by Demosthenes
[30] But the truth is quite otherwise. You never “deliver” a malefactor to his accuser; for when someone has been wronged, you do not exact the penalty in such a form as the injured party urges upon you in each case. On the contrary, laws were laid down by you before the particular offences were committed, when the future wrongdoer and his victim were equally unknown. What is the effect of these laws? They ensure for every citizen the opportunity of obtaining redress if he is wronged. Therefore when you punish a man who breaks the laws, you are not delivering him over to his accusers; you are strengthening the arm of the law in your own interests.
[31] ἀλλὰ μὴν πρός γε τὸ τοιοῦτον, ὅτι ‘Δημοσθένης’ φησὶν ‘ὕβρισται,’ δίκαιος καὶ κοινὸς καὶ ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων ἔσθ᾽ ὁ λόγος. οὐ γὰρ εἰς Δημοσθένην ὄντα μ᾽ ἠσέλγαινε μόνον ταύτην τὴν ἡμέραν, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς χορηγὸν ὑμέτερον: τοῦτο δ᾽ ὅσον δύναται γνοίητ᾽ ἂν ἐκ τωνδί.
[31] But surely when he says, “Demosthenes was insulted,” he is met by an argument that is just and impartial and in the interests of all. It was not against the individual named Demosthenes that his brutality was directed on that occasion, but also against your chorus-master; and what that implies you may realize from the following considerations.
[32] ἴστε δήπου τοῦθ᾽ ὅτι τῶν θεσμοθετῶν τούτων οὐδενὶ θεσμοθέτης ἔστ᾽ ὄνομα, ἀλλ᾽ ὁτιδήποθ᾽ ἑκάστῳ. ἂν μὲν τοίνυν ἰδιώτην ὄντα τιν᾽ αὐτῶν ὑβρίσῃ τις ἢ κακῶς εἴπῃ, γραφὴν ὕβρεως καὶ δίκην κακηγορίας ἰδίαν φεύξεται, ἐὰν δὲ θεσμοθέτην, ἄτιμος ἔσται καθάπαξ. διὰ τί; ὅτι τοὺς νόμους ἤδη ὁ τοῦτο ποιῶν προσυβρίζει καὶ τὸν ὑμέτερον κοινὸν στέφανον καὶ τὸ τῆς πόλεως ὄνομα: ὁ γὰρ θεσμοθέτης οὐδενὸς ἀνθρώπων ἔστ᾽ ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ τῆς πόλεως.
[32] You know of course that of the judges who sit in this court none has the name of Judge, but each has some name of his own. Therefore if a man is guilty of assault or slander against anyone of them in his private capacity, he will stand his trial on an indictment for assault or in a suit for slander; but if he assails him as judge, he will incur total disfranchisement. Why so? Because at once by the mere act he is outraging your laws, your public crown of office, and the name that belongs to the State, for Judge is not a private name but a state-title.
[33] καὶ πάλιν γε τὸν ἄρχοντα, ταὐτὸ τοῦτο, ἐὰν μὲν ἐστεφανωμένον πατάξῃ τις ἢ κακῶς εἴπῃ, ἄτιμος, ἐὰν δ᾽ ἰδιώτην, ἰδίᾳ ὑπόδικος. καὶ οὐ μόνον περὶ τούτων οὕτω ταῦτ᾽ ἔχει, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ πάντων οἷς ἂν ἡ πόλις τιν᾽ ἄδειαν ἢ στεφανηφορίαν ἤ τινα τιμὴν δῷ. οὕτω τοίνυν καὶ ἐμέ, εἰ μὲν ἐν ἄλλαις τισὶν ἡμέραις ἠδίκησέ τι τούτων Μειδίας ἰδιώτην ὄντα, ἰδίᾳ καὶ δίκην προσῆκεν αὐτῷ διδόναι:
[33] In the same way again, if you strike or abuse the Archon when wearing his crown, you are disfranchised; but if you assault him as a private citizen, you are liable to a private suit. Moreover, this is true not only of these officials, but of everyone to whom the State grants the inviolability of a crowned office or of any other honor. Therefore in my case also, if on any other day in the year Meidias had wronged me as a private citizen, he would have had to give me private satisfaction;
[34] εἰ δὲ χορηγὸν ὄνθ᾽ ὑμέτερον ἱερομηνίας οὔσης πάνθ᾽ ὅσ᾽ ἠδίκηκεν ὑβρίσας φαίνεται, δημοσίας ὀργῆς καὶ τιμωρίας δίκαιός ἐστι τυγχάνειν: ἅμα γὰρ τῷ Δημοσθένει καὶ ὁ χορηγὸς ὑβρίζετο, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ τὸ ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις, αἷς οὐκ ἐῶσιν οἱ νόμοι. χρὴ δ᾽, ὅταν μὲν τιθῆσθε τοὺς νόμους, ὁποῖοί τινές εἰσι σκοπεῖν, ἐπειδὰν δὲ θῆσθε, φυλάττειν καὶ χρῆσθαι: καὶ γὰρ εὔορκα ταῦθ᾽ ὑμῖν ἐστι καὶ ἄλλως δίκαια.
[34] but if all his outrages are shown to have been aimed at your chorus-master during the holy days of the festival, it is right that he should face public resentment and pay a public penalty. For the chorus master was insulted as well as Demosthenes, and that is a concern of the State, as well as the fact that this occurred on the very days on which the laws expressly forbid it. When you are framing your laws, you must scrutinize their purport; but when you have passed them, you must uphold them and put them in force, for that is required by your oath and by justice as well.
[35] ἦν ὁ τῆς βλάβης ὑμῖν νόμος πάλαι, ἦν ὁ τῆς αἰκείας, ἦν ὁ τῆς ὕβρεως. εἰ τοίνυν ἀπέχρη τοὺς τοῖς Διονυσίοις τι ποιοῦντας τούτων κατὰ τούτους τοὺς νόμους δίκην διδόναι, οὐδὲν ἂν προσέδει τοῦδε τοῦ νόμου. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀπέχρη. σημεῖον δέ: ἔθεσθ᾽ ἱερὸν νόμον αὐτῷ τῷ θεῷ περὶ τῆς ἱερομηνίας. εἴ τις οὖν κἀκείνοις τοῖς προϋπάρχουσι νόμοις καὶ τούτῳ τῷ μετ᾽ ἐκείνους τεθέντι καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔστ᾽ ἔνοχος, ὁ τοιοῦτος πότερα μὴ δῷ διὰ τοῦτο δίκην ἢ κἂν μείζω δοίη δικαίως; ἐγὼ μὲν οἴομαι μέζω.
[35] You had the law — an ancient one — of damage; you had the law of battery and the law of assault. Now if it had been sufficient that those guilty at the Dionysia of any of these offences should be punished according to these laws, there would have been no need for this further law. But it was not sufficient, and the proof of this is that you made a law to protect the sanctity of the god during the Holy Month. If, then, anyone is liable both under those pre-existing laws and under this subsequent one as well as all the rest of the laws, is he for that reason to escape punishment, or should he in fairness suffer a heavier one? I think that it should be the heavier punishment.
[36] ἀπήγγελλε τοίνυν τίς μοι περιιόντ᾽ αὐτὸν συλλέγειν καὶ πυνθάνεσθαι τίσι πώποτε συμβέβηκεν ὑβρισθῆναι, καὶ λέγειν τούτους καὶ διηγεῖσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς μέλλειν, οἷον, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸν πρόεδρον ὅν ποτέ φασιν ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπὸ Πολυζήλου πληγῆναι, καὶ τὸν θεσμοθέτην ὃς ἔναγχος ἐπλήγη τὴν αὐλητρίδ᾽ ἀφαιρούμενος, καὶ τοιούτους τινάς, ὡς, ἐὰν πολλοὺς ἑτέρους δεινὰ καὶ πολλὰ πεπονθότας ἐπιδείξῃ, ἧττον ὑμᾶς ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐγὼ πέπονθ᾽ ὀργιουμένους. ἐμοὶ δ᾽ αὖ τοὐναντίον, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι,
[36] I have been told that Meidias goes about inquiring and collecting examples of people who have at any time been assaulted, and that these people are going to give evidence and describe their experiences to you; for instance, men of Athens, the Chairman for the day who is said to have been struck by Polyzelus in your court, the judge who was lately struck when trying to rescue the flute-girl, and similar cases. He imagines that if he can point to many other victims of serious assault, you will be less indignant at the assault committed upon me!
[37] δοκεῖτε ποιεῖν �
�ν εἰκότως, εἴπερ ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινῇ βελτίστου δεῖ μέλειν ὑμῖν. τίς γὰρ οὐκ οἶδεν ὑμῶν τοῦ μὲν πολλὰ τοιαῦτα γίγνεσθαι τὸ μὴ κολάζεσθαι τοὺς ἐξαμαρτάνοντας αἴτιον ὄν, τοῦ δὲ μηδέν᾽ ὑβρίζειν τὸ λοιπὸν τὸ δίκην τὸν ἀεὶ ληφθένθ᾽ ἣν προσήκει διδόναι μόνον αἴτιον ἂν γενόμενον; εἰ μὲν τοίνυν ἀποτρέψαι συμφέρει τοὺς ἄλλους, τοῦτον καὶ δι᾽ ἐκεῖνα κολαστέον, καὶ μᾶλλόν γ᾽ ὅσῳπερ ἂν ᾖ πλείω καὶ μείζω: εἰ δὲ παροξῦναι καὶ τοῦτον καὶ πάντας, ἐατέον.
[37] But it seems to me, Athenians, that it would be reasonable for you to do just the reverse, since your duty is to be solicitous for the common good of all. For who of you is unaware that the reason for the frequency of these assaults is the failure to punish the offenders, and that the only way to prevent such assaults in the future is adequately to punish every offender who is caught? Therefore, if it is to your interest to deter others, those cases are an additional reason for punishing Meidias, and punishing him the more severely in proportion to their number and their seriousness; but if you want to encourage him and everybody, you must let him off.
[38] ἔτι τοίνυν οὐδ᾽ ὁμοίαν οὖσαν τούτῳ κἀκείνοις συγγνώμην εὑρήσομεν. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ὁ τὸν θεσμοθέτην πατάξας τρεῖς εἶχεν προφάσεις, μέθην, ἔρωτα, ἄγνοιαν διὰ τὸ σκότους καὶ νυκτὸς τὸ πρᾶγμα γενέσθαι. ἔπειθ᾽ ὁ Πολύζηλος ὀργῇ καὶ τρόπου προπετείᾳ φθάσας τὸν λογισμὸν ἁμαρτὼν ἔπαισεν: οὐ γὰρ ἐχθρός γ᾽ ὑπῆρχεν ὤν, οὐδ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ὕβρει τοῦτ᾽ ἐποίησεν. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Μειδίᾳ τούτων οὐδὲν ἔστ᾽ εἰπεῖν: καὶ γὰρ ἐχθρὸς ἦν, καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν εἰδὼς ὕβριζεν, καὶ οὐκ ἐπὶ τούτου μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ πάντων φαίνεται προῃρημένος μ᾽ ὑβρίζειν.
[38] [Then again we shall find that he has not the same claim to consideration as these others. For in the first case the man who struck the judge had three excuses: he was drunk, he was in love, and he did not know what he was doing in the darkness and the night. Polyzelus again explained that owing to his ungovernable temper he had lost his head when he committed the offence; there was no hostility behind the act and no intention to insult. But Meidias cannot plead any of these excuses, for he was my enemy, and he assaulted me willfully by daylight, and not only on that, but on every occasion he has shown a deliberate intention to insult me.
[39] καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ τῶν πεπραγμένων ἐμοὶ καὶ τούτοις οὐδὲν ὅμοιον ὁρῶ. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ὁ θεσμοθέτης οὐχ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν οὐδὲ τῶν νόμων φροντίσας οὐδ᾽ ἀγανακτήσας φανήσεται, ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίᾳ πεισθεὶς ὁπόσῳ δήποτ᾽ ἀργυρίῳ καθυφεὶς τὸν ἀγῶνα: ἔπειθ᾽ ὁ πληγεὶς ἐκεῖνος ὑπὸ τοῦ Πολυζήλου, ταὐτὸ τοῦτο, ἰδίᾳ διαλυσάμενος, ἐρρῶσθαι πολλὰ τοῖς νόμοις εἰπὼν καὶ ὑμῖν, οὐδ᾽ εἰσήγαγε τὸν Πολύζηλον.
[39] And indeed I can see no comparison between my own conduct and that of those others. In the first case it will be proved that the judge took no thought or concern for you or for the laws, but was privately induced by a sum of money — I cannot say how much — to drop his action. In the same way the man who was struck by Polyzelus was privately squared, laughed in his sleeve at you and your laws, and never even prosecuted his assailant.
[40] εἰ μὲν τοίνυν ἐκείνων κατηγορεῖν βούλεταί τις ἐν τῷ παρόντι, δεῖ λέγειν ταῦτα: εἰ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ὧν ἐγὼ τούτου κατηγόρηκ᾽ ἀπολογεῖσθαι, πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ ταῦτα λεκτέα. πᾶν γὰρ τοὐναντίον ἐκείνοις αὐτὸς μὲν οὔτε λαβὼν οὐδὲν οὔτ᾽ ἐπιχειρήσας λαβεῖν φανήσομαι, τὴν δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν νόμων καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τιμωρίαν δικαίως φυλάξας καὶ νῦν ἀποδεδωκὼς ὑμῖν. μὴ τοίνυν ἐᾶτε ταῦτ᾽ αὐτὸν λέγειν, μηδ᾽, ἂν βιάζηται, πείθεσθ᾽ ὡς δίκαιόν τι λέγοντι.
[40] Such statements, then, are quite in point if one wishes to accuse those men today, but as a defence of Meidias against my indictments they are the very last pleas that should be urged. For my conduct was clean contrary to theirs. It will be proved that I never got, or tried to get, any advantage for myself, but religiously observed, and have now restored to your keeping, the task of avenging the laws, the god, and your interests.] Do not then allow him to make these statements, or if he persists, do not give him credence as if his plea were just. If he finds that this is your fixed determination, he will have nothing to say, not a word.
[41] ἂν γὰρ ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἐγνωσμέν᾽ ὑπάρχῃ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἐνέσται αὐτῷ λόγος οὐδὲ εἷς. ποία γὰρ πρόφασις, τίς ἀνθρωπίνη καὶ μετρία σκῆψις φανεῖται τῶν πεπραγμένων αὐτῷ; ὀργὴ νὴ Δία: καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο τυχὸν λέξει. ἀλλ᾽ ἃ μὲν ἄν τις ἄφνω τὸν λογισμὸν φθάσας ἐξαχθῇ πρᾶξαι, κἂν ὑβριστικῶς ποιήσῃ, δι᾽ ὀργήν γ᾽ ἔνι φῆσαι πεποιηκέναι: ἃ δ᾽ ἂν ἐκ πολλοῦ συνεχῶς ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας παρὰ τοὺς νόμους πράττων τις φωρᾶται, οὐ μόνον δήπου τοῦ μὴ μετ᾽ ὀργῆς ἀπέχει, ἀλλὰ καὶ βεβουλευμένως ὁ τοιοῦτος ὑβρίζων ἐστὶν ἤδη φανερός.
[41] For what sort of pretext, what decent and moderate excuse, can he show for his conduct? Anger? Possibly that will be his plea. But whereas in cases where a sudden loss of self-control has impelled a man even to inflict a wanton insult, it is open to him to say that he has acted in anger; if, on the other hand, he is detected in a continuous course of law-breaking, spread over many days, surely this is far from a mere fit of anger and he stands convicted of a deliberate policy of insult.
[42] ἀλλὰ μὴν ὁπηνίκα καὶ πεποιηκὼς ἃ κατηγορῶ καὶ ὕβρει πεποιηκὼς φαίνεται, τοὺς νόμους ἤδη δεῖ σκοπεῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί: κατὰ γὰρ τούτους δικάσειν ὀμωμόκατε. καὶ θεωρεῖθ᾽ ὅσῳ μείζονος ὀργῆς καὶ ζημίας ἀξιοῦσι τοὺς ἑκουσίως καὶ δι᾽ ὕβριν πλημμελοῦντας τῶν ἄλλως πως ἐξαμαρτανόντων.
[42] Very well; since he has clearly done what I accuse him of, and has done it by way of insult, we must now consider the laws, gentlemen of the jury, for it is in accordance with the laws that you have sworn to give your verdict. Observe, moreover, that the laws treat the willful and insolent transgressors as deserving more resentment and a heavier punishment than other classes of offenders.
[43] πρῶτον μὲν τοίνυν οἱ περὶ τῆς βλάβης οὗτοι νόμοι πάντες, ἵν᾽ ἐκ τούτων ἄρξωμαι, ἂν μὲν ἑκὼν βλάψῃ, διπλοῦν, ἂν δ᾽ ἄκων, ἁπλοῦν τὸ βλάβος κελεύουσιν ἐκτίνειν. εἰκότως: ὁ μὲν γὰρ παθὼν πανταχοῦ βοηθείας δίκαιος τυγχάνε�
�ν, τῷ δράσαντι δ᾽ οὐκ ἴσην τὴν ὀργήν, ἄν θ᾽ ἑκὼν ἄν τ᾽ ἄκων, ἔταξ᾽ ὁ νόμος. ἔπειθ᾽ οἱ φονικοὶ τοὺς μὲν ἐκ προνοίας ἀποκτιννύντας θανάτῳ καὶ ἀειφυγίᾳ καὶ δημεύσει τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ζημιοῦσι, τοὺς δ᾽ ἀκουσίως αἰδέσεως καὶ φιλανθρωπίας πολλῆς ἠξίωσαν.
[43] First then, all the laws of damage — to take these first — order the offender to pay the amount twice over if the damage is willful, but only once if it is involuntary. This is reasonable, because, while the injured party is in any case entitled to relief, the law does not ordain that the resentment against the aggressor should be the same, whether his act is voluntary or involuntary. Again, the laws of homicide punish willful murder with death, perpetual exile, and confiscation of goods, but accidental homicide they treat with much consideration and charity.