Against Leptines

Again then, Athenians, it is not merely necessary to consider how Leucon may be spared injustice—a man whose anxiety about his privilege would arise from a sense of honor rather than from his needs—but we must also consider whether another man, who did you service when he was prosperous, may not find that the exemption he received from you then is a matter of necessity to him now. To whom, then, do I refer? To Epicerdes of Cyrene, than whom no recipient of this honor ever deserved it better, not because his gifts were great or extraordinary, but because they came at a time when we were hard put to it to find, even among those whom we had benefited, anyone willing to remember our benefactions.

For Epicerdes, as this decree then passed in his honor declares, gave a hundred minae to our fellow-countrymen at that time prisoners in Sicily under such distressing circumstances,[*](For the horrors endured by the 7000 Athenian captives, scorched by day and frozen by night in the deep stone-quarries of Syracuse, see Thuc. 7.87.) and thus he became the chief instrument in saving them from all perishing of hunger. Afterwards, when you had rewarded him with immunity, seeing that in the war[*](The third period of the Peloponnesian War, called the Decelean War (413-404) from the Spartan fortified post at Decelea in Attica.) just before the rule of the Thirty the people were straitened for want of funds, he gave them a talent as a freewill offering.

In the name of Zeus and all the gods, men of Athens, ask yourselves how a man could more clearly show his goodwill towards you, or how he could be less deserving of an ill return than if, being first an eye-witness of that national disaster, he should prefer the beaten side and such favors as they might some day bestow, rather than the victors among whom he found himself in their hour of triumph; or if next, seeing a further need arise, he should be found once more a donor, anxious not to hoard his own private means, but to ensure that no cause of yours should fall short of success, so far as in him lay.

Yet this man, who in actual deed on those momentous occasions shared his wealth with the people, but enjoyed only a nominal and honorary immunity, will be robbed by you, not of his immunity, for it is evident that he did not use it when he had it, but of his trust in you; and what could be more discreditable than that? Now you shall hear the very words of the decree then passed in his honor. And observe, men of Athens, how many decrees this law annuls, how many individuals it wrongs, and what occasions they chose for making themselves serviceable to you; for you will find that the law wrongs just the men who least deserve it. Read.

The decree is read

Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard from the decrees what were the services for which Epicerdes obtained his immunity. Do not stop to ask whether he gave you a hundred minae and a talent as well—for I expect that even those who received it were not struck by the amount of his gift—but think of his zeal, his spontaneous act, and the occasion that he chose.

For recompense is due to all alike who are forward to do us service, but in a special degree to those who are friends in time of need; and such an one clearly was Epicerdes. Are we not then ashamed, men of Athens, if it appears that we have retained no memory of these services and have robbed of their reward the sons of such a benefactor, though we can charge them with no fault?

For if those who were then saved by him and who bestowed on him this immunity were a different generation from you who now propose to take it away, yet that does not remove the infamy of the act; nay, it is just there that its atrocity lies. For if those who knew and experienced his generosity felt that it merited this return, while we, who have only heard the story told, shall revoke the gift as undeserved, shall we not be guilty of more than ordinary atrocity?

Now my plea is the same in this case as for those who overthrew the Four Hundred, and for those who proved helpful to the democrats in exile; for I think they would all be atrociously treated if any portion of the rewards then decreed to them should be revoked.

Now if any of you is persuaded that our city is far from needing such a benefactor today, let him pray Heaven it may be so, and I will join in that prayer; but let him also reflect, first, that he is going to give his vote on a law under which, if unrepealed, he will have to live, and secondly, that bad laws can injure even communities which fancy they are dwelling in security. For there would have been no changes for better or for worse in the fortunes of states, had it not been that a nation in peril is guided to safety by good policy, good laws, and good citizens and by the observance of order in all things, but in the case of a nation that seems established in perfect prosperity, all these things, being neglected, slip away from it little by little.

For most men achieve prosperity by planning soundly and by despising nothing; but they do not take the trouble to guard it by the same means. Let not this mistake be yours today, and do not think that you ought to ratify a law which will taint the reputation of our city in the time of her prosperity and, if ever a crisis comes, will leave her destitute of those who would be willing to do her service.

Again, Athenians, it is not only the men who, in a private capacity, chose to benefit you and to offer their services on those important occasions that have been described a little while ago by Phormio and mentioned by me just now—it is not only these men that you must be careful not to wrong, but many others also, who drew whole states, their own native cities, into alliance with us in the war against the Lacedaemonians,[*](The so-called Corinthian War, 395-387 B.C.) thus furthering by word and deed the interests of your city;

and some of these men through their goodwill to you have no longer a fatherland. The first example that I propose to examine is that of the Corinthian exiles. And here I am obliged to mention facts which I myself have only heard from the lips of the older among you.[*](Demosthenes was now thirty, and the battle was fought ten tears before his birth.) Some occasions, then, on which they made themselves useful to us, I will pass over; but when the great battle against the Lacedaemonians was fought near Corinth, and when the party in that city determined after the battle not to admit our soldiers within their walls, but to send heralds to greet the Lacedaemonians,

these men, though they saw that Athens had lost the day and that our enemies were holding the pass,[*](Between Corinth and its harbor of Lechaeum on the Corinthian Gulf.) refused to betray us or to take steps for their own individual safety, but with the whole armed force of the Peloponnese close upon them, they opened their gates to us in defiance of the majority and chose along with you, who had been engaged in the battle, to suffer whatever might betide, rather than without you to enjoy a safety that involved no danger; and so they admitted the troops and succeeded in saving both you and your allies.

And afterwards, when peace, the peace of Antalcidas,[*](In 387. Antalcidas was the Spartan diplomatist. The Greeks acknowledged the King of Persia as the arbiter of their disputes, and abandoned to him their cities in Asia. All other Greek states were to be independent, except Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros, which were to be retained by Athens. Sparta’s main object was to break up the power of Thebes over the other Boeotian cities.) was concluded with the Lacedaemonians, the latter requited their acts with exile. But you, in giving them shelter, acted like good men and true; for you decreed them all that they needed. Yet now are we actually debating whether those decrees should remain valid? No! The bare statement is a disgrace, if it should be reported that Athenians are debating whether they ought to let their benefactors keep what they have given them; for that question ought to have been debated, yes, and decided, long ago.

Read this decree also to the court.

[The decree is read]

Such, gentlemen of the jury, is the decree passed by you in favor of the Corinthians who were exiled on your account. But think! If one who knew those critical times—whether as an eye-witness or hearing the story from one who knew—if he should hear this law which revokes the gifts that were then bestowed, how he would denounce the baseness of us who made the law—and who were so generous and obliging when our need was pressing, but when we have satisfied all our hopes, are so thankless and churlish that we have robbed men of the rewards they enjoy, and have made a law that hereafter no, such rewards should be bestowed!

Oh but, we shall be told, some of those who received these rewards did not deserve them; for that thought will run through all their argument. In that case shall we confess that we do not know that a man’s deserts should be examined at the time of the reward, and not an indefinitely long time after? For to give no reward in the first instance is an exercise of judgement; to take it away when given shows a grudging spirit, and you must not seem to have been prompted by that.

Furthermore, on the question of merit I shall not shrink from saying this to you: I for one do not think that merit should be examined by the State in the same way as by an individual, because the examination is not concerned with the same questions. For in private life each of us tries to find who is worthy, say, to marry into our family, or something of that sort, and such questions are determined by convention and opinion; but in public affairs the State and the people try to find who is their benefactor and savior, and that question you will find is best decided by reference not to birth or opinion, but to plain fact. So, whenever we want to receive benefits, are we to allow anyone to confer them, but when we have received them, then shall we scrutinize the merits of the benefactor? That will be a topsy-turvy policy.

But, it may be said, the only sufferers will be those I have mentioned, and all my remarks apply to them alone. That is quite untrue. But I could not even attempt to examine all the instances of men who have benefited you, but who by this law, if it is not repealed, will be robbed of their rewards; by calling your attention to one or two further decrees, I absolve myself from discussing these cases.

In the first place, then, will you not wrong the Thasian supporters of Ecphantus, if you revoke their immunity—I mean the men who handed over Thasos to you by expelling the armed garrison of the Lacedaemonians and admitting Thrasybulus,[*](408-407 B.C. There is some discrepancy as to the date between our two authorities, Xenophon and Diodorus, neither of whom mentions Ecphantus, presumably a democratic leader in Thasos.) and thus, by bringing their own country on to your side, were the means of winning for you the alliance of the district bordering on Thrace?

In the second place, will you not wrong Archebius and Heraclides, who by putting Byzantium into the hands of Thrasybulus made you masters of the Hellespont, so that you farmed out the toll of ten per cent,[*](Levied by the Byzantines on the value of the cargo of every ship passing through the Bosporus.) and thus being well furnished with money forced the Lacedaemonians to conclude a peace favorable to you?[*](The Athenians gained Byzantium and Chalcedon in 390 B.C. It is strange to find the notorious peace of Antalcidas mentioned with approval.) When subsequently they were banished, you, Athenians, passed what I think was a very proper decree in favor of men exiled through devotion to your interests, conferring on them the title of Friends of the State[*](A proxenus was a foreigner who, in his own state, looked after Athenian interests. These men, being exiles resident at Athens, could not perform this duty. The title was an honorary one, giving them rank and privileges above the ordinary resident aliens.) and Benefactors, together with immunity from all taxes. For your sakes they were in exile, from you they received a just recompense; and are we now to let them be robbed of this, though we can charge them with no fault? But that would be scandalous.