\u00abSobre la Apolog\u00eda de S\u00f3crates y el Crit\u00f3n de Plat\u00f3n\u00bb \/ I<\/span><\/p>\n Le\u014dnardus Str\u016bthi\u014d (1899-1973)<\/span><\/p>\n \u0112RVD\u012aTI\u014cRIBVS <\/span>***<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n Despu\u00e9s de haber hecho esta trascendental declaraci\u00f3n, S\u00f3crates vuelve a la cuesti\u00f3n de la pena que \u00e9l propondr\u00eda. Se refiere nuevamente a la alternativa central a la pena de muerte, una multa, que con anterioridad hab\u00eda desechado en vista de que no pose\u00eda dinero. Ahora repite que no est\u00e1 acostumbrado a considerarse merecedor de ning\u00fan mal, pero agrega que no juzga como un mal la p\u00e9rdida de dinero. Propone, en consecuencia, la peque\u00f1a multa que puede permitirse pagar y de inmediato aumenta el monto a treinta veces su valor, a pedido de Plat\u00f3n, Crit\u00f3n<\/a>, Crit\u00f3bulo y Apolodoro<\/a>, que garantizan el pago. Hay y siempre hubo, por tanto, una alternativa a la pena de muerte: \u00bfpor qu\u00e9, entonces, S\u00f3crates hizo de todos modos su escandalosa propuesta, que s\u00f3lo lograr\u00eda aumentar la hostilidad del jurado? El S\u00f3crates plat\u00f3nico, a diferencia del S\u00f3crates de Jenofonte, no explica su conducta en el juicio con el argumento de que, a su avanzada edad, para \u00e9l es bueno morir.<\/span><\/p>\n Esta no es la \u00fanica pregunta que queda sin respuesta en la Apolog\u00eda de S\u00f3crates<\/em>. En el Gorgias<\/em>, la situaci\u00f3n en que S\u00f3crates podr\u00eda encontrarse si la ciudad lo juzgara por la acusaci\u00f3n de que corrompe a los j\u00f3venes, efectuada por alg\u00fan malvado, es comparada por \u00e9l con la de un m\u00e9dico juzgado por ni\u00f1os debido a la acusaci\u00f3n de un pastelero de que les administra medicinas amargas; no podr\u00eda decirles la verdad que ellos ser\u00edan incapaces de entender. Aqu\u00ed, Socrat\u00e9s habla de la multitud como si fuera homog\u00e9nea. Empero, en la Apolog\u00eda<\/em> hace una distinci\u00f3n, justificada por la votaci\u00f3n, entre la parte que lo condena y la que lo absuelve: \u00bflo han entendido quienes lo absuelven? Despu\u00e9s de ser condenado a muerte, S\u00f3crates se dirige por separado a quienes lo condenaron y a quienes lo absolvieron. A los primeros les dice tres cosas: 1)<\/strong> Lo que los indujo a condenarlo no fue el hecho de que careciera de discursos \u2014un recordatorio del proemio\u2014, sino su negativa a rogarles piedad mirerablemente, una negativa originada en su preocupaci\u00f3n por el honor y lo que es digno de \u00e9l. S\u00f3crates compara la conducta apropiada ante un tribunal de justicia (no la conducta apropiada en el cumplimiento de su misi\u00f3n; 28d10<\/a>–29a1<\/a>) con la conducta apropiada en la guerra: por profunda que sea la diferencia o el antagonismo entre \u00e9l y los ciudadanos no filos\u00f3ficos, en situaciones graves se identifica por completo, en lo que a su cuerpo concierne, con la ciudad, con \u00absu pueblo\u00bb. 2)<\/strong> Sin embargo, hace una distinci\u00f3n entre quienes lo condenan y los acusadores: la deshonra derivada de su condena recae sobre los segundos. 3)<\/strong> Predice que lo que esperan al darle muerte no suceder\u00e1. Al matarlo, esperan librarse de la necesidad de explicar c\u00f3mo viven. Pero habr\u00e1 otros que los pongan a prueba despu\u00e9s de su muerte, a saber, aquellos a quienes \u00e9l refrenaba para que no lo hicieran: estos, por ser j\u00f3venes, ser\u00e1n m\u00e1s duros con ellos; quienes lo condenaron desconoc\u00edan la influencia moderadora de S\u00f3crates, que no la mencion\u00f3 con anterioridad. Al contrario, antes hab\u00eda dicho (30e1<\/a>-31a2) que, de matarlo, quiz\u00e1 no encontrar\u00edan otro t\u00e1bano: \u00bfdeseaba entonces inducirlos a que lo mataran?<\/span><\/p>\n Perge ad sequ\u0113ns caput<\/a><\/p>\n Redde ad prius caput<\/a><\/p>\n Perge ad initium paginae huius<\/a><\/p>\n Perge ad indicem<\/a><\/p>\n After having made his momentous statement Socrates returns to the question of which penalty he should propose. He returns to the central alternative to the death penalty, a fine, which he had previously dismissed with a view to his not possessing money. In the repetition he repeats that he is not accustomed to regarding himself as deserving any evil but adds that he does not regard loss of money as an evil. He proposes therefore the small fine which he can afford to pay and raises at once the amount to thirty times its value at the request of Plato, Kriton<\/a>, Kritoboulos and Apollodoros<\/a> who vouch for the payment. There is then and there always was an alternative to the death penalty: why then did Socrates make at all his shocking proposal which could only aggravate the hostility of the jury? The Platonic Socrates, as distinguished from the Xenophontic Socrates, does not explain his conduct at the trial by his view that in his advanced years it was good for him to die.<\/span><\/p>\n This is not the only question left unanswered by Plato\u2019s Apology of Socrates<\/em>. In the Gorgias<\/em> Socrates compares the situation in which he would find himself if he were tried by the city on the charge brought by some villain that he corrupts the young, to that of a physician tried by children on the charge brought by a pastry cook that the physician gives them bitter medicine; he could not tell them the truth which they would be unable to understand. Here Socrates speaks of the multitude as homogeneous. But in the Apology of Socrates<\/em> he makes a distinction, justified by the vote, between the condemning and the acquitting part: will the acquitters have understood him? After he was condemned to death, Socrates addressed the condemners and the acquitters separately. To the condemners he said three things. 1.<\/strong> What induced them to condemn him was not that he lacked speeches\u2014a reminder of the prooemium\u2014but his refusal to beg meanly for their pity, a refusal stemming from his concern with honour, with what is becoming for him. He compares the proper conduct before a court of law (not the proper conduct in the performance of his mission\u201428d10<\/a>–29a1<\/a>\u2014) with the proper conduct in war: however profound the difference, or the antagonism, between Socrates and the non-philosophic citizens may be, in grave situations he identifies himself completely, as far as his body is concerned, with the city, with \u201chis people.\u201d 2.<\/strong> Yet he makes a distinction between the condemners and the accusers: the disgrace consequent upon his condemnation falls on the accusers. 3.<\/strong> He predicts that what they expect from killing him will not come to pass. They expect by killing him to get rid of the necessity to give an account of how they live. But more will put them to that test after his death, namely those whom he restrained from doing so, and they, being younger, will be harsher on them than he; of this restraining influence of Socrates his condemners were unaware. Socrates had not mentioned it before. On the contrary, he had said before (30e1<\/a>-31a2) that if they kill him, they are not likely to find another gadfly: did he at that time wish to induce them to kill him?<\/span><\/p>\n Perge ad sequ\u0113ns caput<\/a><\/p>\n Redde ad prius caput<\/a><\/p>\n Perge ad initium paginae huius<\/a><\/p>\n Perge ad indicem<\/a><\/p>\n El texto en lengua inglesa fue publicado de manera p\u00f3stuma en un volumen en honor al prof. Jacob Klein: Essais in Honor of Jacob Klein<\/em> (Annapol\u012b, \u0113 Typographe\u014d Acad\u0113m\u012bae S\u0101nct\u012b I\u014dhannis MCMLXXVI). Aunque nosotros tomamos como base lo aparecido en una antolog\u00eda dedicada a escritos del prof. Str\u016bthi\u014d en ingl\u00e9s en 1983: Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy<\/em> (Sicag\u012b, \u0113 Typographe\u014d \u016aniversit\u0101tis Sicag\u012b MCMLXXXIII). La versi\u00f3n castellana es obra de Aemilia Aquad\u012bs, aparecida en la traducci\u00f3n del volumen mencionado anteriormente (Bon\u0101eropol\u012b, \u0113 Typographe\u014d Am\u014drrort\u012b MMVIII). La publicaci\u00f3n de estos fragmentos promueve la difusi\u00f3n en castellano de la obra del profesor Le\u014dnardus Str\u016bthi\u014d con fines acad\u00e9micos y de formaci\u00f3n. Conminamos a visitar su biblioteca m\u00e1s cercana o adquirir el volumen f\u00edsico en su librer\u00eda de confianza.<\/span><\/p>\n Perge ad sequ\u0113ns caput<\/a><\/p>\n Redde ad prius caput<\/a><\/p>\n Perge ad initium paginae huius<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/atriumphilosophicum.es\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Leo_Strauss_USA_1939-239x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\nVersi\u014d hisp\u0101nica Aemili\u0101 Aquad\u012bt\u012b auctr\u012bce 17<\/span><\/h1>\n
Le\u014dnard\u012b Str\u016bthi\u014dnis verba 17<\/span><\/h1>\n
I\u016bra<\/span><\/h1>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/atriumphilosophicum.es\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/creative-commons-symbols-300x111.jpg\")
<\/p>\n