Panathenaicus

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;