power isocrates school

8/14/2019 Power Isocrates School

1/12

History of Education Society

!"#$$ &'() #*+ ,)+#-.-/ '* 0$.12#3)$4 &15.."6735.28$9: ;+ ,. NNOPN,7Q"'$5)+ Q/: History of Education Society&3#Q") R?S: http://www.jstor.org/stable/367213.611)$$)+: KKTUNTNUKN NK:PP

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

History of Education Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHistory of

Education Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=heshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/367213?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=heshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/367213?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/12

lass Size nd edagogyn socratest chool

EDWARD J. POWERHISTORIANS OF ANCIENT EDUCATION have been speculatingabout the enrollment in Isocrates' school. (1) While enrollment canhardly be taken as a criticalhistorical datum-and evidence supportingeven the best opinions on the subject is not too good-these specula-tions may bring to light some little-known dimensions to Isocrates'basic teaching method. If Isocrates were teaching as many as o100stu-dents a year, his pedagogy should not have been the same as if hetaught only o100 students during his entire career. Freeman believesthat Isocrates had a huge school attracting an annual clientele of o100students; (2) Isocrates himself speaks of having had more pupils thanall the other schools combined. (3) Marrou, on the other hand,describes the Isocratic school as an elite institution supplying an aca-demic adventure of rare quality to carefully selected and highly moti-vated persons. (4) Is there any way of illuminating these divergentviews since apparently they cannot be reconciled?

Taking Isocrates at his word is not always satisfactory, not becausehe tries to mislead us, but because what he says is often ambiguous.When he said he had more students than all the other schools, he maynot have meant in a single school year but for the half-century of theschool's existence. When we hear that Isocrates was rich and assigneda trierarchy,it is perhapsnatural to envision large numbers of studentsin his classrooms, for if he did not chargeAthenians tuition, as pseudo-Plutarch asserts in the Life of Isocrates, he must have had a foreignenrollment large enough to make his enterprise profitable and him arich man. Demosthenes, however, states that Athenians were charged.Perhaps the misunderstanding arises from Isocrates' own comments:he says he receivedpayments from foreigners and that his wealth camechiefly from foreign gifts. (5) He implies, though does not assert, thatMr.Power s Professorof Education t BostonCollege.

22 HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY


3/12

this was his only source of income; nor does he unequivocally denycharging fees to Athenians. If we are correct in assuming that all stu-dents were charged tuition, fewer students paying the rate of i,ooodrachmae for the full course were needed to put Isocrates in the envi-able financial position tradition attributes to him.We need not doubt his wealth or his ability to share in the supportof public services, an assessment amounting to about 2,000 drachmae.But if he had loo students a year, would it have made sense for him totry to reduce or remove the trierarchy?Johnson, using leads from in-come analysis, maintains that if Isocrates had o100pupils annually hisfinancialopulence would have made him a fable of antiquity. (6) His-tory contains no such fable. If, however, he had o100pupils during hisschool's existence, his income would have been about three timesgreater than that of a lower middle-class family-540 drachmae peryear (7)-or quite enough to make him comfortableand enough, also,to lead to the assignment of the trierarchy. Adding the gifts Isocratesreceived from Nicocles-20 talents or about 120,000 drachmae-anda payment of one talent from Timotheus, we have our man of wealth.Guided by income analysis, Johnson concluded, concurring withMarrou, that Isocrates' school was small, never enrolling more thansix or eight students at a time. His view has merit. Building on it hehypothesizes a smaller number of students for the Sophists than popu-lar legend assigns. Although current accounts usually credit Sophistswith packs of students, advanced opinion favors a reassessment ofold myths and a more modest estimate of the popularity of Sophisticschools. The ordinary Sophist's school was likely no larger than theone Isocrates conducted.

Discrete from method, the enrollment debate is interesting; besidesit is relevant to technique. What is gleaned from Isocratic writingsand commentaries on pedagogic practicemust be set in the context ofthe small class. At this point we should turn to technique and try toreconstruct the Isocratean plan of teaching.

The place to begin a consideration of Isocratean methods and anyanalysis of techniqueis with objectives. What were his teaching goals?How did he try to shape student minds? Now we are dealing with ques-tions admitting of little or no debate: Isocrates founded a school andconducted it for about a half-century with the principal purpose ofpreparing statesmen. Isocrates was a remarkably successful teacher

Winter 1966 23


4/12

precisely because he was single-minded and unwavering in his goals.He refused to waste time testing the validity of the assumption thatit was possible to educate statesmen; he did not indulge agonizinganalyses relative to truth, justice, and virtue; he based his teachingprogramon common sense, which for him was philosophy, and aimedfor his goal. It is worthwhile to inquire below the level of goals, andto ask Isocrates how he would make not a mind, not a man, but astatesman? We need not think of contemporary curricular theoriesat this point, for a comparison of today's curriculaand Isocrates' syl-labus would hardly be a meaningful exercise. Yet it is reasonable toask: what subjects were taught? Goals can be reached only by usingcertain means, and education has not changed so much in twenty ormore centuries to make the applicationof this principle obsolete. Bodiesof knowledge were organized into subjects, although they were notisolated or departmentalized.If we work our way through the writingsof Isocrates we shall probably be able to reconstruct, somewhat tenta-tively, the curriculum of the school: grammar, composition, essaywriting, elocution, history, archaeology, jurisprudence, citizenship,religion, ethics, philosophy, geography, political science, and strategy.The outstanding omission here is mathematics, indeed a surprisingone in view of the willingness of Isocrates to accept mathematics aspart of an intellectual foundation necessary to a public man. PossiblyIsocrates meant only the keeping of household accounts, a lower-levelaccomplishmentwithout standing in the studies of the school.Grammarmust have been a very elemental study of the structure oflanguage, for Isocrates antedated by three centuries Dionysius Thrax'scodification of grammar, although the Sophists had done preliminaryand cursory work on codes of correct speech. In any case, grammar inits infancy did not include the Hellenistic appurtenances,except pos-sibly for the reading of the poets. Composition, essay writing, andelocution belonged to rhetoric,or were later wedded to it, and are no-ticed here only to give a more precise notion of what the boys did.Isocrates wanted statesmen who could write and speak; apparently thedistinction to be made between composition and essay writing was oneof degree.Graduatesof the school undertook careers as political punditsor journalistic commentators on the vital questions of the day; it isbarely possible that essay writing was a more highly professionalizedstudy while composition was general and applied to the foundations



5/12

and the skill of good writing. Elocution's importance is elevated whenwe recognize, despite the possibility of having something publishedin written form, that the most convenient way to publish was to readwhat was written to an audience. It was not imperative for the authorto recite his essay-he could have a reader-but publication was moreimpressive when the author himself did the reading. For the day-to-day involvements of the public man the relevance of elocution cannotbe gainsaid.

Religion was simply a knowledge of the gods who occupied, evenin this day, a prominent place in Greek life. Few Athenians had anyreal faith in the gods and most were convinced only of their reality inmyth; they were atheists, but for purposes of display they wanted anintimate knowledge of the gods. References to characters in Greekmythology served to embellish a speech; the orator who did not knowhis gods could not expect the people's support or respect.What methods did Isocrates employ in teaching these subjects? Wemay be certain of his effectiveness as a teacher; the remarkablesuccessof his students is the best testimony we have for knowing we are notdealing with an opportunisticpedagogue who parlayed a good reputa-tion out of the fragments of self-serving publicity. (8) The Antidosisgives us some insight into the foundation of his method. He is dedi-cated to teaching the art of discourse and begins, he says, at the be-ginning: Our ancestors invented and bequeathed to us two principalarts-physical training for the body and philosophy for the mind.While a distinction may be made between the two, they need not beseparated sharply, for similar methods of instruction, exercise, anddiscipline are common to both. (g)

Prophetic anticipations taking into account a physiology of learn-ing are shadowy and imprecise in the thought of Isocrates, but theyare there. He detected the correspondence of mind-body relationshipsand believed, obviously, that the teacher of letters could imitate thepaidotribe.But we can make too much of this, as it is possible to maketoo much of direct Isocratic influences on the methodology of moderneducation: there is no evidence whatever, and we have no hope of un-covering any, to lead us to suppose that the methodological revolutioninstigated by Rousseau, haltingly applied by Pestalozzi, and codifiedby Dewey and his progressive followers had its origin with Isocrates.History and educational theory often make strange bedfellows. Isoc-

Winter 1966 25


6/12

rateswould have pushedasidethe generalthesesof modemnragma-tists-though he was often pragmatic-becauseof the supporttheycouldgive to thelesserSophistsagainstwhomhe employedhis artist-ry in pedagogicpolemic.He was not merelyopposingPlato,who was,he thought,swampedn theworldof ideas,whenhe made mentalandphysicaltraining analogous.Paidotribes,who were themselvesedu-catedmen,hadperfecteda techniquewhich,he believed,couldbe ap-pliedto academic raining.Becauseof the natureof theirteachingorcoaching, paidotribesneeded a techniquefor teachingstudentstheskillsof the palaestra;besides,they understood he futility of tryingto teach skillsby lecturing,or improving he speedandenduranceofa stadium runner by telling him how to run. Yet, they did not rejecttheory,for they recognized he importance f generalrulesrelativetorunning-pace, position, conditioning,etc.-none of which camefrom practice alone.Takinga pagefromthe paidotribe's ook, Isocratesrecognized heneedforbasinginstruction n a realisticphysiologyof learning; romhis own experience e discerned heplaceof a psychologyof learning.Evenwith thesediscoveriesn his possession,he cameperilouslycloseto jeopardizing is reputation s an educator.He lived the double ifeof a publicistanda teacher.Rarelydo we findhimpublicizing hevitalingredients f artandskillin teachingsave whenhe wanted to start aschoolandattract tudents,andagainwhen he felt thathis educationalprogramhad beenunjustlycriticizedby his fellow citizens.Had hissenseof missionbeensomewhatmoreprofoundand his dedication oubiquityin learningmore exacting,he shouldhave spent less timetryingto reformGreekpolityaccordingo his own politicalviews andlet teachersknow moreabout heresultsof his experimentswithteach-ing.

Undoubtedlyhe dimensionsof his systemwere limited,admittingfor properandcarefultutelageonly a smallnumberof students;butit is reasonable o suspect,thoughhe was not engagedin preparingteachers-whichhe mighthavedone hadhe reallywantedto dissemi-natehis treasury f educationaldeals-that he senseda certaindangerin sendingfrom his school too many emissariesof his thoughtandthus increasingthe danger of having his secrets spreadunevenlythroughouthe Greekworld.If he was inflexiblyprotectiveabouthistechniquesof teaching, his rigiditymust be regardedas a minorde-



7/12

terrent o the currencyof Isocratean ducationalhought.We shouldnot liketo describe socrates s apedagogicmiserwhosebestthoughtswerediscounted n the scalesof pettinessandavarice.Lest our interpolations elative to the characterof the man plowtoodeepa furrowof imperfection,r of humanness,et us returnoncemoreto themajorelementsof his techniqueand bare them as best wecan.He admitted,we have said,only a few studentsto his classesbe-cause of his extraordinaryoncern for care.Quintiliannoticedthispoint andmade much of it-that care in educationwas the primarycurrentdeficiency-in the famous Institutes of Oratory. Care hadnothingwhateverto do with discipline: t meantsimplythat only afew students at a time couldbe taught effectively.Bookswere notreadily available,and few schoolmasterscould affordthem. Thus,therewasusuallyonlyonecopyof anyinstructionalmaterial. n addi-tion to this, so faras instructional racticeswereconcerned, achstu-dentwas dealt with individually.Admittingdeficienciesn the quan-tity of teachingmaterials, o say nothingwhateveraboutqualityandhow the masterwould embellishthem to suit his own instructionalpurpose, arge classeswere out of the question.Still, the method ofclass instructionwas neither unknown nor unusedby Isocrates.TheSophiststhrivedon it when they had large classes,which may nothave beenoften. Isocratesusedgroupmethodsonly for stamping nthe detailsof learning.Here we beginto sense someof the methodo-logical differencesbetween Isocratesand Plato; their disputeswerenot alwayshingedon the sharpedgeof theory:instructionn Plato'sschool was largelyinformal,takingplacein what mightbe regardedas casual,at leastunconventional,ducationalettings.The informali-ties in the Platonicsystemof teachingadmitted everalstudents,andit was not in the wine or olive shopbut in the diningroomthat thefinestinstruction ook place.Exercise,practice,stamping n, was allaccomplishedhrough he art of discourseand the frictionof mindonmind.Yet even at this pointPlato and Isocrates hould not have pro-longedtheirdispute:Plato'sstudentswerebeingschooledon the levelof highereducation, oughlyequivalento the American ollege,whilethe studentsof Isocrateswere probablyonly secondary-school oys.Regardless f the numberof subjects hat found a placewith Isoc-rates,the mainpurposeof theschoolwas to teachrhetoricandprepareyoung men for positionswherethey couldbecome statesmenof first

Winter 1966 27


8/12

rank. With this goal uppermost in mind Isocrates employed tech-niques, since regarded in most Western education as techniques parexcellence of rhetoric:rules and models. (lo)Themodels employed by teacherswho precededIsocrateswere eithertheir own orations or excerpts from Homer or lesser known Greekpoets. Some were only barely acceptable as rhetorical models, beingbarrenof the techniques oratory needed to keep pace with a world intransition. Isocratesreplacedthem with his own works. In the prepara-tion of these orations he again exemplifies the depth of his pedagogicinsight by calling on his students for help, and they, under his guid-ance, shared in the work of composition, learning by demonstrationand by doing. These polished orations were used as models for years.

Isocratean rhetoricalteaching stood on the broad foundation of rulesand models and to both he made, as we have said, some importantcontributions. But the uniqueness of his teaching, found principallyin minor techniques and methodological devices, has yet to be fullyexplored.It may be hazardous to begin by believing in the distinctivenessof Isocrates' day-to-day teaching techniques, for he gives us few in-sights into them, and his contemporaries, his students, or later com-mentators, all leave us too much in the dark on the matter. Perhapsthey overlooked technique because, in company with Plato, theythought it unimportant in the education of highly intelligent students,or possibly they were so engrossed with the main lines of Isocrateanmethodological thinking they could not stoop to deal with whatseemed to be mere detail. Or they may have regarded Isocrates as acompetitorof Plato in the arena of general educational ideas and idealsand were unwilling by mentioning the everyday techniques of theirchampion to make him appearwith feet of clay.There is little room to doubt Isocrates' sincerity when he makeseverything in education depend on the proper cooperation of art andnature. This centralprincipleshould make him at once an exponent of,surely a firm friend of, educational methodology. And he was. First,we should say he was an empiricist.That is, he based his entire systemof teaching on the principle of imitation-a principle neither inventedby him nor one that ceased with his retirement. Imitation became anindelible feature in the technique of teaching literature and rhetoricfrom the time of Isocrates forward.



9/12

Imitation of models was the hub aroundwhich methodology turned;the spokes were shaped in the following techniques, not alwaysused in concert, but all available for use depending on the turn of theinstructional wheel. The enrollment in Isocrates' school allowed himthe luxury of instructing a few students at a time. The initial phaseof the instructional process was really an exercise in tutoring whereIsocrates could take one or at the most two students and instruct themcarefully in the basic principles of a subject. This requireda well-edu-cated and versatile master, for instructional tools were primitive; heworked with few of the appurtenances of contemporary education.Books for student use were usually unavailable; the library was proba-bly small and unsuitably stocked; materials for writing and composi-tion were crude when judged by the standards of modern times. De-spite these shortcomings, shared by all classical teachers, Isocratescould be a textbook, a library, a literary and writing master allwrapped into one. When he completed the first phase of teaching,he moved to the second: drill. Under the direct supervision of theteacher students were called on, now not as individuals but in groups,to drill and fix the material they had learned. This technique was jus-tified on the grounds of giving students an opportunity to master fun-damental knowledge. Despite Isocrates' unwillingness to accept thedogmatic assumptions of Plato with respect to basic truth and funda-mental philosophical principles, he did demand that students masterthe content of his teaching syllabus. Nothing on the level of necessaryknowledge was thought too insignificant for unrelenting, repeatedattention. The device he depended on for ensuring mastery was com-petition.

Unfortunately we know almost nothing of the day-to-day applica-tion of the technique of competition in the Isocratean classroom, butit is fair to assume that it offered generous opportunities for studentsnot only in learning the matter of their study but for fixing and elabo-rating it by the friction of mind on mind. One pupil was pitted againstanother, making mastery of knowledge and skill a highly personalchallenge. In addition, we must remember Isocrates was preparingfuture orators,and he wanted them from the first to have the experienceof intellectual analysis in debate. Isocrates knew ability had no sub-stitute; but he knew too that unrefined ability could make no impres-sion in public life or political affairs.

Winfer 1966 29


10/12

The instructional rocess s dominated y the teacher.There s neveranyhintthatIsocrateswouldsit quietly n the backof theroomwatch-ing the studentsgo through heir earningexercises,marvelingat theirprogress,and resistingall temptations o interveneto clarifypoints,make importantdistinctions,and correcterrorsin form or content.Fairness o themethod, o thewholeteachingart,of Isocrates equirestheinterpolationhathewasnevercontentwitlhmere acilityin speech,althoughwe know how he prizedspeechand established t as a dis-tinctivehumanability.Itis importanto understandpeech n its Greekcontext, ncludingboth reasonandexpressionand not merelyan apti-tude for empty, albeit effective,oratory.On this point principally,Isocrateshas been frequentlyandunfairlymaligned:too many com-mentatorshave dismissedhim as only anotherSophist, less crudeperhapsand morewidely respected,who wantednothing more thaneristiccompetence-an ability to win an argumentwhatever the in-tellectualcosts. To state Isocrates'objectivemore exactly and withcompletefairness s to indicatehis unwaveringallegiance o man asa thinkingand speakinganimal: thought and expressionwere forhim the distinctivehumanabilities.Thus, it is easy to envision Isoc-rates suspendingthe classroom debates and personally interveningto sharpen he students'understandingf what theywere sayingandthe implications of their thought. The criticism implied in a statementthat Isocrates'philosophywas praiseworthyf not profound (11) ismoredamaging o his theoryof teaching hanhas generallybeensup-posed: it carries with it an almostunavoidableconclusion that theold masterthougha seekerof the goodwas incapableof understand-ing it. The indictments not altogetherwithoutsubstance,orIsocratesdid disputethe Platonicassertion hatknowledgeof the good, on anultimate,highly philosophicalevel, was possible.He was content toacceptboth the virtuesof goodnessand truth on the uncomplicatedlevel of commonsense. An undeniableelement of relativismtaintshis thought,but it was not a crass or irresponsible elativism:he be-lieved men could come to a fuller understanding f their intuitionsof goodnessand truth.In his teachinghepriedandpushedhis studentsconstantlyand unrelentingly owardthis understanding;t was thebedrock or responsible ratory.

After students had been drilled n contentand its more profoundimplicationssocratesed themto rhetoric.Rhetoricas thenconceived,

30 HISTORYOF EDUCATIONQUARTERLY


11/12

deprivedof its arsenal of rules and models added by Hellenisticrhetors,included oral and written composition.Avoiding detail onthe study of rhetoricseems imperativehere, but we are able to saythatIsocratesparalleled is instructionwithmedical eaching, tresseddiagnostic techniquesrelevant in debate, allowed for practiceandapplication, ndaimed at fluency.The foregoingcontainthe main body of method;added to it areother instrumentsof teaching,which may be touchedquicklyin theinterest of completeness.Isocrates wanted his students to have agoodfoundation n knowledge,not becausehe thoughtof knowledgeashaving anyindependent alue butbecause t wasnecessary o effec-tive oratory.Yetknowledgealone was insufficient;even fluencywasnot enough:stylewas theindispensable ey to effectiveoratory.Here,of course,Isocratesand Plato did not agree:in Gorgias Platodown-grades hepreeminence f style,andtreatsGorgias o whatmust havebeen a uniqueexperience.Gorgias'reputationas a teacherof rhetoricwas unequalled,and Plato turnshim into a skeletonof pretensionsandunfoundedassumptions.The Platonicattackon rhetoric's entralpositionin educationwas an obstacleto a friendlyreception or Iso-craticeducationalheory.ThefamousIsocratic pologyfor this theoryreadsas if it were writtenwitha copyof the Gorgias on the desk.YetIsocrates istenedto what Plato had to say about rhetoricand mayoftenhave agreed, or he madeanalysisandstylisticcriticism mpor-tant tools in method.

In some of his teachingIsocratesmay have used the lecture,al-thoughthis was not the modern ectureso familiarto twentieth-cen-tury college students,where the lecturerexamines, illustrates,andcommentson a varietyof topicsto supplement tudents'study andhis own researchindings,but a dictationenablingstudents to recordthecontentsof manuscripts ftenpossessedonly by the master.In ad-dition to lecturing,whichmusthave been usedsparingly or it had nocurrency mongGreek eachers, socratesoftenassignedseveralbooksfor criticaland analyticalstudy. The aftermathof this study was ageneraldiscussionparticipatedn by all students:study in isolationwas nota commonpracticen thisfamousschool.Evenfromthistech-niquetherewerefrequentdepartures,or some of the books were notintended obe studiedanddiscussedbutonly readfor the informationtheycontained.Afterall, manyimportantbooksdo not containbases

Winter 1966 31


12/12

for discussion; in Isocratic pedagogy geography and history were inthis category, but it would be foolhardy to suppose an orator could beeducated without some knowledge of these two important areas. Isoc-rates did not ignore them, but he did not give them a place in his syl-labus of learning equal to grammar, composition, and essay writing.Finally, Isocrates took his stand alongside those who sought in-tegration of knowledge, not only in its presentation and mastery butin its application. Isocrates hoped to produce an orator-a learnedman-with an integrated personality and a balanced, informed, anddisciplined mind.

Notes1. For example,R. S. Johnson, A Note on the Number of Isocrates'Pupils, American Journal of Philology, LXXVIII, 297-300; and H. I.Marrou,A History of Education n Antiquity (New York: Sheed &Ward, 1956), p. 82.2. K. J.Freeman,Schoolsof Hellas (3ded.;London:The MacmillanCom-

pany, 1932), p. 191.3. Antidosis,p. 41. He refers,of course,to the schools conductedby sta-tionaryschoolmasterswho aimed at the trainingof leadersfor politicsandsociety.4. Marrou,op. cit., p. 82.5. Antidosis, pp. 39,146,164.6. Johnson, op. cit., pp. 297-300.7. Thisestimateof lowermiddle-class ncome s madeby G.Glotz,AncientGreece at Work (London: Kegan Paul, 1926), p. 236.8. M. L. W. Laistner, The Influenceof Isocrates'Political DoctrineonSomeFourth-CenturyMen of Affairs, ClassicalWeekly,XXIII,131.9. Antidosis, pp. 183-85.10. Forexample,see R. C.Jebb,Attic Orators, I (New York:The Macmil-lan Company, 1893), 5 ff.; and H. Hudson-Williams, Thucydides,Isocrates,and the RhetoricalMethod, ClassicalQuarterly,LXI,76-81.

1. R. S. Johnson, IsocraticMethods of Teaching, AmericanJournalofPhilology,LXXX,36.


power isocrates school

Documents