Socrates’ Rhetorical Strategy in Plato’s Apology

This paper investigates Socrates’ intention in his defense speech against the first accusers in Plato’s Apology. As a defender, Socrates is supposed to argue for his acquittal. However, his opening defense against the first accusations that he engages in natural philosophy and rhetoric does not seem to aid him in this respect. To the official and later indictment for corrupting the young and disbelieving in the gods, Socrates adds further accusations, which the accusers themselves never brought up. For what purpose does Socrates seemingly incriminate himself and, through this unorthodox tactic, what does he achieve? Previous studies on this question generally offer two interpretations. Some suggest that Socrates’ argument against the first accusations, which he himself raises, is a reasonable appeal for an acquittal, because the official indictment depends on the claim of the first accusations. Others contend that Socrates does not attempt to argue for his acquittal, but merely highlights the tragic and irresolvable conflict between his own sense of morality and the conventional ethics of the city. This paper offers a third interpretation. Appealing to the first accusations as an example of the prejudice that he considers characteristic of the Athenians, Socrates tries to transform the negative connotations attached to their prejudice into positive associations, without sufficiently refuting the accusations. His speech is less a refutation than it is an attempt to elevate his moral status in the eyes of the public.