Although the rough content of the summons is given by the conversation in the Euthyphro, how Socrates would later that day answer the charge at his preliminary hearing probably led to greater precision in the formulation of the charge itself. The preliminary hearing designated the official receipt of the case ( dike) by the king-archon who, in office for one year, would later preside at the pretrial examination and the trial. Meletus stated or handed over his complaint, and Socrates answered by entering his plea. The king-archon was authorized to refuse Meletus’ case on technical procedural grounds, to redirect it to an arbitrator, or to accept it. If Socrates took substantive exception, challenged the admissibility of the charge in relation to existing law, he had the right at this preliminary stage to file a countersuit {paragraphed) that would have been heard first - but he did not. In the case of an oral or improperly written complaint, the king-archon rendered the charge in appropriate legal language, marking the official acceptance of the case, now an indictment in the modern sense. It was then published on whitened tablets in the agora and a date was set for the pretrial examination (anakrisis); from this point, word would have spread that old Socrates, that big-mouth, hairsplitting, long-time target of the comic poets, had been charged with impiety.
The indictment that we have - via Diogenes Laertius (2.40.3-7), who took it from Favorinus (second century ce), who said he saw it in the public archive, the Metroon - is so formulated that, taking both the Euthyphro passage and this one into account, a secondary literature has grown up over exactly how many separate charges Socrates faced: ‘‘This indictment [graphe:] is brought on oath by Meletus, son of Meletus, of Pithus, against Socrates, son of Sophroniscus, of Alopece: Socrates is guilty of not believing in the gods the city believes in, and of introducing other divinities [daimo-nia]; and he is guilty of corrupting the young. The penalty assessed is death.’’ Athenian law forbade impiety, and that is the single law Socrates is charged with breaking - in two ways (not believing..., introducing...), with one result: corruption of the young.
Narrowly and legalistically, the prosecution faced some obstacles: base individuals who could testify to Socrates’ direct influence would be suspect as witnesses; the upright citizens who would have been convincing witnesses, Socrates’ actual companions, would testify only to his piety and propriety (Ap. 33d-34b). But the prosecution had the advantage that the charge of impiety was not limited to the period 403-399, for it was not a political crime; Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon had only to persuade the jury that Socrates had at some time in his long life been impious and, since some of Socrates’ associates, whom he might be alleged to have corrupted, were already dead - critias, charmides, Alcibiades, and others associated with the particularly notorious sacrileges of 415 - the prosecution could cast aspersions without blatantly violating the law against hearsay evidence.10 It is probably unwise to be too narrow or legalistic, however, for juries could be swayed by innuendo and fallacious argument, swept along by powerful orations. Besides, the king-archon’s acceptance of the case is prima facie evidence that there was a case to be made.
World History
