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.

It is your duty, I say, for recently, when we had been conquered and had fallen into the power of enemies at home and many wished to destroy the city, we took refuge in the oaths and covenants; and if the Lacedaemonians should dare to violate these, every man of you would be exceedingly indignant.

And yet how can one accuse the other party of transgressions of which he is himself guilty? Who would regard us as victims of injustice when suffering injury through a violation of covenants, if even we ourselves were manifestly holding them in slight esteem? What pledges shall we find binding in our relations with other peoples if we so lightly disregard those which we have made among ourselves?

This, too, is worthy of our remembrance that, although our forefathers performed many glorious deeds in war, not the least of its glory our city has won through these treaties of reconciliation. For whereas many cites might be found which have waged war gloriously, in dealing with civil discord there is none which could be shown to have taken wiser measures than ours.

Furthermore, the great majority of all those achievements that have been accomplished by fighting may be attributed to Fortune; but for the moderation we showed towards one another no one could find any other cause than our good judgement. Consequently it is not fitting that we should prove false to this glorious reputation.

And let no one think that I exaggerate or pass due bounds, because I, a defendant in a private suit, have spoken in this fashion. For this law-suit is concerned not merely with the sum of money specified in the indictment; for me, it is true, this is the issue, but for you it is that of which I have just spoken; on this subject no one would be able to speak in fitting fashion nor could he fix an adequate penalty.

For this law-suit difiers so greatly from other private suits in this respect that, while the latter are of concern to the litigants only, in this private law-suit common interests of the city are likewise at stake. In trying this case you are bound by two oaths: one is the customary judicial oath which you take in all ordinary cases, and the other is that oath which you swore when you ratified the covenant of Amnesty. If in render an unjust verdict in this case, you will be violating not only the laws of the city, but also the laws common to all men. Consequently, it is not fitting that your votes should be based upon favor, or upon mere equity, nor upon anything else than upon the oaths you took when you made the covenant of Amnesty.

Now that it is right, and is expedient and just that you should decide thus concerning the covenant of Amnesty not even Callimachus himself, I think, will gainsay; but he intends, I suppose, to bewail his present poverty and the misfortune which has befallen him and to say that his fate will be dreadful and cruel if now under the democracy he must pay the assessed fine for the money of which under the oligarchy he was deprived,[*](If Callimachus lost the suit, he would be liable to a fine (h( e)pwbeli/a) of one-sixth of the sum at which the damages were laid.) and also if then because he possessed property he was forced to go into exile, yet now, at a time when he ought to get satisfaction for wrongs done him, he is to be deprived of his civic rights.[*](If the fine should not be paid within the appointed period of time, Callimachus would lose his rights as a citizen.)

And he will accuse also those who took part in the revolution, in the hope that in this way especially he will arouse you to wrath; for perhaps he has heard it said that whenever you fail to apprehend the guilty, you punish any who cross your path. But I for my part do not think that you are so disposed, and I believe that it is easy to controvert the pleas just suggested.