Search the Perseus Catalog for:

View: By Section

← Previous Next →

Isokrates: Letters and Fragments

Letter I., To Dionysios.

THE nine¹ Letters of Isokrates may best be taken in their probable chronological order.

1. To Dionysios [Ep. I.]—This is the proem of a letter to Dionysios the Elder, tyrant of Syracuse from 405 to 367 B. C., urging him to interfere, for the common good, in the affairs of Greece. The fragment breaks off just as Isokrates is going to explain the purpose for which he asks this interference. But the purpose, which could hardly have ² been doubtful, is expressly stated in the Philippos (§ 8). Isokrates wished Dionysios to undertake the work which he had already³ pressed on Athens and Sparta and which he afterwards pressed on Archidamos and on Philip—the leading of united Greece against Persia.

Three points are helps towards fixing the date. ⁴ (1) Isokrates is too old and infirm⁵ for a voyage to Sicily: § 1. (2) The Spartan supremacy is past; the Carthaginians are in such a plight as to be thankful if they can keep their own territory: § 8. (3) Friendly relations exist between Dionysios and Athens. Now the references in § 8 might be applied to the latter part of 394 B.C.; in which year the defeat at Knidos destroyed at least the naval supremacy of Sparta, and Dionysios imposed an humiliating peace upon Imilkon. But in 394 B.C. Isokrates was only forty-two. And the good understanding between Dionysios and Athens was not established before 369 B.C.⁶ The time indicated is more probably 368 B.C. In that year Dionysios was again at war with the Carthaginians, and was at first, though not finally, successful⁷. This letter may have been written at the time when the report of his first successes had reached Athens. Three years before, the Spartan empire had been finally overthrown at Leuktra.

‘Were I a younger man, I would not have written but ⁸ come to you. Written advice is at many disadvantages as compared with oral. But I trust that these disadvantages will be neutralised by your interest in the substance of my letter. Some have pretended that you prefer flatterers to advisers; but I do not believe that your pre-eminence in counsel and in action could have been reached if you had not been willing to gather the best thoughts of every mind. (§§ 1—4.) Do not take this letter for a rhetorical composition. Had display been my object, I should have sought my audience at some great festival. But my object is practical; I want a certain thing done, and therefore address the man who is able to do it. Purposing to give counsel for the welfare of Hellas, to whom ought I to speak but to the first of Hellenes? The time is opportune for such counsel. While Sparta was at the head of Hellas, you could not have interfered in our affairs without adding rivalry with Sparta to your actual struggle against Carthage. Now Carthage has been humbled; and Athens is ready to be your ally. (§§ 5—8.) Do not think it strange if one who is neither statesman nor general presumes to speak in the cause of Hellas, and to you. I can at least claim a share of culture, and of that culture which concerns itself with the greatest questions. But you shall at once judge for yourself whether my advice is worth any thing...’ (§§ 9—10.)

Letter VI., To the Children of Jason.

2. To the Children of Jason. [Ep. VI.]—Jason, tyrant of Pherae and tagos of Thessaly, was assassinated in Ol. 102. 3, 370 B.C. The facts known about his successors may be summed up thus⁹:—

370. On the death of Jason, his brothers Polydoros and Polyphron become joint tagoi. Polydoros is soon afterwards murdered by Polyphron.

369. Alexander, son of Polydoros, murders Polyphron and reigns in his stead.

359¹⁰. Alexander is murdered, at the instigation of his wife Thebe (daughter of Jason), by her halfbrothers Tisiphonos, Peitholaos and Lykophron. Thebe and Tisiphonos share the chief power.

358. Tisiphonos dies. Lykophron and Peitholaos presently avail themselves of the distraction caused by the Phocian (or ‘Sacred’) War, 357 B. C., to establish a joint tyranny¹¹.

352. Philip of Macedon deposes Lykophron and frees Pherae from the tyranny.

This letter of Isokrates was written to Thebe and her half-brothers, the children of Jason¹², in 359 B. C, soon after the death of Alexander. In §§ 7—14 Isokrates counsels the persons whom he addresses, and whom flatterers were ‘spurring on to despotism’ ( ἐπὶ τὴν τυραννίδα παροξύνοντες, § 12), to think whether it is better to have honour from willing or from unwilling citizens. This is exactly illustrated by Diodoros, who says of Thebe and her brothers—‘At first they had great acceptance as despot-slayers; but afterwards they changed their minds,—made a bargain with hireling troops, and set themselves up as despots; and after putting out of the way many of those who wrought against them, and equipping their power to a noteworthy strength, seized the government¹³.’ Isokrates wrote before they had wholly ‘changed their minds.’ The Athenian embassy noticed in § 1 had doubtless been prompted by the hope that the government of Pherae was about to become more democratic¹⁴.

‘One of our envoys has brought me word that you asked ¹⁵ him privately whether I could be induced to take up my abode with you. For the sake of my friendship with Jason and Polyalkes I would gladly consent; but many things hinder me. First, old age. It would ill become me to leave Athens now, when, were I abroad, I ought to be hastening back to die. Next, to say the truth, I fear Athens. Her alliances, I see, are shortlived. Should her alliance with you prove so, I, who live among you, would incur at least the shame of siding with friends against friends. (§§ 1—3.)

‘I will try, however, to discuss your affairs as I would have done had I come to you. This letter is not meant for rhetorical display: it is written because I see you in great troubles. A man of my age is past writing well; but the very length of his experience qualifies him to advise. (§§ 4—6.) I always teach my pupils that, in composing a speech, the first thing needful is to define clearly the object which they wish the speech to effect; the next thing is to adapt the means to that end. This principle does not apply to the writing of speeches only; it applies to all enterprises, and to your case among the rest. You must reflect what mode of life, what kind of repute, you desire; whether you are ambitious of honours to be given by, or extorted from, your fellow-citizens; and then you must shape accordingly your daily conduct. To me the life of a private man seems better than that of a king,—the honours of a republic sweeter than those of a monarchy. I know that this view will find many adversaries, especially among those who are about you. They look only to the powers, the riches, the pleasures of royalty, ignoring its troubles and its dangers. Now this is just the feeling with which men dare crimes. They know that there is peril; but trust that they will contrive to avoid it. I envy such easiness of temper; but should be ashamed if, in advising others, I failed to state fairly both sides of the question. Expect, therefore, an impartial estimate.’...(§§ 7—14.)

Letter IX, To Archidamos

3. To Archidamos [Ep. IX.]—This Letter is addressed to Archidamos III., who succeeded his father Agesilaos as one of the kings of Sparta in 361 B.C., and died in 338. In his Sixth Oration (366 B.C.) Isokrates supposes this same Archidamos giving heroic counsels to Sparta; he now urges him to become the leader of Greece against Persia.

In § 4 there is a reference to ‘the battle in ¹⁶ the city:’ i.e. the attempt of Epameinondas to surprise Sparta in 362 B.C.¹⁷ From § 16 it appears that Isokrates was now eighty. If he was not more, the Letter belongs to 356 B.C.

Either the Letter was meant merely to introduce a discourse sent along with it¹⁸, or it is itself fragmentary. The latter supposition seems the more likely¹⁹.

‘I leave to others, Archidamos, the easy task of praising ²⁰ you, your father, and your race. Those who choose that theme have topics enough ready to their hand,—the splendour of a descent from Herakles and Zeus; the valour of the Dorian colonies of the Peloponnesos; the achievements of Sparta under the Herakleidae, and the virtues taught by the unchanging Spartan discipline; the wisdom of your father; his conduct in times of disaster; and lastly that battle at Sparta in which you saved the state. But my purpose is not to speak of your past exploits; it is the more arduous one of inciting you to enterprises of a new kind—enterprises which will benefit not Sparta only but all the Hellenes. (§§ 1—7.)

‘It is strange that no powerful statesman or speaker has yet taken pity on the present miserable condition of Hellas. ²¹ Every part of it is full of war, factions, massacres, woes unnumbered. Most wretched of all are those Greeks on the seaboard of Asia whom by the treaty we gave over, not merely to the barbarians, but to those of our own race who are barbarian in all save speech. These roving desperadoes, under any chance leader, form armies larger and better than those of the settled communities; armies which do trifling damage to Persia, but bring desolation to the Greek cities which they visit. They slay, they banish, they plunder; children are outraged; women, whom none but kinsmen had ever seen even veiled, are stripped naked before all eyes. (§§ 8—10.)

‘These miseries, now long continued, have as yet attracted the indignation of no leading city in Greece; nor of any leading man, except your father. Agesilaos stood alone ²² in his life-long desire to free the Greeks and to turn their arms against the barbarian. He failed only because he sought to combine the war against Persia with the restoration of his personal friends to their respective cities. He thus excited factions which left men no leisure for the war. The moral of his life is that the Greeks must be reconciled among themselves before they are led against the Great King. (§§ 11—14.)

‘Some, perhaps, whose so-called ‘philosophy’ has none but petty aims, will call it madness in me to suppose that Greece at large can be better or worse for any words of mine. But, though eighty years old and worn out, I am arrogant enough to believe that such counsels can come from no one so well as from me, and that perchance they will bear fruit. I believe that, if the other Greeks had to pick out the man who could best advocate, and the man who could best execute, measures recognized as useful, the choice would fall on none but you and me. My part is the smaller; to say what one thinks is not hard; but you should be moved by you descent, by your place in Sparta, by your name in Greece, to rise to the height of your new duty. Leave all else, and give your mind to two things only—the deliverance of the Greeks from their miserable feuds, and the crushing of barbarian insolence. That these things can be done,—that they are expedient for you, for Sparta, and for the rest of Hellas,— it shall now be my task to explain.’ (§§ 15—19.)

Letter VII., To Timotheos.

4. To Timotheos [Ep. VII.]—Klearchos, a citizen of Herakleia on the Euxine, had been a pupil of Isokrates, and also of Plato. He was recalled from Athens to Herakleia by the nobles, who wished for his help against the people. He changed sides, became a demagogue, and then, in 364 B.C., tyrant²³. His reign was cruel²⁴. He died in 353, leaving his brother Satyros guardian of his two sons Timotheos and Dionysios, and regent for the elder. Satyros seems to have ruled at least for some years, and worse even than Klearchos. But he was true to his nephews, and in due time gave up the royal power into the hands of Timotheos, who reigned from about 346 to 338. Timotheos then ‘began to make the government milder and more democratic; so that for his deeds he was called no more tyrant, but benefactor and saviour²⁵.’ He afterwards shared the power with his brother Dionysios, who succeeded him.

The date of this Letter can be only ²⁶ approximately fixed. Timotheos had now had time to show himself a good ruler. The year 345 B.C. would probably not be far wrong.

‘You have probably often heard of the old friendship ²⁷ between your family and me; and I rejoice to learn that you are ruling more nobly and more wisely than your father. His failings will but redound to your praise. (§§ 1—2.) Think by what means, with what aid, by what counsels you may repair your city's misfortunes—encourage the citizens to steady industry,—and make their lives and happiness more secure. A foolish king harasses and pillages his subjects. A wise one consults at once their happiness and his own safety; ruling so that none will plot against him, but guarding his own life as if it were in danger from all. You have no motive for incurring hatred in amassing wealth; your father has left you rich. (§§ 3—6.) If your objects are more money and more power, seek advice elsewhere; but if you prefer honesty and a good name, attend to my words and to worthy examples. Such an example is Kleommis of Methymna, under whom the whole community lives securely; who restores exiles and trusts the citizens with arms,—fearing no evil, or content to suffer if his generous confidence is belied. (§§ 7—9.)

‘Autokrator, the bearer of this letter, is my friend; our pursuits are the same, and I have often been helped by his skill. For these reasons I would have you use him well. Do not marvel that I thus write to you, though I never made any request of your father Klearchos. When he was with us, all agreed about his kindliness; but after he got power he was said to have changed. I was estranged from him; but your friendship would be prized by me. Farewell; if you want any thing from here, write.’ (§§ 10—13.)

Letter VIII, To the Rulers of Mytilene.

5. To the Rulers of Mytilene. [Ep. VIII.]—The democracy at Mytilene had lately been overthrown by an oligarchy. But the victorious oligarchs were now showing their moderation by recalling many of the democratic exiles. This letter prays the government of Mytilene to receive back their fellow-citizen Agênor²⁸, a distinguished musician, with his father and his brothers.

The revolt of the allies from Athens was followed, at the close of the Social War (355 B.C.), by revolutions in many of the cities. Oligarchies arose at Corcyra, Chios, Kos, Rhodes, and in the cities of Lesbos—Antissa, Methymna, and Mytilene²⁹. We know that, in 351 B.C., the government of Mytilene was oligarchical³⁰. And in § 8 of this Letter we read that, ‘if Konon and Timotheos were living, and if Diophantos had come back from Asia,’ they would interest themselves for Agênor. Timotheos, son of Konon, died in 354 B. C. And Diodoros names ‘Diophantos the Athenian’ and ‘Lamios the Spartan’ as serving Nectanebis, king of Egypt, against Artaxerxes Ochos in a campaign which occupied the winter of 350—351 B.C.³¹ Now there can be little ³² doubt that it was by this struggle that Diophantos was detained in the East. The date of this Letter is probably 350 B.C.³³

‘My grandsons, the sons of Aphareus, have asked me to ³⁴ write to you on behalf of Agênor, formerly their master in music; and to beg that, when you have restored some other exiles, you will allow him, his father and his brothers, to return to Mytilene. I objected that I, a stranger to you, could not reasonably ask so great a favour; but at length I yielded to their importunity. You have done wisely in being reconciled to your fellow-citizens, and in seeking, like Athens, to efface the memory of faction. But, even if you had received back no other exiles, Agenor and his family would deserve a pardon. Mytilene, a city famous in the history of culture, ought not to keep in banishment the man who excels all contemporaries in his art. (§ 4.) Other eities give their franchise to men distinguished in noble pursuits; you ought not to suffer your own countryman to be a sojourner among strangers. Such as he do more lasting honour to their city than successful athletes. (§§ 3—6.)

‘It will perhaps be said that this request is just, but that I have no claim to make it. I have not, indeed, been a statesman or public speaker; but I have been the adviser of the speakers truest to you and to our other allies; and have myself written more in defence of Greek liberty than all the ranters of the platform put together. Were Konon and Timotheos alive—had Diophantos returned from Asia—they would support my request. Think, then, by whom and for whom the favour is asked; and, if you can grant it, let Agênor and his brothers understand that they owe it, in some measure, to my mediation.’ (§§ 7—10.)

Letter II., To Philip.

6. To Philip. [Ep. II.]—In §§ 5—12 of this Letter, Isokrates remonstrates with Philip for recklessly exposing himself to personal danger; and, in § 12, says:—‘I would give a great deal that I had written this to you before the expedition; since then, if you had listened to me, you would not have run so great a danger; or, if you had not listened, at least I should not have seemed to be repeating in my advice what all the world has been persuaded of by the event.’

Philip was engaged in a Thracian War from 342 to 339 B.C.³⁵ War between Philip and Athens was declared in 340 B.C. Now it is clear from the tone of § 14 that, when this Letter was written, the hostility between Philip and Athens was not yet open. Further, in 342, Philip had given a new constitution to Thessaly, appointing tetrarchs for the four chief districts³⁶. Isokrates alludes to this—evidently as recent (§ 20); and urges Philip to intervene, with the same prudence, in the affairs of Athens;— meaning that he should come forward as the reconciler of factions, and as the leader in one great common purpose — an expedition against Asia. The date of the Letter is probably the end ³⁷ of 342 B.C.³⁸

‘Men are more grateful for praise than for advice. But ³⁹ having undertaken once before to advise you as to what it would best become you to do, I must not shrink, in a more urgent crisis, from pronouncing upon what you have done. You are universally condemned for courting danger with a headlong rashness unbecoming a king. In the conduct of war you ought to imitate republics. When they send forth their armies, they are careful to keep safe at home those who are responsible for the commonweal. If the Spartan kings take the field, it is with a devoted body-guard of the most distinguished citizens. The value of a king's life may be judged from the cases of Xerxes and of Cyrus. Xerxes, when his troops were beaten, guarded his own life, and lived to restore the greatness of Persia; Cyrus, by throwing away his life, cancelled an actual victory, and brought upon his followers the extremity of suffering. (§§ 1—8.)

‘It is unworthy of you to aim at a reputation for mere reckless courage. The special risks of a monarch are enough without adding to them the risks of a soldier. Glory of a higher kind is within your reach. Carry war against the barbarians on your frontier no further than is necessary for the safety of Macedonia; and set the Greeks an example of making war upon the Great King. I wish that this advice had been given before your expedition; for then it might have averted your danger, or at least have proved my foresight. (§§ (—12.)

‘Though this letter is already too long, a word must be said in conclusion about Athens. If you blame Athens for listening to those who slander you, do not listen to those who slander her. The influence which worthless men have here is only the influence that might be yours. I do not deny that Athens has made some mistakes; but I maintain that no city in Hellas could be a more useful ally for you. Her merely passive friendship would give you strength both in Hellas and against the barbarian. You have been applauded for your just and benevolent interference in the affairs of the Thessalians, a high-spirited people torn by factions. Confer the same benefits upon Athens. The Thessalians are your neighbours in territory; we, in power. It is nobler to take gratitude, than cities, by storm. (§§ 13—21.) You may believe me when I speak of Athens; I have never been her flatterer, but always her severest censor. The careless crowd suspect you and me alike; you, because you are great; me, because I think. You can easily dispel that prejudice; for me it is too late. This, then, is my advice;— give your kingdom and your prosperity into the keeping of the goodwill of the Hellenes.’ (§§ 13—23.)

Letter V, To Alexander.

7. To Alexander. [Ep. v.]—Alexander was with his father⁴⁰ at the time when Isokrates wrote this Letter, which was sent along with one addressed to Philip—doubtless the Letter just analysed. Philip was in Thrace or the Chersonese from May, 342, to the latter part of 339 B.C.; and, at some time after his departure, appointed Alexander his regent in Macedonia⁴¹. But, when this Letter was written, that arrangement had not yet been made. Alexander, a boy of fourteen, is busy with his studies; and Isokrates cannot refrain from a little thrust at the young prince's new tutor. It was probably in this very year (342) that Alexander began to receive the lessons of Aristotle⁴².

‘As I am writing to your father, and you are with him, ⁴³ it would be strange if I did not greet you also, and show that old age has still left me some sense. (§ 1.) All say that you are kindly, fond of Athens, fond of learning,—and this in a wise way. The Athenians with whom you live are not uncultivated men, with low political views; but men pleasant socially, and also able to give sound counsel. Your chosen philosophy is not the eristic, which teaches subtlety in private discussion; but the practical philosophy which educates a statesman in debate, in political action, in discerning right and wrong. (§§ 2—4.) You do well to make this your study; and give promise of surpassing other men as far as your father has surpassed all.’ (§ 5.)

Letter IV. To Antipater.

8. To Antipater. [Ep. IV.]—This Letter was written after—probably soon after⁴⁴—the renewal of the war between Athens and Philip in 340 B.C. Antipater had now been for at least seven years prominent both as a soldier and as a diplomatist. In 347 he seems to have held a command in the Thracian war; in 347 and 346 he was the chief envoy from Macedonia to Athens⁴⁵. At this time, in 340 or 339, Antipater is living in Macedonia, apparently as regent, or as chief minister of Alexander, during Philip's absence in Thrace.

The Letter commends to Antipater one Diodotos and his son, who wish to enter the service of Philip. Nothing is known from other sources about this Diodotos⁴⁶. He seems to have been an Athenian who had taken service, probably as a captain of mercenaries, under more than one of the despots of Asia Minor. ‘For speaking freely to these about their own interests’ (§ 7) he had ‘been stripped of his privileges at home’; in other words, he had been deprived of the Athenian citizenship on the charge of supporting an anti-Athenian policy abroad. Alone of the nine Letters, this has the ease of a private friendship: Isokrates had made the acquaintance of Antipater at Athens.

‘Even in time of peace, a letter from Athens to ⁴⁷ Macedonia runs risks; much more now, when we are at war. But I was determined to write to you about Diodotos, and, since I am too late to introduce him to you, at least to add my testimony in his favour. Men of various countries have been my pupils; some with a special faculty for speaking; some with powers of thought and action; some of small ability, but good men and pleasant companions. Diodotos has a nature so happily tempered that in all these respects he is perfect. (§§ 1—4.) You will find, too, that he is thoroughly outspoken. Princes of a large mind honour such frankness; it is the feebler who fear it, thinking that it will drive them into acting against their wishes, and not seeing that free criticism is most likely to put them in the way of attaining what they desire. No monarchy—nay, no republic—is likely to last without advisers who dare to offend. Yet such advisers are slighted,—as Diodotos has found to his cost. There are some princes in Asia whom he has served both by counsel and by perilous deeds; through freedom of speech, however, he has lost not only his dignities in his own country but many hopes besides. He is inclined to distrust princes as a voyager once unlucky fears the sea; but he has done well in going to you. He will benefit by your kindness; you, by his loyalty and ability. (§§ 5—9.)

‘His son, too, is advised by me to take service under your government. He is ambitious to do so; but feels like an athlete eager for a crown which he dares not hope to win. He is without experience; and has defects of person which he fears will be against him. In any case, whether he resides in Macedonia or (as a neutral) at Athens, pray watch over his safety and that of his father. Look upon them as a trust committed to you by my old age—my fame (if that is worth aught)—my friendship. Forgive the length of an old man's letter; I had but one aim,—to show goodwill for the best of friends.’ (§§ 10—13.)

Letter III., To Philip.

9. To Philip. [Ep. III.]—The biographical question raised by this Letter has been noticed in a former chapter⁴⁸. The Letter was written in 338 B.C., some time after Chaeroneia, when Isokrates had completed his ninety-eighth year. It is thus the latest of all his extant writings.

‘I have already had some talk with Antipater about ⁴⁹ your interests and those of Athens. But I resolved to write to you, too, regarding the course which, as I think, you ought to take after the peace. This letter will be to the same purpose as my discourse, but much shorter. (§ 1.) Formerly I urged you to bring about concord in Hellas by reconciling the chief states, Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Argos. Now, persuasion is no longer needed. The recent struggle has proved them to have no will but yours, and to admit that the war which they have been making upon each other ought to be turned against Asia. They ask me whether the idea of an expedition against the barbarians was originally yours or mine; and when I say that, to the best of my belief, it was yours, they entreat me to confirm you in it. No deed, they say, could be nobler, better for Hellas, or more timely. (§§ 2—3.) Had not my powers utterly failed, I would have come to you and urged this in person. In one thing it is good to be insatiable—in the desire of true glory; and your glory will be perfect only when you have ⁵⁰ made the barbarians helots to the Greeks. To that result it will be an easier step than it was from the first to the present stage of your power. That result gained, nothing will remain for you but to become a god. I thank old age for this alone, that those youthful projects which I set forth in the Panegyrikos and in the discourse sent to you are in course of completion by your agency, and will, I hope, be completed.’ (§§ 4—6.)

Fragments.

The only lost work⁵¹ 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 his⁵²’; and Photios hints a like doubt⁵³. Modern criticism⁵⁴ is divided. Some infer from extant notices, direct and indirect⁵⁵, 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 persuasion⁵⁶,’ insisted, in reference to forensic speaking, on the importance of taking up a strong position in that general statement of a case ( κατάστασις⁵⁷) which precedes the detailed narrative of facts, as well as on the need of comprehensiveness in the narrative ( διήγησις) itself⁵⁸; and observed on the dislike of ‘Atticists’ to coining new words⁵⁹. The only citation more precise and satisfactory than these is made by Maximus Planudes⁶⁰. ‘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 composition⁶¹, vowels must not clash⁶², 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 former⁶³. 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 orally⁶⁴ 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 ⁶⁵ numerous⁶⁶ apophthegms ascribed to Isokrates were taken from writings of his now lost⁶⁷. 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 so⁶⁸.—‘A father having said that he never gave his son any companion but a slave, —‘Well then,’ Isokrates answered, ‘you will have two slaves⁶⁹.’ ‘If you have a fair body and an ill mind, you have a good ship and a bad pilot⁷⁰.’— ‘The root of learning is bitter, the fruit sweet⁷¹.’— On being asked in what the industrious differ from the indolent, he said—‘As the pious from the impious—in good hopes⁷² .’

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 Peripatetics⁷³.

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. The letter beginning πρόπομποι καὶ ῥαβδοῦχοι, κ.τ.λ., which is printed in the older editions, with the heading ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΩΙ, as the Tenth Letter of Isokrates, is not his. It is by Theophylact Simocatta (flor. 610—629 A.D.) in whose extant collection of 85 letters it stands 79th. By a strange mistake it was added to the letters of Isokrates in the Basel edition of 1546; and, with a stranger negligence, it was retained in every subsequent edition until Baiter and Sauppe, in their Oratores Attici (1839— 43), set the example of expelling it. See their Preface to the text of Isokrates, p. vi.—This is the substance of the Byzautine letter:— ‘Escorts, ushers, heralds, the acquisition of a great throne are a mist upon philosophy, a severance from virtue. You have not changed your nature with your fortune; the shell which encases your spirit is still fleshly; why, then, are you so puffed up with vainglory? The soaring flights of your fortune have taken you out of your old sphere of quiet thought—have quelled your sober madness of philosophy. Of old you were sublime in your humility; now you are low and earthy in your high estate. Resign, then, this false prosperity; desert the fortune which will desert you; for, if you are beforehand with the heartless goddess, you will not grieve when the change comes on you suddenly.’ (§§ 1—2.)

2. Object of the Letter.

3. In § 129 of the Philippos (346 B. C.) Isokrates says that he had urged Athens to lead Greece before he had asked any other power to do so. If this was taken literally, it would show that the Letter to Dionysios is later than the Panegyrikos; i.e. than 380 B.C. Such an indication could not safely be used as an independent argument. But it may be noticed as agreeing with the hypothesis about the date advanced below.

4. Date.

5. § 1, προαπείρηκα—in which, as the context shows, the προ does not mean ‘before my natural time,’ but ‘before the destined time for the war against Persia.’

6. When Dionysios began to take part with Athens and the Peloponnesian allies in the war against Thebes. As to the Athenian flatteries of Dionysios at this time, see Schäfer, Dem. u. seine Zeit, I. 80.

7. Grote, ch. 83, vol. XI. p. 61.— Dobree ( Adv. I. p. 283) thinks that the Letter is written ‘ad Dionysium iuniorem, sub regni initia’ [i. e. 367 B.C.]. But in 367 the statement regarding Carthage would have been much too strong. Nor has Dobree observed that § 8 excludes the supposition of the Letter being addressed to the younger Dionysios:— ὅτε μὲν γὰρ Αακεδαιμόνιοι τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶχον, οὐ ῥᾴδιον ἦν ἐπιμεληθῆναί σοι τῶν περὶ τὸν τόπον τὸν ἡμέτερον, οὐδὲ τούτοις ἐναντία πράττειν ἅμα καὶ Καρχηδονίοις πολεμεῖν. Sparta lost the ἀρχή four years before the younger Dionysions came to the throne.

8. Analysis.

9. See esp. Diod. XV. 60, XVI. 14: Xen. Hellen. VI. iv. 33.

10. Diodoros (XVI. 14) puts the death of Alexander in the year of Agathokles, 35 7/6 B. C.; but see Clinton, F. H. vol. II., sub anno 359, and Appendix XV. on Alexander of Pherae: also Schafer, Dem. I. P. 133, note 2.

11. See Schäfer, Dem. I. p. 457.

12. Plut. Pelop. c. 28, Θήβη, θυγάτηρ μὲν Ἰάσονος οὖσα γυνὴ δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρου.

13. Diod. XVI. 14.

14. Through not observing the fact that Thebe and her brothers were the children of Jason, some have made the mistake of supposing this Letter to have been written in 370 B.C.—eleven years before its real date. Thus Dobree says ( Adv. I. 284)—‘Statim, ut videtur, post Jasonis mortem, Olymp. 102. 3. Ait Diodorus XV. 60 successisse Jasoni fratrem Polydorum; fortasse sub specie tutoris.’ In a modern Greek edition of Isokrates (vol. II. of the Ἑλληνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, Didot), the commentator says— εἰκὸς οὖν τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ταύτην γεγράφθαι αὐτίκα μετὰ τὸν τοῦ πατρὸς θάνατον τοῖς παισίν, ἢ γοῦν τῷ τετάρτῳ τῆς αὐτῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος ἔτει, ὅπερ συμβαίνει τῷ τριακοστῷ ἑξηκοστῷ ἐννάτῳ [he ought to have said, τῷ τριακοστῷ ἑβδομηκοστῷ] πρὸ Χριστοῦ (p. 310). Blass ( Att. Ber. II. 272) does not notice that Thebe was daughter of Jason; and supposes the παῖδες Ἰάσονος to be distinct persons from Thebe and her brothers. In the interval between the murder of Alexander and the setting up of the new tyranny, these sons of Jason may (Blass thinks) have been temporarily strong, and Athens may thus have been led to send envoys to them.

15. Analysis.

16. Date.

17. See esp. Xen. Hellen. VII. V. §§ 9 f.—The achievement of Archidamos on this occasion consisted in routing, with 100 hoplites, the troops of Epameinondas, who was trying to occupy some high ground near the town.

18. ‘Propempticon, ut videtur orationis quam postea immutatam Philippo inscripsit’:—Dobree, Adv. I. p. 285.

19. Letters I., VI. and IX. are fragments of just the same kind— prefaces to what must have been long discourses, like the Philippos, rather than mere Letters.

20. Analysis.

21. The state of Greece.

22. Agesilaos.

23. Diod. XV. 81. Justin (XVI. 4, 5) adds a plot between Klearchos and Mithridates of Pontus for the betrayal of Herakleia, which led only to the betrayal and seizure of Mithridates by Klearchos.

24. Theopompos, in Book XXXVIII. of his Ἱστορίαι, stated of Klearchos ὡς βιαίως ἀνῄρει πολλοὺς καὶ ὡς τοῖς πλείστοις ἐδίδου κώνειον πιεῖν: Athen. III. p. 85 A.

25. παραλαβὼν τὴν ἀρχὴν οὕτω ταύτην ἐπὶ τὸ πρᾳότερον καὶ δημοκρατικώτερον μετερρύθμιζεν, ὡς μηκέτι τύραννον ἀλλ’ εὐεργέτην αὐτόν, οἷς ἔπραττε, καὶ σωτῆρα ὀνομάζεσθαι— Memnon ap. Phot. cod. 224. Memnon of Herakleia—whose date is uncertain, but who cannot have lived before the time of Augustus— wrote a history of Herakleia. Photios (cod. 224) gives an abstract of Books VI—XVI. inclusive, from which most of the above facts are taken. According to Memnon, Klearchos had been a pupil of Isokrates for four years—and also a hearer of Plato.

26. Date.

27. Analysis.

28. Agênor and his school, the Ἀγηνόρειοι, are mentioned among the earlier musicians before Aristoxenos: Blass, Att. Ber. II. 304.

29. Schäfer, Dem. u. seine Zeit, I. 427, 434.

30. Dem. Or. XV., υπὲρ τῆς Ῥοδίων ἐλευθερίας, (date 351 B.C.) § 16.

31. Diod. XVI. 48. Cf. Schäf. I. 437.

32. Date.

33. 350 B.C. is the date taken by Blass ( Att. Ber. II. 303). But another is possible, against which I have felt great difficulty in deciding—347 B.C. We know that the oligarchy at Mytilene was followed (whether immediately or not) by the tyranny of one Kammes; but that, in 347—6 B.C., the democracy was restored with Athenian help. (Dem. Or. XL. πρὸς Βοιωτὸν περὶ προικός, §§ 36 f.: Schäf. vol. III., Appendix, p. 224). Now:— 1. Isokrates certainly compares the moderation of the prevalent party at Mytilene to that of the Athenian democracy in 403 B.C., § 3: 2. Diophantos may not have come back from Egypt till 346 B C.: for, while Diodoros and Clinton ( F. H. II. App. 18) put the end of the war in 350, Thirlwall (c. 48, VI. 187 n.) argues from Isokr. ( Philipp. § 101) that the Persian reconquest of Egypt cannot have been achieved before the latter part of 346. My reasons for, on the whole, preferring 350 are these:—1. We do not know that, in 347, a party overthrew a party. When Kammes fell, the democracy may have been restored unanimously. 2. The letter is inscribed (as Blass has observed) τοῖς Μ. ἄρχουσι, not M. τῷ δήμῳ καὶ τῇ βουλῇ. 3. In § 7 Isokrates takes credit for having always vindicated the ἐλευθερία and αὐτονομία of the Greeks,—in other words, as the context shows, the independence of the allies from Athens (ef.his Speech On the Peace). This would point to 350 rather than to 347, when, on the restoration of the democracy, Mytilene came again into the Athenian league.

34. Analysis.

35. Schäfer, II. 414 ff.

36. Dem. Phil. III. § 26: Schäfer, Dem. u. seine Zeit, II. p. 402.

37. Date.

38. Dobree ( Adv. I. p. 283) refers the Letter to 339 B.C., when Philip was wounded in an encounter with the Triballi, and reported dead. In noticing the Letter at p. 20 of this volume, I assign it to 339. But §§ 14, 20 are, I now think, decisive against this. See Blass, Att. Ber. II. 299.

39. Analysis.

40. The phrase in § 1, περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα σὲ τόπον ἐκείνῳ, seems to imply a foreign region. The danger in which Philip's life had just been placed would account for Alexander having been summoned to him.

41. Schäfer, Dem. II. 416.

42. Apollodoros stated in his χρονικά that Aristotle came to Philip's court ἐπὶ Πυθοδότου ἄρχοντος, Ol. 109. 2, 34 3/2 B.C., Diog. V. 10. Apollodoros adds Ἀλεξάνδρου πεντεκαίδεκ’ ἔτη ἤδη γεγονότος. Alexander only completed his 14th year in July, 342 B.C. He can but barely have entered on his 15th year when Pythodotos ceased to be archon.

43. Analysis.

44. The words in § 1— νῦν ὅτε πολεμοῦμεν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, as opposed to τῆς εἰρήνης οὔσης—suggest that the declaration of war was recent.

45. Schäfer, Dem. II. p. 34.

46. Sanneg, in his essay De Schola Isocratea (Halle, 1867), notices Diodotos among the pupils of Isokrates; but has nothing to add to the information furnished by this Letter. In the modern Greek edition of Isokrates quoted above (p. 241 note) on Letter VI., the commentator suggests that this Diodotos is possibly identical with the interpreter of Herakleitos mentioned by Diogenes Laertios, IX. 15.

47. Analysis.

48. Ch. XII., p. 31. I have there noticed the suggestion of E. Curtius that, if Isokrates did indeed commit suicide, the motive may have been despair at seeing that Athens was still resolved to resist. If we hold, as I do, the genuineness of the Third Letter, this explanation of the suicide is admissible only on the supposition that the Letter was written before the conclusion of the peace between Athens and Philip. Now I confess I think the Third Letter was written after the conclusion of the peace, and was taken to Philip by Antipater on his return from Athens: see §§ 1 —2. Cf. Schäfer, III. 25.The tradition of a suicide prompted by patriotic despair must then be given up altogether. But the tradition of the suicide itself may be true. The real motive may have been an access of his disease: and Aphareus, or some friend—availing himself of the coincidence that Isokrates died on the day when those who fell at Chaeroneia were buried— may have invented the heroic motive. See Blass, Att. Ber. II. 89 f., 300.

49. Analysis.

50. Philip's mission.

51. As to the Γρύλλου ἐπιτάφιος (Diog. L. II. 55), see above, p. 80; as to the supposed speech πρὸς Εὔθυνον ( Ar. Rh. II. 19) see below.

52. Quintil. Inst. II. 15 § 4.

53. Photios, cod. 260. γεγραφέναι δὲ αὐτὸν τέχνην ῥητορικὴν λέγουσιν, ἣν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐπιγραφομένην τῷ ὀνόματι. οἱ δὲ συνασκήσει μᾶλλον ἢ τέχνῃ χρήσασθαι κατὰ τοὺς λόγους τὸν ἄνδρα φασί.

54. Spengel, συναγωγὴ τεχνῶν, pp. 154—172: Sauppe, O. A. II. p 224. Sauppe denies all force to the objections of I. G. Pfund, de Isocratis Vita et Scriptis, pp. 21 f, which Bernhardy on Cic. Brut. p. 37 appears to think of weight.

55. The direct references to the lost Τέχνη are collected by Benseler, Isocr. vol. II. p. 276. They are the references noticed here. Besides these, Sauppe has brought together ten other instances in which he believes that he has discovered allusions to the treatise. All, or most, of these are, however, doubtful. See Sauppe, O. A. II. pp. 224 ff.

56. Sextus Empiricus, πρὸς μαθημ, II. § 62, p. 301 F: Ἰσοκράτης φησὶ μηδὲν ἄλλο ἐπιτηδεύειν τοὺς ῥήτορας ἢ ἐπιστήμην πειθοῦς. Quintilian, indeed, states that Isokrates said, ‘esse rhetoricen persuadendi opificem, id est πειθοῦς δημιουργόν’: Inst. II. 15. § 4. But, as Sauppe observes, Sextus is probably the more accurate. The definition mentioned by Quintilian is known to have been given by Korax and Tisias (Spengel, συναγ. p. 34) and is ascribed by Sextus himself to Xenokrates.

57. Max. Planudes, scholia on Hermogenes, περὶ ἰδεῶν β/, in Walz Rhet. Graec. V. 551. κατάστασις is here what Dionysios calls πρόθεσις:—that general setting forth of the matter in hand which usually comes (at least in the speeches of Lysias) between the exordium ( προοίμιον) and the detailed narrative: ( καὶ ἔστι μεθόριον αὐτῷ ἑκατέρας τῶν ἰδεῶν ὡς τὰ πολλὰ ἡ πρόθεσις: Lys. c. 17.)

58. Syrianos, scholia on the στάσεις of Hermogenes, in Walz Rh. Gr. IV. 302.

59. οἱ Ἀττικισταὶ παντελῶς ἀποτρέπουσι τοῦ ὀνοματοποιεῖν καὶ μόνοις προστάττουσι κεχρῆσθαι ταῖς εἰρημέναις λέξεσι καὶ τοῖς τεταγμένοις ὀνόμασιν, ὡς φησὶν Ἰσοκρἀτης: Max. Planudes (acc. to the Par. ms.), Walz Rh. Gr. V. 498. It is no rash assumption of Benseler's ( Isocr. II. 276) that this remark must have occurred in the τέχνη.

60. Walz Rh. Gr. V. p. 469.

61. δεῖ δὲ ἐν τῇ μὲν λέξει τὰ φωνήεντα μὴ συμπίπτειν, κ τ. λ. The words ἐν τῇ μὲν λέξει are opposed to ὀνόματι δὲ χρῆσθαι, κ.τ.λ., lower down. Λέξις means here the style of composition, as contrasted with ὀνόματα, the diction.

62. Dionysios ( de Isocr. c. 2) says that Isokr. deprecates ( παραιτεῖται ) τῶν φωνηέντων τὰς παραλλήλους θέσεις, ὡς λυούσας τὰς ἁρμονίας τῶν ἠχῶν καὶ τὴν λειότητα τῶν φθόγγων λυμαινομένας. The ‘injury to the smoothness of the sounds’ is what is meant by the lameness— unevenness—spoken of here.

63. καὶ τοὺς συνδέσμους τοὺς αὐτοὺς μὴ σύνεγγυς τιθέναι καὶ τὸν ἑπόμενον τῷ ἡγουμένῳ εὐθὺς ἀνταποδιδόναι. For instance, if two consecutive sentences began with ἐπεὶ γάρ, the second ἐπεί would be ἀνταποδεδομένον, in regard to the first,—‘made to answer to it,’ placed in the same position in the sentence. Such repetitions, the rule says, ought not to be made εὐθύς— i.e. without a certain interval.

64. Cf. Epist. VI. § 8 ( λέγειν): Panathen. § 236. Cicero says, ‘We find no Art which is ascertained ( constet) to be by Isokrates himself, though we meet with many technical writings by his disciples’ [e.g. Ephoros, Naukrates]: de Invent. II. 7. Aristotle, ap. Cic. Brut. § 48, says that Isokrates, on giving up forensic work, betook himself wholly ad artes componendas. Blass thinks ( Att. Ber. II. 98) we may understand this of collecting notes, rules, &c., on the theory of Rhetoric—not of writing a formal treatise.

65. Apophthegms.

66. Benseler has collected thirtyseven: Isocr. vol. II. pp. 276 ff.

67. One disputed instance must, however, be noticed. Arist. Rhet. II. 19: καὶ εἰ τοῖς χείροσι καὶ ἥττοσι καὶ ἀφρονεστέροις δυνατόν, καὶ τοῖς ἐναντίοις μᾶλλον· ὥσπερ καὶ Ἰσοκρἁτης ἔφη δεινὸν εἶναι εἰ ὁ μὲν Εὔθυνος ἔμαθεν, αὐτὸς δὲ μὴ δυνήσεται εὑρεῖν. Benseler ( de hiatu p. 56) thinks that this quotation is from a lost speech of Isokrates πρὸς Εὔθυνον, and that our Or. XXI. πρὸς Εὐθύνουν has been falsely attributed to him. But, as Sauppe ( O.A. II. 227) says, it is more natural to suppose that the saying quoted by Aristotle referred to rhetorical skill generally, not to the arguments bearing on any special lawsuit.

68. Plut. Mor. 838 E.

69. [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt.

70. Anton. Meliss. p. 65.

71. Hermog. I. 22.

72. Steph. Apophthegmat. p. 697.

73. ‘Neque exstare (magnum numerum apophthegmatum) in tanti nominis isocratei claritate et studii quo Graeci inde a peripateticorum disciplina talia colligerent alacritate mirum est.’ Sauppe, O. A. II. 227.

Sir Richard C. Jebb The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos 2.18