Poderiam me ajudar traduzindo este discurso (sem ser pelo google tradutor rs , preciso da tradução humana pois tenho que analisar e comparar com outros textos) :


This discourse, one of the six extant forensic
speeches of Isocrates, was written for a defendant in an action for damage for
the sum of five talents. The speaker is the younger Alcibiades, son of the
famous Alcibiades, who, on reaching his majority (about 397 B.C.), was sued by
Teisias, an Athenian citizen, on the ground that the elder Alcibiades had
robbed him of a team of four race-horses.

Alcibiades had entered seven four-horse chariots at
the Olympic festival (probably in 416 b.c). The city of Argos had originally
owned one of these teams and the alleged robbery of this team by Alcibiades is
the subject of this suit.

Plutarch in his Life of Alcibiades gives an account
of the affair. He says that Alcibiades had been commissioned by an Athenian
citizen named Diomedes to buy a chariot and team of Argos. This team was bought
by Alcibiades and was entered at Olympia as his own. The suit followed, and
Isocrates, according to Plutarch, wrote a speech for the defence. Slightly
different versions are given by the historian Diodorus xiii. 74.

The confusion of names (Diomedes in Diodorus and
Plutarch, and Teisias in our speech) is accounted for by Blass (Die attische
Beredsamkeit ii. p. 205) as being an error on the part of Ephorus, the source
of Diodorus. It may well be, however, that two individuals, Diomedes and
Teisias, had joined in furnishing the money for the purchase of the team and
that the suit, which had been delayed until after the death of the elder
Alcibiades, was brought by Teisias as the survivor. The first part of the
extant speech, the part which contained the statement of facts and the citation
of evidence, is missing. The part which we have is largely a defence by the
younger Alcibiades of his father's life and a eulogy of his character and deeds.

Some critics
have thought that the speech, because of its "nature and style and its
extravagant praise of an unpopular and scandalous person, was not written for a
genuine occasion in court, but is a mere display-piece, or a model for pupils.
This view, however, lacks convincing proof. As for the conjectural date of the
speech, Blass gives 397 B.C.



 Me desculpe se tiver algum erro :)