Socrates' Introduction to His Defense

Socrates' intro serves three main purposes. Within the narrative, Plato executes his strategy to distinguish Socrates from Sophists. He introduces what will unfold as a poignant critique that the Athenian jury will not listen to reason. Finally, Plato privileges philosophical discourse (logos) as above petty speech and contrast Socrates with the miscreants who inhabit the political sphere. Plato though also uses this space for subtler literary and political purposes, such as introducing the motif of a "jeering" mob (tied to 2nd purpose) and a "stranger" w/ political life (tied to 3rd) and Socrates' humble demeanor.

And Socrates' character shines through. The opening sarcasm demonstrates wit, rather than arrogance. Plato begins establishing that Socrates is not an academic dweeb. His character is deferential to the jury, rather than disrespectfully insolent or snubbing them.

We're to of assumed Socrates' accusers have poisoned the well. Socrates responds by shifting through a series of contrasts: Socrates/accusers, speaking truth/rhetoric, spontaneous/crafted, stranger/familiar. He does not mince words, contrasting "lying" and "truthfulness". Socrates mocks the warning against him to the jury, unpacking its meaning by claiming a commitment to truth. And the truth of his speech unfolds in one way as a critique of the injustice of Athens' political activities. There's the archetype here of the elderly who's too old for young men's games.

Socrates then ask the jury to forgive his non-custom conforming speech as he'll be employing the same type as he typically does in the market place. The customary speech is supposedly foreign to his tongue, so they should treat him as a stranger. Rather than be prejudiced, the jury should evaluate Socrates' claims. Plato suggest that this is excellence (ἀρετή) just as Socrates' excellence is telling the truth.

The implied audience is picking up Apology asking themselves "why did we convict Socrates?" By this point in time, they know how the drama ends. They're familiar with the idea that it was Socrates' own fault for not adjusting to "the way things are done", a familiar logic in our own time. They've heard he was an ass. They've heard that these led to the unfortunate mistake of convicting him. They've heard he was an "atheist". They've heard he was a sophist. They've heard that these led him to being justly convicted. For now Plato's polemic argues against those who wish to shift responsibility for Socrates' sentence upon his "unconventional" manner, offering the reader a differing perspective.

Obviously, there's danger of reading into any text. Plato is not concerned with Athens' rhetorical atmosphere excluding other types of voices ignored at Justice's expense, but rather its refusal to hear logos discourse. Today folks still wish to privilege rational discourse over the rhetorical theatrics of the political sphere.