<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0540.tlg013.perseus-eng2" type="translation" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="86"><p>But, in my view, the Eleven who authorized this arrest, without a thought of supporting Agoratus’s plea,—on which he was even then insisting,—were quite correct in compelling Dionysius, who sought the warrant for arrest, to add the words <q type="mentioned">in the act</q>: surely that must be so, in dealing with a man who, first before five hundred, and then again before the whole body of the Athenians, made depositions whereby he took the lives of some of them, and thus was responsible for their death. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="87"><p>For you cannot of course suppose that <q type="mentioned">in the act</q> only applies to a man felled with the stroke of a club or a dagger; since, by your argument, nobody will be found to have actually killed the men against whom you deposed. For no one either struck them or assassinated them, but your deposition had the effect of compelling them to die.<note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">By a draught of hemlock.</note> Then is not the author of their death a person caught <q type="mentioned">in the act</q>? Now, who can be that author but you, who made the depositions? So clearly you, who killed them, have been caught in the act. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="88"><p><milestone ed="P" unit="para"/>I understand that he intends to refer to the oaths and agreements,<note anchored="true" resp="Loeb">Providing an amnesty for all except the Thirty, the Eleven who executed their orders, and their ten commissioners in the Peiraeus.</note> and will tell us that his prosecution is a violation of the oaths and agreements that we of the Peiraeus contracted with the party of the town. Well, if he takes his stand on these, he practically admits that he is a murderer: at least, he makes an objection of oaths, or agreements, or lapse of time, or the words <q type="mentioned">in the act</q>; but in itself the case affords him no confidence of success in his trial. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="89"><p>Your duty, gentlemen of the jury, is to reject these arguments: you must bid him direct his defence to these questions—Did he make no depositions? Are those men not dead? Besides, I consider that the oaths and agreements in no way affect our position regarding this man. For the oaths have been taken between the parties of the town and of the Peiraeus. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="90"><p>If indeed, he was in the town while we were in the Peiraeus, the agreements would have been something for him to count upon; but the truth is that he was in the Peiraeus, like me and Dionysius and all these persons who are for punishing the man, so that we are faced with no objection there. For there was no oath taken between the men of the Peiraeus and the men of the Peiraeus.
<milestone n="Concl" unit="part"/> </p></div></div></body></text></TEI>