Précis - Irrational Fears: Silent but Deadly

Précis of The Silence of Socrates by Libanius

Main Argument: Silencing  Socrates will lead to preventable repercussions that will negatively affect all Athenians

o   Sub Argument 1: This second punishment is illegal given that there is no precedent

o   Sub Argument 2: To silence Socrates is unjust because there is no reasonable motive

§  Counter Claim 1: If able to speak, Socrates will corrupt the youth

·      Refutation: Socrates cannot harm, he can only help

o   Reasoning: No youth has come to visit him in prison, only grown men who are already corrupt, therefore they cannot be corrupted; Socrates may actually say something that could salvage them (23)

o   Reasoning: Socrates’s silence will perpetuate silence and stupidity, hurting the Lyceum, Academy, wrestling, etc. His silence will have negative effects.   (25)

o   Reasoning: Now is the time to test Socrates’s wisdom, he is approaching death and therefore should be close to the truth; if unable to speak they are derived the access to truth  (26)

§  Counter Claim 2: If able to speak, Socrates will conspire against his false accusers

·      Refutation: Socrates has not displayed signs of hostility towards his false accusers, in the past or present, so why would he in the future?

o   Reasoning: PAST- Socrates has never written a malicious or bitter word and bears no grudge against the court (29)

o   Reasoning: PRESENT -Socrates has happily accepted his misfortune and stated he would never run away from the country he loves or the law he has defended (32-33)

o   Reasoning: FUTURE – What is there to be afraid of? Socrates praying against his false accusers if able to speak? He can pray without speaking, so there is no point in keeping him silent, let him philosophize (31)

  

Irrational Fears: Silent but Deadly

The Silence of Socrates, written by Libanius, is an imaginary speech that explores the possibility of an imposition of silence as a second punishment to Socrates’s death penalty. As a man who is known for talking in an effort to discover philosophical truths, Libanius ultimately argues that Socrates’ theoretical silencing “will be damaging not to Socrates but to us” (3). Libanius structures his encomium-like position by arguing that Socrates’s silencing sentence is 1) illegal given that there is no precedent and 2) unjust because there is no reasonable motive. Libanius supports his claim that Socrates’s silencing is unjust by refuting the accusers’ fears of Socrates 1) corrupting the youth and 2) conspiring against them, by putting forth Socrates as a man who should not be feared, as he does not have any reasonable motive to harm.

While Socrates’s false accusers claim that if he were able to speak he would corrupt the youth, Libanius puts forth that Socrates cannot harm but rather help. Libanius reasons that since no young boys have come to visit him in prison, he cannot corrupt the youth any further, and is therefore not a threat. Only grown men have come to see Socrates, and since they are either corrupted already or cannot be corrupted, Socrates cannot harm these men with his philosophy. Libanius reasons that Socrates may say something “good” and “useful” to these “corrupted” men and argues that they “deserve to be deprived” of their corruption “even at this late hour” (23). Libanius furthers the notion that Socrates speech is advantageous by reasoning that Socrates’s silence will destructively perpetuate silence and stupidity. Without Socrates’s philosophical thought, the Lyceum and Academy will be “dumb” due to the silence that will “fill the absence of Socrates” for thinkers such as Thrasymachus and Charmides and Laches and Chaerephon and Meno and Hippias and Gorgias and Protagorus and Euthyphro and Xenophon (25). After establishing Socrates’s situation as detrimental to not only himself, but to Athenian thought, Libanius goes on to ground his argument by reasoning that Socrates is approaching death and therefore should be “nearer truth;”  his accusers can use this as an opportunity to test Socrates’s wisdom (26). Libanius has established that Socrates’s words cannot be a threat, but if Socrates is unable to speak, all are deprived the access to truth; this harm is self-infected. In proving Socrates as unable to corrupt, but rather, able to benefit Athenian society, Libanius argues that Socrates is irrationally feared.

Libanius also indicates that Socrates has no motive to conspire against his false accusers as he has not displayed signs of hostility towards them in the past or present, thus there is no indication that he would in the future, if allowed to speak. Prior to and after the silence sentencing Socrates did not write a “malicious or bitter word” and did not hold a “grudge” against the court (29). Instead, Socrates happily accepted his present “misfortune” and even gives a “pious philosophical defense of the laws” in addition to stating that he would “stay and obey the Athenian’s decision” (32). Libanius points out that not only does Socrates accept his sentencing, he also upholds the very system that illegally and unjustly will take his life and speech because he is the most “lawful” and “patriotic of any Athenian” (33). Libanius grounds his defense of Socrates’s imposition of silence as unjust by affirming his past and present actions as harmless and therefore having no motive to conspire against his false accusers in the unlikely future. On this basis, Libanius questions what there is to be “afraid of” if Socrates were to speak and theorizes that his accusers may fear he would pray against them, but Libanius reasons that Socrates “could make such a prayer without speaking,” indicating that there is no viable purpose to impose silence (31). Libanius argues that without a threat, there is no need to silence Socrates and consequently he should be left to philosophize because an irrational silencing will prevent them all from benefiting from Socrates’s wisdom.

Libanius characterizes Socrates as a loyal patriot who has never spoken poorly of the courts and has cheerfully accepted his unjust sentencing in order to prove Socrates had no past or present motive for conspiring against his false accusers in the future. To appease worries that the youth may be corrupted, Libanius exposes that only older men – who cannot be corrupted or have already been corrupted – have come to visit Socrates and therefore his philosophy may actually help them. Overall, Libanius argues that to silence Socrates is to create more silences at the expense of all Athenians. Silence is deadly in more ways than one.