Against Callimachus

Isocrates

Isocrates. Isocrates with an English Translation in three volumes, by Larue Van Hook, Ph.D., LL.D. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1945-1968.

Is it not outrageous, men of the jury, that, although such were the terms of the covenant and the oaths which were sworn were of such nature, Callimachus is so convinced of his own eloquence that he believes he will persuade you to vote in opposition to them? If he saw that the city regretted its past action, his conduct should not occasion surprise; but as a matter of fact you have shown the importance you attach to the covenant, not only in the enactment of the laws,

but when Philon of Coele was indicted for malversation on an embassy, and although he could offer no defense but merely cited the covenant in exoneration, you decided to dismiss his case and not even hold him for trial. And although the city does not think it proper to punish even confessed transgressors, yet this man has the effrontery to bring malicious charges against those who have done no wrong at all.

Furthermore, he is certainly not unaware of this either—that Thrasybulus and Anytus, men of the greatest influence in the city, although they have been robbed of large sums of money and know who gave in lists of their goods, nevertheless are not so brazen as to bring suit against them or to bring up old grudges against them; on the contrary, even if, in respect to all other claims, they have greater power than others to accomplish their ends,

yet in matters covered by the covenant at least they see fit to put themselves on terms of equality with the other citizens. And it is not these men alone who have accepted this point of view; no, not even one of you has dared to bring such an action. And yet it would be outrageous if you, while honoring your oaths where your own affairs are concerned, shall attempt to violate them in connexion with the calumnious charges of Callimachus, and if, while insisting that private agreements must be held valid by public authority, shall allow anyone who so desires, on his own private authority, to break the covenants of the state.

But it would be the most astounding outcome of all if, while it was still uncertain whether or not the reconciliation would be of advantage to the city, you strengthened it with such oaths that, even if it proved disadvantageous, you were forced to abide by your agreements, yet now, when the results have been so happy for you that, even if you had not given any solemn pledge to do so, it is right for you scrupulously to preserve the existing government,[*](i.e., the Democracy.) you are going to seize that moment to violate your oaths!

And although you were incensed with those who have said that the covenant of Amnesty should be repealed, yet this man, who has the effrontery to transgress it after its official promulgation, you are going to discharge without a penalty! No, should you do so, you would neither be rendering justice nor acting in a manner worthy of yourselves or consistent with your former decisions.

I beg you, however, to bear in mind that you have come to pass judgement on matters of the highest importance; for you are going to cast your votes on the question of a covenant, and covenants have never been violated to the advantage of either yourselves in relation to the other parties or of others in relation to you; and they have such binding force that almost all the daily activities of Greeks and of barbarians are governed by covenants.

For it is through our reliance on them that we visit one another's lands and procure those things of which we both have need; with the aid of these we make our contracts with each other and put an end to both our private animosities and our common wars. This is the only universal institution which all we of the human race constantly employ. It is, therefore, the duty of all men to uphold them, and, above all, yours.