In 399 BC, one of the greatest ancient thinkers, Socrates, faced the trial upon the accusations of his corrupting influence on the Athenian youth, rejection of gods recognized by the Athenian state and invention of new gods. In the course of the trial, the philosopher was given an opportunity to defend himself, and his speech interpreted by Plato under the title Apology has survived until nowadays as a prominent example of rhetoric and argumentation. Socrates moves from explanations of his actions to critique of the values and misconceptions of his accusers (particularly, Meletus). Although one would expect a person to try to convince the jury of their innocence and argue in favor of acquittal, one does not identify such purposes in Socrates’ argumentation (Kondo). However, if Apology is read in terms of rhetoric devices and strategies, mastery of persuasion and argumentation is obvious: Socrates uses multiple strategies appealing to the audience, maintains appropriate style of his speech and manages to excel his opponents, even though his argument does not rely on the emotional component, which is used so often nowadays.
The rhetorical aspect manifesting itself immediately in Socrates’ speech is his awareness of the rhetorical situation and the audience he is addressing. As a rhetorical situation typically consists of an exigence, audience and constraints, the philosopher is well aware of these elements. He appeals to various parts of his audience throughout the speech – “men of Athens” (Plato 17a), the jury, his accusers and especially Meletus. The appeals to this audience are aligned with the exigence, which initiated Socrates’ speech: in this case, this is accusations put against him, which he considers false and unjust. It should be mentioned, however, that the goal pursued by Socrates is obviously not just defending himself before the jury, but rather proving utility and authority of philosophy “against long-standing misconceptions” (Worthington 80). At the same time, Socrates challenges the constraints of the rhetorical situation. He acknowledges the expectations imposed on him be the format of defense speech, but he goes against them quite consciously, announcing his intention to speak to the audience in the way he speaks to his interlocutors in private conversations. Socrates asks the audience not to be disturbed if he speaks in the way he always speaks elsewhere: “Leave aside the manner of my speech [] and instead consider this very thing and apply your mind to this: whether the things I say are just or not” (Plato 18a).
In his argumentation, Socrates seems to give preference to Logos over other modes of persuasion. Although the speech is far from the best examples of logical appeals found in the dialogues, it also contains multiple examples of Logos. Logos is especially clear and efficient in the part of the speech where Socrates conducts cross-examination of Meletus: here, the philosopher uses simple questions and uses Meletus’ answers to prove not only that he is not guilty of the crimes he is charged with, but also that Meletus does not care about the youth of Athens (while his accusations concern bad influence of Socrates on the youth of Athens). Even more, using simple logic and using answers of his interlocutors, Socrates constructs a conclusion that if [he] corrupts involuntarily, the law is not that [Meletus] brings [him] in here for such involuntary wrongs, but that [he] takes [Socrates] aside in private to teach and admonish [him] (Plato 26a). At the same time, Socrates manages to use the dialogue with Meletus to lead his logical considerations and arrive at the statement that he does, in fact, believe in gods (the premise about humans and human matters). In the concluding part of his speech, Socrates appeals to his previous logical statements to justify his intention to win support of the jurors by persuading and teaching rather than by begging. Given his previous ruminations on belief in gods and virtue, he draws a logical conclusion that judging him unjustly after having sworn an oath would mean that the jurors do not believe in gods (Plato 35d).
While Socrates seems to make Logos the strongest point in his argumentation, Ethos is also a significant mode to be used in conveying his message. As Ethos uses the personality of the speaker himself or credibility of his sources to support the stance, Socrates appeals to the authoritative persona – the Oracle in Delphi whose prophecy motivated his behavior and actions. The philosopher uses this source (extremely authoritative for Athenians) telling how he visited Delphi and heard the Oracle call him the wisest man. As he relates, his further pursuits were intended to refute this claim and find the man who is wiser: he talked to many men who claimed to be wise and found that they were, for they claimed to know something despite knowing nothing.
Moreover, Socrates virtually channels Ethos through himself by telling this story: he claims to possess exceptional wisdom as he admits that he knows nothing (his famous wisdom of ignorance emerges in this context). Later in the speech, Socrates applies this element of Ethos constructed through the prophecy of the Oracle to make moral and ethical statements about good fearlessness, fear and evil, injustice and fear of death (Plato 29a-29c). Thuswise, Socrates uses the initial application of Ethos to build up his own authority in the front of his judges and jury, to elevate himself beyond the status of a regular citizen and establish himself as a wise man.
Unlike Ethos and Logos, Socrates’ application of Pathos is episodic and somewhat sarcastic. As an ardent proponent of logic and philosophy, he appeals to the audience’s emotions in order to support his logical statements in front of them. Particularly, Socrates claims his actions and philosophizing to be an expression of his duty to Athens, his state. However, the remarkable trait of the philosopher’s approach to Pathos is that he appeals to the judges’ emotions and sense of duty not just to save himself from conviction, but also to help the state improve and foster virtue and piety.
Even more, the philosopher acknowledges that he does not want to solicit acquittal with begging, he wants to achieve this staying true to “his deepest convictions” (Reeve 8). Finally, Socrates only expresses hope for the jurors’ piety (as connected with justice) and appeals to this type of sentiment in concluding his speech.
Socrates’ Apology is a remarkable specimen of rhetorical proficiency as he manages to build up a strong argument by using rhetorical devices available to him: rhetorical situation, three modes of persuasion and his famous practice of dialogue. As a result, the argument constructed by Socrates is strong, even though it does not convince the jury to acquit him. However, one cannot claim his argument a failure, as he did not purposefully seek to avoid death, which could become his penalty (which, in fact, happened later). Socrates turned out to be the winner in the end and on a broader scale, as his argument sought to reveal all the moral ailments of the contemporary Athenian society and, if possible, cure them. By failing to accept his appeal, Athenians turned out to be a defeated party in this opposition. Analyzing arguments like Socrates’ Apology is a valuable practice for learning to evaluate rhetorical techniques proficiently and see how purposeful violation of some rhetorical conventions might make an argument even stronger.
Works Cited
Kondo, Kazutaka. “Socrates’ Rhetorical Strategy in Plato’s Apology.” ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: PHI2014-0960 (2014). Web. Jan 27. 2016. <http://www.atiner.gr/papers/PHI2014-0960.pdf>
Plato. Apology of Socrates. Web. Jan 27. 2017. <http://www.sjsu.edu/people/james.lindahl/courses/Phil70A/s3/apology.pdf>
Reeve, C. D. C. Socrates in the Apology: An Essay on Plato's Apology of Socrates. Hackett Publishing, 1989.
Worthington, Ian. A Companion to Greek Rhetoric. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
