Plato’s “The Apology of Socrates” Speech Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

On the day of his trial, Socrates gave a speech in which he aimed to describe himself as an individual who deprived the young, refused to bow before the gods, and created his deity. This defensive speech was jotted down by Plato, one of his students, and was to be known simply as the apology. Over the years, several scholars have written about the speech and analyzed it trying to find loopholes that could discredit the Apology as Plato’s creation. Most of the writers have however only managed to come up with hypotheses that are not supported by full fact. The most common argument that has unified the arguments of scholars regarding the Apology, is the issue of historical accuracy. All the authors whose works have been included in this bibliographic essay have at one point or another revealed their doubts on the historical accuracy of Plato’s work. However, none have come up with foolproof evidence to show that the details reported by Plato may have never happened. Another common issue that has been presented in most of the works used in this study is the aspect of falsehoods in Socrates’ speech. All the authors who have tried to use this line of argument have at one point or another used the irony which Socrates created in his opening words of the speech by declaring that he is not so good an orator and then proceed to give a speech that amazes to date.

John Madison Cooper’s anthology, The trial, and death of Socrates tries to trace the origins of Socrates’ apology documented by Plato and place it in its context (20). He establishes that the speech could have been written by Plato because the style and beauty of the language used were his. He also suggests that the speech could be the real account of the apology of Socrates based on the premise that the people in Athens at the time Plato had written the speech could have disputed it if it did not happen to be a genuine reflection of the real events (Cooper 20). Cooper also analyzes parts of the apology and then tries to relate them to the popular opinion that he could foresee the future at the time of his trial (3). In his analysis of the speech, Cooper provides an in-depth explanation of all the things that could reflect the authenticity of the apology. For instance, he goes ahead to explain the reason as to why Socrates referred to the jury as “men of Athens” instead of “gentlemen of the jury” as would have been expected (21). Madison studies the nature and character of the professionals of the time based on the apology. For example, he concludes that the bankers and money changers frequented the market place to trade gossip (21).

In the book, Routledge philosophy guidebook to Plato and the trial of Socrates, the authors impress the idea that more than a few documentations of the apology could have been written judging from the popularity of Socrates’ trial (Brickhouse & Smith 70). Like Cooper, these two authors also have some doubts as to the accuracy of the Plato’s account of the speech. They however, agree that Plato’s version could have been the most accurate of all reports that could have been written at the time (Brickhouse & Smith 71). They detail that through Plato’s account of the speech we can easily learn of Socrates’ character and why many people were attracted to his ideologies (Brickhouse & Smith 71). Brickhouse and Smith also study the characters mentioned in the apology and try to establish who they could have been and how they were related to the trial. For instance, they explain the fact that Meletus is mentioned as being angry with Socrates on behalf of the poets yet he (Meletus) was never a poet could mean that he might have been one of the accusers. (Brickhouse & Smith 77). Brookhouse and Smith also conclude that Plato’s writing is very descriptive and reflects the mood at the time of the trial (80). The deductions that other writers make from the speech have also been criticized in this book. For example, the opinion of Burnet that Plato was keen on putting into light the character of Socrates in terms of courtroom conduct alongside giving accurate documentation of the actual speech has been disputed (Brickhouse & Smith 81). Brickhouse and Smith argue that there is a possibility that most of the things written by Plato could not have come out of Socrates’ mouth.

Richard Klaut in his book Socrates and the state describes the apology as a revelation of Socrates’ character. He declares that the apology was some form of bragging chance for Socrates especially when he takes the opportunity to describe himself as a person with a certain level of wisdom which is unsurpassed by anyone (Klaut 270). This presents in the part where Socrates admits that he has very limited knowledge of virtue and good. Klaut sees Socrates’ wisdom as being based on the ideology that he appreciates the fact that he knows very little about moral truths (273). In the book, Klaut provides an analysis of the political philosophy of Socrates. He describes this philosophy as being more subtle than the authoritative base on the way that he presents arguments in his apology (279). Klaut explains that the refusal of Socrates to escape from jail as has been shown in the speech is influenced by a well-balanced level of compromise between the state and its citizens. He (Klaut) sees this as being divergent from the notion of civil disobedience that had been inculcated into the society of the time.

C.D.C Reeve’s essay titled Socrates in the apology puts Socrates’ character into perspective dedicating two chapters to studying what he refers to as the “false” and “true” Socrates. In describing the false Socrates, Reeve analyzes various parts of the apology and pulls out falsehoods that reveal. For instance, the first falsehood that Reeve shows is from the part where he (Socrates) claims that he is not clever, yet from analysis and study of his character it is evident that he is indeed clever (Reeve 5). Reeve also deduces that Socrates may have been branded wise on account of how he dismissed other people’s opinions. From the apology, though Socrates denies that he has substantive knowledge of virtue and that he only acquired a false reputation for it (184). In the succeeding pages, Reeve isolates statements from the apology and shows how Socrates could have tried to intone some level of falsehood. He describes him as the father of philosophical irony especially in the sense that he denies what he knows (184). In analyzing the true Socrates, Reeve picks instances of the apology where Socrates says things that are parallel to his beliefs (148). In his essay, Reeve concludes that the opinions that people have been having of Socrates have been to some extent contradicted in the apology. For example, many scholars have described Socrates as a person on a quest to find knowledge which he admittedly lacks. However, from the apology, Socrates reveals that he is not only on a search for knowledge of virtue but also on a mission to serve Apollo especially by disabusing the people of Hubris (Reeve 185).

Nicholas Smith and Paul Woodruff in their book Reason and religion in Socratic philosophy declare that we know of the trial of Socrates primarily through Plato’s Apology (13). The two authors go-ahead to cast some shadows of doubt about the legitimacy of Plato’s account and especially since he (Plato) decided to give himself some role in the documentation (Smith & Woodruff 13). However, the authors conclude this issue by saying that no evidence has been presented to show that Plato did not give an accurate representation of the events at the trial. This is especially because the ancient Romans and Greeks were in a position to establish whether Plato had fabricated the apology (Smith & Woodruff 13). Smith and Woodruff dismiss to some extent the reasons that Plato gives for his arrest. They admit that to some extent he may be telling the truth but they declare that his reasons for the arrest should not automatically be accepted wholesome (Smith & Woodruff 13). They reveal that reading through the entire text, one cannot tell why there was some hostility towards Socrates for a very long time (Smith & Woodruff 14). In analyzing Plato’s account, Apology, the two authors conclude that Socrates had a rational basis for staying out of politics and also had a moral basis for believing that what awaited him after condemnation was not necessarily evil.

In the book Socrates and legal obligation, Reginald Allen declares the speech accurate to a very large extent (34). This is supported by the fact that no written text has managed to convincingly dismiss it as a fabrication. He agrees that the account by Plato may not be a word-for-word detailing of everything that Socrates said at the trial but compared to all other documented information on the events of the day, it is the most credible. He suggests that unless proper evidence is fronted to suggest that we should think otherwise, the speech by Plato should be accepted as essentially true (Allen 33). In later chapters, he goes on to claim that Plato had no reason to present facts that were not verified to an audience that was very familiar with Socrates’ history and knew everything that Socrates had said (35). Like C.D.C Reeve, Allen identifies some falsehoods that are presented in the speech. Most of these falsehoods though have in later times come to be regarded as Socrates’ way of reflecting the irony in society. For example, the statement which has been quoted by both writers is Socrates’ declaration that he is not capable of making a speech and then proceeding to give an oratory masterpiece (Allen 6). According to Allen, Socrates adheres to the rhetoric that aims at the truth and is not targeted at persuasion (12).

James Colaiaco in his book Socrates against Athens believes that Apology was a true representation of the events which happened at the trial of Socrates based on Plato’s confirmation that he was present at the time (20). He advises that we should not just assume that falsification was involved in the process of polishing and revision of the speech. Colaiaco declares the Apology as the single piece of writing that helped the philosophy of Socrates endure. He says that Plato had a very difficult time trying to portray Socrates as a hero and it is his (Plato’s) hard work that helped entrench Socrates’ name amidst those of legendary philosophers (Colaiaco 21). In the analysis of the speech, Colaiaco proposes that two themes are introduced by Socrates: speech and identity (26). He argues that persuasive speech is not essentially true speech and justifies this point by citing the introductory part of the speech where Socrates praises the speeches of the prosecution on account of almost making him forget his identity and then going ahead to dismiss the allegations levied against him as untrue (Colaiaco 26). Quoting fellow history writers, Colaiaco concludes that Socrates’ apology by Plato is the harshest indictment of ancient Athenian political conduct to survive to date (160).

In the book Dialogue and discovery, the author Kenneth Seeskin compares the Apology by Plato with another historical masterpiece, Giorgias’ apology of Palamedes. Seeskin seeks to illustrate that Plato based his writing on Giorgia’s apology and goes ahead to cite certain remarkable similarities that could not have happened by mere coincidence (56-57). In analyzing Plato’s apology, Seeskin like most of the other writers we have discussed above finds it ironic that Socrates would begin his speech by declaring that he is not a good orator and then the word that emanates from his mouth belie him (58). According to Seeskin, Plato was trying to portray Socrates in a positive light to keep up with the trend of the time where writing forensic speeches on behalf of popular historical figures was a literary genre on its own (60). He goes ahead to state that we cannot categorically agree that Socrates was as fluent as Plato puts him and even adds that there are some schools of thought which suggest that Socrates never said anything at all at the trial (Seeskin 60). In the latter detailing, Seeskin chooses to completely ignore the debates about the historical accuracy of the speech and instead focus on the fact the apology was Plato’s creation and stands alone as a literary masterpiece (Seeskin 61). The writer also declares Socrates’ speech as a work of true rhetoric in the sense that it did not aim at flattering the jury but rather focused on educating it (Seeskin 63). From the speech, it can be deduced that Socrates was capitalizing on his trial as a chance to declare his virtuosity. He proposed that no good had ever come to the city greater than his service to God; and that he was not afraid to die (Seeskin 68).

Works Cited

Allen, Reginald. Socrates and legal obligation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981. Print.

Brickhouse, Thomas, and Nicholas Smith. Routledge philosophy guidebook to Plato and the trial of Socrates. United Kingdom: Routledge, 2004. Print.

Colaiaco, James. Socrates against Athens: Philosophy on trial. United Kingdom: Routledge, 2001. Print.

Cooper, John. The trial and death of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, death scene from Phaedo. Trans. George Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2000. Print.

Klaut, Richard. Socrates and the state. Princeton University Press. New Jersey: 1987. Print.

Reeve, Christopher. Socrates in the apology: An essay on Plato’s Apology of Socrates Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1989. Print.

Seeskin, Kenneth. Dialogue and discovery: A study in Socratic method. New York: SUNY Press, 1987. Print.

Smith, Nicholas, and Paul Woodruff. Reason and religion in Socratic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!

Plato’s “The Apology of Socrates” Speech Analysis

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)