[Niall_Livingstone]_A_Commentary_on_Isocrates'_Busiris

16 INTRODUCTIONother words, it functions—in part—as Proof of the Encomium'sNarrative, and the work as a whole takes on the character of aforensic defence speech. This device makes it appropriate for theDefence not to restrict itself to defending Busiris directly, but alsoto contrast the two that have been composed about him—justas a forensic Proof would support the speaker's own Narrative andundermine his opponent's. Here, this allows for an interweaving offictive demonstration with substantive theory, which bridges the gapbetween the Busiris-sections and the polemical frame. The speech asdefence of Busiris, seen in the light of this structural pattern, mergeswith the speech as counterblast to Polycrates, or, to put it anotherway, as defence of rhetoric against Polycrates' misuse.The Prologue may be seen as a Proem introducing Polycrates'travesty of rhetoric; the Encomium, presenting 'correct' rhetoric inthe form of an example, is the Narrative; the Defence demonstratesthe contrast between the two kinds of rhetorical procedure, and theEpilogue, as conclusion, recapitulates the 'guilt' of Polycratean compositions,which discredit rhetoric, and goes on to canvas the supportof Polycrates himself—and by implication of the wider audience—for the 'true' rhetoric on which Isocrates himself is the authority.Isocrates takes full advantage of the fact that his Defence of Busirisis a reply to a previous speech, just as a real forensic defence speechwould be: he can thus put Polycrates, the soi-disant defender of Busiris,in the role of prosecutor. Attention is focused on the opposingaccounts—the traditional myth adopted and embroidered by Polycrates,and Isocrates' edifying 'revised' version—more than on the figure ofBusiris himself. Hence the Defence section, having Isocrates' Encomiumand Polycrates' speech as its objects of reference, is drawn towardsthe theoretical plane; the real issue—the superiority of Isocrateanrhetoric—starts to break through the ostensible issue of Busiris' reputation.This emerging undercurrent is brought to the reader's attentionby the purely theoretical line of argument at § 33 (defence of Busiris.This relationship between the sections of the speech creates a hierarchyof levels. The Encomium adheres strictly to its mythologicaltheme: it makes no reference to other parts of the work, Polycratesis not mentioned, and the author's own presence is effaced. Thissection displays the highest epideictic style and maintains the greatestfictional distance. The Defence remains overtly centred on the