Against Andocides

Was it not this very man, by the acts that he committed? After that, ought we to feel grateful to him for those benefits, because he laid information when you offered him impunity as his payment, and are you the authors of that confusion and those troubles, because you sought out the wrongdoers? Surely not: the case is quite the contrary; he threw the city into confusion, but you restored it to composure.

I understand that he proposes to urge in his defence that the agreements[*](The treaties for pacification and amnesty made on the restoration of the democracy in 403 B.C.) hold for him in just the same way as for the rest of the Athenians; and on the strength of this pretext he supposes that many of you, in fear of breaking the agreements, will absolve him.

I will therefore explain how Andocides has no part in those agreements,—not only those, I aver, which you made with the Lacedaemonians, but also those which the men of the Piraeus made with the party of the town. For not one amongst us all had committed the same offences, or anything like the same, as Andocides, whence he might be able to make us serve his turn.

But of course, as it was not on his account that we were divided, we did not wait to include him under the terms of the agreements before we came to a reconciliation. It was not for the sake of a single man, but for the sake of us, the people of the town and of the Piraeus, that the agreements were made and the oaths taken; for surely it would be an extraordinary thing if we in our want had taken so much care of Andocides, an absentee, as to have his offences expunged.

Yet it may be said that the Lacedaemonians, in the agreements made with them, took care of Andocides because of some benefit that they had received from him; but did you take care of him? For what sort of good service? Because he has often risked danger on your account, in aid of the city?