Apology (Plato)

For the article on Xenophon's work on the same subject, see Apology (Xenophon). For other uses, see Apology (disambiguation)
Plato-raphael.jpg
Part of the series on:
The Dialogues of Plato
Early dialogues:
Apology – Charmides – Crito
Euthyphro – First Alcibiades
Hippias Major – Hippias Minor
Ion – Laches – Lysis
Transitional (middle) dialogues:
Cratylus – Euthydemus – Gorgias
Menexenus – Meno – Phaedo
Protagoras – Symposium
Later middle dialogues:
Republic – Phaedrus
Parmenides – Theaetetus
Late dialogues:
Timaeus – Critias
Sophist – Statesman
Philebus – Laws
Of doubtful authenticity:
Clitophon – Epinomis
Epistles – Hipparchus
Minos – Rival Lovers
Second Alcibiades – Theages

(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 speaking in defense of a cause or of one's beliefs or actions (from the Greek απολογία).

Contents

The Text

Xenophon, who wrote his own Apology of Socrates, indicates that a number of writers had published accounts of Socrates' defense. According to one prominent scholar, "Writing designed to clear Socrates' name was doubtless a particular feature of the decade or so following 399 BC...."[1] Many scholars guess that Plato's Apology was one of the first, if not the very first, dialogue Plato wrote, though there is little if any hard evidence.[2] Plato's Apology is commonly regarded as the most reliable source of information about the historical Socrates.[3]

Except for two brief exchanges with Meletus (at 24d-25d and 26b-27d), where the dialogue is written in dramatic form, the text is written in the first person from Socrates' point of view, as though it were Socrates' actual speech at the trial. During the course of the speech, Socrates twice mentions Plato as being present (at 34a and 38b). There is, however, no real way of knowing how closely Socrates' words in the Apology match those of Socrates at the actual trial, even if it was Plato's intention to be accurate in this respect. One contemporary criticism of Plato's Apology is perhaps implied by the opening paragraphs of Xenophon's Apology, assuming that the former antedated the latter; Xenophon remarks that previous writers had failed to make clear the reason for Socrates' boastful talk (megalēgoria) in the face of the death penalty. Xenophon's account disagrees in some other respects with the details of Plato's Apology, but he nowhere explicitly claims it to be inaccurate.

Introduction

The Apology begins with Socrates 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 begins with 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 by his oratorical skills, but by 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 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 by drinking hemlock, and has been admired for the calm acceptance of his fate.

Socrates' accusers

The three men who brought the charges against Socrates were:

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 the style of a formal legal accusation: "Socrates is committing an injustice, in that he inquires 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. In his play, "The Clouds," Aristophanes lampooned Socrates by presenting him as the paradigm of atheistic, scientific sophistry.

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 and claims to know nothing noble and good.

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. The second part is the verdict, and the third part is the punishment.

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 to clarify the meaning of the Oracles' words. He systematically quizzed the politicians, poets and craftsmen. Socrates determined that the politicians were impostors, and said that the poets did not understand their own writings, like prophets and seers who do not understand what they say. 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 not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, 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 realize 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. He does not fear death; nor will he act in a way contrary to his religious duty.

The verdict

Socrates is voted guilty by a narrow margin (Apology 36a). Plato never gives the total number of Socrates' judges nor the exact numbers of votes against him and for his acquittal,[7] though Socrates does say that if only 30 more had voted in his favor then he would have been acquitted. Many scholars assume the number of judges was 500 or 501.[8]

Part two

It was the tradition that the prosecution and the defendant each propose a penalty, from which the court would choose. In this section, Socrates antagonises the court even further when considering his proposition.

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). Assuming there were 501 or 500 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) would have numbered only 93 or 94 (assuming 501 or 500 total jurors). 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 next proposition most upset the jurors: 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.

Finally 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.

Part three

Plato indicates that the majority of jurors vote in favor of the death penalty (Apology 38c), but he does not indicate exactly how many did. Our only source for the actual numbers of these votes is Diogenes Laertius, who says that 80 more voted for the death sentence than had voted for Socrates' guilt in the first place (2.42); but the details of this account have been disputed.[9] Others have concluded from this that Socrates' speech angered the jury.[10]

Socrates now responds 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 asks them to look after his three sons as they grow up, ensuring that they put goodness before selfish interests.

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.

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.

Notes

  1. ↑ M. Schofield (1998, 2002), "Plato", in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved 07-23-2008 from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/A088
  2. ↑ pp. 71-72, W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 4, Cambridge 1975; p. 46, C. Kahn, Plato and the Socratic Dialogue, Cambridge 1996.
  3. ↑ T. Brickhouse & N. Smith, "Plato", The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  4. ↑ p. xxvi, J. Adam, Platonis Apologia Socratis, Cambridge University Press 1916.
  5. ↑ Debra Nails, The People of Plato (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 2002), 188–9.
  6. ↑ p. 151, Plato's Euthyprho, Apology of Socrates, and Crito, Clarendon 1924). J. Adam's claim suggests agreement with Burnet. See further p. 29, T. Brickhouse & N. Smith, Socrates on Trial, Princeton University Press 1989.
  7. ↑ pp. 150-151, John Burnet, Plato's Euthyprho, Apology of Socrates, and Crito, Clarendon 1924; p. 26, T. Brickhouse & N. Smith, Socrates on Trial, Princeton 1989. Diogenes Laertius does not give the total number of judges; in fact, not only has Diogenes' account (2.41) been disputed, but different scholars interpret his text differently (see Burnet ibid.). According to one reading, Diogenes says (without citing a source) that Socrates was condemned by 281 votes "more than those for acquittal"; this, as Burnet notes, conflicts with Plato Apology 36a, since Plato's Socrates says that if only 30 more had voted in his favor, he would have won acquittal.
  8. ↑ See sources cited by Brickhouse & Smith, Socrates on Trial, p. 26.
  9. ↑ pp. 230-231, T. Brickhouse & N. Smith, Socrates on Trial, Princeton 1989.
  10. ↑ Douglas M. MacDowell, The Law in Classical Athens (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978), 253.

Further reading

See also

External links