Comparison of Socrates and Apuleius speeches of Apology

Comparison of Socrates’ and Apuleius’ speeches of Apology
Name:
Institution Affiliation:
Date:
The ‘Apology of Socrates’ and the ‘Apology’ of Apuleius are among the several pieces of literature that have been studied for ages. The ‘Apology of Socrates’, as documented by Plato is a dialogue of legal self-defense, as Socrates tried to defend himself before the jury of citizen. Socrates had been charged of corruption and impiety. Socrates has over the years been described as one of the pioneering minds behind the western philosophy, the western ethical nature and tradition of thinking and also the moral philosophy. On the other hand, the Apology of Apuleius is a documentation of how Apuleius argued in his defense in front of the jury at Tripolitania which at that period was part of the Roman province in Africa. Apuleius had been accused of unacceptable involvement in black magic, which has over the years been a felony among the Roman people. Apuleius, although not studied by many scholars as compared to the other philosophers of his caliber, is accredited with a number of significant accomplishments during his lifetime. He was a distinguished rhetorician, poet and an esteemed philosopher, and also known to have authored the book, Metamorphoses, which was reported to have sold numerous copies after being re-named The Golden Ass by Augustine.
In this literature piece, I will focus on the Apology of Socrates, by Plato and the document Apologia presented as the written version of the apology by Apuleius, at a place known as Sabratha, to compare and contrast the historical events and issues that are highlighted. I will also use the two historical documentations to identify the similarities and differences between the Roman and the Greek legal systems, procedures and also the courts by then. After critical analysis and research, I will be able to come up with an honest opinion of which of the apologies discussed at length above was far much effective.
In the ‘Apology of Socrates’ by Plato, Socrates begins his defense by inquiring whether or not the jury had been persuaded by the claims of his accusers. Socrates exclaims as he admits that the minds of the people of Athens had already been poisoned by his enemies who tagged him as the sophistical philosopher, and that the trial was basing on that. Being the smart man that he was, Socrates lays the foundation of his legal defense on the fact that he considered himself ignorant. He also asked the jury not to judge him basing on his oratory skills but only on the truth that he was to present before them.
Socrates tackles the accusations leveled against him philosophically and with utmost calmness, that amazed many, majorly his supporters. One of the serious accusations leveled against Socrates was that he had corrupted the young people of Athens by directly influencing them to challenge the status quo. In his defense, he accused his accuser, Meletus of being a hypocrite, claiming he was as corrupt as the individuals he pretended to fight. While interrogating him, Socrates highlights that no one can intent to corrupt another, basing on the knowledge of the awaiting vengeance by the corrupted individual.
Socrates then responds to the second accusation, where he was accused of being an atheist who had impiety against the gods of Athens. As he interrogated Meletus, one of his leading accusers, he led him into contradicting himself stating that, Socrates was an atheist who believed in spiritual agencies, leaving Meletus very much embarrassed and confused. Socrates later on responds to the final accusation, where he was accused of not obeying the authority of the land. To his defense, he states that every lawful authority should be respected and obeyed. He also adds that he is obligated to divine authority more than he was to the human authority, hence should not be condemned for choosing to obey divine authority over the authority of the land.
On his apology, Socrates’ finalizing remarks proved that he was not intimidated by the trial and didn’t fear to die. He provoked the jury as he claimed that he was forbidden by his beliefs from behaving and acting unethically, unlike the majority, if not all of them. He added that he had never been a paid teacher and therefore should not be named responsible for any corrupt behavior among the Athenian youths. He later on calmly accepted the death penalty placed on him as he declared that he had no bad blood for his jurors or the accusers. Finally, his final plea was directed to the court, asking it to ensure the well-being of his three sons after his death.
On the other hand, the Apology of Apuleius on his charge of practicing black magic and also killing his own son in law Pontianus was also presented in a document as the written version. Little information is known about the writer of the information and thus the credibility of the information in the document has been doubted. This has resulted to it not being studied as much as expected by the world’s scholars who lived after that period.
Apuleius had previously served as a prosecutor, who prosecuted criminals and law defaulters before the judges. This time round, he was the one at the dock, answering to the charges that he claimed not to be guilty of doing. To his defense, Apuleius adopts clever techniques that tend to serve him right. In front of Claudius Maximus, the judge and the bench sitting beside him, Apuleius argues that his accuser, Aemilianus, can prosecute an innocent man knowingly, as this usually made him feel good. He moves a step ahead to highlight that Aemilianus had been previously found guilty of perjury before the city prefect. Apuleius starting arguments have a massive impact and completely change the trajectory of the trial. In his defense, Apuleius also employs the use of his poetic skills. At first, his arguments are presented in the form of puns and jokes, leaving the audience amused and convinced that he was not in any way involved with what the accusers were tagging him to. This approach later on turns into anger as he explains what the accusers had done to him and his family, his wife to be precise. For instance, the accusers had ...