Plato’s The Apology
(Com plete Notes)
Section 1: 17a - 18a
NOTE: There are no breaks in The Apology as Plato wrote it. These notes on the text
were made later, with sections beginning or breaking off where a new theme or topic is
introduced or dropped. Sections in this guide are demarcated according to
the Stephanus numbers (the page numbers from the complete works of Plato edited by
Henri Estienne—"Stephanus"—in Latin) published in 1578). For Plato's works,
the Stephanus numbers are the standard page references, and most editions of Plato's
work contain the Stephanus numbers along the margins.
Sum m ar y
Socrates opens his case with an appeal to the jury to listen to him openly and to pardon
him if he slips into his usual conversational style. His accusers have already spoken
against him in the flowery manner common in courts of law, and have warned the jury
not to be deceived by Socrates, a skillful speaker. Socrates immediately addresses
himself to that issue, claiming that while his accusers' speeches contained great
refinement and skill, he lacks the ability to speak so well. However, he remarks, he will
speak the truth whereas his opponents uttered only falsehood.
Socrates further contrasts himself with his accusers, suggesting that while their
rhetorical flourishes were the result of prepared speech, his speech will be fully
improvised, issuing thoughts as they come to him. His accusers' artificial and studied
speech would be unbecoming of a man of his age (Socrates was seventy at the time of the
trial), and so he hopes to address the jury simply by saying what is true.
He asks the jury's forgiveness if he slips into his usual conversational style. This is his
first appearance in a court of law, he explains, and so he is completely unfamiliar with
the language of the place. As the jurors might forgive a foreigner for speaking in his
accustomed dialect, Socrates asks their patience if he, a stranger to the law courts, might
speak as he normally would as well. Rather than pay attention to his style, Socrates asks
the jurors to pay attention to the substance of his speech and consider whether what he
says is true or not.
An alysis
The sharp contrast that runs throughout this first section lies between the studied,
artificial—and false—speech of Socrates' accusers, and Socrates' own improvised,
conversational--and true--speech. At this time in Athens, there were a great many
sophists, professional teachers who would instruct the wealthy youth of the city in
,oratory. Throughout his works, Plato gives a rather unkind picture of these sophists--it
seems they were generally considered shallow thinkers who taught budding politicians
to overcome sound reasoning with shoddy reasoning by means of flowery rhetoric. We
shall see that Socrates has often been mistakenly classed with these sophists, whom he
despises. The speech of his accusers, then, comes from careful training with sophists,
who have taught them to speak convincingly and yet falsely. By contrasting himself with
these men, Socrates at once invokes the common prejudice against sophistry against his
accusers and distances himself from their practices. He remarks (17b) that he is only a
skillful speaker if by "skillful speaker" is meant someone who speaks the truth.
This first section immediately thrusts upon us the depth and richness of Socratic irony.
While Socrates professes to be a plain man who speaks only simple truths, he is
employing some very clever rhetoric in doing so. Apparently, it was a common rhetorical
practice in the law courts to profess one's lack of skill in public speaking. We shouldn't
take Socrates' words at face value: in claiming that he is not a clever speaker, he is in fact
showing himself to be very clever indeed. It would be more accurate to say that Socrates
is parodying the usual rhetoric (which was undoubtedly employed by his accusers),
turning it on itself. He is using rhetorical devices to show the uselessness of rhetorical
devices, thereby devaluing his accusers' words. This act of turning his opponents' own
words against themselves is typical of the kind of irony Socrates uses so skillfully. We
shall see that after this introductory flourish, Socrates does indeed slip into his normal
conversational tone, having sufficiently parodied his opponents.
Another point of note comes at 17c, where Socrates claims that his speech will be
entirely improvised. The speech we are reading, however, does not come from Socrates'
improvised speech but from Plato's well-trained writing. Obviously, this is not a word-
for-word transcription of Socrates' speech, but is rather a reconstruction by Plato. We
find Plato inserting a further layer of irony here, as the words that we are reading are
very clearly not improvised.
The concept of irony in Socrates and Plato can be (and has elsewhere been) discussed
extensively. Such a slippery concept is difficult to present concisely. That being said, one
(but by no means the only) way to consider the significance of all this irony is to point
out the essential flexibility of words and language—how the same words can be
manipulated to serve different purposes. The end result might be to persuade the jury
(and the reader) to mistrust the rhetorical flourishes of both Socrates and his accusers
and to pay attention rather to the justness of their claims. Socrates is firmly convinced
that his accusers have slandered him and that careful attention to the facts of the case
will make this clear. Thus, in his introductory speech, Socrates hopes to do away with
rhetoric and sophistry and to focus the jury's attention instead on the facts.
, Section 2: 18a - 20c
Sum m ar y
Socrates remarks that Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, who have brought the present
charges before the court, are only the most recent of a number of people who have
spoken out against him. He has more reason to fear his older accusers than these recent
ones, because the former have been speaking out against him for some time, prejudicing
many of the jurymen against him from the time of their youth. These older accusers levy
two principal accusations against Socrates: first, that he does not believe in the gods, but
rather teaches purely physical explanations for heavenly and earthly phenomena; and
second, that he teaches how to make a weaker argument overcome a stronger argument
by means of clever rhetoric. Socrates complains that he is not even certain who these
older accusers are, though he makes a passing allusion to Aristophanes (the comic
playwright who parodied Socrates in The Clouds). As a result, he cannot cross-examine
these accusers, and he must acknowledge that the prejudices they have lodged against
him go very deep. All he can do is answer their accusations as best as he can.
Socrates first addresses himself to the accusation that he "inquires into things below the
earth and in the sky" (19b)—that is, that he tries to provide physical explanations for
matters that are normally considered to be the workings of the gods. He refers here to
Aristophanes' play, where Socrates is portrayed as floating about in the air and uttering
all sorts of nonsense about divine matters. Socrates responds that he does not pretend to
have any knowledge of these things, nor is he interested in them. He has no complaints
against people who do claim to be experts in these affairs, but he is not one of them. He
asks the jury to consider whether any of them has ever heard him speak about any of
these subjects.
Socrates then distances himself from the sophists (the men who are typically disdained
for teaching their students how to make weaker arguments overcome stronger
arguments). These men generally charge a fee for their services, and Socrates denies
ever having charged anyone for engaging in conversation with him. He ridicules such
behavior, saying that a sophist will persuade young men "to leave the company of their
fellow citizens, with any of whom they can associate for nothing, attach themselves to
him, pay money for the privilege, and be grateful into the bargain" (19e-20a). These
sophists claim to teach their students about virtue and how to become better citizens,
and Socrates concedes that such teaching may well be worth a great fee, but that he
himself lacks any skill in teaching these matters.
An alysis
The main thrust of this section is to distance Socrates from the Presocratic philosophers
and from the sophists, distinguishing him as unique among the Athenian intellectuals.
(Com plete Notes)
Section 1: 17a - 18a
NOTE: There are no breaks in The Apology as Plato wrote it. These notes on the text
were made later, with sections beginning or breaking off where a new theme or topic is
introduced or dropped. Sections in this guide are demarcated according to
the Stephanus numbers (the page numbers from the complete works of Plato edited by
Henri Estienne—"Stephanus"—in Latin) published in 1578). For Plato's works,
the Stephanus numbers are the standard page references, and most editions of Plato's
work contain the Stephanus numbers along the margins.
Sum m ar y
Socrates opens his case with an appeal to the jury to listen to him openly and to pardon
him if he slips into his usual conversational style. His accusers have already spoken
against him in the flowery manner common in courts of law, and have warned the jury
not to be deceived by Socrates, a skillful speaker. Socrates immediately addresses
himself to that issue, claiming that while his accusers' speeches contained great
refinement and skill, he lacks the ability to speak so well. However, he remarks, he will
speak the truth whereas his opponents uttered only falsehood.
Socrates further contrasts himself with his accusers, suggesting that while their
rhetorical flourishes were the result of prepared speech, his speech will be fully
improvised, issuing thoughts as they come to him. His accusers' artificial and studied
speech would be unbecoming of a man of his age (Socrates was seventy at the time of the
trial), and so he hopes to address the jury simply by saying what is true.
He asks the jury's forgiveness if he slips into his usual conversational style. This is his
first appearance in a court of law, he explains, and so he is completely unfamiliar with
the language of the place. As the jurors might forgive a foreigner for speaking in his
accustomed dialect, Socrates asks their patience if he, a stranger to the law courts, might
speak as he normally would as well. Rather than pay attention to his style, Socrates asks
the jurors to pay attention to the substance of his speech and consider whether what he
says is true or not.
An alysis
The sharp contrast that runs throughout this first section lies between the studied,
artificial—and false—speech of Socrates' accusers, and Socrates' own improvised,
conversational--and true--speech. At this time in Athens, there were a great many
sophists, professional teachers who would instruct the wealthy youth of the city in
,oratory. Throughout his works, Plato gives a rather unkind picture of these sophists--it
seems they were generally considered shallow thinkers who taught budding politicians
to overcome sound reasoning with shoddy reasoning by means of flowery rhetoric. We
shall see that Socrates has often been mistakenly classed with these sophists, whom he
despises. The speech of his accusers, then, comes from careful training with sophists,
who have taught them to speak convincingly and yet falsely. By contrasting himself with
these men, Socrates at once invokes the common prejudice against sophistry against his
accusers and distances himself from their practices. He remarks (17b) that he is only a
skillful speaker if by "skillful speaker" is meant someone who speaks the truth.
This first section immediately thrusts upon us the depth and richness of Socratic irony.
While Socrates professes to be a plain man who speaks only simple truths, he is
employing some very clever rhetoric in doing so. Apparently, it was a common rhetorical
practice in the law courts to profess one's lack of skill in public speaking. We shouldn't
take Socrates' words at face value: in claiming that he is not a clever speaker, he is in fact
showing himself to be very clever indeed. It would be more accurate to say that Socrates
is parodying the usual rhetoric (which was undoubtedly employed by his accusers),
turning it on itself. He is using rhetorical devices to show the uselessness of rhetorical
devices, thereby devaluing his accusers' words. This act of turning his opponents' own
words against themselves is typical of the kind of irony Socrates uses so skillfully. We
shall see that after this introductory flourish, Socrates does indeed slip into his normal
conversational tone, having sufficiently parodied his opponents.
Another point of note comes at 17c, where Socrates claims that his speech will be
entirely improvised. The speech we are reading, however, does not come from Socrates'
improvised speech but from Plato's well-trained writing. Obviously, this is not a word-
for-word transcription of Socrates' speech, but is rather a reconstruction by Plato. We
find Plato inserting a further layer of irony here, as the words that we are reading are
very clearly not improvised.
The concept of irony in Socrates and Plato can be (and has elsewhere been) discussed
extensively. Such a slippery concept is difficult to present concisely. That being said, one
(but by no means the only) way to consider the significance of all this irony is to point
out the essential flexibility of words and language—how the same words can be
manipulated to serve different purposes. The end result might be to persuade the jury
(and the reader) to mistrust the rhetorical flourishes of both Socrates and his accusers
and to pay attention rather to the justness of their claims. Socrates is firmly convinced
that his accusers have slandered him and that careful attention to the facts of the case
will make this clear. Thus, in his introductory speech, Socrates hopes to do away with
rhetoric and sophistry and to focus the jury's attention instead on the facts.
, Section 2: 18a - 20c
Sum m ar y
Socrates remarks that Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, who have brought the present
charges before the court, are only the most recent of a number of people who have
spoken out against him. He has more reason to fear his older accusers than these recent
ones, because the former have been speaking out against him for some time, prejudicing
many of the jurymen against him from the time of their youth. These older accusers levy
two principal accusations against Socrates: first, that he does not believe in the gods, but
rather teaches purely physical explanations for heavenly and earthly phenomena; and
second, that he teaches how to make a weaker argument overcome a stronger argument
by means of clever rhetoric. Socrates complains that he is not even certain who these
older accusers are, though he makes a passing allusion to Aristophanes (the comic
playwright who parodied Socrates in The Clouds). As a result, he cannot cross-examine
these accusers, and he must acknowledge that the prejudices they have lodged against
him go very deep. All he can do is answer their accusations as best as he can.
Socrates first addresses himself to the accusation that he "inquires into things below the
earth and in the sky" (19b)—that is, that he tries to provide physical explanations for
matters that are normally considered to be the workings of the gods. He refers here to
Aristophanes' play, where Socrates is portrayed as floating about in the air and uttering
all sorts of nonsense about divine matters. Socrates responds that he does not pretend to
have any knowledge of these things, nor is he interested in them. He has no complaints
against people who do claim to be experts in these affairs, but he is not one of them. He
asks the jury to consider whether any of them has ever heard him speak about any of
these subjects.
Socrates then distances himself from the sophists (the men who are typically disdained
for teaching their students how to make weaker arguments overcome stronger
arguments). These men generally charge a fee for their services, and Socrates denies
ever having charged anyone for engaging in conversation with him. He ridicules such
behavior, saying that a sophist will persuade young men "to leave the company of their
fellow citizens, with any of whom they can associate for nothing, attach themselves to
him, pay money for the privilege, and be grateful into the bargain" (19e-20a). These
sophists claim to teach their students about virtue and how to become better citizens,
and Socrates concedes that such teaching may well be worth a great fee, but that he
himself lacks any skill in teaching these matters.
An alysis
The main thrust of this section is to distance Socrates from the Presocratic philosophers
and from the sophists, distinguishing him as unique among the Athenian intellectuals.
