him, he makes me out to be rich, as indeed I should be, if my father had left so much money in the house. That the whole story is absurd and impossible, is evident from several considerations. In the first place, if my father had no confidence in these men, it is plain, he would not have made them trustees at all, and then (supposing he had left the four talents in this way) he would not have mentioned it to them; for it were the height of madness to tell them of a hidden treasure, if he meant not to entrust them even with his visible property. In the next place, if he had confidence in them, he would surely not have committed the bulk of his property to their management, and have taken a small portion out of their hands. Again, he would never put this money in my mother's keeping, and yet give her in marriage to the defendant, one of the guardians; for it is absurd to suppose, that he would seek to secure the fund by her agency, and yet place her as well as the money in the power of one of the persons whom he distrusted. Further, if there had been any truth in the tale of the defendant, do you suppose he would not have taken my mother to wife, as the will directed? This he has never done; for though he took her fortune, the eighty minas, with the apparent intention of living with her, he afterwards married the daughter of Philonidas of Melita. But had there been four talents in the house, and in her custody (as he says), don't you think he would have flown to get both her and them into his possession? Or is it likely, that after so basely conspiring with his colleagues to plunder me of my visible property, which most of you knew to be left me, he would miss the opportunity of seizing a fund, which you would know nothing about?1 Who will believe this? It is impossible, men of the jury; it is impossible. The truth is, my father put the whole of his property into their hands, and the defendant will tell this story, to diminish your compassion for me.

I have many other charges against him; but I will sum them up in a single word, and cut off the whole ground of his defence. He might have avoided all this trouble by letting the estate, pursuant to the laws which I am going to

cite. Take and read the laws.

[The Laws.]

1 Mark here the petitio principii.

According to these laws the estate of Antidorus was let, and for three talents and thirty minas he received at the end of six years six talents and more, as some of you know by ocular proof; for Theogenes of Probalinthus, the lessee, counted out that sum in the market place. I therefore, who had fourteen talents, calculating by the time and the terms of his lease, ought in ten years to have had my estate more than trebled. Ask the defendant why this has not been done. If he says it was better not to let the estate, let him show, not that it has been doubled or trebled, but that the principal has been returned to me. If however it appears, that out of fourteen talents they have delivered to me hardly seventy minas, and one of them even made me out to be his debtor, how can one be satisfied with a word they say? Surely it is impossible.

Such being (as you have heard) the value of my estate, the third part yielding an income of fifty minas; the guardians, though insatiably covetous, though resolved not to grant a lease, might out of this income (without touching the capital) have maintained us, and paid the public taxes, and saved the residue; the other two-thirds they might have invested profitably, taken for themselves a reasonable sum to satisfy their desires, and, besides preserving the principal, increased my estate by means of the income. No such course did they adopt, but selling to one another the most valuable of my slaves, and getting rid of the remainder, they cut off the existing sources of my revenue, and carved thereout a considerable one for themselves.. Everything they took in the same shameful manner, and now they all join in maintaining, that more than half my property was never left at all. They account to me, as though the estate, instead of being so large, was only five talents; and, not content with showing no income out of this, they don't even produce the capital, but coolly tell me that the original fund has been

1 Suppose the estate of Antidorus to have been doubled in six years, it was capable at Athens of being more than trebled in ten years. But the fact shows that it was not quite doubled in six years. We may take it therefore that it might have been about trebled in ten years. Then Demosthenes argues that his own estate might have been more than trebled. Is there any overstatement in this? I do not see that there is: for very likely a greater profit might be made out of a greater....... estate.

expended; and for all this they are not ashamed of themselves. I wonder how they would have served me, if my pupillage had continued longer. They would find it hard to say. For when, after an interval of ten years, from two of these men I have got back such a little, and by a third I am set down even as a debtor-can you wonder that I give way to my feelings?1-it is clear that, if I had then been left an orphan of a year old, and been under the guardianship of these men six years longer, I should not have recovered even the miserable pittances which they have rendered me. For, if their expenditure of the assets was right and proper, the surplus which they handed over to me could not have lasted out six years; and they must either have maintained me themselves, or have allowed me to perish with hunger. Is it not hard, that estates left to others, of one or two talents, have been doubled and trebled by letting, and the owners called upon to serve public offices, while mine, which has been accustomed to equip ships of war, and contribute largely to the property tax, is now (by the robberies of these men) too poor to contribute anything? Are there words to describe the enormity of their conduct? They keep the will out of sight, to avoid discovery; and while they have lived upon the interest of their own property, and greatly increased it by plundering me, they have destroyed the whole of my capital, as if we had done them some cruel injury. You, men of the jury, even when you pass sentence on a public offender, do not strip him of all he has, but leave something in mercy to his wife or children. How unlike these guardians to you! They have had legacies from us to make them faithful in their trust, and yet they have committed this outrage upon us. They are not ashamed of their ruthless behaviour to my sister, who, though two talents were left her by my father, will now get no suitable provision. They have

1 Or, "Is it not a just cause of indignation?" These words, tŵs ovk ǎțiov dyavakteîv, which appear to interrupt the thread of the argument, will create no difficulty, if we suppose that the orator has just exhi bited some extraordinary warmth of manner, or that his voice has faltered, or that he has shed tears, or something of that sort. These words are ther parenthetical; after which the argument proceeds. Pabst gives it a different turn, which I do not think the true one"da ist doch wohl klar, dass man dadurch zum Unwillen gereizt werden muss."

acted without any regard to family connexion, just as though, instead of being friends and relations, they had been our deadliest enemies. As for me, I am in the greatest distress, without means to give my sister a portion, or to maintain myself. Then the government presses me for taxes, and no wonder, when my father left me an estate ample enough to pay them. Unfortunately, these men have got possession of the whole. And now that I seek to recover my own, I am in the greatest peril; for, if the defendant should get a verdict (which heaven forbid), I shall have to pay one-sixth1 of the damages, a hundred minas. Again, the defendant, if your verdict be against him, will have an assessment of damages, and will pay them not out of his own money, but out of mine; whereas the penalty which I incur is fixed, so that I shall not only be deprived of my inheritance, but degraded from my civic rights, unless you now take compassion upon me. I pray therefore and beseech and implore you, to remember the laws and the oaths which you have taken as jurors, to give me the redress which I am entitled to, and pay no more regard to the entreaties of the defendant than to mine. Your pity should be bestowed not upon the guilty, but on the unfortunate; not upon such cruel plunderers as the defendant, but on me, who, besides being all this time kept out of my patrimony, am insulted by the spoilers, and in danger of losing my franchise. Deep indeed would be the anguish of my father, could he be sensible, that, after the portions and the legacies which he kindly gave to these men, I his son am in peril of being condemned to pay the sixth part of them; and that, while some of our countrymen have portioned out the daughters of relations and even friends in distress, Aphobus does not choose even to return a portion which he received, although it is ten years since it became due.

1 See Vol. iii. Appendix IX. p. 391. And as to the loss of franchise consequent upon non-payment of the penalty, see p. 392.

THE ORATION AGAINST APHOBUS-II.

THE ARGUMENT.

APHOBUS having opened his case for the defence, Demosthenes here replies, answering some of the defendant's arguments, and recapitulating the chief points of his own case. He draws an affecting picture of the scene at his father's deathbed, where the testator solemnly committed his children to the care of the guardians, who accepted the trust, and yet had so grossly neglected it. The proceedings of Thrasylochus to get the plaintiff's claim transferred to him by means of the exchange, which had probably become notorious in the city, are here referred to, Demosthenes representing that it was a measure concerted between him and the guardians in order to quash the present action. In conclusion, he makes a pathetic appeal to the feelings of the jury, calling upon them to have pity on an injured orphan, and reminding them, that the property in his hands would be productive of advantage to the state, for gratitude alone would induce him to contribute liberally to the public service; whereas the guardians would of course pay nothing out of a fund, the existence of which they ignored.

MANY gross falsehoods were asserted by Aphobus in his address to you. The first which I shall endeavour to expose, is one which it gave me the greatest pain to hear. He said that my grandfather was indebted to the state, and that on this account my father did not wish the property to be let, for fear of the risk it would run. Such is the pretence of the defendant; but observe, he has given no evidence that my grandfather died a state debtor, but only that he became a state debtor; and this he waited purposely till the last day to put in, and has reserved it for his second speech, hoping thus to make good the calumny. If he should read this evidence, attend, and you will find it deposed, not that my grandfather is a state debtor, but that he became one. I shall now proceed to refute this charge, on which he relies so much, and which I maintain to be false. Had I been in