ASPECTS OF SELF-PRESENTATION IN THE SPEECHES OF ISOCRATES

This article, based on the paper presented at the ISHR 2013 Conference (July 24–27, 2013, Chicago), reconsiders the rhetorical image of Isocrates, preserved in his literary works and especially in three of the most prominent speeches, Panegyricus, Antidosis, and Panathenaicus, discusses certain controversies and difficulties of determining his public character and his attitude towards the audience and, basing on both empirically gathered data (references found in Isocrates’ writings) and on the theoretical basement provided by the consideration of the classical rhetoric tradition and the modern communication science approach, reviews the main aspects of the speaker’s self-presentational tactics as seen in his self-reflexive statements (found in the mentioned speeches), the examination of which could lead to a better comprehension of the otherwise obscure picture of this influential Athenian rhetorician. Preliminary remarks on problems and tasks In his discourses aimed at public reading, Isocrates created a certain picture of his litASPECTS OF SELF-PRESENTATION IN THE SPEECHES OF ISOCRATES

3 Impression management is a term associated with sociology and social psychology, meaning a goal-directed process in which people, by controlling information in social interaction, attempt to affect the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event (cf.Barry R.Schlenker, Impression Management: The Self-concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations, Monterey (California): Brooks/Cole, 1980, p. x; Manfred Piwinger, Helmut Ebert, "Impression Ma-quired new connotations4 .Despite a somewhat loose relation among these concepts and the traditional terminology of classical rhetoric, certain attempts to match them up have already been made.At least in the case of the research on Isocrates, we find the term 'self-presentation' frequently employed 5 .Since, however, it is neither firmly established nor strictly defined, but, on the contrary, other synonyms (such as nagement: Wie aus Niemand Jemand wird", Bentele, Guenther et al. (Ed.), Kommunikationsmanagement: Strategien, Wissen, Lösungen, hrsg.Günter Bentele, Manfred Piwinger, Gregor Schönborn, Neuwied/Kriftel: Hermann Luchterhand Verlag, 2001, pp.1-2).It is usually used synonymously with the term "self-presentation" in which a person tries to protect self-image and/ or influence the perception of it (Sandy J. Wayne, Robert C. Liden, "Effects of Impression Management on Performance Ratings: A Longitudinal Study", The Academy of Management Journal, 38, No. 1 (Feb.),1995, p. 232).The notion of impression management also refers to practices in professional communication and public relations where the term is used to describe the process of formation of a public image of any organization or company.In the theory of impression management, various strategical aspects have been distinguished, usually acquiring a dyadic structure, e. g., defensive strategy (such as avoidance of threatening situations or means of self-handicapping) and the assertive one (verbal idealization of the self, the use of status symbols, and others) (cf.Piwinger, Ebert, op.cit., p. 26).
In his works, written during his teaching career in Athens and his old years (ca.392-338), Isocrates quite often speaks of himself (or his rhetorical self) and expresses his personal views on the rhetorical education, claims his originality and difference from other rhetoricians and philosophers 12 .On the other hand, in some places (most notably in Phil.81, Epist.8.7, and Panath.9-10) he is unscrupulous to 6 Cf.Too, op.cit., p. 79, 86 ("self-characterisation is analogous ... to the sort of ʽself-fashioningʼ ... occurring in Renaissance authors") et alibi. 7Cf.Takis Poulakos, David J. Depew, "Introduction", in: Isocrates and Civic Education, ed.Takis Poulakos, David J. Depew, Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004, p. 5-6; Niall Livingstone, A Commentary on Isocrates' Busiris (Mnemosyne.Supplementum 223), Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2001, p. 185; Irmgard Männlein-Robert,"The Meditations as a (Philosophical) Autobiography" in: A Companion to Marcus Aurelius, ed.Marcel van Ackeren, Oxford, Malden: Willey-Blackwell, 2012, p. 365: "[...] autobiographic writing (as in the Antidosis) for Isocrates is a vehicle of selfknowledge and self-display together". 8Cf.Too, op.cit., p. 75 9 Cf.Too, op.cit., p. 117; Edward Schiappa, "Isocrates' philosophia and contemporary pragmatism", Rhetoric, Sophistry, Pragmatism, ed. 12 Isocrates depicts himself (or presents his rhetorical self) in most of his epideictic and political discourses, but this is not the case with the six extant forensic speeches; nevertheless, the activity of writing court speeches was probably a good practice on how to defend his own position and paint his own character and reputation with bright colors (on the basis of the examples of his clients' ethopoeia).mention his weakness of voice and timidity to speak publicly (usually interpreted as stage fright).This controversial rhetorical image of creative and yet self-stigmatized (leptophonic13 and glossophobic) speechwriter, thanks to Roman and Byzantine biographers, has been preserved to our days.I am not going to consider how much this literary portrait (or rhetorical picture) 14 of the rhetorician differs from the real person (such a distinction is hardly possible in the current state of our knowledge of the life of "real" Isocrates), but it is interesting to look deeper into the impression that the orator (or the literary representative of his person) creates of himself in his texts.Due to the abundance of material and time constraints, I will confine myself only with three discourses, namely, Panegyricus, Antidosis and Panathenaicus, linked together by common political, rhetorical and pedagogical topics, Athenocentric Panhellenism, complexity of an imaginary audience, the speaker's patriotic, independent (self-distancing), and self-reflexive (containing commemoration of individual qualities) posture.
The aim of this article, then, is to start elucidating multiple aspects of Isocratean self-display in these three speeches as certain conscious devices (with the possible effect parallel to that of the captatio benevolentiae technique, developed later by Roman rhetoricians) 15 and to share some observations concerning their possible impact on the audience and the author himself.
There is not much direct research on Isocrates' self-presentation, save for a few paragraphs from Yun Lee Too books 16 , and a certain number of hints in other works are taken into consideration (e.g., T. Poulakos, D. Depew, N. Livingstone, E. Haskins) 17 .The present work is largely based on the empirical analysis of Isocrates' texts, the results of which (i.e. the characteristics of Isocrates' self-display in a concise form) are attached to this article among the added materials.
Meanwhile, what follows further on is a review of the aspects of Isocrates' self-presentation according to the newlycreated scheme (the principles of which will be also indicated below), and it starts from a brief survey of the rhetorician's public character and his attitude towards the audience.Three sections devoted to this issue roughly correspond to the three important questions (derived from the first reassessment of all the data gathered durthe audience dates back at least to the earliest extant Greek manuals of rhetoric (Aristotle and Anaximenes), but the standard texts for references on captatio benevolentiae and its context (other requirements for the effective beginning of the speech) remain the texts of Latin rhetoricians such as Ps.-Ciceronian Rhetorica ad Herennium (1.6-11), Cicero's De inventione (1.20-26), and Quintilian's Institutio oratoria (4.1.1-79).For the modern synthetic treatment of the topic see inter alia Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik.Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (ed. 3), Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1990, pp. 150-163 ( §263-288). 16Cf.Too, op.cit., 1995, esp.chapters 3 and 4; eadem (Too), "Introduction", A Commentary on Isocratesʼ Antidosis, ed.Y. L. Too, N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp.8-11 (chapter name "Self-Presentation") 17 For the titles of their works, look in the above footnotes.
ing my study of the texts of Panegyricus, Antidosis, and Panathenaicus), namely, 1) the difficulty of establishing the synthetical identity of Isocrates' (Isocratean speaker's) rhetorical personality due to the precautions to be made in view of the occasion-conditioned variations of the general setting of each speech and the writer's/speaker's position reliant on particularity time; 2) the contrastingness of the speaker's self-reflexion ranging from low to high self-esteem; 3) the consideration of the occasion-conditioned interplay between the speaker and his audience.

Isocratesʼ public character (ēthos of the speaker)
All three speeches chosen for the discussion, written in different periods, mark certain changes of Isocrates' public character 18 and reputation.The general outline of the external factors which should be considered when creating the syntethic picture of the orator for ourselves could be formulated in the following short but composite description: The speaker/writer of Panegyricus, Antidosis and Panathenaicus • is in his 50ies, 80ies and 90ies, respectively • represents different stages of his teaching carrier and reputation • addresses the multifold Athenian audience at different times and occasions • provides his listeners/readers with a different level of self-esteem. 18This term here could be interchangeably used with the terms like "Isocrates' literary self-portrait" or "Isocrates' rhetorical self", but has a slight shift of meaning to the realm of publicity (vs.privacy) implied by the titles of the speeches discussed.
Panegyricus, written by the 56-yearold man, is like an advertisement of a teacher's and politician's views promoting his distinctive rhetorical style and thematic preferences (ἔνδοξα, i.e. "things held in esteem", "deeds of high repute", "honorable things" rather than παράδοξα, "incredible things", "things contrary to expectation"or ἄδοξα, "disreputable topics") 19 .In Terry Papillonʼs words, it "stands as the best example of his ideas of political leadership and his role as a teacher of such leaderhip.But it also stands as the most prominent example of the Isocratean smooth styleˮ 20 .Antidosis, written by the 82-year-old rhetorician, captures the moment soon after Isocrates' schoolʼs heyday, when the need to defend his views against the common prejudice and slanders by contemporary professionals emerged.This work restates and conceptualizes the main standpoints of Isocrates views on education and Athenocentric politics.Panathenaicus composed by a nonagenarian (97 years) reflects the further step in the decline of Isocrates' reputation and the end of the political domi- 19 Cf.Isocrates' direct attack against various writers on strange and absurd topics in Hel.1: "ὑπόθεσιν ἄτοπον καὶ παράδοξον ποιησάμενοι" and his preference for the "noblest kind of oratory" which deals with the greatest affairs in Panegyricus 4: "προκρίνας τούτους καλλίστους εἶναι τῶν λόγων, οἵτινες περὶ μεγίστων τυγχάνουσιν ὄντες".On the difference between the concepts of ἔνδοξον and παράδοξον cf.Anaximenes Rhet.Alex. 11, 1-2 = 1430b1-8.This argument could be corroborated with the indirect evidence produced in Aristotle's Rhetoric, where, specifically in the passage devoted to one of 28 topoi, the topos of authoritative opinions (though not identified as ἔνδοξα), three references to Isocratean works as significant illustrations of this device are made (cf.Arist.Rhet.1398b28-1399a6).
20 Terry L. Papillon, "Isocratesˮ, A Companion to Greek Rhetoric, ed. by Ian Worthington, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007, p. 65. nation of Athens21 .If we apply the Aristotelian scheme of the three-fold age division (νεότης-ἀκμή-γῆρας) of a character (Arist.Rhet.2.12-14 = 1388b30-1390b12) to the author of these works, then Panegyricus could be associated with a mature man in the peak of his wisdom, while Antidosis and Panathenaicus with an old man with certain declining abilities.This must have influenced the speakerʼs self-presentational tactics to a certain extent, and this factor should not be ignored when dealing with the rest of the aspects of Isocratesʼ rhetorical personality to which I now proceed.

First-sight picture of oratorʼs image: between pride and humility
For a systematic picture of Isocrates' character, one should look in his most autobiographic-like works, Antidosis and Panathenaicus, and see him depicting himself as a lover of peaceful life and values of Periclean Athens.In regard of limits of time and space, the detailed characteristics of his rhetorical image will be postponed to some other occasion, while in the present one I will deal only with one important feature.Speeches of Isocrates express a certain duality of the orator's image: the reader is informed both about his distrust in his own performative qualities, on the one hand, and a not unnoticeable commendation of the speaker's (narrator's) mental abilities, on the other.The bold self-confidence of the speaker of Panegyricus and his expression of hope for a positive assessment by a group of intelli-gent listeners, reiterated in later discourses with a constant reminder of his services to Athenian public, gives the impression of a boastful stance, while his elsewhere declared self-image of a disabled speaker (unable to perform speeches orally) has a sign of a low self-esteem.
However logically: Epist. 1, 9; 8, 7; Phil.81; Panath.9-10), we can infer that the apparent shifting between pride and humility is not so much a matter of instability of character, but rather of changing tactics of one's literary self-presentation and impression management.This insight urges caution in dealing with Isocratean rhetorical image and his spea ker's attitude towards the audience (regarding them as a certain part of fundamental strategy aimed at influencing hearers and improving his own reputation).

Attitude towards audience (ēthos of the audience and audience segregation)
The non-ephemeral performative situation of Panegyricus, Antidosis and Panatenaicus 23 -the nation's celebratory meeting 24 or court hearing public case, γραφή 25 -itself suggests that implied and intended readers were not only the orator's likeminded.Isocrates explicitly shows the mixed nature of his audience comprising individuals with different expectations and perception of the speaker, thus demanding an appropriate prudence of the latter, managing emotions and arguments.Accordingly, the speaker vividly exhibits his own presence: commends himself or makes excuses, expresses doubts or preferences to the audience, but is cautious in regard of ingratiation; he rather teaches his hearers (and readers) 26 and promotes the ideal of good will, κοινὴ εὔνοια (most explicitly stated in Antid.22-23) 27 .In all three speeches he mentions the presence of people who dislike him and mainly implies the dyadic structure of the audience (the elitist group of serious intelligent hearers in opposition to the inimical part), as is shown below (in the concluding scheme of this section).Dual division is found in Panegyricus 11-14 where Isocrates distances himself from the impatient narrowminded public ignorant of the differences between the court speeches and political discourses, but expresses his trust only in attentive and educated hearers 28 , and in Panathenaicus where he speaks of the majority (οἱ πολλοί) estimating him "in a confused and altogether irrational manner" 29 (ταραχωδῶς καὶ παντάπασιν ἀλογίστως)praising (ἐπαινοῦντες) his discourses, but hating him personally (φθονοῦσι) (Panath.15).In Panathenaicus, he separates admirers of the serious and the frivolous 27 Which is "desirable in an impartial jury" (William W. Fortenbaugh, "Quintilian 6.2.8-9: Ethos and Pathos and the Ancient Tradition", Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle, ed.W. W. Fortenbaugh, David C. Mirhady, New Brunswick (U.S. A.), London: Transaction Publishers, 1994, p. 188).On the importance for Isocrates of the concept of εὔνοια (as -inter alia -a political instrument contrary to that of φόβος) and its relation to the people's judgment and orator's striving for good reputation, see Jacqueline de Romilly, "Eunoia in Isocrates or the Political Importance of Creating Good Will", The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 78 1958, pp.92-101.
28 NB: in the end of the speech (Paneg.188) he makes another division of the audience into those who are able to act and those who claim for ability to speak well and urge the latter to follow his example of serious speech. 29The quotation is taken from G. Norlin's translation.For this and other English quotations of Isocrates' works, the edition of the series of Loeb Classical Library, Isocrates in Three volumes (Harvard University Press and William Heinemann Ltd, 1961-1964, containing translations by George Norlin and Larue van Hook), is the preferable choice in this paper.
speeches: the former are interested in civic values and realities, and the latter prefer political quarrels and paradoxical encomia (Panath.135-137).The audience of Antidosis is most elaborately depicted.Beside the fictional court members and accuser, the speaker enumerates the recipients of his discourses who ruined his reputation -slanderers and victims of their misinformation (πολὺ διεψευσμένους), inimical sophists and envious intelligent people (4-5) 30 , as well as those who never provide any sign of favor (Antid.153-154) 31 and "who are unable to create or say anything of valueˮ (τινες τῶν εὑρεῖν μὲν οὐδὲν οὐδ' εἰπεῖν ἄξιον λόγου δυναμένων), but are good in criticizing and prejudicing the works of others (Antid.62); on the other hand, he associates himself only with the decent (ἐπιεικεῖς) and wise listeners (Antid.149, 170) 32 .
Thus, the summary picture of the audience in the three discussed speeches could be outlined in the following way: Two-fold division of the audience (present in all three speeches): • the majority (οἱ πολλοί, τὸ πλῆθος) 30 "Misperceptions about the rhetorician's character and his work contributed to a false public opinion of him (ψευδῆ περί μου δόξαν) and caused him to lose the historical liturgy trial" (Too, A Commentary on Isocratesʼ Antidosis, 2008, p. 93) 31 Cf.Antid.168, where Isocrates singles out two categories of citizens: "τοὺς εἰθισμένους ἅπασι χαλεπαίνειν" ("those who are churlish toward everyone") and "τῶν ἄλλων πολιτῶν πολλοὺς".
32 Stanley Wilcox in his article "Criticisms of Isocrates and His φιλοσοφίαˮ (Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 74, 1943, pp.113-133) identifies two groups of listeners and readers ill-disposed against him in Antidosis -"those who are deceived and prone to believe the worst about him (4, 26, 28, 154); secondly, those who know the truth but envy him, feel as the sophists do about him, and rejoice to see the public deceived (4, 6, 142, 149, 153, 154)" (Wilcox, op.cit., p. 123).
• serious (fair and intelligent) listeners (ἐπιεικεῖς, νοῦν ἔχοντες) Manifold division of the audience (implicit in Antidosis): • implied by occasion members of court (δικασταί) [never addressed in formal way] accuser (κατήγορος) • implied from the context intolerant citizens got used to criticizing others (Antid.62, 149, 168) slanderers (συκοφάνται) and victims of their misinformation (Antid.4) envious private citizens (ἰδιῶται) and sophists (Antid.4) serious listeners (οἱ λογίζεσθαι δυνάμενοι καὶ νοῦν ἔχοντες, cf.Antid.149, ἐπιεικεῖς, Antid.170) -Isocratesʼ disciples (οἱ πλησιάσαντες, cf.Antid.44).Such picture of a multiple and chiefly hostile audience naturally creates an impression of the unstable reputation and psychological condition of the speaker (attempt to transcend the psychological barrier); on the other hand, such speaker's posture may be seen as a deliberate act, as anticipatory vindication of the written discourse from criticisms (like granting immunity), or a certain maneuver of captatio benevolentiae when claiming his specific identity (self-fashioning, to use a modern term) 33 : he strives to appear steady and de- 33 Cf. the adversative posture of Isocrates qualified by Y. L. Too as "self-fashioningˮ, the term having been used for the characterization of the process or art of creating oneself, constructing one's identity in the age of Renaissance (Too, 1995, 86-87).We should also keep in mind that the behaviour of each person is conditioned inter alia by the notion that he/she is watched and estimated (evaluated) by someone other: "the principle in Evaluation Apprehension Theory that a feeling of being under evaluative observation is enough to affect voted to his views similarly to his elitist audience.

Principles of the classification of Isocrates' self-presentation
Principles of the division of the aspects of Isocratesʼ self-presentation in this paper are based on the presumed connection between the speakerʼs activities in regard to the external targets (audience and the subject matter of the speech) and internal targets (his own personality, thoughts, beliefs).Rhetorʼs activities are delineated in the treatises of Isocratesʼ younger contemporaries (Aristotle and Anaximenes), more specifically in their division of the rhetorical material.
Aristotle in his Rhetoric (1.3.2 = 1358a36-1358b8) enumerates three types of rhetorical discourses according to three types of audience; audience is the addressee of orator's speech and the main constituent of the triad: orator (messenger, addresser) -the subject of the speech (message) -recipient of the speech (addressee).Listeners are either ordinary spectators or judges who deal with the past, or else judges who deal with the things to come.The example of the judges who focus on the future and imminent actions is found among the members of the ansembly (ἐκκλησία), of those who focus on the past eventsamong the dicasts, and the ordinary listeners/spectators are those who pay attention only to the evaluation of the skills (δύναμις) of the orator.From here, the ascription of a person's behaviour" (Sasan Zarghooni, "A Study of Self-Presentation in Light of Facebookˮ, [Oslo:] Institute of Psychology, University of Oslo, 2007, p. 9 (on-line access: http://zarghooni.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/zarghooni-2007-selfpresentation_on_facebook.pdf ).
the types of the audience to the particular types of rhetorical discourses follows: the listeners of the political-deliberative speeches are competent in judging the upcoming realities, the listeners of court speeches -in judging the facts of the past, and the listeners of epideictic speeches are ordinary spectators of the present qualities.In regard to the orator's attitude towards the audience, Aristotle assigns a pair of opposite tasks to each type of the speech.The primary task (and certain stylistic "orientation") of the speaker delivering the deliberative speech is either to exhort or to dissuade (Rhet.1.3.3.= 1358b8-10), the court speaker's task is either to accuse or to defend (1358b10-12), and the task of the deliverer of the epideictic speech is either to praise or to blame (1358b12-13).Anaximenes (or Ps.-Aristotle), representative of the older sophistical rhetoric, enumerates three types (γένη) of political discourses and seven forms (εἴδη) as the aspects of those three types (προτρεπτικόν, ἀποτρεπτικόν, ἐγκωμιαστικόν, ψεκτικόν, κατηγορικόν, ἀπολογικόν, ἐξεταστικόν) (Rhet.Alex. 1.1.= 1421b7-12).
Six Aristotelian forms (εἴδη) were virtually preserved (with certain modifications) in the subsequent Greek technical rhetoric 34 , as, for example, the division by Byzantine sophist Troilus 35 shows (see 34 The six-partite system is provided by Diogenes Laertius (3.93-94: "Τῆς ῥητορείας εἴδη ἐστὶν ἕξ· [...]τῆς ἄρα ῥητορείας ἐστὶ τὸ μὲν ἐγκώμιον, τὸ δὲ ψόγος, τὸ δὲ προτροπή, τὸ δὲ ἀποτροπή, τὸ δὲ κατηγορία, τὸ δὲ ἀπολογία"). 35Troilus Soph., Prolegomena in Hermogenis artem rhetoricam (Rhetores Graeci, vol.6, ed.C. Walz), Stuttgart: Cotta, 1834, Repr.1968.Troilus made one specific addition in the section of deliberative speeches: he inserted two parallel concepts -συμβολή and παραίνεσις, which, in my opinion, slightly dif-also the table in the end of this article).The 7th form, present in the Anaximenean division (ἐξεταστικὸν εἶδος) 36 , has no attribution to any specific type of speeches, but it features a universal applicability 37 and perhaps means the predecisional phase of deliberation.It might have a certain relation to the philosophical context and especially to the Socratic conception of the human soul as a conscious self and, consequently, of human life to be lived (and actions to be performed) in constant accordance to the awareness of the one's human condition contrasted to the bestial and negligent living (e.g., the famous dictum in Plato's Apology of Socrates 38a5: "ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ").
All these seven forms constitute the basis of my hypothetical (and tentative so far) classification of the speaker's self-presentational aspects, which -in view of the terminological and cognitive difficulties of grasping the meaning of exact concepts and their functions -has to be supported by a number of substantial arguments.I have only two arguments at the moment; both are related to Isocrates' practice.On the one hand, he was well aware of the different topics and arguments proper to a particular situation and was practicing both pure and mixed types of speeches.For example, he criticized sophists for mixing arguments of jocular and serious discourses as well as the techniques of encomium and forensic speeches, so in response to Gorgias he wrote a model encomium of Helen 38 , while in his composition Busiris, directed against Polycrates of Athens, he included both encomium and apology as separate parts of the whole.He also made distinction between topics of praise and accusation (Busiris 4-6), between accusation and admonition (Panegyricus 130), but he used praise and advice alternately (cf.Arist.Rhet.1.9.36 = 1368a1-8) 39 .On the other hand, in a number of paraenetic works (such as To Demonicus or To Nicocles) we find Isocrates anticipating the idea of ʽgolden ruleʼ 40 , namely, instructing a young man to take care of his own character basing on empathic attitude towards 38 See esp.Helen, § 7-14. 39For the discussion concerning the identification and illustration of this device, see my paper "References to Isocrates in Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric", Literatūra 53 (3), 2011, p. 12 and 29. 40 others (treat others the same way you wish to be treated by others).This implies that the study of the soul and character was part of his teaching 41 .
Basing on these considerations, it is possible to presume that the speaker who presents himself to listeners or readers as a target of the speech can engage in the same actions directed to himself as to the other targets of his speech 42 .In other words, he can apply all these seven forms to selfdescription.
Having examined Isocrates' discourses by raising the question of how the speaker depicts himself in the places where he directly refers to himself, I attempted to group the cases of self-presentation according to these seven aspects (self-praise, self-blame, self-defence, self-accusation, self-incitement, self-dissuasion, and selfadvice), but some methodological difficulties, such as how to distinguish between pure accusation and dispraise, or how to decouple the self-incitement from the rhetorical expression of hopes, doubts, pro mises, have prevented me from accomplishing this task to a comprehensive systema tic end (statistical data are not prepared to a publishable standard, either) 43 .Therefore, 41 For the more detailed survey of Isocratean methods of teaching, see R. Johnson, "Isocrates' Methods of Teachingˮ, The American Journal of Philology, 80, No. 1, 1959, pp.25-36.
42 This idea could be supported by the considerations expressed by Ekaterina V. Haskins (Logos and power in Isocrates and Aristotle, pp.106-107) concerning the "speaker's mimēsis of the audience" which is more congruent to Isocratean, rather than Aristotelian conception of rhetorical education. 43These data could only be mentioned in a rough (as a sort of working hypothesis to be revised later) here without pretense at completeness: I found eight instances of self-praise or self-commendation, five of self-defence, three of self-criticism (self-accusation or self-blame) and one of self-deliberation/ self-counseling I have simplified my task in the meanwhile by choosing only four aspects to address here: self-praise and self-defence remain as they are, while self-accusation and selfblame are merged into one unit of selfblame, and the aspects of self-incitement, self-dissuasion and self-guidance constitute the field of the 'self-advice' or 'selfdeliberation' concept.
This system of self-presentational aspects is certainly by no means comprehensive, and the question of its relevance is open to discussion and revision (e.g., with more emphasis on the modern models of the classification of rhetorical material, such as those by James L. Kinneavy's A Theory of Discourse 1971, or Walter Beale's Pragmatic Theory of Rhetoric 1987).

A concise survey of the aspects of self-presentation
All the three speeches can be characterized by a great variety of self-display tactics, but certain general patterns can already be revealed.Here, a general sketch of these tactics follows, and for a more detailed synthesis one can consult the corresponding section among the appended materials (section B).
Considering the field of self-praise, straightforward boasting is very rarely found in the discourses selected for this discussion, unless a few more direct expressions are extracted from the context (self-prevention or self-dissuasion) in Panegyricus; about 30 instances of self-defence, 22 of self-praise, 13 of self-criticism, about 15 of self-deliberation in Antidosis; 22 instances of self-praise, 11 of self-defence, 11 of self-criticism, about 10 of self-deliberation in Panathenaicus.
(example 1.1 in the section C of the bulk of the references appended to this article).The Isocratean self-praise is primarily (and for the most part) indirect, although, despite its latent manner, sometimes it has a force of a rather bold boast, as, for instance, a detailed analysis of the opening of Panegyricus can show.The speaker of this discourse implies himself to be among "those who had toiled in private for the public good and trained their own minds so as to be able to help also their fellowmen" ("τοῖς ... ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινῶν ἰδίᾳ πονήσασι καὶ τὰς αὑτῶν ψυχὰς οὕτω παρασκευάσασιν ὥστε καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ὠφελεῖν δύνασθαι); he implies to be that "single man who attained wisdom" (ἑνὸς δ' ἀνδρὸς εὖ φρονήσαντος) able to give benefit to those who are willing to share his insight (κοινωνεῖν τῆς ἐκείνου διανοίας).He is well disposed towards common custom, despite the latter being unfavourable to him (or his ἀρετή), and seeks not a material reward for his activity but a good fame or approbation for his speech (τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου γενησομένην); he claims his competence (οὐκ ἀγνοῶν) in knowing the context of the subject he is going to deal with and claims his superiority (ἐλπίζων ... διοίσειν) over other men who claimed for wisdom before him (πολλοὶ τῶν προσποιησαμένων εἶναι σοφιστῶν); finally, he praises his own insight in choosing the best kind of discourses (προκρίνας τούτους καλλίστους εἶναι τῶν λόγων) and points directly to Panegyricus as one of them.Hence, we have a picture of a man praising himself for being the wisest among Hellenes and able to perform excellent speech (cf. the 1st example in the table of subsection 1.2 of the section C).
Self-defence in the examined speeches can be analysed according to one of the modern frameworks of apologia, stemming from the Robert Abelson's theory of belief-dilemma resolution 44 .If we choose the influential framework of Ware and Linkugel (1973) 45 , it is not hard to find that all the four self-defence tactics described in their paper (denial, bolstering, differentiation, transcendence) are present in Antidosis (as examples in the whole subsection 2 of the section C in the Appendix show).Thus, for instance, when Isocrates says "no citizen has ever been harmed either by my ʽclevernessʼ or by my writingsˮ (Antid.33), his tactics reminds a direct denial ("I didnʼt do itˮ), although not without a shade of indirectness (the shift is made from the conscious act of a person to his works and the effects of his actions).When the speaker of Antidosis expresses his acceptance of penalty in case it is proved that his disciples became base people (Antid.99), he uses the strategy of bolstering, or mitigation of the negative effects and strengthening the positive image of himself.When in Antid.40 he explicitly states: "So, from what my accuser has himself said, it is easy for you to conclude that I have nothing to do with litigationˮ, he explicitly distances himself from the charge of gaining profit from teaching litigation, and this is an example of the tactics of differentiation.Finally, when Isocrates defends his reputation and explains his competence as the adviser of Timotheus and tries to minimize the ill fame of the latter by the reference to the general idea of the infirmity of human nature (Antid.130), the tactics of transcendence or a broader contextualization could be recognized 46 .
An even greater subtlety might be attained in this discussion of the self-defensive postures and tactics, if a more in-depth analysis is made, but the limitations of the materials gathered for the current moment prevent me from discussing the other models of apologia (such as Halford Ryan's 47 , Sharon Downey's 48 , William Benoit's 49 , etc.).Meanwhile, when limiting myself to the Ware and Linkugelʼs scheme, it seems very probable that the aspect of bolstering (or self-enhancement) is a predominant one (see examples under subsection 2.2 of the section C in the Appendix below) and it has a very tight connection to self-praise (commending himself as positive and good person).This interlacement (or "symbiosis") of self-praise and selfdefence is also present in Panathenaicus where new slanders against Isocrates (concerning his haughty character and hypercritical attitude towards admirers of poet-ry) are to be resolved50 .Self-blame is not clearly expressed and in most cases could be possibly confined to the tactics aimed at neutralization of self-praise (see example 3 of the section C in the Appendix).Other postures or stances of the orator (such as self-encouragement, self-correction, expressing doubts, hopes or providing himself and others with advice (should we categorize them as protreptic, apotreptic, aporetical, elpistic, paraenetic?) are present in all the speeches examined, too, as example No. 4 in the section C of the Appendix of this article shows.While in some cases their teaching-oriented function reduces self-praise (serving as if moderation of the expression of self-love), in other cases it creates the impression of the speaker's boastful or self-defensive stance being more evident.

Conclusions
To summarize, it may be said that autobiographical references are an important source for the investigation of Isocrates' rhetorical identity.This identity, as seen in his three major compositions (Panegyricus, Antidosis, Panathenaicus), features a certain instability of character, but we cannot take this image for granted.In my opinion, the apparent shifting between extremes (such as high and low self-esteem, or division of the audience in to two opposite sides according to its perception of Isocrates' reputation) is not so much the result of actual psychological condition of the author but rather a deliberate and purposeful act of self-depiction.In the process of self-display, the postures and tactics that the speaker of Panegyricus, Antidosis or Panathenaicus exhibits have something in common with the rhetorical εἴδη that are prescribed in handbooks of technical rhetoric, albeit neither systematically nor explicitly stated there.Basing on this intuition, we may distinguish among the variety of modes Isocrates' speaker addresses himself and, perhaps, later make certain characteristics of Isocrates' works in terms of the self-presentational tactics.The current hypothetical features of Panegyricus, Antidosis, Panathenaicus could be summarized in the following sequence: • Panegyricus (390-380 BC) exhibits the image of a self-confident political orator who hopes to establish a better reputation using the tactics of crafty self-praise;

A. Brief characteristics of Panegyricus, Antidosis, and Panathenaicus
Panegyricus was written 390-380 BC, at the times of tension between the leading Hellenic states (Athens and Sparta) and Persia, which since King's Peace (387 BC) had been controlling Asian Greeks.The key idea of Panegyricus is the conciliation of claims by Sparta and Athens on the leadership among the Greeks with special attention to historical merits of Athens (by putting emphasis on equality of Athens, even superiority over the then-leading Sparta) and the necessity of organising a Pan-Hellenic expedition to Persia; the two-fold idea is represented in epideictic (23-132) and deliberative sections (133-186) respectively.The speaker of this discourse emphasizes both the thematic and stylistic novelty of his work and urges other orators to follow his example (Paneg.188).
Antidosis, the longest work of Isocrates, written 354-353 BC, after an actual event, when 82-year-old Isocrates (being represented by his adopted son Aphareus) lost the case against Megacleides on property exchange and performed the court-appointed obligation (Antid.5)53 .While taking the name from the actual suit and sharing features of the judicial defence speech, Antidosis in fact transcends boundaries of apology and swings into autobiography with elements of epideictic discourse and philosophical essay on the essence of rhetorical education.Apologetic framework consists of numerous fictional elements: public prosecution on fictional charges (corrupting the young, receiving money for teaching to win the cases awry, cf.Antid.15, 30, 56) brought by a fictional accuser (Lysimachus), fictional penalty (death), and fictional trial before a court.The speech abounds in parallels with Plato's Apology of Socrates, but Isocrates' apology "is ... more discursive" not only in comparison with the Socrates' speech, but also with the actual on-going judicial apologies 54 .In this particular speech Isocrates has the opportunity to present himself in most detailed characterization.According to Y. L. Too, "[i]n Greek antiquity, the dicanic speech was a privileged space for the depiction of one's civic "self" (Too, Commentary..., p. 8).But it is the "self-conscious innovative structure" of Antidosis that "allows the rhetorician the opportunity to identify and answer a wide range of accusers.Better yet, it allowed Isocrates to present himself in the role of (potential) martyr for the cause of philosophical rhetoric" 55 .
Panathenaicus is the latest piece by Isocrates written 342-339 BC 56 when tension lingered in the air in Athens because of the domination of Philip of Macedon in northern Greece and activi-of arguments and style are justified by the reference to old age (59; 176), the peculiarity of occasion (1), belonging to common phenomenon (311), or the exclusivity of his own opinion (272).In Antidosis he praises himself with the aim to reveal his own fairness/equity (ἐπιείκεια) and confirm the probability of his innocence, so here self-defense and self-praise are organically related.He commends himself as a good citizen, beneficial to his country, as a teacher and orator/ writer, commends the benefits of his teaching and good qualities of his discourses.Perhaps the highest degree of self-praise is attained in dramatized illustrations of his teaching activities, where he teaches young Timotheos about the power of goodwill of common people and their beloved leaders (132-137) and gets himself instruction from one of his associates (τις τῶν ἐπιτηδείων) (141-149).Such episodes serve also as certain instigation to speak up and aprove of his idea of quietism (cf.150-151) 63 .On the other hand, he does not shrink from reproaching himself.In Antidosis, he criticizes himself for natural infirmities (176), lack of logical strength (178, 215), feeble reputation (272, 297-298), oversights left in the speech (179, 243, 310, 320).Part of the criticism is expressed through the ethopoetic image of his opponent (26) 64 or reference to the charge (30-31).Unlike Panegyricus, speaker of Antidosis frequently ponders his arguments: is in doubt about self-characterization, speech strategies, effectiveness of arguments, expresses hopes, sets himself a task, gives promises, encourages himself or deters from inappropriate action: the episode of getting advice from anonymous friend urging him to abstain from self-praise (141-143) and self-refrain from criticism of opponents in order to escape reaching to the level of detractors (259) are among the most illustrative ones.
In Panathenaicus Isocrates mostly praises his strengths as a teacher and writer, identifies himself as "leader of speeches" (λόγων ἡγεμόνα) on Panhellenic matters (13), considers himself to be more serious than other orators, despite the assessment of the multitude, and superior because of financial independence (12-15).He praises his spiritual qualities, especially wisdom, insight, common sense, fairness, justice (9; 21; 62-65), stability of moral principles (87-88), altruism and usefulness for the other teachers (16-17); once he mentions his 'the greatest gifts' of fortunehealth, living resources, good reputation (7-8).An interesting impression is created by an indirect boast while comparing himself to Agamemnon in connection to failure to receive the deserved glory for his activities useful to the whole world (74-75); the reason of this failure is ἀτυχία, named at the beginning of the speech, which brought him lies, slander and envy (8-9, 21).The final part of the speech, a sort of "addendum" on the writer's doubts concerning the publication of the work and consultation with students, serves as new opportunity to praise himself indirectly: in fictional pupil's words he praises his own wisdom (248), his freshly written speech which is useful even for the Spartans (253-254), his talent (φύσιν) that used to be shining brightly, lifestyle (τὴν τοῦ βίου τάξιν), industry (φιλοπονίαν), veracity of his philosophy (τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῆς φιλοσοφίας) in particular, and current happiness (εὐδαιμονία); he predicts himself a great glory and immortal memory that is left behind heroes (ἀθανασίας ... τῆς τοῖς ἐπιγιγνομένοις... τῶν καλῶν ἔργων μνήμην ἐμποιούσης) as well as fame among other writers like that of Homer among other poets (Panath.260-263).
63 "The rhetorician presents himself as a ʽquiet Athenian', the sort of individual, usually of privileged means, who withdraws from the verbal jostling and meddling of the democratic city, in this case to turn his attention to teaching and the composition of political speechesˮ (Too, A Commentary on Isocratesʼ Antidosis, 2008, p. 10) 64 His accuser, Lysimachus, according to Isocrates description, expects to win the case easily, seeing the rest of the citizens' gullibility and Isocrates' own inexperience to litigate.
The cases of the speaker's apology in Panathenaicus are two-fold: he justifies himself either for the manner of speaking, style and composition or for his views on education (25-32), moral priorities (relation between benefit and justice, 86-87) and on the reliability of the sources for historical facts (authoritative writings and stories are more reliable than eyewitnessed things) (149-150).Arguments worth to be mentioned are as follow: fear of tarnishing his own reputation and presenting himself foolish or boastful to the listeners (if he ignorantly dismisses the digression, if having remarked positively about Agamemnon, he gives no example of his deeds, if he fails to give an adequate response to slanders), referring to the occasion which requires to emphasize different things, sacrificing formal rules for content's sake, expressing educational views in the form of confession, referring to the tradition and authorities (concerning the bold depiction of events unseen with his own eyes).It is in Panathenaicus that Isocrates criticizes himself and identifies errors more than elsewhere.Two groups of reproaches can be distinguished: he criticizes his physical and spiritual weaknesses (weak voice, timidity, sadness, confusion, arrogance, aggression, indelicacy, negligence) or recognizes shortcomings of style, composition, structural proportions of his work (55, 74-75, 88-89).Panathenaicus also contains a lot of aspects of deliberation -doubts about the strategy of speech exposition (22, 88, 175-176), explicit refraining from the discussion about poets (33), self-exhortations (6, 7, 36-38) and tips for himself (24, 34, 152).Panath.9 (having enumerated the advantages and disadvantages of his nature and fortune, Isocrates inserts self-praise concerning one particularity of his nature -his ability to discern the thruth and to express it in words better than others who make clames for their knowledge of it) [...] τὴν δὲ φύσιν εἰδὼς πρὸς μὲν τὰς πράξεις ἀρρωστοτέραν οὖσαν καὶ μαλακωτέραν τοῦ δέοντος, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς λόγους οὔτε τελείαν οὔτε πανταχῇ χρησίμην, ἀλλὰ δοξάσαι μὲν περὶ ἑκάστου τὴν ἀλήθειαν μᾶλλον δυναμένην τῶν εἰδέναι φασκόντων, εἰπεῖν δὲ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν τούτων ἐν συλλόγῳ πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων ἁπασῶν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἀπολελειμμένην.
Commentary.The speaker of the Panegyricus implies himself to be among "those who had toiled in private for the public good and trained their own minds so as to be able to help also their fellow-men" (τοῖς ... ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινῶν ἰδίᾳ πονήσασι καὶ τὰς αὑτῶν ψυχὰς οὕτω παρασκευάσασιν ὥστε καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ὠφελεῖν δύνασθαι), he implies to be that "single man who attained wisdom" (ἑνὸς δ' ἀνδρὸς εὖ φρονήσαντος) able to give benefit to those who are willing to share his insight (κοινωνεῖν τῆς ἐκείνου διανοίας).He is well disposed towards common custom, although not favourable to him (his aretē), and seeks not material reward for his activity -good fame or approbation for his speech (τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου γενησομένην); he claims his competence (οὐκ ἀγνοῶν) in knowing the context of the subject he is going to deal with and claims his superiority (ἐλπίζων ... διοίσειν) over other men who claimed for wisdom before him (πολλοὶ τῶν προσποιησαμένων εἶναι σοφιστῶν); finally, he praises his own insight in choosing the best kind of discourses (προκρίνας τούτους καλλίστους εἶναι τῶν λόγων) and points directly to Panegyricus as one of them.Hence, we have a picture of a man praising himself for being the wisest among Hellenes and able to perform an excellent speech.

44"
Modes of Resolution of Belief Dilemmas", Journal of Conflict Resolution 3, 1959, 343-352. 45Bonnie L. Ware, Wil A. Linkugel, "They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic criticism of apologia", Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59 (Issue 3), 1973, 273-283.This framework has a number of successive theoretical revisions and more elaborated modifications, of which one of the most recent is that of Edwin L. Battistella in his book Sorry About That: The Language of Public Apology, Oxford [et al.]: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Division of rhetorical material in the Greek rhetorical tradition