Isocrates (436-338 BCE)

• Born, 436 BC
• died (suicide by starvation) 338 BC
• educated by Gorgias, and Socrates, among others.
• began his career as a logographer, writing speeches for others to deliver in the law courts. He later regreted having done that to such a great degree that he denied ever having done so.
• opened a school in Chios; later in Athens.
• publicized his new profession with Against the Sophists.
• had political ambitions, but did not have the requisite ability at public speaking. his voice was weak (could not "carry" the venue)
• suffered from communication apprehension
• started a school to train citizens
• an influential teacher, perhaps the most so in the ancient history of rhetoric
• students included many notable citizen statesmen and decorated leaders
• school had entrance requirements (few others did in those days--other than the requisite tuition).
• also charged a regular tuition fee--which was unique in that it was fixed/ standardized
• effective speech making was taken as a sign of good training, not as the goal itself.
• stressed the use of models in education.
• promoted both the progymnasium (analysis, practice, and delivery of set speeches drawn from history and/or the master) and declamatio (debate).
• sent his students to the courts and the legislature to observe the best speakers. He also counseled learning from the mistakes of negative models.

• a statement of opposition to the rhetoric taught by the rival to Isocrates' school, and to the oversimplified rhetorical techniques advanced by contemporary sophists, in which Isocrates criticizes three groups:
  1. the sophists who teach by memorization while taking money for their services;
  2. the teachers of political discourse; and
  3. last but not least, the Sophists focusing on the judicial manipulation.
• In first part he points out that "if all who are engaged in the profession of education were willing to state the facts instead of making greater promises then they can possibly fulfill, they would not be in such bad repute with the lay-public" directly referring to the minor Socratics who taught for money while affecting contempt for it.
• accuses the Socratics of "creating impression that those who choose a life of careless indolence are better advised than those who devote themselves to serious study."
• As if that isn’t bad enough Isocrates explains that although these professors set themselves up to be masters and dispensers of goods as precious as happiness and virtue, they are still not ashamed of asking a price for them that is more than insignificant.
• According to Isocrates there is no "science" which can teach humans to do under all circumstances the things which will insure their happiness and success. All that education can do is develop a sound judgment, which will meet the contingencies of life with resourcefulness and success, therefore: "when the teachers of wisdom and dispensers of happiness are themselves in great want but exact only a small fee from their students, that they are on the watch for contradictions in words but are blind to inconsistencies in deeds, and...they pretend to have knowledge of the future but are incapable...of saying anything pertinent or of giving any counsel regarding the present, and when he observes that those who follow their judgments are more consistent and more successful than those who profess to have exact knowledge, then he has...good reason to contemn such studies ...as stuff and nonsense, and not as a true discipline of the soul."
• While Sophists teach skills, they do so by making extravagant claims so as to draw large crowds of undifferentiated students. The sophists then write speeches and have their students memorize and deliver them. According to Isocrates this is "sham learning," for not all words mean the same thing, nor are all speeches equally valued or equally of value in different situations: "For what has been said by one speaker is not equally useful for the speaker who comes after him; on the contrary, he is accounted most skilled in this art who speaks in a manner worthy of his subject and yet is able to discover in it topics which are nowise the same as those of others . . . oratory is good only if it has the qualities of fitness for the occasion, propriety of style, and originality of treatment."
• Skill requires natural ability, practical experience, and formal training and not just a memorization.
• Teaching political discourse is yet another discipline being criticized, for according to Isocrates to transmit the science of discourse as simply as one would teach the letters of the alphabet and not having a taken trouble to examine into the nature of each kind of knowledge, but believing that because of the extravagance of ones promises one himself will command admiration and the teaching of discourse will be held in higher esteem- oblivious of the fact that the arts are made great not by those who are without scruple in boasting about them, but by those who are able to discover all of the resources which art affords.
• At the same time formal training makes men more skilful and more resourceful in discovering the possibilities of a subject, any subject. However it is their natural ability that makes things possible for ability is found in those who are well endowed by nature and have been skilled by practical experience. All of these components combine together can lead any man on to self-improvement and to a greater degree of intelligence.
• The last section of his letter Isocrates devotes to the "so-called art of the oratory..." claiming that the Sophists "…profess to teach how to conduct law-suits, picking out the most discredited of terms, which enemies...might have been expected to employ."
• Moreover, there does not exist an art of the kind, which can implant sobriety, and justice in depraved of character, nevertheless, according to Isocrates the study of political discourse can help to stimulate and form such qualities of character.