English 622: Classical Rhetoric

First, I would like to begin with a question. Why is it called the Encomium on Helen when it could be the Encomium to Theseus?

In praising Theseus, Isocrates hopes to accomplish a dual purpose. First, he seeks to establish the practically of wisdom. He seeks to show that all human acts should be of practical use to humans, and that only a proper education in practical wisdom can achieve this. Second, he seeks to establish a syllogism that will help strengthen the foundation of his argument. His syllogism is basically as follows, in my view:

Theseus is the greatest hero.

In “Against the Sophists”, Isocrates seems to be trying to distance himself from previous teachers of rhetoric, or “sophists” by going for the outright kill in his arguments against sophistry. First, Isocrates makes the claim that the sophists are not interested in their students discovering truth, but are instead interested in teaching deception. As Isocrates points out, “[a]s it is now, those who dare to make boasts with too little caution have made it appear that those who choose to take it easy are better advised than those who apply themselves to philosophy.

All right, I’ll admit that Isocrates is not as exciting for me as the Sophists or Plato. I am reluctant to make this admission, because I believe Isocrates is the preeminent seminal figure to Western rhetoric and education. In many ways, he is responsible for defending and promoting rhetoric, which he calls philosophia, in the form that we have now. He is also the founder of Western concepts of education. That said, his writings offer only small gifts, which require a great amount of work to recover.

Isocrates appears to be very practical when he is comparing what he does to the work of the sophists. The sophists, or so I've gathered, saw oratory as something that left room for pleasure. Isocrates' perspective focuses on the usefulness of the message. To argue for the sake of arguing about some trivial absurdity isn't worth his time.