Surname 1

Name

Course

Instructor

Date

Comparison of Socrates and Louis Riel trial speeches

The general social causes are defended by Socrates and Louis Riel other than defending

themselves against specific legal charges that they are accused of having committed. The speeches

that the two make during their trial can be assessed both as forensic rhetoric as well as and as

political rhetoric, defining a broad political purpose that is independent of the proceedings of the

court. However, both of the speeches fail in one respect from accomplishing their legal purpose

because both the defendants were pronounced guilty and executed. However, it remains an open

question of whether the two speeches succeed in accomplishing their political purposes.

The most accurate statement preserved of Socrates’ defense of himself is an Apology as

presented to the Athenian Council. This is an agreement of opinions with the references to an

account found in Xenophon's Memorabilia and the trials that occur in Plato’s other dialogs. In

these references recorded by Plato, who was there in the trials of Socrates, records the words

uttered by Socrates himself in the speeches he made while defending himself and so we may agree

that the account in the Apology has Socrates words. It should not be forgotten that Plato was a

pupil and a strong follower of Socrates hence his interpretation of the trial could be in Socrates’

favor since he saw him as the definition of a true hero. Nonetheless, in this account, it is shown

that Plato’s believes of Socrates are true and could be noted that Socrates defense could have been

stronger than what Plato recorded. The dialog has various parts which are as follows:
 Surname 2

a) Socrates introductory statements- his way of speaking.

b) Specific accusations about his day to day life.

c) Socrates attempt to moderate the penalty he is given.

d) Socrates decrees a prophetic reproof at the judges after giving him a sentence as

his punishment.

The short speech that opens the dialog during the Socrates trial includes an apology in

which the Socrates offers an apology for the colloquial style that he will be using to make his

defense. However, the judges are warned by his accusers that they must be on their guard lest

Socrates will deceive them that he is innocence. However, Socrates insists in his short speech that

he is not claiming of being eloquent in his speech and that he is not a rhetorician. Thus, the accusers

should bear the shame for the suggestion they were making that he was intending to lead them

astray using the force of his eloquence. Socrates claims that the only kind of eloquence that he

intends to use during his trial is the one that will reveal the truth in a plain language that will

necessitate understanding by all. That kind of eloquent was very different from the one being

implied by the accusers of the Socrates to the judges. In the speech, Socrates assures them of his

readiness to speak the truth where he implores the judges not to think of the manner of his speech

but the cause justice only for which he will be pleading.

Socrates said to all those condemned him during the trial that a heavy punishment will

befall all those who were his murderers. The speech indicated that the reason for his murder was

because the judges wanted to escape the accuser and avoid giving an account of their lives. He

further warns them that there will be more accusers that will be even more severe on them after

his death and that they will be more offended at them. He reminds them that killing will not stop
 Surname 3

the accusers from censuring their lives and that it would not be wise to use that as a possible or an

honorable way of escaping. According to Socrates, the noblest and easy way of handling such

situations is through is a nit to improve their lives and crushing other people.

Socrates’ reference to the manner of his speech has some irony. The eloquence of the

rhetoricians of his day was easy to note, which did consist of an emotional appeal that was designed

for winning the approval of the audience and not attempting to make a presentation of the relevant

fact using the clearest approach. When Socrates claimed that he is not a rhetorician, he was trying

to make it clear that he does not employ speech to sway the feeling that his audience possessed.

Further, we found them insisting that the only kind of rhetoric for which he has any use in making

a factual presentation in a language that was so clear to facilitate understanding by all.

According to the speech made by Socrates, it is much far better to suffer injustices than

living to practice injustices. Socrates speech indicated his belief that hat a person was required to

be worried most about was not what would happen to their body but what would happen to their

souls. Despite the appearance of triumphing of the injustices at that time, all the evildoers were

eventually going to be given a just recompense. These were prophetic utterances by Socrates in

his end speech during his trial concerning the verdict they arrived for him, reminding them that for

the actions they undertook, history was going to pronounce upon them in condemning him to death.

On the other hand, the speeches by Riel during his trial form interesting documents in

history in their right. The manner in which the speeches were made was against the wishes of

Riel’s lawyers and presented the legal defense that his lawyers prepared following his instructions

although he did not receive the documents from the lawyers. Riel asserted his sanity in his two

speeches in addition to expressing the Metis right of self-determination even when overpowered

by Canadian troops and contesting the claim if Canadian of ownership over the still-indigenous
 Surname 4

prairies. One of the most detailed defenses is also presented in the Riel’s speeches of his life’s

work, his opposition to the colonization of his people by the Canadian and an alternative vision

for what was expected of becoming the Western Canada. These speeches became useful later in

history not only to the students and the scholars but also to the those wishing to make sense to the

colonization of Canada of the prairies that followed the indigenous resistance of the year 1885.

The rhetoric analyses of the trial speeches by Riel can be viewed distinctly. At some point,

one can view the trial speeches as instrumental failures given that they failed in persuading the

jury in recommending clemency or acquitting him when he was being tried. I believe that Riel

emphasized a lot of themes in his first speech to the jury that probably resulted in an incoherent

and a rambling presentation. Furthermore, one can conclude from the Riel’s submissions that he

failed in adequately adapting in the realities of arguing his case in a criminal trial in front of the

Supreme Court. The prophetic hat Riel gave in his speech can be viewed as an element that leads

to undermining his ethos given that it required him to attack the insanity claims that his attorneys

had claimed. Although the speech can be seen to have been poorly ordered, it is clear that Riel

presented the facts in his speech in a logical order and a distinct narrative as can be observed from

the speech. The reason that one can argue that the speech was disorderly is that Riel had to respond

to both the Crown’s case and at the same time tackle the defense as his lawyers pursued it. The

logic in the speech of Riel during his trial can be defended on the grounds of the four argumentative

standpoints that supported his claim that he should not be found guilty.

In contrast, however, it can also be viewed that the speech that Riel made incorporated

unique defense strategies just as Socrates was trying to do. One can see intertextual speeches

between the trial speech of Riel and the trial speech that Socrates made during his trial. It appears

like the Riel’s parallel to Socrates was intentional given that Riel had acquired his education in the
 Surname 5

College de Montreal. Despite the failure of the Speech by Riel to convince the jury, he gave

arguments that were designed for making the strongest case in the circumstances, wherein that

sense they did serve well where he did himself credit.

From the analysis of the two speeches made by Riel and Socrates during their trial, it is

evident that both of them did not convince the jury not to be found guilty for the issues they had

been accused against. The cases appear to have a connection with politics during their time as this

happened during the colonization period for the Riel and at a time when the Western forces were

exercising significant influence during the trial of Socrates. Altogether, both Socrates and Riel

made a submission in their defense. They decided to convey the truth against issues and not to lie

in an attempt to prove their innocence. In fact, each of them did plead for sanity, telling the jury

there were in a healthy state of their mind and that before they made their speeches. Further, they

warned the juries after conviction to death that bad things were going to happen ton them given

that they were making the judgments out of the external influences to please the accusers or some

other parties and not standing for the justices or being mindful of the innocence. They challenged

the juries that boldness is when a person dies for justice, rather than living oppressive life, for soul

mattered way much more than what would happen to the body after death.
 Surname 6

Work Cited

Allen, Reginald E. Plato's Euthyphro and the Earlier Theory of Forms (RLE: Plato): A Re-

Interpretation of the Republic. Routledge, 2012.

Bonner, Robert J. "The Legal Setting of Plato's Apology." Plato and Modern Law. Routledge,

2017. 147-155.

Brumbaugh, Robert Sherrick. Platonic studies of Greek philosophy: form, arts, gadgets, and

hemlock. suny Press, 1989.

Brumbaugh, Robert Sherrick. Platonic studies of Greek philosophy: form, arts, gadgets, and

hemlock. suny Press, 1989.

Cooper, Lane. "Plato on the Trial and Death of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo."

(1942).

Coulter, Cornelia C. "The Tragic Structure of Plato's Apology." Philological Quarterly 12 (1933):

137.

Horning, Lewis Emerson, and Lawrence Johnstone Burpee. A Bibliography of Canadian Fiction.

No. 2. [Victoria University] Library by W. Briggs, 1904.

Oldfather, William Abbot. "Socrates in Court." The Classical Weekly (1938): 203-211.

Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates