Apology - Don Paarlberg - The Examined Life On-Line Philosophy Journal

Apology

Don Paarlberg

Introduction

The Apology is the first of Plato's dialogues that most people read. As a dramatic description of Socrates' defense before the Athenian court with his life at stake, it appeals to practically all readers. However, scholars with more experience also can profit from returning to it.

In considering this work, we can address three questions. First, historically, what happened? What were the issues at Socrates' trial? Was he tried and convicted fairly? Did he conduct his defense ably? Here, fortunately, we need not rely only on Plato's account. We also have a description of the trial by Xenophon, as well as a dramatic portrait of Socrates by Aristophanes. Considering these sources along with Plato's Apology, I conclude below that Socrates defended himself ineptly, but that the jury was so prejudiced against him that an able defense would have failed anyway.

Second, interpretively, how does Plato portray Socrates to us? I argue below that there are two inconsistent images in the Apology, with Socrates sometimes professing not to be wise, but also claiming wisdom. Xenophon supports the second alternative. I believe we can validly interpret the Apology and others of Plato's dialogues on either basis, though I subjectively prefer to believe that Socrates sincerely claimed to know nothing.

Third, philosophically, how can we decide what to do and resist injustice if we, like Socrates, do not know what is just? I believe it is the human condition that we never know what to do, but can never postpone our moral decisions. We can regard Socrates' behavior as Plato portrays it as indicating how we should rationally live our lives in this fundamental existential situation.

Plato's Apology proceeds in three long Socratic speeches. In the first, Socrates responds to his accusers and argues that he should not be convicted. In the second, following the jury's verdict against him, Socrates proposes (as Athenian law allowed) an alternative sentence in lieu of the death penalty. In the third, following the jury's decision that he should die, Socrates makes his final comments.

Below, I provide summaries of Plato's text, interspersed with comments. Following the main commentary, I provide two appendices that describe the historical background and summarize relevant works by Aristophanes and Xenophon.

Socrates' First Speech

According to both Plato and Xenophon, Meletus brought a lawsuit against Socrates, charging that he was an evil person who corrupted the youth, who did not believe in the gods that the state recognized, and who introduced other, new divinities of his own. To bring this suit, Meletus paid a 1000 drachma deposit, to be forfeited if he did not win at least one fifth of the jury's votes. Meletus spoke against Socrates at the trial, with Anytus and Lycon also supporting the prosecution. Socrates replied. Xenophon claims that some of Socrates' friends spoke in his support, but does not record their comments.

We have some background on Socrates' accusers. Plato portrays Socrates to claim in the Apology that Meletus represented the city's poets. In the Euthyphro, Socrates comments that Meletus was a young man, unknown, with a hooked nose and long straight hair. Anytus is a historical figure, one of the leaders of the democratic coup of 403 (see Appendix I). Socrates claims in the Apology that Anytus represented the politicians and professional men. In another dialogue, the Meno, Plato portrays Socrates to earn Anytus' resentment by trapping him in contradictions. Anytus expresses hatred for sophists and claims that illustrious Athenians can teach traditional values to the youth. Then, however, after Socrates trips him up in cross-examination, Anytus angrily observes that Socrates seems far too ready to run people down. Possibly referring to the same conversation, Xenophon implies in his own Apology that Socrates once suggested Anytus send his son to be educated by sophists (Appendix II). We know nothing of Lycon, the third of the speakers against Socrates.

Historical texts suggest that the Athenian jury Socrates addressed probably numbered 501 citizens. This large group constituted about 2.5% of Athens' free population. (Thus, at least many on the jury would have known Socrates for years. They may have made up their minds about him long before the trial.)

Socrates begins by distinguishing rhetoric from truth. His accusers' arguments seemed convincing but were not true. They have warned the jury that Socrates might deceive them, but Socrates has no skill as a speaker—unless skill consists in speaking the truth. Unlike his accusers, Socrates will speak the whole truth, stripped of rhetorical flourishes. (17a-18a)

Socrates identifies and distinguishes the charges against him. Anytus and his colleagues have made specific charges, which the court ostensibly is considering. In addition, Socrates also must deal with more general charges, based on longstanding rumors reflected in a play by Aristophanes. As he characterizes them, these rumors allege that Socrates (1) is a wise man, who (2) has theories about the heavens and has investigated everything below the earth, and (3) can make the weaker argument defeat the stronger. These charges are more dangerous because Socrates cannot refute them through cross-examination, and must instead argue his case against an invisible opponent. (18a-19c)

Aristophanes' play, The Clouds, has come down to us. Socrates' three-point summary accurately describes salient features of Aristophanes' negative portrait (see Appendix II).

Socrates' claim here that he cannot refute Aristophanes' portrait by cross-examination seems puzzling. Why couldn't Socrates have cross-examined Aristophanes, who was to continue producing plays in Athens for another decade?

Socrates denies he is the kind of sophist that Aristophanes portrays. He knows nothing whatever about the heavens and the earth. He means no disrespect for such knowledge, if anyone really does have it, but he has no interest in these questions. He claims there are many on the jury who know he has never spoken about such matters. (19c-d)

Socrates' bald claims here might seem weak to us, but they may have persuaded the jury. Plato's dialogues suggest, while Xenophon and Aristotle insist, that Socrates in fact did not speculate about the heavens and the earth. Xenophon cogently argues, moreover, that it was widely known in Athens that Socrates focused exclusively on moral questions. Especially if Xenophon is right, then Socrates' appeal here to the jury's experience might well have refuted Aristophanes' portrait in this respect.

Moreover, there is no truth, Socrates claims, in allegations that he tries to educate people and charges fees. He wishes it were true, noting it is a fine thing for Gorgias, Prodicus and Hippias to persuade young men to pay for the privilege of following them. Similarly, he cites the case of Callias, who has paid more in sophists' fees than anyone else. Evenus of Paros is an expert in perfecting the human and social qualities, and teaches Callias' sons for a fee of only five minas. Socrates would take pride if he, like Evenus, really were a master of this art, but in fact he is not. (19d-20c)

Here, Socrates undermines his case. If he wished to address this question of fees, he would have done better with a simple denial, perhaps appealing again to the jurors' experience. This might well have worked, since Xenophon insists it was well known that Socrates charged no fees. Instead, Socrates advances a dangerously ironic argument that appears to praise the hated sophists. Socrates should better have reserved such subtle mockery for his conversations with the sophists themselves. Here before the jury, he could with no difficulty have condemned the sophists as charlatans, or at least professed not to know if their teachings were true.

Moreover, Socrates' rebuttal of Aristophanes' portrait ends at this point, without addressing the question of whether he makes weaker arguments defeat the stronger. This is inept. It was Socrates, after all, who called the jury's attention to this allegation. Now, with this failure to venture any rebuttal, the net effect is that Socrates has bolstered his accusers' case.

Next, having addressed the general, rumored charges against him, Socrates claims that the reason for his bad reputation is that he has a kind of wisdom. This wisdom is, however, a human wisdom—not the wisdom of the aforementioned sophists, which Socrates ironically characterizes as divine. Socrates explains this human wisdom through a lengthy story concerning the god at Delphi. (20d-e)

Socrates claims that his friend Chaerephon—a good democrat, though now dead—once was told by the oracle that no one was wiser than Socrates. Socrates was puzzled. On the one hand, he knew he had no wisdom. On the other hand, the god would not be telling a lie. Socrates therefore set out to test the ocracle's pronouncement by searching for men who were wiser than he. (21a-c)

Accordingly, he conversed with a man reputed to be wise, but this man only thought he was wise when in fact he was not. Socrates concluded that he was wiser than this man, at least in that he was conscious of his ignorance whereas the man falsely thought he had knowledge. Socrates then repeated his tests with other subjects—a series of politicians, then the poets, and finally the skilled craftsmen—but obtained the same result in all cases. (21c-22e)

This activity aroused great hostility against Socrates. It also caused people mistakenly to infer, from his abilities to refute others, that he must really be wise himself. On the contrary, Socrates concluded from his experience that the Delphic oracle, in proclaiming Socrates was the wisest man, meant to tell mankind that human wisdom has little or no value. Therefore, Socrates continues serving the god's cause to this day, proving to men who believe themselves wise that they really are not. This occupation has kept him too busy to engage significantly in politics or in his own affairs, and has in fact reduced him to extreme poverty. (23a-c)

This story that Socrates' wisdom consists in knowing that he knows nothing is, of course, one of the most famous passages in the entire Platonic corpus. Most Plato scholars take this passage to mean that Socrates really did profess to know nothing. They then see this position also reflected in the questioning approach to philosophical inquiry that Plato portrays him to employ in others of the dialogues. The "theory of recollection" described in the Meno, as well as Socrates' midwifery approach to inquiry in the Theaetetus both seem to relate to the ignorance Socrates professes here in the Apology.

Two caveats are in order. First, Xenophon's Apology mentions the same testimony from Chaerephon but reports the Delphic god to have made an entirely different point, leading Xenophon's Socrates to affirm his wisdom instead of denying it. (See Appendix II) Second, as we shall see, Socrates himself subsequently claims in Plato's Apology not to be ignorant. The simple truth is, Plato's portrait of Socrates in the Apology is inconsistent with regard to the question of his professed ignorance.

It is also worth noting Socrates' claim here that he is too busy for politics. "Politics" for the Athenians was not something extraordinary that only their leaders practiced. Politics concerned the public roles and civic duties that all normal men undertook in their lives outside the household. It thus was extraordinary if philosophy's claims on Socrates' life really were so extensive as to keep him away from public meetings and other activities that he was expected to attend, and if he failed moreover to earn an adequate living.

Another reason for his unpopularity, Socrates claims, is that young people imitate him and arouse others' resentment. There are, Socrates admits, a number of young men with wealthy fathers and plenty of leisure, who enjoy listening to Socrates' conversations and who then, imitating him, go out and cross-examine others. Their victims resent this and claim that Socrates fills young people's heads with wrong ideas. Asked what Socrates' exact faults are, they have no idea and fall back on conventional wisdom reflected in Aristophanes' play, that philosophers teach people about the heavens and the earth, to disbelieve in gods, and to make the weaker argument defeat the stronger. (23c-e)

These then are the real causes, Socrates claims, of the charges against him by Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon. Meletus is aggrieved on behalf of the poets; Anytus, on behalf of the professional men and politicians. (24a-b)

"Poets" played important roles in Athenian society, equivalent roughly with the entertainment industry that produces our television, moving picture, and musical performances. They also supported public religious functions.

Next, Socrates deals with the specific charges laid against him in the trial. The first of his accusers is Meletus, who alleges that Socrates is guilty of corrupting the minds of the youth, and of believing in gods of his own invention instead of those recognized by the state. (24b-c)

Socrates claims in response that Meletus is professing concern when in fact he has never taken any interest in these matters. Cross-examining Meletus, Socrates asks who it is that influences the youth for the better. Meletus cannot answer, and Socrates claims his point is proven. Belatedly, Meletus suggests that the laws make young people good. Socrates demands in response that Meletus name a person. The members of the jury, Meletus suggests. On his slippery slope, Meletus also names, at Socrates' suggestion, the members of the Council and the whole population of Athens. Socrates argues in conclusion that Meletus' position is improbable. As is also the case for horses, it is normally just a few experts who are able to benefit subjects of training, whereas the many are incapable. Meletus absurd position shows that he has never thought about the question of who benefits the young, nor taken the slightest interest in it. (24c-25c)

Socrates here mounts an inconclusive personal attack against Meletus instead of offering an effective defense. Surely it does not persuade the jury to ridicule Meletus for falling into an apparent contradiction. Those tactics might work when Socrates debates sophists in the Agora, but they remain inconclusive as means of convincing the jury that Socrates does not corrupt the youth. It is worth noting in this connection that Xenophon's Apology also reports a cross-examination of Meletus, and that Socrates makes a more effective argument in this version. Xenophon's Socrates challenges Meletus to name anyone who been corrupted because of Socrates, forcing Meletus to withdraw his charge and fall back to a new one. (Appendix II)

Socrates then asks Meletus another series of questions, aimed at showing it is improbable that Socrates should want to corrupt the young. Is it better to live in a good community, or a bad one? Is there anyone who prefers to be harmed by his associates? Good people have good effects on their neighbors; bad people, bad effects. It is incomprehensible, then, that Socrates should intentionally spoil his companions' characters. Therefore, either his corrupting influence is unintentional, or Meletus' charge is false. If the former, Meletus should have taken Socrates aside and educated him rather than summoning him to court. In fact, Meletus has avoided Socrates' company. Therefore, it is clear that Meletus has never really cared about corrupting the youth. (25c-26b)

This is attack on Meletus is even less effective than the first. Instead of merely missing the point, this second argument seems to assert a position that most of the jurors must have found preposterous. By the time of Socrates' trial, Athenian juries had condemned thousands of culprits to death. Did Socrates mean to suggest that these criminals may not have realized that it is better to live in a good community than a bad one, etc.? Should their juries perhaps have taken these men aside for education instead of convicting them of crimes? True, we know from others of Plato's dialogues that Socrates frequently argued positions like these. However, it undermined Socrates' credibility to assert these unconventional, apparently self-serving ideas in court without the extensive justifying arguments they required.

Socrates next attacks Meletus' charges concerning the gods. Do you mean, Socrates asks, that Socrates corrupts the young by teaching them to believe in new deities instead of those recognized by the state? Meletus affirms this. If so, Socrates observes, the implication is that Socrates believes in some gods. Meletus thereupon abandons his previous position and asserts that Socrates disbelieves in gods altogether. In response, Socrates scoffs at length that Meletus apparently believes he is prosecuting Anaxagoras, before finally advancing his counter-argument. In response to Socrates' question, Meletus admits that no one believes in supernatural activities and not in supernatural beings. "Well, do you assert that I believe and teach others to believe in supernatural activities? It does not matter whether they are new of old. The fact remains that you swore I did this in your affidavit." It therefore follows, Socrates asserts, that Meletus must hold that Socrates believes in supernatural beings. (26b-28b)

This approach to the religious questions must have seemed unpersuasive to the jury. At best, Socrates argument here disproves the proposition that he believes in no gods at all. In advancing this argument, however, Socrates presupposes twice, at the beginning and again at the end, the truth of the other religious charge against him, that he believed in new deities not recognized by the state. In this case again, Socrates appears to have forgotten his venue. It might suffice out in the Agora, when arguing with sophists, to show that his interlocutor has contradicted himself. In a courtroom, it is usually a mistake to admit any of the prosecutor's allegations. Xenophon's treatment of the religious charges is much more persuasive than Plato's, simply appealing to common knowledge that Socrates exhibited thoroughly conventional religious beliefs. (Appendix II.)

Having concluded his defense against Meletus' accusations, Socrates next explains why he persists in a way of life that has aroused hostility and proven fatal to other innocent men. Socrates claims in a famous passage that, "You are mistaken, my friend, if you think that a man who is worth anything ought to spend his time weighing up the prospects of life and death. He has only one thing to consider in performing any action—that is, whether is acting rightly or wrongly, like a good man or a bad one." The situation is the same, he claims, as that for the heroes at Troy, especially Achilles. As a soldier for Athens at Potidaea, Amphipolis and Delium, Socrates followed his generals' orders and remained at his post, facing death. It would therefore be inconsistent for Socrates now to desert his post for fear of death when he believes that the gods have commanded him to lead the philosophical life, examining himself and others. In this situation, if Socrates did abandon philosophy, then justice really would require that he be summoned before the court and accused of disbelief in gods and being afraid of death. "To be afraid of death is only another form of thinking that one is wise when one is not." No one knows whether death may not be the greatest blessing for man, but people dread if as though they were certain it is the greatest evil. Thus, if Socrates is better than his fellow men in any respect, it consists in the fact that he knows he has no knowledge of what comes after death, but knows it is wicked to do wrong for fear of death. (28b-29c)

Socrates then notes Anytus' argument, that Socrates must be put to death lest the court's sons all put Socrates teachings into practice. Suppose, he says, you disregarded Anytus' view and asked me to promise, if you acquit me, to stop philosophizing. If so, Socrates replies, he would refuse the terms. He owes a greater obedience to God than to the city, and will never stop practicing philosophy. (29c-e)

Socrates' stirring rhetoric presupposes that he is right. Socrates won't desert his post, but what is his post? Evidently, this entire speech refers back to Socrates' earlier claim, at 23a-c, that God has commanded him to show other men that they are not wise. In the first place, however, this activity offends the other men. And secondly, Socrates has offered no reason beyond his own claims as to why the jury should believe that God really does command this. Socrates' argument, in short, is like that of modern-day terrorists: "God commands me to kill you."

Are you not ashamed, Socrates asks his fellow Athenians, that you attend to earning money, and to your reputations, and not to truth, understanding, and the perfection of your soul? If anyone does care for his soul, Socrates will examine such a person and reprove him if he makes no progress toward goodness. Therefore, again, Socrates will not change his conduct, whether the court acquits him or not. This comment evokes a stormy reaction, which Socrates must shout down. He then proceeds to comment further that, if Socrates is practicing philosophy in the manner he has described, it will harm the court to put Socrates to death more than it harms Socrates. God, he claims, has specially appointed him to Athens as though the city were a large, well-bred horse, and Socrates a stinging fly to goad the horse whenever it gets lazy. If you kill me, Socrates warns, you will not easily find another to take my place. Thus, Anytus' advice to the contrary, the Athenians will do themselves a favor by sparing Socrates. (30a-31a)

With this statement, Socrates shifts gears. No longer is he, in accord with the Delphic oracle story, a man who professes ignorance, whom God has commanded to show other men that they too are not wise. Socrates now is an Old Testament prophet, who knows the Athenians are wrong and has been sent by God to condemn them. Again, the Delphic oracle story represents Socrates as knowing nothing; but he claims in his gadfly speech to know when the Athenians are wrong.

This statement obviously would have offended the jury. Particularly since, as my comments show, Socrates apparently had not yet successfully refuted his accusers' charges, this gratuitous attack on the city's integrity must have swung more of the jury against him. In this connection, Xenophon's Apology claims that Socrates' adopted an arrogant tone when addressing the jury. According to Xenophon, Socrates deliberately insulted the jurors because he wanted them to order his execution.

The reason, Socrates claims, that he busies himself with the city's welfare is that he has, since his childhood, been subject to a divine experience. A sort of voice comes to him, dissuading him from he is proposing to do. It is this voice that has dissuaded Socrates from entering public life. And this is a good thing. No man who conscientiously opposes either the Athenian people or any other organized democracy, and flatly prevents wrongs and illegalities from taking places in his state, can possibly escape with his life. The true champion of justice, if he intends to survive even for a short time, must necessarily confine himself to private life and leave politics alone. (31b-32a)

Note here that it is not for fear of an early death that Socrates confines himself to the private life. Rather, his divine inner voice prevents him.

Socrates cites evidence to show that he has never submitted wrongly to any authority for fear of death. Once, when Athens was under democratic rule, Socrates was serving on the Council's executive committee and the city voted to bring to trial ten commanders who failed to rescue the victims of a naval engagement, Socrates was the only person in the executive who voted against this unconstitutional action. Next, when the oligarchic Thirty came to power, they once summoned Socrates and four others to go and fetch Leon of Salamis from his home for execution. Socrates opposed this wicked action. His four colleagues afterwards did go and arrest Leon, but Socrates refused to participate and went home instead. (32a-e)

Xenophon's Memoirs repeats both of these incidents, agreeing with Plato as to Socrates' behavior.

Throughout Socrates' life, he has been consistent in his public duties, opposing unjust actions. He has never set himself up as anyone's teacher, nor charged fees. Rather, he gladly converses with rich and poor alike. If any of those that he talks with becomes a good or a bad citizen, Socrates cannot fairly be held responsible because he has never promised or imparted any teaching to anyone. (32e-33e)

Finally, Socrates names those in the courtroom that he has associated with, challenging them or their families to claim that he has corrupted them, or given bad advice. Here, he mentions Crito, his neighbor and father to Critobulus; Lysanias, also father to Aeschines; Antiphon, also father to Epigenes; Nicostratus, who also is brother to Theodotus (who is dead); Paralus, also brother to Demodocus; Adimantus, also brother to Plato; and Aeantodorus, also brother to Apollodorus. (33e-34b)

In conclusion, Socrates notes that some members of the jury may be surprised that he has not begged for mercy, as those pleading for their lives customarily do. The reason is not perversity, nor contempt for the court. Rather, it is not right to do this, in light of Socrates' age and reputation, which distinguish him from the common run of mankind. Moreover, it is not right for a man to get himself acquitted through such means. The jury does not dispense justice as a favor, but decides in light of facts and argument. (34b-35e)

Socrates' Second Speech

Socrates claims, when the jury returns a verdict of guilty, that he is not distressed. He is surprised, rather, to have enjoyed as much support as he did, noting that with a swing of only thirty votes he might have been acquitted. He speculates further that, if Anytus and Lycon had not supported Meletus' suit, then Meletus might have forfeited his one thousand drachma deposit for failing to obtain one-fifth of the jury's votes. (35e-36b)

Socrates' statement here seems fatuous and self-serving. If he truly thought that Anytus and Lycon had persuaded the jury more effectively than Meletus, why didn't he demand to cross-examine them?

Since Meletus has demanded the death penalty, it now is Socrates' right to propose an alternate penalty. The only service he can perform, Socrates claims, is to persuade people to be good. To enable himself to do this, Socrates proposes that [as his penalty], he should be granted free maintenance by the state. Again, convinced that he does no wrong to anybody, Socrates cannot be expected at this juncture, he claims, to wrong himself by suggesting that he deserves something bad. Why should he? Not for fear of death, since he does not know whether death is good or bad. Similarly, prison would be pointless; and Socrates is too poor to pay a fine. In conclusion, Socrates explains why he cannot, as some in the court may suppose, simply spend the rest of his life minding his own business. Again, he insists that this would be disobedience to God. (36b-37e)

Again, Socrates claims to be doing what God commands. Therefore, he cannot believe he is wrong. Therefore, he cannot propose an alternate penalty that would really punish him. The conclusions follow logically from the premise; but it is a fanatic's premise, not a philosopher's.

Though he recognizes the jury may disbelieve him, Socrates claims that the best thing a man can do is to let no day pass without discussing goodness, and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living. (38a)

We customarily interpret this statement to recommend a life of humble philosophical inquiry. Out of context, such interpretation is valid. It is worth repeating, however, that the philosophical life championed in the Apology is much less benign, requiring Socrates by divine command to show other people that they are stupid and reprove them their sins.

If he had money, Socrates concludes, he would have proposed a fine that he could afford. At this point, he does finally suggest that he possibly might pay a mina. Immediately afterwards, he announces that Plato, Crito, Critobulus and Apollodorus have urged him to promise thirty minas, on their security, and he does so. (38a-c)

This final point is curious in two ways. First, it is worth noting how Socrates has hemmed and hawed at such length before finally offering to pay a fine. The offer appears to contradict his earlier assertions that, having done no wrong, he should not suffer any punishment. Are we to infer that he lost his nerve at the last minute and decided after all to escape death by proposing a genuine penalty?

Second and more important, we can calculate the value of Plato's thirty mina offer. According to Will Durant, a mina equaled one hundred drachmas, and a drachma was the normal price for one bushel of grain (The Life of Greece, p274). A bushel of wheat currently sells for about $3. Therefore, Plato's thirty mina offer would have been worth about $9,000 today. However, Plato and the other friends present at the trial were Athens' rich aristocrats. The jury could reasonably have expected them to offer a good deal more than $9,000 to save Socrates' life. Why didn't they? This question leads to an interesting speculation.

Possibly, Athens' ruling democratic faction intended from the first to threaten Socrates with death in hopes that his rich friends would offer the state a handsome financial penalty as an alternative. Socrates trial, in other words, might have been an extortion scheme. This is not as bizarre as it might seem. Apparently, political figures routinely threatened rich men in court to obtain revenues for the Athenian state, or out-of-court settlements for themselves. (Xenophon's Memoirs portrays Socrates' best friend, Crito, to complain at one point that "some people are bringing action against me, not because they have any grievances, but because they believe I would rather pay than have trouble." Socrates solves the problem by advising Crito to befriend a poverty-stricken rhetorician, who then files counter-suits against Crito's enemies and effectively discourages their behavior.)

If Anytus and Meletus indeed brought Socrates to trial in order to raise funds for the democrats, then Plato and the other rich friends might have adopted a two-step strategy to thwart this scheme. First, when the time finally came to offer the financial penalty, they might have resolved to call the democrats' bluff, offering only a small sum and hoping the jury would desist from their extortion out of shame to kill an eccentric old man. Then, second, if the democrats made good their threat and sentenced Socrates to death, Plato and his friends might have intended to bribe Socrates' jailers and secure his escape. Better the individual jailers get our money than the government, they might have reasoned. As we see in Plato's Crito, Socrates' friends did indeed visit him in prison, proposing to arrange his escape to a comfortable exile. Socrates rejected this offer, however.

This line of speculation may explain why Plato and his friends offered such a small sum when the time came in Socrates trial to name an alternate penalty. This speculation also suggests Socrates and his supporters may have approached the trial fatalistically, knowing in advance that the democrats were determined to convict him. This in turn might help explain why Socrates, as described in both Plato's and Xenophon's accounts, did such a poor job of defending himself.

Socrates' Third Speech

Upon hearing the death sentence, Socrates comments that history will condemn Athens for this decision, whereas Socrates might have died naturally if the city had only waited a little bit longer. Some might think, Socrates contends, that he has been condemned for his refusal to weep and wail, before the jury. He would much rather, he claims, die as a result of the defense he did make.. Soldiers can escape by giving up their arms and appealing to their pursuers' mercy. However, the real problem is not to escape death but to escape from doing wrong. Vengeance, he prophesies, will fall upon those who condemned him. (38c-39e)

These comments repeat the stirring rhetoric of Socrates' second speech, and like it, presuppose that he is right.

To those who voted for his acquittal, Socrates confides that his divine sign has not this day, since the time that he arose, dissuaded him from any statement, whereas it frequently chokes him off in mid-sentence. Therefore, he suspects that what is happening to him may be a blessing. (40a-c)

Death, Socrates says, is either annihilation or it is a migration of the soul from this place to another. If death is like a dreamless slumber, then Socrates regards it as gain because it transforms the whole of time into a single night. If our souls migrate upon death and are truly judged, this is wonderful since it will enable Socrates to spend his time examining and searching people's minds in the afterlife. Socrates' jury supporters too must look forward to death with confidence, he claims, certain in belief that nothing can harm a good man either in life or after death, and that one's fortunes are not matters of indifference to the gods. For his own part, Socrates is quite clear that the time has come when it is better for him to die and be released from earthly distractions: that is the reason that his divine sign has not dissuaded him. (40c-41e)

Here, Plato echoes Xenophon's contention that Socrates wanted to die. Xenophon claims Socrates adopted this attitude from the first, and therefore deliberately offended the jury to ensure his condemnation. Plato's treatment here might confirm that interpretation, but it also allows the possibility that Socrates originally hoped to win acquittal and only resigned himself to death at the end.

In conclusion, Socrates claims he bears no grudge to anyone. He asks only that, if his sons grow up and start putting money or anything else ahead of goodness, then Athens should take its revenge by plaguing them as Socrates has plagued the city. Now we part, Socrates says, I to die and you to live, but only God knows which of us has the happier prospect. (41e-42a)

Conclusions

Historically, it seems clear that Socrates, one way or another, botched his defense. There are uncertainties. Plato's and Xenophon's accounts disagree. Our evidence remains incomplete, omitting reports as to what the accusers said. Nonetheless, Plato's Socrates clearly makes weak arguments, avoiding key issues and undercutting his own credibility. Xenophon's Socrates, while making stronger arguments, offends the jury with his arrogance. Xenophon claims, and Plato hints, that Socrates wanted the court to condemn him.

On the other hand, democratic Athens and the jurors probably had made up their mind before the trial to convict Socrates, so that even a cogent and persuasive defense might have failed. Aristophanes' play appeared nearly twenty-five years before the trial, so that the jurors had plenty of time to see, from Socrates actual behavior, that its portrait was inaccurate. If, despite this evidence, the jurors walked into the courtroom giving credence to Aristophanes' portrait, it seems unlikely that Socrates could have presented any evidence, argument, or rhetorical appeal to change their minds. Moreover, as I have argued, it seems at least possible that Athens' democrats put Socrates on trial for the purpose of extorting a financial penalty from his rich friends.

Interpretively, we can see that Plato presents two inconsistent images of Socrates. In the Apology, Socrates both knows nothing (in reaction to the Delphic oracle story) and knows that the Athenians are immoral (in his gadfly comments). Xenophon's portrait of Socrates supports the second alternative. It is not easy to see how one might reconcile these two images. Both interpretations seem viable to me. Thus, Socrates' professions of ignorance might have been an ironic pose, adopted for instructional and rhetorical reasons. I support the "knows nothing" image, but believe this preference is subjective.

Plato's portraits of Socrates in his other dialogues appear to diverge, moreover, from those in the Apology. The difference is Socrates' emphasis in the Apology on divine command, and his tone of defiance and condemnation. Socrates in Plato's other dialogues appears to inquire as to the nature of friendship, bravery and justice, etc., out of intellectual curiosity—not because God has commanded him to refute others' views. Though he sometimes argues passionately, Socrates in these other dialogues does not ridicule and reprove his interlocutors.

Philosophically, we might find many problems in the Apology, but it seems appropriate to focus as Socrates did on how we should live our lives. In particular, if we do indeed know nothing, is it possible to make morally correct choices and resist unjust actions? Those who accept their society's conventional norms have no decisions to make. Those who seek the complete knowledge that Socrates calls "divine wisdom" (20e) will impossibly need to delay deciding what to do until they have found upon reflection, for example, whether Kant's categorical imperative or Mill's utilitarianism should determine their behavior. However, we cannot postpone our decisions. We have to decide even though we do not yet know. This inescapable circumstance is the human condition, where Socrates' "human wisdom" is to be prized.

Without "divinely" constructing an ethical system to deal with this existential problem, I believe we can regard Socrates' behavior, as described in Plato's dialogues, as roughly suggesting how we should rationally comport ourselves. As Socrates evidently did, we make our decisions and do our best, obeying superiors and observing conventions when this seems to make sense, resisting when it doesn't, while constantly examining ourselves in conversation with our fellows and learning how to behave better in the future. We can fairly regard this as the meaning of Socrates comment at the end of the Apology (out of context or not) that the unexamined life is not worth living. On this view of mine, decision and examination are twin poles of the philosophical life.

Appendix II:

Aristophanes and Xenophon

Aristophanes was nearly twenty years older than Plato; Xenophon, Plato's age exactly. Both were conservative in their politics, like Plato. Both knew Socrates personally; Xenophon, as a student. They described radically differing portraits of Socrates, however; and both portraits differed from Plato's.

* * *

Aristophanes' play, The Clouds, appeared in 423 BC, early in his career. Like his other works, it is a broad comedy, practically slapstick, poking fun at contemporary personalities and issues. As the following summary shows, however, it portrayed Socrates as a scurrilous sophist.

As Aristophanes' play opens, a father named Strepsiades fears lawsuits if he fails to pay the debts of his son Pheidippides. He decides to enroll in a school run by Socrates and his associate Chaerephon, where they teach a "Wrong Logic" whereby one can speak unjustly in court and prevail. Visiting the school, Strepsiades sees the students discussing various frivolities, such as Socrates' recent determination that gnats' humming sounds do not come from their mouths as songs, but from their other ends as farts. Socrates is suspended from the ceiling in a basket where he contemplates the sun and infuses his subtle spirit with kindred air. In conversation, Socrates reveals to Strepsiades that Zeus is not a god. Rather, the clouds are divine; and they specially protect sophists, quacks and astrologers. Strepsiades promises the payment Socrates requires and Socrates tries to teach him how to shirk his debts, but fails because Strepsiades is too stupid. Strepsiades then prevails upon his son, Pheidippides, to learn from Socrates in his stead. Returning to the school, they see Socrates stage a debate between Right Logic and Wrong Logic (which actually are distinguished by the ends they seek rather than the validities of their arguments, with Wrong Logic dedicated to questioning established rules and laws.) Wrong Logic handily wins the debate, showing that it is impossible to condemn adultery because everyone does it, beginning with Zeus himself. Socrates then teaches Pheidippides to be a sophist.

Back at home, Strepsiades rebuffs his creditors with lies, denying his debts. "You swore by the gods to pay," they complain. "The gods indeed! What gods?" Strepsiades responds. In the next scene, however, we find Pheidippides beating his father. Strepsiades protests; but Pheidippides argues in response that if loving fathers beat sons for their own good, then to love means to strike and loving sons should beat their fathers. Strepsiades thus belatedly sees the danger of sophism. He urges his son to join him in destroying Socrates and Chaerephon; but Pheidippides refuses, denying the existence of Zeus and claiming that Vortex reigns. Seeing he must act himself, Strepsiades then asks the gods whether to plague Socrates with a lawsuit, but Hermes tells him to set Socrates' house on fire instead. This, he proceeds to do, and the play concludes with Socrates' and Chaerephon's cries that they will burn to death. "Strike, smite them, spare them not, for many reasons," cries Strepsiades, "but most because they have blasphemed against the gods."

The humor of Aristophanes' play is obvious. Nonetheless, Athens' people did not entirely dismiss it as a joke. Nearly a quarter century passed between the play's appearance and Socrates' trial. Over that lengthy period, Athens' people regularly observed Socrates' behavior—ample time to notice, if they would, that Aristophanes portrait was unfair. Evidently, however, a large number of the jurors remained convinced by the time of the trial that Aristophanes was right.

Thus, insofar as we may believe the virtuous image of Socrates that Plato conveys to us, we must also attribute a fearful, prejudicial conservatism to the Athenians. Moreover, if Athens' people really did believe Aristophanes' damning portrait of Socrates, we can estimate what cogent logic and brilliant rhetoric would have been required to acquit him—far better arguments, evidently, than the Socratic speeches that Plato's Apology records.

* * *

George Babbitt worshipped Jesus Christ as the greatest salesman of all time. Xenophon saw in Socrates a powerful exponent of his own complacent morality. Xenophon supported the same conventional norms that Aristophanes defended, but his own image of Socrates, as defending those same norms, caused Xenophon to insist that Socrates' trial was a travesty of justice.

Moreover, Xenophon's Socrates did not, like Plato's, wrestle with difficult definitions and conclude his conversations trapped in aporia. Rather, he was a great prototypical Dear Abby, who knew better than anyone else how to make his friends' lives better, and was forever dispensing persuasive, level-headed advice on problems of friendship, honesty, self-discipline, and piety. Like Plato's Socrates, Xenophon's addressed his friends in a colloquial question-and-answer style. However, he obviously adopted this method to make his advice more persuasive, rather than to reflect any genuine uncertainty.

Consistently with this view of Socrates, Xenophon's Apology also mentions the scene described by Plato, where Chaerephon learns the Delphic oracle's assessment of Socrates. The point is entirely different, however. Wisdom is not mentioned, so the story does not lead on to Plato's paradoxical ruminations about knowing that one knows nothing. Rather, Xenophon's oracle says that Socrates is "the most free, upright, and prudent of all people." And, far from doubting this pronouncement, Xenophon's Socrates undertakes extensively to persuade the jury that he does indeed "far outshine the rest of mankind" in these qualities.

A prolific writer, Xenophon authored many works, including four that concerned Socrates. These are a short Apology, which provides Xenophon's account of the trial; a fairly lengthy Memoirs that collects Xenophon's memories of Socrates; a Symposium-like dialogue named The Dinner Party; and a dialogue on household economics that we call The Estate Manager.

Xenophon was not present at Socrates' trial. He had left Athens in 401 to participate in a Spartan-led army of mercenaries fighting in a power struggle between the Persian emperor and his brother. Before he returned, Athens exiled him in 399, apparently for his Spartan sympathies and possibly for association with The Thirty, Athens' oligarchic regime of 404-3. He subsequently fought for Sparta against Athens and then lived in Sparta until 365, when he returned to Athens after his exile was repealed in 368.

Although he did not witness the trial, Xenophon claims in his Apology to have learned what happened from one of Socrates' associates, named Hermogenes. Xenophon claims that, before the trial, Socrates told Hermogenes that he had decided he wanted the court to condemn him to death. Socrates' divine inner voice had prevented him from preparing for the trial; and Socrates decided, upon reflection that death for him was now preferable to life. As Socrates explained to Hermogenes, he prided himself in the knowledge that he had lived his whole life respecting the gods and acting morally toward men. Now, however, he faced the penalties of old age—impaired vision and hearing, as well as forgetfulness. The chance of execution by the state thus offered him an easy death at the right time, which he welcomed. Thus, to provoke conviction, Socrates deliberately took an arrogant tone before the jury.

Xenophon describes the arguments Socrates used to deal with the charges against him. Socrates flatly denied the allegation that he did not recognize the state's gods and introduced new deities of his own. Numerous eyewitnesses could testify, Socrates claimed, that he sacrificed to the gods at communal festivals. Moreover, Socrates claimed that his "divine inner voice" was akin to popular beliefs that bird-calls announced divine messages. (Xenophon's Memoirs continue this argument, stressing Socrates' regular reliance on divination.) Xenophon reports that this defense caused an uproar among the jurors. Some disbelieved that an inner voice spoke to Socrates; others were jealous that the gods evidently conversed more with Socrates than with them.

Next, Xenophon's Socrates reported that Chaerephon once inquired about Socrates to Apollo at Delphi. Apollo replied that Socrates was "the most free, upright and prudent of all people." This report caused an uproar in the jury, Xenophon claims, so Socrates proceeded to explain. Apollo meant to say, Socrates claims, that he "by far outshone the rest of mankind." Socrates then advanced evidence to the jury to prove this proposition. Do you know, he asked the jurors, of anyone who is less a slave to bodily desires than I? Do you know anyone more upright, more wise, or more virtuous? Doesn't it therefore follow, Socrates concludes, that he deserves congratulations from gods and men alike?

Next, Socrates dealt with the charge that he corrupted the youth, cross-examining Meletus. Do you know of anyone, he asks, who has stopped worshipping the gods because of me, or is arrogant, extravagant, intemperate, or has given into any base indulgence because of me? According to Xenophon, Meletus admitted that his corruption charge was wrong, but claimed that he did know of some whom Socrates has persuaded to listen to him rather than to their parents. Socrates admitted the truth of this latter allegation, but explained that he was after all a teacher and an expert in education. When their health is at stake, people listen to doctors rather than their parents. In politics, Athenians support the best speakers rather than their relatives. On Xenophon's account, Meletus apparently had no response.

Xenophon adds that Socrates did not believe that he should beg to be allowed to live, but indeed thought that the time had come for him to die. Therefore, when the verdict went against him, he refused to propose a counter-penalty and forbade his friends to do so either. Later, when his friends wanted to get him secretly away, he refused to go.

Led away to prison after the trial, Socrates remained completely cheerful. He told saddened friends that he might regret to die while blessings were still pouring in upon him. As it was, however, he was being released from life when troubles were in store for him. Therefore, all should have been glad of his good fortune.

Xenophon adds an explanation for Anytus' anger with Socrates. Years before, Socrates had noticed Anytus' potential for high office and therefore advised Anytus that he shouldn't educate his son in a tannery. Tanning was the family business, where we may assume a democrat like Anytus may himself have been educated. In any case, Socrates' remark seems to imply that Anytus' son needed a liberal education appropriate for aristocrats—i.e., as was offered by the sophists—rather than technical and commercial instructions from his father.

At the conclusion of his narrative, Xenophon reports Socrates to have prophesied that Anytus' son would come to a bad end. This, Xenophon claims, did indeed transpire. The boy became an alcoholic, worthless to his country, his friends, and himself.

[Scroll up to your previous position in the article]

Don Paarlberg is a Foreign ServiceOfficer, currently assigned to the State Department's Bureau ofIntelligence and Research. He has a 1971 MA in Philosophy.

To discuss this article, go here.

To submit a rebuttal to this article, go here.

The Examined Life On-Line Philosophy Journal