But what contributed most to their good government of the state was that of the two recognized kinds of equality—that which makes the same award to all alike and that which gives to each man his dueFor these two kinds of equality cf. Isoc. 3.14 ff.; Isoc. 2.14; Plat. Rep. 558c, and Plat. Laws 757b; Aristot. Pol. 1301a 26 ff.—they did not fail to grasp which was the more serviceable; but, rejecting as unjust that which holds that the good and the bad are worthy of the same honors,

and preferring rather that which rewards and punishes every man according to his deserts, they governed the city on this principle, not filling the offices by lot from all the citizens,The method of electing the various magistrates changed from time to time, and is much less simple than Isocrates here represents it to be. For example, election of the chief magistrates, the archons, by lot (though from a previously selected group) is at least as old as Solon. On the other hand, in Isocrates’ day officers who had supervision over military and financial affairs were elected by show of hands in the General Assembly. See Gilbert, (English translation) pp. 216 ff. It seems clear, however, that after Cleisthenes all classes of citizens, the poor as well as the rich, became eligible to the offices (Plut. Arist. 22) and that election by lot became increasingly a device to further pure democracy. but selecting the best and the ablest for each function of the state; for they believed that the rest of the people would reflect the character of those who were placed in charge of their affairs.

Furthermore they considered that this way of appointing magistrates was also more democratic than the casting of lots, since under the plan of election by lot chance would decide the issue and the partizans of oligarchy would often get the offices; whereas under the plan of selecting the worthiest men, the people would have in their hands the power to choose those who were most attached to the existing constitution.

The reason why this plan was agreeable to the majority and why they did not fight over the offices was because they had been schooled to be industrious and frugal, and not to neglect their own possessions and conspire against the possessions of others, and not to repair their own fortunes out of the public funds,He is thinking of pay, not only for the magistrates, but for attendance at the sessions of the jury courts, of the General Assembly, etc. See Isoc. 8.130. Aristotle (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 24) states that since the changes which were introduced by Aristides over twenty thousand Athenians earned their livelihood in public service of one sort or another. In the same work (62) he gives a brief sketch of the pay for such services. but rather to help out the commonwealth, should the need arise, from their private resources,For the public spirit of the old democracy see Isoc. 4.76; Isoc. 8.42 ff.; Isoc. 12.145 ff. and not to know more accurately the incomes derived from the public offices than those which accrued to them from their own estates.

So severely did they abstain from what belonged to the state that it was harder in those days to find men who were willing to hold officeCf. Isoc. 12.146; Plat. Rep. 347b, Plat. Rep. 520d; Ruskin, : “No one ever teaches well who wants to teach or governs well who wants to govern: it is an old saying (Plato’s but I know not if his first) and as wise as old.” than it is now to find men who are not begging for the privilege; for they did not regard a charge over public affairs as a chance for private gain but as a service to the state; neither did they from their first day in office seek to discover whether their predecessors had overlooked any source of profit, but much rather whether they had neglected any business of the state which pressed for settlement.