3. rethinking isocrates y historiography - john marincola

22
8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 1/22 3. Rethinking Isocrates and Historiography [1] John Marincola 1. It is a truism often expressed hen studying classical historiography that e are hampered !y an a!sence of theoretical ritings on the su!"ect. #lthough e kno the names of se$eral orks ritten %&n History' in anti(uity) [*] only three essays ha$e come don to us ith any claim to !e theoretical in orientation) and each of the three) in di+erent ays) is something of an em!arrassment. ,erhaps the least pro!lematic one) -ucians Ho to /rite History) has !een held to gi$e some useful ad$ice on the riting of history in a 0hucydidean mode) !ut e$en this ork has come under re2 Moses inley long ago called it %a shallo and essentially orthless pot4!oiler)' [3] and more recently #. J. /oodman has argued that the ork is mainly concerned ith praise and !lame and the attendant dangers thereon) rather than ith any actual theoretical approach to in(uiring a!out the past. [5] #nd indeed) there is !ut one chapter in the hole ork that deals ith in(uiry 6578) and it is hardly enlightening or encouraging. or the to others) alas) the $erdict is e$en more dire2 9ionysius of Halicarnassus essay &n 0hucydides seems perfectly happy not to consider any of the ays in hich 0hucydides gathered and processed his information) and is mainly concerned ith the ord choice) arrangement) and stylistic adornment that is proper to riting history: hile ,lutarchs &n the Malice of Herodotus seems to many simplistic in the extreme) en$isioning history as nothing other than a series of no!le deeds performed ith the highest moti$es in mind. [;] It is perhaps not surprising) then) that historiographers look e$eryhere to nd any theoretical exposition in any genre that ill help us to understand the ancients approaches to riting history. #nd in our search e ha$e often !een led to to riters hose cultural and literary importance and in<uence seem undenia!le. =o the remarks made !y >icero in ?ook * of his 9e &ratore ha$e !een com!ed repeatedly to nd out ho he thought history should !e ritten@ e$en though the ork is not mainly) or e$en largely) concerned ith that topic. #nd on the Areek side scholars ha$e looked to Isocrates) one of the cardinal gures of the fourth century) to shed some light on the riting of history in his on time and !eyond. #nd the result is that e$en though neither >icero nor Isocrates e$er rote a history proper) [B] they ha$e ac(uired great importance for modern scholars as historiographical theorists) and they ha$e come to ser$e in modern studies of classical historiography as spokesmen for certain ays of treating the past. Isocrates has !een considered an in<uential gure in studies of ancient historiography not only !ecause he as an important teacher in general !ut also !ecause the style of historiography hich he supposedly !e(ueathed to su!se(uent generations@rhetorical historiography@had a long after4life for !oth Areek and Roman historians. [7] 0he term Crhetorical history) as I ha$e argued elsehere) is an unfortunate one) since e$ery narrati$e history is a

Upload: iwain

Post on 07-Jul-2018

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 1/22

3. Rethinking Isocrates and Historiography [1]

John Marincola

1.

It is a truism often expressed hen studying classical historiography that eare hampered !y an a!sence of theoretical ritings on the su!"ect. #lthough

e kno the names of se$eral orks ritten %&n History' in anti(uity) [*] onlythree essays ha$e come do n to us ith any claim to !e theoretical inorientation) and each of the three) in di+erent ays) is something of anem!arrassment. ,erhaps the least pro!lematic one) -ucian s Ho to /riteHistory) has !een held to gi$e some useful ad$ice on the riting of history in a

0hucydidean mode) !ut e$en this ork has come under re2 Moses inley longago called it %a shallo and essentially orthless pot4!oiler)' [3] and morerecently #. J. /oodman has argued that the ork is mainly concerned ithpraise and !lame and the attendant dangers thereon) rather than ith anyactual theoretical approach to in(uiring a!out the past. [5] #nd indeed) there is!ut one chapter in the hole ork that deals ith in(uiry 6578) and it is hardlyenlightening or encouraging. or the t o others) alas) the $erdict is e$en moredire2 9ionysius of Halicarnassus essay &n 0hucydides seems perfectly happynot to consider any of the ays in hich 0hucydides gathered and processedhis information) and is mainly concerned ith the ord choice) arrangement)and stylistic adornment that is proper to riting history: hile ,lutarch s &n theMalice of Herodotus seems to many simplistic in the extreme) en$isioninghistory as nothing other than a series of no!le deeds performed ith thehighest moti$es in mind. [;]

It is perhaps not surprising) then) that historiographers look e$ery here to nd

any theoretical exposition in any genre that ill help us to understand theancients approaches to riting history. #nd in our search e ha$e often !eenled to t o riters hose cultural and literary importance and in<uence seemundenia!le. =o the remarks made !y >icero in ?ook * of his 9e &ratore ha$e!een com!ed repeatedly to nd out ho he thought history should !e ritten@e$en though the ork is not mainly) or e$en largely) concerned ith that topic.#nd on the Areek side scholars ha$e looked to Isocrates) one of the cardinal

gures of the fourth century) to shed some light on the riting of history in hiso n time and !eyond. #nd the result is that e$en though neither >icero norIsocrates e$er rote a history proper) [B] they ha$e ac(uired great importancefor modern scholars as historiographical theorists) and they ha$e come to

ser$e in modern studies of classical historiography as spokesmen for certainays of treating the past.

Isocrates has !een considered an in<uential gure in studies of ancienthistoriography not only !ecause he as an important teacher in general !utalso !ecause the style of historiography hich he supposedly !e(ueathed tosu!se(uent generations@rhetorical historiography@had a long after4life for!oth Areek and Roman historians. [7] 0he term Crhetorical history ) as I ha$eargued else here) is an unfortunate one) since e$ery narrati$e history is a

Page 2: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 2/22

rhetorical construct and there is no reason to oppose Crhetoric to Cresearch . [D]Eonetheless) the term has entered scholarly discourse and continues to !eused) and although not e$eryone uses it in the same ay) there are a num!erof recurring characteristics that distinguish rhetorical historiography) includinga serious concern ith style and language 6sometimes to the detriment ofe$erything else8) the composition of speeches and e$en of actions !ased noton any historical record !ut on the criteria of pro!a!ility and appropriateness)and nally a concern ith pleasure rather than instruction. [F] Much) if not all)of this has !een laid at Isocrates door. In this paper I ould like to reconsiderho much of it is deser$ed.

0o !egin ith the o!$ious) Isocrates ne$er rote history) and in the proem tothe ,anathenaicus he states clearly that although histories are "ustly praised hedid not use his talents in that direction2

G KL NOG PG QKL KLSNTG UKVW XG YG Z U\G L L^ N_` X L O Kb b b _ LZLU b N L^ ) L L QLZZL NjZZLG b KL_ XG L

Q K b YG \ TK b Z ULN GLX ) L O L^ q QbZbXq QKV X b QLZ NL_ L^ ZZTGX L^ TUL_N GL_ ) b Q K v X b \ b L^QbXGL_N GL_ ) L bw L^ QZY L L G b K `bX b NT NXjL NX T L N LG b ) Lz L XGL Q K L^ {UYGb QbKbXGL X L

G \ KLX N Z jG) |Q K }LSZLG bX QZ LG ~ XG YG {G X \G) {ZZq QVGLS L_ V b Q K GL_ QKbUNb _ NTG L^ Q K YG _NW K G \G

Q Z X b L €ZZLX ZZT X _N}L_Z SLG b ) b QLZZYG NOGG`_NTNV \G U NLG b ) L ‚Z U\G {G X` \G b QbKX \G b YG

€ZZ\G YG YG G b ƒT LK bX XbZbNQL_ YG b L^ { LSLG bQX TNb G `bX b ̀ LK_} G {GbU b„L_ YG.

/hen I as younger) I chose not to rite discourses that ere mythic or full ofonders and ctions) the sort that the multitude en"oy more than those that

concern their o n security: I also a$oided those that related the great deeds ofthe past and the ars fought !y Areeks) although I kne that these ere "ustlypraised) and also those that hen spoken seem simple and unadorned) such aspeople ho are skillful in courts teach the young to practice if they ant toha$e the ad$antage in litigation. I re"ected all these and de$oted myself todiscourses that ga$e ad$ice a!out hat ould !e ad$antageous to #thens andthe rest of the Areeks) and that ere full of many ideas) ith fre(uentantithesis and parisosis and other gures that make oratory shine and compelthe audience to applaud and cause a stir.

Isocrates ,anathenaicus 1…*Eor can e nd any here in his orks theoretical ritings on history) such thatit is natural to ask ho he !ecame so in<uential a gure in the history ofhistoriography. Here the link as long ago agreed to !e the !iographicaltestimonia from anti(uity that claimed †phorus and 0heopompus to !e hisstudents. [1‡] †duard =ch artˆ argued ercely against the notion) and Jaco!yagreed ith him) [11] !ut scholars ha$e continued to accept this datum. 0heymust then) of course) dra conclusions !ack ards) so to speak) arguing that

Page 3: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 3/22

from †phorus and 0heopompus e can see hat the tenets of Isocrateanhistoriography really ere. 0his all gets $ery tricky gi$en that the histories of†phorus and 0heopompus don t actually sur$i$e) !ut no matter. J. ?. ?ury) forone) had no di‰culty in asserting that †phorus o ed to Isocrates themoraliˆing platitudes) the ela!orate speeches) and the con$entional !attle4scenes) all of hich %conformed more or less to a model scheme' and%sacri ce[d] truth to e+ect.' [1*] ?oth †phorus and 0heopompus are alsosupposed to o e to Isocrates their panhellenic sentiments and the use ofhistory as a source of moral edi cation. [13]

More recently) much of this prominent) indeed pre4eminent) role has !eenscaled !ack) and the (uestion of Isocrates importance for historiography has!een seriously challenged. Michael lo er in his !ook on 0heopompus(uestioned "ust ho in<uential Isocrates could ha$e !een) gi$en that he asnot himself a historian) he rote nothing on historiographical methodology) andhis supposed students can !e sho n to ha$e held $ie s incompati!le !oth ithone another 6there!y seriously (uestioning any uniform approach to !eassumed from Isocrates8 and ith their teacher: and Aio$anni ,armeggiani inhis recent !ook on †phorus expresses a similar skepticism. [15] 0o me this is auseful correcti$e) and an approach to hich I am generally sympathetic. I thinkit may !e orth hile) nonetheless) to try to situate Isocrates more carefully inhis fourth4century context) and to think again a!out the relationship of rhetoricand historiography.

*.

#lthough much has !een claimed for the importance of Isocrates on themethod of riting history) his in<uence) if e lea$e the details aside) isgenerally thought to re$ol$e around three aspects2 rst) stylistic adornment:second) a particular methodological approach to the past: and third) a $ie ofhistory as a collection of paradigms.

-et us take rst stylistic adornment. Isocrates is often held responsi!le for theCrhetoriciˆation of history) that is to say) for !e(ueathing to historiography ana!iding) indeed o$erriding) concern ith language and stylistic !eauty. Eo itcan hardly !e dou!ted that Isocrates cared greatly a!out style) and there arese$eral passages in hich he expresses his !elief that great e$ents andimportant matters need to !e ritten in an ele$ated style: the opening of,anathenaicus) mentioned a!o$e) is one of the !est kno n passages) as is thefollo ing2

UVK XG ) LŠ YG NOG QKL XKTN G\G L {Q K\ ~ L_ X) UKVW XG QKL‹KTG bX Z UL_ ) L Q K YG N K\G _N}LZb \G) {ZZ ZZTGX L^ bQLZX X L^ b QbGTU_KX L^ ) Lz ŒQbG G WŽ XbG NLXL KL_ GN q NL_ X b ƒ_`NYG Q QLXTN GLX L G X b TK ‘ Z ULN GLXUqK • Z X QLXT X \ K’ b QLX XZ\ K’ q QKV X TZL X) b L

G`_NŽNb XG ‚U \ KLX b bXGL KLX K `bX „T L XG) ~ X O b€ZZbX bX QXWbG KbX b QZ L XG “ZLG ”G Z ULG XLX L XGŒQbG NOG { LSLG b KL_ XG L OG – LG YG G L N KLX

Page 4: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 4/22

Q QLXTN G\G) QLZZL O b Nb`T b U UG `bX }LSZLG bX) GLN „LG L^LS LX QK\ SLG b QLZ^ LW\ KL_ b } Z L_ b NjZZLG —W Z G_GbN GL_ GbX YG q b w Z U G \G.

=ome people experienced in the forms I ha$e mentioned did not choose torite speeches for pri$ate contract suits !ut ones of a political character

pertaining to Hellas to !e deli$ered in panegyric assem!lies. †$eryone ouldagree that these are more like musical and rhythmical compositions than thoseuttered in the la courts. 0hey set out e$ents ith a more poetic and complexstyle and seek to employ grander and more original enthymemes [i.e.arguments]) and in addition) they dress up the hole speech ith many othereye4catching gures of speech. 0he hole audience en"oys hen they hearthese as much as poetic compositions) and many ish to study them) for theythink that those ho are at the forefront of this kind of competition are much

iser and !etter and can !e more useful than those ho are elo(uent in legalmatters.

Isocrates #ntidosis 5B457/e need not dou!t) therefore) that Isocrates thought ele$ated prose as anappropriate medium for his ritings. =cholars of historiography) ho e$er) seemto e(uate a lo$e of language ith a disdain for 6or) perhaps simply) a lack ofconcern ith8 the truth as if the t o necessarily ent hand in hand. ?y itself)ho e$er) style is not necessarily hostile to the disco$ery of the truth of hathappened in the past2 there are many ell4regarded historians ith a ne style2one thinks of Ai!!on) or) more recently) =yme. =ome ha$e argued) of course)that it is not a simple matter to di$orce ords from things) and style is not soeasily separated from su!stance: [1;] !ut e$en so) style and truth need not !einimical. or that to happen) there has to !e another aspect) namely thatstylistic concern comes at the cost of accuracy2 in other ords a concern ithstyle replaces a concern for accuracy or truth. 60hat plank of Isocrateanhistoriography is supplied !y another passage hich e shall look at !elo )section 3.8

Eo of course lurking !ehind all this is a kind of unspoken assumption thathistory !efore Isocrates as someho not rhetorical) that historians of the fthcentury ere not concerned) or not much concerned) ith language and style./hile it might ha$e !een easier a generation or so ago to con$ince oursel$esthat neither Herodotus nor 0hucydides paid much attention to rhetoric) it ould!e hard to nd someone today ho really thinks this is the case. Indeed some

recent scholarship seems almost to suggest that if anyone should !e heldresponsi!le for rhetorical historiography it might ell !e 0hucydides himself.[1B] #nd hile that is perhaps some hat too extreme) there are certainlytrou!ling aspects of his ork. He has a tendency) as has !een fre(uentlypointed out) to use superlati$es throughout his ork) claiming that his e$entsare the C!iggest ) Cmost important ) Cgreatest ) and so forth. [17] He may) ofcourse) ha$e genuinely !elie$ed this) !ut the e+ect upon the reader isnonetheless the same. In addition) one might look to the aggressi$ely

Page 5: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 5/22

argumentati$e style of the C#rchaeology ) here language) demonstration) andproof are all placed in the ser$ice of a particular argument that 0hucydides

ishes to ad$ance) namely) that his ar as the greatest of all ars6magni cation again8. [1D] 0here is as ell the highly arti cial nature of thespeeches) hich are thoroughly rhetorical) carefully constructed and highlya!stract) ith echoes !oth ithin the pair of speeches and ith other speechesscattered throughout the history. [1F] If e are looking for a rhetoricalhistorian) e need look no further. ˜et to call 0hucydides a rhetorical historianis) again) not saying much. =o a prefera!le alternati$e ould !e to admit thathistoriography from its $ery !eginnings as a literary art form) modeling itselfon other art forms@epic especially@and) like them) seeking to esta!lish itselfas an ele$ated genre ith an ele$ated language 6not) for example) likecomedy) lyric) or mime8) and that 0hucydides then took that interest inele$ated language in a particular and rather idiosyncratic direction.

#lthough 0hucydides ork as certainly kno n in the fourth century) [*‡] eneed to remind oursel$es that his history had not yet !ecome canonical) !utrepresented instead one particular approach to the past. /e often seem to!elie$e that later historians failed to grasp hat 0hucydides had tried to teachthem) and that they failed to continue his no!le achie$ement. ˜et there isanother ay of looking at things that might !ring us closer to understanding

hat e actually ha$e from the fourth century. It is undenia!le that the laterancient tradition sa Herodotus and 0hucydides as founders of the genre: yetperhaps !ecause of that) e tend) rather anachronistically) to seehistoriography as already xed in their orks and Cesta!lished as a genre !ythe end of the fth century. In doing so) e lose sight of) or de$alue) theacti$ity and contri!utions of the fourth century. ˜et if e can look aside from

hat e think the fourth century ought to ha$e learned from 0hucydides) e

might say that historians of the time ere reacting to 0hucydides) "ust not inthe ay that e might ha$e expected them to.

0o take one example) no one dou!ts that ™enophon kne 0hucydides ork.?ut instead of assuming that ™enophon re"ected the 0hucydidean approach!ecause he as too ignorant or parochial to understand it) e can "ust as easilypostulate that he re"ected 0hucydidean style and arrangement !ecause hethought they ere inappropriate to ho he en$isioned the uses of history. =otoo the &xyrhynchus historian) ho follo ed 0hucydides in terms of methodand arrangement) rites in a style of Areek that is straightfor ard and !land)one that could hardly !e more di+erent from that of 0hucydides. [*1] In other

ords) !oth of these historians took some things from 0hucydides and re"ectedothers.

Eor is this surprising hen e consider that one of the aspects that ould ha$emade 0hucydides history less appealing to fourth4century riters as the ayin hich it as concei$ed and structured) i.e. as a face4o+ !et een t ocompeting and largely e(ual po ers) ho control a num!er of allies orsu!"ects) such that e$erything tends to ards a head4to4head con<ict. It is truethat the pronounced !inary structure of the early !ooks !reaks do n as the

Page 6: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 6/22

narrati$e goes on) [**] !ut e$en so) ho useful in the fourth century ould afocus such as 0hucydides ha$e !eenš 0he fourth century as) after all) nolonger a orld of t o superpo ers) !ut rather of one) ,ersia@although sheplayed an inconsistent hand hile the other important po ers) #thens) =parta)and 0he!es) schemed to achie$e hegemony) and orked no ith) noagainst one another 6and ,ersia8. It is no onder) then) that ™enophona!andoned the 0hucydidean structure once he nished his treatment of the,eloponnesian /ar.

-et us suppose) then) that !oth ™enophon and the &xyrhynchus historian rotein a more straightfor ard style !ecause they felt that such a style as moreappropriate to history. In this ay they actually employed far less rhetoricaladornment than had 0hucydides. #nd if that is the case) here might Isocrates!eliefs ha$e t inš /e can almost certainly say that Isocrates as of theopinion that an approach such as that of ™enophon or the &xyrhynchushistorian to ards history@using for the most part a simple and straightfor ardstyle@ as unaccepta!le. Eot !ecause Isocrates e$er expressed himself on™enophon s ork speci cally) !ut !ecause he emphasiˆed again and again thatfor lofty and important su!"ects one needed a lofty and ne style. Isocratesdemand) therefore) reasserts the importance of a Chigh style forhistoriography) as in 0hucydides) !ut not necessarily in the manner of

0hucydides 6 hose style may already ha$e seemed harsh in the fourthcentury8. In other ords) Isocrates or those in<uenced !y him might ha$ethought that 0hucydides as right to compose history in a highly ela!oratestyle) !ut that the particular style he chose as inappropriate.

I ish to emphasiˆe that the context for such an approach as Isocrates as notnecessarily an attack on 0hucydides) nor indeed on any kind of historiographyin particular. /e must recall that (uite apart from narrati$e histories theancients remem!ered their pasts through many media and in di+erent genres)including la court speeches) the epitaphios) and non4$er!al media. #ll of this

ould ha$e engendered a larger discussion concerning the appropriate ay toremem!er great deeds) and it is not to !e expected that historians ould ha$efailed to see the rele$ance of these discussions to their o n tasks.

=o on the matter of style) it seems to me that e should see Isocrates as partof a larger de!ate in the fourth century a!out the ay to commemorate greatdeeds) including those of the past. 0hrough his school and his in<uence)Isocrates !eliefs ould percolate through the on4going contemporary de!ateand might ell ha$e !een taken up !y ould4!e historians@although I ish toemphasiˆe again that Isocrates himself as pro!a!ly not concerned a!outhistoriographical style in particular. ?ut any approach from an importantteacher ho said that great ords are needed for great matters could not !utin<uence a genre that al ays claimed the greatness of the su!"ect as one of its

"usti cations for existing. [*3]

3.

Page 7: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 7/22

-et us turn no to methodology. 0hough not a historian) Isocrates orks aresu+used ith history !oth contemporary and non4contemporary. [*5] #lthoughthere ha$e !een many analyses of Isocrates and his approach to history) [*;]

e still lack a thorough and comprehensi$e study of his attitude to ards thepast. It has !een common) ho e$er) to select certain passages from his orksas representati$e or indicati$e of his approach to history. &ne of the mostfre(uently cited is ,anegyricus 7…1‡. Here Isocrates says that he ill gi$ead$ice a!out the ar against ,ersia and a!out Areek unity) a topic that is much

orked !ut hich he hopes to treat di+erently. It is a theme) he says) that isstill appropriate for discussion2

QK” O LS LX NOG NT bNY €ZZ\ L G ›G TZL G q b q QKV X{ZZ Xq NXj b ) G €G X QLZb} G) œ Q K KU G X ”G b

K QLG GLX Z ULG b QVZXG GL Z G L { LSL_ XG Q X ž L LXbS TG ~ L_ X žG WS XG Ÿ ` L G GbX Q K YG b YG QLZZb Y

TUŽ b `bX b V N UVZb bQ XGq QLX bX b L NX KL N U `LQ KX` GbX b q QbZbXq bXGY X Z` G b Q K YG G \ U U GTN{K b \ Q G) L X W _ LG b ) Q K G KLX QK KLGKŽ b XG) {ZZ €N XGLG G\G Q G Q XKb LG . . . ¡UL NbX L¢ \ N U TG Q L XG ZbN}VG XG b q €ZZb Gb b žG Q K L^ Z UWXZL LW bG) | X `b_NV„LX b XN£T Nž L^ QK L_ YG ~KU\G{K LN GL_ ) {ZZq L^ €KX ` b LG b YG KUb„LN GL_ ) NT O L^ Q

LS \G „T L G b Z U XG) Q K G NT QK KLG |KT G) {ZZq L^ L¢QX bN GL_ Q G œ L G €ZZL SGbX L.

In addition) if it ere not possi!le to re$eal the same actions in only one ay)one could suppose that it is super<uous for one speaking the same as those[sc. ho ha$e already spoken] to annoy the audience again. ?ut since ordsha$e such a nature that it is possi!le to discourse on the same things in many

ays) and make great things lo ly or gi$e siˆe to small things) or to go throughthe things of old in a ne ay or to speak a!out things that ha$e recentlyhappened in an old style) so one must not a$oid those topics on hich othersha$e spoken) !ut one must try to speak !etter than they . . . #nd I think that!oth the other arts and philosophic rhetoric ould make the greatest ad$anceif one mar$eled at and honored not the ones ho rst !egan these orks) !utthe ones ho made each of them their !est) and not the ones ho ant tospeak a!out those things that no one has e$er spoken a!out !efore) !ut those

ho kno ho to speak in a ay that no one else can.

Isocrates ,anegyricus 7…1‡

0his passage has !een thought to demonstrate Isocrates concern to rhetoriciˆehistory. [*B] =ome years ago I argued that hat e ha$e here is a traditionalpraise of the po ers of oratory) hich could !e seen as a plea for stylisticexcellence) although the context suggests that hat Isocrates means !yspeaking %in a ay no one has !efore' concerns the content of the ad$ice

hich ill !e !ased on the proper use of the exempla hich history pro$ides.Isocrates does indeed go on to $aunt his o n po ers) !ut he is not di$orcing

Page 8: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 8/22

style and content) and it is clear that the excellence of his speech is a result ofthe excellence of his ad$ice) that is) again) its content. [*7] >ould one take thisstatement out of context and use it to "ustify the re4 orking of non4contemporary historyš >ertainly: !ut it is clear that scholars ho ant to usethis passage as a theoretical !asis for Isocratean historiography are !uilding onshaky foundations. 0he other passage) ,anathenaicus 15F41;‡) may seem too+er more. 0his passage is a digression that is itself a comment on thenarrati$e of great deeds in #thenian history "ust gi$en !y the orator. Isocrateshas !een speaking on early #thenian history) starting from !efore a time hen

ords such as %oligarchy' and %democracy' e$en existed) then treating certainaspects of the early king 0heseus and his follo ers) and) after a !riefinterruption) returning to the democracy and its excellences. 0hen Isocratescontinues2

V LwG €G XG € LQLG Gb N WŽ XbG 6L OG UqK \ZS X XbZb} GZ ULG8 “ X LZNY Z U XG œ { KX}Y v Q K QKbUNV \G L L QbK GQKb LN GLX . Uv L OG LS \G €ZLULG L NbX QLX G. NOG UqK N G

Q _LG L Z ULN GLX Q K YG QbZbXYG b L UKVNNb X LGL_ L K GL_ QbKb LN GLX ¡N G) \ G Q XN NTG G G OQLZZL b GL G ~ LG b ”G NL WbG G G Q QLG` . \K O L

b b b TG ~Z U LG b Z ULG) _GT` TG G QX bX QVG b{G`K QL_ QZ L_ QX ŽNb ~ LG b Xq { L ¤ \ ) bN „L_ QKV X b bZZ L_ b ¥ QbK ¦ K\G { T b XG Gb )b L QbKbU U GTN GLX _U VGL_ XG.

=ome perhaps might say@since nothing pre$ents me from interrupting myspeech@that I am unusual in daring to say that I kno accurately a!out a+airsat hich I as not present hen they occurred. ?ut I think I am doing nothingillogical. or if I alone trusted to the traditions and records a!out things of longago hich ha$e come do n to us from that time) then reasona!ly I ould !ecensured. ?ut as it is) e$en many intelligent men ould seem to ha$e the sameexperience as I. #nd apart from this) if I ere put to the test and proof) I coulddemonstrate that all men ha$e greater kno ledge from oral tradition than fromautopsy and kno greater and ner deeds ha$ing heard them from othersrather than from e$ents at hich they themsel$es happened to !e present.

Isocrates ,anathenaicus 15F…1;‡

=ome scholars ha$e seen here an in$ersion !y Isocrates of the typicalrelationship !et een eyes and ears in the historiographical tradition) in hich

autopsy is al ays superior to oral report. [*D] #nd so once autopsy asde$alued) it !ecame easier for historians to disa$o research. ˜et here againthis seems to !e misreading hat Isocrates actually says. Isocrates is saying nomore than that men rarely itness great deeds) and that their main source ofinformation a!out them is not their o n experience !ut tradition) ho e$er theyrecei$e this: this is especially true) of course) hen the deeds are $ery ancient.[*F]

Page 9: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 9/22

Isocrates rst claims as one of the proofs for his accurate kno ledge of thepast the fact that tradition has recorded the e$ents he narrates. 0hat mightseem a slim thread !y hich to hang such a narrati$e) !ut Isocrates else herealso expresses his !elief that the traditions of e$ents are hat gi$e them their!elie$a!ility. In ,anegyricus BF) Isocrates is speaking of the attacks made on#thens in early times !y the 0hracians) =cythians) and #maˆons. He notes thatalthough these peoples thought they could easily defeat the #thenians) they

ere utterly destroyed) and then remarks2

ZLG O ” N U `L YG b YG YG U GLN G\G GLX L UqK G QL` LZ ULX Q K b YG L L LG K GLG X N XGbG) Nž b q QKb ` G b QLZ

YG €ZZ\G XŽG U G.

0he magnitude of the trou!les they encountered is clear) for the reports a!outthem ould not ha$e lasted so long if these e$ents ere not far moreimportant than others.

Isocrates ,anegyricus BF

/hat is interesting is that in !oth of these passages Isocrates feels compelledto explain to his audience ho he kno s a!out these e$ents. 0his means thathe is a are that he is treading on ground that some ould not consider secureand that some in his audience ould !e hesitant to accord !elief to such earlye$ents. His approach here seems largely Cpassi$e ) and his reliance on tradition)on hat has !een handed do n) might strike us as nai$e. ?ut e ould do ellto remem!er that e$en 0hucydides in the C#rchaeology ) for all the critical spirit

ith hich he in$ests his ork) had at !ottom to rely on the traditions a!outthe 0ro"an /ar and the early Areek migrations and those a!out Minos and hisempire. 0he di+erence is not a!out tradition: it is one of approach) and one s

approach as dependent on ho one ished to use the past. 6I shall come!ack to this.8

#nother passage often cited to illuminate Isocrates historical method is,anegyricus *D…31) here Isocrates is speaking of 9emeter2

QKY LG NOG L G_G) L§ QKY LG ¡ WS X ¡NYG Ž`T) Xq Q Z \ ¡N Kb QLK `T b UqK N_` T Z UL U ULG G) “N\ b ¨ b G GƒT` GbX QKL Ž X. ©ŽNT KL UqK {WX LN GT žG KbG ¡NYG) “

QZbGŽ`T ª KT KQb ` T ) b QK” L^ QKLU GL_ ¡NYG N GYXb ` T YG KU XYG) ¥ L L G €ZZLX L N N_TN GLX

{ LS XG) b LS T \K q X q ) b«Q K N UX bX _U VGL_ XG Lw bX) L

bKQLS ) LŠ L Nž `TKX\ Y „ G ¡Nj b| XLX U U Gb X) b žG Z ŽG) –L N LG Q K L } L_ Z _ b L SNQbG L b YGL ¡q ZQ b ~ L_ XG) L¢ \ ¡ Q ZX ¡NYG L N GLG ` LWXZY ) {ZZq b

WXZbG`K Q\ ~ G) Ÿ _K b U GLN GT L LS \G {Ub`YG L W` GTL €ZZLX ) {ZZ G ~Zb} G) ŒQb X N \ G. b q NOG ~ X b G G b`

b LG ”G GXb_ ”G G_N G) YG O _ZZŽ} TG V K b b qKUb b b q —W Z b q {Q b YG UXUGLN Gb b G. b LS L

{QX G NX KYG ~ X QKL X` G \G L G { X X G.

Page 10: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 10/22

QKY LG NOG UqK G €G X b bWKLGŽ X YG Z ULN G\G œ {K b \G¤G \G) YG b YG LS \G \ G b q QKV X U U G `bXGLN X G Xq UqK ” QLZZL^ KT GbX b QVG b { T L GbX QKL Ž

bXGq N G) QX q O L G GbX q Z U N Gb Q K b YG. ~Q X L N GG b `b b bW_U G ~ LN G) “ X ”G Z ULG b žG WŽNTG QLZZL

QbK XZŽWbN G) {ZZq b TN LX N „L XG LS LX ~ XG ¡N G KŽ b `b YG. b NOG UqK QZ bX YG Q Z \G Q NGTNb QbZbXj KU b{QbK q L L_ b` b LG GXb_ ”G œ ¡Nj {QLQ NQL_ X) b

Z XQLS bX QLZZV X ¡ ¬_` b QKL b G {QLW K XG q N KT YG bKQYb QLX G QK” žG Q ZXG žG ¡N KbG q QV KXb. b LX Q K G\G Kž

NjZZLG QX S XG Q K G “ ` ” {GbXK b QLZZL YG ZZŽG\G_G L b V QVZbX ƒT` G b L QbKL XG ~KULX _NNbK _K b

G G UXUG N Gb L Q G\G KTN GLX NLZLU :

irst of all then) that hich our nature rst needed as pro$ided !y our city. ore$en if the account has !ecome mythical) ne$ertheless it should !e told e$enno . 9emeter once came to our land) andering a!out after her daughter ore

as kidnapped) and since she looked fa$ora!ly on our ancestors !ecause oftheir kindness@ hich no one other than the initiates is allo ed to hear@shega$e t o gifts to #thens that are) in fact) our t o most important possessions2the fruits of the earth that ha$e allo ed us to li$e ci$iliˆed li$es and thecele!ration of the mystery rites that grant to those ho share in them gladhopes a!out the end of their life and a!out eternity. #s a result) our city asnot only lo$ed !y the gods !ut also as considerate of other people so muchthat hen it gained such great goods) it did not !egrudge these gifts to others!ut shared hat it had ith e$eryone else. †$en no ) e still share themystery rites e$ery year) and e ha$e taught others a!out the use) the care)and the !ene ts coming from the fruits of the earth. #nd if I add a !it more

detail) no one ould dis!elie$e this.irst) the reason one might scorn this story@!ecause it is ancient@might also

make someone accept that the e$ents pro!a!ly happened. =ince many ha$etold the story) and e$eryone has heard it) it is right to consider the story notsomething recent !ut nonetheless trust orthy. =econd) e not only ha$erecourse to the argument that e recei$ed the fa!led story a long time ago)!ut can use e$en greater proofs than this. 0o commemorate our ancient gift)most cities send the rst part of their o+erings to us each year: and those hodo not are often ordered !y the ,ythia to !ring a portion of their crop andperform the ancestral duties to ard our city. urthermore) hat should e trustmore than something ordered !y the god and appro$ed !y most Areeks) herethe ancient reports agree ith current practice) and current practice agrees

ith hat as spoken !y the ancientsš

Isocrates ,anegyricus *D…31

&f particular interest here is the remark that the Z UL has !ecome N_` T .Isocrates else here uses the terms N `L ) N_`LZLU \) and N_` T in se$eral

ays2 to mark a contrast !et een present and early times: [3‡] to designate

Page 11: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 11/22

the acti$ity of early riters: [31] and to designate stories that concern thegods. [3*] 0he Cmythic is allied ith sensationalism and falsehood) [33] and iscontrasted ith !oth Cthe useful and Cthe truth . [35] 0here is no reason)therefore) to posit Isocrates meaning here as in any ay di+erent from ho heuses these terms else here. [3;] Indeed) his usage has much in common ithho the historians themsel$es treat the Cmythic 2 for them) N `LX fre(uentlyha$e an exaggerati$e or not holly trust orthy aspect) and stories of the godsare particularly prone to !ecoming N_` X !ecause they occur in a realm in

hich demonstration is mostly impossi!le. [3B] =o too here) it is precisely intelling the story of di$ine acti$ity that Isocrates realiˆes that he must !e carefuland not assume the kind of accuracy one nds in later e$ents. Indeed)Isocrates recogniˆes that the story is not of the same nature as an account ofcontemporary history 6that is hat bXGV must refer to2 recent e$ents8) !ut heargues) perhaps some hat surprisingly) that the $ery fact of the story santi(uity is a guarantee of its trust orthiness. 0o ards the end of the speech)he in$okes the god #pollo and this has !een thought to !e irrele$ant tohistorical proof. ˜et the appeal to the oracle of #pollo) like the fact of the story santi(uity) is only part of a larger argument. 0he main point that strengthenstrust in the story) as Isocrates details it here) is that still today other Areekcities send #thens their rst4fruits) and thus %present e$ents tally ith thestatements hich ha$e come do n from the men of old.' In other ords) anenduring custom con rms a literary account.

#lthough this might certainly seem to lack the kind of historical rigor that emight like) ho di+erent is it from hat historians in the fth and fourthcenturies ere doingš 0o !e sure) the (uestion of historical methodology is notan easy one. 0hat the ancients esta!lished a hierarchy of historicalin$estigation is hardly to !e dou!ted) !ut the extent to hich it actually

contri!uted to the real kno ledge of the past is more uncertain. orcontemporary history autopsy as paramount and as follo ed !y personalin(uiry of those ho ere themsel$es eye itnesses. [37] or non4contemporary history there as no unanimity) and one as forced to rely onthe tradition. If e look at 0hucydides in the C#rchaeology ) e nd that he) likeIsocrates) uses the e$idence of present4day customs to con rm the truth of hisreconstructi$e account2 for example) the fact that the people of &ˆolian -ocris)#etolia) and #carnania in 0hucydides day still carried eapons as a result ofthe fact that in earlier days they had !een raiders of other people s goods61.;.38. &r again he sees no reason to discount the fact that Mycenae as agreat city %as tradition maintains' simply !ecause in his o n day it as a small

place 61.1‡.18. [3D] #nd else here in his history) hen he is treating e$entsearlier than the ,eloponnesian /ar@0hemistocles and ,ausanias) Harmodiusand #ristogeiton) the =icilian archaeology@0hucydides resorts to the samemixture of inference) !ald assertion) and ac(uiescence in or contradiction ofthe tradition: and it is (uestiona!le hether he had the intellectual tools to doother ise. [3F]

Indeed) the (uestion of ho to deal ith hat tradition had handed do n as adi‰cult one) and no historian in anti(uity at any point really had much idea of

Page 12: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 12/22

ho to actually research the past. 0radition could not !e ignored: too often itas all that one had. #nd if one chose not to treat contemporary history@as

many did@it as necessary to come up ith some ay of understanding orexplicating the past. 0he realm of non4contemporary history as ne$er su!"ectto a single methodology2 as e ha$e said) certainty a!out the distant pastcould ne$er !e e(ual to that of the present or more recent times) !ut since noone could come up ith a formula for extracting a certain percentage of truthfrom tradition) the main contestation re$ol$ed around ho much credenceought to !e gi$en to accounts of past e$ents. [5‡] 0his in turn might depend on

hat you ere using the past for2 if you ant to de$alue the past to thead$antage of the present) you attack the tradition if it presents greatness 6asdoes 0hucydides8: if) on the other hand) you ant to use the past to admonishthe present to maintain its standards) you emphasiˆe its greatness 6as doesIsocrates8. Eaturally) a modern historian might nd fault ith Isocrates forconcentrating on the past rather than the present) !ut at the same time a fth4or fourth4century historian ould ha$e had no di‰culty in seeing the methodsused !y Isocrates as akin to his o n. Isocrates reliance on tradition is nota!surd) nor indeed e$en intellectually orthless) gi$en that ithout it) he andothers ould ha$e had $irtually nothing to say a!out their early history.

5.

#nd that !rings us nally to Isocrates and QbKb UNb b or exempla. It is oftenassumed that Isocrates de$eloped an approach to history that sa e$ents asparadigms that could !e manipulated !y the speaker) and that this assomething that contri!uted to the de$aluation of actual history2 in other ords)the repeated use of exempla in a manner that remo$ed them from theirchronological context contri!uted to an ahistorical ay of looking at the past.[51] Here again a particular passage is !rought for ard2

b NOG UqK QKV X b QKLU U GTN GbX LXGb Qj XG ¡N G b Z W`T bGG bXK¨ bS bX b b KŽ b `bX b q QKL Ž LG b Q K ¦ V TG`_NT` GbX b L ‚G Nb XG w Xb` `bX YG w WKLGLSG \G | X G X

or past deeds e hold in common) !ut the use of these at the proper time andthe consideration of hat is appropriate for each) and the good arrangement of

ords !elong to those ho think rightly.

Isocrates ,anegyricus F

0hat Isocrates here appro$es of exempla is undenia!le2 !ut to hat extent is

this inimical to historyš #nd here does such a $ie point t in ith hat actualhistorians had !een doingš

It has often !een pointed out that exempla are as old as Areek literature itself)already present in Homer. [5*] †xempla are already $isi!le in Herodotushistory) used !y speakers as a ay of forming "udgments a!out the future orpersuading their addressees to adopt a particular course of action. [53] 0hecharacters in 0hucydides ork do not use historical exempla $ery often)preferring instead to argue from uni$ersally held principles) although there are

Page 13: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 13/22

still a fe (uite important instances. [55] In the fourth century) the use ofexempla as continued and extended and really came into its o n. ?y theearly fourth century) the Areeks had nearly a hundred years of fairly relia!lehistorical narrati$e that detailed the doings of their city4states !oth indi$iduallyand in con<ict ith one another. =o perhaps it as only to !e expected that

hereas earlier riters and speakers ould ha$e employed e$ents that emight think of as mythological) riters in the fourth century no had a largesupply of more securely attested Chistorical actions. /e can see the speakersin ™enophon s Hellenica) for example) !ringing for ard historical paradeigmata.[5;] 0he orators) too) refer to the $alue of exempla2 in the 0o 9emonicus)Isocrates says that 9emonicus) hen deli!erating ith himself) should makepast e$ents the QbKb UNb b of hat ill occur) for the unseen is most (uicklycomprehended !y the seen) and there are a series of remarks in other oratorsthat parallel this one. [5B] /e see here) of course) a close relationship to thekinds of claims made a!out history in general) and this is one of those areas in

hich history and rhetoric shared some common ground2 it is not so much thathistory as Crhetoriciˆed ) as that the speakers in historiographical orksoperated in the same ay that speakers in the real orld did. #nd this may !elinked to a larger societal context) for the !elief that the future ill !e much likethe past is (uite common in a traditional society.

It is important to emphasiˆe that exempla do not necessarily ha$e only onefunction: in fact) they ork di+erently gi$en their context. 0hey can !e used astools for education or as de$ices of persuasion) or as e$idence or elements ofproof in epideictic oratory. Much of the study of the use of exempla !y the #tticorators has focused on the (uestion of their historical relia!ility) and scholarsoften speak of historical Cdeformation or an Cunscrupulous use of historicale$ents !y the orators in order to make a point. [57] I) on the other hand) ould

like to make three points that I think are insu‰ciently appreciated and thato+er a more positi$e e$aluation of exempla.

irst) the profusion of historical exempla in the fourth century is e$idence of theimportance of the past and of history to the Areeks at that time. I think it noexaggeration to say that fourth4century Areeks ere constantly thinking a!outthe past and its rele$ance to their o n situation. =econd) since historicalexempla in oratory are used in a certain ay) as a tool in argumentationdesigned to guide the audience to a particular conclusion) e should not fail topercei$e that ho the speaker uses an exemplum ill depend on hisinterpretation of the e$ent and its importance. 0he use of historical exempla)therefore) is an implicit contestation o$er the meaning of history. If correct) this

ould suggest that the use of exempla !y riters as al ays a dynamic) ratherthan a static) process. #lthough certain examples might !e used again andagain to make a particular point) the interpretation of each exemplum as notcar$ed in stone2 as a tool of argumentation and proof) the exemplum assu!"ect to examination and challenge) and could !e accepted) emended) ordiscarded. #nd that is hat I think Isocrates is getting at in ,anegyricus F. Hisremark indicates that the past) far from !eing dead or uni$ocal) as a proteanthing) capa!le of !eing examined and used from a $ariety of $ie points) and

Page 14: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 14/22

not limited in its meaning or applica!ility. 0hird and nally) the recourse !yscholars to la!elling the use of historical exempla as inaccurate or as adeformation assumes a holly passi$e audience. It presumes that the listeners

ere completely or largely una are of hat orators ere doing) or that theyfailed to recogniˆe con$entions that they heard almost e$ery day of their li$es.

0o take !ut one example) the topics and arrangement of the epitaphios ereell kno n@so ell kno n that they could !e easily mocked !y ,lato in the

Menexenus. [5D] ˜et it ould !e foolish to follo ,lato in assuming a hollygulli!le audience) listening to the rehearsal of #thenian deeds as if they eregospel. &n the contrary) the di+erent ays in hich the orators ould ha$eapproached the timeless themes of #thenian myth and history ould ha$efostered a much more critical spirit than e are sometimes illing to grant thee$eryday #thenian. ,erhaps e nd it hard to imagine that the #thenians inattendance at the funeral oration might not ha$e expected to hear historicaltruth nor ha$e looked for that: rather) they may ha$e ished to hear the oratordischarge his task ith skill and appropriateness) hile !eing simultaneously6mildly8 inno$ati$e and in$esting the occasion ith deep emotion. >ontext)here as else here) determines the con$entions.

=o in sum I !elie$e that there is no reason to consider the use of historicalexempla in and of itself hostile to history. &n the contrary) the recourse to thepast meant that the orator as in a constant state of examining the lessons ofhistory) and in a constant struggle to understand the meaning of history.

;.

-et me no try to sum up some of hat I ha$e !een saying. In this paper I ama are that I ha$e not !een ad$ancing a particular thesis a!out Isocrates !utrather o+ering a series of o!ser$ations a!out his relationship to thehistoriography of the fth and fourth centuries. It is singularly unfortunate thatthe historians of the fourth century are so often condemned in the standardhand!ooks and faulted for their inferiority to their great predecessors of the

fth century. ?y contrast) I ould see the fourth century as a time of impressi$einno$ation here generic !oundaries ere not yet xed and policed. Ratherthan pass "udgment a!out the merits of the fourth century) ho e$er) it seemsto me more orth hile to try to understand hat the role of history as in thefourth century and !eyond) and rather than $ie this later historiography assomething Ccorrupted !y rhetoric) e ould do ell to attend to ho and hythe use of history remained so important.

If e do not ish to assign Isocrates a place of cardinal importance in thede$elopment of historiographical theory@and I !elie$e that e should not@neither is it fair to rite him out of the picture altogether. 0hat he as not ahistorian and had no methodology for the riting of history he himself makesclear) and e can see that his main interest is in playing an important role asad$ocate in the present !y encouraging his fello #thenians and fello Areeksto do great deeds. ˜et one cannot help noticing the large and consistent rolethat history plays across the hole $ast oeu$re of Isocrates) here the past is

Page 15: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 15/22

ne$er far from $ie ) and can !e employed either as a yardstick !y hich tomeasure the inade(uacy of the present) or as a spur to contemporaries toachie$e deeds e(ual to or greater than their ancestors. Eor can it !ecoincidence) I think) that Isocrates as engaged ith some of the same issuesthat the fourth4century historians ere2 the struggle for hegemony: the rolethat #thens and =parta should play in contemporary history: the po er andin<uence of ,ersia: and the rising star to the north in Macedon. #lthoughIsocrates does not de$elop it speci cally) his remark at ,anegyricus F that thepast !elongs to us all) !ut that its elucidation is a matter for the ell educated)places history in a central role in his $ision of education. [5F] †$en if Isocrates

as not the proponent of any historiographical program) he as) hetherdeli!erately or fortuitously) an important participant in the fourth4centurydiscussions of hat history meant) and ho it as or as not useful. #nd gi$enthat he li$ed in an era of generic inno$ation@for hich his o n discourses)among other things) ser$e as e$idence [;‡] @it as ine$ita!le that the de!atesa!out history ould not and could not !e con ned to those ho actually rotenarrati$e histories. History) e might say) as too important to !e left to thehistorians.

?i!liography

#llison) J. 1FDF. ,o er and ,reparedness in 0hucydides. #tlanta.

#$enarius) A. 1F;B. -ukians =chrift ˆur Aeschichtsschrei!ung. Meisenheim amAlan.

?lass) . 1DF*. 9ie attische ?eredsamkeit ii. -eipˆig.

?os orth) #. ?. *‡‡3. %,lus ®a change . . . #ncient Historians and their=ources.' >lassical #nti(uity **21B7…1FD.

?ruce) I. #. . 1FB7. #n Historical >ommentary on the Hellenica &xyrhynchia.>am!ridge.

?¯chner) . 1F3F. %M. 0ullius >icero 6*F8.' R† °II #12D*7…1*75.

?ury) J. ?. 1F‡F. 0he #ncient Areek Historians. -ondon.

>onnor) /. R. 1FD5. 0hucydides. ,rinceton.

9e ald) >. J. *‡‡;. 0hucydides /ar Earrati$e2 # =tructural =tudy. ?erkeley.

†llis) J. R. 1FF1. %0he =tructure and #rgument of 0hucydides #rchaeology.'

>lassical #nti(uity 1‡2355…3D‡.inley) M. I. 1F71. %Myth) Memory and History.' In 0he ±se and #!use of

History) 11…33. Ee ˜ork.

lo er) M. #. 1FF5. 0heopompus of >hios2 History and Rhetoric in the ourth>entury ?.>. &xford.

ox) M. and -i$ingstone) E. *‡‡7. %Rhetoric and Historiography.' In #>ompanion to Areek Rhetoric) ed. I. /orthington) ;5*…;B1. Malden) M#.

Page 16: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 16/22

Arant) J. R. 1F75. %0o ard no ing 0hucydides.' ,hoenix *D2D1…F5.

Arethlein) J. *‡‡B. 9as Aeschichts!ild der Ilias2 eine ±ntersuchung ausph²nomenologischer und narratologischer ,erspekti$e. A³ttingen.

Hamilton) >. 9. 1F7F. %Areek Rhetoric and History2 0he >ase of Isocrates.' In

#rktouros2 =tudies presented to ?. M. /. nox.) ed. A. /. ?o ersock et al.) *F‡…*FD. ?erlin and Ee ˜ork.

Henderson) M. M. 1F7;. %,lato s Menexenus and the 9istortion of History.' #cta>lassica 1D2*;…5B.

Horn!lo er) =. 1FD7. 0hucydides. -ondon.

@@@. 1FF1. # >ommentary on 0hucydides I2 ?ooks I4III. &xford.

@@@. 1FF;. %0he ourth >entury and Hellenistic Reception of 0hucydides.' Journal of Hellenic =tudies 11;257…BD.

@@@. *‡‡D. # >ommentary on 0hucydides III2 ?ooks ;.*;…D.1‡F. &xford.

Jaco!y) . 1F*B. 9ie ragmente der griechischen Historiker. ´ eiter 0eil2´eitgeschichte. >. ommentar ˆu Er. B5…1‡;. ?erlin.

Jost) . 1F3B. 9as ?eispiel und °or!ild der °orfahren !ei den antiken Rednernund Aeschichtschrei!ern !is 9emosthenes. Rhetorische =tudien 1F. ,ader!orn.

alischek) #. †. 1F13. 9e †phoro et 0heopompo Isocratis 9iscipulis. 9iss.)M¯nster.

-oraux) E. 1FD1. - in$ention d #thµnes2 histoire de l oraison funµ!re dans laCcit¶ classi(ue . ,aris. #lso pu!. as 0he In$ention of #thens2 the uneral &ration

in the >lassical >ity) trans. #. =heridan. >am!ridge) M#) 1FDB.Marincola) J. 1FF5. %,lutarch s Refutation of Herodotus.' #ncient /orld *‡21F1…*‡3.

@@@. 1FF7. #uthority and 0radition in #ncient Historiography. >am!ridge.

@@@. *‡‡1. Areek Historians. Areece · Rome Ee =ur$eys in the >lassics 31.&xford.

@@@. *‡1‡. %0he CRhetoric of History2 #llusion) Intertextuality) and†xemplarity in Historiographical =peeches.' In =timmen der Aeschichte2

unktionen $on Reden in der antiken Historiographie) ed. 9. ,ausch) *;F…*DF.?erlin.@@@. *‡11. Areek and Roman Historiography. &xford Readings in >lassical=tudies. &xford.

Mei"ering) R. 1FD7. -iterary and Rhetorical 0heories in Areek =cholia.Aroningen.

Page 17: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 17/22

Moles) J. -. 1FF3. %0ruth) and ±ntruth in Herodotus and 0hucydides.' In -ies andiction in the #ncient /orld) ed. >. Aill and 0. ,. /iseman) DD…1*1. †xeter.

Eickel) 9. 1FF1. %Isokrates und die Aeschichtsschrei!ung des 5. Jahrhunderts $.>hr.' ,hilologus 13;2*33…*3F.

Eicolai) R. *‡‡5. =tudi su Isocrate. -a comunicaˆione letteraria nel I° sec. a. >.e i nuo$i generi della prosa. Rome.

Eouhaud) M. 1FD‡. - utilisation de l histoire par les orateurs atti(ues. ,aris.

&!er) J. *‡‡1. %0he 9e!ate o$er >i$ic †ducation in >lassical #thens.' In†ducation in Areek and Roman #nti(uity) ed. ˜. -. 0oo) 17;…*‡D. -eiden.

,apillon) 0. -. *‡‡1. %Rhetoric) #rt and Myth2 Isocrates and ?usiris.' In 0he&rator in #ction and in 0heory in Areece and Rome2 †ssays in Honor of A. #.

ennedy) ed. >. /ooten) 73…F3. -eiden.

,armeggiani) A. *‡11. †foro di >uma. =tudi di storiogra a greca. ?ologna.

,earson) -. 1F51. %Historical #llusions in the #ttic &rators.' >lassical ,hilology3B2*‡F…**F) reprinted in =elected ,apers) ed. 9. -ateiner and =. =tephens)1F‡…*1‡. #tlanta) 1FD3.

,elling) >. ?. R. *‡‡B. %=peech and Earrati$e in the Histories.' In >am!ridge>ompanion to Herodotus) ed. >. 9e ald) and J. Marincola) 1‡3…1*1. >am!ridge.

@@@. *‡‡7. %9e Malignitate ,lutarchi.' In >ultural Responses to the ,ersian/ars2 #nti(uity to the 0hird Millenium) ed. †. ?ridges et al.) 15;…1B5. &xford.

,erlman) =. 1FB1. %0he Historical †xample2 Its ±se and Importance as ,olitical,ropaganda in the #ttic &rators.' =cripta Hierosolymitana 721;‡…1BB.

,eter) H. 1DF7. 9ie geschichtliche -iteratur ¯!er die r³mische aiserˆeit !is 0heodosius I und ihre ¸uellen I4II. ?erlin.

@@@. 1F11. /ahrheit und unst. -eipˆig.

,othou) °. *‡‡F. -a place et le r¹le de la digression dans l ºu$re de 0hucydide.Historia †inˆelschrift *‡3. =tuttgart.

,o nall) . *‡‡5. -essons from the ,ast2 0he Moral ±se of History in ourth4>entury ,rose. #nn #r!or.

,oulakis) 0. 1FF7. =peaking for the ,olis2 Isocrates Rhetorical †ducation.>olum!ia) =>.,oulakis 0.) and 9epe ) 9.) eds. *‡‡5. Isocrates and >i$ic †ducation. #ustin.

Raa<au!) . #. *‡‡*. %Herodot und 0hukydides2 ,ersischer Imperialismus im-ichte der athenischen =iˆilienpolitik.' In /iderstand 4 #npassung 4 Integration2die Ariechische =taaten elt und Rom) estschrift fur Jurgen 9eininger ˆum B;.Ae!urtstag) ed. -. M. A¯nther and E. †hrhardt) 11…5‡. =tuttgart.

Page 18: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 18/22

de Romilly) J. 1F;B. Histoire et raison cheˆ 0hucydide. ,aris.

Roth) ,. *‡‡3. 9er ,anathenaikos des Isokrates2 »!ersetˆung und ommentar.?erlin.

Rusten) J. =.) ed. *‡‡F. 0hucydides. &xford Readings in >lassical =tudies.

&xford.=cardino) >. *‡‡7. Aestaltung und unktion der Reden !ei Herodot und

0hukydides. ?erlin.

=cheller) ,. 1F11. 9e hellenistica historiae conscri!endae arte. 9iss.) -eipˆig.

=chepens) A. 1F7;. %=ome #spects of =ource 0heory in Areek Historiography.'#ncient =ociety B2*;74*75. Reprinted in Marincola *‡‡121‡‡…11D.

=chmitˆ4 ahlmann) A. 1F3F. 9as ?eispiel der Aeschichte im politischen 9enkendes Isokrates. ,hilologus =uppl. xxxi) Heft 5. -eipˆig.

=ch artˆ) †. 1F‡7. %†phoros 618.' R† °I 121…1B.

=tre!el) H. A. 1F3;. /ertung und /irkung des thukydideischenAeschichts erkes in der griechisch4r³mischen -iteratur. 9iss.) Munich.

0oo) .̃ -. 1FF;. 0he Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates. >am!ridge.

±llman) ?. -. 1F5*. %History and 0ragedy.' 0ransactions of the #merican,hilological #ssociation 732*;…;3.

±sher) =. 1FBF. 0he Historians of Areece and Rome. -ondon.

@@@. 1FF‡. Isocrates2 ,anegyricus and 0o Eicocles. Areek &rators III./arminster.

/elles) >. ?. 1FBB. %Isocrates °ie of History.' In 0he >lassical 0radition2-iterary and Historical =tudies in Honor of Harry >aplan) ed. -. /allach) 3…*;.Ithaca.

/oodman) #. J. 1FDD. Rhetoric in >lassical Historiography2 our =tudies.-ondon.

/orthington) I. 1FF1. %Areek &ratory) Re$ision of =peeches) and the ,ro!lem of Historical Relia!ility.' >lassica et Mediae$alia 5*2;;…75.

@@@. 1FF5. %History and &ratorical †xploitation.' In ,ersuasion2 Areek

Rhetoric in #ction) 1‡F…1*F. -ondon.ootnotes

[ !ack ] 1. 0his paper as originally deli$ered at Har$ard ±ni$ersity in e!ruary*‡‡7: I thank Eino -uraghi and Riccardo °attuone for the kind in$itation toparticipate in the conference they had organiˆed. I recei$ed helpful commentsthere from Michael lo er) Eino -uraghi) Ro!erto Eicolai) Auido =chepens) and,ietro °annicelli. Eone of them necessarily agrees ith hat is stated here. #

Page 19: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 19/22

fuller $ersion as deli$ered as the =econd #nnual 0. ?. -. /e!ster >lassicsAraduate =tudent -ecture at =tanford ±ni$ersity in e!ruary *‡11) and I amgrateful to the graduate students there for the kind in$itation to speak) and forthe $ery helpful discussion that follo ed my presentation. It must !eemphasiˆed that this paper represents only a rst attempt at sorting out theplace of Isocrates in historiographical thought) and tries to suggest some!roader outlines in considering his ork and its in<uence. It does not pretendto any kind of comprehensi$eness 6for one important omission) see !elo ) n5F8!ut I hope in due course to pro$ide a full study of Isocrates ithin the contextof fourth4century historiography. 0he text of Isocrates used here is that of ?. A.Mandilaras 60eu!ner) 3 $ols. *‡‡38: translations are those of 9. >. Mirhady and

.̃ -. 0oo) Isocrates I and 0. -. ,apillon) Isocrates II 6#ustin *‡‡‡ and *‡‡5)respecti$ely8) sometimes slightly modi ed.

[ !ack ] *. /orks on history are attested for 0heophrastus 69iogenes -aertius;.578) ,raxiphanes 6Marcellinus °ita 0hucydidis *F8) Metrodorus of =cepsis 6 AH1D5 *8) >aecilius of >aleacte 6 AH 1D3 *8) 0heodorus of Aadara 6 AH D;‡ 018) and the third4century >† sophist) 0i!erius 6=uda s.$. ¼X} KXL [¼ ;;‡ #dler]8:on the -atin side) there is °arro s =isenna uel de historia 6Aellius 1B.F.;8. 0he-amprias catalogue of ,lutarch s orks mentions %Ho /e 9iscern the 0rueHistory' 6Eo. 1*58) and a four4$olume %&n Eeglected History' 6Eo. ;58) !utnothing is kno n of either.

[ !ack ] 3. inley 1F7121*.

[ !ack ] 5. /oodman 1FDD25*) BDnn*;7…*;D.

[ !ack ] ;. 0he latter ork is nonetheless $alua!le for hat it tells us a!outsome important approaches to the riting of history in anti(uity2 see Marincola

1FF521F14*‡3: ,elling *‡‡7215;…1B5.[ !ack ] B. >icero came close) ith a Q NGTNb of his consulship 6ad #tticum*.1.*8) a poem 9e >onsulatu =uo 6 B…11 0raglia8 and one 9e 0empori!us =uis6 1*…178: cf. ?¯chner 1F3F21*5;…1*;3. Eone of >icero s Chistorical orks

as) strictly speaking) a narrati$e history.

[ !ack ] 7. &n Isocrates and history see2 ?lass 1DF*25D…;‡: ,eter 1DF72ii1F‡…1F1: ?ury 1F‡F21B‡…17‡: ,eter 1F1121D‡…1D3: =cheller 1F11: alischek 1F13:=chmitˆ4 ahlmann 1F3F: ±llman 1F5*: #$enarius 1F;B2D1…D; and passim:/elles 1FBB: Hamilton 1F7F: Eouhaud 1FD‡: Eickel 1FF1: lo er 1FF525*…B*:Eicolai *‡‡5275…D7: ox and -i$ingstone *‡‡72 ;5*…;B1) esp. ;;1…;;3:

,armeggiani *‡11235…3D.[ !ack ] D. Marincola *‡‡12111…11*.

[ !ack ] F. ,armeggiani *‡11237 o!ser$es that the term comprises at least sixdi+erent concepts.

[ !ack ] 1‡. AH 7‡ 00 1…3: 11; 00 1) *) ;a: older discussion in alischek 1F13.

[ !ack ] 11. =ch artˆ 1F‡721…*: Jaco!y 1F*B2**…*3.

Page 20: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 20/22

[ !ack ] 1*. ?ury 1F‡F21B5: cf. ,o nall *‡‡52133.

[ !ack ] 13. ±sher 1FBF21‡1…1‡*.

[ !ack ] 15. lo er 1FF525*…B*: ,armeggiani *‡11235…3B.

[ !ack ] 1;. Moles 1FF32115…11;.

[ !ack ] 1B. /oodman 1FDD21…BF: further references in Marincola *‡‡12FD…1‡3.

[ !ack ] 17. Arant 1F75.

[ !ack ] 1D. &n the method of the C#rchaeology ) see >onnor 1FD52*‡…3*:Horn!lo er 1FD721‡‡…1‡7.

[ !ack ] 1F. Eo purpose ould !e ser$ed here !y entering into the enormous!i!liography on the speeches: some ork !efore *‡‡‡ is sur$eyed in Marincola*‡‡1277…D;: see also =cardino *‡‡7: Rusten *‡‡F25F*…5F3.

[ !ack ] *‡. =tre!el 1F3;27…1F: Horn!lo er 1FF;257…BD.

[ !ack ] *1. =ee ?ruce 1FB721D…*‡.

[ !ack ] **. 9e ald *‡‡;2155…1;5.

[ !ack ] *3. &n the greatness of the su!"ect as a "usti cation for riting history)see Marincola 1FF7235…53.

[ !ack ] *5. =ee especially =chmitˆ4 ahlmann 1F3F.

[ !ack ] *;. =ee a!o$e) n7.

[ !ack ] *B. =ee =cheller 1F112B;f.: ,eter 1DF72ii1F‡: idem 1F1121D‡…1D3:#$enarius 1F;B2D1…D3.

[ !ack ] *7. Marincola 1FF72*7B…*77) hich ought to ha$e cited ±sher1FF‡21;‡…1;1.

[ !ack ] *D. #$enarius 1F;B2D*: Eickel 1FF12*3;: Roth *‡‡3 ad loc.

[ !ack ] *F. I reprise here the remarks made in Marincola 1FF72*77…*7D.

[ !ack ] 3‡. †$agoras 3B2 YG QbZbXYG: ,anegyricus 1;D2 ¼q ¼K\½ V and ¼q¬ K X V.

[ !ack ] 31. 0o Eicocles 5F2 NOG [sc. ¾NTKL ] UqK L^ {UYGb b L^QLZ NL_ L^ YG ¡NX` \G N_`LZ UT G) L O [sc. L QKY LX K G

KbU‘ bG] L^ NS`L_ {UYGb b QKV X b T bG.[ !ack ] 3*. 0o 9emonicus ;‡2 ´eus sired Heracles and 0antalus œ L N `LXZ UL_ X.

[ !ack ] 33. ,anegyricus 12 G KL NOG PG QKL KLSNTG UKVW XG YG Z U\GL L^ N_` X L O L^ Kb b b _ LZLU b N L^ ) L L QLZNjZZLG b KL_ XG.

Page 21: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 21/22

[ !ack ] 35. 0o Eicocles 5D2 L^ }L_ZLN GL_ QLX G UKVW XG XbKX N GLG L QLZZL Nž L^ —W ZXN\ V L_ YG Z U\G „T G) {ZZ

L^ N_`\ V L_ 6commentators ha$e noted there seems to !e an echo of 0hucydides 1.**.5 at the !eginning of this passage) ith the distinction!et een hat is N_`Y and hat is useful8. †$agoras BB2 L^ NS`L_{W G žG {ZŽ` XbG LQL N G.

[ !ack ] 3;. Hamilton 1F7F2*F3…*F5 says that the term here does not ha$e todo ith the story s $eracity !ut denotes rather %a story hich has come toha$e a special fame and function in Areek tradition)' !ut this is specialpleading and uncon$incing) gi$en that) as Hamilton himself notes) Isocrateselse here distinguishes N `LX from truth.

[ !ack ] 3B. =ee Marincola 1FF72117…1*B: Mei"ering 1FD727D…D*.

[ !ack ] 37. Marincola 1FF72B3…DB.

[ !ack ] 3D. &n the methodological importance of the C#rchaeology ) see de

Romilly 1F;B2*5‡…*FD: >onnor 1FD52*‡…3*: #llison 1FDF211…*7: †llis 1FF1:,othou *‡‡F21*B…133.

[ !ack ] 3F. &n 0hemistocles and ,ausanias) see Horn!lo er 1FF12*11…**;)esp. *112 %the general handling recalls . . . Herodotus': on the =icilianarchaeology) idem *‡‡D2*;F…*FF: on Harmodius and #ristogeiton) i!id. 535…55‡.

[ !ack ] 5‡. &n the di+erent methodologies for non4contemporary history see=chepens 1F7; 6no in slightly re$ised form in Marincola *‡1121‡‡…11D8:Marincola 1FF72B3…DB) F;…117: ?os orth *‡‡3.

[ !ack ] 51. =ee e.g. =chmitˆ4 ahlmann 1F3F2$…xi. I treat the fourth4centuryinterest in exempla more fully in a forthcoming study.

[ !ack ] 5*. †xempla in the Iliad2 Eestor2 1.*B‡…*73: ,hoenix tells the story ofMeleager2 F.;*F…B‡;: #chilles uses the example of Eio!e2 *5.B‡*…B*‡. &nHomeric heroes and the past) Arethlein *‡‡B.

[ !ack ] 53. =olon in$okes 0ellus and >leo!is and ?iton as exempla2 Herodotus1.3‡…31: >roesus uses himself as an exemplum2 1.*‡7: =o6si8clees on>orinthian tyranny2 ;.F*…F3: ™erxes and his predecessors2 7.D. Inferences fromexempla are not) ho e$er) straightfor ard and unpro!lematic2 see ,elling*‡‡B.

[ !ack ] 55. 0ypical is ,ericles tactic in the uneral &ration not to rehearse thedeeds of the #thenians ancestors) !ut instead to concentrate on the here andno 60hucydides *.3B8. 0here are) ho e$er) a fe note orthy instances of theemployment of historical exempla. Hermocrates successfully uses the exampleof #thenian action in the ,ersian /ar) hen the #thenians ere compelled to!ecome accomplished sailors !y the ,ersian threat) to moti$ate his o n=yracusans to practice their skill and not lose heart in the face of earlier#thenian $ictories 67.*18. #lci!iades) at the !eginning of ?ook B) $ery similarly

Page 22: 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

8/18/2019 3. Rethinking Isocrates y Historiography - John Marincola

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-rethinking-isocrates-y-historiography-john-marincola 22/22

to ™erxes in Herodotus) uses the example of past #thenian actions andcharacter to urge the #thenian assem!ly to $ote for the =icilian expedition6B.17…1D) ith Raa<au! *‡‡* for the similarity to Herodotus ™erxes8. ,erhapsthe most signi cant use of history in 0hucydides is the ,lataean defense !eforethe =partans here the ,lataeans remind the =partans of ,lataea s e+orts inthe ,ersian /ars and the role they played in defending Areece 63.;5) ;D8.#gain) this use of historical exempla is not necessarily straightfor ard2 the=partan decision not to !e s ayed !y the ,lataeans in$ocation of history is putdo n !y the historian to the fact that in the moment the 0he!ans ere moreuseful to the =partans than ere the ,lataeans 63.BD.58.

[ !ack ] 5;. #lthough) as ith Herodotus 6a!o$e) n5*8) the exempla are notstraightfor ard and easily interpreted2 see Marincola *‡1‡2*BF…*7F) here Iargue that the historical exempla attri!uted !y ™enophon to a series ofspeakers in ?ooks B and 7 contain a metahistorical criti(ue) possi!ly a (uitepessimistic one) of the $alue of history itself.

[ !ack ] 5B. Isocrates 0o 9emonicus 352 }L_Z _ N GL QbKb UNb b QLXL qQbK ZTZ_` b YG N ZZ G \G ” UqK {WbGO L WbG KL b TG ~ XžG XVUG\ XG. >f. -ysias *;.*32 Kž L G_G) ¿ €G K X b b ) L QK KLG

U U GTN GLX QbKb UNb X K\N GL_ }L_Z S `bX Q K YG N ZZ G \G~ `bX: #ndocides 9e ,ace 3*2 q UqK QbKb UNb b q U U GTN Gb YG

NbK TNV \G bGq L WKL X YG {G`K Q\G Ÿ NT X NbK VG XG.

[ !ack ] 57. †xempla in oratory2 Jost 1F3B: ,earson 1F51: ,erlman 1FB1: -oraux1FD1: Eouhaud 1FD‡: /orthington 1FF1: id. 1FF5: ,o nall *‡‡5.

[ !ack ] 5D. 0he classic study of the epitaphios is that of -oraux 1FD1: on,lato s Menexenus) see Henderson 1F7;: ,o nall *‡‡523D…B5.

[ !ack ] 5F. I ha$e not here dealt ith Isocrates role as teacher) though it isimportant if e are to come to a more complete understanding of his interest inhistory. or Isocrates as teacher) see inley 1F71: 0oo 1FF;21;1…*3*: ,oulakis1FF7: &!er *‡‡1: ,oulakis and 9epe *‡‡5.

[ !ack ] ;‡. &n Isocrates discourses as generically inno$ati$e see ,apillon*‡‡1273…7B.