The Apology The Trial of Socrates

1. The ApologyThe Trial of Socrates

2. Background – on the negative side • By 399, there was a growing dissatisfaction with the gadfly, who went about embarrassing citizens by challenging their opinions, showing up there confused thinking, and encouraging “Dangerous” free thinking amongst the young men of Athens. • Over the 30 years since the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war, and Athens’ golden age, her pride and confidence had been destroyed, and many saw one of the causes for this was the neglecting of traditional values. • Even the great hope – Alcibiades had turned out bad, and some could point to the fact that he had been a protégé of Socrates – more evidence that his influence was a serious ill for the city. Also both Charmides and Critias (leaders of the reign of terror) had been his pupils.

3. and on the plus side--- And there wasn’t that much on the positive side (if you discounted his call to virtue). In his 70 years he had not offered himself for any formal political or civil service to the polis (unusual for an Athenian with so much influence) save his military service as a hoplite early in the Peloponnesian war. According to Plato (quoting Alcibiades in Symposium, and Laches) he had been a great example to others, not caring about his own comfort, a brave soldier, and saving Alcibiades’ life. His one appearance in the public life was probably negative when he was chosen by lot to be one of the council in 406, and was the one voice who tried to prevent the illegal en bloc charge against the 10 generals after Arginusae. He also refused to carry out orders of the thirty tyrants in 404 to turn an innocent man over for execution. After the restoration of Democracy in 403 an amnesty for all who had associations with the bad times protected him, but within 4 years distrust of him emboldened his many enemies.

4. The three accusers Meletus: the only speaker against him in the Apology. An inexperienced young unknown put up to it by Anytus a powerful democratic politician, insulted in Meno by Socrates about his no-good son who Socrates taught, and had been on the receiving end of Socrates in some criticisms of democracy. He had been one of many who had courted Alcibiades, but been spurned by him, when he attached himself to Socrates. Lycon was acting for the orators. It seems unlikely that they were after a death penalty for Socrates, expecting him to propose banishment from the city.

5. What he was up against A scapegoat for the Athenians’ hard times esp. the last 5 years. Alcibiades (well known for self-interest), Charmides & Critias (leaders of the 30 tyrants in 404) ) and other oligarchs who had betrayed the democracy, were all his protégés. His elenchus was employed successfully by his young pupils in their civil cases, and he was blamed by the defeated litigants for their defeat (teaching the young unfair tricks) Apology 23c Thought to be a sophist (e.g. Aristophanes Clouds) – i.e. paid teacher who challenged traditional values without upholding any – (teaching “naturalistic” explanations (atheism) and making the strong argument the weaker etc) The prejudices against him dated back so long that he couldn’t challenge the spreaders of them (e.g. clouds was 23 years ago!) and a generation take them as fact by 399 –( apology 18b). His inner voice (Daimonion meaning knowing or wise) which he believed expressed his Apollo-given mission to show knowledge was distinct from wisdom. (apology 30e)

6. Opening comments Socrates attacks his accusers straightaway by saying they are liars by implying that he is a skilled and persuasive speaker as will be revealed, and that his only skill in speaking is be that he tells the truth, which puts him out of their class. Unlike their flowery language his will be direct and unrehearsed, as he is confident in the justice of his cause. He does warn his audience that because he has never spoken in court, and is not familiar with language of the courts, they should be prepared for him to speak just as he does around the city. He asks just one thing – that they consider if his claims are just or not. 17a-18a

7. The earliest charges 18b-d The accusations that have been around for years are more of a threat because harder to counter than the current ones by Anytus et al. Rumours about there being “ a clever man called Socrates who has theories about the heavens..and earth....and can make the weaker argument defeat the stronger”. These were taken up by the people when they were young and impressionable, were not questioned then and so are hard to rebut especially seeing as he doesn’t even know their source (except a certain playwright), So it is these earlier accusers he must deal with before his immediate ones. 18e-19d He begins his defence saying let it turn out as God wills. He refers to Aristophanes caricature of him as a nature philosopher saying he knows nothing and is not interested in such things, and appeals to the many who have heard him speak to verify this. 19e-20c He now rebuts that he is a professional teacher. He mentions several well known teachers and says it is a fine thing to do if you have the knowledge of perfecting the virtues (even that Evenus of Paros’s fee of 500 drachma would be good value if he gave the goods. [1 drachma per day was the pay for a mayor or member of the council] 18b-20c

8. Earliest charges (cont) 20d-22e Socrates explains what it is that he does and why he has gained this false notoriety. It seems he is wise in a limited, human sense (compared to the teachers he mentioned who are wise in a superhuman sense- irony). He tells the story of the Delphic answer to Chaerophon that there was no-one wiser than Socrates, and his determination to discover what it meant. In his long search among reputed wise politicians, poets, and craftsmen he found no general wisdom (though many claimed it on the strength of their specialized knowledge). 23a-e The result of his investigations is to raise the hostility of his fellow citizens, keep himself poor, and attract a following of young men who enjoy imitating him and with it a reputation for corrupting the young. He suggests that wisdom is actually the property of the god, and that Apollo’s oracle meant that the wisest of men are those who, like Socrates, know they are worthless in wisdom, and his god-given mission is to make this understood. 24a Thus Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon acting for poets, politicians, and orators respectively are now expressing their anger by the formal charges, which are calumnies (lies). 20d-24a

9. THE FORMAL CHARGES “Socrates is guilty of corrupting the minds of the young... 24c-25c On corrupting the young:- Socrates requires Meletus to tell him that, since Socrates is such an evil influence, who is a good influence on the young. He gets Meletus to say that the jury, the council, the assembly – everyone has a good influence on the young – in fact the whole of Athens EXCEPT Socrates. He says that this is so obviously wrong (analogy of horses and horse trainers) that it shows Meletus has never even thought about the welfare of the young. 25d-e Socrates next gets Meletus to agree that Socrates corrupts the young intentionally. He then leads him to agree that he couldn’t have done it intentionally (if at all) as he would be one of the first to suffer at the hands of those he had corrupted, and no sane man acts this way. 26a In fact if Socrates was that stupid, says he, Meletus should have instructed him rather than charge him. The courts are for those who need punishment, not enlightenment! 24b-26a

10. THE FORMAL CHARGES 2....and in believing in supernatural things of his own invention, instead of the gods recognised by the state.” 26b-e On disbelieving in the gods: Socrates leads Meletus into stating, not that Socrates only believes only in some gods, but that he believes in NO gods (is an atheist). He claims (and Socrates denies) that he doesn’t believe the sun and moon are gods but are rocks and earth. 27a-e Socrates says Meletus is being intentionally self contradictory (Eironea) because his charge is essentially nonsense: that Socrates doesn’t believe in the gods, but he believes in the gods. This he shows by analogy (belief in human/musical/horsey matters means one believes in human beings/musicians/horses. So as Socrates believes in supernatural matters he must believe in supernatural beings. And that supernatural beings are gods or the children of gods. As Meletus has charged him with belief in “supernatural things of his own invention” he must believe in gods. i.e. one part of the charge says he believes in gods and the other that he doesn’t! 28a-28d He repeats that it is the bitter hostility already mentioned that will bring about his destruction, not his accusers. He explains why he continued in such a dangerous path. That no worthy man would turn from justice/the God’s mission to save his skin. He quotes Homer regarding Achilles facing death and glory to avenge Patrocles rather than saving himself, and his own case of obeying his officers in the war despite the danger, and concludes that he is less likely to run away now when serving Apollo. 26b-28d

11. Rest of his defence 29a-b He adds it is a certain evil to do something he knows to be dishonourable (desert his duty to the Gods) while to die may not be an evil at all - he knows he doesn’t know what lies in store after death so why assume that death is the greatest tragedy that can befall someone. 29c-e Socrates states that a lawful superior - human or divine - should be obeyed, with the divine taking precedence if they clash. So, since Apollo of Delphi has singled him out to spur his fellow Athenians on to greater awareness of moral goodness and truth, he will not stop even if they were to withdraw the charges. 30a-31c He then enflames the citizens by claiming that his concern for their souls is the greatest good that has happened to them. Wealth is a consequence of virtue (not the other way around), and God doesn’t permit the better man to be harmed by the worse. He likens himself to a gadfly stinging a lazy horse (the polis). And offers evidence of his poverty for his following a higher calling for the city. 29a-31c

12. Rest of his defence 31d-32e He offers his Daimonion as evidence of the god’s mission for him. It acts to prevent him from the wrong course of action, and he realises that it is partly behind the charge of him inventing his own gods. He doesn’t soften the bad effect that this claim would have had to the ears of his jurors. He credit his Daimonion for preventing him from taking an active role in political life, and that he would certainly have landed in trouble by criticising the democratic system, especially the lottery that gives inexperienced citizens important public positions. 33a-34b As he has never been a teacher he cannot be blamed for any member of his circle (nor given credit for any who turn out well). In fact, he asks, why haven’t those he has corrupted, or their families come forward to testify against him – many of his circle and their families are in fact there to support him. 34c-35d He concludes this part of the hearing by saying he will not make a plea for mercy/sympathy, and will not fail in his religious duty. His case relies solely on sound judgement and truth. 31d-35d

13. THE VERDICT AND DISCUSSION OF PENALTIES: 280 guilty, 221 acquit 36a Socrates, unbowed, antagonises his audience further, by saying he is not surprised or distressed by their condemnation. It was a close thing (30more on his side and he’d have been acquitted), and tried a mathematical eironeia by suggesting Meletus should be fined 1000DR for not getting enough votes for his case. He needed 1/5 of the 500 jurors – 100, but 1/3 (his “share”) of the votes was only 93! 36b-37c As punishment he first proposes that as a great benefactor to the city, he be given free meals at the Prytaneum (an honour for prominent citizens and champion athletes). His gift of moral goodness to the city is so much more important than the passing glory of an Olympic charioteer. Why, he asks, should he consider a punishment if he has done no wrong, nor intentional harm? 36a-37c

14. FURTHER DISCUSSION OF PENALTIES 37d-38a Socrates didn’t make the expected proposal of banishment, which the jurors would have accepted. But he points out that nowhere would want him Anyhow, that to expect him to make such a proposal would be to expect him to betray his Apollonian mission, (which he had already explained would be as an undoubted evil compared to deaths possible evil.) Although they won’t believe him, he must continue to examine his fellow citizens and himself, and “discuss virtue”, that they are the very best things a man can do, and that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” 38b In response to the jurors’ anger he proposes a fine of 100 drachma, which his supporters increased to 3000 drachma! A considerable sum. As most of this would not have come from Socrates, the jurors were not satisfied with it. 37d-38b

15. THE FINAL ADDRESS TO HIS CONDEMERS ON THE JURY (who vote 360 for death, only 141 for the Dr3000 fine – 80 more have turned against him!) 38c-39b Firstly he addresses those who have voted for his death, saying had they waited a little nature would have saved the credit or blame for killing him. He adds that it is not because of weak arguments but because he hasn’t played the usual defendant game of pleading for mercy that he will die. He is happy not to have fought to escape death but to have escape wickedness (unlike his accusers who have been overtaken by iniquity). He leaves the court condemned to death but they will leave the court “convicted by truth herself of depravity and injustice! 39c-d He prophesises that if they had hoped to escape criticism by killing it, that younger and harsher critics will come after him and test the even more than Socrates has. Criticism of iniquity can only be silenced by stopping iniquity. 38c-39d

16. THE FINAL ENCOURAGEMENT TO HIS FRIENDS AND THOSE WHO VOTED FOR LIFE 39e-40c He says feels content with the outcome because his Daimonion did not prevented him from conducting his defence the way he did, which shows it was the right thing to do, and indeed a blessing! 40d-41c Consequently death must be a good – either like a dreamless sleep (“a marvellous gain”), or a transformation to an afterlife where he has “the unimaginable happiness” of the company of great men like Orpheus, Homer, Odysseus etc). He will have dialogue with them, and not be put to death for it! 41d-42a He says death should be met with the confidence that “nothing can harm a good man either in life or after death and his fortunes are not a matter of indifference to the gods.” To his accusers, and jurors he bears no grudge, and commends his 3 sons to their protection as they grow up, ensuring they put goodness ahead of selfish interests. Now he is off to death – but who is better off only god knows. 39e-42d