For to take money is not so serious as to take it from the wrong source, and the private individuals who took the gold are not so culpable as the orators and generals. Why is that? Because the private individuals were given the money by Harpalus for safe-keeping, but the generals and orators have accepted it with some policy in view. The laws prescribe that ordinary offenders shall pay a simple fine but that men accepting bribes shall pay ten times the usual sum.The term ἀδικεῖν seems to be used in this context to describe the milder breaches of the law, and is used in the same sense by Aristot. Ath. Pol. 54.2, where κλέπτειν, δῶρα, λαμβάνειν and ἀδικεῖν are distinguished as punishable with a tenfold fine, a tenfold fine, and a simple fine respectively. Dinarchus is misleading when he refers (Din. 1.60) to a double fine. A simple fine was doubled only when it was not paid up within a fixed time. Therefore, just as we can lawfully fix the penalty for these men, so also from you against them . It is as I said in the Assembly. You give full permission, gentlemen of the jury, to the orators and generals to reap substantial rewards. It is not the laws which grant them this privilege but your tolerance and generosity. But on one point you insist: your interests must be furthered, not opposed, with the money they receive. Now Demosthenes and Demades, from actual decrees passed in the city and from proxenies, have each received, I believe, more than sixty talents, quite apart from the Persian funds and money sent from Alexander. If neither of these sources suffices for them, and they have now accepted bribes which threaten the city’s life itself, can we doubt our right to punish them? Suppose that one of you, mere private individuals, during the tenure of some office, makes a mistake through ignorance or inexperience; he will be overwhelmed in court by the eloquence of these men and will either lose his life or be banished from his country. Shall they themselves, after harming the city on such a scale, escape unscathed? Conon of Paeania took theoric money for his son who was abroad.Conon is perhaps the banker to whom Dinarchus refers (Din. 1.43), and the incident which he mentions later in the speech (i. 56) is possibly the same as that to which Hyperides is alluding here, though according to Dinarchus it was the Areopagus who accused the culprit. Compare Din. 1.56, note. The story of Aristomachus is not known. He was prosecuted for it by these men in court, and though he asked your pardon, had to pay a talent, all for taking five drachmas. Aristomachus also, because, on becoming principal of the Academy, he transferred a spade from the wrestling school to his own garden near by and used it and

However during the period which followedHyperides is referring to the period which followed Chaeronea, and the statesman in question is Lycurgus. Demosthenes also speaks of the number of trials which took place at this time (Dem. 18.249). Hyperides himself was prosecuted by Aristogiton. Compare Hyp. Fr. 18 and note. the people did not forbid us to approach them or to discuss with them; instead they used us as counsellors and advisers and elected him next as treasurer with full control of their finances, considering, quite rightly, that we owed him a debt of gratitude. Later, too, though we were often brought to trial on the strength of that policy and the war itself, these men did not vote against us once but brought us safely through everything; and one could not have a more impressive, or a surer sign of popular favorThe sense of the mutilated passage beginning with the words καὶ γράψαι has been restored by Blass and Colin as follows: Although you, Demosthenes, dared to propose the death penalty for yourself if the council reported that you had received anything from Harpalus, when it made its report and you were ipso facto convicted by the terms of the decree, these gentlemen did not take account of the circumstance but allowed you a special trial. For the people have always behaved in such a way towards us orators, etc. the people so behaved that though deprived themselves by fortune of their crown of glory, they did not take from us the wreath which they had granted. When the people have acted thus towards us should we not render them all due service, and if need be die for them? I believe we should, but you, against the people The sense appears to be: You oppose the people and forget that there are men who wish to serve their own country instead of other people’s. You have continued to be disloyal and to display your eloquence. benefits. For them to serve their own, and not some other’s country you have continued to display the power of your eloquence. When you thought that the Areopagus would report those who had the gold you became hostile and created a disturbance in the city so as to obstruct the inquiry. But when the Areopagus postponed its statement on the grounds that it had not yet discovered the truth, you conceded in the Assembly that Alexander might be the son of Zeus and Poseidon too if he wished Compare Din. 1.94 wished . . . to set up a statue of Alexander, the king and god invincible Olympias announced to the people

of the charges and made a proclamation about them.Dinarchus makes no clear reference to this proclamation. Compare Din. 1.4. And they, instead of returning what they had received and being quit of the affair, were proposing penalties and inquiries directed against themselves. How ought we to treat men who began by doing wrong and taking bribes and then, when exemption was offered them, did not give back the gold? Should we let them go unpunished? No; for it would be a shameful thing, gentlemen of the jury, to jeopardize the safety of the city because of charges brought against individual men. You cannot acquit these men themselves unless you are willing also to assume responsibility for their crimes Then do not indulge their love of gain, gentlemen of the jury, at the expense of your own security. Do not let your motive for making war be love of sordid gain; let it be rather a wish for a more creditable record and a change to better fortunes

on behalf of them we made peace to be rendered to it by each of us. The prosecuting in court and the exposing of those who had received the money and taken bribes against their country it allotted to us, the chosen accusers. The reporting of the names of the recipients it assigned to the Areopagus, who gave these men’s names to the people. Punishment of the criminals to you the Areopagus. If the vote goes contrary to law or justice, that is a responsibility, gentlemen of the jury, which will rest with you. You must all therefore the safety of the city and the good fortune which in other ways you all enjoy in this country both collectively and individually. Remember the tombs of your ancestors and punish the offenders in the interests of the whole city. Do not allow their plausibility in argument the men who have taken bribes against their country and defied the laws. And do not let the tears of HagnonidesHagnonides, who is described by Plutarch as a sycophant, and against whom, if Reiske’s emendation is correct, Dinarchus composed a speech, was probably acquitted. He fled from Athens after the Lamian war but later returned and was condemned to death. Compare Din. Fr. 9; Plut. Phoc. 38. affect you. Remember this but this man would have no right to shed tears, any more than pirates who cry upon the wheel when they need not have embarked in the boat. The same is true of Demosthenes. What excuse will he have for tears when he need not have accepted

[a]But you call upon the younger men, though you used to abuse and insult them with the name of wine-swillers.

[b]Anyone who drank rather freely used to vex you.

[c]Not even within a limited time.

[—]Cowardly.