There seem to be different ideas about how to parse this:
ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἃ ἐγὼ Σωκράτη ἐπαινῶ: καὶ αὖ ἃ μέμφομαι συμμείξας ὑμῖν εἶπον ἅ με ὕβρισεν.
Some take ἅ μέμφομαι to be the object of συμμείξας: “mixing in what I blame him for [with my praise], I have told you how he insulted me”. This looks syntactically straight forward to me.
But some, if I understand it right, take συμμείξας to lack an overt object, instead reading ἅ μέμφομαι and ἅ με ὕβρισεν to stand in apposition (as the object of εἶπον?). I have only read this in grammatical commentaries but can’t identify it in any translation. I’m not sure how to understand this sense, let alone translate it.
This is from the book Eros at the Banquet:
ἅ με ὕβρισεν: this relative clause is in apposition to ἃ μέμφομαι, elaborating and clarifying it. The neuter plural ἅ stands in for the cognate accusative (Essentials §77) that so often accompanies ὑβρίζω: so ἅ . . . ὕβρισεν = the wrongs which/that he did me, the criminal acts he perpetrated against me. Socrates is the subject, as the context makes clear. This is clearly paradoxical as the Athenians would not have thought refraining from sex with a free youth was a form of hubris (quite the reverse!).
And R. G. Bury:
ἃ μέμφομαι κτλ. “Verba ita connectenda sunt: καὶ συμμίξας αὖ ἃ μέμφομαι εἶπον ὑμῖν ἅ με ὕβρισε” (Stallb.). Stephens erroneously put a comma, Wolf a full stop, after μέμφομαι. Rückert, agreeing with Stallb., put a comma after συμμίξας, and Hommel added another after αὖ. Jowett’s transl.,—“I have added my blame of him for his ill-treatment of me”—seems to imply a different view of the construction. The points alluded to are those mentioned in 217 B ff., 219 C.
Splitting hairs, perhaps.