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? In fact, if you hold that Aristeides was a good Athenian and a just one, you can only regard Alcibiades as a scoundrel, since his policy towards the subject-states is the exact opposite of that of Aristeides. Indeed, because of his behaviour, many are leaving their homes as exiles and going off to settle at Thurii A colony founded in 453 B.C. on the site of Sybaris in S. Italy. The bulk of the settlers were Athenian, although numbers came from all parts of the Greek world. ; while the bitter feeling of the allies will manifest itself directly there is a war at sea between Sparta and ourselves. In my own opinion, he is a worthless statesman who considers only the present without also giving thought to the future, who advocates the policy which will best please the people and says nothing of that which their true interests require. I am astonished, furthermore, at those who are persuaded that Alcibiades is a lover of democracy, that form of government which more than any other would seem to make equality its end. They are not using his private life as evidence of his character, in spite of the fact that his greed and his arrogance are plain to them. On his marriage with the sister of Callias he received a dowry of ten talents; yet after Hipponicus For Hipponicus and Callius cf. Andoc. 1.115 , 130. had lost his life as one of the generals at Delium , In 424 B.C. Demosthenes and Hippocrates planned a joint invasion of Boeotia . The scheme miscarried; and the Athenians were heavily defeated at Delium . he exacted another ten, on the ground that Hipponicus had agreed to add this further sum as soon as Alcibiades should have a child by his daughter. Then, after obtaining a dowry such as no Greek had ever obtained before, he behaved in so profligate a fashion, bringing mistresses, slave and free, into the bridal house, that he drove his wife, who was a decent woman, to present herself before the Archon, as she was legally entitled to do, and divorce him. At that he gave conspicuous proof of his power. He called in his friends, and carried off his wife from the Agora by force, showing the whole world his contempt for the magistrates, the laws, and his fellow Athenians in general. Nor was this one outrage enough for him. He went further. In order to possess himself of Hipponicus’ estate, he planned the assassination of Callias. Callias himself accused him of it before you all in the Assembly, and, for fear that his wealth would cost him his life, made over his property to the state in the event of his dying without issue. However, Callias neither lacks friends nor is he an easy victim. Thanks to his riches he can be sure of protection in plenty. None the less, when a man offers violence to his own wife and plots the death of his brother-in-law, how is he to be expected to behave towards such of his fellow-citizens as cross his path? Everyone has more regard for members of his own family than he has for strangers. But most monstrous of all is the fact that a man of his character should talk as though he were a friend of the people, and call others oligarchs and foes of the democracy. Yes, although he himself deserves death for behaving as he does, he is chosen by you to proceed against any whose sympathies conflict with yours ; and he poses as guardian of the constitution, in spite of the fact that he refuses to be the equal of, or but little superior to, his fellows. So completely, indeed, does he despise you that he spends his time flattering you in a body and insulting you individually.