Апология Сократа Платона

Socratic dialogue written by Plato

The Apology of Socrates (, Apología Sokrátous; Apologia Socratis), written by Plato, is a Socratic dialogue of the speech of legal self defence which Socrates (469–399 BC) spoke at his trial for impiety and corruption in 399 BC. Specifically, the Apology of Socrates is a defence against the charges of "corrupting the youth" and "not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel" to Athens (24b). Among the primary sources about the trial and death of the philosopher Socrates, the Apology of Socrates is the dialogue that depicts the trial, and is one of four Socratic dialogues, along with Euthyphro, Phaedo, and Crito, through which Plato details the final days of the philosopher Socrates.

The Apology of Socrates, by the philosopher Plato (429–347 BC), was one of many explanatory apologia about Socrates's legal defense against accusations of corruption and impiety; most apologia were published in the decade after the Trial of Socrates (399 BC). As such, Plato's Apology of Socrates is an early philosophic defence of Socrates, presented in the form of a Socratic dialogue. Although Aristotle later classified it as a genre of fiction, it is still a useful historical source about Socrates (469–399 BC) the philosopher. Aristotle believed the dialogue, particularly the scene where Socrates questions Meletus, represented a good use of interrogation. Except for Socrates's two dialogues with Meletus, about the nature and logic of his accusations of impiety, the text of the Apology of Socrates is in the first person perspective and voice of the philosopher Socrates (24d–25d and 26b–27d). Moreover, during the trial, in his speech of self defence, Socrates twice mentions that Plato is present at the trial (34a and 38b).

The Apology of Socrates begins with Socrates addressing the jury of perhaps 500 Athenian men to ask if they have been persuaded by the Orators Lycon, Anytus, and Meletus, who have accused Socrates of corrupting the young people of the city and impiety against the pantheon of Athens. The first sentence of his speech establishes the theme of the dialogue—that philosophy begins with an admission of ignorance. Socrates later clarifies that point of philosophy when he says that whatever wisdom he possesses comes from knowing that he knows nothing (23b, 29b). In the course of the trial, Socrates imitates, parodies, and corrects the Orators, his accusers, and asks the jury to judge him by the truth of his statements, not by his oratorical skill (cf. Lysias XIX 1,2,3; Isaeus X 1; Isocrates XV 79; Aeschines II 24). Socrates says he will not use sophisticated language—carefully arranged ornate words and phrases—but will speak using the common idiom of the Greek language. Socrates says that he will speak in the manner he has used in the agora and at the money tables which he states is his native tongue and the fashion of his country. Although offered the opportunity to appease the prejudices of the jury, with a minimal concession to the charges of corruption and impiety, Socrates does not yield his integrity to avoid the penalty of death. The jury condemns Socrates to death.

The jurors of the trial voted the guilt of Socrates by a relatively narrow margin(36a). In the Apology of Socrates, Plato cites no total numbers of votes condemning or acquitting the philosopher of the accusations of moral corruption and impiety; Socrates says that he would have been acquitted if thirty more jurors had voted in his favour. This would likely mean that if the court were composed of 500 people then 280 voted against Socrates and 220 voted in his favor. This would make the margin about 12 percent. In such cases—where the penalty of death might arise as a legal sanction for the accusations is presented—Athenian law required that the prosecutor and the defendant each propose an administrative penalty to punish the actions reported in the accusations. Socrates antagonises the court by proposing, rather than a penalty, a reward—perpetual maintenance at public expense. He notes that the vote of judgement against him was close. In that vein, Socrates then engages in dark humour, suggesting that Meletus narrowly escaped a great fine for not meeting the statutory requirement of receiving one fifth of the votes of the assembled judges in favour of his accusations against Socrates. In that way, Socrates published the financial consequence for Meletus to consider as a plaintiff in a lawsuit—because the Athenian legal system discouraged frivolous lawsuits by imposing a financially onerous fine upon the plaintiff if the vote of the judges was less than one fifth of the number of judges required by the type of lawsuit. As punishment for the two accusations formally presented against him at trial, Socrates proposed to the court that he be treated as a benefactor to the city of Athens; that he should be given free meals, in perpetuity, at the Prytaneum, the public dining hall of Athens. Receiving such public largesse is an honour reserved for Olympic athletes, prominent citizens, and benefactors of Athens, as a city and as a state. Finally, after the court dismisses the proposed reward—free meals at the Prytaneum—Socrates considers imprisonment and banishment, before settling upon a punishment fine of 100 drachmae. Despite his poverty, this was a minor punishment compared to the death penalty proposed by the prosecutors, and encouraged by the judges of the trial. His supporters, Plato, Crito, Critobulus, and Apollodorus offered even more money to pay as a fine—3,000 drachmae (thirty minae); nonetheless, to the judges of the trial of Socrates, a pecuniary fine was insufficient punishment.

In the Trial of Socrates, the judgement of the court was death for Socrates; most of the jurors voted for the death penalty (Apology 38c), yet Plato provides no jury vote numbers in the text of the Apology of Socrates; but Diogenes Laërtius reports that 280 jurors voted for the death penalty and 220 jurors voted for a pecuniary fine for Socrates (2.42). Moreover, the politically provocative language and irreverent tone of Socrates's self defence speech angered the jurors and invited their punishment of him. Socrates responds to the death penalty verdict by first addressing the jurors who voted for his death. He says that instead of waiting a short time for him to die from old age, they will now have to accept the harsh criticisms from his supporters. He prophesied that his death will cause the youngsters to come forward and replace him as a social gadfly, spurring ethical conduct from the citizens of Athens, in a manner more vexing than him(39d). To the jurors who voted to acquit him, Socrates gives encouragement: his supernatural daimonion did not interfere with his conduct of the legal defence, which he viewed as a sign that such a defence was the correct action. In that way, the daimonion communicated to Socrates that death might be a good thing; either death is annihilation (release from earthly worry) and not to be feared, or death is migration to a higher plane of existence in which reside the souls of personages and heroes, such as Hesiod and Homer and Odysseus. Socrates concludes his self defence by saying to the court that he bears no ill will, neither towards his accusers—Lycon, Anytus, and Meletus—nor the jurors. He then asks the Athenians to correct his three sons if they value material wealth more than living virtuously, or if they become too prideful; and in doing that, justice will finally be served.

Socrates on Trial: A Play Based on Aristophane's Clouds and Plato's Apology, Crito, and Phaedo Adapted for Modern Performance (2007), by Andrew David Irvine, is a contemporary play that portrays Socrates as philosopher and man, based upon The Clouds (423 BC), by Aristophanes, and three Socratic dialogues, by Plato, the Apology of Socrates (the philosopher's defence at trial), the Crito (discussion of the nature of Justice), and the Phaedo (discussion of the nature of the Afterlife). Roberto Rossellini's 1971 television film Socrates largely lifts its action and script from this dialogue.