Against Leptines

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I could not even attempt to examine all the instances of men who have benefited you, but who by this law, if it is not repealed, will be robbed of their rewards; by calling your attention to one or two further decrees, I absolve myself from discussing these cases.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.

You will grasp the situation best if you will reason it out for yourselves in this way. Suppose at the present day a party of those in power at Pydna or Potidaea or any of those other places which are subject to Philip and hostile to you—

just as Thasos and Byzantium then were friendly to the Lacedaemonians and estranged from you—promised to hand them over to you in return for the same rewards that you gave to Ecphantus of Thasos and Archebius of Byzantium; and suppose some of these gentlemen here objected to their proposal on the ground that it would be monstrous if a select few of the resident aliens were to escape the public services; how would you deal with their arguments? Is it not certain that you would refuse to listen to such malignant pettifoggers? If so, then it is disgraceful that you should consider such an objection malignant when you are going to receive a benefit, but should lend an ear to it when it is proposed to revoke your gifts to former benefactors. Now let us pass to another argument.