Against Philocrates: Supplementary

In this action, gentlemen of the jury, we have had more default of accusers than I expected. There were many persons who made threats and declared that they would accuse Philocrates; but not one of them is forthcoming at the moment. This fact, in my opinion, is a signal proof that the terms of the writ[*](For the recovery of money unlawfully withheld from the State; cf. Lys. 9, For the Soldier.) are correct. For if the defendant were not in possession of a great part of Ergocles money, he would not be so successful in getting rid of his accusers.

But I expect, gentlemen, that you are all aware that the reason why you voted for the death-sentence upon Ergocles was because his misappropriation of public funds had procured him a fortune of more than thirty talents. Of that money not a sign is to be found in the city. Yet whither should we turn, where are we to look, for the money? For if it cannot be found in the hands of his relatives and the persons with whom he was most intimately associated, we shall have a hard task to discover it in the hands of his enemies.

And whom did Ergocles value more than Philocrates, or with what man alive had he more intimate relations? Did he not pick him from amongst your infantry for service abroad, and make him his purser, and finally appoint him to equip a warship?

How very strange that, whereas men of property lament that they have to equip warships, this man, who was previously possessed of nothing, at that time volunteered this public service! So it was not to penalize him that he appointed him to equip a warship, but to let him profit by it and also keep guard over his own funds, since he had nobody whom he could trust above this man.

I conceive, gentlemen of the jury, that Philocrates can defend himself in two ways, and in two only: he must prove either that Ergocles’ money is held by others; or that he was put to death unjustly, having embezzled none of your property, and having taken no bribes. If he can do neither of these things, I say that his condemnation is decided, and also that, if you are indignant with those who take money from other people, you ought not to pardon those who are in possession of your own.

Who in Athens does not know that three talents were deposited for the speakers in aid of Ergocles, if they should succeed in saving him? When they saw your wrath intent on vengeance, they kept quiet and did not dare to expose themselves. Philocrates, when at first he failed to recover this money from them, said that he would inform against them in public.

But when he had both got the money back and obtained control of the rest of the man’s property, he had the audacity to procure witnesses who would support him by testifying that he was the bitterest enemy on earth to Ergocles. Yet can you imagine, gentlemen, that he would have been so utterly insane as to volunteer to equip a warship while Thrasybulus was in command and Ergocles was on bad terms with him? How could he have come more swiftly by his ruin, or have exposed himself more to maltreatment?

Well now, enough has been said on those matters: but I call upon you to vindicate yourselves and to be much more prompt to punish the guilty than to feel pity for those who are keeping the property of the State. He will relinquish nothing that belongs to him, but only restore what is your own; and a much larger amount will be left over for him.

And indeed it would be strange, gentlemen of the jury, that you should be incensed with those who are unable to pay their contributions to the special levies from their own means, and should confiscate their estates on the ground of default, but yet should decline to punish those who are keeping your own property, when you are not only to be deprived of your money but also to be more sorely troubled by their enmity.

For as long as they are conscious of keeping your property they will never desist from their malignity towards you, since they will believe that only the calamities of the city can relieve them of their embarrassments.

I consider, gentlemen of the jury, that the issue involved in his case ought to be not merely one of money, but that his life also should be at stake. For it would be a strange thing, when those who connive with the thieves in a private larceny are to be subject to the same penalty,[*](Cf. Plat. Laws 12.955b.) that this man, conniving with Ergocles in a theft of the city’s property and receiving bribes at your expense, should not incur the same punishment, but should win the fortune left by his accomplice as a prize for his own wickedness. These men deserve your wrath, gentlemen of the jury.

For when Ergocles was on his trial, they went about among the people saying that they had bribed five hundred of the Peiraeus party and sixteen hundred of the party of the city. They professed to rely on their money rather than to fear the results of their own misdeeds.

Well, in that case you plainly showed them,—and if you are well advised you will make it clear likewise to all men today,—that there is no sum of money large enough to deflect you from the punishment of those whom you may take in the act of wrongdoing, and that by no means will you permit them to pillage and steal your property with impunity.

This, then, is the counsel that I give you. You all understand that Ergocles sailed out to make money, not to gain credit with you, and that this man and no other is keeping his money. So if you are prudent you will recover what is your own.