Sentencing Proposal

Jes Armenta-Roman

Professor Carrico

Rhetoric 103A

GSI: Jerilyn Sambrooke

8 Oct 2016

Plato: “ Perhaps you may think that I am braving you in saying this, as in what I said before about the tears and prayers. But that is not the case. I speak rather because I am convinced that I never intentionally wronged anyone, although I cannot convince you of that - for we have had a short conversation only; but if there were a law at Athens, such as there is in other cities, that a capital cause should not be decided in one day, then I believe that I should have convinced you; but now the time is too short. I cannot in a moment refute great slanders; and, as I am convinced that I never wronged another, I will assuredly not wrong myself. I will not say of myself that I deserve any evil, or propose any penalty. Why should I? Because I am afraid of the penalty of death which Meletus proposes? When I do not know whether death is a good or an evil, why should I propose a penalty which would certainly be an evil? Shall I say imprisonment? And why should I live in prison, and be the slave of the magistrates of the year - of the Eleven? Or shall the penalty be a fine, and imprisonment until the fine is paid? There is the same objection. I should have to lie in prison, for money I have none, and I cannot pay. And if I say exile (and this may possibly be the penalty which you will affix), I must indeed be blinded by the love of life if I were to consider that when you, who are my own citizens, cannot endure my discourses and words, and have found them so grievous and odious that you would fain have done with them, others are likely to endure me. No, indeed, men of Athens, that is not very likely. And what a life should I lead, at my age, wandering from city to city, living in ever-changing exile, and always being driven out! For I am quite sure that into whatever place I go, as here so also there, the young men will come to me; and if I drive them away, their elders will drive me out at their desire: and if I let them come, their fathers and friends will drive me out for their sakes.

Someone will say: Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you? Now I have great difficulty in making you understand my answer to this. For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living - that you are still less likely to believe. And yet what I say is true, although a thing of which it is hard for me to persuade you. Moreover, I am not accustomed to think that I deserve any punishment. Had I money I might have proposed to give you what I had, and have been none the worse. But you see that I have none, and can only ask you to proportion the fine to my means. However, I think that I could afford a minae, and therefore I propose that penalty; Plato, Crito, Critobulus, and Apollodorus, my friends here, bid me say thirty minae, and they will be the sureties. Well then, say thirty minae, let that be the penalty; for that they will be ample security to you.”

In Plato’s Apology, Socrates has been found guilty of not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, creating new gods, and, thus, corrupting the youth. Socrates has been found guilty and must deliver a proposal for his sentence. In the passage this precis will focus on, Socrates explains why death, imprisonment, a fine, and exile would not be suitable punishment, eventually opting for a minae. Throughout this passage, Socrates’ goal is to prove that his sentencing will not deter his beliefs. We will look at Socrates's use of refutation, rebuttal, and diction to see how these support his argument.

First, refutation. Socrates begins by going down the list of possible punishments and provides succinct refutation for why each type of punishment: death, imprisonment, fine, and exile, would not be suitable. In response to death, Socrates replies “When I do not know whether death is a good or an evil, why should I propose a penalty which would certainly be an evil?” To imprisonment, “And why should I live in prison, and be the slave of the magistrates of the year.” To a fine, “for money I have none, and I cannot pay.” And finally, exile, “ if I were to consider that when you, who are my own citizens, cannot endure my discourses and words, and have found them so grievous and odious that you would fain have done with them, others are likely to endure me.” These are all presented succinctly and one after another. This structure of refutation (identify, counter, support) is an effective tool of argumentation.

Now that we have looked at Socrates use of refutation, we can discuss his use of rebuttal. Prescribing to the structure of the Toulmin Model of Argument, Socrates includes a rebuttal in this passage. Despite the careful consideration of the different types of punishment that may be prescribed to him: death, imprisonment, fine, and exile -- Socrates address the counterargument, “Someone will say: Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you?” He responds to the rebuttal with two primary arguments: the first argument states that if he were to hold his tongue, it would be a disobedience to a divine command and the second argument states that he cannot hold his tongue because the greatest good of man is to converse about virtue. This rebuttal is effective because it employs powerful, loaded diction like “divine” and “greatest good of man”. This shows us that reverence to the divine is of highest importance to Socrates. Even if he is exiled, he will continue to speak his beliefs.

Now that we have explored Socrates use of refutation and rebuttal, we can discuss how he employs diction as a tool to support his argument. Despite the strong messages he is communication, Socrates implements a conversational, relaxed tone when appropriate. For example sentences like, “I speak rather because I am convinced that I never intentionally wronged anyone, although I cannot convince you of that” or “And yet what I say is true, although a thing of which it is hard for me to persuade you.” evoke a generally passive tone that prevents Socrates from seeming too argumentative. In both sentences, Socrates admits to a preemptive compromise and readily admits that convincing the audience will be challenging if even at all possible. These word choices maximize efficacy because - as stated above - Socrates will remain firm in his beliefs, while avoiding being seen as headstrong.

In Plato’s Apology, Socrates has been found guilty of not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, creating new gods, and, thus, corrupting the youth. This precis explored Socrates’ use of refutation, rebuttal, and diction in relation to Socrates goal to prove that his sentencing will not deter his beliefs.