190 



duct of his Athenian judges in a manner which we cannot so 

 readily admit. It is one thing to account for their conduct by 

 the principles of human nature and the prejudices of the age, 

 but quite another tiling to vindicate it as rational, dignified 

 or just. He remarks that all the Grecian states held the 

 principle of interference against the dissenting teacher, and 

 that in the republic of Plato a dissenting, free-spoken teacher, 

 such as Socrates at Athens, would not have been tolerated for 

 a week. But this is begging the question, since it is by no 

 means clear, to say the least, that even by the existing laws of 

 Athens there was a fair pretext for the condemnation of 

 Socrates. Hegel goes much further than this, maintaining 

 that Socrates was justly punished for his refractory spirit, 

 disdaining to do homage to the majesty of the people, an 

 opinion which Dr. Thirlwall comments upon as it deserves. 

 Dr. Forchhammer goes further still, calling the Athenians 

 " the men of the laws," and Socrates " the man of the 

 revolution," and maintaining even that he was legally and 

 justly condemned. Dr. Thirlwall clearly shows, we think, in 

 reply, that Socrates, at all events, had been guilty of no 

 breach of the laws, for that the laws of every Greek state 

 allowed the utmost freedom of religious opinion ; because 

 there was no authentic standard of religious truth. He shows 

 also that Socrates was tried for one offence and condemned to 

 death for another, and concludes by saying, in direct contra- 

 diction to Dr. Forchhammer, that there never was a case in 

 which murder was more clearly committed under the forms of 

 legal procedure than in the trial of Socrates. 



Dr. D. P. Thomson afterwards read an exposition of the 

 views of Mr. Wild, respecting the Astroncmiical uses of the 

 Pyramids of Egypt. 



