1. Against Euthynus [Or. XXI.]—Soon after the establishment of the Thirty Tyrants, some personal enemies of Nikias the plaintiff threatened ¹ to strike his name off the list of citizens and to have him enrolled for military service under Lysander. Thereupon Nikias mortgaged his house, sent his servants out of Attica, deposited the sum of three talents with the defendant Euthynus, and went to live in the country. Presently, wishing to leave Attica, he applied to Euthynus for his money. Euthynus repaid two of the three talents, but disclaimed knowledge of the third. At the time, Nikias could only complain to friends. He now brings against Euthynus an action for withholding ( ἀποστερῆσαι ² § 16) the third part of the deposit. The speaker is a friend of the plaintiff; the date is evidently just after the restoration of the democracy, 403 B.C. ^{3 4}

Lysias wrote a speech, now lost, for Euthynus ⁵ . Diogenes Laertius also mentions a speech, in answer to that of Isokrates, by Antisthenes; which, if genuine, was probably a mere exercise ⁶ .

The speaker can show good reason for appearing as ⁷ advocate of the plaintiff. Nikias is his friend, an injured man, and has no practice in speaking (§ 1). The facts of the case are then stated (§§ 2—3).

As no one, freeman or slave, was present when Nikias deposited or demanded the money, no witness can be brought. The case for the plaintiff must rest solely on presumptive evidence ( τεκμήρια, § 4). Now, vexatious lawsuits are usually brought by needy and fluent men against wealthy men who cannot speak. But, in this case, the defendant is poorer, and a better speaker, than the plaintiff. Again, the temptation to dishonesty was stronger for Euthynus than for Nikias; since for the former the gain was certain, but the claim of the latter might fail. The state of public affairs, too, at the time made robbery easy and redress hopeless (§§ 5—7).

Had Nikias wished to practise extortion, he would not have chosen as victim his own first-cousin Euthynus, a man, too, with little money but with many friends. Probably Euthynus himself would not have chosen out his kinsman to wrong, if the fact of the deposit had not made the opportunity too tempting (§§ 8—10). The strongest presumption for the defendant's guilt may be found in the time of the transaction. Under the Thirty, Euthynus was all-powerful. Nikias, merely on account of his wealth, was exposed to danger. Thus Timodemos extorted 30 minae from him by the simple threat of arresting him. At such a time, it is more likely that he should have been a victim than a slanderer (§§ 11— 15). Euthynus will perhaps say that it is unlikely that he should have repaid two talents and withheld the third. It was just the foreseen plausibility of this argument which emboldened him. Judicious frauds of this kind are common; they ought not to be encouraged by the acquittal of Euthynus. Besides, the same argument will serve Nikias. Why, if he wished to extort money, should he not have claimed all three talents? No fraudulent motive can be assigned for his demanding only one. But the motive of Euthynus in repaying two is clear. It was notorious that Nikias had deposited a sum of money with him; but the amount of that sum was unknown. He saw, therefore, that it would be safe for him to steal a part of it, but unsafe to steal the whole (§§ 16— 21).

Philostratos reckons this ‘unattested ⁸ ’ speech ⁹ one of the two best of Isokrates, praising it for a temperate and compact power of expression ¹⁰ , as he praises the Archidamos for brilliancy and spirit. The choice may seem arbitrary; but at least there is no adequate ground for doubting the genuineness of the speech against Euthynus. Benseler thinks it spurious; first and chiefly, because the examples of hiatus are stronger and more frequent than he can conceive Isokrates admitting; then, on account of the short, compact periods ¹¹ . But surely the canons observed by Isokrates in his mature style cannot be applied so rigorously to early works, especially when these are forensic. The composition of the Aeginetikos offers a contrast as strong as possible to that (for instance) of the Panegyrikos, and yet the authenticity of the Aeginetikos is thoroughly well attested.

2. Trapezitikos [Or. XVII.]—A subject of Satyros, king of Bosporos ¹² , brings an action against the banker Pasion, for the recovery of money alleged to have been placed in Pasion's hands. The details of the case are reserved for the analysis of the speech itself.

Two points fix the date. (1) The Lacedaemonian supremacy ¹³ on the sea is spoken of as a thing of the past (§ 36); that is, the time is after the battle of Knidos, August 394 B.C. (2) Satyros I. of Bosporos is alive (§ 57): but he died at the siege of Theudosia in 393 B.C. ¹⁴ The speech belongs, then, to the end of 394 or early part of 393 B.C.

‘An action of this class is always difficult to maintain. ¹⁵ The business between a banker and his customer is transacted without witnesses; and the banker usually commands money, friends, and credit (§§ 1—2). The facts of this case are as follows. I came to Athens, partly for pleasure, partly for business, having been sent out with two cornships by my father, who is governor of a large district, under Satyros, prince of Bosporos. I was introduced to Pasion and opened an account with him. Meanwhile my father had been arrested by Satyros on suspicion of treason. Some men from the Euxine who were at Athens received the orders of Satyros to take possession of all my property and to send me home. In this difficulty I consulted Pasion and decided to give up a small sum to the agents of Satyros, but to deny the existence of the larger sums which I had lying in Pasion's bank. To help the deception, Pasion was to represent me, not only as having no balance, but as owing money to himself and others. Having arranged matters with the agents of Satyros, I prepared to set out upon my homeward voyage, and applied to Pasion for my money. He told me that he had not the means of refunding it just then. I then sent to him my friends Philomelos and Menexenos; and to them he repudiated the debt altogether (§§ 3—10).

‘Presently news came that my father was restored to the favour of Satyros. Pasion, aware that there was now no longer any reason why legal proceedings should not be openly taken against him, hid his slave Kittos, who knew the truth. When Menexenos demanded that Kittos should be given up, Pasion retorted that we ourselves had made away with him, after bribing him to give us money from the bank. Presently, however, Kittos was found in Athens by Menexenos, who then demanded that he should be given up by Pasion for torture. Pasion at first asserted that Kittos was a freeman. Subsequently, however, he consented to submit him to the question: but, when we met for that purpose, refused to allow torture to be applied (§§ 11—16).

‘Finding that his conduct was blamed by everyone, he next sought a private interview with me. He pleaded poverty as the cause which had forced him to deny the debt. He then gave me a bond that he would accompany me to the Euxine and there pay the money—thus avoiding a scandal at Athens. The bond, which stipulated that, if we could not come to an agreement, Satyros should arbitrate, was placed in the hands of Pyron of Pherae, a merchant in the Euxine trade. In the event of an amicable settlement, he was to burn it; otherwise, to place it in the hands of Satyros (§§ 17—20).

‘Meanwhile Menexenos had upon his own account brought an action for libel against Pasion. Pasion was now terrified lest Menexenos should get hold of our bond. He implored my mediation, which I refused. Desperate, he bribed the slaves of Pyron, and found means of tampering with the bond. He then became defiant, and refused to go with me to the Euxine or to pay the money. When the bond was opened before witnesses, it was found to release Pasion from all claims on my part (§§ 21—23).

‘Pasion will rely much on this forged document. That it is a forgery, is evident (1) from the terms of the document itself; (2) from the absence of motive on my part for giving such a release; (3) from my daring to come into court now; (4) from Pasion's eagerness, before he had tampered with the bond, to have it cancelled. Such frauds are common. Last year, Pythodorus, a friend of Pasion, opened the balloting-urn of the Senate, and changed the names of those who had been nominated as judges in the festal contests. (§§ 22—34.)

‘Or perhaps Pasion will contend that I had no money at all here. Among other things which disprove this is the fact that he himself became security for me in seven talents when a vessel upon which I had lent money was denounced as being the property of a Delian, and was in danger of being put to death untried. In a word,—which is more probable—that, at a moment when I was helpless, I should have brought a false charge against Pasion, or that he should have been emboldened to defraud me? (§§ 35—50.)

‘Ultimately Pasion did not go himself to the Bosporos, but sent Kittus as his agent. Satyros declined to give a judgment, but took my part, and wrote in my behalf to Athens. It is the clearest argument for my claim that Pasion declined my challenge to have his slave tortured. Consider the strength of my cause; remember the benefits of Satyros and his father [Spartakos I.] to Athens, for whose sake he has often sent away empty the corn-ships of other States,—and give just sentence in my favour.’ (§§ 51—58.)

The Trapezitikos has a special interest as ¹⁶ illustrating the relations between Athens and the kingdom of Bosporos,—relations which remained no less friendly under the successors of Satyros I. ¹⁷ Benseler believes this speech, like the last, to be spurious. His ground is the frequency of hiatus ¹⁸ . The Trapezitikos is, however, cited by Dionysios, not merely as genuine, but as the typical forensic work of Isokrates ¹⁹ ; and is thrice named by Harpokration without suspicion ²⁰ . It has been further asked—Was this a mere declamation ²¹ ? There is nothing whatever to prove it; and one point is against it. Pasion, the banker, bore a high character at Athens ²² . The writer of a declamation would not have selected him as the object of an imaginary charge of fraud.