Apology
Part 1 · 1/8
Apology
Part 1
1Produced by Sue Asscher, and David Widger Apology by Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett Contents INTRODUCTION APOLOGY INTRODUCTION. 2In what relation the “Apology” of Plato stands to the real defence of Socrates, there are no means of determining. 3It certainly agrees in tone and character with the description of Xenophon, who says in the “Memorabilia” that Socrates might have been acquitted “if in any moderate degree he would have conciliated the favour of the dicasts;” and who informs us in another passage, on the testimony of Hermogenes, the friend of Socrates, that he had no wish to live; and that the divine sign refused to allow him to prepare a defence, and also that Socrates himself declared this to be unnecessary, on the ground that all his life long he had been preparing against that hour. 4For the speech breathes throughout a spirit of defiance, “_ut non supplex aut reus sed magister aut dominus videretur esse judicum_” (Cic. “de Orat.” i. 54); and the loose and desultory style is an imitation of the “accustomed manner” in which Socrates spoke in “the _agora_ and among the tables of the money-changers.” 5The allusion in the “Crito” (45 B) may, perhaps, be adduced as a further evidence of the literal accuracy of some parts (37 C, D). 6But in the main it must be regarded as the ideal of Socrates, according to Plato’s conception of him, appearing in the greatest and most public scene of his life, and in the height of his triumph, when he is weakest, and yet his mastery over mankind is greatest, and his habitual irony acquires a new meaning and a sort of tragic pathos in the face of death. 7The facts of his life are summed up, and the features of his character are brought out as if by accident in the course of the defence. 8The conversational manner, the seeming want of arrangement, the ironical simplicity, are found to result in a perfect work of art, which is the portrait of Socrates. 9Yet some of the topics may have been actually used by Socrates; and the recollection of his very words may have rung in the ears of his disciple. 10The “Apology” of Plato may be compared generally with those speeches of Thucydides in which he has embodied his conception of the lofty character and policy of the great Pericles, and which at the same time furnish a commentary on the situation of affairs from the point of view of the historian. 11So in the “Apology” there is an ideal rather than a literal truth; much is said which was not said, and is only Plato’s view of the situation. 12Plato was not, like Xenophon, a chronicler of facts; he does not appear in any of his writings to have aimed at literal accuracy. 13He is not therefore to be supplemented from the Memorabilia and Symposium of Xenophon, who belongs to an entirely different class of writers. 14The Apology of Plato is not the report of what Socrates said, but an elaborate composition, quite as much so in fact as one of the Dialogues. 15And we may perhaps even indulge in the fancy that the actual defence of Socrates was as much greater than the Platonic defence as the master was greater than the disciple. 16But in any case, some of the words used by him must have been remembered, and some of the facts recorded must have actually occurred. 17It is significant that Plato is said to have been present at the defence (Apol.), as he is also said to have been absent at the last scene in the “Phædo”. 18Is it fanciful to suppose that he meant to give the stamp of authenticity to the one and not to the other?—especially when we consider that these two passages are the only ones in which Plato makes mention of himself. 19The circumstance that Plato was to be one of his sureties for the payment of the fine which he proposed has the appearance of truth. 20More suspicious is the statement that Socrates received the first impulse to his favourite calling of cross-examining the world from the Oracle of Delphi; for he must already have been famous before Chaerephon went to consult the Oracle (Riddell), and the story is of a kind which is very likely to have been invented. 21On the whole we arrive at the conclusion that the “Apology” is true to the character of Socrates, but we cannot show that any single sentence in it was actually spoken by him. 22It breathes the spirit of Socrates, but has been cast anew in the mould of Plato. 23There is not much in the other Dialogues which can be compared with the “Apology”. 24The same recollection of his master may have been present to the mind of Plato when depicting the sufferings of the Just in the “Republic”. 25The “Crito” may also be regarded as a sort of appendage to the “Apology”, in which Socrates, who has defied the judges, is nevertheless represented as scrupulously obedient to the laws. 26The idealization of the sufferer is carried still further in the “Georgias”, in which the thesis is maintained, that “to suffer is better than to do evil;” and the art of rhetoric is described as only useful for the purpose of self-accusation. 27The parallelisms which occur in the so-called “Apology” of Xenophon are not worth noticing, because the writing in which they are contained is manifestly spurious. 28The statements of the “Memorabilia” respecting the trial and death of Socrates agree generally with Plato; but they have lost the flavour of Socratic irony in the narrative of Xenophon. 29The “Apology” or Platonic defence of Socrates is divided into three parts: 1st. 30The defence properly so called; 2nd. 31The shorter address in mitigation of the penalty; 3rd. 32The last words of prophetic rebuke and exhortation. 33The first part commences with an apology for his colloquial style; he is, as he has always been, the enemy of rhetoric, and knows of no rhetoric but truth; he will not falsify his character by making a speech. 34Then he proceeds to divide his accusers into two classes; first, there is the nameless accuser—public opinion. 35All the world from their earliest years had heard that he was a corrupter of youth, and had seen him caricatured in the “Clouds” of Aristophanes. 36Secondly, there are the professed accusers, who are but the mouth-piece of the others. 37The accusations of both might be summed up in a formula. 38The first say, “Socrates is an evil-doer and a curious person, searching into things under the earth and above the heaven; and making the worse appear the better cause, and teaching all this to others.” 39The second, “Socrates is an evil-doer and corrupter of the youth, who does not receive the gods whom the state receives, but introduces other new divinities.” 40These last words appear to have been the actual indictment (compare Xen. 41Mem.); and the previous formula, which is a summary of public opinion, assumes the same legal style. 42The answer begins by clearing up a confusion. 43In the representations of the Comic poets, and in the opinion of the multitude, he had been identified with the teachers of physical science and with the Sophists. 44But this was an error. 45For both of them he professes a respect in the open court, which contrasts with his manner of speaking about them in other places. 46(Compare for Anaxagoras, Phædo, Laws; for the Sophists, Meno, Republic, Tim., Theaet., Soph., etc.) 47But at the same time he shows that he is not one of them. 48Of natural philosophy he knows nothing; not that he despises such pursuits, but the fact is that he is ignorant of them, and never says a word about them. 49Nor is he paid for giving instruction—that is another mistaken notion:—he has nothing to teach. 50But he commends Evenus for teaching virtue at such a “moderate” rate as five minæ. 51Something of the “accustomed irony,” which may perhaps be expected to sleep in the ear of the multitude, is lurking here. 52He then goes on to explain the reason why he is in such an evil name. 53That had arisen out of a peculiar mission which he had taken upon himself. 54The enthusiastic Chaerephon (probably in anticipation of the answer which he received) had gone to Delphi and asked the oracle if there was any man wiser than Socrates; and the answer was, that there was no man wiser. 55What could be the meaning of this—that he who knew nothing, and knew that he knew nothing, should be declared by the oracle to be the wisest of men? 56Reflecting upon the answer, he determined to refute it by finding “a wiser;” and first he went to the politicians, and then to the poets, and then to the craftsmen, but always with the same result—he found that they knew nothing, or hardly anything more than himself; and that the little advantage which in some cases they possessed was more than counter-balanced by their conceit of knowledge. 57He knew nothing, and knew that he knew nothing: they knew little or nothing, and imagined that they knew all things. 58Thus he had passed his life as a sort of missionary in detecting the pretended wisdom of mankind; and this occupation had quite absorbed him and taken him away both from public and private affairs. 59Young men of the richer sort had made a pastime of the same pursuit, “which was not unamusing.” 60And hence bitter enmities had arisen; the professors of knowledge had revenged themselves by calling him a villainous corrupter of youth, and by repeating the commonplaces about atheism and materialism and sophistry, which are the stock-accusations against all philosophers when there is nothing else to be said of them. 61The second accusation he meets by interrogating Meletus, who is present and can be interrogated. 62“If he is the corrupter, who is the improver of the citizens?” 63(Compare Meno.) 64“All men everywhere.” 65But how absurd, how contrary to analogy is this! 66How inconceivable too, that he should make the citizens worse when he has to live with them. 67This surely cannot be intentional; and if unintentional, he ought to have been instructed by Meletus, and not accused in the court. 68But there is another part of the indictment which says that he teaches men not to receive the gods whom the city receives, and has other new gods. 69“Is that the way in which he is supposed to corrupt the youth?” 70“Yes, it is.” 71“Has he only new gods, or none at all?” 72“None at all.” 73“What, not even the sun and moon?” 74“No; why, he says that the sun is a stone, and the moon earth.” 75That, replies Socrates, is the old confusion about Anaxagoras; the Athenian people are not so ignorant as to attribute to the influence of Socrates notions which have found their way into the drama, and may be learned at the theatre. 76Socrates undertakes to show that Meletus (rather unjustifiably) has been compounding a riddle in this part of the indictment: “There are no gods, but Socrates believes in the existence of the sons of gods, which is absurd.” 77Leaving Meletus, who has had enough words spent upon him, he returns to the original accusation. 78The question may be asked, Why will he persist in following a profession which leads him to death? 79Why?—because he must remain at his post where the god has placed him, as he remained at Potidaea, and Amphipolis, and Delium, where the generals placed him. 80Besides, he is not so overwise as to imagine that he knows whether death is a good or an evil; and he is certain that desertion of his duty is an evil.
1 / 8