I understand that in trials in Athens the prosecution and defense would each put forward alternative sentences that the jury would then vote for and I recently came across the suggestion that in Socrates' case it was a choice between death and free lunches and I decided to follow this up. I've now read this in a couple of places, often in sources that suggest that Socrates put forward this joke punishment and gave a defiant defense because he was purposefully trying to force the death punishment. However, I've also read that this wasn't the punishment that was officially voted on, that it was a 300 drachmae fine guaranteed by Plato, Crito, Critobulus, and Apollodorus. Does anyone know more about this? Is this a commonly held myth, a suggestion that was replaced with a fine, or the actual suggestion voted on? Does anyone know why there is this discrepancy across published history books?
Have you read the Apology? Plato says that Socrates initially proposed that he be given meals for life at the state expense, like an Olympic victor, on the grounds that he was a gift to the state. He changed this proposal when his students begged him to propose a fine, and instead offered a fine of one mina, claiming that this was all he could afford. At this Plato has Socrates say that some of his students would be willing to guarantee a fine, and Socrates proposes a fine of thirty minas, rather than the insulting one mina that he offered before. This itself wasn't exactly a large amount, but it would do--still, the Assembly felt insulted enough to vote for death, having been prodded along by Socrates himself. Xenophon says that Socrates refused to offer a punishment at all, claiming that it was an admission of guilt to do so but that he was guilty of nothing. Plato and Xenophon are the only contemporary accounts, and we don't know which of them is closer to reality--Plato usually uses Socrates to push his own opinions indirectly, and Xenophon was leading the Ten Thousand during the trial. Plato's account is the more detailed and is usually taken as being relatively authoritative, though there are points at which scholars say his account is probably impossible--this is probably not one of them, though