Against Callimachus (1-5)

If any others had employed in litigation such a special plea of exception, I should have begun my discourse with the facts themselves; but as the situation is, I am compelled first to speak of the law in accordance with which we have come before the court, that you may cast your votes with an understanding of the issues in our dispute and that no one of you may be surprised that I, although defendant in the case, am speaking prior to the plaintiff.

Now after your return to the city from Piraeus,[*] you saw that some of the citizens were bent upon bringing malicious prosecutions and were attempting to violate the Amnesty[*]; so, wishing to restrain these persons and to show to all others that you had not made these agreements under compulsion, but because you thought them of advantage to the city, you enacted a law, on the motion of Archinus, to the effect that, if any person should commence a lawsuit in violation of the oaths, the defendant should have the power to enter a plea of exception, the magistrates should first submit this question to the tribunal, and that the defendant who had entered the plea should speak first;

and further, that the loser should pay a penalty of one-sixth of the sum at stake. The purpose of the penalty was this—that persons who had the effrontery to rake up old grudges should not only be convicted of perjury but also, not awaiting the vengeance of the gods, should suffer immediate punishment. I thought, therefore, that it was absurd if, under the existing laws, I was to permit my calumniator to risk only thirty drachmas, while I myself am contesting a suit in which my whole property is at stake.

I intend to prove that Callimachus not only is bringing a suit in violation of the terms of the Amnesty agreement, but that he is also guilty of falsehood in his charges, and furthermore, that we have already resorted to arbitration in the matter at issue. But I wish to relate the facts to you from the beginning; for if you learn that he has suffered no wrong at my hands, I think that you will be more inclined to defend the Amnesty and be more incensed with him.

The government of the Ten, who had succeeded the Thirty, was then in control when Patrocles, a friend of mine, was the King-Archon,[*] and with him one day I happened to be walking. Patrocles, an enemy of Callimachus who is now prosecuting me in this suit, met him as he was carrying a sum of money, laid hold of him, and claimed that this money had been left by Pamphilus and belonged to the government; for Pamphilus was a member of the party of the Piraeus.[*]