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.

He was not content with his mother's kingdom, considering it too small for one of his endowment; and when he had conquered many peoples and had acquired supreme power he established his royal seat in Egypt, because he judged that country to be far superior as his place of residence, not only to the lands which then were his, but even to all other countries in the world.

For he saw that all other regions are neither seasonably nor conveniently situated in relation to the nature of the universe, but some are deluged by rains and others scorched by heat; Egypt,[*](Egypt here means the Delta of the Nile; cf. Hdt. 2.14. Praise of Egypt is found in Plat. Tim. 22c.) however, having the most admirable situation of the universe,[*](i.e., as regards climate and fertility.) was able to produce the most abundant and most varied products, and was defended by the immortal ramparts of the Nile,

a river which by its nature provides not only protection to the land, but also its means of subsistence in abundance, being impregnable and difficult for foes to conquer, yet convenient for commerce and in many respects serviceable to dwellers within its bounds. For in addition to the advantages I have mentioned, the Nile has bestowed upon the Egyptians a godlike power in respect to the cultivation of the land; for while Zeus is the dispenser[*](Cf. Hom. Il. 4.84.) of rains and droughts to the rest of mankind, of both of these each Egyptian has made himself master on his own account.

And to so perfect a state of happiness have the Egyptians come that with respect to the excellence and fertility of their land and the extent of their plains they reap the fruits of a continent, and as regards the disposition of their superfluous products and the importation of what they lack, the river's possibilities are such that they inhabit an island[*](A reference to the Delta, enclosed and watered by the branches of the Nile.); for the Nile, encircling the land and flowing through its whole extent, has given them abundant means for both.

So Busiris thus began, as wise men should, by occupying the fairest country and also by finding sustenance sufficient for his subjects. Afterwards, he divided them into classes[*](Isocrates here praises the caste system. Cf. Plato in the Republic.): some he appointed to priestly services, others he turned to the arts and crafts, and others he forced to practise the arts of war. He judged that, while necessities and superfluous products must be provided by the land and the arts, the safest means of protecting these was practice in warfare and reverence for the gods.

Including in all classes the right numbers for the best administration of the commonwealth, he gave orders that the same individuals should always engage in the same pursuits, because he knew that those who continually change their occupations never achieve proficiency in even a single one of their tasks, whereas those who apply themselves constantly to the same activities perform each thing they do surpassingly well.

Hence we shall find that in the arts the Egyptians surpass those who work at the same skilled occupations elsewhere more than artisans in general excel the laymen; also with respect to the system which enables them to preserve royalty and their political institutions in general, they have been so successful that philosophers[*](It is natural to think that there is a reference here to Plato and his Republic, but it is not certain.) who undertake to discuss such topics and have won the greatest reputation prefer above all others the Egyptian form of government, and that the Lacedaemonians, on the other hand, govern their own city in admirable fashion because they imitate certain of the Egyptian customs.

For instance, the provision that no citizen fit for military service could leave the country without official authorization, the meals taken in common, and the training of their bodies; furthermore, the fact that lacking none of the necessities of life, they do not neglect the edicts of the State, and that none engage in any other crafts, but that all devote themselves to arms and warfare, all these practices they have taken from Egypt[*](Cf. Hdt. 2.80 and Hdt. 6.60.)

But the Lacedaemonians have made so much worse use of these institutions that all of them, being professional soldiers, claim the right to seize by force the property of everybody else, whereas the Egyptians live as people should who neither neglect their own possessions, nor plot how they may acquire the property of others. The difference in the aims of the two polities may be seen from the following:

if we should all imitate the sloth and greed of the Lacedaemonians, we should straightway perish through both the lack of the necessities of daily life and civil war; but if we should wish to adopt the laws of the Egyptians which prescribe that some must work and that the rest must protect the property of the workers, we should all possess our own goods and pass our days in happiness.