Panathenaicus
Isocrates
Isocrates. Isocrates with an English Translation in three volumes, by George Norlin, Ph.D., LL.D. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1929-1982.
But having failed in this treachery and betrayed their purposes to the world and made themselves hated by all mankind, they were plunged into such a state of warfare and confusion as men should expect after having played false with both the Hellenes and the barbarians. I do not know what I need to take the time to say further about them except that after they had been defeated in the naval battle[*](The battle of Cnidus, 394 b.c., in which the Spartan fleet was defeated by the joint fleets of Conon, the Athenian admiral, and Pharnabazus, the Persian satrap.) by the forces of the King and by the leadership of Conon they made a peace[*](Peace of Antalcidas. See Isoc. 4.115 and note.)
of such a character that no one can point out in all history one more shameful, more reprehensible, more derogatory to the Hellenes, or more contradictory to what is said by certain eulogists of the virtue of the Lacedaemonians. For when the King had established them as masters over the Hellenes, they attempted to rob him of his kingdom and of all his good fortune, but when the King defeated them in battle on the sea and humbled them, they gave over to him, not a small contingent of the Hellenes, but all those who dwelt in Asia, explicitly writing into the treaty that he should do with these according to his pleasure;
and they were not ashamed of entering into such covenants regarding men by whose help as allies they prevailed over us, became masters of the Hellenes, and expected to subdue the whole of Asia; on the contrary, they inscribed such covenants in their own temples[*](See Isoc. 4.180.) and compelled their allies to do the same.
Now others will not care, I suppose, to hear about any further deeds, but will think that they have learned well enough from those which I have described what has been the character of each of these two states in their treatment of the Hellenes. I, however, do not share this feeling but consider that the subject which I undertook requires still many other arguments, and above all such as will show the folly of those who will attempt to refute what I have said, and these arguments I think I shall find ready at hand.
For of those who applaud all the actions of the Lacedaemonians, the best and the most discerning will, I think, commend the polity of the Spartans and remain of the same opinion about it as before, but will concede the truth of what I have said about the things which they have done to the Hellenes.
Those, however, who are inferior not only to these but to the great majority of men and who could not speak tolerably about any other subject, albeit they are not able to keep silent about the Lacedaemonians, but expect that if they extol them extravagantly they will gain a reputation equal to those who are reputed abler and much better than themselves—
these men, when they perceive that all the topics have been covered and find themselves unable to gainsay a single point which I have made, will, I think, turn their attention to the question of polities, comparing the institutions of Sparta and of Athens, and especially their sobriety and discipline with our carelessness and slackness, and will eulogize the Spartans on these grounds.
If, however, they attempt anything of the sort, all intelligent men should condemn them as speaking beside the point. For I undertook my subject with the avowed purpose, not of discussing polities, but of proving that our city has been of much greater service to the Hellenes than has the city of the Lacedaemonians. If, then, they can overthrow any of these proofs or cite other achievements common to both these cities in which the Spartans have shown themselves superior to us, naturally they should be commended. But if they attempt to bring in matters of which I have made no mention, they will deserve the censure of all for their lack of perception.