Persians, Thracians, and Amazons: Isocrates on Athenian superiority and barbarian weakness (fourth century BCE)

Citation with stable link: Philip A. Harland, 'Persians, Thracians, and Amazons: Isocrates on Athenian superiority and barbarian weakness (fourth century BCE),' Ethnic Relations and Migration in the Ancient World, last modified March 26, 2024, https://philipharland.com/Blog/?p=17941.

Ancient author: Isocrates, Panegyric Speech 4.1, 21-99, 133-189; Address to Philip 5.124-155 (link)

Comments: Isocrates of Athens was a well-known speech-writer and educator in fourth century Athens. Both of the speeches excerpted below were aimed at galvanizing opposition to the encroaching Persians. In the first, Isocrates aims to unite the Greeks under Athenian control in order to counter the Persians (ca. 380 BCE), and in the second he calls on the Macedonian king Philip to lead the way (ca. 346 BCE).

The passages below from these two speeches illustrate at least two main things of relevance to Athenian self-understanding and Athenian Greek characterizations of Persians. First of all, Isocrates’ praising (epideictic) rhetoric for Athens in the first part of the first speech (given at a Panhellenic festival gathering in 380 BCE) seeks to establish the superiority of the Athenians not only in power but also in civilizational contributions, including the pursuit of wisdom and eloquence. Athenians are presented as the ultimate people who are deserving of hegemony in any united defence of the Greeks against the Persians. Second, in deliberative sections of both speeches Isocrates reveals many shared Greek assumptions regarding the supposed inherent inferiority of the Persians, including reference to their supposed servile, luxurious, arrogant, and impious behaviours and way of life. Isocrates also compares the Persians to earlier “barbarian” opponents of Athens, especially Scythians (along with Amazons) and Thracians. Both speeches underline Athenian superiority over Persians, but also over virtually all other peoples, including other Greeks.

The discussion of Athens’ supposed antiquity and contributions to the advancement of civilization can be compared to other similar claims not only by other Greek authors but also by some of the non-dominant peoples discussed under category one, including Bel-re’ushu on Babylonians and Manetho on Egyptians.

Works consulted: P. Briant, “History and Ideology: The Greeks and ‘Persian Decadence,’” in Greeks and Barbarians, ed. Thomas Harrison, trans. Antonia Nevill (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2002), 193–210.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Panegyric Speech (ca. 380 BCE)

[Introduction to the speech at the festival]

(1) Many times have I wondered at those who first convoked the national assemblies and established the athletic games, amazed that they should have thought the prowess of men’s bodies to be deserving of so great bounties, while to those who had toiled in private for the public good and trained their own minds so as to be able to help also their fellow-men they apportioned no reward whatsoever, when, in all reason, they ought rather to have made provision for the latter; for if all the athletes should acquire twice the strength which they now possess, the rest of the world would be no better off; but let a single man attain to wisdom, and all men will reap the benefit who are willing to share his insight. . . [omitted sections].

[Athenians superior: Oldest, greatest, and deserving of hegemony]

(21-23) For in the first place, if it is the most experienced and the most capable who in any field of action deserve to be honoured, it is without question our right to recover the hegemony which we formerly possessed [i.e. Sparta is currently dominant]. For no one can point to another city which so far excels in warfare on land as our city is superior in fighting battles on the sea. But, in the next place, if there are any who do not regard this as a fair basis of judgement, since the reversals of fortune are frequent (for sovereignty never remains in the same hands), and who believe that the hegemony, like any other prize, should be held by those who first won this honour, or else by those who have rendered the most service to the Greeks, I think that these also are on our side. The farther back into the past we go in our examination of both these titles to leadership, the farther behind will we leave those who dispute our claims. For it is admitted that our city is the oldest and the greatest in the world and in the eyes of all men the most renowned.

[Athenians as unmixed and indigenous to their land]

(24-25) But noble as is the foundation of our claims, the following grounds give us even a clearer title to distinction, because we did not become inhabitants in this land by driving others out of it, nor by finding it uninhabited, nor by coming together here as a large mixed population of peoples (ethnē). Rather, we are of a lineage so noble and so pure that throughout our history we have continued in possession of the very land which gave us birth, since we are indigenous (autochthonos) and are able to address our city by the very names which we apply to our nearest relatives, because we alone of all the Greeks have the right to call our city at once “nurse,” “fatherland,” and “mother.” And yet, if men are to have good ground for pride and make just claims to hegemony and frequently recall their ancestral accomplishments, they must show that their descent group (genos) boasts an origin as noble as that which I have described.

[Athenians’ contributions to the world throughout history]

(26-27) So great, then, are the gifts which were ours from the beginning and which fortune has granted to us. But how many good things we have contributed to the rest of the world we could estimate to best advantage if we should recount the history of our city from the beginning and go through all her achievements in detail; for we would find that not only was the city the leader in the hazards of war, but that the social order in general in which we dwell, with which we share the rights of citizenship and through which we are able to live, is almost entirely due to the city. It is, however, necessary to single out from the number of the city’s benefactions, not those which because of their slight importance have escaped attention and been passed over in silence. Rather, it is necessary to single out those benefactions which, due to their great importance, have been and still are on the lips and in the memory of all people everywhere.

[Myth of origins: Demeter’s story and Athenians’ contributions to civilization]

(28-33) Now, first of all, that which was the first necessity of man’s nature was provided by our city. Even though the story has taken the form of a myth, it still deserves to be told again. When Demeter came to our land, in her wandering after the rape of Kore, and, being moved to kindness towards our ancestors by services which may not be told save to her initiates, gave these two gifts, the greatest in the world: the fruits of the earth, which have enabled us to rise above the life of the beasts; and, the initiation (teletē) which inspires in those who partake of it sweeter hopes regarding both the end of life and all eternity. Our city was not only so beloved by the gods but also so devoted to humankind that, having been endowed with these great blessings, our city did not hold them back from the rest of the world, but shared with all people what she had received. We continue that initiation even now, each year, to reveal to the initiates. Regarding the fruits of the earth, our city has, in a word, instructed the world in their uses, their cultivation, and the benefits derived from them.

No one could venture to discredit this claim when I have added a few further proofs. In the first place, the very ground on which we might disparage the story, namely that it is ancient, would naturally lead us to believe that the events actually came to pass. Because many have told and all have heard the story which describes them, it is reasonable to regard this not, to be sure, as recent, yet withal as worthy of our belief. In the next place, we are not obliged to take refuge in the mere fact that we have received the account and the report from remote times. On the contrary, we are able to adduce even greater proofs than this regarding what took place. For most of the Greek cities, in memory of our ancient services, send us each year the first-fruits of the harvest, and those who neglect to do so have often been admonished by the Pythian priestess to pay us our due portion of their crops and to observe in relation to our city the customs of their fathers. And about what, I should like to know, can we more surely exercise our belief than in matters about which the oracle of Apollo speaks with authority (many of the Greeks are agreed) and the words spoken long ago confirm the practice of today, while present events tally with the statements which have come down from people in the old days?

But apart from these considerations, if we waive all this and carry our inquiry back to the beginning, we will find that those who first appeared upon the earth did not at the outset find the kind of life which we enjoy today, but that they procured it little by little through their own joint efforts. Whom, then, must we think the most likely either to have received this better life as a gift from the gods or to have hit upon it through their own search? Would it not be those who are admitted by all people to have been the first to exist, to be endowed with the greatest capacity for technical skills (technai), and to be the most pious in serving the gods? And surely it is superfluous to attempt to show how high is the honour which the authors of such great blessings deserve, because no one could find a reward great enough to match the magnitude of their [earliest Athenians’] achievements.

[Athenian contributions through colonization – i.e. the story of Ionian migration]

(34-37) This much, then, I have to say about that service to humanity which is the greatest, the earliest, and the most universal in its benefits. But at about the same time, our city, saw the barbarians in possession of most of the country, while the Greeks were confined within a narrow space and, because of the scarcity of the land, were conspiring and making raids against each other, and were perishing, some through want of daily necessities, others through war. In that context, our city was not content to let these things be as they were, but sent out leaders to the several cities, who, enlisting the neediest of the people and placing themselves at their head, overcame the barbarians in war, founded many cities on either continent [Greece and Asia], settled colonies in all the islands, and saved both those who followed them and those who remained behind [i.e. reflecting the myth of Ionian migration after the Trojan war]. To  those who remained they left the home country, which was sufficient for their needs, and for the former they provided more land than they had owned since they embraced in their conquests all the territory which we Greeks now possess. And so they smoothed the way for those also who in a later time resolved to send out colonists and imitate our city. Such colonists did not have to undergo the perils of war in acquiring territory, but could go into the country marked out by us [Athenians] and settle there. And yet who can show a leadership more ancestral than this, which had its origin before most of the cities of Greece were founded, or more serviceable than this, which drove the barbarians from their homes and advanced the Greeks to so great prosperity?

[Athenians’ subsequent benefactions to humanity: Civic organization, law, technical skills]

(38-42) Nor did our city, after it had played its part in bringing to pass the most important benefits, neglect what remained to be done. On the contrary, our city made it just the beginning of its benefactions to find for those who were in want that sustenance which men must have who are to provide well also for their other needs. However, considering that an existence limited to this alone was not enough to make men desire to live, our city gave such careful thought to their remaining wants as well that of the good things which are now at the service of humankind – in so far as we do not have them from the gods but owe them to each other – there is not one in which our city has had no part, and most of them are due to her alone. For, finding the Greeks living without laws and in scattered abodes, some oppressed by tyrannies, others perishing through anarchy, our city delivered them from these evils by taking some under her protection and by setting to others her own example, because our city was the first to lay down laws and establish a civic organization. This is apparent from the fact that those who in the beginning brought charges of homicide, and desired to settle their mutual differences by reason and not by violence, tried their cases under our laws. Yes, and the technical skills also, both those which are useful in producing the necessities of life and those which have been devised to give us pleasure, our city has either invented or stamped with its approval, and has then presented them to the rest of the world to enjoy.

Moreover, the city has established its civic organization in general in such a spirit of welcome to foreigners and friendliness to all people, that it adapts itself both to those who lack means and to those who wish to enjoy the means which they possess, and that it fails to be of service neither to those who are prosperous nor to those who are unfortunate in their own cities. No, rather both classes find with us what they desire, the former the most delightful pastimes, the latter the securest refuge. Again, since the different populations did not in any case possess a country that was self-sufficing, each lacking in some things and producing others in excess of their needs, and since they were greatly at a loss where they should dispose of their surplus and from where they should import what they lacked, in these difficulties also our city came to the rescue. Our city established the Piraeus as a market in the center of Greece, a market of such abundance that the articles which it is difficult to get, one here, one there, from the rest of the world, all these it is easy to procure from Athens.

[Athenians’ foundation of panhellenic festivals as a way of uniting]

(43-46) Now the founders of our great festivals are justly praised for handing down to us a custom by which, having proclaimed a truce and resolved our pending quarrels, we [Greeks] come together in one place, where, as we make our prayers and sacrifices in common, we are reminded of the kinship which exists among us and are made to feel more kindly towards each other for the future, reviving our old friendships and establishing new ties. And neither to common men nor to those who excel [i.e. the elites] is the time so spent idle and profitless. Rather, in the relations among the Greeks the latter have the opportunity to display their prowess, the former to behold these contending against each other in the games. No one lacks enthusiasm for the festival, but all find in it that which flatters their pride, the spectators when they see the athletes exert themselves for their benefit, the athletes when they reflect that all the world is come to gaze upon them. Since, then, the benefits which accrue to us from our assembling together are so great, here again our city has not been backward. Our city affords the most numerous and the most admirable spectacles, some passing all bounds in the outlay of money, some highly reputed for their artistic worth, and others excelling in both these ways. The multitude of people who visit us is so great that, whatever advantage there is in our associating together, this also has been compassed by our city, Athens. Besides, it is possible to find with us as nowhere else the most faithful friendships and to enjoy the most varied social interactions, and, furthermore, to see contests not limited to those of speed and strength, but of eloquence and wisdom and of all the other skills, and prizes for these. Since in addition to those which the city herself sets up, she prevails upon the rest of the world also to offer prizes. For the judgements pronounced by us command such great praise that all humankind accepts them, gladly. But apart from these considerations, while the assemblies at the other great festivals are brought together only at long intervals and are soon dispersed, our city throughout all time is a festival for those who visit it.

[Athenians’ contributions to the pursuit of wisdom and eloquence]

(47-50) Moreover, pursuit of wisdom (philosophia), which has helped to discover and establish all these institutions, which has educated us for civic affairs and made us gentle towards each other, which has distinguished between the misfortunes that are due to ignorance and those which spring from necessity, and taught us to guard against the former and to bear the latter nobly – the pursuit of wisdom, I say, was given to the world by our city. And Athens it is that has honoured eloquence, which all men crave and envy in its possessors, because Athens realized that this is the one endowment of our nature which singles us out from all living creatures, and that by using this advantage we have risen above them in all other respects as well. Athens saw that in other activities the fortunes of life are so capricious that in them often the wise fail and the foolish succeed, whereas beautiful and artistic speech is never allotted to ordinary men, but is the work of an intelligent mind, and that it is in this respect that those who are accounted wise and ignorant present the strongest contrast. Athens knew, furthermore, that whether men have been liberally educated from their earliest years is not to be determined by their courage or their wealth or such advantages, but is made manifest most of all by their speech, and that this has proved itself to be the surest sign of culture in every one of us, and that those who are skilled in speech are not only men of power in their own cities but are also held in honour in other cities. And so far has our city excelled the rest of humankind in thought and in speech that the city’s students have become the teachers of the rest of the world. This city has brought it about that the name Greeks suggests no longer a descent group (genos) but an intelligence, and that the title “Greeks” is applied rather to those who share our culture than to those who share our nature.

[Athenians’ power, military contributions and support for the “weaker” cities]

(51-60) But in order that I may not appear to be dwelling at length on the details when I have proposed to speak on the general subject nor to be extolling the city for these accomplishments because I lack ground for praising her conduct in war, let what I have said suffice for those who glory in such services. But I think that honour is due to our ancestors no less for their wars than for their other benefactions, because the struggles they sustained – some for their own territories, some for the freedom of the rest of the world – were not slight, nor few, nor obscure, but many, dreadful and great. For at all times, without ceasing, they have offered the city as a common refuge and as a champion to the Greeks whenever oppressed. And it is for this very reason that we are sometimes charged with adopting a foolish policy in that we are accustomed to cultivate the weaker ones, as though such charges do not support those who desire to sing our praises. For it was not because we failed to appreciate how much more advantageous great alliances are in point of security that we pursued this policy in regard to the weak. No, although we realized much more exactly than our rivals the consequences of such a course, we nevertheless preferred to stand by the weaker even against our interests rather than to unite with the stronger in oppressing others for our own advantage.

[Historical examples of Athenians’ helping others]

The character and power of Athens may be judged from the appeals which many people have in times past made to us for our help. Those of recent occurrence or for insignificant ends I will omit. However, long before the Trojan War (for it is only fair that those who dispute about immemorial rights should draw their arguments from that early time) there came to us the sons of Herakles and, a little before them, Adrastos, Talaos’s son, king of Argos. Adrastos, on his return from the expedition against Thebes where he had met with disaster and had not by his own efforts been able to recover the bodies of those who had fallen under the Kadmean fortress, called upon our city to lend aid in a misfortune which was of universal concern, and not to allow men who die in battle to be left unburied nor that ancient custom and immemorial law be brought to nothing. The sons of Herakles, on the other hand, came fleeing the persecution of Eurystheus, ignoring the other cities as not capable of helping them in their distress, and looking upon our city as the only one great enough to make return for the benefits which their father had bestowed upon all humankind.

So from these facts it is easy to see that even at that time our city was in the position of a leader; for who would venture an appeal for help to those who were weaker than themselves, or to those who were subject to others, passing by those who had greater power, especially in matters not of personal but of public interest which none would be likely to take in hand but those who claimed to stand first among the Greeks? And, in the next place, those making the requests were clearly not disappointed in the hopes which caused them to take refuge with our ancestors. For the Athenians went to war against the Thebans in the cause of those who had fallen in the battle, and against the power of Eurystheus in the cause of the sons of Herakles. Taking the field against the Thebans, they compelled them to restore the dead to their relatives for burial. When the Peloponnesians, led by Eurystheus, had invaded our territory, they marched out against them, conquered them in battle, and put an end to their leader’s insolence. Even though they already commanded admiration for their other actions, these exploits enhanced their fame still more, because they did not do things by halves, but so completely revolutionized the fortunes of either monarch that Adrastos, who had seen fit to throw himself on our mercy, went his way, having in despite of his foes won all that he had asked, while Eurystheus, who had expected to overpower us, was himself made captive and compelled to sue for mercy. Although he had throughout all his life inflicted his orders and indignities on one whose nature transcended that of man, and who, being the son of Zeus, possessed, while still a mortal, the strength of a god, when Eurystheus offended against us, he still suffered so complete a reverse that he fell into the power of Herakles’ sons and came to a shameful end.

[Athenians superior to Spartans, Thebans, and Argives]

(61-65) Many are the services which we have rendered to the city of the Lakedaimonians, but it has suited my purpose to speak of this one only; for, starting with the advantage afforded by our helping them, the descendants of Herakles – the progenitors of those who now reign in Lakedaimon – returned to the Peloponnese, took possession of Argos, Lakedaimon, and Messene, settled Sparta, and were established as the founders of all the blessings which the Lakedaimonians now enjoy. These benefits they should have held in grateful remembrance, and should never have invaded this land from which they set out and acquired so great prosperity, nor have placed in peril the city which had imperiled herself for the sons of Herakles, nor, while bestowing the kingship upon his posterity, have yet thought it right that the city which was the means of the deliverance of their race should be enslaved to their power. But if we have to leave out of account considerations of gratitude and fairness and, returning to the main question, state the point which is most essential, clearly it is not ancestral custom for immigrants to set themselves over the sons of the soil, or the recipients of benefits over their benefactors, or refugees over those who gave them asylum.

But I can make the matter clear in yet briefer terms. Of all the Greek cities, except our own, Argos, Thebes and Lakedaimon were at that time the greatest, as they still are to this day. And yet our ancestors were manifestly so superior to them all that on behalf of the defeated Argives they dictated terms to the Thebans at the moment of their greatest pride. On behalf of the sons of Herakles, they conquered the Argives and the rest of the Peloponnesians in battle, and delivered the founders and leaders of Lakedaimon out of all danger from Eurystheus. Therefore, as to what city was the first power in Greece, I do not see how anyone could produce more convincing evidence.

[Athenians’ achievements against “barbarians”, I: Scythians and Thracians]

(66-70) But it seems appropriate to me that I should also speak about the city’s achievements against the barbarians, the more so since the subject which I have undertaken is the question of who should take the lead against them. Now if I were to go through the list of all our wars, I should speak at undue length. So I will confine myself to the most important, trying to deal with this topic also in the same manner in which I have just dealt with the other. Let us single out, then, the descent groups (genē) which have the strongest instinct for domination and the greatest power of aggression, namely the Scythians, Thracians and Persians. It so happens that these have all had hostile plans against us and that against all these our city has fought decisive wars. And yet what ground will be left for our opponents if it is shown that those among the Greeks who are powerless to obtain their rights see fit to appeal to us for help, and that those among the barbarians who plan to enslave the Greeks make us the first object of their attacks?

Now, while the most celebrated of our wars was the one against the Persians, yet certainly our deeds of old offer evidence no less strong for those who dispute over ancestral rights. For while Greece was still insignificant, our territory was invaded by the Thracians, led by Eumolpos son of Poseidon, and by the Scythians, led by the Amazons, the daughters of Ares. These did not happen at the same time, but during the period when both descent groups were trying to extend their dominion over Europe. Even though they hated the entire Greek descent group (genos), they raised complaints against us in particular, thinking that in this way they would wage war against one city only, but would at the same time impose their power on all the cities of Greece. In truth, they were not successful. Not at all. In this conflict against our ancestors alone they were as utterly overwhelmed as if they had fought the whole world. How great were the disasters which happened to them is clear, because the tradition regarding them would not have persisted for so long a time if what was done at that time had not been without parallel.

Anyways, we are told regarding the Amazons that of all who came not one returned again, while those who had remained at home were expelled from power because of the disaster here. We are also told regarding the Thracians that, whereas at one time they lived beside us on our very borders, they withdrew so far from us in consequence of that expedition that in the spaces left between their land and ours many peoples (ethnē) and descent groups (genē) of every kind, and great cities have been established.

[Athenians’ achievements against “barbarians” II: Persians]

(71-72) Noble indeed are these achievements. Yes, and appropriate to those who dispute over the hegemony. But of the same breed as those which have been mentioned, and of such a kind as would naturally be expected of men descended from such ancestors, are the actions of those who fought against Darius and Xerxes [kings of Persia]. For when that greatest of all wars broke out and a multitude of dangers presented themselves at one and the same time, when our enemies regarded themselves as irresistible because of their numbers and our allies thought themselves endowed with a courage which could not be excelled, we outdid them both, surpassing each in the way appropriate to each. After proving our superiority in meeting all dangers, we were immediately awarded the meed of valour, and we obtained, not long after, the sovereignty of the sea by the willing grant of the Greeks at large and without protest from those who now seek to wrest it from our hands. . . [omitted lengthy discussion of Athens’ superior contributions compared to the Spartans in the fight against the Persians].

[Conclusion of section: Superior Athenians should lead the campaign against the barbarians]

(99) Who then should have the hegemony, when a campaign against the barbarians is in prospect? Should it not be they who distinguished themselves above all others in the former war [against the Persians]? Should it not be they who many times bore, alone, the brunt of battle, and in the joint struggles of the Greeks were awarded the prize of valour? Should it not be they who abandoned their own country to save the rest of Greece, who in ancient times founded most of the Greek cities, and who later delivered them from the greatest disasters? Would it not be an outrage upon us, if, having taken the largest share in the evils of war, we should be considered worthy of a lesser share in its honours, and if, having at that time been placed in the lead in the cause of all the Greeks, we should now be compelled to follow the lead of others? . . . [omitted length section on the positive contributions of earlier Athenian supremacy, ca. 478-404 BCE, and the negative effects of current Spartan supremacy and their relations with Persians].

[Greeks divided and therefore helping the Persian king of the ‘barbarians”]

(133-134) I think that if anyone comes here from another part of the world and witnesses the spectacle of the present conditions, he would accuse both the Athenians and the Lakedaimonians [i.e. Spartans] with utter madness, not only because we risk our lives fighting as we do over insignificant things when we could securely enjoy a wealth of possessions, but also because we continually impoverish our own territory while neglecting to exploit that of Asia. As for him [the “barbarian” / Persian king], nothing is better for his purpose than to take measures to prevent us from ever stopping making war on each other. Meanwhile, on the other hand we are so far from doing anything to foil his interests or cause rebellion among his subjects that when, thanks to fortune, dissensions do break out in his empire, we actually lend him a hand in putting them down.

(135-137) Even now, when the two armies are fighting in Cyprus, we permit him to make use of the one [the Greek mercenary forces of Tiribazos, Persian satrap of Lydia] and besiege the other [the Greek forces of Euagoras, king of Salamis on Cyprus], although both of them belong to Greece. The Cyprians, who are in revolt against him, are not only on friendly terms with us but are also seeking the protection of the Lakedaimonians. As to the forces which are led by Tiribazos, the most effective troops of his horsemen have been enlisted from these parts, and most of his fleet has been brought together from Ionia. All of these would much more gladly make common cause and plunder Asia than risk their lives fighting against each other over insignificant issues. However, we plan nothing to prevent this. Instead, we wrangle about the islands of the Kyklades [i.e. islands in the southern Aigean including Delos], when we have so recklessly given over so many cities and such great forces to the barbarian [i.e. the king of Persia]. For this reason, some of our possessions are now his, some will soon be his, and others are threatened by his treacherous designs. He has rightly conceived an utter contempt for us all because he has attained what no one of his ancestors ever did: Asia has been conceded both by us and by the Lakedaimonians to belong to the king. As to the cities of the Greeks, he has taken them so absolutely under his control that he either tears them to the ground or builds his fortresses within them. And all this has come about because of our own foolishness, not because of his power.

(138-140) Nonetheless, there are those who are amazed by the greatness of the king’s power and maintain that he is a dangerous enemy, focussing at length on the many reversals which he has brought about in the affairs of the Greeks. In my judgement, however, those who express such sentiments do not discourage but urge on the expedition. For if he is going to be hard to make war against when we have composed our differences and while he himself is still facing dissensions, then we should actually have complete dread about that time when the conflicting interests of the barbarians are settled and are governed by a single purpose, while we continue to be, as now, hostile to each other. But even though these objectors do in fact lend support to my contention, they are still mistaken in their views about the power of the king. If they could show that he had ever in the past prevailed over both Athens and Lakedaimon [Sparta] at once, they would have reason for attempting to alarm us now. But if this is not the case, and the truth is that when we and the Lakedaimonians have been in conflict he has simply given support to one of the two sides and so rendered the achievements of that one side more brilliant, this is no evidence of his own power. For in such times of crisis, small forces have often played a great part in tipping the scale. For example, even for the people of Chios island I might make the claim that whichever side they have been inclined to support, that side has proved stronger on the sea.

[Inferiority of the Persian king in war: Egyptian and Cyprian examples]

(140-144) No, it is obviously not fair to estimate the power of the king from those successes when he has joined forces with the one or the other of us, but rather from the wars which he has fought on his own behalf without any help. Take, first, the case of Egypt: since its revolt from the king, what progress has he made against its inhabitants? Did he not dispatch to this war the most renowned of the Persians – Abrokomas, Tithraustes and Pharnabazos – and didn’t they, after remaining there three years and suffering more disasters than they inflicted, finally withdraw in such disgrace that the rebels are no longer content with their freedom, but are already trying to extend their dominion over the neighbouring peoples as well?

Next, there is his campaign against Euagoras [king of Salamis on Cyprus]. Euagoras is ruler over only a single city. He is given over to the Persians by the terms of the treaty. He possesses an insular power and he has already sustained a disaster to his fleet. He has, at present, for the defense of his territory only three thousand light-armed troops. Still, although Euagoras’ power is limited, the king does not have the power to conquer it in war, but has already frittered away six years in the attempt. If we can guess the future based on the past, there is much more likelihood that someone else will rise in revolt before Euagoras is reduced by the siege because the king is so slow with his plans. Again, in the Rhodian war [between Sparta and Persia], the king had the good will of the allies of Lakedaimon because of the harshness with which they were governed, he availed himself of the help of our seamen. Konon was at the head of his forces. Konon was the most competent of our generals, possessed more than any other the confidence of the Greeks, and was the most experienced in the dangers of war. Nonetheless, although the king had such a champion to help him in the war, he allowed the fleet which bore the brunt of the defense of Asia to be bottled up for three years by only a hundred ships, and for fifteen months he deprived the soldiers of their pay. If it had depended upon the king alone, the result would have been disbandment more than once. But, thanks to their commander and to the alliance which was formed at Corinth, they barely succeeded in winning a naval victory. And these were the most royal and the most imposing of his achievements, and these are the achievements about which people are never tired of speaking who are pleased to exalt the power of the barbarians!

So no one can say that I am not fair in my use of examples, nor that I focus on the minor undertakings of the king and pass over the most important. I have tried to prevent just such a complaint, and have recounted the most glorious of his exploits. I do not, however, forget his minor campaigns. I do not forget that Derkylidas [commander of the Spartan fleet, ca. 399 BCE], with a thousand heavy-armed troops, extended his power over Aiolis; that Drako [Spartan military governer, ca. 398 BCE] took possession of Atarneus, and afterwards collected an army of three thousand light-armed men, and devastated the plains of Mysia; that Thimbron [leader of the Spartan fleet, ca. 400 BCE], with a force only a little larger, crossed over into Lydia and plundered the whole country; and, that Agesilaos [ca. 395 BCE], with the help of the army of Cyrus, conquered almost all the territory this side of the Halys river.

[Inferiority of the Persians re-emphasized]

(145-149) Certainly we have no greater reason to fear the army which wanders around with the king nor the valour of the Persians themselves, because they were clearly shown by the troops who marched inland with Cyrus to be no better than the king’s soldiers who live on the coast. I refrain from speaking of all the other battles in which the Persians were beaten. I am willing to grant that they were split with factions, and so were not inclined to throw themselves wholeheartedly into the struggle against the king’s brother. But after Cyrus had been killed, and all the people of Asia had joined forces, even under these favourable conditions they made such a disgraceful failure of the war as to leave for those who are in the habit of boasting about Persian valour not a word to say. For they had to deal with only six thousand Greeks – not chosen troops, but men who, owing to stress of circumstances, were unable to live in their own cities. These men were, moreover, unfamiliar with the country; they had been deserted by their allies; they had been betrayed by those who made the expedition with them; and, they had been deprived of the general whom they had followed. Yet the Persians were so inferior to these men that the king, finding himself in difficult straits and having no confidence in the force which was under his own command, did not think to arrest the captains of the auxiliaries in violation of the truce. He was hoping that, by this lawless act, he would throw their army into confusion. He prefered to offend the gods rather than join issue openly with these soldiers. But when he failed in this plot – for the soldiers not only stood together but bore their misfortune nobly – then, as they set out on their journey home, he sent with them Tissaphernes and the Persian horsemen. But although these kept plotting against them throughout the entire journey, the Greeks continued their march to the end as confidently as if they had been under friendly escort, dreading most of all the uninhabited regions of that country. They also considered it the best possible fortune to attack as many of the enemy as possible.

Let me sum up the whole thing: These men did not set out to get plunder or to capture a town, but took the field against the king himself. Yet they returned in greater security than ambassadors who go to him on a friendly mission. Therefore, it seems to me that in every quarter the Persians have clearly exposed their weakness (malakia), because along the coast of Asia they have been defeated in many battles, and when they crossed to Europe they were duly punished, either perishing miserably or saving their lives with dishonour. On top of everything else, they made themselves objects of derision under the very walls of their king’s palace.

[Persians’ inherently inferior character and way of life: Servile, luxurious, arrogant, impious]

(150-157) None of these things has happened by accident. Instead, all of them have been due to natural causes. This is because it is not possible for people who are raised and ruled like the Persians to either share in any other form of virtue or to set up on the field of battle trophies of victory over their foes. For how could either an able general or a good soldier be produced in the context of their ways of life? Most of their population is a mob without discipline or experience of dangers, which has lost all stamina for war and has been trained more effectively for slavery (douleia) than household slaves who have been raised by us.

On the other hand, those who have the highest reputation among them have never governed their lives by dictates of equality, common interest, or loyalty to the community. On the contrary, their whole existence consists in acting arrogantly toward some and like a slave towards others. There is no other manner of life that could be more demoralizing to human nature. Because they are rich, they pamper their bodies. However, because they are subject to one man’s power, they keep their souls in a state of abject and cringing fear, parading themselves at the door of the royal palace, prostrating themselves, and in every way schooling themselves to humility of spirit. They fall on their knees before a mortal man, addressing him as a god and think more lightly of the gods than of men.

So it is that those of the Persians who come down to the sea, whom they term “satraps,” do not dishonour the training which they receive at home, but cling steadfastly to the same habits. They are untrustworthy with their friends and cowardly to their foes. Their lives are divided between slavery on the one hand and arrogance on the other. They treat their allies with contempt and pay court to their enemies.

For example, they maintained the army under Agesilaos at their own expense for eight months, but they deprived the soldiers who were fighting in the Persian cause of their pay for double that length of time. They distributed a hundred talents among the captors of Kisthene, but treated more outrageously than their prisoners of war the troops who supported them in the campaign against Cyprus. To put it briefly – and to speak in general rather than in detail – who of those that have fought against them has not come out with success, and who of those that have fallen under their power has not perished from their atrocities? Take the case of Konon, who, as commander in the service of Asia, brought an end to the power of the Lakadaimonians: did they not shamelessly seize him for punishment by death? Take, on the other hand, the case of Themistokles, who in the service of Greece defeated them at Salamis: did they not think he was worthy of the greatest gifts? Then why should we cherish the friendship of men who punish their benefactors and so openly flatter those who do them injury? Who is there among us whom they have not wronged? When have they given the Greeks a moment’s respite from their treacherous plots? What in our world is not hateful to them who did not hesitate in the earlier war from rifling even the images and temples of the gods, and burning them to the ground? Therefore, the Ionians deserve to be commended because, when their sanctuaries had been burned, they invoked the anger of heaven upon any who should disturb the ruins or should desire to restore their shrines as they were of old. They did this, not because they lacked the means to rebuild them. Instead, they did this in order that there might be left a memorial to future generations of the impiety of the barbarians; that none might put their trust in men who dare to commit such sins against our holy temples; and, that all might be on their guard against them and fear them, seeing that they waged that war not against us only, but even against our votive offerings to the gods.

[Greeks’ hostitility towards barbarians]

(157-159) I also have a similar tale to tell about my own fellow-citizens. For towards all other peoples with whom they have been at war, they forget their past enmities the moment they have concluded peace. However, toward the Asians they feel no gratitude even when they receive favours from them; so eternal is the everlasting anger against the barbarians. Again, our fathers condemned many to death for defection to the Medes. In our public assemblies even to this day, before any other business is transacted, the Athenians call down curses upon any citizen who proposes friendly overtures to the Persians. At the celebration of the mysteries [of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis], the Eumolpidai and the Kerykes, because of our hatred of the Persians, give solemn warning to the other barbarians, as if to men guilty of murder, that they are forever banned from the sacred rites.

So ingrained in our nature is our hostility to them that even in the matter of our stories we linger most fondly over those which tell of the Trojan and the Persian wars, because through them we learn of our enemies’ misfortunes. You will find that our warfare against the barbarians has inspired our hymns, while that against the Greeks has produced our dirges. The former are sung at our festivals, while we recall the latter on occasions of sorrow. Moreover, I think that even the poetry of Homer has won a greater renown because he has nobly glorified the men who fought against the barbarians, and that on this account our ancestors determined to give his art a place of honour in our musical contests and in the education of our youth, in order that we, hearing his verses over and over again, may learn by heart the enmity which stands from the old days between us and them, and that we, admiring the valour of those who were in the war against Troy, may conceive a passion for similar actions.

[Call to a united Greek war against the barbarians]

(160-162) So it seems to me that the motives which call us to engage in war against them are actually many. However, grief among them is the present opportunity which we must not throw away. It is disgraceful to neglect a chance when it is present and regret it when it is past. Indeed, what further advantage could we desire to have on our side when contemplating a war against the king beyond those which are now at hand? Are not Egypt and Cyprus in revolt against him? Have not Phoenicia and Syria been devastated because of the war? Has not Tyre, on which he set great store, been seized by his foes? Among the cities in Cilicia, the greater number are held by those who side with us and the rest are not difficult to acquire. No Persian has ever subdued Lycia. Hekatomnos, the viceroy of Caria, has in reality been disaffected for a long time now, and will openly declare himself whenever we wish. From Knidos [in the west] to Sinope [in the northeast] the coast of Asia is settled by Greeks. We need not need to persuade to go to war; all we have to do is not hold them back. With such bases at our command for the operation of our forces, and with so widespread a war threatening Asia on every side, why, then, do we examine too closely what the outcome will be? For since the barbarians are unequal to small divisions of the Greeks, it is not hard to predict what their plight would be if they were forced into a war against our united forces. . . [omitted sections].

[Conclusion, call to join with Spartans, and repetition of the servile character of the Persians]

(179-188) I think, however, that I will show still more clearly both the dishonour which we have suffered, and the advantage which the king has gained by putting the matter in this way: All the world which lies beneath the heavens is divided into two parts, the one called Asia, the other Europe. He has taken half of it by the treaty, as if he were apportioning the earth with Zeus, and not making compacts with men. Yes, and he has compelled us to engrave this treaty on pillars of stone and place it in our public temples. This is a trophy far more glorious for him than those which are set up on fields of battle; for the latter are for minor achievements and a single success, but this treaty stands as a memorial of the entire war and of the humiliation of the whole of Greece.

These things may well rouse our indignation and make us look to the means by which we will take vengeance for the past and set the future right. For truly it is shameful for us, who in our private life think the barbarians are fit only to be used as household slaves, to permit by our public policy so many of our allies to be enslaved by them. It is disgraceful for us, when our fathers who engaged in the Trojan expedition because of the rape of one woman, all shared so deeply in the indignation of the wronged that they did not stop waging war until they had laid in ruins the city of him who had dared to commit the crime. It is disgraceful for us, I say, now that all Greece is being continually violated, to take not a single step to deliver a common vengeance, although we have it in our power to accomplish deeds as great as our dreams. For this war is the only war which is better than peace. It will be more like a sacred mission than a military expedition. It will profit equally both those who crave the quiet life and those who are eager for war because it will enable the former to reap the fruits of their own possessions in security and the latter to win great wealth from the possessions of our foes.

If you consider the matter carefully, you will find that this undertaking is most desirable for us from many points of view. For against whom, I ask, should men who crave no tangible reward, but focus on justice only, wage war? Is it not against those who in the past have injured Greece, and are now plotting against her, and have always been so disposed towards us? And against whom should we expect men to direct their envy who, while not wholly lacking in courage, yet curb this feeling with prudence? Is it not against those who have compassed powers that are too great for man, and yet are less deserving than those who are unfortunate among us? And against whom should those take the field who both desire to serve their gods and are at the same time intent on their own advantage? Is it not against those who are both their natural enemies and their hereditary foes, who have acquired the greatest possessions and are yet, of all men, the least able to defend them? Do not the Persians, then, fulfill all these conditions?

Furthermore, we will not even trouble the several city-states by enlisting soldiers from them, which is a practice which now in our warfare against each other they find most burdensome. For it is my belief that those who will be inclined to remain at home will be far fewer than those who will be eager to join this army. For who, whether young or old, is so lazy that he will not desire to have a part in this expedition? Who will not take part in an expedition led by the Athenians and the Lakedaimonians, gathered together in the cause of the freedom of our allies, dispatched by all Greece, and going out to deliver vengeance on the barbarians? How great will be the name, fame and glory which those who have won the meed of honour in this enterprise will enjoy during their lives, or, if they die in battle, will leave behind them? For if those who made war against an Alexander and took a single city were accounted worthy of such praise, what praising speeches would we expect these men who have conquered the whole of Asia to receive? For who that is skilled to sing or trained to speak will not labour and study in his desire to leave behind a memorial both of his own genius and of their valour, for all time to come?

I am not at the present moment of the same mind as I was at the beginning of my speech. For then I thought that I should be able to speak in a way that was worthy of my theme. Now, however, I have not risen to its grandeur, and many of the thoughts which I had in mind to utter have escaped me. Therefore, you must help me and try to picture to yourselves what vast prosperity we would attain if we would turn the war which now involves ourselves against the peoples of the continent, and bring the prosperity of Asia across to Europe. You must not depart to your homes as men who have merely listened to an oration. No, those among you who are men of action must exhort one another to try to reconcile our city with Lakedaimon.

Those among you who make claims to eloquence must stop composing orations on “deposits,” or on the other trivial themes which now engage your efforts, and center your rivalry on this subject and study how you may surpass me in speaking on the same question. Always bear in mind that it is not appropriate for men who promise great things to waste their time on little things, nor to make the kind of speeches which will improve nothing in the lives of those whom they convince. Rather, these are the type of speeches which, if carried out in action, will both deliver the authors themselves from their present distress and win for them the credit of bringing to pass great blessings for the rest of the world.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Address to Philip (ca. 346 BCE)

[Greeks have fallen behind the Persians, who are supposedly effeminate and degenerate]

(123-126) But no matter what part of this undertaking you [Philip of Macedon] are able to carry out, or only attempt to carry out, you cannot fail to attain distinguished glory. It will be well deserved if only you will make this the goal of your own efforts and urge on the Greeks in the same course. For as things now are, who would not have reason to be amazed at the turn events have taken and to feel contempt for us, when among the barbarians – whom we have come to look upon as effeminate, unversed in war, and utterly degenerate from luxurious living – men have arisen who thought themselves worthy to rule over Greece, while among the Greeks no one has aspired so high as to attempt to make us masters of Asia? No, we have dropped so far behind the barbarians that, while they did not hesitate even to begin hostilities against the Greeks, we do not even have the spirit to pay them back for the injuries we have suffered at their hands. On the contrary, although they admit that in all their wars they have no soldiers of their own nor generals nor any of the things which are serviceable in times of danger, but have to send and get all these from us, we have gone so far in our passion to injure ourselves that, whereas it lies in our power to possess the wealth of the barbarians in security and peace, we continue to wage war upon each other over insignificant things. We actually help to reduce to subjection those who revolt from the authority of the king. Sometimes, unwittingly, we ally ourselves with our hereditary foes and seek to destroy those who are of our own relatives.

[Call to war against the Persians]

(127) Therefore, since the others are so lacking in spirit, I think this is the opportunity for you [Philip of Macedon] to head the war against the king. While it is only natural for the other descendants of Herakles, and for men who are under the bonds of their civic organizations and laws, to hold fondly to that city-state in which they happen to live, it is your privilege, as one who has been blessed with unrestricted freedom, to consider all Greece your homeland, as did your founder, and to be as ready to brave perils for her sake as for the things about which you are personally most concerned. . . [omitted sections].

(139) Now I am aware that many of the Greeks look upon the [Persian] king’s power as invincible. However, anyone may be amazed at them if they really believe that the power which was subdued to the will of a mere barbarian – a poorly bred barbarian at that – and collected in the cause of slavery, could not be scattered by a Greek man with plenty experience in warfare and in the cause of freedom. Furthermore, they know that while it is in all cases difficult to construct something, in comparison it is easy to destroy something. . . [omitted sections].

[Concluding section]

(154-155) It remains, then, to summarize what I have said in this discourse, in order that you may see in concentrated form the substance of my counsels. I assert that it is incumbent upon you [Philip] to work for the good of the Greeks, to reign as king over the Macedonians, and to extend your power over the greatest possible number of the barbarians. For if you do these things, all men will be grateful to you. The Greeks will be grateful for your kindness to them; the Macedonians that you reign over them, not like a tyrant, but like a king. The rest of the peoples will also be grateful if by your hands they are delivered from barbaric despotism and are brought under the protection of Greece.

How well this discourse has been composed with respect to appropriateness and finish of style is a question which it is fair to ask my hearers to answer. However, I believe I am certain that no one could give you better advice than this, or advice more suited to the present situation.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Source of translations: G. Norlin and L. van Hook, Isocrates, 3 vols. (Cambridge, MA: CUP, 1928), public domain (Norlin passed away in 1942, Hook passed away in 1953), adapted by Harland.

 

Leave a comment or correction

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *