Only one fragment (Or. xxxiv.) remains of a speech composed for the ecclesia. According to its title, it was delivered in opposition to some proposals to abolish or limit the ancient constitution after the fall of the Thirty (403 B.C.). Dionysius doubts whether it was actually delivered, but considers it to be written in a style suitable for debate.[141] It is significant historically that the speaker dares to compare the position of Athens in relation to Sparta with that of Argos and Mantineia. The Athenians must have been broken in spirit to tolerate such a reference. _Public Causes_ These γραφαί fall under various heads; they deal with all offences against the State, directly comprising treason, sacrilege, embezzlement, unconstitutional procedure, evasion of military service, wrongful claims for admission to office; or against the State in the person of an individual, _e.g._ charges of murder or attempted murder. They range in importance from high treason (_e.g._ _Ergocles_) and deliberate murder (_e.g._ _Eratosthenes_) to the attempt of the Cripple (Or. xxiv.) to obtain an insignificant pension by alleged false pretences. * * * * * _For Polystratus_ (Or. xx.), 411-405 B.C. This speech is entitled ‘_For Polystratus; defence on a charge of attempting to subvert the democracy_.’ 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. * * * * *