suggests tat Socrates was acknowledged to have made no serious attempt to defend himself. There is much contemporary debate about how far this was correct, with Stone (1987) taking the view that it was, and Brickhouse and Smith (1989) denying it (Tarrant 34).
Tarrant considers the issue and notes that their is much left unsaid in the Apology but that, as Brickhouse and Smith note, it is possible that some aspects of the defense were delivered by others who spoke on his behalf. Still, says Tarrant, there were certain things which needed to be said for a good defense, especially concerning aspects of the religious belief of Athens:
Frequently during his speech he makes claims relating to religion which would certainly have been at odds with Athenian views, and would have appeared to confirm that his beliefs had some other religious foundation (Tarrant 34).
Tarrant considers other issues and how well Socrates might have answered them. Tarrant finds that Socrates does not make a good defense and suggests that this may have been because Socrates only wanted to make a philosophical statement rather than offer a defense:
Socrates can be accused of convicting himself; likewise the jury can be accused of convicting an innocent man on false charges. Looked at from Socrates' point of view, there was little he could do without surrendering his principles, and there was no reason why they should be surrendered (Tarrant 35).
However, it is one thing to state that Socrates did not offer a good or effective defense and another to say he deliberately avoided offering a defense and did so because he had some other purpose. Indeed, Socrates did make a serious defense, but the irony of his situation did not escape him. He used irony as a way of deflating the pretensions of others, and he certainly knew that his accusers were not going to be swayed even by the logical arguments he used.
Socrates does indeed offer a defense to ...