Against Simon (41-45)

Besides, I did not see that there was any premeditation of wounding in the case of a man who gave a wound without meaning to kill. For who is so simple as to premeditate a long time ahead how some enemy of his shall come by a wound?

Why, it is clear that even the makers of our laws did not think well, when people happened in a fight to break each other’s heads, to make it a case for banishment from their country; else they would have exiled a goodly number. But in the case of any persons who, designing to kill, wounded others without being able to kill them, they appointed the punishment in that degree of severity, judging it meet that where they had shown design and premeditation they should pay the penalty: though if they might not have succeeded, none the less their best efforts had been exerted.[*]

And in this way you have decided, many a time in the past, on this point of premeditation. Extraordinary, indeed, it would be, if in all cases of wounds received through some drunken rivalry, or game, or abuse, or in a fight for a mistress,—affairs of which everyone repents on better consideration,—you are to inflict a punishment of such awful severity as that of expelling any of our citizens from their native land.

I will, however, pass over all those things, and will mention not one which I consider you ought to hear, as being a sure proof of his brazen-faced audacity. In Corinth, where he arrived after our battle with the enemy and the expedition to Coronea[*] he fought with the taxiarch[*] Laches and gave him a beating; and when the citizens had set forth in full military strength, he was specially noted for insubordination and knavery, and was the only Athenian ordered by the generals to be banned by herald.