2
I, in my great folly, imagined that he would not reply; otherwise I would not have deprived myself of half of my opportunities as prosecutor by making only one speech instead of two; and he, but for his audacity, would not have had the twofold advantage over me of using one speech to answer the one speech for the prosecution and making his accusations when they could not be answered.I take the speaker to mean: The case seemed so simple that instead of developing any argument in my first speech for the prosecution, I merely stated the bare facts. The defendant, however, has made an elaborate reply, and will doubtless do the same again in his second speech; this is equivalent to his making two speeches to my one. Further, he will be able to use his second speech to answer my one serious speech for the prosecution (ἕνα πρὸς ἕνα λόγον ἀπολογηθείς); while I cannot effectively answer the attack which he made upon me in his first speech (ἃ κατηγόρησεν ἀναποκρίτως εἰπών), because, as prosecutor, I must now devote myself to attacking him.
3
With his great advantage over us in the matter of the speeches, and with the far greater one which his methods have given him in addition,Referring apparently to the artifices employed by the defence for working upon the feelings of the court (cf. Antiph. 3.2.1 ff.). it is outrageous that the accused should entreat you to listen kindly to his defence. I myself, on the other hand, far from causing any harm, have been the victim of cruel affliction, and am today being treated still more cruelly. It is as one who seeks more than a pretended refuge in your sympathy that I make my own request of you. You who take vengeance for unrighteous deeds and determine wherein is righteousness, do not, I beg of you, let worthless subtleties of speech induce you to disregard plain facts and treat the truth as false;
4
for such subtleties result in a tale more plausible than true, whereas the truth, when told, will be less guileful and therefore less convincing.
