Tell, Håkan. 2011. Plato's Counterfeit Sophists. Hellenic Studies Series 44. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_Tell.Platos_Counterfeit_Sophists.2011.
3. Sophoi and Concord
The History of the Discourse on Concord
The same story is told by Themistius,  but he never mentions concord. Instead he tells us that Ephesus was under siege at that time and hanging onto life by a thread, and that Heraclitus was thus recommending a rationing of food. This siege is not mentioned by Plutarch, however, and some have argued that he confused the historical circumstances.  Such confusion would disqualify Plutarch as a trustworthy source for the use of ὁμόνοια before the 450s BCE.
One leads to the honorable house of freedom (ἐλευθερίας),
But the other to the house of slavery (δουλείας), which is shunned by mortals.
It is possible to travel the former road through manliness
And lovely concord (διά τ’ ἀνδροσύνης ἐρατῆς θ’ ὁμονοίας);
Be sure you lead your people on this path;
But the latter goes through hateful strife and impotent delusion
(διὰ στυγερῆς ἔριδος καὶ ἀνάλκιδος ἄτης);
Be sure to be most on your guard against this one. 
The authenticity of this oracle has been the subject of much debate. Romilly argues that there are good reasons to reject it as a reliable historical document, especially to support an early use of ὁμόνοια. 
Lysias stresses the unifying force of the Olympic Games (and all other Panhellenic games, one may surmise) and, given the result of his call—the audience indeed looted the tents of Dionysius at the games—it seems reasonable to assume that he spoke to well-rooted conceptions of unity and common Greek identity that were cultivated through the institution of the Panhellenic games. That is precisely what makes them the perfect arena for his address of internal unity and external aggression. Herodotus (8.26) gives another example of the unifying force of the Olympic Games. After the battle at Thermopylae, some Arcadians approached the Persians in search of food and employment, and when asked what the Greeks were up to, they responded that they were celebrating the Olympic Games. When asked what the prize (κείμενον) was over which they were competing, they answered that it was a wreath of olive leaves. Upon hearing this, one of the Persians cried out in distress that they had to face men who do not compete for money but honor (οἳ οὐ περὶ χρημάτων τὸν ἀγῶνα ποιεῦνται ἀλλὰ περὶ ἀρετῆς). Herodotus, in addressing a Greek audience, skillfully uses the Persian bewilderment to comment on the formative experience that the celebration of the Olympic Games entails, an experience that in Herodotus’ narrative is so peculiarly Greek so as to be unintelligible to non-Greeks.  The conclusion—that Greeks value honor higher than money—leaves little doubt as to the moral messages of the passage: the superiority of the Greek way of life, fostered and promoted at the Panhellenic centers. 
Isocrates reiterated this theme in a number of speeches throughout his life. When the Athenians and Spartans persevered in their hostilities, he sought the help of other potentates to promote his policy ideas: Jason, the tyrant of Pherae;  Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily;  Archidamus, the son of Agesilaus;  and finally Philip, the king of Macedon.  Demosthenes, too, adopted the theme of concord among the Greeks and aggression against the Persian king. 
Similar sentiments are expressed in Book 5.3 regarding the Thracians:
But, Herodotus adds, the Thracians are indeed incapable of such unity and are therefore weak (ἀσθενέες). This theme is also touched upon in Book 8.75, when Themistocles secretly sends a messenger over to the Persian fleet to urge them to attack the Greeks, since they, not practicing concord (οὔτε γὰρ ἀλλήλοισι ὁμοφρονέουσι), would put up no resistance. Finally, in Book 8.3, Herodotus gives the reason why the Athenians did not clash over the command of the fleet in 480; they were concerned about the survival of Greece (μέγα πεποιημένοι περιεῖναι τὴν Ἑλλάδα) and realized that, if they were to quarrel over the command, Greece would surely be lost. Herodotus approves of their reasoning with the comment that:
In the Histories we can detect a clear preoccupation with the idea of invading Persia, a preoccupation addressed to a contemporary audience. Further, the theme of internal concord is intrinsically linked to external aggression. War is even described as bringing about concord (πολέμου ὁμοφρονέοντος). Stasis, on the other hand, generates weakness. This typology fits well with our findings on ὁμόνοια. There, too, we see the juxtaposition of stasis and concord, debilitation and prosperity. Although it is possible to discern thematic similarities between the two contexts, Herodotus never uses the word ὁμόνοια, instead favoring ὁμοφρονέειν and other periphrastic locutions, such as φρονέειν κατὰ τὠυτό.
Xenophon also discusses concord in relation to Sparta, and puts it into the mouth of Pericles, the son of Pericles, to complain about the degenerate ways of the Athenians. Pericles asks when the Athenians will learn from the Spartans and adopt their observance of concord (ὁμονοήσουσιν). As things stand, he says, the Athenians’ lack of concord has enabled evil and cowardice to take root in the city, and much enmity and mutual hatred exists among the citizens.  Polybius reports that Ephorus discussed Sparta (6.45.1) and says that he highly praised the political prudence of Lycurgus:
Strabo (10.4.16) also quotes Ephorus as discussing concord, but includes the passage in his treatment of Crete. Since the account is so close to the one in Polybius, however, it seems reasonable to assume that it is derived from the same source (presumably Ephorus’ Histories). Strabo (10.4.17) makes it clear that Ephorus thought that most Spartan institutions originated in Crete and that the two states were fundamentally similar. Polybius (6.46.10) protests that Ephorus actually describes Crete and Sparta in identical language, despite their many differences, and that it is almost impossible to know which one he is talking about unless paying close attention to proper names.  It is not surprising, then, if Strabo, perhaps mistakenly, included the discussion of concord in his treatment of Crete rather than Sparta. We will thus include Strabo’s Ephorus quotation as another illustrative example of the close thematic connection between concord and Sparta. Ephorus makes the point that for concord to prevail, dissension, which is fueled by greed and luxury, must first be removed. 
In the next paragraph he explains the preconditions for Spartan concord: equal possession of property (ἡ μὲν γὰρ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις ἰσότης) and a simple and common diet.
Archytas expresses similar sentiments regarding concord and its impact on society:
Archytas contrasts concord with civil strife, which prevents the smooth operation of society. Democritus likewise describes the detrimental effects of civil strife in fragment 249:
Archytas affirms that correct reckoning (λογισμός), presumably his own Pythagorean philosophy,  has the capacity to remove civil strife and enhance concord. This seems to be one of the most efficacious qualities of his wisdom, at least as far as society is concerned. Democritus describes both the benefits of concord and the destructive effects of civil strife, but he does not explicitly elaborate on his own role in promoting the one and avoiding the other. It would seem reasonable to assume, however, that his reflections on στάσις and ὁμόνοια are anchored, one way or another, in his own philosophy, although that relation is not clearly fleshed out in the preserved fragments.
The Thematic Typology of Concord
Diogenes Laertius relates another incident where Empedocles spoke against the public funding of a memorial of one of the city’s most famous physicians, and he did so “discoursing about equality” (περὶ ἰσότητος διαλεχθείς).  We also hear that he broke up an oligarchic assembly called the Thousand in favor of the democracy, and that he saved the people of Selinus from pestilence by bringing two neighboring rivers to cleanse their city. 
In connection to this passage, Aristotle mentions that the equalization of property (ἡ τῆς οὐσίας ὁμαλότης) was an important theme even for some of the older generation of sophoi, and he goes on to mention the legislation of Solon as an example of this.  In fragment 4 (West), Solon says that his polis is being destroyed, not by the gods, but by the greed of its citizens (αὐτοὶ δὲ φθείρειν μεγάλην πόλιν ἀφραδίῃσιν ἀστοὶ βούλονται χρήμασι πειθόμενοι, 5–6).  The reason for this, he continues, is that they do not know how to check their insatiable greed (κατέχειν κόρον, 9) or to enjoy the present happiness in the peace of the feast (παρούσας εὐφροσύνας κοσμεῖν δαιτὸς ἐν ἡσυχίῃ, 9–10). This leads to slavery which, in turn, stirs up civil strife and war from its sleep (ἣ [δουλοσύνη] στάσιν ἔμφυλον πόλεμόν θ’ εὕδοντ’ ἐπεγείρει, 19). Such a development has disastrous consequences for the city with killings, people sold into slavery, and other evils. The remedy to all this is good order (Εὐνομίη, 32).  It ends greed (παύει κόρον, 34), civil strife (παύει δ’ ἔργα διχοστασίης, 37), and the anger of painful strife (παύει δ’ ἀργαλέης ἔριδος χόλον, 38).
Our sources thus seem to agree about the ubiquitous and detrimental effects of greed and on the importance of checking this impulse.
φύλλοις στέφεσθαι, χὥστις ἡγεῖται πόλει
κάλλιστα σώφρων καὶ δίκαιος ὢν ἀνήρ,
ὅστις τε μύθοις ἔργ’ ἀπαλλάσσει κακὰ
μάχας τ’ ἀφαιρῶν καὶ στάσεις· τοιαῦτα γὰρ
πόλει τε πάσῃ πᾶσί θ’ Ἕλλησιν καλά.
Wise and noble men should be crowned with leaves,
both he who leads the city best, being a prudent and just man,
and he who removes evil actions with his words and takes away
battles and civil strifes. For such things are good both for every
city and for all Greeks. 
Solon, then, uses εὐνομίη and ἡσυχίη much in the same sense as we have seen ὁμόνοια being used by others. Democritus and Archytas, in turn, employ ἴσον almost interchangeably with ὁμόνοια. Phaleas of Chalcedon champions the notion of equal property as a means of avoiding civil strife, and such policy is attributed to Lycurgus by Polybius, who writes that the precondition for the Lacedaemonian concord was equality of property. We have also seen similar sentiments regarding equalization of property expressed in Aristotle, Isocrates, Demosthenes, Democritus, Archytas, and Xenophon, and Aristotle saw this as fundamental to Solon’s legislative reform.
Poetic Appeals to Concord
Legal Expertise and Wisdom
He continues by saying that some say that they met both at the Pan-Ionian festival and at Corinth and Delphi (ἐν Πανιωνίῳ καὶ ἐν Κορίνθῳ καὶ εν Δελφοῖς συνελθεῖν αὐτούς). According to Aristotle, Pittacus, one of the Seven Sages,  was appointed an arbitrator (αἰσυμνήτης) for ten years, and he was involved in overthrowing Melanchrus, the tyrant of Lesbos.  Diogenes Laertius emphasizes his legal expertise and refers to his laws (νόμους δὲ ἔθηκε),  as do Aristotle (νόμων δημιουργός) and Diodorus (νομοθέτης τε γὰρ ἀγαθός).  As has been widely recognized, his legislation was less sweeping than the constitutional reforms of Lycurgus and Solon,  but it was substantial enough to earn him a reputation for wisdom and a place among the early lawgivers.  But Diodorus adds an interesting piece of information. In the same sentences where he relates Pittacus’ fame as legislator he writes that he removed from his fatherland three of the greatest afflictions: tyranny, civil strife, and war (τὴν πατρίδα τριῶν τῶν μεγίστων συμφορῶν ἀπέλυσε, τυραννίδος, στάσεως, πολέμου). Diodorus here stresses the connection between Pittacus’ ability as a lawgiver and his capacity to free the state from war and tyranny. In the next paragraph (9.12) he tells how, after Pittacus conquered Phrynon in single combat and procured victory for Mytilene over Athens, the Mytileneans wanted to give Pittacus half of the land they had gained through his victory.  But he declined the offer. Diodorus continues:
This passage resonates well with the material discussed above: Pittacus, through his wisdom—he was one of the Seven—keeps stasis in check.  By not giving in to greed (πλεονεξία), which generates stasis, but by upholding equality (τὸ ἴσον, ἰσότης), he procures a well-governed and prosperous state for the Mytileneans. Compare this to Archytas’ view, quoted above. He argues that his particular branch of sophia (λογισμός) is ideally suited to restore a society torn by civil conflicts to a state of unity and accord. It is significant that in outlining the positive effects of his interventions he appears to make little distinction between τὸ ἶσον/ἰσότας and ὁμόνοια. This semantic coupling—especially when understood against the thematic backdrop of greed and civil strife—strengthens the connection between the accounts of Pittacus and Lycurgus, where τὸ ἴσον and ἰσότης are employed as the ideal state in the former, and ὁμόνοια in the latter.  In other words, τὸ ἴσον/ἰσότης and ὁμόνοια fulfill similar functions as the intellectual antidote to greed and civil strife.