Panathenaicus

which put an end to the insolence of the barbarians and the poverty of the Hellenes, and which, besides, waged war in her own cause more capably than that city which is famed for her skill in warfare, and extricated herself from her misfortunes more quickly than these same Lacedaemonians—does not this city, I say, deserve to be praised and honored more than the state which has been outdistanced by her in all these respects? This, then, is what I had in mind to say on this occasion in comparing the achievements of Athens and Lacedaemon and the wars which they fought at the same time and against the same adversaries.

But I think that, while those who find these words distasteful to listen to will not deny that what I have said is the truth nor, again, will they be able to cite other activities of the Lacedaemonians through which they brought to pass many blessings to the Hellenes, yet they will attempt—

as is ever their habit—to denounce our city, to recount the most offensive acts which transpired while she held the empire of the sea, to present in a false light the adjudication of lawsuits in Athens for the allies[*](Members of the Confederacy of Delos had to bring certain lawsuits, especially those which involved disloyalty to the league in any way, to Athens for trial. See Isoc. 4.113, note.) and her collection of tribute[*](See Isoc. 7.2, note.) from them, and above all to dwell on the cruelties suffered at her hands by the Melians and the Scionians and the Toronians,[*](For the treatment of Melos and Scione see Isoc. 4.100, note, and 109. Torone was captured by Cleon in 422 B.C. The men of the town were sent as prisoners to Athens, and the women and children sold into slavery (Thuc. 5.3).) thinking by these reproaches to sully the benefactions of Athens which I have just described.

Now I, for my part, could not gainsay all the things which might justly be said against our city, nor would I attempt to do so; for I should be ashamed, as I have already said in another place,[*](In Isoc. Letter 2.16.) when all other men are of the opinion that not even the gods are free from guilt, were I to strain my conscience and attempt to persuade you that our commonwealth has never erred in any instance whatsoever.

Nevertheless, I think I shall do one thing, namely, show that the city of the Spartans, in handling situations such as I have mentioned, has been much more harsh and severe than Athens, and that those who seek to promote the reputation of the Spartans by calumniating us are short-sighted in the extreme and are themselves to blame for the bad repute which their own friends[*](That is, the Spartans.) incur at our hands.

For whenever they make such charges against us, to which the Lacedaemonians are more open than ourselves, we do not find it difficult to cite against Sparta a graver offence in each case than that which has been charged against Athens. For example, in the present instance, if they bring up the fact that the law-suits of the allies were tried in Athens, is there anyone so slow of wit as not to find the ready retort that the Lacedaemonians have put to death without trial more of the Hellenes[*](See Isoc. 4.113, note.) than have ever been brought to trial and judgement here since the founding of our city?

And if they make any complaint about our collection of the tribute, we shall be ready with a like rejoinder. For we shall show that our ancestors far more than the Lacedaemonians acted for the advantage of the states which paid them tribute. For, in the first place, these states did this, not because we had so commanded, but because they themselves had so resolved at the very time when they conferred upon us the supremacy by sea.

In the next place, they paid their quotas, not to preserve Athens, but to preserve their own democratic polity and their own freedom and to escape falling into such great misfortunes, through the setting up of oligarchies, as were suffered under the decarchies and the domination of the Lacedaemonians. And, more than that, they paid these contributions, not from funds which they had treasured up through their own efforts, but from resources which they possessed through our aid.[*](The account here given of the Confederacy of Delos is a fair statement. It was in its origin a voluntary association of the Ionian Greeks, partly against Sparta, but mainly against the Persian Empire, not for protection merely, but for the enrichment of its members at the expense of the barbarians. Each member contributed its quota to the common cause, the more powerful members in ships the weaker in money, fo/ros. The quotas appear to have been fixed by Aristides, although approved by the synod of the allies. See Thuc. 5.18; Aristot. Ath. Pol. 23-24.)

In return for these resources, had they reflected in the slightest degree, they should in all fairness have been grateful to us; for we took over their cities in some instances when they had been utterly destroyed, in others when they had been sacked and plundered by the barbarians, and advanced them to such a state of prosperity that although they contributed to us a slight proportion of the wealth which flowed in upon them, their estates were no less prosperous than those of the Peloponnesians who paid no tribute whatsoever.

Furthermore, as to the cities which were laid waste under the rule of each of these states—a matter for which certain men reproach the Athenians alone—we shall show that things much more reprehensible were done by those whom these men are never weary of extolling. For it happened that we offended against islets so small and insignificant that many of the Hellenes do not even know of their existence, whereas the Lacedaemonians laid waste the greatest cities of the Peloponnesus—states which in every way were eminent above the others—

and now hold for themselves the wealth of those states which, even supposing that in former times they possessed no merit, deserved the greatest possible rewards from the Hellenes because of the expedition against Troy in which they took the foremost place and furnished as its leaders men possessed not only of the virtues in which many of the common run of mankind have a part, but also of those in which no ignoble man may share.

For Messene furnished Nestor, the wisest of all who lived in those times; Lacedaemon, Menelaus, who because of his moderation and his justice was the one man to be deemed worthy to become the son-in-law of Zeus;[*](Helen, the wife of Menelaus, was the daughter of Zeus. See Hom. Od. 4.569 and Isoc. 10.16.) and Argos, Agamemnon, who was possessed, not of one or two of the virtues merely, but of all which anyone can name—

and these, not in moderate, but in surpassing degree. For we shall find that no one in all the world has ever undertaken deeds more distinctive, more noble, more important, more advantageous to the Hellenes, or deserving of higher praise. These are facts which, when thus barely enumerated, some may not unreasonably question, but when they have been supported in each instance by a few words, all men will acknowledge that I speak the truth.

However, I am not able to see clearly, but am in doubt, with what words I may proceed without making an error of judgement. For, on the one hand, I am ashamed, after having said so much about the virtue of Agamemnon, to make no mention of the things which he accomplished and so to seem to my hearers no different from men who make empty boasts and say whatever comes into their heads. But I observe, on the other hand, that the discussion of things which lie outside the scope of the subject[*](Digressions such as the praise of Theseus in Isoc. 10 and of Timotheus in Isoc. 15 are effective elements of variety. the praise of Agamemnon here seems awkwardly dragged in. It is commonly thought that Agamemnon is a masque for Philip of Macedon. (See, for example, Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit 2, pp. 331, 334.) The simplest explanation, however, is hinted at in Isoc. 12.76. Agamemnon stood out in his mind as the first leader of all Hellas against the East—the first champion of the cause to which Isocrates dedicated his life.) is not approved but is thought rather to be confusing, and that while many misuse these digressions there are many more who condemn them.

Therefore I fear that I too may subject myself to some such criticism. Nevertheless, I elect to lend support to the man who has experienced the same misadventure as myself and many others and failed of the reputation he deserved, and who has been the author of the greatest services to the world of his time, albeit he is less praised than those who have done nothing worthy of mention.

For what element of glory did he lack who won a position of such exalted honor that, were all the world to unite on the search for a greater, no greater could be found? For he is the only man who was ever deemed worthy to be the leader of the armies of all Hellas. Whether he was elected by all or obtained this honor by himself, I am not able to say. But however this came about, he left no room for the rest of mankind who have in any wise won distinction since his time to surpass the glory which attaches to his name.

And when he obtained this power, he harmed no city of Hellas; nay, so far was he from injuring any one of them that, although he took command of the Hellenes when they were in a state of mutual warfare and confusion and great misfortune, he delivered them from this condition, and, having established concord among them, indifferent to all exploits which are extravagant and spectacular and of no benefit to others, he collected the Hellenes into an army and led them forth against the barbarians.

And no one will be found, among those who rose to fame in his time or in later generations, to have accomplished an expedition more honorable than this or more advantageous to the Hellenes. But although he achieved all this and set this example to the rest of the world, he did not receive the fame which was his due, because of those who delight more in stage-play than in services and in fiction than in truth; nay, albeit he proved himself so great, he has a reputation which is less than that of men who have not ventured even to imitate his example.

But not for these things alone might one extol him, but also for the things he did at the same time. For he conceived of his mission in terms so lofty that he was not satisfied with making up his army from all the men in private station whom he desired to have from each of the cities of Hellas, but even persuaded men of the rank of kings, who were accustomed to do in their own states whatsoever they pleased and to give orders to the world at large, to place themselves under his command, to follow him against whomsoever he might lead them, to obey his orders, to abandon their royal manner of living and to share the life of soldiers in the field,

and, furthermore, to imperil themselves and wage war, not for their own countries and kingdoms, but ostensibly for Helen, wife of Menelaus, though in reality for Hellas,[*](Cf. Isoc. 10.51.) that she might not again suffer such an outrage at the hands of the barbarians nor such as befell her before that time in the seizure of the entire Peloponnesus by Pelops or of Argos by Danaus or of Thebes by Cadmus.[*](According to legend, Pelops, the Phrygian, settled in the Peloponnesus and gave his name to that territory; Cadmus, the Phoenician, founded Thebes; Danaus, the Egyptian, became king of Argos—types of foreign invasion and conquest.) For what other man in the world will be found to have had forethought in these matters or to have taken measures to prevent any such misfortune in the future except one of Agamemnon's character and power?