Against Meidias

Voluntary gifts were first introduced at Athens for the expedition to Euboea. Meidias was not one of those volunteers, but I was, and my colleague was Philinus, the son of Nicostratus. There was a second call subsequently for Olynthus. Meidias was not one of those volunteers either. Yet surely the public-spirited man ought to be found at his post on every occasion. We have now these voluntary gifts for the third time, and this time he did make an offer. But how? Though present in the Council when the gifts were being received, he made no offer then.

But when it was announced that the troops at Tamynae were blockaded, and when the Council carried a preliminary decree to dispatch the rest of the cavalry, to which he belonged, then, alarmed at the prospect of this campaign, he came forward with a voluntary gift at the next meeting of the Assembly, even before the Committee could take their seats. What makes it clear, beyond all possibility of doubt, that his motive was not public spirit but the desire to shirk the campaign? His subsequent proceedings.

For in the first place, when it appeared, as the meeting proceeded and speeches were made, that the services of the cavalry were not now required, but that the proposed expedition had fallen through, he never set foot on the ship he had presented, but dispatched a resident alien, the Egyptian Pamphilus, while he himself stayed at home and behaved at the Dionysia in the way that is the matter of the present trial.

Next, when the general, Phocion, summoned the cavalry from Argura to take their turn of service, and the trickery of Meidias was exposed, then this damnable coward quitted that post and hurried to his ship and never went out with the cavalry whom he claimed to command here at home. But if there had been any risk at sea, he would certainly have hastened to land.

Not so behaved Niceratus, the beloved son of Nicias, though he was himself physically an utter weakling. Not so behaved Euctemon, the son of Aesion, nor Euthydemus, the son of Stratocles. Each of these men had made the gift of a war-galley, yet did not run away from the campaign in this way. Each, as an act of grace and a free gift, supplied the State with a ship ready for sea, and where the law of the State assigned them their posts, there each insisted on giving his personal service.

But not so our cavalry-officer Meidias. He deserted the post assigned him by the laws, and this, which is a punishable offence against the State, he is prepared to count as a meritorious service. Yet, good heavens! what name best befits such a trierarchy as his? Shall we call it patriotism, or tax-jobbing, two-per-cent-collecting, desertion, malingering, and everything of that sort? Unable in any other way to get himself exempt from service with the cavalry, Meidias has invented this new-fangled cavalry-collectorship.[*](Using nominal service with the cavalry to secure the profits of a collector.) Another point.

All the other donors of war-galleys convoyed you when you sailed back from Styra; Meidias alone took no part in the convoy, but, without a thought for you, he was bringing fences and cattle and door-posts for his own house and pit-props for his silver-mines, and so his command has proved, not a public service, but a lucrative job for this detestable creature. However, to prove to you the truth of my statements, though most of the facts are known to you, I will nevertheless call witnesses.

The Witnesses

We, Cleon of Sunium, Aristocles of Paeania, Pamphilus, Niceratus of Acherdus, and Euctemon of Sphetta, on the occasion when we sailed home from Styra with the entire force, were commanders of triremes along with Meidias, who is now being prosecuted by Demosthenes, for whom we appear as witnesses. When the whole fleet was sailing in formation and the commanders had instructions not to separate until we landed at Athens, Meidias lagged behind the fleet and loaded his ship with timber and fencing and cattle and other things, and sailed alone into Peiraeus two days later, and did not join with the other commanders in bringing the force to land.

Now if, men of Athens, his public services and his conduct were really what he will presently in court allege and boast them to have been and not what I thus prove them to have been, even so surely he has no right, under cover of his services, to escape the punishment due to his insolent acts. For I know that there are many men who have done you great and useful service—though not after the style of Meidias! Some have won naval victories, others have captured cities, others have set up many glorious trophies to the credit of the State.

But yet to not one of these men have you ever yet granted, nor are you likely to grant, this reward—licence for each one of them to oppress his private enemies whenever he likes and in whatever way he can. For not even Harmodius and Aristogeiton were so privileged, though indeed they received from you the highest rewards for the noblest services. You would never have tolerated it if any one had added this to the inscription on their monument, And they shall be licensed to oppress whomsoever they will. No, they received their other rewards for this very service, that they had restrained those who acted insolently.

I now propose to show you, Athenians, that he has received from you a recompense adequate not only to the public services he has actually performed—for in that case it would be small indeed!—but even to the most distinguished services; so that you may not imagine that you are still in debt to this contemptible fellow. For it was you, men of Athens, who elected him—he being what he is—steward of the Paralus, and also commander of the cavalry, though he could not sit a horse in the processions through the market-place, and superintendent of the Mysteries, and sacrificer on one occasion, and buyer of the victims and all the rest of it.

And then, that a man’s innate baseness and cowardice and wickedness should be redeemed by offices and honors and appointments from you—do you, in heaven’s name, regard that as a trivial gift and favour? Take away, indeed, his right to say, I have been commander of the cavalry; I have been made steward of the Paralus, and what else is he good for?

But at any rate you know this, that when he had been made steward of the Paralus, he plundered the people of Cyzicus of more than five talents, and to avoid punishment he worried and harassed the wretches in every possible way, and by making chaos of the treaties he has alienated their state from ours, while he keeps the money himself. Since he was appointed its commander, he has ruined your cavalry force, getting laws passed which he afterwards disowned.

When he was steward of the Paralus at the time of your expedition to Euboea against the Thebans, though he was authorized to expend twelve talents of public money and was instructed by you to sail and convoy the troops, he rendered them no assistance and did not arrive until Diocles had already concluded his truce with the Thebans; moreover he was outstripped by one of the privately owned galleys. That shows you how well he had equipped your sacred galley. Then as cavalry-commander-I do not know what you think of his other performances, but this wealthy fine gentleman did not venture to buy a horse—not even a horse! He led the processions on one borrowed from Philomelus of Paeania, and every cavalryman knows it. Please call the witnesses to prove the truth of these statements also.

The Witnesses

Now I propose, men of Athens, to name those who have been condemned by you, after an adverse vote of the Assembly, for violating the festival, and to explain what some of them had done to incur your anger, so that you may compare their guilt with that of Meidias. First of all then, to begin with the most recent condemnation, the Assembly gave its verdict against Euandrus of Thespiae for profanation of the Mysteries on the charge of Menippus, a fellow from Caria. The law concerning the Mysteries is identical with that concerning the Dionysia, and it was enacted later.

Well, Athenians, what had Euandrus done to deserve your condemnation? He had won a commercial suit against Menippus, but being, as he alleged, unable to catch him sooner, he had arrested him while he was staying here for the Mysteries. You condemned him for that alone, and there were no aggravating circumstances. When he came before the court, you were inclined to punish him with death, and when his accuser was induced to relent, you compelled Euandrus to refund the damages, amounting to two talents, which he had won in the former action, and you also made him compensate the fellow for the loss that he had sustained, on his own calculation, by staying here in deference to your preliminary verdict.

There you have one case of a man, in a merely private matter, with no added circumstances of insolence, paying so heavy a penalty for a breach of the law. With good reason; because that is what you are here to guard—the laws and your oath. That is what you who serve on any jury hold as a trust from the rest of the citizens, a trust which must be maintained inviolate in the interests of all who appeal to you with justice on their side.

There was another man who in your opinion had profaned the Dionysia, and although he was actually sitting as assessor to his son, who was Archon, you condemned him, because in ejecting from the theater a man who was taking a wrong seat, he laid a hand on him. That man was the father of the highly respected Charicleides, at that time archon.

Yes, and you thought that his accuser had a strong case when he said, If I was taking a wrong seat, fellow, if as you assert I was disregarding the notices, what authority do the laws confer on you or even on the archon himself? The authority to bid the attendants remove me, but not to strike me yourself. If I still refuse to go, you may impose a fine; anything rather than touch me with your own hand; for the laws have taken every precaution to save a citizen from being insulted in his own person. That was his argument. You gave your votes, but the accuser died before he could bring the case before a jury.

Then another man, Ctesicles, was unanimously condemned by the Assembly for profaning the festival, and when he came before you, you sentenced him to death, because he carried a leathern lash in the procession and, being drunk, struck with it a personal enemy of his. It was thought that insolence, not drink, prompted the stroke, and that he seized the excuse of the procession and his own drunkenness to commit the offence of treating freemen like slaves.