Socrates doing something unseemly? The most comic aspect of this parody of rhetorical cleverness
occurs when Socrates claims this is the first time he has come before the court.^22 Literally, Socrates
indicated he has never been in court as a defendant, but in the context of his claimed inability to use
forensic rhetoric and comparing this inability to that of a foreigner speaking a non-Attic dialect,
Socrates’actual suggestion is that he has never been in court, which is a lie, as he later indicates (32a ff.).
That is, hissuggestio falsiis a demonstration of the rhetorical skill that his actual words deny.
How clever is that?
After having thus indicated the spirit in which he will speak, Socrates outlines his defense. He
does not initially deal with the accusations against him, namely that he does not acknowledge or
worship the gods of the city and that he corrupts the young, but with the accusers, especially the old
(and mostly dead) accusers. Thus, he increased the number of accusers beyond the present accusers,
Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon. Then he adds another charge that he is a thinker (phrontistes) on, or
worrier about, things aloft, but one who,“having investigated all things under the earth,”which
presumably would include Hades, also makes the weaker argument the stronger (18b–c). By adding
the things aloft and the things under, Socrates not only increases the accusations, he makes them
more serious because, for the jury, thinking about the heavenly bodies and the underworld, rather
than simply acknowledging them, looks like atheism, as Socrates promptly points out. One con-
clusion: Socrates is not mounting a dubious defense; he is not making a defense at all. As Brann
said, Socrates quickly turned his defense into an offense: he charges his accusers of being liars.^23
His next words, a defense against the old accusers, are clearly inept. He reminds them of
Aristophanes’Cloudsand implies that the present accusers’slander is equally comic. He denies any
knowledge of the heavens. Though in fact around the time theCloudswas produced he was
interested in such things (Phaedo, 96a ff.). He denies he is a sophist but says that if what they
promised were true it would be wonderful. But then, one of the jury might ask, if you are not a
sophist, what is your business (pragma)? And more important, where did he get his bad reputation?
Before answering, he notes that some in the jury might think he is joking (20d). But he is telling
the whole truth, which makes the problem of the origin of his bad reputation even more intractable
(cf.Gorgias, 515c–19d).
He gained his bad reputation, he says, by possessing a certain kind of wisdom–not sophistic
wisdom, which would be superhuman, but human wisdom. At this point evidently the jury starts
shouting.^24 Socrates then tells the jury to shut up and listen to a witness for the defense, the god at
Delphi. Or rather, listen to a story told by Chaerophon–or, since he is dead, listen to Chaerophon’s
brother.^25 Because Chaerophon’s brother didn’t take the stand and didn’t get along with Chaerophon
anyhow (Memorabilia, II: 3), Socrates alone attests to the bizarre tale according to which
ChaerophonaskedtheOracleif anyone (humanor divine) waswiser thanSocrates.Chaerophon’s
motive for so doing is never explained, but the Pythia replied that no one was wiser.^26 Socrates
interpreted the words to mean that he was the wisest but also that the god’swordswereariddle,
and so true but not in a manner that was immediately evident.^27 The uproar by the jury is not just
an expression of their view that Socrates is boasting but a reaction to Socrates’mockery. It was as
if he said:“if you believed those unfounded rumors of the old accusers, here is another rumor to
consider; why not believe it?”^28 It seems to me, therefore, that the entire Oracle story was a joke
and the jury didn’t like it one bit.^29
By conversing (dialogomenos) and examining or considering (diaskopon, which can also mean
to see through), Socrates discovered that those reputed to be wise, starting with the political men
(politikoi), were not. Since neither thepolitikoinor their followers enjoyed being examined by
Socrates, they grew to envy and hate him (21d) because the sons of the wealthy enjoyed listening to
Socrates examine those reputed to be wise, and enjoyed trying their own hand at it as well. Socrates,
then, is perfectly well aware why the jury is prejudiced against him. His impiety was not that he did
not worship the gods of the city, which is never proved in any event, but that he (along with the
sophists) undermined another element of thecivic cultusequally protected by the gods of the city,
24 Barry Cooper