Nevertheless, I think I shall do one thing, namely, show that the city of the Spartans, in handling situations such as I have mentioned, has been much more harsh and severe than Athens, and that those who seek to promote the reputation of the Spartans by calumniating us are short-sighted in the extreme and are themselves to blame for the bad repute which their own friendsThat is, the Spartans. incur at our hands.

For whenever they make such charges against us, to which the Lacedaemonians are more open than ourselves, we do not find it difficult to cite against Sparta a graver offence in each case than that which has been charged against Athens. For example, in the present instance, if they bring up the fact that the law-suits of the allies were tried in Athens, is there anyone so slow of wit as not to find the ready retort that the Lacedaemonians have put to death without trial more of the HellenesSee Isoc. 4.113, note. than have ever been brought to trial and judgement here since the founding of our city?

And if they make any complaint about our collection of the tribute, we shall be ready with a like rejoinder. For we shall show that our ancestors far more than the Lacedaemonians acted for the advantage of the states which paid them tribute. For, in the first place, these states did this, not because we had so commanded, but because they themselves had so resolved at the very time when they conferred upon us the supremacy by sea.

In the next place, they paid their quotas, not to preserve Athens, but to preserve their own democratic polity and their own freedom and to escape falling into such great misfortunes, through the setting up of oligarchies, as were suffered under the decarchies and the domination of the Lacedaemonians. And, more than that, they paid these contributions, not from funds which they had treasured up through their own efforts, but from resources which they possessed through our aid.The account here given of the Confederacy of Delos is a fair statement. It was in its origin a voluntary association of the Ionian Greeks, partly against Sparta, but mainly against the Persian Empire, not for protection merely, but for the enrichment of its members at the expense of the barbarians. Each member contributed its quota to the common cause, the more powerful members in ships the weaker in money, fo/ros. The quotas appear to have been fixed by Aristides, although approved by the synod of the allies. See Thuc. 5.18; Aristot. Ath. Pol. 23-24.

In return for these resources, had they reflected in the slightest degree, they should in all fairness have been grateful to us; for we took over their cities in some instances when they had been utterly destroyed, in others when they had been sacked and plundered by the barbarians, and advanced them to such a state of prosperity that although they contributed to us a slight proportion of the wealth which flowed in upon them, their estates were no less prosperous than those of the Peloponnesians who paid no tribute whatsoever.

Furthermore, as to the cities which were laid waste under the rule of each of these states—a matter for which certain men reproach the Athenians alone—we shall show that things much more reprehensible were done by those whom these men are never weary of extolling. For it happened that we offended against islets so small and insignificant that many of the Hellenes do not even know of their existence, whereas the Lacedaemonians laid waste the greatest cities of the Peloponnesus—states which in every way were eminent above the others—

and now hold for themselves the wealth of those states which, even supposing that in former times they possessed no merit, deserved the greatest possible rewards from the Hellenes because of the expedition against Troy in which they took the foremost place and furnished as its leaders men possessed not only of the virtues in which many of the common run of mankind have a part, but also of those in which no ignoble man may share.

For Messene furnished Nestor, the wisest of all who lived in those times; Lacedaemon, Menelaus, who because of his moderation and his justice was the one man to be deemed worthy to become the son-in-law of Zeus;Helen, the wife of Menelaus, was the daughter of Zeus. See Hom. Od. 4.569 and Isoc. 10.16. and Argos, Agamemnon, who was possessed, not of one or two of the virtues merely, but of all which anyone can name—