Read Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους at the source, before centuries of translation made its language familiar in other forms.
Apology of Socrates, preserved here as Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους, is one of the works through which ancient Greek literature and thought continue to speak to later centuries. Plato recreates Socrates' defence at trial and asks what integrity, civic duty, and the examined life demand when death is near.
The Apology of Socrates (Ancient Greek: Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους, Apología Sokrátous; Latin: Apologia Socratis), written by Plato, is a Socratic dialogue of the speech of legal self-defence which Socrates (469–399 BC) spoke at his trial for impiety and corruption in 399 BC.
Specifically, the Apology of Socrates is a defence against the charges of "corrupting the youth" and "not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel" to Athens (24b).
Among the primary sources about the trial and death of the philosopher Socrates, the Apology of Socrates is the dialogue that depicts the trial, and is one of four Socratic dialogues, along with Euthyphro, Phaedo, and Crito, through which Plato details the final days of the philosopher Socrates. There are debates among scholars as to the reliability of the Apology's account of the trial.
The Apology of Socrates, by the philosopher Plato (429–347 BC), was one of many explanatory apologiae about Socrates's legal defence against accusations of corruption and impiety; most apologiae were published in the decade after the Trial of Socrates (399 BC). As such, Plato's Apology of Socrates is an early philosophic defence of Socrates, presented in the form of a Socratic dialogue. Although Aristotle later classified it as a genre of fiction, it is still a useful historical source about Socrates (469–399 BC) the philosopher. Aristotle believed the dialogue, particularly the scene where Socrates questions Meletus, represented a good use of interrogation.
Except for Socrates's two dialogues with Meletus, about the nature and logic of his accusations of impiety, the text of the Apology of Socrates is in the first-person perspective and voice of the philosopher Socrates (24d–25d and 26b–27d). Moreover, during the trial, in his speech of self-defence, Socrates twice mentions that Plato is present at the trial (34a and 38b).
The Apology of Socrates begins with Socrates addressing the jury of perhaps 500 Athenian men to ask if they have been persuaded by the Orators Lycon, Anytus, and Meletus, who have accused Socrates of corrupting the young people of the city and impiety against the pantheon of Athens.
Immediately after, Socrates protests his accusers for telling the audience to guard themselves against his eloquence. He claims that his use of language will be extemporaneous, in his own common manner of interrogating highly respected Athenians, and that he himself is a stranger in the ways of court unaccustomed to giving ornamented speech. Socrates later argues that whatever wisdom he does in fact possess comes from knowing that he knows nothing (23b, 29b).
In the course of the trial, Socrates imitates, parodies, and corrects the Orators, his accusers, and asks the jury to judge him by the truth of his statements, not by his oratorical skill (cf. Lysias XIX 1,2,3; Isaeus X 1; Isocrates XV 79; Aeschines II 24). Socrates says he will not use sophisticated language—carefully arranged ornate words and phrases—but will speak using the common idiom of the Greek language. Socrates says that he will speak in the manner he has used in the agora and at the money tables. Although offered the opportunity to appease the prejudices of the jury, with a minimal concession to the charges of corruption and impiety, Socrates does not yield his integrity to avoid the penalty of death. The jury condemns Socrates to death.
Approaching Apology of Socrates in its original language brings the reader closer to choices of rhythm, argument, image, and dramatic emphasis that translations must inevitably interpret. The work is not important only because it is old: it remains a living point of reference for writers, philosophers, historians, theatre makers, and readers confronting related questions today.
Plato was an Athenian philosopher and student of Socrates whose dialogues shaped Western ethics, metaphysics, politics, and theories of knowledge.
Plato (Ancient Athens, 428/427 or 424/423 BC – Ancient Athens, 348/347 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher from Athens, the most famous student of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle. His work, which in the form of philosophical dialogues has survived in its entirety (even some spurious works are attributed to him), exerted a huge influence on ancient Greek philosophy and in general on the Western philosophical tradition until today.
Plato, among others, wrote the Apology of Socrates, a΄[›] which is considered to be a relatively accurate record of Socrates' apology in the trial that sentenced him to death, the Symposium where he talks about the nature of love, "Protagoras" where, among other things, the principle of "prevention" which does not take punishment as absolutely "retributive" 324b, Parmenides and Theaitis, where he establishes the objectivity of speech and idea, while in two long dialogues, the State and the Laws, he described an ideal state b΄[›], a society of three classes: (a) the few, rulers - kings, (b) the auxiliaries, a caste of warriors, (c) the multitude of free citizens who have no access to power. The few, by virtue of wisdom - logic, and the auxiliaries, by virtue of bravery - will, dominate the passions of the multitude.
In the 20th century the philosopher Karl Popper criticized Plato's ideal state as a totalitarian formation. Plato was describing an ideal - utopian society, where it will be clear who are worthy to rule and fight. This is clearly impossible in a real society, something that was certainly known to Plato, whose work was philosophical and theoretical rather than a proposal for government.
His body of work often ranks him among the world's leading and most influential figures of all time, along with his teacher, Socrates, and his student, Aristotle.
In this collection, the author's importance is approached through Apology of Socrates. The work shows how a particular genre or method could become a durable instrument for examining human action, public life, knowledge, memory, and the demands of justice.
Set in Athens in 399 BCE, Apology of Socrates presents the trial and philosophical defense of Socrates before an Athenian jury. The work opens as Socrates addresses the court to defend himself against two main sets of charges: ancient, longstanding rumors that have distorted his reputation over decades, and official accusations recently brought by Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon. Socrates begins by dismantling the old prejudices that frame him as an intrusive natural philosopher who investigates matters below the earth and in the heavens, or as a Sophist who makes the weaker argument appear stronger. He explains that his widespread unpopularity stems from an oracle delivered at Delphi, which declared that no man was wiser than Socrates. Puzzled by this divine declaration, Socrates embarked on a lifelong quest to test people who claimed to possess wisdom, politicians, poets, and skilled artisans. Through rigorous questioning, he discovered that while these individuals believed they possessed grand knowledge, they were actually ignorant. Socrates concluded that his wisdom lay solely in acknowledging his own lack of knowledge, expressed through the principle that he knows that he knows nothing. His relentless cross-examinations exposed the ignorance of prominent citizens, earning him intense hostility and the false reputation of corrupting the youth. Turning to the formal indictment, Socrates refutes the modern charges: that he corrupts the young and rejects the gods recognized by the city in favor of novel spiritual beings. Engaging Meletus in public dialogue, Socrates demonstrates the logical inconsistencies in the prosecution’s argument. He exposes that Meletus has never truly cared about the education of the youth and points out the contradiction in accusing him of total atheism while simultaneously alleging that he introduces new divine entities. Rather than apologizing or pleading for mercy, Socrates asserts his commitment to his philosophical mission. He compares his role in Athens to that of a gadfly assigned by the gods to awaken a large, sluggish horse. He declares that even if the court offers to acquit him on the condition that he cease practicing philosophy, he will refuse, stating that he must obey God rather than men. He explains that his internal divine voice, the daimonion, has guided him since childhood, routinely warning him against taking actions that are harmful, including entering direct political life. When the jury votes to convict him, the prosecution proposes the death penalty. In the sentencing phase, Socrates rejects the idea of proposing banishment or a heavy fine that would compromise his principles. Instead, asserting that he has brought immense spiritual benefit to Athens, he controversially suggests that his true desert is free meals in the Prytaneum, an honor reserved for Olympic champions. The jury ultimately votes for execution. In his concluding remarks, Socrates addresses those who voted against him, warning that killing him will not silence criticism of their lives, but will instead bring harsher scrutiny from future thinkers. Turning to those who voted for his acquittal, he comforts them by explaining that his daimonion did not oppose him at any point during the trial, signaling that the outcome is not an evil. He reflects that death is either a dreamless sleep or a journey to a realm where he can converse with the great souls of the past. Accepting his fate with complete moral integrity, Socrates concludes that no harm can overcome a good man, either in life or in death.
Men of Athens, I hold you in high regard and affection, but I shall obey God rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall never cease practicing philosophy, exhorting you, and pointing out the truth to whomever of you I happen to meet.Original: ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν, καὶ ἕωσπερ ἂν ἐμπνέω καὶ οἷός τε ὦ, οὐ μὴ παύσωμαι φιλοσοφῶν καὶ ὑμῖν παρακελευόμενός τε καὶ ἐνδεικνύμενος ὅτῳ ἂν ἀεὶ ἐντυγχάνω ὑμῶνApology of Socrates Section 29d. This passage demonstrates Socrates' uncompromising commitment to his divine philosophical mission, prioritizing truth and moral duty over his own physical survival.
You speak falsely, my friend, if you think that a man who is worth anything at all ought to calculate the risk of living or dying, rather than consider one thing alone when he acts: whether his actions are just or unjust, and the deeds of a good man or a bad one.Original: οὐ καλῶς λέγεις, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, εἰ οἴει δεῖν κίνδυνον ὑπολογίζεσθαι τοῦ ζῆν ἢ τεθνάναι ἄνδρα ὅτου τι καὶ σμικρὸν ὄφελός ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐκεῖνο μόνον σκοπεῖν ὅταν πράττῃ, πότερον δίκαια ἢ ἄδικα πράττει, καὶ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ ἔργα ἢ κακοῦ.Apology of Socrates Section 28b. It articulates a powerful ethical stance that elevates moral integrity and justice above life itself, framing duty as an absolute obligation regardless of consequences.
The text is structured as a direct speech rather than an abstract treatise, making it one of the most accessible works in ancient philosophy. Because Socrates explicitly shuns ornate legal rhetoric in favor of plain, everyday language, the narrative flows with directness and clarity. The primary challenge for modern readers lies not in complex technical vocabulary, but in understanding the specific cultural and political context of classical Athens in 399 BC. Understanding the role of the Athenian jury system, the influence of the Delphic oracle, and the public perception of figures like the Sophists provides necessary clarity. The dialogue format, featuring short cross-examinations between Socrates and his accusers, keeps the pacing active and readable for contemporary audiences.
Plato's record of Socrates's trial established fundamental concepts regarding individual conscience, free inquiry, and civic responsibility that shaped Western intellectual history. It introduces the Socratic method of rigorous questioning as a tool for exposing unexamined assumptions and seeking moral truth. By presenting a thinker who accepts execution rather than abandoning his commitment to truth, the text provides a paradigm for moral integrity against state coercion. Furthermore, its exploration of human knowledge, self-reflection, and duty continues to serve as a primary reference point for philosophy, political theory, and ethics.
The concluding movement of the dialogue unfolds after the jury renders its final judgment and the sentence is formally established. Rather than offering a standard closing statement, Socrates uses his remaining time to address the court in two distinct speeches, one directed at those who condemned him and the other at those who voted for his acquittal. What follows is a profound meditation on the nature of death, the authority of individual conscience, and the ultimate invulnerability of a righteous person. How Socrates interprets the silence of his inner divine voice throughout the trial, and the specific choices he presents regarding what lies beyond mortal existence, form the emotional and philosophical climax of the work. Read these closing pages for yourself to experience his final words to Athens.
What awaits in the final moments of the trial is a masterclass in unwavering moral clarity. Once the verdict is delivered and the threat of ultimate punishment becomes real, Socrates chooses not to plead for mercy or renounce his lifelong pursuit of truth. Instead, he addresses the citizens of Athens with a profound reflection on virtue, civic duty, and the nature of human existence. What unfolds in these closing moments is an unyielding confrontation between absolute personal integrity and the fear of death itself, leaving a lasting testament to what it truly means to live an examined life. Read these closing pages for yourself.
The story of the Delphic oracle serves as Socrates's explanation for how his controversial public reputation originated. When the oracle at Delphi declared that no human was wiser than Socrates, Socrates felt bound to test the statement because he was conscious of possessing no special wisdom. He sought out individuals reputed for their knowledge, questioning politicians, poets, and craftsmen across the city. His investigations revealed that these experts assumed they knew essential truths about virtue and justice simply because they excelled in their specific trades. Socrates concluded that the oracle was correct in a paradoxical sense: he was wiser only because he recognized his own ignorance, whereas others remained blind to theirs.
The daimonion is the internal divine voice or spiritual sign that Socrates reports experiencing since childhood. Unlike a voice that commands specific actions, this spiritual sign acts exclusively as an inner warning that opposes him whenever he is about to make a mistake or engage in an harmful action. During the trial, the charge of introducing novel spiritual entities stems directly from public knowledge of this personal sign. Socrates highlights the daimonion during his closing remarks, noting that the sign remained completely silent throughout the trial proceedings. He interprets this unprecedented silence as evidence that his defense and its legal outcome are not evil, reinforcing his calm acceptance of the court's decree.
Miva: the next reading experience beyond audiobooks
Listen like an audiobook, then ask anything, anytime.
Start Miva's narrationMiva does not just narrate. It keeps explaining based on what you ask.