INTRODUCER OF NEW ONES.


I have often wondered by what show of argument the accusers of Socrates
could persuade the Athenians he had forfeited his life to the State. For
though the crimes laid unto his charge were indeed great--"That he did
not acknowledge the gods of the Republic; that he introduced new
ones"--and, farther, "had debauched the youth;" yet none of these could,
in the least, be proved against him.

For, as to the first, "That he did not worship the deities which the
Republic adored," how could this be made out against him, since, instead
of paying no homage to the gods of his country, he was frequently seen to
assist in sacrificing to them, both in his own family and in the public
temples?--perpetually worshipping them in the most public, solemn, and
religious manner.

What, in my opinion, gave his accusers a specious pretext for alleging
against him that he introduced new deities was this--that he had
frequently declared in public he had received counsel from a _divine
voice_, which he called his Demon. But this was no proof at all of the
matter. All that Socrates advanced about his demon was no more than what
is daily advanced by those who believe in and practise divination; and if
Socrates, because he said he received intelligence from his genius, must
be accused of introducing new divinities, so also must they; for is it
not certain that those who believe in divination, and practise that
belief, do observe the flight of birds, consult the entrails of victims,
and remark even unexpected words and accidental occurrences? But they do
not, therefore, believe that either the birds whose flight they observe
or the persons they meet accidentally know either their good or ill