LoginAgendaClassmates

LOCAL
Chronology Classical Rhetorics Current Day Rhetorics Lexicon 8170 Site Map OFF SITE
Glossary of Athenian Legal Terms Etymologies Persius Project Rhetorica Rhetorical Review Suda Online Maps
Syllabus


Isocrates, (436--338 BCE)

Image from the Wiki entry on Isocrates It is difficult to overstate Isocrates' importance to the history of rhetoric, although it is easy to miss him because Plato and later Aristotle cast much longer shadows.

Cicero refers to Isocrates as the "father of eloquence" and his students became some of the most influential Athenians of their generation. Isocrates is also sometimes referred to as the progenitor of the liberal arts because he espoused learning a wide range of subjects and he argued that the purpose of education was to make a solid citizen, one capable of looking after his own affairs as well as those of his city. Or as he says in Antidosis, "I hold that man to be wise who is able by his powers of conjecture to arrive generally at the best course [of action]."

Isocrates was born into a wealthy family. His father made shields for soldiers [According to a Wiki article the family made flutes. I need to cross check this]. But at the end of the war between Sparta and Athens (The Peloponnesian War), when the 30 oligarchs briefly overthrew the democracy (404 BCE, making him 32 at the time), Britanica Online: "Thirty Tyrants, (404-403 BC) Spartan-imposed oligarchy that ruled Athens after the Peloponnesian War. Thirty commissioners were appointed to the oligarchy, which had an extremist conservative core, led by Critias. Their oppressive regime fostered a bloody purge, in which perhaps 1,500 residents were killed. Many moderates fled the city; gathering a force, they returned to defeat the tyrants' forces in a battle at Piraeus in 403. The 30 fled and were killed off over the next few years." his family's fortune was among the many fortunes confiscated. Isocrates thus had to make his own way. He tells us that he lacked the voice and the courage to speak in public and so he started out as a logographer, writing speeches for other people to deliver. Eventually he opened his school and made a living by charging tuition of a small, select, group of students. [Isocrates may be the first person about whom the observation was made that those who can do...]

Isocrates considered Plato a rival. They both studied with Socrates, although Isocrates also studied with Gorgias. Isocrates made a living as a teacher. Socrates taught but he didn't charge. He had a day job as a stone mason, we're told. More likely he owned a stone masonry business that generated enough income for him to spend hours philosophizing. Isocrates' school was devoted to the pursuit of political discourse. or public speaking. It's hard to name what what Isocrates taught. He uses the expression "the ability to speak and deliberate on affairs" (Antidosis). It seems he taught by speaking at length about political matters and expected his students to practice speaking on the same subjects, emulating his speeches while devising their own. He describes his subject matter as relevant and important to real life, practicing with real rather than wooden swords, to borrow a phrase from later in the tradition. His curriclum was perhaps similar to curricula today that have students writing argumentative essays about current events, writing editorials, or even more directly getting involved in civic matters like bike lanes or homelessness. Plato may not yet have coined the word "rhetoric" or, more likely, Isocrates chose to ignore his rivals' terminology. Some say it was Isocrates' forming a school at the Lyceum From Wikipedia: "Lyceum was a temple dedicated to Apollo Lyceus ("Apollo the wolf-god"[1]). ...The Lyceum had been used for philosophical debate long before Aristotle. Philosophers such as Prodicus of Ceos, Protagoras, and numerous rhapsodes had spoken there.[2] The most famous philosophers to teach there were Isocrates, Plato (of The Academy), and the best-known Athenian teacher, Socrates.(link) that motivated Plato to open the Academy.

A number of texts have come down to us under Isocrates' name. Three are particularly important to rhetoric, Against the Sophists, Antidosis, and Encomium of Helen. You should read them before you continue here.

Notes on Against the Sophists

At the beginning of his career, Isocrates wrote a text differentiating his educational program from those of his rivals. Against the Sophists amounts to a pamphlet promoting his school at the expense of possible alternatives. He accuses his competitors of promising more than anyone could possibly deliver, charging too little for what they claim to be selling, and going about the whole thing all wrong. He, on the other hand, provides training that will prepare a young man for a prominent civic role. The fact that some of his students went on to succuessful public lives underscores Isocrates' assertion, although as with elite schools today, gold in, gold out.

Noteworthy Quotations for Against the Sophists

"For I think it is manifest to all that foreknowledge of future events is not vouchsafed to our human nature." This sort of skepticism about accurate prediction of the future is a hallmark of what I call sophisticated skepticism. The opposite position, that the future is predictable because knowable, known, or foretold, is the hallmark of rhetorical dogmas, think Parmenides, or any totalitarian authority. The middle ground, that the future is statistically predictable, is occupied by artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision making.

"They [my competitors] are on the watch for contradictions in words but are blind to inconsistencies in deeds." Perhaps this is a dig at Plato himself, but it definitely opposes elenchus, the sort of dialectical discourse that leads to bewildered silence rather than shared agreement. Isocrates believed that the purpose of education was to learn how to get things done.

"They do not attribute any of this power either to the practical experience or to the native ability of the student, but undertake to transmit the science of discourse as simply as they would teach the letters of the alphabet, not having taken trouble to examine into the nature of each kind of knowledge."

"Oratory is good only if it has the qualities of fitness for the occasion, propriety of style, and originality of treatment." Nice rubric.

"Formal training . . . teaches them to take from a readier source the topics which they otherwise hit upon in haphazard fashion . . . it cannot fully fashion men who are without natural aptitude into good debaters or writers, although it is capable of leading them on to self-improvement and to a greater degree of intelligence on many subjects"

"I hold that to obtain a knowledge of the elements out of which we make and compose all discourses is not so very difficult . . . But to choose from these elements those which should be employed for each subject, to join them together, to arrange them properly, and also, not to miss what the occasion demands but appropriately to adorn the whole speech with striking thoughts and to clothe it in flowing and melodious phrase. These things, I hold, require much study and are the task of a vigorous and imaginative mind" -- pretty much the opposite of Plato.

"[the teacher] must in himself set such an example of oratory." I have learned from this assertion to share my own work in progress with those students who have shown an interest in it.

"Let no one suppose that I claim that just living can be taught . . . I do think that the study of political discourse can help more than any other thing to stimulate and form such qualities of character."

Notice that the objective for education is "just living." To instill a sense of justice in one's students is a pretty high bar by contemporary standards. We seem mostly content with good grammar. So what should the goal of your educational efforts be? Civic engagement? Technical fluency? Love of craft? And what kind of success might you hope to achieve? Can you hope to achieve same level of success for all students? Do you teach to the top? The middle? The bottom? More importantly, what kind of data might you gather to find out?

For Isocrates, instilling the desire to be civically persuasive amounts to instilling justice because once a person realizes people are more easily persuaded by people of a good reputation, the wouldbe rhetor will always be on his best behavior, always seeking to provide the best advice and living as an example to others.

Notes on Antidosis (Gk. exchange)

Late in his long life, long after Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth, Isocrates chose to write a defense of his own pedagogical practices. He uses the form of an "antidosis" From Wikipedia, "This was a legal action filed by a newly appointed liturgist [one who has to pay for an expensive public good like a warship or a festival], against another citizen whom he claimed was wealthier than himself and therefore more able to bear the financial burden. The defendant had the choice of accepting the liturgy, making an exchange of wealth or submitting to a trial.[61] At trial, a jury decided which of the men was wealthier, and the one selected was responsible for the liturgy. When an antidosis action was filed pertaining to the trierarchy [paying for a warship], the Athenians were concerned that the problem be resolved quickly, so the trial was required to take place within a month.[62]."(link) as a pretext. In the voice of the defendent, the one who has been accused of having more money than he insists he has, Isocrates offers a long explanation and defense of his teaching methods and purposes, while arguing indirectly that his great and noteworthy success has nevertheless not led to great personal wealth because he is motivated by the greater good rather than greed or pride. The speech has come down to us intact, apparently. The link above, however, is to excerpts from it. (You might want to read it before reading my observations about it. There is also a link there to the full text.)

Noteworthy Quotations from Antidosis

"I had elected to speak and write, not on petty disputes, but on subjects so important and so elevated that no one would attempt them except those who had studied with me, and their would-be imitators" -- well, that sounds awfully arrogant,Humble bragging is hard to pull of generally, but you also get the sense from reading classical texts that boasting and bragging were not universally looked down on. You had to know how to throw a punch and take one. but I think his point is that whereas his predecessors prided themselves on being able to speak about anything, he tried to differentiate himself by writing only on the political themes of the day. He also wanted to distance himself from those people who made a living writing speeches for others to give in the lawcourts and those who used the courts and even the assemblies for personal gain. Isocrates was a kind of proto essayist or political pundit. He was a teacher (rhetorician) rather than a public speaker (rhetor) because he had a weak voice and suffered from stage fright. The fact that the motivation for this piece is an imagined loss at court seems to support the idea that he taught because he couldn't practice.

"There is no institution devised by man which the power of speech has not helped us to establish." -- this idea that speech made civilization possible becomes a standard topic in the subsequent rhetorical tradition. It's obviously designed to increase the value of the subject rhetoricians teach. Though it isn't a lie, there's probably much more to the origins of society than just speech. In Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari asserts and illustrates with admirable prose that, "All these cooperation networks -- from the cities of ancient Mesopotamia to the Qin and Roman empires -- were 'imagined orders'. The social norms that sustained them were based neither on ingrained instincts nor on personal acquaintances, but rather on belief in shared myths." Shared myths is the "power of speech" in action, I suppose. Harari also notes, however, that every empire was built on slavery and conscripted taxation. It's not like those who cut stone and carried lumber for the elites did so because they were persuaded to do so, not persuaded in the sense of talked into anyway. No doubt there have always been a few who went along willingly and had the resources, eventually, to opt out. But the rest had only the starkest of options, payup or die off. Still, the vast majority of people payedup, and so must have found a way to talk themselves into choosing labor over death. Rhetoric again.

"The power to speak well is taken as the surest index of a sound understanding, and discourse which is true and lawful and just is the outward image of a good and faithful soul" -- do you think this is true? What are the implications for a "liberal" education if it is true?

"We call eloquent those who are able to speak before a crowd, we regard as sage those who most skillfully debate their problems in their own minds" -- eloquence is the expression of a sage mind. hmm.

"Gymnastic of the mind" ... advises young men to spend some time on these disciplines, but not to allow their minds "to be dried up by barren subtlties."

"I hold that man to be wise who is able by his powers of conjecture to arrive generally at the best course [of action]." -- practical wisdom, the capacity to make greater good desicions and the desire to make them.

"I consider that the kind of art which can implant honesty and justice in depraved natures has never existed .l . .But I do hold that people can become better and worthier if they conceive an ambition to speak well, if they become possessed of the desire to be able to persuade their hearers, and, finally, if they set their hearts on seizing their advantage . . .the man who wishes to persuade people will not be negligent as to the matter of character . . . words carry greater conviction when spoken by men of good repute" Apropo NYT op. ed. Saturday Sept 3, 2023 about teaching common-graound and "reasonableness" to all first year students. Apparently Stanford as re-introduced a kind of Western Civ class. I read this as reincarnation of Isocratian logos politikon

"Enable us to govern wisely both our own households and the commonwealth"

"The most promising of our young men are wasting their youth in drinking-bouts, in parties, in soft living and childish folly" -- this is a common topic among all people who criticize education, even today.

Some Musings on Isocrates' Encomium of Helen

It is far better to have a sound opinion upon useful things than an accurate knowledge of things that are useless, and to have a slight superiority in matters of importance than to be far above others in small things that are of no practical benefit in life.

"and men have grown old . . . declaring that courage, wisdom, and justice are identical". Well, because there are three different words here, it would seem obvious that they must refer to three different ideas, which is not quite the same thing as saying that they are three different things (Parmenides to the contrary notwithstanding). All three ideas are purely human, right? I mean, do other animals display courage? [yes, dogs display courage protecting their people or their sheep] Well, how about wisdom or justice? (Try re-writing the last two questions by switching the order of courage, wisdom, and justice, to see what effects the order creates.) Anyway, let's do the sophisticated thing and see if we can say that the three ideas are identical. By definition, something is identical with something else if all attributes of one are equally attributes of the other, and the same is true for all non-attributes. So, if justice is a virtue, then courage would have also to be a virtue if we are to continue wondering if they are the same thing. If courage is a virtue and justice is a state of affairs, then justice and courage are not the same thing. That seems like a lot of work for an obvious point and one illuminating nothing; still, that's how to think about identity. Let's say that both justice and courage are virtues, then anything that is true of a virtue (assuming all virtues are the same in their virtueness) must also be true of justice and courage. If we can find an attribute of virtues that justice does not possess, we can no longer consider justice a virtue.

The concept of identity is important for Greek thinking, as it is for English thinking, because the basic sentence is designed to identify a relationship between different things, whether objects or ideas. (And because of the way they define definitions. More on that in a moment.) The most powerful rhetorical affects are created when one can identify something with something else. Metaphor works on this principle. Rhetoric is a beast with a winning smile Rhetoric is a smiling beast. Being able to establish relationships between ideas and between words and between things, thus becomes the heart of rhetorical practice. Science, too, is interested in relationships, but with it we are restricted to the world as it actually is, whereas with rhetoric we are free to explore what might or might not be; not what is, but what is humanly possible.

Defining key terms is important because it allows for more efficient communication and because it can keep people honest. Being able to mess with a language is a bit like being able to print your own money. Thucydides' observation about how war seems to encourage what today we call "spin" and what he cleary detested, as all who long for a stable language do, is worth quoting here.

The ordinary acceptation of words in their relation to things was changed as men thought fit. Reckless audacity came to be regarded as courageous loyalty to party, prudent hesitation as specious cowardice, moderation as a cloak for unmanly weakness and to be clever in everything was to do naught in anything. Frantic impulsiveness was accounted a true man's part, but caution in deliberation a specious pretext for shirking. (link).

The Greek idea of a definition is to take the term one wants to define, associate it with all words like it, and then isolate the one attribute it possesses that none of its like words possess, thus the attribute which belongs to it and only it: its essence. When you find the word's essence, you have found its identity and you can make a sentence of the X is Y variety, where you don't have a metaphor but an accurate, true statement.

The parts of a definition are

  1. Genus -- mammals
  2. Species -- homo sapiens
  3. Attributes -- bi-pedal, stereo-scopic, etc.
  4. Essence -- has a soul (?)
  5. Accidents -- American, French speaking, etc. (everything else)

While every sentence that uses the copula, that is the verb "to be" in all its forms (is, are), forms a part of our understanding of our world, which is composed of words and things, there are of course many other relationships for the language to express.

How many relationships can you think of?

Well, again, anyway, Isocrates' complaint that his rival teachers have waisted a great deal of time and too little of their students' money on trivial matters seems a bit over-stated, which is typical of his rhetoric (style?), by the way. Isocrates seems to like to make a point and then take much of it back, so as to sound as though he is always on the middle path. Thus eventually he gets to the idea that just as gymnastics is good training for the body, so juggling useless ideas is good training for the mind, as long as one doesn't spend too much time at it or let oneself become distracted from more immediately significant activities, like advising the state and running one's own affairs.

"Those who have no thought either for public or private interests take especial pleasure in such discourses as are of no service for any single purpose. line 6"

"In the case of the young men, there is much to be said in excuse of their entertaining such ideas; for in everything they are always disposed to exaggeration and straining after the marvelous; but those who pretend to instruct them deserve rebuke, because, while they accuse those who cheat in private contracts and make an unfair use of their powers of speech, they themselves act in a far more reprehensible manner than this; for while the former merely inflict loss upon strangers, the latter chiefly do harm to their own pupils. (line 7)"

"For what sensible man would undertake to praise misfortunes?" (line 11)This is an interesting objection. If accepted, it would invalidate the later tradition of consolation, where one turns a lament for the struggles of life into an affirmation of god's mystery. It would also seem to invalidate struggling against adversity more generally. It's a fairly narrow view, I'm inclined to think, that accepts all misfortune as necessarily unavailable to rhetorical modification.

"omitting all that has been previously said by others", an interesting assertion of the importance of novelty. I'd forgotten about this passage. And he says something similar a bit later.

"He saw that those who aspire to rule their fellow-citizens by force are themselves the slaves of others, and that those who make life dangerous for the rest live in fear and trembling themselves, and are forced to make war" -- political allegory. Isocrates is here admonishing his fellow Athenians to be careful of their empiric practices.