If any others had employed in litigation such a special plea of exception, I should have
 begun my discourse with the facts themselves; but as the situation is, I am compelled
 first to speak of the law in accordance with which we have come before the court, that you
 may cast your votes with an understanding of the issues in our dispute and that no one of
 you may be surprised that I, although defendant in the case, am speaking prior to the
 plaintiff.

Now after your return to the city from Piraeus, you saw that
 some of the citizens were bent upon bringing malicious prosecutions and were attempting to
 violate the Amnesty ; so, wishing to restrain
 these persons and to show to all others that you had not made these agreements under
 compulsion, but because you thought them of advantage to the city, you enacted a law, on
 the motion of Archinus, to the effect that, if any person should commence a lawsuit in
 violation of the oaths, the defendant should have the power to enter a plea of exception,
 the magistrates should first submit this question to the tribunal, and that the defendant
 who had entered the plea should speak first;

and further, that the loser should pay a penalty of one-sixth of the sum at stake. The
 purpose of the penalty was this—that persons who had the effrontery to rake up old grudges
 should not only be convicted of perjury but also, not awaiting the vengeance of the gods,
 should suffer immediate punishment. I thought, therefore, that it was absurd if, under the
 existing laws, I was to permit my calumniator to risk only thirty drachmas, while I myself
 am contesting a suit in which my whole property is at stake.

I intend to prove that Callimachus not only is bringing a suit in violation of the terms
 of the Amnesty agreement, but that he is also guilty of falsehood in his charges, and
 furthermore, that we have already resorted to arbitration in the matter at issue. But I
 wish to relate the facts to you from the beginning; for if you learn that he has suffered
 no wrong at my hands, I think that you will be more inclined to defend the Amnesty and be
 more incensed with him.

The government of the Ten, who had succeeded the Thirty, was then in control when
 Patrocles, a friend of mine, was the King-Archon, and with him one day I happened to be walking. Patrocles, an enemy of
 Callimachus who is now prosecuting me in this suit, met him as he was carrying a sum of
 money, laid hold of him, and claimed that this money had been left by Pamphilus and
 belonged to the government; for Pamphilus was a member of the party of the Piraeus.

Callimachus denied this and as a violent quarrel ensued many others came running up;
 among them by chance Rhinon, who had become one of the Ten, approached. So Patrocles
 immediately laid information with him concerning the money and Rhinon led them both before
 his colleagues. These officials referred the matter to the Council ; after an
 adjudication, the money was declared the property of the state.

Later, after the return of the citizen-exiles from Piraeus, Callimachus brought a charge
 against Patrocles and instituted proceedings against him on the ground that he was
 responsible for his loss. And when he had effected with him a settlement of the matter and
 had exacted from him ten minas of silver, Callimachus maliciously accused Lysimachus.
 Having obtained two hundred drachmas from him, he began to make trouble for me. At first
 he charged me with being the accomplice of the others; in the end, he came to such a pitch
 of impudence that he accused me as responsible for everything that had been done, and it
 may be that even now he will have the effrontery to make just such an accusation.

In rebuttal, however, I will present to you as witnesses, first, those who were present
 at the beginning of the affair, who will testify that I did not arrest Callimachus nor did
 I touch the money; second, Rhinon and his colleagues, who will tell you that it was
 Patrocles, and not I, who denounced him to them; and finally, the members of the Council,
 who will attest that Patrocles was the accuser.& Please call witnesses of these facts.

Although so many persons had been present when the events took place, Callimachus here,
 as if no one had any knowledge of the matter, himself mixed with the crowds, sat in the
 workshops, and related again and again his story, how he had suffered outrageous treatment
 at my hands and had been of his money. And some of his friends came to me and advised me
 to settle the dispute with him, and not deliberately to risk defamation and great
 financial loss, even though I had the greatest confidence in my cause; and they went on to
 say that many decisions rendered in the tribunals were contrary to the expectation of
 litigants,

and that chance rather than justice determined the issue in your courts. Consequently,
 they asserted, it was in my interest to be freed of serious charges by paying a petty sum,
 rather than by paying nothing to run the risk of penalties of such gravity. Why need I
 relate to you all the details? They omitted none of the arguments which are customarily
 urged in such cases. In any case I was finally prevailed upon (for I will tell you the
 whole truth) to give him two hundred drachmas. But in order that it might not be in his
 power to blackmail me again, we committed the arbitration under stated terms to Nicomachus of Bat

At first Callimachus kept his agreement, but later in complicity with Xenotimus—that
 falsifier of the laws, corrupter of our tribunals, vilifier of the authorities, and author
 of every evil—he brought suit against me for the sum of ten thousand drachmas. But when I
 brought forward in my defense a witness to show that the suit was not within the
 jurisdiction of the court by reason of the previous arbitration, he did not attack my
 witness—

for he knew that, if he did not receive the fifth of the votes cast, he would be assessed
 a penalty of one-sixth of the amount demanded—but having won over the magistrate, he again
 brought the same suit, in the belief that he risked only his court deposit-fee. And since
 I was at a loss how to cope with my difficulties, I judged that it was best to make the
 hazard equal for us both and to come before you. And these are the facts.

I learn that Callimachus not only intends to speak falsely in the matter of his
 complaint, but will also deny that the arbitration took place, and that he is prepared to
 go so far as to assert that he never would have entrusted an arbitration to Nicomachus,
 whom he knew to be an old friend of ours, and further, that it is improbable that he was
 willing to accept two hundred drachmas instead of ten thousand.

You must reflect, however, first, that we were not in dispute in the matter of the
 arbitration, but we committed it as an arbitration under stated terms, so that it is not
 at all strange that Callimachus chose Nicomachus as arbiter; it would have been far
 stranger if, after he had come to an agreement about the matter, he had then made
 difficulty about the choice of arbiter. In the next place, it is not reasonable to assume
 that, if ten thousand drachmas had been owing to him, he would have settled for two
 minas ;
 but since his charges were unjust and in the nature of blackmail, it is not astonishing
 that he was willing to take so little. Furthermore, if, after exorbitant demands, he
 exacted little, this is no proof in favor of his contention that the arbitration did not
 take place on the contrary, it confirms all the more our contention that his claim was
 unjust in the first place.

I am astonished that, while he judges himself capable of recognizing that it was not
 probable that he was willing to take two hundred drachmas instead of the ten thousand, yet
 believes that I am incapable of discovering, if I had wished to lie, that I ought to have
 asserted that I had given him more. But this I ask—that in so far as it would have been an
 indication in his favor that the arbitration did not take place, if he had proved the
 falsity of the testimony, to that same extent it shall be proof in favor of my contention
 that I tell the truth concerning the arbitration, inasmuch as it is clearly shown that he
 did not dare to proceed against my witness.

I think, however, that even if there had been neither arbitration nor witnesses to the
 actual facts and you were under the necessity of considering the case in the light of the
 probabilities, not even in this event would you have difficulty in arriving at a just
 verdict. For if I were so audacious a man as to wrong others, you would with good reason
 condemn me as doing wrong to him also; but as it is, I shall be found innocent of having
 harmed any citizen in regard to his property, or of jeopardizing his life, or of having
 expunged his name from the list of active citizens, or of having inscribed his name on
 Lysander's list.

And yet the wickedness of the Thirty impelled many to act in this way for they not only did not
 punish the evil-doers but they even commanded some persons to do wrong. So as for me, not
 even when they had control of the government, shall I be found guilty of any such misdeed;
 yet Callimachus says that he was wronged after the Thirty had been expelled, the Piraeus
 had been taken, and when the democracy was in power, and the terms of reconciliation were
 being discussed.

And yet do you think that a man who was well behaved under the Thirty put off his
 wrongdoing until that period when even those who had formerly transgressed were repentant?
 But the most absurd thing of all would be this—that although I never saw fit to avenge
 myself on anyone of my existing enemies, I was attempting to injure this man with whom I
 have never had any business dealings at all!

That I am not responsible for the confiscation of the money of Callimachus I think I
 have sufficiently proved. But that it was not legally in his power to bring a suit
 pertaining to events which occurred then, not even if I had done everything he says I did,
 you will learn from the covenant of Amnesty. Please take the document.

Was it, then, a weak defense of my rights I trusted in when I entered this demurrer? On
 the contrary, do not the terms of the Amnesty explicitly exculpate any who have laid
 information against or denounced any person or have done any similar thing, and am I not
 able to prove that I have neither committed these acts nor transgressed in any other way?
 Please read the Oaths also.

Is it not outrageous, men of the jury, that, although such were the terms of the
 covenant and the oaths which were sworn were of such nature, Callimachus is so convinced
 of his own eloquence that he believes he will persuade you to vote in opposition to them?
 If he saw that the city regretted its past action, his conduct should not occasion
 surprise; but as a matter of fact you have shown the importance you attach to the
 covenant, not only in the enactment of the laws,

but when Philon of Coele was indicted for malversation on an embassy, and although he
 could offer no defense but merely cited the covenant in exoneration, you decided to
 dismiss his case and not even hold him for trial. And although the city does not think it
 proper to punish even confessed transgressors, yet this man has the effrontery to bring
 malicious charges against those who have done no wrong at all.

Furthermore, he is certainly not unaware of this either—that Thrasybulus and Anytus, men
 of the greatest influence in the city, although they have been robbed of large sums of
 money and know who gave in lists of their goods, nevertheless are not so brazen as to
 bring suit against them or to bring up old grudges against them; on the contrary, even if,
 in respect to all other claims, they have greater power than others to accomplish their
 ends,

yet in matters covered by the covenant at least they see fit to put themselves on terms
 of equality with the other citizens. And it is not these men alone who have accepted this
 point of view; no, not even one of you has dared to bring such an action. And yet it would
 be outrageous if you, while honoring your oaths where your own affairs are concerned,
 shall attempt to violate them in connexion with the calumnious charges of Callimachus, and
 if, while insisting that private agreements must be held valid by public authority, shall
 allow anyone who so desires, on his own private authority, to break the covenants of the
 state.

But it would be the most astounding outcome of all if, while it was still uncertain
 whether or not the reconciliation would be of advantage to the city, you strengthened it
 with such oaths that, even if it proved disadvantageous, you were forced to abide by your
 agreements, yet now, when the results have been so happy for you that, even if you had not
 given any solemn pledge to do so, it is right for you scrupulously to preserve the
 existing government, you are
 going to seize that moment to violate your oaths!

And although you were incensed with those who have said that the covenant of Amnesty
 should be repealed, yet this man, who has the effrontery to transgress it after its
 official promulgation, you are going to discharge without a penalty! No, should you do so,
 you would neither be rendering justice nor acting in a manner worthy of yourselves or
 consistent with your former decisions.

I beg you, however, to bear in mind that you have come to pass judgement on matters of
 the highest importance; for you are going to cast your votes on the question of a
 covenant, and covenants have never been violated to the advantage of either yourselves in
 relation to the other parties or of others in relation to you; and they have such binding
 force that almost all the daily activities of Greeks and of barbarians are governed by
 covenants.

For it is through our reliance on them that we visit one another's lands and procure
 those things of which we both have need; with the aid of these we make our contracts with
 each other and put an end to both our private animosities and our common wars. This is the
 only universal institution which all we of the human race constantly employ. It is,
 therefore, the duty of all men to uphold them, and, above all, yours.

It is your duty, I say, for recently, when we had been conquered and had fallen into the
 power of enemies at home and many wished to destroy the city, we took refuge in the oaths
 and covenants; and if the Lacedaemonians should dare to violate these, every man of you
 would be exceedingly indignant.

And yet how can one accuse the other party of transgressions of which he is himself
 guilty? Who would regard us as victims of injustice when suffering injury through a
 violation of covenants, if even we ourselves were manifestly holding them in slight
 esteem? What pledges shall we find binding in our relations with other peoples if we so
 lightly disregard those which we have made among ourselves?

This, too, is worthy of our remembrance that, although our forefathers performed many
 glorious deeds in war, not the least of its glory our city has won through these treaties
 of reconciliation. For whereas many cites might be found which have waged war gloriously,
 in dealing with civil discord there is none which could be shown to have taken wiser
 measures than ours.

Furthermore, the great majority of all those achievements that have been accomplished by
 fighting may be attributed to Fortune; but for the moderation we showed towards one
 another no one could find any other cause than our good judgement. Consequently it is not
 fitting that we should prove false to this glorious reputation.

And let no one think that I exaggerate or pass due bounds, because I, a defendant in a
 private suit, have spoken in this fashion. For this law-suit is concerned not merely with
 the sum of money specified in the indictment; for me, it is true, this is the issue, but
 for you it is that of which I have just spoken; on this subject no one would be able to
 speak in fitting fashion nor could he fix an adequate penalty.

For this law-suit difiers so greatly from other private suits in this respect that, while
 the latter are of concern to the litigants only, in this private law-suit common interests
 of the city are likewise at stake. In trying this case you are bound by two oaths: one is
 the customary judicial oath which you take in all ordinary cases, and the other is that
 oath which you swore when you ratified the covenant of Amnesty. If in render an unjust
 verdict in this case, you will be violating not only the laws of the city, but also the
 laws common to all men. Consequently, it is not fitting that your votes should be based
 upon favor, or upon mere equity, nor upon anything else than upon the oaths you took when
 you made the covenant of Amnesty.

Now that it is right, and is expedient and just that you should decide thus concerning
 the covenant of Amnesty not even Callimachus himself, I think, will gainsay; but he
 intends, I suppose, to bewail his present poverty and the misfortune which has befallen
 him and to say that his fate will be dreadful and cruel if now under the democracy he must
 pay the assessed fine for the money of which under the oligarchy he was deprived, and also if then because he possessed property he was
 forced to go into exile, yet now, at a time when he ought to get satisfaction for wrongs
 done him, he is to be deprived of his civic rights.

And he will accuse also those who took part in the revolution, in the hope that in this
 way especially he will arouse you to wrath; for perhaps he has heard it said that whenever
 you fail to apprehend the guilty, you punish any who cross your path. But I for my part do
 not think that you are so disposed, and I believe that it is easy to controvert the pleas
 just suggested.

As for his lamentations, it is fitting that you give aid, not to those who try to show
 that they are the most miserable of men, but to those whose statements concerning the
 facts to which they have sworn in their affidavits are manifestly the more just. And in
 regard to the penalty assessed against the loser, if I were responsible for this action,
 you might reasonably sympathize with him as about to be penalized; but the truth is, it is
 he who brings in a calumnious accusation and therefore you cannot in justice accept
 anything he says.

In the second place, you should consider this point—that all the exiles who returned to
 the city from the Peiraeus would be able to use the very same arguments as he; but no one
 except Callimachus has had the audacity to introduce such a suit. And yet you ought to
 hate such persons and regard them as bad citizens who, although they have suffered the
 same misfortunes as the part of the people, think fit to exact exceptional punishments.

Furthermore, it is possible for him even now, before he has made trial of your decision,
 to drop the suit and to be entirely rid of all his troubles. And yet is it not stupid of
 him to seek to win your pity while in this jeopardy, for which he himself is responsible,
 and in which he has involved himself, a jeopardy which even now it is possible for him to
 avoid?

And if he does mention events which occurred under the oligarchy, demand of him that,
 instead of accusing persons whom no one will defend, he prove that it was I who took his money; for this is the issue
 upon which you must cast your votes. And demand that he, instead of showing that he has
 suffered cruel wrongs, prove that it is I who have committed them, I, from whom he seeks
 to recover what he has lost;

since the fact of his evil plight he can readily establish in a suit brought against any
 other citizen whatever. And yet the accusations which should have great weight with you
 are not those which may be made even against those who are entirely guiltless, but those
 only which cannot be brought against any persons except those who have committed an act of
 injustice. To these allegations, this will perhaps be a sufficient reply and a further
 rebuttal soon will be possible.

Also bear in mind, I ask you—even though I may be thought by someone to be repeating
 myself—that many persons are attentively watching the outcome of this case; not because
 they are interested in affairs, but because they believe that the covenant of Amnesty is
 on trial. Such persons, if your decision is just, you will enable to dwell in the city
 without fear; otherwise, how do you expect those who remained in the city to feel, if you
 show that you are angry with all alike who obtained the rights of citizenship?

And what will those think who are conscious of even slight error on their part, when they
 see that not even persons whose conduct as citizens has been decent obtain justice? What
 confusion must be expected to ensue when some are encouraged to bring malicious accusations in the belief that your
 sentiments are now the same as theirs, and when others fear the present form of government on the
 ground that no place of refuge is any longer left to them?

May we not rightly fear that, once your oaths have been violated, we shall again be
 brought to the same state of affairs which compelled us to make the covenant of Amnesty?
 Certainly you do not need to learn from others how great is the blessing of concord or how
 great a curse is civil war; for you have experienced both in so extreme a form that you
 yourselves would be best qualified to instruct all others regarding them.

But lest it be thought that the reason I am dwelling long on the covenant of Amnesty is
 merely because it is easy when speaking on that subject to make many just observations, I
 urge you to remember when you cast your votes only one thing more—that before we entered
 into those agreements we Athenians were in a state of war, some of us occupying the circle
 enclosed by the city's walls, others Piraeus after we had captured it, and we hated each other more than we did the enemies bequeathed to us by
 our ancestors.

But after we came together and exchanged the solemn pledges, we have lived so uprightly
 and so like citizens of one country that it seemed as if no misfortune had ever befallen
 us. At that time all looked upon us as the most foolish and ill-fated of mankind; now,
 however, we are regarded as the happiest and wisest of the Greeks.

Therefore it is incumbent upon us to inflict upon those who dare to violate the covenant,
 not merely the heavy penalties prescribed by the treaty, but the most extreme, on the
 ground that these persons are the cause of the greatest evils, especially those who have
 lived as Callimachus has lived. For during the ten years when the
 Lacedaemonians warred upon you uninterruptedly, not for one single day's service did he
 present himself to the generals;

on the contrary, all through that period he continued to evade service and to keep his
 property in concealment. But when the Thirty came to power, then it was that he sailed
 back to Athens. And although he professes to be a friend of the people, yet he was so much
 more eager than anybody else to participate in the oligarchical government that, even
 though it meant hardship, he saw fit not to depart, but preferred to be besieged in
 company with those who had injured him rather than to live as a citizen with you, who
 likewise had been wronged by them.

And he remained as a participant in their government until that day on which you were on
 the point of attacking the walls of Athens; then he left the city, not because he had come
 to hate the present regime, but because he was afraid of the danger which threatened, as
 he later made evident. For when the Lacedaemonians came and the democracy was shut up in
 the Piraeus, again he fled from there and resided among the Boeotians; it is far
 more fitting, therefore, that his name should be enrolled in the list of the deserters
 than that he should be called one of the “exiles.”

And although he has proved to be a man of such character by his conduct toward the people
 who occupied the Piraeus, toward those who remained in the city, and toward the whole
 state, he is not content to be on equal terms with the others, but seeks to be treated
 better than you, as if either he alone had suffered injury, or was the best of the
 citizens, or had met with the gravest misfortunes on your account, or had been the cause
 of the most numerous benefits to the city.

I could wish that you knew him as well as I do, in order that, instead of commiserating
 with him over his losses, you might bear him a grudge for what he has left. The fact is,
 though, that if I should try to tell of all the others who have been the objects of his
 plots, of the private law-suits in which he has been involved, of the public suits which
 he has entered, of the persons with whom he has conspired or against whom he has borne
 false witness, not even twice as much water as has been allotted me would prove sufficient.

But when you have heard only one of the acts which he has committed you will readily
 recognize the general run of his villainy. Cratinus once had a dispute over a farm with
 the brother-in-law of Callimachus. A personal encounter ensued. Having concealed a female
 slave, they accused Cratinus of having crushed her head, and asserting that she had died
 as a result of the wound, they brought suit against him in the court of the Palladium on the charge of
 murder.

Cratinus, learning of their plots, remained quiet for a long time in order that they
 might not change their plans and concoct another story, but instead might be caught in the
 very act of committing a crime. When the brother-in-law of Callimachus had made accusation
 and Callimachus had testified on oath that the woman was actually dead,

Cratinus and his friends went to the house where she had been hidden, seized her by force
 and, bringing her into court, presented her alive to all present. The result was that, in
 a tribunal of seven hundred judges, after fourteen witnesses had given the same testimony
 as that of Callimachus, he failed to receive a single vote. Please call witnesses to these
 facts.

Who, therefore, would be able to condemn his acts as they deserve? Or who would be able
 to find a more flagrant example of wrongdoing, of malicious prosecution, and of villainy?
 Some misdeeds, it is true, do not reveal in its entirety the character of the evil-doers,
 but from acts such as his it is easy to discern the whole life of the culprits.

For any man who testifies that the living are dead, from what villainy do you think that
 he would abstain? What outrageous deed would a man not have the effrontery to commit in
 his own interest who is so knavish a villain in the interest of others ? How is it right
 to trust this man when he speaks in his own behalf, who is proved guilty of perjury in his
 testimony on behalf of another? Who was ever more convincingly proved to be a giver of
 false testimony? You judge all other defendants by what is said of them, but this man's
 testimony the jurors themselves saw was false.

And after the commission of such crimes he will dare to say that it is we who are lying.
 Why that would be as if Phrynondas should reproach a man with villainy,
 or as if Philurgos, who stole the Gorgon's head, had called everybody else
 temple-robbers! Who is more likely to present witnesses of events which have not occurred
 than my antagonist here, who himself has the hardihood to testify falsely for others?

But against Callimachus it will be possible to bring accusations time and again, for he
 has contrived his life as a citizen that way; but as for myself, I shall say nothing of
 all my other contributions to the state, but I will merely remind you of that one, a
 service for which, if you would do me justice, you would not only be grateful, but you
 would take it even as evidence bearing upon the case as a whole.

Now when the city had lost its ships in the Hellespont and was shorn of its power, I so
 far surpassed the majority of the trierarchs that I was one of the very few who saved
 their ships: and of these few I alone brought back my ship to the Piraeus and did not
 resign my duties as trierarch;

but when the other trierarchs were glad to be relieved of their duties and were
 discouraged over the situation, and not only regretted the loss of what they had already
 spent, but were trying to conceal the remainder and, judging that the commonwealth was
 completely ruined, were looking out for their private interests, my decision was not the
 same as theirs; but after persuading my brother to be joint-trierarch with me, we paid the
 crew out of our own means and proceeded to harass the enemy.

And finally, when Lysander proclaimed that if anyone should import grain to you
 he would be punished with death, we were so zealous for the city's welfare that, although
 no one else dared to bring in even his own, we intercepted the grain that was being
 brought in to them and discharged it at the Piraeus. In recognition of these services you
 voted that we should be honored with crowns, and that in front of the statues of the
 eponymous heroes we should be proclaimed as the authors of
 great blessings.

Yet surely men who should now be regarded as friends of the people are not those who,
 when the people were in power, were eager to participate in affairs, but those who, when
 the state was suffering misfortune, were willing to brave the first dangers in your
 behalf, and gratitude is due, not to him who has suffered personal hardships, but to him
 who has conferred benefits upon you; and in the case of those who have become poor, pity
 should be felt, not for those who have lost their property, but for those who have spent
 their fortune for your good.

Of these last named it will be found that I have been one; and I should be the most
 miserable of all men, if, after I have spent much of my fortune for the good of the city,
 it should be thought that I plot against the property of others, and that I care naught
 for your poor opinion of me; when it is obvious that I set less store, not merely on my
 property, but even on my life, than on your good opinion.

Who among you would not feel remorse, even if not immediately, yet soon hereafter, if you
 should see the calumniator enriched, but me despoiled even of that which I left remaining
 when serving you as trierarch: and if you should see this man, who never even ran a risk
 on your behalf, influential enough to override both the laws and the covenant of Amnesty,

and me, who have been so zealous in serving the state, adjudged unworthy of obtaining
 even my just rights? And who would not reproach you, if, cajoled by the words of
 Callimachus, you should find me of such baseness, you who, when you judged us on the
 strength of our deeds, crowned us for our bravery at a time when it was not so easy as it
 is now to win that honor?

It has come to pass that our appeal is the opposite of that which other litigants
 generally make; for everybody else reminds the recipients of the benefactions they have
 received, whereas we ask you, the donors, to bear your gifts in mind, that they may serve
 you as corroboration of all I have said and of our principles of conduct.

And it is evident that we showed ourselves worthy of this honor, not for the purpose of
 plundering the property of others after the oligarchy had been established, but in order
 that, after the city had been saved, not only all the citizens might keep their own
 possessions, but also that in the hearts of our fellow-citizens at large there might be a
 feeling of gratitude to us as a debt to be paid. It is this that we beg of you now, not
 seeking to have more than is just, but offering proof that we are guilty of no wrongdoing
 and asking you to abide by the oaths and the covenant of Amnesty.

For it would be outrageous if those covenants should be held valid for the exculpation of
 the evil-doers, but should be made invalid for us, your benefactors! And it is prudent for
 you to guard well your present fortune, remembering that while in the past such agreements
 have increased civic discord in other cities, yet to ours they have brought a greater
 degree of concord. So you,
 keeping these considerations in mind, should cast your votes for that which is at the same
 time just and also expedient.