Apology: the Defence Speech

The cross-examination of Meletus

This is the passage a law student should enjoy most, because it is an advocate's cross-examination conducted by the accused.

Point one, on corrupting the young. He gets Meletus to say that everybody in Athens improves the young except Socrates, who alone corrupts them, and then asks whether the same is true of horses: does everyone improve them and one man only spoil them? The comparison exposes the absurdity, since with horses it is the few trainers who improve and the many who do harm.

Point two, on doing harm knowingly. He argues that a man who corrupts his neighbours makes them worse, and worse neighbours do him harm, so nobody would corrupt those he lives among on purpose. Either he does not corrupt them, or he does it unintentionally, and unintentional faults are matters for instruction and not for a court, "which is a place not of instruction, but of punishment."

Point three, the contradiction in the indictment. He asks Meletus to say plainly whether the charge is that he teaches other gods, so that he does believe in gods, or that he is a complete atheist. Meletus takes the second: "I mean the latter, that you are a complete atheist," and adds that Socrates says the sun is stone and the moon earth. Socrates answers that Meletus is accusing Anaxagoras, whose books can be bought for a drachma at the most, and that the jury are not so illiterate as not to know it. Then he closes the trap: the affidavit itself charges him with introducing new divinities, and a man who believes in divine things must believe in divinities, and one who believes in divinities must believe in gods. The indictment therefore contradicts itself.

How to write about it. Say that Socrates does to Meletus exactly what he has spent his life doing to everyone else, and that the effect is to show that the prosecutor had not thought about his own charge. Then add the sharper point: it did not save him, because the case was never really about the indictment.

Why he will not stop

Asked whether he is not ashamed of a course of life that is likely to bring him to an untimely end, he answers that a man worth anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying, but only whether he is doing right or wrong. He compares himself to a soldier who has been given a post and must remain at it. God has ordered him to examine himself and others; leaving that post out of fear of death would be desertion.

And the argument about death itself. To fear death is to think oneself wise when one is not, since nobody knows whether death is the greatest good or the greatest evil. That is the very ignorance he has spent his life exposing.

The refusal in advance. He tells the court plainly that if they offered to acquit him on condition that he stopped philosophising, he would answer that he would obey God rather than them, and would go on doing exactly as before while he had life and strength.

The gadfly

The best-known image in the speech, and it is worth knowing exactly.

if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life.

He is fastening on the city all day long, arousing and persuading and reproaching it. If they kill him they will sleep on for the rest of their lives, unless God sends another. His proof that he was given to them by God, he says, is his poverty: he has neglected all his own concerns for years without ever taking pay, and even his accusers do not dare to say otherwise.

In an answer. Use the gadfly for the idea that a critic is a service to the State and not an enemy of it, and note that the image concedes that criticism is irritating.

The refusal to plead for pity

Athenian defendants commonly brought their weeping children into court and begged. Socrates refuses, and gives three reasons: it would be a disgrace to a man of his reputation, it would teach the jury that he thinks death an evil, and, most importantly, it would ask the judges to break their oath and decide by favour rather than by law.

The sentence to quote for that last point. He says that the judge is not there to make a present of justice, but to give judgment, and that he has sworn to judge according to the laws.

Why this matters to a law student. He is refusing to corrupt the tribunal in his own favour when his life is at stake, and he loses because of it.

A worked answer

Question. "How does Socrates use the oracle in his defence?"

A model answer. The oracle is the pivot of the whole speech, because it converts a lifetime of making enemies into an act of obedience. Chaerephon asked at Delphi whether any man was wiser than Socrates and was told there was none. Socrates, knowing he had no wisdom and knowing a god cannot lie, set out to refute the answer by finding a wiser man. He went to a politician of high reputation, and found that the man thought himself wise and was not; then to the poets, who could not explain their own finest passages and therefore wrote by inspiration and not by knowledge; then to the artisans, who knew real things but supposed that their skill made them wise about everything else. Each examination produced an enemy, and together they produced the reputation that put him on trial. His conclusion was that the god meant that human wisdom is worth little, and that he was wiser than the others only in this, that they knew nothing and thought they knew, while he neither knew nor thought he knew.

Why the answer scores. It gives the story in order, names the three classes examined, states the conclusion in Socrates's own terms, and connects the story to the charge, which is what the question is really asking.

Quick revision

The order: his manner, the older accusers, the oracle, Meletus, why he will not stop, the gadfly, and the commitment of his cause.

The oracle: Chaerephon at Delphi; the politician, the poets, the artisans; "he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know."

Meletus: the horses comparison; nobody corrupts his neighbours on purpose; a court is a place of punishment and not of instruction; and the indictment contradicts itself, because new divinities imply gods.

The soldier at his post: a man should ask only whether he acts rightly, not whether he will live or die.

The gadfly: a great and noble steed, tardy from its size, stirred into life; his poverty is his proof.

The refusal to plead: a judge has sworn to judge by the laws and is not there to make a present of justice.

Test yourself

1. What did the oracle say, and what did Socrates do about it? Chaerephon asked at Delphi whether anyone was wiser than Socrates and was told there was none. Socrates, believing he had no wisdom but that a god cannot lie, went to politicians, poets and artisans in turn to find a wiser man, and found that each thought himself wise and was not.

2. Give the three moves in the cross-examination of Meletus. That everyone improves the young except Socrates, which the comparison with horse trainers exposes as absurd; that nobody would knowingly corrupt the people he lives among, so the fault, if any, is unintentional and belongs to instruction rather than to a court; and that the indictment contradicts itself, since it charges him with introducing new divinities while Meletus claims he is a complete atheist.

3. Explain the gadfly image. Socrates says he is a gadfly given to the State by God, the State being a great and noble steed made sluggish by its own size, which he stings into life by questioning and reproaching it all day long. If they kill him they will sleep on unless God sends another.

4. Why does Socrates refuse to bring his family into court to beg? Because it would disgrace his reputation, because it would suggest he regards death as an evil when nobody knows whether it is, and above all because it would ask the judges to decide by favour when they have sworn to judge according to the laws.

5. What does he say he would do if acquitted on condition that he stopped? That he would obey God rather than the court, and would continue exactly as before while he had life and strength.