but by the crafts which have to do with the building of ships and by men who are able to
 row them—men who have lost their own possessions and are accustomed to derive their
 livelihood from the possessions of others. The homeless
 refugees who enlisted in the naval service of Athens for pay and the chance to pillage.
 See especially Isoc. 8.44 ff. and Isoc. Letter 9.9 . Our fathers did not fail to foresee that with the
 introduction of these elements into the state the order and discipline of the former
 polity would be relaxed Cf. Eur.
 Hec. 607 : ναυτική τ′ ἀναρχία . and
 that the good will of our allies would soon undergo a change when the Athenians should
 compel the Hellenes, to whom they had previously given lands and cities, to pay
 contributions and tribute to Athens in order that she might have the means to pay the kind
 of men whom I mentioned a moment ago. Nevertheless, although they were not blind to any of the things which I have mentioned,
 they considered that it was both advantageous and becoming to a state so great in size and
 reputation to bear with all difficulties rather than with the rule of the Lacedaemonians.
 For having the choice between two policies, neither of them ideal, they considered it
 better to choose to do injury to others rather than to suffer injury themselves and to
 rule without justice over others rather than, by seeking to escape that reproach, to be
 subject unjustly to the Lacedaemonians— a course which all sensible men would prefer and desire for themselves, This cynicism accords ill with his plea for justice as a rule
 of conduct for states in Isoc. 8.28 ff. , where he approaches
 the Platonic ideal that it is better to suffer than to do wrong ( Plat. Gorg. 46c ff. ). Here Isocrates inclines, for once, to
 the “practical” view of Demosthenes; that if all other states made justice the basis of
 their foreign policy it would be shameful for Athens not to observe it; but in a world
 where all other states are seeking the power to do injustice, for Athens alone to be
 governed by that ideal to her disadvantage would be “not justice but cowardice.” See
 Dem. 15.28-29 . albeit a certain few of those who
 claim to be wise men, were the question put to them, would not accept this view. These,
 then, are the reasons—I have perhaps gone into them at undue length—but, in any case,
 these are the reasons why they adopted the polity which is criticized by some in place of
 the polity which is commended by all. I shall now proceed to speak about the polity which I took for my subject and about our
 ancestors, going back to the early times when neither the word oligarchy nor the word
 democracy was as yet in our speech, but when monarchies governed both the barbaric races
 and all the Hellenic states. I have chosen to begin with a period rather remote for these reasons: first, because I
 consider that those who lay claim to superior excellence ought from the very beginning of
 their race to be distinguished above all others, See Isoc. 4.25 . and, second, because I should be ashamed if,
 having spoken at undue length of men who, though noble, See
 Isoc. 12.72 ff. are nowise akin to me, I should
 not even briefly mention those of our ancestors who most excellently governed our city,