Lysias – On the Murder of Eratosthenes

Original: περὶ πολλοῦ ἂν ποιησαίμην , ὦ ἄνδρες , τὸ τοιούτους ὑμᾶς ἐμοὶ δικαστὰς περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος γενέσθαι , οἷοίπερ ἂν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς εἴητε τοιαῦτα πεπονθότες ·

Translation: I would place great value on you becoming my judges in this matter — judges who , were you yourselves to suffer such things , would be in exactly such a position .

Note

The sentence features a conditional relative clause introduced by 'οἷοιπερ' (such as), which creates a vivid hypothetical scenario. The phrase 'περὶ πολλοῦ ποιήσαιμην' is an idiomatic construction using the genitive of value ('πολλοῦ') with the verb 'ποιεῖν' to express 'to consider something of great importance.' The use of the optative mood in 'ποιήσαιμην' and 'εἴητε' with the particle 'ἄν' indicates a potential or future less vivid condition, common in judicial rhetoric to emphasize the fairness and empathy of the proposed judges. The sentence employs a subtle chiasmus in the structure of the relative clause, contrasting the hypothetical suffering of the judges with the current situation of the speaker, reinforcing the argument for their impartiality. The vocative 'ὦ ἄνδρες' directly addresses the jury, a typical feature of forensic oratory designed to engage the audience personally.

Original: εὖ γὰρ οἶδ’ ὅτι , εἰ τὴν αὐτὴν γνώμην περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἔχοιτε , ἥνπερ περὶ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν , οὐκ ἂν εἴη ·

Translation: For I know that , if you held the same opinion concerning the others as you do concerning yourselves , you would not be [ here ] .

Note

The sentence employs a conditional construction (εἰ + imperfect subjunctive in the protasis, οὐκ ἄν + imperfect optative in the apodosis) expressing a hypothetical situation in the present. The verb οἶδα (I know) takes a causal particle γάρ to introduce the reasoning, while the complement clause is introduced by ὅτι. The relative pronoun ἥνπερ (meaning 'the very same one which') functions as a comparative intensifier, reinforcing the parallel between the jury's judgment of the defendant and their judgment of others. The sentence exhibits a chiastic structure in its logic: the comparison moves from 'the others' to 'yourselves' in the protasis, contrasting with the implied reality that the jury's opinion is not uniform. The use of ἄν with the optative (εἴη) marks the condition as contrary to fact or highly improbable, emphasizing the speaker's confidence in the jury's impartiality or the absurdity of the alternative. The phrase περι τῶν ἄλλων ... ὑμῶν αὐτῶν highlights the rhetorical strategy of appealing to the jury's consistency and fairness.

Original: ὅστις οὐκ ἐπὶ τοῖς γεγενημένοις ἀγανακτοίη , ἀλλὰ πάντες ἂν περὶ τῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπιτηδευόντων τὰς ζημίας μικρὰς ἡγοῖσθε .

Translation: Whoever does not be angry about what has happened , but rather , if all of you think that the punishments for those who engage in such practices are small .

Note

The sentence presents a conditional structure typical of rhetorical argumentation, contrasting a state of mind (anger regarding past events) with a hypothetical judgment about future consequences. The first clause uses the present imperative of ἀγανακτέω (to be angry/upset) with the preposition ἐπί + dative (ἐπὶ τοῖς γεγενημένοις), indicating anger directed at 'things that have come to pass.' The second clause shifts to a future potential construction with the aorist optative ἡγοῖσθε (you would consider), marked by the particle ἀν, expressing a hypothetical scenario: 'if you were to consider.' The phrase περὶ τῶν ... ἐπιτηδευόντων uses the preposition περί + genitive to denote the subject matter ('concerning those who practice...'). The relative pronoun ὅστις functions as a generalizing subject ('whoever'), establishing a universal condition. The sentence relies on asyndeton (the omission of conjunctions between clauses) to create a swift, forceful rhythm, and the antithesis between the emotional response to the past (ἀγανακτέω) and the rational calculation of the future (ἡγοῖσθε) serves to highlight the speaker's point about the necessity of outrage.

Original: καὶ ταῦτα οὐκ ἂν εἴη μόνον παρ’ ὑμῖν οὕτως ἐγνωσμένα , ἀλλ’ ἐν ἁπάσῃ τῇ Ἑλλάδι ·

Translation: And these things would not be known by you in this way alone , but throughout the whole of Greece .

Note

The sentence employs a comparative structure using the construction 'οὐ... μόνον... ἀλλὰ' (not only... but also...) to expand the scope of the speaker's argument from the local audience ('by you') to the entire Greek world ('throughout Greece'). The verb 'εἰή' is an imperfect optative of 'εἰμί', used here in a potential sense ('would be'), often paired with the particle 'ἄν' to indicate a hypothetical situation. The participle 'γνωσμένα' (known/perceived) is in the perfect passive, agreeing with the neuter plural subject 'ταῦτα'. The prepositional phrase 'παρ' ὑμῖν' (by you) uses 'παρά' with the dative to denote the source of knowledge or the perspective from which something is judged. The phrase 'ἐν πάσῃ τῇ Ἑλλάδι' (in all Greece) uses the dative case with 'ἐν' to indicate the sphere of influence. This rhetorical move is typical of forensic oratory, where a speaker elevates a specific accusation to a matter of universal public concern to increase its gravity and persuade the jury.

Original: περὶ τούτου γὰρ μόνου τοῦ ἀδικήματος καὶ ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ καὶ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ ἡ αὐτὴ τιμωρία τοῖς ἀσθενεστάτοις πρὸς τοὺς τὰ μέγιστα δυναμένους ἀποδέδοται , ὥστε τὸν χείριστον τῶν αὐτῶν τυγχάνειν τῷ βελτίστῳ ·

Translation: For this punishment alone , regarding this crime , has been granted to the weakest against those who have the most power , both in a democracy and in an oligarchy , so that the worst of them may happen to be with the best .

Note

The sentence employs a striking chiasmus in its concluding clause: 'τοὺς χειρίστους ... τῶν αὐτῶν ... τῷ βελτίστῳ' (the worst ... of the same ... to the best). This structure emphasizes the paradoxical inversion of justice where the most corrupt individuals are subjected to the same penalty as the most virtuous. The use of the superlatives 'ἀσθενεστάτοις' (weakest) and 'μεγίστα' (greatest/most powerful) creates a strong antithesis between the powerless and the powerful. The particle 'γάρ' introduces a causal explanation, justifying the preceding argument by highlighting the universality of the punishment across different political regimes ('δημοκρατίᾳ' and 'ὀλιγαρχίᾳ'). The construction 'τυγχάνειν τῷ βελτίστῳ' (to happen to be with the best) is idiomatic, suggesting that the 'worst' are forced into the same category of punishment as the 'best,' thereby leveling the moral distinction between them in the eyes of the law.

Original: οὕτως , ὦ ἄνδρες , ταύτην τὴν ὕβριν ἅπαντες ἄνθρωποι δεινοτάτην ἡγοῦνται .

Translation: Thus , men , all people consider this insolence to be the most terrible .

Note

The sentence employs the vocative plural 'ἄνδρες' (men) set off by commas, a common rhetorical device in forensic oratory used to directly address the jury and establish a connection. The adverb 'οὕτως' (thus) at the beginning serves as a connective, likely referring to the preceding argument or the specific nature of the crime just described. The verb 'ἡγοῦνται' (consider) takes a double accusative construction: the object 'τὴν ὕβριν' (this insolence) and the object complement 'δεινοτάτην' (most terrible). The superlative adjective 'δεινοτάτην' is placed at the end of the phrase for emphasis, highlighting the severity of the act. The use of 'πάντες ἄνθρωποι' (all people) generalizes the sentiment, suggesting that the outrage caused by this specific act of hubris is not merely a personal grievance but a universally recognized moral wrong, thereby strengthening the speaker's case before the Athenian jury.

Original: περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ μεγέθους τῆς ζημίας ἅπαντας ὑμᾶς νομίζω τὴν αὐτὴν διάνοιαν ἔχειν , καὶ οὐδένα οὕτως ὀλιγώρως διακεῖσθαι , ὅστις οἴεται δεῖν συγγνώμης τυγχάνειν ἢ μικρᾶς ζημίας ἀξίους ἡγεῖται τοὺς τῶν τοιούτων ἔργων αἰτίους ·

Translation: Therefore , concerning the magnitude of the penalty , I believe that all of you hold the same opinion , and that no one is so indifferent as to think that one ought to obtain forgiveness for a slight penalty , or considers those responsible for such deeds to be worthy .

Note

The sentence employs a complex rhetorical structure typical of forensic oratory, specifically using the connective particle 'men' (μέν) in the opening phrase 'peri men' (περὶ μέν) to set up a contrast with a subsequent clause that is implied or elided in this excerpt, though here it functions to introduce the primary assertion before expanding on the audience's shared sentiment. The speaker uses 'nous' (νομιζω) to establish a collective mindset ('the same opinion'), appealing to the jurors' unity. The second part of the sentence features a double negative construction ('oudeis... houtos') emphasizing the impossibility of indifference towards the crime. Stylistically, the sentence utilizes asyndeton (the omission of conjunctions) within the relative clause introduced by 'hos' (ὅστις), where the two predicates 'oietai' (thinks) and 'hegeitai' (considers) are linked directly by 'e' (ἤ) in a way that creates a sharp, parallel contrast between the expectation of forgiveness for a minor penalty versus the reality of the crime's severity. The phrase 'diakeisthai' (to be disposed) conveys a state of mind or attitude, highlighting the moral indifference the speaker deems unacceptable. The use of 'zeugma' or tight coordination between 'dein' (it is necessary) and 'axious' (worthy) underscores the logical link between the nature of the act and the appropriate judicial response.

Original: ἡγοῦμαι δέ , ὦ ἄνδρες , τοῦτό με δεῖν ἐπιδεῖξαι , ὡς ἐμοίχευεν Ἐρατοσθένης τὴν γυναῖκα τὴν ἐμὴν καὶ ἐκείνην τε διέφθειρε καὶ τοὺς παῖδας τοὺς ἐμοὺς ᾔσχυνε καὶ ἐμὲ αὐτὸν ὕβρισεν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τὴν ἐμὴν εἰσιών , καὶ οὔ -τε ἔχθρα ἐμοὶ καὶ ἐκείνῳ οὐδεμία ἦν πλὴν ταύτης , οὔ -τε χρημάτων ἕνεκα ἔπραξα ταῦτα , ἵνα πλούσιος ἐκ πένητος γένωμαι , οὔ -τε ἄλλου κέρδους οὐδενὸς πλὴν τῆς κατὰ τοὺς νόμους τιμωρίας .

Translation: I think that I must demonstrate this , men of the jury : that Eratosthenes committed adultery with my wife , and destroyed her and dishonored my children , and insulted me personally when he entered my house ; and there was no hostility between me and him except this one , nor did I do these things for the sake of money , in order to become rich from poor , nor for any other gain except the punishment according to the laws .

Note

This sentence exemplifies the forensic rhetoric of Lysias, characterized by a powerful accumulation of accusations followed by a triple negative defense. The speaker employs asyndeton (the omission of conjunctions) within the list of crimes against the family ('destroyed her and dishonored my children') to create a rapid, breathless effect, emphasizing the severity and immediacy of the violations. Conversely, the subsequent defense uses anaphora with the negative construction 'ou-te... ou-te... ou-te' (neither... nor... nor) to systematically refute potential motives (personal enmity, financial gain, or ulterior profit), thereby isolating the action as purely a matter of legal justice (timoria). The phrase 'he insulted me personally' (emauton hybrisen) highlights the concept of hybris, a grave offense in Athenian culture where a citizen violates the honor of another, often implying a physical or public degradation. The use of the participle 'entering' (eision) links the act of hybris directly to the violation of the domestic sanctuary (oikia), a sacred space in Greek society. The structure moves from the specific act of adultery to the broader social consequences, culminating in the speaker's assertion that his only motive was the enforcement of the laws (nomos).

Original: ἐγὼ τοίνυν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑμῖν ἅπαντα ἐπιδείξω τὰ ἐμαυτοῦ πράγματα , οὐδὲν παραλείπων , ἀλλὰ λέγων τα- τἀληθῆ ·

Translation: I shall therefore , from the beginning , show you all my affairs , omitting nothing , but speaking these things truthfully .

Note

The sentence employs a balanced structure through the contrastive pair of participles: 'omitting nothing' (οὐδὲν παραλείπων) and 'speaking these things truthfully' (τἀληθῆ λέγων). This juxtaposition emphasizes the speaker's commitment to completeness and veracity, a common rhetorical strategy in forensic oratory to establish ethos. The use of τοίνυν (therefore) signals a logical conclusion drawn from previous arguments, marking the transition to the speaker's direct testimony. The phrase ἐξ ἀρχῆς (from the beginning) indicates a chronological approach to the narrative, suggesting a methodical recounting of events. The adjective τἀληθῆ (true/truthful) modifies λέγων (speaking), reinforcing the speaker's intent to present an unvarnished account of his actions.

Original: ταύτην γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ μόνην ἡγοῦμαι σωτηρίαν , ἐὰν ὑμῖν εἰπεῖν ἅπαντα δυνηθῶ τὰ πεπραγμένα .

Translation: For I consider this to be my only salvation : if I am able to tell you everything that has been done .

Note

The sentence employs a rhetorical structure typical of forensic oratory, where the speaker defines their ultimate goal (salvation/safety) in terms of the ability to speak the truth. The phrase 'ταυτην... σωτηριαν' (this... salvation) uses the neuter singular demonstrative 'ταυτην' (from 'ουτος') in the accusative feminine form to agree with 'σωτηριαν', functioning as a focal point for the speaker's argument. The use of 'μονην' (only) emphasizes the exclusivity of this method of defense. The clause 'εαν... δυνηθω' (if I am able) introduces a conditional future scenario, where the speaker's safety is contingent upon their capacity to fully disclose the facts ('τα πεπραγμενα' - the things done). The perfect passive participle 'πεπραγμενα' (from 'πρασσω') refers to past actions that have present consequences, a common feature in legal contexts where the speaker recounts completed deeds. The sentence also demonstrates the use of 'γαρ' (for) to provide a causal explanation for a preceding statement, linking the speaker's current state of mind to their proposed course of action.