Against Simon

WitnessesSo now you have heard from the witnesses as well as myself the story of what took place; and I could wish, gentlemen, that Simon had the same intentions as I, so that after hearing the truth from us both you might have arrived with ease at the just decision. But since he cares nothing for the oaths that he has sworn, I will try also to inform you concerning the lies that he has told.

He had the audacity to state that on his part he had given three hundred drachmae to Theodotus, under an agreement made with him, and that I by intrigue seduced the boy from him. And yet, if this was true, it was for him to summon as many witnesses as he could and pursue the matter in accordance with our laws.

But it does not appear that he has ever done anything of the sort, but only that he has outraged and beaten us both, and has revelled and broken in doors and intruded on free women by night.

You ought to take all this, gentlemen, as primary proof that he is lying to you. And then, consider how incredible his statements are. He has valued his property altogether at two hundred and fifty drachmae: yet how surprising that he should hire his companion for more than he himself in fact possesses!

And he has carried audacity to such lengths that it does not suffice him merely to lie about this matter of having given the money, but he even says that he has recovered it! Yet how is it likely that I first committed such a crime as he has laid to my charge—of seeking to deprive him of his three hundred dracmae[*](Either simply by carrying off the young man or else by arranging with him for a share in the money.)— and then, after we had had our affray, paid him back the money, without either obtaining a quittance of all claims or being subjected to any compulsion?

Why, gentlemen, this is all mere invention and artifice of his: he says that he gave it, so as to avoid the scandal of daring to commit such an outrage on the lad without any bargain struck between them; and he pretends that he has got it back, because it is clear that he never laid a claim to money or made the least mention of the matter.[*](His pretence of having got the money back by private arrangement is the excuse he makes for not having formally claimed the money of which he says he was defrauded.)

He says that I gave him a beating at the door of his house, which left him in a terrible state. But we find that he pursued the boy for more than four stades[*](About 800 yards.) from his house with no sign of injury, and I this he denies, although it was seen by more than two hundred people.

He states that we went to his house with potsherds in our hands, and that I threatened to kill him, and that this is premeditation. But I think that this lie of his, gentlemen, is easily detected, not only by you who are used to investigating this sort of case, but by everyone else as well.

For who can find it credible that by a premeditated manoeuvre I went to Simon’s house after daybreak with the boy, when so many people had gathered about him, unless I had become so utterly insane as to be eager to fight them all single— handed; especially when I knew that he would have been delighted to see me at his door,—he who in fact kept coming to my house, and entered it by force, and, disregarding both my sister and my nieces, had the audacity to seek me out, and having discovered where I happened to be dining called me out and beat me?

And so, as it seems, I, who at first, to avoid notoriety, kept quiet, taking this man’s wickedness to be so much misfortune to myself, was yet after a lapse of time, as he says, converted to a desire for notoriety!

Now if the boy had been living with him, there could be some show of reason in his lie that I was driven by my desire to an act of quite improbable folly: but the fact is that the boy would not even talk to him, but hated him more than anyone in the world, and was actually living with me.

So who of you can believe that I previously left the city on a voyage with the boy to avoid a fight with this man, and then, when I had got back, I took him to Simon’s house, where I was to expect most embarrassment?

And though I had designs on him, I came utterly unprepared, without calling to my aid either friends or servants or anybody at all, save only this child, who would have been unable to support me, but was capable of giving information under torture[*](If Theodotus was a free Plataean, he would have the same rights as an Athenian citizen, and could not be subjected to torture. Perhaps he or his father was a Plataean slave, like Pancleon (see Lys. 23, Against Pancleon), or had not yet established his claim to the citizenship. Cf. Aristoph. Frogs 694.) upon any crime that I might commit!

But such was the depth of my stupidity that, having my design against Simon, I did not look out for him where he might be caught alone, whether by night or by day, but went to the place where I should find most people to see me and cut me to pieces, as though I were contriving my premeditation against myself, with a view to getting the utmost amount of outrage from my enemies!

And besides, gentlemen, from the very fight that took place you can easily perceive that he lies. When the boy saw what was on hand, he flung off his cloak and ran away: these men pursued him, while I took myself off by another street.

Now which party should be held responsible for such affairs, those who flee, or those who seek to capture? In my opinion it is obvious to all that those flee who are in fear for themselves, and those pursue who mean to do some hurt.

And this is not a case of a probable thing having turned out otherwise in fact: no, they caught the boy and were dragging him by force out of his way, when I met them, and without touching these men I took hold of the boy; whereas they not only dragged him by force, but also beat me. All this has been testified to you by those who were present. So it will be extraordinary if I am held to have premeditated any of those things wherein these men are found to have so monstrously transgressed the laws.

How, pray, should I have been treated, if the case I were the opposite of what has now occurred; if I, with a number of my associates had gone to meet Simon, and fought with him, beaten him, pursued and caught him, and then tried to drag him by force, if, as it is, and when it is he who has done all these things, I have been subjected to proceedings like the present, in which I risk the loss of both my native land and all the property that I possess?

But here is the strongest and most striking proof of all: the man who was wronged and victimized by me—as he says—did not dare for four years to denounce me before you. Everyone else, when in love, and deprived of the object of desire, and battered with blows, immediately in his anger seeks redress; but this man seeks it long afterwards.

So, gentlemen, that I am not to blame for any of these occurrences has, I conceive, been sufficiently proved. And observe the spirit in which I treat quarrels arising from this sort of affair: although I had suffered a variety of outrages at Simon’s hands, and had even had my head broken by him, I could not bring myself to denounce him, as I felt it extravagant, just because of a mutual rivalry over a child, to press for a man’s expulsion from his native land.