2014年12月3日星期三

Essay 3 Assignment

Engl360
Anjie Zhao
Essay 3
Dec-4-2014
Modern Rhetoric in Music Videos
Nowadays, rhetoric relies on multimedia, which includes a combination of video, audio, text, still pictures and others. The strength of multimedia is it enables audience to observe and interpret several different kinds of media at the same time; such process brings greater impact on the audience than a single text or a single media. In my essay, I will analyze a music video for “We Are Young” made by Fun (check out the link in the citation page). This music video is multi-media based; it embodies multiple rhetorical expression including oral text (lyrics), background music, music composition, visual images, slow motion videos, and American cultural elements. All of these rhetorical modes belong to modern day rhetoric, and they together to create strong emotional appeals. I will talk about how this music video serves as a good example as modern rhetoric and how its rhetorical techniques fit into modern audience’s expectations. I will also talk about how this music video connects to ancient rhetors such as Aristotle and ancient rhetorical techniques such as ethos, pathos, and logos.
The structure of this music video is very modern in general, because ancient rhetoric does not involve multi-media rhetoric. Such multi-media composition creates a stronger impact on audience by using appeals to both visual and audio; audience not only can hear the story, but also see the story by watching the video. Such effect by multi-media videos like can be found anywhere in 20th or 21st centuries, such as on YouTube. Before 20th century, people aren’t able to access different media at the same time, because devices like music video wasn’t officially invented until 1950; people didn’t think they can actually “observe” visual content of the song; before music video was invented, people relies on imagination based on the music and the rhythm. Differently, people today become materialistic, they rely highly on senses (the ability to feel, hear, and see) because of the influence of multi-media. While they listen to a song, they also expect there are visual or motion videos that supports the music. This music video satisfies modern day people’s expectation for multimedia text structure.
One technique of modern rhetoric is “multi-media storytelling”, which is an effective rhetorical process. Such storytelling technique is often used in a movie. The use of multiple different media contributes to the same story. In the music video for “We Are Young”, as soon as the music starts, we see a young man coolly adjusts his collar in front of the camera, a pianist sets his fingers on the piano, and then the guitar player is about to play the guitar. These scenes are being set together to show that a music band is about to perform some music performance. And the guy who adjusted his collar earlier starts singing; the lyric said “… My lover she is waiting for me just across the bar,” and immediately the camera shifts to the image of a girl who is standing in a bar, waiting for her boyfriend. This example shows that the singer plays the role of the narrator and is using his song to tell a story which happened in a bar. And the video clips serve as visual supports or visual evidences for the oral or musical texts. This is because as the guy sings more and more, the visual story gets developed, and the audience sees the visual motions and gets a deeper understanding of the lyric based on the visual. Using both video and audio simultaneously for a story is only possible in modern time. This music video is fully multi-media based thus is able to fulfill the requirements for multi-text storytelling technique.
Another modern rhetorical technique used in this music video is “slow motion.” As I said in the previous paragraph, modern day people are familiar with the rhetorical techniques used in music video production. Movie editing programs such as Microsoft’s Movie Maker includes “slow motion effect.” Such program is first released in 2000; before that year people do not know about this rhetorical technique. Slow motion effect can be edited through video editing programs, and is meant for the purpose of helping people keep track of what’s going on in the video. In some way, slow motion effects also emphasize on artistic portrayal of the plots of the story. The music video of the song “We Are Young” is an example of these rhetorical influences. For example, at 0:50 second of this music video, a guy is hitting the girl with a glass bottle, his movement is decorated by slow motion effect, you can see the glass bottle slowly breaks on the girl’s head, and the broken glasses slowly flying in the air. This depiction satisfies audience’s aesthetic taste because it’s creative and unique. Slow motion effect also match the guy’s movement with each words of the lyric such as “Tonight, we are young” (Klasfeld, 2011). This slows down the scene and makes the scene clear for observation. Audiences are able to focus their attention for the very moment of the hitting (the guy’s movement). The music turns explosively exciting when the bottle hits the girl’s head. This creates a strong emotional appeal; audience’s emotion reaches its peak when they see the glass breaks, and at the same time hears the song hits its climax. In modern days, people who love Rock music tend to think that the explosive moments in a song give them chill, that is why they love such music. These fans will expect such explosive moments in the music video, because such moments represent their unique life style and lift their spirit. Slow motion effect crucially contributes to the creation of such explosive moments and is adopted by the modern media industry.
In this music video, the editor also uses American traditions, cultures and norms as rhetorical techniques. For example, as the video goes on, you would notice that people in the bar are messing around and partying. They are spraying beers, throwing food, breaking things, dancing, and being wild. Partying is a big part of American’s tradition. The target audience for this video is the American youth, because if you look closely you will find almost everyone in this music video are young and there are no old people. And partying is also what young people most likely to do. This video is spreading this life style of being wild and free in order to attract young American’s attention. The lyric of the song express the same idea. In the lyric, it said “Tonight, we are young, so we set the world on fire, and we can burn brighter”(Klasfeld, 2011). These words encourages people to break free from social constrains and pursue freedom; these ideas emphasize on strong emotional appeals for young people’s desires and needs to be free. In addition, this music video also includes American’s idea about love and sexuality. In the video, there is a couple standing in the crowd; there are creams on the girl’s face and the guy is kissing her hard. This portrays the American ideal of how people love; and in American culture, young people’s relationship should always involve intimate interactions between a boy and a girl. This media production is trying to use all the appealing ideas about American dream, freedom, and love to meet the expectation of American youth; Again, the video portraits the American youth in an wild way because the society believes that young people are supposed to be wild. In contrast, people rarely behave wildly in the ancient times; before the 19th century while technologies or sexually suggestive music are not developed, people hardly think American youth in an sexual or violent way. People perhaps will have negative perceptions about young people acting violent. However, the violence in this music video is portrayed in a positive way. This is also a cultural character for modern Americans. Nowadays, people hold more freedom than before, thus they expect things to be stimulating, especially in the media. The crime rate in America is higher than before too. It’s not hard to guess that American people become more open minded or tolerant with sex, drugs, and crime today. Thus they don’t mind seeing violence in music videos, because modernity has shaped their cultural values and norms; American people become like to watch violence in media. This can show that this music video is only designed for modern time audiences because its content fits into modern people’s values and ideas. In addition, the setting provides evidence of the “modern time”; the casual dresses, cellphones, plastic cups, the bar and the people’s haircut all can show that it’s 21st century instead of ancient time. American people have unique ways of dressing. This can be considered an appeal to value. For example, white American guy would like to dress in a suit in public or workplace. In this video, the guy who is singing the song dressed formally; he is in a black suit and wearing a bowtie, like a gentleman. This also connects audience with the American ideal, because Western men are more likely to dress formally and in a suit, unlike Asian men who do not have customs or traditions to wear suit. While American people watch this video they get the idea it’s about American people, not people from other cultures, they feel more connected to cultural ideas being conveyed in this video, because they know such video is depicting a part of their lives, thus they are more likely to watch it.
We can also connect this music video with ancient rhetors. This music video has adopted some important rhetorical modes from ancient rhetoric. For example, this music video used Aristotle’s pathos. According to Aristotle, pathos embodies the appeal to audience’s sympathy and imagination. Aristotle said appeal to pathos is not just appeal to emotion but also appeal to “shared feelings”. Audience is able to share the same feeling with the author of the lyric or the creator of the video. I think this music video definitely provide audience with shared sympathy and imagination. An example would be the so called “American dream.” As I said earlier, this music video focuses on the idea of freedom. While people sees all the people are throwing things and doing what they want in this video, they will share the same feeling of being set free. They will also connect the video to their own lives and the free times in their lives, just like going out at night and play. These imaginations are culturally-based, if you are not American, you may not believe that throwing things or hanging out in a bar is freedom.
In conclusion, the music video for “We Are Young” fits perfectly into the category of modern time rhetoric because of the depiction of its multi-media structure, editing effects, and modern cultures. By analyzing this music video, I realize the powerfulness of technology. Technology helps us make more effective products. This music video, if without either the video part or the audio, would appear less attractive to audiences. This is because multimedia has made the emotional appeal stronger. The two different media emphasizes on the same message and at the same time. This doubles the level of effectives of a single text.

Citation

Klasfeld, M. (Director). (2011). We Are Young [Music Video]. United States: Fueled By Ramen. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv6dMFF_yts

2014年12月1日星期一

Blog Post 17: RT, Toulmin, pp. 1410-1428; Foucault, Order of Discourse, pp. 1432-1436 and 1460-1470

RT, Toulmin, pp. 1410-1428; Foucault, Order of Discourse, pp. 1432-1436 and 1460-1470

In the chapter of Stephen Toulmin, Toulmin said logic argument is separated from human understanding. I understand his point; I think that sometimes you understand something doesn’t mean you are logically thinking it. Toulmin set up some rules for logic argument. He said an argument should contain five steps; they are claim, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. I actually wrote a Toulmin essay based on this format in my Engl301. And I think this format is well-structured and ensures the clarity and effectiveness of an argument. Before learning how to write Toulmin essay, my argument lacks warrant, qualification, and rebuttal, thus is weak and incomplete compares to the Toulmin structure. Toulmin said knowledge is the product of argument, and I can’t agree more. I think that while you are learning something, you are always using logic to prove or disprove, and make sense of an argument. Toulmin said scientific knowledge improves not because of accumulation but because of change of perception. He also rejects absolute rationality. I think we cannot always be rational because we all have emotion; we sometimes can get irrational due to the influence by our emotion. This is why I agree with Toulmin on the idea we cannot have absolute rationality. I think that Toulmin’s logical argument is similar to Aristotle’s syllogism in some way. For example, Aristotle said syllogism shows while A equals B and B equals C, A is most certainly equals C. Similarly, Toulmin said Petersen is a Swede and Swedes are almost certainly not a Roman Catholic, thus Petersen is almost certainly not a Roman Catholic. I think that Toulmin’s argument somehow adopts Aristotle’s syllogism. The difference between Toulmin and Aristotle is that Toulmin’s logical argument contains disagreement, opposite views, qualifiers, and rebuttal while Aristotle’s syllogism doesn’t. Aristotle’s syllogism seems less complex in comparison with Toulmin model.


One thing that interests me is that Michel Foucault studies different art of knowledge such as psychology and madness, treatment of prisoners, and relationship between language and knowledge. One thing I like about him is he said it’s not enough for people to accept and pay attention to new knowledge. He said “knowledge is created not by act of observing but through relations” (p. 1433). I think that he has very good point here. I think it’s true that people often ignore new products or theories when it firsts appears and without proven or examination. But overtime, as the relationship between the product and the society slowly builds up, more and more people are likely to buy and consume the product, and the product will no longer be new. I also agree with him on the idea that authorizing power makes it possible for us to speak certain knowledge. I think what he meant here is that if you have power or authority, it will help you get more attention while you express your new idea. Your authority gives a force for people to respect and adopt your knowledge. 

2014年11月18日星期二

Blog Post 16: RT, Modern and Post-Modern Rhetoric, Intro, PP. 1181-1205; Michael Bakhtin, Marxism and Language, pp. 1206-1226


After reading the introduction, I feel like even though rhetoric is no longer popular, it exists in every aspect of English. It is used in psychology, communication, philosophy, and literacy studies. Rhetoric can also be used in politics, media, and other non-academic fields. I think the idea of Charles Sanders Pierce (the American philosopher) is interesting. He gives new definition to grammar, logic, and rhetoric. He said grammar is the study of meaning; logic is the study of truth; and rhetoric is the study of the connections between signs.
I think it’s interesting that Mikhail Bakhtin cannot find a publisher of Marxism, Freud, and literacy Formalism in the beginning. I think it’s interesting that Saussure said signs are psychological in nature (p. 1208). Bakhtin said our minds can form signs during social interactions. In another words, while we are talking to each other, we are constructing symbols in our thoughts. I think it’s very hard to explain how we construct meanings in our mind, because that process is spontaneous and it is by neuron stimulation. But it is evidence that we are able to talk and express meanings by oral communication.

I think a big difference between ancient rhetoric and Marxism is that Marxism analyzes the origin of our communication, which is a psychological process. None of the ancient rhetors are able to explain our language from a psychological perspective, because by that time such science hasn’t been invented. Socrates, one of the ancient rhetor, is the only one who is aware that he has a soul, a conscious world. 
As a Chinese girl. I'm going to talk about the history of Chinese communism. Chinese communist actually make great use of Marxism. They used it to expand capitalism and improved industrial development. Marxism is the theory that enables Chinese people to build a communist society, where all people are equal.And the spreading of communism eventually leads to the so called Cold War, which is an attempt by America to suppress the growing communism. 
Marxism is really a great ideology that leads societies grows and development.

2014年11月13日星期四

Blog Post 15: ARCS chap 12, RT, Maria Stewart, pp. 1031-1044; Frederick Douglass, pp. 1061-1085

ARCS chap 12, RT, Maria Stewart, pp. 1031-1044; Frederick Douglass, pp. 1061-1085
In chapter 12, I think it’s interesting that the ancient rhetors value delivery more than reading and writing. Nowadays, we value less about delivery because print and digital computer make our life easier; we don’t need to memorize or recite our speech because we can read the print copy or the powerpoint out loud. But the importance of delivery does not disappear. Performers for TV shows, dramas, and movies value delivery a great deal because they need to recite the script and act out (by using gestures or facial expressions) in a performance. Musicians and singers also values delivery because need to memorize their music and songs in order to perform them to their audience. Cicero said there are difference between orators and actors. Orators act in real life while actors mimic reality (p. 327). But I think that oratory and mimicking are still very much alike because they both need to go through the process of memorization. I also think that they both can make the orator or the performer become more confident and outgoing. It is difficult to perform in front of a large number of audiences, thus through practice of oratory, a shy person will grow stronger and not afraid to show him or herself in front of people. Performing in front of a camera also can also challenge and empowers the performer. The ad Herennium author said delivery relies on volume, stability, and flexibility. I think that a delivery will not be successful without each of these three factors. I remember while I was answering a question from my instructor during class, my volume was too slow and it made it hard for my teacher to hear the answer. The Kairos could also influence my delivery. The fact that I sat too far away from my teacher also interrupt the clarity of my delivery. Voice can also impact the delivery. A light voice is easy to comprehend than a low and deep voice.
I think visual appeals can definitely make a speech more appealing to the audiences. Just think about how the pictures depicted in a movie attracts your attention. One advantage of digital computer based presentation is that you are able to depict visual rhetoric on screen, so that the audiences not only hears you talking about your argument but also sees it. You are both visually and vocally attracted by the argument. It is more effective than just reading a plain speech or just showing a picture. Visual appeals can also increase the emotional appeal to the argument. The audience is detached with oral speech maybe emotionally attracted by graphics, patterns and images.
        I’m impressed that Maria W. Stewart is able to overcome religious values against her, and creates her own rhetorical style. Her style is based on spirituality and beliefs of God. Stewart’s rhetoric also encourages social changes, feminism and movements against patriarchal system. I think it’s very interesting that she is an African American woman. I don’t know if women of color are facing issues of racism that time, but if they did, then I think it’s amazing that Stewart has followed her own desire to become a female rhetor, because it’s very likely that the society only accept male teachers and male rhetors.

Blog Post 14: ARCS chap 11, RT. 19 century Rhetoric, Intro, pp. 981-999; Whately, pp.1000-1030

Blog Post 14
ARCS chap 11
Chapter 11 talks about copying and paraphrase. Aristotle said the ability to imitate is what distinguishes us from animals. Indeed, human being is the specie which can mimic different vocalizations. This is why we can study different languages. Quintilian said imitation is a “universal rule of life” (p.11). People want to copy what they like in others. I connect this idea with my own experience. I like to imitate the way music singers sing. It makes me feel good singing a song that I like. The chapter also talked about how handwriting a copy enhances one’s memory. If you handwrite a document over and over again, it’s going to reinforce each word in your memory. I feel like typing doesn’t really enhance your memory because it doesn’t give you the time to think and draw the symbol (the word), you press the button key and the word bumps out, thus you don’t have enough time to acknowledge or recall the spelling of the word. Even though copying is good for memorization, it causes problem of plagiarizing. Because people have the habit to use hand-copies in the past, it becomes a tradition to use copies. Nowadays, digital copying enables people to copy quickly and encourages piracy. You can find illegal book copies, and CD copies everywhere. People can download their favorite movies anytime if it’s available on Youtube. They could also make illegal music videos based on these movies. So many fan made videos are illegal but are not removed from Youtube. I think digital copying’s impact on society is similar to Facebook. It spreads messages to the world. Now, many pirate version of Japanese films, American films, music, videos and books can be found in China, and other countries. People not only copy the original version, they also copy the rhetorical styles, and the way of speaking, analyzing.

Whately, pp.1000-1030

Richard Whately focuses on the idea that discovery and reasoning are different. Discovery is based on experience while reasoning is based on argument. He said that probability is the foundation of discovery. As a rhetor, Whately used both logic and science in his argument. I think that Whately’s rhetoric is a lot similar to Aristotle because they both explore the definitions of different terminology. For example, Whately said condition is different from the cause while similar to the conclusion. This definition is tricky but very specific. It shows that thought causes, conclusion and condition are similar, they still have some differences. He said that in the case of piracy, people should not destroy the book until it is proven a pirate version. The responsibility to prove the book is or isn’t pirate lies on the accuser and the author. He also said people can let their ideologies affect their judgment towards others. People are able to decide based on their standards whether a situation worth their pity. If someone doesn’t meet their standard or ideologies as they expected, they would not show pity or respect him. In such case, one’s ideology blinds him or her from the truth. I think that Richard Whately’s ideas are very modern and open-minded. He combines science and logic, which distinguishes him from ancient rhetors, because ancient rhetors solely based their argument on logic. His ideas set standard for modern day issues too. For example, in court, the judge should not bias any sides of the issue. He shouldn't give an assertion or judgement when there is no evidence provided. He should not let his own preference or ideologies get into his way. As a good individual, we shouldn’t judge a stranger based on our own preference.

2014年11月6日星期四

Blog Post13:ARCS 10, RT, Vico, PP. 862-879; Sheridan, 879-888

ARCS Chap 10
Chapter 10 mainly focuses on rhetorical styles. The section of clarity shows the power of circumlocution. Circumlocution is defined as “a more roundabout means of references” (p. 252). The section also talks about colloquial words which refer to words that are specific in culture or locale (p. 253). I find it interesting that colloquial words could substitute each other in different periods. For example, “hip was ‘cool’ in the sixties, whereas cool was “hip” in the fifties and the seventies. It surprises me that different words contain the same meaning at different years. I don’t know why these words could interchange but it seems like their replacement relates to shift of cultures.
I also find it interesting that rhetorical questions can open up more discussion about the argument. I realize that modern day TV production use these kind of questions a lot; usually cope with the use of sarcasm and anger. For example, in the show Criminal Minds, agent Gideon started the conversation with a question that criticizes Garcia’s mistake; he said “how could you be so stupid?” This question not only insulted Garcia but also brings him more opportunity to argue against her. I find it amazing how certain styles are more effective for persuasion, and others not. Modern TV shows use rhetorical styles to attract audience’s attention. Like in the show House of Cards and Game of Thrones, Frank Underwood and Tyrion both are rhetorically powerful in their styles, thus these two characters are TV watcher’s favorite, because their rhetorical ways are so appealing and powerful. I realize that sometimes women’s rhetorical ways are never the same as men’s rhetorical style. For example, in Game of Thrones, Margaery try to persuade the queen by using their “sisterhood”, in contrast male characters (like Tyrion, Joffrey, and Jeremy) rarely address brotherhood or their connections with their partners.
I think the use of ornament is interesting but hard, especially in dialogues. I believe that I’m better at writing than speaking, so I take use of ornament more in writing than in speech. Sometimes, I find it hard to retrieve unusual or extraordinary words in the middle of a conversation. I don’t know why but it seems people like to use simple words in their dialogue and complicated word in writing. For example, the word “gargantuan” appears more frequently in writing than in speech because people usually just say “big” or “huge” because “gargantuan” is not common.
I think the use of punctuations makes argument more powerful in writing than in speech because in conversation, people don’t usually realize punctuations like comma or quotation marks or period. In writing, people can see these punctuations and acknowledge their effect. For example, when a character remark “I’m getting MARRIED!!” it’s different from she says “I’m getting married.” The former is more powerful than the later because of the exclamation mark and the capitalization because these effects emphasized her excitement. Nowadays, journalists or novelists make use of punctuations for decorating their writings. Thinking about this quote:

“Cherish your visions; cherish your ideals; cherish the music that stirs in your heart, the beauty that forms in your mind, the loveliness that drapes your purest thoughts, for out of them will grow delightful conditions, all heavenly environment; of these if you but remain true to them, your world will at last be built.”- - - James Allen

If there are no commas cutting the sentence, the sentence would be too long because readers would keep reading until they see punctuation. Without the comma, the sentence will be less effective because there’s no intonation, the readers would not feel that the voice of the narrator is becoming stronger and stronger.


2014年11月4日星期二

Essay Assignment Two: An Analysis of How Print/Literacy Changed Rhetoric

Engl 360
Essay2 draft
Anjie Zhao
10-27-2014
Printing has been one of the greatest inventions in human history. The invention of printing contributed greatly to the formation of the text-based culture in modern days. This essay will give an overview of the ways print and literacy shaped ancient rhetoric. I will also provide brief histories and evidences in both Renaissance period and Enlightenment era about the ways rhetoric was shaped. I will mainly discuss how printing influences rhetoric in memory, style, and thinking. Lastly, I will analyze these changes based on my perspectives. Overall, I think printing and literacy affect these three areas in a beneficial way; they bring changes that increase social, economic development and improve people’s welfare.
Between 15th and 16th century, the first book was printed and published, and it was about the same time printing started to change the use of rhetoric. The use of text based information became more often. Title page, for example, appeared within rhetorical treatises during the incunabular period, which is between 1400s and 1500s; the purpose of title page was to identify each text or book (Murphy, 1984). The study of rhetoric was hard during that time because people did not have subject indexes to catalogues (1984). The closest tools they could use to locate the texts were lists of authors’ names (1984). The distribution of rhetoric increased with the help of printing (1984). There were huge amount of editions and print copies being produced (1984). Numbers of Rhetorical books were small compared to grammar books, literature and religion books (1984). Most rhetorical books had only one or two editions (1984). Many classical writing pieces were published during 15th century including speeches written by Cicero, Quintilian, Aristotle and Plato (1984).
Before printing, rhetors memorize their speech based on what they called the art of memory. The art of memory includes techniques to help people memorize things such as memorization of series of places and imaginary recreation (Peters, 2004). People not only could remember what they want to memorize based on these techniques, they could also retrieve and recollect their memories through using these techniques (2004). Prints and books destroyed people’s ability of memorization in rhetoric by replacing human memory. Since 16th century, the invention of printing enables people to objectify their memories and create material memories like books and journals (2004). This results in people no longer need to use their brain to memorize rhetoric, thus their ability to memorize things is abandoned (2004). At the end of 17th century, the art of memory has vanished completely (2004).
Print and literacy has changed the styles and structures of rhetoric. Milman Parry and Eric Havelock, both from 20th century, argued that rhetorical structures are changed since the age of literacy. They found that before the age of printing and literacy, Homer taught speeches by using rhetorical techniques like repetitions, epithets, similes and lists; differently, literate rhetors made their speeches long, and well-organized just like Plato’s proses (Peters, 2004). In addition to these changes, Havelock said society has shifted its attention away from performed poetic rhetorical genres like epic recitation, ritual, oratory, and drama (2004). These poetic performances are aimed for maintaining memories through verbal and phonetic practices (2004). The reason people gave up for them is, same as memory, people’s need for prints took over their need for these services for memory enhancement (2004).
The enlightenment period shows some similarities and differences between those from the enlightenment era and classical rhetors (Aristotle, Plato, Cicero and other). Like Cicero, Giambattista Vico believed that through the process of learning one could become a skillful orator (Herrick, 2005). Vico also wanted to recreate Cicero’s topical system. Similar to Aristotle, Vico used metaphor to make difference between words and objects. However Vico’s rhetoric is also different from classical rhetoric because his rhetoric shows some modern features. Unlike Aristotle or Cicero, Vico believed that rhetoric can make connections between things they can describe and things they can’t (2005). Other classical theorists like George Campbell proposed that ethic is the most important among all science (2005). This idea is identical to Aristotle’s use of ethic in his rhetorical persuasion (2005). In addition, Campbell’s proposed that eloquent orators should use truthful and good words in their arguments; this idea is similar to Quintilian’s idea that “eloquence is based on research, analysis, practice and application” (2005). Different from Quintilian, Campbell’s theory of eloquence is less about style but more about connections with audiences and human mind (2005).
Furthermore, the age of literacy proposed rhetorical thinking based on written-text and logic. An example could be Plato’s Phaedrus because it is a written script (Peters, 2004). Walter J. Ong, a literacy critic, has studied Peter Ramus (a college professor and educator who adopted printing) and discovered several changes occurred in his writings before and after the Renaissance period (Petrick, 2004-2006). Ong found two main changes in Ramus’s way of thinking. One is a switch from uncertain knowledge (rhetoric) to logical and truthful evidences. Another is a change from vocal arguments to readable written scripts. Ong argued that that literate culture still relied on oral form because it did not depend on print to widely distribute literacy and written texts (Peters, 2004). With print technology, text based culture slowly succeeded oral rhetoric (memory based) (2004).
People debated about the impact of literacy and print. Jacques Derrida, a French philosopher, criticized literacy and printing by his reasons (Peters, 2004). He said cultures without oral speech will have no record, no rationality or civilization; print will not cover the profoundness of phonetic culture; and print revolution has neglected the dynamism of different cultures like Chinese and Turkish. Oppositely, Linda Bolzoni argued literacy and print will not devalue techniques of memory (2004). She said writings and prints are mirrors of memory; they exactly reflect the human mind thus will not degrade our memory. She also said literacy and print may have caused the disappearance of memory, but they have also recreated memory and phonetics through written texts. No matter either side of the issue tells the truth, these perspectives can prove that print and literacy have brought great changes to people’s way of thinking and analytical skills.
In my opinion, human mind and print both can serve as restorations of memory. Without print, people can still remember by their brain. Likewise, without memorization people can retrieve their memory based on textual information. I disagree with Derrida’s idea that people have lost their memories and civilizations forever due to the impact of printing press. Records and civilizations are preserved by prints and books while people become forgetful. People’s memory will not be diminished just because they don’t need to remember or because they have tools that assist them with memorization. People can always try to remember when they need to. For example, students need to memorize materials for test preparation; in this case, students have to memorize test materials and they will make sure their memory of the material last long enough or even become permanent.
Rhetorical culture has shifted from oral to textual. This change predicts the improvement of people’s writing and reading ability. As literacy rate grow, the country will experience the rising of economy and the development of society. But text-based rhetoric also brings negative effect to culture. People may become more shy or silent within a society as they rely more on text based rhetoric, and less on the oral based communication. This effect is similar to the texting effect; people find that Japanese people are quiet on bus because they are all busy texting, and highly attached to text based media. Same to Western societies, text-based ways to express thoughts will replace speaking out loud.
The shift from ancient rhetoric (which are based on religious beliefs or irrational thoughts) to logical and scientific arguments provides more truthful information for audiences. This change enables people to live practically and improves people’s living standard. For instance, court judgment relies more on evidence, thus becomes more equitable. Study of logic is also good for people’s well-being because they can get away with irrational thoughts by thinking logically. Although this shift from rhetoric to logic represents the disappearance of ancient rhetoric, some pre-modern theorists from the enlightenment era still maintain the ideas of classical rhetors such as the previous cases of Giambattista Vico and George Campbell.
All in all, according to the research on changes in memory, styles, and thinking, printing and literacy shapes rhetoric in a good way. In a sense memories and old ideas are not completely destroyed but are preserved through text based medium. Print and literacy can assist people with memory, and improve people’s logical or critical thinking skills. The coming of print and literacy replace oral based rhetoric and memory, and make our society faster and more efficient. This change marks the unavoidable development of the society, just like nowadays how hyper-text media (I-phone, Facebook, Twitter and others) replaced books.

Reference

Peters, J. S. (2004). Theater and Book in the History of Memory: Materializing Mnemosyne in the Age of Print. Modern Philology: A Journal Devoted to Research in Medieval and Modern Literature, 102 (2), 179-206.

Murphy, J. J. (1984). RHETORIC IN THE EARLIEST YEARS OF PRINTING, 1465-1500. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(1), 1-11.


Herrick, J.A. (2005). The History and Theory of Rhetoric. Boston: Pearson Education.


2014年10月29日星期三

Blog Post 12: RT, Enlightement Rhetoric, Intro, pp.789-813, Locke, pp.814-827; Mary Atell, pp.841-861

John Locke P. 814-815
This reading mainly talked about John Locke’s rhetorical ideas. I think his ideas are interesting and refreshing. Even though his ideas about rhetoric are not proven to be true, his ideas are relevant and important. I think it’s interesting that he said syllogism is useless because it doesn’t describe mental process of acquiring knowledge. I quite agree with this idea because I feel like rhetoric is unpredictable if based on human reasoning and brain functions. People cannot describe how they acquire or create their knowledge because it happens too fast based on their mind; they cannot tell what really happened during the mental process. The only think they know is that brain works to create their knowledge, but they have no detailed descriptions of how knowledge is created. Though syllogism, a device for reasoning, states each steps of reasoning, it cannot fully explain how human mind makes up these steps. Another reason that syllogism might be incomplete is because it is based on words. Locke said that words maybe inaccurate because they cannot reflect the complete human thoughts. People can only use words to describe partial thoughts within human mind. That is why language based description of reasoning could be incomplete and incorrect. Locke said word could describe certain characters according to one person but different aspects for another. This, he said, is because different people have different languages, and different languages have unique way of describing things. Thus people can use different words to describe a same object, and create different rhetorical effects. For example, Western cliché like “howling at the moon” usually describes a situation in which even if you explain, nobody would hear or understand. But Chinese cliché says this in a different way; by translation, it would be “playing instrument to a cow,” which means even if you play piano to a cow it wouldn’t understand or appreciate it. English scholars probably would misunderstand this phrase if they have no idea of Chinese cultures. In this sense, English and Chinese cliché that describe the same idea created different rhetorical meanings and comprehensions. If language can create inconsistent understandings to the same reality, the use of words will be incomplete and cannot demonstrate the entire truth.

Locke said “verbal proposition stand for mental ones and that mental ones stand for real external phenomena.” If so then it is very unlikely for people to really understand reality because their words and thoughts are inaccurate. This reminds me somebody once said everything could be a dream. You cannot know whether or not you feel is real because you cannot prove that they are. This is the same as the ideas he put with words and thinking. Because there are ambiguity and obscurity, people can never truly understand the truth behind reasoning and rhetorical thinking. 

2014年10月23日星期四

Blog Post 11 ARCS chap9, RT Madeline de Scudery pp. 761-772; Erasmus pp. 581-627


ARCS chap9
The relationship between Kairos and arrangement is very important. The two factor are interconnected and work together to create a good rhetorical argument. The chapter indicates that arrangement of the argument is determined by the rhetor’s guess of the situation such as prediction of how his audience may interpret his argument. I think it is a good way to make a guess about your audience’s reaction before you deliver your speech because it increases the possibility to make an effective argument. A good rhetor will make his or her predictions and plans fall into the right place. Personally, I think it is difficult to predict a stranger, it’s like a person who doesn’t have basic knowledge of the stock market tries to predict stock rising. So I suggest if rhetors don’t know anything about their audience they may do some research before start measuring the audiences’ reaction to the speech.
Ancient teachers proposed four major parts of arrangement (introduction, narration, proof and conclusion) which is quite similar to the modern day speech composition. It is safe to use this arrangement to start building the speech, but rhetors don’t necessarily have to follow this format because it’s commonly used and less creative. Rhetors could use more progressive and unique arrangements in their speech, just like Quintilian said about artful and inventive speech arrangements; this brings out their rhetorical styles and characteristics more. An example could be Aristotle used long formal speech arrangements while Socrates used dialogues and arranged his speech in a more dynamic structure.
I think it’s interesting that the ancient rhetors show that they value introduction or exordia a great deal. They have set up some rule for introduction; Aristotle said introduction is meant to attract audience’s attention; Cicero said introduction should not be vague or disorganized; and Quintilian said introduction needs to make the situation of the argument clear to the audiences. I realize that the purpose of introduction in ancient time doesn’t differ to today’s purpose. This makes me think that the way introduction works really has passed through generations. I think that introduction is indeed very important for the entire argument and persuasion because introduction is the first thing your audience will hear and if it is poorly written it will not serve its purpose to attract audience’s attention, this may influence the effect of the whole speech as well as the outcomes of the speech. Let’s say a politician is aimed to draw attention to election in his speech but his introduction is not interesting, as a result his audiences decide to not vote for him.
Cicero talked about five kinds of cases that do not require introduction. They are honorable, difficult, mean, ambiguous and obscure. The difficult case actually reminds me of my friend. Difficult case is defined as a situation where the audience pays no sympathy to the rhetorical issue. I remember a time when I had really bad friends and they are never sympathetic for my position. If an arrogant and uncontrollably emotional person drags you into quarrels, he or she will not be appealed to your good nature and skilled rhetoric because of his(her) stubborn characters. In this case, introducing your good intention may not be as persuasive or effective because your audience is not convincible. You are going to be like howling at the moon, he(she) is not going to listen to you. If this situation appears in friendship, it is only natural because that means your friend is not appropriate for you, then you just give up the situation. But sometimes you will introduce your position even though you know the introduction isn’t going to be persuasive. In workplace for example, if your stubborn boss intended to know what you think about planning his business trip, you will need to answer him because he will be pissed if you don’t speak, but your argument isn’t going to change his mind (because he has already made up his own plan). It bothers me that people need to deal with cases that can’t be solves, even just to let them put the tiniest efforts in the introducing process.

Insinuation reminds me of Game of Thrones and House of Cards. Cicero said that insinuation should only be used in difficult cases. In Game of Thrones, king Jofferey constantly crossed his uncle Tyrion’s limits, and Tyrion just refuted him with insinuations even when he knew he was challenging the king, because this gave himself a sense of self-respect. In House of Cards, Frank the vice president too challenged his political rivals with insinuation because he knew he can’t solve the problem with those who resent him without a fight. Insinuation makes good use while the rhetor has audiences who react with hostile attitude. Insinuation can beat down your audience with powerful force even though it is unkind and threatening, so I guess for strong-willed rhetors such technique is worth adopting.

2014年10月21日星期二

Blog Post 10:ARCS chap8, RT Margaret Fell 748-760, RT Thomas Wilson 698-735

ARCS chap8
In chapter8, the author discussed intrinsic proofs and extrinsic proofs. He also discussed how these proofs are used in courts. One thing I find interesting is that he said “laws must be interpreted and reinterpreted ----- that is why we have judge” (p.205). I feel like in modern days, judges cannot be law makers and interpreters at the same time and their roles are rigid and limited, but if in ancient time their duties are less constrained. This actually reminds me of Game of Thrones. The storyline is based on an ancient time and the king could play both the law enforcer and the law creator. For instance, in Game of thrones, the king Taiwin sentenced his son Tyrion to death during a trial even though the law didn’t state the punishment, but the king just made up the law by out of unjust. In contrast, modern judge cannot just make up a law whenever he or she needs to.
In addition, I think it’s interesting that ancient rhetors test the credibility of testimonies based on the witnesses’ motives. Quintilian said “rhetors need to know whether or not a witness favors or opposes a point of view, and whether the witness has held this position for a long time or has only recently adopted it” (p. 206). I think it’s very smart to use this way to test the credibility of proofs. It gives me the idea of how sophisticate rhetoric was in the ancient time. I think in some situation, if the witness hold strong opposition or agreement to a opinion, the testimony from that witness may be doubtful; this is because the witness’s attitude maybe biased based on strong one-sided point of views. In addition, the testimony can be biased due to both holding long time and short time positions. If a person hold an opinion about the issue for a long time, just like many elderly people did while holding traditional stereotypes for so long, it is very likely his testimony is biased and less credible. Same as short period opinions, if he just thought about the idea or made up an idea in an instinct, such idea he gives is likely to be suspicious.
The chapter also includes the ideas of community authorities and proximate authorities. I think it’s interesting that many commercial campaigns use community authorities while many court cases use proximate authorities. This shows that community authority and proximate authority can be more or less effective based on different situation. Political campaign and commercial campaign need a speaker who has good reputation and genuine quality (community authority) more than they need a truly honest witness (proximate authority) because they want to use appeal to reputation to attract consumers instead of revealing their true purpose behind the campaigns. Differently, cases deal with lawsuit, court trial, and criminal justice need more truthful evidence and less to no political or commercial propaganda for solving the case, so that a speaker who witness the crime maybe more valuable in these situations than a credible but ideological speaker.

RT Margaret Fell 748-760

In this reading I think it’s interesting that the rhetor holds a woman’s voice. I realized that the reading addressed stereotypes against women. Fell discussed words based on objections against women including “Let your women keep silence in the Church” and “they are commanded to be in obedience.” These words all show the inequality between men and women; many ancient rhetoric shows women shall not speak in public (which is decided by law) and should be subordinate to their husbands. Fell challenged the ideas about traditional femininity by stating good female qualities and the good qualities in women’s words. One major importance of this speech is that it is based on women’s point of view instead of men. This may create conflicts with many male rhetor’s voices but it also pulls the situation closer to resolutions of the issue such as liberation and women’s rights. One thing I like about this writing is that Fell gave a lot of positive examples for women such as the ancient story of Priscilla; she said men did not despite what Priscilla said because she is a woman. 

2014年10月16日星期四

Blog Post 9:RT, Renaissance Rhetoric, Intro, PP.553-580; Peter Ramus, PP. 674-697

Peter Ramus, PP. 674-697

From these readings, I find it interesting that Ramus tried to attack all the ancient rhetors such as Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, and others. I quite agree with him even though his idea violates the tradition. His central idea was reasoning ability is innate from human beings, this violates’ Aristotle’s idea that people need to learn reasoning from classical rhetoric (p. 675). One reason I agree with him is that I have the sense that I am able to reason without learning. For instance, while someone said offensive words to me, I was able to reason why he would say something like that, whether he tried to provoke me or irritate me or made a bad joke. Ramus also proposed the idea that one should create his or her own pursuit of knowledge instead of trying to learn it from someone else (p. 676). I really like this idea because I believe creating your own knowledge is more progressive and less conservative than studying from traditional guidelines. Ramus’ idea mainly focus on the use of dialectic so that he values less on speech style and delivery, which is another interesting part of him, because he is quite the opposite to Aristotle. I especially agree with Ramus’s idea that orator doesn’t have to be a good man or equipped with moral philosophy. Though I do agree that moral philosophy benefit the rhetor with good reputations and good connections in community. Sometimes, even the orator have good moral standard, he wouldn’t succeed in his career. Take Scorates as an example, he is a virtuous and skilled rhetor but he tried to point out everybody’s evil or deceptive actions and put everybody on the spot, and eventually someone accused him guilty of doing bad things, which eventually lead to his accusation and death. Even though Socrates did the right thing by telling people their weakness, but he also hurt their feelings which is, I would say, inappropriate or unbeneficial to his rhetorical situation, because we all know nobody is perfect, so why bother pushing people to their limits just to prove you are right? Besides what right meant for one person may differ for another person. This is why I think sometimes a bad person can be a successful rhetor, because even when a person is not entirely ethical, his ability to sense whether the situation is helping him could make a great deal of his rhetoric to his audiences. One thing I like about Ramus’s argument in his Rhetoric against Quintilian is that he didn’t talk about knowledge he didn’t understand, nor created knowledge out of the thin air, which is why I liked him because this shows he is very practical. He talked about unpredictable darkness in Aristotle’s books such as predicaments, enunciations, and abundance of propositions (p. 681). He said these ideas are deep and confusing thus he wouldn’t talk about them in his argument. Though this could also be a weakness for his argument because since he only talked about the knowledge he know or has heard of, he may exclude many valuable knowledge outside of his knowing, just like he did with Aristotle and Cicero’s complicated ideas.

2014年10月13日星期一

Blog Post : Ancient Speech, Imitatio and reflection revision


Reflection (revised)
 Socrates’s Apology is a very important and famous speech, basically because it is his last speech and it was delivered before his accusation (his death). I choose this speech to study because I appreciate the way Socrates justify himself in this speech. In this paper, I will talk about the challenges I face while developing my imitatio speech, what I learned from Apology and how I applied the knowledge I learned into my own argument. I believe that overall Apology is not hard to study and its rhetorical modes are generally effective when applied to modern speeches.
For this assignment, I did an imitation speech based on Socrates’s Apology. While I was analyzing the original speech, I took notes of every step Socrates used to build the speech structure. One challenge I confronted while analyzing Apology is that I find it hard to study Socrates’ speech style. It is because I realized that Socrates’s rhetorical style in Apology embodies repetition of the same rhetorical techniques or modes over and over again, which confuses readers with the dynamic arrangements of the same modes; Even though this unique character of his speech reinforces his persuasiveness, it gets people into a vague kind of format, which is not easy to follow or study. This challenge is not hard to overcome because once I took down all the notes and look at it in a broader picture, I was able to view the construction of the speech; Based on the notes and key points, I could figure out which rhetorical step goes in the beginning, middle and end of the speech. Note-taking helps me make clear of the structure of the speech format and enhances my learning of the speech style.
While developing my speech imitation, I find it challenging to create a topic that fits exactly into the rhetorical format. In the Apology, Socrates used a rhetorical style that helps justify himself, thus I think I could choose a topic like court justification, lawsuits or self-justification because these topics fits better into the format. I worried that my topic (self-justification) could be inappropriate because it seems less relevant or important than a lawsuit or a court justification. However, I considered that this topic is the one that relates to people’s daily life so it might be workable as soon as I apply it to Socrates’s rhetorical format. Another challenge I faced while developing my speech is that my speech is based on fiction. All the stories in my speech are made up. I worry that my speech may be unrealistic because it’s not based on facts, but I have tried to make the speech sound as logical as I can.
In step two (developing my speech), I discovered that Socrates used many different rhetorical techniques. First, Socrates used reassurance to convince his audiences that he did not fear death and that he is innocent. In my speech, I used reassurance for enhancing my credential; I repeatedly said I did not betray my friend so that my audiences are more likely to believe that I’m honest. I did not believe this technique is effective for justifying myself because there are better ways for persuasion than repeating “I’m good and innocent” over and over again, such as using appeal to reasons or evidences.
Socrates used ethos in his argument as well. He stated the moral standard for a judge is to give fair judgment based on laws, not to judge based on his personal interests. In my speech, I explained moral standards related to betraying a person and exposing a secret, such as if a person betrays his friend he will lose his friend’s trust. One reason is to clarify that my action is not the same as betrayal. Another reason is to help me further support my argument that my intentions are good and my actions are innocent. I think the effectiveness ethos in self-justification depends on the audience. If my audiences are all bad or evil, it will be harder to justify my self than while having good and virtuous audiences.
For pathos or appeal to emotion, Socrates said he does not fear death, which creates an emotional response for his audiences. His audiences may be affected by the power of his courage. I used some emotional appeals in my speech as well. For instance, when I said I wanted to preserve my friendship and didn’t want to lose a good friend, it may personally affect the friend who is hearing this, and make her more likely to forgive me or accept my argument. This appeal is effective because emotion could be a strong tool for self-justification if applied appropriately.
 For logos or appeal to reason, he explained why he is accused and why he is not an evil doer based on his personal experiences and credential. I didn’t use much of personal experiences because this technique may make the speech too personal and more biased, my speech is about justifying the truth not shifting my audiences’ opinion towards certain direction. However, I did talk about my credentials in my speech in order to convince my audience that my words are credible; I said that I can be trusted because I have been the girl’s good friend for many years and have never betrayed her.
Socrates used continuous questions to reinforce his persuasiveness such as he asked his accusers in the speech “Shall I say imprisonment? And why should I live in prison, and be the slave of the magistrates of the year—of the Eleven?” Differently, I didn’t use a lot of questions in my speech because some questions are strongly aggressive when you say them out loud. My rhetorical situation is about justifying my innocence and regaining my friend’s trust, thus I want to appear as less aggressive as I can. Though I think repetitive questions could be effective in cases like justification because they provoke the audiences to reconsider the answers to the questions, this helps the audience to change their perceptions about the issue.
I also learned the overall format for Apology. First he determined two accusations in the beginning of the speech and gave his rebuttals; I think this immediate rebuttal is for grasping his audience attention. Secondly, he explained the cause and origin of his accusation. Thirdly, he goes on to his third accusation (youth corruption) and refuted it. Fourth, he determined his accusers’ unjust and evil doings by taking one’s life, which he said is a far greater crime than his. Fifth, he explained why he shouldn’t die and why people should support him. Sixth, he assures his audiences that he is brave and is sure that he is innocent and rightful, thus he does not fear death. Lastly, he gave his words to his accusers that he will not surrender to them and he asked the judge to decide whether or not he should be executed. I copied Socrates’s entire rhetorical format bit by bit, hence my speech also contains an introduction to the origin and cause of my accusation, determination of the falsehood of my accusation, explanation why my audience should trust me, as well as my final words to the accuser. I think the process of applying Socrates’s rhetorical style into my speech is kind of easy, because our topics are similar (both about justifying oneself), it’s like putting different topics into the same frame work.
In conclusion, the two challenges for developing my speech can be conquered with efforts and note taking alternatives. The rhetorical techniques (ethos, pathos, and logos) Socrates used are easy and applicable for modern topics like self-justification. The overall process of speech development is not very hard. Socrates’ rhetorical style can be further applied into other social or public affairs such as quarrels, political campaign, internet commercials and others. People continually justify themselves in everyday life by using Socrates’s powerful rhetorical styles. 

Imitatio Speech --- Self Justification
         In this speech I will be justifying myself from where I was accused as a liar and a betrayer by my dear friend Alex. I will explain the cause and origin of my accusation first. I have to admit my relationship with my accuser Alex; we were once very best friends before she mistook me as her betrayer. We shared secrets only between us. I have promised Alex that I will never expose her secret to anyone, but one day she spotted me talking to another about what she thought were her secret affairs. What her secret is doesn’t matter, but ever since she spotted us she has blamed me for violating my promise to her. She was blinded by what she saw and compelled by her anger and sensitiveness. I do not blame her for being angry with me for whatever she saw or heard, but I have to confess my innocence that I have never betrayed her nor lay a single word to her, I swear to my conscience. Anyone can test the truthfulness of my words by asking Benita, the person (witness) I was spotted with. Benita is not a close friend of mine thus she will not say words which harbor me. The day I was found talking to her, I did not tell her a single word of Alex’s secret affair, but I did, however, mentioned the name of the secret to Benita while Alex came across, hence Alex had mistaken me for having a conversation with Benita about her secret, that is how Alex misunderstood me for betraying her trust.
Here I will define the meaning of uncovering a secret as well as the meaning of betrayal. While one exposed another’s secret, he or she has to make the secret public otherwise it wouldn’t be called “exposure.” This exposure involves a sabotaging effect to the secret holder’s reputation or personal right. However, I did not spread the secret to a single person across this classroom; even now you may ask anyone who has ever heard of the name of the secret what its subject is, they would answer ‘they did not know’. Even Benita who has coincidentally heard me uttering the name of the secret does not know what its subject is. Since no one except for me knows the secret, my action of speaking about the name will not create a destructive effect by uncovering a secret. Therefore, my action cannot be held responsible for exposing the secret ‘openly’ or causing a damaging effect. I do admit that I was being reckless while openly murmuring about the name while Alex is around, but I do not think my mistake should be taken seriously as if I have destroyed Alex’s reputation.
Betrayal involves going behind a person’s back; its action is deceptive and dishonest. Once a person stabs his friend’s back, he will lose the friend’s trust and his own reliability. For many years, I have been Alex’s good friend and have never betrayed her. My credential is evident. Even Alex, who is now mad at me, can tell what I said is true.


Lastly, I will give my final words to Alex: please do think about what is more important to us all, and rethink about this accident as if you were in my situation. If you could be less sensitive about your own loss (or may I say your superego towards what is to be an honest and truthful person), and focus on our good friendship for many years instead, you will give us a second chance so that we can forgive and forget, instead of losing a friendship we both cherished. Now you can decide whether to keep me as your friend or abandon me.

Ancient Speech
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1656/1656-h/1656-h.htm

APOLOGY

How you, O Athenians, have been affected by my accusers, I cannot tell; but I know that they almost made me forget who I was—so persuasively did they speak; and yet they have hardly uttered a word of truth. But of the many falsehoods told by them, there was one which quite amazed me;—I mean when they said that you should be upon your guard and not allow yourselves to be deceived by the force of my eloquence. To say this, when they were certain to be detected as soon as I opened my lips and proved myself to be anything but a great speaker, did indeed appear to me most shameless—unless by the force of eloquence they mean the force of truth; for is such is their meaning, I admit that I am eloquent. But in how different a way from theirs! Well, as I was saying, they have scarcely spoken the truth at all; but from me you shall hear the whole truth: not, however, delivered after their manner in a set oration duly ornamented with words and phrases. No, by heaven! but I shall use the words and arguments which occur to me at the moment; for I am confident in the justice of my cause (Or, I am certain that I am right in taking this course.): at my time of life I ought not to be appearing before you, O men of Athens, in the character of a juvenile orator—let no one expect it of me. And I must beg of you to grant me a favour:—If I defend myself in my accustomed manner, and you hear me using the words which I have been in the habit of using in the agora, at the tables of the money-changers, or anywhere else, I would ask you not to be surprised, and not to interrupt me on this account. For I am more than seventy years of age, and appearing now for the first time in a court of law, I am quite a stranger to the language of the place; and therefore I would have you regard me as if I were really a stranger, whom you would excuse if he spoke in his native tongue, and after the fashion of his country:—Am I making an unfair request of you? Never mind the manner, which may or may not be good; but think only of the truth of my words, and give heed to that: let the speaker speak truly and the judge decide justly.
And first, I have to reply to the older charges and to my first accusers, and then I will go on to the later ones. For of old I have had many accusers, who have accused me falsely to you during many years; and I am more afraid of them than of Anytus and his associates, who are dangerous, too, in their own way. But far more dangerous are the others, who began when you were children, and took possession of your minds with their falsehoods, telling of one Socrates, a wise man, who speculated about the heaven above, and searched into the earth beneath, and made the worse appear the better cause. The disseminators of this tale are the accusers whom I dread; for their hearers are apt to fancy that such enquirers do not believe in the existence of the gods. And they are many, and their charges against me are of ancient date, and they were made by them in the days when you were more impressible than you are now—in childhood, or it may have been in youth—and the cause when heard went by default, for there was none to answer. And hardest of all, I do not know and cannot tell the names of my accusers; unless in the chance case of a Comic poet. All who from envy and malice have persuaded you—some of them having first convinced themselves—all this class of men are most difficult to deal with; for I cannot have them up here, and cross-examine them, and therefore I must simply fight with shadows in my own defence, and argue when there is no one who answers. I will ask you then to assume with me, as I was saying, that my opponents are of two kinds; one recent, the other ancient: and I hope that you will see the propriety of my answering the latter first, for these accusations you heard long before the others, and much oftener.
Well, then, I must make my defence, and endeavour to clear away in a short time, a slander which has lasted a long time. May I succeed, if to succeed be for my good and yours, or likely to avail me in my cause! The task is not an easy one; I quite understand the nature of it. And so leaving the event with God, in obedience to the law I will now make my defence.
I will begin at the beginning, and ask what is the accusation which has given rise to the slander of me, and in fact has encouraged Meletus to proof this charge against me. Well, what do the slanderers say? They shall be my prosecutors, and I will sum up their words in an affidavit: 'Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others.' Such is the nature of the accusation: it is just what you have yourselves seen in the comedy of Aristophanes (Aristoph., Clouds.), who has introduced a man whom he calls Socrates, going about and saying that he walks in air, and talking a deal of nonsense concerning matters of which I do not pretend to know either much or little—not that I mean to speak disparagingly of any one who is a student of natural philosophy. I should be very sorry if Meletus could bring so grave a charge against me. But the simple truth is, O Athenians, that I have nothing to do with physical speculations. Very many of those here present are witnesses to the truth of this, and to them I appeal. Speak then, you who have heard me, and tell your neighbours whether any of you have ever known me hold forth in few words or in many upon such matters...You hear their answer. And from what they say of this part of the charge you will be able to judge of the truth of the rest.
As little foundation is there for the report that I am a teacher, and take money; this accusation has no more truth in it than the other. Although, if a man were really able to instruct mankind, to receive money for giving instruction would, in my opinion, be an honour to him. There is Gorgias of Leontium, and Prodicus of Ceos, and Hippias of Elis, who go the round of the cities, and are able to persuade the young men to leave their own citizens by whom they might be taught for nothing, and come to them whom they not only pay, but are thankful if they may be allowed to pay them. There is at this time a Parian philosopher residing in Athens, of whom I have heard; and I came to hear of him in this way:—I came across a man who has spent a world of money on the Sophists, Callias, the son of Hipponicus, and knowing that he had sons, I asked him: 'Callias,' I said, 'if your two sons were foals or calves, there would be no difficulty in finding some one to put over them; we should hire a trainer of horses, or a farmer probably, who would improve and perfect them in their own proper virtue and excellence; but as they are human beings, whom are you thinking of placing over them? Is there any one who understands human and political virtue? You must have thought about the matter, for you have sons; is there any one?' 'There is,' he said. 'Who is he?' said I; 'and of what country? and what does he charge?' 'Evenus the Parian,' he replied; 'he is the man, and his charge is five minae.' Happy is Evenus, I said to myself, if he really has this wisdom, and teaches at such a moderate charge. Had I the same, I should have been very proud and conceited; but the truth is that I have no knowledge of the kind.
I dare say, Athenians, that some one among you will reply, 'Yes, Socrates, but what is the origin of these accusations which are brought against you; there must have been something strange which you have been doing? All these rumours and this talk about you would never have arisen if you had been like other men: tell us, then, what is the cause of them, for we should be sorry to judge hastily of you.' Now I regard this as a fair challenge, and I will endeavour to explain to you the reason why I am called wise and have such an evil fame. Please to attend then. And although some of you may think that I am joking, I declare that I will tell you the entire truth. Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom which I possess. If you ask me what kind of wisdom, I reply, wisdom such as may perhaps be attained by man, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I am wise; whereas the persons of whom I was speaking have a superhuman wisdom which I may fail to describe, because I have it not myself; and he who says that I have, speaks falsely, and is taking away my character. And here, O men of Athens, I must beg you not to interrupt me, even if I seem to say something extravagant. For the word which I will speak is not mine. I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit; that witness shall be the God of Delphi—he will tell you about my wisdom, if I have any, and of what sort it is. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the recent exile of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether—as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt—he asked the oracle to tell him whether anyone was wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered, that there was no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself; but his brother, who is in court, will confirm the truth of what I am saying.
Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of his riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What then can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god, and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After long consideration, I thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, 'Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.' Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him—his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination—and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and still wiser by himself; and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is,—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another who had still higher pretensions to wisdom, and my conclusion was exactly the same. Whereupon I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him.
Then I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me,—the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first. And I said to myself, Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear!—for I must tell you the truth—the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that others less esteemed were really wiser and better. I will tell you the tale of my wanderings and of the 'Herculean' labours, as I may call them, which I endured only to find at last the oracle irrefutable. After the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be instantly detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them—thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to confess the truth, but I must say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did themselves. Then I knew that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them. The poets appeared to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise. So I departed, conceiving myself to be superior to them for the same reason that I was superior to the politicians.
At last I went to the artisans. I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and here I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets;—because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom; and therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and to the oracle that I was better off as I was.
This inquisition has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many calumnies. And I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name by way of illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go about the world, obedient to the god, and search and make enquiry into the wisdom of any one, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and my occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.
There is another thing:—young men of the richer classes, who have not much to do, come about me of their own accord; they like to hear the pretenders examined, and they often imitate me, and proceed to examine others; there are plenty of persons, as they quickly discover, who think that they know something, but really know little or nothing; and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me: This confounded Socrates, they say; this villainous misleader of youth!—and then if somebody asks them, Why, what evil does he practise or teach? they do not know, and cannot tell; but in order that they may not appear to be at a loss, they repeat the ready-made charges which are used against all philosophers about teaching things up in the clouds and under the earth, and having no gods, and making the worse appear the better cause; for they do not like to confess that their pretence of knowledge has been detected—which is the truth; and as they are numerous and ambitious and energetic, and are drawn up in battle array and have persuasive tongues, they have filled your ears with their loud and inveterate calumnies. And this is the reason why my three accusers, Meletus and Anytus and Lycon, have set upon me; Meletus, who has a quarrel with me on behalf of the poets; Anytus, on behalf of the craftsmen and politicians; Lycon, on behalf of the rhetoricians: and as I said at the beginning, I cannot expect to get rid of such a mass of calumny all in a moment. And this, O men of Athens, is the truth and the whole truth; I have concealed nothing, I have dissembled nothing. And yet, I know that my plainness of speech makes them hate me, and what is their hatred but a proof that I am speaking the truth?—Hence has arisen the prejudice against me; and this is the reason of it, as you will find out either in this or in any future enquiry.
I have said enough in my defence against the first class of my accusers; I turn to the second class. They are headed by Meletus, that good man and true lover of his country, as he calls himself. Against these, too, I must try to make a defence:—Let their affidavit be read: it contains something of this kind: It says that Socrates is a doer of evil, who corrupts the youth; and who does not believe in the gods of the state, but has other new divinities of his own. Such is the charge; and now let us examine the particular counts. He says that I am a doer of evil, and corrupt the youth; but I say, O men of Athens, that Meletus is a doer of evil, in that he pretends to be in earnest when he is only in jest, and is so eager to bring men to trial from a pretended zeal and interest about matters in which he really never had the smallest interest. And the truth of this I will endeavour to prove to you.
Come hither, Meletus, and let me ask a question of you. You think a great deal about the improvement of youth?
Yes, I do.
Tell the judges, then, who is their improver; for you must know, as you have taken the pains to discover their corrupter, and are citing and accusing me before them. Speak, then, and tell the judges who their improver is.—Observe, Meletus, that you are silent, and have nothing to say. But is not this rather disgraceful, and a very considerable proof of what I was saying, that you have no interest in the matter? Speak up, friend, and tell us who their improver is.
The laws.
But that, my good sir, is not my meaning. I want to know who the person is, who, in the first place, knows the laws.
The judges, Socrates, who are present in court.
What, do you mean to say, Meletus, that they are able to instruct and improve youth?
Certainly they are.
What, all of them, or some only and not others?
All of them.
By the goddess Here, that is good news! There are plenty of improvers, then. And what do you say of the audience,—do they improve them?
Yes, they do.
And the senators?
Yes, the senators improve them.
But perhaps the members of the assembly corrupt them?—or do they too improve them?
They improve them.
Then every Athenian improves and elevates them; all with the exception of myself; and I alone am their corrupter? Is that what you affirm?
That is what I stoutly affirm.
I am very unfortunate if you are right. But suppose I ask you a question: How about horses? Does one man do them harm and all the world good? Is not the exact opposite the truth? One man is able to do them good, or at least not many;—the trainer of horses, that is to say, does them good, and others who have to do with them rather injure them? Is not that true, Meletus, of horses, or of any other animals? Most assuredly it is; whether you and Anytus say yes or no. Happy indeed would be the condition of youth if they had one corrupter only, and all the rest of the world were their improvers. But you, Meletus, have sufficiently shown that you never had a thought about the young: your carelessness is seen in your not caring about the very things which you bring against me.
And now, Meletus, I will ask you another question—by Zeus I will: Which is better, to live among bad citizens, or among good ones? Answer, friend, I say; the question is one which may be easily answered. Do not the good do their neighbours good, and the bad do them evil?
Certainly.
And is there anyone who would rather be injured than benefited by those who live with him? Answer, my good friend, the law requires you to answer—does any one like to be injured?
Certainly not.
And when you accuse me of corrupting and deteriorating the youth, do you allege that I corrupt them intentionally or unintentionally?
Intentionally, I say.
But you have just admitted that the good do their neighbours good, and the evil do them evil. Now, is that a truth which your superior wisdom has recognized thus early in life, and am I, at my age, in such darkness and ignorance as not to know that if a man with whom I have to live is corrupted by me, I am very likely to be harmed by him; and yet I corrupt him, and intentionally, too—so you say, although neither I nor any other human being is ever likely to be convinced by you. But either I do not corrupt them, or I corrupt them unintentionally; and on either view of the case you lie. If my offence is unintentional, the law has no cognizance of unintentional offences: you ought to have taken me privately, and warned and admonished me; for if I had been better advised, I should have left off doing what I only did unintentionally—no doubt I should; but you would have nothing to say to me and refused to teach me. And now you bring me up in this court, which is a place not of instruction, but of punishment.
It will be very clear to you, Athenians, as I was saying, that Meletus has no care at all, great or small, about the matter. But still I should like to know, Meletus, in what I am affirmed to corrupt the young. I suppose you mean, as I infer from your indictment, that I teach them not to acknowledge the gods which the state acknowledges, but some other new divinities or spiritual agencies in their stead. These are the lessons by which I corrupt the youth, as you say.
Yes, that I say emphatically.
Then, by the gods, Meletus, of whom we are speaking, tell me and the court, in somewhat plainer terms, what you mean! for I do not as yet understand whether you affirm that I teach other men to acknowledge some gods, and therefore that I do believe in gods, and am not an entire atheist—this you do not lay to my charge,—but only you say that they are not the same gods which the city recognizes—the charge is that they are different gods. Or, do you mean that I am an atheist simply, and a teacher of atheism?
I mean the latter—that you are a complete atheist.
What an extraordinary statement! Why do you think so, Meletus? Do you mean that I do not believe in the godhead of the sun or moon, like other men?
I assure you, judges, that he does not: for he says that the sun is stone, and the moon earth.
Friend Meletus, you think that you are accusing Anaxagoras: and you have but a bad opinion of the judges, if you fancy them illiterate to such a degree as not to know that these doctrines are found in the books of Anaxagoras the Clazomenian, which are full of them. And so, forsooth, the youth are said to be taught them by Socrates, when there are not unfrequently exhibitions of them at the theatre (Probably in allusion to Aristophanes who caricatured, and to Euripides who borrowed the notions of Anaxagoras, as well as to other dramatic poets.) (price of admission one drachma at the most); and they might pay their money, and laugh at Socrates if he pretends to father these extraordinary views. And so, Meletus, you really think that I do not believe in any god?
I swear by Zeus that you believe absolutely in none at all.
Nobody will believe you, Meletus, and I am pretty sure that you do not believe yourself. I cannot help thinking, men of Athens, that Meletus is reckless and impudent, and that he has written this indictment in a spirit of mere wantonness and youthful bravado. Has he not compounded a riddle, thinking to try me? He said to himself:—I shall see whether the wise Socrates will discover my facetious contradiction, or whether I shall be able to deceive him and the rest of them. For he certainly does appear to me to contradict himself in the indictment as much as if he said that Socrates is guilty of not believing in the gods, and yet of believing in them—but this is not like a person who is in earnest.
I should like you, O men of Athens, to join me in examining what I conceive to be his inconsistency; and do you, Meletus, answer. And I must remind the audience of my request that they would not make a disturbance if I speak in my accustomed manner:
Did ever man, Meletus, believe in the existence of human things, and not of human beings?...I wish, men of Athens, that he would answer, and not be always trying to get up an interruption. Did ever any man believe in horsemanship, and not in horses? or in flute-playing, and not in flute-players? No, my friend; I will answer to you and to the court, as you refuse to answer for yourself. There is no man who ever did. But now please to answer the next question: Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirits or demigods?
He cannot.
How lucky I am to have extracted that answer, by the assistance of the court! But then you swear in the indictment that I teach and believe in divine or spiritual agencies (new or old, no matter for that); at any rate, I believe in spiritual agencies,—so you say and swear in the affidavit; and yet if I believe in divine beings, how can I help believing in spirits or demigods;—must I not? To be sure I must; and therefore I may assume that your silence gives consent. Now what are spirits or demigods? Are they not either gods or the sons of gods?
Certainly they are.
But this is what I call the facetious riddle invented by you: the demigods or spirits are gods, and you say first that I do not believe in gods, and then again that I do believe in gods; that is, if I believe in demigods. For if the demigods are the illegitimate sons of gods, whether by the nymphs or by any other mothers, of whom they are said to be the sons—what human being will ever believe that there are no gods if they are the sons of gods? You might as well affirm the existence of mules, and deny that of horses and asses. Such nonsense, Meletus, could only have been intended by you to make trial of me. You have put this into the indictment because you had nothing real of which to accuse me. But no one who has a particle of understanding will ever be convinced by you that the same men can believe in divine and superhuman things, and yet not believe that there are gods and demigods and heroes.
I have said enough in answer to the charge of Meletus: any elaborate defence is unnecessary, but I know only too well how many are the enmities which I have incurred, and this is what will be my destruction if I am destroyed;—not Meletus, nor yet Anytus, but the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more; there is no danger of my being the last of them.
Some one will say: And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is likely to bring you to an untimely end? To him I may fairly answer: There you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong—acting the part of a good man or of a bad. Whereas, upon your view, the heroes who fell at Troy were not good for much, and the son of Thetis above all, who altogether despised danger in comparison with disgrace; and when he was so eager to slay Hector, his goddess mother said to him, that if he avenged his companion Patroclus, and slew Hector, he would die himself—'Fate,' she said, in these or the like words, 'waits for you next after Hector;' he, receiving this warning, utterly despised danger and death, and instead of fearing them, feared rather to live in dishonour, and not to avenge his friend. 'Let me die forthwith,' he replies, 'and be avenged of my enemy, rather than abide here by the beaked ships, a laughing-stock and a burden of the earth.' Had Achilles any thought of death and danger? For wherever a man's place is, whether the place which he has chosen or that in which he has been placed by a commander, there he ought to remain in the hour of danger; he should not think of death or of anything but of disgrace. And this, O men of Athens, is a true saying.
Strange, indeed, would be my conduct, O men of Athens, if I who, when I was ordered by the generals whom you chose to command me at Potidaea and Amphipolis and Delium, remained where they placed me, like any other man, facing death—if now, when, as I conceive and imagine, God orders me to fulfil the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men, I were to desert my post through fear of death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be arraigned in court for denying the existence of the gods, if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death, fancying that I was wise when I was not wise. For the fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being a pretence of knowing the unknown; and no one knows whether death, which men in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. Is not this ignorance of a disgraceful sort, the ignorance which is the conceit that a man knows what he does not know? And in this respect only I believe myself to differ from men in general, and may perhaps claim to be wiser than they are:—that whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know: but I do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil and dishonourable, and I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil. And therefore if you let me go now, and are not convinced by Anytus, who said that since I had been prosecuted I must be put to death; (or if not that I ought never to have been prosecuted at all); and that if I escape now, your sons will all be utterly ruined by listening to my words—if you say to me, Socrates, this time we will not mind Anytus, and you shall be let off, but upon one condition, that you are not to enquire and speculate in this way any more, and that if you are caught doing so again you shall die;—if this was the condition on which you let me go, I should reply: Men of Athens, I honour and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting any one whom I meet and saying to him after my manner: You, my friend,—a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens,—are you not ashamed of heaping up the greatest amount of money and honour and reputation, and caring so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which you never regard or heed at all? And if the person with whom I am arguing, says: Yes, but I do care; then I do not leave him or let him go at once; but I proceed to interrogate and examine and cross-examine him, and if I think that he has no virtue in him, but only says that he has, I reproach him with undervaluing the greater, and overvaluing the less. And I shall repeat the same words to every one whom I meet, young and old, citizen and alien, but especially to the citizens, inasmuch as they are my brethren. For know that this is the command of God; and I believe that no greater good has ever happened in the state than my service to the God. For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons or your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man, public as well as private. This is my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which corrupts the youth, I am a mischievous person. But if any one says that this is not my teaching, he is speaking an untruth. Wherefore, O men of Athens, I say to you, do as Anytus bids or not as Anytus bids, and either acquit me or not; but whichever you do, understand that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times.
Men of Athens, do not interrupt, but hear me; there was an understanding between us that you should hear me to the end: I have something more to say, at which you may be inclined to cry out; but I believe that to hear me will be good for you, and therefore I beg that you will not cry out. I would have you know, that if you kill such an one as I am, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me. Nothing will injure me, not Meletus nor yet Anytus—they cannot, for a bad man is not permitted to injure a better than himself. I do not deny that Anytus may, perhaps, kill him, or drive him into exile, or deprive him of civil rights; and he may imagine, and others may imagine, that he is inflicting a great injury upon him: but there I do not agree. For the evil of doing as he is doing—the evil of unjustly taking away the life of another—is greater far.
And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the God by condemning me, who am his gift to you. For if you kill me you will not easily find a successor to me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. You will not easily find another like me, and therefore I would advise you to spare me. I dare say that you may feel out of temper (like a person who is suddenly awakened from sleep), and you think that you might easily strike me dead as Anytus advises, and then you would sleep on for the remainder of your lives, unless God in his care of you sent you another gadfly. When I say that I am given to you by God, the proof of my mission is this:—if I had been like other men, I should not have neglected all my own concerns or patiently seen the neglect of them during all these years, and have been doing yours, coming to you individually like a father or elder brother, exhorting you to regard virtue; such conduct, I say, would be unlike human nature. If I had gained anything, or if my exhortations had been paid, there would have been some sense in my doing so; but now, as you will perceive, not even the impudence of my accusers dares to say that I have ever exacted or sought pay of any one; of that they have no witness. And I have a sufficient witness to the truth of what I say—my poverty.
Some one may wonder why I go about in private giving advice and busying myself with the concerns of others, but do not venture to come forward in public and advise the state. I will tell you why. You have heard me speak at sundry times and in divers places of an oracle or sign which comes to me, and is the divinity which Meletus ridicules in the indictment. This sign, which is a kind of voice, first began to come to me when I was a child; it always forbids but never commands me to do anything which I am going to do. This is what deters me from being a politician. And rightly, as I think. For I am certain, O men of Athens, that if I had engaged in politics, I should have perished long ago, and done no good either to you or to myself. And do not be offended at my telling you the truth: for the truth is, that no man who goes to war with you or any other multitude, honestly striving against the many lawless and unrighteous deeds which are done in a state, will save his life; he who will fight for the right, if he would live even for a brief space, must have a private station and not a public one.
I can give you convincing evidence of what I say, not words only, but what you value far more—actions. Let me relate to you a passage of my own life which will prove to you that I should never have yielded to injustice from any fear of death, and that 'as I should have refused to yield' I must have died at once. I will tell you a tale of the courts, not very interesting perhaps, but nevertheless true. The only office of state which I ever held, O men of Athens, was that of senator: the tribe Antiochis, which is my tribe, had the presidency at the trial of the generals who had not taken up the bodies of the slain after the battle of Arginusae; and you proposed to try them in a body, contrary to law, as you all thought afterwards; but at the time I was the only one of the Prytanes who was opposed to the illegality, and I gave my vote against you; and when the orators threatened to impeach and arrest me, and you called and shouted, I made up my mind that I would run the risk, having law and justice with me, rather than take part in your injustice because I feared imprisonment and death. This happened in the days of the democracy. But when the oligarchy of the Thirty was in power, they sent for me and four others into the rotunda, and bade us bring Leon the Salaminian from Salamis, as they wanted to put him to death. This was a specimen of the sort of commands which they were always giving with the view of implicating as many as possible in their crimes; and then I showed, not in word only but in deed, that, if I may be allowed to use such an expression, I cared not a straw for death, and that my great and only care was lest I should do an unrighteous or unholy thing. For the strong arm of that oppressive power did not frighten me into doing wrong; and when we came out of the rotunda the other four went to Salamis and fetched Leon, but I went quietly home. For which I might have lost my life, had not the power of the Thirty shortly afterwards come to an end. And many will witness to my words.
Now do you really imagine that I could have survived all these years, if I had led a public life, supposing that like a good man I had always maintained the right and had made justice, as I ought, the first thing? No indeed, men of Athens, neither I nor any other man. But I have been always the same in all my actions, public as well as private, and never have I yielded any base compliance to those who are slanderously termed my disciples, or to any other. Not that I have any regular disciples. But if any one likes to come and hear me while I am pursuing my mission, whether he be young or old, he is not excluded. Nor do I converse only with those who pay; but any one, whether he be rich or poor, may ask and answer me and listen to my words; and whether he turns out to be a bad man or a good one, neither result can be justly imputed to me; for I never taught or professed to teach him anything. And if any one says that he has ever learned or heard anything from me in private which all the world has not heard, let me tell you that he is lying.
But I shall be asked, Why do people delight in continually conversing with you? I have told you already, Athenians, the whole truth about this matter: they like to hear the cross-examination of the pretenders to wisdom; there is amusement in it. Now this duty of cross-examining other men has been imposed upon me by God; and has been signified to me by oracles, visions, and in every way in which the will of divine power was ever intimated to any one. This is true, O Athenians, or, if not true, would be soon refuted. If I am or have been corrupting the youth, those of them who are now grown up and have become sensible that I gave them bad advice in the days of their youth should come forward as accusers, and take their revenge; or if they do not like to come themselves, some of their relatives, fathers, brothers, or other kinsmen, should say what evil their families have suffered at my hands. Now is their time. Many of them I see in the court. There is Crito, who is of the same age and of the same deme with myself, and there is Critobulus his son, whom I also see. Then again there is Lysanias of Sphettus, who is the father of Aeschines—he is present; and also there is Antiphon of Cephisus, who is the father of Epigenes; and there are the brothers of several who have associated with me. There is Nicostratus the son of Theosdotides, and the brother of Theodotus (now Theodotus himself is dead, and therefore he, at any rate, will not seek to stop him); and there is Paralus the son of Demodocus, who had a brother Theages; and Adeimantus the son of Ariston, whose brother Plato is present; and Aeantodorus, who is the brother of Apollodorus, whom I also see. I might mention a great many others, some of whom Meletus should have produced as witnesses in the course of his speech; and let him still produce them, if he has forgotten—I will make way for him. And let him say, if he has any testimony of the sort which he can produce. Nay, Athenians, the very opposite is the truth. For all these are ready to witness on behalf of the corrupter, of the injurer of their kindred, as Meletus and Anytus call me; not the corrupted youth only—there might have been a motive for that—but their uncorrupted elder relatives. Why should they too support me with their testimony? Why, indeed, except for the sake of truth and justice, and because they know that I am speaking the truth, and that Meletus is a liar.
Well, Athenians, this and the like of this is all the defence which I have to offer. Yet a word more. Perhaps there may be some one who is offended at me, when he calls to mind how he himself on a similar, or even a less serious occasion, prayed and entreated the judges with many tears, and how he produced his children in court, which was a moving spectacle, together with a host of relations and friends; whereas I, who am probably in danger of my life, will do none of these things. The contrast may occur to his mind, and he may be set against me, and vote in anger because he is displeased at me on this account. Now if there be such a person among you,—mind, I do not say that there is,—to him I may fairly reply: My friend, I am a man, and like other men, a creature of flesh and blood, and not 'of wood or stone,' as Homer says; and I have a family, yes, and sons, O Athenians, three in number, one almost a man, and two others who are still young; and yet I will not bring any of them hither in order to petition you for an acquittal. And why not? Not from any self-assertion or want of respect for you. Whether I am or am not afraid of death is another question, of which I will not now speak. But, having regard to public opinion, I feel that such conduct would be discreditable to myself, and to you, and to the whole state. One who has reached my years, and who has a name for wisdom, ought not to demean himself. Whether this opinion of me be deserved or not, at any rate the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other men. And if those among you who are said to be superior in wisdom and courage, and any other virtue, demean themselves in this way, how shameful is their conduct! I have seen men of reputation, when they have been condemned, behaving in the strangest manner: they seemed to fancy that they were going to suffer something dreadful if they died, and that they could be immortal if you only allowed them to live; and I think that such are a dishonour to the state, and that any stranger coming in would have said of them that the most eminent men of Athens, to whom the Athenians themselves give honour and command, are no better than women. And I say that these things ought not to be done by those of us who have a reputation; and if they are done, you ought not to permit them; you ought rather to show that you are far more disposed to condemn the man who gets up a doleful scene and makes the city ridiculous, than him who holds his peace.
But, setting aside the question of public opinion, there seems to be something wrong in asking a favour of a judge, and thus procuring an acquittal, instead of informing and convincing him. For his duty is, not to make a present of justice, but to give judgment; and he has sworn that he will judge according to the laws, and not according to his own good pleasure; and we ought not to encourage you, nor should you allow yourselves to be encouraged, in this habit of perjury—there can be no piety in that. Do not then require me to do what I consider dishonourable and impious and wrong, especially now, when I am being tried for impiety on the indictment of Meletus. For if, O men of Athens, by force of persuasion and entreaty I could overpower your oaths, then I should be teaching you to believe that there are no gods, and in defending should simply convict myself of the charge of not believing in them. But that is not so—far otherwise. For I do believe that there are gods, and in a sense higher than that in which any of my accusers believe in them. And to you and to God I commit my cause, to be determined by you as is best for you and me.

There are many reasons why I am not grieved, O men of Athens, at the vote of condemnation. I expected it, and am only surprised that the votes are so nearly equal; for I had thought that the majority against me would have been far larger; but now, had thirty votes gone over to the other side, I should have been acquitted. And I may say, I think, that I have escaped Meletus. I may say more; for without the assistance of Anytus and Lycon, any one may see that he would not have had a fifth part of the votes, as the law requires, in which case he would have incurred a fine of a thousand drachmae.
And so he proposes death as the penalty. And what shall I propose on my part, O men of Athens? Clearly that which is my due. And what is my due? What return shall be made to the man who has never had the wit to be idle during his whole life; but has been careless of what the many care for—wealth, and family interests, and military offices, and speaking in the assembly, and magistracies, and plots, and parties. Reflecting that I was really too honest a man to be a politician and live, I did not go where I could do no good to you or to myself; but where I could do the greatest good privately to every one of you, thither I went, and sought to persuade every man among you that he must look to himself, and seek virtue and wisdom before he looks to his private interests, and look to the state before he looks to the interests of the state; and that this should be the order which he observes in all his actions. What shall be done to such an one? Doubtless some good thing, O men of Athens, if he has his reward; and the good should be of a kind suitable to him. What would be a reward suitable to a poor man who is your benefactor, and who desires leisure that he may instruct you? There can be no reward so fitting as maintenance in the Prytaneum, O men of Athens, a reward which he deserves far more than the citizen who has won the prize at Olympia in the horse or chariot race, whether the chariots were drawn by two horses or by many. For I am in want, and he has enough; and he only gives you the appearance of happiness, and I give you the reality. And if I am to estimate the penalty fairly, I should say that maintenance in the Prytaneum is the just return.
Perhaps you think that I am braving you in what I am saying now, as in what I said before about the tears and prayers. But this is not so. I speak rather because I am convinced that I never intentionally wronged any one, although I cannot convince you—the time has been too short; if there were a law at Athens, 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 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 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 am so irrational as to expect that when you, who are my own citizens, cannot endure my discourses and words, and have found them so grievous and odious that you will have no more of 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, ever changing my place of exile, and always being driven out! For I am quite sure that wherever I go, there, as here, the young men will flock to me; and if I drive them away, their elders will drive me out at their request; and if I let them come, their fathers and friends will drive me out for their sakes.
Some one 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 to do as you say would be a disobedience to the God, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you are still less likely to believe me. Yet I say what is true, although a thing of which it is hard for me to persuade you. Also, I have never been accustomed to think that I deserve to suffer any harm. Had I money I might have estimated the offence at what I was able to pay, and not have been much the worse. But I have none, and therefore I must ask you to proportion the fine to my means. Well, perhaps I could afford a mina, 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. Let thirty minae be the penalty; for which sum they will be ample security to you.

Not much time will be gained, O Athenians, in return for the evil name which you will get from the detractors of the city, who will say that you killed Socrates, a wise man; for they will call me wise, even although I am not wise, when they want to reproach you. If you had waited a little while, your desire would have been fulfilled in the course of nature. For I am far advanced in years, as you may perceive, and not far from death. I am speaking now not to all of you, but only to those who have condemned me to death. And I have another thing to say to them: you think that I was convicted because I had no words of the sort which would have procured my acquittal—I mean, if I had thought fit to leave nothing undone or unsaid. Not so; the deficiency which led to my conviction was not of words—certainly not. But I had not the boldness or impudence or inclination to address you as you would have liked me to do, weeping and wailing and lamenting, and saying and doing many things which you have been accustomed to hear from others, and which, as I maintain, are unworthy of me. I thought at the time that I ought not to do anything common or mean when in danger: nor do I now repent of the style of my defence; I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought I or any man to use every way of escaping death. Often in battle there can be no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death; and in other dangers there are other ways of escaping death, if a man is willing to say and do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death,—they too go their ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong; and I must abide by my award—let them abide by theirs. I suppose that these things may be regarded as fated,—and I think that they are well.
And now, O men who have condemned me, I would fain prophesy to you; for I am about to die, and in the hour of death men are gifted with prophetic power. And I prophesy to you who are my murderers, that immediately after my departure punishment far heavier than you have inflicted on me will surely await you. Me you have killed because you wanted to escape the accuser, and not to give an account of your lives. But that will not be as you suppose: far otherwise. For I say that there will be more accusers of you than there are now; accusers whom hitherto I have restrained: and as they are younger they will be more inconsiderate with you, and you will be more offended at them. If you think that by killing men you can prevent some one from censuring your evil lives, you are mistaken; that is not a way of escape which is either possible or honourable; the easiest and the noblest way is not to be disabling others, but to be improving yourselves. This is the prophecy which I utter before my departure to the judges who have condemned me.
Friends, who would have acquitted me, I would like also to talk with you about the thing which has come to pass, while the magistrates are busy, and before I go to the place at which I must die. Stay then a little, for we may as well talk with one another while there is time. You are my friends, and I should like to show you the meaning of this event which has happened to me. O my judges—for you I may truly call judges—I should like to tell you of a wonderful circumstance. Hitherto the divine faculty of which the internal oracle is the source has constantly been in the habit of opposing me even about trifles, if I was going to make a slip or error in any matter; and now as you see there has come upon me that which may be thought, and is generally believed to be, the last and worst evil. But the oracle made no sign of opposition, either when I was leaving my house in the morning, or when I was on my way to the court, or while I was speaking, at anything which I was going to say; and yet I have often been stopped in the middle of a speech, but now in nothing I either said or did touching the matter in hand has the oracle opposed me. What do I take to be the explanation of this silence? I will tell you. It is an intimation that what has happened to me is a good, and that those of us who think that death is an evil are in error. For the customary sign would surely have opposed me had I been going to evil and not to good.
Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good; for one of two things—either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even by dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain. For if a person were to select the night in which his sleep was undisturbed even by dreams, and were to compare with this the other days and nights of his life, and then were to tell us how many days and nights he had passed in the course of his life better and more pleasantly than this one, I think that any man, I will not say a private man, but even the great king will not find many such days or nights, when compared with the others. Now if death be of such a nature, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead abide, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus, and other sons of God who were righteous in their own life, that pilgrimage will be worth making. What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die again and again. I myself, too, shall have a wonderful interest in there meeting and conversing with Palamedes, and Ajax the son of Telamon, and any other ancient hero who has suffered death through an unjust judgment; and there will be no small pleasure, as I think, in comparing my own sufferings with theirs. Above all, I shall then be able to continue my search into true and false knowledge; as in this world, so also in the next; and I shall find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise, and is not. What would not a man give, O judges, to be able to examine the leader of the great Trojan expedition; or Odysseus or Sisyphus, or numberless others, men and women too! What infinite delight would there be in conversing with them and asking them questions! In another world they do not put a man to death for asking questions: assuredly not. For besides being happier than we are, they will be immortal, if what is said is true.
Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know of a certainty, that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. He and his are not neglected by the gods; nor has my own approaching end happened by mere chance. But I see clearly that the time had arrived when it was better for me to die and be released from trouble; wherefore the oracle gave no sign. For which reason, also, I am not angry with my condemners, or with my accusers; they have done me no harm, although they did not mean to do me any good; and for this I may gently blame them.
Still I have a favour to ask of them. When my sons are grown up, I would ask you, O my friends, to punish them; and I would have you trouble them, as I have troubled you, if they seem to care about riches, or anything, more than about virtue; or if they pretend to be something when they are really nothing,—then reprove them, as I have reproved you, for not caring about that for which they ought to care, and thinking that they are something when they are really nothing. And if you do this, both I and my sons will have received justice at your hands.
The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways—I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows.