ive
governments when we so acted. Our city at that juncture had neither an
oligarchical constitution in which all the nobles enjoyed equal
rights, nor a democracy, but that which is most opposed to law and good
government and nearest a tyranny--the rule of a close cabal. These,
hoping to strengthen their individual power by the success of the Mede,
kept down by force the people, and brought him into the town. The city
as a whole was not its own mistress when it so acted, and ought not to
be reproached for the errors that it committed while deprived of its
constitution. Examine only how we acted after the departure of the Mede
and the recovery of the constitution; when the Athenians attacked the
rest of Hellas and endeavoured to subjugate our country, of the greater
part of which faction had already made them masters. Did not we fight
and conquer at Coronea and liberate Boeotia, and do we not now actively
contribute to the liberation of the rest, providing horses to the cause
and a force unequalled by that of any other state in the confederacy?

"Let this suffice to excuse us for our Medism. We will now endeavour
to show that you have injured the Hellenes more than we, and are more
deserving of condign punishment. It was in defence against us, say you,
that you became allies and citizens of Athens. If so, you ought only
to have called in the Athenians against us, instead of joining them in
attacking others: it was open to you to do this if you ever felt that
they were leading you where you did not wish to follow, as Lacedaemon
was already your ally against the Mede, as you so much insist; and this
was surely sufficient to keep us off, and above all to allow you to
deliberate in security. Nevertheless, of your own choice and without
compulsion you chose to throw your lot in with Athens. And you say that
it had been base for you to betray your benefactors; but it was surely
far baser and more iniquitous to sacrifice the whole body of the
Hellenes, your fellow confederates, who were liberating Hellas, than the
Athenians only, who were enslaving it. The return that you made them was
therefore neither equal nor honourable, since you called them in, as you
say, because you were being oppressed yourselves, and then became their
accomplices in oppressing others; although baseness rather consists in
not returning like for like than in not returning what is justly due but
must be unjustly paid.

"Meanwhile, after thus plainly sho