ATHENS KILLED SOCRATES BECAUSE HE TAUGHT THE YOUNG TO DISMANTLE THE LIES OF POWER da Barbara Bonanno BNNRRB Tramite Flickr: **Socrates — a documented, contextual biography** Socrates (Athens, c. 470/469 BC – Athens, 399 BC) is one of the decisive figures of Western thought. Paradoxically, he is also one of the hardest to define historically: he left no writings, and everything we know about him comes from indirect testimony, shaped by different intentions—defence, satire, philosophical interpretation. The main sources are Plato and Xenophon (both his disciples), while Aristophanes portrayed him in satirical form. For this reason, any biography of Socrates is also a critical comparison between conflicting portraits. **Origins, private life, and public presence** Socrates was an Athenian citizen. Ancient tradition describes him as living simply—often in relative poverty—and as having an unusual public role: he spoke in the streets, in meeting places, in gymnasia, questioning citizens of every kind (politicians, craftsmen, poets, and especially young men of the elite). He founded no institutional “school” like Plato’s Academy, and he presented no written system. His work was living dialogue. Regarding family life, ancient sources mention his wife Xanthippe and children. These details remain secondary in philosophical texts, but they recur in tradition. What matters most historically is that Socrates appears as a man rooted in the city: not a hermit, but someone who made the polis the stage of his ethical mission. **The method and what made him uniquely dangerous** Socrates’ uniqueness lies not in a written doctrine but in a practice: the pursuit of truth through relentless questioning, refutation, and careful definition. Modern scholarship often calls this style the “Socratic method” (elenchus): Socrates tests another person’s beliefs until contradictions and self-deceptions are exposed. This was not intellectual sport. It was a moral operation, because it forced people to choose between truth and comfortable illusion. In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates insists that his strength is a kind of “negative knowledge”: knowing that he does not know, and therefore refusing easy certainties. That is precisely what made him politically explosive: a citizen trained to reason cannot be governed through slogans, fear, or prestige. **Religion, the daimonion, and the accusation of impiety** Socrates is often misunderstood as simply “atheist.” The sources rather describe his experience of the daimonion—an inner voice or divine sign that restrained him from actions he considered wrong. This element contributed to suspicion in a highly sensitive religious and political context, because it could be interpreted as introducing “new divinities” or deviating from civic cults. **Historical background: a wounded Athens, scapegoats, and political fear** The trial of 399 BC took place in a traumatized Athens: the city had been defeated in the Peloponnesian War and had passed through internal crises and political violence. In such climates societies look for scapegoats and tighten control over anything perceived as threatening order and cohesion. This context is crucial for understanding how a philosopher could become “dangerous.” In addition, certain figures associated with Socrates’ circle carried politically compromising associations for Athenian memory. Modern reconstructions often consider this an important background factor, even though the indictment itself was formally religious and moral. **The trial: charges, accusers, and condemnation** The formal charges were two: (1) impiety (asebeia)—not recognizing the gods of the city and/or introducing new divinities; (2) corrupting the youth. In the best-known accounts, the accusers are Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon (as presented in Plato’s tradition). Socrates delivered his defence (the “Apology” in Plato and also in Xenophon) and was found guilty by a citizen jury. Ancient and modern reconstructions agree on a key fact: his death was not accidental, but a legal death sentence within Athenian procedure. **Hemlock: imposed by the State, accepted by him** The hemlock was the method of execution and therefore imposed by the State. Socrates did not “choose death” as a free suicide: he chose not to escape and not to renounce his life’s coherence. His death is therefore both a juridical-political execution and an ethical act of integrity—accepting the consequences of one’s life without surrendering to fear. **Historical significance: what changes after Socrates** Socrates became a point of no return. After him, philosophy in the West increasingly defined itself as care of the soul, moral responsibility, and the search for truth—not merely as rhetorical technique or speculation. Through Plato and Xenophon, Socrates also became a permanent symbol: the man who, in front of power, refused to abandon the duty to question. I publish this series of figures to awaken consciences and to remember how many people died defending truth, justice, and the rights of the oppressed. I want to highlight the injustices that still exist and show young people that the only thing we can do is to fight, because evil still rules and continues to target those who try to make a difference. This series is an invitation to remember, reflect, and never accept injustice.
