Isocrates as a sophist: characteristics, differentiation, and sophistic practice

Isocrates: No Sophist

A strict definition of sophistry has evolved throughout the centuries, yet sophists are identifiable in every age, whether in Plato's Dialogues, Shakespeare's dramas, or today's politicians and scholars. What then is a sophist? A sophist was, in ancient Greece, an itinerant teacher, who provided an education in rhetoric for a fee. Sophists were criticized by others, like Plato and Aristophanes (notably in "The Clouds"), for basing their doctrine not on truth but on the ability to cleverly twist one's words in order to win an argument. Isocrates was considered to be such a sophist by some and indeed he did hire himself out as a logographer or speech writer for citizens who had to represent themselves in court. Yet he himself wrote a treatise called "Against the Sophists," indicating that he considered himself something quite separate. It would not be out of keeping with sophistry for a sophist to distinguish himself from other sophists by emphasizing their faults (and it is certainly a way of advertising still utilized today in political campaigns). So while Isocrates asserted a kind of differentiation among sophists, it is not unreasonable to suggest that sophistry is still sophistry no matter what spin one chooses to put on it. In the end, one is either a sophist or not. This paper will show why Isocrates was not a sophist, because he was rather something else -- a pragmatist and a middle-road between rhetoric and philosophy.

That Isocrates devoted himself to teaching rhetoric and composition to basic students (at least those who showed the promise of talent) may illustrate his belief in the importance of basic education, or it may illustrate his desire to draw more pupils (and thus more fees). Yet his written letters to political leaders indicate that he had at heart the special cause of Grecian unification. These suggest that Isocrates' focus was on establishing a stable structure not only in Athenian society but in all of Greece, through understanding and working towards common goals. Isocrates may not have been as devoted to absolute truth (like Plato and Aristotle) as he was to teaching the basic skills of composition, but his treatises and letters also show that he was no commonplace sophist, content to teach his students how to argue (absurdly if necessary) in order to win a case or argument.

Yet, even Socrates has been labeled a sophist. He was certainly lampooned by Aristophanes for claiming to have all the answers (to be fair, this is not something that Socrates ever claimed). Socrates is also labeled a sophist by Guthrie in his History of Greek Philosophy (401). So if Socrates could be labeled a sophist both by contemporaries and historians, Isocrates could be labeled one as well.

The question, however, comes down to how one defines sophistry, and everyone is capable of defining the term as he sees fit. For the purpose of this paper it will suffice to view sophistry as a general term that is often sweepingly applied to any and all philosophers whether they have merit or not. True sophistry may be understood as the appearance of merit with regard to philosophy, yet lacking in substance. Isocrates was not lacking in substance. In fact, he attacked those "professors [who] have gone so far in their lack of scruple that they attempt to persuade our young men that if they will only study under them they will know what to do in life and through this knowledge will become happy and prosperous" ("Against the Sophists"). This attack puts him in line with Socrates and thus in rather good company.

However, Isocrates did charge a fee for his doctrine, something Socrates never did, and thus it may be tempting to label Isocrates a sophist, like so many of those other teachers who made a living by teaching. Keith Murphy, on the other hand, notes that Isocrates' Academy was responsible for issuing forth some of the "greatest statesmen, historians, writers, and orators of the day" (Murphy) and thus it would certainly seem reasonable to charge a fee for providing such a service. Murphy asserts that Isocrates also only admitted into his school students who had mastered the basics of grammar and mathematics.

Isocrates did value rhetoric and composition over philosophy, even though he did emphasize truth and morality in his teaching. This may be why Isocrates is seen sometimes as a middle-road between Plato and Aristotle on the philosophy of absolute truth side and the sophists (like Gorgias) on the other side, who emphasized rhetoric and grammar rather than philosophy (Porter 383). Isocrates could appeal to a wider base with his middle-road approach. The problem is in determining whether or not Isocrates was a Sophist.

Or is it? Perhaps it is not so important to label Isocrates after all. Just because this paper assumes a definition of sophistry does not mean it will be accepted by all. And if one chooses to mean by Sophist a teacher of grammar and rhetoric without implying a lack of substance, then he would likely take issue with the claim that Isocrates was not a sophist. Even though Isocrates showed how he was different from the Sophists who lacked substance and ethics, it might not matter to one who chose to regard sophistry as merely another school of teaching rather than a term that has acquired derogatory connotations. Languages and cultures are forever reshaping denotative meanings as well, and so it is perhaps irrelevant to attempt to apply the label of Sophist. A better question might be: Did Isocrates' doctrine have substance?

This is certainly a question that the satirist Aristophanes may have asked. And it would appear that his doctrine did have substance if one judges from Plato's Phaedrus, in which Socrates lauds Isocrates. In fact, one would do well to consider Socrates judgment of Isocrates when considering Isocrates merits (and not just whether or not the label of Sophist applies to him). In Phaedrus, Socrates states of Isocrates:

I think that he has a genius which soars above the orations of Lysias, and that his character is cast in a finer mould. My impression of him is that he will marvelously improve as he grows older, and that all former rhetoricians will be as children in comparison of him. And I believe that he will not be satisfied with rhetoric, but that there is in him a divine inspiration which will lead him to things higher still. For he has an element of philosophy in his nature.