Therefore include all the offences in one sweeping penalty, whatever you consider just.I will first, then, adduce proofs of the outrages against myself, next of those against you. After that, Athenians, I will examine all the rest of his life and will show that he deserves not one death, but a thousand. First please take and read the deposition of the goldsmith. The Deposition I, Pammenes, son of Pammenes, of Erchia, have a goldsmith’s shop in the Agora, where I reside and carry on my business. When Demosthenes, for whom I am a witness, commissioned me to fashion a golden crown, If this document were worth emending, we should have to read στεφάνους χρυσοῦς here and τοὺς στεφάνους below, to tally with Dem. 21.16 . and to make a gold-embroidered robe, that he might wear them at the procession in honor of Dionysus; and when I had completed them and had them ready by me, Meidias, who is being prosecuted by Demosthenes, broke into my premises by night, having also others with him, and tried to destroy the crown and the robe, and a part of them he injured, but was not able to destroy them completely, because I appeared and prevented him. Now I have much to say also, men of Athens , about the wrongs which he inflicted on others, as I told you at the beginning of my speech, and I have made a collection of his outrageous and insulting acts, which you shall hear in a moment. The collection was indeed an easy matter, for the victims themselves applied to me. There is obviously some dislocation here. The evidence of the goldsmith, which concerns the outrages specified in the προβολή , should have come, with the other depositions, after Dem. 21.18 . Dem. 21.23 , in its present place, with its reference to the beginning of the speech, is nonsense. It is a repetition of Dem. 21.19 and Dem. 21.20 , being an introduction to a description of outrages committed against others. This part of his argument Demosthenes commences at Dem. 21.128 . Goodwin, who thinks that Demosthenes intended to revise his arrangement of topics, but did not carry it out when the case was dropped, brackets Dem. 21.23 here and inserts it before Dem. 21.128 . But before I come to that, I want to speak about the tricks by which I am told he will try to deceive you; for I think it very necessary for me to put my remarks on that subject before you, and very important for you to hear them. Why so? Because the same argument that prevents your deception will help you to cast your votes in accordance with justice and your oath. You must pay attention to this argument above all others and bear it in mind, so as to meet each separate point in his speech. And first, it is pretty evident from his private conversation as reported to me that he will say that, if I had really suffered from him as I assert, I ought to have brought various personal suits against him, one for willful damage, arising out of the destruction of the robes and golden crowns, and another for assault, arising out of his alleged attack on my person; but that I ought most emphatically not to have brought him to a public trial and proposed a penalty or a fine which he must pay.