6. Now probably, gentlemen of the jury, he will make no denial of these
facts, but will say before you, as he dared to affirm before the arbiter,
that one does not use a forbidden word in saying some one has "killed"
his father, for the law does not forbid this, but forbids the use of the
word "homicide." 7. But I think that you should make your decision not
about the letter of the law, but its intention. You all know that those
who kill others are homicides, and those who are homicides kill others.
For it would be a great task for a lawgiver to write all the words having
the same signification, but in mentioning one term, his meaning covers
all. 8. This is the case then, is it not, Theomnestus,--if any one called
you a beater of father or mother, you would think he should be punished,
but if any one said you beat your father or mother, you would then think
he should go unfined as saying no forbidden word! 9. For I should like to
hear from you (for in this you are skilled in practice and speech). If
any one should say you "flung away" your shield, and in the law was
written that a man was liable to punishment if any one declares he "threw
it away," would you not have prosecuted him, and would it have been
enough for you to say if some one declared you "flung it away," I do not
care, for _flinging_ and _throwing_ are not the same thing. 10.
Now could you admit the charge as one of the Eleven, if some one brought
in a man on the charge of having stripped off his cloak or shirt but you
would have discharged him because he was not called a "clothesstealer."
And if any one should be caught carrying off a boy, you would not say he
was a kidnapper, if you quibble with terms, and will not pay attention to
the facts to express which terms are invented. 11. Consider this now,
gentlemen of the jury. For this man seems never to have gone to the
Areopagus through indolence and indifference. For you all know that
there, whenever they are conducting a trial for murder, they do not make
their depositions with this term, but with that by which I have been
abused. For the prosecutor makes a deposition that "he killed," the
defendant that "he did not kill." 12. Accordingly it would be absurd to
acquit the one who evidently committed murder because he pleads he is a
murderer, when the prosecutor charges the defendant of "killing." For
what is the difference of which this man speaks? And you yourself brought
suit against Theon for saying you "flung away" your shield. Nothing is
said in the law about "flinging," but if any one declared he has "thrown
away" his shield, it decrees a fine of 500 drachmae. 13. Would it not be
terrible if whenever it were necessary for you to punish your enemies for
slander, for you to interpret the laws as I do now, but whenever you
speak illegally of another, to think you ought not to be punished? Are
you so powerful as to be able to employ the laws as you wish, or have you
such influence as to believe that those whom you wrong will not get a
recompense? 14. Are you not ashamed to have the thought that you should
claim advantages, not from your services to the state, but from your
unpunished deeds? But read me the law.