13.14:13.22: “…Instead of a breach of 10 stades’ lenght in the Long Walls, its terms required the razing of the Long Walls in their entirety; and instead of his contriving to get some additional boon for the city, we were to surrender our ships and dismantle the wall around the Peiraeus. These men perceived that, although nominally we had the promise of peace, in actual fact it was the dissolution of the democracy, and they refused to authorize such a proceeding: their motive was not pity, men of Athens, for the walls that were to come down, or regret for the fleet that was to be surrendered to the Lacedaemonians, – for they had no closer concern in these than each one of you, – but they could see that this would be the means of subverting your democracy; nor were they lacking, as some declare, in eagerness for the conclusion of peace, but they desired to arrange a better peace than this for the Athenian people. They believed that they would be able to do it, and they would have succeeded, had they not been destroyed by this man Agoratus. Theramenes and the others who were intriguing against you took note of the fact that there were some men proposing to prevent the subversion of the democracy and to make a stand for the defence of freedom; so they resolved, before the Assembly met to consider the peace, to involve these men first in calumnious prosecutions, in order that there should be none to take up the defence of your people at the meeting. Now, let me tell you the scheme that they laid. They persuaded Agoratus here to act as informer against the generals and commanders; not that he was their accomplice, men of Athens, in anyway, – for I presume they were not so foolish and friendless that for such important business they would have called Agoratus, born and bred a slave, as their trusty ally; they rather regarded him as a serviceable informer. Their desire was that he could seem to inform unwillingly, instead of willingly, so that the information should appear more trustworthy. But he gave it willingly, as I think you will perceive for yourselves from what has since occurred. For they sent into the Council Theocritus, the man called <the son of Elaphostictus>: this Theocritus was a comrade and intimate of Agoratus. The Council which held session before the time of the Thirty had been corrupted, and its appetite for oligarchy, as you know, was very keen. For proof of it you have the fact that the majority of the Council had seats in the subsequent Council under the Thirty. And what is my reason for making these remarks to you? That you may know that the decrees issued by that Council were all designed, not in loyalty to you, but for the subversion of your democracy, and that you may study them as thus exposed. Theocritus entered this Council, and behind closed doors he informed them that certain persons were combining to oppose the system then being instituted. He declined, however, to give their several names, as he was bound by the same oaths as they were, and there were others who would give the names: he would never do it himself. Yet, if his information was not laid by argument, surely the Council could have compelled Theocritus to give the names, instead of laying the information with no names given. But in fact, here is the decree that they voted.”
13.26:13.27: “…And yet, Agoratus, unless there had been some prearrangement with you, such as to assure you that you would come to no harm, how could you have failed to make off, when there were vessels provided, and your sureties were ready to accompany you on the voyage? It was still possible for you: the Council had not yet got you in the hands. …”
13.28: “…To show how all that I have recounted was done by prearrangement I have witnesses; and the very decree of the Council will testify against you.”
13.30: “…Agoratus deposed … the names … of the generals and commanders, and then those of some other citizens…”
13.37:13.38: “…And the trial was conducted in a manner that you yourselves well know: the Thirty were seated on the benched which are now the seats of the presiding magistrates; 2 tables were set before the Thirty, and the vote had to be deposited, not in urns, but openly on these tables, – the condemning vote on the further one – so what possible chance of escape had any of them? …”
13.60:13.61: “Well, after that the persons who then had control of affairs came to Aristophanes and appealed to him to save himself by a denunciation, and not to run the risk of the extreme penalty by standing his trial on the count of alien birth. But he said – <Never!> Such was his loyalty both to the men who had been imprisoned and to the Athenian people [for whom] he chose to suffer death rather than denounce and destroy anyone unjustly. So this was the character shown by that man, even when you were bringing him to destruction …”
13.77:13.79: “I am told that he is concocting for his defence the plea that he went off to Phyle, and was in the party that returned from Phyle, and that this is the mainstay of his case. But the facts were as I shall relate. This man did go to Phyle; yet, could there be an example of more abject vileness? For he knew that at Phyle there were some of those who had been banished by him, and he had the face to approach them! As soon as they saw him they laid hold of him and dragged him straight way to be killed in the place where they executed ordinary pirates or robbers that fell into their hands. Anytus, who was the general, said that they ought not to do that, on the ground that they were not yet in a position to punish certain of their enemies: at that moment they should rather keep quiet. If ever they returned home, they would then proceed to punish the guilty. By that speech he was the cause of this man’s escape at Phyle: it was necessary to obey a man in the position of general, if they were to preserve themselves. Nay, further, you will find no one who has shared either this man’s table or his tent, nor did the commander assign a place in his tribe; to all he was a polluted person with whom they would not talk. Please call the commander.”
13.83:13.84: “You must not accept that plea from him, nor this one either, if he should urge it, – that we are exacting the penalty a long time after the offence. For I do not think there is any statute of limitations for such crimes as his: my opinion rather is that, whether brought to his account immediately or after some time, this man must prove that he has not done the things that form the subject of the charge. …”
13.87: “For you cannot of course suppose that <in the act> only applies to a man felled with the stroke of a club or a dagger; since, by your argument, nobody will be found to have actually killed the men against whom you deposed.”
13.91: “In every view, I consider, he deserves more deaths than one; for the same man who says that the people have made him one of them is found to have injured the people whom he himself calls his father, by treacherously sapping the resources that they had for advancing their greatness and strenght. Therefore, just as much as the man who struck his own natural father and denied him all necessaries of life, he who robbed his adoptive father of the means that he possessed is certainly, on this one score, as provided by the law of such maltreatment, deserving of the penalty of death.”
13.95: “In the name of the Olympian gods, gentlemen of the jury, let neither art nor craft induce you to condemn those men to death who precisely for their many good services to you were put to death by the Thirty and by Agoratus here.”
Seclusão Anagógica 