Chapter VII

Whether intolerance was known to the Greeks.

The peoples of whom history has given us some faint knowledge all regarded their different religions as bonds uniting them with one another: this was an association of the human race. There was a kind of right of hospitality among gods as among men. When a stranger arrived in a city, he began by worshiping the gods of the country; people never failed to venerate even the gods of their enemies. The Trojans prayed to the gods who fought for the Greeks.

Alexander went into the deserts of Libya to consult the god Ammon, whom the Greeks called Zeus and the Latins Jupiter, although both peoples had their own Jupiter and Zeus at home. When a city was besieged, sacrifices and prayers were offered to its gods to win their favor. Thus, even in the midst of war, religion brought people together and sometimes softened their fury, though at other times it commanded inhuman and horrible deeds.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that none of the civilized peoples of antiquity restricted freedom of thought. All had a religion; but it seems they treated people as they treated their gods. All acknowledged a supreme God, but associated with him a prodigious number of lesser divinities. They had only one public worship, but allowed a multitude of individual systems of thought.

The Greeks, for example, religious as they were, accepted the Epicureans' denial of providence and the existence of the soul. I say nothing of the other sects, all of which offended the sound ideas one ought to have of the Creator, and all of which were tolerated.

Socrates, who came closest to knowledge of the Creator, paid the penalty for it, we are told, and died a martyr to the Deity. He is the only man the Greeks put to death for his opinions. If this was indeed the cause of his condemnation, it does intolerance no credit, since they punished the one man who alone gave glory to God, and honored all those who offered the most unworthy notions of the Deity. In my opinion, the enemies of tolerance should not invoke the hateful example of Socrates' judges.

It is clear, moreover, that he fell victim to a furious faction roused against him. He had made implacable enemies of the Sophists, orators, and poets who taught in the schools, and even of all the tutors responsible for children of high birth. He himself admits, in the speech reported by Plato, that he went from house to house proving to these tutors that they were mere ignoramuses. Such conduct was unworthy of the man an oracle had declared the wisest of all. A priest and a member of the Council of Five Hundred were unleashed against him and brought charges. I admit that I do not know precisely what those charges were; I find only vagueness in his defense. He is made to say in general that he was accused of instilling in young people principles hostile to religion and government. This is how slanderers behave every day throughout the world. But a court requires established facts, precise and detailed charges; the trial of Socrates supplies us with none. We know only that he initially had two hundred and twenty votes in his favor. The court of five hundred therefore contained two hundred and twenty philosophers: that is a great many; I doubt they could be found elsewhere. In the end, the majority voted for hemlock. But let us also remember that the Athenians, returning to their senses, came to abhor the accusers and judges; that Meletus, the principal author of the sentence, was condemned to death for this injustice; that the others were banished; and that a temple was raised to Socrates. Never was philosophy so well avenged or so greatly honored. The example of Socrates is, at bottom, the most devastating argument that can be brought against intolerance. The Athenians had an altar dedicated to foreign gods, gods they could not know. Could there be stronger proof not only of forbearance toward all nations, but also of respect for their worship?

An honorable man, an enemy neither of reason, literature, integrity, nor his country, recently justified the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre and cited the war of the Phocaeans, called the Sacred War, as though it had been kindled over worship, doctrine, or theological arguments. The question was who would own a field: that is the subject of every war. Sheaves of wheat are not a symbol of belief; no Greek city ever fought over opinions. Besides, what is this modest and gentle man proposing? Does he want us to wage a sacred war?

Whether the Greeks knew intolerance.

All the peoples of whom history has given us some faint knowledge regarded their different religions as bonds joining them together. Religion was an association of the human race. There was a kind of right of hospitality among gods as among human beings. When a foreigner arrived in a city, he began by worshiping the local gods. People never failed to honor even their enemies' gods. The Trojans prayed to the gods who were fighting for the Greeks.

Alexander went into the deserts of Libya to consult the god Ammon, whom the Greeks called Zeus and the Latins Jupiter, although both peoples had their own Jupiter and Zeus at home. When people besieged a city, they offered sacrifices and prayers to that city's gods to win their favor. So even in the midst of war, religion brought people together and sometimes softened their fury, though at other times it commanded inhuman and horrible acts.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that none of the civilized peoples of antiquity restricted freedom of thought. All had a religion. But they seem to have treated people as they treated their gods. They all recognized a supreme God but associated a huge number of lesser divinities with him. They had only one form of public worship but allowed a host of individual systems of belief.

The Greeks, for example, religious as they were, accepted the Epicureans' denial of Providence and the existence of the soul. I will not discuss the other schools, all of which offended the sound ideas we should have of the Creator, and all of which were tolerated.

Socrates, who came closest to knowing the Creator, is said to have paid the penalty for it and died a martyr for God. He is the only person the Greeks put to death for his opinions. If that really was the reason for his condemnation, it does intolerance no credit. They punished the one man who alone gave glory to God and honored everyone who presented the most unworthy ideas of the divine. In my view, the enemies of tolerance should not use the hateful example of Socrates' judges to support their case.

Besides, he was clearly the victim of a furious faction stirred up against him. He had made irreconcilable enemies of the sophists, orators, and poets who taught in the schools, and even of all the tutors who looked after children of high birth. He himself admits, in his speech reported by Plato, that he went from house to house proving to these tutors that they were nothing but ignoramuses. Such behavior was unworthy of the man an oracle had declared the wisest of all. A priest and a member of the Council of Five Hundred were unleashed against him and brought charges. I admit that I do not know precisely what the charges were. I find only vagueness in his defense. He is made to say in general terms that he was accused of instilling principles opposed to religion and government in young people. This is how slanderers act every day throughout the world. But a court needs established facts and precise, detailed charges. The trial of Socrates provides us with none of these. We know only that at first he had two hundred and twenty votes in his favor. So the court of five hundred contained two hundred and twenty philosophers. That is a great many; I doubt they could be found elsewhere. In the end, the majority voted for hemlock. But let us also remember that the Athenians, when they came to their senses, regarded his accusers and judges with horror; that Meletus, the chief author of this judgment, was condemned to death for this injustice; that the others were banished; and that a temple was built to Socrates. Philosophy was never so fully avenged or so greatly honored. At bottom, the example of Socrates is the most devastating argument that can be brought against intolerance. The Athenians had an altar dedicated to foreign gods, gods they could not know. Could there be stronger proof not only of forbearance toward all nations, but also of respect for their forms of worship?

A decent man, who is no enemy of reason, literature, honesty, or his country, recently justified the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre by citing the war of the Phocaeans, known as the Sacred War. He wrote as though that war had begun over worship, doctrine, or theological arguments. The question was who would own a field—the subject of all wars. Sheaves of wheat are not a symbol of belief. No Greek city ever fought over opinions. Besides, what does this modest and gentle man want? Does he want us to wage a sacred war?