Summary
Socrates now turns from his old accusers to his
new ones, those who have brought him to trial.
Socrates reminds the court that they accuse him of
corrupting the minds of the young and of believing
in supernatural phenomena of his own invention
rather than in the gods of the state. In order to
defend himself against these charges, Socrates
calls on Meletus, his principal accuser, and
interrogates him in the familiar form of the
elenchus, or cross-examination.
If he has such a bad influence on the youth of
Athens, Socrates asks, what is it that has a good
influence? Meletus responds that the laws make
people good. Socrates then urges Meletus to
clarify which people might have this good
influence, whose business it is to know the laws.
In response to Socrates' persistent questioning,
Meletus first asserts that the jurymen are
responsible for knowing the laws, and then accepts
both Councilors and members of the Assembly as
equally good influences. Because the Assembly is
open to all adult males, Meletus finds himself
claiming that the entire population of Athens has a
positive influence on the youth, with the sole
exception of Socrates. Socrates then draws an
analogy with horses, saying that only horse-
trainers, very specialized people, have a positive
influence on horses, whereas most people would have
a negative influence. Surely, Socrates suggests,
if it takes such expertise to improve a horse, it
would be odd to think that pretty much anyone can
improve a person.
Next, Socrates' questioning leads Meletus to claim
that wicked people like Socrates intentionally do
harm to those with which they live in contact, and
that this acts to the detriment of all in that
society. Socrates replies to Meletus that, in
doing harm to others and hurting all of society,
Socrates would thus also be hurting himself, as a
member of society. Socrates claims that he cannot
possibly be so foolish as to want to hurt himself,
and so if he does cause harm, it must be
unintentional. And, he concludes, one who
unintentionally does harm should be instructed and
reproved, not tried and punished.
Socrates then addresses the accusation that he does
not believe in the gods sanctioned by the state,
assuming that this is the negative influence
Meletus refers to. Under Socrates' questioning,
Meletus asserts that Socrates believes in no gods
whatsoever. Socrates replies that Meletus is
confusing him with Anaxagoras, a well-known
Presocratic, whose theories Meletus is ascribing to
Socrates. To prove Meletus wrong, Socrates
undertakes to show that he must believe in gods of
some sort. He suggests that it would be impossible
to believe in human matters without believing in
human beings, or in equine matters without
believing in horses, or in musical matters without
believing in musicians, and so it must analogously
be impossible to believe in supernatural matters
without believing in supernatural beings. But the
affidavit Meletus himself drew up against Socrates
claims that Socrates believes--and teaches others
to believe--in supernatural matters. That must
imply, then, that Socrates believes in supernatural
beings. Since the only kinds of supernatural
beings, according to Socrates, are gods and
children of the gods, it must follow that Socrates
believes in gods, contrary to Meletus' initial
assertion.
Commentary
This is the only appearance in The Apology
of a speaker other than Socrates, and it is the
only instance of the elenchus. However, the
dialogue is disappointingly poor, and the reasoning
on both sides is shoddy. While most of Socrates'
cross-examinations bear the careful consideration
of a curious inquirer, this exchange is bitter and
dismissive. Socrates does not even pretend to have
an interest in identifying the source of
Meletus' views. Instead, he sets out to
dismiss Meletus as mean-spirited and ignorant.
Throughout, Socrates bullies Meletus, mocking him
and pushing him to answer more quickly. Often,
particularly when his arguments reach their
conclusions, Socrates leaves off questioning
Meletus altogether, and answers his questions for
him with derogatory scorn. Socrates' purpose in
doing this is most likely to dismiss Meletus as a
worthwhile opponent. He has already given
thoughtful answers to his old accusers, and his
strategy here is to suggest that even by taking
Meletus seriously, he would be conceding too much.
Meletus is spoken of harshly here and in the
Euthyphro, and we can reasonably suppose
that Plato was also intent on smearing the
reputation of one of the men responsible for
Socrates' death.
Socrates' analogy of the horse-trainer is dubious
at best, as we are never given a solid reason for
putting our faith in the analogy. Why should we
suppose that making horses physically fit is a
similar activity to making humans virtuous? Just
when we hope Socrates will give us an answer, he
simply dismisses the whole affair, saying to
Meletus, "you make it perfectly clear that you have
never paid the slightest attention to the matters
over which you are now indicting me" (25c).
