26b8–27a8 Flashcards
Πολλήν γέ μου κατέγνωκας δυστυχίαν. καί μοι ἀπόκριναι· ἦ καὶ περὶ ἵππους οὕτω σοι δοκεῖ ἔχειν; οἱ μὲν βελτίους ποιοῦντες αὐτοὺς πάντες ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, εἷς δέ τις ὁ διαφθείρων; ἢ τοὐναντίον τούτου πᾶν εἷς μέν τις ὁ βελτίους οἷός τ’ ὢν ποιεῖν ἢ πάνυ ὀλίγοι, οἱ ἱππικοί, οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ ἐάνπερ συνῶσι καὶ χρῶνται ἵπποις, διαφθείρουσιν; | οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει, ὦ Μέλητε, καὶ περὶ ἵππων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ζῴων; πάντως δήπου, ἐάντε σὺ καὶ Ἄνυτος οὐ φῆτε ἐάντε φῆτε·
You observe many misfortunes against me. And ask me, is it the case that you think about horses in this way, all men can make them better, and only one ruins them? Or is it the complete opposite of this, that one person, or very few, trained horsemen, who are able to make them better, but every time the majority are with and use a horse, they ruin him? Is it not like this, Mel, concerning horses and all other living creatures? Clearly in all ways, whether you and Anytus deny or agree.
πολλὴ γὰρ ἄν τις εὐδαιμονία εἴη περὶ τοὺς νέους εἰ εἷς μὲν μόνος αὐτοὺς διαφθείρει, οἱ δ’ ἄλλοι ὠφελοῦσιν. ἀλλὰ γάρ, ὦ Μέλητε, ἱκανῶς ἐπιδείκνυσαι ὅτι οὐδεπώποτε ἐφρόντισας τῶν νέων, καὶ σαφῶς ἀποφαίνεις τὴν σαυτοῦ ἀμέλειαν, ὅτι οὐδέν σοι μεμέληκεν περὶ ὧν ἐμὲ εἰσάγεις. Ἔτι δὲ ἡμῖν εἰπέ, ὦ πρὸς Διὸς Μέλητε, πότερόν ἐστιν οἰκεῖν ἄμεινον ἐν πολίταις χρηστοῖς ἢ πονηροῖς; ὦ τάν, ἀπόκριναι· οὐδὲν γάρ τοι χαλεπὸν ἐρωτῶ. οὐχ οἱ μὲν πονηροὶ κακόν τι ἐργάζονται τοὺς ἀεὶ ἐγγυτάτω αὑτῶν ὄντας, οἱ δ’ ἀγαθοὶ ἀγαθόν τι; |
Πάνυ γε.
Ἔστιν οὖν ὅστις βούλεται ὑπὸ τῶν συνόντων βλάπτεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ ὠφελεῖσθαι; ἀποκρίνου, ὦ ἀγαθέ· καὶ γὰρ ὁ νόμος κελεύει ἀποκρίνεσθαι. ἔσθ’ ὅστις βούλεται βλάπτεσθαι;
It would be very good luck for the youths if one person alone corrupted them, and the rest helped them. But Melatos, you sufficiently demonstrate that you have never cared about the youths and clearly display your own neglect, that nothing about which you brough me here for is a source of concern to you. And yet, tell us, Mel before Zeus, whether it is better to live among good people or bad? My good man, answer me, for I have not asked you anything difficult. Don’t base men do bad things to those closest to them, and good men do some good?
Of course.
And so, is there anyone who wants to be harmed by those around them rather than helped? Answer me, good man, for the law orders you to reply. Is there anyone who wants to be harmed?
Οὐ δῆτα.
Φέρε δή, πότερον ἐμὲ εἰσάγεις δεῦρο ὡς διαφθείροντα τοὺς νέους καὶ πονηροτέρους ποιοῦντα ἑκόντα ἢ ἄκοντα;
Ἑκόντα ἔγωγε.
Τί δῆτα, ὦ Μέλητε; τοσοῦτον σὺ ἐμοῦ σοφώτερος εἶ | τηλικούτου ὄντος τηλικόσδε ὤν, ὥστε σὺ μὲν ἔγνωκας ὅτι οἱ μὲν κακοὶ κακόν τι ἐργάζονται ἀεὶ τοὺς μάλιστα πλησίον ἑαυτῶν, οἱ δὲ ἀγαθοὶ ἀγαθόν, ἐγὼ δὲ δὴ εἰς τοσοῦτον ἀμαθίας ἥκω ὥστε καὶ τοῦτ’ ἀγνοῶ, ὅτι ἐάν τινα μοχθηρὸν ποιήσω τῶν συνόντων, κινδυνεύσω κακόν τι λαβεῖν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ, ὥστε τοῦτο <τὸ> τοσοῦτον κακὸν ἑκὼν ποιῶ, | ὡς φῂς σύ; ταῦτα ἐγώ σοι οὐ πείθομαι, ὦ Μέλητε, οἶμαι δὲ οὐδὲ ἄλλον ἀνθρώπων οὐδένα· ἀλλ’ ἢ οὐ διαφθείρω ἢ, εἰ διαφθείρω, ἄκων, ὥστε σύ γε κατ’ ἀμφότερα ψεύδῃ.</τὸ>
Of course not.
Come then, did you bring me here because I corrupt the youth and make them worse voluntarily or involuntarily?
I say willing.
Mela, what? If you are so much wiser than me, being the age that you are, so that in fact you know that bad people always do some harm to those who are closest to them, and that the good always do good, while I have come to such a degree of stupidity that I don’t even know if I make someone around me depraved, it is likely that I will be harmed (λαβ is ‘basically passive’ I will be given bad things) by him, and so I commit this great crime willingly, as you say? I do not believe this accusation from you, Mel, and I imagine that no one else does either. And so either I don’t corrupt them or, if I do, it is involuntary. So as for you, you are lying on both counts.
εἰ δὲ ἄκων διαφθείρω, τῶν τοιούτων ἁμαρτημάτων οὐ δεῦρο νόμος εἰσάγειν ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ ἰδίᾳ λαβόντα διδάσκειν καὶ νουθετεῖν· δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι ἐὰν μάθω, | παύσομαι ὅ γε ἄκων ποιῶ. σὺ δὲ συγγενέσθαι μέν μοι καὶ διδάξαι ἔφυγες καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησας, δεῦρο δὲ εἰσάγεις, οἷ νόμος ἐστὶν εἰσάγειν τοὺς κολάσεως δεομένους ἀλλ’ οὐ μαθήσεως.
But if I do corrupt them voluntarily, it is not the law to bring people here for such offencesvbut take him aside privately and teach him and advise him. For it is clear that if I understand, I will stop myself from what I unknowingly do. But you avoided my company and were unwilling to instruct me, bringing me here, to where it is the law to bring those in need of punishment, not instruction.
Ἀλλὰ γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦτο μὲν δῆλον ἤδη ἐστίν οὑγὼ ἔλεγον, ὅτι Μελήτῳ τούτων οὔτε μέγα οὔτε μικρὸν πώποτε ἐμέλησεν. ὅμως δὲ δὴ λέγε ἡμῖν, πῶς με φῂς διαφθείρειν, ὦ Μέλητε, τοὺς νεωτέρους; ἢ δῆλον δὴ ὅτι κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν ἣν ἐγράψω θεοὺς διδάσκοντα μὴ νομίζειν οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει, ἕτερα δὲ δαιμόνια καινά; | οὐ ταῦτα λέγεις ὅτι διδάσκων διαφθείρω;
Πάνυ μὲν οὖν σφόδρα ταῦτα λέγω.
But anyway, gent, it is the fact is that by now it is clear what I was saying, that there is nothing either great or small from these things that Mela has ever cared about. All the same, tell us in what way you claim that I corrupt the young? Or it is clear that through the indictment you wrote that I have not been teaching them the gods which the city recognises, but other new deities? Do you not say that I corrupt them by teaching these things?
That is exactly what I mean.
Πρὸς αὐτῶν τοίνυν, ὦ Μέλητε, τούτων τῶν θεῶν ὧν νῦν ὁ λόγος ἐστίν, εἰπὲ ἔτι σαφέστερον καὶ ἐμοὶ καὶ τοῖς ἀνδράσιν τουτοισί. ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐ δύναμαι μαθεῖν πότερον λέγεις διδάσκειν με νομίζειν εἶναί τινας θεούς—καὶ αὐτὸς ἄρα νομίζω εἶναι θεοὺς καὶ οὐκ εἰμὶ
τὸ παράπαν ἄθεος οὐδὲ ταύτῃ ἀδικῶ—οὐ μέντοι οὕσπερ γε ἡ πόλις ἀλλὰ ἑτέρους, | καὶ τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ὅ μοι ἐγκαλεῖς, ὅτι ἑτέρους, ἢ παντάπασί με φῂς οὔτε αὐτὸν νομίζειν θεοὺς τούς τε ἄλλους ταῦτα διδάσκειν.
Ταῦτα λέγω, ὡς τὸ παράπαν οὐ νομίζεις θεούς.
Therefore, by these gods, Mel, tell me and these men even more clearly what this argument is about. For I am unable to understand whether you are saying that I am teaching them to acknowledge that certain gods exist and that I myself know that there are gods and so am not completely an atheist and so have not done anything wrong. However, not the ones that the city acknowledges but different kinds, and this is what you accuse me of – that they are different or are you saying that I, myself, not only do not recognise the gods at all but this is what I am teaching the rest.
I say that you do not recognise the gods at all.
Ὦ θαυμάσιε Μέλητε, ἵνα τί ταῦτα λέγεις; οὐδὲ ἥλιον οὐδὲ σελήνην ἄρα νομίζω θεοὺς εἶναι, ὥσπερ οἱ ἄλλοι ἄνθρωποι;
Μὰ Δί’, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐπεὶ τὸν μὲν ἥλιον λίθον φησὶν εἶναι, | τὴν δὲ σελήνην γῆν.
Ἀναξαγόρου οἴει κατηγορεῖν, ὦ φίλε Μέλητε; καὶ οὕτω καταφρονεῖς τῶνδε καὶ οἴει αὐτοὺς ἀπείρους γραμμάτων εἶναι ὥστε οὐκ εἰδέναι ὅτι τὰ Ἀναξαγόρου βιβλία τοῦ Κλαζομενίου γέμει τούτων τῶν λόγων; καὶ δὴ καὶ οἱ νέοι | ταῦτα παρ’ ἐμοῦ μανθάνουσιν, ἃ ἔξεστιν ἐνίοτε εἰ πάνυ πολλοῦ δραχμῆς ἐκ τῆς ὀρχήστρας πριαμένοις Σωκράτους καταγελᾶν, ἐὰν προσποιῆται ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι, ἄλλως τε καὶ οὕτως ἄτοπα ὄντα; ἀλλ’, ὦ πρὸς Διός, οὑτωσί σοι δοκῶ; οὐδένα νομίζω θεὸν εἶναι;
Oh wonderful Mel, why do you say that? I don’t accept that there is either a god of heaven or the moon, just like the rest of mankind?
by Zeus, gent of the jury, since he claims that the sky is made of stone and the moon of earth.
My dear Mel, do you think you are prosecuting Anaxagoras? Are you so disdainful of those present and believe they are so ignorant of the writings that they do not know that book of Anaxagoras of Klazomenian is full of these writings? And then too, are the young men learning these things from me which are possible to buy for less than a drachma at most from the orchestra and laugh at Socrates if he pretends to be of himself, especially if they are absurd? But, by Zeus, is this how you think of me? That I don’t recognise there to be gods?
Οὐ μέντοι μὰ Δία οὐδ’ ὁπωστιοῦν.
Ἄπιστός γ’ εἶ, ὦ Μέλητε, καὶ ταῦτα μέντοι, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖς, σαυτῷ. ἐμοὶ γὰρ δοκεῖ οὑτοσί, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πάνυ εἶναι ὑβριστὴς καὶ ἀκόλαστος, καὶ ἀτεχνῶς τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην ὕβρει τινὶ καὶ ἀκολασίᾳ καὶ νεότητι γράψασθαι. ἔοικεν γὰρ ὥσπερ αἴνιγμα συντιθέντι διαπειρωμένῳ “Ἆρα γνώσεται Σωκράτης ὁ σοφὸς δὴ ἐμοῦ χαριεντιζομένου καὶ ἐναντί’ ἐμαυτῷ λέγοντος, ἢ ἐξαπατήσω αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς ἀκούοντας;” | οὗτος γὰρ ἐμοὶ φαίνεται τὰ ἐναντία λέγειν αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἐν τῇ γραφῇ ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ εἴποι· “Ἀδικεῖ Σωκράτης θεοὺς οὐ νομίζων, ἀλλὰ θεοὺς νομίζων.” καίτοι τοῦτό ἐστι παίζοντος.
Don’t you, by zeus, in some way or another?
You are unbelievable, Mel, it seems to me, that indeed the same yourself. For it seems to me, gent, that this man is wholly excessive and immoral, and simply submitted this indictment by some kind of insolence and lack of restraint and youthfulness. For he is just like someone putting together a riddle to test someone, ‘Will Socrates the wise realise that I am jeering at him and contradicting myself, or shall I deceive him and the rest of those here?’ For he appears to me to say the opposite of what he said in his own indictment, just as if he said, ‘Socrates sins and does not recognise that gods, but also he recognises the gods.’ And yet this is what a joker would say.
