ed to give them a reward: thus, too, we spit,
because the spittle is of no use in the mouth, but on the contrary is
troublesome. But Socrates meant not by these, or the like sayings, to
conclude that a man ought to bury his father alive, or that we ought to
cut off our legs and arms; but he meant only to teach us that what is
useless is contemptible, and to exhort every man to improve and render
himself useful to others; to the end that if we desire to be esteemed by
our father, our brother, or any other relation, we should not rely so
much on our parentage and consanguinity, as not to endeavour to render
ourselves always useful to those whose esteem we desire to obtain.

The accuser says further against Socrates, that he was so malicious as to
choose out of the famous poets the passages that contained the worst
instructions, and that he made use of them in a sly manner, to inculcate
the vices of injustice and violence: as this verse of Hesiod,

"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,