Busiris

I have learned of your fairmindedness, Polycrates, and of the reversal in your life, through information from others; and having myself read certain of the discourses which you have written, I should have been greatly pleased to discuss frankly with you and fully the education with which you have been obliged to occupy yourself. For I believe that when men through no fault of their own are unfortunate and so seek in philosophy a source of gain,[*](That is, from the teaching of the subject.) it is the duty of all who have had a wider experience in that occupation, and have become more thoroughly versed in it, to make this contribution[*](For the figure of speech in E)/RANOS see Isoc. 10.20 and Plat. Sym.177c.) voluntarily for their benefit.

But since we have not yet met one another, we shall be able, if we ever do come together, to discuss the other topics at greater length; concerning those suggestions, however, by which at the present time I might be of service to you, I have thought I should advise you by letter, though concealing my views, to the best of my ability, from everyone else.

I am well aware, however, that it is instinctive with most persons when admonished, not to look to the benefits they receive but, on the contrary, to listen to what is said with the greater displeasure in proportion to the rigor with which their critic passes their faults in review. Nevertheless, those who are well disposed toward any persons must not shrink from incurring such resentment, but must try to effect a change in the opinion of those who feel this way toward those who offer them counsel.

Having observed, therefore, that you take especial pride in your Defense of Busiris and in your Accusation of Socrates, I shall try to make it clear to you that in both these discourses you have fallen far short of what the subject demands. For although everyone knows that those who wish to praise a person must attribute to him a larger number of good qualities than he really possesses, and accusers must do the contrary,

you have so far fallen short of following these principles of rhetoric that, though you profess to defend Busiris, you have not only failed to absolve him of the calumny with which he is attacked, but have even imputed to him a lawlessness of such enormity that it is impossible for one to invent wickedness more atrocious. For the other writers whose aim was to malign him went only so far in their abuse as to charge him with sacrificing the strangers[*](For the legend of Busiris see Apollod. 2.5.7 and Hdt. 2.45. Busiris, in obedience to an oracle, sacrificed strangers on the altar of Zeus. Herodotus doubts the truth of the legend that the Egyptians sacrificed men.) who came to his country; you, however, accused him of actually devouring his victims. And when your purpose was to accuse Socrates, as if you wished to praise him, you gave Alcibiades to him as a pupil who, as far as anybody observed, never was taught by Socrates,[*](Alcibiades, if not a disciple of Socrates, was intimately associated with the philosopher; cf. Plat. Sym. For praise of Alcibiades see Isoc. 16.) but that Alcibiades far excelled all his contemporaries all would agree.

Hence, if the dead should acquire the power of judging what has been said of them, Socrates would be as grateful to you for your accusation as to any who have been wont to eulogize him; while Busiris, even if he had been most tender-hearted toward his guests, would be so enraged by your account of him that he would abstain from no vengeance whatever! And yet ought not that man to feel shame, rather than pride, who is more loved by those whom he has reviled than by those whom he has praised?

And you have been so careless about committing inconsistencies that you say Busiris emulated the fame of Aeolus and Orpheus, yet you do not show that any of his pursuits was identical with theirs. What, can we compare his deeds with the reported exploits of Aeolus? But Aeolus restored to their native lands strangers who were cast on his shores,[*](Cf. Hom. Od. 10.17-27, where Aeolus furnishes escort for Odysseus.) whereas Busiris, if we are to give credence to your account, sacrificed and ate them!

Or, are we to liken his deeds to those of Orpheus? But Orpheus led the dead back from Hades,[*](A reference to the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice.) whereas Busiris brought death to the living before their day of destiny. Consequently, I should be glad to know what, in truth, Busiris would have done if he had happened to despise Aeolus and Orpheus, seeing that, while admiring their virtues, all his own deeds are manifestly the opposite of theirs. But the greatest absurdity is this—though you have made a specialty of genealogies, you have dared to say that Busiris emulated those whose fathers even at that time had not yet been born

But that I may not seem to be doing the easiest thing in assailing what others have said without exhibiting any specimen of my own,[*](The same sentiment occurs in Isoc. 10.15.) I will try briefly to expound the same subject — even though it is not serious and does not call for a dignified style — and show out of what elements you ought to have composed the eulogy and the speech in defense.

Of the noble lineage of Busiris who would not find it easy to speak? His father was Poseidon, his mother Libya the daughter of Epaphus[*](Cf. Aesch. PB 850, where Epaphus is said to be the son of Zeus and Io.) the son of Zeus, and she, they say, was the first woman to rule as queen and to give her own name to her country. Although fortune had given him such ancestors, these alone did not satisfy his pride, but he thought he must also leave behind an everlasting monument to his own valor.