“Isocrates, Antidosis.” perseus.tufts.edu. Department of Classics, Tufts University, n.d.
Web. 25 January, 2014.
I did a Google search for “Isocrates Antidosis digital” and found this 1980 translation by George Norlin. The text is also available in Greek. The search function is available at the word level for the full text – it also searches the annotations, and the results are linked to the sections of the text, making it easy to be aware of context. This is a great resource for in depth study of this text.
“Isocrates with an English Translation” ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L229.pdf
Web. 24 January 2014.
This is a .pdf of a complete scan of Isocrates with an English Translation by George Norlin, Volume II. This volume includes On the Peace, Areopagiticus, Against the Sophist, Antidosis, and Panathenaicus, and the text is in both Greek and English. It appears to have been published in 1928, which makes me wonder about the date on the Perseus copy of this text. Because this is a .pdf you can use the “Edit/Find/Find…” feature if you open it in a web browser. This is an imperfect way of searching because it’s using automated text reading on a book with older typeface, but having access to this edition could be of benefit.
I found all of my sources through searches for “Isocrates Antidosis” on Google Scholar and the OSU library search tools.
Benoit, William L. “Isocrates on Rhetorical Education. ” Communication Education
33.2 (1984): 109-119. Web. 25 January 2014.
William Benoit, in his article “Isocrates on Rhetorical Education” (1984), asserts that Isocrates’ merits recognition as a major influence influence in early rhetoric.
Benoit gives evidence for the claim that Isocrates was a student of Protagoras and Socrates, describes his brief career as a logographer, then describes his contributions to rhetoric and most specifically to rhetorical education.
His purpose is to identify Isocrates’ views on rhetorical education through an examination of his criticisms of other educators–Benoit distills these view down to “Rhetoric is the worker or science of persuasion, is a branch of philosophy, it can alter our perceptions of things, it allows us to dispute with others and seek knowledge for ourselves” (113).
Benoit builds a steady case for Isocrates’ importance in the study of classical rhetoric, by letting other classical rhetoricians including Cicero and Quintilian; his article would provide helpful background for someone new to the study of classical rhetoric.
Chase, Kenneth R. “A Commentary on Isocrates’ Antidosis.” Quarterly Journal of
Speech 96.4 (2010): 472-476. Web. 26 January 2014.
In Kenneth Chase’s review of A Commentary on Isocrates’ Antidosis by Yun Lee Too, he describes Too’s thesis that Antidosis was Isocrates’ way of “entering the fray” (472) of the 4th Century battle between public oratory and literature; he faults Too for not exploring in greater depth the ways in which Antidosis impacted centuries of rhetorical pedagogy.
Chase identifies a point at which Too’s analysis goes too far into a depiction of Isocrates as advocating for the “‘good old days’ in which the [Athenian] elite…would wisely direct a democratic Athens to a more glorious future” (473).
Chase recommends that those new to the study of Isocrates begin with The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates: Text, Power, Pedagogy by Josiah Ober before reading Too’s analysis, in order that they have a balanced perspective on the role of Antidosis in classical rhetoric.
Near the end of his review, Chase identifies an audience for Too’s book: those scholars (and here he includes himself) who “place Isocrates on a pedestal” (476).
Hawhee, Debra. “Bodily Pedagogies: Rhetoric, Athletics, and the Sophists’ Three Rs.”
College English 65.2 (2002): 142-162. Print.
Haskins, Ekaterina. “Choosing between Isocrates and Aristotle: Disciplinary
Assumptions and Pedagogical Implications.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 36.2
(2006): 191-201. Print.
Ekaterina Haskins, in her article “Choosing between Isocrates and Aristotle: Disciplinary Assumptions and Pedagogical Implications” (2006), challenges Aristotle’s centrality in the classical rhetorical canon and argues that Isocrates and Aristotle should be regarded as opponents in a debate over the scope, resources and ends of rhetorical education.
Haskins identifies five central assumptions about classical Greek rhetoric, which she then addresses one by one in favor of the pedagogical value of a more prominent role for Isocrates.
Her purpose is to argue for an expansion of the canon of classical rhetoric, including other works by Plato and Aristotle in order to “challenge the perception of homogeneity and historical transcendence” (198); she uses the second half of her article to suggest ways to accomplish this kind of change.
Haskin’s article will be of interest to scholars of classical rhetoric who are interested in practical actions towards the diversification of the rhetorical canon.