Panathenaicus

since they were as much superior to those who rule with absolute power as the wisest and gentlest of mankind may be said to excel the wildest and the most savage of the beasts.[*](Compare Montaigne, Essays, chapter 42: “Plutarch says somewhere that he does not find so great a difference between beast and beast as he does between man and man; which he says in reference to the internal qualities and perfections of the soul. And, in truth, I find so vast a difference between Epaminondas, according to my judgement of him, and some that I know, who are yet men of good sense, that I would willingly enhance upon Plutarch, and say that there is more difference between such and such a man than there is between such aman and such a beast.”) For what among crimes that are unparalleled in their wickedness and cruelty shall we not find to have been perpetrated in the other states and especially in those which at the time of which I am speaking were considered the greatest and even now are so reputed? Has there not abounded in them murder of brothers and fathers and guest-friends;

matricide and incest and begetting of children by sons with their own mothers; feasting of a father on the flesh of his own sons, plotted by those nearest of kin; exposure of infants by parents, and drownings and blindings[*](Most of these horrors are taken from the Argive legend of the house of Pelops and the Theban story of the house of Labdacus: from the former, Thyestes feasting unwittingly upon the flesh of his own sons, served up to him by his brother, Atreus; from the latter, Oedipus exposed as a child by his parents to perish in the mountains, the slaying of Laius, his father, by Oedipus, the marriage of Oedipus to his own mother, Jocasta, the death at each other's hands of the sons, Eteocles and Polyneices, who were born of that incestuous union, and the blinding of Oedipus.) and other iniquities so many in number that no lack of material has ever been felt by those who are wont each year to present in the theatre[*](These stories furnished largely the themes of the tragic poets.) the miseries which transpired in those days?

I have recounted these atrocities with the desire, not of maligning these states, but of showing not only that nothing of the sort happened among the Athenians—for this would be a proof, not of their superior excellence, but merely that they were not of the same character as those who have proved themselves the most godless of men. However, those who undertake to praise any people in superlative terms must show, not only that they were not depraved, but that they excelled in all the virtues both those who lived at that time and those who are now living—which is the very claim that one may make for our ancestors.

For they administered both the affairs of the state and their own affairs as righteously and honorably as was to be expected of men who were descended from the gods,[*](According to to one story it was from the seeds sown by Hephaestus on the soil of Attica that the Athenians were sprung. See Aesch. Eum. 13.) who were the first to found a city and to make use of laws,[*](See Isoc. 4.39-40 and notes.) who at all times had practised reverence in relation to the gods and justice in relation to mankind, who were neither of mixed origin nor invaders of a foreign territory but were, on the contrary, alone among the Hellenes,

sprung from the soil itself,[*](See Isoc. 4.24 and note.) possessing in this land the nurse of their very existence and cherishing it as fondly as the best of children cherish their fathers and mothers, and who, furthermore, were so beloved of the gods that—what is of all things in the world the most difficult and rare, namely, to find examples of royal houses or houses of absolute rulers remaining in power through four or five generations—

this too transpired among our ancestors alone. For Erichthonius, the son of Hephaestus and Earth, took over from Cecrops, who was without male descent, his house and kingdom; and beginning with this time all those who came after him—not a few in number—handed down their possessions and their powers to their sons until the reign of Theseus. I would give much not to have spoken about the virtue and the achievements of Theseus on a former occasion,[*](See Isoc. 10.18 ff.) for it would have been more appropriate to discuss this topic in my discourse about our city.

But it was difficult, or rather impossible, to postpone the things which at that time occurred to me to say to the present occasion, which I could not foresee would come to me. Therefore I shall pass over this topic, since I have already exhausted it for my present purpose, and shall mention only a single course of action which, as it happens, has neither been discussed by anyone before nor been achieved by any other man but Theseus, and which is a signal proof of his virtue and wisdom.

For although he ruled over the securest and greatest of kingdoms[*](Repeated from Isoc. 10.18.) and in the exercise of this power had accomplished many excellent things both in war and in the administration of the state, he disdained all this and chose the glory which, in consequence of his labours and his struggles, would be remembered for all time in preference to the ease and felicity which, because of his royal power, were at his command for the term of his life.

And he did this, not after he had grown old and had taken his pleasure in the good things at hand, but in the prime of his manhood, it is said, he gave over the state to the people to govern,[*](For Theseus as the author of the spirit of the Athenian polity see Isoc. 10.35-37.) while he himself risked his life without ceasing for the benefit of Athens and of the rest of the Hellenes.

I have now touched upon the nobility of Theseus so far as I could on the present occasion, having formerly with some pains detailed his whole career. But as to those who took over the administration of the state, which he gave over to them, I am at a loss to know by what terms of praise I can adequately extol the genius of those men who, having no experience of governments, did not err in their choice of that polity which all the world would acknowledge to be not only the most impartial and the most just, but also the most profitable to all and the most agreeable to those who lived under it.

For they established government by the people, not the kind which operates at haphazard, mistaking licence for liberty and freedom to do what one likes for happiness,[*](See Isoc. 7.20 and note.) but the kind which frowns upon such excesses and makes use of the rule of the best. Now the majority count the rule of the best,[*](Aristocracy.) which is the most advantageous of governments (just as they do government based upon a property qualification[*](Timocracy.)), among the distinct kinds of polity, being mistaken, not because of ignorance, but because they have never taken any interest in the things which should claim their attention.

But I, for my part, hold that there are three types of polity and three only: oligarchy, democracy, and monarchy,[*](Plat. Rep. 544c ff., distinguishes these three types: monarchy, which may be either a constitutional or an absolute rule; government by the few, which may be either an aristocracy or an oligarchy; and democracy. Aristot. Pol. 3.6 ff., recognizes three types: monarchy, aristocracy, and a republic, and, corresponding to them (aberrations from them), three debased forms, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. Isocrates' point is that any one of these forms may be an aristocracy; it is the spirit of the constitution which matters (Isoc. 12.138); that government is best (i.e. an aristocracy) where the best men rule.) and that of the people who live under these all who are wont to place in charge of their offices and of their affairs in general those of their fellow-citizens who are most competent and who will most ably and justly direct the affairs of state—all these, I hold, will govern well, under any type of polity, both in their domestic relations and in their relations to the rest of the world.

On the other hand, when men employ in these positions of leadership those of their citizens who are the most brazen and the most depraved and who take no thought for the things which are advantageous to the commonwealth but are ready to go to any extreme to further their personal advantage, the character of their government will correspond to the depravity of the men at the head of their affairs. Again, all who are not of the latter class nor of that which I mentioned previously, but who, when they feel secure, honor before others those who speak for the gratification of the public and, when they are afraid, seek refuge in the best and wisest of their citizens—such men will fare now worse now better as the case may be.

This, then, is the truth regarding the natures and powers of the several polities—a theme which will, I think, furnish to others material for much more extended discussion, although I must not speak further on the general subject but must confine myself to the polity of our ancestors. For I undertook to prove that this has been of greater worth and the source of greater benefits than the polity which obtains in Sparta.

And what I say on this head will prove, for those who would gladly hear me discuss an excellent polity, neither burdensome nor untimely but of due measure and in keeping with what I have said before; those, however, who take pleasure, not in the things which have been spoken in deep seriousness, but rather in the orators who rail at each other most of all at the public assemblies, or, if the speakers refrain from this madness, in those who deliver encomiums on the most trivial things[*](It appears to have been a common practice for speakers to show off their oratorical powers by extolling such themes. See Isoc. 4.close and note; Isoc. 10.12.) or on the most lawless men who have ever lived—to these, I think, what I say will seem much longer than it should be.

I, however, have never concerned myself in the least with such auditors, any more than do other sensible men, but rather with those who will keep in mind what I said in preface to my whole discourse and at the same time will not frown upon the length of my speech, even though it extend through thousands upon thousands of words, but will realize that it lies in their power to read and peruse only such portion of it as they themselves desire; and most of all am I concerned with those who, in preference to any other, will gladly listen to a discourse which celebrates the virtues of men and the ways of a well-governed state.

For if any should have the wish and the power to pattern their lives upon such examples, they might themselves pass their days in the enjoyment of high repute and render their own countries happy and prosperous. Now I have expressed myself as to the kind of auditors I would pray that I might have for what I shall say, but I am afraid that were I given such an audience I might fall far below the subject upon which I am to speak. Nevertheless, in such manner as I can I shall attempt to discourse upon it.

The fact, then, that our city was governed in those times better than the rest of the world I would justly credit to her kings, of whom I spoke a moment ago. For it was they who trained the multitude in the ways of virtue and justice and great sobriety and who taught through the manner of their rule the very truth which I shall be seen to have expressed in words after they had expressed it in their deeds, namely, that every polity is the soul of the state, having as much power over it as the mind over the body. For it is this which deliberates on all questions, seeking to preserve what is good and to avoid what is disastrous,[*](Repeated from Isoc. 7.14.) and is the cause of all the things which transpire in states.

Having learned this truth, the people did not forget it on account of the change in the constitution, but rather gave their minds to this one endeavor before all others: to obtain as their leaders men who were in sympathy with democracy, but were possessed of the same character as those who were formerly at the head of the state; and not unwittingly to place in charge of the whole commonwealth men to whom no one would entrust a single detail of his private interests;[*](Cf. Isoc. 8.13, 133.)

and not to permit men to approach positions of public trust who are notoriously depraved; and not even to suffer men to be heard[*](Cf. Isoc. 8.3 and note.) who lend their own persons to base practices but deem themselves worthy to advise others how they should govern the state in order to advance in sobriety and well-being, or who have squandered what they inherited from their fathers on shameful pleasures but seek to repair their own fortunes from the public treasury[*](See Isoc. 8.124 and note.), or who strive always to speak for the gratification of their audience but plunge those who are persuaded by them into many distresses and hardships;