Note 476 — Chapter LXVI · FROM THE RESTORATION OF THE DEMOCRACY TO THE DEATH OF ALKIBIADES.

Wachsmuth—who admits into his work, with little or no criticism, everything which has ever been said against the Athenian people, and indeed against the Greeks generally—affirms, contrary to all evidence and probability, that the amnesty was not really observed at Athens. (Wachsm. Hellen. Alterth. ch. ix. sect. 71, vol. ii, p. 267.)

The simple and distinct words of Xenophon, coming as they do from the mouth of so very hostile a witness, are sufficient to refute him: καὶ ὀμόσαντες ὅρκους ἦ μὴν μὴ μνησικακήσειν, ἔτι καὶ νῦν ὁμοῦ γε πολιτεύονται, καὶ τοῖς ὅρκοις ἐμμένει ὁ δῆμος, (Hellen. ii, 4, 43).

The passages to which Wachsmuth makes reference, do not in the least establish his point. Even if actions at law or accusations had been brought, in violation of the amnesty, this would not prove that the people violated it; unless we also knew that the dikastery had affirmed those actions. But he does not refer to any actions or accusations preferred on any such ground. He only notices some cases in which, accusation being preferred on grounds subsequent to Eukleidês, the accuser makes allusion in his speech to other matters anterior to Eukleidês. Now every speaker before the Athenian dikastery thinks himself entitled to call up before the dikasts the whole past life of his opponent, in the way of analogous evidence going to attest the general character of the latter, good or bad. For example, the accuser of Sokratês mentions, as a point going to impeach the general character of Sokratês, that he had been the teacher of Kritias; while the philosopher, in his defence, alludes to his own resolution and virtue as prytanis in the assembly by which the generals were condemned after the battle of Arginusæ. Both these allusions come out as evidences to general character.