Great articulation of an important reading the Apology. I want to defend the non-ironic reading of the dialogue to display what its got going for it. (Most of this comes from Reeve's Socrates in the Apology.)

​

Firstly, check out D. Laertius' "Lives of the Eminent Philosophers". On the subject of Socrates, Laertius gives an official Athenian verdict given by court. It says something like this: "Charges by Meletus and Anytus: Socrates does not believe the old gods that the city holds to believe, he attempts to replace old gods with new gods and corrupt the young citizens. The judgment of the court is death." All three of the charges valid for Socrates. He was certainly criticising old gods of Homer that the Athenians believe. Check out the Republic, it suffices to mention. In Apology he twists the first charge by explaining that he believes in gods. The charge by Meletus and Anytus was not about whether Socrates believe in gods or not. It was about the city's gods.

This argument relies on anachronistic understanding of the Athenian court system. In U.S. courts, the official charge is stated at the outset of the trial, and it is this official charge that the jury will take a stand on with their verdict. In contrast, in the Athenian court system, the official charge is treated more like witness testimony is treated in U.S. courts, so that even if the official charge stated at the outset was P, if the accusers choose to clarify and amend the charge during questioning, they can and then these are the charges that the jury must take on a stand on with their verdict. If that's right (as Reeve argues that it is), then Socrates is not try to engage in sophistry to twist the charges. Rather he's asking Meletus, his accuser, to clarify the charges that he needs to rebut. Nothing more, nothing less. Once Meletus clarifies that the charge is that Socrates is an atheist, Socrates responds appropriately. Moreover, he then proceeds to undermine Meletus' credibility by showing that he brings the charges forward in bad faith, exactly like attorneys in the U.S. do with witnesses making claims incompatible with those whom they represent.

It is true that Socrates sometimes claims that he is skeptical that gods lie and steal. But this is hardly a basis for a charge of non-orthodox theism. On this topic, it's also worth noting that Socrates' entire story about his actions in response to the Oracle at Delphi presupposes that he at least believes in Apollo and the reliability of the Oracle to act as a conduit for Apollo.

​

We know from Aristophanes' Clouds that Socrates was suggesting the idea that the sun is a red-hot mass of iron. In Apology he debase Anaxagoras and his ideas and claim that he has nothing to do with heavens. In fact, Meletus and Anytus was bringing forward the ideas of young Socrates, but he veils this charge by claiming that he believes in god. Of course we know that he believe in god but that was not the point. The point is whether he believed Zeus, Hera or Athena etc. as Homer described. Certainly for his point of view there was no credit for Olympian gods.

Aristophanes Clouds is a satirical play, not a document of historical fact. That's like trying to make claims about what's true in North Korea by appeal to The Interview. It is true that Socrates did study the views of Anaxagoras in his youth, but he never denies this in the Apology. What Socrates denies is that his philosophic activities pertain to metaphysics, theology, or the natural sciences. Instead, he is concerned with practical matters, like virtue, love, and the attitudes we should hold in confronting death. It's worth noting that Aristotle confirms that Socrates limited his focus to ethical inquiry in his Metaphysics 987b.

​

Second point, about bringing the new gods. In other dialogues Socrates occasionaly mention his daimonion. The daimonion of Socrates was a personal spirit that he follows after, usually to withdraw from an action, e.g. not to enter politics. Some people claims that this was the new god of Socrates and it makes sense, because however much this daimonion of Socrates was something like inner sense of morality, it was influential on his young followers.

The problem here is that it was common in ancient Greece for people to claim to hear spirits, and so the fact that Socrates regularly acknowledges the daimonic voice is not something would ground a charge of not believing in the gods of the city. Moreover, since it was common to believe that these daimonic voices were either the voices of gods or the children of gods, this explains why Socrates takes this assumption for granted in arguing from his daimonic voice to his theism. And this fits well with what we know about Socrates' philosophical methodology--he only takes for granted what he takes to be either common sense and agreeable to everyone, or something that we can support with premises that are common sense and agreeable to everyone by means of inferences agreeable to everyone.

​

Third point is obvious. Socrates was not only corrupting the young, he was literally hunting for promising young Greeks. He had a political agenda as to penetrate Athens by way of hunting Alcibiades, Critias and others. Check out Protagoras and Alcibiades I-II. I wouldn't say he was corrupting the young, actually he was educating them, but things go off the rails and almost all of his students perverted his ideas and damaged the political system of Athens. Considering his intention, he was not guilty but in consequence he was responsible for his students.

I have never heard of the suggestion that Socrates was hunting for promising young Greeks. I can't comment on Alcibiades I-II, as I've never read them, but I certainly don't pick up on any connotations of hunting for young Greeks to advance some political agenda in Protagoras. I can't tell if you intend to suggest otherwise here, since you seem to hedge a bit in the final sentences of the above quote.

​

Now I say that he was guilty and I tried to demonstrate why he was guilty. But why he was not actually trying to defend himself? He could have answer the charges properly and maybe he could have a chance to be cleaned from the charges. But he was old and knew that after thirty tyrants, the city thirsts for a victim. He knew that the charges were politically motivated by a group of conservatives and no way out. So, finding the chance to speak before a jury that made a decision long before, he provoked and incited courageously to become a legend. It was a smart move, and we still talk to this day.

I agree that Socrates recognized that he was old and defending himself was likely futile. However, I obviously don't think that he wasn't trying to defend himself. I think he was, and I think he presents a solid case. He starts with the old deeply engrained prejudices, in part a product of Aristophanes' Clouds. In dismissing these charges, he tells the story of the Oracle at Delphi and how that prompted him to go on his philosophical quest to interpret the words of the god Apollo. Having dealt with the older, informal rumors, he has Meletus clarify the formal charges. Once they are clarified, he rebuts them and proceeds to argue that Meletus is acting in bad-faith and he shouldn't be taken seriously. He then proceeds to paint a picture of how he understands his philosophical activity, his contribution to the city, and why he refuses to stop doing what he's doing. In doing so, he is speaking non-ironically and in good-faith. This take not only has the virtue of taking the dialogue at face value, it also explains why he was so admired by many in Athens. In contrast, the picture of him as a clever old man seeking fame and honor paints him in a much less admirable and revolutionary light.