Hellenica

Was not Euphron also, I ask, guilty under all these heads? In the first place, he found the shrines full of offerings both of silver and of gold, and left them empty of all these treasures. Again, who could be more manifestly a traitor than Euphron, who was the closest of friends to the Lacedaemonians and then chose you in their stead, and after he had given you pledges and received pledges from you, betrayed you again and handed over the port to your adversaries? Once again, was he not beyond question a tyrant, when he made slaves not only free men[*](366 B.C.) but even citizens, and put to death and banished and robbed of property, not the people who were guilty of wrong-doing, but those whom it suited him to treat thus? And these were the better classes.

Then after he had returned again to the city in company with your bitter adversaries, the Athenians, he set himself in arms against your governor; but since he found himself unable to expel him from the Acropolis, he got together money and came hither. Now if he had been shown to have gathered armed forces with which to attack you, you would even feel grateful to me for slaying him; but when he provided himself with money instead, and came with the purpose of corrupting you by means of this money and persuading you to make him lord of the city again, how can I justly be put to death by you for inflicting upon the man his due punishment? For whereas those who are constrained by arms suffer damage, yet they are not thereby shown to be wicked at any rate; but those who are corrupted by money in violation of the right not only suffer damage, but at the same time incur shame.

To be sure, if he had been an enemy of mine but a friend of yours, I admit myself that it would not have been seemly for me to slay this man in your city; but wherein was he, who was a traitor to you, more of an enemy to me than to you? But, by Zeus, someone might say, he came of his own free will. So, then, if anyone had slain him while he was keeping away from your city, he would have obtained praise; but as it is, when he came again to do you more wrong in addition to what he had done before, does one say that he has not been slain justly? Where can such a one show that a truce[*](366 B.C.) exists between Greeks and traitors, or double-deserters, or tyrants?

Besides all this, remember also that you voted, and properly, that exiles should be subject to extradition from all the cities of the alliance. But as for an exile who returns without a general resolution of the allies, can anyone explain why it is unjust for such a one to be put to death? I maintain, gentlemen, that if you put me to death, you will have avenged a man who was the worst of all your enemies, but if you decide that I have done what was right, you will be found to have taken vengeance both for your own selves and for all the allies.

The Thebans, after hearing these words, decided that Euphron had met his deserts; his own citizens, however, esteeming him a good man, brought him home, buried him in their market-place, and pay him pious honours as the founder of their city. So true it is, as it seems, that most people define as good men their own benefactors.

The story of Euphron has been told, and I return to the point[*]( ii. 23.) from which I digressed to this subject. While, namely, the Phliasians were still fortifying Thyamia and Chares was still with them, Oropus was seized by those who had been exiled therefrom. When, however, the Athenians had set out in full force against the city and had summoned Chares from Thyamia, the port of the Sicyonians in its turn was recaptured by the citizens of Sicyon themselves and the Arcadians; as for the Athenians,[*](366 B.C.) none of their allies came to their assistance, and they retired and left Oropus in the possession of the Thebans pending a judicial decision.