1 See e.g. Xenophon Mem. 4.4.10.

² See e.g. Kahn, Plato and the Socratic Dialogue, pp. 88-95; Burnet, Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, and Crito, pp. 63-64. Note that, in theory, the same argument also applies to Xenophon’s Apology. However, whereas Plato is generally agreed to have been present at the trial, Xenophon’s Apology is based upon a second-hand account from Hermogenes (although Hackforth, The Composition of Plato’s Apology, pp. 8-46, suggests that in fact Xenophon’s may have been written first). For further discussion and references see Additional Note 1.

³ For some doubts about this approach see Morrison, ‘On the Alleged Historical Reliability of Plato’s Apology’. He argues against treating the Apology as a straightforward historical report of the trial. Although he is no doubt correct to be cautious here, nevertheless the Apology remains the best point of departure for a reconstruction of the historical Socrates (see Additional Note 1).

⁴ This point is emphasized by Brickhouse & Smith, Plato’s Socrates, pp. 12-14. Other ancient sources which make this point include Cicero Tusc. Disp. 3.8 (not in SSR), 5.10 (= SSR I C 458), Acad. 1.15 (= SSR I C 448), Seneca Epist. 71.7 (= SSR I C 537). Of course, Socrates is interested in argument, definition, and rational understanding, but only insofar as they contribute to his understanding of how to live.