There are advocates appointed to defend the law, and very able speakers they are; Leodamas of Acharnae, Aristophon of Hazenia, Cephisodotus of Ceramicus, and Dinias of Herchia. These were the four advocates nominated by the people, with Leptines as a fifth, to defend the law. Aristophon, the best known, was the leading Athenian statesman before the rise of Eubulus. He was now nearly eighty years old, and could boast that he had been 75 times defendant in a γραφὴ παρανόμων and had always acquitted. Let me tell you, then, how you may reasonably retort upon them, and do you consider whether the retort is fair. Demosthenes suggests that the personal record of the advocates should lead the jury to reject their arguments. Take Leodamas first. It was he who impeached the grant to Chabrias, See Dem. 20.77 . which included among other things the gift of immunity, and when his case came before you, he lost it. Now the laws forbid the same man to be tried twice on the same issue, be it a civil action, a scrutiny, a contested claim, or anything else of the sort. But quite apart from all this, it would be a most absurd result if on the first occasion the services of Chabrias outweighed the arguments of Leodamas, but when to his services were added those of all the other benefactors, then the combined effect should be weaker than the arguments. To Aristophon I think I could raise many sound objections. He obtained his grant, which included immunity, by your votes. I find no fault with that, for it is right that you should have it in your power to bestow what is yours on anyone you please. But I do suggest that it is unfair that he should raise no objection when he was going to receive it himself, but when it has been given to others, he should take offence and urge you to withdraw it. Moreover it was Aristophon who proposed to pay Gelarchus five talents for sums advanced to the democrats in the Piraeus See Dem. 20.11 . Gelarchus is not otherwise known. There were, apparently, no witnesses to his gift. ; and he was right. Then, my friend, if you recommended the repayment of unattested sums on the ground of service done to the people, you must not advise the revocation of grants for services which the people themselves attested by inscriptions in the temples, and which are indeed known to all men. You must not exhibit yourself as at the same time proposing that debts ought to be paid, and urging that a man should be deprived of what he has won at the hands of the people. Next, I have this much to say to Cephisodotus. As an orator, men of Athens , he is inferior to none. Then it would be far more honorable to use his talents for the chastisement of evil-doers than for the injury of those who deserve well. If he must make enemies, I suggest that they should be those who injure the people, not those who benefit them.