would pray for, doubling the taxes, did they raise these sacred ornaments: not by the help of such counsellors as you did they carry on the government: but by overcoming their enemies, doing what every prudent man would wish them to do, uniting the people in harmony, while they expelled from the market-place men that led such lives as you, they have left behind them a fame that will never die. But you, my countrymen, are so far gone in thoughtlessness and folly, that, even with such examples before your eyes, you will not follow them; but Androtion is repairer of your sacred utensils; Androtion, O earth and heaven! And can any impiety, think ye, surpass this? I look upon it, that a man who is to enter the sanctuaries, to touch the baskets and holy water and superintend the service of religion, ought not to be pure for a stated number of days only, but to have been pure all his lifetime from those practices in which the defendant's life has been passed.

of this kind, of which many examples are extant: thus, for instance, the Delian Apollo received a large amount of tithes from the Cyclades; and in the island of Ithaca the temple of Diana received the tithes from an estate, the possessors of which were bound to keep her temple in repair; and Xenophon had formerly devised the very same regulation at Scillus. Obligations of this nature arose in a great measure from the piety of individuals who dedicated their property to the gods, and thus gave up the right of possession, retaining at the same time the use of it for themselves, in consideration of a fixed payment. The temples may also on certain occasions have received the right of tithes by conquest: thus the Greeks vowed, that after the fortunate termination of the Persian war all states who had afforded any protection to the enemy should pay a tithe to the Delphian Apollo, that is to say, that they would make their lands subject to a tribute. At Athens moreover Minerva of the Parthenon received the tithe of the plunder and of captures, and also of certain fines; while others were paid to the temples without any deduction, together with the tithe either of all or of a large proportion of confiscated property. The tithes of Minerva are mentioned in connexion with the fiftieths of other gods and of the heroes of the tribes: the latter were probably similar percentages, and must not be confounded with the customs-duty of the fiftieth."

THE ORATION AGAINST ARISTOCRATES.

THE ARGUMENT.

ARISTOCRATES was the mover of that decree which the Athenians passed in favour of Charidemus of Oreus, B. C. 352, of which, and of the circumstances attending it, I have spoken fully in the Appendix on the Thracian Chersonese in the First Volume. The exact terms of the decree have not come down to us. Its professed objects were, to reward Charidemus for his past services to Athens, and at the same time to attach him more firmly to her interests and secure his assistance for the future. It therefore contained (among other clauses) one making his person inviolable, and declaring, "that whosoever killed him might lawfully be arrested in any place within the limits of the Athenian confederacy, and that any state or any individual refusing to give up such person, or attempting to rescue him, should be excluded from all the benefit of Athenian connexion." For this decree, as being impolitic and injurious to his country, as well as contrary to the letter and spirit of her laws, Aristocrates was indicted by one Euthycles, for whom Demosthenes composed the present speech, which was spoken on the trial. We have no further knowledge of either the prosecutor or the defendant than what we obtain from the oration of Demosthenes. They were perhaps obscure persons put forward by the different political parties, one by the supporters of Charidemus, the other by his adversaries. It appears however that Euthycles had been employed on some naval command in the Hellespont, and he may therefore have been conversant with Thracian politics.

The orator undertakes to establish three points: first, that the decree was contrary to law; secondly, that Charidemus was unworthy of the distinction conferred upon him; and thirdly, that it was impolitic and dangerous to grant it. After a general opening of the case, he proceeds to establish his first objection. As Charidemus had been made a citizen of Athens, it became any one proposing a decree in his favour to conform to the laws of Athens. This duty Aristocrates had neglected. The Attic law provided, as was just, that the trial and the punishment of homicide should vary according to the circumstances of the case. Homicide might be voluntary, or it might be accidental: in some cases it was perfectly justifiable, in others it was excusable only. The party who committed it might be amenable to death or exile; or required only to make atonement and obtain purification; or entitled to an absolute acquittal. Even in cases of wilful murder the guilty man could only be taken within the boun

daries of Attica: if he went into exile, and kept aloof from the Amphictyonic meetings and public games of Greece, it was not lawful to molest him; for it was a sacred principle that an exile should not be disturbed in his place of refuge. The Athenian law was so careful. to make proper distinctions between the different kinds of homicide, that it had appointed different courts to try them. There was the court of Areopagus, and the courts ad Palladium, ad Delphinium, ad Prytaneum, and in Phreatto; all of which were founded in early times, and were regarded with the highest respect and veneration by the people. Each of them had its own peculiar methods of proceeding adapted to the particular class of offences that came under its jurisdiction. Aristocrates had confounded all these useful distinctions; he had shown his contempt of the jurisprudence of his country and of her ancient and valuable institutions, by directing that any person killing Charidemus should be treated as a malefactor of the most heinous kind, without regard to the circumstances of the case. It was by no means unlikely that Charidemus, who was at the head of a mercenary force, and accustomed to acts of aggression and violence, might lose his life in some quarrel wantonly provoked by himself, in which, according to every principle of justice, it would be lawful to resist him. Yet by this decree a man might be punished who killed him in self-defence, or in resistance to some outrageous attack upon his family or fellow-citizens. Again, by the Athenian law punishment v was not inflicted without trial and judgment: even a convicted murderer who returned from exile and was seen in the market-place must be taken to prison to be dealt with according to law. Aristocrates authorized summary proceedings to be taken against a party whose guilt was yet unproved, not for the purpose of bringing him to trial, but in order to punish him without trial. The offender was left to the mercy of the party by whom he was apprehended, who might carry him to his own house, ill-treat him in any way that he pleased, extort money from him, or even put him to the rack. To prove the illegality of such proceedings, the orator cites various clauses from the Athenian statute-book. Upon this part of the case we must caution the reader not to be misled by the orator's vehement assertions, which, to say the least, are to be viewed with great suspicion. We have not before us the whole decree of Aristocrates, nor have we the advantage of seeing the arguments on the other side: we can form therefore only an imperfect judgment from the fragments of the decree that are preserved to us. These however do not of themselves bear the construction which the orator puts upon them. They direct that any person killing Charidemus may be seized and carried away, without saying whither or for what purpose: yet we should rather suppose it to have been intended, that he was to be brought to Athens for judgment, than that the captor might take and do with him what he pleased; and such would be the more natural meaning of the words. If therefore the clause in question has been fairly quoted, it would appear that, while the framer of the decree laid himself open to just attack, and perhaps even to legal penalties, for not defining his intentions in so important a matter with greater clearness, the orator, in availing

himself of this omission on the part of his adversary, has exaggerated the fault, and represented as a wilful violation of law what in fact was mere carelessness or inaccuracy.

Another charge made against Aristocrates is, that he had infringed a statute which expressly forbade the passing of any privilegium. The laws were required to be the same for all. If a law could not be passed which applied only to one individual, much less could a decree. There was another statute which said, that no decree either of the Council or the people should have more force than the law; and this too Aristocrates had broken. Further, his decree was contrary to all the precedents in similar cases; and, considering that Charidemus had become a citizen of Athens, there was the less reason why the principles of the constitution should be departed from in his favour. After disposing of some frivolous pleas which he expected to be set up by his adversary, the orator proceeds to what may be called the general merits of the case, contending that Charidemus was in no respect deserving of the honour which had been bestowed upon him, and that it would lead to consequences most injurious to Athens. Charidemus, he says, was a man of low origin and profligate character, a reckless and unprincipled adventurer, who lent his services for hire to those that paid him best, and never served any one but from base motives of lucre. To confer extraordinary honours upon such a person would be a disgrace to the Athenians, even if he had been a useful auxiliary. But the fact was otherwise. Whenever they had put any trust in him, he had betrayed them: he had been, upon the whole, one of their most insidious and determined enemies and though it was true, that he was on good terms with them at that moment, they might be sure from their experience of his past conduct, that he would take the first opportunity of turning against them. To prove these charges, the orator enters upon a minute examination of the life and actions of Charidemus; showing how he was at first a common slinger, then he became the captain of a pirate vessel, afterwards the leader of a band of mercenaries. Having entered into the service of Iphicrates, he prevented the surrender of Amphipolis to the Athenians by delivering up the hostages entrusted to him by that general: he then went over to the Olynthians, and was actually carrying succours to Amphipolis, when he was captured by Timotheus and compelled to join him against his will. He promised Cephisodotus, in return for some assistance lent him, that he would recover the Thracian Chersonese for the Athenians; yet had no sooner got out of his own difficulties by the aid of the Athenian commander, than he accepted employment under Cotys king of Thrace, and assisted him in besieging Elæus and Crithote. After the death of Cotys, he attached himself to Cersobleptes, whose sister he married, and for whom he exerted himself, not only to acquire the dominion of the Chersonese, but also the whole of the Thracian monarchy, to the exclusion of Berisades and Amadocus, who were entitled to share it with him. He treacherously attacked Cephisodotus, whom he had promised to assist, forced him into a dishonourable convention, which the Athenians were obliged to repudiate, and carried on war against

them for seven months, until their commander Athenodorus, coalescing with Berisades and Amadocus, compelled him to sign a treaty on behalf of Cersobleptes, by which it was agreed, that Thrace should be equally divided between the three princes, and the Chersonese should be ceded to Athens. Even then he delayed the surrender of the Chersonese, under one pretence or another, as long as he possibly could, and would have evaded it altogether, had not Chares at length been sent to the Hellespont with a strong fleet, which compelled him to fulfil his engagement. The Athenians had thus recovered the Chersonese by their own forces, not with the assistance of Charidemus, as was falsely pretended by his supporters, but in spite of all his efforts to the contrary. While the rest of the peninsula was given up to them, Charidemus had taken care to reserve Cardia to himself, with a manifestly insidious purpose. That city had always been hostile to the Athenians, and aided Charidemus in all his enterprises. It was from here that he was carrying succours to Amphipolis, when he was taken prisoner by Timotheus. To the Cardians he had delivered up Miltocythes, the pretender to the kingdom of Thrace, and they had put him to a cruel death. Cardia was so situated as to be the key of the Thracian Chersonese, and the possession of it would enable Cersobleptes at any time to attack the peninsula. That such a project was in contemplation, might be inferred from certain secret negotiations which Charidemus had lately carried on with Philip of Macedon, when that king advanced to Maronea, and would very likely have joined Cersobleptes and the Cardians, had not Amadocus refused him a passage through his territory.

It appeared from all this that Charidemus, so far from deserving reward for any service he had done to the Athenians, ought to be contented if he escaped punishment at their hands. He was at best a timeserver, who could not safely be trusted: but it was pretty evident that, being the general and prime minister of Cersobleptes, his real design was to forward the ambitious schemes of that monarch, and he was only biding his time to do it effectually. The true policy of the Athenians was to keep the kingdom of Thrace divided, so that each of the rival princes might court their friendship, and none of them be strong enough to disturb their possessions in the Hellespont. If Thrace were united under one powerful king, he would be sure to invade the Chersonese, as Cotys had done. The object of the present decree was, to enable Charidemus to carry his arms against Amadocus and the sons of the deceased Berisades: for if his person were declared inviolable by an Athenian decree, the supporters of the rival princes, who were friends of Athens, would be deterred from making any opposition to him. It would be urged on the other side, that it was not the interest of Cersobleptes to subdue the Chersonese, because then the Athenians would close his seaports by means of their navy, and he would lose more revenue by that than he would gain by the increase of territory. They should bear in mind however, that ambitious potentates were not always guided by discreet views of their true interests, any more than they were by regard to honesty and good faith. Of this they had ample evidence in the measures pursued by Cotys and by Philip. Their only prudent