1. To Demonikos [Or. I.]—The person to whom this Letter of Advice is addressed is known only from the Letter itself. Demonikos lived in a monarchical State (§ 36), which may have been Cyprus ¹ . He was still a youth (§ 44); rich, and of distinguished (§ 49), though not of royal (§ 36), birth ² . His father, Hipponikos, lately dead (§ 2), must have been in some way a well-known man (§ 11).

The date at which the Letter was written cannot ³ be determined; but it may be assigned conjecturally to about the same time as the two other Hortatory Discourses—the Letter to Nikokles and the Nikokles ⁴ —374—372 B.C.

The Letter consists of three parts: I. ⁵ Introduction, §§ 1—12; II. Precepts, §§ 13—43; III. Epilogue, §§ 44—52.

I. There is no greater difference between good and bad men ( σπουδαῖοι—φαῦλοι) than in the durability of their friendships. Isokrates wishes to testify his friendship to Demonikos, and his regard for the young man's late father Hipponikos (§§ 1—2). He does not intend this letter to be a mere stimulus to intellectual exertion ( παράκλησις) but an exhortation to moral excellence ( παραίνεσις §§ 4, 5).

II. The following are the principal heads under which the precepts in §§ 13—43 may be brought:—

1. Duty towards the gods; § 13.

2. Duty towards men; prescribed generally as the obligation to be just (§§ 38, 39) and true (§§ 22, 23); and specially in three chief relations, ( a) as towards the State, §§ 16, 37: cf. § 36: ( b) as towards parents, § 14: ( c) as towards friends, §§ 24—27, 33: cf. § 30.

3. Duty of regulating personal character, in respect ( a) to the use of wealth, §§27, 28, and of pleasures, §§ 17, 32: ( b) to the exercise of body and mind, § 40; and particularly to the acquisition of knowledge, §§ 18, 19; ( c) to demeanour in society, §§ 15, 41, 42, 31.

III. Many of the rules just given will not suit the present age of Demonikos; but by and by he will need them, and this letter will then serve him as a storehouse ( ταμιεῖον) of advice (§ 44). The reward of Herakles, and the doom of Tantalos, are warnings to strive after real nobleness ( τῆς καλοκαγαθίας); and, in so striving, we must seek help from every quarter. ‘For hardly, by this care, may we master the failings of our nature’ (§§ 51—52).

The authenticity of a treatise remarkably ⁶ characteristic of its author has, with singular perversity, been questioned both in ancient and in modern times. ‘Feebleness of diction’ ⁷ is the trait which the writer of the Greek argument mentions as having been found suspicious in this and like compositions of Isokrates. Alleged peculiarities or solecisms in language, dialect or grammar,—the occurrence, in a few instances, of hiatus,—and defective arrangement of subject-matter, are the tokens of spuriousness which the most recent and most careful sceptic ⁸ has discovered. It is needless, here, to examine these objections in detail. It is enough to say that, even if they could all be proved, they would be decisively outweighed by the thoroughly Isokratic stamp of the treatise as a whole, in language, in structure, in spirit. As to external testimony, Dionysios ⁹ and Hermogenes ¹⁰ are affirmative witnesses; in Harpokration ¹¹ two passages cancel each other.

The distinguishing mark of the Ad Demonicum, ¹² viewed as a treatise on morals, is a combination of loftiness and meanness. It is the man of the world who assumes the part of the preacher. Where he gives, in a simple form, the maxims of a somewhat vulgar prudence, he is excellent; it is when he strives to connect them with doctrine that he fails. The morality of the Ad Demonicum is probably at least on a level with the average practical morality of Greece; on the other hand, the higher sentiment which it contains is not affected; but the absence of harmony between them is Isokratic.

2. To Nikokles. [Or. II.]—Nikokles, to whom the Second and Ninth Discourses are addressed and for whom the Third was written, succeeded his father Evagoras as king of the Cyprian Salamis in 374 B.C.

It was probably soon after the accession of ¹³ Nikokles that Isokrates addressed this speech to him. The opening words have a formality which suggests that the writer is either wholly or almost a stranger; and the tone of the Letter generally implies that Nikokles was young both in years and in office. The intercourse thus opened appears to have become intimate; and it is possible that Nikokles may have been among the pupils of Isokrates ¹⁴ .

‘The usual offerings to a king, Nikokles, are garments, or ¹⁵ gold, or bronze, things in which he is richer than the givers: I offer you advice. Private men are schooled by the struggle of life, by the laws, by the poets: kings have little schooling. Hence those frequent disasters which, even in vulgar eyes, balance the pleasures of a royal lot. People fancy that the office of a king, like that of a priest, may be assumed without any special preparation ¹⁶ . In particular crises, you will have the counsel of others: my counsels shall be general (§§ 1—8).

‘First—What is the function of a king? To stay the troubles, to guard the welfare, to raise the greatness of his realm (§ 9).

‘In order to perform this task well, you ought, in the first place, to be intelligent. By converse with the ablest men, and by reading, you must make yourself capable of deciding small questions, and of grappling with great ¹⁷ (§§ 10—14).

‘Next, you must be the friend of mankind and of your realm (§ 15). Keep the people alike from doing, and from suffering, outrage (§ 16). Let your laws be not only just and consistent, but framed for the settlement, rather than for the raising, of issues (§ 17). Rule the State like your own house, generously but carefully (§ 19). Let your word be held surer than other men's oaths. Honour less those strangers who bring gifts than those who deserve to receive them (§ 22). Be royal, not in severity, but by the recognised supremacy of your wisdom: warlike in knowledge and preparation, peaceful in abstinence from aggression (§ 24). Choose your associates with care, knowing that the many will judge you by them (§ 27). Deem it the most kingly thing of all to be subject to none of your own desires (§ 29). Take it as a sign that you are reigning well if you see your subjects growing richer and better (§ 31). Let your dress be splendid and your life hardy (§ 32): be witty, and be dignified (§ 34). Observe the fates of kings and of private persons; and divine the future from the past (§ 35). Let safety for the State and for yourself be your first object: but, if you are forced into danger, choose a noble death before a life of dishonour. In all things remember your royal office, and be mindful to do nothing unworthy of it (§§ 36, 37). Since your body must die, seek to make the memory of your spirit immortal (§ 37). If you emulate a man's fame, copy his actions (§ 38). Think those wise who can speak well on great questions, not those who can refine on trifles;—and those whose prosperity shows their prudence, or whose resignation proves their philosophy (§ 39).

‘Practical advice must not aim at being novel, and can hardly hope to be amusing (§§ 54—56). Hesiod, Theognis, Phokylides are praised—and neglected: Homer and the dramatists are the poets of the people (§§ 40—49). You, Nikokles, are a king, and ought to think first of what is useful. A good adviser is the most royal of possessions (§§ 40—53). Encourage others to bring you gifts like mine; gifts which, instead of wearing out in use, become more valuable the more they are used’ (§ 54).

Isokrates wrote for the cultivated. His idea of ¹⁸ an expedition to Asia needed the help of the powerful. On both grounds it was natural that he should cultivate friendly relations with Hellenic kings and tyrants,—with Nikokles of Salamis and Timotheos of Herakleia no less than with Dionysios of Syracuse and Philip of Macedon. In the Antidosis, (where he is answering the imputation of being too much a friend to monarchy,) he quotes the speech which many years ago he had addressed to Nikokles. He claims to have spoken in it ‘freely and worthily of the city’; to have upheld the cause of the people; to have ‘reproved monarchy’ by observing how ill monarchs are usually trained for their duties. The claim is somewhat exaggerated. On the other ¹⁹ hand, Isokrates might fairly have taken credit for setting before Nikokles a standard, higher than the common, of the king's duty to the subject. His ideal monarchy is absolute, but it is intelligently and honestly paternal.

3. Nikokles or The Cyprians. [Or. III.]—In the last Discourse Isokrates had traced for Nikokles the duty of a king: in this it is Nikokles who sets forth the duty of subjects (§ 11). The piece was no doubt written to order; Nikokles perhaps thinking that the perception of a king's obligations which the former work may have quickened in some Salaminians might be usefully complemented by a sense of their own. Since the prince can appeal ²⁰ to his people's past experience of him as a ruler (§ 63), the date can hardly be earlier than 372; on the other hand it cannot be later than 355; and may probably be placed between 372 and 365.

I. ‘Some people are hostile to all discussion on the ²¹ ground that selfish gain, not virtue, is its aim. Why do not those who blame the endeavour to reason well blame also the desire to act rightly? Action, not debate, is the chief instrument of selfishness. It is the faculty of persuading which has civilized life.

‘For a king, the first questions are of the relations between rulers and ruled. Isokrates has traced the duty of a king; I will now attempt to trace the duty of subjects (§ 11). But first I will try to show (1) that monarchy is the best form of government; and (2) that I am entitled, historically and personally, to be your king (§§ 1—13).

II. ‘A Monarchy, as compared with a limited or with a pure Republic, has these advantages:—1. It discriminates the different degrees of merit. Equality is the principle of republics. A Monarchy gives the first place to the best man, the second to the second-best, and so on (§§ 14, 15). —2. It has, more than other forms of government, an insight into the natures and actions of men; merit, wherever it exists, is therefore sure of recognition.—3. It is the mildest of governments; since it is easier to propitiate one man than many (§ 16).—4. Its ministers, being not annual but permanent, learn and discharge their duties more thoroughly and composedly (§§ 17, 18).—5. It is prompt in action. A popular assembly consists of men who are immersed in private affairs, and who meet only to wrangle: in a cabinet there are fewer distractions and delays (§ 19).—6. It has no jealousies. In a Republic there are always at least two parties, each of which hopes that the other will mismanage the country as grossly as possible. A monarch, having no rivals, has no spite (§ 20).—7. It has a more direct interest in good government. Republicans regard themselves as stewards, a monarch regards himself as the owner, of the State (§ 21).—8. It is more effective in war. Secret preparation, striking display, versatile intrigue, are easier for it than for other governments (§ 22).

‘Experience shows that these advantages are not imaginary. In Persia, devotion to Monarchy has been rewarded with unequalled greatness. In Sicily, the absolutism of Dionysios has not only delivered an enslaved country, but has made it the first in Greece. Carthage and Sparta, oligarchies at home, become monarchies in the field. Athens, the most anti-monarchical of States, has generally failed when she sent out a committee of generals, and succeeded when she gave the command to one. Lastly—Is not Zeus monarch of the gods? Whether the gods really live under that form of government or not, the fact of men ascribing it to them proves at least a human sense that it is the best (§§ 22—26).

‘Having shown the advantages of Monarchy, I will show more briefly that I am entitled to be your monarch. First, historically. Teukros, the founder of our house, brought hither the forefathers of the present Cyprians. His throne, lost for a time by his descendants, was regained by my father Evagoras, who put down Phoenician rule at Salamis and restored it to its original kings (§§ 27, 28). Next, personally. At my accession, I found the treasury empty, the State disturbed, Cyprus on bad terms with the rest of Greece and with Persia: and I met all these difficulties without wronging any man (§§ 29—35). Nor have youth (§ 45) and opportunity ever drawn me into licence (§§ 36—46).

III. ‘As the lawful holder, then, of a beneficent power, I may advise with a right to be heard—Let each man do his appointed task carefully and fairly (§ 48).—Do not make haste to be rich (§ 50).—Murmur not at one of my commands, knowing that those who serve me best will best serve their own fortunes.—Let everyone be sure that nothing of which his own conscience is aware will escape me (§ 51).— Form no clubs, hold no meetings, without my knowledge (§ 54).—Guard the present constitution, and desire no sort of change (§ 55).—Be humble to me, and magnificent in the service of the State (§ 56).—Consider that the greatest and surest wealth which you can leave to your children is my favour (§ 58).—Be not jealous, but emulous, of my counsellors (§ 60).—Think my words, laws—and keep them.— In short, be to your king what you wish your subordinates to be to you (§ 62).

‘If you follow this course, while I do not change mine, your prosperity and my power will grow together. Such a hope might well encourage to any toils. But you need not toil at all. You need only to be just and loyal’ (§§ 63—64).

Perhaps the most interesting part of this Discourse is that in which the writer, putting himself at the king's point of view, offers a popular plea for Monarchy as against Republic. Here Isokrates is essentially the professional rhetor—it being distinctive of Rhetoric as an art that, like its counterpart Dialectic, it is equally ready to argue either side of a question ²² . Isokrates has given us the other side in the Panathenaikos and the Areopagitikos, where he interprets his own ideal—a democracy tempered by a censorship.