Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

●
●
●

●

●

The trial and death of Socrates
Week 3 - Plato ‘Apology’ (i)
Milestone in the writing of biography and autobiography
There is no narrative ( unlike in the case of Xenophon) and no commentary from the author
Plato hands over to Socrates - allows him to speak for himself - independent? → though one
could also argue that he is a scripted Platonic character who communicates what Plato thought
was important to say
What is the role of Plato?
○ Faithful recorder of the historical Socrates’s actual words in court?
○ Helpful proposer of what he should have said ( even if he didn’t)?
○ Independent thinker using a re-imagination of Socrates on trial to talk about what is
important to HIM? → discussion of what it means to be a philosopher ( Strongly personal
Platonic element) ; What does it mean to be a philosopher in your own socio-political
setting?
How does Socrates relate to Athens?

Reading the Apology:
● Worth paying attention to how norms are conveyed and how there is a difference from the norm
Contents and structure of the Apology:
● Main defence speech (apologia) - 17a - 35d
○ Jury votes for conviction
● Second speech: proposal of alternative penalty after conviction: 35e-38b
○ Jury votes for death penalty
● Final speech: address to the jurors after passing of sentence of death: 38c - 42a
Three-act drama of the defence, conviction and condemnation of Socrates [there is an evident change in
situation]
Class focus: Main defence speech
The formal charge against Socrates ( from Diogenes Laertius, Life of Socrates 40, citing the 2nd Century
philosopher and scholar Favorinus)
● Two claims made
○ Not acknowledging the gods of the city
○ Corrupting the young
■ The order of the charges is very important - the most important charge here is
Socrates not acknowledging the gods
■ What is the stake of not acknowledging the gods respected by the city
■ The question is not that of belief but that of behaviour → Socrates put himself at
an angle by not joining in with the rest of the city
Standard structure of Athenian Court-Room Speeches:
● prologue/exordium
● Prothesis - statement of case to be argued

●

Argumentation → refutation, in defence speech
○ Can divide between narrative ( MY version of events under dispute) and proof
● Digression (optional provided you do the job of argumentation)
● Epilogue/Peroration
As seen in surviving work of late 5th Century - early 4th Century Lysias
Plato, Apology of Socrates, main speech: structure
● Prologue: 17a-18a
● Prothesis: 18a-19a ( distinguishing the older and more recent accusers)
○ NB: distinction between immediate charges and those which have been around for a
while
○ Playing with:
■ Conventions of normal courtroom oratory
■ The question of skill - is Socrates or is he not a ‘skilled speaker’?
■ The question of truth - what is it going to look like when Socrates tells ‘the plain
truth’?
■ The question of ​where Socrates belongs ​- is he really a foreigner here, and if so
what hangs on this? Portrayal as an outsider
○ On the one hand, anyone could say these things because one would be expected to get on
good terms with the jury ( establishing a sympathetic persona)
■ Socrates presents himself as a victim to some degree ( see points above)
■ Asks for understanding ( contributes to sympathy) due to being a foreigner
Comparison: Lysias - Oration 16 and Oration 25
● The speaker in both of them does something very similar to what Socrates does in his speech →
plea for sympathy due to the speaker potentially not having the skill
○ ‘Far from my being competent to speak’ & ‘I am amazed at the way my accusers neglect
their own concerns to attend those of others’
● Oration 16:
○ ‘Are being done the greatest of favours by anyone who is going to force them to undergo
an examination of their lives to date’
○ Being in court is presented like an amazing opportunity because it gives the speaker an
opportunity to introduce themselves and what they stand for → ​embracing the
opportunity as speeches give you the chance to discuss your life
Socrates’s exordium (1)
● ‘But I, for my part, almost forgot my own identity’
○ The jury gave him an identity
● ‘When I show myself to be not the least clever speaker, unless indeed they call him a clever
speaker who speaks the truth; for if this is what they mean, I would agree that I am an orator -​ not
after their fashion
...
’
○ When Socrates tells you the true, he would sound like a defendant in court
○ Unsure where this is going to go

○

Plato is using the standard move of talking about truth and falsehood to discuss those in a
more special sense
...
Hence, just as you would, of
course, if I were really a foreigner, pardon me if I spoke in that dialect and that manner (18a) in
which I had been brought up…’
○ Socrates is doing two things:
■ He asks not to be judged on the way he is expected to speak - there is a sense of
resistance because the way he is expected to speak is entirely alien to his normal
way of speaking
● Sounds a lot more forceful than saying that he is not very good at this
● There is therefore a sense of separation between Socrates and the others
● Does Socrates really belong in court? ​→ the jury is a representation of
the ‘men of Athens’ ( the population) → the question therefore becomes
‘Does Socrates belong in Athens?’
○ If he does not belong in Athens, whose fault is it?
■ He claims that he is going to speak in a different way, which everyone is familiar
with, but he is just bringing that into court → a sense of continuity
● Argument (Refutation) - a: 19a -28a
○ Response to accumulated prejudices and mistaken impressions: 17a - 24b
■ includes , centrally, the Delphic Oracle story
○ Reply to formal charges: 24b-28a (corruption, 24c-26a; gods, 26b-28a)
Argumentation/ Refutation (1) - the ‘older accusers’
● Why does Socrates not tackle the formal charges straight away?
● Was this a legitimate court-room tactic?
○ He uses this in order to build a narrative and paint a complete picture of
where the charges stem from
○ Could have gone both ways - working in his favour and against him (
depending on how it is taken)
The story of the Delphic Oracle is the most memorable story
● This turns into a mission of the Oracle being right but in a very subtle
way
● There is an impression of Socrates ‘speaking big’ (ref
...
a special status which wouldn’t have worked in
Athens which took pride in equality
● What does this tactic open the way to say/show about Socrates? || What could this
show about Plato?
○ If Plato is the agent he presents his own narrative of Socrates
○ For someone who uses the court room speech to present a narrative of
someone it makes sense to a greater extent than it does for someone who
is on trial right now

Argumentation/Refutation (2) - charges of corruption and unorthodoxy
● When he gets to them, why does Socrates tackle the charges in reverse
order ( compared to the order noted by Xenophon and by Favorinus in
Diogenes Laerius)?
● Does he answer the unorthodoxy/ new divinities charge head on?
○ Socrates converts the charge about belief and not about practice
→ he frames it into ‘Socrates does not believe in gods?’
○ No direct response to the charge in its essense → he just replies
to his own conception of the charge
○ Maybe Plato is after some other purpose to show Socrates from a
certain perspective
■ Socrates is presented as someone who has a better grip
on religious matters → he is on a life long religious
mission
● Does he directly refute the corruption charge?
○ He doesn’t because he reframes the questions
● What impression of himself does he give in the process?
The technique is to prove that the person making the accusation against
you sounds bad BUT it is not equivalent to disproving the charges ;
HOWEVER, it fits with our overall understanding of Socrates from this
narrative
● Digression: 28a - 33a
○ Socrates’s mission ( indirect response to impiety charge)
● Argumentation (Refutation) - b: 33a - 34b - return to corruption charge
● Epilogue/ Peroration: 34c - 35d
Thus, a pretty standard structure: but does Plato in fact make his Socrates play it straight?



---