Primary Sources:

Isocrates. Antidosis. Ed. George Norlin. Perseus. Tufts University, n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014.

I found this text by searching the Perseus online archive, which we had discussed in class. It was initially difficult to find the text because my searches were bringing up only texts which included my search words: Isocrates and Antidosis. I eventually found a link to the full text by searching through the English version of Isocrates’ Speeches, which includes several other works besides Antidosis. Antidosis itself is divided into 323 short sections. There are links to each of the footnotes, and even some links to other texts that are referenced or connected somehow. I would recommend Perseus to other students; however, it is necessary for students to take some time to get to know the technology before it is user friendly.

Isocrates. Antidosis. Ed. George Norlin. Internet Archive. University of Toronto Libraries, n.d. Web.  24 Jan. 2014.

I found this text by conducting a Google search for full text versions of Isocrates’ Antidosis. I found the Internet archive and initially had difficulty finding the text. The formatting of the website made it hard to find a link to the text, which was somewhat hidden. Once I found the link to the full text version, I found the display easy to read and easily searchable. The text is presented like a book with the Greek version on one side and the English version on the other. When searching for a word, the word is marked on a timeline showing how many times it occurs in the text, making it easy to navigate. I would recommend this database.

Citations and Rhetorical Précis’:

Benoit, William L. “Isocrates and Plato on Rhetoric and Rhetorical Education.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 21.1 (1991): 60-71.

  1. William Benoit in his article “Isocrates and Plato on Rhetoric and Rhetorical Education,” claims the differences in Plato and Socrates’ perspectives of rhetoric and rhetorical education can be attributed to the differences in who they studied with and their personal histories.
  2. He uses primary speeches and dialogues to explain that Plato’s and Isocrates’ similarities in rhetorical perspectives, such as their shared belief in the morality of rhetoric, potentially came from their both studying under Socrates and their desire to differentiate their teachings from the sophists, and their differences, such as Isocrates’ valuing practical knowledge where Plato thought that knowledge was required for rhetoric, came from Isocrates’ work as a logographer while Plato went to war during his youth.
  3. His purpose is to compare and contrast Isocrates’ and Plato’s perspectives in order that the reader can see that, although there are many similarities between their perspectives, the differences most likely stem from the variations in experiences in their lives.
  4. Benoit creates a scholarly relationship with the readers by clearly comparing and contrasting each rhetorician’s perspective based on their writings and their views.

Behme, Tim. “Isocrates on the Ethics of Authorship.” Rhetoric Review 23.3 (2004): 197-215.

  1. Tim Behme, in his article “Isocrates on the Ethics of Authorship,” argues that Isocrates’ focus on the unique expression of ideas, even if these ideas were not original, played an important role in the history of the ethics of authorship, and awareness of historical concepts of originality helps historians determine which historical figures were predecessors to our contemporary opinions of originality and to understand how ancient understandings of originality differs from modern understandings.
  2. Behme begins his argument by discussing other aspects of Isocrates’ work that have been examined, then Isocrates’ emphasis on originality and its competitive nature, and finally the importance of being aware of changes in meaning of vocabulary used during different periods.
  3. His purpose of this article is to show how examining the perspectives of historical figures on originality, such as Isocrates, helps historians understand both the development of our contemporary understandings of originality and that contemporary concepts of originality and plagiarism cannot be imposed on ancient cultures.
  4. Behme creates an academic relationship with his readers by expanding the scholarly conversation surrounding Isocrates’ work to include its impact on authorship ethics.

Marzluf, Phillip P. “Aptitude or Experience? Isocratic Ambivalence and the Ethics of Composition.” Rhetoric Review 23.4 (2004): 293-310.

  1. Philip Marzluf, in his article “Aptitude or Experience? Isocratic Ambivalence and the Ethics of Composition,” contends that Isocrates’ notions of aptitude and practice can be useful in examining modern composition studies.
  2. Marzluf opens his essay with a brief examination of the current issues surrounding basic writing and the concept of natural ability in the modern day classroom, then delves in to this theme in classical rhetorical tradition, examining Quintilian, Plato, and Isocrates, returning at the end with a brief examination of how the classical opinions of rhetorical aptitude are still prevalent and injurious in today’s educational system.
  3. His purpose is to reveal similarities between classical and modern opinions of the importance of natural ability and study in becoming a great orator in order to invoke change to the common, damaging, assumption that writing is a natural ability, not a learned skill.
  4. Marzluf engages scholarly audiences who are interested in the fields of classic Greek rhetoric and modern composition theory by connecting these two fields and examining how classic opinions of aptitude are still prevalent in current composition studies, especially the area of basic writing.

Other Citations:

Chase, Kenneth R. “Constructing Ethics through Rhetoric: Isocrates and Piety.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95.3 (2009): 239-262.

Papillion, Terry. “Isocrates’ Techne and Rhetorical Pedagogy.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 25 (1995): 149-163.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a reply

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>