Speaking for the Polis: Isocrates' Rhetorical Education

Speaking for the Polis

Studies in Rhetoric/Communication

Thomas W. Benson, Series Editor

Speaking for the Polis

Isocrates’ Rhetorical Education

Takis Poulakos

© 1997 University of South Carolina

Cloth edition published by the University of South Carolina Press, 1997

Paperback edition published by the University of South Carolina Press, 2008

Ebook edition published in Columbia, South Carolina, by the University of South Carolina Press, 2022

www.uscpress.com

Manufactured in the United States of America

31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

The Library of Congress has cataloged the cloth edition as follows:

Poulakos, Takis.

Speaking for the polis : Isocrates’ rhetorical education / Takis Poulakos.

p. cm. — (Studies in rhetoric/communication)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 1-57003-177-0 (cloth)

1. Isocrates—Criticism and interpretation. 2. Speeches, addresses, etc., Greek—Greece—Athens—History and criticism. 3. Community life—Greece—Athens—History. 4. Athens (Greece)—Social conditions. 5. Education, Greek—Greece—Athens. 6. Rhetoric, Ancient. 7. Oratory, Ancient. I. Title. II. Series.

PA4218.P68 1997

885’.01—dc21 97-4865

ISBN 978-1-57003-793-1 (paperback)

ISBN 978-1-64336-292-2 (ebook)

To John Poulakos

Contents

Editor’s Preface

Preface

Acknowledgments

Introduction

1. Rhetoric and Social Cohesion: The Hymn to Logos

2. Speaking Like a Citizen: Citizenship, Leadership, and Community in Nicocles

3. Human Agency

4. Eloquence and Reflection: Antidosis

5. Public Deliberation: Panegyricus

6. Educational Program

Conclusion

Notes

Works Cited

Index

Editor’s Preface

In Speaking for the Polis, Takis Poulakos rereads and revives the rhetorical teachings of Isocrates, a Greek orator and teacher of rhetoric who lived from 436 to 338 B.C. Professor Poulakos sees in the surviving works of Isocrates a depiction of rhetorical education as preparation for life and leadership in Athenian politics that has special relevance for the needs of contemporary citizens.

Professor Poulakos argues that Isocrates described rhetoric as the engine for creating unity out of diversity and the public good out of individual action. By its very nature rhetoric appeals to communal values, interests, and desires, stimulating the arts of civilized life. An appropriate education in rhetoric would stimulate adherence to standards that would judge an orator not by the ability to achieve individual ends but rather by the ability to maintain a social order in which citizenship can flourish. Hence, rhetoric is properly seen not as the study of techniques for creating effects upon ignorant hearers, but rather as the study of the proper means by which to create civilization itself. Public deliberation is found in the actions of both speakers and listeners as deliberating agents. Despite the essential optimism and high ideals of this vision, Professor Poulakos does not depict Isocrates as a naive dreamer. Rhetoric always existed in a series of tensions between unity and diversity, personal ambition and the public good, political equality and social-economic inequality, and only proper understanding and proper action could hope to achieve the public good. At the same time, Professor Poulakos himself, whose admiration of Isocrates is deep and subtle, never loses sight of what he calls the situated, political, and provisional nature of Isocrates’ views, adapted as they were to another time and place.

Speaking for the Polis is at once a profound rereading of Isocrates situated in ancient Athens and a moving evocation of a rhetoric adapted to the cultural situation of contemporary readers.

Thomas W. Benson

Preface

I first conceived this book as a close study of Isocrates’ educational treatises, Antidosis and Against the Sophists. But the closer I read the Antidosis, the more convinced I became that Isocrates’ rhetorical education cannot be confined to a study of his instruction in rhetoric. The very spirit of the Antidosis seems to me to be offering a critique against any type of education that remains impervious to everyday practices as well as to be making an effort to link his own educational program with political life in Athens. It was the Antidosis itself, then, that pushed me away from writing the close study I was prepared to write.

Yet, once the context is opened up, there seems to be no end to what could be included and brought to a reading of Antidosis or an understanding of Isocrates’ rhetorical education. The Isocratean corpus is immense; no one book could ever capture the breadth of his thought, his practices, his educational activities. I ultimately chose in this work to concentrate on the ways in which Isocrates sought to construct his students’ understanding of themselves: the responsibilities they had to themselves as thinkers, to their fellow citizens as human beings, to the tradition of rhetoric as speakers, to the history of their city as potential leaders, and, finally, to their polis as political beings. Comprehension of the uniqueness of Isocrates’ rhetorical education, I feel, is possible only through close examination of his efforts to guide his listeners’ self-understanding as political and moral agents.

It was the attempt to capture the self-understanding that Isocrates demanded of orators-to-be that not only led me through his enormous corpus but also helped me deal with my present biases as a modern reader. I have not always had that tolerance when faced with Isocrates’ own politics. However, once I was able to see the great difference between Isocrates’ personal sympathies and party politics and his deeper commitment to political agency, I was successful in suspending the former and focusing on the latter. If our political perspective on Isocrates’ rhetoric remains nar rowly conceived, we are bound to find in his rhetorical education nothing of significance to our own historical-cultural moment. However, if we conceive the political broadly, as an essential aspect of our being, there is much there to enrich our own understanding and teaching of rhetoric. It is in this sense that I understand Isocrates’ rhetoric as a rhetoric of unification and in this same sense that I understand his rhetorical education as the art of speaking for the polis.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Michael Leff, Kathleen Welch, Victor Vitanza, and Jane Sutton for their sustained and generous support; to Donovan Ochs, Sharon Crowley, George Kennedy, David Konstan, and John Finamore for their caring criticism of various aspects of my work; and to Tom Kane, Dennis Moore, Fred Antczak, Bonnie Bender, and Doug Trank for their professional and personal support.

Speaking for the Polis

Introduction

At a time when interest in rhetoric and its history is higher than ever before, a study of Isocrates’ rhetoric can serve at least two purposes. First, it can expand the discursive horizon of the well-known debate between Plato and the Sophists by making the point that classical Athenian rhetoric was much more than an either/or proposition. Second, it can stimulate our own thinking on the quality of our political life by giving us a portrait of another culture and another time in which the art of rhetoric was called upon to address and resolve problems of division and unity, fragmentation and consolidation, diversity and cooperation—in other words, problems extremely pertinent to our own times. At stake in the first instance is our understanding of the relationship between rhetorical education and political culture; in the second instance, it is our rethinking of the role we wish to assign to rhetorical education today, in our efforts to shape the future direction of our own political culture.

Only a few decades ago Isocrates was fixed, seemingly permanently, in the company of the Attic orators and was understood as a representative of the tradition of civic eloquence.¹ The disciplinary preoccupation with political philosophy and political theory, and the immensely satisfactory outlet this preoccupation could find in Plato and Aristotle, kept Isocrates in the background. Neither a political philosopher nor a political theorist, Isocrates placed a premium on practical knowledge and situated commitments in the domain of the political, which did not always sit well with disciplinary approaches and concerns. What kept Isocrates alive behind mainstream scholarship and its insistence on disciplinarity were the handful of classical scholars whose commitments to a well-rounded liberal education and approaches to learning as an integrated study in the humanities rather than as disciplinary knowledge drove them to Isocrates’ broad framework of rhetorical education. Through the pioneer efforts of Kenneth Freeman, Werner Jaeger, Frederick Beck, Henri Marrou, and George Kennedy, Isocrates was carried forth to our own times.²

From scholars of rhetoric he did not receive a great deal of attention either. Aristotle drew all scholarly interest, as his Art of Rhetoric continued to provide the legitimate origins that the recently reemerging discipline of rhetoric needed. The few inquiries into pre-Aristotelian rhetoric focused on the fierce antagonism between Plato and the Sophists—in an effort either to sharpen rhetoric’s identity by opposition to philosophy³ or, as John Poulakos did, to claim for rhetoric a more spacious home than the one Aristotle had built.⁴ As these initial efforts happened to coincide with the linguistic turn, a host of other scholars joined in and took up the vast potential of sophistic rhetoric to respond to the new challenges brought by poststructuralism.⁵ Between the recurring need for ancient authority and the present enthusiasm with the complex relation of language to power and difference, between Aristotle and the Sophists, Isocrates was once again kept, with few exceptions, in the background.⁶

One notable exception was Michael McGee’s essay some ten years ago, an essay that captured Isocrates’ potential to provide a powerful critique against canons of disciplinarity and ivory-tower approaches to the Academy.⁷ In a sense, this book is an attempt to extend that effort. But it is also written out of the conviction that Isocrates’ interdisciplinary approach to rhetorical education is only symptomatic of a larger commitment on his part, namely, to link rhetorical education with the affairs and concerns of the polis and to mobilize the art of rhetoric for the purpose of improving the internal conditions of the polis.

Given the sharp contrast between the conditions of Classical Athens and conditions at present, a study on Isocrates may be readily dismissed as altogether irrelevant to our own needs and desires. Classical Athens was a slave society, a place where Athenian women and non-Athenianborn males were noncitizens and where a few landowners and aristocrats maintained a stranglehold on the economy while the majority of people worked fields in the country, lived as manual laborers, or depended on the public treasury for sustenance. It was a society driven by war, expansion, conquest, and people who understood as an assertion of their own freedom the capacity to extend their borders outward and dominate others by turning them into slaves or imposing on them tributes. From the point of view of our own social values and present commitments to equality, there seems to be no connection at all, no reason whatsoever to study Classical Athens or to expect any similarities between society then and now. From that point of view, the only sensible reason to study the Athenians seems to be to celebrate our differences from them or to express our indignation against the economic, racial, and gender inequalities they subscribed to. This point of view shaped some of my earlier work on Isocrates.⁸

Yet my ongoing study of Classical Athens has made me increasingly more sensitive to the differences within that society—differences that tend to be covered over by a perspective that continues to assess the past on the basis of valuations at present.⁹ Isocrates’ argumentative prose is a constant reminder to modern readers of the intellectual differences that existed at the time in approaches to education as well as in educational objectives and purposes of existing fields of study.¹⁰ And these differences in general education or in rhetorical education frequently turn out to be but manifestations of greater differences still—in ethical, social, and political outlooks.¹¹ The citizens of Athens were not of one voice as to the direction of their city.

What sustains my interest in Isocrates now is my fascination with the way he sought to navigate around these differences—sometimes respecting or promoting them, other times erasing or conflating them—and carve out a common purpose, a shared view of the cardinal importance of the polis and its welfare, and a concerted effort to make the vitality and destiny of the polis every citizen’s affair. It was to that purpose that Isocrates devoted his instruction and for the sake of that purpose that he changed the art of rhetoric from the way it was when he inherited it. The version of rhetoric he left behind is, unequivocally, a rhetoric for the polis.

This seems to me to be a project pertinent to our own times, for the recent emphasis on difference and diversity has made apparent to us the need to think through unity and plurality in new ways, that is, ways that account for, as well as promote, difference and diversity. Even as the need to make the case for the significant role differences play in the production of ideas and the conduct of praxis is far from over, there exists the further need to explore the difficulties involved with unification. The problem is a rhetorical one: how to orchestrate differences in a manner that makes concerted action possible; how to form a genuine we out of diversity.¹² To be sure, Isocrates does not provide any solutions to our condition; he confronts another set of problems and inherits another rhetorical tradition. Still, I find it worthwhile to initiate a transaction with the past, especially a moment in the past that illustrates rhetoric’s potential to take up problems we are interested in addressing. Isocrates’ gift to us, then, may amount to nothing more than an inspiration: that this flexible and pliable art we call rhetoric may be bent and flexed until it responds to our context-specific needs and helps us discover the available means of persuasion in our own situation at present.

In this book I attempt to follow the various ways in which Isocrates changed the rhetorical tradition in order to rescue rhetoric from the ill repute it had received by the time it reached his day; to examine how the changes he made might have provided satisfactory responses to some of Plato’s attacks on rhetoric; to show that these changes amounted to a radically new version of rhetoric and an innovative program in rhetorical education; and, most important, to show that the changes made were political—political not in the narrow sense of party politics but in the broader sense of care and concern for the general welfare. I consider such an inquiry to be indispensable to the modern reader’s understanding of Isocrates’ rhetorical education as well as to the student of rhetoric, for the contributions he made to the art of rhetoric concern not so much the body of knowledge comprising the field at the time as the possibilities he opened up concerning the uses of art and the ends to which it could be put. And since the new possibilities he created for the art of rhetoric are not always articulated in his educational treatise, I draw on his practice as a rhetorician as much as I consult his discourse as an educator. As I understand it, then, an inquiry into Isocrates’ rhetorical education cannot proceed formalistically but must be equally attentive to what he says and to what he does.

It is my contention that the single most important change Isocrates effected in the rhetorical tradition was to give the art of rhetoric a distinctly political orientation. Indeed, this book will advance the argument that under Isocrates rhetoric assumed a character and a purpose congruent with the political practices of the times. In Isocrates’ hands rhetoric became the art of politics. The inquiry undertaken in the following pages will focus on the ways in which Isocrates formulated and practiced his art so as to give rhetoric a unique relation to political deliberation; how he looked to pressing issues of the day for rhetoric’s subject matter and to the welfare of the polis for the art’s end; how he adjusted rhetoric so as to address successfully issues of vital importance to the citizenry and deliberate effectively questions of public policy; and how he mobilized his version of rhetoric in order to advocate courses of action that safeguarded the interests of the citizens and promoted the general welfare of the city-state.

This work will also examine how rhetorical education under Isocrates became an education in deliberating the destiny of the polis. The inquiry will be guided by Isocrates’ own assertion that his instruction in rhetoric was but an apprenticeship to active participation in the affairs of the polis and requisite training for effective leadership in Athenian politics. We will scrutinize his claim that his version of rhetoric was equipped to respond to sociopolitical demands for collective representation and that his students were educated in assuming a perspective from which the collective interests of citizens could be represented. Particular attention will be paid to the ways his instruction prepared his students to position themselves within that perspective, to deliberate issues from