in what relation the apology of plato stands to the real defence of socrates, there are no means of determining. it certainly agrees in tone and character with the description of xenophon, who says in the memorabilia that socrates might have been acquitted 'if in any moderate degree he would have conciliated the favour of the dicasts;' and who informs us in another passage, on the testimony of hermogenes, the friend of socrates, that he had no wish to live; and that the divine sign refused to allow him to prepare a defence, and also that socrates himself declared this to be unnecessary, on the ground that all his life long he had been preparing against that hour. for the speech breathes throughout a spirit of defiance, (ut non supplex aut reus sed magister aut dominus videretur esse judicum', cic. de orat.); and the loose and desultory style is an imitation of the 'accustomed manner' in which socrates spoke in 'the agora and among the tables of the money-changers.' the allusion in the crito may, perhaps, be adduced as a further evidence of the literal accuracy of some parts. but in the main it must be regarded as the ideal of socrates, according to plato's conception of him, appearing in the greatest and most public scene of his life, and in the height of his triumph, when he is weakest, and yet his mastery over mankind is greatest, and his habitual irony acquires a new meaning and a sort of tragic pathos in the face of death. the facts of his life are summed up, and the features of his character are brought out as if by accident in the course of the defence. the conversational manner, the seeming want of arrangement, the ironical simplicity, are found to result in a perfect work of art, which is the portrait of socrates.

yet some of the topics may have been actually used by socrates; and the recollection of his very words may have rung in the ears of his disciple. the apology of plato may be compared generally with those speeches of thucydides in which he has embodied his conception of the lofty character and policy of the great pericles, and which at the same time furnish a commentary on the situation of affairs from the point of view of the historian. so in the apology there is an ideal rather than a literal truth; much is said which was not said, and is only plato's view of the situation. plato was not, like xenophon, a chronicler of facts; he does not appear in any of his writings to have aimed at literal accuracy. he is not therefore to be supplemented from the memorabilia and symposium of xenophon, who belongs to an entirely different class of writers. the apology of plato is not the report of 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 instruction—that is another mistaken notion:—he has nothing to teach. but he commends evenus for teaching virtue at such a 'moderate' rate as five minae. something of the 'accustomed irony,' which may perhaps be expected to sleep in the ear of the multitude, is lurking here.

he then goes on to explain the reason why he is in such an evil name. that had arisen out of a peculiar mission which he had taken upon himself. the enthusiastic chaerephon (probably in anticipation of the answer which he received) had gone to delphi and asked the oracle if there was any man wiser than socrates; and the answer was, that there was no man wiser. what could be the meaning of this—that he who knew nothing, and knew that he knew nothing, should be declared by the oracle to be the wisest of men? reflecting upon the answer, he determined to refute it by finding 'a wiser;' and first he went to the politicians, and then to the poets, and then to the craftsmen, but always with the same result—he found that they knew nothing, or hardly anything more than himself; and that the little advantage which in some cases they possessed was more than counter-balanced by their conceit of knowledge. he knew nothing, and knew that he knew nothing: they knew little or nothing, and imagined that they knew all things. thus he had passed his life as a sort of missionary in detecting the pretended wisdom of mankind; and this occupation had quite absorbed him and taken him away both from public and private affairs. young men of the richer sort had made a pastime of the same pursuit, 'which was not unamusing.' and hence bitter enmities had arisen; the professors of knowledge had revenged themselves by calling him a villainous corrupter of youth, and by repeating the commonplaces about atheism and materialism and sophistry, which are the stock-accusations against all philosophers when there is nothing else to be said of them.

the second accusation he meets by interrogating meletus, who is present and can be interrogated. 'if he is the corrupter, who is the improver of the citizens?' (compare meno.) 'all men everywhere.' but how absurd, how contrary to analogy is this! how inconceivable too, that he should make the citizens worse when he has to live with them. this surely cannot be intentional; and if unintentional, he ought to have been instructed by meletus, and not accused in the court.

but there is another part of the indictment which says that he teaches men not to receive the gods whom the city receives, and has other new gods. 'is that the way in which he is supposed to corrupt the youth?' 'yes, it is.' 'has he only new gods, or none at all?' 'none at all.' 'what, not even the sun and moon?' 'no; why, he says that the sun is a stone, and the moon earth.' that, replies socrates, is the old confusion about anaxagoras; the athenian people are not so ignorant as to attribute to the influence of socrates notions which have found their way into the drama, and may be learned at the theatre. socrates undertakes to show that meletus (rather unjustifiably) has been compounding a riddle in this part of the indictment: 'there are no gods, but socrates believes in the existence of the sons of gods, which is absurd.'

leaving meletus, who has had enough words spent upon him, he returns to the original accusation. the question may be asked, why will he persist in following a profession which leads him to death? why?—because he must remain at his post where the god has placed him, as he remained at potidaea, and amphipolis, and delium, where the generals placed him. besides, he is not so overwise as to imagine that he knows whether death is a good or an evil; and he is certain that desertion of his duty is an evil. anytus is quite right in saying that they should never have indicted him if they meant to let him go. for he will certainly obey god rather than man; and will continue to preach to all men of all ages the necessity of virtue and improvement; and if they refuse to listen to him he will still persevere and reprove them. this is his way of corrupting the youth, which he will not cease to follow in obedience to the god, even if a thousand deaths await him.

he is desirous that they should let him live—not for his own sake, but for theirs; because he is their heaven-sent friend (and they will never have such another), or, as he may be ludicrously described, he is the gadfly who stirs the generous steed into motion. why then has he never taken part in public affairs? because the familiar divine voice has hindered him; if he had been a public man, and had fought for the right, as he would certainly have fought against the many, he would not have lived, and could therefore have done no good. twice in public matters he has risked his life for the sake of justice—once at the trial of the generals; and again in resistance to the tyrannical commands of the thirty.

but, though not a public man, he has passed his days in instructing the citizens without fee or reward—this was his mission. whether his disciples have turned out well or ill, he cannot justly be charged with the result, for he never promised to teach them anything. they might come if they liked, and they might stay away if they liked: and they did come, because they found an amusement in hearing the pretenders to wisdom detected. if they have been corrupted, their elder relatives (if not themselves) might surely come into court and witness against him, and there is an opportunity still for them to appear. but their fathers and brothers all appear in court (including 'this' plato), to witness on his behalf; and if their relatives are corrupted, at least they are uncorrupted; 'and they are my witnesses. for they know that i am speaking the truth, and that meletus is lying.'

this is about all that he has to say. he will not entreat the judges to spare his life; neither will he present a spectacle of weeping children, although he, too, is not made of 'rock or oak.' some of the judges themselves may have complied with this practice on similar occasions, and he trusts that they will not be angry with him for not following their example. but he feels that such conduct brings discredit on the name of athens: he feels too, that the judge has sworn not to give away justice; and he cannot be guilty of the impiety of asking the judge to break his oath, when he is himself being tried for impiety.

as he expected, and probably intended, he is convicted. and now the tone of the speech, instead of being more conciliatory, becomes more lofty and commanding. anytus proposes death as the penalty: and what counter-proposition shall he make? he, the benefactor of the athenian people, whose whole life has been spent in doing them good, should at least have the olympic victor's reward of maintenance in the prytaneum. or why should he propose any counter-penalty when he does not know whether death, which anytus proposes, is a good or an evil? and he is certain that imprisonment is an evil, exile is an evil. loss of money might be an evil, but then he has none to give; perhaps he can make up a mina. let that be the penalty, or, if his friends wish, thirty minae; for which they will be excellent securities.

(he is condemned to death.)

he is an old man already, and the athenians will gain nothing but disgrace by depriving him of a few years of life. perhaps he could have escaped, if he had chosen to throw down his arms and entreat for his life. but he does not at all repent of the manner of his defence; he would rather die in his own fashion than live in theirs. for the penalty of unrighteousness is swifter than death; that penalty has already overtaken his accusers as death will soon overtake him.

and now, as one who is about to die, he will prophesy to them. they have put him to death in order to escape the necessity of giving an account of their lives. but his death 'will be the seed' of many disciples who will convince them of their evil ways, and will come forth to reprove them in harsher terms, because they are younger and more inconsiderate.

he would like to say a few words, while there is time, to those who would have acquitted him. he wishes them to know that the divine sign never interrupted him in the course of his defence; the reason of which, as he conjectures, is that the death to which he is going is a good and not an evil. for either death is a long sleep, the best of sleeps, or a journey to another world in which the souls of the dead are gathered together, and in which there may be a hope of seeing the heroes of old—in which, too, there are just judges; and as all are immortal, there can be no fear of any one suffering death for his opinions.

nothing evil can happen to the good man either in life or death, and his own death has been permitted by the gods, because it was better for him to depart; and therefore he forgives his judges because they have done him no harm, although they never meant to do him any good.

he has a last request to make to them—that they will trouble his sons as he has troubled them, if they appear to prefer riches to virtue, or to think themselves something when they are nothing.

'few persons will be found to wish that socrates should have defended himself otherwise,'—if, as we must add, his defence was that with which plato has provided him. but leaving this question, which does not admit of a precise solution, we may go on to ask what was the impression which plato in the apology intended to give of the character and conduct of his master in the last great scene? did he intend to represent him (1) as employing sophistries; (2) as designedly irritating the judges? or are these sophistries to be regarded as belonging to the age in which he lived and to his personal character, and this apparent haughtiness as flowing from the natural elevation of his position?

for example, when he says that it is absurd to suppose that one man is the corrupter and all the rest of the world the improvers of the youth; or, when he argues that he never could have corrupted the men with whom he had to live; or, when he proves his belief in the gods because he believes in the sons of gods, is he serious or jesting? it may be observed that these sophisms all occur in his cross-examination of meletus, who is easily foiled and mastered in the hands of the great dialectician. perhaps he regarded these answers as good enough for his accuser, of whom he makes very light. also there is a touch of irony in them, which takes them out of the category of sophistry. (compare euthyph.)

that the manner in which he defends himself about the lives of his disciples is not satisfactory, can hardly be denied. fresh in the memory of the athenians, and detestable as they deserved to be to the newly restored democracy, were the names of alcibiades, critias, charmides. it is obviously not a sufficient answer that socrates had never professed to teach them anything, and is therefore not justly chargeable with their crimes. yet the defence, when taken out of this ironical form, is doubtless sound: that his teaching had nothing to do with their evil lives. here, then, the sophistry is rather in form than in substance, though we might desire that to such a serious charge socrates had given a more serious answer.

truly characteristic of socrates is another point in his answer, which may also be regarded as sophistical. he says that 'if he has corrupted the youth, he must have corrupted them involuntarily.' but if, as socrates argues, all evil is involuntary, then all criminals ought to be admonished and not punished. in these words the socratic doctrine of the involuntariness of evil is clearly intended to be conveyed. here again, as in the former instance, the defence of socrates is untrue practically, but may be true in some ideal or transcendental sense. the commonplace reply, that if he had been guilty of corrupting the youth their relations would surely have witnessed against him, with which he concludes this part of his defence, is more satisfactory.

again, when socrates argues that he must believe in the gods because he believes in the sons of gods, we must remember that this is a refutation not of the original indictment, which is consistent enough—'socrates does not receive the gods whom the city receives, and has other new divinities'—but of the interpretation put upon the words by meletus, who has affirmed that he is a downright atheist. to this socrates fairly answers, in accordance with the ideas of the time, that a downright atheist cannot believe in the sons of gods or in divine things. the notion that demons or lesser divinities are the sons of gods is not to be regarded as ironical or sceptical. he is arguing 'ad hominem' according to the notions of mythology current in his age. yet he abstains from saying that he believed in the gods whom the state approved. he does not defend himself, as xenophon has defended him, by appealing to his practice of religion. probably he neither wholly believed, nor disbelieved, in the existence of the popular gods; he had no means of knowing about them. according to plato (compare phaedo; symp.), as well as xenophon (memor.), he was punctual in the performance of the least religious duties; and he must have believed in his own oracular sign, of which he seemed to have an internal witness. but the existence of apollo or zeus, or the other gods whom the state approves, would have appeared to him both uncertain and unimportant in comparison of the duty of self-examination, and of those principles of truth and right which he deemed to be the foundation of religion. (compare phaedr.; euthyph.; republic.)

the second question, whether plato meant to represent socrates as braving or irritating his judges, must also be answered in the negative. his irony, his superiority, his audacity, 'regarding not the person of man,' necessarily flow out of the loftiness of his situation. he is not acting a part upon a great occasion, but he is what he has been all his life long, 'a king of men.' he would rather not appear insolent, if he could avoid it (ouch os authadizomenos touto lego). neither is he desirous of hastening his own end, for life and death are simply indifferent to him. but such a defence as would be acceptable to his judges and might procure an acquittal, it is not in his nature to make. he will not say or do anything that might pervert the course of justice; he cannot have his tongue bound even 'in the throat of death.' with his accusers he will only fence and play, as he had fenced with other 'improvers of youth,' answering the sophist according to his sophistry all his life long. he is serious when he is speaking of his own mission, which seems to distinguish him from all other reformers of mankind, and originates in an accident. the dedication of himself to the improvement of his fellow-citizens is not so remarkable as the ironical spirit in which he goes about doing good only in vindication of the credit of the oracle, and in the vain hope of finding a wiser man than himself. yet this singular and almost accidental character of his mission agrees with the divine sign which, according to our notions, is equally accidental and irrational, and is nevertheless accepted by him as the guiding principle of his life. socrates is nowhere represented to us as a freethinker or sceptic. there is no reason to doubt his sincerity when he speculates on the possibility of seeing and knowing the heroes of the trojan war in another world. on the other hand, his hope of immortality is uncertain;—he also conceives of death as a long sleep (in this respect differing from the phaedo), and at last falls back on resignation to the divine will, and the certainty that no evil can happen to the good man either in life or death. his absolute truthfulness seems to hinder him from asserting positively more than this; and he makes no attempt to veil his ignorance in mythology and figures of speech. the gentleness of the first part of the speech contrasts with the aggravated, almost threatening, tone of the conclusion. he characteristically remarks that he will not speak as a rhetorician, that is to say, he will not make a regular defence such as lysias or one of the orators might have composed for him, or, according to some accounts, did compose for him. but he first procures himself a hearing by conciliatory words. he does not attack the sophists; for they were open to the same charges as himself; they were equally ridiculed by the comic poets, and almost equally hateful to anytus and meletus. yet incidentally the antagonism between socrates and the sophists is allowed to appear. he is poor and they are rich; his profession that he teaches nothing is opposed to their readiness to teach all things; his talking in the marketplace to their private instructions; his tarry-at-home life to their wandering from city to city. the tone which he assumes towards them is one of real friendliness, but also of concealed irony. towards anaxagoras, who had disappointed him in his hopes of learning about mind and nature, he shows a less kindly feeling, which is also the feeling of plato in other passages (laws). but anaxagoras had been dead thirty years, and was beyond the reach of persecution.

it has been remarked that the prophecy of a new generation of teachers who would rebuke and exhort the athenian people in harsher and more violent terms was, as far as we know, never fulfilled. no inference can be drawn from this circumstance as to the probability of the words attributed to him having been actually uttered. they express the aspiration of the first martyr of philosophy, that he would leave behind him many followers, accompanied by the not unnatural feeling that they would be fiercer and more inconsiderate in their words when emancipated from his control.

the above remarks must be understood as applying with any degree of certainty to the platonic socrates only. for, although these or similar words may have been spoken by socrates himself, we cannot exclude the possibility, that like so much else, e.g. the wisdom of critias, the poem of solon, the virtues of charmides, they may have been due only to the imagination of plato. the arguments of those who maintain that the apology was composed during the process, resting on no evidence, do not require a serious refutation. nor are the reasonings of schleiermacher, who argues that the platonic defence is an exact or nearly exact reproduction of the words of socrates, partly because plato would not have been guilty of the impiety of altering them, and also because many points of the defence might have been improved and strengthened, at all more conclusive. (see english translation.) what effect the death of socrates produced on the mind of plato, we cannot certainly determine; nor can we say how he would or must have written under the circumstances. we observe that the enmity of aristophanes to socrates does not prevent plato from introducing them together in the symposium engaged in friendly intercourse. nor is there any trace in the dialogues of an attempt to make anytus or meletus personally odious in the eyes of the athenian public.