Lysias
Greek · Rhetoric · Oration · Philosophy · Politics
32 works · 8,823 aligned sentences
Accusation of Calumny
This oration exposes the deceit of those who pretended to be friends while secretly spreading calumny, and declares a definitive break with them. In the first half, the speaker denounces the duplicity of these so-called friends and details the background of a financial dispute involving a transaction of horses as collateral. In the second half, the speaker thoroughly deconstructs the opponents' sophistry and slander, demonstrating how they have ended up accusing themselves through their own contradictory actions. Ultimately, the speaker declares his departure from this toxic friendship and concludes by predicting that those left behind will eventually destroy themselves through mutual conflict.
Rhetoric2 chunks · §1-10–§11-20253 aligned sentencesRead →Against Alcibiades 1
This work is a courtroom oration prosecuting the son of the famous Athenian politician Alcibiades (Alcibiades the Younger) for the crime of evading military service (astrateia). At the outset, the prosecutor severely condemns the defendant for neglecting his duty as a hoplite and illegally serving in the cavalry without passing the required examination. The speech then criticizes the defendant's attempts to secure an acquittal through his family's status and the influence of powerful relatives and generals, while exposing his private life of debauchery and misconduct. Furthermore, the prosecutor details the treasonous acts committed against Athens by the defendant's famous father and the dishonor of his lineage, portraying the defendant as an ancestral enemy of the city. Ultimately, the oration concludes with a strong appeal to the jurors to reject any leniency and deliver a guilty verdict in accordance with the law.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1-9–§38-47408 aligned sentencesRead →Against Alcibiades II
This work is a courtroom oration prosecuting the younger Alcibiades, the son of the famous Athenian politician, for military desertion and unlawful service in the cavalry. The prosecutor earnestly implores the jurors to reject the improper intervention of the generals, who seek to shield the defendant, and to deliver a just verdict based strictly on the law. Throughout the speech, the speaker criticizes the generals for attempting to abuse their influence and personal favors to subvert the judicial process. He argues that the legal order of the democratic polis must take precedence over the privileges of powerful individuals or the pleas of influential patrons. Ultimately, the oration serves as a powerful appeal for the preservation of democratic principles and the rule of law in Athens through a guilty verdict.
Rhetoric1 chunks · §1-1291 aligned sentencesRead →Against Andocides
This work is a courtroom speech that fiercely denounces the Athenian politician Andocides for his involvement in the profanation of the Eleusinian Mysteries and the mutilation of the Hermae, demanding severe punishment to preserve religious order. The speaker argues that Andocides has defiled Athens' sacred rites and laws, asserting that he must be strictly punished under unwritten laws (agraphos nomos). He enumerates Andocides' past impieties and portrays his subsequent wretched wanderings in exile as manifestation of divine retribution. Furthermore, the orator dismantles Andocides' expected defenses—such as his claims to amnesty and civic merit—by highlighting his complete lack of contribution to the military and civic life of the city. Ultimately, the speech urges the Athenian jurors to convict Andocides to avert divine wrath and cleanse the state of his pollutions.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1-11–§45-55616 aligned sentencesRead →Against Diogeiton
This work is a courtroom speech concerning a dispute over the embezzlement of a family inheritance in classical Athens. The speaker, a relative of two orphaned boys, accuses the defendant, Diogeiton, who is the boys' grandfather and uncle, of extreme dishonesty. The speech begins by explaining the complex family relationships and how Diogeiton embezzled the vast estate entrusted to him by the boys' deceased father, eventually casting the children out of their home. In the middle section, the speaker describes a family arbitration meeting where the boys' mother vehemently denounces Diogeiton's cruelty, followed by a detailed calculation of the inflated and fraudulent expenses he claimed to have spent on the children. In the final section, the speaker exposes Diogeiton's fraudulent double-billing for public services, such as a joint trierarchy, and funeral costs, demonstrating through standard cost-of-living calculations that a significant amount of the inheritance should still remain.
Rhetoric3 chunks · §1-11–§21-29309 aligned sentencesRead →Against Epicrates and His Fellow Envoys
This work is a forensic oration delivered in Athens, prosecuting Epicrates and his fellow envoys for corruption and embezzling public funds during their diplomatic mission. The prosecutor fiercely accuses the defendants of betraying the state's interests to amass private wealth, leaving the city in financial distress. In the first half of the speech, the speaker exposes the corrupt practices of the envoys and argues that sentencing such powerful figures to death is necessary to serve as a powerful deterrent to others. In the second half, the orator warns the jurors against being swayed by the emotional pleas for sympathy from the defendants and their supporters. Ultimately, the speech concludes with a strong appeal to the judges to prioritize the laws and justice of the state, demanding a decisive guilty verdict and the harshest punishment.
Rhetoric2 chunks · §1-8–§9-16158 aligned sentencesRead →Against Ergocles
This work is a forensic oration delivered in an Athenian law court, prosecuting Ergocles, a former associate of the general Thrasybulus, for corruption and treason. The orator begins by detailing Ergocles' specific offenses, including the embezzlement of public funds and the extortion of allied cities during their naval expedition. As the speech progresses, the prosecutor anticipates that the defendant will attempt to secure an acquittal or leniency by appealing to his past services in restoring the Athenian democracy. The speaker strongly refutes this defense, arguing that past merits cannot excuse current betrayal and corruption against the state. Ultimately, he urges the jurors to set aside pity and impose the death penalty, emphasizing that their verdict must serve as a stern warning to other public officials.
Rhetoric2 chunks · §1-9–§10-17135 aligned sentencesRead →Against Nicomachus
This speech is an impeachment oration delivering a public prosecution against Nicomachus, who served as a state-law scriber (anagrapheus) in ancient Athens, accusing him of abusing his office and illegally altering the laws. The prosecutor first charges Nicomachus with remaining in office far beyond his term, arbitrarily rewriting the laws, and avoiding the mandatory audit of his service. He then exposes Nicomachus's past complicity in a conspiracy to overthrow the democracy, which led to the execution of the politician Cleophon, while pre-emptively defending himself against expected counter-accusations. Furthermore, Nicomachus is accused of financial and religious misconduct for recording unauthorized, expensive sacrifices that strained the state treasury and disrupted traditional rituals. Finally, the prosecutor urges the jurors to reject the pleas of influential figures who might lobby for the defendant, calling for a strict and just verdict to punish Nicomachus for the extensive damage he caused to the state.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-8–§26-35348 aligned sentencesRead →Against Pancleon
This work is a courtroom oration delivered in Athens concerning the legal status of a man named Pancleon. The speaker initially brought a lawsuit against Pancleon, assuming him to be a resident alien (metoikos), but the defendant asserted that he was a citizen of Plataea, a privileged ally of Athens. To verify this claim, the speaker conducted a thorough investigation, querying residents of the Deceleia deme, the Plataean community, and people in the marketplace. Through these inquiries, the speaker uncovered testimonies indicating that Pancleon was actually a runaway slave. The second half of the speech highlights a violent struggle over his seizure as a slave, his suspicious behavior in past legal proceedings, and his eventual flight to hostile Thebes. By presenting these facts, the speaker concludes his argument by demonstrating that Pancleon is neither a Plataean citizen nor a free man.
Rhetoric2 chunks · §1-8–§9-16164 aligned sentencesRead →Against Philocrates
This work is an Athenian court oration directed against Philocrates, who is accused of embezzling and concealing the illicit property of the executed general Ergocles. The speaker addresses the Athenian jurors, asserting that the defendant was an intimate associate of Ergocles and has misappropriated public funds that rightfully belong to the state. Throughout the speech, the prosecutor highlights the suspiciously sudden wealth of Philocrates and their close relationship as clear evidence of complicity. He warns the jury that allowing the defendant to go free would mean abandoning state property and undermining justice. Ultimately, the orator strongly demands a severe penalty for Philocrates to recover the state's assets and uphold the law.
Rhetoric1 chunks · §1-14144 aligned sentencesRead →Against Philon
This work is a forensic oration delivered during the scrutiny (dokimasia) of Philon, aiming to disqualify him from becoming a member of the Council in ancient Athens. The speaker begins by denouncing Philon's insolence in applying for the office, explaining that the accusation is driven by a public oath, and highlights Philon's disloyalty in prioritizing his own safety during a national crisis. The orator then reveals that during the city's hardship, Philon fled to Oropus to live as a resident alien, thereby completely abandoning his civic duties despite having the capacity to fulfill them. Furthermore, the speech exposes Philon's personal cruelty, including his plundering of elderly and poor countryside citizens, and his own mother's deep distrust of him, which led her to entrust her burial to a stranger. Addressing the defense's claim that no written law forbade his absence, the speaker argues that the offense was too heinous to have been anticipated by legislators, and strongly urges the Council to reject Philon's candidacy.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-8–§27-34329 aligned sentencesRead →Against Simon
This work is an Athenian courtroom oration dealing with a personal conflict and subsequent legal battle arising from a romantic rivalry. The speaker defends himself against a charge of "premeditated wounding" (pronoia) brought by his rival, Simon, over a young boy named Theodotos of Plataea. At the outset, the speaker denounces the injustice of Simon's accusation, arguing that Simon has hidden his own misconduct, and begins to explain the history of their clashes. In the middle section, the speaker details the physical altercations surrounding Theodotos and debunks Simon's claim regarding a financial contract by exposing Simon's actual financial situation. He then logically refutes the allegation of "premeditation," pointing out the absurdity of a single person initiating a planned attack against a large group of people. Finally, the speaker explains the true legal intent of the law against premeditated wounding in Athens, exposes Simon's bad character, appeals to his own contributions to the state, and requests an acquittal.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-11–§38-48449 aligned sentencesRead →Against the Corn Dealers
This work is an accusatory speech delivered in ancient Athens, targeting corn dealers who engaged in illegal hoarding and price manipulation. The accuser begins by explaining the circumstances that led him to bring charges against the dealers before the Council, and initiates a direct cross-examination of the defendants. He vigorously refutes their defense claim that they hoarded the grain under the orders of city officials. The speech goes on to expose the malicious practices of the dealers, who conspired to raise prices within a single day, exploiting the city's food crisis for their own profit. Finally, the speaker strongly urges the jury to find the defendants guilty in order to protect the livelihood of the citizens and the interests of honest importing merchants.
Rhetoric2 chunks · §1-11–§12-22228 aligned sentencesRead →Against the Subversion of the Ancestral Constitution of Athens
This political speech was delivered in Athens following the Peloponnesian War, strongly opposing a radical proposal to restrict citizenship solely to landowners. The orator warns that depriving a segment of the population of their civic rights would lead to deep social division within the city. He argues that the unity of all citizens is the greatest weapon for defending Athens' independence and freedom. Furthermore, he asserts that the proposed restriction would weaken the state and expose it to foreign threats, advocating instead for collective resistance. Ultimately, the work passionately appeals for the preservation of the traditional democracy (demokratia) and the solidarity of all citizens.
Rhetoric1 chunks · §1-11108 aligned sentencesRead →Against Theomnestus 1
This oration concerns a lawsuit in which the prosecutor accuses Theomnestus of defamation for calling him a "father-slayer." The defendant attempts to evade responsibility by claiming he did not use the specific prohibited word defined by law. In response, the prosecutor argues that the interpretation of the law should rely on the legislator's original intent rather than the literal wording. To support his argument, he cites the obscure and archaic vocabulary of Solon's ancient laws, demonstrating the absurdity of relying strictly on literal definitions. Finally, the prosecutor recalls his late father's patriotic deeds and tragic death under the Thirty Tyrants, emphasizing how the defendant's slander inflicts a grave insult upon his family, and implores the jury for a guilty verdict.
Rhetoric3 chunks · §1-10–§22-32334 aligned sentencesRead →Against Theomnestus 2
This work is a courtroom oration set in ancient Athens, in which the prosecutor sues the defendant, Theomnestus, for defamation. The prosecutor seeks justice after being falsely accused of "patricide" by the defendant. He first demonstrates that the crime was physically impossible given his young age at the time of his father's death. The core of the argument then shifts to the interpretation of legal language; in response to the defendant's excuse that he did not use the specific prohibited term "murderer" but merely said the prosecutor "killed his father," the prosecutor argues that the two terms are legally synonymous. The speech vividly illustrates the debate over whether laws should be interpreted literally or by their underlying intent.
Rhetoric1 chunks · §1-12160 aligned sentencesRead →Defence Against a Charge of Taking Bribes
This speech is a defense oration delivered before an Athenian court by a citizen accused of taking bribes. Rather than focusing on direct refutations of the charge, the speaker begins by enumerating the extensive public services (leitourgia) and trierarchies he voluntarily performed for the state, demonstrating his patriotism and civic duty. In the middle section, he leverages this record of immense financial contribution and military merit in naval battles to plead against the confiscation of his property, emphasizing his exemplary conduct. Finally, he urges the jurors to reflect on his lifelong integrity in both public and private affairs, arguing that it would be highly unjust to convict a man who has only ever benefited the state. Through this appeal, the work vividly illustrates how civic and financial contributions were utilized as powerful instruments of self-defense in classical Athenian courts.
Rhetoric3 chunks · §1-10–§19-25229 aligned sentencesRead →Defense Against a Charge of Subverting the Democracy
This work is a courtroom oration set in Athens during the restoration of democracy, where an anonymous defendant asserts his innocence against charges of conspiring to subvert the democracy simply because he remained in the city under the oligarchic rule of the Thirty Tyrants. The defendant argues that political loyalty is based on personal interest and conduct rather than innate ideology, highlighting his own clean record of public service and non-violence during the oligarchy. He urges the jury not to punish citizens who merely survived, but to target actual criminals and deceitful accusers who threaten the city's peace. Ultimately, the speech appeals for the preservation of civic harmony and the strict adherence to the reconciliation oaths to prevent mutual suspicion and protect the state.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-9–§26-35320 aligned sentencesRead →Defense in the Matter of an Olive Stump
This oration is a self-defense speech delivered in court by an Athenian citizen accused of destroying a sacred olive stump on his property. In response to the groundless accusation, the defendant first traces the history of the land's ownership and the disruptions of war to argue that no such stump existed when he acquired the property. He then points out that he had no reasonable motive to commit such a crime, which would have carried a high risk of exposure to neighbors and slaves, while highlighting the contradiction in the prosecutor's failure to report the act at the time. Furthermore, the defendant exposes the injustice of the charge by pointing out the prosecutor's refusal to test the truth through the interrogation of slaves under torture (basanos). Finally, he appeals for his innocence by emphasizing his exemplary citizenship and his extensive contributions to the city through public liturgies (leitourgia).
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-11–§33-43375 aligned sentencesRead →For Callias
This work is a court oration delivered in Athens to defend a man named Callias against a serious accusation. The speaker reveals his long-standing personal friendship with Callias and explains his determination to stand up for his defense. At the heart of the case is an unjust denunciation by a slave, the validity of which the speaker strongly contests. He warns the jurors of the inherent dangers of prosecuting citizens based solely on the testimony of slaves, highlighting the broader social consequences of such practices. Although brief, the speech powerfully argues for justice and cautions against the breakdown of social order caused by malicious informants.
Rhetoric1 chunks · §1-543 aligned sentencesRead →For Polystratus
This speech is a courtroom oration delivered by the son of Polystratus, an Athenian citizen accused of complicity in the oligarchical regime of the Four Hundred in 411 BC and faced with a heavy fine. The speaker begins by defending his father's conduct, asserting that Polystratus committed no injustice during the oligarchy and instead served the state honorably while protecting democratic citizens. He goes on to refute any association with Phrynichus, a notorious oligarch, exposing the accusers' charges as motivated by personal greed and malice. In the latter half, the son highlights his family's long-standing loyalty to Athens, presenting concrete evidence of their military service and financial contributions (leitourgiai) to the democracy. Ultimately, the speech appeals to the jurors' sense of justice and gratitude, urging them to recognize the family's devotion and grant Polystratus an acquittal.
Rhetoric4 chunks · §1-10–§29-36406 aligned sentencesRead →For the Disabled Man
This work is a courtroom oration delivered by a physically disabled citizen in ancient Athens to defend his eligibility for a state pension. Speaking before the Athenian Council, the impoverished defendant confronts an accuser who seeks to strip him of his financial support. In the opening section, he exposes the accuser's malice and falsehoods, emphasizing the reality of his poverty and physical hardships. In the middle section, he addresses the accusations of being 'healthy' and 'arrogant'—specifically the charge that he rides horses—by logically and humorously explaining that riding is merely a practical necessity to compensate for his inability to walk. Finally, he refutes the claim that bad characters gather at his shop by pointing out that socializing in shops is a common Athenian custom, concluding with an appeal to his loyalty to the democracy to retain his pension. The oration vividly illustrates the social welfare system of ancient Athens and the witty self-defense of an ordinary citizen against prejudice.
Rhetoric3 chunks · §1-9–§19-27275 aligned sentencesRead →For the Soldier
This work is a courtroom oration in which the defendant asserts his innocence regarding an unjust military enrollment and the resulting fine. The speaker begins by accusing his opponents of avoiding the main legal issue and instead slandering his personal character. He then details the background of the unfair conscription imposed on him, explaining how the treasurers subsequently exempted him from the fine. Furthermore, he reveals that the hostility of his accusers stems from personal enmity (echthra) originating from his past friendship with the influential Sostratus. Finally, he appeals to the jurors, arguing that an unjust conviction would deprive him of his citizenship and force him into exile, and earnestly begs for a fair verdict.
Rhetoric2 chunks · §1-12–§13-22168 aligned sentencesRead →Funeral Oration
This work is a funeral oration dedicated to honoring the Athenian soldiers who sacrificed their lives for their city, celebrating their immortal virtue. The oration begins with Athens' mythical past, recalling their defense of justice through events such as the defeat of the Amazons and the burial of the fallen in the Theban expedition, as well as their noble origin of being born from the earth (autochthony). It then chronicles the glorious history of the Persian Wars, highlighting dramatic victories at Marathon and Salamis where Athens fought selflessly for the freedom of all Greece under its democratic system. The narrative extends to more recent conflicts, including the restoration of democracy at Piraeus and the Corinthian War, illustrating the continuous bravery of its citizens. Finally, the orator addresses the grief of the surviving families, emphasizing the city's duty to support them, and concludes with a solemn blessing for the fallen who achieved immortal glory through their virtue.
Rhetoric8 chunks · §1-8–§72-81588 aligned sentencesRead →In Defence of Mantitheus
This work is a defense speech delivered by a young Athenian named Mantitheus to prove his innocence and suitability during his public office scrutiny (dokimasia). Accused by his detractors of having served as a cavalryman under the tyrannical Oligarchy of the Thirty, Mantitheus firmly refutes the charge by presenting evidence of his absence from Athens at the time and highlighting discrepancies in the official records. He further substantiates his character by describing his respectable and orderly private life. In the latter part of the speech, he details his military service after the restoration of democracy, highlighting his bravery on the front lines and his financial assistance to comrades in need. Ultimately, he urges his judges to evaluate him not by his appearance or youth but by his actual deeds and contributions to the state, explaining his motives for speaking in public at a young age.
Rhetoric2 chunks · §1-11–§12-21200 aligned sentencesRead →Olympic Oration
This oration is a powerful political speech addressed to the Greeks gathered at the Olympic festival, urging them to end their internal strife and unite against external threats. The speaker begins by recalling the original spirit of the festival founded by Heracles, which aimed to foster mutual friendship and solidarity among Greeks. He then sharply criticizes the contemporary situation, where Greece is self-destructing through civil wars while facing imminent danger from the Persian Empire in the east and the Sicilian tyrant Dionysius in the west. The speaker argues that the Greeks must immediately cease their mutual hostilities and join forces to defend their shared freedom. Ultimately, he appeals directly to the Spartans, urging them to assume their traditional leadership role and guide the Greek world out of this crisis.
Rhetoric1 chunks · §1-969 aligned sentencesRead →On a Wound by Premeditation
This work is a courtroom oration in which a defendant pleads his innocence against a charge of "premeditated wounding" arising from a dispute over a shared mistress. The defendant and the prosecutor had previously agreed to share the woman and had once reconciled after a conflict, but a subsequent clash resulted in injuries, leading to this trial. The speaker exposes the contradictions in his opponent's denial of their past reconciliation and agreement, arguing that the incident was accidental rather than premeditated. He presents the prosecutor’s refusal to allow the torture (basanos) of the shared slave woman—the key witness—as the ultimate proof of his own innocence. Ultimately, he highlights the injustice of the accusation and entreats the jurors to deliver a verdict of acquittal.
Rhetoric2 chunks · §1-11–§12-20207 aligned sentencesRead →On the Murder of Eratosthenes
This work is a courtroom oration in which the speaker, Eupiletus, defends himself against the charge of murdering Eratosthenes, whom he caught committing adultery with his wife. Set in ancient Athens, the speech is delivered directly by the defendant to the judges. Eupiletus begins by describing his domestic life and how he discovered his wife's infidelity through a series of suspicious events and a maidservant's confession. He then recounts how he caught Eratosthenes in the act one night and executed him on the spot in accordance with Athenian law. To counter the prosecution's claim that it was a premeditated trap, he cites specific laws concerning adultery and rape to prove the legality of his actions. Finally, he emphasizes that he had no prior malice or conspiracy, portraying his act solely as an enforcement of the city-state's laws, and appeals for an acquittal.
Rhetoric5 chunks · §1-10–§39-50512 aligned sentencesRead →On the Property of Aristophanes
This work is a courtroom oration delivered in an Athenian court by a speaker seeking to clear his family of the suspicion of embezzling or concealing the confiscated property of their late relative, Aristophanes. The speaker begins by pleading with the jurors to listen to the arguments without prejudice and highlights his late father's immense contributions to the polis. He then details how Aristophanes, motivated by public honor, spent his entire fortune on military expeditions and public liturgies, which explains why the confiscated estate was smaller than expected. To counter the allegations of hidden wealth, the speaker cites prominent historical figures like Conon and Alcibiades to demonstrate how public estimates of private fortunes are consistently exaggerated and unreliable. Finally, he presents his family's long record of financial and personal service to Athens, arguing that preserving their estate to serve the state is far more beneficial to the public interest than its confiscation, and appeals for a just acquittal.
Rhetoric6 chunks · §1-11–§55-64637 aligned sentencesRead →On the Property of Eraton
This work is a courtroom speech from ancient Athens, in which the plaintiff seeks to recover a debt from property that has been confiscated by the state. The plaintiff explains the background of how Eraton's father borrowed money from the plaintiff's grandfather but failed to repay it. Since Eraton's estate has now become subject to state confiscation, the plaintiff petitions for the return of a portion of the confiscated property to satisfy their legitimate claim. Throughout the oration, the plaintiff presents evidence and testimonies to prove the existence of the debt, emphasizing the legality and justice of their demand. The speech concludes with an appeal to the jurors for a fair verdict that protects a citizen's rightful claim without harming the public interest.
Rhetoric1 chunks · §1-10125 aligned sentencesRead →On the Property of Nicias' Brother
This oration is a court speech delivered in ancient Athens, where a member of the family of the famous general Nicias protests against the unjust confiscation of their property by the state and pleads for its preservation. The speaker begins by highlighting the loyalty and contributions of his family, noting how his uncle Nicias, his father Eucrates, and his cousin Niceratus sacrificed themselves for Athens and its democracy under the rule of the Thirty Tyrants. He then recalls the hardships faced by his uncle Diognetus, arguing that the proposed confiscation violates the civic harmony of Athens and the oaths of reconciliation previously sworn. Furthermore, he exposes the self-serving motives of the accusers and contrasts them with his family's selfless service to the city. Ultimately, the speaker appeals to the jurors' sense of justice, pleading for a lenient verdict that would protect their remaining property.
Rhetoric3 chunks · §1-9–§19-27181 aligned sentencesRead →On the Scrutiny of Evandros
This work is an accusatory oration delivered during the scrutiny (dokimasia) of Evandros, who had been selected for the office of archon, one of the most prestigious magistracies in ancient Athens. At the outset, the speaker accuses Evandros of attempting to unjustly pass the scrutiny by concealing his own past wrongdoings and his father's involvement in the subversion of the democracy. The orator then explains the historical background of the scrutiny laws, emphasizing the importance of excluding oligarchic sympathizers and arguing that the office of archon, which carries lifelong privileges, requires the utmost integrity. Finally, he preemptively refutes the defense arguments that Evandros and his advocate are expected to present, exposing their past betrayals and urging the council to deliver a strict verdict of disqualification.
Rhetoric3 chunks · §1-8–§16-24254 aligned sentencesRead →