_Against Evandrus_ (Or. xxvi.), 382 B.C.—This is a considerable fragment of a speech relating to a scrutiny (δοκιμασία). Leodamas, the first man to be elected as archon for the year 381 B.C., having been rejected as unfit, the second choice, Evandrus, becomes archon if he can pass the scrutiny; but his enemies refer to his actions in the time of the oligarchy, and, while admitting that he has been blameless since the Restoration, refuse him all credit for this. The bitterness and injustice of this speech are unusual in Lysias, but its genuineness is not suspected. * * * * * _For Mantitheus_ (Or. xvi.),[143] about 392 B.C.; _Against Philo_ (Or. xxxi.), 405-395 B.C.; and the wrongly entitled _Defence on a charge of subversion of the democracy_ (Or. xxv.), 402-400 B.C., are all concerned with δοκιμασία. There is more bitterness in the κατὰ Φίλωνος than in the speech against Evandrus, but with more justification, for Philo, if the stories told of him are true, must have been a very objectionable scoundrel. * * * * * The speech _For the Cripple_ (Or. xxiv.), about 400 B.C., is also concerned with a δοκιμασία, though of a different kind. A pension was given by the State to certain persons who could not, on account of bodily infirmity, support themselves, and had no other means of living. The defendant in this case is accused of claiming the pension, whereas he is comparatively well off.[144] * * * * * _Against Eratosthenes_ (Or. xii.), 403 B.C.—This, the most famous of Lysias’ speeches, has been to some extent dealt with already.[145] It is generally classed as a speech in a prosecution for murder, but it seems more probable that it was delivered on the occasion of the εὔθυνα of Eratosthenes; for the amnesty passed after the expulsion of the Thirty specially provided that any of them who chose to give an account of their actions should receive a fair trial.[146] Eratosthenes and Pheidon were the only two who embraced this opportunity. The latter view finds some support in the fact that only the first part of the speech (§§ 1-37) deals with the murder of Polemarchus; the longer portion (§§ 37-100) deals more generally with the character of Eratosthenes and the crimes of the Thirty in general. * * * * * _Against Agoratus_ (Or. xiii.), 400-398 B.C.—Agoratus, an informer, is prosecuted for having caused the death of the speaker’s cousin, Dionysodorus. There is much historical matter in the speech, but the accuser keeps definitely to the charge of murder, touching on political matters only incidentally. * * * * * _On the Murder of Eratosthenes_ (Or. i.), date uncertain, is of interest chiefly as illustrating domestic life among the middle class at Athens.[147] * * * * *