Josiah Renick Smith, Xenophon: Memorabilia

τίσι ποτε: by what possible. The use of τίς, ποῖος, πόσος, πῶς, etc., makes the indirect question more vivid and forcible. G. 1012; H. 1011. So ποίῳ ποτέ in 2. For a similar intensive use of ποτέ (Lat. tandem) with questions, cf. τί ποτε λέγει ὁ θεός Plato Apol. 21B, “τίπτ᾽ [ τί ποτε ] εἰλήλουθας” Hom. A 202. Xenophon surely was not unacquainted with the contents of the judicial indictment against Socrates; but he regarded its grounds as wholly unsatisfactory, and wondered what arguments could have persuaded the judges to render such a verdict. At the time of the trial (399 B.C.), Xenophon was not in Athens, and could only have heard from others in regard to the speeches.

Ἀθηναίους: here (as Ἀθηναῖοι in 20) refers immediately to the judges. So, in addressing the court, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι was allowable, instead of ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, since every Athenian citizen over thirty years of age could become a judge. The actual number of judges sitting on each case was very large, usually 501, which must have made the court resemble somewhat a New England town meeting. In the popular jury court of the Heliaea, the term δικαστής really is equivalent to ‘judge-juryman.’ (See Schömann, Antiq. of Greece, Eng. transl., i. 474 ff.; Gow, Companion to School Classics, p. 126.) Both here, however, and in 20, δικαστής is purposely avoided, to indicate that the guilt of condemning Socrates affected the whole Athenian state.

ἔπεισαν, ὡς εἴη: in 20, ἐπείσθησαν with acc. and infinitive.

οἱ γραψάμενοι: the accusers, viz. Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon (Introd. § 5).

τῇ πόλει: dat. of relation or interest. G. 1172; H. 771. Cf. i.2.62, 63.

μέν: not followed by a correlative δέ. A contrast is not expressed, though perhaps suggested. “How unfounded, however, the accusation was will appear hereafter.”

γραφή: the term for a public indictment. See Gow, p. 127.

κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ: without repetition of the art. (after γραφή), as often after a noun expressing action. Cf. ἦν γὰρ ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἡ κατάβασις ἐκ τοῦ χωρίου An. v.2.6

τὶς: after τοιάδε, shows that the author is more concerned with the substance than with the exact words. The indictment is probably, however, quoted nearly verbatim. We find it somewhat differently given by Plato, Apol. 24B, where the two principal counts stand in the reverse order. There, too, an ἔχει δέ πως ὧδε precedes.

οὓς ... νομίζων: the rel. clause οὓς ... νομίζει has the force of an attrib. adjective. θεούς is obj. of νομίζων, recognizing. For the circumstantial participle of means or manner, see G. 1563, 3; H. 969 a.

ἀδικεῖ δὲ καί: the first ἀδικεῖ was not followed by μέν, an omission which occurs chiefly when, as here, δὲ καί follows. Cf. i.2.22; ii. 6. 23; An. iii.1.23