Apology (Plato)

(The) Apology (of Socrates) is Plato's version of the speech given by Socrates as he defends himself against the charges of being a man "who corrupted the young, did not believe in the gods, and created new deities". "Apology" here has its earlier meaning (now usually expressed by the word "apologia") of a formal defense of a cause or of one's beliefs or actions (from the Latin apologia, from the Greek "apo" and "logos").

1 Introduction
2 Socrates' accusers
3 The charges against Socrates
4 The dialogue
5 Modes of interpretation
6 See also
7 External links

[edit] Introduction

Socrates begins by saying he does not know if the men of Athens (his jury) have been persuaded by his accusers. This first sentence is crucial to the theme of the entire speech. Plato often begins his Socratic dialogues with words which indicate the overall idea of the dialogue; in this case, "I do not know". Indeed, in the Apology Socrates will suggest that philosophy consists entirely of a sincere admission of ignorance, and that whatever wisdom he has comes from his knowledge that he knows nothing.

Socrates asks the jury to judge him not on his oratorical skills, but on the truth. Socrates says he will not use ornate words and phrases that are carefully arranged, but will speak the chance thoughts that come into his head. He says he will use the same words that he is heard using at the agora and the moneytables. In spite of his disclaimers, Socrates proves to be a master rhetor who is not only eloquent and persuasive, but who plays to the jury like an impresario. The speech, which has won readers to his side for more than two millennia, does not succeed in winning him acquittal. Socrates is famously condemned to death, and has been admired for his calm conviction that god is doing the right thing by him.

[edit] Socrates' accusers

The three men who brought the charges against Socrates were:

Anytus, son of a prominent Athenian, Anthemion. Anytus makes an important cameo appearance in Meno. Anytus appears unexpectedly while Socrates and Meno (a visitor to Athens) are discussing the teachability of virtue. Having taken the position that virtue cannot be taught, Socrates adduces as evidence for this that many prominent Athenians have produced sons inferior to themselves. Socrates says this, and then proceeds to name names, including Pericles and Thucydides. Anytus becomes very offended, and warns Socrates that running people down ("kakos legein") could get him into trouble someday (Meno 94e-95a).

Meletus, the only accuser to speak during Socrates' defense. He is mentioned in another dialog, Euthyphro, but does not appear in person. Socrates says there that Meletus is a young unknown with hook-nose. In the Apology, Meletus allows himself to be cross-examined by Socrates and stumbles into a trap. Apparently not paying attention to the very charges he is bringing, he accuses Socrates of atheism and apparently, of believing in demi-gods.
Lycon, about whom little is known; he was according to Socrates a representative of the orators.

[edit] The charges against Socrates

Socrates says that he has to refute two sets of accusations: the old, longstanding charges that he is a criminal, a busybody, and a curious person who makes inquiries into the earth and sky, and the recent legal charges that he is guilty of corrupting the young, and of believing in supernatural things of his own invention instead of the gods recognized by the State. Socrates says that the old charges stemmed from years of gossip and prejudice against him and hence were unanswerable. These so called 'informal charges' Socrates puts into a legalistic form — an 'affidavit' as he calls it: "Socrates is committing an injustice, in that he enquires into things below the earth and in the sky, and makes the weaker argument the stronger, and teaches others to follow his example". He says that these allegations stem from a certain comic poet, namely Aristophanes.

Socrates' impassioned defense against the "charge" of sophistry (and curiosity) is diversionary, because sophists were not normally put to death in Athens. On the contrary, sophists were in high demand by fathers who wanted tutors for their sons. Socrates says that he cannot possibly be mistaken for a sophist because they are wise (or at least thought to be) and highly paid. He says he is poor (despite being seen regularly at the tables of the money changers) and claims to know absolutely nothing.

[edit] The dialogue

The Apology can be divided into three parts. The first part is Socrates's own defense of himself and includes the most famous parts of the text, namely his recounting of the Oracle at Delphi and his cross-examination of Meletus.

[edit] Part one

Socrates begins by telling the jurors that their minds were poisoned by his enemies when they were young and impressionable. He says his reputation for sophistry comes from his enemies, all of whom are envious of him, and malicious. He says they must remain nameless, except for Aristophanes, the comic poet. He later answers the charge that he has corrupted the young by arguing that deliberate corruption is an incoherent idea. Socrates says that his problems all began with the oracle. He tells how Chaerephon went to the Oracle at Delphi, to ask if anyone was wiser than Socrates. When Chaerephon reported to Socrates that the god told him there is none wiser, Socrates took this as a riddle. He says that he knew that he had no wisdom "great or small" but that he also knew that it is against the nature of the gods to lie.

Socrates then went on a "divine mission" to solve the paradox (that an ignorant man could also be the wisest person in town) and prove the god wrong. He systematically quizzed the politicians, poets and craftsmen. Socrates determined that the politicians were impostors, and said that the poets were as unwise as "prophets and seers". (Socrates does not explain how he can be sure that the priestesses at Delphi speaks absolute truth, while prophets and seers are unreliable.) Craftsmen prove to be pretentious too, and Socrates says that he made himself a spokesman for the oracle (23e). He asked himself whether he would rather be an impostor like the people he spoke to, or be himself. Speaking for the oracle, Socrates tells the jury that he would rather be himself than anyone else.

Socrates says that this questioning earned him the reputation of being an annoying busybody. Socrates interpreted his life's mission as proof that true wisdom belongs to the gods and that human wisdom and achievements have little or no value. Having addressed the cause of the prejudice against him, Socrates then tackles the formal charges, corruption of the young and atheism.

Socrates' first move is to accuse his accuser, Meletus (whose name means literally, "the person who cares," or "caring") of not caring about the things he professes to care about. He argues during his interrogation of Meletus that no one would intentionally corrupt another person (because they stand to be harmed by him at a later date). The issue of corruption is important for two reasons: first, it appears to be the heart of the charge against him, that he corrupted the young by teaching some version of atheism, and second, Socrates says that if he is convicted, it will be because Aristophanes corrupted the minds of his audience when they were young (with his slapstick mockery of Socrates in his play, "The Clouds", produced some twenty-four years earlier).

Socrates then proceeds to deal with the second charge, that he is an atheist. He cross-examines Meletus, and extracts a contradiction. He gets Meletus to say that Socrates is an atheist who believes in spiritual agencies and demigods. Socrates announces that he has caught Meletus in a contradiction, and asks the court whether Meletus has designed an intelligence test for him to see if he can identify logical contradictions.

Socrates repeats his claim that it will not be the formal charges which will destroy him, but rather the gossip and slander. He is not afraid of death, because he is more concerned about whether he is acting rightly or wrongly. Further, Socrates argues, those who fear death are showing their ignorance: death may be a great blessing, but many people fear it as an evil when they cannot possibly know it to be such. Again Socrates points out that his wisdom lies in the fact that he is aware that he does not know.

Socrates states clearly that a lawful superior, whether human or divine, should be obeyed. If there is a clash between the two, however, divine authority should take precedence. "Gentlemen, I am your grateful and devoted servant, but I owe a greater obedience to God than to you; and as long as I draw breath and have my faculties I shall never stop practicing philosophy". Since Socrates has interpreted the Delphic Oracle as singling him out to spur his fellow Athenians to a greater awareness of moral goodness and truth, he will not stop questioning and arguing should the people forbid him to do so, even if they were to withdraw the charges. Nor will he stop questioning his fellow citizens. "Are you now ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honour, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul?"

In a highly inflammatory section of the Apology, Socrates claims that no greater good has happened to Athens than his concern for his fellow citizens, that wealth is a consequence of goodness (and not the other way around), that God does not permit a better man to be harmed by a worse, and that, in the strongest statement he gives of his task, he is a stinging gadfly and the state a lazy horse, "and all day long I will never cease to settle here, there and everywhere, rousing, persuading and reproving every one of you."

As further evidence of his task, Socrates reminds the court of his daimon which he sees as a supernatural experience. He recognises this as partly behind the charge of believing in invented beings. Again Socrates makes no concession to his situation. He would have been well aware that many if not most in the courtroom would have viewed this with utmost suspicion.

Socrates claims to never have been a teacher, in the sense of imparting knowledge to others. He cannot therefore be held responsible if any citizen turns bad. If he has corrupted anyone, why have they not come forward to be witnesses? Or if they do not realise that they have been corrupted, why have their relatives not stepped forward on their behalf? Many relatives of the young men associated with him, Socrates points out, are presently in the courtroom to support him.

Socrates concludes this part of the Apology by reminding the jurors that he will not resort to the usual emotive tricks and arguments. He will not break down in tears, nor will he produce his three sons in the hope of swaying the jurors. He does not fear death; nor will he act in a way contrary to his religious duty. He will rely solely on sound argument and the truth to present his case.

[edit] The verdict

Socrates is found guilty by a vote of about 280 to 221.

[edit] Part two

In this section of the Apology, Socrates antagonises the court even further. It was the tradition that the defendant could speak again before the jury decides on a suitable punishment.

He points out that the vote was comparatively close: had only 30 more voted for him, he would have been found innocent. He engages in some dark humour by suggesting that Meletus be fined for not meeting the statutory one-fifth of the votes (in order to avoid frivolous cases coming to court, plaintiffs were fined heavily if the jurors' votes did not reach this number in a case where the defendant won). Since there were 501 jurymen, the prosecution had to gain at least 100 of the jurors' votes. Taken by itself however Meletus' vote (as representing one-third of the prosecution case) numbered only 93 or 94. Regardless of the number of plaintiffs, it was their case that had to reach the requisite one-fifth. Not only that, the prosecutors had won.

Socrates's proposed alternative punishment did not make him any more popular. He first proposes, as a benefactor to Athens, free meals in the Prytaneum, one of the important buildings which housed members of the Council. This was an honour reserved for athletes and other prominent citizens.

Socrates considers imprisonment and banishment before settling on a fine of 100 drachmae, as he had little funds of his own with which he could pay the fine. This was a small sum when weighed against the punishment proposed by the prosecutors and gave the jury little choice but to vote for the death penalty. Socrates' supporters immediately increased the amount to 3,000 drachmae, but in the eyes of the jury this was not an alternative.

The jury decided on the sentence of death by drinking hemlock.

[edit] Part three

Socrates' punishment speech angered the jurors. 360 voted for the death penalty; only 141 voted for a fine of 3,000 drachmae. Now Socrates has to respond to the verdict. He first addresses those who voted for death.

He claims that it is not a lack of arguments that has resulted in his condemnation, but rather his unwillingness to stoop to the usual emotive appeals expected of any defendant facing death. Again he insists that the prospect of death does not absolve one from following the path of goodness and truth.

Socrates prophesies that younger and harsher critics will follow him and submit them to an even more telling examination of their lives.

To those who voted for his acquittal, Socrates gives them encouragement: He says that his daimon did not stop him from conducting his defence in the way that he did as a sign that it was the right thing to do. As a consequence, death must be a blessing. Either it is an annihilation (thus bringing eternal peace from all worries, and therefore not something to be truly afraid of) or a migration to another place to meet souls of famous people such as Hesiod and Homer and heroes like Odysseus. With these, Socrates can continue his task of questioning.

Socrates concludes his Apology with the claim that he bears no grudge against those who accused and condemned him, and in a remarkable show of trust asks them to look after his three sons as they grow up, ensuring that they put goodness before selfish interests.

[edit] Modes of interpretation

Three different methods for interpreting the Apology have been suggested. The first, that it was meant to be solely a piece of art, is not widely held, in spite of Plato's reputation as an artist.

A second possibility is that the Apology is a historical recounting of the actual defense made by Socrates in 399 BC. This seems to be the oldest opinion. Its proponents maintain that, as one of Plato's earliest works, it would not have been fitting to embellish and fictionalise the memory of his master, especially while so many who remembered him were still living.

In 1741, Johann Jakob Brucker was the first to suggest that Plato was not to be trusted as a source about Socrates. Since that time more evidence has been brought to light supporting the theory that the Apology is not a historical account but a philosophical work. Apparent inconsistencies back this notion. (For example, it would have been absurd to ask the oracle of Delphi if anyone was wiser than Socrates if Socrates had not previously dealt in philosophical matters — contrary to Socrates' own story.)

Luis Noussan-Lettry has proposed important existential and phenomenological frameworks for interpreting the philosophy of the Apology. Concerning all the early works of Plato, especially the Apology and the Crito, he has said that it is best to first establish the theme of the piece and then interpret every passage in light of that theme. Echoing Kant, he calls this progression from the historical (and inadequate) interpretations to the thematic interpretation a "Copernican Revolution".

For Noussan-Lettry, the Apology is important because, if read correctly, it brings the reader directly to the Socratic method and makes the Platonic themes immediately comprehensible without recourse to pedagogy. To read the Apology is to take part in a dialogue.