of his disciples who imitate this proceeding; but Socr. himself feels obliged to do so in consequence of an oracle of Apollo. To revenge themselves on Socr. these persons lay upon him the same blame as justly applies to the Sophists.
The second part (24 B–27 E) contains the actual refutation of the charge brought by Meletus, Anytus, and Lyco, and this charge being twofold, the defence also is subdivided into two parts.
(a) Socr. shows that Meletus knows nothing of the art of education. If Socr. corrupts the youth it is necessary that he should do so either intentionally or unintentionally: the first he certainly does not, as only a madman could act so, it being the interest of all to live in a state composed of good citizens rather than of bad ones; if the latter be the case, Meletus ought to have spoken to Socr. privately and not have treated his ignorance as a crime.
(b) As to the charge of introducing new divinities in the place of those worshipped by the city, Socr. shows that Meletus seems here to contradict himself, as the assumption of a daemonium implies also a belief in the existence of gods.
ΠΑΡΕΚΒΑΣΙΣ (egressio or degressio) 27 E–34 B. In spite of all these arguments Socr. feels nearly certain that he will be pronounced guilty, not so much on account of the charge now brought against him by Meletus, as in consequence of the general hatred against him. Yet he does not regret his previous doings, as his conscience assures him that he has been doing right, and accomplishing the mission entrusted to him by God. The fear of death shall not deter him from doing his duty, and if he were now released on the condition never to "teach" any more, he would refuse to accept life on these terms, as he knows he could not fulfil them. But should the Athenians sentence him to death, they will thereby deprive themselves of a monitor such as the gods will not again vouchsafe to their city. That Socr. was fulfilling a divine mission appears also from his poverty, which is caused by his postponing all domestic interests to his vocation of being a public monitor to the citizens. Socr. then adds a few words about his public life, and shows that there, too, he always intrepidly adhered to the principles of justice and honesty, even so as to brave the rage of a mob and the fury of the Thirty. Lastly, Socr. maintains that he is not responsible for the ill-deeds of some of those who used to be in his society and are called his pupils, as he himself never professed to teach them any thing. Nor (says he) has any one of the young men who were with him ever charged Socr. with corrupting him, nor have their parents or relatives done so; on the contrary many are now present at the trial, ready to help and support Socr. in any way they can.
ΕΠΙΛΟΓΟΣ (peroratio) 34 C-35 E. Contrary to the common habit of moving the judges to compassion in order to obtain a lenient verdict, Socr. says that he will do nothing of the kind as this would be equal to inducing the judges to violate their oath.
The second part of the Apology requires no rhetorical disposition. Socr. confesses not to be surprised at the result of the trial: as to the τίμησις11 which he is now called upon to fix, he declares that he deserves the honor of dining in the prytaneum, if indeed he must justly estimate his own deserts. But he will yield to his friends so far as to offer to pay a fine which he is able to set down at 30 minae, his friends being ready to become securities for this sum, which would be above the means of Socr. himself.
The third part is first addressed to those of the judges who voted for death, and to them Socr. predicts that they will soon repent of their injustice. Then, turning to those who voted in favor of him, he joyfully proves to them that he neither expects death like a coward, nor looks upon it as an evil. A last request Socr. has to address to his judges, that, should his sons ever prefer riches to virtue and think themselves wise without being so, they may be corrected and put right in the same manner as Socr. himself used to act towards the Athenians.
PARS I
Quomodo vos, Athenienses, affecerint accusatores mei, nescio: ego certe ipse quoque, illis dicentibus, paene mei sum oblitus; adeo persuasibilis eorum oratio erat. Quamquam veri quidem, prope dicam, nihil dixerunt. Sed ex plurimis rebus, quas mentiti sunt, maxime unam sum hanc miratus, quod monebant cavendum esse vobis, ne a me deciperemini, qui peritus essem dicendi. Quod enim eos non puduit, quia nunc statim a me refellentur reipsa, ubi patuerit me ne mediocriter quidem peritum esse dicendi, id mihi visum est ab iis impudentissime fieri: nisi forte dicendi peritum ipsi vocant eum, qui vera dicat. Si enim hoc volunt, fatebor equidem me, non ipsorum exemplo, esse oratorem. Isti igitur, ut ego aio, nihil veri dixerunt; vos autem ex me nihil nisi verum audietis. Non, hercle, Athenienses, pulchris contextam orationem, qualis ipsorum fuit, verbis et vocabulis, neque ornatam, sed audietis immediate dicta quotidianis vocabulis. Nam credo iusta esse quae dico: et ne quisquam vestrum exspectet aliter. Non enim deceat, opinor, cives, huic aetati, velut adolescentulo fingenti orationem, ad vos prodire. Et vero hoc etiam atque etiam, Athenienses, vos rogo et quaeso, si me eodem genere audiatis pro me dicentem, quo loqui sum solitus et in foro apud mensas, ubi me vestrum plerique audierunt, et aliis in locis, ut nec miremini, neque ob illud tumultuemini. Nam ita se res habet. Nunc ego primum in suggestum iudicii adscendi, annos natus plus septuaginta. Mirifice ergo hospes sum in dictione hic usitata. Ut igitur, si revera hospes essem, veniam mihi, opinor, daretis, si et voce illa et modo illo loquerer, in quibus nutritus essem: ita etiam nunc a vobis peto, id quod iustum est mea sententia, ut mihi dicendi modum liberum sinatis – fortasse enim aliquantulum deterior erit, fortasse melior – ; idque solum consideretis, atque ad id animum advertatis, utrum iusta dicam nec ne. Nam iudicis haec laus est; oratoris autem, vera dicere.
Primum igitur aequum est, Athenienses, me ad prima quae in me iacta sunt mendacia et primis accusatoribus respondere; deinde ad posteriora et posterioribus. Mihi enim apud vos multi exstiterunt accusatores, qui iam pridem multos per annos et nihil veri dixerunt; quos ego magis metuo quam Anytum eiusque socios, quamvis etiam hi sint graves. Verum illi sunt graviores, qui vestrum plerisque a pueritia acceptis persuadebant rem, quam crimini mihi darent, falsissimam: esse quendam Socratem, virum sapientem, qui et coelestia curet, et quae sub terra sint omnia perquisierit, causamque inferiorem efficiat superiorem. Hi quod eam famam sparserunt, Athenienses, graves illi sunt accusatores mei. Nam qui audiunt, putant eos, qui talia quaerant, ne deos quidem esse statuere. Deinde accusatores hi sunt numero multi, et longo iam tempore me accusarunt; tum etiam ea aetate vobis haec dicebant, qua maxime credere possetis, quum vos partim pueri essetis et adolescentuli, absentemque accusabant, prorsus nemine causam dicente. Sed quod omnium absurdissimum est, ne nomina quidem eorum licet scire aut dicere, praeterquam si quis poeta inter eos est comicus. Quicumque autem invidia moti et calumnia usi sollicitabant vos, et quod sibimet ipsis persuasum erat, aliis persuadebant, hi omnes longe difficillimi sunt. Neque enim huc producere licet eorum quemquam, nec redarguere; sed necesse est prorsus ut quasi cum larvis pugnem et dicendo et redarguendo, respondente nemine. Itaque etiam vos existimate, ut ego aio, duplices mihi accusatores exstitisse; alteros, qui modo accusarunt; alteros, qui iam pridem, quos dixi: ac putate mihi faciendum ut adversus illos veteres me primum defendam. Nam et vos illis prius accusantibus aures praebuistis, multoque magis quam his posterioribus. Age vero, respondendum nunc est, Athenienses, atque enitendum, ut invidia, quam vos longo tempore conceptam habetis, ea vobis eximatur tam brevi tempore. Velim igitur hoc ita fieri, si quid expediat et vobis et mihi, et respondendo me quippiam proficere: sed arbitror id difficile esse, minimeque me latet, qualis sit rei conditio. Verum tamen hoc ita esto, uti deo placet; legi quidem parendum est et causa dicenda.
Itaque repetamus a principio, quae illa accusatio sit, unde exorta est infamia mea; cui iam etiam fidem habens Melitus, hanc mihi actionem intendit. Age vero, quidnam, quod crimini mihi darent, dicebant criminatores? Velut accusatorum enim nobis recitanda est iurata formula ipsorum: Socrates iniuste curioseque facit, quod inquirit quae sub terra sunt et quae in coelo, et causam inferiorem efficit superiorem, aliosque eadem docet.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст
"an assessment of damage", Aeschin., etc. "a rating" or "assessment", Arist. (Liddell and Scott, 1889).
