32 HIS DISLIKE OF ISOCRATES. companied, on the part of the former at least, with as cordial a contempt. Isocrates was in fact a sophist of by no means a high order. He did not possess the cleverness which enabled many of that class to put forth a claim to universal knowledge, and under many circumstances to maintain it successfully. He professed to teach nothing but the art of oratory, and the subjectmatter of this he derived exclusively from the field of politics. But his want of comprehensiveness was not compensated by any superior degree of accuracy or depth, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus' is right in considering this limitation as the characteristic which distinguishes him from the more ambitious pretenders Gorgias and Protagoras. Oratory, according to his view, was the art of making what was important appear trivial, and what was trivial appear important,-in other words, of proving black white and white black. He taught this accomplishment not on any principles even pretending to be scientific, but by mere practice in the school like fencing or boxing. Indignation at this miserable substitute for philosophical institution, and at the undeserved reputation which its author had acquired, found vent with Aristotle in the application of a sentiment1 which Euripides in his Philoctetes, a play now lost, put into the mouth of Ulysses. He resolved himself to take up the subject, and his success was so great that Cicero appears to regard the reputation arising from it as one of the principal motives which induced Philip to intrust him with the education 1 De Isocr. jud. p. 536. 2 Isocrat. Panegyr. § 8. 3 où μełódæ ảλλ ảoкńσe. Pseudo-Plutarch, Vit. Isocr. Compare Cicero, De Invent. ii. 2. Brut. 12. 4 αἰσχρὸν σιωπᾷν, βαρβάρους δ ̓ ἐάν λέγειν. Aristotle substituted the word Ισοκράτη for βαρβάρους. HIMSELF TEACHES RHETORIC. 33 of Alexander. The expressions too, which he uses in describing Aristotle's treatment of his subject apply rather to lectures combined with rhetorical practice and historical illustration than a formal treatise. And this is an important point, inasmuch as it proves that he assumed the functions of an instructor during this his first residence at Athens. However, such part of his subject as embraced the early history of the art, and might be regarded in the light of an introduction to the rest, would very likely appear by itself; and this is exactly the character of the work so highly praised by Cicero in another place, but unfortunately lost, to which we have before alluded (p. 20). It was purely historical and critical, and contained none of his own views. These were systematically developed in another work', perhaps the one which we possess, which was certainly not written at this early period. Apparently, in the lost work the system of Isocrates was attacked and severely handled. The assailed party does not seem to have come forward to defend himself; but a scholar of his, Cephisodorus, in a polemical treatise of considerable length, did not confine himself to the defence of his master's doctrines, but indulged in the most virulent attacks upon the moral as well as intellectual character of his rivals. Upon this work Dio 5 De Orat. iii. 35. 6 Itaque ornavit et illustravit doctrinam illam omnem, rerumque cognitionem cum orationis exercitatione conjunxit...... Hunc Alexandro filio doctorem accivit, a quo eodem ille et agendi acciperet præcepta et eloquendi. Cicero, loc. cit. 7 Cujus [Aristotelis] et illum legi librum, in quo exposuit dicendi artes omnium superiorum, et illos, in quibus ipse sua quædam de eâdem arte dixit. De Orator. ii. 38. 8 Aristocles ap. Euseb. loc. cit. Athenæus, p. 60. 34 HIS POLEMICS WITH CEPHISODORUS. 66 nysius of Halicarnassus, perhaps sympathizing with a brother rhetorician, passes a high encomium'. But from the little which we know of it, there is but scanty room for believing that its author carried conviction to the minds of many readers not predisposed to agree with him. One of the grounds on which he holds his adversary up to contempt is the having made a Collection of Proverbs, an employment, in the opinion of Cephisodorus, utterly unworthy of one professing to be a philosopher. Such as have not, like Cephisodorus, an enemy to overthrow by fair means or foul, will be inclined to smile at such a charge, even if indeed they do not view it in something like the contrary light. Apophthegms," says Bacon, "are not only for delight and ornament, but for real businesses and civil usages; for they are, as he said, secures aut mucrones verborum, which by their sharp edge cut and penetrate the knots of Matters and Business; and occasions run round in a ring, and what was once profitable may again be practised, and again be effectual, whether a man speak them as ancient or make them his own." Proverbs are the apophthegms of a people, and from this point of view Aristotle appears to have formed his estimate of their importance. He is said to have regarded them as exhibiting in a compressed form the wisdom of the ages in which they severally sprang up; and in many instances to have been preserved by their compactness and pregnancy through vicissitudes that had swept away all other traces of the people which originated them2. 1 De Isocrate judicium, sec. 18. He calls it πáv davμaoτýv. But Dionysius utterly fails where he attempts literary criticism. Witness the absurd principles on which he proceeds in his comparison of Herodotus and Thucydides. 2 Synesius, Encom. Calvitii, p. 59, ed. Turneb. CHAPTER III. ARISTOTLE IN ASIA, WE now pass to another stage in the life of Aristotle. After a twenty years' stay at Athens, he, accompanied by the Platonic philosopher Xenocrates, passed over into Asia Minor, and took up his residence at Atarneus or Assos (for the accounts vary), in Mysia, at the court of Hermias3. Of the motives which impelled him to this step we have, as is natural, very conflicting accounts.. His enemies imputed it to a feeling of jealousy, arising from Speusippus having been appointed by Plato, who had died just before, as his successor in the school of the Academy. Others attributed it to a yet more vulgar motive, a taste for the coarse sensualities and ostentatious luxury of an oriental court. But the first of these reasons will 53. 3 Strabo, xiii. p. 126, ed. Tauchnitz. Diodorus Siculus, xvi, 4 Elian, Var. Hist. iii. 19. Eubulides (ap. Aristocl. Euseb. Præp. Ev. xv. 2.) alleged that Aristotle refused to be present at Plato's death-bed. 5 To this the Epigram of Theocritus of Chios (ap. Aristocl. loc. cit.) perhaps alludes: Ἑρμίου εὐνούχου τε καὶ Ἐυβούλου τόδε δούλου Μνήμα κενὸν κενόφρων θῆκεν ̓Αριστοτέλης Αντ' ̓Ακαδημείας βορβόρου ἐν προχοαῖς. although Plutarch applies it to his residence in Macedonia. The cenotaph spoken of in the second line is probably the foundation for 36 REASONS FOR GOING THERE. seem to deserve but little credit, when we consider that the position which Plato had held was not recognised in any public manner; that there was neither endowment nor dignity attached to it; that all honour or profit that could possibly arise from it was due solely to the personal merits of the philosopher; that in all probability Aristotle himself had occupied a similar position before the death of Plato; and, that if he felt himself injured by the selection of Speusippus (Plato's nephew), he had every opportunity of showing, by the best of all tests, competition, how erroneous a judgment had been formed of their respective merits. And with regard to the second view, it will be sufficient to remark, that for the twenty years preceding this epoch, as well as afterwards, he possessed the option of living at the court of Macedonia, where he probably had connexions, and where there was equal scope for indulging the tastes in question. We shall, therefore, feel no scruple in referring this journey to other and more adequate causes. The reader of Grecian history will not fail to recollect that the suspicions which the Athenians had for some time entertained of the ambitious designs of Philip received a sudden confirmation just at this moment by the successes of that monarch in the Chalcidian peninsula. The fall of Olynthus and the destruction of the Greek confederacy, of which that town was at the head', produced at Athens a feeling of indignation mixed with fear, of which Demosthenes did not fail to take advantage to kindle a strong hatred of the "altar" to Plato, of which the latter writers speak. See above, p. 7. Theocritus of Chios was a contemporary of Aristotle. The Syracusan poet of the same name, in an Epigram ascribed to him, protests against being identified with him. Above, p 13. |