<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0010.tlg002.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div n="16" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> I think, however, that even if there had been neither arbitration nor witnesses to the
          actual facts and you were under the necessity of considering the case in the light of the
          probabilities, not even in this event would you have difficulty in arriving at a just
          verdict. For if I were so audacious a man as to wrong others, you would with good reason
          condemn me as doing wrong to him also; but as it is, I shall be found innocent of having
          harmed any citizen in regard to his property, or of jeopardizing his life, or of having
          expunged his name from the list of active citizens, or of having inscribed his name on
          Lysander’s list.<note resp="editor">A list of citizens who were deprived of
            their civic rights; cf. <bibl n="Isoc. 21.2">Isoc. 21.2</bibl> and <bibl n="Xen. Hell. 2.3.17">Xen. Hell. 2.3.17-19</bibl>.</note>
        </p></div><div n="17" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p>And yet the wickedness of the Thirty<note resp="editor">For the crimes of the
            Thirty see the vivid account by Lysias in his speech <title>Against
            Eratosthenes</title>.</note> impelled many to act in this way for they not only did not
          punish the evil-doers but they even commanded some persons to do wrong. So as for me, not
          even when they had control of the government, shall I be found guilty of any such misdeed;
          yet Callimachus says that he was wronged after the Thirty had been expelled, the Piraeus
          had been taken, and when the democracy was in power, and the terms of reconciliation were
          being discussed. </p></div><div n="18" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p>And yet do you think that a man who was well behaved under the Thirty put off his
          wrongdoing until that period when even those who had formerly transgressed were repentant?
          But the most absurd thing of all would be this—that although I never saw fit to avenge
          myself on anyone of my existing enemies, I was attempting to injure this man with whom I
          have never had any business dealings at all! </p></div><div n="19" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> That I am not responsible for the confiscation of the money of Callimachus I think I
          have sufficiently proved. But that it was not legally in his power to bring a suit
          pertaining to events which occurred then, not even if I had done everything he says I did,
          you will learn from the covenant of Amnesty.<note resp="editor">Cf. <bibl n="Isoc. 18.2">Isoc. 18.2</bibl> note 1.</note> Please take the document.</p><p rend="align(center)"><label>Amnesty</label></p></div><div n="20" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> Was it, then, a weak defense of my rights I trusted in when I entered this demurrer? On
          the contrary, do not the terms of the Amnesty explicitly exculpate any who have laid
          information against or denounced any person or have done any similar thing, and am I not
          able to prove that I have neither committed these acts nor transgressed in any other way?
          Please read the Oaths also.</p><p rend="align(center)"><label>Oaths</label></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>