Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Apeiron

A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science

Ed. by Wildberg, Christian / Morison, Benjamin

Online
ISSN
2156-7093
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

Was Plato an Eristic according to Isocrates?

Geneviève Lachance
Published Online: 2019-02-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2018-0090

Abstract

The article examines the passages in Isocrates’ Corpus containing a description and a critique of a new type of sophistic called “eristic”. Based on the chronology of Isocrates’ discourses and the description he gave, the author shows that the majority of these passages could not have aimed at Plato as its sole or principal target. However, it should not be excluded that Isocrates’ criticism of eristics was directed against various members of the Socratic circle, a heterogeneous group in which Plato was comprised. The article shows that although a feud between Plato and Isocrates is not an acceptable premise, a possible rivalry between both men may have been possible. Nonetheless, such a rivalry does not allow one to assimilate Plato with an eristic.

Keywords: Isocrates; eristic; Plato; sophistic; Socratics

Bibliography

  • Brancacci, A. 2005. Antisthène, Le discours propre. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar

  • Canto, M. 1989. Platon: Euthydème. Paris: GF.Google Scholar

  • Coulter, J. A. 1967. “Phaedrus 279A: The Praise of Isocrates.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 8: 225–36.Google Scholar

  • De Vries, G. J. 1953. “Isocrates’ Reaction to the Phaedrus.” Mnemosyne 6: 39–45.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dillon, J. 2003. The Heirs of Plato, A Study of the Old Academy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Eucken, C. 1983. Isokrates: Seine Positionen in der Auseinandersetzung mit den zeitgenössischen Philosophen. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Gifford, E. H. 1905. The Euthydemus of Plato. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Haskins, E. V. 2004. Logos and Power in Isocrates and Aristotle. Colombia: The University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar

  • Howland, R. L. 1937. “The Attack on Isocrates in the Phaedrus.” Classical Quarterly 31 (3–4): 151–59.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jebb, R. 1876. The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, Vol. 2. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Mathieu, G. 1960. Isocrate: Discours, Tome III. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

  • Mathieu, G., and É. Brémond. 1929. Isocrate: Discours, Tome I. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

  • Mathieu, G., and É. Brémond. 1962. Isocrate: Discours, Tome IV. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

  • Méridier, L. 1931. Platon: Œuvres complètes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

  • Mirhady, D. C., and Y. L. Too. 2000. Isocrates I. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

  • Murphy, D. J. 2013. “Isocrates and the Dialogue.” Classical World 106 (3): 311–53.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Natoli, A. F. 2004. The Letter of Speusippus to Philip II. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar

  • Nehamas, A. 1990. “Eristic, Antilogic, Sophistic, Dialectic: Plato’s Demarcation of Philosophy from Sophistry.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 7 (1): 3–16.Google Scholar

  • Nightingale, A. W. 1995. Genre in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Norlin, G. 1929. Isocrates, Vol. II. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Papillon, T. L. 1995–1996. “Isocrates on Gorgias and Helen: The Unity of the Helen.” Classical Journal 91 (4): 377–91.Google Scholar

  • Rowe, C. J. 1993. Plato: Phaedo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schiappa, E. 1999. The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Tarrant, H. A. S. 1995. “Plato’s Euthydemus and the Two Faces of Socrates.” Prudentia 27 (2): 4–17.Google Scholar

  • Thompson, E. S. 1901. The Meno of Plato. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Thompson, W. H. 1868. The Phaedrus of Plato. London: Whittaker.Google Scholar

  • Too, Y. L. 1995. A Commentary on Isocrates’ Antidosis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Van Hook, L. 1945. Isocrates, Vol. III. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wilcox, S. 1943. “Criticisms of Isocrates and His φιλοσοφία.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 74: 113–33.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yunis, Y.L. 2011. Plato: Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Zajonz, S. 2002. Isokrates’ Enkomion auf Helena: Ein Kommentar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-02-08


Citation Information: Apeiron, ISSN (Online) 2156-7093, ISSN (Print) 0003-6390, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2018-0090.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in