Apology | Page 4

what Socrates
said, but an elaborate composition, quite as much so in fact as one of
the Dialogues. And we may perhaps even indulge in the fancy that the
actual defence of Socrates was as much greater than the Platonic
defence as the master was greater than the disciple. But in any case,
some of the words used by him must have been remembered, and some
of the facts recorded must have actually occurred. It is significant that
Plato is said to have been present at the defence (Apol.), as he is also
said to have been absent at the last scene in the Phaedo. Is it fanciful to
suppose that he meant to give the stamp of authenticity to the one and
not to the other?--especially when we consider that these two passages
are the only ones in which Plato makes mention of himself. The
circumstance that Plato was to be one of his sureties for the payment of
the fine which he proposed has the appearance of truth. More
suspicious is the statement that Socrates received the first impulse to
his favourite calling of cross-examining the world from the Oracle of
Delphi; for he must already have been famous before Chaerephon went
to consult the Oracle (Riddell), and the story is of a kind which is very
likely to have been invented. On the whole we arrive at the conclusion
that the Apology is true to the character of Socrates, but we cannot
show that any single sentence in it was actually spoken by him. It
breathes the spirit of Socrates, but has been cast anew in the mould of
Plato.

There is not much in the other Dialogues which can be compared with
the Apology. The same recollection of his master may have been
present to the mind of Plato when depicting the sufferings of the Just in
the Republic. The Crito may also be regarded as a sort of appendage to
the Apology, in which Socrates, who has defied the judges, is
nevertheless represented as scrupulously obedient to the laws. The
idealization of the sufferer is carried still further in the Gorgias, in
which the thesis is maintained, that 'to suffer is better than to do evil;'
and the art of rhetoric is described as only useful for the purpose of
self-accusation. The parallelisms which occur in the so-called Apology
of Xenophon are not worth noticing, because the writing in which they
are contained is manifestly spurious. The statements of the
Memorabilia respecting the trial and death of Socrates agree generally
with Plato; but they have lost the flavour of Socratic irony in the
narrative of Xenophon.
The Apology or Platonic defence of Socrates is divided into three parts:
1st. The defence properly so called; 2nd. The shorter address in
mitigation of the penalty; 3rd. The last words of prophetic rebuke and
exhortation.
The first part commences with an apology for his colloquial style; he is,
as he has always been, the enemy of rhetoric, and knows of no rhetoric
but truth; he will not falsify his character by making a speech. Then he
proceeds to divide his accusers into two classes; first, there is the
nameless accuser--public opinion. All the world from their earliest
years had heard that he was a corrupter of youth, and had seen him
caricatured in the Clouds of Aristophanes. Secondly, there are the
professed accusers, who are but the mouth-piece of the others. The
accusations of both might be summed up in a formula. The first say,
'Socrates is an evil-doer and a curious person, searching into things
under the earth and above the heaven; and making the worse appear the
better cause, and teaching all this to others.' The second, 'Socrates is an
evil-doer and corrupter of the youth, who does not receive the gods
whom the state receives, but introduces other new divinities.' These last
words appear to have been the actual indictment (compare Xen. Mem.);
and the previous formula, which is a summary of public opinion,
assumes the same legal style.
The answer begins by clearing up a confusion. In the representations of

the Comic poets, and in the opinion of the multitude, he had been
identified with the teachers of physical science and with the Sophists.
But this was an error. For both of them he professes a respect in the
open court, which contrasts with his manner of speaking about them in
other places. (Compare for Anaxagoras, Phaedo, Laws; for the Sophists,
Meno, Republic, Tim., Theaet., Soph., etc.) But at the same time he
shows that he is not one of them. Of natural philosophy he knows
nothing; not that he despises such pursuits, but the fact is that he is
ignorant of them, and never says a word about them. Nor is he paid for
giving