The Athenian audience would have been sympathetic to Kreon’s argument with its description of a ruler’s sleepless nights, worries, and the necessity to perform distasteful tasks; Athenian ambassadors made frequent use of a similar argument to persuade Athens’ allies that they, not Athens, enjoy the fruits of Athenian labors. Pericles, too, offers “tyranny” as an analogy by which to describe Athens’ “rule” or “empire (ἀρχῆς).” [Gt-a] So, when Kreon speaks of empire here, the audience might understand his entire argument in light of Athens’ struggles to maintain control over its allies. [Mg] Kreon expresses his conclusion as a rhetorical question—the answer is presumed to be obvious. Yet his question, why one would let go of privileges in order to secure hostility, would have been anything but rhetorical in Periclean Athens, a city more than willing to go to war to protect its economic advantages, for the one thing that this course of action was sure to secure was enmity. Thus Kreon’s argument seems directly to address Athens’ decision to fight for hegemony at the risk of the safety, peace, and wealth already amassed. Kreon’s emphasis on the benefits of an in-law relationship suggests that a city like Sparta, presumed by Athens to wish to usurp Athens’ position as tyrannos, would in fact be satisfied simply to be included in the enjoyment of some of the perquisites of power. [Md] Using Kreon’s argument as a guide, these perquisites might be defined as “carefree rule and dynasty,” or in other words, security and peaceful succession down through the coming generations. [Mw]