<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0034.tlg001.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0034.tlg001.perseus-eng2" n="65"><p>It was not their way, when prescribing the death penalty for the thief who stole a
          hundred talents, to approve a punishment less severe for one who took ten drachmas. Again
          with sacrilege: for a great offence they inflicted death, and for a small one too they had
          no milder punishment. They did not differentiate between him who killed a slave and him
          who killed a free man, by fining one and outlawing the other. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0034.tlg001.perseus-eng2" n="66"><p>For all breaches of the law alike, however small, they fixed upon the death penalty,
          making no special allowances, in their assessment of the magnitude of crimes, for the
          individual circumstances of each. On one point only they insisted: was the crime such
          that, if it became more widespread, it would do serious harm to society? And it is absurd
          to face this question in any other way. Just imagine, gentlemen. Suppose someone had
          entered the Metroon<note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">The Metroon or temple of Cybele,
            which stood in the market place, contained the state archives.Cf. <bibl n="Dem. 19.129">Dem. 19.129</bibl>.</note> and erased one law and then excused himself on the grounds
          that the city was not endangered by the loss of just this one. Would you not have killed
          him? I think you would have been justified in doing so, at least if you intended to save
          the other laws. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0034.tlg001.perseus-eng2" n="67"><p>The same applies here: you must punish this man with death if you intend to make the
          other citizens better, oblivious of the fact that he is only one. You must consider the
          act. There are not many like him. In my opinion we have our good fortune to thank for
          that; but Leocrates, I think, deserves a more severe punishment on this account, since he
          alone of his fellow citizens sought safety for himself rather than for the city. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0034.tlg001.perseus-eng2" n="68"><p rend="align(indent)">Nothing angers me so much, gentlemen, as to hear some
          person among his supporters saying that to have left the city is not treason, since your
          ancestors once left it when they crossed to <placeName key="tgn,7002340">Salamis</placeName> during their war with Xerxes: a critic so senseless and
          contemptuous of you that he has presumed to confuse the most honorable action with the
          most base. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0034.tlg001.perseus-eng2" n="69"><p>For where have men not proclaimed the valor of those heroes? Who is so grudging, who so
          completely without spirit, that he would not wish to have shared in their exploits? They
          did not desert <placeName key="perseus,Athens">Athens</placeName>; they simply changed the
          scene, making an honorable decision in the face of the growing menace. </p></div></div></body></text></TEI>