Demosthenes
Greek · Rhetoric · Oration · Others · Letter
50 works · 26,844 aligned sentences
Birth: 384 BC / Death: 322 BC
Upper Paiania → Poros · politician · diplomat · orator
Against Apaturius
This oration is delivered in an Athenian commercial court, where the speaker argues that he is not liable as a guarantor for a debt. The speaker accuses the opponent, Apaturius, of bringing an unlawful and unjust lawsuit against him. The dispute originates from a debt trouble between Apaturius and a man named Parmenon, in which the speaker intervened to settle their contracts and establish a private arbitration. However, Apaturius conspired with the arbitrator Aristocles to destroy the arbitration agreement and issued an unfair default judgment against Parmonon. In response, the speaker defends himself by presenting legal evidence, such as the one-year statute of limitations on guarantees and the fact that no claim was made against him for three years. Ultimately, he exposes the contradictions of his opponents and appeals to the jury that holding him responsible as a guarantor in the absence of any valid contract is entirely groundless.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1-8–§31-38473 aligned sentencesRead →Against Aphobus I
This is one of Demosthenes' earliest and most famous forensic speeches, delivered in an Athenian court against his untrustworthy guardian, Aphobus, to prosecute him for embezzling his patrimony. The young orator, having lost his father at an early age, details how his appointed guardians plundered the substantial estate left to him. In the first half, Demosthenes presents a meticulous inventory of his father's assets—including workshops, slaves, and raw materials like ivory—to prove that his family belonged to the highest tax bracket. He then systematically exposes how Aphobus misappropriated his mother's dowry and pocketed the profits and raw materials of the family businesses, refuting the defendant's self-contradictory excuses. Demosthenes also debunks the absurd claim made by the guardians that his father had buried a secret fortune underground. In his concluding appeal, the plaintiff highlights his own desperate financial ruin, warns of the severe penalties like disenfranchisement he faces if he loses, and entreats the jurors for a just and sympathetic verdict.
Rhetoric9 chunks · §1-7–§62-69836 aligned sentencesRead →Against Aphobus II
This work is the second part of the court oration in which the young Demosthenes prosecutes his untrustworthy guardian, Aphobus, for embezzling his inheritance. Demosthenes refutes Aphobus's excuse—that he could not lease the estate due to a public debt supposedly owed by Demosthenes's grandfather—by proving the claim false and pointing out that the defendants have concealed the will. He further demonstrates the guardians' looting of the estate through witness testimonies, recollecting the solemn moment when his dying father entrusted his family and property to them, thereby strongly condemning their betrayal. Finally, Demosthenes explains how he evaded the trap of the property-exchange system (antidosis) devised by his opponents to obstruct the lawsuit, and by appealing to his potential ruin if he loses, he implores the jurors for their sympathy and a just verdict.
Rhetoric3 chunks · §1-8–§17-24345 aligned sentencesRead →Against Aphobus III
This work is a courtroom oration delivered by the young Athenian orator Demosthenes to refute the allegations of perjury brought by his former guardian, Aphobus, who had embezzled his patrimony. As Aphobus attempts to conceal his assets and flee, Demosthenes seeks to dismantle his opponent's case by proving that a key figure, Milyas, is a freeman rather than a slave. Throughout the speech, the orator sharply exposes the contradictions of his opponents, who repeatedly refused to verify the truth through the torture of slaves or solemn oaths. He presents meticulous evidence regarding his father's will, his mother's dowry, and various estate assets to demonstrate Aphobus's blatant embezzlement. Ultimately, Demosthenes highlights how Aphobus rejected past compromise proposals and lost every previous arbitration and trial, thereby justifying the heavy fine imposed upon him.
Rhetoric8 chunks · §1-6–§54-60795 aligned sentencesRead →Against Aristogeiton II
This speech is a forensic oration prosecuting Aristogeiton, who illegally continues to speak in the Assembly despite being a public debtor and thus stripped of his civic rights (atimia). The prosecutor argues that punishing such an offender is essential for maintaining the order of the Athenian state and the rule of law. The discourse begins by pointing out the defendant's lack of eligibility and presents historical precedents to show that illegal actors must be punished to preserve public order. It then highlights Aristogeiton's past self-contradictions in his political activities, arguing that his career has brought nothing but harm to Athens. Finally, the orator appeals to the sacred nature of laws, which govern the cosmic order, and urges the jury to defend the state by finding the defendant guilty.
Rhetoric3 chunks · §1-9–§20-27284 aligned sentencesRead →Against Boeotus I
This work is a courtroom speech delivered in ancient Athens, in which the plaintiff, Mantitheus, demands that his half-brother Boeotus change his name, as Boeotus has also taken the name "Mantitheus." After their father recognized Boeotus as his son, the two half-brothers came to share the exact same name, which caused severe confusion in both public and private life. The plaintiff details the practical disadvantages and chaos resulting from this duplication, citing examples such as the sortition for public offices, military service, lawsuits, and registration of debts to the state. Furthermore, Mantitheus argues his priority to the name, demonstrating that he was legally registered first as the eldest son during their father's lifetime, whereas Boeotus has no right to claim their grandfather's name. Pointing out that Boeotus had previously accepted the name "Boeotus" in prior legal proceedings, the plaintiff urges the jurors to render a just verdict in his favor according to the laws and oaths.
Rhetoric6 chunks · §1-8–§35-41636 aligned sentencesRead →Against Boeotus II
This speech is a court oration delivered by the Athenian citizen Mantitheus against his half-brother Boeotus, demanding the return of his late mother's dowry. Mantitheus begins by explaining the complex family background, alleging that Boeotus's mother deceived their father with a false oath to get her sons registered in the phratry. Following their father's death, a dispute arose over the division of property and the return of the dowry, which Boeotus refused to pay under various pretexts, such as discrepancies in names. In response, the plaintiff proves the legitimacy of his own mother's marriage and dowry while exposing the opponent's past harassments, including a fabricated injury used to bring a false charge before the Areopagus. He further denounces Boeotus's deceptive tactics, including the slander of their deceased father and attempts to delay the lawsuit. Finally, Mantitheus appeals to the jury to secure his father's house to preserve a dowry for his own daughter, urging a fair verdict based on solid evidence rather than deceitful claims.
Rhetoric8 chunks · §1-9–§56-61593 aligned sentencesRead →Against Callicles
This work is an ancient Athenian court speech concerning a dispute between neighbors over land boundaries and water damage. The defendant defends himself against an unjust lawsuit brought by his neighbor, Callicles. In his speech, the defendant explains that his father built a stone wall years ago to protect their property, and argues that the land is private property rather than a public watercourse, presenting physical evidence such as old graves and trees. He also points out that Callicles himself is guilty of narrowing the public road and that the actual damage claimed is extremely trivial. Finally, the defendant exposes Callicles's lawsuit as a malicious conspiracy to seize his land and calls upon the judges to deliver a just verdict.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-10–§27-35451 aligned sentencesRead →Against Callippus
This oration is a court speech delivered by the son of the Athenian banker Pasion, defending himself against an unjust financial claim made by Callippus concerning money deposited by a deceased foreign merchant. The case begins with the death of Lycon, a merchant from Heraclea, whose deposit at Pasion’s bank was subsequently paid to a man named Cephisiades. The defendant, Callippus, waited until Pasion’s physical and mental decline before initiating an unfair private arbitration, claiming that the money should have been paid to him instead. In response, the plaintiff demonstrates that there was no close relationship between Lycon and Callippus, and that the deposit was made directly to the bank. By presenting testimonies from Pasion and other witnesses, and comparing the social standing and character of the involved parties, the plaintiff exposes the contradictions and absurdity of Callippus's claims. Finally, the speech concludes with an appeal for acquittal, highlighting the injustice of the previous arbitration procedures.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-7–§25-33371 aligned sentencesRead →Against Conon
This oration is a courtroom speech in which the Athenian citizen Ariston seeks justice for a violent assault committed against him by the defendant Conon and his sons. The prosecutor, Ariston, details the harassment that began during military service and culminated in a brutal attack in the Agora, using testimonies from doctors and witnesses to prove the severity of his injuries. Anticipating the defense's attempt to dismiss the incident as mere youthful high spirits or a prank, Ariston counters by emphasizing the legal system's vital role in preventing physical violence from escalating. He further exposes Conon's bad faith, including his attempts to delay the arbitration process, his failure to hand over slaves for examination under torture, and his reliance on false testimonies from his drinking companions. Finally, Ariston contrasts his own solemn oath with Conon's notorious immorality and calls upon the jurors to deliver a just and strict verdict.
Rhetoric6 chunks · §1-6–§38-44611 aligned sentencesRead →Against Dionysodorus
This work is a forensic oration from ancient Athens, dealing with a dispute over a maritime loan agreement. The plaintiff accuses the defendant, Dionysodorus, of violating their contract by failing to return to the Athenian port of Piraeus after borrowing funds, and instead illegally redirecting the ship to sell grain elsewhere for illicit profit. Throughout the speech, the plaintiff systematically refutes the defendant's excuses—such as the damage to the ship and agreements with other creditors—demonstrating his clear breach of contract. Furthermore, the plaintiff denounces Dionysodorus's insolent behavior in demanding the complete cancellation of the contract while offering only partial repayment. Ultimately, the speaker argues that upholding the sanctity of contracts is vital for the preservation of Athenian maritime trade and the public interest, before calling upon Demosthenes as a co-litigant to conclude the plea.
Rhetoric7 chunks · §1-7–§44-50629 aligned sentencesRead →Against Eubulides
This speech is a forensic oration delivered by Euxitheos, who defends his Athenian citizenship after being disenfranchised during a general scrutiny of the civic registers, pointing to Eubulides as the instigator. The speaker begins by detailing how Eubulides manipulated the voting process in the deme of Halimus, using delays and darkness to unfairly exclude him. To prove his legitimacy, the speaker meticulously traces both his paternal and maternal genealogies, presenting numerous testimonies from relatives, phratry members, and demesmen. He vigorously refutes the prosecution's slander regarding his mother's poverty, arguing that her working in the market and serving as a nurse do not prove foreign or servile status. Furthermore, he reveals the political motive behind the conspiracy, explaining that his previous service as demarch and his collection of public funds created bitter enemies, including Eubulides. Ultimately, he presents his entire life as an honorable Athenian citizen and appeals to the jury for a just verdict.
Rhetoric9 chunks · §1-8–§63-70980 aligned sentencesRead →Against Lacritus
This work is a forensic speech delivered in an Athenian court regarding a commercial lawsuit (dike emporike) over a breached maritime loan agreement against the defendant, Lacritus of Phaselis. The plaintiff begins by exposing how Lacritus used his prestige as a \"pupil of Isocrates\" to secure a loan under false pretenses and subsequently failed to fulfill any of his contractual obligations. Through various witness testimonies, the speech details how the agreed-upon security of wine was never properly loaded onto the ship, and how additional, unauthorized loans were taken out. The plaintiff further dismantles the defense's excuse of a shipwreck, revealing that the lost vessel and cargo were unrelated to their contract and that they deliberately avoided Athens' official trading port. Ultimately, the speech denounces Lacritus's reliance on sophistical rhetoric to evade his debt, emphasizing that such contractual violations threaten the legal authority and commercial interests of Athens, and urges the jury to deliver a just verdict.
Rhetoric7 chunks · §1-10–§49-56625 aligned sentencesRead →Against Leochares
This work is a courtroom speech delivered in ancient Athens, centering on a dispute over the inheritance of a deceased man named Archiades. The speaker accuses the opponent, Leostratos, and his son Leochares, of illegally seizing the estate and filing a false protestation. To prove his case, the speaker first provides a detailed genealogy and legal evidence to demonstrate that his side is the closest male-line relative to Archiades. He then exposes the opponents' history of exploiting illegal adoptions across three generations in order to keep the estate within their lineage. Drawing on Athenian laws, particularly Solon's legislation, the speaker highlights the legal contradictions in the opponents' arguments regarding biological versus adopted status. Ultimately, the speech unmasks the opponents' greed and procedural dishonesty, reasserting the speaker's rightful claim as the closest male-line heir and appealing to the jury for a just verdict.
Rhetoric8 chunks · §1-9–§60-68824 aligned sentencesRead →Against Nausimachus and Xenopeithes
This oration is a court speech delivered by the defendant against his relatives, Nausimachus and Xenopeithes, who have brought a new lawsuit despite a previous settlement that released him from all guardianship-related claims. The speaker begins by arguing that the lawsuit is inadmissible because the plaintiffs had previously agreed to a formal release and settlement. He then demonstrates the logical contradictions in the plaintiffs' new claims regarding debt collection, showing them to be impossible based on family history and relations with the debtors. Furthermore, he invokes the law on the five-year statute of limitations (prothesmia) and emphasizes the binding force of releases and settlements. Finally, the speaker exposes the plaintiffs' extravagance and malicious intent, urging the jury to protect the defendant's property and reject the unjust suit.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-8–§24-28390 aligned sentencesRead →Against Nicostratus
This oration, delivered in an Athenian court, presents the speaker Apollodorus accusing his former neighbor Nicostratus and his brother Arethusius of betrayal and unlawful acts. The dispute began when Apollodorus generously provided a large ransom to rescue Nicostratus, who had been captured and sold into slavery. Instead of repaying this kindness, Nicostratus conspired with his brother to defraud Apollodorus, going so far as to falsely register him as a public debtor and launch physical assaults. In retaliation, Apollodorus initiated a legal process to register certain slaves owned by Arethusius for confiscation by the state. Throughout the latter part of the speech, the speaker presents testimonies and evidence to prove that the slaves indeed belong to Arethusius, while exposing his opponents' dishonesty and asserting the justice of the confiscation.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-6–§21-29324 aligned sentencesRead →Against Olympiodorus
This work is a forensic speech delivered in an Athenian court, in which the plaintiff accuses his relative, Olympiodorus, of betrayal regarding the division of the estate of their deceased kinsman, Comon. To avoid dispute, the two had initially entered into a contract to split the inheritance equally, but they soon faced various complications, including a theft by a slave and competing claims from other relatives. Although they temporarily cooperated and successfully reclaimed the estate, Olympiodorus broke his oath and monopolized the assets immediately after their legal victory. The plaintiff highlights his own prior sacrifices made to uphold their agreement, while criticizing Olympiodorus for using false pretexts to avoid sharing the property. He demands the opening of the sealed contract in court and exposes the defendant's scandalous private life, alleging that Olympiodorus is controlled by a mistress and neglects his family. Ultimately, the plaintiff pleads with the jurors for a just verdict to relieve his family's financial distress.
Rhetoric7 chunks · §1-7–§51-58662 aligned sentencesRead →Against Onetor I
This judicial oration addresses a property dispute between the speaker and Onetor, the brother-in-law of the speaker's former guardian, Aphobus, following the speaker's successful lawsuit against Aphobus. Onetor has occupied the land that should be transferred to the speaker, using the pretext of reclaiming his sister's dowry after her alleged divorce from Aphobus. The speaker argues that no such dowry was ever actually paid, and that the divorce itself is a sham designed to hide Aphobus's assets. To prove this, the speaker highlights the suspicious lack of witnesses during the supposed dowry transactions and points out that Aphobus continues to live with his wife and cultivate the land. Furthermore, the speaker emphasizes Onetor's stubborn refusal to allow the interrogation of slaves under torture (basanos), which would have revealed the truth. Through these arguments, the speaker aims to expose the conspiracy between the two men and secure his rightful claim to the occupied property.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1-8–§32-39399 aligned sentencesRead →Against Onetor II
This work is a courtroom oration delivered by the young Demosthenes against Onetor, who conspired with Demosthenes' former guardian, Aphobus, to withhold his rightful inheritance. Continuing from the previous speech, Demosthenes aims to expose the falsity of the mortgage claims on land that Onetor asserts under the pretext of an unpaid dowry. He reveals how Onetor has repeatedly changed his testimony depending on the situation in order to conceal Aphobus's assets. Through detailed arguments, Demosthenes highlights inconsistencies regarding the amount of the dowry, Onetor's financial guarantees for Aphobus, and the unnatural timing of the mortgage establishment. By demonstrating that his own estate was unjustly occupied long before Onetor's marriage alliance, Demosthenes vigorously denounces Onetor's claims as selfish fabrications.
Rhetoric2 chunks · §1-8–§9-14178 aligned sentencesRead →Against Pantaenetus
This oration, attributed to Demosthenes, is a special plea (paragraphe) delivered by the defendant, Nicobulus, against the plaintiff, Pantaenetus, set against the backdrop of financial loans and property disputes involving the Laurium silver mines in Athens. Nicobulus argues that the current lawsuit is inadmissible because a formal release and discharge (aphesis and apallage) had already been legally agreed upon between the parties. Throughout the speech, the defendant reconstructs the complex transactions involving mining workshops and slaves, demonstrating that Pantaenetus's various charges of assault and mining law violations are both false and outside the court's jurisdiction. He exposes the plaintiff's deceitful tactics, including a manipulative challenge regarding slave torture under examination (basanos) and his past abuse of the legal system in a similar lawsuit against another citizen. While addressing potential prejudices of the jury toward his own aloof demeanor, Nicobulus concludes by emphasizing the absolute legal finality of mutual agreements, urging the court to uphold the sanctity of contracts.
Rhetoric8 chunks · §1-7–§53-60938 aligned sentencesRead →Against Phaenippus
This work is a courtroom oration from ancient Athens concerning the procedure of property exchange (antidosis). The plaintiff, who claims to be in financial distress due to losses in mining enterprises, accuses the wealthy defendant, Phaenippus, of evading his civic duties (leitourgia). According to the plaintiff, Phaenippus repeatedly broke the law by delaying the submission of his property inventory and violating the seals on his estate. Furthermore, the speaker exposes Phaenippus's attempts to conceal his true wealth by fabricating debts and inflating his mother's dowry. Proposing a bold compromise where he would surrender his own assets if Phaenippus's estate were delivered free of debt as originally sealed, the plaintiff implores the jury to punish the dishonest rich man and grant relief to a citizen in need.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1-5–§27-32481 aligned sentencesRead →Against Phormio
This work is an ancient Athenian court speech in which the plaintiff sues the defendant, Phormio, over a breach of contract regarding a maritime loan. The plaintiff accuses Phormio of failing to load the agreed cargo during a trading voyage to the Bosporus, misappropriating the funds, and falsely claiming to have repaid the loan after a shipwreck. In the middle section, the speech meticulously refutes the defense's claim of repayment—allegedly made to the shipowner Lampis—by pointing out the absurdity of the interest calculations, the total lack of witnesses, and Lampis's bribery-induced perjury. The plaintiff also exposes Lampis's treacherous act of smuggling grain to other cities during Athens' food crisis, contrasting it with the plaintiffs' own patriotic contributions. Ultimately, the plaintiff emphasizes that the strict legal protection of maritime creditors is vital for maintaining the commercial prosperity of Athens, pleading with the jurors for a just verdict.
Rhetoric7 chunks · §1-7–§46-52648 aligned sentencesRead →Against Polycles
This work is a courtroom speech delivered by Apollodorus concerning the expenses and handover of trierarchical duties (the equipping and commanding of a trireme) in classical Athens. The plaintiff, Apollodorus, argues that he contributed immense personal wealth to maintain the fleet during a state crisis, and was forced to continue his service at his own expense because his designated successor, Polycles, obstinately refused to relieve him. Throughout the oration, Apollodorus vividly exposes the hardships of his harsh voyages, his financial distress, and the corrupt relationship between Polycles and General Timomachus, as well as his own resistance to the general's unlawful commands. Emphasizing his loyalty in prioritizing public duty over personal misfortune, including his mother's death, he appeals to the jurors for the recovery of his expenses and the condemnation of the defendant. The speech provides a vivid depiction of the practical frictions in the Athenian system of public service and contemporary political conflicts.
Rhetoric9 chunks · §1-7–§61-68733 aligned sentencesRead →Against Spudias
This work is a forensic oration delivered in an ancient Athenian court, where the plaintiff disputes with his brother-in-law, Spudias, over the inheritance of their late father-in-law, Polyeuctus. The plaintiff explains the background of the conflict, which involves unpaid dowries, mortgaged property, and outstanding debts left by the deceased. Throughout the speech, the plaintiff exposes Spudias's refusal of prior settlements and private arbitration, presenting various witnesses and a written memorandum left by their late mother-in-law as objective evidence. Furthermore, he demonstrates that Spudias and his wife had previously agreed to the terms of the will, thereby dismantling the opponent's anticipated defense. Finally, by comparing the details of the dowries received by both parties, the plaintiff exposes Spudias's unfair demands and accuses him of attempting to commit perjury in court to secure an unjust share.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-8–§24-30391 aligned sentencesRead →Against Stephanos II
This speech, delivered by Apollodorus, is a forensic oration prosecuting Stephanos for giving false testimony regarding the will of Apollodorus's deceased father, Pasion. The speaker begins by arguing that Stephanos's testimony was perjury, as he was not present at the drafting or opening of the will, and explains the legal restrictions surrounding hearsay evidence. Apollodorus then exposes the illegality of Phormio's actions, demonstrating through chronological contradictions in Phormio's citizenship status that the will itself is a forgery. He further contends that his father had no legal right to draft such a will, presenting evidence of the defense's refusal to undergo a test involving the torture of female slaves (*basanos*). Finally, Apollodorus details the legal irregularities concerning the heiress's estate (*epidikasia*) to seal his case, demanding that Stephanos be held accountable for his complicity in the forgery.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-8–§22-28374 aligned sentencesRead →Against Theocrines
This work is a court speech delivered in Athens by a young prosecutor who denounces the infamous "sykophant" (professional informer) Theocrines for various illegal acts. The young speaker takes legal action driven by his personal circumstances, as his father had been fined a huge sum by Theocrines and thus deprived of his civil rights. Throughout the speech, the prosecutor exposes, using specific testimonies and laws, how Theocrines embezzled public funds to become a state debtor and illegally withdrew numerous prosecutions in exchange for bribes. Furthermore, he unmasks Theocrines' hypocrisy in posing as a defender of the laws while secretly colluding with other politicians and professional informers. Ultimately, the speaker strongly condemns the harmful influence of such informers on the Athenian state, pleading with the jurors for a just verdict, severe punishment for the defendant, and relief for his own unjustly impoverished family.
Rhetoric9 chunks · §1-9–§63-70927 aligned sentencesRead →Against Timotheus
This work is a courtroom oration in which Apollodorus, the son of the banker Pasion, sues the prominent Athenian general Timotheus to recover substantial unpaid debts. Apollodorus fiercely denounces Timotheus for denying his financial obligations and showing ingratitude toward the generous assistance Pasion provided when the general was in severe political and financial distress. Throughout the speech, the plaintiff meticulously reconstructs the history of the loans—including freight charges for timber, the cost of silver cups, and emergency funds—by relying on precise bank records, circumstantial evidence, and witness testimonies. He methodically dismantles Timotheus’s defenses, such as the claim that the debts were personally contracted by his treasurer, by exposing chronological contradictions and highlighting the defendant's refusal to hand over slaves for interrogation. Finally, Apollodorus details the general’s history of broken oaths and appeals to the jurors to uphold justice and help him recover the money rightfully owed to his father’s estate.
Rhetoric9 chunks · §1-8–§63-69638 aligned sentencesRead →Against Zenothemis
This work is a courtroom oration concerning a special plea (paragraphe) in an Athenian mercantile court. The speaker argues that no contract meeting the requirements for a commercial lawsuit exists between him and the opponent, Zenothemis, and therefore requests the dismissal of the suit. As the background of the dispute, the speaker exposes a maritime insurance fraud scheme in which Zenothemis and a shipowner attempted to sink their ship at sea to embezzle borrowed funds. After the ship survived and reached Athens, Zenothemis brought a lawsuit claiming ownership of the wheat cargo, but the speaker denounces his deceitful collusion with malicious associates in Piraeus. Despite attempts to resolve the issue, Zenothemis rejected any inquiries in Sicily to verify the facts, and even the original buyer, Protus, was corrupted into joining the conspiracy. Ultimately, the speaker demonstrates that Zenothemis, who obstructed the import of grain to Athens, has no legal right to sue, and strongly urges the judges to reject the fraudulent claim.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-8–§25-32411 aligned sentencesRead →Answer to Philip's Letter
This speech is a political oration urging the citizens of Athens to prepare for a decisive conflict against King Philip II of Macedon. The orator begins by exposing Philip's insincerity regarding peace and highlighting the growing distrust among Macedon's allies, as well as the inherent vulnerabilities of the Macedonian state. He goes on to analyze the internal divisions within the Macedonian regime, pointing out that Philip's excessive desire for glory contrasts with the dissatisfaction of his subordinates, which temporarily masks their fragility. Finally, the orator sharply criticizes the Athenian citizens for their laziness and reliance on mere rhetoric, which have caused them to fall behind despite their historical advantages. He concludes with a powerful call to immediately initiate concrete military preparations and embrace the necessary self-sacrifice for the war.
Rhetoric3 chunks · §1-8–§16-23171 aligned sentencesRead →For Phormion
This work is a forensic speech delivered on behalf of Phormion, a former slave and business successor of the famous Athenian banker Pasion, in response to a groundless lawsuit brought by Pasion's eldest son, Apollodorus. Since Phormion is described as lacking the rhetorical skills to defend himself, a speaker addresses the Athenian court on his behalf under a special plea of "paragraphē." The speech begins by detailing the leasing of Pasion's bank and shield factory, as well as the terms of his will and the subsequent division of the estate. The speaker then exposes Apollodorus's legal inconsistencies, pointing out that he had previously accepted settlements, released Phormion from all claims, and is now violating the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the defense contrasts Apollodorus's squandering of his massive inheritance with Phormion's diligent preservation of the banking business. Ultimately, the speech criticizes Apollodorus's hypocrisy in mocking Phormion's servile origins—given his own family history—and concludes with an earnest plea to the jurors to acquit Phormion, highlighting his integrity and contributions to the state.
Rhetoric8 chunks · §1-8–§54-62840 aligned sentencesRead →For the Liberty of the Rhodians
This work is a political oration by the Athenian statesman and orator Demosthenes, urging the Athenian assembly to provide military assistance to the people of Rhodes, whose democracy had been overthrown under Carian rule. Addressing the debate over whether to help a state that had previously been hostile to Athens, Demosthenes argues that supporting the Rhodians will enhance Athens' international reputation and security. He demonstrates through historical precedents that Athens has no need to fear the reaction of the Persian King or Artemisia, the ruler of Caria. He emphasizes the solidarity between democracies, warning that the collapse of democracy in other states ultimately poses a threat to Athens' own democratic system. In conclusion, he fiercely criticizes domestic politicians who favor oligarchy or Persia, calling upon the Athenians to make a courageous decision worthy of their ancestors' glory.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-10–§27-35422 aligned sentencesRead →For the People of Megalopolis
This work is a political speech delivered by the Athenian orator Demosthenes before the Assembly, addressing whether Athens should provide military assistance to Megalopolis, a city in Arcadia. Megalopolis, facing the threat of Spartan aggression, had requested an alliance with Athens. Demosthenes argues that the best path for Athenian security lies in maintaining a balance of power, ensuring that neither Sparta nor Thebes becomes excessively dominant. He criticizes the biased arguments of opposing politicians and asserts that aiding Megalopolis aligns with the traditional Athenian principle of protecting the oppressed. Furthermore, he warns of Sparta's expansionist ambitions and explains how an alliance with Megalopolis will ultimately serve Athens' own long-term interests. The speech concludes by urging the citizens of Athens to adopt a pragmatic yet just foreign policy through strategic intervention.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-9–§25-32317 aligned sentencesRead →Letters
This collection consists of six letters attributed to the Athenian orator Demosthenes, written primarily during his exile. Addressed to the Athenian Assembly or specific individuals, the letters focus on the political crisis of Athens, the defense of his own innocence, and his desperate plea for a safe return. In the first letter, he urges the citizens to unite and show clemency toward past political opponents for the sake of Greece's liberation. The subsequent letters (Letters 2-4) serve as powerful self-defenses, in which he recalls his lifelong devotion to the state, refutes the slanders of his enemies, and pleads for a decree of recall. Letter 3 notably protests the unjust imprisonment of the children of his deceased ally, Lycurgus, demonstrating his enduring loyalty. Through these epistles, the author constantly expresses his unwavering patriotism and appeals to the wisdom and justice of the Athenian people.
Others14 chunks · §1.1-1.7–§6.1-6.21,093 aligned sentencesRead →On Halonneus
This work is a political oration delivered before the Athenian assembly in response to a letter from King Philip II of Macedon. The central theme is the exposure of Macedonia's deceptive foreign policy and a call for a firm stance regarding the ownership of the Aegean island of Halonnesus and the renegotiation of the peace treaty. The speaker begins by unmasking the deception of Philip, who offers to "present" the island as a gift to Athens rather than "restore" it as their rightful property. He then details Macedonian transgressions concerning other disputed territories, such as Potidaea and Amphipolis, and warns against Philip's attempt to expand naval dominance under the pretext of suppressing piracy. Finally, after denouncing the illegal occupations and unjust arbitration proposals, the orator concludes by fiercely condemning the pro-Macedonian politicians within Athens who betray their own city's interests.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1-9–§37-46435 aligned sentencesRead →On Organization
This work is a political oration that calls for the reorganization of Athens' state institutions and a fundamental renewal of the civic spirit. Sparked by debates over public distributions, the speaker urges the Athenian citizens to perform military service themselves, emphasizing the urgent need for military organization and better relations with allies. He sharply criticizes contemporary politicians for their self-interest and factionalism, which threaten the democracy from within. To highlight this corruption, he contrasts the present state with the glorious deeds of their ancestors, who lived modestly in private and attributed victories to the state rather than to individual generals. Condemning the current citizens' habit of passing decrees without taking action, the speech concludes by urging them to either match their ancestors' pride with actual strength or recognize their limitations, calling above all for an inner reform of the populace.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1-7–§29-36405 aligned sentencesRead →On the Chersonese
This work is a political oration delivered in the Athenian Assembly amidst the looming threat of King Philip II of Macedon. The orator, Demosthenes, defends the military actions of the general Diopithes in the Thracian Chersonese and issues a stark warning about Athens' passive stance, which favors Macedonian dominance. He exposes the deception of pro-Macedonian politicians who advocate for a false peace, arguing that Philip is already effectively waging war against Athens. Demosthenes sharply criticizes the inconsistency of the citizens who fail to perform their duties yet condemn their generals, urging instead the financial support of Diopithes and the organization of a standing army. Finally, demonstrating true civic courage by prioritizing the state's best interest over popular flattery, he concludes with a powerful call for immediate, concrete military preparations and collective action.
Rhetoric8 chunks · §1-10–§70-77784 aligned sentencesRead →On the Navy Boards
This work is a political oration by the Athenian orator Demosthenes, in which he cautions the citizens of Athens against a premature war with the Persian King and urges them to prioritize their own military preparedness. Demosthenes argues that hasty action would hinder solidarity with other Greek states and instead proposes a highly practical plan to modernize the Athenian navy by expanding and reformulating the "Navy Boards" (symmoriai). In the core of the speech, he presents a detailed plan of fiscal and military reform, systematically allocating three hundred triremes and tax evaluations into twenty tax districts. He dismisses exaggerated fears of the Persian King's wealth, asserting that in times of actual crisis, the citizens of Athens will willingly contribute their own resources and stand united. Ultimately, he concludes by emphasizing Athens' role as a mediator in the Greek world, urging the assembly to maintain a strong defensive posture and avoid unnecessary preemptive strikes.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1-8–§34-41496 aligned sentencesRead →On the Peace
This oration is a political speech delivered before the Athenian assembly, arguing for the maintenance of the peace treaty (Peace of Philocrates) established with Philip II of Macedon. At the outset, Demosthenes criticizes the citizens' habit of only deliberating after events have occurred, while establishing his own credibility by citing past prophecies that proved accurate. In the middle section, he emphasizes that his foresight stems from a lack of self-interest, urging Athens to respect the current peace treaty to avoid giving other Greek cities a common pretext for a joint war against them. Toward the end, he coolly analyzes the complex private interests of the Greek states and the danger of Athens' isolation. Ultimately, he warns against starting a reckless war that would unite all of Greece against Athens over an 'empty honor' concerning the control of Delphi, concluding with a strong plea to preserve the peace.
Rhetoric3 chunks · §1-9–§18-25242 aligned sentencesRead →On the Treaty with Alexander
This work is a political oration addressed to the citizens of Athens concerning the treaty of "Common Peace" (Koine Eirene) concluded with Alexander, King of Macedon. The speaker accuses the Macedonian side of committing numerous injustices that violate the freedom and autonomy of Greek cities guaranteed by the treaty, such as restoring tyrants in Messene and overthrowing the democracy in Pellene. Furthermore, he fiercely denounces their clear treaty violations, including the obstruction of maritime transport and unlawful intrusion into the Athenian port of Piraeus. Criticizing the absurdity of pro-Macedonian politicians in Athens who demand unilateral compliance with the treaty only from the Athenian side, the speaker argues that Athens must rise to defend its rights, backed by its remaining naval hegemony. Ultimately, he strongly urges the citizens to take up arms and wage a justified war against the treaty-breaker to secure their freedom and justice.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-8–§24-30285 aligned sentencesRead →On the Trierarchic Crown
This work is a courtroom speech concerning the award of a crown for the completion of the trierarchy (trierarchia)—the public service of equipping a trireme in ancient Athens. The speaker asserts his right to receive the trierarchic crown, arguing that he was the first to fully equip his vessel and perform his civic duty. He exposes and denounces his rival, who neglected the actual duties, hired professional speechwriters, and even subcontracted the liturgy (leitourgia) to others at a low cost. The speaker warns the jurors that such negligence and pursuit of private interest by the wealthy threaten the safety of the citizens and the state. Finally, he criticizes the opposing co-advocates for their hypocrisy and appeals to the jury to render a strict and just verdict to preserve the honor and integrity of public service.
Rhetoric3 chunks · §1-8–§16-22267 aligned sentencesRead →Philip’s Letter
This work is an oration in the form of a letter addressed by King Philip II of Macedon to the citizens of Athens. The author lists and severely criticizes numerous violations of peace treaties and hostile acts committed by the Athenians. In the opening section, specific illegal acts, such as the imprisonment of Macedonian heralds and secret communication with the Persian king, are condemned. In the middle section, Philip asserts his own legitimacy regarding disputes over areas like Cardia and Peparethos, and criticizes the double standards of Athens while urging a resolution through arbitration. In the final section, he refutes Athens' unjust claims to Amphipolis and lambastes their rejection of peaceful and legal settlements. Ultimately, Philip declares his historical and legal righteousness, concluding with a firm resolve to defend his kingdom against Athenian aggression.
Rhetoric3 chunks · §1-8–§17-23258 aligned sentencesRead →The Erotic Essay
This rhetorical oration is addressed to the young Epikrates, praising his virtues and offering guidance for his future path. The speaker begins by extolling Epikrates' exceptional physical beauty and nobility of soul, expressing confidence in the youth's temperance and readiness to receive beneficial advice. He then highlights the young man's outstanding bravery and skill in the Athenian "apobates" (chariot-dismounting) competition, comparing his dramatic victory to the deeds of divinely favored heroes. However, the orator argues that to elevate such natural gifts to true excellence, Epikrates must dedicate himself to philosophy (philosophia) as the essential discipline for training the mind. Citing great statesmen like Pericles and Solon, the work concludes by urging the youth to pursue philosophical wisdom and surround himself with virtuous companions to prepare for a distinguished political career.
Rhetoric7 chunks · §1-7–§49-57575 aligned sentencesRead →The First Olynthiac
This oration, delivered by the Athenian statesman Demosthenes, urges the citizens of Athens to take swift and decisive action against the growing threat of Philip II of Macedon. Seizing the opportunity presented by Olynthus' request for an alliance, Demosthenes warns his audience not to repeat their past mistakes of hesitation and delay, which allowed Philip to rise to power. He argues that the current crisis of Olynthus is Athens' final chance to contain Macedon before the war reaches their own homeland of Attica. To address this, he proposes a two-pronged strategy involving both the defense of Olynthus and a direct counter-attack on Macedonian territory, funded by public contributions. Highlighting the inherent weaknesses in Philip's empire and alliances, the speech concludes with a passionate appeal for immediate military mobilization.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-8–§22-28353 aligned sentencesRead →The First Philippic
This work is a powerful oration addressing the Athenian citizens, urging them to take immediate military and financial action against the growing threat of Philip of Macedon. The author begins by encouraging the citizens, arguing that their past negligence is precisely the ground for hope if they change their ways and prepare proactively. Throughout the speech, he proposes a practical plan that includes establishing a standing force of infantry, cavalry, and triremes, alongside strategies for their funding and winter quarters. He sharply criticizes the reactive and disorganized military efforts of Athens, comparing them to the clumsy boxing of barbarians who only protect where they have just been hit. Ultimately, he calls on the citizens to stop relying on empty rumors and instead courageously lead the campaigns themselves to strike directly at Philip's territory.
Rhetoric7 chunks · §1-6–§45-51669 aligned sentencesRead →The Fourth Philippic
This political oration by Demosthenes is a passionate call to action addressed to the citizens of Athens under the growing military threat of Philip II of Macedon. The orator warns that Philip, despite the peace treaty, continues his aggressive expansions and ultimately aims to destroy Athenian democracy. To counter this existential threat, Demosthenes proposes concrete measures, including the organization of a standing army, negotiations for an alliance with the Persian King, and stricter fiscal management. He also addresses internal divisions, urging both the rich and the poor to overcome their conflicts regarding the theatrical fund (theorikon) and unite for the common good. Furthermore, he fiercely denounces the deception of pro-Macedonian politicians who encourage inaction under the guise of peace while being bribed by the enemy. Ultimately, the speech implores the Athenians to reject sweet falsehoods and immediately take active, realistic steps to defend their polis.
Rhetoric9 chunks · §1-7–§69-76780 aligned sentencesRead →The Funeral Speech
This work is a funeral oration (Epitaphios Logos) delivered to honor and commemorate the Athenian citizens who fell in battle for their city. The speaker begins by praising the Athenian law that decrees a public funeral for these fallen soldiers, highlighting their noble, autochthonous lineage and the blessings of their native land. The speech then recalls the mythical and historical exploits of their ancestors, such as the repelling of the Amazons and the Persians, to contextualize the courage of the deceased. It extols the virtues of the fallen men from youth to adulthood, linking their bravery to the democratic spirit of Athens and the proud legends of their respective tribes. Finally, contrasting the grief of the living with the immortal happiness attained by the dead, the orator consoles the bereaved families, encouraging them to bear their loss with pride before concluding the state funeral.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1-7–§30-37414 aligned sentencesRead →The Second Olynthiac
This work is a political oration delivered by the Athenian statesman and orator Demosthenes to the citizens of Athens, urging them to take action against the growing threat of King Philip II of Macedon. Demosthenes argues that Philip's rapid rise to power is primarily due to Athenian negligence rather than Philip's own strength, and he calls for immediate military intervention. He exposes the fragility of the Macedonian hegemony, which is built on injustice and deceit, pointing out the instability of Philip's alliances and internal dissent within Macedon. Furthermore, the orator criticizes the apathy of the Athenians, who remain idle while their enemy acts, and appeals to them to recover the courage of their ancestors who once fought for the freedom of Greece. Finally, he attributes past failures to political division and the factionalization of the tax-sharing system (symmoriai), concluding with a powerful plea for all citizens to contribute equally to the war effort and act in unity.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-8–§25-31349 aligned sentencesRead →The Second Philippic
This work is a political oration by the ancient Greek orator Demosthenes, warning the Athenian citizens of the threat posed by the rapidly expanding Macedonian king, Philip II, and urging them to take action. Demosthenes begins by contrasting Philip's aggressive expansionist policy with Athens' current state of inactivity, emphasizing the severity of the situation. He then argues that Philip views liberty-loving Athens as his primary obstacle and is conspiring with other cities, such as Thebes, to crush it. Drawing on historical examples of cities previously deceived by the king, Demosthenes declares that the greatest defense against a tyrant is 'distrust' (apistia), urging the citizens to wake up. Finally, he fiercely condemns the traitors who brought about a false peace through sweet promises, warns of an imminent invasion of Attica, and calls for immediate decisions to avert a disastrous war.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-9–§29-37394 aligned sentencesRead →The Third Olynthiac
This work is a political oration by Demosthenes, delivered in Athens amid the growing threat of Philip II of Macedon, urging the immediate rescue of the allied city of Olynthus and fundamental state reform. Set in the Athenian Assembly, the speaker warns the citizens of their critical situation, prompting them to reflect on past military failures and take decisive action. In the middle of the speech, he demands the repeal of laws concerning the festival fund (theorika), which hinder military financing, while sharply criticizing contemporary demagogues who flatter the public and citizens who shirk responsibility. He contrasts the glorious achievements and civic devotion of their ancestors with the corruption of current leaders and the complacency of the populace. Ultimately, Demosthenes calls for a radical reform of the political system, urging citizens to cease relying on handouts and instead assume their individual roles and duties for the defense of the state.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1-7–§31-36501 aligned sentencesRead →The Third Philippic
This work is a political oration delivered by the Athenian statesman Demosthenes, urging his fellow citizens to recognize and counter the growing threat of Philip II of Macedon. Demosthenes begins by sharply criticizing the Athenians' complacency, which has allowed the crisis to worsen, yet he reassures them that active intervention can still turn the tide. He exposes Philip's duplicity—maintaining a pretense of peace while actively waging war—and contrasts the patriotic vigor of past Greeks with the corruption and apathy plaguing the present cities. Highlighting Philip's devastating new military tactics and the tragic fall of bribed cities, the orator warns of the imminent danger of internal betrayal. Ultimately, Demosthenes delivers a powerful call to action, demanding that Athens fortify its defenses, send embassies to rally Greek and Persian allies, and lead the resistance against the Macedonian expansion.
Rhetoric9 chunks · §1-6–§68-76847 aligned sentencesRead →