also saw himself as his own person. This did not go well with Athens, nor would it have gone well with a Machiavellian ruler.
To review, Athens was alike with Machiavelli’s ideology for three reasons. It destroyed anyone who risked it’s power. It maintained stability in the state by entertaining and providing for it’s citizens. It expected nothing short of greatness  and did whatever it had to maintain that power. Athens was different from Machiavellian ideology for these reasons. It focused on maintaining the best life for its citizens and not just the good of the state. It allowed opinions to be made freely through direct democracy. Virtue was a constant and common ideology for Athenian citizens and most politicians.
In Machiavelli’s “The Prince” the most important goal for The Prince is the stability of the state – whether by virtue or not. My next example is not from Plato’s “The Apology”, but it is during Socrates’ time. Pericles achieved political power by ostracizing his opponent. Ostracism is not usually considered virtuous. In fact, in the website, www.agathe.gov ostracism was commonplace in ancient Greece. “The procedure of ostracism was simple. Once a year the people would meet in the Agora and take a vote to determine if anyone was becoming too powerful and was in a position to establish a tyranny. If a simple majority voted yes, they met again in the Agora two months later. At this second meeting each citizen carried with him an ostrakon (potsherd) on which he had scratched the name of the person he wished ostracized. if at least 6,000 votes were cast, the man with the most votes lost and was exiled for ten years” (www.agathe.gov). This sounds machiavellian, yet it is in Ancient Greece.
In “The Prince” one legitimate way of maintaining stability was to “appear virtuous”. An important quote to bring up is this, “A prince must have no other objective, no other thought, nor take up any profession but that of war, its methods and its discipline, for that is the only art expected of a ruler. And it is of such great value that it not only keeps hereditary princes in power, but often raises men of lowly condition to that rank.” For a ruler to remain legitimate, one must focus on maintaining this power or else someone else will trump him in status. Machiavelli agreed that the power should appear virtuous but never to be that on the appeal of moral value. To look virtuous is to maintain the loyalty of the people, whether under your power or not. If cruelty is needed, then it should very well be employed. This agrees with why Socrates was put to death, even if almost half of the jury did not agree with this verdict.
Citizens are not as important as The Prince because it is the leader who holds the state together – according to feudalism. To say that a citizen can waive a princes’ decision would be a big no-no according to Machiavelli. However, “On this also depends the variation of what is good; for, if a man governs himself with caution and patience, and the times and conditions are turning in such a way that his policy is a good one, he will prosper; but if the times and conditions change, he will be ruined because he does not change his method of procedure.” Machiavelli is saying that if a prince doesn’t change according to the times, he will be unsuccessful. The majority is what rules “the trends” so in a way, the prince must bend to what the majority prefers. Additionally, advisors can either be helpful or harmful so it is up to the prince to choose wisely.
The Prince has no limitations, what matters is the loyalty of the people and the stability of the state. The infamous “lion and the fox” states that “The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.” Also, Machiavelli believed that virtue was not the highest moral but what people applauded and praised. If some times called for citizens praising murder, a virtuous leader would prefer murder according to Machiavellian standards. This also ties in to political legitimacy. Political legitimacy by Machiavellian standards is just that – maintaining order by proving that the leadership is legitimate. This legitimacy could be found in the power of the state, the happiness of the state, and the power of the leader. It is no longer about “how to live the best life together” but “what standards are the citizens willing to live with?” Politics by Machiavellian terms is totally vertical, a complete hierarchy, while Athens has some vertical aspects with some horizontal democracy, but in no means a utopia.
This essay began with the intention of contrasting Athens to Renascence Italy but ended with many comparisons. At this point, I would like to conclude that politics indeed, is about power and control. I now imagine Athens something close to the politics in the United States – Our rules look virtuous but the way things are done is by no means “good.” Machiavelli was in no way evil but a extreme realist, which is not a bad thing. Everything that was said in the Prince, while written in an exaggerated and romanticized fashion, is true. Human nature is unchanging, and politicians from 300 bc might have very well gotten along with politicians from 1600 ad.