Summary
Socrates opens by contrasting the polished speeches of his accusers with his own ordinary manner of speaking. He asks the jurors to judge whether his words are just rather than whether they display courtroom eloquence.
He distinguishes two groups of accusers. The formal prosecutors are Meletus, Anytus and Lycon, but older rumours are more difficult to answer. For years, Athenians have heard that Socrates investigates natural mysteries, makes weak arguments defeat strong ones and teaches for payment. Aristophanes’ comic portrayal helped fix this image in the public imagination.
Socrates denies possessing or teaching specialised knowledge about nature and distinguishes himself from paid Sophists. He explains that his reputation began when Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi whether anyone was wiser than Socrates. The oracle answered that no one was.
Because he did not consider himself wise, Socrates tried to test the oracle. He questioned a politician who appeared knowledgeable and found that the man believed himself wise without being so. Socrates concluded that he was wiser only in one limited respect: he did not think he knew what he did not know.
He repeated the investigation among poets and craftsmen. Poets produced impressive works but could not adequately explain them and often assumed that poetic achievement made them authorities on unrelated matters. Craftsmen possessed genuine technical knowledge, but many made the same mistake of extending that competence into universal wisdom.
These encounters created hostility. Young men with leisure listened to the examinations and imitated them, causing further embarrassment. Those exposed by questioning blamed Socrates rather than their own unsupported claims. The accusations of corrupting youth and religious impiety grew from this resentment.
Socrates calls Meletus forward for questioning. Meletus claims that the laws, jurors, councillors and citizens improve the young while Socrates alone corrupts them. Socrates compares this claim with the training of horses, where improvement requires knowledgeable specialists and harm is easily caused by the unskilled.
He then asks whether he corrupts deliberately. People harmed by those around them risk being harmed in return, so Socrates would not rationally make his companions worse on purpose. If he caused harm unknowingly, Meletus should have corrected him privately instead of bringing a criminal prosecution.
On religion, Meletus appears to accuse Socrates both of believing in no gods and of teaching spiritual agencies. Socrates argues that someone who believes in spiritual activity must accept some form of spiritual beings. Meletus’ position therefore contradicts itself.
Socrates refuses to measure right conduct by danger. A person should remain at an assigned post, whether placed there by a military commander or by divine obligation. He recalls serving courageously in battle and says it would be shameful to desert philosophy because of fear of death.
If offered release on condition that he stop questioning, Socrates says he would refuse. He will continue asking citizens why they value money, honour and reputation more than wisdom, truth and the improvement of the soul. Virtue does not arise from wealth; wealth and other genuine goods become beneficial through virtue.
He describes himself as a gadfly attached to Athens, a large and noble but sluggish horse. His activity irritates the city while keeping it awake. Executing him would injure Athens more than Socrates because the city would lose this persistent moral stimulus.
Socrates explains his limited participation in politics. His divine sign restrains him because a person who genuinely opposes widespread injustice would soon be destroyed in public life. Nevertheless, he gives examples of civic courage. Under democracy he opposed the illegal collective trial of the generals, and under the Thirty Tyrants he refused an order to arrest Leon of Salamis for execution.
He denies being anyone’s formal teacher. He converses without charging fees and does not promise instruction. If young people or their relatives believed he had corrupted them, they could testify against him; instead, several are present in his support.
Socrates refuses to bring his children before the jury or plead through tears. Such performances would dishonour both him and the court by asking jurors to decide through pity rather than law and evidence.
The jury convicts him. During sentencing, Socrates first argues that, as someone who has neglected private advantage to benefit the city, he deserves maintenance in the Prytaneum. He has little money and initially proposes a small fine, later increasing it when Plato and other friends offer security.
He rejects imprisonment, exile and a promise of silence. Other cities would react as Athens has, and a life without philosophical discussion would not be worth living. He cannot accept that obedience to the jury should replace obedience to what he regards as divine duty.
After the death sentence, Socrates tells those who condemned him that they will not escape criticism by killing critics. The better course is not to silence others but to improve themselves. He predicts that more questioners will arise after his death.
To those who voted for acquittal, he observes that his divine sign did not oppose anything he did that day. He interprets this as evidence that death may not be an evil. Death could be dreamless sleep, which would be a great peace, or the soul could migrate elsewhere, allowing conversation with figures from the past.
Socrates concludes that no evil can ultimately happen to a good person in life or death because moral character, not external fortune, determines the deepest good. He asks his friends to challenge his sons if they value wealth or reputation above virtue. He then departs to die while his listeners depart to live, leaving which fate is better known only to the god.