Antidosis by Isocrates

Primary sources

Isocrates. “Antidosis.” Isocrates, Volume I. Trans. George Norlin. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928. Tufts University. Perseus Digital Library. Web. 25 January 2014. (Available here.)

This version of Antidosis is an electronic text based on the translations of George Norlin, and not a photocopy of an older text, so it is quite easy to read. This database also organizes this text in one- to two-sentence sections, allowing for each part to be easily digestible for the reader of this somewhat complex text; a search function allows the reader to also seek out specific sections of the text.

Isocrates. The Orations of Isocrates. Trans.  J.H. Freese. London: George Bell & Sons, 1894. Google Books. Web. 25 January 2014. (Available here.)

While Antidosis is not available in this digitized edition of this book, there are 10 photocopied (but searchable) versions of Isocrates’ works, none of which are found in the BH text. Therefore, this resource may be of use to anyone looking to further explore Isocrates through primary texts.

Isocrates. Isocrates I. Trans. David C. Mirhady and Yun Lee Too. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000. Google Books. Web. 25 January 2014. (Available here.)

This photocopied but searchable compilation of primary texts includes not only Antidosis but Against the Sophists–also found in the BH text–and several other primary texts.

Secondary sources

Gogan, Brian. “Exchange in On the Exchange: A Baudrillardian Perspective on Isocrates’ Antidosis.” Rhetoric Review 31.4 (2012): 353-370. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

In “Exchange in On the Exchange: A Baudrillardian Perspective on Isocrates’ Antidosis,” an academic journal article published in 2012, Brian Gogan frames Isocrates’ “Antidosis” in a theoretical framework of the literary and cultural critic Jean Baudrillard, arguing that Antidosis provides excellent commentary on the current discourse surrounding the role of education in the context of the public good, and also provides educators with lessons in performance and persuasion necessary to defend the role of education. Gogan organizes his argument by defining Baudrillardian rhetoric–one that “sustains perpetual exchange” and circulation (355)–and then applying this lens to Antidosis by demonstrating that the text can be considered beyond the context of persuasion or identification; rather, Isocrates establishes a complex space for exchange in its offensive tone, its organization into two disparate parts, and the dynamic relationship between these two parts. By drawing comparisons between the classical “Antidosis” and contemporary issues, Gogan aims to demonstrate how arguments made by Isocrates in defense of the role as an educator can be recreated by today’s teachers in order that they can then use such arguments as a model to assert their efforts and decisions in a public forum. Not only intended for scholars of classical rhetoric, Gogan’s article would also be of use for educational policymakers and scholars.

Haskins, Ekaterina V. “’Mimesis’ between Poetics and Rhetoric: Performance Culture and Civic Education in Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 30.3 (2000): 7-33. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

Livingstone, Niall. “Writing Politics: Isocrates’ Rhetoric of Philosophy.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 25.1 (2007): 15-34. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

Papillon, Terry L. “Mixed Unities in the “Antidosis” of Isocrates.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 27.4 (1997): 47-62. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

In the academic journal article “Mixed Unities in the Antidosis of Isocrates” (1997), Terry Papillon argues that Isocrates successfully defends himself in “Antidosis” by developing disparate sections of the text and weaving these sections together through the reiteration of the theme of the crucial role of education in the advancement of the Athenian state. Papillon presents his argument by defining the rhetorical situation, illustrating the swirling ideas found within “Antidosis” in the context of the rhetorical situation, exploring the synonyms and antonyms of “mixed” and the historical context of this word as a way to probe Isocrates’ description of his text’s “mixed rhetoric,” and eventually analyzing the public/civic and private/instructional sections of text before demonstrating how the seemingly disparate parts of “Antidosis” work together through the combination of this public and private oratory. Papillon focuses his argument by demonstrating how the overarching goal of unity in a composition can provide readers with a new perspective on the confrontation of the rhetorical situation in Isocrates’ texts, in order that a new “Isocratean methods of rhetorical composition” (47) to be identified and studied. The primary audience of Papillon’s article are likely readers and scholars of Isocrates’ texts as well as scholars of classical rhetoric in general, interested in the rhetorical study and teachings of Isocrates.

Rummel, Erika. “Isocrates’ Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation.” The Classical Journal 75.1 (1979): 25-35. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

In her academic journal article “Isocrates’ Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation” (1979), Erika Rummel presents a portrait of Isocrates that differentiates him from contemporaries due to his unique, morally focused approach to rhetoric, which borrows artistic characteristics from sophistic teachers as well as the “common man” interest in practicality, combining such with his own adherence to the goodness necessary in any quality rhetorical effort; Rummel also identifies three criteria that determine the quality of a rhetorical composition allow readers to see Isocrates’ eclectic approach and philosophy on rhetoric. Rummel delivers her claim by first discussing the importance of relativism and kairos in the context of Isocrates’ teaching as what anchors him in the practical, and then provides proof of Isocrates’ value in three criteria for quality rhetorical works: purpose, style, and content. Rummel intends to argue for Isocrates’ uniqueness within the world of teachers of rhetoric of his day in order that scholars of classical rhetoric separate him from the likes of Sophists who were more interested in the superficiality of rhetoric. While Rummel appears to have developed this article for scholars of classical rhetoric in general, she specifically engages scholars in the teachings of Isocrates and also those interested in the Sophists.