Do you demand this, when Micon, against whom Theocrines filed his denunciation but did not proceed with it, has given evidence before us, and has made himself responsible to these jurors?—when the secretary acknowledges that he received the denunciation from the defendant, and has been made responsible by the deposition which was read a little while ago?—when, furthermore, the overseers of the port have, unwillingly, to be sure, yet nevertheless, given the same testimony as the others?-and when, in addition to all this, testimony is given, as you heard a little while ago, by those who saw the denunciation exposed to public view, and who went before the magistrates? No; men of the jury, that would not be right.

I am sure that the character of the defendant and his manner of life will not lead you to believe that the depositions which have been read are false. On the contrary, his character far more convincingly than the words which have been spoken proves Theocrines to be such as I portray him. For what is there that a scoundrel and a pettifogger would do that he has not done? Was it not because of his evil character that his brother, who held the office of judgeThat is, one of the Themosthetae; see note a on Dem. 33.1 and who was guided by the defendant’s advice, was brought into such bad repute with you, that, when you voted on the question of retaining the magistrates,This was done at the first assembly in each prytany, or ten times a year. (For the prytany see note a on Dem. 47.42) he was not only himself rejected, but caused the rejection of the entire board? And had it not been that through the prayers and entreaties of his fellow-judges and through their promise that Theocrines should never again come near the board you were persuaded to give them back their crowns,The ten archons wore crowns as a badge of their inviolability. would they not have incurred the deepest possible disgrace?

To prove these facts there is no need of my calling witnesses before you, for you all know that in the archonship of LyciscusThat is, in 343 B.C. the Thesmothetae were deposed from office by vote of the popular assembly because of Theocrines. Remembering this, you ought to assume that he is no different now from what he was then.

Not long after he was removed from office, when his brother died by a violent death, Theocrines showed himself so utterly heartless toward him that, when he had made inquiry concerning those who had done the deed, and had learned who they were, he accepted a bribe, and let the matter drop.That is, he accepted the blood-price instead of bringing the murderers to justice.

His brother at the time of his death held the office of sacrificer, and this office Theocrines continued to fill in defiance of the laws, without having been designated by lot to assume the office or to fill the vacancy. He went around bewailing his brother’s fate and declaring that he was going to summon Demochares before the Areopagus, until he made terms with those charged with the crime. An honorable man is he indeed, one whom you can trust, a man quite above the appeal of money! Why, even he would not claim that. Men say that whoever means to administer public affairs with justice and moderation should not have so many wants, but should be superior to all those things which lead people to spend on themselves all that they receive.

Such, then, was his conduct where his brother was concerned; but it is worth your while to hear how he has managed affairs since he came forward in public life (for he declares that he loves you next after his own relatives). I will begin with his conduct toward us. In his accusation against my father, men of the jury, when he was prosecuting the indictment for illegality against him, he stated that a plot had been formed against the boy,It appears that the father of the present speaker had proposed a decree granting to Charidemus, son of the general Ischomachus, maintenance in the Prytaneum in recognition of the services rendered to the state by his father. Charidemus had, however, been adopted by Aeschylus, and, if he accepted the honor, would have had to return to his father’s family, and in that case he would forfeit all claim to the estate of his adoptive father, which was a large one; though the speaker maintains that there was no likelihood of this result. Theocrines asserted that, in moving the decree, Epichares was acting in collusion with Polyeuctus, who had married the boy’s mother, and who wanted to get control of the property for himself. (This is most easily explained on the assumption that the mother was herself a daughter of Aeschylus, and therefore the ἐπίκληρος, or heiress. In that case her husband, as her κύριος, would control the property.) The jury found against the father of Epichares, and he was fined ten talents. regarding whom the decree was drawn—the decree, that is, in which my father moved that maintenance in the PrytaneumThis building was situated in or near the agora on the north-west slope of the Acropolis; see Vanderpool in 4. (1935), p. 471, note 4. In it were maintained as guests of the state Olympic victors and any who had rendered extraordinary benefactions to the state. should be granted to Charidemus, son of Ischomachus.