Some questions on Lysias XXV, 7-11

[amans]

Hi

I am reading this piece from Lysias 25: Defense Against a Charge of Subverting the Democracy.

As I read it, Lysias is defending an oligarch who is saying that the question of the constitution comes down to what benefits one the most. I thought Lysias was a democrat? Did he not care about his clients' opinions?

And how could he think this line of arguing would win over an assembly of wholehearted democrats, sitting in a democratic instituion? What was the outcome of this trial?

What can be gathered about the legal situation of an accused in an Attic court from this excerpt? I figure that one has to speak for oneself, but apart from that I don't really know how to answer the question.

Thanks for any help.



[7] I will now try to explain to you who of the citizens are inclined, in my view, to court oligarchy, and who democracy. This will serve as a basis both for your decision and for the defence that I shall offer for myself; for I shall make it evident that neither under the democracy nor under the oligarchy has my conduct suggested any inclination to be disloyal to your people.

[8] Now, first of all, you should reflect that no human being is naturally either an oligarch or a democrat: whatever constitution a man finds advantageous to himself, he is eager to see that one established; so it largely depends on you whether the present system finds an abundance of supporters. That this is the truth, you will have no difficulty in deducing from the events of the past.

[9] For consider, gentlemen of the jury, how many times the leaders of both governments changed sides. Did not Phrynichus, Peisander and their fellow demagogues, when they had committed many offences against you, proceed, in fear of the requital that they deserved, to establish the first oligarchy? And did not many of the Four Hundred, again, join in the return of the Peiraeus party, while some, on the other hand, who had helped in the expulsion of the Four Hundred, actually appeared among the Thirty? Some, too, of those who had enlisted for Eleusis marched out with you to besiege their own comrades!

[10] There is thus no difficulty in concluding, gentlemen, that the questions dividing men are concerned, not with politics, but with their personal advantage. You should therefore apply this test in the probation of your citizens: examine their use of the citizenship under the democracy, and inquire whether they stood to benefit by a change in the government. In this way you will most justly form your decision upon them.

[11] Now, in my opinion, all those who had been disfranchised under the democracy, or deprived of their property, or subjected to any other misfortune of the sort, were bound to desire a different system, in the hope that the change would be some benefit to themselves. But in the case of those who have done the people many good services, and never a single hurt, and who deserve your grateful favors instead of punishment for what they have achieved, it is not fair to harbor the slanders aimed at them, not even if all who have charge of public affairs allege that they favor oligarchy.