Spt*! •: ■ r *. S5 vj s ,- ■'$% -^V jWi , >bg wP Mh4*$8 MBBsSm mW i m j-. ■'^8>y| v-- &««&< U: 11 r A H z • ? ,~L f MS' I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2020 with funding from Boston Library Consortium Member Libraries https://archive.org/details/influenceofisocrOOhubb THE INFLUENCE OF ISOCRATES ON CICERO, DIONYSIUS AND ARISTIDES THE INFLUENCE OF ISOCRATES ON CICERO, DIONYSIUS AND ARISTIDES BY HARRY MORTIMER HUBBELL A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy BOSTON COLLEGE LIBRARY CHESTNUT HILL, AlASS. New Haven: Yale University Press London: Henry Frowde Oxford University Press MCMXIII Copyright, 1914 By Yale University Press PRESS OF THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY LANCASTER, PA. PREFACE In quoting from Aristides the edition of Dindorf, Leipzig, 1829, has been used; in quoting from other authors, the latest edition of the text in the Teubner series. The author is deeply grateful to Professor Hendrickson for suggesting the investigation of which this thesis is the result, and for constant care and criticism at different stages of the work. Thanks are also due to Professor Tukey, of William Jewell College, who read the thesis in manuscript, and offered many helpful suggestions. Yale University, November, 1913. H. M. H. CONTENTS Page Introduction . ix Isocrates . i Cicero. 16 Dionysius. 41 Aristides. 54 Appendix . 67 INTRODUCTION In the Sophistry of the fifth century we may discern two distinct lines of activity. 1 On the one hand was the study of rhetoric, the most important contribution of the sophists to education. This was undoubtedly the cause of the popularity which was so quickly won by the sophists. At the time when the energy of Athens was being expended in perfecting artistic forms in sculpture and architecture, in drama and history, the sophists in accord with the spirit of the age applied artistic principles to the production of speeches. But rhetoric had its useful as well as its artistic side. Success in litigation came more surely to one who could enhance the value of his argu¬ ments by presenting them in a pleasing form, or conceal the weakness of his case by cleverly turned phrases or subtleties which perverted the truth. In the larger relations of public life political power was the reward of the orator who could guide and control the deliberations of the public assembly. As a second distinguishing characteristic of a sophist we find the ideal of an encyclopaedic education as a preparation for all forms of human activity. This was the sophists’ answer to the demand for a broader education to meet the requirements of the growing complexity of life. In presenting themselves as teachers of universal knowledge the sophists attempted to avoid the narrowness of specialization. The sophistical school at its best was not a professional school, although the emphasis laid on forensic rhetoric by some of the sophists tended to narrow their sphere. But the ideal was 1 For the topics discussed in this introduction cf. H. von Arnim, Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa, chap. I; H. Gomperz, Sophistik und Rhe- torik; P. Wendland, in Gott. gelehr. Anz., 1913, pp. 53-59; H. Gomperz, in Wiener Studien, 27 (1905), pp. 163-207, 28 (1906), pp. 1-42; Nestle, in Philologus, 70 (1911), pp. 1—51; Brandstaetter, De notionibus aotpLarris et (TotpLCTLKos, Leipziger Studien, 15 (1894), p. 204. ix X INTRODUCTION preparation for the ttoXltlkos P'los, or the life of a citizen in all its phases. The combination of instruction in rhetoric with the ideal of encyclopaedic education is characteristic of all the sophists, but the emphasis was differently placed by different men. Protagoras appears as a teacher of practical business and politics. “ A pupil of mine,” he says in the Protagoras (318 E), “ learns prudence in affairs both private and public. He learns to order his own house, and is best able to act and speak in affairs of state.” With this broad general training he combined a certain amount of instruction in rhetoric, just how much it is impossible for us to determine, 1 but it probably did not assume an important part in his system of instruction. Gorgias on the other hand was first of all a rhetorician. Such philosophical principles as he possessed were of a negative rather than a positive character. His study of eristic was hardly a serious pursuit; rather a means for maintaining paradoxes to amuse his audience. He ridiculed the sophists who claimed to teach virtue. To him Persuasion was the end of all education, the source of all power. Persuasion enables its possessor to control all men, and therefore is the best preparation for the 7to\ltlkos (3'los. With this as his theory he concentrated all his energy on the technique of rhetoric as the instrument of Persuasion, and particularly on the development of the graces of style. By including epideictic with forensic oratory as the object of his teaching, and by introducing the devices of poetry into prose he prepared the way for large changes in the field of rhetoric. But in every¬ thing except form Gorgias was weak. It was the brilliancy of his style rather then the content of his speeches which won for him the immediate applause of Athens. The union of the two forms of education, rhetorical and 1 Plat. Phaedrus, 267C: <£AI. IIpcoTa 76 peia be, a? Sco/cpares, obn rjv nevroi roiaOr’ orra; Sfl. ’ OpdoeiveLa ye tis, a> Trai, kcll aXXa 7 roXXa /cat /caXA. Quin¬ tilian (iii, 1,12) mentions communes loci as part of the rhetorical work of Protagoras. INTRODUCTION XI encyclopaedic, was continued in the fourth century by Isoc¬ rates. As a stylist he was the natural successor of Gorgias. So striking were the contributions of Isocrates to the purely formal side of writing that criticism has busied itself with this, and his success as a perfecter of style has obscured the fact that he continued the encyclopaedic education of the sophists of the fifth century. For Isocrates considered himself more than a common orator or teacher of oratory. He regarded himself as a great authority on political questions, made so by his possession of the power of rhetoric, the one means for the acquisition of political insight and political power. The training in rhetoric produces the power to deliberate and the ability both to act and to speak (npaTTeiv kcli \kyeiv). Rhetoric becomes with him as with Gorgias the perfect education; but Isocrates differs from Gorgias in rejecting the hair-splitting eristic and fruitless displays of ingenuity in which Gorgias delighted, and substituting for them discussion of political questions. In so doing he more nearly fulfilled the ideal of teaching 7to\ltlkti aperi 7, and the content of his teaching was similar to that of Protagoras, while at the same time he maintained the emphasis on rhetoric as a form of education. It is this insistence on the value of general education secured through rhetoric which makes Isocrates the successor of the sophists of the fifth century. As the opponent of the sophistical ideal we find Socrates as presented in Plato, who rejects the sophistical rhetoric and makes knowledge (eTLaTrjpTj) the end of education,—a knowl¬ edge which must be the foundation of any true rhetoric. Isocrates and Plato are in this exact opposites. To Plato a political science is possible, and is the necessary antecedent of rhetoric; to Isocrates kmaTripr] is impossible; rhetoric is both an end in itself and a means to the acquisition of an accuracy of judgment ( 5 o£a) which is the best guide to all action. The two ideals were diametrically opposite, and anything like a compromise between them was impossible. There sprang up Xll INTRODUCTION between philosopher and rhetorician the most intense rivalry for the privilege of training the young men. The details of the conflict after the time of Isocrates are difficult to follow; this much is certain, that the conflict was ended for a time by the complete triumph of philosophy. Rhetoric was reduced to a study of style and the technique of argumentation. But in the first century before our era there was a revolt against the narrowing of the province of rhetoric. To the reformers rhetoric seemed to have suffered from being deprived of the richness of content which it had possessed before the rise of the philosophical schools,—on the other hand phi¬ losophy, while absorbing the content of political rhetoric had weakened itself by becoming entirely theoretical, and with¬ drawing from active participation in political life. The at¬ tempt was made to restore the vitality of the old sophistical ideal and to combine philosophy and rhetoric in such a way that philosophy would be the servant of rhetoric. In this revival the influence of Isocrates, the most skillful exponent of this ideal, naturally played a large part. It is the purpose of this dissertation to trace this influence on some representatives of the revival of the early conception of rhetorical education. THE INFLUENCE OF ISOCRATES ON CICERO, DIONYSIUS AND ARISTIDES ISOCRATES This chapter aims to present Isocrates' views of the purpose of oratory, and the powers of the orator. It will contain little that has not already been made part of the common store of knowledge in the pages of Blass and Jebb, and in several minor treatises. 1 My excuse for presenting the facts anew is twofold: first, my conclusions are based on an inde¬ pendent study of the material, and will, I hope, add some new points; secondly, it has seemed necessary in tracing the influence of Isocrates on Cicero, Dionysius and others, to begin with a statement of the principles of Isocrates which were followed by these writers. My account of Isocrates’ theories will be somewhat one-sided, inasmuch as I shall not attempt to trace the influence exerted by his theories of rhythm, or by his style, but shall deal only with the larger aspect of his pedagogical purpose. In Ant., 180 ff., Isocrates describes what he calls (pi\oaov ncuptav eyyvrepo} reus 5 o£cus y'evcovrai. Cf. Ant., 271: raxicrra yrjyovTcu tt)v TOLavrijv v Xolttlpv oov raxtara Xrj^ovTa 1 ttjv ToiavTT)v 1 ppbvrjcnv . Cf. Adv. Soph., 2—8. This idea of meeting the naipos comes out again in the treatise Adv. Soph., 16: cri 8 t T&v Kaip&v pr/ SiapapreZv. . . . (17) raura 5 c rroXXrjs evLpeXelas SeZodai Kal 'pvxv* avSpLKrjs nal So^aoTLKrjs epyov elvat. CICERO, DIONYSIUS AND ARISTIDES 3 in the passages in which he condemns other studies. Eristic, astronomy and geometry are useful studies, particularly as a preparation for 1 philosophy ’ but they are despised by the average man, because they have no practical value,— they have no connection with life. 1 But Isocrates’ school provided the best training for life in all its forms, so that his students became orators, generals, kings and tyrants, 2 and those who did not enter public service showed their training by the virtue and refinement of their private lives. 3 To sum up his theory in modern terms, he provided training in oratory, statesmanship (including generalship) and ethics, or, stated from a different viewpoint, Isocrates unites in himself the three persons of orator, 4 statesman and philosopher. In discussing the different phases of Isocrates’ instruction, it is necessary to begin with his teaching of rhetoric. This is the one essential subject, and from this all the other results 1 Ant., 262: ovbkv yap avrcov out’ kirl tcov Iblcov out’ kirl toov kolvcov elvcu Xprimpov, aXX' ou5’ kv rats pvelais ovbkva xpt> vov kppkvet-v Tails toov paQbvroov Sia to pijTe / 3 ict) irapaKoXovdelv prjre reus irpa^ecnv kirapvvetv aXX’ iravTairaaiv elvat toov avayKaioov. Cf. Panath., 26 ff.; Helen, 4, 5 * We may compare other passages in which Xkyetv is coupled with pov eiv Kal Xkyetv to vs aXXovs. Ant., 293: 7 rpoexere Kal 8ta p 6 v i) povtpcoTkpovs elvat tcov irapa fup'unv avrots. 2 Ant., 30; Ep., IV, 2; Ant., 40. 3 Ep., IV, 2: 01 5 ’ kirl pkv rod filov aoo diei'eynuv] (233) IIepuX 77 s Kal Srjpaycjyds iiyaOds Kal firjTOjp dpLcrros (234)* 4 Ant., 235. Cf. 313: SoXajj'a ph yap, tov -irpuTov tojv itoXit&v Xa^bvra rr]v iivuvvplav ravTijv (aovcnv ex^ov kppoopevriv oflr’ ev rots (TTparoTredoLs rots TrXavcvpevoLs nararerpippevos aXXa ptO ’ vpcov TroXirevopevos . . ( 11 6) 7 r epl tcov 'FiWrjvLK&v Kal avppaxLKcov irpaypaTwv Kal T 7 js eTTLpeXelas rrjs tovtojv ov ttjv avrrjv vpTv yv 6 i\u-rjv elx*v. 8 Ant., 116: 6 8 e toIs pkv tolovtols XoxayoTs exPV T ° Kal Ta&apxoLs, avrds 8 k ■Kepi ravra Seivos fjv, irepl airep XPV VP^vipov elvai tov arpaT-pyov t 6 v &ya 66 v. 6 Ant., 1 17: Trpds rlvas iroXeprjreov Kal Tlvas avppaxovs iron]Teov. 7 Ant., 1 19: SevTepov . . . (TTpaTO-jreSov avvayayeiv apporrov 1 iroXepcp rw ivapovTL Kal tovto crwra^aL Kal XPV^ acr ^ ai avp^epovro) s. 8 Ant., 120: cTt toIvvv irpos tovtols curopias eveyKelv arparoTeSov Kal irevlas, Kal tv{l\iv eviropias evpelv. 9 Ant., 122: Tfl pkv Svvapei tov s rrjs 7r6Xecos iroXepiovs KareaTpecpero, ra> 8 ' i’ldei ttjv evvoiav tt/v tcov 8 .XXuv TcpocrqyeTo. 10 Ant., 125: ras SoptaXcoTOVs t&v TrdXewv ovtco irpaus 8 is eTVieiKeaTCLTqv Xq^eTai Tvapa tols avpivoXiTevopevois. tls yap ovk olbe Kai tovs Xoyovs aXqdeoTepovs boKovvTas elvai tovs vtvo t&v ev biaKeipevoov Xeyopevovs rj to vs vtto tcov biafiefiXqpkvwv, Kai tols TvlaTeis jueifov bvvapevas tols €K tov fiiov yeyevqpevas fj ras vtto tov Xoyov rvervo- piapevas ; Load 1 oa co tv ep av tls eppcopeveoTepus erviOupy TV € L 0 € L V T oi) s CLKOVOVTaS, T O O O V T 0) p d XX OV a a KT/ a e L KaXos Kay ados e l v a i Kai tv a p a t ol s tv oXl t a ls ev b o k l - pelv .— 280. to be boKe'iv elvai KaXov Kayadov ov povov tov Xoyov TviaTOTepov eTvoiqaev aXXa Kai ras 7rpd£as tov Tqv TOiavTqv bo%av exovTOs evTipoTepas KaTeoTqaev , vtv ep ov arovbaaTeov ecrri rots eu (ppovovoi paXXov rj Tvepi t&v aXXcov cltvolvtuv. Aside from this incentive to right living which every orator has, the pupils of Isocrates received from him direct moral teaching. We have seen (p. n) that the instruction in Ibeai included an analysis of motives such as is given in Antidosis, 217. But it is as a preacher of virtue rather than a teacher that Isocrates finds his true sphere of influence. Not only, he says, is there an utter lack of evidence that he corrupts the young men who attend his. school, 1 but he encourages them to be virtuous, 2 and does this better than those who make a pretense of turning men to lives of virtue. 3 He lays particular emphasis on the moral value of his speeches. 4 1 Ant., 30, 60, 86, 92, 101, 175, 197, 198, 215, 240, 241. 2 Virtue is not teachable, Adv. Soph., 21. * Ant., 84 : dXXa pijv Kal t&v £ttI ri]v o’ouppoabvqv Kal rrjv SiKaioabvqv irpoa- iroiovpevcov irpOTpeireiv i)peis av akiqOkaTepoi Kal xP^LpLorepoL v aWcov p£v ayvoovpkvrjv, vtv’ abr&v 8e tovtojv &vTi.\eyopevr]v, eyu 8' eirl Tqv bird tcclvtuv dpoXoyovpevTjv. 4 Ant., 60: evdvphB'QTe 8 e irpds bpas abrobs, el 8okc8 tois X0701S 81 apov&v. The second point I give in full as it affords a parallel to the passage from Cicero quoted above. Panath., 31: tovs -irpejrovTw CICERO, DIONYSIUS AND ARISTIDES 29 An attempt has been made by Philippson (in Fleck. Jahr- biicher, 133 (1886), p. 418) supported by Norden (Fleck. Jahrb. Suppl., XIX (1893), p. 427) and Kroll (Rh. Mus., 58 (1903), p. 518) to assign Posidonius as a source for Cicero’s De Orat., I, 8, 33 and 36; De Inv., I, 2, 2 f.; Tusc. D., I, 25, 62 ff.; V, 2, 5 ff. Philippson bases his argument on the resem¬ blance between the passages in Cicero and the opening sec¬ tions (1-6) of Seneca, Ep. 90. Seneca is confessedly following Posidonius, 1 in ascribing the blessings of civilization to phi- losophia. And there is a striking resemblance between the passage in Seneca and the two passages in the Tusculan Dis¬ putations. It may be quite possible that Cicero in writing these words in the Tusculans, had in mind the doctrine of Posidonius. But when we come to consider the other passages from Cicero, viz., De Inv., I, 2, 2, and De Orat., I, 8, 33, I, 8, 36, we find that eloquentia (De Inv., I, 2, 3) or as it is expressed in the De Oratore (I, 8, 34) perfecti oratoris moderatio et sapientia is given as the civilizing force. In order to account for this discrepancy, Philippson resorts to the Stoic principles of Posidonius, in accordance with which eloquentia was one of the virtues, and the sapiens who possesses one virtue possesses them all, and therefore possesses eloquentia. But it is improbable that a Stoic laid such emphasis on oratory as Cicero does, and in the absence of any mention of it in the passage from Seneca we must acknowledge that Philippson’s identification of Posidonius as a source for the De Oratore and De Inventione is scarcely justified. 2 It would be much Kai SiKaius dpLXovvras rots 6.ei TrX^cna^ovai, Kai ras pev r&v 5.\\o)v &r]8Las Kal (3apvTTjras eu/coXcos Kai pg-dicjs 4>epovras, as 5’ avroiis cos bbvarov eXa^porarovs Kai perp loot arovs rots awouai tt apexouras. 1 Ep., 90, 7: hactenus Posidonio adsentior. 2 Cf. the disparaging opinion of this kind of oratory in De Orat., I, 18, 83; II, 38, 159; cf. Brut., 118. De Orat., Ill, 18, 65, and I, 18, 83, would seem to support Philippson’s view. In both these passages Cicero com¬ mends the Stoics for considering eloquence as a virtue, and in I, 18, 83, he distinctly says that the Stoics considered eloquentiam . . . unam quandam esse virtutem et qui unam virtutem haberet, omnis habere easque 30 THE INFLUENCE OF ISOCRATES ON more natural to attribute those two views of the origin of civilization to two different sources. In the Tusculan Dis¬ putations, where Cicero is writing from the point of view of a philosopher, he may have followed Posidonius. But the source of the corresponding passages in the oratorical works must be sought elsewhere. We have such a source in Isoc¬ rates. It is interesting to note, however, that in T. D., V, 3, 8, it is said that Leon admired the ingenium et eloquentiam of Pythagoras. This is the only time that eloquentia is men¬ tioned in this passage. The passage is designed to praise philosophy, but Cicero cannot repress his admiration for rhetoric. Note also that Pythagoras is accepted by Isocrates as one of his ideals (Bus., 28). 1 Cicero recurs again and again to his ideal of the union of esse inter se aequalis et paris; ita, qui esset eloquens, eum virtutes omnes habere atque esse sapientem. But in III, 18, 65, he rejects the Stoic philos¬ ophy as inconsistent with good rhetorical practice; the only good he can see in the Stoics is that, owing to the peculiarities of their system, eloquentia = sapientia,—a view which was Cicero’s own. However the resemblance between Cicero and the Stoics is merely in words. If we compare Cicero’s other expressions about the Stoic rhetoric we find that in his judgment the Stoic formula really meant, “ Stoic rhetoric ” {i. e., spinosa quaedam et exilis oratio longeque ab nostris sensibus abhorrens, I, 18, 83) = “ Stoic philosophy ” (a peculiar doctrine at variance with the common sense of mankind, III, 18, 66). We see, too, from I, 18, 83, that the Stoics rejected a definition of an orator which would satisfy Cicero (ipse Mnesarchus, hos, quos nos oratores vocaremus, nihil esse dicebat nisi quosdam operarios lingua celeri et exercitata) and held that the only true orator was the sapiens , i. e., a Stoic philosopher. Moreover in I, 11, 46, we find that the philosophers, Stoics included, denied the right of the orator to any part of the field of philosophy, that is, they opposed one of the main points of Cicero’s rhetorical theory. It is clear that we must seek for the sources of the De Oratore not among the philosophers but among the rhetoricians. 1 For a similar theory of the origin of society originating with Demo¬ critus and continued by a series of philosophers see Reinhart in Hermes, XLVII (1912). Dickerman (De Argumentis quibusdam e structura hom- inis et animalium petitis, p. 32) compares Cic. De Orat., I, 8, 32, with Isoc. Nic., 5 and Aristot. Pol., 1253a, 10 and other places where the in¬ feriority of man to animals is noticed. In none of these passages, however, s the parallel to Cicero so close as in Isocrates. CICERO, DIONYSIUS AND ARISTIDES 31 the orator and the statesman in one person. This is to him the natural condition. Thus in the early periods of Greek history no one thought of making a division between oratory and political philosophy. (De Orat., Ill, 34, 137 If.; III, 15, 57-60.) Socrates (III, 16, 59 f.) was the first to separate oratory and philosophy, and to devote himself to the latter to the exclusion of the former. Since the time of Socrates there has been a constant strife between the supporters of rhetoric and the supporters of the narrow Socratic view of philosophy, with the result that both orator and philosopher have suffered from want of that perfect union which should exist between them (De Orat., Ill, 19, 72). Cicero includes Isocrates among those who represented his ideal (III, 16, 59). It is clear also from the passages quoted above that Isocrates advocated exactly the same union of philosopher and states¬ man that Cicero does. The general similarity between the principles of the two orators is therefore plain; we may now look for passages in Cicero which point to Isocrates as the source from which Cicero drew his ideal. Isocrates in Ant., 230-236, supports his view that orators make the best statesmen by appealing to Athenian history. He enumerates Solon, Clisthenes, Themistocles and Pericles, men who are acknowledged to have been the greatest bene¬ factors of Athens, and shows that each was a great orator as well as a great statesman, and that without the gift of oratory they would have been powerless to benefit their country. He repeats the thought in Ant., 306-308, this time describing, without mentioning names, Clisthenes, Miltiades, Themis¬ tocles and Pericles. (Cf. also 313.) It is difficult for Isocrates to find evidence on which to base his claim that all these men were orators in the Isocratean meaning of the word. About Pericles there is no doubt, and Isocrates comes out boldly with dr/paycoyos ayados ical prjrcop apLcros (234). But in regard to Themistocles he is reduced to an argument from probability: . . . 6 tls av olos t kyhero 32 THE INFLUENCE OF ISOCRATES ON ireiaai prj 7 ro\v ru> \ 6 yco bteveyKuv (233); Clisthenes is claimed as an orator on the strength of the phrase \ 6 yco rreiaas rovs ’A/jlvlktvovcis (232), which cannot except by the most barefaced sophistry be twisted into meaning that he was a professional orator after the manner of Isocrates. Solon is claimed by a similar play on the word ao^Larrjs (235; cf. 313). In the second passage (306-308) the examples are treated collectively in the words evprjaere yap , fjp e^era^vje tovtwv enaarov , . . . diacpepovras Kal irpoexovras ... rep (ppoveiv Kal \'eyeiv (308), where the promise evprjaere covers Isocrates’ lack of evidence. This line of argument is adopted by Cicero in the De Oratore. In a digression (III, 56-61) on the relation of rhetoric to philosophy, he twice names Greek statesmen as possessing ancipitem , quae non potest esse seiuncta, faciendi dicendique sapientiam (III, 16, 59). The statesmen mentioned are Lycurgus, Pittacus, Solon (56), Themistocles, Pericles, Theramenes (59), and parallel to these is a list of Romans, Coruncanius, Fabricius, Cato, Scipio (56). The list does not correspond exactly to Isocrates’ list, nor was it to be expected that, quoting from memory, Cicero would take the same ex¬ amples that Isocrates uses. The more essential point of similarity is that Cicero adopts from Isocrates the form of the argument with all its inconsistencies. He recognizes the difficulty which presents itself to anyone who attempts to prove that oratory was part of the equipment of the Roman heroes, 1 but contents himself with a reaffirmation of his belief that they were orators (I, 13, 58). Thus we have seen Isocrates claiming Athenian heroes as orators on grounds of barest probability and Cicero following him with a similar list of orators about whom he uses exactly 1 I. 9> 37 (Antonius objects to Crassus’ view of the value of oratory): Quid? in Numa Pompilio, quid? in Servio Tullio, quid? in ceteris regibus, quorum multa sunt eximia ad constituendam rem publicam, num elo- quentiae vestigium apparet? Quid? exactis regibus, tametsi ipsam exactionem mente, non lingua perfectam L. Bruti esse cernimus, sed dein- ceps omnia nonne plena consiliorum, inania verborum videmus? CICERO, DIONYSIUS AND ARISTIDES 33 the same line of argument that Isocrates uses. He then adapts this to Roman oratory and makes similar claims on the basis of similar evidence in regard to them. This parallel¬ ism between Isocrates and Cicero leads us to the conclusion that Cicero is using Isocrates as his authority. This view is strengthened if we contrast other treatments of the history of oratory, e. g., Quintilian (Inst. Orat., X, I, 76 ff.; cf. Ill, 1, 12) gives a wholly orthodox list of orators. He does not include even Pericles. In other writers we find a varied treatment of the oratorical ability of these men, according as the author inclines to one side or the other of the conflict between rhetoric and phi¬ losophy. Plutarch, to be sure, relates the story about The- mistocles’ composing and rehearsing speeches while the other boys were playing. 1 But in the same chapter he goes out of his way to deny the influences of rhetoric on Themistocles. After denying the statement of Stesimbrotus that Themisto¬ cles had studied with Anaxagoras, he proceeds to form a school for Mnesiphilus 2 whom he makes the master of The¬ mistocles. Mnesiphilus, according to Plutarch, was not a p?7Tcop, nor a eXde r iv vvv be ra ev Kcupco Kopuelrcu rov erraivov, errlays orrXa peXeryaas kcl'l Xoyou s. And at the end of the Encomium, W., I, 340: fjv rravra yp'Lv ra QepiaroKXeovs bce^eXdeiV, el Xoywv laxvs Kara QepcaroKXea rraprjv. Maximus Planudes includes Themistocles and Miltiades in a list of orator-statesmen. W., V, 214: rr'evre elcrl pyropcKal, pia pev rj rvpbiry /cat KVpucrart] 17 avriarpotpos ry (piXoaotpla y *XPV °' aT0 Hvdayopas /cat Sc OKparys /cat IlXarco^, . . . bevrepa 17 avriarpotpos ry rvoXiriKy rjs yyyaavro MiXrLabys /cat Kipaiv /cat QepiaroKXrjs • ovtol yap pybev avyypatpopevoi eiroXirevovro. Cf. a similar statement in Doxapater, Prol. ad Rhet., W., VI, 24. We have much the same statement in Sopater, Prol. ad Aristid. (ed. Jebb., vol. I) rpets (pop at pyropcov yeyovaaiv &v y pev rrpcory aypatpws eXyyev, rjs eari QepiaroKXrjs Kal HepinXys Kal ol /car’ eKeivovs pyropes. I have selected Themistocles for this detailed treatment because he alone of the statesmen mentioned by Isocrates is noticed by other writers in such a way as to afford a satis¬ factory comparison. So far as I have observed, no writers 1 Attische Beredsamkeit, I 2 , pp. 438-447. According to Wilamowitz (Hermes, 35 (1900), p. 30) the oration was inserted in the Lysianic corpus about the beginning of the third century. 36 THE INFLUENCE OF ISOCRATES ON notice oratorical ability in Solon or Clisthenes. 1 An interest¬ ing parallel to Isocrates’ list of statesmen-orators is afforded us by Plato in the Gorgias (503 ff.). After Socrates has gained from Callicles the admission that there are two kinds of rhetoric, one mere flattery (/coXa/cda av e'iy /cat alaxpa by polyo¬ pia), the other noble (to 6’ erepov kclXov, to irapaaKeva^eiv otcos cos jSeXnarat ecrovra t t&v ttoXltcov at \pvxai), he asks Callicles to name an example of the latter kind of rhetoric. Callicles knows of no contemporaneous prjrcop who satisfies the con¬ ditions, but claims that Themistocles, Cimon, Miltiades and Pericles possessed the noble rhetoric (503 c: KAA. Tt be) QepaaTOKXea ovk anoveis avbpa ayaOov yeyovoTa /cat Kipcova /cat MtXrtdS??/' /cat Ilcpt/cXea tovtovI t6v mocrrt rereXei/r7//c6ra, ov /cat av d/07/coas; 515 C: 212 . . . . elir£ 7 rept eicelvuv t&v avbpoov &v 6\iya) Trporepov eXeyes , el eTi aoi boKOvaiv ayadoi ttoXltcu yeyov'evai , IIept/cX?7S /cat Kip,uv /cat MtXrtaS^s /cat Geptaro/cX^s. KAA. ’'Epot- 7e). Socrates then shows that the citizens were worse when these statesmen retired from public life than when they entered it, moreover that Themistocles, Cimon and Miltiades had suffered at the hands of the populace they tried to control. Consequently they possessed neither the noble nor the flatter¬ ing rhetoric. (517 A : el ovtol prjropes rjaav, ovre r# a\r)dcvy prjTopLKy exp&vro—ov yap av e^eireaov—ovre ry KoXaKLKy.) A more complete negation of Isocrates’ theories it would be hard to find. Plato not only denies that the statesmen possessed any prjTopucf), but ascribes the corruption of Athens to the men whom Isocrates makes her greatest heroes. It is highly probable that Isocrates had this attack of Plato’s in his mind when he wrote the passages in the Antidosis dealing with these statesmen. 2 Both writers speak of the value of oratory in promoting good 1 Plutarch (Cimon, 4) and Nepos (Cimon, 2, 1) imply that Cimon was not distinguished as an orator. 2 Cf. Nestle in Philologus, LXX (= XXIV), 1911, p. 11. For the dis¬ cussion of these men in Aristides, v. Chap. 4. CICERO, DIONYSIUS AND ARISTIDES 37 morals. Isocrates, Ant., 255: tovtco (i . e., \oyu>), Kal to vs kokovs e £ e X € 7 x° l 1 *- v KCLi tovs a y a 6 o v s ey kco p. ia£op.ev. 8lo. tovtov tovs t avorjTOVs Tacbevopev /cat tovs (ppovlpovs boKipa^opev. Similarly Cicero, De Orat., II, 9, 35: Quis cohortari ad virtutem ardentius, quis a vitiis acrius revocare, quis vituperare improbos asperius, quis laudare bonos ornatius . . . potest? Isocrates, Ant., 60: evOvprjdrjTe be irpos vpas avrovs, el boK& rots \070ts dLcupdelpeiV tovs veoiTepovs aWa prj t poTp'eTeiv eir' apeTrjv. . . . Ant., 67: . . . 7 TavTes ol \6yoL 7 rpos apeTrjv /cat bLKaioavvrjv OVVTeiVOVOLV. Ant., 84: ’AXXa prjv /cat tcov eiri ttjv croup pouvvrjv /cat ttjv biKato- cvvrjv TpocTOLOvp'evoov irpOTperreiv rjpe'is av aXrjd'ecrTepoL Kal XPV~ aipccTepot v apxauo v pqTopcou, passim; also in the chapter on Isocrates, 4 ( 543 ) : Kat tywye s peXXovras ovxt pepos n rrjs ttoXitlkt)s bvvape cos aXX’ 8Xrjv avTqv KTijcraaOcu tovtov ex^iv tov prjTopa 81a x eL Pos. Kal el ns emTT]bevei Tqv aXqOivriv v avros clXvttov €% ei fi'iov, ravra irpoaipoiipevos , aXX’ el ; ttoXXovs axpeX-qae i, TrapaKeXevoaiprjv av avTp) rqv eneivov tov pqropos pipetL\ocroov rrjs TTpoaipeceus. Ibid., oaoi 3s rod padrjparos tovtov ( p-rjTOpLKrjs ) irpoecrT'qcrav. Ad Pomp., 4 (777) • ttp&tov p'ev yap ras vwodecreis tCiv loropi&v e^eXe^aro KaXas Kal peyaXoTpeirels Kal av8pl (piXoaotpc$ irpocrrjKovo’as. The discussion of political questions, according to Dionysius, belongs to the orator rather than the philosopher. In speaking of Plato’s failure in writing on such subjects he says (De Dem., 23, 1025, 1026), Kapol ye iroXXaKLs eirrjXdev elirelv eirl tCtv tolovtojv avrod Xdyuv, 6 TreTroi-qrai Trap ’ 'Oprjpq irpos t^v ’ Aippodlrriv 6 Zeus X'eyoiv Ou rot, reKvov epov, SeSorai -rroXeprpa epya, &XXa oi) y' Ipepoevra perkpxto tpya- yapoLo 'LojKpaTiK&v biaXbyuv, raura 8e 7ro\tri/cots Kal prjToptnv &v8p6.ai peXrjaeL. 46 THE INFLUENCE OF ISOCRATES ON of the close connection that exists between Cicero and Di¬ onysius in general principles. It is more probable, however, that the reference is to the works of some of the archaizing school contemporary with Dionysius, e. g., the histories and speeches of Messalla. The benefits of the “ philosophic rhetoric ” as here presented are not so far reaching as those described by Isocrates, but the difference is one of quantity rather than quality. In both writers rhetoric is the basis for sound work in other spheres. In chapter 4 (450) Dionysius describes the subject that he has chosen : viroOecriv rod Xoyov ko lv ri v kcll (piXavOpooirov Kal 7r\el(rTa dvvapevrjv & iaroiv, irepl 8e t&v ' EXXijvlkCjv Kal fiaaiXiK&v , 2 &v vireXapfiave ras re iroXeis apeivov oUrjaeadai Kal rovs ibiioras eiriSocnv e^eiv irpos aperijv. His great service was to reform rhetoric and make it prac¬ tical. 1 Cf. De Demosth., 5 1 (m2): dp&v ye Sri toStovs tovs Oavpa^op'evov s errl cotpiq. Kal Kpariaroiu \6ycov Troir]Tas vopifophovs ’ I a o k p 6lt rjv Kal HXaruva. 2 Panath., 11; cf. Ant., 46. CICERO, DIONYSIUS AND ARISTIDES 47 I ( 536 ) * 7 r e^vpp'evqv re TrapaXafi&v ttjv aoKriaiv rw v \oyo)v bird t&v 7 rept Topylav Kal UpccTayopav ooi a kovt as raOra bvvauTas irpos XaKebaLpoviovs ypaLXl top re repaypaTLKOP Kai top XeKTCKOP * repCoTOP pep yap Tas vreod eaecs tcop IcrTopccop e£eXe£a to k aX a s Kai p e y aX o re p e re el s Kai ap d p t 3 do^ecev eoiKepai Kai /car’ eKelpop Kocrpeladac top x a P aKT VP a • oure yap v re o 6 e 0 lp e'cXrjipe re oXv co

’IcroKparous paOrjT&p yepopepos Kai reoXXovs pep reaprjyvpcKOVS r reoXXovs be avpfiovXevTLKOvs crvPTa^apepos Xoyous erecdToXas re ras Xta/cas erecy p a rrjv eK\oyrjv t&v ovo/jlcltuv tjj deLvorrjTL, Kara 81 rrjv avvdtaiv rfl 7 rot/aXia r cov crxwh T0 >v Kai ry e£aXX ayy, /card 8t rrjv evptaiv t&v €Tnx^PVI JL ^ LT0)V M 7 ? Kaiva /cat 7rapa5o£a Xaju/3dmv aXXd cpavepa Kai ev tco /j,eau) Keifxeva. ol Trepl 0 eoSojpov Kai Qpacrvpaxov Kai ’ Avnt X'ujkov Kai ’Icraiov Kai 'K , r} avrds 6 A-qpocrdbrjs 6 iravras virep^aXbpevos to vs re irpo avrov Kai tovs KaO' kavrov Kai pr]8k rots yivopbois virep^oXi]v KaraXnriov Toaovros eybero rots 'laoKparovs re Kai ’Icraiov Kocrpovpevos irapayyeXpaaiv, el pi] ras 'ApLororeXovs rexvas e^epadev. Ad Amm., 12 (749) : dXAa yap otl pb ovx o pr\TU>p Trapa rou tpiXoaotpov ras rexvas irapeXafiev als tovs davpacrrovs beivovs KarecrKevaae Xdyovs, aXXa rovvavriov to. Arjpoadbovs Kai ra tcov aXXuv pr/ropcov epya irapaOkpevos ’ApiOToreXrjs Tairas eypaxpe ras rexvas , t/caixos &7ro5e5eTx0s aploTOV \eyeiv Kal ovb ’ apipMTfirjTr}cnv bovTa otl prj 1 II, p. Ji: &XX’ earl ptas axnrepei juotpas /cat (pvaeoos ol vopoL, 1) 8 Lktj, oi X0701. rpi&v S’ ova&v tovtoiv bvv&pewv, owep Xeyuv aTraaas tcls x&PW rj pTjTopLKi/ p.ovr\ KaraXap^avei. 5 « THE INFLUENCE OF ISOCRATES ON Kai 7 r parreiv ovrbs ye Trpos rw \eyeiv irpoa tWtjclv, eireibav tt pcorov avrov elvai (pip. In this passage the following points demand especial notice: AaXias is contrasted with \6yuv a\r)dLv&v as an answer to the charge that Pericles made the Athenians XaAous. 1 The use of cToxa^eadaL is at the same time a reply to the disparaging statement that rhetoric is mere guesswork, 2 and an acceptance of Isocrates’ idea that eTn Topyia, elvai tl emrybevpa TexviKbv plv ou, 'pvxv* aroxa-crTiKrjs Kai avbpeias Kai ipbcrei beivrjs irpoaopiXe'iv rois b.vQ pwirois* 3 Isoc. Ant., 271 : eirtibr) yap ovk tveaTiv ev ry a Q*bv <2>s eiaopbuvres beibexarai pvdoicriv, Sre crreixTJ v ovk avayKa^cov, Kai 7r pos t tu a , 3 Cos pr) povov avTos e p8 e iv tcl / 3 eXri and the defense of arox^^dai, II, 42 f., 53, 54. * Cf. Isocrates’ LX6ao paroi. 2 E. g. t II, p. 4 IO ; KCLL Tavra prjdtis oieadco (3Xaa irapayev-qaerai toZs iravas ras 7rpa£ets Kal tcls T'exvas empekeia <*> rats pek'eTats /cat rats irpos ttjv Trjs (ppovrjcrecos aa/c^crtv (a"b") is a doublet of (a) and ( b ), giving a single illustration (aoo/xa) of the phrase 7 raaas ras irpa^ecs Kal tcls Texvas. The second thought ( c ) is developed by means of contrast of a negative statement with an affirmative. In the passage in the Antidosis certain adjective phrases have been added which merely bring out the thought implied in the original statement. prjbe k a t ay v & s r<2> v avOput- ttoov TocravTirjv bvoTVxlav COS irepl pev drjpia Texvos evprjKapev als kt\. irepl b& ttjv rcoy avdpdvKWV (pvcriv prjbepiav oIovtol Toaav- tt]V evprjadaL Traibe'iav t/tls . . . a X X a ToaavTrjv airavTCcv rjpccv aTVxlav k a t e y v 6} k a a l v a )gO' bpokoy-qaeiav. . . . CICERO, DIONYSIUS AND ARISTIDES 71 Here the words prj8eplav . . . aXXa introduce the usual con¬ trast between the negative and affirmative statements of the thought. Note also the presence of certain words in both Ad Nic. and Ant. pqdl Karayv&s . . . dvarvxiav <*> cos . . . dri>x lav KaTeyvojKacrLv coo-0 . . . , forming, as it were, a framework on which the expanded form is put. Finally the thought of training animals (c-c") is presented again with different examples: ( O 81 TTCLVTOOV SeLVOTCLTOV . . . TOUS \eOVTCLS, 7r epl Orjpla kt\. V irpaorepov btaKeipevovs . . . , ras 8 J apKTOVs KaXivdovpevas , . . . Ad Nic., 17, {vtcl vopovs . . . ttolovo-lv is developed in Pan- ath., 144. In the Ad Nicoclem the requisites for good laws are stated; they must be just, useful, consistent, and prevent long and troublesome litigation. Isocrates develops this in the Antidosis by contrast. Speaking of the good old laws, he first enumerates the qualities they did not possess, eapoov rovs re vopovs avayeypappevovs, ovx opolovs rots vvv Kecpevois, ovdt /crX., then he introduces with aXXa the positive qualities of the laws. Ad Nic., 17 rjreL vopovs . . . 8 1 k a l 0 v s Kal avpcpepovras Kal acpl- ia rry The Inf luen ce of Isocrates on Oicer o %••• 1 BOSTON COLLEGE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS CHESTNUT HILL, MASS. Books may be kept for two weeks unless other¬ wise specified by the Librarian. Two cents a day is charged for each book kept overtime. If you cannot find what you want, ask the Librarian who will be glad to help you. The borrower is responsible for books drawn in his name and for all accruing fines.