κατὰ Ἀριστοκράτους

Sections

1 – 3 4 – 5 6 – 8 9 – 11 12 – 14 15 – 16 17 – 18 19 – 20 21 – 23 24 – 25 26 – 28 28 – 30 31 – 33 34 – 35 36 – 37 38 – 39 40 – 41 42 – 44 44 – 46 47 – 49 50 – 51 51 – 53 53 – 54 55 – 56 57 – 58 59 – 60 61 – 62 62 – 62 63 – 63 64 – 65 66 – 67 68 – 69 70 – 71 72 – 73 74 – 74 75 – 75 76 – 77 78 – 79 80 – 81 82 – 83 84 – 86 86 – 87 88 – 89 90 – 92 93 – 94 95 – 96 97 – 99 100 – 102 103 – 104 105 – 106 107 – 108 109 – 110 111 – 113 114 – 115 116 – 117 118 – 119 120 – 121 122 – 123 124 – 125 126 – 127 128 – 129 130 – 132 133 – 135 136 – 138 139 – 140 141 – 141 142 – 142 143 – 144 145 – 147 148 – 149 150 – 151 152 – 153 154 – 155 156 – 157 158 – 159 160 – 162 162 – 163 164 – 165 166 – 168 168 – 169 170 – 171 172 – 174 174 – 176 177 – 178 179 – 181 182 – 183 184 – 185 186 – 187 188 – 190 191 – 192 193 – 194 195 – 196 197 – 198 199 – 200 201 – 202 203 – 204 205 – 206 207 – 208 209 – 209 210 – 211 212 – 214 215 – 216 217 – 218 219 – 220

İngilizce Yunanca

74 Besides these two tribunals there is also a third, whose usages are still more sacred and awe-inspiring, for cases in which a man admits the act of slaying, but pleads that he slew lawfully. That is the court held at the Delphinium. It appears to me, gentlemen of the jury, that the first inquiry made by those who originally defined the rules of jurisprudence in these matters was, whether we are to regard no act of homicide as righteous, or whether any kind of homicide is to be accounted righteous; and that, arguing that Orestes, having slain his own mother, confessing the fact, and finding gods to adjudge his case, was acquitted, they formed the opinion that there is such thing as justifiable homicide,—for gods could not have given an unjust verdict. Having formed this opinion, they immediately set down in writing an exact definition of the conditions under which homicide is lawful.