The only lost work ¹ of Isokrates known from definite citations is his Art of Rhetoric. It has, indeed, always been questioned whether he was the author of the treatise once current under his name. Quintilian, in quoting it for an opinion of Isokrates, adds—‘if it is really his ² ’; and Photios hints a like doubt ³ . Modern criticism ⁴ is divided. Some infer from extant notices, direct and indirect ⁵ , that Isokrates really published a systematic ‘Art.’ The direct notices are, with one exception, of slight interest. They inform us that Isokrates defined Rhetoric as ‘the science of persuasion ⁶ ,’ insisted, in reference to forensic speaking, on the importance of taking up a strong position in that general statement of a case ( κατάστασις ⁷ ) which precedes the detailed narrative of facts, as well as on the need of comprehensiveness in the narrative ( διήγησις) itself ⁸ ; and observed on the dislike of ‘Atticists’ to coining new words ⁹ . The only citation more precise and satisfactory than these is made by Maximus Planudes ¹⁰ . ‘We learn,’ he says, ‘from the Art of Isokrates what kind of diction is called pure; for that writer has been so attentive to purity of style as to give in his own treatise such precepts as these upon the subject:—‘In composition ¹¹ , vowels must not clash ¹² , for that has a lame effect; nor is it well to begin and end with the same syllable, as εἰποῦσα σαφῆ, ἡλικὰ καλά, ἔνθα Θαλῆς; or to put the same conjunctions close together, making the latter answer immediately to the former ¹³ . As to particular words, use those which are figurative, but not harshly so; or which are noblest—least artificial—most familiar. In short, your prose must not be prose,—that is dry; nor metrical,—for that betrays art; but tempered with all manner of rhythms, especially iambic or trochaic. In narrative, set the first incident, the second, and the rest, in regular sequence. Do not pass to a fresh point before you have done with the first, or then come back from the end to the beginning. Let your separate thoughts be severally completed and rounded off.’ These rough notes—for they are no more—doubtless represent the substance of precepts which Isokrates really gave at least orally ¹⁴ to his pupils, whether their present form is, or is not, that in which they were actually put forth by him.

There is nothing to prove that any of the ¹⁵ numerous ¹⁶ apophthegms ascribed to Isokrates were taken from writings of his now lost ¹⁷ . Many of these apophthegms are mere repartees in conversation; others are maxims of morality or prudence which may, of course, have been found in books, but which are in no instance quoted from any particular book. The average quality of the sayings may be judged from a few specimens. On being asked how he, who was no public speaker, could teach others to speak, he answered that a whetstone cannot cut, but can fit iron to do so ¹⁸ .—‘A father having said that he never gave his son any companion but a slave, —‘Well then,’ Isokrates answered, ‘you will have two slaves ¹⁹ .’ ‘If you have a fair body and an ill mind, you have a good ship and a bad pilot ²⁰ .’— ‘The root of learning is bitter, the fruit sweet ²¹ .’— On being asked in what the industrious differ from the indolent, he said—‘As the pious from the impious—in good hopes ²² .’

It would, of course, be idle to inquire what proportion of these sayings is genuine. A master of neat expression, who was at the same time singularly sententious, could not fail to be credited with many such γνῶμαι as those with which the Ad Demonicum abounds, and for which the Greek taste received a new impulse from the Peripatetics ²³ .