Chapter IV: Part 4

For ten years from this date he was occupied--at least occasionally--as a writer of speeches for the Athenian law-courts. Six of these speeches are extant. The earliest (_Or._ xxi.) may be referred to 403 B.C.; the latest (_Or._ xix.) to 394-393 B.C. This was a department of his own work which Isocrates afterwards preferred to ignore. Nowhere, indeed, does he say that he had not written forensic speeches. But he frequently uses a tone from which that inference might be drawn. He loves to contrast such petty concerns as engage the forensic writer with those larger and nobler themes which are treated by the politician. This helps to explain how it could be asserted--by his adopted son, Aphareus--that he had written nothing for the law-courts. Whether the assertion was due to false shame or merely to ignorance, Dionysius of Halicarnassus decisively disposes of it. Aristotle had, indeed, he says, exaggerated the number of forensic speeches written by Isocrates; but some of those which bore his name were unquestionably genuine, as was attested by one of the orator's own pupils, Cephisodorus. The real vocation of Isocrates was discovered from the moment that he devoted himself to the work of teaching and writing. The instruction which Isocrates undertook to impart was based on rhetorical composition, but it was by no means merely rhetorical. That "inborn philosophy," of which Plato recognized the germ, still shows itself. In many of his works--notably in the _Panegyricus_--we see a really remarkable power of grasping a complex subject, of articulating it distinctly, of treating it, not merely with effect but luminously, at once in its widest bearings and in its most intricate details. Young men could learn more from Isocrates than the graces of style; nor would his success have been what it was if his skill had been confined to the art of expression.

It was about 392 B.C.--when he was forty-four--that he opened his school at Athens near the Lyceum. In 339 B.C. he describes himself as revising the _Panathenaicus_ with some of his pupils; he was then ninety-seven. The celebrity enjoyed by the school of Isocrates is strikingly attested by ancient writers. Cicero describes it as that school in which the eloquence of all Greece was trained and perfected: its disciples were "brilliant in pageant or in battle,"[4] foremost among the accomplished writers or powerful debaters of their time. The phrase of Cicero is neither vague nor exaggerated. Among the literary pupils of Isocrates might be named the historians Ephorus and Theopompus, the Attic archaelogist Androtion, and Isocrates of Apollonia, who succeeded his master in the school. Among the practical orators we have, in the forensic kind, Isaeus; in the political, Leodamas of Acharnae, Lycurgus and Hypereides. Hermippus of Smyrna (mentioned by Athenaeus) wrote a monograph on the "Disciples of Isocrates." And scanty as are now the sources for such a catalogue, a modern scholar[5] has still been able to recover forty-one names. At the time when the school of Isocrates was in the zenith of its fame it drew disciples, not only from the shores and islands of the Aegean, but from the cities of Sicily and the distant colonies of the Euxine. As became the image of its master's spirit, it was truly Panhellenic. When Mausolus, prince of Caria, died in 351 B.C., his widow Artemisia instituted a contest of panegyrical eloquence in honour of his memory. Among all the competitors there was not one--if tradition may be trusted--who had not been the pupil of Isocrates.

Meanwhile the teacher who had won this great reputation had also been active as a public writer. The most interesting and most characteristic works of Isocrates are those in which he deals with the public questions of his own day. The influence which he thus exercised throughout Hellas might be compared to that of an earnest political essayist gifted with a popular and attractive style. And Isocrates had a dominant idea which gained strength with his years, until its realization had become, we might say, the main purpose of his life. This idea was the invasion of Asia by the united forces of Greece. The Greek cities were at feud with each other, and were severally torn by intestine faction. Political morality was become a rare and a somewhat despised distinction. Men who were notoriously ready to sell their cities for their private gain were, as Demosthenes says, rather admired than otherwise.[6] The social condition of Greece was becoming very unhappy. The wealth of the country had ceased to grow; the gulf between rich and poor was becoming wider; party strife was constantly adding to the number of homeless paupers; and Greece was full of men who were ready to take service with any captain of mercenaries, or, failing that, with any leader of desperadoes. Isocrates draws a vivid and terrible picture of these evils. The cure for them, he firmly believed, was to unite the Greeks in a cause which would excite a generous enthusiasm. Now was the time, he thought, for that enterprise in which Xenophon's comrades had virtually succeeded, when the headlong rashness of young Cyrus threw away their reward with his own life.[7] The Persian empire was unsound to the core--witness the retreat of the Ten Thousand: let united Greece attack it and it must go down at the first onset. Then new wealth would flow into Greece; and the hungry pariahs of Greek society would be drafted into fertile homes beyond the Aegean.

A bright vision; but where was the power whose spell was first to unite discordant Greece, and, having united it, to direct its strength against Asia? That was the problem. The first attempt of Isocrates to solve it is set forth in his splendid _Panegyricus_ (380 B.C.). Let Athens and Sparta lay aside their jealousies. Let them assume, jointly, a leadership which might be difficult for either, but which would be assured to both. That eloquent pleading failed. The next hope was to find some one man equal to the task. Jason of Pherae, Dionysius I. of Syracuse, Archidamus III., son of Agesilaus--each in turn rose as a possible leader of Greece before the imagination of the old man who was still young in his enthusiastic hope, and one after another they failed him. But now a greater than any of these was appearing on the Hellenic horizon, and to this new luminary the eyes of Isocrates were turned with eager anticipation. Who could lead united Greece against Asia so fitly as the veritable representative of the Heracleidae, the royal descendant of the Argive line--a king of half-barbarians it is true, but by race, as in spirit, a pure Hellene--Philip of Macedon? We can still read the words in which this fond faith clothed itself; the ardent appeal of Isocrates to Philip is extant; and another letter shows that the belief of Isocrates in Philip lasted at any rate down to the eve of Chaeronea.[8] Whether it survived that event is a doubtful point. The popular account of the orator's death ascribed it to the mental shock which he received from the news of Philip's victory. He was at Athens, in the palaestra of Hippocrates, when the tidings came. He repeated three verses in which Euripides names three foreign Conquerors of Greece--Danaus, Pelops, Cadmus--and four days later he died of voluntary starvation. Milton (perhaps thinking of Eli) seems to conceive the death of Isocrates as instantaneous:--

"As that dishonest victory
At Chaeronea, fatal to liberty,
Killed with report that old man eloquent."

Now the third of the letters which bears the name of Isocrates is addressed to Philip, and appears to congratulate him on his victory at Chaeronea, as being an event which will enable him to assume the leadership of Greece in a war against Persia. Is the letter genuine? There is no evidence, external or internal, against its authenticity, except its supposed inconsistency with the views of Isocrates and with the tradition of his suicide. As to his views, those who have studied them in his own writings will be disposed to question whether he would have regarded Philip's victory at Chaeronea as an irreparable disaster for Greece. Undoubtedly he would have deplored the conflict between Philip and Athens; but he would have divided the blame between the combatants. And, with his old belief in Philip, he would probably have hoped, even after Chaeronea, that the new position won by Philip would eventually prove compatible with the independence of the Greek cities, while it would certainly promote the project on which, as he was profoundly convinced, the ultimate welfare of Greece depended,--a Panhellenic expedition against Persia. As to the tradition of his suicide, the only rational mode of reconciling it with that letter is to suppose that Isocrates destroyed himself, not because Philip had conquered, but because, after that event, he saw Athens still resolved to resist. We should be rather disposed to ask how much weight is to be given to the tradition. The earliest authority for it--Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the age of Augustus--may have had older sources; granting, however, that these may have remounted even to the end of the 4th century B.C., that would not prove much. Suppose that Isocrates--being then ninety-eight and an invalid--had happened to die from natural causes a few days after the battle of Chaeronea. Nothing could have originated more easily than a story that he killed himself from intense chagrin. Every one knew that Isocrates had believed in Philip; and most people would have thought that Chaeronea was a crushing refutation of that belief. Once started, the legend would have been sure to live, not merely because it was picturesque, but also because it served to accentuate the contrast between the false prophet and the true--between Isocrates and Demosthenes; and Demosthenes was very justly the national idol of the age which followed the loss of Greek independence.[9]

Isocrates is said to have taught his Athenian pupils gratuitously, and to have taken money only from aliens; but, as might have been expected, the fame of his school exposed him to attacks on the ground of his gains, which his enemies studiously exaggerated. After the financial reform of 378 B.C. he was one of those 1200 richest citizens who constituted the twenty unions ([Greek: symmoriai]) for the assessment of the war-tax ([Greek: eisphora]). He had discharged several public services ([Greek: leitourgiai]); in particular, he had thrice served as trierarch. He married Plathane, the widow of the "sophist" Hippias of Elis, and then adopted her son Aphareus, afterwards eminent as a rhetorician and a tragic poet. In 355 B.C. he had his first and only lawsuit. A certain Megaclides (introduced into the speech under the fictitious name of Lysimachus) challenged him to undertake the trierarchy or exchange properties. This was the lawsuit which suggested the form of the discourse which he calls the _Antidosis_ ("exchange of properties"--353 B.C.)--his defence of his professional life.

He was buried on a rising ground near the Cynosarges--a temenos of Heracles, with a gymnasion, on the east side of Athens, outside the Diomeian gate. His tomb was surmounted by a column some 45 ft. high, crowned with the figure of a siren, the symbol of persuasion and of death. A tablet of stone, near the column, represented a group of which Gorgias was the centre; his pupil Isocrates stood at his side. Aphareus erected a statue to his adopted father near the Olympieum. Timotheus, the illustrious son of Conon, dedicated another in the temple of Eleusis.

It was a wonderful century which the life of one man had thus all but spanned. Isocrates had reached early manhood when the long struggle of the Peloponnesian War--begun in his childhood--ended with the overthrow of Athens. The middle period of his career was passed under the supremacy of Sparta. His more advanced age saw that brief ascendancy which the genius of Epameinondas secured to Thebes. And he lived to urge on Philip of Macedon a greater enterprise than any which the Hellenic world could offer. His early promise had won a glowing tribute from Plato, and the rhetoric of his maturity furnished matter to the analysis of Aristotle; he had composed his imaginary picture of that Hellenic host which should move through Asia in a pageant of sacred triumph, just as Xenophon was publishing his plain narrative of the retreat of the Ten Thousand; and, in the next generation, his literary eloquence was still demonstrating the weakness of Persia when Demosthenes was striving to make men feel the deadly peril of Greece. This long life has an element of pathos not unlike that of Greek tragedy; a power above man was compelling events in a direction which Isocrates could not see; but his own agency was the ally of that power, though in a sense which he knew not; his vision was of Greece triumphant over Asia, while he was the unconscious prophet of an age in which Asia should be transformed by the diffusion of Hellenism.[10]

His character should be viewed in both its main aspects--the political
and the literary.

With regard to the first, two questions have to be asked: (1) How far
were the political views of Isocrates peculiar to himself, and
different from those of the clearest minds contemporary with him? (2)
How far were those views falsified by the event?

1. The whole tone of Greek thought in that age had taken a bent
towards monarchy in some form. This tendency may be traced alike in
the practical common sense of Xenophon and in the lofty idealism of
Plato. There could be no better instance of it than a well-known
passage in the _Politics_ of Aristotle. He is speaking of the gifts
which meet in the Greek race--a race warlike, like the Europeans, but
more subtle--keen, like the Asiatics, but braver. Here, he says, is a
race which "might rule all men, if it were brought under a single
government."[11] It is unnecessary to suppose a special allusion to
Alexander; but it is probable that Aristotle had in his mind a
possible union of the Greek cities under a strong constitutional
monarchy. His advice to Alexander (as reported by Plutarch) was to
treat the Greeks in the spirit of a leader ([Greek: hegemonikos]) and
the barbarians in the spirit of a master ([Greek: despotikos]).[12]
Aristotle conceived the central power as political and permanent;
Isocrates conceived it as, in the first place, military, having for
its immediate aim the conduct of an expedition against Asia. The
general views of Isocrates as to the largest good possible for the
Greek race were thus in accord with the prevailing tendency of the
best Greek thought in that age.

2. The vision of the Greek race "brought under one polity" was not,
indeed, fulfilled in the sense of Aristotle or of Isocrates. But the
invasion of Asia by Alexander, as captain-general of Greece, became
the event which actually opened new and larger destinies to the Greek
race. The old political life of the Greek cities was worn out; in the
new fields which were now opened, the empire of Greek civilization
entered on a career of world-wide conquest, until Greece became to
East and West more than all that Athens had been to Greece. Athens,
Sparta, Thebes, ceased indeed to be the chief centres of Greek life;
but the mission of the Greek mind could scarcely have been
accomplished with such expansive and penetrating power if its
influence had not radiated over the East from Pergamum, Antioch and
Alexandria.

Panhellenic politics had the foremost interest for Isocrates. But in
two of his works--the oration _On the Peace_ and the _Areopagiticus_
(both of 355 B.C.)--he deals specially with the politics of Athens.
The speech _On the Peace_ relates chiefly to foreign affairs. It is an
eloquent appeal to his fellow-citizens to abandon the dream of
supremacy, and to treat their allies as equals, not as subjects. The
fervid orator personifies that empire, that false mistress which has
lured Athens, then Sparta, then Athens once more, to the verge of
destruction. "Is she not worthy of detestation?" Leadership passes
into empire; empire begets insolence; insolence brings ruin. The
_Areopagiticus_ breathes a kindred spirit in regard to home policy.
Athenian life had lost its old tone. Apathy to public interests,
dissolute frivolity, tawdry display and real poverty--these are the
features on which Isocrates dwells. With this picture he contrasts the
elder democracy of Solon and Cleisthenes, and, as a first step towards
reform, would restore to the Areopagus its general censorship of
morals. It is here, and here alone--in his comments on Athenian
affairs at home and abroad--that we can distinctly recognize the man
to whom the Athens of Pericles was something more than a tradition. We
are carried back to the age in which his long life began. We find it
difficult to realize that the voice to which we listen is the same
which we hear in the letter to Philip.

Turning from the political to the literary aspect of his work, we are
at once upon ground where the question of his merits will now provoke
comparatively little controversy. Perhaps the most serious prejudice
with which his reputation has had to contend in modern times has been
due to an accident of verbal usage. He repeatedly describes that art
which he professed to teach as his [Greek: philosophia]. His use of
this word--joined to the fact that in a few passages he appears to
allude slightingly to Plato or to the Socratics--has exposed him to a
groundless imputation. It cannot be too distinctly understood that,
when Isocrates speaks of his [Greek: philosophia], he means simply his
theory or method of "culture"--to use the only modern term which is
really equivalent in latitude to the Greek word as then current.[13]

The [Greek: philosophia], or practical culture, of Isocrates was not
in conflict, because it had nothing in common, with the Socratic or
Platonic philosophy. The personal influence of Socrates may, indeed,
be traced in his work. He constantly desires to make his teaching bear
on the practical life. His maxims of homely moral wisdom frequently
recall Xenophon's _Memorabilia_. But there the relation ends. Plato
alludes to Isocrates in perhaps three places. The glowing prophecy in
the _Phaedrus_ has been quoted; in the _Gorgias_ a phrase of Isocrates
is wittily parodied; and in the _Euthydemus_ Isocrates is probably
meant by the person who dwells "on the borderland between philosophy
and statesmanship."[14] The writings of Isocrates contain a few more
or less distinct allusions to Plato's doctrines or works, to the
general effect that they are barren of practical result.[15] But
Isocrates nowhere assails Plato's philosophy as such. When he declares
"knowledge" ([Greek: episteme]) to be unattainable, he means an exact
"knowledge" of the contingencies which may arise in practical life.
"Since it is impossible for human nature to acquire any science
([Greek: epistemen]) by which we should know what to do or to say, in
the next resort I deem those wise who, as a rule, can hit what is best
by their opinions" ([Greek: doxas]).[16]

Isocrates should be compared with the practical teachers of his day.
In his essay _Against the Sophists_, and in his speech on the
_Antidosis_, which belong respectively to the beginning and the close
of his professional career, he has clearly marked the points which
distinguish him from "the sophists of the herd" ([Greek: agelaioi
sophistai]). First, then, he claims, and justly, greater breadth of
view. The ordinary teacher confined himself to the narrow scope of
local interests--training the young citizen to plead in the Athenian
law courts, or to speak on Athenian affairs in the ecclesia. Isocrates
sought to enlarge the mental horizon of his disciples by accustoming
them to deal with subjects which were not merely Athenian, but, in his
own phrase, Hellenic. Secondly, though he did not claim to have found
a philosophical basis for morals, it has been well said of him that
"he reflects the human spirit always on its nobler side,"[17] and
that, in an age of corrupt and impudent selfishness, he always strove
to raise the minds of his hearers into a higher and purer air.
Thirdly, his method of teaching was thorough. Technical exposition
came first. The learner was then required to apply the rules in actual
composition, which the master revised. The ordinary teachers of
rhetoric (as Aristotle says) employed their pupils in committing model
pieces to memory, but neglected to train the learner's own faculty
through his own efforts. Lastly, Isocrates stands apart from most
writers of that day in his steady effort to produce results of
permanent value. While rhetorical skill was largely engaged in the
intermittent journalism of political pamphlets, Isocrates set a higher
ambition before his school. His own essays on contemporary questions
received that finished form which has preserved them to this day. The
impulse to solid and lasting work, communicated by the example of the
master, was seen in such monuments as the _Atthis_ of Androtion, the
_Hellenics_ of Theopompus and the _Philippica_ of Ephorus.

In one of his letters to Atticus, Cicero says that he has used "all
the fragrant essences of Isocrates, and all the little stores of his
disciples."[18] The phrase has a point of which the writer himself was
perhaps scarcely conscious: the style of Isocrates had come to Cicero
through the school of Rhodes; and the Rhodian imitators had more of
Asiatic splendour than of Attic elegance. But, with this allowance
made, the passage may serve to indicate the real place of Isocrates in
the history of literary style. The old Greek critics consider him as
representing what they call the "smooth" or "florid" mode of
composition ([Greek: glaphyra, anthera harmonia]) as distinguished
from the "harsh" ([Greek: austera]) style of Antiphon and the perfect
"mean" ([Greek: mese]) of Demosthenes. Tried by a modern standard, the
language of Isocrates is certainly not "florid." The only sense in
which he merits the epithet is that (especially in his earlier work)
he delights in elaborate antitheses. Isocrates is an "orator" in the
larger sense of the Greek word _rhetor_; but his real distinction
consists in the fact that he was the first Greek who gave an artistic
finish to literary rhetoric. The practical oratory of the day had
already two clearly separated branches--the forensic, represented by
Isaeus, and the deliberative, in which Callistratus was the forerunner
of Demosthenes. Meanwhile Isocrates was giving form and rhythm to a
standard literary prose. Through the influence of his school, this
normal prose style was transmitted--with the addition of some florid
embellishments--to the first generation of Romans who studied rhetoric
in the Greek schools. The distinctive feature in the composition of
Isocrates is his structure of the periodic sentence. This, with him,
is no longer rigid or monotonous, as with Antiphon--no longer terse
and compact, as with Lysias--but ample, luxuriant, unfolding itself
(to use a Greek critic's image) like the soft beauties of a winding
river. Isocrates was the first Greek who worked out the idea of a
prose rhythm. He saw clearly both its powers and its limits; poetry
has its strict rhythms and precise metres; prose has its metres and
rhythms, not bound by a rigid framework, yet capable of being brought
under certain general laws which a good ear can recognize, and which a
speaker or writer may apply in the most various combinations. This
fundamental idea of prose rhythm, or number, is that which the style
of Isocrates has imparted to the style of Cicero. When Quintilian (x.
1. 108) says, somewhat hyperbolically, that Cicero has artistically
reproduced (_effinxisse_) "the force of Demosthenes, the wealth of
Plato, the charm of Isocrates," he means principally this smooth and
harmonious rhythm. Cicero himself expressly recognizes this original
and distinctive merit of Isocrates.[19] Thus, through Rome, and
especially through Cicero, the influence of Isocrates, as the founder
of a literary prose, has passed into the literatures of modern Europe.
It is to the eloquence of the preacher that we may perhaps look for
the nearest modern analogue of that kind in which Isocrates
excelled--especially, perhaps, to that of the great French preachers.
Isocrates was one of the three Greek authors, Demosthenes and Plato
being the others, who contributed most to form the style of Bossuet.

WORKS.--The extant works of Isocrates consist of twenty-one speeches
or discourses and nine letters.[20] Among these, the six forensic
speeches represent the first period of his literary life--belonging to
the years 403-393 B.C. All six concern private causes. They may be
classed as follows: 1. _Action for Assault_ ([Greek: dike aikias]),
Or. xx., _Against Lochites_, 394 B.C. 2. _Claim to an Inheritance_
([Greek: epidikasia]), Or. xix., _Aegineticus_, end of 394 or early in
393 B.C. 3. _Actions to Recover a Deposit_: (1) Or. xxi., _Against
Euthynus_, 403 B.C.; (2) Or. xvii., _Trapeziticus_, end of 394 or
early in 393 B.C. 4. _Action for Damage_ ([Greek: dike blabes]), Or.
xvi., _Concerning the Team of Horses_, 397 B.C. 5. _Special Plea_
([Greek: paragraphe]), Or. xviii., _Against Callimachus_, 402 B.C. Two
of these have been regarded as spurious by G. E. Benseler, viz. Or.
xxi., on account of the frequent hiatus and the short compact periods,
and Or. xvii., on the first of these grounds. But we are not warranted
in applying to the early work of Isocrates those canons which his
mature style observed. The genuineness of the speech against Euthynus
is recognized by Philostratus; while the _Trapeziticus_--thrice named
without suspicion by Harpocration--is treated by Dionysius, not only
as authentic, but as the typical forensic work of its author. The
speech against Lochites--where "a man of the people" ([Greek: tou
plethous eis]) is the speaker--exhibits much rhetorical skill. The
speech [Greek: Peri tou zeugous] ("concerning the team of horses") has
a curious interest. An Athenian citizen had complained that Alcibiades
had robbed him of a team of four horses, and sues the statesman's son
and namesake (who is the speaker) for their value. This is not the
only place in which Isocrates has marked his admiration for the genius
of Alcibiades; it appears also in the _Philippus_ and in the
_Busiris_. But, among the forensic speeches, we must, on the whole,
give the palm to the _Aegineticus_--a graphic picture of ordinary
Greek life in the islands of the Aegean. Here--especially in the
narrative--Isocrates makes a near approach to the best manner of
Lysias.

The remaining fifteen orations or discourses do not easily lend
themselves to the ordinary classification under the heads of
"deliberative" and "epideictic." Both terms must be strained; and
neither is strictly applicable to all the pieces which it is required
to cover. The work of Isocrates travelled out of the grooves in which
the rhetorical industry of the age had hitherto moved. His position
among contemporary writers was determined by ideas peculiar to
himself; and his compositions, besides having a style of their own,
are in several instances of a new kind. The only adequate principle of
classification is one which considers them in respect to their
subject-matter. Thus viewed, they form two clearly separated
groups--the scholastic and the political.

_Scholastic Writings._--Under this head we have, first, three letters
or essays of a hortatory character. (1) The letter to the young
Demonicus[21]--once a favourite subject in the schools--contains a
series of precepts neither below nor much above the average practical
morality of Greece. (2) The letter to Nicocles--the young king of the
Cyprian Salamis--sets forth the duty of a monarch to his subjects. (3)
In the third piece, it is Nicocles who speaks, and impresses on the
Salaminians their duty to their king--a piece remarkable as containing
a popular plea for monarchy, composed by a citizen of Athens. These
three letters may be referred to the years 374-372 B.C.

Next may be placed four pieces which are "displays" ([Greek:
epideixeis]) in the proper Greek sense. The _Busiris_ (Or. xi.,
390-391 B.C.) is an attempt to show how the ill-famed king of Egypt
might be praised. The _Encomium on Helen_ (Or. x., 370 B.C.), a piece
greatly superior to the last, contains the celebrated passage on the
power of beauty. These two compositions serve to illustrate their
author's view that "encomia" of the hackneyed type might be elevated
by combining the mythical matter with some topic of practical
interest--as, in the case of _Busiris_, with the institutions of
Egypt, or, in that of Helen, with the reforms of Theseus. The
_Evagoras_ (Or. ix., 365 B.C.?), the earliest known biography, is a
laudatory epitaph on a really able man--the Greek king of the Cyprian
Salamis. A passage of singular interest describes how, under his rule,
the influences of Hellenic civilization had prevailed over the
surrounding barbarism. The _Panathenaicus_ (Or. xii.), intended for
the great Panathenaea of 342 B.C., but not completed till 339 B.C.,
contains a recital of the services rendered by Athens to Greece, but
digresses into personal defence against critics; his last work,
written in extreme old age, it bears the plainest marks of failing
powers.

The third subdivision of the scholastic writings is formed by two most
interesting essays on education--that entitled _Against the Sophists_
(Or. xiii., 391-390 B.C.), and the _Antidosis_ (Or. xv., 353 B.C.).
The first of these is a manifesto put forth by Isocrates at the outset
of his professional career of teaching, in which he seeks to
distinguish his aims from those of other "sophists." These "sophists"
are (1) the "eristics" ([Greek: hoi peri tas eridas]), by whom he
seems to intend the minor Socratics, especially Euclides; (2) the
teachers of practical rhetoric, who had made exaggerated claims for
the efficacy of mere instruction, independently of natural faculty or
experience; (3) the writers of "arts" of rhetoric, who virtually
devoted themselves (as Aristotle also complains) to the lowest, or
forensic, branch of their subject (see also E. Holzner, _Platos
Phaedrus und die Sophistenrede des Isokrates_, Prague, 1894). As this
piece is the prelude to his career, its epilogue is the speech on the
"Antidosis"--so called because it has the form of a speech made in
court in answer to a challenge to undertake the burden of the
trierarchy, or else exchange properties with the challenger. The
discourse "Against the Sophists" had stated what his art was not; this
speech defines what it is. His own account of his [Greek:
philosophia]--"the discipline of discourse" ([Greek: he ton logon
paideia])--has been embodied in the sketch of it given above.

_Political Writings._--These, again, fall into two classes--those
which concern (1) the relations of Greece with Persia, (2) the
internal affairs of Greece. The first class consist of the
_Panegyricus_ (Or. iv., 380 B.C.) and the _Philippus_ (Or. v., 346
B.C.). The _Panegyricus_ takes its name from the fact that it was
given to the Greek public at the time of the Olympic
festivals--probably by means of copies circulated there. The orator
urges that Athens and Sparta should unite in leading the Greeks
against Persia. The feeling of antiquity that this noble discourse is
a masterpiece of careful work finds expression in the tradition that
it had occupied its author for more than ten years. Its excellence is
not merely that of language, but also--and perhaps even more
conspicuously--that of lucid arrangement. The _Philippus_ is an appeal
to the king of Macedon to assume that initiative in the war on Persia
which Isocrates had ceased to expect from any Greek city. In the view
of Demosthenes, Philip was the representative barbarian; in that of
Isocrates, he is the first of Hellenes, and the natural champion of
their cause.

Of those discourses which concern the internal affairs of Greece, two
have already been noticed,--that _On the Peace_ (Or. viii.), and the
_Areopagiticus_ (Or. vii.)--both of 355 B.C.--as dealing respectively
with the foreign and the home affairs of Athens. The _Plataicus_ (Or.
xiv.) is supposed to be spoken by a Plataean before the Athenian
ecclesia in 373 B.C. In that year Plataea had for the second time in
its history been destroyed by Thebes. The oration--an appeal to Athens
to restore the unhappy town--is remarkable both for the power with
which Theban cruelty is denounced, and for the genuine pathos of the
peroration. The _Archidamus_ (Or. vi.) is a speech purporting to be
delivered by Archidamus III., son of Agesilaus, in a debate at Sparta
on conditions of peace offered by Thebes in 366 B.C. It was demanded
that Sparta should recognize the independence of Messene, which had
lately been restored by Epameinondas (370 B.C.). The oration gives
brilliant expression to the feeling which such a demand was calculated
to excite in Spartans who knew the history of their own city. Xenophon
witnesses that the attitude of Sparta on this occasion was actually
such as the _Archidamus_ assumes (_Hellen._ vii. 4. 8-11).

_Letters._--The first letter--to Dionysius I.--is fragmentary; but a
passage in the _Philippus_ leaves no doubt as to its object. Isocrates
was anxious that the ruler of Syracuse should undertake the command of
Greece against Persia. The date is probably 368 B.C. Next in
chronological order stands the letter "To the Children of Jason"
(vi.). Jason, tyrant of Pherae, had been assassinated in 370 B.C.; and
no fewer than three of his successors had shared the same fate.
Isocrates now urges Thebe, the daughter of Jason, and her
half-brothers to set up a popular government. The date is 359 B.C.[22]
The letter to Archidamus III. (ix.)--the same person who is the
imaginary speaker of Oration vi.--urges him to execute the writer's
favourite idea,--"to deliver the Greeks from their feuds, and to crush
barbarian insolence." It is remarkable for a vivid picture of the
state of Greece; the date is about 356 B.C. The letter to Timotheus
(vii., 345 B.C.), ruler of Heraclea on the Euxine, introduces an
Athenian friend who is going thither, and at the same time offers some
good counsels to the benevolent despot. The letter "to the government
of Mytilene" (viii., 350 B.C.) is a petition to a newly established
oligarchy, begging them to permit the return of a democratic exile, a
distinguished musician named Agenor. The first of the two letters to
Philip of Macedon (ii.) remonstrates with him on the personal danger
to which he had recklessly exposed himself, and alludes to his
beneficent intervention in the affairs of Thessaly; the date is
probably the end of 342 B.C. The letter to Alexander (v.), then a boy
of fourteen, is a brief greeting sent along with the last, and
congratulates him on preferring "practical" to "eristic" studies--a
distinction which is explained by the sketch of the author's [Greek:
philosophia], and of his essay "Against the Sophists," given above. It
was just at this time, probably, that Alexander was beginning to
receive the lessons of Aristotle (342 B.C.). The letter to Antipater
(iv.) introduces a friend who wished to enter the military service of
Philip. Antipater was then acting as regent in Macedonia during
Philip's absence in Thrace (340-339 B.C.). The later of the two
letters to Philip (iii.) appears to be written shortly after the
battle of Chaeronea in 338 B.C. The questions raised by it have
already been discussed.

No lost work of Isocrates is known from a definite quotation, except
an "Art of Rhetoric," from which some scattered precepts are cited.
Quintilian, indeed, and Photius, who had seen this "Art," felt a doubt
as to whether it was genuine. Only twenty-five discourses--out of an
ascriptive total of some sixty--were admitted as authentic by
Dionysius; Photius (_circ._ A.D. 850) knew only the number now
extant--twenty-one.

With the exception of defects at the end of Or. xiii., at the
beginning of Or. xvi., and probably at the end of Letters i., vi.,
ix., the existing text is free from serious mutilations. It is also
unusually pure. The smooth and clear style of Isocrates gave few
opportunities for the mistakes of copyists. On the other hand, he was
a favourite author of the schools. Numerous glosses crept into his
text through the comments or conjectures of rhetoricians. This was
already the case before the 6th century, as is attested by the
citations of Priscian and Stobaeus. Jerome Wolf and Koraes
successively accomplished much for the text. But a more decided
advance was made by Immanuel Bekker. He used five MSS., viz. (1) Codex
Urbinas III., [Gamma] (this, the best, was his principal guide); (2)
Vaticanus 936, [Delta]; (3) Laurentianus 87, 14, [Theta] (13th
century); (4) Vaticanus 65, [Lambda]; and (5) Marcianus 415, [Xi]. The
first three, of the same family, have Or. xv. entire; the last two are
from the same original, and have Or. xv. incomplete.

J. G. Baiter and H. Sauppe in their edition (1850) follow [Gamma]
"even more constantly than Bekker." Their apparatus is enriched,
however, by a MS. to which he had not access--Ambrosianus O. 144,
[Epsilon], which in some cases, as they recognize, has alone preserved
the true reading. The readings of this MS. were given in full by G. E.
Benseler in his second edition (1854-1855). The distinctive
characteristic of Benseler's textual criticism was a tendency to
correct the text against even the best MS., where the MS. conflicted
with the usage of Isocrates as inferred from his recorded precepts or
from the statements of ancient writers. Thus, on the strength of the
rule ascribed to Isocrates--[Greek: phoneenta me sympiptein]--Benseler
would remove from the text every example of hiatus (on the MSS. of
Isocrates, see H. Burmann, _Die handschriftliche Uberlieferung des
Isocrates_, Berlin, 1885-1886, and E. Drerup, in _Leipziger Studien_,
xvii., 1895). (R. C. J.)

EDITIONS.--In _Oratores Attici_, ed. Imm. Bekker (1823, 1828); W. S.
Dobson (1828); J. G. Baiter and Hermann Sauppe (1850). Separately
_Ausgewahlte Reden, Panegyrikos und Areopagitikos_, by Rudolf
Rauchenstein, 6th ed., Karl Munscher (1908); in Teubner's series, by
G. E. Benseler (new ed., by F. Blass, 1886-1895) and by E. Drerup
(1906- ); _Ad Demonicum et Panegyricus_, ed. J. E. Sandys (1868);
_Evagoras_, ed. H. Clarke (1885). Extracts from Orations iii., iv.,
vi., vii., viii., ix., xiii., xiv., xv., xix., and Letters iii., v.,
edited with revised text and commentary, in _Selections from the Attic
Orators_, by R. C. Jebb (1880); vol. i. of an English prose
translation, with introduction and notes by J. H. Freese, has been
published in Bohn's _Classical Library_ (1894). See generally Jebb's
_Attic Orators_ (where a list of authorities is given) and F. Blass,
Die attische Beredsamkeit (2nd ed., 1887-1898), and the latter's _Die
Rhythmen der attischen Kunstprosa_ (1901). There is a special lexicon
by S. Preuss (1904). On the philosophy of Isocrates and his relation
to the Socratic schools, see Thompson's ed. of Plato's _Phaedrus_,
Appendix 2.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] [Greek: Hatalante], fr. 1, Meineke, Poetarum comicorum Graecorum
frag. (1855), p. 292.

[2] [Plut.] _Vita Isocr._, and the anonymous biographer. Dionysius
does not mention the story, though he makes Isocrates a pupil of
Theramenes.

[3] Some would refer the sojourn of Isocrates at Chios to the years
398-395 B.C., others to 393-388 B.C. The reasons which support the
view given in the text will be found in Jebb's _Attic Orators_, vol.
ii. (1893), p. 6, note 2.

[4] Partim in pompa, partim in acie illustres (_De orat._ ii. 24).

[5] P. Sanneg, _De schola Isocratea_ (Halle, 1867).

[6] _De falsa legat._ p. 426 [Greek: ouch opos orgizonto e kolazein
exioun tous tauta poiountas, all' apeblepon, ezeloun, etimon, andras
hegounto.]

[7] [Greek: ekeinous gar homologeitai ... ede egkrateis dokountas
einai ton pragmaton dia ten Kyrou propeteian atychesai] (_Philippus_,
90; cp. _Panegyr._ 149).

[8] _Philippus_, 346 B.C.; _Epist._ ii. end of 342 B.C. (?).

[9] The views of several modern critics on the tradition of the
suicide are brought together in the _Attic Orators_, ii. (1893) p.
31, note 1.

[10] Isocrates, a loyal and genuine Hellene, can yet conceive of
Hellenic culture as shared by men not of Hellenic blood (_Panegyr._
50). He is thus, as Ernst Curtius has ably shown, a forerunner of
Hellenism--analogous, in the literary province, to Epameinondas and
Timotheus in the political (_History of Greece_, v. 116, 204, tr.
Ward).

[11] [Greek: to ton Hellenon genos ... dunamenon archein panton, mias
tugchanon politeias] (_Polit._ iv. [vii.] 6, 7).

[12] _De Alex. virt._ i. 6.

[13] The word [Greek: philosophia] seems to have come into Athenian
use not much before the time of Socrates; and, till long after the
time of Isocrates, it was commonly used, not in the sense of
"philosophy," but in that of "literary taste and study--culture
generally" (see Thompson on _Phaedrus_, 278 D). Aristeides, ii. 407
[Greek: philokalia tis kai diatribe peri logous, kai ouch ho nun
tropos houtos, alla paideia koinos]. And so writers of the 4th
century B.C. use [Greek: philosophein] as simply = "to study"; as
e.g. an invalid "studies" the means of relief from pain, Lys. _Or._
xxiv. 10; cf. Isocr. _Or._ iv. 6, &c.

[14] Plato, _Gorg._ p. 463; _Euthyd._ 304-306.

[15] These allusions are discussed in the _Attic Orators_, vol. ii.
ch. 13.

[16] Isocr. _Or._ xv. 271.

[17] A. Cartelier, _Le Discours d'Isocrate sur lui-meme_, p. lxii.
(1862).

[18] Totum Isocratis [Greek: myrothekion] atque omnes ejus
discipulorum arculas (_Ad Att._ ii. 1).

[19] Idque princeps Isocrates instituisse fertur, ... ut inconditam
antiquorum dicendi consuetudinem ... numeris astringeret (_De or._
iii. 44, 173).

[20] The dates here given differ to some extent from those in F.
Blass, _Die attische Beredsamkeit_ (2nd ed., 1887-1898).

[21] Some authorities consider the _Ad Demonicum_ spurious.

[22] This was shown by R. C. Jebb in a paper on "The Sixth Letter of
Isocrates," _Journal of Philology_, v. 266 (1874). The fact that
Thebe, widow of Alexander of Pherae, was the daughter of Jason is
incidentally noticed by Plutarch in his life of Pelopidas, c. 28. It
is this fact which gives the clue to the occasion of the letter; cf.
Diod. Sic. xvi. 14.

ISODYNAMIC LINES (Gr. [Greek: isodynamos], equal in power), lines connecting those parts of the earth's surface where the magnetic force has the same intensity (see MAGNETISM, TERRESTRIAL).

ISOGONIC LINES (Gr. [Greek: isogonios], equiangular), lines connecting those parts of the earth's surface where the magnetic declination is the same in amount (see MAGNETISM, TERRESTRIAL).

ISOLA DEL LIRI, a town of Campania, in the province of Caserta, Italy, 15 m. by rail N.N.W. of Roccasecca, which is on the main line from Rome to Naples, 10 m. N.W. of Cassino. Pop. (1901), town, 2384; commune, 8244. The town consists of two parts, Isola Superiore and Isola Inferiore; as its name implies it is situated between two arms of the Liri. The many waterfalls of this river and of the Fibreno afford motive power for several important paper-mills. Two of the falls, 80 ft. in height, are especially fine. About 1 m. to the N. is the church of San Domenico, erected in the 12th century, which probably marks the site of the villa of Cicero (see ARPINO).

ISOMERISM, in chemistry. When Wohler, in 1825, analysed his cyanic acid, and Liebig his quite different fulminic acid in 1824, the composition of both compounds proved to be absolutely the same, containing each in round numbers 28% of carbon, 33% of nitrogen, 37% of oxygen and 2% of hydrogen. This fact, inconsistent with the then dominating conception that difference in qualities was due to difference in chemical composition, was soon corroborated by others of analogous nature, and so Berzelius introduced the term _isomerism_ (Gr. [Greek: isomeres], composed of equal parts) to denominate the existence of the property of substances having different qualities, in chemical behaviour as well as physical, notwithstanding identity in chemical composition. These phenomena were quite in accordance with the atomic conception of matter, since a compound containing the same number of atoms of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen as another in the same weight might differ in internal structure by different arrangements of those atoms. Even in the time of Berzelius the newly introduced conception proved to include two different groups of facts. The one group included those isomers where the identity in composition was accompanied by identity in molecular weight, i.e. the vapour densities of the isomers were the same, as in butylene and isobutylene, to take the most simple case; here the molecular conception admits that the isolated groups in which the atoms are united, i.e. the molecules, are identical, and so the molecule of both butylene and isobutylene is indicated by the same chemical symbol C4H8, expressing that each molecule contains, in both cases, four atoms of carbon (C) and eight of hydrogen (H). This group of isomers was denominated metamers by Berzelius, and now often "isomers" (in the restricted sense), whereas the term _polymerism_ (Gr. [Greek: polys], many) was chosen for compounds like butylene, C4H8, and ethylene, C2H4, corresponding to the same composition in weight but differing in molecular formula, and having different densities in gas or vapour, a litre of butylene and isobutylene weighing, for instance, under ordinary temperature and pressure, about 2.5 gr., ethylene only one-half as much, since density is proportional to molecular weight.

A further distinction is necessary to a survey of the subdivisions of isomerism regarded in its widest sense. There are subtle and more subtle differences causing isomerism. In the case of metamerism we can imagine that the atoms are differently linked, say in the case of butylene that the atoms of carbon are joined together as a continuous chain, expressed by --C--C--C--C--, _normally_ as it is called, whereas in isobutylene the fourth atom of carbon is not attached to the third but to the second carbon atom, i.e.

C--
/
--C--C .
\
C--

Now there are cases in which analogy of internal structure goes so far as to exclude even that difference in linking, the only remaining possibility then being the difference in relative position. This kind of isomerism has been denominated _stereoisomerism_ (q.v.) often stereomerism. But there is a last group belonging here in which identity of structure goes farthest. There are substances such as sulphur, showing difference of modification in crystalline state--the ordinary rhombic form in which sulphur occurs as a mineral, while, after melting and cooling, long needles appear which belong to the monosymmetric system. These differences, which go hand in hand with those in other properties, e.g. specific heat and specific gravity, are absolutely confined to the crystalline state, disappearing with it when both modifications of sulphur are melted, or dissolved in carbon disulphide or evaporated. So it is natural to admit that here we have to deal with identical molecules, but that only the internal arrangement differs from case to case as identical balls may be grouped in different ways. This case of difference in properties combined with identical composition is therefore called _polymorphism_.

To summarize, we have to deal with polymerism, metamerism, stereoisomerism, polymorphism; whereas phenomena denominated tautomerism, pseudomerism and desmotropism form different particular features of metamerism, as well as the phenomena of allotropy, which is merely the difference of properties which an element may show, and can be due to polymerism, as in oxygen, where by the side of the ordinary form with molecules O2 we have the more active ozone with O3. Polymorphism in the case of an element is illustrated in the case of sulphur, whereas metamerism in the case of elements has so far as yet not been observed; and is hardly probable, as most elements are built up, like the metals, from molecules containing only one atom per molecule; here metamerism is absolutely excluded, and a considerable number of the rest, having diatomic molecules, are about in the same condition. It is only in cases like sulphur with octatomic molecules, where a difference of internal structure might play a part.

Before entering into detail it may be useful to consider the nature of isomerism from a general standpoint. It is probable that the whole phenomenon of isomerism is due to the possibility that compounds or systems which in reality are unstable yet persist, or so slowly change that practically one can speak of their stability; for instance, such systems as explosives and a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, where the stable form is water, and in which, according to some, a slow but until now undetected change takes place even at ordinary temperatures. Consequently, of each pair of isomers we may establish beforehand which is the more stable; either in particular circumstances, a direct change taking place, as, for instance, with maleic acid, which when exposed to sunlight in presence of a trace of bromine, yields the isomeric fumaric acid almost at once, or, indirectly, one may conclude that the isomer which forms under greater heat-development is the more stable, at least at lower temperatures. Now, whether a real, though undetected, change occurs is a question to be determined from case to case; it is certain, however, that a substance like aragonite (a mineral form of calcium carbonate) has sensibly persisted in geological periods, though the polymorphous calcite is the more stable form. Nevertheless, the theoretical possibility, and its realization in many cases, has brought considerations to the front which have recently become of predominant interest; consequently the possible transformations of isomers and polymers will be considered later under the denomination of reversible or dynamical isomerisms.

Especially prominent is the fact that polymerism and metamerism are mainly reserved to the domain of organic chemistry, or the chemistry of carbon, both being discovered there; and, more especially, the phenomenon of metamerism in organic chemistry has largely developed our notions concerning the structure of matter. That this particular feature belongs to carbon compounds is due to a property of carbon which characterizes the whole of organic chemistry, i.e. that atoms attached to carbon, to express it in the atomic style, cling more intensely to it than, for instance, when combined with oxygen. This explains a good deal of the possible instability; and, from a practical point of view, it coincides with the fact that such a large amount of energy can be stored in our most intense explosives such as dynamite, the explanation being that hydrogen is attached to carbon distant from oxygen in the same molecule, and that only the characteristic resistance of the carbon linkage prevents the hydrogen from burning, which is the main occurrence in the explosion of dynamite. The possession of this peculiar property by carbon seems to be related to its high valency, amounting to four; and, generally, when we consider the most primitive expression of isomerism, viz. the allotropy of elements, we meet this increasing resistance with increasing valency. The monovalent iodine, for instance, is transformed by heating into an allotropic form, corresponding to the formula I, whereas ordinary iodine answers to I2. Now these modifications show hardly any tendency to persist, the one stable at high temperatures being formed at elevated temperatures, but changing in the reverse sense on cooling. In the divalent oxygen we meet with the modification called ozone, which, although unstable, changes but slowly into oxygen. Similarly the trivalent phosphorus in the ordinary white form shows such resistance as if it were practically stable; on the other hand the red modification is in reality also stable, being formed, for instance, under the influence of light. In the case of the quadrivalent carbon, diamond seems to be the stable form at ordinary temperatures, but one may wait long before it is formed from graphite.

This connexion of isomerism with resistant linking, and of this with high valency, explains, in considerable measure, why inorganic compounds afforded, as a rule, no phenomena of this kind until the systematic investigation of metallic compounds by Werner brought to light many instances of isomerism in inorganic compounds. Whereas carbon renders isomerism possible in organic compounds, cobalt and platinum are the determining elements in inorganic chemistry, the phenomena being exhibited especially by complex ammoniacal derivatives. The constitution of these inorganic isomers is still somewhat questionable; and in addition it seems that polymerism, metamerism and stereoisomerism play a part here, but the general feature is that cobalt and platinum act in them with high valency, probably exceeding four. The most simple case is presented by the two platinum compounds PtCl2(NH3)2, the platosemidiammine chloride of Peyrone, and the platosammine chloride of Jules Reiset, the first formed according to the equation PtCl4K2 + 2NH3 = PtCl2(NH3)2 + 2KCl, the second according to Pt(NH3)4Cl2 = PtCl2(NH3)2 + 2NH3, these compounds differing in solubility, the one dissolving in 33, the other in 160 parts of boiling water. With cobalt the most simple case was discovered in 1892 by S. Jorgensen in the second dinitrotetramminecobalt chloride, [Co(NO2)2(NH3)4]Cl, designated as flavo--whereas the older isomer of Gibbs was distinguished as croceo-salt. An interesting lecture on the subject was delivered by A. Werner before the German chemical society (_Ber._, 1907, 40, p. 15). (See COBALT; PLATINUM.)

Dealing with organic compounds, it is metamerism that deserves chief attention, as it has largely developed our notions as to molecular structure. Polymerism required no particular explanation, since this was given by the difference in molecular magnitude. One general remark, however, may be made here. There are polymers which have hardly any inter-relations other than identity in composition; on the other hand, there are others which are related by the possibility of mutual transformation; examples of this kind are cyanic acid (CNOH) and cyanuric acid (CNOH)3, the latter being a solid which readily transforms into the former on heating as an easily condensable vapour; the reverse transformation may also be realized; and the polymers methylene oxide (CH2O) and trioxymethylene (CH2O)3. In the first group we may mention the homologous series of hydrocarbons derived from ethylene, given by the general formula C_nH_(2n), and the two compounds methylene-oxide and honey-sugar C6H12O6. The cases of mutual transformation are generally characterized by the fact that in the compound of higher molecular weight no new links of carbon with carbon are introduced, the trioxymethylene being probably

CH2--O
/ \
O CH2,
\ /
CH2--O