frag_6
For to take money is not so serious as to take it from the wrong source, and the private individuals who took the gold are not so culpable as the orators and generals. Why is that? Because the private individuals were given the money by Harpalus for safe-keeping, but the generals and orators have accepted it with some policy in view. The laws prescribe that ordinary offenders shall pay a simple fine but that men accepting bribes shall pay ten times the usual sum.The term ἀδικεῖν seems to be used in this context to describe the milder breaches of the law, and is used in the same sense by Aristot. Ath. Pol. 54.2, where κλέπτειν, δῶρα, λαμβάνειν and ἀδικεῖν are distinguished as punishable with a tenfold fine, a tenfold fine, and a simple fine respectively. Dinarchus is misleading when he refers (Din. 1.60) to a double fine. A simple fine was doubled only when it was not paid up within a fixed time. Therefore, just as we can lawfully fix the penalty for these men, so also from you against them . It is as I said in the Assembly. You give full permission, gentlemen of the jury, to the orators and generals to reap substantial rewards. It is not the laws which grant them this privilege but your tolerance and generosity. But on one point you insist: your interests must be furthered, not opposed, with the money they receive. Now Demosthenes and Demades, from actual decrees passed in the city and from proxenies, have each received, I believe, more than sixty talents, quite apart from the Persian funds and money sent from Alexander. If neither of these sources suffices for them, and they have now accepted bribes which threaten the city’s life itself, can we doubt our right to punish them? Suppose that one of you, mere private individuals, during the tenure of some office, makes a mistake through ignorance or inexperience; he will be overwhelmed in court by the eloquence of these men and will either lose his life or be banished from his country. Shall they themselves, after harming the city on such a scale, escape unscathed? Conon of Paeania took theoric money for his son who was abroad.Conon is perhaps the banker to whom Dinarchus refers (Din. 1.43), and the incident which he mentions later in the speech (i. 56) is possibly the same as that to which Hyperides is alluding here, though according to Dinarchus it was the Areopagus who accused the culprit. Compare Din. 1.56, note. The story of Aristomachus is not known. He was prosecuted for it by these men in court, and though he asked your pardon, had to pay a talent, all for taking five drachmas. Aristomachus also, because, on becoming principal of the Academy, he transferred a spade from the wrestling school to his own garden near by and used it and
