Search the Perseus Catalog for:

View: By Chapter

← Previous Next →

II. Displays.

II I. Busiris.

1. Busiris [Or. XI.]—The Busiris and the Encomium on Helen [Or. X.] are slight essays by Isokrates in a province which was not his own. Declamations on subjects taken from epos or from the myths had always a prominent place among the ‘displays’ of ordinary Sophists. Such, for instance, are the Encomium on Helen and the Defence of Palamedes ascribed to Gorgias; the speech of Odysseus Against Palamedes ascribed to Alkidamas; the speeches of Ajax and Odysseus, in the contest for the arms, ascribed to Antisthenes¹. The bent of Isokrates, as ² he himself tells us³, was not towards this kind of composition. He was not, indeed, hostile to it, any more than he was hostile to criticism of the poets and other branches of literary work which employed the Sophists⁴. The encomia which he depreciates in Or. X. § 12 are encomia on bumble-bees and salt; on the other hand he expressly commends the choice of such a subject as Helen (§ 14); and if he speaks of Busiris as a poor theme (Or. XI. § 22) he clearly means only that it is one which baffles the panegyrist. Yet it is important to note that he comes upon this field of ‘display’ not as a candidate for distinction but merely as a critic. The Busiris and the Encomium on Helen are alike criticisms, in which he first reviews the work of others, and then shows, for the sake of vindicating his right to criticise, how he would have done the work himself.

The Busiris is addressed to Polykrates, who has ⁵ lately been driven by need to become a professed rhetorician. Isokrates has never seen him; but, sympathising with his misfortunes, wishes to help him with advice. Pausanias says that Jason of Pherae preferred Gorgias to Polykrates, although the school of Polykrates had then gained no small repute at Athens⁶. Gorgias died about 380 B.C. At some time, then, before 380 Polykrates had made a name at Athens. But the Busiris speaks of him as a beginner; and it is known from Diogenes Laertius that the ‘Accusation of Sokrates’ ⁷ mentioned in § 4 contained an allusion to the rebuilding of the Long Walls by Konon,—i.e. was written later than 393 B. C.⁸ All the conditions will be satisfied if we suppose that Polykrates published his ‘Accusation of Sokrates’ in 393 or 392, and the ‘Defence of Busiris’ soon after; that he had become a teacher of repute at Athens about 388 B. C.; and that Isokrates wrote the Busiris soon after the appearance of the ‘Defence’ which it criticises,—perhaps in 391 or 390. At this time, ⁹ Polykrates was teaching at Cyprus¹⁰; he and Isokrates —as the essay tells us—had never met.

Polykrates evidently held a respectable rank among the rhetoricians of his time. He is mentioned by Dionysios in company with Antiphon, Thrasymachos of Chalkedon, Kritias, Theodoros of Byzantium, Anaximenes, Zoilos and Isaeos¹¹. He was, however, no favourite of Dionysios, who describes him as ‘empty in practical oratory, frigid and vulgar in the rhetoric of display, and devoid of grace in the subjects which demand it¹².’ He wrote for the law-courts; and the ‘Accusation of Sokrates’ itself was supposed by some to have been actually spoken at the trial¹³. But ‘display’ was probably his chosen branch. His ingenuity appears from the circumstance that he composed an encomium upon mice¹⁴, and his versatility from the fact that he praised both Agamemnon¹⁵ and Klytaemnestra¹⁶.

No weight can be given to the suggestion made ¹⁷ by the author of the Argument that the real meaning of Isokrates was to attack Polykrates for the ‘Accusation of Sokrates’, and that, deterred by the temper of Athens from doing this openly, he did it under pretext of a criticism upon the ‘Defence of Busiris.’ There is no trace in the piece of any such covert intention; the vindication of Sokrates, so far as it goes, is perfectly frank; and this very frankness defines its place as a secondary topic.

‘Your worth, Polykrates, and the change in your way of ¹⁸ life are known to me by report. I have read some of your writings, and would gladly discuss freely with you the whole theory of those studies to which you have given yourself. General precepts, however, shall be reserved until we know each other. In the meantime I send you some special criticisms. Wishing you well, I do not shrink from the risk of giving offence.

‘You put trust in your Defence of Busiris and your Accusation of Sokrates. As to Busiris, you have made his case worse than ever; others accuse him of having immolated strangers; you, of having eaten them. As to Sokrates, your ‘Accusation’ glorifies him; you make him the teacher of Alkibiades,—who is not known to have been his disciple, but who certainly was a remarkable man. Could the dead hear you, you would have the thanks of the philosopher and the hatred of the king. Such, too, is your disregard of consistency that you have described Busiris as emulating the fame of Aeolos and Orpheus, who lived long after him; and who, moreover, were utterly unlike him. I will try to show you briefly how the subject ought to have been handled (§§ 1—9).

‘The father of Busiris was Poseidon; his mother, Libya, daughter of Epaphos the son of Zeus, and earliest queen of the land which bears her name. Not content with his mother's realm, Busiris, after wide conquests, founded a monarchy in Egypt. He saw that that country had the best climate in the world, was the most fertile, and had in the Nile a perpetual barrier against invasion. For other lands, the steward of rains and droughts is Zeus; for Egypt, the Nile. That river is at once their protector and their nourisher, giving them the wealth of a continent with the security of an island (§§ 10—14).

‘Having got a good country, Busiris next sought to give ¹⁹ it a good government. He divided the population into priests,—craftsmen of various sorts,—and soldiers. In his theory of a really good economy, each kind of work ought to have its permanent workmen. Sparta has taken one hint from this system. She has made her citizens a military caste. But her defect is that she is purely military. Egypt provides at the same time for the protection, and for the prosecution, of industry (§§ 15—20).

‘Nor was mental culture neglected. The priests, having wealth and leisure, developed a science of medicine,—to which it is due that the Egyptians have the best health and the longest lives. Other sciences were cultivated also; and while the elder men were busied with great affairs, the younger studied astrology, logic, geometry.

‘But it is for their reverent worship of the gods that the Egyptians are most admirable. Exaggeration is harmful in most things; but it is good for human life that men should have an even exaggerated idea of the gods' power to reward or punish. To the Egyptian mind this power is so awful that oaths taken in Egyptian temples have a greater sanctity than elsewhere. The Egyptians believe that retribution will follow sin, not bye-and-bye, but instantly. Their priests enjoin upon them a multitude of observances, meant both to strengthen the habit of obedience and to test, by visible proof, their reverence for things unseen.

‘The philosophy of Egypt, and the spirit of its scrupulous ritual, were first brought into Hellas by Pythagoras; who felt sure that, if not requited by the gods, he would at least be esteemed by men. And to this day the silence of his disciples is more admired than the eloquence of others (§§ 21—29).

‘You will perhaps say that I have praised the laws, the piety, the thought of Egypt without proving that these are due to Busiris. It would ill become you to reproach me as illogical; you have yourself said that it was Busiris who distributed the Nile by its seven channels through the land, and who, at the same time, slew strangers on his altars; thus ascribing to him at once the fury of a beast and the faculty of a god. But my account is not merely as reasonable as yours; it has intrinsic probability. The benefits which it imputes to Busiris have not been shown to be due to any one else; and who is more likely to have wrought them than the son of Poseidon and of Libya,—the most powerful man of his time? The falseness of the charges laid against him is seen in this, that they represent him as having been slain by Herakles. Herakles lived four generations²⁰ after ²¹ Perseus. Busiris lived two centuries before Perseus (§§ 30—37).

‘But you have had no care for truth—you have followed the blasphemies of the poets, who love to represent the gods as more vicious than men. These blasphemers have often suffered, though less than they deserved; some have become wandering beggars, some blind, some exiles, some foes, of their own kindred: Orpheus, the worst of them, was torn to pieces. Now it is my faith that not the gods only, but their children, are without spot of vice. If the gods have not the wish to make their own sons good, they are worse disposed than men; if they have not the power, they are less able than sophists (§§ 38—43).

‘Much more might be said; but my object is to give hints, not to make a display. You have defended Busiris from the charges against him by admitting them, but arguing that they might be brought against others. How would you yourself like to be defended in this fashion? Or if any of your own friends had acted like Busiris, would you praise him? You will say, perhaps, that you wished merely to set an example of defending difficult causes. But a defence of this kind is futile, and tends also to bring philosophy into disrepute. In future you must choose better subjects, or treat those which you do choose more judiciously. Do not resent the advice of a stranger who has not even the privilege of age; it is not age or intimacy, it is knowledge and goodwill which give the right to advise in such matters' (§§ 44—50).

The subject of the Busiris—so well-worn by ²² logographers²³ and poets—is treated by Isokrates in a very simple manner. He praises the customs, religious and political, of Egypt; and then remarks that Busiris is as likely as another to have been the founder of these. The crimes imputed to the inhospitable king he rejects as blasphemies. But if, as an encomium, the piece has not even the merit of ingenuity, it has a real interest of another kind. It illustrates very strikingly the attitude of Isokrates towards the myths generally. He complains that Busiris has been represented as contemporary with Aeolos and Orpheus; whereas the fathers of the two latter were not born in the time of the former (§ 8). How, he asks, can Busiris have been slain by Herakles, who lived four generations after Perseus, while Busiris lived more than 200 years before Perseus? (§ 37.) He rejects the current legends about Busiris because they shock his religious instinct: not only the gods but the children of the gods must be deemed sinless (§ 41). Thus, like Herodotos, Isokrates accepts the myths as a whole²⁴,— distinguishing in history a human and a superhuman race, and regarding the latter as not less real than the former; on the other hand, he applies to the myths not, like Herodotos, a strict historical criticism, but only certain general notions of the becoming.

II. 2. Encomium on Helen.

2. Encomium on Helen. [Or. X.]—In § 14 Isokrates praises ‘the writer on Helen’ for his choice of a subject, but finds one fault with his work—viz. that it is less an encomium than an apology. He then says that he will endeavour to show this writer how the subject ought to have been treated; and that he will avoid topics already handled by others.

It is probable, if not certain, that the allusion ²⁵ here is to the Encomium on Helen extant under the name of Gorgias. The criticism of Isokrates exactly applies to this composition, which is, in fact, a defence,—with the apologetic character indeed strongly marked²⁶. Further, the Isokratic encomium keeps clear of the ground traversed in the encomium ascribed to Gorgias. The chief topics of Isokrates are (1) Theseus, who loved Helen: §§ 18— 38: (2) the preciousness of Helen shown by the choice of Paris and by the expedition against Troy: §§ 39—53: (3) the power of Beauty generally: §§ 54—60: (4) the divinity of Helen: §§ 61—66. The other writer, after some introductory remarks (5) devotes the rest of his composition to the various theories by which Helen's desertion of her home can be explained. She may have been taken to Troy (1) by divine agency: (2) by violence: (3) by persuasion: (4) by love: and, on any of these suppositions, says the writer, is excusable: §§ 6—20. Thus the work attributed to Gorgias answers both conditions of the case. It is called an encomium, while it is really an apology; and its special topics are not the topics of Isokrates.

But was Gorgias indeed the author? After ²⁷ censuring Gorgias by name in § 3, it would have been strange if Isokrates had praised him in § 14 without naming him. Besides, the language of § 3 implies that Gorgias is dead; the language of § 14 implies that the unnamed writer is alive. Nor does the so-called encomium bear any distinctive marks of the style of Gorgias. Spengel²⁸ would ascribe it to Polykrates. But then if Polykrates had been the author, Isokrates either would have addressed him, as in the Busiris, or would at least have named him. The author of the Argument rejects the notion that Polykrates is meant; remarking that, instead of Isokrates attacking Polykrates, it was Polykrates who attacked Isokrates for this work: and concludes that the allusion is probably to Anaximenes of Lampsakos; ‘a speech by whom is ²⁹ extant which is rather a defence of Helen than an encomium³⁰.’ It appears not improbable that Anaximenes may have been the real author of the work ascribed to Gorgias; and that it is Anaximenes of whom Isokrates speaks. But on this point we must be content with conjecture³¹ .

Two indications help to fix the time at which ³² Isokrates wrote. 1. From § 3 it may be inferred that Gorgias was dead³³; and Gorgias died about 380 B.C. 2. In § 1 there is an allusion to the three chief Sokratic sects—the Cynics, the Academy, the Megarics. These sects must have already been mature. The language implies further that Antisthenes, founder of the Cynics—who died in 376 B.C. —is still alive. The Encomium may probably be put about 370 B.C.³⁴

‘There are persons who pride themselves on being able ³⁵ to treat tolerably some paradoxical thesis;—as that one cannot lie; that courage, wisdom, justice, are the same thing —namely, knowledge; that nothing exists; that the same things are at once possible and impossible. This style of discussion has not even the charm of novelty. Who does not know the paradoxes of Protagoras and Gorgias, of Zenon and Melissos? The experts in this jugglery would do better if they took subjects which had some bearing on practical life. But in fact their only aim is to get money from young men, whom these subtleties amuse. The pupils have an excuse; the teachers have none. Some of the impostors go so far as to maintain that beggars and exiles are more enviable than other men. Preference for such themes is a sure sign of weakness. If a man wishes to prove himself a good athlete, he does not go to a palaestra which he will have all to himself. A panegyrist of bees or of salt³⁶ has no difficulty in appearing equal to his subject. But it is harder to rise to the height of a great argument. On this ground I give all praise to the writer on Helen—for celebrating one who was brilliant beyond compare in birth, beauty and fame. One point, however, has escaped him—that, while he professes to have written an encomium, he has, in fact, offered a defence. And—lest I seem to be doing what is so easy—blaming the work of others without showing my own—I will myself attempt to speak of Helen, omitting all that has been said by others (§§ 1—15).

‘Of all the children whom Zeus begat, the dearest to him were those of whom Alkmene and Leda were the mothers. Herakles and Helen were both destined by him to deathless life in heaven and deathless fame on earth; but to Herakles he gave strength—to Helen, that beauty which vanquishes the strong (§§ 16—17).

‘Her first lover was Theseus, called the son of Aegeus, but in truth the son of Poseidon. He fell in love with her when she was yet a young girl; and when Tyndareus rejected his suit, bore her away from Lacedaemon toAphidna in Attica.

‘Now the man who thus loved her stands alone in ³⁷ completeness of merit, having not some great qualities, but all. Contemporary with Herakles, he rivalled him. Both were athletes in the cause of human life; but with a difference;— the exploits of Herakles redounded more to his own glory— those of Theseus, to the good of others. Many deeds prove his courage and his reverence for the gods. His wisdom and moderation were proved by this,—that he was the first who joined Monarchy to Political Equality; gathered scattered villages into one town; and opened to all its citizens a free career, making their goodwill his bodyguard³⁸ (§§ 18—38).

‘When Theseus descended with Peirithoos to Hades, Helen returned to Sparta. The oath taken by her suitors— that he who won her should, if robbed of her, be helped by the rest—showed their foresight of the strife which she must cause. That foresight proved true, though the private hope of each was baffled. Alexander, son of Priam, was chosen ³⁹ umpire of beauty by the goddesses. Hera offered him the sovereignty of Asia,—Athene, victory in war,—Aphrodite, the hand of Helen. He could not tell which goddess was fairest; but he knew which offered the best gift. He chose Helen; desiring not her beauty alone, but to be allied with Zeus. Have those who, looking to the sequel, blamed his choice, a judgment better than that to which gods deferred? Or do they blame him for electing to live with her for whom demigods were content to die? (§§ 39—48).

‘And who would have scorned wedlock with her for whose ⁴⁰ sake all the Hellenes went to war as if Hellas had been ravaged? They regarded the issue as lying, not between Alexander and Menelaos, but between Europe and Asia. The land which held Helen must be most blest. As thought men, so thought the gods. Zeus sent his son Sarpedon, Eos sent her Memnon, Poseidon sent Kyknos, Thetis sent Achilles, to a fate which they foreknew, but which, they deemed, could not be more glorious (§§ 40—53).

‘And naturally: for Helen was endowed beyond compare ⁴¹ with beauty—the most august, the most honoured, the most divine of all things; the quality for which, if absent, nothing can make up; which, where it is present, wins goodwill at first sight; which makes service sweet and untiring, which makes tasks seem favours; beauty, the profanation of which by those who possess it we deem a crime more shameful than any wrong which they can do to others, while we honour for all their days those who guard it sacred as a shrine (§§ 54—58).

‘Before beauty Zeus himself is humble—approaching it ⁴² by craft often, never with violence; it is beauty which has raised most mortals to the gods (§§ 59—60).

‘Helen's power was proportionate to her supremacy in this gift. She became not only immortal but omnipotent. When her brothers were already the prisoners of Death, she lifted them to heaven; and in token of the change, set in the sky that star to which storm-tost sailors pray. To Menelaos, too, she gave deliverance from earthly troubles, and a place in heaven at her side; and at this day, at Therapnae in Lacedaemon, Helen and Menelaos are worshipped, not as blessed spirits only, but as gods. When Stesichoros blasphemed her, she struck him blind; and when he recanted, gave him back his sight. Some of the Homeridae say, too, that it was Helen who stood by Homer in the night, and bade him sing the War of Troy. Seeing then that she can punish and can reward, let rich men honour her with gifts, wise men with praise (§§ 61—66).

‘More than has been said remains untold. Besides the arts, the ideas, the other gains which Greece owes to her and to the Trojan War, it owes its very freedom from the barbarian. Before that time, Greece was a refuge for unlucky foreigners—for Danaos, for Kadmos, for Pelops, for the Karians who settled in the islands. After the war, our race grew strong enough to conquer towns and territory from the alien. If others choose to work out this theme, they will find no lack of matter for past praise of Helen’ (§§ 67—69).

The Encomium on Helen is, as a composition, greatly superior to the Busiris. The effort to adorn an ungrateful theme renders the Busiris constrained and somewhat frigid; here, there is more freedom and more glow. But the principle of the two pieces is the same. Isokrates conceived that dignity and gravity might be added to encomia of the conventional type by connecting with mythical subject-matter some topic of practical interest, political or moral; and he was willing to allow to such topic a greater prominence than its bearing on the special subject could warrant. This purpose is served in the Busiris by the discourse on the institutions of Egypt; in the Helen by the devotion of a large space to the reforms of Theseus.

II. 3. The Evagoras.

3. Evagoras [Or. IX.]—On the occasion of a festival held by Nikokles in memory of his father Evagoras, Isokrates sends this encomium as his tribute. The words in § 78—( πολλάκις σοι διακελεύομαι περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν)—have been taken as indicating the Letter To Nikokles, and as showing, therefore, that the Evagoras is later than that work⁴³. The scholiast further remarks that, though the speech is an epitaphios, it lacks two regular elements of such a composition— the lament ( τὸ θρηνητικόν) at the beginning and the consolation ( τὸ παραμυθητικόν) at the end; a fact for which he accounts on the supposition that many years had elapsed since the death of Evagoras⁴⁴. Neither this inference nor that drawn from § 78 appears safe. Another, perhaps of greater weight, may however be derived from another circumstance. The death of Evagoras was violent. He was assassinated in 374 B.C. by Thrasydaeos, a eunuch whose master, one Nikokreon, had just fled from Salamis on the detection of a plot against the king's life⁴⁵. Now, §§ 70—72 of this speech are so worded as to imply, without saying, that Evagoras had closed a prosperous life by a happy death⁴⁶. If Isokrates had been writing while the memory of the king's death was fresh, could he have written thus? The Letter To Nikokles may, as we saw, be placed in 374 or 373, the Nikokles between 372 and 365. The Evagoras is probably as late as 365; possibly later⁴⁷.

The speech is arranged as follows:—I. Proem, §§ 1—11. II. Evagoras: (1) his lineage and his acquisition of the throne, §§ 12—40: (2) his character, and his domestic reforms, §§ 41—50: (3) his wars, §§ 51—64: (4) general retrospect of his career, §§ 65 —72. III. Hortatory conclusion, §§ 73—81.

I. ‘Seeing you, Nikokles, bringing costly offerings to ⁴⁸ the tomb of your father,—honouring his obsequies with contests of athletes and of poets, with chariot-races and trireme-races,—I, too, wish to bring my tribute. If the soul of Evagoras is aware of what is done on earth, I believe that nothing could be more grateful to him than the commemoration of his virtues and his trials. The splendour of shows, the rivalry of self-glorifying poets, does not supply this; plain prose, then, shall attempt it. If it were the fashion to extol contemporary, instead of ancient heroes, a double gain would accrue; the panegyrist would be forced to respect truth, and his hearers would be encouraged to effort by the hope of praise. Envy hinders this. But the custom prescribed by envy must be broken through; without innovation there can be no improvement. The task is hard, since prose does not command the graces of poetry; yet it shall be tried whether merit cannot be praised without the help of metre⁴⁹ (§§ 1—11).

II. ‘The descent of Evagoras, well-known though it be, must be mentioned. The house of the Aeakidae, the noblest in Greece, was founded by a son of Zeus, Aeakos, to whom stands the temple in Aegina—a memorial of that intercession with his father by which he once delivered Greece from a sore drought (§ 18). From Aeakos sprang Peleus and Telamon; from Peleus, Achilles; from Telamon, Aias and Teukros. Teukros, after the taking of Troy, founded in Cyprus the town of Salamis and the present dynasty (§§ 12—18).

‘That dynasty has not, however, reigned uninterruptedly. ⁵⁰ A Phoenician exile came of old to Cyprus; won the trust of the king; ousted him, and took his throne⁵¹. The usurper's descendants still ruled when Evagoras was born. Distinguished in youth by beauty, strength, temperance, in early manhood by courage, wisdom, justice, Evagoras gave uneasiness, but not alarm, to the reigning house. He seemed too brilliant for a private lot, and yet too honest to snatch a royal one. Fortune fulfilled both auguries. It gave him a crown without driving him to a crime. One of the powerful nobles⁵² formed a conspiracy against the despot, and slew him; and sought at the same time to lay hands upon Evagoras, who fled to Soli in Cilicia. He there rallied round him a band of fifty men; landed with them in Cyprus; and, forcing his way the same night into Salamis, attacked the palace. The mass of the inhabitants standing neutral, he succeeded in taking it; expelled the usurpers; and restored the sceptre to his own house⁵³ (§§ 19—32).

‘If I were to say no more, the surpassing merit of Evagoras would have been sufficiently proved. No hero of legend or of history ever won kingly power in a manner so brilliant. Take the most famous instance of all—that of the elder Cyrus, who transferred the empire from the Medes to the Persians. Cyrus conquered by his army; Evagoras by his own courage: Cyrus slew his mother's father; Evagoras incurred no guilt’ (§§ 33—40).

‘His use of power was worthy of the manner in which he had gained it. Gifted with great and ready talents, he was at the same time minutely and incessantly diligent. He attended personally to all affairs; knew every citizen; did nothing on hearsay. The love of the gods for him, and his own love of men, were so apparent in his government that strangers visiting Cyprus envied the subjects no less than the king. Enemies found him resistless, friends pliant; he was dignified, but never harsh; consistent in deeds as in words; versatile in taking from every form of constitution its best part; at once a friend of the people, a large-minded statesman, and a far-seeing general (§§ 41—46).’

‘The history of his reign will be found to justify these ⁵⁴ praises. He found the State barbarised by the Phoenicians; ignorant of arts, without commerce, without even a harbour; at enmity with all Hellas⁵⁵. He not only repaired these evils, but acquired territory, built forts, created a fleet, and thus put his city on a par with any in Greece. His civilising influence reached even the barbarian countries adjacent to Cyprus. That island itself became a resort of distinguished settlers from the rest of Greece⁵⁶ (§§ 47—50).

‘Foremost among these was Konon. The friendship, ⁵⁷ closer than kinship, which at once sprang up between him and Evagoras was strengthened by the bond of a common sympathy for humiliated Athens. That Persia made the war against Sparta a maritime and not a land war, was due to the joint council of Konon and of Evagoras. They saw that a victory on the Asiatic continent could benefit only the Asiatic Greeks; but that a victory at sea must benefit all Hellas. And so it proved. The battle of Knidos was fought, and the bondsmen of Sparta were freed. Statues of Konon and Evagoras, placed side by side near the statue of Zeus the Deliverer, commemorated the gratitude of Athens (§§ 51—57).

‘Meanwhile Artaxerxes had viewed uneasily the genius ⁵⁸ and the fortune of Evagoras; and he now seized a pretext for hostilities. Though utterly without material resources, Evagoras, by his own ability and that of his son Pnytagoras, triumphed more marvellously than before. He reduced almost the whole of Cyprus; ravaged Phoenicia; stormed Tyre; threw Kilikia into revolt; filled Persia with mourning and with loathing of the war, until, against all precedent, the Great King made peace before the rebels were in his hands⁵⁹. In a war of less than three years, Persia had stripped Sparta of Empire; after a war of ten years⁶⁰, Persia was compelled to leave Evagoras in full possession of his kingdom (§§ 57—64).

‘Legend celebrates the conquest, by united Hellas, of the town of Troy; but must not that achievement yield to the defeat, by the single city of Salamis, of all Asia? Or where in history is the man who, after winning a throne and civilising a kingdom, won victories which changed the destinies of a race? It is hard to decide whether Evagoras is most admirable for his warfare against Sparta, for his warfare against Persia, for his acquisition, or for his exercise of power.

‘If the gods ever bestowed immortality in reward for virtue, surely it may be deemed that they have given it to Evagoras. During his lifetime, their favour graced him with all gifts of mind and body, with unchanging prosperity, with fame, with years, with noble children (§§ 65—72).

‘Failing powers have not suffered me to praise Evagoras aright; yet a slight tribute, at least, has been offered; and the portrait of a man's character is a better memorial than an image of his body. For you, Nikokles, and for your children, that character should be a spur to excellence. Most men have to take example from strangers; you need not go beyond your own family. I did not forget that you have begun your course well; I exhort you only as bystanders cheer a runner who is winning. Persevere, and you will prove worthy of yourself’ (§§ 73—81).

The Evagoras is professedly an encomium; but the praise which it awards does not, on the whole, appear to be exaggerated. The chief facts known about Evagoras speak for themselves; they show him to have been a man of unusually strong character, and of great abilities both military and political. A memoir of him is valuable not only on this account, but also on account of the peculiar position in which he was placed. Cyprus was divided between Phoenician settlements, such as Citium and Paphos, and later Greek settlements, such as Salamis and Soli. But the bulk of the population was, till long after the time of Evagoras, Phoenician⁶¹; and continual contact with the non-hellenic East must always have tended to depress the Greek element in Cyprus. Evagoras was the champion of Hellenism against ⁶² barbarism at this out-post; first, as restorer of that Greek civilisation which the Phoenician and Tyrian masters of Salamis had effaced; afterwards, as antagonist of Persia in a War of Independence. Perhaps the most striking passage in the memoir is that which describes how commerce, arts, letters, humane intercourse with the outer world, having become extinct under the rule of the barbarian, speedily sprang into a new life under the rule of the Hellene⁶³.

IV 4 Panathenaikos.

4. Panathenaikos [Or. XII.]—Isokrates began the Panathenaikos when he was 94 years of age (§ 3) —i.e. in 342 B.C. A celebration of the Great Panathenaea — mentioned in § 17—fell in Hekatombaeon (July—August) of that year, the third of Olympiad CIX. 3. It was probably the original intention of Isokrates that his speech should be published at this festival, as the Panegyrikos was probably published at Olympia: thus in § 135 he defends himself against the charge of discussing subjects unsuited to a great festal gathering. But this design, if he entertained it, was frustrated. He had written about half the discourse when he fell ill (§ 267); but at last it was completed and published when he was ninety-seven years old (§ 270), i.e. in ⁶⁴ 339. It is thus the latest of his works⁶⁵.

The Panathenaikos falls into three parts. I. §§ 1 ⁶⁶ —34: Introduction. Of these sections only §§ 1—4 are properly introductory. The rest—§§ 5—34—form a parenthetical defence of his ‘philosophy’ generally, in reply to an attack make upon him by some ‘vulgar’ ( ἀγελαῖοι) sophists ‘a little before the Great Panathenaea’ (§ 17).—II. §§ 35—198. The praises of Athens.—III. §§ 199—265. A supplement, in which the author notices certain criticisms upon his work, and rélates the circumstances under which it was composed.

I. ‘In my younger days I used to write, not on legends or remote history, nor in forensic causes, but on practical interests of Athens and Hellas—bringing to bear upon these all the resources of rhetoric. Such subjects and such a style do not now become my ninety-four years; rather it becomes me to speak as all men are apt to think that they could if they would, but as none can without toil.

‘I shall speak of the deeds of Athens and the goodness ⁶⁷ of our ancestors. But first I must touch upon a personal matter. All my days I have been misrepresented by obscure and worthless sophists, and misjudged by those who knew me but from hearsay. Health, wealth, a certain repute among the educated have been mine; and yet, in old age, I am discontented. Nature denied me force for action, and gave me but imperfect talents for speech. Strength of voice and firm nerves were denied to me; and at Athens it is more discreditable to lack these than to owe money to the treasury. Not daunted, however, I took refuge in a literary life; and hoped, as the counsellor of Hellenic unity and of war against Asia, to gain more esteem than the speakers who rail against each other in the ekklesia. This hope has failed; I have been praised,—and slighted. It is not strange, indeed, that the public should treat me thus, when the professional sophists, who make their living by plagiarising from me, are my worst enemies. Their slanders never annoyed me until, a few days before the Panathenaea, I learned that a group of them, talking in the Lykeion about Hesiod, Homer and other poets, had spoken of me as scorning all such subjects,—as ignoring all fields of thought, all lines of culture, except my own. I thought that I was safe from a charge of this kind; but I find that I did not overrate the spite which has baulked me of due recognition. Instead of retorting upon the slanderers, or arguing with those whom they influence, I will state in a few words what my notion of culture is. Geometry, astrology, eristic dialogues are good for the young, if only as employing them; but they do not make practical men. By an educated man I understand one who can deal with all that comes upon him day by day; who is honest and mannerly in society; who rules his desires; who is not spoiled by good fortune. So much for culture: my views about the poets shall be set forth at some other time. I have already passed the limits of a preface (§§ 1—34).

II. ‘The beneficence of Athens to Hellas has often ere now been praised by me incidentally; but it has never been, as now, my special themc. I am moved to choose that subject at once by the intemperate censure and by the feeble, or else extravagant, praise bestowed upon our city; also by my own advanced age, which will make failure pardonable and success more creditable (§§ 35—38).

‘As purple or gold is most brilliant when it has a foil, Athens will be best estimated if we place beside her another great city—Sparta (§§ 39—41).

‘The comparison may begin from the Dorian conquest of ⁶⁸ the Peloponnesos. Now our ancestors will be found to have cherished loyally the traditions of the Trojan war—concord with Hellas, and enmity against the barbarian. When the Kyklades, about which there had been disputes in the time of Minos, were at last seized, by the Karians, Athens restored them to the Hellenes⁶⁹. She founded cities on either ⁷⁰ continent, drove the barbarians from the Asiatic seaboard, and taught the Greek communities how to live. Sparta, meanwhile, careless of agriculture and of all civilising arts, was concentrated upon one selfish object—the conquest of the Peloponnesos; all of which, save Argos, fell under her power. Thus, so far, Athens had been a friend to Hellas; Sparta, only to herself (§§ 42—48).

‘When, later, Xerxes invaded Greece, Sparta, the ruler ⁷¹ of the Peloponnesos, sent but ten triremes to Salamis— Athens sent more than all the other states together. Sparta was represented by Eurybiades, who all but ruined Hellas; Athens, by Themistokles, who saved it (§§ 49—52).

‘Each of the two cities was in turn empress of the sea, ⁷² and thereby of the greater part of Hellas. Athens used that power to give to her allies the same form of government which she had herself found best; Sparta used it to impose upon her subjects an unheard-of form of tyranny—the dekarchies, which led to such enormous evils. We held our empire 65 years; when attacked by Greece and Persia combined, we resisted ten years, and afterwards reestablished our power in less time than it had cost to overthrow it. The Spartans kept their empire barely ten years; lost it by a single battle; and have never recovered it. In treating with the Persian king, we forbade him to come west of Halys or Phaselis⁷³; the Spartans made him master of Hellas (§§ 53—61).

‘Those who reluctantly admit the positive merits of ⁷⁴ Athens will perhaps attempt to qualify them by citing her crimes. I do not say that Athens has been faultless; but only that, where she has sinned, Sparta has sinned more. We are accused of having forced our allies to bring their causes to our tribunals. Is not the number of those summoned before our courts smaller than the number of those whom Sparta put to death without trial? We are accused of having taxed our allies. But they paid tribute of their own choice, for their own defence, out of property which we had preserved to them; and, in return, were brought by us out of their forlorn condition to a prosperity as great as that of the Peloponnesians who paid no impost. We are accused of cruelties to Melos, Skione, Torone. If Athens has sometimes been guilty in this respect, the sufferers were petty islands or towns; while the cities which Spartan ambition has made desolate are the greatest in the Peloponnesos, —Messene, which sent Nestor to Troy,—Argos, which sent Agamemnon (§§ 62—73).

‘(Can I pass by Agamemnon without a word of special ⁷⁵ praise, feeling for him, as I do, the sympathy of one who, like him, has missed his due fame? What element of greatness did Agamemnon lack? The only man who ever was leader of all Hellas, he led it against Asia, with kings for his subalterns; fought, not for his own gain, but for the safety of Greece, against such foreign adventurers as Pelops, Danaos, Kadmos; and, after keeping his army together for ten years by his own ability, took Troy, and quelled the insolence of the barbarians.) §§ 74—87.

‘I was saying that the victims of our severity have been insignificant; those of Sparta's illustrious, and, moreover, her own allies against Troy; the Messenians, namely, whom she drove from their country; and the Argives, with whom she is still at war. Plataea, the only city of Boeotia loyal to Hellas in the Persian war, was soon after taken by Sparta, and most of its citizens were put to death, in order to please Thebes. Athens, on the other hand, gave an asylum at Naupaktos to the Messenians, and bestowed her franchise upon the surviving Plataeans (§§ 88—94).—Both Athens and Sparta are accused of having reduced those cities, of whose liberty they professed themselves champions, to vassalage. Now in the early history of Athens there is no instance of her having aimed at ruling a single other city; whereas the policy of Sparta in the Peloponnesos has been from the first aggressive. Down to the time of our disaster at the Hellespont, we had never caused in any city the factions, the bloodshed, the revolution which, under Sparta, became rife everywhere. It was only when the Lacedaemonian power, after having become the first in Greece, began to decline, that two or three of our generals were guilty of imitating in a few cases a policy of which Sparta had set the earliest example.

‘Lastly, there is an offence against Hellas which Sparta has committed, but Athens, never. When most closely pressed by her neighbours, Athens has never forgotten the enmity which all Greeks ought to feel against the barbarian. Sparta used the alliance of the great king to advance her own power in Hellas; and rewarded him by supporting the rebel Cyrus with the forces led by Klearchos. Then, when Persia had defeated the Spartans at Knidos, they conciliated her by giving up the Asiatic Greeks (§§ 95—107).

‘Discreet admirers of Sparta will admit the truth of these criticisms. But those who cannot allow any fault in her will perhaps try to shift the ground of comparison to the relative merits of the Spartan and Athenian Constitutions. They will contrast the temperance and discipline which prevail there with the licence common among us.

‘I hope to show the superiority of the Athenian Constitution—not, ⁷⁶ indeed, in its present form, but in the form which it had under our ancestors; and which they abandoned, not because they were dissatisfied with it, but from necessity. A land-empire is maintained by moderation and strict discipline; a maritime empire requires nautical skill, hands to row the ships, and a certain reckless, piratical spirit. It was plain that in becoming naval, Athens must lose her old decorum and her hold upon the affection of the allies; but even this was better than submitting to the rule of Sparta.

‘The history of our ancestors’ polity must be traced from a time when as yet Oligarchy and Democracy were not; when barbarians and Greeks alike lived under Monarchies. If the savage heroes of other cities have claimed mention, much more do those of Athens deserve it. The horrors of which, in those days, Thebes and Argos were full, have supplied endless material for tragic poets; Athens, meanwhile, had already a noble civilisation. The favour of the gods was shown by this rare blessing—that from Ericthonios to Theseus the line of hereditary kings was unbroken⁷⁷. Elsewhere I have spoken at length of Theseus, or this would have been a fitting time to celebrate him. It was his glory that he chose work before the mere pleasures of a ⁷⁸ kingly lot; and that he shared the government of the city with the people. His successors established a Democracy tempered with Aristocracy. Some regard Aristocracy, like Timocracy, as a distinct type of polity⁷⁹. I recognise but three distinct types—Oligarchy, Democracy, Monarchy. The principle which selects the best men for office is applicable to any one of these; and, in all alike, insures prosperity. At present we have to consider the application of this principle to Democracy only. If the subject seem to some too grave for such an occasion as this, it will at least interest those whom I most wish to please; though I doubt my own power of doing justice to it.

‘The excellence of the old Democracy was due to the ⁸⁰ moral discipline to which the people had been subject under the monarchy. They did not forget the lessons learned then; they chose for leaders men friendly to the new system, but characterised by the old virtues of justice and sobriety. Under the presidency of such men, they soon got a thoroughly good code of laws,—compact, fair, useful, and consistent. Officials were chosen by the demes and tribes, and looked upon office as a task, troublesome, indeed, but honourable. The punctual discharge of this task was followed by moderate praise and designation to some fresh labour; the slightest failure in it was infamy and ruin. Office, therefore, was rather shunned than courted in those days; and the people were content with a constitution which, while exempting them from services, gave them sovereign power over their servants. The proof of this contentment is the fact that the constitution remained unchanged for not fewer than 1000 years,—from its origin to the time of Solon and of Peisistratos⁸¹. The latter used his demagogic power to make himself a despot. If it is objected that I speak too positively of a remote past, I reply that this is at least a generally credited account (§§ 108—150).

‘The principles of the old polity have been stated; it ⁸² remains to speak of its results. But a possible objection must first be met. It will, perhaps, be said that both the civil and the military institutions of Athens in the earliest times were borrowed from Lykurgos. The resemblance may be allowed. But it was Sparta that borrowed from us the idea of a Democracy tempered with Aristocracy, and of elective, instead of sortitive, offices. The Areiopagos, again, was the model of the Gerousia (§§ 151—154).

‘As regards military science, too, it can be shown that ⁸³ the Spartans did not practise it earlier, or use it better, than we did. First, however,—in order to appreciate the manner in which our ancestors used their military skill,—it is necessary to remember how both Athens and Sparta dealt with Hellas after the Persian wars. They made peace with Persia, and attacked each other. Argos and Thebes followed their example; and to this day Persia is arbiter of Hellas (§§ 155—160).

‘The rulers of Athens before the Persian war had no aim but the national well-being. They mediated between cities which were at variance; drove the barbarian from the islands and coasts which he had seized; and thus gave the Greeks wealth and security (§§ 161—167). Their military repute may be judged still better from their interference on behalf of Adrastos, when the Thebans, alarmed at their approach, consented to bury the Argive dead (§§ 168—171). (In the Panegyrikos⁸⁴ the Athenians were spoken of as having prevailed by force; but the more exact account given here proves no less the fame of their arms (§§ 172—174.)

‘Further, compare the early wars of Sparta with those of ⁸⁵ Athens. Immediately after the Dorian conquest, the aristocratic party became predominant in Lacedaemon; and, instead of allowing the people to share the franchise, fixed them to dwell as vassals in outlying villages, subject not only to the burdens of war, but to outrage and death at the caprice of the civic body. The victories of our Athenian ancestors were not of this shameful kind, but were won in three different periods of war against aliens. One period was that of the struggle with Xerxes; another, that of the war for the possession of the Asiatic colonies,—in which no Dorian took part. In the third (the earliest) period, Thracians, Scythians, and Eurystheus with his Peloponnesians, were in turn defeated; and, later, the troops of Dareios were routed at Marathon. Victorious so often, our fathers were yet true to their old, steadfast character; for they knew that the highest soldiership is impossible to immorality (175—198).

III. ‘Here, at its climax, this discourse would naturally ⁸⁶ have ended. I will explain how I have been forced to prolong it.

‘It had been written thus far, and I was revising it with three or four of my young pupils. We thought that nothing but a conclusion was wanted; but it occurred to me to ask a friend of oligarchical sympathies, and devoted to Sparta, if he could point out any misstatement which we had over looked. He came; heard, and praised, the greater part of ⁸⁷ the essay; but evidently disliked the criticisms upon the Spartans. ‘If Hellas owes them nothing else,’ he said, ‘it should be grateful to them for this—that they discovered the noblest rules of conduct, which they observe themselves and have taught to others.’—‘All would allow,’ I replied, ‘that piety, justice, prudence, are the best rules of conduct. The Spartans have been settled no more than 700 years in the Peloponnesos. If, then, these rules were first observed at Sparta, were they unknown to Herakles and Theseus, to Minos, Rhadamanthos, Aeakos? Again, discoverers are usually men of more than average intelligence and knowledge; but the Spartans are ignorant of the rudiments of letters. And as for their morality, they train their youth to rob the surrounding country; punishing them if they are found out, and promoting them if they are not.’ ‘By rules of conduct,’ he answered, ‘I did not mean piety, justice, prudence. I meant a manly, warlike training, and loyalty to one common purpose.’ ‘None are so blameable,’ I said, ‘as those who put good things to a bad use. The Spartans employ their warlike science to harass, and their unanimity to divide, the other Greeks’ (§§ 199—228).

‘My opponent was silenced, and went away a wiser man, inasmuch as he had learned the lesson recommended at Delphi. He had learned to know himself—and Lacedaemon. I had my essay written out immediately. But three or four days later new misgivings assailed me. It seemed to me ⁸⁸ that I had been too supercilious and too bitter in my expressions about Sparta. At last I called a council of friends to decide whether the composition should be burnt or published. It was read to them, and well received. The rest were ⁸⁹ talking it over among themselves, when my original adviser, the partisan of Sparta, addressed me. ‘I suspect,’ he said, ‘that you are not really uneasy about the manner in which you have spoken of the Lacedaemonians, and that you have brought us here only to try us. Your first idea was to extol Athens by comparing it advantageously with Sparta. Then, conscious that you had always been a panegyrist of Sparta, you became afraid of seeming inconsistent. Accordingly, you gave the semblance of censure to what was really praise. You have reproached the Spartans as arrogant, warlike, grasping. Now arrogance is allied to a lofty spirit. It is a warlike, not a peaceful temper which enlarges and guards possessions. Covetousness on a petty scale is, indeed, unpopular, and so defeats its own ends; but the covetousness of nations and despots has results which all the world admires. I am no enemy to the fame of your performance in thus pointing out its covert meaning. The hint will assist intelligent Spartans to perceive that, in accusing their city of having conquered all its great neighbours, you have glorified it; and that, in dwelling upon the faction and bloodshed among its dependents, you have implied the exemption of Sparta from such evils. You are to be congratulated upon the fame which you must win for having made both Athens and Sparta appear admirable;— Athens, to the many; Sparta, to the thoughtful. Do not burn your essay, but publish it, adding the discussion to which it has given rise; and so prove that you are as superior to the ordinary writers for the festivals as Homer to the poets who have copied him.’

‘These remarks were applauded enthusiastically; and all urged me to take the counsel. I thanked my able adviser; but did not tell him how far he had hit, or missed, my real mind (§§ 229—265).

‘My work is finished; a word in conclusion as to the ⁹⁰ circumstances under which it was done. It was begun in the 94th year of my age, and was half-completed, when I was seized with the disorder against which I have been struggling for three years. For a long time I did not allow it to stop my labours; but had at last given in, when friends pressed me not to leave this speech unfinished. I did as they wished, though in my 97th year, and in a state in which few could bear to be listeners, much less writers. This is not said to win indulgence, but simply in order to make the facts known. An acknowledgment is due to those who value instructive and artistic essays above mere displays; and a warning to those who judge rashly what they do not understand’ (§§ 266—272).

Isokrates prefaces the Panathenaikos with the ⁹¹ remark that both in respect to subject-matter and in respect to style it belongs to a different class from those works which employed his best years. Those works dealt with contemporary politics; this is purely historical: those displayed all the resources of an elaborate rhetoric; this is in a plain, though finished, style. He fears that the Panathenaikos will seem somewhat languid— μαλακώτερος—if compared with its brilliant predecessors: it must be judged, he says, in view of its own special scope.

There is one comparison, however, which can ⁹² hardly be avoided on this plea. The chief topics of the Panathenaikos are embraced in the first half of the Panegyrikos. These are:—1. The early services of Athens to Hellas in founding colonies, and in repelling the barbarians: Panath. §§ 42—48: Panegyr. §§ 34—37. 2. The early wars of Athens: Panath. §§ 175—198: Panegyr. §§ 51—70. 3. Athens in the Persian wars: Panath. §§ 49—52 and 189: Panegyr. §§ 71—74, 85—98. 4. The maritime empire of Athens: Panath. §§ 53—61: Panegyr. § 104, &c. 5. The misdeeds in Hellas of Athens and of Sparta respectively: Panath. §§ 62—107: Panegyr. §§ 100—132. Now, it is not merely in rhetorical brilliancy, it is in point and definiteness of thought, in vigour, in clearness of arrangement, that the Panegyrikos is so greatly superior to the Panathenaikos. The Panegyrikos is the earliest of its author's longer compositions, and the best; the Panathenaikos is the latest, and must be pronounced the weakest. The symptoms of the condition in which the writer then was—‘exhausted both by sickness and by old age’ (§ 268)—are indeed evident in many places. They appear in the diffuse yet incomplete reply to his detractors inserted at the beginning; in the long digression on Agamemnon, closed by the avowal that he knows not whither he is ‘drifting’ (§ 88); in the disorder especially of §§ 155—198; and in the rambling supplement §§ 199—265. This last raises a curious point. Isokrates evidently felt that his vehement censures of Sparta in the Panathenaikos were inconsistent with much in the general tone of his other writings (§ 239). But how far did he seriously mean to hint, as his own, the view which he makes his critic suggest—that these censures were, in their esoteric meaning, praise; since arrogance, aggressiveness, rapacity often win prizes which command [vulgar] admiration? In § 265 he declines to say how far the critic's suggestion had hit or missed his mind. If the critic was in any measure right, then the ingenuity of Isokrates had, indeed, declined.

The Panathenaikos contains, as has been seen, ⁹³ little that is not said better in the Panegyrikos; but it has at least one passage of distinctive interest. In §§ 108—154 Isokrates sketches his theory of the early Constitutional History of Athens. The characteristic feature of this theory is that it ignores any Oligarchical period, properly so called, between the Monarchy and the Democracy. The Monarchy is immediately succeeded by a Democracy; a Democracy tempered, indeed, by the principle of preferring the ‘best men’— δημοκρατία ἀριστοκρατίᾳ μεμιγμένη (§ 153). The term ‘oligarchic,’ as applied to the statesmen of this period, was a mere calumny of Peisistratos (§ 143). The elasticity of meaning which Isokrates gave to ‘democracy’ may be illustrated from Areopag. § 61, where he says that the Lacedaemonians are best governed because they are most democratic. It is noticeable, however, that in the Areopagitikos he dates that elder Democracy which he holds up to imitation, only from Solon— ὁ δημοτικώτατος (§ 16); perhaps because that preSolonian democracy which he here extols appeared to him a practically unattainable ideal.

The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos. Sir Richard C. Jebb. London. 1876.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by National Endowment for the Humanities.

Current edition Perseus

The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos (English) (The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos. Jebb, Richard Claverhouse, author. London: Macmillan, 1876.)

Notes on the current edition

The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos

1. See above, p. 55, note 1.

2. Purpose of the ‘Busiris’ —merely illustrative.

3. Panath. § 1.

4. Cf. Antid. § 45. In Panath. §§ 19 ff. he shows how much he had been nettled by the charge of depreciating all kinds of literary work except his own.

5. Polykrates.

6. Paus. VI. 17, 9, Ἰάσων ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ τυραννήσας, Πολυκράτους οὐ τὰ ἔσλατα ἐνεγκαμένου διδασκαλείου τοῦ Ἀθήνησι, τούτου τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐπίπροσθεν Γοργίαν ὁ Ἰάσων ἐποιήσατο. Here τυραννήσας can hardly refer to the ταγεία, for Jason was not tagos till about 374 B. C.: cf. Curtius IV. 445.

7. His ‘Accusation of Sokrates.’

8. Diog. Laert. II. 5. 39, Φαβωρῖνος δέ φησιν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν ἀπομνημονευμάτων μὴ εἶναι ἀληθῆ τὸν λόγον τὸν Πολυκράτους κατὰ Σωκράτους· ἐν αὐτῷ γάρ, φησι, μνημονεύει τω—ν ὑπὸ Κόνωνος τειχῶν ἀνασταθέντων, ἃ γέγονεν ἔτεσιν ἓξ τη—ς τοῦ Σωκράτους τελευτῆς ὕστερον.

9. Date of the ‘Busiris.’

10. γράφει πρὸς Πολυκράτη τινὰ σοφιστήν, Ἀθηναῖον μὲν τῷ γένει, σοφιστεύοντα δὲ νῦν ἐν Κύπρῳ. Others—who believe that in 391 Isokrates was at Chios—suggest, though without sufficient ground, that the auctor argum. has invented this statement to account for Isok. and Polyk. being strangers (Spengel Συν. Τεχν. p. 75).

11. With Antiphon, Thrasymachos, Kritias and Zoilos, Isae. c. 20: with Antiphon, Theodoros, Isaeos, Zoilos and Anaximenes, Dem. c. 8.

12. Isae. c. 20: κενὸς μὲν ἐν τοῖς ἀληθινοῖς, ψυχρὸς δὲ καὶ φορτικὸς ἐν τοῖς ἐπιδεικτικοῖς, ἄχαρις δὲ ἐν τοῖς χαριεντισμοῦ δεομένοις. By τὰ ἀληθινά, as opposed to τὰ ἐπιδεικτικά, Dionysios seems to mean the treatment of practical questions either in Forensic or in Deliberative speaking. Demetrios, περὶ ἑρμ. § 120 (in Walz, Rhet. IX. 54), makes the want of earnestness the great defect of Polykrates. ἔπαιζε γάρ, οὐκ ἐσπούδαζε, καὶ αὐτὸς τῆς γραφη—ς ὁ ὄγκος παίγνιόν ἐστι—a passage which Spengel ingeniously compares with the Ἑλένης μὲν ἐγκώμιον ἐμὸν δὲ παίγνιον of [Gorg.] Helen Enc. § 21, in support of his view that Polykrates wrote that piece; but the point is not a very strong one.

13. Diog. Laert. II. 5, 39 notices this tradition, but contradicts it on the authority of Favorinus: see p. 94, n. 2. Cf. Quint. II. 17, 4 ( Polycrates) composuisse orationem, quae est habita contra Socraten, dicitur. By the auctor argum. Polykrates is described as καὶ σοφιστὴς καὶ λογογράφος .

14. Arist. Rhet. II. 24.

15. Demetr. περὶ ἑρμ. § 120, in Walz's Rhet. IX. p. 54.

16. Quint. II. 17, 4.

17. Fancied motive of the piece.

18. Analysis.

19. Civilisation of Egypt.

20. i.e. about 130 years: cf. Herod. II. 142, γενεαὶ...τρεῖς ἀνδρῶν ἑκατὸν ἔτεά ἐστι .

21. Chronology of the Heroes.

22. Remarks.

23. See §§ 37, 38— λογοποιῶν—ποιητῶν. By λογοποιοί here, as in Philipp. § 109 ( οὔτε τῶν ποιητῶν οὔτε τῶν λογοποιῶν), &c., are meant the chroniclers who were called λογογράφοι before the latter word got its forensic meaning. So Herod. V. 125 calls Hekataeos λογοποιός Cf. Verg. Geo. III. 5.

24. For example, he treats as historical the list of kings from Kekrops to Theseus, Panath. §§ 12 ff.; the adventures of Herakles, Archid. § 18, cf. Philipp. § 111; the divine origin of Aeakos;—the battle of Peleus with the Centaurs and his marriage with Thetis, Evag. 14—16, &c.

25. The Encomium ascribed to Gorgias.

26. See, for example, § 2 of the [ Τοργίου] Ἑλένης ἐγκώμιον (printed in Sauppe's Orat. Att. II. 132), where the writer declares at the outset that his object is ἐλέγξαι τοὺς μεμφομένους Ἑλένην. And at the conclusion (§ 21) he says— ἀφεῖλον τῷ λόγῳ δύσκλειαν γυναικός, κ.τ λ.

27. Question of its authorship.

28. Spengel, συναγωγὴ τεχνῶν, pp. 74, 75.

29. Was Anaximenes the author?

30. See this ὑπόθεσις in Benseler's edition of Isokrates, vol. I. p. lx.

31. Blass ( Att. Bereds. p. 66) thinks it unlikely that Anaximenes is the writer meant by Isokrates. The author of the Argument notices also the view that Gorgias is the writer alluded to. This, Blass thinks, shows that an Encomium of the kind described was then extant under the name of Gorgias; and this, he argues, can hardly be other than the Encomium which we possess. But, then, is it not singular that, while the author of the Argument mentions the fact of such a work by Anaximenes existing, and cites this fact in support of the theory that Anaximenes is meant, he does not say that there is any work by Gorgias to which a reference can be supposed? If he had known of any Encomium by Gorgias corresponding to the description of Isokrates, he would surely have mentioned it, as he mentions the Encomium by Anaximenes. I am strongly inclined to believe that the speech extant under the name of Gorgias was known to the writer of the Greek Argument only as the work of Anaximenes.

32. Date.

33. Spengel, συν. τεχν. p. 74. Among ‘Protagoras and the sophists of that day’ Gorgias is mentioned as he ‘ who presumed to say,’ &c.: § 3.

34. Thompson, Phaedr., Appendix II. p. 175. The references are thus marked:—(1) Cynics. ‘Those who have grown grey,—where the tense, καταγεγηράκασιν, suggests that Antisthenes was alive—‘in asserting that it is impossible to lie,’ &c.—alluding to the Cynic paradoxes. (2) Academy. ‘Those who hold that Valour, Wisdom, Justice are the same thing,’ &c. (3) Megarics. ‘Those who pass their time in disputes ( ἔριδας) which can serve no purpose but that of giving trouble to their pupils'— the Eristic.

35. Analysis.

36. Cf. Plat. Symp. 177 B, ἀλλ’ ἔγωγε ἤδη τινὶ ἐνέτυχον βιβλ’ίῳ ἀνδρὸς σοφοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἐνῆσαν ἅλες ἔπαινον θαυμάσιον ἔχοντες πρὸς ὠφέλειαν· καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα συχνὰ ἴδοις ἂν ἐγκεκωμιασμένα. Besides his encomium on mice (Ar. Rhet. II. 24) Polykrates wrote in praise of χύτραι and ψῆφοι (Menander rhetor, p 611 Ald.).

37. Theseus.

38. § 37. For the Isokratic view of Theseus, cf. note on Panathen. § 126.

39. Paris.

40. The war of Troy.

41. The power of beauty

42. and of Helen.

43. The scholiast who wrote the argument to Or. 9 takes this view (Sauppe, O. A. II. p. 8): and so Dr O. Schneider, Isocr. Ausgewahlte Reden, Part I. p. 31.

44. See the scholium on Or. 9. § 1 (Sauppe, O. A. II. p. 9).

45. Cf. Grote, c. 76, vol. X. p. 32.

46. § 71, κάλλιστα κτησάμενος τὴν βασιλείαν ἐν ταύτῃ διετέλεσε τὸν βίον...τοσοῦτον δ’ ἐβίω χρόνον ὥστε μήτε τοῦ γήρως ἄμοιρος γενέσθαι μήτε τῶν νόσων μετασχεῖν τῶν διὰ ταύτην τὴν ἡλικίαν γιγνομένων.

47. The Evagoras cannot, of course, be later than 353, since in 353—which may be assumed as the date of the Antidosis—Nikokles is no longer alive: Antid. § 67. We get no help, then, from § 8, in which this speech is said to be the first encomium of the kind ever written in prose. This only shows the speech to be earlier than 351 B. C. (Schäfer: Clinton, 352), in which year Artemisia proposed a contest of prose ἐγκώμια in honour of Mausolos (above, p. 11).

48. Analysis.

49. § 11. Isokrates appears to mean that the ἐγκώμια recited at banquets, in honour of living victors at the games, &c., or at funeral festivals in honour of the dead, had hitherto always been in verse. Prose encomia on mythical or other subjects had, of course, long been in vogue as exercises with the Sophists,—such as the Helenae encomium and the Busiris of Isokrates himself.

50. How Evagoras won the throne.

51. § 19. κατὰ μὲν ἀρχὰς οἱ γεγονότες ἀπὸ Τεύκρου τὴν βασιλείαν εἶχον· χρόνῳ δ’ ὕστερον ἀφικόμενος ἐκ Φοινίκης ἀνὴρ φυγάς, κ.τ.λ. When Evagoras was born, the descendants ( ἔκγονοι) of this man were ruling: § 21.Isokrates conceived the Phoenician usurper as having seized the throne at some time—he did not know at precisely what time— long after the first establishment of the Teukrid dynasty; but also long before the birth of Evagoras. A succession of Phoenician kings had reigned over Salamis in the mean time. This is intimated not only in §§ 19—21, but also in § 47, where Salamis is described as having been barbarised διὰ τὴν Φοινίκων ἀρχήν.At the time of the Ionian revolt (500 B.C.) Salamis was governed by Greek princes (Her. v. 104— 114);—the appearance in whose family of the Phoenician name Siromos (Hiram) may perhaps be accounted for, as Professor Rawlinson suggests, by intermarriage. Mr Grote would place the dispossession of the Greek dynasty by the Phoenician usurper about 450 B.C. (c. 76: vol. X. p. 21). This seems very probable. But to my mind the words of Isokrates convey the notion that he, at any rate, imagined the Phoenician usurpation to have taken place much earlier.

52. § 32. εἷς γὰρ τῶν δυναστευόντων ἐπιβουλεύσας τόν τε τύραννον ἀπέκτεινε, κ.τ.λ. By οἱ δυναστεύοντες here Isokrates seems to mean the great men of Salamis. The slayer of the Phoenician usurper was Abdêmon—a Citian, according to Theopompos (frag. 111): a Tyrian, according to Diodoros (xiv. 98). Mövers, thinks that he may have been a native of Citium who had migrated from Salamis to Tyre (Grote, X. p. 22, note 1).

53. The date of the restoration of the Teukrid dynasty by Evagoras cannot be exactly determined. At his death in 374 B. C. he was οὐ γήρως ἄμοιρος (§ 71). Andokides is said to have visited Cyprus just after the fall of the Four Hundred, which took place in the autumn of 411 B.C., and to have found Evagoras reigning at Salamis: [Lys.] in Andoc. § 28. Mr Grote concludes that Evagoras began to reign ‘about 411 or 410 B. C.’ (411 B. C. is probably the latest year we can take)— justly observing that ‘he must have been a prince not merely established, but powerful, when he ventured to harbour Konon in 405 B. C., after the battle of Aegospotami.’ (vol. X. p. 25).

54. His reforms in Cyprus.

55. § 47. The disposition of Phoenicians in Cyprus towards Hellenic visitors at this period is strikingly illustrated, as Mr Grote observes (X. p. 22 n.) by [Lys.] in Andoc. § 26: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἔπλευσεν ( Ἀνδοκίδης) ὡς τὸν Κιτιέων βασιλέα, καὶ προδιδοὺς ληφθεὶς ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐδέθη, καὶ οὐ μόνον θάνατον ἐφοβεῖτο ἀλλὰ τὰ καθ’ ἡμέραν αἰκίσματα, οἰομένος τὰ ἀκρωτήρια ζῶντος ἀποτμηθήσεσθαι.

56. The years 413—405 were years of great distress for Athens; and, after 405, cases of banishment and confiscation were numerous in every city where there was a Spartan dekarchy. Thus the early years of the reign of Evagoras coincided with a period when such a refuge as Salamis was likely to attract the greatest number of settlers. See Grote, X. p. 26.

57. His friendship with Konon.

58. His war with Persia.

59. § 64. 396—394 B. C. Isokrates considers the war between Persia and Sparta as having virtually begun in 396 B.C.—in which year Agesilaos took the command in Asia, and Konon took the chief command of the Persian fleet. He considers that Persia took away the empire ( ἀφείλετο τὴν ἀρχήν) of Sparta by the victory of Knidos in 394.This is, of course, a rhetorical exaggeration; for though it is true that the maritime power of Sparta was crushed at Knidos, the Spartan ἀρχή in Hellas lasted till Leuktra. The three years' war spoken of here is called ὁ πόλεμος ὁ περὶ Ῥόδον in Panegyr. § 142.

60. § 64. Probably 385—376 B. C. The date of the war is discussed in a note on Panegyr. § 134.

61. See Professor Rawlinson's note (8) on Herod. v. 104.

62. The Cyprian Salamis an out-post of Hellas.

63. §§ 47—50.

64. Date.

65. The ἤδη ἀπειρηκώς of § 268 tallies with the παντάπασιν ἀπειρηκώς of the Third Letter (§ 4)— written in 338.

66. Analysis.

67. A personal vindication.

68. Athens contrasted with Sparta.

69. § 43. The relations of the Karians to Minos are thus described by Herodotus (I. 171):

τὸ γὰρ παλαιὸν ἐόντες Μίνω τε κατήκοοι καὶ καλεόμενοι Λέλεγες εἶχον τὰς νήσους, φόρον μὲν οὐδένα ὑποτελέοντες, ὅσον καὶ ἐγὼ δυνατός εἰμι μακρότατον ἐιξικέσθαι ἀκοῆ·| οἱ δὲ, ὅκως Μίνως δέοιτο, ἐπλήρουν οἱ τὰς νέας

. See, as an excellent commentary on Herodotos, Curt. Hist. Gr. bk. I. c. iii. vol. I. pp. 71 ff. tr. Ward. Cf. Clinton F. H. I. p. 39. ‘It seems, however, that at the death of Minos the Karians retained, or at least recovered, possession of the Kyklades; and that they were not finally expelled till the time of the Ionian colonies; for Isocrates and Plutarch [ de exil. p. 603 B] describe them as possessing the Kyklades after the return of the Heraklidae into Peloponnesos, and ascribe their expulsion to the Athenians.’ Clinton thinks that the words of Isokr. in this passage refer ‘to the Ionic migration, when the colonists seized upon the Kyklades’. ib. p. 39, note g.

70. Services to Civilization

71. Services against Persia

72. The two Empires.

73. § 59. See Panegyr. § 115 note Areop. § 80 note.

74. The faults of Athens compared with those of Sparta.

75. (Digression—Agamemnon.)

76. Athenian Constitution.

77. § 126. As Mr Clinton observes ( F. H. vol. I. c. 2, p. 61), Isokrates considers Ericthonius properly as the first of the Attic kings. And it is probable, though not certain, that he regarded Theseus as the last. See § 130: περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς Θησέως ἀρετῆς νῦν μὲν ὡς οἷόν τ’ ἦν ἀνεμνήσαμεν ˙ περὶ δὲ τῶν παραλαβόντων τὴν τῆς πόλεως διοίκησιν ἣν ἐκεῖνος παρέδωκεν οὐκ ἔχων τίνας ἐπαίνους εἰπὼν ἀξίους ἂν εἴην εἰρηκώς......κατεστήσαντο γὰρ δημοκρατίαν. This would naturally mcan that, on the death of Theseus, a Democracy was established. And such an interpretation is in perfect harmony with Helen. Encom. § 36— ὥσθ’ ὁ μὲν (Theseus) τὸν δῆμον καθίστη κύριον τῆς πολιτείας, οἱ δὲ μόνον αὐτὸν ἄρχειν ἠξίουν, ἡγούμενοι πιστοτέραν καὶ κοινοτέραν εἶναι τὴν ἐκείνου μοναρχίαν τῆς αὐτῶν δημοκρατίας. It was not monarchy, but his monarchy, which they preferred: on his death, then, they would have the democracy.

78. Theseus.

79. § 131. Isokrates denies that ἀριστοκρατία and ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν τιμημάτων πολιτεία are to be reckoned ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις. See, on the other hand, Plato Polit. § 291 D, where the three types of government (as popularly conceived) are said to be:—1. Monarchy, subdivided into ( a ) βασιλεία, constitutional monarchy, ( b) τυραννίς, unconstitutional: 2. ‘The rule of the few,’ ἡ τῶν ὀλίγων δυναστεία, subdivided into ( a) ἀριστοκρατία, the good term, ( b ) ὀλιγαρχία, the bad. 3. Democracy: of which the good sort and the bad are called by the same name. In Aristotle ( Politics III. vi.— viii) we have three normal ( ὀρθαί) types—1. μοναρχία, 2. ἀριστοκρατία, 3. πολιτεία (Republic): and three corresponding perversions ( παρέκβασεις)—1. τυραννίς: 2. ὀλιγαρχία. 3. δημοκρατία.

80. The Old Democracy.

81. § 148 οὐκ ἐλάττω χιλίων ἐτῶν. The Constitution spoken of here must be that δημοκρατία just mentioned (§ 147)— δημοκρατία ἀριστοκρατίᾳ χρωμένη (§ 131)—which succeeded the Monarchy. There would be no point in the passage if in αὕτη ἡ πολιτεία he meant to include the Monarchy. We are driven, then, to infer that the Isokratean date for the close of the Monarchy is 1560 B. C.—some 500 years earlier than the date assigned by the commoner tradition to Kodros, and about 400 earlier than that assigned to Theseus, whom (as was remarked above) Isokrates seems to have regarded as the last king. (In the Encom. Helen. Isokr. himself makes Theseus a lover of Helen.) But, in the vagueness of the legends about early Attica, a writer—especially a rhetorical writer—was at liberty to take almost any round number that suited his purpose.

82. Mutual Political Lessons.

83. Military Science.

84. § 58.

85. Early wars of Athens and of Sparta.

86. Epilogue.

87. Conversation with a friendly critic.

88. New misgivings.

89. The critic as a comforter.

90. Conditions under which the work was written.

91. Remarks

92. The Panathenaikos compared with the Panegyrikos.

93. Isokrates on Early Athens.

Sir Richard C. Jebb The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos 2.15.5