THE STYLE OF ISOCXATES

b y S . Usher

There is ample testimony, both from the author's own pen' and from the writings of later commentators,2 to the importance and influence of Isocrates a s an educator and a humanist. He was the first writer to combine rhetoric, moralization and political doctrine in a literary form designed for private study a s well a s for declamation. His discourses are thus the forerunners of Cicero's political works and of the great orations of the Second Sophistic, some of which, like the Panathenaicus of Aelius Aristides, bear obvious signs of his influence.

In the context of his own age, he restored rhetoric to respectability, rescuing it from abuse at the hands of the more unscrupulous sophist^,^ and defending it against the attacks of Alcidamas4 and later of Aristotle and his follower^.^ it from the status of a T & W ~ to that of a TraiFEia, and in pursuit of this aim founded a small school at Athens where the art of composing and delivering discourses formed the basis of the curriculum.6 But the purpose and scope of his teaching was not purely academic: a s an Athenian and a Panhellenic idealist he identified himself with issues of national and international importance, and thus attracted to his school many young men who were subsequently to make their mark in politics and propagate their master's ideas to a wider audience. The importance of style in the course also attracted men who, like the master himself, preferred literary activity to the tumult of the popular assembly. They learned from Isocrates the habits of hard work, self-criticism and intelligent imitation, and were thereby admirably equipped to fulfil their highest literary ambition^.^ But Isocrates, in deliberate contrast to certain of the sophists, made no extravagant promises of success to either kind of pupil; he even stressed that he could be of only limited help to pupils who lacked either natural ability or the capacity to apply themselves to study and prac- tice.* The most sophisticated publicity expert could hardly have devised a more attrac- tive advertisement for his school; but there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of his intention in making these statements. pupils, but offered i n return for their labours to train them in a special technique of d i s - course9 which, when applied to important subjects, old or new, would have the power to present them in a form from which the listener would derive most benefit." Isocrates even tried to bridge the gap between technical expertise and morality, which Plato and Aristophanes exploited and which was to exercise the minds of later rhetoricians, by arguing that the ability to speak well i s the surest indication of a sound understanding,"

He sought to elevate

He probably made considerable demands on h is

39

and that familiarity with noble themes and examples not only a s s i s t s the student in the composition of his discourses but a l so influences his actions.12 The ability to speak well and to ‘think well’ thus go hand in hand: but style cements the union, and distin- guishes the successful orator. Anyone may discourse on important subjects, but only the wise can do justice to them in thought and 1 a n g ~ a g e . l ~ The orator with a uniquely

14 forceful style i s to be admired more than the one who merely speaks on novel subjects, since the former is displaying a power beyond that of the ordinary man and thereby laying claim to the attention of a large audience.

In view of the paramount importance which Isocrates attached to style, it would be natural to expect him to d iscuss it a s thoroughly a s the other aspects of his nai6Eia. But no such discussion i s to be found. which he i s supposed to have written are jejune in content and largely negative in form,15 and are so un-Isocratean in style that they cannot be ascribed to him with any confidence. On the other hand, there are strong prima facie reasons for believing that Isocrates wrote and published no rhetorical handbook embodying the rules of style and composition.16 The only other possible first-hand source of his teaching is his oratory; but the dis- courses are finished models of his art, not catalogues of technical minutiae. nation, however, they are found to contain some useful inf0rmati0n.l~ The most interesting passage occurs at the end of the opening period of his las t discourse, the Panathenaicus:18 moyous]. . . nohh6v piv ’Eveupqp&iov y ipowas , OCK bhiyov 6 ’ drv-rlOkaEwv K a i n a p r a c j a m v K a i T ~ V &hhwv i & d v T ~ V ’Ev ~ a ? 5 bq-ropdais 6 i a h a p n o b a o v . . . specifically mentioned, the first i s concerned with subjectmatter, the las t two with style. Elsewhere19 we find that E‘veupjpaia are ‘ideas’, ‘thoughts’ or ‘arguments’, a s opposed to ‘words’ and ‘diction’ (6vopaTa and hE‘€js respectively); but they are a l so to be distin- guished from the bare subject-matter itself ( ~ b : np&ypaTa) in that they are the product of the writer’s imagination and are so conceived a s to add colour and variety (KaTanoiK.ihai)20 to the discourse a s a whole. specialize in the more dignified ( ~ Y K W ~ E ‘ U T E pa) and the more novel (Kaivonpa) iveupjpaTa. Although this statement seems to confirm the relationship between the E‘veljpqpa and the yvbpq, the form of the Isocratean ivOljpqpa i s inseparable from his stylist ic preconceptions, which for the most part exclude the aphoristic brevity and concision generally associated with gnomic utterance, but include antithesis and pansos is , the two devices of style referred to in the passage. These in turn contribute to Eirpuepia, a further essential quality mentioned elsewhere,22 but one whose precise nature Isocrates does not define, probably because he subscribed to the view that the rhythm of prose should be fluid, not regular like that of most verse.23 The subject of rhythm in Isocrates has been exhaus- tively treated by B l a ~ s , ~ ~ whose findings suggest that his overriding concern for smooth- ness precluded the use of the more powerful rhythms, and that such attempts as there are at rhythmic effect are confined mainly to the beginnings and the ends of his periods. Smoothness and harmonious arrangement,25 which included the avoidance of hiatus, are recognized characteristics of Isocrates’ style; but references to these qualities in his own writings are couched only in the vaguest terms and confined to the general arrange- ment of subject-matter.26

The surviving fragments of a T ~ X V T (handbook)

On exami-

Of the three i6Eai here

In another passage21 Isocrates says that he and his pupils

On the subject of amplification ( p a ~ p o h o y i a ) , ~ ~ however, direct evidence is assisted by inference. ments of epideictic oratory,28 one which Gorgias pioneered29 and Isocrates inherited.30 The technique of amplification, when applied to subject-matter, might take the form of extensive digression or c o m p a r i ~ o n ; ~ ~ applied in a more narrow sense to style, it involved the prolongation of sentences by the artificial opposition of two or more ideas

The ability to write at length on a topic was one of the primary accomplish-

40

when a single statement would have conveyed the required sense a d e q ~ a t e l y . ~ ~ and other forms of parallelism, whose use he admits,33 might be used for purposes of amplification; but his use of synonyms and antonyms to amplify single words, though obvious and pervasive, cannot be related to anything he says about style, except in the most general sense. cali t ies in his literary compositions imposes a limit on our inquiries.

Antithesis

Here, a s in other aspects of style, his determination to avoid techni-

The Criteria:

So much for Isocrates’ own statements concerning style. special significance to his position a s the head of a school, and consequently may have exaggerated both his influence and his originality. of a unique kind of periodic style they are paying him no more than his due. by means of both subordination and parallelism, the periods of Isocrates are, on average, longer and more elaborate than those of his p r e d e c e ~ s o r s . ~ ~ But before examining them more closely it w i l l be necessary to trace the early development of the period in Greek prose and to describe i t s main characteristics.

The lsocratean Period and its Components

Later rhetoricians attached

But in ascribing to him the perfection Constructed

The invention of both the period and of prose rhythm has been credited to the same This i s historically i m p r ~ b a b l e , ~ ~ but stylistically man, Thrasymachus of Chalcedon.

understandable and significant. ness . (mpio6oS) can see the end ahead, and experiences the same pleasure in attaining a defi- nite The thought should be similarly comprehended: a period should embrace a single idea, the essence of which is incomplete until the end i s reached.37 ciple of finiteness in prose was compared with the structural divisions found in verse.38 In particular, the strophe and antistrophe of lyr ic exhibited in varying degrees the elements of unity and complexity, and their length was determined by the metrical scheme. In the absence of detailed evidence as to the precise analogies drawn by early theorists of prose style from poetry, it i s unwise to pursue this comparison further. But it can be seen from the surviving fragments of their prose that Gorgias and Thrasymachus, in spite of their reputed disagreement over other matters of composition, agreed in the use of parallel c lauses of approximately equal length, like verses. that they would have subscribed to the view, even if they did not themselves express it, that a regular metre is inadmissible in prose, because it would make it indistinguishable from poetry.39 Prose rhythm was probably intended to be used in such a way a s to make a general impression upon the ear of the listener: it would have been on this assumption that Aristotle assigned specific qualities to the different feet - cretics, dactyls, ana- paes ts and spondees are described a s ‘noble’, the iambus a s ‘ordinary’, and the trochee a s ‘abandoned’ - which would be intolerable generalizations if the critic were referring to regular schemes of metre. between the units of the period, the cola, which, as has been said, may be compared with the measured verses of poetry.40 Hence the correspondence of individual words in parallel clauses instead of exact metrical correspondence, for which the prose-writer substitutes assonance. devices was carried to reasonable limits and beyond by G o r g i a ~ , ~ ~ and it is more than likely that the degree to which they should be used was one of the main subjects of con- tention between him and Thrasymachus. When Isocrates began to write, most ideas had been tried, but the field was sti l l wide open for further synthesis and experiment. Per- haps the most important unresolved question was that of the proper length of the period. None of the early theorists is known to have made any pronouncement on the subject, and

The essential characteristic of the period is i ts finite- It is so constructed that the reader, like a runner on a circular race-course

This prin-

It i s a l so evident from their practice,

Nevertheless rhythm could provide a bas i s for balance

But in prose the language should serve the thought.

The use of these

41

we should not be misled into believing in the early establishment of a norm by the unani- mity of later Greek critics,42 who fix the limit at four cola. practical grounds and with a speaker and an audience in mind, purporting to allow for the respiration of the former and the modest receptivity of the latter. before Aristotle wrote , these had ceased to be the only relevant criteria; and Isocrates was one of those chiefly responsible for the new conditions under which prose was read. Too timid and weak-voiced himself to become a public speaker,43 he taught his pupils in small classes which he conducted on a seminar system.44 Many of his discourses were written for this select audience, who spent much of their time analysing them and using them to correct or improve their own compositions. In order to justify h is magisterial status, the master's discourses must be more complex and more impressive than those of his pupils, many of whom were men of considerable talent. they must be susceptible to re-reading and critical dissection, but equally their author needed to make no concessions to speaker's or audience's limitations. therefore imagine that Isocrates would have taken exception to Dionysius' judgment of h i s style,45 since i t accords with his own purpose.

This limit was chosen on

But for over a generation

Unlike forensic orations,

We need not

Such is the background against which the style of Isocrates i s to be examined. Two examples will suffice to show i t s main characteristics.

Paneg. 41-49

We have suspense from the very first word, which is in the accusative case and is followed by five relative clauses before the subject and the main verbs, on which the structure of the whole period hinges; for they are followed first by an antithetically arranged pair of relative clauses, then by a much more complex antithesis between two participles depen- dent on the subject ovwEi6u?a piw . . . & p d u a 6 ; . The latter governs nine c lauses (also participial, because bpGua is a verb of perception). An important principle of the Iso- cratean period, that the second of two major members should be expanded, is carried to an extreme. Amplification by means of virtual synonyms plays an important part in the clausal structure, giving rise to a n t i t h e ~ i s : ~ ~ i~ piw. . . 06 ~ I Y W O L T K O ~ ~ J O U ; , 'EK 6 ; . . .

42

KaTaqavE1S yiyvopkvous, Kai TOGTO aO@ohov. . . ~ O ~ E ~ E L Y ~ ~ V O V .

of correspondence i s underlined by p ~ r i s o n : ~ ~ np6g TE T& ~rpdr<~ig . . . ’Enpdriiv~; T&S p h ~ quha<a&ai. . . Kahdg ’ E V E Y K E ~ V , and h o r n o e o t e l e ~ t o n ~ ~ is present throughout (e.g. . . . ‘E6i6ac~v . . . KaTk6ELCE; . . . k d u p o i j a l . . . q0ovoGOl; . . . Y I Y V O U K O ~ ~ V O U ~ . . . y~yvopkvous. There i s one example only of p a r e ~ h e s i s : ~ ~ sparing use of this and other forms of verbal, a s distinct from clausal assonance. But the single example of the correlative construction (hypo~ tas i s ) ,~ ’ O ~ T W TapaXW6E?s. . . UTE does not adequately reflect Isocrates’ partiality for it.51 example of amplification involving words only: But in i t s overall construction, i ts parallelism, anti thesis, clausal assonance and amplification, i ts centrally- placed main verbs and hypotaxis mainly by means of participial c lauses , it contains most of the characteristic features of the Isocratean period.

One of the examples

OUWE<EG~E Kai auyKa-reaKEGauE, reflecting Isocrates’

So too with the single Kahd; Kai T E X V I K ~ ~ .

The following period i s more loosely constructed and contains l e s s initial suspense than the last example, but has some typical features.

Archid. 8

Here there is little suspense until after the period is restarted at aiaxuvoipqv ykp bv . . ., after which an E’I clause containing two participial clauses keeps us waiting for the main verb. Isocrates frequently uses internal ydrp in this way, to introduce an explanation of a statement which i s grammatically incomplete. The usual effect, a s here, is that of an abrupt pause rather than a relaxation of suspense that merges naturally into the structure of the period as a whole. arrest i ts flow further: ~i 6 ~ 1 . . . E’ITIETV and Ka0’ 6uov ’ E U T ~ V h r ’ ’Epoi. connected by p6Ahov $ constitute a form of antithesis. construction is seen in i j v . . . Tahqv. 6; TraTpbS. . . i s areminder that Isocrates was not a slave of parison.

The sentence a l so contains two parenthetical clauses which The two clauses

The example of pETaPh4, YEYOV&S p i v . . . TOG Also, a form of the correlative

These examples demonstrate both the merits of the Isocratean period - i ts complex yet unified structure, combining elegance, dignity and clarity - and i t s weaknesses, so aptly described by Dionysius of Halicarnassus with the aid of a simile of a meandering river.52 so for personal and professional reasons (because he thought that, when judiciously used, it combined the virtues of the two extremes of plain and grand, and was therefore the best style for political oratory; his own style a l so shows considerable Isocratean influence). There was nothing intermediary, however, about i ts position in contemporary controversy. Its qualities are easily identified in the polemic Against the Sophists by A l ~ i d a m a s , ~ ~ the most trenchant critic of ypamoi h6yo1. jibe that a rhetorician who relied exclusively for his teaching upon written speeches, ignoring the extempore art, was really no better than his pupils: he could point to a genera- tion of satisfied students and a school which attracted some of the most famous political

When that critic assigned the category of ‘middle’ to Isocrates’ style, he did

But Isocrates had a ready reply to Alcidamas’

43

and literary men of the time. His style seemed ideally suited to the needs of men who felt that they had something to say that was worthy of close attention and study, and thus continues the tradition of rhetorical Attic prose intended for private reading rather than declamation, which was established by Thucydides and later followed by Demosthenes. Both Thucydides and Isocrates were influenced by the style of Gorgias, but whereas Thucydides was attracted (perhaps through the additional influence of Antiphon) by those elements of it which later came to be identified with the grand style54 - strange, archaic and long words, with a preponderance of nouns over verbs, studied gnomic obscurity within a basically simple structure, and roughness of sound contrasted with a certain taste for paronomasia - Isocrates preferred to adapt and develop the techniques of epideictic oratory - paKpohoyia, antithesis and parallelism, smoothness of sound between words (the avoidance of hiatus) and between c lauses (achieved by hypotaxis and the use of relatives). style of Demosthenes, a more complex subject which I shall consider in a subsequent article, represents the summit of achievement in Greek, and indeed in ancient oratory; but even he was criticized for writing speeches which lacked the quality of spontaneous utterance,55 in spite of his efforts, apparent even in the literary versions which we have, to give the impression of speaking extempore.56 Demosthenes and Isocrates had an important aim in common: they sought to teach and indoctrinate rather than to give momen- tary pleasure and entertainment. Demosthenes applied himself to the techniques of b7T6KplD15,57 and their presence i s evi- dent throughout his oratory;58 Isocrates claimed to have perfected a style which was the ideal medium of rational persuasion and aesthetic edification, and a worthy vehicle for conveying the intellectual substance of his ~ r a t 6 ~ i a . ~ ~

The

They differed in their occasions and their audiences:

We may now turn to a statist ical examination of his style based upon an examination of all his extant writings and including the criteria revealed in the foregoing discussion. Some further clarification is required.

Sentence length contributes significantly to the general picture of complexity and amplification. In calculating it the question arises of possible disagreement with editors on the question of punctuation, and in particular the use of the full stop. have only on a very small number of occasions felt impelled to alter the punctuation of the Teubner edition of Blass.

In practice I

The two main forms of antithesis are pgv. . . 6E' and 00 (pi). . . &Ah&. Here and elsewhere no distinction i s made between instances occurring in c lauses and those occur- ring in phrases, and multiple instances are counted a s simple. germane forms are included in the column to which they seem most closely related. Thus examples of V ~ ~ T O V p i v . . . k r ~ i - r a and other instances of piv not followed by 6k are included in the first column (e.g. pgv . . . ~ ~ V T O I , pkv. . .ob p i v ( Y E ) . of 00 (p i ) . . . &Ah& are joined by 06 (p i ) phvov . . . &Ah& K a i and i t s negative forms,60 by clauses and phrases contrasted by p6hhov q 6 1 and &Ah' O ~ K .

In the table on pp. 46-7,

In the fourth column examples

Correspondence includes T E . . . TE, O ~ T E . . . O ~ T E , pi]^^. . . ~ ( T E , & T E . . . E'LTE, T E . . . All these contain an anticipatory or signposting element, and Kai, K a i . . . K a i , q. . . q.

therefore contribute to the suspense inherent in the periodic architecture of sentences. They are a l so to be linked to some extent with amplification, especially when they occur between words. nations l ike O ~ T E . . . O ~ E . . . &Ah& are recorded in more than one column.

Such instances are recorded in both columns, just as instances of combi-

Homoeoteleuton, parison and other Gorgianic figures require definition. Homoeoteleuton

44

is considered to occur when parallel clauses or phrases, or words marked off by kommata end with the same syllable. I have counted only instances of parallel clauses or phrases in which two or more words or word- groups in each correspond, e.g. m p i TE TOG nohkpou TOG n p b ~ T O ~ S PapPdrpouS Kai T ~ S

bpovoiq T ~ S n p b ~ b a s a h o u s (Paneg. 3) . include paronomasia, parechesis, etymological figure, alliteration and oxymoron.

Parison i s somewhat more difficult and subjective.

The Gorgianic figures in the seventh column 6 2

The various forms of correlative construction, which the ancient rhetoricians recognized a s a stylistic device and called h y p o s t a ~ i s , ~ ~ but which modern stylisticians tend to ignore, i s an important factor in the Isocratean period, where it i s used both to produce a balancing effect and a s a device of aG<qai; and F ~ i v w a ~ 5 . ~ ~

Amplification is the use of a larger number of words than are needed to convey the thought. The main forms it takes are pairs or larger numbers of synonymous or virtually synonymous words, of words denoting particular and general, e.g. Crvdpou~ Kai G E I V ~ S . . . Tipapias (Plat. 9) and of antonyms (the polare Ausdrucksweise), e.g. T O ~ S &KohouOGuavTas Kai T O ~ S hopEivavTa5 Panath. 115). same thought in different words, and the small number of examples are recorded in this column.

Whole clauses or phrases may also express the

Hyperbaton i s the “deliberate separation of logically cohering words”.65 In practice by far the largest number of examples consists of adjectives separated from the substantives which they qualify. article from its substantive by non-attributive words. of the discussion of individual works.

Next in order of frequency are instances of the separation of the Examples wi l l be given in the course

The necessity of recording internal ydrp (as distinct from the usually weaker ydrp in the initial clause of a period), i s obvious from the last two examples quoted.

The relative occurring after a strong stop (colon or full stop) has the effect of lengthen- ing a period and promoting i t s smooth flow or, in the case of the relative after a full stop, of causing periods to merge together in a manner altogether appropriate to the middle style a s conceived by the critics.

The occurrence of the rhetorical question has some bearing on the estimation of the lively, contentious, and in some cases quasi-forensic character of a discourse.

All statistical examinations of the kind here undertaken should be accompanied by an intensive programme of ‘field work’, in which the corpus i s re-examined with a view to detecting individual traits which stylistic analysis of criteria chosen for their general importance has failed to reveal. arising out of this re-examination.

The following discussion wi l l contain many observations

The table overleaf contains two se t s of figures. The first of each pair is the actual number of instances, the second (bracketed, in heavy type), i s the proportional number for 25 pages of Teubner text. Discussion w i l l be concentrated mainly on the proportional number. On the other hand, in order to calculate the average for the corpus, the actual numbers must be added, divided by the total number of Teubner pages analysed (3821, and the resulting quotient multiplied by 25, to give the average occurrence in 25 Teubner pages. average wi l l then be directly comparable with the proportional (bracketed) figures, which are calculated to the nearest unit.

This

45

T H E S T Y L E O F

[n Euthynurn

[n Lochitem

In Callimachum

De Bigis

Aegineticus

Trapeze t ic us

Contra Sophistas

Bus ir i s

Helen

Panegyricus

Ep. ad Nicoclem

Nicoc les

Ep. ad Demonicum

Pla t a icus

Euagoras

Ep. ad Dionysium

Ar chidamus

Ep . ad Iasonis Filios

Ep . ad Archidamum

De Pace

Ar eopag i t ic u s

Ant idos i s

Ep . ad Timotheum

Ep. ad Mytilenaeos

Philippus

Panathenaicus

Ep. ad Philippum I

Ep . ad Alexandrum

Ep . ad Antipatrum

Ep . ad Philippum I1

TOTAL actual nos.

AVERAGE per 25 Teubner pager

-_

'eubner Pages

5

5

15

12.5

12.5

15

6

10.5

16

24

12.5

15.5

12

14

19.5

2.5

26.5

2.5

4

34

19.5

33.5

3

3

26

24

4.5

1

3.5

2

384.5

-

Periods

41 (205)

35 (175)

112 (186)

67 (134)

93 (186)

119 (198)

29 (121)

70 (189)

87 (136)

110 (114)

91 (182)

112 (180)

112 (233)

83 (148)

107 (137)

14 (140)

156 (145)

25 (250)

23 (144)

173 (128)

111 (147)

170 (127)

19 (158)

21 (175)

150 (144)

94 (96)

32 (178)

5 (125)

16 (114)

11 (139)

2288

~~

148.6

Antithesis kv ... 6E

26 (130)

17 (85)

61 (101)

64 (128)

48 (96)

57 (95)

28 (117)

56 (133)

63 (98)

131 (136)

59 (118)

58 (93)

74 (156)

59 (105)

87 (112)

15 (150)

105 (99)

13 (130)

13 (81)

L56 (115)

79 (101)

118 (89)

5 (42)

7 (58)

LO2 (98)

108 (110)

16 (89)

2 (50)

13 (93)

9 (113)

1649

107.2

942

61.2

~~

Correspondence

8 (40)

5 (25)

21 (35)

29 (40)

17 (34)

20 (33)

7 (29)

14 (33)

9 (14)

37 (38)

21 (42)

17 (27)

20 (42)

10 (18)

39 (50)

4 (40)

22 (21)

3 (30)

7 (44)

39 (29)

42 (54)

51 (38)

7 (58)

6 (50)

44 (42)

41 (42)

14 (79)

8 (200)

7 (50)

3 (38)

572

37.2

i Homoeo- t e 1 eut on

23 (115)

15 (75)

18 (30)

30 (60)

18 (36)

10 (17)

5 (21)

30 (71)

34 (53)

67 (70)

35 (70)

30 (49)

51 (106)

21 (48)

45 (58)

8 (80)

18 (17)

7 (70)

10 (63)

38 (28)

35 (45)

29 (22)

16 (133)

6 (50)

47 (45)

39 (40)

18 (100)

3 (75)

10 (71)

4 (50)

726

47.2 --

46

I S O C R A T E S

Other ;or g ia n i c figures

73

4.8

Hypos t a s i s

3 (15)

4 (20)

19 (31)

20 (40)

21 (42)

9 (15)

13 (56)

16 (38)

23 (36)

43 (45)

16 (32)

29 (47)

17 (35)

16 (29)

38 (51)

1 (10)

35 (33)

2 (20)

2 (12)

47 (35)

27 (35)

43 (32)

4 (33)

-

32 (31)

32 (32)

-

1 (25)

2 (14)

2 (25)

516

33.5

Amplification

3 115)

4 (20)

11 (18)

16 (32)

11 (22)

9 (15)

11 (46)

23 (55)

34 (52)

61 (63)

22 (44)

45 (76)

2 (4)

18 (32)

61 (78)

-

47 (44)

8 (80)

8 (50)

83 (61)

68 (87)

106 (80)

15 (126)

9 (75)

50 (48)

117 (119)

-

4 (100)

8 (57)

5 (63)

859

55.9

Internal

Yf4J

4 (20)

2 (10)

7 (11)

12 (24)

13 (26)

7 (18)

6 (25)

9 (21)

19 (30)

33 (34)

27 (54)

19 (31)

56 (117)

20 (36)

21 (27)

4 (40)

24 (23)

5 (50)

1 (6)

31 (23)

27 (35)

41 (33)

3 (25)

4 (33)

26 (25)

27 (28)

5 (28)

3 (75)

1 (7)

3 (38)

460

30.0

Relative after strong s top

130

8.5

.hetorical Quest ion

I ( 5 )

3 (15)

20 (33)

8 (16)

10 (20)

17 (28)

_-

3 (12)

11 (26)

10 (15)

17 (18)

2 (4)

6 (10)

1 (2)

21 (38)

9 (11)

3 (30)

25 (24)

-

3 (18)

23 (17)

9 (11)

27 (20)

-

-

24 (23)

12 (121)

-

-

-

-

265

17.2

Hyperbaton

275

17.8

47

The Forensic Speeches, Epideictic Discourses and Letters of lsocrates

Before each work is considered, certain general observations must be made. The first i s that the widely held view of ancient66 and modern67 critics that Isocrates wrote in a uniform, unchanging style can no longer be accepted. column exceeds loo%, even when works of less than 5 pages are excluded from considera- tion. a l so the least characteristically Isocratean feature. development. Most of Isocrates’ longer works can be dated with some accuracy, and it i s evident from these alone that differences between them cannot be related to chronology. But although there is no unilateral development between a single genre, the six forensic speeches form a distinct group from the epideictic discourses. Regarding the individual criteria, it i s to be noted that neither parison nor the other Gorgianic figures are common. Remarkably low a lso i s the figure for Correspondence, especially when compared with the figures for ob ( p i ) . . . & A A a and Hypostasis, which emerge a s the most characteristically Isocratean devices of parallelism. which serves the special needs of periodic structure as conceived by Isocrates. incidence of Amplification i s perhaps not a s high a s might have been expected (only two instances per Teubner page); nor is the average length of periods (six per Teubner page): in both cases this i s because of the great freedom with which Isocrates varies the concen- tration.

The range of variation in every

On the other hand, the least variable feature is p i v . . . 6; antithesis, which is Then there is the question of

Homoeoteleuton i s also a very prominent feature The

The corpus i s arranged in the table in what I believe to be i t s chronological order, according to which the six forensic speeches come conveniently at the beginning, and may be considered together. than average, In Euthynum having the shortest in the corpus except for In Demonicurn, which will be found exceptional in other respects also, and the brief Ep. ad lasonis Filios. The four longer speeches a l so show below-average figures for anti thesis, correspondence, homoeoteleuton, parison, other Gorgianic figures, amplification and hyperbaton, except for ~ i v . . . 66, correspondence and homoeoteleuton in the De Bigis , which thereby shows a closer relationship to the epideictic discourses than the others. above-average figures are those for rhetorical question (appropriately in forensic speeches), and the high figures for hypostasis in the Aegineticus a s well a s the De Bigis suggests that this device should be regarded a s a personal characteristic of the orator rather than one appropriate to a genre.

In all six except the De Bigis the length of the periods i s l e s s

The only consistently

The In Euthynum not only has short periods and little amplification, but a l so more hiatus than any other Isocratean speech. But the presence of much homoeoteleuton removes any impression of art lessness; indeed, it i s well up to the average in figures of parallelism. used a s much a s in the longer forensic speeches. The effective employment of E’IKOS

argument was probably the reason for i t s publication, but it i s otherwise an immature, though genuine example of Isocrates’ oratory.68

Although proof predominates over narrative, rhetorical questions are not

The In Lochitern i s written in a smoother style, containing only a few examples of hiatus, some typical Isocratean periods (e.g. 6-8), four examples of relatives after strong stops, and some rhythmic clausulae (e.g. 6: ~ E Y ~ U T ~ S T U Y X ~ V E I V -ripwpiaS). At the same time it i s written in a higher emotional key, in keeping with i ts political content, so that the complete absence of parison and other Gorgianic figures is an important pointer to Isocrates’ technique of ~ E ~ V W U I S at this time and in this medium. speech i s missing, but what we have shows the same Antiphontean preference for argument

The beginning of the

48

over narrative a s the In Euthynum.

The first of the longer forensic speeches, the In Callimachum, contains all the conven- tional parts, and is close to the average in antithesis and correspondence, but i s low in homoeoteleuton, parison and amplification, and contains no Gorgianic figures even in passages of a6@piS (e.g. 21-32, 33-34). But the In Callimachurn shows further signs of the emergence of a distinctively forensic style in the very high figure for rhetorical question. There are a l so two noteworthy passages of asyndeton (28-29, 34) and a small number of cases of hiatus. The orator has learnt the technique of interlacing narrative with argument and a G E r p s , and the result is a lively, work- manlike speech in which force and pungency i s obtained without ornament or nmplification.

This confirms what was observed in the ln Lochitem.

Our text of the De Bigis comprises the latter part of the speech only, which is an eulogy of Alcibiades. slightly higher than in the In Callimachum; but the periods are significantly longer, and the figure s for homoeo te leuton, Gorg i an ic figure s , hypo s t a s i s , amp I if ic a t ion, and internal y6p are all higher. In fact, only in amplification and hyperbaton i s the De Bigis more closely aligned with the forensic than with the epideictic speeches. If Blass is right in dating it at 397 B.C.,69 it is interesting to note how early Isocrates developed an epi- deictic style.

The figures for antithesis and correspondence taken together are only

With the Aegineticus we return to Isocrates’ forensic style. It is statistically similar to the In Callimachum except for more hypostasis, amplification and internal yap and less hyperbaton and rhetorical question. The division i s more formal: there is careful sub- division of the very long narrative section which forms the main body of the speech, and each section concludes with a summarizing sentence. it invites comparison with the speeches of Isaeus, to which i t is closer in spirit than to any in the Lysianic corpus (pace Jebb, op. cit. ii, 219), in i t s preoccupation with estab- lishing the intimacy of the defendant’s relationship with the testator, but at the same time may be betraying Lysianic influence in i t s reliance upon narrative rather than forceful argument. It is interesting to find Isocrates at this stage of his career using more hypo- s tas i s and amplification, devices of aG(qaiS and GEivoaiS, in a speech chiefly concerned with personal relationships than in one in which political, historical and legal matters play a major part.

A s a speech about inheritance

There is a little hiatus.

Further testimony to the variety of Isocrates’ style within the forensic genre i s supplied by the statist ics for the Trapezeticus. have shorter periods, and the figures are very low in all the other columns except rhe- torical question, which include an example of hypophora (47).70 proportion than i n any of the other speeches. Such long periods a s there are are mostly rather loosely constructed (e.g. 8-9), and instances of amplification, homoeoteleuton and hypostasis are concentrated mainly in the earlier (1-10) and later (45-58) chapters, leaving an even greater impression of simple and artless clarity than the figures may suggest. Hiatus i s somewhat more frequent than in the Aegineticus, contributing to this impression.

Only the In Euthynum and the Ad Demonicum

Narrative forms a higher

The incomplete discourse Contra Sophistas is Isocrates’ earliest essay in epideictic oratory.?l afforded him the opportunity through the medium of his style to give a practical demonstra- tion of his own unique gifts and pretensions. requisites of good oratory fitness to the occasion (KaipbS), propriety and originality ( ~ b - ~ ~ ~ E X ~ V T W S Ka; ~b KaivdS ’ i ~ ~ i v ) . ~ *

Its subject, a statement of his criticisms of his rivals in the field of education,

He mentions in the discourse a s the prime

We are discouraged from expecting anything more

49

specific than this by his denial that the art of oratory can be taught by means of rigid rules.73 A little later, however, further specific recommendations are made: a well- composed discourse will be written in a style appropriate to the subject-matter, though opportunity will be sought to express the thought strikingly, rhythmically and m e l o d i ~ u s l y . ~ ~ Vague though this i s , it at least suggests that Isocrates considered that epideictic oratory should contain more ornamental figures of speech than forensic oratory. tion to this, he later recommends that epideictic oratory should contain qualities which stimulate a w ~ p o d v q and 6t~aioa6vq.~~ When due allowance i s made for the brevity of the discourse, the statist ics may be related to these provisions. The figures for anti- thesis and amplification do not show the excesses of some of the later discourses, and that for homoeoteleuton i s well below average. But there are five examples of parison, the figure for hypostasis is the highest in the corpus, that for hyperbaton is a l so high, and the periods are longer than average. In order to achieve balance without monotony, Isocrates has concentrated on correlative rather than antithetical and merely cumulative clausal structure, and upon emphatic word-order in order to achieve a more striking effect. Rhythm is much in evidence, especially in clausulae, where there i s a marked tendency to contrast groups of long and short syllables (in 1, 2, 4, 9 , 10, 11, 13, 15, 18). language is a l so rich in long and rather uncommon words76 and abstract nouns.77 is no hiatus. combined with a restraint in the use of ornamental figures.

As a qualifica-

The There

The impression i s one of considerable colour, polish and rhythmic vigour

The Busiris and the Helen invite comparison with one another a s well as with the res t of the corpus; but the reason for this collocation, that they are both rhetorical exercises intended to demonstrate the techniques of epideictic oratory, a l so se t s them apart from the rest of the corpus, which obeys i t s author's injunction that the subjects of serious discourses should be questions of present and practical importance and utility. Both discourses, however, appear to have been written in overt opposition to the work of other writers in the genre.78 In the Busiris he denies that legendary material is worthy to be treated in a dignified style,79 and in the same sentence says that he will demons - trate briefly how he considers the subject should be handled. The style of the resulting discourse approximates fairly closely to the mature epideictic style of the Panegyricus except in one important particular: length of periods. One possible source of the diffe- rence is to be found in the figures only in the Busiris' lower amount of internal y a p , but this does not account for it entirely. The conclusion that the periods in the Busiris are on average much less elaborate and complex than those in the Panegyricus is inescapable; and it is not unreasonable to relate this to his statements in the passage of the Busiris quoted above. tean, features the Busiris i s comparable with the Panegyricus, seems to emphasize the special importance which he attached to complex periodicity a s the vehicle for serious oratory. Some connexion may also be seen between the Busiris, which i s after all an apologia, and the needs of forensic oratory. reflects this, and i s to be seen in this light in conjunction with the comparative clausal simplicity .

The fact that in regard to other epideictic, and characteristically Isocra-

The high figure for rhetorical questions

The Helen presents a contrast which a t first sight seems surprising. The periods are much longer, but there is much l e s s homoeoteleuton and a remarkably low figure for correspondence. This suggests shorter c lauses with less assonance, but more of them to each period and more hypotaxis (confirmed by the lower figure for &. . . 6~'). The figure for rhetorical questions is below average, and no other forensic features remain. Isocrates says he i s writing an encomium, not an ~ p o l o g i a , ~ ' but at this stage of his development he does not choose to admit a s much rhetorical ornament when treating a

50

serious historical subject like Helen a s when he i s writing about a legendary subject like Busiris. This changes when he comes to compose the Panegyricus. a lso shows the beginnings of a taste for more colourful and unusual words (e.g. 6 ~ 1 p & q s ( 2 ) , TEpOpEiaS (41, iTraTp66iTov (651, ih6aKEa8ai (66). have disappeared, never to return to Isocrates’ writings.

The Helen

Both discourses show hiatus to

The most famous of Isocratean discourses, the Panegyricus, i s the political counter- part of his educational manifesto, Contra Sophistas, but whereas the latter is concerned mainly with criticism of the methods of his opponents and with summarily outlining his own principles, the theme of the Panegyricus i s broad, noble and of universal import: the unification of Greece under Athenian leadership and the affirmation of Hellenic military and cultural superiority over the barbarian by a mission of conquest. This theme, with variations, remained central to his political teaching throughout his life; and he took longer to compose the speech in which he first propounded his grand design than it took Alexander to execute it half a century later,81 time which he would have considered to have been well spent if the product impressed his ideas upon the Greek public at large, and more particularly upon those of his pupils who were subsequently to influence poli- tical thought and action throughout the Hellenic world. Panegyricus to mark the high point of his mature epideictic style is reflected strikingly in the figures, which are high in every column except the first (which of course has the opposite significance to the other columns, low figures, a s in the present case , meaning long periods), correspondence, internal yap and relative after a strong stop. Interpreted in terms of periodic structure, these figures imply great length and complexity, with an average of 4% periods per page, but no excess of concatenated structure or tendency for periods to sag in the middle after the manner of the second example. A reading of the Panegyricus confirms this impression. Most of the periods are centrally and compactly organized in spite of the amplification which lengthens the individual members. They a l so vary greatly in length, groups of longer periods alternating with shorter periods. There i s a l so a considerable variation of styles, in keeping with the composite structure of the speech as a whole. One of the best examples of this variation i s the sudden increase in Gorgianic features in 75-77, where the theme and i ts treatment resemble those of an epitaphios. this seems hardly appropriate in an otherwise serious discourse. that Isocrates is trying to demonstrate that such a style can be effective in small doses. Moreover, such a technique accords with the overall plan of the discourse which, like the In Eratosthenern of Lysias and the De Corona of Demosthenes, is a composite work made up of a number of distinct parts, each of which is to some degree a complete speech with conventional divisions; and the style follows these configurations. For example, after the first part of the 6iKaiov section, which begins at 21, has reached i ts first highpoint with the period quoted above, 50-56 is noticeably low in amplification a s examples are given of Athenian influence and power. Then, after a series of elaborate periods d e s - cribing Athenian benefactions, a bridge passage (66-67) to the first stage of the arguments E ) K TOG U V M ~ ~ P O V T O S consist of four short periods. Later, at the most important point of transition in the speech, the change from inward-looking to outward-looking policy i s introduced with a series of shorter periods (133-40) containing a relatively small amount of amplification. care, such variation can be accidental; and recognition of i t s existence adds to our admiration of the work.

That Isocrates intended the

This passage may be a deliberate parody of Gorgianic excesses , but It i s far more likely

It seems unlikely that, i n a discourse composed with such elaborate

The Ad Nicoclern, a protreptic to good government in which Isocrates advises the young king of Cyprus to model his rule upon Athenian ideals, is didactic rather than

5 1

hortatory in tone, a s befits a work addressed to an individual, and i s broken up into a number of relatively small parts corresponding to the topics discussed. Such a method of treatment requires a style very different from the expansive, high-flown periodicity of the Panegyricus, and the statist ics confirm Isocrates’ own statement regarding the style of this letter.82 ficantly l e s s hypostasis, a construction which i s most suited to an elaborate and leisurely style of composition, and much less amplification. that the periods are l e s s organically constructed, but is a l so partly to be explained by the form of the subject matter, whereby advice i s often followed by reasons for it. That this form of argument tends to produce short sentences i s seen most clearly in the Ad Demoni- cum, where it i s carried several stages further. Of interest also are Isocrates’ references in the Ad Nicoclem to the gnomic poets a s his predecessors in this genre;83 but this rela- tionship will be explored more fully when the Ad Demonicum i s discussed. of brevity and condensation is enhanced by the occasional use of asyndeton (15-41 passim) in association with imperatives, and by a certain taste for abstraction, exemplified in the 14 articular infinitives - a high proportional figure. Nicoclem is characteristically Isocratean in i ts amount of ob (~6). . . &Ah& antithesis and correspondence, and actually has a high proportion of homoeoteleuton. interesting adaptation to the genre of epideictic oratory of an old style of didactic literature.

F i r s t , the periods are in fact very much shorter, and they contain signi-

The high figure for internal y&p suggests

The impression

At the same time, however, the Ad

It i s thus an

. The Nicocles was no doubt intended by Isocrates to be the companion of the Ad Nico- From the stylistic point of view, the fact that Isocrates speaks in his own person

Is Nicocles made to speak in a significantly different style from his precep-

clem. in the letter and in the person of the king in the Nicocles raises the question of charac- terization. tor? asyndeton throughout. The Nicocles contains consi- derably less pkv . . .6k, much less correspondence and homoeoteleuton, and only half a s much internal y&p; but more hypostasis, almost twice a s much amplification and over twice as many rhetorical questions (though the figures for both are well below average). The comparatively high incidence of amplification may be due to characterization, since the figure i s the highest in the corpus up to the time of composition. esting possibility, however, arises from the fact that the work i s supposedly addressed to a listening audience of ordinary citizens. groups of synonymous words or phrases was used not only for purposes of aG<qoiS and ~ E ~ U W U I S , but also as a device for retarding the progress of an argument for the benefit of listeners, who would thus have more time in which to absorb it. where goes to some trouble to maintain illusions about the circumstances in which his discourses were delivered (e.g. in the Antidosis), it is credible that he varied h is style deliberately between public and private discourses. and Isocrates’ longest letter addressed to an individual, the later Philippus, seems to confirm this. more inflated, declamatory style is not used to convey any distinctive arguments or turns of phrase; on the contrary, the discourse i s replete with Isocratean sentiments. the king, unlike Isocrates when addressing him, i s not permitted to exhort his people a s much a s he i s himself exhorted. Clem at 9, immediately after the prooemium: in the Nicocles they begin at 48, accompanied by shorter and simpler sentences a s in the Ad Nicoclem. periods throughout the Nicocles i s short compared with all Isocrates’ other epideictic discourses except the Busiris.

The average length of periods in the two works i s almost identical, and both contain But the resemblances end there.

A much more inter-

Amplification in the form of pairs or larger

Since Isocrates e l se-

A comparison between the Nicocles

To return to the question of characterization in the Nicocles, i t s somewhat

But

The imperatives make their appearance in the Ad Nico-

But the average length of the

‘The Ad Demonicum presents an altogether isolated set of figures: very short periods,

52

extremely low amplification, very high ~ k v . . .6k antithesis, homoeoteleuton, parison and other Gorgianic figures, and extraordinarily high internal ydrp. &Ah& and hypostasis, the two most characteristically Isocratean devices, are close to the average for the corpus, so that any attempts to prove the work spurious must labour under a severe initial handicap. Nicoclem, and stylistically carries a few stages further the scheme of imperatives followed by explanatory clauses adopted in that letter. Nicoclem is very much stronger in the Ad Demonicum, and all the features of that style are more pronounced: asyndetic brevity, imperatives followed by yap c lauses , a taste for assonance and other forms of wordplay,84 and for abstraction (14 articular infinitives, many feminine abstract nouns and neuter adjectives used substantivally), with frequent ell ipsis of finite verbs. One passage of the letter provides a possible explanation of the adoption of this aphoristic style. In 5 he describes the letter a s a napaiwtui5 rather than a ITapdrKAquiS. Now in lsocrates napdrKhquiS i s a challenge or other strong form of exhor- tation addressed to a person or specific g r0up .~5 only in Ad Demonicum 5 , but the verb napaiwE'w has a weaker and more general hortatory significance, and i s sometimes used intransitively.86 of the two letters may be explained by reference to these two words. that the Ad Nicoclem was conceived a s a personal letter offering specific advice to a monarch regarding his kingly duties, whereas the Ad Demonicum was intended for a wider public. of the advice offered in the discourse confirms this: scarcely any touches upon aspects of morality and character that seem to be peculiarly applicable to a ruler.87 It is in fact an anthology of apophthegms written in the time-honoured gnomic style of the early moral thinkers, many of whose sentiments it faithfully reproduces. a wider public than i t s name suggests, and i s perhaps laying a tacit claim for consideration a s the Eighth Wise Man !

But the figures for 06,. . .

Moreover, it contains much material in common with the Ad

But the gnomic influence seen in the Ad

The word n a p a i v m s occurs in Isocrates

The difference between the styles

An examination

In it Isocrates is addressing

As if the Ad Demonicum had not sufficiently demonstrated Isocrates' versatility, the next discourse, the Plataicus, was occasioned by a specific political event, the capture of Plataea by the Thebans in 373 B.C. It i s an imaginary appeal addressed by a Plataean spokesman to the Athenian assembly for aid against the Thebans. The subject is not one which follows any of the main lines of Isocratean thought,88 and does not appear to invite an epideictic treatment along the lines of the Panegyricus. that a degree of urgency should be injected into a speech on such a subject, and Isocrates has made certain concessions to this requirement. Thus, although none of the typically Isocratean features i s present to a high degree, and indeed the figures for correspondence and amplification are noticeably low, it has the highest figures for rhetorical question in the corpus, and more than the average amount of hyperbaton, both of which in their differ- ent ways contribute to the emphatic presentation of the arguments. The injection of this extra degree of forcefulness i s to be related to the almost exclusive concentration in the argument upon the theme of justice, that of expediency, which figures so largely in the deliberative speeches of Thucydides, receiving much less attention (33-44, 58-9). features in the introduction (the special form of antithesis t i p i v . . . ) E ~ E L ~ T ) 6~ in 3 , the h o p i a in 5 , the appeal for &oLa in 6), in the epilogue (the uuyKE~ahaiwuiS (56-62) and the final brief appeal), and i n the central &y&v (in particular the use of anticipation, npoKaT6hqviS (8, 11, 26) serve to underline the practical and direct nature of the appeal, and a l so i ts urgency. But the absence of narrative is a feature normally associated with epideictic oratory, and the length and clausal construction of the periods are near to the average in a corpus which comprises mainly works of an epideictic character.

Nevertheless realism demanded

Forensic

The historical importance of the Euagoras a s the first extant biographical monograph89

53

is of secondary interest when the work is considered in relation to Isocrates’ other discourses. As an encomium of a dead person it has affinities with the genre of the epitaphios; but since no example of that genre is to be found among the works of ISO- crates we are drawn for purposes of stylistic comparison to the Helen, which also has much subject-matter in common with it. The average length of their periods i s almost exactly equal, a s are their figures O ~ K . . . trAAh, homoeoteleuton, parison and other Gorgianic figures. and 250% more correspondence. This means that its periods contain more internal balance, and, more significantly for the comparison of the character of the two works, the instruments of ai;{qaiS in an altogether greater measure. a further stage in development from the Helen through the Panegyricus, arising not only naturally in the course of time but a l so under the stimulus of a real historical subject. This last observation should be qualified, however, by the fact that there is little actual narrative in the Euagoras: on one occasion he refuses an opportunity to finish a detailed n a r r a t i ~ e , ~ ’ and several similar opportunities are missed. The author’s stated purpose, “ to eulogize in prose the virtues of a man” (CxvGpb~ E ~ P E T ~ V 6ih hbyov ~ ~ K W ~ I & ( E I V ) , ~ ~

indicates the limit he imposed on his subject-matter. The passage92 in which he defines the stylistic limits imposed upon prose writers by their medium is of historical importance a s a piece of literary criticism, but i s a little misleading in the context of the Euagoras, which is rich in the devices of balance, parallelism and assonance with which prose, in the hands of a literary artist, might compensate for i ts lack of rhythm and regular metre and rival poetry in i t s emotional and aesthetic appeal. the distinctions between verse and prose which he lays down: in particular, the Euagoras contains fewer rare or unusual words than the Helen and several other discourses, and few examples of rhythmic clausulae.

But the Euagoras has 50% more amplification, 42% more hypostasis,

It is impossible not to s e e in the Euagoras

Nevertheless Isocrates observes

The Archidamus i s a hortatory discourse93 in which the young Spartan king is portrayed a s urging h is fellow-countrymen to endure present hardships and continue the war against Thebes after Leuctra and the four subsequent years of pain and humiliation. It may thus be expected to differ in spirit from the two other discourses which Isocrates wrote for non-Athenians, the forensic-symbouleutic Plataicus and the protreptic Nicocles. Some contrast might be expected, and reflected in the style, between an anonymous, if importu- nate embassy and an ex-pupil of I ~ o c r a t e s ~ ~ on the one hand, and a young, rhetorically untrained but vigorous and determined Spartan king addressing an audience of h i s tradi- tionally uncultured subjects at a time of national emergency. The most interesting figures are the high figure for hyperbaton (the second highest in the corpus, excluding the short letters) and the well below average figures for homoeoteleuton, parison and other Gorgianic figures. chapters, where there are also many emphatic phrases and expressions ( ~ i K a i T T E ~ ~ TGV aAAov . . . T T E ~ ~ Y E TOG I T O ~ E ~ E T V , 6hhw~ TE K a i 64 (3), pq6i n ~ p i ivbs (5, 761, o&v ~ T L oh, TOTS pj hiau &vdtv6pw~ G i a K E i p k v o i S (7 ) , ’ka-rai Y E Y E V T ~ ~ ~ V O V (lo), bpohoyo6p~v6v ’EUTI (14). These introductory chapters (1-151, in which Archidamus is portrayed as a man of action rather than words (6, 19, who admits his youthful inexperience but is confident that h i s natural ability qualifies him a s a counsellor in matters of state (3-5), contain some of Isocrates’ most lively and accomplished oratory. Thereafter the speech se t t les down to a more typically Isocratean style, but with one important qualification: that although the average length of periods is slightly high, there are comparatively few really long periods such a s are found in the Panegyricus and the Euagoras. the low figures for homoeoteleuton, parison, other Gorgianic figures, and a l so for ampli- fication, assumes added significance in conjunction with Archidamus’ statement (24) that the occasion i s not suitable for elaborate oratory on mythical subjects. Here a s

Further investigation of the first reveals a high concentration in the earlier

This , combined with

54

in the Euagoras narrative i s kept to a minimum. The historical examples (42-6) are briefly given, though in the elegant style which Isocrates perfected for summarizing events; and the main part of the argument concerns the likelihood (E’IKOS) that a f i rm stand by Sparta would attract all ies and strengthen her power to carry on the struggle. Bold expressions continue to catch the eye, though less frequently than in the intro- duction, and the discourse culminates in an impressive I T ~ O ~ ~ I T O I T O ~ ’ ~ ~ ? ~ and concludes with the proud kingly boast that Sparta has never suffered defeat when a member of the speaker’s house has commanded her army. than in any other discourse to adapt his style to the persona of the speaker and the circumstances of the speech.

Isocrates goes further in the Archidarnus

In the discourse De Pace Isocrates returns to Athenian affairs, but disillusionment 96 has by now replaced the optimism of the Panegyricus.

and the tone is more censorious, but the material of censure i s carried not by the vig- orous devices found in the Archidamus but by means of the more retarding devices of amplification and hypostasis. The periods are longer than those of the Archidamus; there i s more antithesis and correspondence, but homoeoteleuton i s still low. Some of the periods are very long, and in several passages one has the impression, not easily verified by statist ical means, of large numbers of long words deliberately crowded together (e.g. 25-26, 42-47, 82-90, 103-110). This and the other features of the speech are to be related to i ts subject-matter. Its positive recommendations are simple and easily stated: that Athens should accept the offer of peace presented by her former all ies, now her opponents in the Social War, Chios, Rhodes, Byzantium and Cos, and should henceforth abandon all imperial ambitions, and her maritime hegemony. The res t of the speech is concerned mainly with the moral advantages enjoyed by s ta tes which pursue a policy of peace (16-24), and, a t considerably greater length (63-131), the dangers, both physical and moral, of empire. Thus almost half the speech is an elaborate G ~ i v w a i ~ , the key to which is a theme which occurs several times in different forms - that popular politicians are unreliable because their aim is to please rather than benefit the people97 - because it i s this that has caused Isocrates to dwell at such length on the disadvantages of the policies with which such demagogues have traditionally been associated. But Isocrates does not let the demagogues take all the blame in a state where the people themselves exercise sovereign power. He therefore sees his task a s one of mass re-education, and probably for this reason uses a s his main instruments not aca- demic arguments but historical examples. Of these that of Spartan imperialism after the Peloponnesian War is described in the most remarkable passage in the speech (95-1051, which contains examples of asyndeton, parison, paronomasia and rhetorical questions, and some elaborate periods. The paradox of the prosperity of the Megarians, who “farm rocks”?’ i s effective rhetoric, as i s the argument that a bad man can anticipate punishment by dying, whereas a state, being immortal, cannot avoid paying for i ts crimes in the end.99 the postponement of positive recommendations until almost the end (133) does nothing to alter the general impression of an inflated style which does not achieve the power and direct impact of the Archidarnus. crates refers to advancing old age loo may not be without significance.

It i s pitched in a lower key,

But

The fact that it is the first speech in which Iso-

The Areopagiticus, however, is another matter altogether: in it the old orator has recovered some of h i s vigour and optimism, stimulated by the scope in his subject for positive recommendations, and a l so by the same Athenian patriotism which prompted him, in the De Pace, to reserve his strongest passage of G E ~ ~ O O I S for Spartan rather than Athenian misdeeds. His subject i s a plea for a return to the constitution and the ideals

55

of the old democracy. for hyperbaton, correspondence, amplification and hyperbaton point to the grand style, though a more elaborate form of it than the aphoristic kind favoured by Thucydides and his poetic and gnomic predecessors. Passages in this Isocratean version of the grand style are to be found in 4-6, 11-15, 20, 24-25, 29-35, 40-42 and 55 of the Areopagiticus. When it i s further considered that most of the discourse is narrative in form, the s k i l l and originality of this style becomes the more remarkable. taste for abstraction, reflected not only in the number of articular infinitives (18) but a l so in the frequency of abstract nouns. of the structurally simplest passages contain the most memorably expressed thought:

Shorter periods than in the De Pace , accompanied by higher figures

There is a considerable

The length of periods varies greatly, and some

This passage illustrates the effectiveness of the juxtaposition of the two s ty les , the first three sentences containing the essence of the thought, expressed simply yet allegorically, with an element of personification. Stylistically it is not the brief, obscure, 'Heraclitean' yvwpq, since it contains hypostasis, homoeoteleuton and ampli- fication. Nevertheless it contrasts strongly with the period that follows and describes in detail how the axiom enunciated above has been ignored or abused. describing the prestige and authority of the old Areopagus (3349) illustrates Isocrates' use of an intermediate periodic style in which excessive complication is avoided, and yet full use i s made of the possibilities for antithesis inherent in the subject. Since the purpose in the passage is to pass fairly quickly from one aspect of the subject to the next, these periods do not have notably rhythmic clausulae. They mark an impor- tant stage in the development of the Isocratean narrative period.

The passage

The Anttdosrs is Isocrates' second longest discourse, and his most important after the Panegyricus. It purports to be a reply to charges made against him in a lawsuit in which his prosecutor, one Megacleides, attacked his nai6Eia and h is whole life's work. It contains several references to the stylist ic dilemma caused by the circumstances of the discourse and his decision to write it in the form of a defendant's speech a s it might be delivered in a court of law.lol To what extent should these self-imposed mock- practical demands be allowed to dictate the artistic content of the style? He says that his purpose i s not to arouse emotion, for this has caused previous Athenian juries to pass judgments which they have subsequently regretted;lo2 nor again does he wish to display G E I V ~ T ~ S . ~ ~ ~ which he writes is far removed from that of forensic oratory, and asks to be allowed a certain latitude,lo4 since a man should be allowed to speak with feeling and eloquence in his own defence. These remarks suggest a style which falls short of extremes in respect of both epideictic ornamentation and forensic vehemence; but the statist ics

Yet he a l so shows himself aware of the fact that the style in

56

contain some surprises. Although the average length of periods is high, the figures for anti thesis, homoeoteleuton, parison and other Gorgianic figures i s low, giving an overall sub-average incidence of the clausal figures of epideictic style within a larger4han- average sentence-unit. The relatively high figure for amplification explains this apparent anomaly to some extent, but cannot be adduced a s the sole cause, since the corresponding figure for the Areopagiticus i s higher, but its periods shorter. the periodic structure of the Antidosis, though one of the most complex in the corpus, relies less than other discourses for the length of i ts periods upon parallelism, and there- fore more upon variety. matter throughout, but especially in the part which has been statistically examined (180-end). Historical passages like 232-239 play an important part in promoting this variety, and are intermediate in complexity between those containing discussions of the speculations of others (253-269) and exposition of his own beliefs and aims, the latter containing the most elaborate style in the discourse (270-end). section (1-179) gives an impression of a shorter average length of periods than that of the latter section, probably because the illusion of personal address to a jury i s more strongly maintained. frequent in the earlier than in the later chapters, while the earlier section cannot compete with the 21 examples of the articular infinitive found in these same chapters. Both these differences reflect the contrast between the mainly practical preoccupation of the first section and the theoretical and philosophical content of the second. But the fact that the figures in the second half, for the unusual style of which the orator apologizes in advance in 179, are lower for parallelism (other than correspondence) than the average for the corpus, suggests a degree of care on Isocrates’ part to keep the epideictic ele- ments of his style under strict control in a speech which he wanted to be read a s an earnest and forceful defence of his life and his work.

It must be concluded that

This quality is a l so found in the skilful arrangement of subject-

A less detailed examination of the first

Rhetorical questions, frequent throughout the discourse, are perhaps more

The Philippus, like the Ad Nicoclern, i s a letter to an individual monarch, and, like the Panegyricus, is concerned with weighty political issues. an epideictic tour-de-force after the manner of the latter or a polished piece of middle- style oratory like the former i s discouraged by certain statements in the Philippus. In 93-4 he says that since he is writing a deliberative, not an epideictic work, he would be foolish to spend more time upon the style than upon the subject-matter. Before this (24-5) the conventional topics of deliberative oratory are adopted in the plan of the dis- course. of style, in which he says that any work of literature that has to be read privately, without the benefit of a speaker’s voice and personality, is likely to be less persuasive than one which i s declaimed publicly on a particular occasion. He adds that the present letter stands to suffer even more because it has not been invested with the rhythmic flow and variety of colouring which he used in his earlier discourse, but is characterized by simple exposition, which he finds more congenial to his old age.lo5 remarkable figures for the Panathenaicus, which we shall examine next, the last reason should not be taken seriously; but the personal and deliberative factors may be taken at their face value, and regarded a s decisive. or thought he avoided, the extreme forms of epideictic display in this letter because it was a personal document addressed to an individual, designed to persuade him by reasoned argument along the well-tried conventional lines of possibility, justice and expediency, the latter being skilfully adapted in order to find favour with an individual ruler by the introduction of the motive of personal glory, and that of justice being similarly adapted by the introduction of examples of earlier kingly conquerors in Asia, Jason of Pheraelo6 and Philip’s ancestor H e r a ~ 1 e s . l ’ ~

But any expectation of

This last passage is followed by one of Isocrates’ most interesting discussions

In view of the

I t i s to be assumed that Isocrates avoided,

A comparison of the style of the Philippus with

57

those of the Panegyricus and the Ad Nicoclern reveals that it contains much l e s s antithesis, figures of assonance and internal ylxp than either, but is close to the Ad Nicoclern and remote from the Panegyricus in hypostasis, amplification and hyperbaton. The low figure for amplification is of especial interest, since it breaks a trend towards higher amplifica- tion in the later discourses, and a l so does not appear to have affected the length of the periods, which i s above average. claim if by dpuep ia and n o i d i a he means the use of the figures of anti thesis and a s so - nance (itself an interesting question), since the Philippus, like most of Isocrates’ later works, contains a lower proportion of these than most of the earlier discourses. But it i s genre rather than any chronological trend that must be adduced to explain the closer proximity of the Philippus to the Ad Nicoclern than to the Panegyricus in respect of hypo- s tas i s , amplification and hyperbaton, which are primarily figures of & ) I V W U I S , aGSqaiS and emphasis. A comparison between the passage discussing the implications of the Cyreian Expedition in the Panegyricus (145-9) and the corresponding passage in the Philippus (90-92) underlines the differences of both ethos and style between the two discourses. The Panegyricus passage is twice a s long a s i t s counterpart, and outlines the plight of the Ten Thousand at greater length. In the Philippus, however, greater attention is given to the indiscretion of Cyrus in order to prepare for the implied argument that an army under a more self-disciplined leader could not fail to conquer the King. passage is full of exaggerations (e.g. the statements that “all the people of Asia” joined forces against “s ix thousand Greeks”, and that Tissaphernes plotted against them “through- out their entire journey”) and colourful expressions. i s made of the treacherous murder of the generals in the Philippus than in the Panegyricus, in spite of verbal similarities. the personality of an individual, this time that of the Persian king. the Philippus i s that of possibility, and the case i s being presented to a shrewd, realist ic and experienced strategist, a fact which the civilian orator realises (105). scope on the side of broad political and cultural issues for protreptic rhetoric, and Iso- crates devotes much of the latter part of the discourse to this, but only after he has stated the practical side of his ca se in a style that contains fewer epideictic features than his earlier discourses on similar subjects.

The comparison thus confirms to some extent Isocrates’

The Panegyricus

On the other hand, slightly more

The purpose once more seems to be to draw attention to The main topic of

But there i s

The Panathenaicus is Isocrates’ last and second longest discourse, and was composed between his 94th and 97th year in the years 342 and 339, apparently in two parts separated by a period of i l lness.lo8 Intended a s his final tribute to the greatness of his native city, and containing much material in common with the Panegyricus, it i s an encomium rather than a protreptic discourse, and differs further from that masterpiece in being an intensely personal document in which Isocrates replies to certain recent intemperate criticisms of his work and his ideas. severely from the inclusion of personal reminiscence (7-111, slow-moving polemic (16-25) and general padding. The (polemical spirit extends beyond national boundaries: criticism of Sparta comes earlier (47) and more prominently than in the Panegyricus (122), albeit under cover of an outrageous napdrhEIylS (62).’09 After this the train of thought becomes very tenuous: Athens destroyed only small island communities, Sparta some of the finest cit ies of the Peloponnese, including Argos, whose ancient king Agamemnon was the leader of the Panhellenic host which. . . The only reasonable explanation of this digression, with which the orator himself i s a little embarrassed (84-51, is that he i s using this, his last discourse, a s a vehicle of purely epideictic rhetoric’” in addition to i t s avowed purpose, in order to leave to posterity a final example of his art. sions of uncertainty a s to how he should proceed,’ l1 though a useful rhetorical device to gain sympathy when linked to the commonplace of inexperience in the introduction of

The structure of the early chapters (1-40) suffers

But the several expres-

58

a forensic speech, do not inspire admiration when they come from a rhetorician of ripe years. on Theseus, which owes something to the Helen.112 150) i s derived mainly from that in the Areopagiticus, the chief difference being that con- trasts between Athens and Sparta are here more sharply drawn. G~ivwaiS (182-190) i s followed by a remarkable episode which takes the form of a dialogue (Isocrates’ only excursion into that genre) between himself and a pupil who has lived under the Spartan constitution and admired it. The pupil holds the stage for some time (235-263), and i s even allowed to suggest that Isocrates has sometimes carried h i s criticisms of Sparta to unreasonable lengths (249). Isocrates, his life’s work and his teaching. present, including Isocrates himself. limps to a timely conclusion. aicus falls below Isocrates’ best standard: the former is a t times flabby, repetitive and inconsequential, and the latter was well described by Jebb113 when he said that the Pan- athenaicus “contains little that is not said better in the Panegyricus” (though he might fairly have added “ . . . and in the Areopagiticus, the De Pace, the Helen and the Anti- dosis”). to posterity a fresh and memorable testament of his beliefs and his view of the world, the speech has i ts moments of vigour, and sometimes even of strongly expressed emotion. 30-32 i s a particularly good example of well-rounded and well-organized thought expressed in colourful and carefully chosen language and written in a happy blend of the grand and the middle style. Many other passages in the speech promise well, but are all too often spoiled by the intrusion of a didactic tone and a laboured verbosity, of which the orator is himself apparently conscious, and which suggests a new and unfortunate interpretation of Milton’s description of Isocrates at the end of his life.”4 This verbosity is the main stylistic idiosyncrasy of the discourse that emerges from the statist ics, and is seen most spectacularly in the figure for amplification, which far exceeds that of any of the other longer works, and may be chiefly responsible for the fact that the periods are a l so longer than any in the corpus. It is of further interest to examine the figures for antithesis, parallelism and assonance in the light of his statement about the style of this discourse, mentioned earlier!15 The figures for homoeoteleuton and parison are below average for the corpus, and very much lower than those for the Panegyricus, the discourse to which Isocrates seems to be referring in Panath. 2. pondence the Panathenaicus i s close to the Panegyricus. There is substantially more hyperbaton in the Panathenaicus than elsewhere in the corpus outside the short letters, but it falls below the average for rhetorical questions. These figures add considerably to the critical profile of the discourse. greatest average length of periods in the corpus through a combination of clausal com- plexity and amplification, though the part played by the latter must be significant in order to affect the length of the periods. adumbrated in the Philippus, has always been an exaggeration, and applies more positively to the Antidosis. Nevertheless, it is relatively true in the case of the Panathenaicus, a fac t which gains force when it is remembered that the subject of the discourse i s the most important in the orator’s view. Ornament is replaced by emphasis, as the higher figure for hyperbaton shows. The Panathenaicus was composed with great care and under circumstances of peculiar difficulty. divested of i ts polemical egotism, but nevertheless contains some memorable and spirited writing which belies the hand of a ninety-seven-year-old.

Nor does the resumption of the attack on Sparta (91-118) or the following digression The constitutional discussion (131-

A passage of sustained

But he finishes with a highly laudatory tribute to

The argument i s left unresolved, and the discourse Predictably, he i s applauded by all those

Thus in respect of both structure and thought the Panathen-

Yet although old age and infirmity has deprived him of this las t chance to leave

But in its figures for antithesis and corres-

It is clear that the Panathenaicus has the

His avowed abandonment of ornamental figures, already

It might profitably have been halved in length and

Discussion ‘of the nine short Letters wi l l be brief because they are all too short to

59

yield very significant statist ics. period epideictic prooemium in a style resembling that of the Euagoras except for amplifi- cation. colourful phrase found nowhere e l se in Isocrates: common with the Letter to Jason's Sons, it has a high proportion of hyperbaton, but the latter contains no parison, and has shorter periods. the longest of the nine, but is incomplete. parison and a low amount of hyperbaton and of O ~ K . . . &Ah&. ornamentation continues in the Letter to the Rulers of Mytilene, but is strongly reversed in the Letter to Timotheus (not his Athenian pupil, but the son of another pupil, Clearchus). In the First Letter to Philip, the longest of the nine, ornamental figures remain high. The sentences are shorter than average, the tone is didactic and at times censorious, and there are a number of abstract expressions, articular infinitives and colourful words, and some aphoristic expressions. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that the style i s Thucydidean, it would not be too fanciful to imagine that Isocrates had recently been reading the historian when he composed this letter. Some Gorgianic features have been introduced by the nonagenarian ~ ( T W P into his shortest work, the Letter to Alexander. perhaps to impress the young prince. but the pun ~ ~ ( T O T I O V - T ~ T I O V in 1 i s , I think, unique in Isocrates. and amplificatory in style. rhetorical features, including a formal antithesis of the type favoured by Hermogenes.l17 It a l so contains six articular infinitives, some solitary occurrences118 and the longest periods on average in the letters. It i s an eloquent introductory letter for his pupil Dio- dotus, with some of the most elaborate periods in the corpus, one of Isocrates' rare similes,' l9 and some apparent attempts a t alliteration.l*' concludes with a sentence which seems to refute the romantic story that Isocrates committed suicide, like an Athenian Cato Uticensis, after the Battle of Chaeronea. letter 's forward-looking optimism i s noteworthy, a s i s the vigour of the style, which shows no signs of diminishing powers.

The fragmentary Letter to Dionysius i s a typical middle-

It contains much antithesis, correspondence, parison and homoeoteleuton and a kuPptek a'ipopai np6ypa. '16 I n

The Letter to Archidamus was perhaps It i s a protreptic address, yet contains no

This trend towards l e s s

Parallels with the 9th-assonance in 2 are plentiful, The letter i s periodic

The Letter to Antipater also contains a full proportion of

The Second Letter to Philip, his last work,

Indeed, the

CONCLUSION

The factual statements which the statist ics have rendered possible have an independent interest and validity, for the light they throw upon each of the works individually and upon their relation to the corpus a s a whole. A summary of trends is all that remains to be made. Since the structure of the Isocratean period depends to a large extent upon the pairing of contrasted or parallel clauses, the figures for antithesis are the most stable, though O ~ K . . . &:Ah& and hypostasis show a certain tendency to decrease with time, a s do homoeoteleuton, parison and other Gorgianic figures. length of periods tends to increase, as does amplification and correspondence. relation between these last three phenomena underlies one of the main characteristics of the Isocratean period, and the fact that they tend to increase marks them a s idiosyn- cratic qualities in the orator. Thus in the course of his development the main difference between Isocrates and his predecessors, the massive and complex yet unified structure of his periods, was enhanced both by the lengthening of individual clauses through ampli- fication of words, and also, though to a lesser extent, by the use of two or more parallel c lauses instead of one to express a single idea. This development, however, is a matter of degree which only a detailed examination reveals. until he had reached a mature age, and most of his extant writings were composed after he had reached his sixtieth year.

On the other hand the average The

Isocrates did not publish anything

Hence i t i s not surprising to find that most of his

60

characteristics have appeared by the time of the Euagoras, with the Ad Dernonicurn providing the only deviation from a predominantly periodic style. Subsequently the only novelty comes with the hostile tone and the personal reminiscence of the Panathenaicus, and a l so i ts half-hearted attempts a t simulating a dialogue form. Differences between individual works are nevertheless considerable, and can sometimes be related to statements which they contain or to circumstances of their composition. As to relation between style and content, it is satisfying in view of the commonly voiced criticism of Isocrates121 that he wrote a lot about a little, to observe that his finest stylistic performances are to be found in those discourses whose subject-matter interested him most, the Panegyricus, the Archi- darnus, the Areopagiticus and the Philippus. The idea of employing an ample, expansive style subsequently found more appeal among Romans than Greeks: Demosthenes chose to follow altogether different lines suited to his peculiar genius, and none of Isocrates’ pupils was able to rediscover his master’s elegance, clarity and comprehensive grasp of complex structure. stylist ic principles through further stages in accordance with their own individual artistic powers and the characteristics of the Latin 1 a n g ~ a g e . l ~ ~ Subsequently the influence of Isocrates, as the first author to convert the concept of VaKpohoyia into a technique which combined hypotaxis and parataxis with amplification of individual elements t.: form long yet unified sentences, is to be seen in all prose authors who wrote in a complex periodic sty ~ e . 125

But Cicero122 and Livy123 pre-eminently among the Romans, carried his

Royal Holloway College, University of London

N O T E S

1 E.g. Antid. 5, 87, 934 , 219; Ep. ad Antipatrum 2

2 Dion. Hal. De Isoc. 1; (Plut.) Vita Isoc. 8378-E; (Zosimus) Vita Isoc. in Scholia in Aeschinem et Isocratem, ed . Dindorf (1852) p. 104. Beredsamkeit ii 52-63; R. C . Jebb, The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus ii 12-14; W . Jaeger , Paideia i i i 46-70; H. L1. Hudson-Williams, “A Greek Humanist” in G&R 9 (1940) 166-172; E. Mikkola, Isokrates: seine Anschauungen im Lichte seiner Schriften (1954).

Modern d iscuss ions include F. B las s , Die attische

3 Soph. 1-13.

4 See Alcidamas De Sophistis and the d iscuss ion of the work by H. L1. Hudson-Williams, “Poli- t ical Speeches in Athens” in CQ 1 (1951) 70-71.

5 Panath. 25. See B las s , op. cit. ii 64-68. There is no direct evidence of hostility between P la to and Isocrates. P l a to Phaedrus (Cambridge 1952), pp. 162-3, 167-8.

See Jebb, op. cit. i i 53 and Hackforth’s translation and commentary on

6 See R . Johnson, “Isocrates’ methods of teaching” in A J P 80 (1959) 25 ff.

7 For the pupils of Isocrates s e e B las s , op. c i t . ii 17-21.

8 Soph. 10, 14-15. Of the two q6uis i s the more important (Antid. 1891, but both it and & m i p \ a are needed to achieve the highest excellence (Antid. 191).

9 Soph. 16-18.

61

10 Paneg. 4 .

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Antid. 86, 255-6; Nic . 7 .

Antid. 277

Paneg. 9 .

Paneg. 10-14; ad Nic . 41.

These are now most readily accessible in L. Radermacher, Artium Scriptores (Vienna 1951) 157.

For the most recent discussion of the question see K. Barwick, "Das Problem der isokrateischen Techne" in Philologus 107 (1963) 42-60. Barwick draws attention to the difficulty posed b j the confusion of the words d x v q (ars ) and TE'XVUI (ar tes ) in the sources, all of which are late. He points out that the plural often (though not always) means 'rhetorical exercises', and could therefore refer to the discourses; and that references to a T & V ~ might have arisen out of a mistaken substitution of the singular for the plural form. This argument receives some confir- mation from the fact that many of the injunctions which have been regarded by the sources a s quotations from an Isocratean T E ' X V ~ can be traced directly to the extant discourses. Barwick considers, on the other hand, that the strength of the tradition and the number of references to an Isocratean T ~ X V ~ , including one to a T E ' X V ~ ; ~ T O ~ I K < ~ ((Zosimus) V i t a Isoc. in Dindorf's edition of Scholia Graeca in Aeschinem et Isocratem, p. 105; see a l so Radermacher, op. cit. 155, no. 11) should rule out its total rejection. But his arguments for an early T E ' X V ~ by Iso- crates are far from convincing. His ascription of the famous definition of rhetoric a s mieoSS Gqpioupy6~ to Isocrates on the strength of a statement of Quintilian (ii. 14.4) i s not acceptable (see Dodds on Plato Gorgias 453a2, who points out that the personification is typically Platonic). He might have supported his case more strongly by indicating that several of the references to specific items in the alleged TE'XV~ pertain to forensic usage (e.g. Radermacher, op. c i t . 161, nos. 30-331, and might therefore support a date for the T E ' X V ~ near the time of the composition of his forensic speeches (i.e. before his earliest epideictic discourses). Against this, however, must be weighed the fact that the fragments of the alleged T E ' X V ~ include an injunction to avoid hiatus, but hiatus occurs in the forensic speeches. T E ' X V ~ after the establishment of his school is supported by the following further arguments:

(1) Isocrates' own declaration (Soph. 19) that he disliked the formulation of cut-and-dried

The case against the publication of a

rules of rhetorical composition.

(2) That his teaching methods were adapted to the needs of small c lasses and were based on practical composition and imitation of models rather than piecemeal rote learning of rules. (See Johnson, op. c i t . )

(3) The probability that, a s a teacher of fee-paying pupils, he jealously guarded his pro- fessional secrets, thus obliging those who wished to benefit from his teaching to attend his c lasses . This would not, however, prevent their filtering outside his scholastic circle via the pupils them- selves.

(See the story of Demosthenes and Isocrates in (Plut.) Vita Isoc. 837D-E.)

(See Radermacher, op. c i t . vii-viii)

The present discussion is concerned purely with matters of style. For the examination of Isocrates' views on the general relationship between literary art and philosophy, see H. Wersdoerfer, Die cpihouo+ia d e s Isokrates im Spiegel ihrer Terminologie (Leipzig 19401, and articles by S . Wilcox in TAPA 74 (1943) 113-133, AJP 64 (1943) 427-431, 66 (1945) 171-176, HSCP 53 (1942) 121-155.

1-2.

Euag. 9-10; Paneg. 9.

Soph. 16.

Antid. 47.

Phil. 27 (cf. Soph. 16, Euag. 10).

6 2

23 Ar. Rhet . iii 8.1; Dion.Ha1. CV 11; Cic. Orat . 65.220; Quint. ix.4.56.

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Op. c i t . ii 150-158.

Dion.Ha1. De Isoc. 2; De Demos. 4, 18; CV 23.

E.g. Anl id . 11; Panath. 33.

See a l so note 64, for two of the forms which PaKpohoyia might take..

Ar. Rhet . i 9.38.

Plato Gorgias 449b-c; Phaedrus 267a.

Paneg. 8 . Note similar wording to Phaedrus 267a, suggesting a common source

See note 28.

Dion. Hal. De Demos . 19.

Panath. 2.

See T. B. L. Webster, “A Study of Greek Sentence Construction” in A J P 62 (1941) 385-415.

Actual evidence that Thrasymachus invented the rhetorical period i s sl ight. Grube, “Thrasymachus, Theophrastus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus” in A J P 73 (1952) 251- 267. The evidence regarding prose rhythm is scarcely l e s s suspect. seems, a t the very least , to imply that neither Thrasymachus nor his immediate followers for- mulated any definite theories of prose rhythm.

See G. M. A.

Aristotle in Rhet . iii 8.4

Ar. Rhet . iii 9.2-3; Demetrius On Sty le 11.

Ar. loc. cit.; Hermogenes m p i E ~ ~ ~ T E W S 6 3 (Sp. i i 240).

Ar. Rhet . iii 9.1; Dion.Ha1. De Demos . 50.

See the T & V ~ discussed in note 16, in the text of Isocrates by Blass (Teubner): 6hws 6; 6 A6yo~ p i A6yo5 ’ ~ T w ’ Sqpbv y&p’ ~ q 6 ; PET^^' Kn-racpadS y&p. Cf. Ar. Rhet . iii 8.3; Dion. Hal. CV 25.

Demetrius On Sty le 1.

Under whose name they came to be known. The Gorgianic figures include parison (parallel c lauses of approximately equal length and with corresponding parts); parornoion (rhyme a t corresponding points in parallel clauses); and paronomasia (various forms of word-play and punning assonance). for obvious historical reasons by classified as Gorgianic.

A n t i t h e s i s , although used in conjunction with the above figures, cannot

Aristotle Rhet . iii 9.5 seems to imply that the number of cola in a period should not exceed two, but his introduction of anti thesis into the discussion and the examples he gives suggest that he has four cola in mind, like Demetrius (161, Hermogenes Iloc. cir.) and Alexander (Sp. iii 28). Quintilian’s divergence from this view (ix.4.124-5) i s of special interest: his opinion that the period might contain a larger number of cola is surely the result of observing Ciceronian usage, which was in turn influenced by Isocrates.

Phil . 81; Panath. 9, 10; E p . ad Myt. 7 .

(Plut.) Vita Isoc. 838D-E; R. Johnson, op. cit.; M. L. Clarke, Higher Education in the Ancient World (Routledge, London 19711, 29-30.

De I S O C . 2; pleasure in that critic’s statement that the Isocratean period i s ‘historical’ rather than ‘rhe- torical’, owing to i ts meandering character.

kvayv6uE65 TE pMhov oiueii)TEpq y X ~ ~ ~ U E W S . He would perhaps have taken l e s s

63

46 For discussion s e e p. 44.

47 See p.45.

48 See p. 45.

49 See note 6 2 .

50 See note 51

51 Two main types were distinguished by Hermogenes (nepi i 6 l w v a 11 Sp. ii 3251, the type in the above passage, which is a device of a b c q c r i s and ~E‘IVWUIS, and the type TOUOGTOV . ~ . dcrov, which is usually a device of parallelism.

52 Demos. 4 .

53 18. See H. LI. Hudson-Williams, op. c i t .

54 Dion.Hal. CV 22.

55 Plut. Demos. 4 .

56 See A. P. DorJahn in T A P A 78 (1947) 69-76, 81 (1950) 9-15, 83 (1952) 164-171; and Hudson- Williams, op. c i t . 73, who points out that Isocrates applies the methods normally used in extempore speaking. It may be further noted that in the Panegyricus he begins with a confi- dent prediction that he will be equal to his noble theme, but ends confessing that he has failed to do it justice; and in the Panathenatcus he several times gives the impression of not knowing where his speech is leading him. (See the discussion of that discourse, pp. 58-59).

57 (Plut.) Vita Demos. 845B.

58 See Dion. Hal. De Demos. 53-54.

59 This is a t least implied by his arguments in Soph. 12 ff.; while in Phii. 25-28 he expresses the fear that, having divested his style of the ornamentation which he has employed in earlier discourses in order to compensate for the absence of the personality and persuasive powers of a speaker, he may have left it weak and ineffective a s a style for private reading.

60 One difference between O ~ K . . .&Ah& (uxflpa KUT’ &pcriv K a i 6kcriv) and 06 p6vov. . .&Ah& K a i

(crxfipa &vaipkaew5) i s explained by Hermogenes in ?repi ’&wv a 11 (Sp. ii 328): the former is potentially complete in sense after the first part, since it i s possible to have an independent negative clause; whereas 06 p6vov must be followed by &Ah& K a i ,

pbvov. ~ .&Ah& K a i should be considered with other ‘signposting’ combinations like p l v . . .hi , T E . . . TE ( K a i ) , K a i . . . Kai .

been noticed more readily in the course of reading or delivery than this stylistic difference,

This suggests that 06

But the formal similarity with O ~ K I , .&Aha would probably have

61 Listed a s a form of antithesis by Zonaeus (Sp. i i i 169). A s with O ~ K . . . hhhdr, the first of the two clauses can stand on i ts own, hence its inclusion in this rather than the previous column. It is complementary to O ~ K . . . hhhh, in that the weight of importance falls upon the first instead of the second member.

62 Paronomasia is the generic word for the various types of word-play involving similar sounds, e.g. abpa, oijpa.

Parechesis is the recurrence of the same syllable in different words, e.g. T$ %$ T$V a’i-riav hvaO&ov.

Etymological Figure i s word-play involving words derived from the same root, e.g. h6you5 hiye I V .

63 See note 51

64

64 Two terms used by rhetoricians to describe exaggeration in a good (aG@pig)or bad (GE'IVWUIS)

sense , hence commonly of praise or censure.

65 Denniston, Greek Prose Style 5 0 thus defines certain forms of hyperbaton, but in a general s ense i t applies to a l l fo rms , s ince taking one word out of i ts natural order involves separating it from other words to which it is grammatically related.

66 E.g. Dion. Hal. De lsoc. 3 U6TO?$ T6TTOls T 6 V UXTlp&TOv T&S T r E p l 6 8 0 U ~ .

. . . s6 TE E i S ~r~p166ous k v a p p 6 T T E t v TrdrVTU T& V O j p U T U K a i T b TOIS

Cf. De Demos. 19, cv 19.

67 E.g. Croiset , HLG iv 507-8; Jebb, op. ci t . ii 62; Blass , op. cit. ii 209-210; G. Mathieu in his Introduction to the Bud6 lsocrates, xix.

6 8 Jebb, op. cit. ii 222. but it has none of the abruptness of that work.

Blass (op. c i t . i i 219-223) thinks that it i s an epitome, like (Lysias) xi,

69 Op. cit. i i 224-5

7 0 Schemes of suggestion and refutation.

71 It was composed in 391 or 390. See Blass ii 240; Jebb ii 127.

72 13 .

7 3 1 2 .

74 16-17.

75 21 .

76 E.g. &TEplUKhTTWS u), p E U E y y U O ~ V T U l (51, KUTOTOlK?AUl ( 1 6 ) , 'EKTUTrW8kVTaS (18), & V E T T l T l p ~ T O U ~

(191, & v a q w 6 p E v o i (19).

77 kllayyEhl.l&TWV (1, 10). 'EVaVTICbElS (71, &VO!JOl6Tr)TOS (12).

78 The Busiris is addressed, in a critical spiri t , t o the rhetorician Polycrates (1); the Helen was prompted by the composition of a work on the same subject by an unnamed author, perhaps Gorgias.

79 9 ; cf. 3 7 , Panath. 1 .

8 0 15 .

81 (Longinus) m ~ p i bvous 4 . 2 .

82 Antid. 67-69.

83 3 , 4 3 .

8 4 Figures of language were common in early literary prose, especially etymological figure, anaphora and the figures of assonance. Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias (Berlin 1969).

See D. Fehling, Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr

85 Euag. 7 8 ; Phil. 89, 92.

86 E.g. in Nic. 10 and ad N I C . 5 4 .

87 In fact only 17, perhaps 2 0 contain such advice.

88 Vide contra Blass , op . cit . ii 267-268

89 F . Leo, D i e griechisch-rbrnische Biographie (Leipzig 1901) 91-92; D. R . Stuart, Epochs of Greek and Roman Biography (Berkeley 1928) 77-118; A . S . Osley, "Greek Biography before Plutarch" in G&R 15 (1946) 7 .

65

90 31.

91 8.

92 9-11.

93 86.

94 Ant id . 40; Euag. 78.

95 110.

96 Vide contra Jebb, op. ci t . i i 193.

97 3, 5, 14, 129.

98 117.

99 120.

100 145.

101 E.g. 1, 8, 11.

102 20.

103 36; and particularly of the forensic kind, 42.

104 12-13, 55-56.

105 Cf. 85.

106 119.

107 109-112.

108 267-268.

109 Latin occultatio, praeteritio. The introduction of usually doubtful material under formulae of the type: “ I shall not mention the fact that. . . ”

110 See esp. the encomium of Agamemnon, 76-83.

111 7, 22, 74, 88, 176.

112 35-37.

113 0 p . c i t . ii 126.

114 “_ . .that old man eloquent” (10th Sonnet).

115 P. 41. See note 33.

116 9.

119 8.

120 1-2 (esp. in TT).

121 Recently with uncharacteristic immoderation by G. Kennedy, The A r t of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton 1963) 202-203.

66

122 The influence of Isocrates on Cicero is a perennial subject of controversy, recent discussion of i ts stylist ic aspects i s that of E. Laughton, “Cicero and the Greek Orators”, in A J P 82 (1961) 27-52. Ad A f t . ii. 1.1 in i ts proper perspective and indicating the limitations which Cicero saw in Isocrates’ s tyle , Laughton takes two passages from the Panegyricus, including the first ana- lysed in the present art icle, and contrasts them with three from Cicero. considerable differences may be related to Cicero’s strictures on Isocrates’ style. a l so singles out Cicero’s “ . . .habi t of obtaining greater fulness by using a pair of words t o express a single idea” (46). The later work of J . C. Davies (in his doctoral thesis , London 1965, and CQ 18 (1968) 142-9) has shown the full extent of the various forms of abundantia, (most of which correspond with those of amplification a s conceived in the present article) in Cicero and their effect on the Ciceronian period. progressively more prominent feature of Isocratean style has been shown in the s ta t is t ics , so that even if other affinities between the two s tyles are denied, this important point of resemb- lance at least remains. several respects Isocratean (e.g. Pro Archia 3 , which is analysed in my chapter on Oratory in Greek and Latin Literature: a Comparative Study, ed. J . Higginbotham (1969) 380-382).

The most valuable

After putting Cicero’s famous reference to Isocrates in

He shows that the But he

That amplification i s an important and

It i s , moreover, possible to find in Ciceroperiods which are in

123 On Livy’s periodicity s e e most recently A. H. McDonald, “The Style of Livy” in J R S 47 (1957) 164-165; P . G . Walsh, L i v y : h is Aims and h i s Methods (Cambridge 1963) 250-253.

124 In particular, the fact that Latin i s more asyndetic than Greek, and forms participial c lauses l e s s readily: both of which render periodic writing more difficult.

125 I wish to thank Professor J . F. Healy for his encouragement over a period of years during which this art icle was being prepared, and for reading it before the final draft and suggesting a number of improvements. points, on which I have acted.

I am grateful a l so to Mr J . H. Kells for raising a number of All remaining faults are mine alone.

67