ISABNORMAL LINES ISMAIL HADJI MAULVI-MOHAMMED
ISAEUS ISMAILIA
ISAIAH ISMAY, THOMAS HENRY
ISAIAH, ASCENSION OF ISMID, or ISNIKMID
ISANDHLWANA ISNARD, MAXIMIN
ISAR ISOBAR
ISATIN ISOCLINIC LINES
ISAURIA ISOCRATES
ISCHIA ISODYNAMIC LINES
ISCHL ISOGONIC LINES
ISEO, LAKE OF ISOLA DEL LIRI
ISERE (river in France) ISOMERISM
ISERE (department of France) ISOTHERM
ISERLOHN ISOXAZOLES
ISFAHAN ISRAEL
ISHIM ISRAELI, ISAAC BEN SOLOMON
ISHMAEL ISRAELS, JOSEF
ISHPEMING ISSACHAR
ISHTAR ISSEDONES
ISHTIB ISSERLEIN, ISRAEL
ISIDORE OF ALEXANDRIA ISSERLES, MOSES BEN ISRAEL
ISIDORE OF SEVILLE ISSOIRE
ISINGLASS ISSOUDUN
ISIS ISSYK-KUL
ISKELIB ISTAHBANAT
ISLA, JOSE FRANCISCO DE ISTHMUS
ISLAM ISTRIA
ISLAMABAD ISYLLUS
ISLAND ITACOLUMITE
ISLAY ITAGAKI, TAISUKE
ISLES OF THE BLEST ITALIAN LANGUAGE
ISLINGTON ITALIAN LITERATURE
ISLIP ITALIAN WARS
ISLY ITALIC
ISMAIL
ISABNORMAL (or ISANOMALOUS) LINES, in physical geography, lines upon a
map or chart connecting places having an abnormal temperature. Each
place has, theoretically, a proper temperature due to its latitude, and
modified by its configuration. Its mean temperature for a particular
period is decided by observation and called its normal temperature.
Isabnormal lines may be used to denote the variations due to warm winds
or currents, great altitudes or depressions, or great land masses as
compared with sea. Or they may be used to indicate the abnormal result
of weather observations made in an area such as the British Isles for a
particular period.
ISAEUS (c. 420 B.C.-c. 350 B.C.), Attic orator, the chronological limits
of whose extant work fall between the years 390 and 353 B.C., is
described in the Plutarchic life as a Chalcidian; by Suidas, whom
Dionysius follows, as an Athenian. The accounts have been reconciled by
supposing that his family sprang from the settlement ([Greek:
klerouchia]) of Athenian citizens among whom the lands of the Chalcidian
_hippobotae_ (knights) had been divided about 509 B.C. In 411 B.C.
Euboea (except Oreos) revolted from Athens; and it would not have been
strange if residents of Athenian origin had then migrated from the
hostile island to Attica. Such a connexion with Euboea would explain the
non-Athenian name Diagoras which is borne by the father of Isaeus, while
the latter is said to have been "an Athenian by descent" ([Greek:
Athenaios to genos]). So far as we know, Isaeus took no part in the
public affairs of Athens. "I cannot tell," says Dionysius, "what were
the politics of Isaeus--or whether he had any politics at all." Those
words strikingly attest the profound change which was passing over the
life of the Greek cities. It would have been scarcely possible, fifty
years earlier, that an eminent Athenian with the powers of Isaeus should
have failed to leave on record some proof of his interest in the
political concerns of Athens or of Greece. But now, with the decline of
personal devotion to the state, the life of an active citizen had ceased
to have any necessary contact with political affairs. Already we are at
the beginning of that transition which is to lead from the old life of
Hellenic citizenship to that Hellenism whose children are citizens of
the world.
Isaeus (who was born probably about 420 B.C.) is believed to have been
an early pupil of Isocrates, and he certainly was a student of Lysias. A
passage of Photius has been understood as meaning that personal
relations had existed between Isaeus and Plato, but this view appears
erroneous.[1] The profession of Isaeus was that of which Antiphon had
been the first representative at Athens--that of a [Greek: logographos],
who composed speeches which his clients were to deliver in the
law-courts. But, while Antiphon had written such speeches chiefly (as
Lysias frequently) for public causes, it was with private causes that
Isaeus was almost exclusively concerned. The fact marks the progressive
subdivision of labour in his calling, and the extent to which the
smaller interests of private life now absorbed the attention of the
citizen.
The most interesting recorded event in the career of Isaeus is one which
belongs to its middle period--his connexion with Demosthenes. Born in
384 B.C., Demosthenes attained his civic majority in 366. At this time
he had already resolved to prosecute the fraudulent guardians who had
stripped him of his patrimony. In prospect of such a legal contest, he
could have found no better ally than Isaeus. That the young Demosthenes
actually resorted to his aid is beyond reasonable doubt. But the
pseudo-Plutarch embellishes the story after his fashion. He says that
Demosthenes, on coming of age, took Isaeus into his house, and studied
with him for four years--paying him the sum of 10,000 drachmas (about
L400), on condition that Isaeus should withdraw from a school of
rhetoric which he had opened, and devote himself wholly to his new
pupil. The real Plutarch gives us a more sober and a more probable
version. He simply states that Demosthenes "employed Isaeus as his
master in rhetoric, though Isocrates was then teaching, either (as some
say) because he could not pay Isocrates the prescribed fee of ten minae,
or because he preferred the style of Isaeus for his purpose, as being
_vigorous and astute_" ([Greek: drasterion kai panourgon]). It may be
observed that, except by the pseudo-Plutarch, a school of Isaeus is not
mentioned,--for a notice in Plutarch need mean no more than that he had
written a textbook, or that his speeches were read in schools;[2] nor is
any other pupil named. As to Demosthenes, his own speeches against
Aphobus and Onetor (363-362 B.C.) afford the best possible gauge of the
sense and the measure in which he was the disciple of Isaeus; the
intercourse between them can scarcely have been either very close or
very long. The date at which Isaeus died can only be conjectured from
his work; it may be placed about 350 B.C.
Isaeus has a double claim on the student of Greek literature. He is
the first Greek writer who comes before us as a consummate master of
strict forensic controversy. He also holds a most important place in
the general development of practical oratory, and therefore in the
history of Attic prose. Antiphon marks the beginning of that
development, Demosthenes its consummation. Between them stand Lysias
and Isaeus. The open, even ostentatious, art of Antiphon had been
austere and rigid. The concealed art of Lysias had charmed and
persuaded by a versatile semblance of natural grace and simplicity.
Isaeus brings us to a final stage of transition, in which the gifts
distinctive of Lysias were to be fused into a perfect harmony with
that masterly art which receives its most powerful expression in
Demosthenes. Here, then, are the two cardinal points by which the
place of Isaeus must be determined. We must consider, first, his
relation to Lysias; secondly, his relation to Demosthenes.
A comparison of Isaeus and Lysias must set out from the distinction
between choice of words ([Greek: lexis]) and mode of putting words
together ([Greek: synthesis]). In choice of words, _diction_, Lysias
and Isaeus are closely alike. Both are clear, pure, simple, concise;
both have the stamp of persuasive plainness ([Greek: apheleia]), and
both combine it with graphic power ([Greek: enargeia]). In mode of
putting words together, _composition_, there is, however a striking
difference. Lysias threw off the stiff restraints of the earlier
periodic style, with its wooden monotony; he is too fond indeed of
antithesis always to avoid a rigid effect; but, on the whole, his
style is easy, flexible and various; above all, its subtle art usually
succeeds in appearing natural. Now this is just what the art of Isaeus
does not achieve. With less love of antithesis than Lysias, and with a
diction almost equally pure and plain, he yet habitually conveys the
impression of conscious and confident art. Hence he is least effective
in adapting his style to those characters in which Lysias peculiarly
excelled--the ingenuous youth, the homely and peace-loving citizen. On
the other hand, his more open and vigorous art does not interfere with
his moral persuasiveness where there is scope for reasoned
remonstrance, for keen argument or for powerful denunciation. Passing
from the formal to the real side of his work, from diction and
composition to the treatment of subject-matter, we find the divergence
wider still. Lysias usually adheres to a simple four-fold
division--proem, narrative, proof, epilogue. Isaeus frequently
interweaves the narrative with the proof.[3] He shows the most
dexterous ingenuity in adapting his manifold tactics to the case in
hand, and often "out-generals" ([Greek: katastrategei]) his adversary
by some novel and daring disposition of his forces. Lysias, again,
usually contents himself with a merely rhetorical or sketchy proof;
Isaeus aims at strict logical demonstration, worked out through all
its steps. As Sir William Jones well remarks, Isaeus lays close siege
to the understandings of the jury.[4]
Such is the general relation of Isaeus to Lysias. What, we must next
ask, is the relation of Isaeus to Demosthenes? The Greek critic who
had so carefully studied both authors states his own view in broad
terms when he declares that "the power of Demosthenes took its seeds
and its beginnings from Isaeus" (Dion. Halic. _Isaeus_, 20). A closer
examination will show that within certain limits the statement may be
allowed. Attic prose expression had been continuously developed as an
art; the true link between Isaeus and Demosthenes is technical,
depending on their continuity. Isaeus had made some original
contributions to the resources of the art; and Demosthenes had not
failed to profit by these. The _composition_ of Demosthenes resembles
that of Isaeus in blending terse and vigorous periods with passages of
more lax and fluent ease, as well as in that dramatic vivacity which
is given by rhetorical question and similar devices. In the versatile
disposition of subject-matter, the divisions of "narrative" and
"proof" being shifted and interwoven according to circumstances,
Demosthenes has clearly been instructed by the example of Isaeus.
Still more plainly and strikingly is this so in regard to the
elaboration of systematic, proof; here Demosthenes invites direct and
close comparison with Isaeus by his method of drawing out a chain of
arguments, or enforcing a proposition by strict legal argument. And,
more generally, Demosthenes is the pupil of Isaeus, though here the
pupil became even greater than the master, in that faculty of
grappling with an adversary's case point by point, in that aptitude
for close and strenuous conflict which is expressed by the words
[Greek: agon, enagonios].[5]
The pseudo-Plutarch, in his life of Isaeus, mentions an _Art of
Rhetoric_ and sixty-four speeches, of which fifty were accounted
genuine. From a passage of Photius it appears that at least[6] the
fifty speeches of recognized authenticity were extant as late as A.D.
850. Only eleven, with a large part of a twelfth, have come down to
us; but the titles of forty-two[7] others are known.[8]
The titles of the lost speeches confirm the statement of Dionysius
that the speeches of Isaeus were exclusively forensic; and only three
titles indicate speeches made in public causes. The remainder,
concerned with private causes, may be classed under six heads:--(1)
[Greek: klerikoi]--cases of claim to an inheritance; (2) [Greek:
epiklerikoi]--cases of claim to the hand of an heiress; (3) [Greek:
diadikasiai]--cases of claim of property; (4) [Greek:
apostasiou]--cases of claim to the ownership of a slave; (5) [Greek:
eggyes]--action brought against a surety whose principal had made
default; (6) [Greek: antomosia] (as = [Greek: paragraphe])--a special
plea; (7) [Greek: ephesis]--appeal from one jurisdiction to another.
Eleven of the twelve extant speeches belong to class (1), the [Greek:
klerikoi], or claims to an inheritance. This was probably the branch
of practice in which Isaeus had done his most important and most
characteristic work. And, according to the ancient custom, this class
of speeches would therefore stand first in the manuscript collections
of his writings. The case of Antiphon is parallel: his speeches in
cases of homicide ([Greek: phonikoi]) were those on which his
reputation mainly depended, and stood first in the manuscripts. Their
exclusive preservation, like that of the speeches made by Isaeus in
will-cases, is thus primarily an accident of manuscript tradition, but
partly also the result of the writer's special prestige.
Six of the twelve extant speeches are directly concerned with claims
to an estate; five others are connected with legal proceedings arising
out of such a claim. They may be classified thus (the name given in
each case being that of the person whose estate is in dispute):
I. _Trials of Claim to an Inheritance_ ([Greek: diadikasiai]).
1. Or. i., Cleonymus. Date between 360 and 353 B.C.
2. Or. iv., Nicostratus. Date uncertain.
3. Or. vii., Apollodorus. 353 B.C.
4. Or. viii., Ciron. 375 B.C.
5. Or. ix., Astyphilus. 369 B.C. (c. 390, Schomann).
6. Or. x., Aristarchus. 377-371 B.C. (386-384, Schomann).
II. _Actions for False Witness_ ([Greek: dikai pseudomartyrion]).
1. Or. ii., Menecles. 354 B.C.
2. Or. iii., Pyrrhus. Date uncertain, but comparatively late.
3. Or. vi., Philoctemon. 364-363 B.C.
III. _Action to Compel the Discharge of a Suretyship_ ([Greek: eggyes
dike]).
Or. v., Dicaeogenes. 390 B.C.
IV. _Indictment of a Guardian for Maltreatment of a Ward_ ([Greek:
eisaggelia kakoseos orphanou]).
Or. xi., Hagnias. 359 B.C.
V. _Appeal from Arbitration to a Dicastery_ ([Greek: ephesis]).
Or. xii., For Euphiletus. (Incomplete.) Date uncertain.
The speeches of Isaeus supply valuable illustrations to the early
history of testamentary law. They show us the faculty of adoption,
still, indeed, associated with the religious motive in which it
originated, as a mode of securing that the sacred rites of the family
shall continue to be discharged by one who can call himself the son of
the deceased. But practically the civil aspect of adoption is, for the
Athenian citizen, predominant over the religious; he adopts a son in
order to bestow property on a person to whom he wishes to bequeath it.
The Athenian system, as interpreted by Isaeus, is thus intermediate,
at least in spirit, between the purely religious standpoint of the
Hindu and the maturer form which Roman testamentary law had reached
before the time of Cicero.[9] As to the form of the speeches, it is
remarkable for its variety. There are three which, taken together, may
be considered as best representing the diversity and range of their
author's power. The fifth, with its simple but lively diction, its
graceful and persuasive narrative, recalls the qualities of Lysias.
The eleventh, with its sustained and impetuous power, has no slight
resemblance to the manner of Demosthenes. The eighth is, of all, the
most characteristic, alike in narrative and in argument. Isaeus is
here seen at his best. No reader who is interested in the social life
of ancient Greece need find Isaeus dull. If the glimpses of Greek
society which he gives us are seldom so gay and picturesque as those
which enliven the pages of Lysias, they are certainly not less
suggestive. Here, where the innermost relations and central interests
of the family are in question, we touch the springs of social life; we
are not merely presented with scenic details of dress and furniture,
but are enabled in no small degree to conceive the feelings of the
actors.
The best manuscript of Isaeus is in the British Museum,--Crippsianus A
(= Burneianus 95, 13th century), which contains also Antiphon,
Andocides, Lycurgus and Dinarchus. The next best is Bekker's
Laurentianus B (Florence), of the 15th century. Besides these, he used
Marcianus L (Venice), saec. 14, Vratislaviensis Z saec. 14[10] and two
very inferior MSS. Ambrosianus A. 99, P (which he dismissed after Or.
i.), and Ambrosianus D. 42, Q (which contains only Or. i., ii.).
Schomann, in his edition of 1831, generally followed Bekker's text; he
had no fresh apparatus beyond a collation of a Paris MS. R in part of
Or. i.; but he had sifted the Aldine more carefully. Baiter and Sauppe
(1850) had a new collation of A, and also used a collation of
Burneianus 96, M, given by Dobson in vol. iv. of his edition (1828).
C. Scheibe (Teubner, 1860) made it his especial aim to complete the
work of his predecessors by restoring the correct Attic forms of
words; thus (e.g.) he gives [Greek: eggya] for [Greek: enegya],
[Greek: dedimen] for [Greek: dediamen], and the like,--following the
consent of the MSS., however, in such forms as the accusative of
proper names in [Greek: -en] rather than [Greek: -e], or (e.g.) the
future [Greek: phanesomai] rather than [Greek: phanoumai], &c., and on
such doubtful points as [Greek: phrateres] instead of [Greek:
phratores], or [Greek: Eilethyias] instead of [Greek: Eileithyias].
EDITIONS.--_Editio princeps_ (Aldus, Venice, 1513); in _Oratores
Attici_, by I. Bekker (1823-1828); W. S. Dobson (1828); J. G. Baiter
and Hermann Sauppe (1850); separately, by G. F. Schomann, with
commentary (1831); C. Scheibe (1860) (Teubner series, new ed. by T.
Thalheim, 1903); H. Buermann (1883); W. Wyse (1904). English
translation by Sir William Jones, 1779.
On Isaeus generally see Wyse's edition; R. C. Jebb, _Attic Orators_;
F. Blass, _Die attische Beredsamkeit_ (2nd ed., 1887-1893); and L.
Moy, _Etude sur les plaidoyers d'Isee_ (1876). (R. C. J.)