Against Euthynus (11-15)

But here is the strongest evidence and sufficient in every respect. When the charge was made, the oligarchy was in power, in which the situation of the two men was as follows: Nicias, even if he had been accustomed in former times to bring malicious accusations, then would have given up the practice, whereas Euthynus, even if he had never before given a thought to wrongdoing, then would have been tempted to act thus.

For his misdeeds were bringing him honors, but Nicias, because of his wealth, was the object of plotting. For you are all aware that, at that time, it was a greater danger to be wealthy than to engage in wrongdoing, for the evil-doers were seizing the property of others, whereas the rich were losing their own. For it was the custom of those in whose hands the control of the city was, not to punish those who were guilty of offenses, but to despoil the possessors of property, and they regarded the criminals as loyal and the wealthy as inimical.[*]

Consequently it was not the problem before Nicias how he might get possession of the property of others by bringing malicious accusations, but how he might not be made a victim of wrongdoing, although himself innocent. For while any man who possessed the influence of Euthynus could steal what he had received on deposit and also bring charges against those to whom he had lent nothing, yet those who were in Nicias’ position were compelled to absolve their debtors of just debts and to surrender their own property to blackmailers.

Euthynus himself could testify to the truth of what I say; for he knows that Timodemus extorted thirty minas from Nicias, not by demanding the payment of a debt, but by threatening him with summary arrest. And yet is it probable that Nicias went so far in folly that he was bringing malicious charges against others when his own life was in jeopardy;

that he was plotting to get the goods of others when he was unable to protect his own; that he was making other enemies in addition to those he already had; that he was unjustly accusing persons from whom, even if they confessed the theft, he could not have exacted punishment; and that he was trying to get the better of others at the time when even to have equality with them was beyond his power; and, finally, at the time when he was being forced to pay back what he had not received, he hoped to collect what he had not lent?