You have concluded that one person will be immortal, This passage is important for determining the date of the speech. It has been held, e. g., by Kenyon , that the remark is a gibe, in which there would be no point unless Philip were already dead. But the use of the perfect tense ( ὑπείληφας ) seems to imply that he was still living when Hyperides spoke, or had only just been killed. yet you sentenced to death a city as old as ours, never realizing the simple fact that no tyrant has yet risen from the dead, while many cities, though utterly destroyed, have come again to power. You and your party took no account of the history of the Thirty or of the city’s triumph over her assailants from without and those within her walls who joined in the attack upon her. The reference is to the return of the democrats to Athens in 403 B.C., under Thrasybulus, who had to contend both with the Spartans under Lysander and with the Thirty. It was well known that you were all watching the city’s fortunes, waiting for the chance to say or do something against the people. Will you dare then presently to mention opportunities, when the opportunities you sought were for the city’s ruin? Have you brought your children with you into court, Philippides? For the bringing of children into court compare Hyp. 4.41 . Are you going to bring them soon on to the platform and so claim pity from the jury? You have no right to pity. When others felt compassion for the city’s misfortunes, you and your like were exulting over her. At the time of Chaeronea ( 338 B.C.). They had resolved to save Greece in a spirit which ill deserved the fate they met. But you, who are unjustly bringing Athens into the depths of shame, deserve the punishment you are now about.to suffer. Why should you spare this man, gentlemen? Because he is a democrat? Why, you are well aware that he has chosen to be the slave of tyrants and is ready on the other hand to give the people orders. Would it be because he is a good man? No; for you twice condemned him as a criminal. True, you may say, but he is useful. Granted; but if you use a man whom you are known to have condemned as wicked, it will appear either that your judgements are wrong or that you welcome wicked men. It is not therefore right to take upon yourselves this man’s misdeeds. On the contrary: the transgressor must be punished. And if anyone comes forward with the plea that he has twice before been convicted for illegal proposals and that therefore you should acquit him, The penalties for illegal proposals and for giving false witness seem to have been the same, although the exact rules governing them in the 4th century B.C. are not quite clear. In the 5th century a man three times convicted of false witness was automatically disfranchised (See Andoc. 1.74 ), and the present passage suggests that in the 4th century too a third conviction led to partial ἀτιμία . (Cf. Dem. 51.12 and Plat. Laws. 937 c , evidently inspired by current Athenian practice.) The actual penalty seems to have been a fine; but if this was not paid the prosecutor had the right to enforce the judgement by a suit of ejection( δίκη ἐξούλης ) and thus partially disfranchise the culprit. (See Isoc. 16. 47 .) When orators speak as if ἀτιμία were inevitable after any conviction they are probably exaggerating. please do just the opposite, and that for two reasons. In the first place it is a piece of good fortune, when a man is known to have proposed illegal measures, that you should catch him coming up for trial a third time. He is not a good man and need not be spared as such. Indeed you should rid yourselves of him as quickly as you can, since he has twice already proved his character to you. And secondly, compare the case of false witness. If people have been twice convicted of this, you have allowed them to refrain from giving evidence a third time, even of events at which they have themselves been present, so that, if anyone is disfranchised, responsibility shall rest, not on the people, but on the man himself, for continuing to bear false witness. Similarly men convicted of illegal proposals need not bring forward proposals in future. If they do they are clearly actuated by some private motive. So that people of this type deserve punishment, not pity.