Lycurgus is called a pupil of Isocrates; whether he was actually a student under the great master we cannot be sure, but undoubtedly he had studied the master’s works. The influence of the _Panegyric_ may be traced here and there in the forms of sentences and in certain terms of speech which are characteristic of the epideictic style. Blass and others have drawn attention to isolated sentences in the speech against Leocrates which might have been deliberately modelled, with only the necessary changes of words for the different circumstances, on sentences in Isocrates.[411] The employment of a pair of synonyms, or words of similar sense, where one would suffice, also belongs to this style[412]—_e.g._ safeguard and protect, § 3; infamous and inglorious, § 91; greatheartedness and nobility, § 100. With these we must class such phrases as τὰ κοινὰ τῶν ἀδικημάτων for τὰ κοινὰ ἀδικήματα[413] (§ 6), and the employment of abstract words in the plural, as εὔνοιαι, φόβοι, § 48, 43. Lycurgus is very variable with regard to hiatus. In some instances he has deliberately avoided it by slight distortions of the natural order of words;[414] in some passages he has been able to avoid it without any dislocation of order—a work of greater skill;[415] but again there are sentences where the sequences of open vowels are frequent and harsh.[416] Other instances of careless writing may be found in the inartistic joining of sentences and clauses, for instance in §§ 49-50, where several successive clauses are connected by γάρ,[417] or in the clumsy accumulation of participles, as in § 93.[418] We must conclude that Lycurgus, though so familiar with the characteristics of Isocratean prose as to reproduce them by unconscious imitation, was too much interested in his subject to care about being a stylist; and that though, like Demosthenes, he wrote his speeches out, he really belongs rather to the class of improvisatory speakers like Phocion. His tendency towards the epideictic style is also seen in his treatment of his subject-matter; thus §§ 46-51 are nothing but a condensed funeral speech on those who died at Chaeronea. It is introduced with an apology (§ 46); it may seem irrelevant, he says, but it is frankly introduced to point the contrast between the patriot and the traitor. The concluding sections of the eulogy are as follows: