Against Callimachus

As for his lamentations, it is fitting that you give aid, not to those who try to show that they are the most miserable of men, but to those whose statements concerning the facts to which they have sworn in their affidavits are manifestly the more just. And in regard to the penalty assessed against the loser, if I were responsible for this action, you might reasonably sympathize with him as about to be penalized; but the truth is, it is he who brings in a calumnious accusation and therefore you cannot in justice accept anything he says.

In the second place, you should consider this point—that all the exiles who returned to the city from the Peiraeus would be able to use the very same arguments as he; but no one except Callimachus has had the audacity to introduce such a suit. And yet you ought to hate such persons and regard them as bad citizens who, although they have suffered the same misfortunes as the part of the people, think fit to exact exceptional punishments.

Furthermore, it is possible for him even now, before he has made trial of your decision, to drop the suit and to be entirely rid of all his troubles. And yet is it not stupid of him to seek to win your pity while in this jeopardy, for which he himself is responsible, and in which he has involved himself, a jeopardy which even now it is possible for him to avoid?

And if he does mention events which occurred under the oligarchy, demand of him that, instead of accusing persons whom no one will defend,[*](i.e., the oligarchs.) he prove that it was I who took his money; for this is the issue upon which you must cast your votes. And demand that he, instead of showing that he has suffered cruel wrongs, prove that it is I who have committed them, I, from whom he seeks to recover what he has lost;

since the fact of his evil plight he can readily establish in a suit brought against any other citizen whatever. And yet the accusations which should have great weight with you are not those which may be made even against those who are entirely guiltless, but those only which cannot be brought against any persons except those who have committed an act of injustice. To these allegations, this will perhaps be a sufficient reply and a further rebuttal soon will be possible.

Also bear in mind, I ask you—even though I may be thought by someone to be repeating myself—that many persons are attentively watching the outcome of this case; not because they are interested in affairs, but because they believe that the covenant of Amnesty is on trial. Such persons, if your decision is just, you will enable to dwell in the city without fear; otherwise, how do you expect those who remained in the city to feel, if you show that you are angry with all alike who obtained the rights of citizenship?

And what will those think who are conscious of even slight error on their part, when they see that not even persons whose conduct as citizens has been decent obtain justice? What confusion must be expected to ensue when some[*](The former oligarchs.) are encouraged to bring malicious accusations in the belief that your sentiments are now the same as theirs, and when others[*](Those of democratic principles.) fear the present form of government on the ground that no place of refuge is any longer left to them?

May we not rightly fear that, once your oaths have been violated, we shall again be brought to the same state of affairs which compelled us to make the covenant of Amnesty? Certainly you do not need to learn from others how great is the blessing of concord or how great a curse is civil war; for you have experienced both in so extreme a form that you yourselves would be best qualified to instruct all others regarding them.