Apology (Plato)

Socrates begins his legal defence by telling the jury that their minds were poisoned by his enemies when they (the jury) were young and impressionable. He also says that his false reputation as a sophistical philosopher comes from his enemies and that all of them are malicious, yet must remain nameless — except for the playwright Aristophanes, who lampooned him (Socrates) as a charlatan-philosopher in the comedy play The Clouds (423 BC). About corrupting the rich, young men of Athens, Socrates argues that deliberate corruption is an illogical action because it would hurt him, as well. He says that the accusations of him being a corrupter of youth began at the time of his obedience to the Oracle at Delphi, and tells how Chaerephon went to the Oracle, to ask her, the Pythian prophetess, if there was a man wiser than Socrates.[12] When Chaerephon reported to him that the Oracle said there is no wiser man, Socrates interpreted that divine report as a riddle — because he was aware of possessing no wisdom "great or small", and that lying is not in the nature of the gods.

The wisest man

Socrates then sought to solve the divine paradox — how an ignorant man also could be the wisest of all men — in effort to illuminate the meaning of the Oracles' categorical statement that he is the wisest man in the land. After systematically interrogating the politicians, the poets, and the craftsmen, Socrates determined that the politicians were not wise like he was. He says of himself, in reference to a politician: "I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not."(21d).[13] Socrates says that the poets did not understand their poetry; that the prophets and seers did not understand what they said; and that the craftsmen while knowing many things, thought they also had much knowledge on things of which they had none. In that light, Socrates saw himself as a spokesman for the Oracle at Delphi (22e). He asked himself if he would rather be an impostor, like the "wise people" he interrogated, or if he would rather be himself, Socrates of Athens. Socrates tells the jury that he would rather be himself than be anyone else. He says that in searching for a man wiser than himself, he came to be regarded as a social gadfly and acquired a bad reputation among Athens' politically powerful personages.

Corrupter of youth

Having addressed the social prejudices against him, Socrates addresses the first accusation — the moral corruption of Athenian youth — by accusing his accuser, Meletus, of being indifferent to the persons and things about which he professes to care. Whilst interrogating Meletus, Socrates says that no one would intentionally corrupt another person — because the corrupter later stands to be harmed in vengeance by the corrupted person. The matter of moral corruption is important for two reasons: (i) the accusation is that Socrates corrupted the rich, young men of Athens by teaching atheism; (ii) that if he is convicted of corruption, it will be because the playwright Aristophanes already had corrupted the minds of his audience, when they were young, by lampooning Socrates as the "Sophistical philosopher" in The Clouds, a comic play produced about twenty-four years earlier.

Atheist

Socrates then addresses the second accusation — asebeia (impiety) against the pantheon of Athens — by which Meletus says that Socrates is an atheist. In cross-examination, Socrates leads Meletus to contradict himself: that Socrates is an atheist who also believes in spiritual agencies and demigods. Socrates tells the judges that Meletus has contradicted himself and then asks if Meletus has designed a test of intelligence for identifying logical contradictions.

On death

Socrates proceeds to say that people who fear death are showing their ignorance, because death might be a good thing, yet people fear it as if it is evil; even though they cannot know whether it is good or evil. Socrates says that his wisdom is in being aware that he is ignorant on this, and other topics. [13]

Precedence of authority

Regarding a citizen's obedience to authority, Socrates says that a lawful authority, either human or divine, should always be obeyed. In a conflict of obedience to such authorities, he thinks that obeying divine authority supersedes obeying human authority: "Gentlemen, I am your grateful and devoted servant, but I owe a greater obedience to the [Delphic] god than to you; and, as long as I draw breath and have my faculties, I shall never stop practising philosophy"(29d). As a spokesman for the Oracle at Delphi, he is to spur the Athenians to greater awareness of ethics and moral conduct and always shall question and argue. Therefore, the philosopher Socrates of Athens asks his fellow citizens: "Are you not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honour, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding, and the perfection of your soul?"(29e)

Provocateur

Granting no concession to his precarious legal situation, Socrates speaks emotionally and provocatively to the court and says that the greatest good to occur upon Athens is his moral concern for them as fellow citizens. He thinks that material wealth is a consequence of goodness; that the god does not permit a better man to be harmed by a lesser man; and that he is the social gadfly required by Athens: "All day long, I will never cease to settle here, there, and everywhere — rousing, persuading, and reproving every one of you." In support of the moral mission assigned him by the Oracle at Delphi, Socrates tells the court that his daimonion continually forbids him to act unethically (implicitly validating Meletus' accusation that Socrates believes in novel deities not of the Athenian pantheon).

Socrates says he never was a paid teacher; therefore, he is not responsible for the corruption of any Athenian citizen. If he had corrupted anyone, he asks: why have they not come forward to bear witnesses? If the corrupted Athenians are ignorant of having been corrupted, then why have their families not spoken on their behalf? Socrates indicates, in point of fact, relatives of the Athenian youth he supposedly corrupted are present in court, giving him moral support.

Socrates concludes his legal defence by reminding the judges that he shall not resort to emotive tricks and arguments, shall not cry in public regret, and that his three sons will not appear in court to pathetically sway the judges. Socrates says he is not afraid of death and shall not act contrary to religious duty. He says he will rely solely upon sound argument and truth to present his case at trial.

Rhetoric

In Plato's version of the trial, Socrates mocks oratory as a deceitful rhetorical practice designed to lead jurors away from the truth. Some scholarship, however, views this mockery only as a critique of narrow views of rhetoric-as-speechmaking and, in turn, sees the whole trial as an implicit depiction of a more expansive view of rhetoric that unfolds over the course of a lifetime.[14]

The jurors of the trial voted the guilt of Socrates by a relatively narrow margin(36a). In the Apology of Socrates, Plato cites no total numbers of votes condemning or acquitting the philosopher of the accusations of moral corruption and impiety;[15][16] Socrates says that he would have been acquitted if thirty more jurors had voted in his favour.[16] This would likely mean that if the court were composed of 500 people then 280 voted against Socrates and 220 voted in his favor. This would make the margin about 12 percent.[17] In such cases — where the penalty of death might arise as a legal sanction for the accusations is presented — Athenian law required that the prosecutor and the defendant each propose an administrative penalty to punish the actions reported in the accusations.

Socrates antagonises the court by proposing, rather than a penalty, a reward — perpetual maintenance at public expense. He notes that the vote of judgement against him was close. In that vein, Socrates then engages in dark humour, suggesting that Meletus narrowly escaped a great fine for not meeting the statutory requirement of receiving one-fifth of the votes of the assembled judges in favour of his accusations against Socrates. In that way, Socrates published the financial consequence for Meletus to consider as a plaintiff in a lawsuit — because the Athenian legal system discouraged frivolous lawsuits by imposing a financially onerous fine upon the plaintiff if the vote of the judges was less than one-fifth of the number of judges required by the type of lawsuit.

As punishment for the two accusations formally presented against him at trial, Socrates proposed to the court that he be treated as a benefactor to the city of Athens; that he should be given free meals, in perpetuity, at the Prytaneum, the public dining hall of Athens. Receiving such public largesse is an honour reserved for Olympic athletes, prominent citizens, and benefactors of Athens, as a city and as a state.

Finally, after the court dismisses the proposed reward — free meals at the Prytaneum — Socrates considers imprisonment and banishment, before settling upon a punishment fine of 100 drachmae. Despite his poverty, this was a minor punishment compared to the death penalty proposed by the prosecutors, and encouraged by the judges of the trial. His supporters, Plato, Crito, Critobulus, and Apollodorus offered even more money to pay as a fine – 3,000 drachmae (thirty minae);[18] nonetheless, to the judges of the trial of Socrates, a pecuniary fine was insufficient punishment.

In the Trial of Socrates, the judgement of the court was death for Socrates; most of the jurors voted for the death penalty (Apology 38c), yet Plato provides no jury-vote numbers in the text of the Apology of Socrates; but Diogenes Laërtius reports that 280 jurors voted for the death penalty and 220 jurors voted for a pecuniary fine for Socrates (2.42).[19] Moreover, the politically provocative language and irreverent tone of Socrates's self-defence speech angered the jurors and invited their punishment of him.[20]

Socrates responds to the death-penalty verdict by first addressing the jurors who voted for his death. He says that instead of waiting a short time for him to die from old age, they will now have to accept the harsh criticisms from his supporters. He prophesied that his death will cause the youngsters to come forward and replace him as a social gadfly, spurring ethical conduct from the citizens of Athens, in a manner more vexing than him(39d).

To the jurors who voted to acquit him, Socrates gives encouragement: his supernatural daimonion did not interfere with his conduct of the legal defence, which he viewed as a sign that such a defence was the correct action. In that way, the daimonion communicated to Socrates that death might be a good thing; either death is annihilation (release from earthly worry) and not to be feared, or death is migration to a higher plane of existence in which reside the souls of personages and heroes, such as Hesiod and Homer and Odysseus.

Socrates concludes his self-defence by saying to the court that he bears no ill-will, neither towards his accusers — Lycon, Anytus, and Meletus — nor the jurors. He then asks the Athenians to correct his three sons if they value material wealth more than living virtuously, or if they become too prideful; and in doing that, justice will finally be served.

• Brickhouse, Thomas C.; Smith, Nicholas D. (1990). Socrates on Trial. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-823938-3.
• Hammond, Scullard H. H. (1966). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Seventh Printing ed.). Oxford.