Now the legislator Cleisthenes, in 510 B.C ., cf. Aristot. Ath. Pol. 22 . καὶ γὰρ συνέβη τοὺς μὲν Σόλωνος νόμους ἀφανίσαι τὴν τυραννίδα διὰ τὸ μὴ χρῆσθαι, καινοὺς δ’ ἄλλους θεῖναι τὸν Κλεισθένην στοχαζόμενον τοῦ πλήθους, ἐν οἷς ἐτέθη καὶ ὁ περὶ τοῦ ὀστρακισμοῦ νόμος . For the procedure cf. Philochorus frag. 79b, F.G.H. i. 396. responsible for this deserves censure; for the law which he framed violates the oath of the People and Council. Under the terms of that oath you swear to exile no one, to imprison no one, to put no one to death, without trial; whereas on this present occasion, when the person ostracized is to be cut off from his country for so long, no accusation has been made, no defence allowed, and the voting is secret. Moreover, at a time like this those who have political associates and confederates have an advantage over the rest, because the judges are not appointed by lot as in courts of law: in the present decision every member of the community has a voice. And not only that: the law appears to me to go both too far and not far enough; for wrongs done to individuals I consider such redress as this excessive: for wrongs done to the state I regard it as an insufficient and useless penalty, when you have the right to punish by fine, imprisonment, or death. Furthermore, if a man is exiled because he is a bad citizen, his leaving Athens will not cure him; wherever he lives, he will do this city harm and intrigue against her no less than hitherto—nay more so and with more justification than before his banishment. Today, too, above all days, your friends, I feel, are filled with sorrow and your enemies with joy, because they know that if you unwittingly banish your best citizen, Athens will derive no benefit from him for ten years. Then still another fact makes it easy to see that the law is a bad one: we are the only Greeks to observe it, and no other state is prepared to imitate us. The evidence on the subject of ostracism in Greece at large is too inconclusive to enable us either to accept or to reject this statement with confidence. It is known that the institution existed for a time at least at Argos ( Aristot. Pol. 8.3, 1302b 18 ), at Miletus (Schol. Aristoph. Kn. 855 ), at Megara (ibid.), and at Syracuse ( Dio. Sic. 11.87.6 ). It was introduced at Syracuse in 454 B.C. under the name of πεταλισμός , definitely in imitation of Athens . Yet it is recognized that the best institutions are those which have proved most suited to democracy and oligarchy alike and which are the most generally favoured. I see no reason for dwelling further on this subject, as, whatever the outcome, I should achieve nothing of immediate advantage. But I do ask you to preside over our speeches in a fair and impartial manner, and one and all to act as Archons. Dalmeyda (Andoc., ed. Bude) is probably right in explaining this as a reference to the procedure observed when an ὀστρακισμός was held. According to the Scholiast on Aristoph. Kn. 855 , the people met under the presidency of the Archons and the Boule, i.e. the Archons together with the Prytanes in office for the time being. These last would have one of their members as ἐπιστάτης or president for the day. The speaker is therefore urging his audience to regard themselves as placed in the same responsible position as the Archons and ἐπιστάτης τῶν πρυτανέων Do not countenance abuse or undue flattery. Show yourselves kindly to him who desires to speak and to listen: show yourselves stern to him who is insolent and disorderly; for you will decide our fate all the better, if each of the cases to be laid before you is given a hearing. It remains for me to make a brief reference to my hostility to the democracy and my membership of a political faction. Had I never appeared in court, you would have had some reason for listening to my accusers, and it would have been necessary for me to answer them on these points. But since I have been tried and acquitted four times, I do not consider any further discussion of the subject justified. Before a man is tried, it is difficult to know whether the charges made against him are false or true; but after his acquittal or conviction the matter is decided, and it is settled whether they are the one or the other. Hence I cannot but think it strange that while defendants who are convicted by but a single vote i.e. by a majority of one. If the jury was equally divided, the accused was acquitted. Cf. Antiph. 5.51 . are put to death and have their property confiscated by you, those who win their case should have to face the same charges again: that while the court has the power to take away life, it should so clearly lack the authority to save it once and finally, especially as the laws forbid the same charge to be brought twice against the same defendant, and you have sworn to observe those laws. I shall therefore say nothing of myself. I wish instead to remind you of the past of Alcibiades— although such is the multitude of his misdeeds that I am at a loss where to begin: there is not one of them that does not press for mention. Were I faced with the task of describing at length his career as an adulterer, as a stealer of the wives of others, as a perpetrator of acts of lawless violence in general, the time at my disposal would be all too short, and I should furthermore earn the ill-will of many of my fellows for making public the injuries which they have suffered. Of his conduct towards the state, however, and towards the members of his family and such citizens and foreigners as have crossed his path, I will give you some account. To begin with, he persuaded you to revise the assessment of the tribute of the subject-states made with the utmost fairness by Aristeides. In 478 B.C., at the formation of the Confederacy of Delos . According to Thucydides ( Thuc. 1.96 ), the tribute as assessed by Aristeides amounted to 460 talents. It is difficult to accept this statement, as the existing quota-lists show that even between 450 B.C. and 436 B.C., when the Confederacy was far larger and contributions of money had almost entirely superseded those of ships, the total sum collected never exceeded 455 talents. The original assessment of Aristeides cannot have produced much more than 250 talents. Chosen with nine others to perform the task, Nothing is known of this reassessment. In 425 B.C. the existing tribute had been practically doubled, probably at the instigation of Cleon (I.G. i1. 63); and the speaker may conceivably be making a mistaken reference to this, although Alcibiades would have been only about twenty-five at the time, and therefore too young to be concerned in it. A second attempt to increase the revenue was made c. 413, when a 5 per cent toll on maritime commerce was instituted in lieu of tribute (Thucyd. vii. 28). he practically doubled the contribution of each member of the alliance, while by showing how formidable he was and how influential, he made the revenues of the state a means of procuring revenue for himself. i.e. he used his position to extort blackmail, under threat of an excessive assessment. Now just consider: when our safety depends entirely upon our allies and those allies are acknowledged to be worse off today than in the past, how could anyone do greater mischief than by doubling the tribute of each?