Li Li, King’s College London
Isocrates composed speeches (non-forensic ones, except for Antidosis) that appear to aim at various addressees in various settings--the assembly, panhellenic gatherings, and sole rulers, etc. However, it is well-known that his speeches were never actually delivered but only existed in written form. It may result in a distinction between the internal and external audiences. Who were his speeches written for? I will approach this issue from two angles: the rhetorical strategies he used to articulate his authority, and the modes of communication and dissemination he employed.
There has not been a specific study discussing this issue yet, although many researchers have made assumptions, most of which took Isocrates' claims at face value (e.g., Heilbrunn, Poulakos, Wareh). There were studies on Isocrates' rhetoric of identity (Too) and the broad public audience Isocrates had in mind (Usener), which had insight into the fictional nature of those speeches; but they did not specify the characteristics of the audience that Isocrates aimed at.
With the help of previous research (Too), concluding that Isocrates claims his authority by shaping himself as a minority different from the majority, I will argue that Isocrates aimed at a specific group who believed in the superiority of the minority. In contrast to this simple conclusion, I will suggest the openness and complexity of this group, which attributes to the dual nature of his rhetoric and ideas.
On the one hand, this group primarily consists of some Athenian elite or upper class. To this extent, the internal audiences are all merely nominal. His speeches to sole rulers, panhellenic gatherings, and the assembly all contributed to his authority articulation towards the Athenian elite. (See On the Peace 14, where he juxtaposes bad advisers with comic poets; To Philip 151, where he draws parallels between himself and Philip) On the other hand, this group was not exclusive. Thanks to his educational ideas, whether one can be a minority was not decided by blood or wealth. And through his rhetorical strategies, he shows a clever mechanism of transformation between panhellenic and patriotic, conservative and democratic, and philosophical and rhetorical ideas (e.g., Antid. 270-278). Following Isocrates does not mean betraying the city or democracy but being wise. So, he could appeal to ordinary people who admired the authority of the minority and wanted to become the superior minority. Through the same mechanism, he could attract Athenians and foreigners, both contemporaries and later generations (See Antid. 7 for Isocrates’ attention to future readers).
I will further argue that this complex mechanism was best operated through written communication. People who could read fluently formed reading groups where the speeches were read aloud. In this way, the works were spread to more people, but avoided being presented in large public settings such as assemblies—this defended their standing against the majority and strengthened their consensus, which could make this circle more tightly knit.
It will be concluded that Isocrates aimed at a cultural community beyond the limits of status, fatherlands, and even time.