When reading Antidosis, I was struck by what I saw as Isocrates’ inconsistent use or feelings about the past (and things that happened then) and the present (and things that are occurring now). To help explain, I list here four different quotations from Antidosis that brought this inconsistency to my attention.
In the early stages of the speech, Isocrates writes, “Those who read [this speech] should realize that they are listening to a mixed discourse, encompassing all these different subjects, and they should pay greater attention to what will be said than to what came before” (207). Thus, from this, it appears that Isocrates is saying that the past is of lesser value to the audience than what they are about to hear in the present, which will be of greater value.
Next, when pleading to his audience on behalf of the speeches he used as evidence of his virtue, Isocrates writes, “First, is any speech more moral or more just than one which praises our ancestors in a manner worthy of their virtue and their deeds” (220)? So, here he seems to be contradicting his earlier disregard of the past in favor of the present. Specifically, he is using past examples of Greek ancestors as a way to legitimize a speech as moral and just. Thus, the past, rather than the present, is what is paramount here.
On the next page, Isocrates begins making distinctions between law and oratory. Specifically, he claims that oratory (which is better), unlike law (which is worse), is not guided or dictated by precedent, or the past. When describing law, Isocrates writes, “Those who choose to legislate have at hand a multitude of established laws; they have no need to seek others, but they need only to gather together those that are well regarded elsewhere” (221). Thus, there is no need for inquiry/invention of new ideas in the law. One need only look to the past, which is static, for her/his guidance. However, following two sentences later, Isocrates makes a clear distinction between law and oratory regarding the use of precedent. He writes, “Those engaging in oratory have a very different experience, since most [topics] have been taken up. If they say the same things as their predecessors, they will appear to be shameless babblers, but those who seek novel topics have great difficulty finding something to say” (221). Described in this way, precedent, or the past, is not useful for the orator like it is with law. As I noted above, and as is apparent when reading Antidosis, Isocrates sees oratory as more just than the law, and based on this, we again see Isocrates flip-flop on his valuing of the past and present. Because precedent does not guide oratory, the past is valued much less than the present.
Finally, near the end of his speech, Isocrates writes, “Does anything that is noble turn out to be shameful or wicked if one works to attain it? We will not find any such thing, and everywhere else we praise those who can acquire some benefit by their own effort, more than those who inherit it” (258). So, Isocrates praises those who work hard and in a just manner in the present rather than those who simply acquire what they have via inheritance, or put another way, those whose present situation was created by the past. I don’t sense that Isocrates saw inheritance as patently bad (as he himself was the son of a wealthy family), but rather he saw the potential for it to be bad if it created idleness in a person’s present life.
So, why is there this inconsistency? From the readings, it is clear that Isocrates is promoting a practical view about being a good rhetorician/philosopher. Not only must one have natural ability to be a good orator, but s/he must be knowledgeable (which the person gains through education) as well as be a hard worker who is willing to practice and make oneself better. These criteria require a present commitment from a person. That person cannot rest on her/his past or the past of her/his family. What troubles this focus on the present though is the great respect that exists in Greek culture for the Gods and the great and valiant works of the Greek ancestors. So, it appears Isocrates is trying to develop a nice balance between honoring the past and focusing on the present for one to excel and become a good or just rhetorician/philosopher. I wonder when, or if for that matter, the past, or examples from the past, began to lose some of its credibility in Greek culture?