Socrates condemnation,King, unknown name



What was the full name of the king archon from Euthyphro, who condemned Socrates to death?


Posted 2017-12-08T16:45:50.630

Reputation: 169

Archon, generally speaking, was name for a high public office, like Chief Magistrate; I don't think its linked to the notion of kingship in any direct way. – Mozibur Ullah – 2017-12-08T19:04:41.620

But what was the name of the high public office who treated Socrates' case? – user2925716 – 2017-12-08T19:31:43.877

Well, the prosecution was lead by Meletus; also by Anytus; there is a third, I'm not sure of his name.

– Mozibur Ullah – 2017-12-08T22:26:02.370

The Greeks dated their years after the person who was Archon at the time, see here, to find out the name you would have to know the year that Socrates was sentenced to death during. It is probably important to point out the issues with discussing a historical Socrates (was he a real person? Do we know anything about him as a real person?). The name of the Archon is not mentioned in Plato or Xenophon, and there is not enough primary text to give a definitive answer.

– Not_Here – 2017-12-10T05:26:13.780

The third one recorded was the orator Lycon.

– Mauro ALLEGRANZA – 2017-12-10T13:54:13.083

@Not_Here. I don't think there is much doubt that Socrates was a real, historical person. There is every doubt how accurately he and his views are represented in Xenophon's 'Memorabilia' and in the Platonic dialogues. Of course, I write subject to correction. But I can't recall a notable historical scholar who is sceptical of Socrates' existence. – Geoffrey Thomas – 2017-12-10T15:02:32.990

@GeoffreyThomas Never in my comment did I say that there is a large amount of doubt that he was a real person, I gave two example questions that are related to the topic of discussing a historical Socrates. "Was Socrates a real person" is a completely legitimate question that is usually the first question asked when discussing him as a historical figure. Nowhere does the question imply that the answer is negative. Misunderstanding and focusing on that one parenthetical point completely misses everything substantial that was in the comment. – Not_Here – 2017-12-10T23:27:22.660

@Nor_Here. I accept your point, and apologise for the misunderstanding which is entirely my fault. But in 'a historical Socrates (was he a real person?)' the question seemed to be raised whether he was a real person. If you do not doubt that he was, what point the question ? Are we to consider a question of which the answer is not in doubt ? But I have no wish to be contentious. I fully accept that you do not believe 'that there is a large amount of doubt that he was a real person'. That is the essential point; I am sorry to have caused the misunderstanding. – Geoffrey Thomas – 2017-12-11T00:51:41.687

@GeoffreyThomas You say "Are we to consider a question of which the answer is not in doubt?" and my answer is "we don't know whether or not the answer to the question is in doubt until we ask the question." You can't say that we know for a fact that Socrates was real until someone asks the question "was he real," and then looks into it. The fact that we are very sure he was real is a direct result of us asking the question, which is exactly my point, if you are going to start a discussion of him as a historical person the first two questions you need to ask are the ones I mentioned. – Not_Here – 2018-01-19T07:34:46.453

@GeoffreyThomas it seems to me to be the case that in order to discuss Socrates as a historical person, the first thing you need to do is ask whether or not he was a historical person, and then go on to ask what evidence we have that gives us qualitative information about him as a historical person, that is mainly the point that I was making. By "issues" I didn't mean that there is major doubt, what I meant is that that is the first topic you need to cover before you start to discuss him as a historical figure, as opposed to Plato's surrogate. – Not_Here – 2018-01-19T07:37:23.767

@Not_Here. Thanks for comment. Xenophon and Plato both appear from writings ascribed to them by scholars to have thought they knew the historical Socrates. And scholars such as AE Taylor, John Burnet and Gregory Vlastos at least thought that the historical Socrates was a real person or they would not have inquired into the accuracy of his representation in the Platonic dialogues. I agree, however, that your question, 'Do we know anything about him as a real person?', does not imply doubt as to his existence. I misinterpreted the meaning of your question and do not hesitate to apologise. Pax ? – Geoffrey Thomas – 2018-01-19T09:57:44.287



"Archon basileus" translates as "king magistrate" So says Wikipedia: Socrates's trial does not seem to have had a presiding official in the sense of an American trial judge.

Euthyphro was a character, with Socrates, in Plato's Euthyphro dialogue. The full surviving text of the dialogue is available at The Internet Classics Archive:

Mark Andrews

Posted 2017-12-08T16:45:50.630

Reputation: 4 397