Apology , livre ebook

Pub One Info - Plato

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

26 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

pubOne.info present you this new edition. 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

Informations

Publié par	Pub One Info
Date de parution	06 novembre 2010
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9782819933809
Langue	English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0050€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

APOLOGY
By Plato
Translated by Benjamin Jowett
INTRODUCTION.
In what relation the Apology of Plato stands to thereal defence of Socrates, there are no means of determining. Itcertainly agrees in tone and character with the description ofXenophon, who says in the Memorabilia that Socrates might have beenacquitted 'if in any moderate degree he would have conciliated thefavour of the dicasts; ' and who informs us in another passage, onthe testimony of Hermogenes, the friend of Socrates, that he had nowish to live; and that the divine sign refused to allow him toprepare a defence, and also that Socrates himself declared this tobe unnecessary, on the ground that all his life long he had beenpreparing against that hour. For the speech breathes throughout aspirit of defiance, (ut non supplex aut reus sed magister autdominus videretur esse judicum', Cic. de Orat. ); and the loose anddesultory style is an imitation of the 'accustomed manner' in whichSocrates spoke in 'the agora and among the tables of themoney-changers. ' The allusion in the Crito may, perhaps, beadduced as a further evidence of the literal accuracy of someparts. But in the main it must be regarded as the ideal ofSocrates, according to Plato's conception of him, appearing in thegreatest and most public scene of his life, and in the height ofhis triumph, when he is weakest, and yet his mastery over mankindis greatest, and his habitual irony acquires a new meaning and asort of tragic pathos in the face of death. The facts of his lifeare summed up, and the features of his character are brought out asif by accident in the course of the defence. The conversationalmanner, the seeming want of arrangement, the ironical simplicity,are found to result in a perfect work of art, which is the portraitof Socrates.
Yet some of the topics may have been actually usedby Socrates; and the recollection of his very words may have rungin the ears of his disciple. The Apology of Plato may be comparedgenerally with those speeches of Thucydides in which he hasembodied his conception of the lofty character and policy of thegreat Pericles, and which at the same time furnish a commentary onthe 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 thesituation. Plato was not, like Xenophon, a chronicler of facts; hedoes not appear in any of his writings to have aimed at literalaccuracy. He is not therefore to be supplemented from theMemorabilia and Symposium of Xenophon, who belongs to an entirelydifferent class of writers. The Apology of Plato is not the reportof what Socrates said, but an elaborate composition, quite as muchso in fact as one of the Dialogues. And we may perhaps even indulgein the fancy that the actual defence of Socrates was as muchgreater than the Platonic defence as the master was greater thanthe disciple. But in any case, some of the words used by him musthave been remembered, and some of the facts recorded must haveactually occurred. It is significant that Plato is said to havebeen present at the defence (Apol. ), as he is also said to havebeen absent at the last scene in the Phaedo. Is it fanciful tosuppose that he meant to give the stamp of authenticity to the oneand not to the other? — especially when we consider that these twopassages are the only ones in which Plato makes mention of himself.The circumstance that Plato was to be one of his sureties for thepayment of the fine which he proposed has the appearance of truth.More suspicious is the statement that Socrates received the firstimpulse to his favourite calling of cross-examining the world fromthe Oracle of Delphi; for he must already have been famous beforeChaerephon went to consult the Oracle (Riddell), and the story isof a kind which is very likely to have been invented. On the wholewe arrive at the conclusion that the Apology is true to thecharacter of Socrates, but we cannot show that any single sentencein it was actually spoken by him. It breathes the spirit ofSocrates, but has been cast anew in the mould of Plato.
There is not much in the other Dialogues which canbe compared with the Apology. The same recollection of his mastermay have been present to the mind of Plato when depicting thesufferings of the Just in the Republic. The Crito may also beregarded as a sort of appendage to the Apology, in which Socrates,who has defied the judges, is nevertheless represented asscrupulously obedient to the laws. The idealization of the suffereris carried still further in the Gorgias, in which the thesis ismaintained, that 'to suffer is better than to do evil; ' and theart of rhetoric is described as only useful for the purpose ofself-accusation. The parallelisms which occur in the so-calledApology of Xenophon are not worth noticing, because the writing inwhich they are contained is manifestly spurious. The statements ofthe Memorabilia respecting the trial and death of Socrates agreegenerally with Plato; but they have lost the flavour of Socraticirony in the narrative of Xenophon.
The Apology or Platonic defence of Socrates isdivided into three parts: 1st. The defence properly so called; 2nd.The shorter address in mitigation of the penalty; 3rd. The lastwords of prophetic rebuke and exhortation.
The first part commences with an apology for hiscolloquial style; he is, as he has always been, the enemy ofrhetoric, and knows of no rhetoric but truth; he will not falsifyhis character by making a speech. Then he proceeds to divide hisaccusers into two classes; first, there is the nameless accuser—public opinion. All the world from their earliest years had heardthat he was a corrupter of youth, and had seen him caricatured inthe Clouds of Aristophanes. Secondly, there are the professedaccusers, who are but the mouth-piece of the others. Theaccusations of both might be summed up in a formula. The first say,'Socrates is an evil-doer and a curious person, searching intothings under the earth and above the heaven; and making the worseappear the better cause, and teaching all this to others. ' Thesecond, 'Socrates is an evil-doer and corrupter of the youth, whodoes not receive the gods whom the state receives, but introducesother new divinities. ' These last words appear to have been theactual indictment (compare Xen. Mem. ); and the previous formula,which is a summary of public opinion, assumes the same legalstyle.
The answer begins by clearing up a confusion. In therepresentations of the Comic poets, and in the opinion of themultitude, he had been identified with the teachers of physicalscience and with the Sophists. But this was an error. For both ofthem he professes a respect in the open court, which contrasts withhis manner of speaking about them in other places. (Compare forAnaxagoras, Phaedo, Laws; for the Sophists, Meno, Republic, Tim. ,Theaet. , Soph. , etc. ) But at the same time he shows that he isnot one of them. Of natural philosophy he knows nothing; not thathe despises such pursuits, but the fact is that he is ignorant ofthem, and never says a word about them. Nor is he paid for givinginstruction— that is another mistaken notion:— he has nothing toteach. 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 themultitude, is lurking here.
He then goes on to explain the reason why he is insuch an evil name. That had arisen out of a peculiar mission whichhe had taken upon himself. The enthusiastic Chaerephon (probably inanticipation of the answer which he received) had gone to Delphiand asked the oracle if there was any man wiser than Socrates; andthe answer was, that there was no man wiser. What could be themeaning of this— that he who knew nothing, and knew that he knewnothing, 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 thepoets, and then to the craftsmen, but always with the same result—he found that they knew nothing, or hardly anything more thanhimself; and that the little advantage which in some cases theypossessed was more than counter-balanced by their conceit ofknowledge. He knew nothing, and knew that he knew nothing: theyknew little or nothing, and imagined that they knew all things.Thus he had passed his life as a sort of missionary in detectingthe pretended wisdom of mankind; and this occupation had quiteabsorbed him and taken him away both from public and privateaffairs. Young men of the richer sort had made a pastime of thesame pursuit, 'which was not unamusing. ' And hence bitter enmitieshad arisen; the professors of knowledge had revenged themselves bycalling him a villainous corrupter of youth, and by repeating thecommonplaces about atheism and materialism and sophistry, which arethe stock-accusations against all philosophers when there isnothing else to be said of them.
The second accusation he meets by interrogatingMeletus, who is present and can be interrogated. 'If he is thecorrupter, who is the improver of the citizens? ' (Compare Meno. )'All men everywhere. ' But how absurd, how contrary to analogy isthis! How inconceivable too, that he should make the citizens worsewhen 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 whichsays that he teaches men not to receive the gods whom the cityreceives, and has other new gods. 'Is that the way in which he issupposed to corrupt the youth? ' 'Yes, it is. ' 'Has he only newgods, or none at all? ' 'None at all. ' 'What, not even the sun andmoon? ' 'No; why, he says that the sun is a stone, and the moonearth. ' That, replies Socrates, is the old confusion aboutAnaxagoras; the Athenian people