ISOCRATES
§ 1. _Life_
Isocrates was born in 436 B.C., and lived to the remarkable age of
ninety-seven in full possession of his faculties. His childhood and youth
were passed amid the horrors of the Peloponnesian War; he was already
of age when the failure of the Sicilian expedition turned the scale
against Athens. In mature manhood he saw the ruin of his city by the
capitulation to Lysander. He lived through the Spartan supremacy, saw the
foundation of the new Athenian League in 378 B.C., and the rise and fall
of the power of Thebes. At the time when Philip obtained the throne of
Macedon he was already, by ordinary reckoning, an old man, but the laws
of mortality were suspended in the case of this Athenian Nestor. Some
of his most important works were composed after his eightieth year; the
_Philippus_, which he wrote at the age of ninety, shows no diminution of
his powers; he produced one of his longest works, the _Panathenaicus_, in
his ninety-seventh year, and lived to congratulate Philip on his victory
at Chaeronea in 338 B.C.
In a life of such extent and such remarkable variety of experience we
should expect to find many changes of outlook and modifications, from
time to time, of earlier views. But Isocrates was a man of singularly
fixed ideas. With regard to education, he formulated in the discourse
against the Sophists (391 B.C.) views which are practically identical
with what he expressed nearly forty years later in the _Antidosis_, views
which he maintains in his last work of all, the _Panathenaicus_ (339
B.C.). With regard to Greek politics, he held till the close of his life
the opinions propounded in the _Panegyricus_ of 380 B.C. His aims were
unchanged, though of necessity he modified the means by which he hoped to
carry them out.
We have little information about the orator’s early life. He tells us
himself that his patrimony was dissipated by the Peloponnesian War,[181]
so that he was forced to adopt a profession to make a living.
The story contained in the ‘Life,’ that he endeavoured to save
Theramenes when condemned by the Thirty, has no other authority but the
Pseudo-Plutarch. It appears from Plato’s _Phaedrus_[182] that he was
intimate with Socrates, that Socrates had a high opinion of him, and
considered that the young man might distinguish himself either in oratory
or in philosophy. Tradition names the Sophists Prodicus, Protagoras, and
Gorgias among his early teachers. He is believed to have visited Gorgias
in Thessaly.
Plutarch asserts that Isocrates at one time opened a school of rhetoric,
with nine pupils, in Chios; and that while there he interfered in
politics and helped to institute a democracy.[183] The story may be
accepted with reservations. Isocrates himself never refers to it, and in
_Ep._ vi. § 2 (to the children of Jason) excuses himself from visiting
Thessaly on the ground that people would comment unfavourably on a man
who had ‘kept quiet’ all his life if he began travelling in his old
age.[184] Jebb assumes a short stay in Chios in 404-403 B.C.
Between 403 and 393 B.C. Isocrates composed a certain number of speeches
for the law-courts, in which, however, he never appeared as a pleader,
for natural disabilities—lack of voice and nervousness, to which he
refers with regret—made him unfitted for such work.
About 392 B.C. he opened a school at Athens, and in 391 B.C. published,
in the discourse _Against the Sophists_, his views on education. His
pupils were mostly Athenians, many of them afterwards being men of
distinction.[185]
It was probably between 378 and 376 B.C. that Isocrates went on several
voyages with Conon’s son, Timotheus, who was engaged in organizing
the new maritime league. From this time down to 351 B.C. he had many
distinguished pupils from far countries—Sicily and Pontus as well as all
parts of Greece—and amassed, as he tells us, a reasonable competence,
though not a large fortune.
In the year 351 B.C., when a great contest of eloquence was held by
Artemisia, widow of Mausolus of Caria, in honour of her husband, it is
reported that all the competitors were pupils of Isocrates.
In the last period of his life, 351-338 B.C., Isocrates still continued
to teach, and was also busily occupied in writing. He published the
_Philippus_, which is one of his most important works, and one of the
greatest in historical interest, in 346 B.C.; in 342 B.C. he began
the lengthy _Panathenaicus_, which he had half finished when he was
attacked by an illness, which made the work drag on for three years. It
was finished in 339 B.C. In the following year, a few days after the
battle of Chaeronea, he died. A report was current in antiquity that
he committed suicide, by starving himself, in consequence of the news
of this downfall of Greek liberty; the story is quite incredible when
we consider that the result of the battle gave a possibility of the
fulfilment of the hopes which Isocrates had been cherishing for half his
life, the end to which he had been labouring for over forty years—the
concentration of all power into the hands of one man, who might redeem
Greece by giving her union and leading her to conquest in the East.
His last letter, in fact, written after the battle of Chaeronea,
congratulates Philip on his victory; and even if this letter is spurious,
the probability, to judge from the tone of his earlier works, is that he
would have hailed the Macedonian success as a victory for his imperial
ideas.
§ 2. _Style_
Though Isocrates composed, in his youth, a few forensic speeches, it
is not by such compositions that he must be judged; indeed he himself,
far from claiming credit for his activity in that direction, in later
life adopted an apologetic tone when speaking of his earlier work. As
a teacher of rhetoric he won great renown, numbering, as he boasts,
even kings among his pupils; and he had a complete mastery of all the
technique of the rhetorical art.
He was also a master of style, having theories of composition which he
exemplified in practice with such skill that he must occupy a prominent
place in any treatise on the development of Greek prose.
But his highest claim to consideration is as a political thinker. His
bold and startling theories of Greek politics were expressed indeed in
finished prose, and in rhetorical shape; but the artistic form is only
an added ornament; if Isocrates had written in the baldest style he
must have made a name by his treatises on political science, and by the
fact that he took a broader and more liberal view of Hellenism than any
Athenian before or after. Thus he, who perhaps never delivered a public
speech, is of more importance than any of the other orators; and though
no politician in the narrow sense, he exerted a wider influence than any,
not excepting Demosthenes, who devoted their lives to political activity,
for he originated and promulgated ideas which completely changed the
course of Greek civilization. It was probably he who was the first to
instigate Philip to attempt the conquest of Asia, as he had before urged
Dionysius and others to make the attempt—all for the sake of the union
of Greek States and the spread of Hellenism; certainly he encouraged the
Macedonian in his project, and perhaps it may be said to be due to him
that on Philip’s death Alexander found the way prepared.
Isocrates could not fully foresee the results of Alexander’s conquests;
Alexander himself modified and expanded his ambitions as he advanced;
but undoubtedly Isocrates urged the general desirability of the
undertaking and saw clearly, up to a certain point, the lines on which it
ought to be carried out. The petty law-suits which occupied Lysias and
Andocides seem trivial and unimportant, even the patriotic utterances
of Demosthenes seem of secondary weight, compared with these literary
harangues of Isocrates, in cases where civilization and barbarism, unity
and discord, are the litigants, and the court is the world.
Isocrates is named by Dionysius as an example of the smooth (or florid)
style of composition, which resembles closely woven stuffs, or pictures
in which the lights melt insensibly into the shadows.[186]
It is clear that to aim consciously at producing such effects as these
is to exalt mere expression to supreme heights, and to risk the loss
of clearness and emphasis. We may gather the opinions of Isocrates on
the structure of prose partly from his own statements, partly from the
criticisms of Dionysius, and partly from a study of his compositions. The
subject has been very fully and carefully dealt with by Blass, and in the
present work only a summary of the chief results can be attempted.
The most noticeable feature of the style is the care taken to avoid
hiatus. This is particularly remarked by Dionysius, who, after quoting
from the _Areopagiticus_ a long passage which he particularly admires,
notes, ‘You cannot find any dissonance of vowels, at any rate in the
passage which I have quoted, nor any, I think, in the whole speech,
unless some instance has escaped my observation.’[187]
We should expect to find that, to produce this effect, it was necessary
to depart frequently from natural forms of expression, either by changing
the usual order, or by inserting unnecessary words. It is probable that
Isocrates resorted to both these devices; but such is the skill with
which he handles his materials that careful reading is necessary to
detect the distortions.[188]
Dionysius further notes that dissonance or clashing of consonants is
rare, and herein Isocrates seems to have been at pains to follow the
rules of euphony laid down in his own Τέχνη. In a fragment preserved
by Hermogenes he tells his readers to avoid the repetition of the same
syllable in consecutive words—as ἡλικὰ καλά, ἔνθα Θαλῆς.[189] The
ingenuity of Blass has discovered passages in which the natural form
of a phrase has been altered to avoid such juxtaposition of similar
syllables.[190] Certain combinations of consonants, too, are hard to
pronounce, and must therefore be avoided. There is, in truth, much
justice in the remark of Dionysius that in reading Isocrates it is not
the separate words but the sentence as a whole that we must take into
account.
The third characteristic of Isocrates’ style is his attention to rhythm.
The extravagance of Gorgias had hindered the development of the
language by introducing into prose the rhythms and language of poetry;
Thrasymachus, as we know from Aristotle’s _Rhetoric_, had studied the
effect of the foot ‘_paeonius_’ (–⏑⏑⏑ or ⏑⏑⏑–) at the beginning and end
of periods.[191] Isocrates, while deprecating the use of poetical metres
in any strict sense, asserted that oratorical prose should have rhythms
of its own, and favoured combinations of the trochee and the iambus. In
this he differed from Aristotle, who disapproved of the iambic rhythm as
being too similar to the natural course of ordinary speech, and of the
trochaic, as being too light and tripping—in contrast to the hexameter,
which he classed as too solemn for spoken language.[192]
The periods of Isocrates are remarkable for their elaboration. The
analyses of Blass show us a complication of structure in some of the
longer sentences which may almost be compared to that of a Pindaric ode.
Never, perhaps, has there been a writer who attained such luxuriant
complexity in his composition of sentences. But Isocrates is too much
the slave of his own virtues; his periods are so long, so complete, so
uniformly artistic, that their everlasting procession is monotonous.
Lysias, less perfect in form, has in consequence more variety;
Demosthenes, who could compose long periods, did not confine himself to
them, but enlivened his style by contrast.
The structure of the period lends itself naturally to antithetical
forms of expression. We observed in Antiphon the frequency of verbal
antitheses of various kinds—the λόγῳ and ἔργῳ, the μὲν and δέ, and
others. Isocrates, having before him the examples of his predecessors
and the precepts of rhetoricians, and having theories of his own on
sentence-construction, developed very fully a scheme of parallelism in
word, sense, and sound.
Thus a period will consist, as we have seen, of a succession of κῶλα
or limbs, each one corresponding to another in size, and pairs of
corresponding κῶλα will contain pairs of words parallel in sense, form or
sound. So the whole period is bound closely together.
_Vocabulary. Schemata_
His vocabulary avoids excess; he is, in the judgment of Dionysius, the
purest of Atticists, with the exception of Lysias. But if we compare
the two we find much more tendency to fine writing in Isocrates.
Using ordinary words he can produce notable effects, and he is always
consciously striving after a certain pomposity of diction. This is most
noticeable in the exhibition-writings, such as the _Helen_ and _Busiris_,
where grandiloquent compound words are not infrequent, and metaphors are
commoner and more striking than in the speeches on real subjects.
One of his affectations, copied by nearly all subsequent orators, is
the unnecessary piling up of words almost synonymous to express one
idea.[193] On the other hand we sometimes find synonyms apparently
contrasted in different parts of the sentence; such contrast is only
verbal, and is made for the purpose of rounding the period; in either
case we must note that the writer departs from simplicity in order to
improve the sound of his words, but does not add much to the sense.[194]
Another characteristic is the use of the plural of abstract nouns,
in much the same sense as the singular.[195] All these details—the
partiality for compounds, for the accumulation of synonyms and for the
use of the plural instead of the singular, may be classed together under
the head of exaggerations of expression, and recorded as characteristics
of the _epideictic_ style.
In general, the tone is heightened, and Isocrates tends to appear florid
when compared with Lysias; if, on the other hand, we take Gorgias as a
standard, we see how far Isocrates, who undoubtedly imitated the Sicilian
style, has surpassed his model in the direction of refinement.
§ 3. _On Education_
Prevented by natural disabilities from exercising his talents in
public, but urged on by the necessity of earning a living, since the
Peloponnesian War had dissipated his fortune, Isocrates turned to a
profession for which he was well fitted, that of an educator. During
many years he was, like Gorgias, a teacher of rhetoric, and like Gorgias
he may be classed as a Sophist. This title is misleading. In itself it
means nothing more than an educator, or teacher of wisdom, and early,
writers use it in a laudatory sense; Herodotus applies it to the Seven
Sages. In the fourth century it was debased, partly by the comic poets,
as representing the popular habit of sneering at anything which the mob
cannot understand, but more honestly and systematically by Plato, who,
though he admitted that some of the Sophists, such as Protagoras, were
men worthy of the highest respect, took many opportunities of disparaging
Sophists as a class, and Sophistry as a profession.
There can be no doubt that he was quite sincere, for he takes great pains
to bring out the distinction between the educators and his own master
Socrates, whom Aristophanes had already marked as one of the crowd.[196]
To us it seems that the marked distinction cannot be maintained; apart
from Socrates’ peculiarity of refusing to take fees from his pupils, he
is distinguished only by possessing a higher moral tone than the rest
of the Sophists. Like them he was a sceptic as far as philosophy was
concerned, and like them he was an educator.
We have, however, accepted the word at the value which Plato chose to put
upon it; but we must not suppose that this was the value at which it was
usually current. This is clear from the fact that Isocrates can use the
word without any idea of disparagement.
Though he wrote a speech _Against the Sophists_, it is directed not
against the profession as a whole, but against certain classes, whom he
calls the ἀγέλαιοι σοφισταί—‘Sophists of the baser sort.’
Isocrates’ earliest work on education, the speech or tract _Against the
Sophists_ (Or. xiii.), dates from the beginning of his professional
career, perhaps about the year 390 B.C. We possess only part, perhaps
less than half, of the speech. What remains is purely destructive
criticism which, as is clear from the concluding words, was meant to lead
up to an exposition of the writer’s own principles and theory. The loss
is to be regretted, but is not irreparable, since the speech _On the
Antidosis_, composed thirty-five years later, supplements it by a full
constructive statement.
The introduction on the Sophists is sweeping in its severity:[197]
‘If all our professional educators would be content to tell the
truth and not promise more than they ever intend to perform,
they would not have a bad reputation among laymen. As it is,
their reckless effrontery has encouraged the opinion that
a life of incurious idleness is better than one devoted to
philosophy.’
He proceeds to criticize various classes:
‘We cannot help hating and despising the professors of
contentious argument (eristic), who, while claiming to seek
for Truth, introduce falsehood at the very beginning of their
pretensions. They profess in a way to read the future, a power
which Homer denied even to the gods; for they prophesy for
their pupils a full knowledge of right conduct, and promise
them happiness in consequence. This invaluable commodity
they offer for sale at the ridiculous price of three or four
minae. They affect, indeed, to despise money—mere dross of
silver or gold as they call it—yet, for the sake of this small
profit they will raise their pupils almost to a level with the
immortals. They profess to teach all virtue; but it is notable
that pupils, before they are admitted to the course, have to
give security for the payment of their fees.’
The general tone of this censure recalls the attacks of the Platonic
Socrates on the ‘eristic’ Sophists; but it is certain that the
‘eristics,’ whom Isocrates here attacks, are some of the lesser
Socratics. This is made obvious by the reference in § 3 to the knowledge
(ἐπιστήμη) which, according to these teachers, will lead to right conduct
or virtue, and so to happiness. The Socratic view that knowledge is
the basis of virtue, and virtue of happiness, is well known. Socrates
himself did not profess to teach virtue for a fee; but the Megarians,
the followers of his pupil Euclides, did, and at them the sarcasm of
Isocrates seems to be directed. Elsewhere, indeed, Isocrates refers
definitely to the Platonic school as belonging to the eristic class.[198]
The teachers of ‘Political Discourse’ fall next under ban, that is, the
teachers of practical rhetoric, whether forensic or deliberative.[199]
‘They care nothing for truth’—whereas the eristics, at any rate,
professed to seek it—‘they consider that their profession is to attract
as many pupils as possible by the smallness of their fees and the
greatness of their promises. They are so dull, and think others so
dull, that though the speeches which they write are worse than many
non-professionals can improvise, they undertake to make of their pupils
orators equal to any emergency. They say that they can teach oratory
as easily as the alphabet, which is a subject fixed by unchangeable
rules, whereas the conditions for a speaker are never quite the same
on two occasions. A speech, to be successful, must be appropriate to
the subject, to the occasion, and to the speaker; and in some degree
original. Instruction can give us technical skill; but cannot call into
existence the oratorical faculty, which a good speaker must have innate
in him.’
No doubt Isocrates himself professed to give a practical training for
public life; but he states here what he repeats with more emphasis in
a later writing:[200] ‘For distinction either in speech or in action,
or in any other work, there are three requisites: natural aptitude,
theoretical training, and practical experience.... Of these the first
is indispensable, and by far the most important.’ The Sophists claimed
to dispense with the first, and this is the ground of the philosopher’s
quarrel with them.
The third section of the speech, following naturally on the second, deals
with writers of technical guides to rhetoric (τέχναι).
‘They profess to teach litigation, choosing for themselves this
offensive title which would be more appropriate in the mouths
of their detractors. They are worse than those who wallow
in the mire of “eristic,” for they at least pretend to be
concerned with virtue and moderation, while those whom we are
considering now undertake only to teach men to be busy-bodies
from motives of base covetousness.’[201]
Here again Isocrates, who himself composed an ‘Art’ of rhetoric, does not
condemn all who may try to teach the subject; his complaint is that the
majority of such teachers have confined themselves to the ignoble branch
of the profession. This criticism is obviously a valid one, and is echoed
by Aristotle, who declares that speaking before a public assembly is less
knavish (κακοῦργον) than speaking in a law-court.[202]
The speech entitled _On the Antidosis_ is really Isocrates’ defence
of his life and profession. In 355 B.C. he was challenged by one
Megacleides to undertake the trierarchy, or else to accept an
_antidosis_, or exchange of properties. The matter was the subject of
a trial, in consequence of which Isocrates performed the trierarchy.
Some time—perhaps two years—later, he wrote this speech, which is of no
historical importance, since even the name of the plaintiff, Lysimachus,
is fictitious. The introduction (§§ 1-13) makes it clear that the
law-suit is only introduced for the sake of local colour. The speech
itself begins with a semblance of forensic form in § 14, but the pretence
is very soon dropped. The cloak is resumed in the Epilogue (§§ 320-323);
but the greatest part of the speech has nothing to do with any trial,
real or imaginary.
The treatise, as we may call it, falls into two parts: in §§ 14-166 the
writer defends his own character; in §§ 167-319 he defends his system of
education.
The indictment against which he pleads is that he is in the habit of
corrupting the younger generation by teaching them habits of litigation.
He has little difficulty in showing that his chief work has lain in a
far nobler field than that of forensic rhetoric. While others have been
engaged in the paltry contentions of the law-courts he has composed
speeches bearing upon the politics of all Greece. This he proves by
reciting long extracts from his most famous works: the _Panegyric_ (§
59); _On the Peace_ (§ 66); _Nicocles_ (§ 72).
The second half of the speech contains, as has been noted, a statement
and defence of Isocrates’ theory.
‘Philosophy,’ he says, ‘is for the soul what Gymnastic is for
the body.’
This analogy he elaborates.
‘The gymnastic trainer teaches his pupils first to perform
the separate movements, then to combine them. The educator
follows the same order, and both insist on long and diligent
practice; but the trainer of the body cannot always make
a man an athlete, nor can the trainer of the mind make
everybody an orator. There are three essentials requisite for
success—natural aptitude, proper teaching, and long practice;
and moreover there must be a will on the part of both teacher
and pupil to persevere. The natural ability is by far the most
important element. Training, however complete, may break down
utterly if the speaker lacks nerve.[203]
‘Some people expect a marked improvement after a few days of
study with a Sophist, and demand a complete training in a
year. This is ridiculous; no class of education could produce
such results; and there is no need to disparage us as a class
because we cannot do more than we profess. We cannot make all
men orators, but we can give them culture.
‘Others assert that our philosophy has an immoral tendency. I
shall not defend all who claim to be educators, but only those
who have a right to the name. We have nothing to gain by making
men immoral; on the contrary the greatest satisfaction for a
Sophist is that his pupils should become wise and honourable
men, respected by their fellows. Our pupils come from Sicily,
from Pontus, and from other distant regions; do they come so
far to be instructed in wickedness? Surely not; they could find
plenty of teaching at home. They incur the trouble and expense
because they think that Athens can give them the best education
in the world.
‘Again, power in debate is not in itself a demoralizing thing.
The greatest statesmen of this and earlier generations studied
and practised oratory—Solon, who was called one of the Seven
Sophists, Themistocles, Pericles. You blame the Thebans for
lacking culture; why blame us who try to impart it? Athens
honours with a yearly sacrifice the Goddess Persuasion; our
enemies attack us for seeking the faculty which this goddess
personifies.
‘We are even attacked by the “Eristics”:[204] far from
retorting, I am ready to admit that there is good to be got
even from eristic disputation, from astronomy,[205] and from
geometry: they are useful as a preliminary to higher studies.
‘My own view of philosophy is a simple one. It is impossible
to attain absolute knowledge of what we ought or ought not to
do; but the wise man is he who can make a successful guess as
a general rule, and philosophers are those who study to attain
this practical wisdom. There is not, and never has been, a
science which could impart justice and virtue to those who are
not by nature inclined towards these qualities; but a man who
is desirous of speaking or writing well, and of persuading
others, will incidentally become more just and virtuous, for it
is character that tells more than anything.
‘Thoughtful speaking leads to careful action. Your superior
culture raises you above the rest of Greece, just as mankind is
superior to the lower animals and Greeks to barbarians: do not,
then, punish those who would give you this culture.’[206]
These two treatises taken together, and supplemented by a few passages
from other speeches, give us a fair idea of Isocrates’ system. His
‘Philosophy’ is to be distinguished from all merely theoretical
speculation, such as the physical theories of the Ionians, or the logic
of Parmenides; from ‘eristic’—the art of arguing for argument’s sake—from
geometry and astronomy; from literary work which has no practical use;
from the rhetoric of the law-courts. Boys at school may profitably study
grammar and poetry; at a later age the applied mathematics, and even
‘eristic,’ are good mental training; but it must be recognized that they
are only a preparation for the Isocratean ‘philosophy,’ which is for the
soul what gymnastic is for the body.
As the gymnastic-master teaches first the various thrusts and parries, so
to speak, the teacher of philosophy makes his pupils learn first all the
styles of prose composition.[207] He then makes them combine (συνείρειν)
the things which they have learnt. The subjects for such exercises
must be properly chosen—they must be practical and must deal with wide
interests.
Practice on these lines will prepare a man, as far as his nature allows,
for speaking and acting in a public capacity; so that what Isocrates
calls his ‘philosophy’ is really a science of practical politics.
Isocrates seems to have been thorough in all things; himself a hard
worker who took extraordinary care over his compositions, he expected
his pupils to work hard. He was not content, like some Sophists, with
making them learn his own ‘fair copies’ by heart; they must do the
work for themselves. He scoffs at those teachers who claim to ‘finish’
their pupils in a year; his pretensions are more modest, but even so
he requires a course of three or four years. He believed in individual
attention rather than class-teaching, if we may regard an anecdote of
the Pseudo-Plutarch, who recounts that three pupils once came to him
together, but he admitted only two, telling the third to come next day.
He endeavoured to impart to his students something of that broadness of
view, so prominent in his own speeches, which enabled him to look beyond
the trials of the law-courts, beyond the interests of party or even of
individual state, and lift his eyes to a conception of national unity;
and something of that loftiness of spirit which, in an age of selfish and
scurrilous orators, enabled him to pursue his course towards the truth,
unbiased by personal considerations, and never descending to invective or
abuse.
§ 4. _Patriotism_
Isocrates was no less a patriot than Demosthenes, though he differed
very widely in his political views from the later orator. What these
views were may be gathered from a series of speeches on national subjects
extending over a period of more than forty years.
The _Panegyricus_, the first of these, was probably composed for
publication at one of the great national assemblies, perhaps the
Olympic festival, about 380 B.C. This was certainly a time when the
long-continued dissensions of the city-states had brought the affairs
of Greece to a crisis. There seemed to Isocrates to be no solution of
the difficulties, no chance of established peace or contentment, unless
some enterprise could be found which should unite the sympathies of the
rival cities, induce them to put their own quarrels aside, and throw them
whole-heartedly into a cause which concerned Hellas as a nation.
The only motive which had ever been able to unite the Greeks, even
temporarily, was hatred of the barbarians, and Isocrates works upon this
feeling. He draws a vivid picture of the miserable state to which the
Greek world has been reduced by civil war, and shows how the influence of
Persia, besides keeping this war alive, has in other ways worked towards
the ruin of Greece. Having discussed with outspoken candour the claims
of Sparta and Athens to leadership, he suggests that they should agree by
a compromise, and urges that they and all other States should unite in a
racial war against the Persians.
This speech had no practical effect. The rise of Thebes shortly after
this date changed the balance of power, and on the whole did not improve
conditions. Despairing of originating any joint action within Greece
itself, Isocrates looked farther for a leader, and in or about 368 B.C.
we find him writing to Dionysius of Syracuse, who at the time held an
empire far more powerful than that of any State of Greece proper, and
suggesting that he should come forward as the champion of the Greek
national spirit.[208]
In 356 B.C. Isocrates turned again towards Sparta, this time writing
to Archidamus, who had recently succeeded his father Agesilaus in the
kingship, and urging him to take steps which will ‘put an end to civil
war in Greece, curb the insolence of the barbarians, and deprive them of
part of their ill-gotten gains.’ Archidamus, if he could be as vigorous
as his father and more unselfish, might well seem to be a suitable leader
for the crusade on which Isocrates had set his heart.
At this time Philip of Macedon, though he was beginning to attain
notoriety, was probably regarded by the majority of Greeks as a pauper
prince, sitting insecurely on a throne which he had usurped, and from
which he might at any time be removed by rebellion or assassination. But
in this year he obtained possession of the gold mines of Pangaeum, and
it was soon realized that Macedon was to play a leading part in Greek
politics.
In 346 B.C. Isocrates addressed Philip as one capable of taking the
lead, first in combining the Greek States into a union, and secondly, in
leading them to conquer the barbarian.[209] The ten years of desultory
hostilities between Philip and Athens had now been ended by the peace of
Philocrates, and Isocrates, thinking that Amphipolis, for which they had
been fighting, was an undesirable possession for either party, imagined
and hoped that the peace might be made permanent.
Though the _Panegyric_ and the addresses to Dionysius and Archidamus had
failed, Isocrates hoped that an appeal to Philip might be more successful.
‘I decided,’ he writes, ‘to broach the subject to you, not as a
special compliment, though I should be glad if my words could
find favour with you, but from the following motive. I saw that
all other men of distinction have to obey their cities and
their laws, and may do nothing beyond what they are told; and
moreover none of them are capable of dealing with the matter I
now intend to discuss.
‘You alone have had given you by fortune a full authority to
send embassies to whom you will, and receive them from where
you choose, and to say whatever you think expedient. Besides,
you possess wealth and power beyond any other Greek—the two
things which are the most potent either to persuade or to
compel: and you will find persuasion useful for the Greeks and
compulsion for the barbarians.’[210]
A summary of a few extracts will indicate the tenor of the speech.
‘It is your duty to try to reconcile the four great
cities—Argos, Sparta, Thebes, and Athens; bring these four
to their right mind, and you will have no difficulty with the
rest, which all depend on them (§§ 30-31). Your ancestors are
Argive by descent, and these cities should never have been at
enmity with you or each other. All must make allowances, as
all have been at fault (§§ 33-38). If Athens or Sparta were
now, as once, predominant, nothing could be done; but all
the great cities are now practically on a level. No enmities
are so deep-seated that they cannot be overcome: Athens has
at different times been allied with both Thebes and Sparta.
Sparta, Argos, and Thebes all desire peace; Athens has come to
her senses before the others, and already made peace. She will
be ready to give you her active sympathy’ (§§ 39-56).
‘History provides many instances of men who, with few
advantages, even with disabilities, have achieved great tasks:
you, with all your resources, should find the present task
easy’ (§§ 57-67).
‘Success in such a cause would be magnificent; even failure
would be noble: your slanderers impute to you the design of
subjugating Greece; you will convince them of their error’ (§§
68-80).
‘So much for your duty to Greece; now turn to the conquest
of Asia. Agesilaus failed because he stirred up political
animosities.
‘The Greeks under Cyrus defeated the Persian army, and though
left leaderless they made good their retreat. All conditions
are favourable for you. The Greeks of Asia were hostile to
Cyrus, but will welcome you. The present King of Persia is
less of a man than his predecessor, against whom Cyrus fought;
and Persia is divided against itself. Cyprus, Cilicia, and
Phoenicia, which provided the king with ships, will do so no
longer’ (§§ 83-104).
‘You may aim at conquering the whole Persian Empire; failing
of that you might win all that is west of a line drawn from
Cilicia to Sinope. Even this would be an enormous advantage.
You could found cities for the hordes of mercenaries who are
driven by destitution to wander and prey upon the settled
inhabitants—a growing menace to Greeks and Persians alike. You
would thus render these nomads a great service, and at the same
time establish them as a permanent guard of your own frontiers.
If this proved too much for you, at the very least you could
free the Greek cities of Asia. However great or little is your
success, you will at least win great renown for having led a
united expedition from all Greece’ (§§ 119-126).
‘No other state or individual will undertake the task; you are
free from restrictions, as all Hellas is your native land. You
will fight, I know, not for power or wealth, but for glory.
Your mission, then, is this:—To be the benefactor of Greece,
the king of Macedon, the governor of Asia’ (§§ 127-155).
It may be said that Isocrates overrated the purity of Philip’s motives.
On the other hand, it may be conceived that Philip would have greatly
preferred to march to Asia as the general of a Greek force willingly
united. He, whom Isocrates reckons as a Greek of royal or semi-divine
descent, whom Demosthenes stigmatized as a barbarian of the lowest
type, had much more of the Greek than the barbarian in his nature. To
Athens at least he always showed extraordinary clemency, treating her
with a respect far beyond her merits, and honouring her for her ancient
greatness. He did all that was possible to conciliate her, and this
policy he handed on to his son. But he could not start for the East,
leaving so many irreconcilable enemies behind him; and the refusal of the
States to accept his hegemony made Chaeronea inevitable.
Those who read, not this short summary, but the essay as a whole, must be
struck by the firm grasp which the writer has on contemporary history,
and by his insight into the forces at work. He under-estimated the
conservatism of the city-states, wrongly imagining that the majority
could be as broad-minded as himself.
The chapters on Asia show considerable knowledge both of the conditions
and the requirements. His advice about the founding of cities was
followed literally by Alexander, who, immediately after his first
victory, initiated this policy for securing his conquests.
In 342 B.C. Isocrates wrote again to Philip, reproaching him for his
recklessness in exposing his own life in battle. He repeated some of
the arguments of the first essay, and summarized his advice as follows:
‘It is far nobler to capture a city’s good-will than its walls.’ After
Chaeronea, in the year 338 B.C., he wrote once more, recalling his
former advice, and reflecting with satisfaction that the dreams of his
youth were some of them already fulfilled, and others on the point of
fulfilment.
§ 5. _Remaining Works_
The general contents of the _Panegyricus_ have already been discussed,
but only a careful study of the speech will reveal the skill with which
one topic is made to lead up to another, the nice proportion of the
parts, and the adroitness displayed in gathering and binding together the
various threads of the argument. Numerous paragraphs which seem at first
to be almost digressions are found, when we take the speech as a whole,
to be essential to its unity, and though in its course a large number of
topics is handled, the main subject is never left out of view. The level
of style is high throughout, and no extracts can properly represent it.
A short analysis may, however, serve to indicate the coherence of the
arguments:[211]
‘I am here to offer advice about the necessity of war with
Persia and unity among the Greeks. Others have handled the same
theme, but the fact of their failure renders any excuse for
a fresh attempt superfluous, and the subject admits of being
treated better than it has been’ (§§ 1-14).
‘My predecessors have missed an important point; that nothing
can be done until the leaders—Athens and Sparta—are reconciled,
and persuaded to share the leadership.
‘Sparta has accepted a false tradition, that leadership is hers
by ancestral right. I shall try to prove that the leadership
really belongs to Athens; Sparta then should consent to a joint
command’ (§§ 15-20).
‘Athens first possessed maritime empire, and her civilization
is the oldest in Greece (§§ 21-25). Her claims to hegemony are
as follows:—
‘A. (_a_) Tradition, which has never been refuted, records that
Athens first provided the necessities of life. Demeter taught
in Attica the cultivation of corn and instituted the Mysteries.
‘(_b_) Athens undoubtedly led the way in colonization, thus
enlarging the boundaries of Greek land, and driving back the
barbarians (§§ 28-37).
‘(_c_) Athens had the earliest laws, and the earliest
constitution. She established the Piraeus, the centre of Greek
trade. She provides in herself a perpetual festival, at which
the arts are encouraged. Practical philosophy and oratory are
so highly honoured at Athens that the name “Greek” is applied
properly not by claim of blood but by virtue of the possession
of Athenian culture (§§ 38-50).
‘B. (_a_) From heroic times downwards Athens has shown herself
the helper of the oppressed. Even Sparta grew great through her
support (§§ 57-65).
‘(_b_) Athens in the earliest times and in the Persian Wars
distinguished herself against the barbarians (§§ 66-74).
‘In old days the rivalries between opposite political parties
and between Athens and Sparta were noble ones, and the
honourable competition of the two cities shamed the other
Greeks into taking arms against Xerxes. Athens, however,
furnished more ships than all the rest put together. Her claim
to leadership, up to the end of the Persian War, is therefore
established’ (§§ 75-79).
‘It is true that Athens treated her revolted allies—Melos and
Scione—severely: rebels must expect punishment. On the other
hand, our loyal subjects enjoyed for seventy years freedom from
tyranny, immunity from barbarian attacks, settled government,
and peace with all the world’ (§§ 100-106).
‘Sparta and her partisans inflicted more harm in a few months
than Athens in the whole duration of her empire’ (§§ 110-114).
‘Our rule was preferable to the so-called “peace and
independence” which Sparta has given the cities. The seas
are overrun by pirates, and more cities are raided now than
before the peace was made. Tyrants and harmosts make life in
the cities intolerable. The Great King, whom Athens confined
within stated limits, has raided the Peloponnese (§§ 115-119);
Sparta has abandoned the Ionians to slavery, and herself
caused devastation in Greece, and burdened the islanders with
taxation. It is monstrous that we Greeks, owing to our petty
quarrels, should devastate our own country, when we might reap
a golden harvest from Asia’ §§ (120-132).
‘We have allowed the Great King to attain unheard of
power—simply through our quarrels, for he is not really strong.
‘Numerous instances from history betray the inferiority of the
Persian leaders and organization. They have often been defeated
on the coast of Asia; when they invaded Greece we made an
example of them; finally, they cut a ridiculous figure before
the walls of their own palaces’[212] (§§ 133-149).
‘This is what we might expect from their manner of life; the
mass of the people are more fit to be slaves than soldiers; the
nobles are by turns insolent and servile, and being permanently
corrupted by luxury they are weak and treacherous. They deserve
our hatred, and, in fact, our enmity can never be reconciled.
One of the reasons even of Homer’s popularity is that he tells
of a great war against Asia’ (§§ 150-159).
‘The time is favourable for attack; Phoenicia and Syria are
devastated; Tyre is captured; Cilicia is mostly in our favour;
Egypt and Cyprus are in revolt. The Greeks are ready to rise;
we must make haste, and not let the history of the Ionic
revolt repeat itself. The present suffering in Greece passes
all records, and for this the present generation deserves
some recompense—another reason for haste. The leading men in
the cities are callously indifferent, so we who stand outside
politics must take the lead, as I am doing’ (§§ 160-174).
‘The treaty of Antalcidas need not stand in our way; it has
been broken already in spirit. We only observe the provisions
which are to our own shame, _i.e._ those by which our allies
are given over to the Persians. It was never a fair covenant—we
submitted to terms dictated by the king.
‘Honour and expediency alike demand that we should combine to
undertake this war, whose fame will be greater than that of the
Trojan war’ (§§ 175-189).
We may now consider the group of speeches which deals with the internal
affairs of Greece.
_Plataicus_ (Or. xiv.). Plataea, destroyed in 427 B.C., was restored
by Sparta in 386 B.C. as a menace to Thebes, but was forced into the
Boeotian Confederacy in 376 B.C. In 373 B.C. it was surprised by a Theban
army and again destroyed. The inhabitants escaped to Athens, and their
case was discussed in the ecclesia, and also at the congress of allies.
The present speech is professedly delivered by a Plataean before the
Athenian ecclesia. It consists chiefly of an appeal to sentiment through
history; the speaker recalls the ancient relations of Plataea and Athens,
and thence infers the present duty of Athens. The speech is in a form
suitable for delivery before the assembly, and may have been so delivered.
_On the Peace_ (Or. viii.), on the other hand, is a political treatise.
It dates from 355 B.C., when the Social War was near its end. The main
theme of the speech is the necessity of peace between Athens and all the
world, but the urging of this policy naturally brings in a criticism of
the war-party, and a severe indictment not only of present politics but
of the conditions of the old empire of Athens. The speech is remarkable
from the fact that for once Isocrates abandons his even and temperate
language, and allows indignation and even bitterness to give colour to
his criticisms.
‘The acquisition of empire,’ he says, ‘over unwilling subjects,
is both unjust and impolitic. Ambition is like the bait which
entices a wild beast into a trap. Our administration is rotten;
our citizens have lost faith in personal effort, and we employ
mercenaries to fight our battles. Our politicians are our worst
citizens, and we appoint as generals incompetent men who are
not fitted for any position of trust. We hold our own, but only
because our rivals are as weak as we are. The follies of our
assembly win allies for Thebes; their follies in turn are our
salvation. It would pay either State to bribe the assembly of
the other to meet more often.
‘Our hope lies in abandoning our empire; it is unjust, and
moreover, we could not maintain it when we were rich, and now
we are poor. The statesmen of imperial Athens did all that they
could to make their city’s policy unpopular. They displayed
the tribute extorted from the allies, thus reminding all the
world of their tyranny; and paraded the children of those who
had fallen in wars in various parts of the world—the victims of
national covetousness. Far different was the position of Athens
under Themistocles and Aristides. National life is demoralized
by Empire. The history of Sparta’s supremacy is another case
to the point. Pericles was a demagogue, and led the city on a
disastrous career, but he at least enriched the treasury, not
himself. Our modern demagogues are merely self-seeking, and
their covetousness reduces not only the state but the citizens
to penury.
‘Peace, at the price I have indicated, is the only remedy. We
must deliver Greece, not despoil her. Athens should hold among
Greek States the position that the kings occupy in Sparta;
they are not tyrants; they have a higher standard of conduct
than any private person, and are held in such respect that any
man who would not throw away his life for them in the field is
reckoned meaner than a deserter.’
There is much truth in the invectives aimed at the old empire; Isocrates
could see behind the glowing colours in which the glories of the
Periclean age are sometimes painted, and equally with Demosthenes he
realized, and did not shrink from noticing, the weakness of Athens in
his own days. But his advice, though noble, is unpractical. He failed,
in spite of his knowledge of history, to fathom the depth of Greek
selfishness. No State that relied solely or chiefly on moral worth could
have a voice in the council of Greece, far less dominate its policy.
The _Areopagiticus_ (Or. vii.), perhaps composed in the same year,
in many points supplements the _de Pace_. It is chiefly devoted to
a contrast between the old days of dignified government under the
constitutions of Solon and Cleisthenes, and the unsatisfactory conditions
of life in the orator’s time. The description of the old constitution is,
perhaps, a fancy picture, but the contrast serves to bring out the evils
at which Isocrates is aiming in the modern State. The speech deals with
the inner life of Athens rather than with her foreign policy, and the
chief credit for good government and good life in the old days is given
to the Council of the Areopagus, that majestic body which even now ‘has
so strong an influence that the worst men of modern times, if promoted to
membership of it, are pervaded by its spirit, and, losing the meanness
of their own hearts, think and act in accordance with the Council’s high
traditions.’
The _Archidamus_ (Or. vi.) is put into the mouth of the Spartan king
of that name, for whom, as we know from a letter, Isocrates had a deep
respect. It professes to be part of a debate in 366 B.C., on the proposal
of the Thebans to grant peace on condition that Sparta recognized the
independence of Messenia. It probably contains a fair representation of
the feelings of the Spartans at the time when it was proposed to make an
independent and permanently hostile state of the Messenians, whom for
generations they had regarded as their slaves.
There still remain works of three classes—the ‘hortatory letters,’ the
‘displays,’ and forensic speeches.
_Hortatory Letters_
_To Demonicus_ (Or. i.), 372 B.C. (?). This letter, addressed to a young
monarch, of whom nothing else is known, is destined to be a ‘storehouse’
(ταμιεῖον) of moral maxims, comprising duty to the gods, duty to men,
and duty to oneself. It contains a vast number of maxims, mostly of a
practical or semi-practical nature—‘We test gold by fire, friends by
misfortune.’ ‘Never swear by the gods where money is concerned; some will
think you a perjurer, others a covetous man.’ Occasionally the moral tone
is higher—‘If you do wrong, never hope to be undiscovered; if others
discover you not, your own conscience will discover you to yourself.’
_To Nicocles_ (Or. ii.), 374 B.C., addressed to Nicocles, who became
king of Salamis in Cyprus in 374 B.C., deals with the duties and
responsibilities of a king. ‘Remember your high position, and be careful
that you never do anything unworthy of it.’
_Nicocles, or the Cyprians_ (Or. iii.), 372 B.C., is a complement to Or.
ii. In it the king himself is represented as discoursing on the duties of
subjects towards their king. ‘Do to your king as you would wish your own
subjects to do to you.’
_Epideictic Speeches_
Many of the Sophists wrote imaginary speeches on legendary themes, and
Isocrates, though this art was outside his province, strayed into it
as a critic. The _Busiris_ (Or. xi.), 391 B.C., addressed to a Sophist
Polycrates, contains first a criticism of a speech composed by Polycrates
on that subject, and secondly an exposition of how Isocrates himself
would treat such a theme. Incidentally, Isocrates accepts the early
legends as true on the whole, while rejecting certain parts of them as
unbecoming.
The _Encomium of Helen_ (Or. x.), 370 B.C., begins with criticism of
a certain encomium which is generally believed to be the extant one
attributed to Gorgias. The previous writer has written not an encomium
but an apology; Isocrates himself will write a real encomium, omitting
all the topics which have been used by others.
The _Evagoras_ (Or. ix.), 365 B.C. (?), was composed for a festival
celebrated by Nicocles in memory of his father, Evagoras of Salamis, who
died 374 B.C. It contains a laudatory account of the king’s career, and
an encouragement to the son to emulate his father’s virtues.
The _Panathenaicus_ was begun when Isocrates was 94 years old, _i.e._
in 342 B.C. Owing to an illness, he was not able to finish it for three
years. It contains much of the material which had already been used
in the _Areopagiticus_. Its main topic is the greatness of Athens,
considered historically, and not with reference to contemporary politics.
But it contains long digressions—a defence of his own system against the
attacks of certain baser Sophists (§§ 5-34); a discourse on Agamemnon
(§§ 62-73); a personal explanation (§§ 99 _sqq._), in which the author
explains that the speech would naturally end at this point, and details
the conversations and discussions which led him to continue it. He was
blamed for being too harsh against Sparta, and though he silenced his
critics, he had some misgivings. The result is to increase the length of
the speech by one third, and completely to spoil the balance and destroy
whatever unity it possessed.
_Forensic Speeches_
Six forensic speeches have come down to us; they belong to the early
days of Isocrates, who in later years regretted that he had ever been
concerned with such an art; they may be dismissed in a few words:
_Against Lochites_ (Or. xx.), 394 B.C., is an action for assault;
_Aegineticus_ (Or. xix.), 394 B.C., a claim to an inheritance; _Against
Euthynus_ (Or. xxi.), 403 B.C., an action to recover a deposit;
_Trapeziticus_ (Or. xvii.), 394 B.C., a similar action, against the
famous banker Pasion; περὶ τοῦ ζεύγους (Or. xvi.), 397 B.C., spoken
by the younger Alcibiades against a man Tisias, who asserts that the
elder Alcibiades, father of the speaker, robbed him of a team of four
horses. This is an action for damages amounting to five talents. _Against
Callimachus_, 399 B.C., a παραγραφή or special plea entered by the
defendant, who contends that an action for damages brought against him
cannot be maintained.
_Letters_
Reference has already been made to certain letters, to Dionysius, 368
B.C., Archidamus, 365 B.C., Philip and Alexander, 342 B.C. Others extant
are addressed to the children of Jason (_Ep._ vi.), 359 B.C.—_i.e._
Thebe, and her half-brothers, children of the tyrant of Pherae, who
was murdered in 370 B.C.; to Timotheus (_Ep._ vii.), 345 B.C.—a king
of Heraclea on the Euxine; to the Rulers of Mitylene (_Ep._ viii.),
350 B.C.—the oligarchs who had recently overthrown the democracy;
to Antipater (_Ep._ iv.), 340 B.C., at the time, apparently, regent
of Macedonia during Philip’s absence in Thrace. This list of the
correspondents of Isocrates, with some of whom at least he is on terms of
familiarity, may serve to indicate his importance in the Greek world.
Isocrates is also credited with the composition of a τέχνη or treatise
on the art of rhetoric, now lost, except for a single quotation; and the
editions of the text contain a number of apophthegms attributed to him.
None are important.