Polystratus had held office under the Four Hundred, and had even been a member of that body. The nature of the charge brought against him is uncertain, but as the penalty proposed was only a fine, it cannot have been so serious as the title implies. Modern critics decide that the speech is spurious, entirely on grounds of style and method. The arrangement is at times confused, the argument obscure, and the style weak.
This kind of argument against genuineness must always be a subjective one; it is hard to prove the case. The speech Against Theomnestus (see below, p. [100]) has faults unworthy of Lysias, and yet, according to the same critics, it is undoubtedly genuine.
It should be remembered that the present speech is earlier by some years (c. 407 B.C.) than any of the orations accepted as genuine, and perhaps in the case of an orator’s earlier efforts we should look for less precision and finish.
Or. xxi., on a charge of taking bribes, is only the second half of the speech. The first part, dealing with specific charges, is lost. The defendant points to his distinguished public services as a proof that he is not the sort of man to be bribed to betray his country. The date is probably 402 B.C.
Against Ergocles (Or. xxviii.), Against Epicrates (Or. xxvii.), and Against Philocrates (Or. xxix.) may be taken together as speeches delivered by a public prosecutor, all in the year 389 B.C.; they assume that the previous speakers have gone fully into the charges, so that they themselves need only recapitulate them. The speakers are vigorous and concise, but impersonal. There was no need in such formal orations for the kind of adaptation to the speaker’s character which we find elsewhere. Ergocles was prosecuted and put to death for betraying Greek cities in Asia and enriching himself by embezzlement. Philocrates had been his subordinate and confederate. Epicrates was also accused of embezzling public money when in a position of trust.
Against Nicomachus (Or. xxx.), date probably 399 B.C.—The only charges against Nicomachus are that, having been appointed to revise certain laws, he was dilatory in his work and did not finish it within the appointed time, and has caused an excessive expenditure of public money—not, be it noted, for his own advantage. Though Nicomachus at the worst was unbusinesslike and indiscreet, the accuser thinks fit to shower abuse on him, chiefly in connection with his humble origin, for his father was a freedman.[142]
Against the Corn-dealers (Or. xxii.) is a plain, unpretentious speech arising out of the laws relating to the corn supply; the dealers were not allowed to make a profit of more than one obol a bushel, and monopoly was strictly guarded against. The date is uncertain; possibly about 390 B.C.
On the Confiscation of the Property of the Brother of Nicias (Or. xviii.), about 396-385 B.C.—Nicias’ brother Eucrates was put to death by the Thirty in 404 B.C., and at some time later a decree was passed for the confiscation of his estate. The sons and nephew of Eucrates plead against the enforcement of this sentence. Of the fragment which remains the greater part consists of an appeal to pity, which is very unusual in the speeches of Lysias.
For the Soldier (Or. ix.), 394-387 B.C.; a defence of Polyaenus, who is prosecuted for non-payment of a fine, is of doubtful authenticity, though the arguments concerning it are not conclusive.
On the Property of Aristophanes (Or. xix.), 387 B.C., is another case dealing with confiscation. The speech is very carefully constructed to meet what was evidently a difficult case.