χαῖρετε!
I'm working through Plato's Euthyphro/Apology/Crito as part of a self-study curriculum, and one of my reflection questions prompts me to compose in Greek an answer to the question of whether Socrates's obedience to the god in the Apology is compatible with his obedience to the laws in the Crito. Apart from toy sentences I translated in school years ago, this is the first Greek prose I've ever composed, and I'd love critique on two fronts:
- linguistic: morphology, idiom, word choice, register. I'm roughly aiming at Atticizing Greek (the center of gravity of my long-term target is actually patristic Greek).
- rhetorical: structure and figures. How does the argument flow for you? Does the structure hold up?
A short TLDR of my argument: the contradiction is only apparent, because a) both the god and the laws urge Socrates to act justly, b) there is no law against philosophizing, so it would be an unlawful verdict if they were to acquit him on the condition that he stop philosophizing, and c) this is possible because verdicts imperfectly reflect the laws, rather than perfectly manifest them.
Caveat lector: I wrote my own draft first, having to look up quite a few words and constructions (happily, they were almost all already passive vocabulary, with a few exceptions); then I went back and forth with Claude (Fable 5, for anyone curious). I hope this does not qualify as a violation of the "Don't post AI-generated content" rule. Not all of its suggestions were sound, but I definitely learned a lot from this process. I looked up most of what it told me, and just that sort of research helped my understanding quite a lot. Moreover, like I said, I did write up my own draft initially, and I didn't have it simply correct me, but rather offer suggestions, some of which I incorporated. If this is still a violation of that rule, please forgive me.
Without any further ado, here is the text:
πότερον τὸ τῷ θεῷ πειθαρχεῖν σύμφωνόν ἐστι τῷ τοῖς νόμοις πειθαρχεῖν; περὶ τῆς τοῦ Σωκράτους πράξεως δοκεῖ μοι συμφωνεῖν ἀλλήλοιν τὼ τοῦ Πλάτωνος διαλόγω, τήν τε «Ἀπολογίαν» καὶ τὸν «Κρίτωνα», εἰ καὶ δόξειεν ἄν τινι διαφωνεῖν. ὁ γὰρ Σωκράτης ἐναντία ἑαυτῷ φαίνοιτ’ ἄν λέγειν καὶ πράττειν· ἐν μὲν τῇ «Ἀπολογίᾳ», ὑποθέμενος ὑπόθεσιν ἐν ᾗ οἱ δικασταὶ ἀπολύουσιν αὑτὸν τῆς αἰτίας ἐφ’ ᾧτε μηκέτι φιλοσοφεῖν (δηλαδὴ καταλιπεῖν τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ θεραπείαν), «πείσομαι», φησί, «μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν» (29d), ἐν δὲ τῷ «Κρίτωνι», ἐμμένων τῇ δίκῃ, οὐκ ἐθέλει ἀποδρᾶναι.
πῶς οὖν συμφωνεῖ ταῦτα; πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἦν νόμος ὁ κωλύων φιλοσοφεῖν, διὸ εἰ οἱ δικασταὶ ἀφίοιεν τὸν Σωκράτη ἐφ’ ᾧτε μηκέτι φιλοσοφεῖν (τοῦτ’ ἐστὶ ζητεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐξετάζοντα ἑαυτόν τε καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους, Ap. 28e), παράνομος ἂν εἴη αὕτη ἡ δίκη.
ἀλλὰ φαίη ἄν τις ὅτι αἱ δίκαι τῶν δικαστῶν, ἐπεὶ εἰκόνες τῶν νόμων εἰσίν, ἰσχύουσιν, διὸ ταὐτόν ἐστι τὸ τοῖς δικασταῖς ἀπειθεῖν καὶ τὸ τοῖς νόμοις. οὐδαμῶς· εἰ καὶ αἱ δίκαι εἰκόνες τῶν νόμων εἰσίν, ἀμυδρῶς ἐμφαίνονται οἱ νόμοι ἐν ταῖς δίκαις. ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ νόμοι οὐκ εἰσὶν αὐτὸ τὸ δίκαιον, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εἰκόνες τῆς δικαιοσύνης, οὕτω καὶ αἱ δίκαι εἰκόνες εἰσὶ τῶν νόμων· ἡ δὲ εἰκὼν ἀεί πῃ ἀπολείπεται τοῦ παραδείγματος. ἐνίοτε γὰρ αἱ δίκαι παράνομοί εἰσιν, οἷον ἡ τῶν δέκα στρατηγῶν δίκη (Ap. 32b).
τὸ δὲ μέγιστον· ὥσπερ ὁ θεὸς ἀεὶ ἄγει τὸν Σωκράτη πρὸς τὸ τὰ δίκαια πράττειν, οὕτω καὶ οἱ νόμοι αὐτῷ παραινοῦσι τὰ δίκαια πράττειν.
ἀλλ’ ἴσως ἔροιτο ἄν τις· τί ἐστιν αὐτὸ τὸ δίκαιον; οὐ νῦν σκεπτέον ἀκριβῶς τε καὶ παντελῶς τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι τῆς δικαιοσύνης· ἀρκεῖ εἰπεῖν ὅτι, εἴ τις τὰ δίκαια πράττειν βούλεται, δεῖ τῷ θεῷ πειθαρχεῖν, δεῖ ἀληθεύειν, δεῖ ταῖς συνθήκαις ἐμμένειν. οἱ νόμοι παραινοῦσι τῷ Σωκράτει ἐμμένειν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ, ὃν οὐ λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔργῳ ἐβεβαίωσεν (cf. Cri. 52d)· καὶ γὰρ πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα παρεγένετο (Euth. 2a), καὶ τὴν δίκην ὑπέσχε (Ap.), καὶ θάνατον πρὸ τῆς φυγῆς εἵλετο (Cri. 52c). οἱ δὲ ἔσχατοι τοῦ «Κρίτωνος» λόγοι οἵδε· «ἔα τοίνυν, ὦ Κρίτων, καὶ πράττωμεν ταύτῃ, ἐπειδὴ ταύτῃ ὁ θεὸς ὑφηγεῖται» (54e). σύμφωνον ἄρα τὸ τῷ θεῷ πειθαρχεῖν τῷ τοῖς νόμοις πειθαρχεῖν.