[1] See Muller and Donaldson, "Hist. Gk. Lit." ii. 196, note 2.

[2] Or, "a state of indebtedness beyond the reach of a tribunal." See
"Cyrop." I. ii. 7.

The charge of embezzlement, could it be alleged, would no less outrage
all reason in the case of one who made over to his country the benefit
in full of grateful offerings owed solely to himself. Indeed the very
fact that, when he wished to help the city or his friends with money,
he might have done so by the aid of others, goes a long way to prove
his indifference to the lure of riches; since, had he been in the
habit of selling his favour, or of playing the part of benefactor for
pay, there had been no room for a sense of indebtedness.[3] It is only
the recipient of gratuitous kindness who is ever ready to minister to
his benefactor, both in return for the kindness itself and for the
confidence implied in his selection as the fitting guardian of a good
deed on deposit.[4]

[3] Or, "no one would have felt to owe him anything."

[4] See "Cyrop." VI. i. 35; Rutherford, "New Phrynichus," p. 312.

Again, who more likely to put a gulf impassable between himself and
the sordid love of gain[5] than he, who nobly preferred to be stinted
of his dues[6] rather than snatch at the lion's share unjustly? It is
a case in point that, being pronounced by the state to be the rightful
heir to his brother's[7] wealth, he made over one half to his maternal
relatives because he saw that they were in need; and to the truth of
this assertion all Lacedaemon is witness. What, too, was his answer to
Tithraustes when the satrap offered him countless gifts if he would