Plato 9.1 Socrates on Trial
Socrates stands before us in Plato’s portrayal, The Apology of Socrates, defending himself against the charges levelled against him by his accusers. More a monologue than a dialogue, more a report than a speech, more an exhortation than a defense, it allows us to see Socrates as he was at the time of his trial in 399 BC.
He speaks last, in response to the accusation of his official accuser, Meletus, and the latter’s two supporters, Lycon and Anytus. “How you, citizens of Athens,” he begins, “have been affected by my accusers I have no idea. But as for me, I was almost carried away, so convincingly did they speak. Yet not one word of truth, if I may say so, have they uttered. Of all their lies, the most outrageous was their warning you not to be fooled by my expert speaking ability. That strikes me as the most brazen falsehood of all, as if they’re not afraid to be refuted by the facts as soon as I open my mouth and show how awkward I am at public speaking — unless by ‘expert speaking ability’ they mean telling the truth. If that’s what they mean, well, I would admit to being a speaker quite unlike them.”[1]
“These men,” he continues, referring to his accusers, “have said little or nothing true. But you’ll hear from me the whole truth and nothing but the truth — not, by Zeus, in fancy language like theirs . . . decked out with polished words and phrases. No, you’ll hear me speaking off the cuff with whatever words come to mind — because I’m relying on the truth of my message — so don’t you expect anything else.”[2]
Socrates begins his defense by making a distinction between his “original accusers” and his “later accusers.” For he has been the object of slander and libel for many years before his trial. The original accusers are legion, although chief among them is the comic poet Aristophanes, who made him an object of scorn in his drama The Clouds, which has occasioned much criticism of him. According to the slander, “There is this guy named Socrates, a wise man, who studies things above the earth and under the earth and makes the weaker argument the stronger.” According to the malicious gossip, which has been circulating since the play, Socrates is swindler and a fraud passing himself off as a wise man.[3]
In effect, his critics see him as both a natural philosopher (studying things above the earth and under the earth) and a sophist (making the weaker argument the stronger). Socrates is quick to point out that he has no quarrel with either group of intellectuals — “if anyone is wise in these things,” he adds, hinting at his own reservations. He calls on the people who know him at the trial, including a significant contingent of his own followers, to speak up if anyone has ever heard him speaking about natural philosophy or how to win arguments. Silence. He does not claim expertise in these areas, nor does he charge fees to teach students.[4]
But, you ask, how did I get my reputation as a wise man? Socrates claims only a modest kind of human wisdom. To support his claim, he calls to witness the god of Delphi. Apollo, whom Socrates never mentions by name, has spoken in Socrates’ favor. Socrates’ friend, Chaerephon, went to Delphi to consult the oracle. He had the effrontery to ask if anyone was wiser than Socrates, and received a negative answer. Chaerephon, who was a prominent democrat who went into exile and fought against the Thirty, is now deceased, but his brother, presumably Chaerecrates, also a follower of Socrates, can verify the story, perhaps in a sworn affidavit.[5]
At this point, Socrates asks what the god could possibly mean. Socrates does not pretend to any special knowledge. It might seem impious to question a god, but the Oracle at Delphi was famous for making ambiguous and sometimes potentially misleading statements. Socrates set out, he reports, to find a person more wise than himself as a test case. He went first to the politicians, but he was disappointed with their levels of knowledge. He went to the poets, but found that they seemed to compose by some kind of inspiration, but often could not speak intelligently about their own compositions. He finally went among the craftsmen, who were often knowledgeable about their own area of expertise, but because of that assumed they were knowledgeable about other fields as well, when they clearly were not.
Socrates concluded, in the end, that he had one small advantage over other supposed experts in that he was aware of his own limitations. Socrates’ wisdom apparently consisted in recognizing his own ignorance rather than in his universal knowledge.[6]
Having addressed the slanders of the people about his being a natural philosopher and a sophist, he now turns to the accusations made by his accusers. First, he is accused of corrupting the youth. Some young men follow him around and imitate him in asking probing questions of people. He calls up Meletus, his main accuser. Who is there who makes the young people better? he asks. The members of the jury. What about the five hundred members of the Council? They too. And the six thousand members of the Assembly? They benefit the youth also. What about horses? Does every human make horses better and more obedient, or is it only skilled horse trainers? Do you really want to say that everyone in Athens benefits except for one man, Socrates, who harms them?
As to the second charge, that Socrates does not believe in the gods of the city, do you, Meletus, say that I do not believe the sun and the moon are gods. You say the sun is a stone and the moon is earthy. That is what Anaxagoras says, Socrates replies, the famous natural philosopher. Are you saying that I don’t believe in any gods at all? That is what I say.
But the indictment says that Socrates introduces new gods. So now you are contradicting what you said in the indictment? If I believe in gods, or any divine beings, do I not believe in something divine?
Socrates makes short work of Meletus. The accuser has not thought clearly about who benefits the youth and who harms them, and how and why. He has not thought clearly about whether Socrates is an atheist or a religious reformer. He seems to be ignorant of Socrates’ views on education, on theology, and on religion.
Socrates might have told the jury what he did believe about the gods and about educating the youth. He hints about these things in his defense. But he never shares his credo or his educational philosophy, rather depending on the ability to refute false beliefs that serves him so well in his philosophical conversations.
[1].Plato Apology 17a-b.
[2].Plato Apology 17b-c.
[3].Plato Apology 18a-19c.
[4].Plato Apology 19c-20c.
[5].See Graham and Barney 2016.
[6].Plato Apology 21b-23b.
