Against Theomnestus 1

I believe that I shall not be at a loss for witnesses, gentlemen of the jury: for I see many of you in this place of judgement who were present at the time when Lysitheus was prosecuting Theomnestus for speaking before the people, since he had lost the right to do so by having cast away his armour. Now it was during that trial that he asserted that I had billed my own father.

If he accused me of having killed his own, I should forgive him his statement, regarding him as an insignificant and worthless person; nor, if I had heard him apply any other forbidden term to me, should I have taken steps against him, since I consider it a mark of a mean and too litigious person to go to law for slander.

But in the present case I feel it would be disgraceful, as it concerns my father, who has deserved so highly both of you and of the State,—not to take vengeance on the man who has made that statement; and I wish to know from you whether he will be duly punished, or whether he alone of the Athenians has the privilege of doing and saying whatever he pleases in defiance of the laws.

My age, gentlemen, is thirty-two, and your return to the city[*](403 B.C.) was nineteen years ago. It will be seen, therefore, that I was thirteen when my father was put to death by the Thirty. At that age I neither knew what an oligarchy was, nor would have been able to rescue him from the wrong that he suffered.[*](The speaker was thus too young either to be implicated in the political murder of his father or to aid in his protection.)

Besides, I could have had no true motive in the monetary way for making designs upon him: for my elder brother Pantaleon took over everything, and on becoming our guardian he deprived us of our patrimony; so that I have many good reasons, gentlemen, for wishing my father alive. Now, although it is necessary to mention those reasons, there is no need to dwell on them at length; for you all know well enough that I am speaking the truth. Nevertheless I will produce witnesses to those facts.

WitnessesWell, it may be, gentlemen, that he will make no defence on these points, but will state again to you what he had the boldness to say before the arbitrator[*](At the preliminary trial, which was subject to appeal to a higher court. See Introduction, p. 196, note b.)—that it is not a use of a forbidden word to say that someone has killed his father, since the law does not prohibit that, but does disallow the use of the word murderer.

For my part, gentlemen, I hold that your concern is not with mere words but with their meaning, and that you are all aware that those who have killed someone are murderers, and that those who are murderers have killed someone. For it was too much of a task for the lawgiver to write all the words that have the same effect; but by mentioning one he showed his meaning in regard to them all.

For I presume, Theomnestus, you would not go so far, while expecting to get satisfaction from a man who called you a father-beater or a mother-beater, as to consider that he should go unpunished for saying that you struck your male or your female parent because he had spoken no forbidden word!