El suceso mas importante del trasegar del filosofo que no sabia lo que era filosofar, fue el tramite judicial que se adelanto en contra suya alrededor del ano 399 cuando ya su curva vital descendia vertiginosamente al eclipse, consecuencia de una acusacion de impiedad adelantada ante el Arconte1 por tres ciudadanos atenienses, un poeta mediocre, un politico del monton y un orador desconocido instigado quizas por Teramenes.2 En el dialogo platonico3 “Eutifron”, el acusado declaraba: “que el acto piadoso no lo era porque complaciera a los dioses como suponia su interlocutor el adivino Eutifron sino, por el contrario condescendia a los dioses porque era piadoso”, sin olvidar el ilustre maestro que unos cuarenta anos despues de la muerte de Jenofanes de Colofon. Un decreto de Diopeites promulgado en Atenas (433 a.C.) prohibio “hablar de las cosas celestiales bajo la pena de ser enjuiciado por impiedad”. Abstract The most important event of run of life the philosopher who did not know what was philosophizing, was the judicial review that was advanced against him around the year 399 when his curve vital to eclipse fell sharply, a result of an accusation of impiety advanced to the Arconte Athenians by three citizens, a mediocre poet, a politician of the pile and a speaker unknown perhaps instigated by Theramenes. In the Platonic dialogue “Euthyphro”, the defendant said: “pious act that was not why please the gods as his supposed partner guess the Euthyphro but rather pleased the gods because he was pious”, without forgetting the illustrious teacher that some forty years after the death of Xenophanes of Colophon. A decree promulgated Diopeites in Athens (433 BC) banned “talk about things heavenly under penalty of being prosecuted for impiety”.