by Demosthenes
Perhaps they will make a suggestion of this sort: the man has now embarked on a course of friendship, and really wants to do Athens a good turn; if we condemn the decree, we shall be discouraging him, and filling him with mistrust of us. Well, men of Athens, my attitude is this; please consider it. If he were our friend honestly and in all sincerity, if he really did intend to do us all manner of good, even then I should not think this argument worthy of your attention. In my judgement there is no man who could possibly do you so much service that for his sake you ought to perjure yourselves and vote against proven justice. [195] Seeing that he is convicted of deceit and perpetual dishonesty, — vote against him, and one of two desirable results must follow. Either he will abandon his impostures on the ground that they can no longer escape detection, or else, if it is his desire to be really on good terms with us, he will make a genuine effort to serve us well, having discovered that he can no longer accomplish his purposes by chicanery. For that reason alone, if for no other, you will do well to give your verdict against him. [196]
It is also opportune, men of Athens, to inquire how our forefathers bestowed distinctions and rewards upon genuine benefactors, whether they were citizens or strangers. If you find their practice better than yours, you will do well to follow their example; if you prefer your own, it rests with you to continue it. Take first Themistocles, who won the naval victory at Salamis, Miltiades, who commanded at Marathon, and many others, whose achievements were not on a level with those of our commanders today. Our ancestors did not put up bronze statues of these men, nor did they carry their regard for them to extremes. [197] So they were not grateful to those who had served them well? Yes, men of Athens, they were very grateful; they showed their gratitude in a manner that was equally creditable to themselves and the recipients. They were all men of merit, but they chose those men to lead them; and to men of sobriety, who have a keen eye for realities, being raised to the primacy of a brave and noble people is a far greater distinction than any effigy of bronze. [198] The truth is, gentlemen, that they would not rob themselves of their own share in any of those ancient achievements; and no man would say that the battle of Salamis belonged to Themistocles, — it was the battle of the Athenians; or that the victory at Marathon belonged to Miltiades, — it was the victory of the commonwealth. But today, men of Athens, it is commonly said that Corcyra was captured by Timotheus, that the Spartan battalion was cut to pieces by Iphicrates, that the naval victory off Naxos was won by Chabrias. It really looks as though you disclaimed any merit for those feats of arms by the extravagant favours that you lavish on the several commanders. [199]
Thus they distributed rewards within the city righteously and to the public advantage; we do it the wrong way. But what about those bestowed on strangers? When Meno of Pharsalus had given us twelve talents for the war at Eion near Amphipolis, and had reinforced us with three hundred of his own mounted serfs, they did not pass a decree that whoever slew Meno should be liable to seizure; they made him a citizen, and thought that distinction adequate. [200] Or take Perdiccas, who was reigning in Macedonia at the time of the Persian invasion, and who destroyed the Persians on their retreat from Plataea, and made the defeat of the King irreparable. They did not resolve that any man should be liable to seizure who killed Perdiccas, the man who for our sake had provoked the enmity of the great King; they gave him our citizenship, and that was all. The truth is that in those days to be made a citizen of Athens was an honor so precious in the eyes of the world that, to earn that favour alone, men were ready to render to you those memorable services. Today it is so worthless that not a few men who have already received it have wrought worse mischief to you than your declared enemies. [201] Not only this guerdon of the common wealth but all your honors have been dragged through the mire and made contemptible by those execrable and god-forsaken politicians, who make proposals like this on such easy terms; men who, in their inordinate lust of dishonest gain, put up honors and civic rewards for sale, like hucksters vending and cheapening their pitiful, trumpery merchandise, and supply a host of buyers at fixed prices with any decree they want. [202]
In the first place, — let me mention the latest instance first, — they not only claimed that Ariobarzanes and his two sons deserved everything they chose to ask for, but they associated with him two men of Abydus, unprincipled fellows, and bitter enemies of Athens, Philiscus and Agavus. Again, when Timotheus was held to have served your needs in some way, besides conferring on him all manner of great rewards, they associated with him Phrasierides and Polysthenes, who were not even free-born, but were blackguards whose conduct had been such as any man of good feeling will be loth to describe. [203] Finally on this occasion, while demanding for Cersobleptes any honors they thought proper, and while concentrating on that, they attached two other names to his. One is the man of whose many misdeeds you have just heard the story. The other is named Euderces, but nobody in the wide world knows who he is. You see the result, men of Athens: honors that were once great now appear trifling; and the practice is advancing ever farther and farther. The old rewards no longer suffice, and they are not in the least grateful for them, unless you will also protect their persons, man by man, or so it seems. [204]
For this progress along the road of dishonor, men of Athens, if I am to tell the truth in all candor, nobody is more to blame than yourselves. You are no longer willing to bring malefactors to justice: retribution has disappeared from our city. Yet consider how our ancestors castigated those who had done them wrong, and ask whether their way was not better than yours. [205] When they caught Themistocles presumptuously setting himself above the people, they banished him from Athens, and found him guilty of siding with the Medes. Because Cimon had dislocated the ancestral constitution by his personal efforts, they acquitted him by a majority of three votes only on the capital charge, and made him pay fifty talents. Such was their attitude to the men who had rendered those signal services. And they were right; they would not sell to those men their own freedom and their pride in their own achievements; they honored them as long as they did right, but resisted them when they tried to do wrong. [206] You, men of Athens, acquit men who have committed the gravest crimes and are clearly proved guilty, if they treat you to one or two pleasantries, or if a few advocates chosen from their own tribe ask you to be so good. If ever you do bring them in guilty, you assess the penalty at five-and-twenty drachmas. In those old times the State was wealthy and splendid, but in private life no man held his head higher than the multitude. [207] Here is the proof: if any of you know the sort of house that Themistocles or Miltiades or any of those distinguished men of old lived in, you may observe that it is no grander than the common run of houses. On the other hand, both the structure and the equipment of their Public buildings were on such a scale and of such quality that no opportunity of surpassing them was left to coming generations. Witness those gate-houses, docks, porticoes, the great harbor, and all the edifices with which you see our city adorned. [208] But today every man who takes part in public life enjoys such superfluity of wealth that some of them have built private dwelling-houses more magnificent than many public buildings; and others have bought larger estates than all you people in this court possess between you; while, as for the public buildings that you put up and whitewash, I am ashamed to say how mean and shabby they are. Can you name anything that you have acquired and that you will bequeath to posterity, as they bequeathed the Chersonesus, and Amphipolis, and the glory of noble exploits? That glory citizens like these are squandering as fast as they can, — but they cannot annihilate it, men of Athens; and we know why. [209] In those days Aristeides had full control of the assessment of the tribute, but his own fortune was not increased by a single shilling; and when he died he was actually buried at the public expense. Whenever you wanted anything, you had more money in your treasury than any other Hellenic people, insomuch that you always started on any expedition with pay for the full period named in the decree authorizing such expedition. Now, wh
ile the administrators of public affairs have risen from poverty to affluence, and are provided with ample maintenance for a long time to come, you have not enough money laid by for a single day’s expenditure, and when something must be done, you are at once without the means of doing it. The nation was then the master, as it is now the servant, of the politicians. [210] The fault lies with the authors of such decrees as this, who have trained you to think very little of yourselves, and a great deal of one or two individuals. So they are the inheritors of your renown and of your possessions; you get no benefit from that inheritance! You are the witnesses of the prosperity of others, and participate in nothing but delusions. Ah, how loud would be the lamentation of those great men who laid down their lives for glory and for liberty, and left behind them the monuments of many noble achievements, if they could see how today the progress of our city has ended in the form and rank of a dependant, and that the question of the hour is — whether Charidemus is entitled to personal protection! Charidemus! Heaven help us! [211]
But the really scandalous thing is, not that our counsels are inferior to those of our ancestors, who surpassed all mankind in virtue, but that they are worse than those of all other nations. Is it not discreditable that, whereas the Aeginetans yonder, who inhabit that insignificant island, and have nothing whatever to be proud of, have never to this day given their citizenship to Lampis, the largest ship-owner in Hellas, who fitted out their city and their seaport, but have reluctantly rewarded him merely with exemption from the alien-tax; [212] that whereas those detestable Megarians are so obsessed with their own dignity that, when the Lacedaemonians sent and ordered them to admit to their citizenship Hermo, the pilot, who, serving with Lysander, captured two hundred war-galleys on the occasion of our disaster at Aegospotami, they replied that they would make him a Megarian when they saw that the Lacedaemonians had made him a Spartan; [213] that whereas the people of Oreus, who inhabit only a fourth part of Euboea, dealing with this very Charidemus, whose mother belongs to their city, — I will not mention who his father is or where he comes from, for it is not worth while to make unnecessary inquiries about the man, — so that he himself contributed one-half of the birth-qualification, have never to this day thought fit to make up the other moiety, and to this very day he is on the bastards’ list, just as here bastards are registered at Cynosarges, — [214] will you, men of Athens, after giving him your full franchise and honoring him with other distinctions, — will you bestow upon him this immunity into the bargain? For what? What ships has he taken for you, to cause the men who have lost them to plot against him? What city has he captured and handed over to you? What perils has he encountered in your defence? When has he chosen your enemies as his own? No man can tell you. [215]
Before I leave the tribune, gentlemen of the jury, I wish to add some brief observations upon the statutes that we have adduced. If you will bear them in mind, I think that you will keep a better look-out for any attempts these men may make to cajole and mislead you. The first statute expressly ordains that, if any man slay another, the Areopagus shall take cognizance. Aristocrates proposes that such a manslayer shall be liable to seizure without more ado. Mark that carefully, and remember that to make a man an outlaw without trial is exactly the opposite of trying him. [216] The second statute forbids personal maltreatment or extortion even in the case of a convicted homicide. Aristocrates, by making him liable to seizure, has permitted such misusage; for it will be competent for captors to treat the man as they will. The statute provides that the culprit shall be conveyed to the judges, even though arrested in the country of his victim. He allows the homicide on seizure to be taken to the house of the prosecutor, even though the capture be effected in foreign parts. [217] There are certain injuries for which the statute permits life to be taken. Aristocrates, even though the life be taken in such circumstances, makes no reservation, but permits a man whom the laws release without penalty to be handed over for punishment. When a man has suffered this misfortune, the law enjoins that satisfaction be first claimed. In defiance of this law he proposes no trial, demands no redress from the persons on whom he has such claim, but declares incontinently that the man is liable to seizure, and puts under an immediate ban anyone who tries to rescue him. [218] The statute provides that not more than three hostages may be taken from the people with whom the offender lives, if they refuse to give satisfaction. The defendant puts under ban without more ado whosoever rescues the accused from his captors because he is unwilling to surrender him before judgement. The statute forbids anyone to introduce a new law without making it applicable to all men alike; he composes a special decree in favour of a particular man. The statute does not permit any decree to override the law. The relevant laws are many, but Aristocrates annuls them all and makes a mere decree supreme. [219]
Bear all this in mind and memory so long as you sit in that box. Dismiss all the fallacious reasons they will allege; do not allow them to be uttered. Tell them to show you the clause in which he has proposed a trial, or the clause that punishes a man duly convicted of murder. If he had provided for the due punishment of a man tried and found guilty elsewhere, or if he had himself proposed a trial to determine whether homicide has been committed or not, and if so whether justifiably or not, he would have done no wrong. [220] But inasmuch as, after a phrase of mere accusation, “if any man kills,” without any such addition as “and is found guilty of murder,” or, “is adjudged to have killed,” or, “he shall submit to judgement for the murder,” or, “he shall be liable to the same penalty as if he had killed an Athenian,” he has omitted every just precaution, and has simply made the man liable to seizure, do not be led astray, but be assured that in this decree the laws have been absolutely contravened.
AGAINST TIMOCRATES
Translated by A. T. Murray
I do not think, gentlemen of the jury, that even Timocrates can lay the blame of the present prosecution upon anyone else: he has brought it on himself. Moved by desire to deprive the State of a large sum of money, he has most illegally introduced a law which is both inexpedient and iniquitous. You shall presently learn in detail, if you will listen to me, in how many respects this law, if ratified, will be injurious and detrimental to the common weal; but there is one result, the most important and the most obvious that I can name, which I shall not hesitate to put before you. [2] For it is the decision that you pronounce on oath on every question which is annulled and made worthless by the law proposed by the defendant; and his object is not any public benefit to the State, — that is impossible, for his law robs those Courts of Justice, which are the pillars of the constitution, of all power to impose the additional penalties attached by the laws to transgressions, — but that certain of those men who have long battened on your substance and pillaged your property may not even refund moneys which they were openly caught in the act of embezzling. [3] Also it is so much easier to curry favour privately with certain persons than to stand up in defence of your rights that, while Timocrates has their fee in his pocket, and never introduced his law until he got it, I,so far from getting any reward from you, am risking a thousand drachmas in your defence. [4]
Now it is the common practice of those who take up any piece of public business to inform you that the matter on which they happen to be making their speeches is most momentous, and worthy of your best attention. But if that claim has ever been made with propriety, I think that I am entitled to make it now. [5] For I suppose that no man living will attribute the prosperity of Athens, her liberty, her popular government, to anything rather than to the laws. Well, the question for you today is this: shall all the laws that you have enacted for the restraint of evil-doers be invalidated, and this law alone be valid; or shall this law be annulled and the rest allowed to remain? That, to put it in brief summary, is the issue that you have to determine today. [6]
But to forestall any surprise you may feel that I, who can claim to have hitherto lived a quiet life, should now be making my appearance in actions at law a
nd public prosecutions, I desire to offer a brief explanation, which will not be irrelevant to the issue. Men of Athens, I once fell out with a worthless, quarrelsome, unprincipled fellow, with whom in the end the whole city also fell out, — I mean Androtion. [7] By this man I was far more grievously wronged than Euctemon, inasmuch as Euctemon suffered the loss of some money, but I, if he had made good his attack upon me, should have lost my life as well as my property; indeed, even the common privilege of an easy exit from life would have been denied me. He accused me of a crime which a man of good feeling would be loath even to mention, — of having killed my own father; he concocted an indictment for impiety, and brought me to trial. At that trial he failed to get a fifth part of the votes of the jury, and was fined a thousand drachmas. I was deservedly acquitted, for which I thank first the gods, and secondly those of you who were on the jury; [8] but the man who had wickedly brought me to that pass I accounted an enemy with whom I could make no terms. When I discovered that he had defrauded the whole commonwealth in the collection of the property-tax and in the manufacture of processional utensils, and that he held and refused to restore a great deal of money belonging to the Goddess, the Heroes, and the State, I proceeded against him with the aid of Euctemon, thinking it a favorable opportunity for doing the State a service, and at the same time getting satisfaction for the wrongs I had suffered. My purpose would naturally be that I should accomplish my desire, and that he should get his deserts. [9] The facts were indisputable; the Council condemned him; the Assembly spent a whole day over the case; two juries, each a thousand-and-one strong, brought in their verdict; and then, when there was no subterfuge left by which you could be kept out of your money, this man Timocrates, with the most insolent contempt of the whole proceeding, proposes this law, — a law by which he robs the gods of their consecrated treasure and the city of her just dues, invalidates the judgements pronounced by the Council, the Assembly, and the Courts of Justice, and has given free licence to everybody to plunder the treasury. [10] From all these wrongs we saw only one way of escape, that is, if we could abrogate the law by indicting it and bringing it before this court. I will therefore briefly recount the facts from the outset, in order that you may more readily grasp, and follow step by step, the manifold iniquities involved in the law itself. [11]