The existence of two defense speeches of Socrates (and allusions to others) raises a problem about whom to trust as a source. The problem is part of a bigger one, known as the Socratic Problem: who is (are) our best source(s), and how can we reconstruct the life and especially thought of Socrates from them? More will be said about this later, but for now we have our two best-preserved sources, Plato and Xenophon, reporting exactly the same event and giving different accounts, although with some similarities. Plato’s portrayal of the trial is clearly the most detailed and complete, while Xenophon gives only an excerpt of the argument and some statements of Socrates before and after the trial.
Plato’s text is, by all accounts, a literary masterpiece, and one which shows Socrates giving a powerful argument, if sometimes in homely speech. The speech Plato ascribes to Socrates conforms to the conventions of Athenian trial speeches, with an Introduction, Statement, Refutation of the opponent’s view, Digression, and Conclusion.[40] It is so well crafted, indeed, that some scholars think Socrates could not possibly have given it.[41] On the other hand, Plato was in the audience and played a role in the trial itself. There were many witnesses, including most of the followers of Socrates, several of whom also wrote Socratic dialogues, who could dispute the contents of the speech if it deviated significantly from what Socrates said. If Plato had any desire to defend the memory of his master, as he surely did, he would at least need to represent Socrates as he really was and Socrates’ real position as his real position.[42]
Yet there are different ways to defend Socrates. As one scholar points out, we may distinguish between (1) a documentary account of the speech, (2) a text in which Plato polishes and improves on Socrates’ actual speech while staying faithful to its main argument, and (3) a text in which Plato invents the best speech he can produce to vindicate his master.[43] Version (1) seems virtually impossible, given that Socrates probably spoke extemporaneously and court proceedings were not recorded verbatim. Is there, then, any reason to prefer (2) to (3), in other words, to put any significant limit to Plato’s poetic license?[44] And is there any reason to prefer Plato’s allegedly verbatim report to Xenophon’s abbreviated second-hand report?
First, and most obviously, Plato writes as an eyewitness soon after the event, while Xenophon writes by way of hearsay years later and in response to earlier written reports. But of course Plato is very much a player in the philosophical debates following the death of Socrates, and so able a writer and thinker that he is perfectly capable of slanting—or rewriting—the story to his own ends. Xenophon, for his part, is a historian rather than a philosopher, and he may for that reason be less likely to distort the facts. What we find in Xenophon, however, is a disappointing story of Socrates’ motivation. Socrates has a death wish, and sees the trial as his exit strategy—the gods being willing, of course. The great paragon of virtue, for Xenophon as well as Plato, is content to take the easy way out. If Xenophon is our witness, the trial is not Socrates’ finest hour. Rather it reveals a fatal flaw in his moral armor: the philosopher is burned out and looking forward to obtaining a release from his family, civic, and moral responsibilities.[45]
Plato’s Socrates, to the contrary, reveals what he regards to be his mission to Athens. He will never stop philosophizing and challenging his fellow citizens to seek virtue, no matter what the threat. The ultimate threat is death—but death is irrelevant, according to him, to moral decisions. Socrates does not seek death, but he does not avoid it either; he asks only the opportunity to continue his quest. The important choices he makes, before, during, and, as we shall see, after the trial, are all driven by ethical imperatives. The god has called him to his post as resident philosopher and gadfly, and there he will remain as long as he has breath. Socrates in the lawcourt has the same commitments as Socrates on the street, or on the battlefield. He has a duty that is more important than life itself.
If we are searching for a philosophical hero, it had better be the speaker of Plato’s Apology. He alone is the man for all seasons, the philosopher who is true to the end.
But, one might object, perhaps the speech is largely a figment of Plato’s fertile imagination. Perhaps Plato has idealized the philosopher into a more-than-human avatar of philosophical principles. To the contrary: first, it is simply false that the Socrates of the Apology is an abstract ideal. The philosopher tells us intimate details of his life, some of which, including the embassy of Chaerephon, are confirmed by Xenophon.[46] He speaks of his life, public and private: the trial of the generals; the arrest warrant for Leon of Salamis; his service in war; and his family. He speaks of acquaintances (Callias) and his interest in education. His defense is very much interwoven with the fabric of his life. Plato may embellish Socrates’ presentation, but he does not invent his life or, presumably, his character.[47] The Socrates of the Apology is anything but other-worldly. And the overall argument Socrates presents is not highly philosophical, but suitably down-to-earth, for all its philosophical asides.[48]
[40].See Strycker and Slings 1994: 22-25, following Burnet 1924.
[41].Strycker and Slings 1994: 6-7.
[42].Burnet 1924: 63-64; Brickhouse and Smith 2010:22-27.
[43].Morrison 2000: 241.
[44.The view that Plato’s Apology is reliable is, in fact, the “dominant view” (Morrison 2000: 236), but faces important challenges, such as those Morrison adduces. In favor of the dialogue’s reliability are, among others, Burnet 1924: 63-64; Taylor 1952: 29-30; Vlastos 1957-1958: 500; Guthrie 1962-1981, 4: 72-78; Brickhouse & Smith 1989: 1-10; Kahn 1996: 88-90; Colaiaco 2001: 17-21. For a classic skeptical view, see Hackforth 1933: 1-7; for recent skeptical views, see Stokes 1992, Waterfield 2009: 9-12 and Dorion 2011: 17-18 and 2012. Even those who view the text of Plato’s Apology as expressing Plato’s own defense often grant that “Plato presents, both in the Apology and the dialogues, an eminently truthful image of Socrates’ character and activity, and especially that the biographical particulars contained in those works should be accepted as historical, unless there is . . . contrary [evidence]” (Strycker and Slings 1994: 6).
[45].Vander Waerdt 1993: 19-27 defends Xenophon’s Socrates against this criticism, but the argument oddly seems to presuppose that Socrates thinks of his speech as a written document for posterity.
[46]. See Graham and Barney 2016, and ch. 11* above.
[47]. See Stryker and Slings 1994: 74.
[48].Cf. Hackforth 1933: 46.