Download Isocrates

Dalton 1
Help Received: Grammarly, Writing Center (11/1/15 and 11/2/15), Zach Campbell peer review,
class notes, Google Scholar citations, Purdue OWL, dictionary.com, activistpost.com
Cadet Benjamin C. Dalton
Major Deidre Garriott
ERH-201WX-02
3 November 2015
The Contributions of Isocrates to the Development of Rhetoric
Rhetoric, an art form with no black and white definition, has been continuously
developing for millennia. When Isocrates, one of the greatest Greek rhetoricians of all time, was
born in 436 B.C.E., rhetoric was still a relatively new concept to most Athenians. However,
Isocrates devoted his life to teaching the art of rhetoric and educating his nation on its power. In
his mid 40’s, Isocrates opened the first ever school of rhetoric in order to teach rhetoric the way
he felt it should be practiced. Soon after, he became the most respected teacher of rhetoric in
Athens (Herrick 40). Isocrates’ fame came from his mastery of rhetorical discourse and ideals
that separated him from other Sophists. Included in his mastery of rhetorical discourse was his
understanding of the power of rhetoric and its potential to impact humanity. While Sophists
certainly did not disregard the power of rhetoric, they did not value and emphasize it to the
extent of Isocrates. Isocrates’ emphasis on the need for ethos, or moral character, in rhetoric also
separated him from most professional in his field. His concern for high moral character among
rhetoricians was among his greatest contributions the development of rhetoric. His interest in
moral character was further expressed when he introduced the thematic and pragmatic to
rhetorical education. While he did not invent either, he was the first to utilize them as a team for
the purpose of educating his pupils. Before Isocrates entered the field, rhetoric was essentially
Dalton 2
under the complete control of Sophists. The Sophists practiced and taught rhetoric as the artistic
use of words to persuade an audience of whatever the rhetor deemed fit. Without the
developments in rhetorical morality and education made by Isocrates, it is unlikely that humanity
would value either to the extent that they are today.
Isocrates developed his opinion that there was great need for morality and purpose
in rhetoric because he understood the power and potential of rhetorical discourse. Before
Isocrates, rhetoric was the Sophistic practice of using artistic language to persuade the audience
of whatever the orator chose. Isocrates chose not to conform to this norm first by describing the
power of rhetoric, and second by redefining its purpose. According to Herrick, Isocrates felt that
the power of rhetoric “made human civilization itself possible” (Herrick 44). As a master of
rhetoric, he understood how humanity made the transition from “wild beasts into civilizations
(qtd. in Herrick 44). Understanding that rhetoric was the very tool that allowed humanity to
create and develop civilizations caused him to focus on morality and purpose throughout his
career as a teacher and rhetorician. He recognized the potential of rhetoric to impact humanity in
whatever way the rhetor chose. Moreover, Isocrates inspired others to practice rhetoric in such a
way that used its potential to benefit society, as opposed to Sophistic rhetoric, which he saw as a
dishonest manipulation of truths.
Isocrates’ feelings toward the great power of rhetoric and the potential implications it
could have on society led him to stress the need for high moral character, or ethos, among
rhetoricians. Isocrates respected rhetoric’s potential to benefit society, but feared what would
happened if it was not practiced appropriately. As Herrick describes in The History and Theory
of Rhetoric: An Introduction, “this concern for ethos, or the speaker’s character, set him apart
from the Sophists whose orientation was decidedly more pragmatic” (Herrick 45). The
Dalton 3
relationship between ethos and Sophistic pragmatism will be discussed later in this essay. For
now, it is important to note that Isocrates conveyed his concern for morality with the goal of
preventing his peers from selfishly abusing their influence over the audience. A contemporary
example of the abuse of influence can be seen in the media. While many would argue that it is
the job of journalists to report news as they see it, the power of the media to influence its
audience is commonly used to distort the truth or otherwise persuade viewers. For example,
TIME Magazine, one of the most respected news outlets in the United States, has been caught
altering the cover stories of the magazines that they distribute to various regions in the world.
The problem with this is that the United States receives one version of an article, while the rest
of the world receives and entirely different version. The moral issue is TIME’s abuse of power to
manipulate their audiences’ emotions in such a way that supports the goals of the news company.
Isocrates used his school to teach his students about the significance of the moral
character in rhetoricians. When selecting his students, he examined their ethos in order to ensure
they met his ideal standard. Ensuring that his students naturally possessed high moral character
allowed Isocrates to teach only those that shared his desire to positively impact their audience on
relative issues, which was typically the Athenian demos. In Isocrates’ opinion, the moral
compass that individuals were born with could not be altered. Herrick summarized the words of
Isocrates in Against the Sophists by writing, “no one can be taught to be moral that does not
already possess the kind of nature that desires to live a moral life” (45). Unlike the Sophists,
Isocrates never claimed to have the ability to manipulate the moral character of others. He chose
to teach only those with morals similar to his own in order promote rhetoric’s ability to
positively contribute to society. Thus, Isocrates was using his school of rhetoric motivate his
students to participate in the movement he created to moralize rhetoric.
Dalton 4
Isocrates also emphasized morality in the political sphere of Athens. He is well known
for referring to his political ideals in much of literary discourse. Moreover, “he pursued writing
with the dual goal of shifting contemporary rhetorical practices from their traditional sites to a
broader political forum and crafting his own distinct civic identity” (Haskins 163). While
Isocrates was interested in helping individuals become master rhetoricians, his devotion to panHellenism comprised a major part of who he was as a person. In convincing politicians of the
need for morality in their occupation, Isocrates hoped to persuade them to actively use their
power to improve Athens. As Herrick said, “Isocrates teaching was not aimed at creating clever
and entertaining speakers, but rather at improving the political practices in Athens” (44).
Moreover, “much of Isocrates’ interest in rhetoric was a consequence of his concern for
preparing Greek leaders for making wise and effective political judgments” (Herrick 44). While
many of his pupils were young adults, he also taught a number of politicians and he was famous
for his ability to do so. The significance of his development of ethos in political rhetoric lies in
the influence rhetoric had over not only the Athenians, but future civilizations as well. Isocrates’
insight on the moral character of politicians has contributed to contemporary politics by helping
present civilizations develop expectations. A collision of ethos can be observed in contemporary
politics by examining GOP race for the 2016 Republican nomination for President of the United
States. Many Americans have taken note of the inability of politicians to make effective political
judgments. As a result, two citizens with little to no background in politics are outperforming the
career politicians. This is the result of politicians from both parties have failed to meet the
expectations of the people they serve. In the example, it is important to note that the
contemporary American politicians of opposing parties failed, in part, by lacking cooperation.
Moreover, Isocrates would likely say that the failure of the contemporary politicians is quite
Dalton 5
similar to the failure of Ancient Greek city-states unify against Persia, as Isocrates wished
(Heilbrunn 156).
Isocrates’ moral approach, which emphasized an objective truth, to rhetoric was one of
the key factors that set him apart from the Sophists. Isocrates differed from the Sophists in that
he felt that it was immoral to disregard the truth. The Sophists were famous for their skills in
rhetoric, however, they were also known for their lack of moral character in rhetorical discourse.
As John Poulakos said in his essay Toward a Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric, Sophists “found
themselves free to experiment playfully with form and style and to fashion their words in the
Greek spirit of excellence” (36). The key word in this quote is playfully. The Sophists were more
concerned with using artistic language to entertain other than actually educating or otherwise
contributing the welfare of the audience. They were entertainers focused on just that, entertaining
their audience. Poulakos furthers this point in saying, “The Sophists conceived of rhetoric
primarily as techné (art)” (36). While the use of art did effectively entertain their audience, it
often took precedence over the truth. As Isocrates wrote in Helen, regarding the Sophists, “they
ought to give up the use of this claptrap, which pretends to prove things by verbal quibbles” (qtd.
in Benoit 64). Isocrates often took advantage of the opportunity to show his distaste for the
Sophistic methods of manipulating facts because they did not contribute his ideals of rhetoric. In
the mind of Isocrates, their focus on art hindered their ability to positively contribute the
thematic. That is, concentration on significant issues (Herrick 44). While researchers often
associate Isocrates with Sophistic rhetoric, his stance on art in rhetoric was in strict opposition of
the Sophists. In relation to moral character, Isocrates contributed to the development of rhetoric
by highlighting the imperfections, i.e. lack of truth, in the discourse of the early Sophists.
Dalton 6
Another great contribution that Isocrates made to rhetoric was his introduction of the
thematic and pragmatic in rhetorical education (Herrick 44). As previously mentioned, the
thematic is the idea that rhetorical discourse should be focused on significant, current issues, as
opposed to matters lacking relative value (Herrick 44). Isocrates used the thematic in rhetorical
education in order to provide his students with a guideline to reference in forming a topic that
would inspire the audience to act. Isocrates introduced the thematic to his students as the first
step in forming strong rhetoric that would be beneficial to their city-state. In selecting a topic that
related to current issues, his students had a strong starting point to build on as they moved on to
the pragmatic.
The pragmatic “demanded that the [rhetorical discourse] make a positive contribution to
the life of the audience” and was the second phase of Isocrates’ structural guideline (Herrick 44).
He introduced the pragmatic to his students so they would better understand how to effectively
orient their argument as they developed their topic. Many rhetoricians, including the Sophists,
used the pragmatic during the Classical Period. While Isocrates was not unique for using the
pragmatic in rhetorical education, his choice to combine it with the thematic in order to
contribute to the rhetorician’s ethos did set him apart from others during this time period.
The use of the thematic and pragmatic in his teachings was especially relative to his
students that were involved in politics. In the opinion of Isocrates, the Athenian politicians often
did not act at their potential because they did not adequately address the significant matters,
which contradicted the thematic. Similarly, he felt that politicians often did not act in ways that
had a positive effect on their audience. This does not necessarily mean they were directly
harming the Athenian city-state. It simply meant that they were not directly benefitting it either,
which contradicted the pragmatic. As David Flemming wrote, “[Isocrates] sought to deflate the
Dalton 7
pretensions of art. He said the best that can be hoped from rhetorical education is sound
judgment in dealing with the particulars” (179). In other words, Isocrates taught his students to
focus on the thematic and pragmatic in order to discourage them from using rhetoric to
charmingly discussing arbitrary issues as the Sophists did.
The joint use of the thematic and pragmatic distanced Isocrates from the Sophists by
defining each relative to the other. To explain this statement, it is important to note that Sophistic
rhetoric utilized the pragmatic, but lacked the thematic. Isocrates utilized both as complements of
each other. Much of why the Sophists are associated with the pragmatic is due to their role as
entertainers. That is, they made a positive impact on the life of their audiences by creating
emotional appeal. On the other hand, Isocrates changed the context of the pragmatic by making it
morally relative to the thematic. He introduced the thematic and pragmatic hoping to assist his
students as they developed morally sound rhetoric. In this context, morality is dependent on the
orator highlighting the truth. Simply put, the Sophist’s pragmatic was centered on entertainment,
while Isocrates’ pragmatic was used to develop a thematic topic that would be valuable to
society.
The developments that Isocrates made in rhetorical morality and education changed
the way many Athenians viewed rhetoric as a practice. Moreover, his developments are still
relative to rhetoric and education because morality and thematically centered purposed
are still a central concern of many contemporary rhetoricians, especially politicians. While
Isocrates did not establish morality or the thematic and pragmatic as the only standard in
the field of rhetoric, he did plant the ideas in the minds of his students and countless
rhetoricians since his passing. That is, when he ventured from the Sophistic norms
established in rhetoric he created a separate movement in the rhetorical field that
Dalton 8
established norms and rippled throughout the Athens city-state and civilizations across the
world over the course of decades, centuries, and now millennia.
Dalton 9
Works Cited
Benoit, William L.. “Isocrates and Plato on Rhetoric and Rhetorical Education”. Rhetoric Society
Quarterly 21.1 (1991): 60–71. Web.
Fleming, David. "Rhetoric as a Course of Study." College English (1998): 169-191.
Haskins, Ekaterina V. "Rhetoric between orality and literacy: Cultural memory and performance
in Isocrates and Aristotle." Quarterly Journal of Speech 87.2 (2001): 158-178
Heilbrunn, Gunther. "Isocrates on rhetoric and power." Hermes (1975): 154-178.
Herrick, James A. "The history and theory of rhetoric." Needham Heights, MA. A (2005).
Poulakos, John. "Toward a sophistic definition of rhetoric." Philosophy & Rhetoric (1983): 3548.