Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tesis - Karbonowska
Tesis - Karbonowska
by
Diana Karbonowska
A Thesis
presented to
The University of Guelph
ABSTRACT
Plato’s Apology differs and stands out from the other dialogues in his corpus in regard to
its style, structure and content. Socrates’s manner of speech, although inspired by
examination and philosophizing, is monological and lacks the dialogical structure that
other dialogues showcase. In this thesis I argue that Socrates’s manner of speech
expressions, tone, arguments, and topoi in Plato’s Apology will demonstrate that telling
the truth is, on its own, not enough to convince or persuade someone.
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Jeff Mitscherling, and my second reader,
Professor Kenneth Dorter for their careful reading, and insightful comments, all of which
have been invaluable to me. Without their encouragement and commitment to my success
this thesis could not be possible. I would also like to thank my friends, family and
colleagues in the department for all their support and stimulating philosophical
discussions. A special thank you to Kosta Gligorijevic and Brooke Struck for sharing
their insights and lively discussions at the Plato reading groups that I arranged in the
winter term of 2013. I thank Kosta for spending hours with me translating Plato’s
Apology and honing Greek language skills. And I would like to sincerely thank Brooke
for his constructive criticism and heartfelt encouragement at all the stages of the thesis.
Finally, I am grateful for the funding support that I received from the Department of
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements i
Introduction 1-8
Bibliography 84
Introduction
Plato’s Apology differs and stands out from the other dialogues in his corpus in regard to
its style, structure and content. Although considered a dialogue, it consists mainly of a
monologue, while other works are wholly dialogical in structure. Not only this, but in the
Apology Socrates addresses an Athenian jury of approximately 500 men, while in other
dialogues, such as the Phaedo, there are up to 13 men present. Also, the subject of the
work is a defence against accusations, but other works, such as the Republic and the
Phaedo, are comprised of discussions about such particular subjects as justice, desire,
reason, spiritedness, the soul, knowledge, and recollection, among others. 1 Given these
differences, the Apology is clearly a unique literary and philosophical work that warrants
immorality, but in order to do this, Socrates must explain and defend his life of
philosophy. Throughout his defence speech, he emphasizes the need to tell the truth, and
stresses that he has supplied the entire, unadulterated truth; but in spite of this, he fails to
secure his acquittal. In the end of the dialogue, Socrates is convicted and sentenced to
death by drinking hemlock. In this commentary on the Apology, I will argue that Socrates
expressions, tone, arguments, and topoi in the Apology will demonstrate that telling the
1
In addition to the differences that I point out, Russon (2009, p. 192) points out that in other
dialogues “Socrates deals with the specific prejudices held by particular individuals, [whereas]
here the subject of these prejudices is not an individual [but rather an ‘an anonymous collective
identity’.”
1
truth is, on its own, not enough to convince or persuade someone.2 Although he briefly
because he cannot or does not philosophize in his defence. In other words, philosophizing
In this thesis, on the one hand, I assume that many features of the dialogue are
inventions of Plato, on the other hand, I also assume that Plato has preserved some
historically accurate aspects of the trial of Socrates. I do not grant that Plato’s Apology is
wholly factual nor wholly fictional. Which elements are fact and which are fiction is
outside the scope of this thesis. Commentators suggest that the Apology is probably
among the dialogues that best represents Socrates’s character,4 and in any case, whatever
divergences may exist would not undermine the fact that we have an important
2
Russon (2009, p.199) states,
Education—indeed philosophy itself—cannot simply be a matter of rational
argumentation and information transfer. Philosophy, because it must address
our childish beliefs (because those are the deep prejudices that most need
examining) and address them so as to transform them, is a matter of pedagogy,
of “leading the child.” Philosophy then, has a clandestine side, going around
one’s back to make one change. It is the “art of turning around,” This means it
is about leading another to change his or her life. This means that, rather than
simply passing on information or argument, it is fundamentally a matter of getting
someone to see something, getting someone to make a change: it is a matter
of inducing action in another; philosophy then, is fundamentally persuasive,
that is whatever scientific or cognitive content it has is subtended by a fundamentally
practical and psychological/rhetorical orientation.
I agree that philosophy is “more than simply passing on information or argument.” We will see
that Socrates, in the Apology, is narrating and disclosing the truth, but not philosophizing and
changing the minds of the jurors.
3
Philosophizing and philosophy, here, are interchangeable, but I use “philosophizing,” which
Socrates uses at 23d and which I explain later in this chapter, in order to convey that philosophy
is an activity.
4
For example, Hackforth (1933, 6), and Brickhouse and Smith (2004, 70), state in their
introductions that, in spite of the uncertainty of the details and its historical unreliability, the
Apology illustrates Socrates as a wise man devoted to a life of philosophy.
2
philosophical lesson to learn about the persuasive powers of examination and the
The commentaries that I have chosen address the historicity of the dialogue, that
is, whether Plato’s Apology is an accurate report of the defence speech of Socrates, and
the character of Socrates, that is, the portrait the Apology paints of Socrates. Throughout
this commentary I will refer to the work of other commentators: Blakeney (1929),
Brickhouse and Smith (2004), Burnet (1924), Guardini (1948), Hackforth (1933), Miller
and Platter (2010), Riddell (1974), Stock (1887), and de Strycker and Slings (1994).5
Commentators differ according to the lens through which they present their
commentaries. For example, Riddell and Stock give introductory remarks on the themes
and topoi, and then give a translation. Blakeney, Burnet, Miller and Platter, and de
Strycker and Slings offer their own translation and a line-by-line commentary, meaning
that they highlight the Greek word, phrase or sentence, and remark on its significance.
and Smith, and de Strycker and Slings provide a non-linear, informal commentary by
discussing themes and topoi, such as the charges, the oracle, and Socrates’s Sign or
daimon. Notice that the commentary of de Strycker and Slings falls under two categories.
topographic commentary. Their work is by far the most extensive of all the commentaries
used in this thesis, and I refer to their work often because of their multi-faceted
5
In addition to this core group of commentaries, I will also refer to the work of Goldman (2009),
Nails (2002), Russon (2009), and Scott (2002), less often but where appropriate.
3
discussion with each other. The earliest commentator in this selection, Burnet, published
in 1924, while the most recent, Miller and Platter, published in 2010. This (almost) 90-
already stated that the commentaries that I have incorporated into this thesis are mainly
formal and linear, with a couple of exceptions. Their focus is to analyze the text through a
micro lens. This thesis will be structured linearly but informally. In other words, I will
address the text sequentially section by section, as opposed to line-by-line. I will explain
my chapter divisions shortly. Investigating the text on a larger, macro scale will allow me
I will briefly discuss the structure of the Athenian legal court, and the accusers of
Socrates and their accusations, in order to contextualize the dialogue. The central subject
of the Apology is Socrates’s defence against the charges laid by Meletus,6 the primary
plaintiff, and Anytus7 and Lycon.8 The three men have laid two charges, kategoroi
6
Nails (2002, p.202) states that “it is probable that Meletus’ father was a poet, but not that
Meletus was himself,” and it is said that Meletus brought the charges on behalf of the poets. In
the Euthyphro, Socrates describes Meletus as “young and unknown,” “belonging to the Pithean
deme,” and as having “long hair, not much of a beard and an aquiline nose.” (2b)
7
Anytus was a rich Athenian and democratic leader, best known as a prosecutor of Socrates. As a
general in 409, he failed to prevent the loss of Pylos; at his trial he reportedly bribed the entire
jury. He was perhaps the first man to bribe an Athenian jury. After 403 he was a respected,
moderate leader of the restored democracy. Plato (Meno 91) presents him as high in popular
esteem and as a passionate enemy of the sophists. His prosecution of Socrates for impiety was
probably motivated less by religious concerns than by anger at Socrates’s disdain of democratic
politicians. Riddell notes that Anytus was the most influential accuser, so there is reason to think
that he was the most inflamed against Socrates, not to mention that he had lost a fortune through
his fidelity to the cause of freedom. He had spearheaded the attack to take back the state from the
Thirty. See Riddell (p.ii, xxviii), Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World; and Nails (2002, 37-
8) for more biographical notes. Riddell, Miller and Platter (2010, 60) argue that Anytus was “by
far the most considerable of the three accusers.”
8
Although mentioned only a couple of times in the Apology, Lycon plays an important role in the
indictment against Socrates. Lycon’s son was executed by the Thirty, and Nails (2002, 189) states
4
[κατήγοροι], against Socrates: corrupting the youth, and denying the gods of Athens.
Customarily, the prosecution delivered the kategoria and the defendant replied with an
apologia [κατήγοροι]. “Apologia” does not mean “apology” but “defence”, a formal
speech explaining and rebutting the kategoria, and it does not resemble the dialogical
nature of Plato’s other works, save the short exchange with Meletus, which resembles the
discussions recounted in other dialogues. Is Socrates guilty of the charges, and does he
show that they are unwarranted? In other words, is he aiming to deny what Meletus and
the others say he has done, or does he deny that those actions are illegal? Socrates denies
(19b-20e) the truth of the old accusations, that have led to the new accusations of impiety
and immorality, but he argues that the new accusations are unreasonable and
having behaved in controversial ways, but that he is innocent of the charges brought
against him.
The customary legal defence of the era is typically divided into three parts.9 The
first part consists of the prosecutors’ speeches, and the second is occupied by the defence
of the accused and the pleadings of his advocates, if he has any. After the speeches of
each party have been heard, then the jury announces its verdict, which is conducted by
secret ballot. The third part is devoted to determining the appropriate penalty. The
prosecutor can speak again in favour of the penalty he has suggested, and then the
convicted man can plea bargain. Once the jurors decide on the appropriate penalty, the
that he “may have believed that Socrates had been aligned with the oligarchy responsible for his
son’s death.” She claims further that “his and Anytus’ participation in the indictment of Socrates
was all that prevented Meletus from being fined for bringing frivolous accusation (Apology 36a).”
(189)
9
Riddell (p.vi) notes that each part was equal in length, which was measured by a water clock,
klepsydra. It is a clock that used the flow of water to measure time.
5
legal proceedings are over. At this point the convicted man is led away by the officers of
the court. Sometimes the convicted man may continue to address the court, but this
The chapter divisions of this thesis will correspond to the three divisions in the
trial. All commentators except for Hackforth and Brickhouse and Smith organize their
commentaries according to divisions in the text as opposed to themes. I have adopted the
sequential order allows the reader to follow along and understand the commentary
In Chapter 1, I will discuss the Defence Proper, that is, the section of the dialogue
consisting of Stephanus pages 17a-35d, where Socrates directly addresses and defends
himself against the charges. In order to defend against the charges of Meletus, et al.,
Socrates must explain how they came about. Here we will see that Socrates discloses the
truth about his personal past in order to show that the new accusations are unjustified
despite his controversial and contentious behaviour. The first chapter is subdivided into
C. the Refutation (19a-28a), D. the Digression (28a-34b), and lastly, E. the Peroration
(34b-35d). Also, because it lasts nine Stephanus pages (which is considerable lengthy),
the third section, the Refutation, is subdivided into a defence against the old accusers
and is allowed to propose a reasonable punishment for himself. Here we find Socrates
10
See Stock (1887, pp. 18-23) and Brickhouse and Smith (2004, pp.72-76) for a further details
pertaining to Socrates legal proceedings, and the charges.
6
presenting a brief defence of the examined life. Socrates cannot fully conduct the same
the examination is only aimed at Meletus, and not the jurors. Meletus shows signs of
discomfiture upon being refuted, suggesting that examination has persuaded him to
to change one’s mind because one is not in the metaphorical hot seat and one’s beliefs are
not under scrutiny. Because Socrates cannot examine the beliefs of each juror, he cannot
change the minds of the jurors and thereby secure acquittal. As a result, he is forced to
In Chapter 3, the Last Words (38c-42a), Socrates reminds the jurors who voted
for conviction of their responsibility to identify the truth. He points out that although he
will die shortly, others will continue to philosophize. Then, to the jurors who voted for
acquittal, Socrates states his view of death, and that his Divine Sign has not warned him
explain that Socrates does his best to communicate and convey the importance of
philosophy, but ultimately fails, despite the short examination, because veracity must be
person. The way in which Socrates speaks is not the way that Socrates himself advocates;
there is a discrepancy between what he says and how he says it. His speech, although
truthful, is not the way in which one ought to philosophize. Ideally Socrates would
7
examine each juror for the soundness of his beliefs. One might interpret this as an
instance of the expression, “Do as I say, not as I do,” but we know that Socrates votes
with his feet. Not only does he exhort Athenians to discuss and examine the important
things but he also does so himself, as we see in other Socratic dialogues. Unfortunately,
8
Chapter 1:
The Defence Proper (17a-35d)
At the outset of the Apology, we assume that the prosecutors have already given their
speeches as per court procedures. The main part of the Apology depicts Socrates standing
in front of the jury and defending himself against the charges of immorality and impiety.
A. Exordium, 17a-18a
The way in which Plato opens his dialogues often suggests leitmotifs that will run
throughout the dialogue. For example, at the beginning of the Republic, Socrates states,
“I went down to the Piraeus.” (327a) Dorter (2006, p.23) argues that Socrates’ descent to
the port represents his descent to the cave. Similarly, the exordium in the Apology
introduces the theme of oratory and veracity.11 At the outset of the Apology Socrates
they speak. And yet, hardly anything of what they said is true. (17a)13
11
Note that Socrates does not immediately begin to address the charges laid against him by
Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon. Brickhouse and Smith (2004, 83) also remark on the peculiarity of
Socrates’s exordium. The way in which Socrates begins is indicative of the way he will continue
his speech, that is, the literary devices and strategies present throughout the dialogue will reveal
the meaning of the text.
12
The number of jurors on any jury typically ranged from 200 to 2500. It is commonly agreed by
commentators that it was likely that 501 jurors were present at Socrates’ trial. This large number
of audience members is unlike the usual number of interlocutors in Plato’s other dialogues.
13
I am relying on G.M.A. Grube’s translation found in the Cooper edition of Plato’s Complete
Works (1997).
9
Here we see for the first time Socrates’s strategy of addressing the jury in order to
emphasize the succeeding point that he makes. He will address them in this manner no
fewer than 39 times.14 Blakeney (1927, 94) states that “Socrates is addressing his fellow-
citizens generally, rather than the crowds who have come out of curiosity, to hear his
defence.” Miller and Platter (2010) indicate that Socrates’s addresses are much more
charged than one might believe, stating that addressing his jurors as “Athenian men”
instead of “O, judges”[ ὦ ἄνδρες δικάσται], which would have been more respectful, is
one way in which Socrates antagonizes the jury. Furthermore, the Apology is punctuated
with Socrates’ addresses to the men, Ο αndres (ὦ ἄνδρες), or as Grube translates it,
“gentlemen,” a total of seven times.15 This locution highlights important points to which
we should pay attention and give extra consideration. Whenever an instance of this
locution occurs, the audience and the reader should slow down and take note of the point
The first thing to which Socrates draws our attention is his manner of speech.
Socrates contrasts the artful eloquence of his accusers and his own artless manner of
speech. He is trying to distinguish himself from others with whom he might be confused
because the rhetorical eloquence is deceitful and aims only at persuasion, while his
manner is simple and aims at the truth. The orator that appears to be artful and eloquent is
not necessarily an excellent orator, for he does not aim at the truth. Socrates claims (17a)
that he is not a clever speaker, but I think that he means to say that he is not clever in the
14
See Apology 17a, 17b, 18a, 18c, 18e, 19c, 20c, 20d, 20e, 21c, 22a, 26a, 26e, 28a, 28d, 28e, 30b,
30c, 30d, 31d, 32a, 32e, 33b, 33c, 34b, 34d, 34e, 35d, 35c, 35d, 35e, 36b, 36d, 36d, 37c, 37d,
38b, 37c and 38d.
15
See Apology 17c, 18b, 29e, 31a, 34a, 39a and 39e.
10
superficial sense of the word.16 When the others spoke, Socrates claims that he almost fell
under their spell; that is to say, he was compelled by empty language. Their manner of
speech cannot be successfully persuasive because it is not founded in truth and does not
aim to convey the truth. In short, the wrong value motivates their speech. In section C of
this chapter, we will see how Socrates shows how incompetent and thoughtless Meletus
is.
In any trial, the objective of the defendant is to weaken the statements against
himself.17 Socrates announces that, unlike his accusers, he will aim to communicate the
truth in the same manner of speech as he uses in the marketplace. We can turn to other
dialogues, such as the Euthyphro, and the Phaedo as examples of Socratic locution and
dialectic. We will see later in the Apology that, although what Socrates says in his speech
is true, it is not enough to secure an acquittal. Does Socrates genuinely want to secure his
acquittal? Throughout the dialogue, Socrates’s diction, tone, and locution suggest that an
acquittal is nearly impossible. When he begins to explicitly address the charges and the
16
Brickhouse and Smith (2004, 84), Burnet (1924, 66), Riddell (xiii) and de Strycker and Slings
(1994, 36) point to topoi that are common between the Apology and the Orators. They state that
the exordium may be completely paralleled, piece by piece, from the Orators. The imputation of
conjoint falsity and plausibility, the denial of being a strange speaker, the asking of pardon, the
plea of unfamiliarity with law-courts, the begging for an impartial hearing, the deprecation of
uproar, and the disclaiming a style unbefitting an old man. So, it is ironic, or perhaps dishonest,
that Socrates claims he is not an eloquent speaker, for he uses these rhetorical techniques.
Although he opens with these techniques, he certainly does not rely on them throughout his
speech, instead he resorts to his own style of speech as much as he can. I say “as much as he can,”
because, as we will see, ideally Socrates would prefer to examine a person and scrutinize her
beliefs. Under his present circumstances, Socrates cannot open and close with examination, but
he will examine Meletus in his typical, Socratic way (24b-28a) and adopt features of his method
of examination.
17
In contemporary trials, the plaintiff must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is
guilty; according to commentators, there is no such legal principle in place. The onus was on the
defendant to weaken the charges against himself.
11
We must not forget about the role of the jurors in this trial. The jurors’
responsibility, according to Socrates, is to identify the truth. Socrates says at the end of
the exordium, “concentrate your attention on whether what I say is just or not, for the
excellence of a judge lies in this, as that of a speaker lies in telling the truth.” (18a) The
jurors must be reminded of the collaborative relationship toward the truth, for they, too,
In addition to identifying the truth and judging Socrates in accordance with the
truth, the role of a juror is not akin to that of an interlocutor in examination. Their role is
giving a speech in the Apology, while in such dialogues as Crito and Euthyphro, he is
typically engaged in a discussion with and cross examination of one person. There is very
little discussion and examination in the Apology. But, Socrates commits to speaking in
the same fashion. Given this commitment and the lack of direct interlocutor, we may
expect that Socrates will adopt strategies to mimic the dialogical structure, for example,
he will introduce a hypothetical speaker who asks questions; these questions will guide
Socrates’s speech, and help Socrates to transition from one topic to another.
From the outset, Socrates calls to our attention the way in which he has and will
express himself. What does Socrates mean when he says that he will tell the truth? Is it
enough to retell the facts of the matter? Is the truth that which is coherent? Is the truth
popular opinion? Socrates gives such priority to truth that it makes one suspicious. We
will see that Socrates’s intentions are good, but he fails to convince his jury and secure
his acquittal. His everyday language and the truth fall short of persuasion. This exordium
12
introduces the leitmotif of oratory and veracity that will be predominant throughout the
speech.
he is not a clever speaker in the same sense as the others are clever. The truth can be
At 18d, Socrates makes clear that he wants the jury to realize that there are
actually two sets of accusations. In the introduction, I listed the kategoria, which are the
below). The old accusers say that “that there is a man called Socrates, a wise man, a
student of all things in the sky and below the earth, who makes the worse argument
stronger.” (18b-c) At 18a Socrates outlines that he will first refute the old accusations
before he will refute Meletus’s accusations, which are the new accusations, because these
old ones have been around longer and have negatively impacted Athenians.
Socrates describes the nature of the accusations and the accusers. The old
accusations are not like the new accusations insofar as they are not legal charges. The old
accusations take the form of slander and rumour. Those who spread these rumours and
perpetuated the slander for many years cannot be named, “unless one of them is a writer
of comedies.”18 (18d) If Socrates were to try to defend himself against these accusations,
18
Grube’s translation of the Apology notes that it is Aristophanes to whom Socrates refers, but
Mitscherling (2003, 71) argues that, although Aristophanes had a negative effect on the reputation
of Socrates, he was not the only comic poet to have swayed popular opinion against Socrates.
Eupolis, Amepsias, and Telecleides equally ridiculed Socrates. So, to say that Socrates is
referring to Aristophanes at 18d is to overestimate the damaging effect that he had on Socrates’
reputation.
13
it would be impossible. In order to defend himself against the slander, Socrates would
have to examine the accusers, but since they cannot be identified, Socrates would end up
boxing with shadows or with himself (18d). As a result, these accusations are more
dangerous than those brought forth by Meletus, Anytus and Lycon because of its long
duration, the great number of accusers, the impressionability of those listening to the
accusers, the gravity of the suspicions which have arisen as a consequence, the absence of
anybody who would speak for the defence of Socrates, and the impossibility of
identifying the accusers after all this time and of refuting them individually.
If Socrates were to attempt to examine and refute the old accusations, he would
this locution as “striking at an imaginary adversary,” but it is clear that Socrates is not
“imagining” these calumniators, for they exist but are unidentifiable. If we understand
skiamachein as “fight with shadows,” then those shadows are elusive and intangible.
Either way, Socrates’s defence against the informal accusations is futile, and as a result
he does not try to refute these accusations. At 18d, he says “all those are difficult to deal
with: one cannot bring one of them into court or refute him; one must simply flight with
shadows, as it were, in making one’s defence, and cross-examine when no one answers.”
And so, the old accusers “won their case by default as there was no defence.” (18c)
The nature of the old accusers is similar to the nature of the jurors. Both groups
are nameless and unidentifiable, and filled with slanderous thoughts. The jurors have
assembled in the courtroom having heard Socrates speak in the marketplace (17c), having
heard the slander, and having seen Socrates’s character represented in an unflattering
14
In describing the difficulty of the faceless accusers at 18d, Socrates describes the
way in which he would refute them, that is, he would cross-examine each accuser one by
one and prove them wrong. Here Socrates is alluding to his method of examination,
which consists of extracting a belief from his interlocutor based on a question, and, by
fallacious beliefs. Should the juror believe in the slander, there is no way that Socrates
can systematically cross-examine each juror, and refute them just as there is no way to
examine and refute the old accusers and believers of slander. However, as we shall see,
Socrates can and will examine the one of the new accusers, Meletus, who has formally
Now, due to the fact that Socrates cannot examine the accusers in his customary
way, he must resort to his ordinary manner of speech, which he uses during the course of
his examinations. Although the clear and identifiable interlocutor is absent, he may still
speak in his idiosyncratic and ironic manner. As I stated at the beginning of this section,
Socrates uses his everyday language to narrate an account that connects the old
accusations to the new accusations. By proceeding from old to new, Socrates can
effectively retell a story fairly chronologically, in hopes to explain away the new
I have alluded to the Socrates’ method of examination, and I will take this
15
instances of examination in the refutation of the old and new accusations, which I explore
in section C below.
The dialogical exchanges illustrated in the so-called early dialogues is called the
Socratic method or elenchus.19 This is not the kind of project that warrants an exhaustive
discussion of the Socratic elenchus. Therefore, I will discuss a few essential traits,
problems in the secondary literature, and the application of elenchus in the Apology.
Elenchus in the wider sense of the word means examining a person with regard to a
statement he has made, by putting to him questions calling for further statements, in the
hope that they will determine the meaning and the truth-value of his first statement.20 In
The early dialogues represent Socrates as the main character who interrogates
other characters. The general fashion in which these features proceed is as follows:
2. The interlocutor asserts his own belief that p (giving examples of F-ness)
examples of F-ness.
16
This is the typical course of events; the essential features are: the primary question is the
initial question that Socrates asks, the secondary questioning (epagoge) and the aporia.
interlocutor’s beliefs, Socrates uses epagoge (or induction) in order to arrive at a negative
conclusion as opposed to a positive one that would adequately answer the primary
Socrates demonstrates that the interlocutor holds two conflicting beliefs and cannot
philosophical impasse, interlocutors resist responding and ultimately have nothing left to
21
“Aporia” derives from the Greek word poros [πορεία] meaning path or passage. The prefix a-
denotes the negation of the lack of the root word. So, aporia literally means “without passage”—
impassable or an impasse. It has been interpreted to mean “difficulty,” “puzzle,” or “at a loss,”
which hints at the rich etymology of the word.
17
say. Showing that the interlocutor’s initial statement is inadequate in some way or
Elenchus often causes frustration and anger to its victims, for Socrates brings up
what seem to be irrelevant and trivial topics that bear no relation to the main issue, and
then they are left to salvage what is left of their ship-wrecked beliefs.23 Elenchus and its
corresponding aporia incurred much unpopularity and enmity, and this is what brings
Socrates to court. Socrates would say that his method of examination yields a way of life,
After having outlined that he will begin with a defence against old accusations, Socrates
remarks that it will be difficult to uproot the slander that has been engrained in the minds
of the jurors. (19a) He “wishes” that he may remove the slander, but is fully aware of
how difficult it is. (19a) Nonetheless, he acknowledges that he must give his defence
anyway. (19a)
In this section of the thesis, I will point out that this defence against the old
22
I agree with de Strycker and Slings (103) that as the technique of questioning is applied to
ideas, it becomes an effective instrument to expose an opponent’s ignorance, as we learn from
many Platonic dialogues.
23
Although the result is negative, there is evidence in the Meno (82b-84a) that elenchus could
have a positive product. In order to determine whether one recollects or learns, Socrates asks
Meno’s slave boy a series of geometry questions. At the end of the questioning of the boy, Meno
agrees that questioning is harmless and beneficial.
18
Having prefaced his defence with his concern regarding the difficulty of giving a
successful and persuasive defence, he wastes no more time and jumps in at the deep end.
His defence is rather long; it lasts from 19b to 24b and consists of: (1) an introduction
and denial of the accusations (19b-20c); (2) an account of the origin of the slander, that
is, the oracle at Delphi (20c-21b); (3) Socrates’s reaction to the oracle at Delphi, and his
concludes his defence against the old accusations with a declaration that he has told the
Let us begin with the first section of this defence: the introduction to and denial of
the accusations (19b-20e). Socrates initiates this metaphorical jump into deep end by
asking the question: “What is the accusation from which arose the slander in which
Meletus trusted when he wrote out the charge against me? What did he say when they
guilty of wrongdoing in that he busies himself studying things in the sky and below the
earth; he makes the worse into the stronger argument, and he teaches these same things to
others.” (19b-c) This recapitulation consists of three elements, which Socrates addresses
one by one: (1) studies of sciences; (2) making the weaker argument stronger; and (3)
teaching the science and how to make the weaker argument stronger. Socrates flatly
19
denies element (1) that he studies and has knowledge of these things mentioned in the
them is true.” (19d) He does not explicitly deny “making the weather argument stronger;”
but the statement, “none of them is true,” is a blanket denial of all three components of
the old accusations. However, it is not enough to deny statements; denial will not
convince someone, for there must be reasons to support the contradictory statement. So
Socrates continues recounting the story of the oracle at Delphi, his reaction to oracle and
his subsequent investigations, and the result of these investigations. Brickhouse and
Smith (2004, 90) also note that Socrates fails to address the remark directly; they claim
that Socrates denies this accusation in the exordium at 17b, saying, “That they were not
ashamed to be immediately proved wrong by the facts, when I show myself not to be an
Next, he denies element (3) that he teaches, because he does not collect a fee. If
he were to teach, then he would collect a fee, but he does not collect a fee, so he does not
teach. However, he does not condemn teaching or teachers such as Gorgias of Leotini,
Prodicus of Ceos, and Hippias of Elis (19e), and he thinks that teaching is a fine thing
(19d). Socrates recounts a conversation he had with Callias,24 the son of Hipponicus, who
has spent an exorbitant amount of money on teachers. From 20a-c Socrates says:
‘Callias,’ I said, ‘if your sons were colts or calves, we could find and
24
Callias was Socrates’s fellow demesman, son of the wealthiest man in Athens. See Miller and
Platter (2010, 36).
20
engage a supervisor for them who would make them excel in their proper
qualities, some horse breeder or farmer. Now since they are men, whom
excellence, the human and social kind?” I think you must have given
thought to this since you have sons. Is there such a person,’ I asked, ‘or
is there not?’ ‘Certainly there is,’ he said. ‘Who is he?’ I asked, “What is
his name, where is he from? And what is his fee?’ ‘His name, Socrates,
The discussion between Callias and Socrates that is recounted is a perfect, terse example
of the kind of examination that Socrates conducts. The topic is apropos, the locution is
characteristic, and the examination is Socratic, but it lacks other features of Socratic
elenchus, such as epagoge and aporia. Two commentators, de Strycker and Slings (1994)
and Miller and Platter (2010), comment on the stylistic significance and structure of this
of Socratic method, which I explain in section A, however, it falls short. Miller and
21
De Strycker and Slings (1994, 55) claim that “this is the perfect jewel of Socratic
dialectic in the whole of Plato’s written work, because of its spontaneity, the fluency of
language, the character drawing, and above all because it gives us in a surprisingly short
space a clear view of Socrates’ method and of his most fundamental tenets.”
I agree that this exchange is similar to the dialogical exchanges found in other
dialogues, but it also lacks a couple of characteristic features. The purpose of recounting
unleashing the method on Meletus. This question, “Whom do you have in mind to
supervise them? Who is an expert in this kind of excellence, the human and social kind?”
is typical of Socrates insofar it is on the subject of excellence and wisdom. The Platonic
corpus spans a numbers of subjects, mostly relating to virtue. Furthermore, we often find
Socrates asking his interlocutor for clear and distinct answers. For example, at 5d of the
Euthyphro, Socrates asks, “Tell me then, what is the pious, and what the impious, do you
say?” At 47a of the Crito, Socrates asks, “Consider then, do you not think it a sound
statement that one must not value all the opinions of men, but some and not others, nor
the opinions of all men, but those of some and not of others?” Socrates typically
discusses the nature of virtue and examines others’ knowledge of virtue and wisdom. The
The way in which Socrates typically carries out his examination is illustrated in
the exchange between him and Callias. Socrates often employs analogies to draw a
comparison between two objects. Here, he uses the familiar example of hiring someone
to train colts and extends it to human beings. Later in the Apology, at 25d, in an
examination of Meletus, he uses the relationship between horse breeders and horses to
22
demonstrate that one person alone cannot harm the youth. (I will say more on this
analogy in section C, ii, of this first chapter.) In other dialogues Socrates also frequently
employs analogies to illustrate and clarify the relationship between two objects. For
example, at 47b of the Crito, Socrates uses the analogy of an athlete and his trainer to
demonstrate that only the wise can improve another man, while others who are
Although this exchange between Callias and Socrates incorporates features that
Section A of this chapter, epagoge is the secondary questioning that follows from the
interlocutor’s first answer. Essentially, examination begins when the interlocutor supplies
a belief in response to the first question. The object of examination is to show that the
interlocutor holds a fallacious belief. It is obvious that this exchange does not exhibit
elements: who is he, from where does he come, and how much does he charge?), and
once Callias replies, Socrates does not recount the discussion any further. This exchange
starts off like any other examination: the interlocutor supplies Socrates with the
ammunition he needs to shoot him down. Given that he does not continue to question
Callias relentlessly, Socrates does not have the opportunity to refute Callias’s belief. As a
As I said, according to Miller and Platter (p.36), the exchange between Callias
and Socrates “has a few features paralleled frequently elsewhere in the dialogues.” From
24c-27d Socrates examines Meletus, and there we will see the Socratic method in full
23
in section A of this chapter. The point of mentioning this discussion between Socrates
and Callias is to illustrate that Socrates gradually introduces examination to the jury, but,
more importantly, the defence speech is inspired by a life of philosophy and examination.
He will not only explicitly describe the examination (38a) but he will also give examples
examine and to be examined, and what examination is not. The dialogue with Callias, in
As I stated earlier, the second section of the defence against the old accusations is
the account of the origin of the slander, that is, the oracle at Delphi (20c-21b). Socrates
began the first section, the introduction and denial of the old accusations, with the
question, “What is the accusation from which arose the slander in which Meletus trusted
when he wrote out the charge against me? What did he say when they slandered me?”
(19a-b) At the beginning of this second section (20c), Socrates segues with a question:
One of you might perhaps interrupt me and say: “But Socrates, what
is your occupation? From where have these slanders come? For surely
if you did not busy yourself with something out of the common, all these
rumors and talk would not have arisen unless you did something other
25
Brickhouse and Smith (2004, 91) do not remark on the significance of the reference to Callias
and his sons. They only say that Socrates refers to him in order to make the point that if Evenus
did have such desirable wisdom and charged only five minas, then his fee would be moderate
compared to the wisdom he would impart to his students.
24
The origin of the slander is an alleged wisdom—a human wisdom (20e), which originates
not with Socrates but with a “trustworthy source.” (20e) In other words, this source
alleged that Socrates had a kind of wisdom; Socrates did not himself claim that he had
this wisdom. This trustworthy source is Chaerephon, who, as Socrates describes him, is a
friend from youth, a friend to most of the jurors, and impulsive. (21a) Due to his death,
he cannot testify, but Socrates suggests that his brother, Chaerecrates,26 would testify on
his behalf. Anyway, Socrates summarizes Chaerephon’s inquiry: “he asked if any man
was wiser than I, and the Pythian27 replied that no one was wiser.” (21a)28
Here, as Socrates accounts for the origin of the slander, he refers to Chaerephon’s
inquiry to the oracle and his brother as a witness. Because his account is a second-hand
account, it is appropriate for Socrates to refer the jurors to the original source, but as he
mentions, the original source has since passed away, so the next of kin would be the next
best option. However, the account of Chaerephon’s brother, Chaerecrates, would still be
second hand. Socrates’s objective to disclose the truth would be advanced if others would
come forward in his defence. A second testimony would support Socrates’s account, but
as far as we know, Chaerecrates does not testify; Socrates merely attests that he would. It
is most striking that at 20e Socrates calls upon the god at Delphi as a witness. Although
come forward to speak on his behalf. Would it really make a difference if witnesses
26
According to Nails (2002, 85) Chaerecrates was the younger brother of Chaerephon, and a
member of the Socratic circle in which Plato collaborated.
27
A Pythia was a priestess at the Temple of Apollo who was inspired by the god and transmitted
oracles and prophecies. It was expected that the oracles were ambiguous and obscure.
28
Brickhouse and Smith (2004, 98-9) argue “Socrates must have engaged in philosophical
activity of some sort with a circle of friends before Chaerephon’s journey. Otherwise,
Chaerephon would never have gotten the idea that Socrates really was extraordinarily wise.”
25
testified that Delphi said no one was wiser than Socrates? Probably, not, but this raises
the question, why does Socrates refer to witnesses at all? Is this appeal to witnesses part
of the song and dance of the typical defendant? It is unlikely that he is following the
strategies of typical defendant, because, during his address to the jurors who voted for
conviction (38c-39b), Socrates states that he does not act and speak in the same manner
as other defendants do in during trial, that is, lament, cry and shamelessly bring in his
family in order to appeal to the jurors’ sense of pity. It is precisely during his defence
speech that he is allowed witnesses to speak on his behalf. It would not cost him any
extra time on the water-clock, as water clocks would be stopped in order to accommodate
a witness’s testimony. This referral to witnesses suggests that what Socrates is saying will
This brings us to the end of the second section of the defence against the old
In response to this oracle, Socrates was bemused and mystified, and wondered
Whatever does the god mean? What is his riddle? I am very conscious that
I am not wise at all; what then does he mean by saying that I am the
wisest? For surely he does not lie; it is not legitimate for him to do so. (21b)
After a long time of contemplating, Socrates reluctantly turned to investigate the meaning
of the oracle. He investigated three groups of reputed wise men: politicians, poets and
29
At 17a and at 21a, Socrates begs the jury not to make a disturbance. Whether they are making a
disturbance or are about to, Socrates detects that what he is saying is disconcerting and
discomfiting, and, as a result, appeals to the truth (22a and 22b) and refers to witnesses (20a and
21a) to appease the jury and support his case.
26
craftsmen, examining what it was that they are reputed to know.30 He concluded that each
man who he examined thought that he was wise when in fact he was not; “those who had
the highest reputation were nearly the most deficient, while those who were thought to be
inferior were more knowledgeable.” (22a) These investigations were hard to deal with, a
god bade me—and I go around seeking out anyone, citizen or stranger, whom I think
wise. Then if I do not think he is, I come to the assistance of the god and show him that
he is not wise.” (23b) This is Socrates’s mission and a description of his investigations
and examinations.
dialogue, we will see that Meletus is the reputed wise man for, in indicting Socrates, he
appears to care about the youth and to know about the gods and other divine things. We
will see in the next section of this thesis that Socrates refutes him by demonstrating that
Meletus misunderstands the way that people can be harmed and the nature of gods and
30
First, the politicians appeared to be wise to many people; the poets appeared to understand the
meaning of their poems and the craftsmen appeared to have knowledge of their fine crafts;
however, Socrates realized that the politicians were not wise, the poets did not understand their
poems, and the craftsmen claimed to be wise in areas outside their craft. Socrates arrives at the
same conclusion, that they thought themselves wise when they were not. Socrates draws three
conclusions: (1) that he is wiser than the politician, because “it is likely that neither of us knows
anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not
know neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do
not think I know what I do not know” (21c); (2) that “poets do not compose their poems with
knowledge, but by some inborn talent and by inspiration, like seers and prophets who also say
many fine times without any understanding of what they say” (22b-c) ; and (3) that the craftsmen,
“because of the success at his craft, thought himself wise in other most important pursuits, and
this error overshadowed the wisdom they had.” (22d-e) The investigations culminate in three
groups of men, three accounts, three sets of impressions, but only one realization.
27
know that: (1) the men were reputed to be wise; (2) Socrates asked each man questions
regarding his craft; (3) the man could not answer satisfactorily; (4) Socrates concludes
that what the man thought he knew he did not in fact know; and (5) The man and other
which he carries out in other dialogues as well as the examination that Meletus will
undergo from 24b-28a, which I will discuss in section C, ii. Thus far, we know that these
examinations gave rise to the old accusations, and that Socrates would have examined the
Recall that in Section B I likened the old accusers to the jurors insofar as they are
like nameless shadows which Socrates cannot examine. However, if Socrates were able
to examine them, they would resemble the reputed men. Jurors, in order to carry out their
proper role, must be familiar with the law; they are the supposed experts who determine
the innocence of the indicted person; they represent the law. The role of the juror is not to
be taken lightly, however, many jurors in contemporary Athens were members of the
nominal amount for their time.31 Furthermore, a judge did not preside over the cases, but
there was an official who kept watch over the water clock. Given the lack of judge to
inform the jury of their role, the law, precedent, and procedure, the jury was likely
misinformed and biased. This is why at 18a Socrates reminds the jury that the excellence
of a juror is to “concentrate on what is just.” A juror’s craft is his ability to identify and
31
According to Brickhouse and Smith (2004, 76), “jury duty was voluntary, and from those who
volunteered, 6,000 were randomly selected and assigned to various courts.” Jurors would be
monetarily compensated in order to ensure that the jury was democratic.
28
judge the truth. Unfortunately, many of the jurors assemble in the court-house having
heard rumours and slanders, and so begin their weighty task with a biased perspective. If
Socrates were able to examine the jurors one by one, he would be able to secure his
acquittal because each juror who believed that Socrates was guilty of unreasonable
charges would be refuted. Not interacting with the jury significantly impedes Socrates’s
defence.
The defence against the old accusations ends with section (4), the result of
investigations. Socrates reflects and concludes upon his investigations and shares these
thoughts with the jurors. Given that oracles are notoriously ambiguous and obscure,
Socrates offers his interpretation of the oracle. (23a-b) As he goes around examining and
scrutinizing reputed wise men, young men follow and watch Socrates poke and prod
these wise men, and they are amused at the expense of these men. These youth then
attempt to imitate Socrates, who end up getting angry not at the youth but with Socrates.
(23c) If one were to ask these folk, who claim that Socrates corrupts the youth, “what he
does and what he teaches to corrupt them?”, they would not know what to say—“but so
as not to appear at a loss, they mention those accusations that are available against all
philosophers about “things in the sky and things below the earth,” about “not believing in
the gods” and “making the worse the stronger argument”.” (23d)
Miller and Platter (2010, 59) note that this is “the first time any form of the word
philosophia is found in the Apology, and it appears as a verb.” De Strycker and Slings
(1994, 293) add that “Plato does not use the word philosophoi [φιλοσοφοῖ], but the much
29
best translated as “those who philosophize. The idea that philosophy is something that
you do and pursue is repeated in his current manner of speech. As Socrates reveals
his way through the old accusations. This is hypothetical questioning of the angered
specifically, the aporia of Socratic method. He hypothetically asks these individuals why
they are angry, and they cannot answer adequately. Instead they refer to the accusations
laid against the sophists and orators. This is the kind of reaction that most interlocutors
have in response to Socrates’s relentless questioning: they would pretend to know the
That, men of Athens, is the truth for you. I have hidden or disguised
nothing. I know well enough that this very conduct makes me unpopular,
and this is proof that what I say is true, that such is the slander against
me, and that such are its causes. If you look into this either now or later,
He exhorts others to examine his statements as he examines the statements of others, but
why doesn’t Socrates “look” or examine this fact together with the jurors and accusers?
This would be an appropriate time to examine at least one of the jurors for his belief, 32
32
Would this be allowed by the Athenian court? Examining the jurors would be highly
unorthodox and unconventional in an actual Athenian court of law, It was not uncommon for the
defendant to ask the jury to cease heckling and causing a disturbance, as jury members, at the
time, played the role of modern judge and modern juror, presiding over the trial and voting for
acquittal or conviction, so there was no judge to drop his gavel to silence the jury. Given that
Plato has creative liberty and that the Apology is neither wholly factual nor fictional, adding a
30
instead Socrates promises that this will stand scrutiny regardless of the time of scrutiny.
In a way, Socrates is dismissing the need to examine this belief. Whether this fact is
examined now or later, it will be the case. Socrates is implying that there is not urgency
to examine what he has said. Later in the Apology, at 38a, Socrates will say that
discussing and examining virtue and other things is the greatest good for man, so why
does he not take the opportunity to examine what he has just said? As I have argued
earlier, I think it is the anonymous nature of the jury and the onerous danger of the
slander that dissuades Socrates from engaging the jury in philosophical activity. In other
words, Socrates’s narration and account of the old accusations falls short of successful
persuasion.
Stephanus pages, (19a-24b) to them. Brickhouse and Smith (2004, 104) suggest that
someone might think that Socrates is not taking this defence seriously, but, as Socrates
states at 18b, these accusations are more dangerous than the new ones. Brickhouse and
Smith (2004, 105) argue that the refutation against the old accusations is necessary to
support his refutation against the new ones. I agree that a defence against the old
accusations is necessary, because not only are they “more dangerous” but also because
they cannot be refuted in Socrates’s typical manner, so these slanders would remain
rampant even were he acquitted of the new accusations. In order to address the new
accusations, Socrates must address the root of the problem—the nature of the
short exchange with a jury member to his plea of silence may not be unreasonable. From 38c to
42a, Socrates addresses the jurors who voted for acquittal and for conviction, respectively. This
speech, as I will explain in chapter 3, is also historically questionable, which leads me to believe
that going one step further than a mere address and actually examining a juror may have been an
option.
31
accusations. Socrates’s quest to disclose the truth is not complete without a narration of
Socrates has chosen to use narration up to this point (17a-24a). The style has its
strengths and weaknesses, but it does not compare with dialogue. Narration has allowed
focusing on past events. Dialogue, we will see, focuses on the present, and exposition (at
least Socrates’s exposition) focuses on the future. Narration in the first-person allows the
narrator, Socrates, to communicate feelings and opinions from his perspective. From this
perspective, we understand the world of Socrates and his view of other characters.
Narration renders its audience passive; there is no room for interaction and engagement
with the speaker. This style simply transmits information from the narrator to the
audience, so the audience must accept it as is. For all the audience knows, the narrator
might be speaking out of ignorance, which happens to be the case with the politicians,
third-person) points of view, but it is not as persuasive as the Socratic method. The
Socratic method is argumentative rather than narrative or expository. We will see in the
next section that Socrates has a goal, that is, to demonstrate that Meletus is thoughtless
and careless in the affairs about which he brings Socrates to trial. The narration up to 24a
does not have such a clear goal (unless we consider the description of the origin of the
falls short of examination, which is what Socrates advocates from 28a to 42a.
32
I am not dismissing the value of narration, for we know that stories and myths
carry great cultural importance. I am simply arguing that narration and exposition,
statements are taken for granted, and the audience is acquiescent. In his refutation of the
old accusations, Socrates appeals to the truth, refers to witnesses, suggests examination,
employs questions to transition through his speech, and recounts a terse examination of
Callias.
Socrates’s refutation against Meletus is the climax of the entire speech, and is, by far, the
strongest and most insightful section. The refutation of Meletus is a momentous point in
the Apology because Socrates’s tone changes; he goes from speaking at the jury to
speaking with Meletus. There is a strong contrast between the tone of the examination
and the expositions that flank the examination. Also, we have heard Socrates express his
wish to examine the old accusers, and describe a brief instance of examination, but now
Socrates abruptly turns to a defence against the new accusations (24b); his
defence is structured like examinations in other dialogues. Unlike the old accusations, the
new ones have been laid by three men: Meletus, Anytus and Lycon. Socrates’s
interlocutor is Meletus, and not Anytus or Lycon, although without Anytus and Lycon,
33
Meletus would have no success in this indictment. The accusers here are identifiable,
Guardini (1948, 38) states “Meletus is quite ready for an argument, but one which
would turn on concrete cases, discuss alleged statements, seek to weaken the impression
produced by the prosecution—in a word, he is prepared for the arts of advocate.” But
Meletus is in for a surprise. Up to 24a, Socrates has spoken in his usual manner, but he
has only narrated in his everyday language. From 24a to 28b, Socrates speaks in his
everyday language while questioning Meletus relentlessly. At 27b, Socrates tells the jury,
Let us begin with a summary of the examination. In other dialogues, the primary
question is clearer and explicit, but in this instance of examination, we must presume the
primary question: Of What is Socrates guilty? The answer is: Socrates is guilty of
corrupting the young and of not believing in the gods in whom the city believes. (24b) In
order for Meletus to be refuted, he must believe that these charges are true; in other
words, he must assert this statement, so Socrates takes the indictment to be an expression
irresponsibly bringing people into court, and of professing to be seriously concerned with
33
Questioning was allowed by the Athenian court, and the individuals questioned were required
to respond, although Meletus does so reluctantly.
34
Meletus hesitates at 24d, 25d, and 27c.
35
Note that due to a lack of judge and other legal formalities in contemporary
Athens, it was
necessary to obtain clarification from the prosecutor.
34
things about none of which he has ever cared.” These are Socrates’s conclusions, and by
questioning Meletus, Socrates will reveal that Meletus is thoughtless and careless.
Meletus concedes to several statements: (1) the greatest importance is that young
men are as good as possible (24d); (2) all Athenians improve young men (25a); (3) like
horses, one man alone can improve the youth, but many people can harm (25b); (4) men
prefer to live among the just and be unharmed (25c); Socrates does not believe in gods at
all (26c); believing in spiritual things is the same as believing in spirits (27c); and, if
Socrates believes in spiritual things, then he believes in spirits and gods (27c). Socrates
concludes that Meletus has “no knowledge of the subjects about which he brings Socrates
Commentators that I have enlisted in this thesis do not address the structure of this
examination, but I do not think that commentators would disagree that this is an example
of examination that is similar to other dialogues.36 Guardini (1948, 37) states that
Socrates speaks:
in such a way as to continue the very activity with which the prosecution
has charged him: he treats the speaker Meletus as one of the long line
of those who pretend to know without really knowing, and carry out
36
Miller and Platter (2010) and Blakeney (1929) do not comment on the structure and style of
this passage, nor do they contribute to the discussion regarding examination and a life of
philosophy. However, de Strycker and Slings (1994), and Brickhouse and Smith (2004) focus on
interpreting the laws and the charges that have been allegedly broken and pressed, respectively,
and they evaluate the success of the refutation.
35
It is typical and representative of the examination that Socrates carries out in other
dialogues, and the sort of examination to which he refers throughout the Apology. The
importance of discussing this exchange is not to argue that it is a case of examination, for
a speech inspired by philosophy and examination. So, what makes this exchange the
highlight of the entire speech? Note that I am not arguing that this is Socrates’s actual
defence against the new accusation. De Strycker and Slings (1994, 123) and Burnet
(1924), in his introductory remarks, argue that the real defence is not what we have
identified as the refutation of the new accusations but rather in the next section (D), the
Digression. Instead they ask why Plato includes an examination of Meletus in the defence
of Socrates. Someone may say that a Socratic dialogue would not be a Socratic dialogue
without Socrates examining someone. But this undermines Plato’s literary and
then the portrait must incorporate that for which Socrates is best known—the Socratic
method. But I argue that, although it may not be the actual defence and although it is not
to tell the truth and exemplifies that which Socrates has been explaining in the Defence
to carry out an examined life. Recall that at 18a he reminds the jury to carry out their
the other hand, is to tell the truth. We will see Socrates give an exposition of a life of
philosophy from 28a on, but until 28a, Socrates has focused on narrating particular facts
36
in support of his defence. He tells the truth, does not speak outside of his knowledge or
out of ignorance. He speaks from memory and relies on himself to give a defence, and he
does what a defendant ought to do, namely, tell the truth. His defence is just insofar as he
In the exchange with Meletus, Socrates continues to disclose the truth, or rather
what is not the case, by demonstrating that Meletus does not understand what education
entails and is reckless when charging Socrates. The upshot of almost all instances of
truth, and to bring to light the essence of important things, such as justice, virtue, courage
Socrates’s speech, except for the examination, relies on narration of the truth. It
lacks a direct interlocutor and the crucial aporia when the interlocutor realizes that he is
at a loss because he has been shown to be wrong. The examination best supports
Socrates’s life of philosophy and examination because the jurors witness Socrates’s
essential features of Socratic examination, that is, secondary questioning and aporia. But
the conversation between Socrates and Meletus does not. I agree with de Strycker and
Slings (1994, 126) that “the only developed piece of dialectic in the Apology is not truly
serious and does not reach the depth of, for example, Socrates’s discussion with Polus
and Callicles in the Gorgias.” They argue that Plato could not have omitted an instance of
Socratic method in a portrait of Socrates. They make it seem like this invention was half-
37
heartedly composed and inserted. They think that others who attribute meaning to the
examination have failed to understand Plato’s intentions. They are wrong to overlook the
significance of the examination for it reveals more about the nature of philosophy and a
life of examination. This is what one should take from a reading of the Apology. It is
Dialogue (the Socratic method) is a powerful tool able to convert one’s character.
The one examined has rendered oneself vulnerable and is at risk of exposing one’s
questioning, the questioner demonstrates a flaw in the belief. These beliefs are in regard
to fundamental and consequential matters, which guide one’s behaviour and way of life.
When the examiner demonstrates that the belief is flawed, the one examined has no
choice but to change one’s way of life. In the case of the politicians, they must cease to
claim that they are wise. Dialogue and examination are stronger than narration and
exposition. I am not arguing that the refutation of Meletus is Socrates’s actual defence
against the new accusations. What I am trying to say is that the examination of Meletus is
a pedagogical tool inserted to strengthen the narration found from 17a to 24b, and the
exposition from 28a to 42a which otherwise would not suffice in explaining Socrates’s
philosophical activities.
38
After examining Meletus in his everyday language and by means of his typical method,
Socrates resumes his narrative style to continue his defence. We will see that his
narration from 17a-24a is similar in this Digression insofar as he recounts stories of his
past, emphasizes the truth, hypothetically questions himself, uses analogies, and
expounds the nature of examination and a life of philosophy. This style of the Digression
is similar to the style of speech prior to the refutation of Meletus, however, we will see
that this section addends further information regarding Socrates’s past, and the nature and
strength of examination.
At 28b, he hypothetically asks himself, “Are you not ashamed, Socrates, to have
followed the kind of occupation that has led to you being now in danger of death?” To
this Socrates replies, “You are wrong, sir, if you think that a man who is any good at all
should take into account the risk of life or death; he should look to this only in his
actions, whether what he does is right or wrong, whether he is acting like a good or a bad
man.” (28b) Socrates’s mission to the god, that is, his duty to examine men who think
that they are wise, is akin to a soldier obeying commands from his superior. (28e) If a
soldier were to disobey, he would be cowardly and unvirtuous. To fear death is to think
that one knows the nature of death, but death is unknown, so it is unwise to fear it for it
could be the greatest good. (29a) To illustrate his point about courage, Socrates recounts
his experience as a soldier at Potidaea, Amphipolis, and Delium, where he did not
old accusations. He questions himself, argues from analogy, and recounts personal
39
from topic to topic. In order to make good on Socrates’s promise to speak in his everyday
language and to tell the truth, his speech has to resemble a dialogue. Furthermore, his use
Meletus, Socrates likened the education of youth to the improving of horses. Also, in the
defence against the old accusations, Socrates, in his conversation with Callias, also used
an analogy to animals. We have seen these features in refutations of both the old and new
Again, at 29c, Socrates says to himself, “Socrates, we do not believe Anytus now;
we acquit you, but only on condition that you spend no more time on this investigation
and do not practice philosophy, and if you are caught doing so you will die;” To this
Socrates replies:
god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not
to any one of you whom I happen to meet: Good Sir, you are an Athenian, a
citizen of the greatest city with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and
power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth,
reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to
In other words, in the case that Socrates is acquitted conditionally, he would not stop
questioning, examining, testing and reproaching men for caring about the wrongs things.
40
He and his philosophical activities are a “blessing” (30a) from the god. His examinations
are similar to the bite of a gadfly (30e) and his care for his fellow Athenians is similar to
a father’s or elder’s care. Being such a gift and blessing, Socrates’s voice kept him from
entering politics, for “a man who really fights for justice must lead a private life if he is to
survive for even a short time.” (32a) The fact that he has always been a private and just
man is evidenced by the fact that the government did not frighten him into killing Leon.
(32e) It is precisely his deeds and not his words that support his defence, and there are
The Digression is similar to Socrates’s speech from 17a to 24a in five ways: he
disobeying the order to kill Leon; he uses an imaginary interlocutor37 to segue from topic
to topic five times;38 he uses everyday language; he uses the analogy of a soldier’s duty to
describe his own duty to the god; and he affirms that he tells the truth. Socrates must
in the examination at 24a-28b how Socrates personifies a gadfly, and he pokes and prods
his interlocutor with questions, annoying him but eventually stirring his spirit. Miller and
Platter (2010, 93) state that “the image of a stinging fly and the lazy horse subtly slides
37
De
Strycker and Slings (1994, 128) also note the use of the imaginary interlocutor. However,
they claim that, “through this literary device, Plato avoids putting long rhetorical and self
asserting speeches into Socrates’s mouth.”
38
28b, 29c, 30b, 32e, 33c,
39
Similarly at the Meno 80, we find Socrates compared to a stingray. In addition, Miller and
Platter (2010, 93) remark on the popularity of Socrates’s comparison of himself to a gadfly. They
also note a link between this comparison and the genre of the Aesop fable.
41
between the literal and the metaphorical.” The interlocutor is heavy, lethargic and
lifeless, but with the help of some coaxing, he is persuaded to be more active and lively.
The problem with a population that is lethargic, lifeless, and unreflective is that it is
complacent. Non-reflection and non-participation are not helped by narration. Stories and
myths may be lively, but the act of story telling lacks engagement and interaction. The
audience is left to their own devices when it comes to accepting or rejecting a story. Is
Socrates’s truth-telling even making a difference? Someone might say that the jury is
outraged and annoyed on account of the cries and disturbances, but employing these
oratorical devices will not affect the core of the problem, that is, the slander (and Socrates
very well knows this). It may be the case that Socrates’s trial is a show trial intended
simply to make an example out of Socrates. What we learn from the juxtaposition of
Arguing that narration is weak and examination stronger, means that Socrates’s
examination of Meletus is the true defense. Commentators argue that certain sections of
the Apology are more direct defences against the charges than others; they assume that
the entire dialogue is not a direct refutation and so they argue as to which section better
refutes, if at all, the charges against Socrates. Brickhouse and Smith (2004) and de
Strycker and Slings (1994) argue that the actual defence is found in the Digression. I
argue, however, that, seeing as the examination of Meletus demonstrates the strength of
philosophy and examination, the Digression, which is a narrative, cannot be the actual
defence.40 Brickhouse and Smith (2004, 120) argue that the Digression is the actual
40
Riddell (1974, xvi) states that the answer to the indictment itself is placed in the middle of the
speech, where least attention naturally falls upon it.
42
defence against new accusations because here we find Socrates claiming that the
activities that have brought him to court, are in fact valuable and salutary. In other words,
it is in the city’s best interest not to condemn and sentence him to death. They assume
that the fact that Socrates deals with the new accusations directly in this section of his
speech does not mean that this is Socrates’s intended defence of his life of philosophy. It
is typical of Socrates to give straight answers; his usual way is ironic, elusive and
implicit. We have no reason to believe Socrates would change his style in his defence. He
even says, in the exordium at 17c, that he will continue to use his usual manner of speech,
the manner in which he speaks in the marketplace. I assume that the rest of the speech is
Someone might say that it would be inappropriate to conduct his entire speech as
an examination; there are some things that simply need not be examined. Brickhouse and
Socrates never says that one must scrutinize every one of his beliefs
commonsensical.
This suggests that narration is welcome and at times necessary. Not everything can be up
for debate; we do not need to engage, discuss and test every fact. This is true, but in
Socrates’s case, when it is vital to persuade people of your innocence, narration is a less
than optimal stratagem. Furthermore, Brickhouse and Smith (2004, 147) note that we
never see Socrates questioning his perceptions or his memory, but the validity and
43
accuracy of his memories are not at stake, and if they were, then witnesses would be
called upon. The core of the problem is the slander that is so engrained in the minds of
the jurors. As Socrates says, he is trying to “uproot from [their] minds in so short a time
the slander that has resided there so long.” (19a) The problem is not Socrates’s
philosophical activities, for this, as he says, are a blessed thing, but the wrong beliefs that
what Socrates is doing; they have been subjected to incorrect examination by Socrates’s
followers and witnesses. Athenians think that Socrates is corrupting the youth, and
denying the gods of Athens, but their belief is out of ignorance. So, given that the task is
to uproot a false belief, Socratic method seems the apt strategy to change the minds of the
jury.
De Strycker and Slings (1994, 127) argue that the examination “does not contain
the true defense of Socrates nor does it constitute the core of the work.” The Digression is
However, the Digression in the Apology is not viewed as a Digression per se. De Strycker
and Slings (1994, 133) argue that the refutations were negative, and so require a
other words, first Socrates denied that which the accusers thought he was doing, and then
he states positively the nature of his examinations and philosophizing. (1994, 133) Why?
As I stated earlier, Socrates is typically elusive, implicit and ironic in the Platonic
dialogues. Dramatically, there are a few facets that we need to consider as readers: literal,
dramatic, and philosophical. Socrates claims that deeds speak louder than words, and this
44
is what the jury wants to know. And so, he gives two examples as proof of his just and
pious acts, that is, the trial of the ten generals (32a-c) and his defiance of the thirty (32c-
e). This, commentators will say, is evidence of his piety and courage. I do not think that
Socrates is feeding the jurors what they want; I think Socrates would also agree that what
one thinks and believes will inspire how one acts. If Socrates wants to persuade the jury
of the value of examination and philosophy, then it would make sense to show them
examination. Since he does examine Meletus, it is possible that the jury members are
pleased, but they might also be overwhelmed, and too hot-headed to realize what they are
seeing. The real proof is in the pudding, so to speak. If the jury is persuaded by acts and
examination is worth living (38a), and that Socrates is a blessing to the city. The
Digression is not the actual defence against the accusations. Socrates’s examination of
vicariously, the jurors, if they believe in the accusations, should also be refuted.
24a, but the narration here accumulates pathos, which may be construed as persuasive but
is problematic. Guardini (19, 47) remarks on the “marvelous pathos” of the Digression:
The emotion increases as he describes his mission and activities as a blessing and a gift
from the god to the city. The evoking of emotion is uncharacteristic of Socrates. At 30d
45
(…) It is to fulfill some such function that I believe the god has placed
me in the city. I never cease to rouse each and every one of you, to
persuade and reproach you all day long and everywhere I find myself
in your company.
It is worth emphasizing this urgent warning because this would be an appropriate point in
the defence to examine a jury member and convince them that Socrates’s examinations
are salutary. In the Crito, Socrates says, “I’m not just now but in fact I’ve always been
the sort of person who’s persuaded by nothing but the reason that appears to me to be
best when I’ve considered it.” Is Socrates speaking “reasonably” to his audience, that is,
in the same way that would persuade him? Socrates attempts to speak reasonably
examination, but ultimately he does not succeed in demonstrating the value of philosophy
by narrating two proofs of his piety. So the actual defence of Socrates takes the form of
dialectic and not of digression, that is, if we assume, as other commentators do, that
Socrates’s refutation of the accusation has come to an end; he says, “This is what I have
to say in my defence.” (34b) This conclusion to his defence is not a summary but rather a
synthesis. In other words, there are no particular points that have been repeated
throughout the speech that need to be recapitulated in the Peroration. Rather, his life and
the defence speech as whole must be integrated into a few remarks. Here he explains that
he has not defended himself in the same way that other defendants have defended
46
themselves, because those tactics are not fitting for a man of Socrates’s age. In other
words, it is disgraceful. “I do not think it right to supplicate the jury and to be acquitted
Has Socrates taught and persuaded the jury as he set out to do? For starters, if by
teaching and persuading Socrates means using his usual dialectical method, then the
answer is no. By means of examination, Socrates has discredited Meletus; he has been
peroration, Socrates opts not to use the literary devices that he has been using thus far: no
information, nor do we learn anything else about philosophy and examination. Socrates’s
defence seems to fizzle at the end, unlike his examinations, which end with a provocative
impasse. Aporia is crucial to Socrates’s dialectical method, and although the result of
It’s difficult to say if the jurors experienced a moment of discomfiture and internal
irresolution.
Throughout the defence, Socrates discloses the truth, and he relies on these true
statements to uproot the engrained slander from the minds of the jurors. At 35e, we learn
that Socrates has been convicted of the charges regardless of his sincerity, honesty and
veracity. What went wrong? Socrates chose a style of oratory that was inspired by
examination and philosophy but did not fully employ it. It simply was not possible given
the circumstances.
At this point 25e, there is a pause so that the jurors can cast their vote to
determine whether Socrates is innocent or guilty. In the next chapter, I will discuss how
47
Socrates is allowed to suggest an appropriate punishment for his crimes. I will continue
analyze passage 35e to 38c according to the style in which Socrates speaks, highlighting
the locution, diction and topoi that fail to be effective and persuasive and pale in
comparison to examination.
48
Chapter 2:
The Counter-Assessment, 35e-38c
Socrates has completed his Defence Proper, and the jurors have cast their votes. The
verdict is guilty, but, to Socrates’s surprise, the ratio between guilty and innocent votes is
unexpectedly close. “A switch of only thirty votes would have acquitted me.” (36a)
Meletus has proposed the penalty of death, but Socrates is given the opportunity, as per
suggests meals at the Prytaneum (36d-e),41 because neither exile nor a fine would be apt.
manner of speech to his manner in his Defence Proper from 17a to 35d, discuss other
life of examination, and, given this information, we are able to juxtapose dialectic with
Having had the verdict announced, Socrates admits that he is not angry (35e), but
he is surprised that the votes cast on each side were almost equal. (36a) In order to
2. What do I deserve to suffer or to pay because I have deliberately not led a quiet
41
Blakeney (1929, 150) states “to suggest a genuine counter-penalty was impossible for him, for
that would be equivalent to an admission of guilt.”
49
life but have neglected what occupies most people: wealth, household affairs, the
position of general, of public orator or the other offices, the political clubs and
4. What is suitable for a poor benefactor who needs leisure to exhort you? (36d)
Guardini (1948, 57) notes that the phrase “what I deserve” is ambiguous. Socrates should
propose that which is adequate and equal to his guilt; the punishment should fit the crime.
Instead, Socrates recapitulates his behaviour as he sees it, that is, dutiful, and then, clearly
and succinctly proposes maintenance in the Prytaneum at the expense of the polis42 as an
Prytaneum was a religious and political centre where a sacred fire burned continuously. It
was often used to host and entertain Olympic victors. Needless to say, Socrates is not a
victor by any stretch of the imagination, but Socrates genuinely does not believe that he
has harmed anyone, rather that he is a benefactor. As a result he should be rewarded for
his service.
Socrates preempts disagreement from his audience, “When I say this you may
think, as when I spoke of appeals to pity and entreaties, that I speak arrogantly, but that is
not the case, men of Athens” (37a), because most trials of this nature last more than a day
(37b), and it is difficult to uproot the slander in so short a time. (37b) Since Socrates does
not believe that he has done wrong, what evil should he propose? “What should I fear?”
(37b) First, he does not fear death for the fear of death is irrational; second, if he proposes
imprisonment then he would subject himself to the tyranny of the thirty; third, a fine is
42
I use the Greek word meaning city-state here to preserve the nuance that Greek cities were self-
regulating.
50
unviable because he does not have money (38b); fourth, exile is unviable because he
would just be driven from polis to polis as he continues to discuss, question, and test
other people.
penalty—death is overly cruel, but meals at the Prytaneum would be ridiculous. Exile
seems to be the mean between two extremes. “But Socrates,” he says to himself, “if you
leave us will you not be able to live quietly, without talking?” (37e) Socrates explains
that this is not possible because, one, he would be disobeying the god, which he has
explaining in the Defence Proper already, and, two, “it is the greatest good for a man to
discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and
testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living for men, you will
This passage regarding the examined life is one of the most popular passages in
the Platonic corpus. Socrates’s defence of his philosophical activities and examinations
boil down to this one sentence: “The unexamined life is not worth living,” [ὁ δὲ
many ways) this statement so that we can better understand Socrates’s inspiration and
reasons for examination and philosophy. As de Strycker and Slings (1994, 197) state,
“[this passage is] powerful because Plato uses the plainest and most straightforward
language. Just as Socrates used everyday language in the Defence Proper so he uses
everyday language again in the Counter-Assessment. This passage reveals essential notes
43
Blakeney (1929, 156) translated this line as “ a life without those discussions in which the
intellect is exercised in the quest for truth.” His translation makes explicit the elements of
discourse and verity. Philosophical activity is geared toward truth, as is Socrates’s defence, but it
lacks discourse demonstrating the need to engage and interact with another person or persons.
51
modifying βίος, which means “life” or “way of life”, begins the subordinate clause that is
under scrutiny. The prefix “an-“ negates the root word εξέταστος, indicating an absence
or a lack thereof. So, “the life that lacks examination” as opposed to “the unexamined
life” is a more accurate way of translating ἀνεξέταστος because it conveys the idea of
reciprocal good that examination provides to each party involved in the activity of
examination.44
Slings, who claim that this excerpt deserves better than to be constantly mistranslated.
(1994, 197, n22) I gather that it deserves a better translation because the usual one does
not aptly convey the power and the significance of what Socrates is trying to convey. So
what would do this excerpt justice? De Strycker and Slings (1994, 196) suggest, “a life
44
The word ἀνεξέταστος originates from the Greek word ἐξετάζω, which appears quite
infrequently in Plato’s dialogues. English translations generally translate ἐξετάζω with the verb
“to examine,” yet there are other Greek words that are translated as “examine,” for example
σκοπέω. The word ἐξετάζω derives primarily from the language of fifth- and fourth-century
military activity and service, from the notion of a review, examination, or mustering of troops,
and it continues to carry this meaning and performative weight in the Apology. According to
Goldman (2009, 465), ἐξετάζω is the more common form of ετάζω, originally meaning to pass in
(military) review or muster, scrutinize, then examine carefully or thoroughly. Burnet remarks, in
a note to Apology 22e6, that ἐξετάζω must certainly be seen to mean “muster,” review,”
“scrutiny.” There are many military things that may be reviewed in this manner, and of them is
the order of battle, to see that every solder is at his “post” or “station,” or τάξις. The verb ἐξετάζω
was also used to mean “to post” or “to station” someone in a position or place. So, the Socratic
notion of “examination” in the Apology draws its significance from the citizens’ experience of
military service, preparation and war.
52
(1929, 156) translate it as, “a life without those discussions in which intellect is exercised
in the quest for truth.” Both commentators make explicit essential notions of the life of
examination and philosophizing that Socrates leads. However, Blakeney does not
translate οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ in his commentary. And the translation of de Strycker and
Slings denotes insufferability or pain, which I do not think Socrates means to say. By οὐ
βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ I think Socrates means to denote “lifestyle.” So, I would reformulate
this as the following: A life, which does not examine and is not examined, is not a life
Recall that on page 32 in Chapter 1, section C, ii, on the refutation against the
new accusers, I first mentioned that Socrates’s manner of speech in the Defence Proper is
narrative, and that it focused on the past. The retrospective element ceases in the Counter-
Assessment, and a prospective element begins. Furthermore, we do not find any narration
truth vis-à-vis the past, but rather to entertain the possibility of a variety of punishments.
In order to accommodate this task, Socrates’s manner of speech changes from narrative to
argumentative. For example, he has a clear and concise conclusion: he deserves free
meals in the Prytaneum. Although Socrates’s objective is not to recount the truth, he still
reiterates that he tells the truth. For example, at 38b he says, “What I say is true,
gentlemen, but it is not easy to convince you.” There is one declaration of truth here
compared to the Defence Proper, where the declarations are numerous. This reflects the
53
One feature of his manner of speech that remains consistent is his use of
questions. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Socrates asks himself, what does he
deserve (36b-d), what evil he would impose on himself (37b) and why he would not be
able to stop examining and philosophizing (37e)? These questions are inspired by the life
the passive and active voice, and not the middle:46 one must examine and be examined.
ensued, and he may have successfully persuaded them to vote for free meals at the
Prytaneum. Socrates would examine Meletus again, because it is he who proposed the
penalty of death in the first place. It is Meletus’s statement that must be examined for its
examine this bit by bit. First, is exile a viable option? Should I be exiled? Do you
think that other men would tolerate my company and conversation when the
45
Brickhouse and Smith (2004, 163), and de Strycker and Slings (1994, 198) all agree that
Socrates does not suggest exile or imprisonment as an alternative to death because he would
implicitly admit guilt. It is crucial that Socrates remains consistent, cogent, and fallacy-free.
46
A problem arises with this analysis: if the term is in the active and passive, and it excludes the
middle, then it may imply that it is not necessary to conduct self-examination. By means of this
analysis I mean to highlight the reciprocal nature of examination. I do not think that Plato
deliberately means to exclude self-examination, in fact, self-examination is necessary to a life of
examination. Self-examination is conveyed through other notions, such as “know thyself,”
throughout the Platonic corpus.
54
Is it virtuous for a soldier to conduct himself courageously and piously, and obey
Should a soldier conduct himself courageously and piously every day, and not just
sometimes?—Of course.
It follows then, that if it is my duty to serve the god, and to discuss virtue and test myself
and others, would it not be virtuous to do it always? To this, his interlocutor would
undoubtedly hesitate to reply, for to acquiesce to this would mean that Socrates’s
between what is already known to Meletus and what is debatable, that is, the subject in
the liberty of drawing on the analogy of a soldier’s duties in order to expound the nature
Now, then, since exile is not a viable option, is a fine an appropriate punishment?
something is taken away from the convict, and sometimes something is given to
the convict? In the case of the negative punishment, something valuable, such as
Would it make sense to demand something that the convict does not have? Would
55
the convict feel regret, if he does not surrender something that he values and holds
dear? Would there be retribution for his offense?—No, certainly not, Socrates.
I have exhorted you to care for your soul and not for wealth and reputation. I have
explained that I live in poverty, and my poverty is proof of my service to the god.
So, since I do not have money, nor do I value money, would it be fitting to
These hypothetical examinations both have aporetic conclusions, for Meletus would be
forced to admit something contradictory to what he said to the initial question. Only by
means of secondary, relentless questions would we uncover that Meletus cannot support
his initial statement. The aporia at which Socrates and Meletus arrive is a crucial
change his initial answer. As the Counter-Assessment stands it is directed at the jury,47
but the jury is not committed to engaging with Socrates on a dialectical level. Socrates
talks at the jury rather than with them. Recall that the only instance of Socrates’s talking
with someone throughout his trial is with Meletus at 24a-28b. So, although Socrates
succinctly argues that he deserves to receive free meals, his conclusion would be better
person who should be examined. So an interlocutor who engages and interacts with
56
penalty of death, while philosophizing would be aimed at arguing for free meals at the
Prytaneum.
have seen Socrates defend a life of examination and philosophizing by examining the
notion of examination and philosophizing itself. That said, recall that Socrates supplies an
expository defence instead. A life of philosophy and examination is, I think, important
examining his life in his customary way during his trial, but he only narrates and gives an
exposition. If discussion and examination are the greatest good, then Socrates’s trial
would be the ideal place in which to use examination to show that examination is
worthwhile.
Now I will turn to Socrates’s manner of speech vis-à-vis examination. Miller and
Platter (2010, 126) note the prophetic aspect of passage 485a to 486c in the Gorgias,
admits is good in moderation but irritating and childish when continued into adulthood.
As we have seen in the Apology, Socrates examined in his usual way only once, at 24a-
28b. De Strycker and Slings (1994, 126) claim that this examination is too short
Socrates can discuss, examine and test more freely. De Strycker and Slings (1994, 194)
argue “No city but Athens [can provide] for better conditions. Nowhere in Greece was
the curiosity for disinterested debate so keen, and so free, because Athens was the
democratic city par excellence.” Socrates should have opened up the throttle on
57
examinations during his trial. Accordingly, as I have been arguing, Socrates should have
toned down the narration and instead employed examination and philosophizing during
his defence. Although annoyed, there is a chance that Athenians may be persuaded
enough to acquit him. Note that Socrates has managed to stay alive and out of the courts
merely dictating and declaring the truth falls short of examination and philosophizing.
Socrates’s argument falls short of persuasion because a bona fide interlocutor is not
present. If an interlocutor is missing and aporia is not reached, then persuasion and
philosophizing does not occur. Similar to the Defense Proper, Socrates uses an imaginary
interlocutor to connect with the jurors and sympathize with possible concerns and
reactions, but the accusers and the jurors remain non-participatory and passive. Meletus is
the one who proposes the penalty, but he is figuratively removed and unavailable for
At this point 38c of the Apology, there is another pause so that the jury can cast
their vote to determine the punishment. In the next Chapter, I examine Socrates’s last
address to the jury. First, he addresses those jurors who voted against him, then he
addresses the jurors who voted in his favour. This third and final speech may be Plato’s
48
Again, this is not to say that self-examination is not an important Socratic doctrine, rather I aim
to highlight the equally important reciprocal examination.
58
Chapter 3:
The Last Words, 38c-42a
Socrates gives his final address to the jury disclosing his feelings and thoughts regarding
the jury members, and his impending death. His last words demonstrate virtuosity,
Perhaps you think that I was convicted for lack of such words as might
my sentence. Far from it. I was convicted because I lacked not words
but boldness and shamelessness and the willingness to say to you what
you would most gladly have heard from me, lamentations and tears
and my saying and doing many things that I say are unworthy of me
but that you are accustomed to hear from others. I did not think then
that the danger I ran should make me do anything mean, nor do I now
regret the nature of my defence. I would much rather die after this kind
This address to the condemning jurors is audacious and proud, for Socrates explains the
reasons for condemnation as if he were a voting juror. He does not regret his manner of
speech and he is glad that he did not stoop down to the level of other defendants in order
59
to secure acquittal. So, by means of this address, Socrates communicates his steadfast
character that does not flinch in the face of danger. Through his audaciousness, Socrates
suggests the actual reason that he was not acquitted was because he did not conform to
Socrates admits that he is proud of his speech for he has not compromised or
jeopardized his character and his life of examination, but I think that his speech was
subpar. Sure he did not beg for mercy, appeal to his young family, or propose exile so
that he may continue to live, but he also did not give direct evidence for the value of
examination and philosophizing. He would have optimized his speech if he had employed
examination more frequently and more in depth. His examination of Meletus was the
pièce de résistance of the Defence Proper, and the Counter-Assessment could have been
transformed into an examination. Nevertheless, his speech continues to aim at the truth,
After he gives reasons for the conviction and penalty of death, Socrates
I say gentlemen, to those who voted to kill me, that vengeance will
bear than that which you took in killing me. You did this in the belief that
you would avoid giving an account of your life, but I maintain that quite
the opposite will happen to you. There will be more people to test you,
whom I now held back, but you did not notice it. They will be more difficult
to deal with as they will be younger and you will resent them more. (39c-d)
60
Furthermore, unlike the narration of the Defence Proper, Socrates does not refer to
witnesses in support of his account, does not declare that what he says is the truth, does
not employ his imaginary interlocutor, and does not recount stories. Socrates’s manner
of speech is quickly disintegrating. The two things that remain are his prospective
exposition, and his address to the jury (although even this changes significantly). He
foresees that Athenians have temporarily solved the relentless and annoying examinations
of Socrates, but what they do not realize is that Socrates has a small army of imitators
following. Examination has successfully convinced and persuaded others to examine and
philosophize. Some people have resented Socrates’s imitators and followers (who do not
examine correctly, hence the trial), but others (who have been examined) have realized
their ignorance, and changed their minds (and lifestyles) for the better. Engagement and
aporia are crucial to persuasion and a life of examination. Those who have converted
have undergone examination; I doubt that Socrates narrated his way through to
conversion. When one is examined, one goes out on a limb. As we see in the dialogues
and investigations in the refutation of the old accusers, those limbs cannot withstand the
weight of examination. Socrates’s speech conveys his feelings and thoughts, and his
steadfastness to the truth and justice, but this does not amount to examination and
and philosophizing.
61
Why does Socrates address the jurors who voted for his conviction?49 Is there
anything left to say or to refute? Socrates warns the jurors of their injustice (39c) and that
there are many others who will continue to examine and philosophize on Socrates’s
behalf. This address is Socrates’s last chance to get through to condemning, slander-
believing jurors. Socrates is hopeful but speaks in vain. At least in earlier passages, the
jurors would cause a disturbance and show signs of animation, but they do not even stir
Addressing the jurors who have acquitted him, Socrates says at 39e, “So, Gentlemen, stay
with me awhile, for nothing prevents us from talking to each other while it is allowed.”
When Socrates invites these jurors to talk with him, does Socrates intend to discuss the
49
Why address the jurors who condemned him anyway? De Strycker and Slings (1994, 203)
argue “something, not everything, is fictitious in the Third Speech of the Apology as it is
published.” It is not likely that the jurors stayed in the courtroom after the penalty was
announced; it is especially unlikely that the jurors who condemned Socrates returned to their
seats. There are no other extant records of trial when defendants give a speech after the penalty
has been presented. On the other hand, Blakeney (1929, 157) argues that these addresses from
38c to 42a are historically accurate because later writers such as Aristotle and Plutarch do not
contest its presence, in spite of the fact that third speeches, that is, a speech after the punishment
is announced, were not customary. I will not discuss of the historicity of the addresses to the
jurors who voted for conviction and acquittal, for that is outside the scope of this thesis; however,
I will note that it is important to discuss how it reflects a life of examination and what
significance the denouement holds.
50
Up until the Last Words, Socrates’s tone has been sympathetic, but for the first time in the
Apology, Socrates’s tone in this address conveys enmity. These jurors who voted for conviction
did not fulfill their responsibility of determining the truth. Clearly, these particular jurors have
acting wrongly and unjustly, and as a result, Socrates has every reason to reproach them for their
poor behaviour by means of investigation and examination, but he does not. Instead, he explains
that he is more afraid of committing injustice than he is of dying, and that he will be avenged by
his followers. This enmity that Socrates conveys is uncharacteristic; he has not demonstrated such
emotion throughout the entire Apology. In the address to jurors who voted for acquittal (Chapter
3, ii) Socrates’s tone changes once more: from hostile and ominous to calm and encouraging.
62
important things about which he has been arguing? Yes, but this passage is solely
Socrates’s speech, and his exhortations, one would expect that Plato would end the
Socrates comforts his friends, reassuring them that his divine sign has not warned
him against something unjust; he is not angry with the condemning jurors either. (40a)
He invites them to “reflect in this way too that there is good hope that death is a
blessing.” Death could either mean nothing at all, and that we fall into a deep endless
sleep, in which case nothing bad happens, or it is a relocation where Socrates can
continue to examine heroes and gods alike. (40d) Either way, Socrates does not fear death
but welcomes it. He exhorts his friends of the truth that “a man cannot be harmed either
in life or in death.” The Apology ends with Socrates’s request that his children, when
grown up, will be questioned and scrutinized just as he questioned and scrutinized
Socrates’s diction in this last address has come full circle since the exordium.
Socrates refers to the jury members as “Athenian men” or “gentlemen,” never as “jurors”
or “jurymen.” In Socrates’s address to the acquitting jurors from 39e to 42a, he refers to
them as “jurors,” implying that they have justly completed their job as juror. Recall that
in the Exordium, Socrates reminds the jurors that their responsibility and their virtue is to
identify the truth and to judge accordingly, just as it is the speakers’ responsibility to
speak the truth. Note that in the Defence Proper, the Counter-Assessment, and the
Address to the Condemning Jurors, Socrates does not refer to the jurors as “jurymen,”
which would have been respectful. Miller and Platter (2010, 19) note that this is
63
Socrates’s way of antagonizing the jury, but it would have been unjust to call them
jurymen before they accomplished their role as identifiers of truth. Blakeney (1929, 94)
states “Socrates is addressing his fellow-citizens generally, rather than the crowds who
have come, out of curiosity, to hear his defence.” It appears that commentators have
“gentlemen.” The reason for Socrates’s diction is made clear at 40a, when he refers to
them as “jurymen” for the first time. Socrates states, “A surprising thing has happened to
me, jurymen—you I would rightly call jurymen.” Socrates implicitly applauds these
acquitting jurors for upholding the truth and appreciating all the truthful statements he
has made throughout the Apology. Note that in his address to the jurors who voted for
conviction, Socrates aggressively warns the jurors that immediately after Socrates dies,
vengeance will come upon them. (39c) Socrates does not reproach the convicting jurors
as he reproaches the reputed wise men. In these addresses, however, Socrates implicitly
conveys praise and blame through subtle word choice as opposed to examination.
As I have already stated, Socrates does not refer to the jurors as “jurors,” but we
must not forget that Socrates’s global mission (as opposed to his mission in the Apology)
is to examine and test reputed wise men. The jurors who have voted for his acquittal have
demonstrated their justice and wisdom in their choice of vote, but the other jurors have
demonstrated that they think they understand the role and responsibility of a juror. This
reiterates my point that it would be apropos for Socrates to examine one or more of the
jurors at any point in the Apology. The jurors are supposed to have the wisdom to judge
64
Furthermore, Socrates does not refer to the need for truth or declare that what he
has said is true, as he frequently did in the Defence Proper. By referring to the jurors as
“jurymen” Socrates implies their truthful and just actions. He does not emphasize and
repeat that he is telling the truth as in the Defence Proper. All statements of veracity and
mention of truth are in reference to what others have said. He does not claim that he tells
the truth; he does not commit to these statements. For example, at 40e he says, “if, on the
other hand, what we are told is true and all who have died are there [in the afterlife], what
greater blessing could there be, gentlemen of the jury.” And at 41c, Socrates says, “They
are happier there than we are here in other respect and for the rest of time they are
deathless, if indeed what we are told is true.” Notice that Socrates does not announce that
what he says is true, and he does not reveal that he believes what he is told. Socrates’s
“So, gentlemen, stay with me awhile, for nothing prevents us from talking to each other
while it is allowed.” The word that Plato uses for “talking to each other” is
διαμυθολογῆσαι, which is a rare word in the Platonic corpus. As Miller and Platter
(2010, 138) note, “it appears only in two other times, both in a explicitly speculative
context, once at the beginning of the Laws (632e4) and once in the Phaedo (70b6) in a
idea, its possibilities, and the repercussions and entailments of said idea. It requires that
one entertain an idea without accepting it. In Socrates’s address to the jurors who voted
for acquittal, he invites them to speculate on the nature of death with him, but Socrates
speculates alone; he does not speculate with said jurors. We are left with a one-sided
65
instance of speculation that does not qualify as the kind of speculation that Socrates
advocates, because Socrates lectures the jurors instead of engaging in dialogue with them.
By engaging with another person, one is able to explore repercussions and entailments
that may not be explored otherwise. Some notions are not obvious to one, and one is
oblivious to them, so an interlocutor would be able to bring them out. An interlocutor and
someone who examines serve as a mirror so as to show one what one does not see.
As we have seen, at 17a Socrates’s speech starts off strong by asserting the truth,
referring to witnesses, disclosing and stressing the truth, and adopting features of
examination, that is, questions, in order defend himself against accusations and propose
an alternative penalty for his philosophical activities, but now Socrates has discontinued
his tactics. One might suppose that the nature of the addresses does not require
discuss what has happened with those who voted for my acquittal.” As Miller and Platter
(2010, 137) state, “it is fitting that Socrates concludes with a reference to dialogue, that
characteristic feature of his life and philosophical practice.” I grant that this is a reference
to that life, but Socrates does not make good on that promise. He does briefly speculate
on what is important, namely, the nature of death, but this discussion lacks examination
per Socratic method, or at the very least a participant, for the jurors continue to be passive
and non-participatory. This address resembles the speculative tone that we see in the
Phaedo, but is it enough to discuss matters of this nature unilaterally? Throughout the
66
corroborated with his exhortations to discuss and examine one’s way of life and beliefs.51
At 40c, Socrates invites the jurors who have voted for his acquittal to “reflect (…)
that there is good hope that death is a blessing.” What does Socrates mean by “reflect”?
Is he inviting them to reflect on that fact ? Does he mean that they should examine
whether death is a blessing or that they should sit back quietly and listen to Socrates
explore the idea? It appears that Socrates is exhorting them to do both, but at this moment
in the Apology he is inviting them to reflect on the fact with him. Recall that at 24c,
during Socrates’s refutation against the new accusers, Socrates says “let us examine it
point by point,” referring to Meletus’s indictment. The statement at 40c resembles 24c
but does not entail examination. This is a false start on Socrates’s part; a very exciting
and insightful discussion could have followed, one similar to the discussion of the
The last thing I would like to point out is the fact that Socrates resuscitates his
imaginary interlocutor one last time in order to better explain his attitude toward his
predicament vis-à-vis his divine sign. At 40d Socrates says, “Yet in other talks [the divine
sign] often held me back in the middle of my speaking, but now it has opposed no word
or deed of mine. What do I think is the reason for this? I will tell you.” This instance is
different than other instances of the imaginary speaker, in that other questions were
hypothetical: “if someone were to ask…” Perhaps someone in the jury uttered this
question, or perhaps Socrates is examining his reasons for believing in the honesty of the
sign. There is no reason to believe that a juror member made a disturbance and said this.
51
There is a subtle difference between examination and speculation: the former producing a
negative result, and the later producing a positive result. I will discuss this difference in further
detail in Chapter 4.
67
The jury made disturbances, for example at 17d, and 20e, but Socrates does not ask them
to calm down. Moreover, there is no evidence for examination either; neither “examine”
nor any of its cognates or synonyms is used, there is no secondary questioning, and there
is no evidence of an impasse. Either way, it stands out as peculiar. The only other
If, on the other hand, death is a change from here to another place,
and what we are told is true and all who have died are there, what
arriving in Hades will have escaped from those who call themselves
jurymen here, and will find those true jurymen who are said to sit in
and the other demi-gods who have been upright in their own life, would
that be a poor kind of change? Again, what would one of you give to
Earlier in the Apology, Socrates used questions to segue from subject to subject,
anticipating the questions and concerns of his audience, and also to refute Meletus
directly, but now he takes the answers for granted. He assumes that the jurors who have
acquitted him would agree that meeting and speaking with these individuals in Hades
have been. Socrates suggests discussing, and speculating with the jurors who voted for
acquittal, but curiously does not actually engage with them, further suggesting the
68
continues the unilateral discussion similar to the narrative of the Defence Proper. Also,
Socrates’s prophesizes and warns the jurors who voted for conviction in a hostile manner
but does not reproach them for their unjust behaviour. In my discussion of the Defence
Proper and the Counter-Assessment, I argued that Socrates’s speech did not amount to
examination (except for the actual examination of Meletus) because Socrates did not
engage and interact with jurors. Similarly in the Last Words, Socrates begins a reproach
and speculation but does not make good on in it. Instead, Socrates unilaterally narrates,
expounds and discusses the truth regarding his life and a life of examination. His manner
of speech conflicts with the content of his speech demonstrating the need for an
interlocutor.
69
Chapter 4:
Reflections on Plato’s Apology
A. Introduction
My reader might have noticed that I engaged with the other commentaries only
minimally. Guardini, Miller and Platter, Brickhouse and Smith, and Blakeney tend to
focus on the content of Socrates’s speech on a micro level. For example, the subjects of
their commentaries include daimonion, the charges, the Delphic oracle, and piety, among
others. Only de Strycker and Slings address and explain the way in which Socrates
speaks on a macro level. For example, in their commentary on the Apology they argue
Athenians:
to employ all of them and those he did use, he used for different purposes
than normal litigants. In this way, Plato gave the Apology from the very
outset the outward appearance of a law court speech, but he wanted the reader
(or rather the hearer) to be continually surprised and puzzled by ideas and
intentions that did not seem to conform to the literary form chosen by him.
My commentary most closely aligns with that of de Strycker and Sling. However, the
main difference is that de Strycker and Slings refer to a number of other classical
literature in support of their thesis. I, on the other hand, do not. I have considered the
70
Apology in and of itself, with some reference to the rest of the Platonic corpus (as well as
commentaries). The payoff of this thesis is not that it overlooks classical literature, rather
engagement with the history of Platonic scholarship. It therefore offers an entry point into
Thus far I have been discussing the Apology in a sequential order: starting with
the Defence Proper (the Exordium, the Statement, the Refutation, Digression, and
Peroration) Counter-Assessment, and the Last Words (Address to the Condemning and
Acquitting Jurors). As I guided the reader through the Apology, summarizing, analyzing
and synthesizing the significance of the text, I have argued that Socrates’s speech
discussing and speculating on the truth does not amount to examination or philosophizing
(according to Socrates). So, when one cannot examine and philosophize, one fails. In the
Defence Proper there are numerous instances of references to witnesses for support,
declarations that what he says is true, allusions to the difficulty of removing slanders
from the minds of the jurors, and references to examination. Socrates is a virtuous
speaker by doing the aforementioned things, but his speech lacks persuasive force. From
24a-28b Socrates even examines Meletus, and we see examination in all its aporetic
glory. Furthermore, as I proceeded from section to section in the Apology, I noted where
discussing with one who commits and invests his beliefs for examination, aporia is just a
71
method draw our attention to its importance. An interlocutor is crucial to the Apology
because Socrates and his philosophical activities have been vilified. Socrates’s task is to
antagonistic, belligerent, and inimical as some may think. The best way of demonstrating
that examination is salutary is by conducting examination, and not merely giving a report.
The value of examination and philosophizing can be demonstrated the same way that the
reputed wise men were shown to be ignorant: by examining examination itself. A meta-
examination would scrutinize someone’s belief regarding examination. The jurors would
have been suitable individuals to examine for two reasons: one, they hold false beliefs,
that is, they believe in the slanders; and two, they have been conferred the responsibility
of juror, and so it is assumed that they maintain the wisdom and prudence to distinguish
the truth from the fiction. They fit the bill according to Socrates’s criteria for
investigation and examination. But, as I have been arguing throughout this commentary,
procedures and protocol in order to maintain consistency and due process. Although
procedures, the essence remains the same: to determine the innocence or guilt of the
defendant vis-à-vis charges laid by another individual or the state. The significance of the
structure of Socrates’s trial has been questioned, but only with regard to its historical
accuracy; the literary significance, on the other hand, has not. The inherent monological
72
monological.
B. Narration
Throughout the Apology, Socrates’s defence focuses on telling the truth (Defence Proper)
and speculating about the truth (the nature of death). As Socrates stands on a platform
surrounded by at least 501 Athenians, Socrates speaks unilaterally. Instead of refuting the
sequence of written or spoken words. Human beings are inveterate story-tellers, using
narratives to explain the creation of the world, physical phenomena, and personal
of culture and of human communication by which we produce meaning. In the case of the
Apology, Socrates speaks in front of over 501 Athenians, trying to communicate his
personal experience in order to explain away the slander that has been amassing. Socrates
homodiegetic speech reveals to us his point of view, experiences, thoughts, and feelings,
to which we would not otherwise be privy due to Socratic irony52 and examination. A
describes the experiences of other characters. Typically, the former is written or told in
the first person point of view, while the later is written or told in the third person.
52
Socrates usually puts on a veil of ignorance in order to extract answers from his interlocutor.
73
Narratives are a highly aesthetic enterprise. For example, the structure includes
First, the Apology is structured into three parts: Defence Proper (17a-35d), Counter-
Assessment (35e-38c) and Last Words (38c-42a). These parts aptly overlap with the
structure of Athenian trials, but the structure also has literary and aesthetic significance.
The beginning, middle and end are segregated by the jury’s verdict and judgment
regarding Socrates’s punishment. Furthermore, the beginning, middle and end do not map
onto the development, climax and denouement neatly. If the segments corresponded
neatly then the Counter-Assessment would be considered the Climax; but it is not
because the Refutation Against the New Accusers (24a-28b) is the point of highest
Socrates directly interacts with a member of the audience, and exemplifies the method of
35d), some commentators have argued that the Digression is the actual defence against
the new accusations; I have argued that the refutation against Meletus is the actual
defence. The aporetic conclusion to the examination is portentous, not only in refuting
Meletus, but also demonstrating first-hand the essence and value of examination. The
jury is more likely to learn the importance of examination by example than by means of
narration and exposition, for, as a result of the slander, they misunderstand what it is that
In the Defence Proper, Socrates’s defence against the old accusations (19a-24b)
74
similar impetus. The narrative describes the formative education which the protagonist
experiences. Socrates’s narrative may not depict his development from youth to
adulthood, but it does depict intellectual growth insofar as he realizes the blameworthy
ignorance of reputed wise men. His narrative, like a Bildungsroman, is set into motion by
the Delphic oracle—the impetus for Socrates’s journey. As he investigates the meaning
of the oracle, Socrates accepts a life-altering mission from the god. There are similarities
between the narration of Socrates’s refutation of the old accusations and the narration
numerous points in the text when Socrates declares that he will tell the truth, or that he
has told the truth. Socrates’s speech is saturated with these instances that attempt to make
good on the promise to speak as a speaker par excellence. The strength of this manner of
speech is biographical information that emerges from the narration. We learn that
Socrates lives in poverty, that he has been investigating and examining reputed wise men
for many years, and, among other things, that the Delphic oracle launched Socrates into
particularly valuable. For example, the daimonia is rarely mentioned outside of the
Apology.53 Overall, Socrates’s task to tell the truth is not an utter disadvantage. As
53
According to Brandwood (1976, pp.192-3), “daimonia” only appears (quite frequently at that)
in the Apology at 24c, 26b, 27c, 27c, 27c, 27c, and 27e. Other cognates such as “daimomion”
appear at 31d of the Apology, but also in the Euthyphro at 35b, Euthydemus 272e, Symposium
202d, Republic II 382e, VI 496c, VII 531c, Theaetetus 151a, Phaedrus 242b, Critias 117b,
Alcibiades I 103a, and Theages 128d and 129b.
75
readers we learn many aspects of his lifestyle and his past, which are not made explicit in
other dialogues.
The downfall of this task to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, is that it is non-dialectical and non-aporetic, which means that Socrates fails to
refute the old accusations by means of examination (his method of choice) and secure
acquittal. Someone might argue that Socrates does not genuinely want to secure
acquittal.54 This might be the case, but the goal of disclosing the truth is not to get off
scot-free, for Socrates is well aware that it is near impossible to uproot the slander that
But speaking justly, on its own, does not yield examination or philosophizing.
question and test each other’s beliefs, but he himself avers from doing so. When we
compare his manner of speech to the activity that he exhorts, there is clearly a
76
taken for granted and go unchallenged. For example, from 39e to 42a Socrates speculates
about the truth regarding the nature of death. Socrates does not argue that death is a good
or bad thing; he explores what the possibilities are. In this discussion Socrates argues that
it would be unwise to arbitrarily pick one or the other. Recall that he says, “if what they
say is true.” (40e; 41c) Someone might argue that Socrates’s speculations are indeed
philosophical, but, again, he invites the jurors to discuss with him; yet Socrates alone
does the speculating: no one joins him. There is a lack of an interlocutor throughout the
entire defence speech except the defence against the new accusers.
addition to employing it. In other dialogues, such as the Euthyphro and Crito, Socrates
examines the beliefs of his interlocutors without explaining what he is doing or why. The
Apology teaches its reader the strengths and weaknesses of monological and dialogical
speech. I have already discussed monological speech in section B, and I will now discuss
Socratic Method, is a method of refutation used throughout the Platonic corpus in order
to explore beliefs and to determine their implications. We learn in the Apology that it is
not just a method of refutation, rather that it is particular life style. This lifestyle entails
that one prioritizes more important things (that is, one’s soul) over wealth and reputation.
In the Apology we learn that Socrates himself lives a life of examination. So, if we take a
77
exhorts Athenians to take on. This instance is comprised of all the essential features
which are present in other instances throughout Plato’s Socratic dialogues. As I have
long or short, and its length will not affect its status as examination.
questioning, and aporia. The primary question, which is no trivial matter, instigates the
exploration of an idea, for an idea must be supplied. But a primary question is not always
explicit; just because it is implied does not render the examination any less of an instance
question relating to virtue, courage, friendship, and the like. In the Republic Socrates
asks, “What is justice?” but in the Crito Socrates does not ask. Instead, a belief is
supplied by Crito by dint of his plea for Socrates to escape. In other words, his reasons
that Socrates should escape from prison are the beliefs that Socrates examines. In the
Apology, the belief that is examined during the examination of Meletus is the belief that
Socrates is guilty of denying the gods of Athens and corrupting the youth. (24b) In other
Given that the question is not inconsequential, the belief which is supplied reflects
the interlocutor’s character. If the belief is undermined then, like a domino effect, other
things are affected. For example, one’s definition of courage will dictate whether one
spinelessly flees from danger or foolishly assails the enemy.55 If that belief is refuted or
undermined, then this will affect the way that one acts and reacts in moments of risk and
55
In Plato’s Laches, we find a discussion and examination of the definition of courage.
78
danger. So, in supplying an idea, the interlocutor offers a token of one’s character—a
belief that underlies one’s character and thereby influences one’s actions.
Upon hearing a problematic belief, Socrates indicates that he will examine the
belief. At 24c of the Apology, Socrates states, “Let us examine this point by point.” Often
the word elenchein. Secondary questioning is comprised of all the questions that lead to
aporia. In the Apology there are two sets of questioning that lead to aporia: one regarding
the first charge, and the other regarding the second charge. Secondary questioning may
appear to be trivial and unrelated, but each premise to which the interlocutor agrees
supports the conclusion, which is a negation of the belief that was initially supplied. This
relentless and unremitting questioning leaves the interlocutor discomfited because he has
Aporia is simply the moment at which the interlocutor cannot support both his
initial belief and the belief that is inferred from the premises to which he agrees during
the course of examination. Examination does not yield any positive answers; instead it
demonstrates that the aforementioned belief is untenable, and it leaves us not knowing
what to believe. The interlocutor is shipwrecked, and left to salvage whatever shred of
dignity he can. Examination often causes pain, anger and frustration to its victims; it
comes off as hostile, hypocritical, insincere, and ironic in its negative and destructive
spirit. Interlocutors have such a strong and negative reaction to questioning and to aporia
because it cuts them down to size—they feel as if they have been injured. Aporia is a
79
examination. We learn that examination does not have to be long and rigorous, and the
primary question can be implicit. This instance of examination in the Apology is enough
to demonstrate what Socrates means by examination. Let us turn to what he actually says
There are three things in the Apology that Socrates claims as indicative of
opposed to trivial bickering or gossip. Second, “the life of examination” (38a) is one that
examines others and is examined by others. Third, to speculate and reflect (40d) is to
consider the possible options and the implications of the options. Speculation, according
wrong belief—and philosophizing is the pursuit of truth. So, one of the things that is
apparent in the instance of examination and from what Socrates says in regard to
examination is that examination and philosophizing are geared towards the truth. Now,
this may seem trivial and unoriginal, but in this turning towards the truth, an interlocutor
but it fell short of examination and philosophizing. Why? Because of the general lack of
an interlocutor.
80
Earlier in this section I discussed the role of the interlocutor, aporia and the affect
of aporia on the interlocutor. The important thing to note is the role of interlocutor in
examination and the lack of one in the Apology. This is not for naught. The lack of the
oneself and renders oneself vulnerable. Recall that the beliefs supplied are not
the interlocutor. If these beliefs are not scrutinized and examined by another person for
their veracity and validity, individuals end up believing that they are wise when they are
merely rearranging their prejudices. Recall the reputed wise men that Socrates examined.
Before examination these men disseminated their knowledge thinking that their
knowledge was of a divine nature. Their lessons and lectures were likely to be
unchallenged and taken for granted, had Socrates not refuted their ideas through
D. Concluding Remarks
Socrates’s defence speech illustrates the fallibility of monological, truth-focused speech.
manner of speech would not successfully uproot the slander and convince the jurors of
Socrates’s speech is rational and convincing, and we assume (in the day-to-day) that
81
but there are instances when one fails to be persuaded by such rational arguments. For
example, we find ourselves in moments of akrasia when we think and act against our
better judgment. Such may have been the case with the jurors who voted for Socrates’s
conviction. They understood and appreciated Socrates’s defence speech, but could not
bring themselves to vote for acquittal because they did not engage and cathect in the
defence process. When one engages in examination and philosophizing one consents,
invests oneself and cooperates towards a mutual goal. There is so much more to
argumentation than just retelling or reciting an argument. Russon says it well when he
says (2009, 199), “Philosophy is not an affair of the ivory tower but is fundamentally a
expel a wrong and fallacious belief, and the negative conclusion of examination makes
In the Apology, Socrates denies that he teaches and that he collects a fee, but his
Examinations are intended to teach the person being examined an important moral lesson.
Furthermore, Socrates’s defence speech itself is didactic in nature. His manner of speech,
although not elenctic (for the most part), serves an ulterior purpose. The monological
speech (and its failure to bring about the desired outcome) demonstrates the shortcoming
of truth-telling speeches, and the need for and importance of an engaged and participating
interlocutor.
Commentators to which I refer throughout this thesis focus on either the portrait
that Plato paints of Socrates’s character, or the historicity of the dialogue. They focus on
nuances of the text and try to make sense of style and locution vis-à-vis other writers of
82
antiquity. This commentary, by contrast, focuses on the life of examination and the way
in which Socrates defends that life. What I have portrayed here is what a reader should
learn and take away from a reading of the Apology. There is no doubt that this text is rich,
multifaceted, deep and inspirational; what I hope to have revealed is that Socrates’s
manner of speech and the lack of an interlocutor are not matters of coincidence or mere
technicalities of the Athenian court system. There is meaning and insight to be found in
this small detail. This detail corroborates what Socrates states and that to which he
alludes, namely, the importance of an interlocutor. Not one of the commentaries to which
I refer treat the Apology in the same way as I do: as an example of philosophy.
83
Bibliography
Blakeney, Edward Henry (1929) The Apology of Socrates. London, England: Scholartis
Press.
Brandwood, Leonard (1976) A Word Guide to Plato. Leeds: W.S. Maney & Son Limited.
Cooper, John. ed. (1997) Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing
Company.
Dorter, Ken (2006) The Transformation of Plato’s Republic. Lanham, MD: Lexington
Book.
Miller, Paul Allen and Charles Platter (2010) Plato’s Apology of Socrates: A
Commentary. Norman, USA: University of Oklahoma Press.
Mitscherling, Jeff (2003) “Socrates and the Comic Poets.” Apeiron, Vol.36, pp.67-72.
Nails, Debra (2002) The People of Plato: A Prosopography of Plato and other Socratics,
Hackett.
Roberts, John, ed. (2005) The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. New York, US:
Oxford University Press.
Scott, Gary Alan, ed. (2002) Does Socrates Have a Method: Rethinking the Elenchus in
Plato’s Dialogues and Beyond. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University
Press.
84
Stock, St. George, ed. (1887) The Apology of Plato. Oxford, GB: Oxford University
Press.
De Strycker, Emile. and S.R. Slings (1994) Plato’s Apology of Socrates, A Literary and
Philosophical Study with a Running Commentary. New York, US: Brill.
85