"Blame no employment, but blame idleness."

And he pretends that Socrates alleged this passage to prove that the poet
meant to say that we ought not to count any employment unjust or
dishonourable, if we can make any advantage of it. This, however, was
far from the thoughts of Socrates; but, as he had always taught that
employment and business are useful and honourable to men, and that
idleness is an evil, he concluded that they who busy themselves about
anything that is good are indeed employed; but that gamesters and
debauched persons, and all who have no occupations, but such as are
hurtful and wicked, are idle. Now, in this sense, is it not true to
say:--

"Blame no employment, but blame idleness"?

The accuser likewise says that Socrates often repeated, out of Homer, a
speech of Ulysses; and from thence he concludes that Socrates taught that
the poet advised to beat the poor and abuse the common people. But it is
plain Socrates could never have drawn such a wild and unnatural inference
from those verses of the poet, because he would have argued against
himself, since he was as poor as anyone besides. What he meant,
therefore, was only this, that such as are neither men of counsel nor
execution, who are neither fit to advise in the city nor to serve in the
army, and are nevertheless proud and insolent, ought to be brought to
reason, even though they be possessed of great riches. And this was the
true meaning of Socrates, for he loved the men of low condition, and
expressed a great civility for all sorts of persons; insomuch that
whenever he was consulted, either by the Athenians or by foreigners, he
would never take anything of any man for the instructions he gave them,