Previewpdf

ROUTLEDGE RESEARCH IN PUBLIC RELATIONS
Classical Rhetoric and

Modern Public Relations
An Isocratean Model
Charles Marsh
Routledge Research in Public Relations
1 Classical Rhetoric and Modern

Public Relations
An Isocratean Model
Charles Marsh
An Isocratean Model
Charles Marsh
NEW YORK LONDON

First published 2013
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Simultaneously published in the UK
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group,
an informa business
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
The right of Charles Marsh to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Marsh, Charles, 1955-
Classical rhetoric and modern public relations : an Isocratean model /
Charles Marsh.
p. cm. — (Routledge research in public relations ; 1)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Isocrates—Criticism and interpretation. 2. Rhetoric—Political
aspects. 3. Rhetoric, Ancient. 4. Education, Greek—Philosophy.
I. Title.
PA4218.M27 2012
885'.01—dc23
2012032506
ISBN: 978–0-415–62600–2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978–0-203–10298–5 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by IBT Global.
For Kris
“I began to ponder how I could show . . . to posterity the truth about
my character, my life, and the education to which I am devoted. . . .
And as I kept thinking upon it, I came ever to the same conclusion,
namely, that the only way in which I could accomplish this was to
compose a discourse which would be, as it were, a true image of my
thought and of my whole life; for I hoped that this would serve both
as the best means of making known the truth about me and, at the
same time, as a monument, after my death, more noble than statues
of bronze.”
– Isocrates (Antidosis)
“Let critics of the classics produce any other civilisation so complete,

so fitted to introduce [students] to the activities and adventures of the
human mind, so able in every direction to open windows on to life.”
– Sir Richard Livingstone (1916)
“Isocrates’ opinions on rhetoric underscored how citizens need to pre-

pare themselves to serve society. For this reason, his ideas must be
considered by modern students and practitioners of public relations.”
– Robert L. Heath (2009)
Contents
Acknowledgments xi
1 Isocrates and Modern Public Relations: An Overview 1
2 Sophrosyne and Dikaiosyne: Isocrates’ Concentric Ethics 18
3 Peitho: An Isocratean Model of Persuasion 36
4 Homonoia: Isocratean Rhetoric and Public

Relations’ Social Harmony Frameworks 49
5 Koinos Bios: Isocratean Rhetoric and the Reflective Paradigm 70
6 Logos and Dunamis: Isocratean Rhetoric

and Postmodern Public Relations 83
7 Syggrammata: Isocratean Planning and New Media 101
8 Paideia: Isocrates’ Rhetorical Education 118
9 Antilogia: Speaking against Isocrates 141
10 Mimesis: Rediscovering Isocrates 151
Notes 157
Bibliography 175
Index 189
Acknowledgments
For the ideas contained in this book, I am indebted to so many scholars

in public relations, rhetoric, and other disciplines that I would prefer not
to attempt to name them for fear of suffering a mental lapse and failing to
include someone. The number of works I’ve cited indicates the magnitude
of my debt and, I hope, my gratitude to others.
Some of those scholars may not be served well by my decision not to use
diacritical marks for words in transliterated Greek. Some of the sources I
consulted used such marks while others did not. I chose to give the appear-
ance of consistency by not using them.
I do need and want to thank by name the professor and friend who intro-
duced me to classical rhetoric: G. Douglas Atkins, a professor of English
at the University of Kansas. I was fortunate to enroll in his Ancients and
Moderns course as a sophomore in college, and it changed my life.
I also need and want to thank the deans of the School of Journalism and
Mass Communications at the University of Kansas, particularly Ann Brill.
She and her predecessors have consistently and generously supported an
unusual research agenda for a journalism professor. I’m also grateful to John
and Ruth Stauffer for the generous research stipend that accompanies the
Oscar Stauffer Professorship in Journalism and Mass Communications.
I’m grateful to the University of Kansas for granting the sabbatical that
enabled me to organize the research for this book and to William, Richard,
and Bradford Keeler for funding the Keeler Family Intra-University Profes-
sorship that allowed me to study ancient Greek. I’m also grateful to Dr.
Stanley Lombardo for allowing an ancient student to enroll in his Elemen-
tary Ancient Greek course; my Greek name in the classroom was Nestor.
I particularly want to thank the editorial and production teams at Rout-
ledge as well as the reviewers who offered such constructive advice for the
fi rst draft of this book.
Above all, I want to thank my family. I was raised in a family that valued
and enjoyed reading and learning; my three volumes of Isocrates from the
Loeb Classical Library were a gift from my father. In the years that I’ve
studied and written about classical rhetoric, my wife and children have
been patient and forgiving—save for one slip from my son, who, as an
8-year-old, said, “You talk about Aristotle and think it’s so interesting—
but all we hear is ‘Aristotle blah blah blah blah.’”
xii Acknowledgments
Quotations from ISOCRATES I, translated by David C. Mirhady and Yun
Lee Too, Copyright © 2000. Courtesy of the University of Texas Press.
Quotations from ISOCRATES II, translated by Terry L. Papillon, Copy-
right © 2004. Courtesy of the University of Texas Press.
Material is reprinted by permission of the publishers and the Trustees of the

Loeb Classical Library from ISOCRATES: VOLUMES I-III, Loeb Classical
Library Volumes 209, 229, and 373, translated by George Norlin and La
Rue Van Hook, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Copyright ©
1928, 1929, 1945. Loeb Classical Library® is a registered trademark of the
President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Portions of Chapter 1 of this book originally appeared in “Public Rela-

tions Ethics: Contrasting Models from the Rhetorics of Plato, Aristotle,
and Isocrates,” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 16 (2001): 78–98, and are
included here with the permission of the publisher. Portions of Chapter 4
originally appeared in “Antecedents of Two-Way Symmetry in Classical
Greek Rhetoric: The Rhetoric of Isocrates,” Public Relations Review 29
(2003): 351–367, and are included here with the permission of the pub-
lisher. Chapter 5 is a revision of “Precepts of Reflective Public Relations:
An Isocratean Model,” Journal of Public Relations Research 22 (2010):
359–377, and is used here with the permission of the publisher. Portions
of Chapter 6 originally appeared in “Postmodernism, Symmetry, and Cash
Value: An Isocratean Model for Practitioners,” Public Relations Review
34 (2008): 237–243, and are included here with the permission of the pub-
lisher. Chapter 8 is a revision of “Millennia of Discord: The Controversial
Educational Program of Isocrates,” Theory and Research in Education 8
(2010): 289–303, and is used here with the permission of the publisher. I’m
grateful to the editorial teams at those journals for early encouragement
and guidance.
1 Isocrates and Modern
Public Relations
An Overview
“Contemporary philosophy, especially with respect to the theory of

knowledge, exhibits a growing awareness of the importance of mod-
els and paradigms in the history of thought.”
–Michael Cahn (1989)
“If all writing about the past is partly an effort to understand the pres-
ent, a confusing and contradictory present would seem to call more
insistently for historical analysis and explanation. This is particularly
true for the profession and academic discipline of public relations.”
–Ron Pearson (1992)
“[Y]ou are eager for education, and I profess to educate; you are ripe
for philosophy, and I direct students of philosophy.”
–Isocrates (To Demonicus)
Aesthetics. Analysis. Apologia. Asymmetry. Autonomy. Axiology. Chaos.

Crisis. Critical. Criticism. Cyber-. Democracy. Demographics. Deon-
tology. Dialectic. Dialogue. Dilemma. Dogma. Dynamics. Economy.
Epistemology. Ethics. Ethnicity. Geodemographics. Grammar. Graph-
ics. Harmony. Hegemony. Hierarchy. History. Idea. Ideology. Logic.
Logistics. Macro/meso/micro. Mentor. Methodology. Music. Normative.
Ontology. Orthodoxy. Paradigm. Paragraph. Pathos. Phenomena. Phi-
lanthropy. Philosophy. Photography. Policy. Politics. Practice. Practitio-
ner. Pragmatism. Problem. Program. Pseudo-. Psyche. Psychographics.
Psychology. Rhetoric. Schema. Strategy. Symbol. Symmetry. Synergy.
System. Tactic. Technician. Technology. Teleology. Telephone. Theory.
Thesis. Topoi. Xenophobia. . . .
The term public relations undeniably fi nds its etymological roots in Latin,
but, as the catalog above indicates, the language and heritage of much of
the profession’s theory and practice is Greek—and not simply the Greek
of the agora, the marketplace. The lexicon of public relations employs the
Greek of the philosophers and rhetoricians; the Greek of Socrates, Plato,
2 Classical Rhetoric and Modern Public Relations
and Aristotle; the Greek of the greatest of the classical Athenian rhetori-
cians: Isocrates. In Cicero’s De Oratore, as the assembled Roman rhetori-
cians assess their Greek forebears, they praise Isocrates as the “father of
eloquence” (2:3) and “the Master of all rhetoricians” (2:22).
In one sense, however, Isocrates might consider these accolades a prov-
ocation. Locked in battle with Plato regarding weighty matters such as
the possibility of true knowledge and the role of public opinion, Isocrates
maintained that he taught and practiced not rhetoric—a term with a defi ni-
tion as contested as that of public relations—but, rather, philosophy. Iso-
crates, in fact, avoided using the word rhetoric1—and yet the gravitational
pull of the seventy-plus Greek words that open this chapter still can lead us
to a tantalizingly rich idea: A profession such as public relations, which has
appropriated the language of a particular culture, might do well to consider
the broader cultural offerings that infused those words with meaning.
Rhetoric is not the least of the language-related cultural offerings that
we might ponder. Whatever rhetoric may be—we will discuss that debate
in a moment—it was, in the words of historian George Kennedy, “[o]ne of
the principal interests of the Greeks . . . [and] was basic to the educational
system of Isocrates” (1963, pp. 3, 7). Cicero maintains that Aristotle, in
a work now lost, traced the formal beginnings of rhetoric to Corax and
Tisias of Syracuse, who in the fifth century BCE invented a method of put-
ting forth logical probabilities—as opposed to certainties—to help settle
land disputes (Brutus, 12). Though some scholars argue that Corax and
Tisias were the same individual (Kennedy, 1994, p. 34), there survives a
perhaps apocryphal anecdote of the master Corax suing the student Tisias
for failure to pay for his instruction. Corax argued that if his case pre-
vailed, he won—and that if Tisias’ case prevailed, he still should win, for in
winning Tisias had proven himself to be a learned rhetorician who should
pay for his knowledge. Tisias allegedly countered that if he won, he need
not pay—and, if he lost, he proved that he hadn’t learned enough of the art
of presenting logical probabilities to merit payment. Public relations may be
a modern Tisias in not acknowledging the influence of classical rhetoric—
or, even while acknowledging, not embracing and appreciating the extent,
value, and possibilities of the influence.
The twenty-fi rst century is an ideal time for public relations to explore
models of its past, present, and, possibly, future. Debates regarding its fun-
damental nature and practices continue to roil the profession. Even the
prevailing defi nition—that public relations is the management of relation-
ships between an entity and the publics essential to its success (Broom,
2009)—has not gone unchallenged (McKie & Munshi, 2007; Ihlen, van
Ruler, & Fredriksson, 2009). Different models of the discipline compete for
both normative and practical status. In one direction lies excellence theory,
the product of a decades-long study sponsored by the International Asso-
ciation of Business Communicators, with its focus on two-way symmetry
and an idealistic worldview:
Isocrates and Modern Public Relations 3
Two-way symmetrical describes a model of public relations that is
based on research and that uses communication to manage conflict
and improve understanding with strategic publics. . . . With the sym-
metrical model, both the organization and publics can be persuaded;
both also may change their behavior. (J. E. Grunig, 1992a, p. 18; J. E.
Grunig and White, 1992, p. 39)
In another direction is contingency theory, which posits a spectrum of

behavior ranging from, at one extreme, radical accommodation to pub-
lics’ demands to, at the other extreme, asymmetrical advocacy of a client/
employer’s viewpoint. Contingency theory holds that an entity’s situational
relationship-building strategies vary along the spectrum, driven by vari-
ables in the environment; in fact, scholars have identified more than eighty
such variables:
[C]ontingency theory offers a perspective to examine how one party

relates to another through the enactment of a given stance toward
the other party at a given point in time; how those stances change,
sometimes almost instantaneously; and what influences the change in
stance. . . . This stance can be measured and placed along a continuum,
with advocacy at one extreme and accommodation at the other. . . .
Most organizations fall somewhere in between and, over time, their
position usually moves along the continuum. . . . Put simply, the stance
we take is influenced by the circumstances we face. (Cameron, Pang, &
Jin, 2008, pp. 136–137)
A further enrichment of the ontological debate involves the importa-

tion of social theory, largely from European and Australasian sources, that
generally approaches public relations not from a microlevel (individual)
or mesolevel (organizational) but from a macrolevel (societal) viewpoint
(Durham, 2005; McKie & Munshi, 2007; Ihlen, van Ruler, & Fredriks-
son, 2009). Marsh (2011) has proposed evolutionary biological theories
as a foundation for what he terms the “social harmony frameworks” (p.
1) of public relations, including communitarianism (Kruckeberg & Starck,
1988), excellence theory (J. E. Grunig, 1992a), fully functioning society
theory (R. L. Heath, 2006b), and aspects of the reflective paradigm (Hol-
mström, 2004). 2
Given this theoretical diversity, public relations may be anything from
“the engineering of consent” (Bernays, 1947) to “building and maintaining
relationships that benefit not only the organization but also public mem-
bers” (Ledingham and Bruning, 2000, p. 65) to a broadly reflective process
that helps maintain an organization’s social legitimacy (van Ruler & Vercic,
2005). With their focus on organizations, however, such definitions create
increasing controversy: Is public relations the exclusive domain of formal
organizations? Do individuals or loosely organized activists not practice
public relations (Duff y, 2000; Holtzhausen, 2007)? As early as 1976, Har-
low had found and studied almost 500 defi nitions of public relations.
To the degree that public relations has sought antecedents in and guid-
ance from rhetoric, the focus largely has been on modern theorists, primar-
ily Kenneth Burke, rather than classical theorists such as Plato, Aristotle,
and Isocrates. By way of example, the index of the fi rst edition of Rhe-
torical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations (Toth & Heath, 1992)
affords Aristotle and Isocrates together seven entries; Plato has none. Burke
alone has 27.3 Rhetoric in general, and classical rhetoric in particular, fare
little better in journals devoted to public relations scholarship. A search
of articles in Public Relations Review and Journal of Public Relations
Research from 2000 through 2010 reveals only nine articles with the word
rhetoric or rhetorical in their titles. Of the nine, only three offer more than
a cursory glance, if that, at classical rhetoric.4 And yet. . . .
Motivated by public relations’ thirst for academic legitimacy and profes-
sional respect—and, no doubt, by true intellectual curiosity—scholars have
included rhetoric in calls for a wide-ranging exploration of potential theo-
retical bases for the profession. In 1992, Elizabeth Toth wrote, “Rhetorical
and critical scholars must at least defi ne what they mean by rhetoric and
public relations; and, at best argue how their fi ndings contribute to our the-
oretical understanding of the domain” (p. 12). Eight years later, however,
she lamented, “[R]hetorical studies of public relations may have reached
their greatest concentration in the early 1990s” (2000, p. 141). Cheney and
Christensen (2001) write, “We see public relations as a contested disciplin-
ary and interdisciplinary terrain. . . . A vibrant discipline, we believe, needs
to pursue a vision—or visions—of what it ought to be”; they list “rhetori-
cal studies” as one vision that merits additional research (pp. 167, 172). R.
L. Heath (2009) includes rhetorical theory within the “call for pluralistic
studies in public relations” (p. 14) and does trace origins to Plato, Aristotle,
and Isocrates (2008, pp. 209, 210, 215–222). A continuing research project
led by Lynne M. Sallot has identified twenty-seven “theory development”
categories within current public relations research, including “Rhetorical
Underpinnings” (Sallot et al., 2008, pp. 356–357).
Toth’s request that scholars “defi ne what they mean by rhetoric” provides
a starting point for this book. As Lunsford and Ede (1994) have noted, to
the degree that current scholars consider classical rhetoric at all, we tend to
embrace the rhetoric of Aristotle’s Rhetoric. This book, however, focuses
on a different rhetoric, one that may offer a deeper and, in some ways, more
suitable influence for public relations: the rhetoric of Isocrates. Isocrates
was born in Athens in 436 bce. His father was a fi nancially successful flute
maker, but the family fortune suffered during the Peloponnesian War. To
regroup fi nancially, Isocrates became a logographer—a writer of judicial
speeches for Athenian litigants—and then opened a school that became,
in the words of Corbett, “the true fountainhead of humanistic rhetoric”
(1989, p. 275). He was the contemporary of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle,
having been born 37 years before Socrates’ death, 8 years before the birth
of Plato and 52 years before the birth of Aristotle. He died in 338 bce at
the age of 98, shortly after writing a major discourse (Panathenaicus) and
a letter to Philip of Macedonia. Some thirty of Isocrates’ discourses and
letters survive.5
In the span of those 98 years, Isocrates fi rst challenged Plato over the
meaning of rhetoric and philosophy and then similarly challenged Plato’s
great student, Aristotle. To appreciate Isocratean rhetoric and the promise
it holds for enriching modern public relations, we must contrast it with
the rhetorics of those great rivals, Plato and Aristotle. And to do so, we
must fi rst—in true Socratic fashion—defi ne the thing we wish to analyze.
According to Corbett (1990a), rhetoric is “the art or the discipline that
deals with the use of discourse, either spoken or written, to inform or per-
suade or motivate an audience, whether that audience is made up of one
person or a group of persons” (p. 3). Continuing in the spirit of Socrates,
we certainly could challenge that defi nition: Plato would dispute the notion
that rhetoric is an art, whereas Isocrates and Aristotle would resist the
emphasis on discourse rather than the critical thinking that precedes effec-
tive communication—but Corbett’s defi nition provides a common ground
from which we can begin.
Before examining the competing rhetorics of Plato and Aristotle, we
should note that seeking origins of modern public relations in Isocratean
rhetoric is hardly a revolutionary or heretical idea; it is simply an idea that
has remained largely unexplored. Among public relations scholars, R. L.
Heath (2000) and Marsh (2001) already have made such overtures. Among
rhetoric scholars, Morgan (2004) has noted that Isocrates advised “the
hapless Timotheus on public relations” (p. 134),6 and others have discussed
various public relations functions within Isocrates’ works: Haskins (2004)
holds that we could consider Isocrates “the fi rst advocate of what we now
call ‘liberal education’” (p. 4), and more than one scholar has referred to
Isocrates as a “publicist” (Jebb, 1876; van Hook, 1919; Jaeger, 1944; Mar-
rou, 1956/1982).7 Therefore, to Larissa Grunig’s important assertion that
Aristotle is “often considered the fi rst public relations practitioner” (1992a,
p. 68), we may add, “But first there was Isocrates.”
THE RHETORIC OF PLATO
As seen in Gorgias and Phaedrus, Plato (circa 428–347 bce) rejected rheto-
ric unless it was in the service of absolute truth (Phaedrus, 277b–c). Rhet-
oric, he believed, should be the exclusive province of philosophers who,
through the thoughtful give and take of dialectic, had discovered divine,
ultimate truths that predated creation (Republic, 484b). Popular rhetoric,
such as that practiced by the sophist Gorgias, was not an art at all, Plato
wrote; rather, it was a mere technique, like cookery, or, worse, just a form
of flattery (Gorgias, 462d–463c). All too often, he maintained, rhetoric is
“some device of persuasion which will make one appear to those who do
not know to know better than those who know” (Gorgias, 459c). Plato
thus relegates the art of persuasion to those who are certain they are right,
who enter a relationship fi rmly believing that they must change others and
remain unchanged themselves.
Possessing such moral certainty, the ideal rulers of Plato’s Republic, the
philosopher-kings, could use dubious rhetorical tactics to lead lesser beings
to the light: “The rulers then of the city may, if anybody, fitly lie on account
of enemies or citizens for the benefit of the state. . . . It seems likely that
our rulers will have to make considerable use of falsehood and deception
for the benefit of their subjects” (Republic, 389b, 459c). Such deception, of
course, remained the exclusive privilege of the philosopher-king: “If then
the ruler catches anybody else in the city lying . . . he will chastise him for
introducing a practice as subversive and destructive of a state as it is of a
ship” (Republic, 389d).
Plato’s insistence on unshakable knowledge of absolute truth as a pre-
requisite to rhetoric is, in the words of Jaeger (1944), “repulsive to ordinary
common sense” (p. 57). Even if such perfection in truth seeking were possi-
ble, the breathtaking asymmetry of Platonic rhetoric has prompted ringing
condemnations. Platonic rhetoric, writes Kennedy (1994), is “responsible
for much of the dogmatism, intolerance, and ideological oppression that
has characterized Western history” (p. 41). Jaeger (1944) calls Platonic
rhetoric “uncompromising” (p. 70). Black (1994) notes that it deviates into
“social control” (p. 98). Kauff man (1994) fi nds Platonic rhetoric “totalitar-
ian and repressive” (p. 101). In brief, Platonic rhetoric—based on absolute
certainty, exclusivity, and the condoning of deception—hardly seems a pro-
ductive model for modern public relations.
THE RHETORIC OF ARISTOTLE
Aristotle (384–322 bce) remains the best-known of the classical Greek

rhetoricians, owing, in large part, to the survival of his Rhetoric, an analy-
sis of the art of persuasion—a so-called metarhetoric. Neither Plato nor
Isocrates left such a work.8
With his defi nition of rhetoric—“the faculty of observing in any given
case the available means of persuasion” (1355b)—Aristotle diverges from
the rhetoric of Plato, his teacher: Rhetoric need not flow from and lead
others to a precise knowledge of ultimate truth; instead, it can be applied
to “any given case.”9 Comparing the rhetorics of Plato and Aristotle,
Black (1994) concludes, “[Plato] did not reject the attempt to suff use an
investigation of rhetoric with a moral concern. It is on this very point that
his great disciple departed from him” (p. 99).10 Aristotle’s departure from
Plato’s “divine truth” rhetorical model does not, of course, mean that he
proposes an immoral rhetoric; amoral might be a better (if somewhat
controversial) description.
Kennedy (1994) compares Aristotle’s Rhetoric with that philosopher-
scientist’s objective, “dispassionate” descriptions of plants and animals (p.
56). Brockriede (1971) highlights that same empiricism in suggesting that
Aristotelian rhetoric had its provenance in “the assembly, the law courts
and the ceremonies of his day” (p. 41). Given rhetoric’s origins in such ven-
ues, Black (1994) maintains that Aristotle “affirmed the moral neutrality
of rhetoric” (p. 99). Early in the Rhetoric, Aristotle does write, “[W]e must
not make people believe what is wrong” (1355a)—but he later discusses
how to generate a “misleading inference” and notes that in some cases “we
must assert coincidences and accidents to have been intended” (1367b).
Garver (2004) maintains that for the Aristotelian rhetorician, “good . . .
means something more than technical prowess and something less than
moral goodness” (p. 200).11 Wardy (1996) compiles what he terms Aris-
totle’s “catalogue of fishy persuasive techniques” in the Rhetoric and the
Topics and concludes that Aristotle “subordinates truth to victory” (pp. 74,
81).12 Lunsford and Ede in “On Distinctions Between Classical and Mod-
ern Rhetoric” (1994) vigorously defend what they view as the solid moral
ground of Aristotle’s Rhetoric—but at no point in that article do they cite
his seminal defi nition of rhetoric: “the faculty of observing in any given case
the available means of persuasion” (1355b, emphasis added). The notion of
any, of course, opens the door to the “moral neutrality” that Black finds.
We should clarify again that Aristotle, in his Rhetoric, is not aggressively
or even tacitly immoral; instead, his analysis of rhetoric is, in the words of
Corbett (1990a), “morally indifferent” (p. 544). Yoos (1984) neatly sums
up this indifference and neutrality:
In defi ning rhetoric as the art of fi nding all the available means of per-
suasion, Aristotle must recommend selecting, compiling, and arrang-
ing arguments to gain maximum persuasive advantage. Such strategies
to gain the prize need to hide the weakness of one’s own position. They
need to divert an audience’s attention away from the strength of an
opponent’s argument. . . . And fi nally they need to put the audience in
a receptive form of mind that will lull their “natural reason.” (p. 96)
Aristotle’s scientific focus on what will persuade, as opposed to what is in

the best interests of both the speaker and the listener, renders his rhetoric—
and his Rhetoric—a questionable model for modern public relations.
THE RHETORIC OF ISOCRATES
The purpose of this book is to address the idea of this heading: the rhetoric
of Isocrates. Ideally, the book will present much of Isocratean rhetoric as
a—not the—normative model for modern public relations. For the moment,
however, I offer this overview: For Isocrates, rhetoric was the discourse of
responsible citizenship and was built upon the core values of justice (dikaio-
syne) and moderation (sophrosyne).13 Far from focusing on the discovery
and delivery, in any given case, of the available means of persuasion (as
Aristotle would have it) or the promulgation of absolute truth, even, ironi-
cally, through deception (as Plato would have it), Isocrates envisioned rhet-
oric as a community-building discipline in a world that didn’t always offer
Platonic certainty:
[S]ince we have the ability to persuade one another and to make clear to
ourselves what we want, not only do we avoid living like animals, but we
have come together, built cities, made laws, and invented arts (techne).
Speech (logos) is responsible for nearly all our inventions. It legislated in
matters of justice and injustice, and beauty and baseness, and without
these laws, we could not live with one another. . . . With speech we
fight over contentious matters, and we investigate the unknown. We use
the same arguments by which we persuade others in our own delibera-
tions. . . . If one must summarize the power of discourse, we will discover
that nothing done prudently occurs without speech (logos), that speech is
the leader of all thoughts and actions. . . . (Nicocles, 6–9)14
“What raises Isocrates above the crowd of unscrupulous teachers of rheto-

ric,” writes Rummel (1994), “is his willingness to assume moral responsi-
bility and to consider the ethics of persuasion” (p. 154). In Chapter 2, we
shall see Marrou make an even more forceful claim for the ethical primacy
of Isocratean rhetoric.
A brief description of the dramatic success of Isocratean rhetoric, par-
ticularly compared with the rival concepts of Plato and Aristotle, may pro-
vide impetus to consider the pages that lie ahead. While we lack defi nitive
criteria for comparing the success of the rhetorics of Plato, Aristotle, and
Isocrates, it seems logical to compare them by what they had in common:
• A school with, consequently, a reputation

• Graduates of the schools
• The evaluation of classical Roman rhetoricians, who could survey the
whole of classical Greek rhetoric
• The possibility of shaping future (post–fourth-century bce) education
The Schools
Following the lead of Cicero, who in Brutus pronounced, “[Isocrates’]
house stood open to all Greece as the school of eloquence” (8), historians
have given the laurels in this category to Isocrates. Of the three schools,
Clark (1957) writes:
In Greece of the fourth century bc there was a three-cornered quarrel
among the leading teachers concerning what it takes to make a success-
ful speaker. From this quarrel Isocrates (436–338 bc) came out trium-
phant. . . . For forty years Isocrates was the most influential teacher in
Athens. (pp. 5, 58)
Ample critical commentary supports Clark’s judgment. Freeman (1907)

asserts that “Isokrates was [rhetoric’s] greatest professor” (p. 161). Gwynn
(1966) says that Isocrates reigned “high above other teachers of rhetoric” (p.
48). Isocrates’ reputation among students outstripped that of Plato (Hunt,
1990, p. 147) as well as that of Aristotle (Corbett, 1990b, p. 167).
Venerated as Plato’s Academy may be, scholars of higher education gen-
erally agree that Isocrates’ school was more influential in classical Athens
than the Academy. Marrou (1956/1982), who clearly feels more loyalty to
Plato (p. 79), grudgingly concedes:
[T]here is no doubt that Isocrates has one claim to fame at least, and
that is as the supreme master of oratorical culture. . . . On the whole,
it was Isocrates, not Plato, who educated fourth-century Greece and
subsequently the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. (p. 79)
Significantly, Beck (1964, p. 300) and Gwynn (1966) believe that the suc-
cess of Isocratean education and rhetoric ultimately persuaded Plato to alter
both his philosophy of rhetoric and of an ideal, ultimate truth–seeking cur-
riculum. Gwynn writes:
In the Laws, his last attempt to win Athenian opinion for his social and
political theories, Plato outlines a programme of educational studies
very different from the earlier programme of the Republic. Metaphys-
ics are no longer mentioned; and the study of mathematics is reduced
to that elementary acquaintance with abstract reasoning which even
Isocrates would have considered desirable. This is a direct concession
to public opinion, made by the most haughtily aristocratic of all Athe-
nian philosophers: a concession, too, which must have been largely due
to the success of the Isocratean programme. (pp. 50–51)15
Thus, in the words of Grube (1965), “it was [Isocrates’] kind of education which
triumphed over all others and dominated the Graeco-Roman world” (p. 38).
The Graduates
Once again, the most dramatic assessment of the three teachers’ students
comes from Cicero: “Then behold Isocrates arose, from whose school,
as from the Trojan horse, none but real heroes proceeded” (De Oratore,
2:22).16 Cicero’s contemporary, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, concurred:
“[Isocrates] became . . . the teacher of the most eminent men at Athens
and in Greece at large, both the best forensic orators, and those who dis-
tinguished themselves in politics and public life” (Isocrates, 1). And in his
Institutio Oratoria, Quintilian writes, “The pupils of Isocrates were emi-
nent in every branch of study” (3.1.14), adding that “it is to the school of
Isocrates that we owe the greatest orators” (12.10.22).
Among more recent critics, Jaeger (1944) surmises that Isocrates’ gradu-
ates must have symbolized the teacher’s quality even to those unfamiliar
with his discourses:
[F]or the Athenians, especially those who did not know his speeches, the
long line of statesmen and great public figures who had gone through
Isocrates’ school must have meant more than the written word. For
they were a living witness to the force which had flowed from his teach-
ing all through the life of his native city. (p. 137)
Jebb (1876) echoes Cicero’s praise of Isocrates’ students and adds an anec-
dote about an oratorical competition of the fourth-century bce:
In the year 351 Mausolos, dynast of Karia, died; and his widow Arte-
mesia proposed in honour of his memory a contest of panegyrical
eloquence which brought a throng of brilliant rhetoricians to Halikar-
nassos. No competitor (it is said) presented himself who had not been a
pupil of Isokrates; and it was certainly a pupil of Isokrates—Theopom-
pos the historian—who gained the prize. (p. 11)
Although Aristotle had not yet opened his school at the time of this compe-
tition, he certainly was teaching rhetoric in Plato’s Academy.
In specific comparisons between the abilities of his students and those of
Plato and Aristotle, Isocrates again prevails. Jaeger (1944) says that there
“was no near rival” to the quality of Isocrates’ students; of Plato’s students,
Jaeger adds, “[M]ost of them were characterized by their inability to do
any real service to [the state] and exert any real influence upon it” (p. 137).
Of Aristotle’s students, Hunt (1990) writes that Aristotle’s school “seems
to have been productive of little eloquence” (p. 132). Jebb (1876) adds that
“the school of Aristotle—in which Rhetoric was both scientifically and
assiduously taught—produced not a single orator of note except Demetrios
Phalereus; the school of Isokrates produced a host” (p. 431).17 In short,
most scholars, past and present, agree with Freeman (1907): “The pupils of
Isokrates became the most eminent politicians and the most eminent prose-
writers of the time” (p. 186).18
Reputation among Classical Roman Rhetoricians

We already have seen something of the preference of Rome’s greatest rheto-
ricians—Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Quintilian—for Isocrates.
Their praise of him was effusive, and their preference for his rhetoric, as opposed
to that of Plato or Aristotle, was pronounced. In Cicero’s De Oratore, Isocrates
is called the “father of eloquence” (2:3). In Brutus, Cicero writes that Isocrates
“cherished and improved within the walls of an obscure academy, that glory
which, in my opinion, no orator has since acquired. He . . . excelled his prede-
cessors” (8). Dionysius praises Isocrates’ “unrivalled power to persuade men
and states” (Isocrates, 9). Quintilian calls Isocrates “the prince of instructors”
(Institutio Oratoria, 2.8.11), and he accords to no one a higher rank.
Modern critics agree that Isocrates, not Plato or Aristotle, inspired the
central rhetorical theorists of classical Rome. Too (1995) writes, “Scholars in
Antiquity and in the Renaissance regarded Isocrates . . . as the pre-eminent
rhetorician of ancient Athens” (p. 1). Katula and Murphy (1994) assert that
“Isocrates’ school is largely responsible for making rhetoric the accepted basis
of education in Greece and later in Rome. His is the chief influence on the
oratorical style and rhetorical theory of Cicero” (p. 46). Hubbell (1913) con-
tends that “Cicero derived from Isocrates the function of the orator which
he presents in De Oratore” (p. 16). Welch (1990) and Corbett (1989) note
Isocrates’ primary influence on both Cicero’s and Quintilian’s characteriza-
tions of the qualities and preparation of the ideal orator.19
As orators in the judicial and political spheres, Cicero and Quintilian
could not afford ineffective rhetoric. Their clear preference for the rhetoric
of Isocrates is perhaps its most compelling endorsement. Of Cicero’s pref-
erence for Isocratean rhetoric, Muir (2005) concludes, “Cicero’s Repub-
lic and Laws are modeled on Plato’s dialogues of the same titles, but are
intended to provide an Isocratic alternative to them, substituting Isocrates’
learned orator for Plato’s philosopher-king” (p. 182).
Influence on Subsequent Education

Isocrates’ school, more than that of Plato or Aristotle, developed a compre-
hensive, liberal education, the goal being to prepare orators to think clearly
in a variety of disciplines and to have historical and literary examples read-
ily at hand. “[Isocrates] preached that the whole man must be brought to
bear in the persuasive process,” says Corbett (1990a), “and so it behooved
the aspiring orator to be broadly trained in the liberal arts and securely
grounded in good moral habits” (p. 542). The historical impact of this
fusion of liberal studies and rhetoric has been profound and unequalled.
“[T]here is no doubt that since the Renaissance [Isocrates] has exercised
a far greater influence on the educational methods of humanism than any
other Greek or Roman teacher,” says Jaeger (1944, p. 46).
Marrou (1956/1982)—who literally apologizes for praising Isocrates
over Plato (p. 79)—once again concedes that history has favored the ideals
of the practical Isocrates over the philosophical Plato:
[I]t is to Isocrates more than to any other person that the honour and
responsibility belong of having inspired in our Western traditional
education a predominantly literary tone. . . . On the level of history
Plato has been defeated: posterity had not accepted his educational ide-
als. The victor, generally speaking, was Isocrates. (pp. 79–80, 194)
Like Marrou, Hunt (1990) has mixed feelings regarding the triumph of prac-
ticality over speculative philosophy, but he too accords the victory to Iso-
crates: “[W]hether for good or ill, the conception of the aims and purposes of
the American liberal college, as set forth by the most distinguished modern
educators, is much closer to Isocrates and Protagoras than to Plato” (p. 135).
Corbett (1989), however, is not quite so guarded in his praise: “[Isocrates]
might very well be canonized as the patron saint of all those, then and now,
who espouse the merits of a liberal education” (p. 276). More recently, Muir
(2005) has declared, “Generations of classical scholars and historians of edu-
cational thought have argued that Isocrates’ educational ideas were—and
still are—more influential in the history of educational thought and practice
than those of any other classical thinker . . .” (pp. 167–168).20
When we compare the merits of the rhetorics of Plato, Aristotle, and Iso-
crates using the four touchstones of school influence, quality of graduates,
influence on Roman rhetoricians, and impact on history, we must conclude
that the rhetoric of Isocrates was surely the most successful, powerful, and
influential rhetoric of classical Greece and beyond, both spatially and tem-
porally. The purpose of this book, again, is to explore Isocratean rhetoric,
the values-driven discourse of responsible citizenship, to see if it might offer
productive guidance to modern public relations.
OUTLINE OF THIS BOOK
Seven of the nine following chapters relate particular aspects of Isocratean

rhetoric to a current issue or practice in public relations. Each chapter,
therefore, ideally will supply precedents, theoretical foundations, applica-
tions, and possible future directions for the evolving profession of public
relations. In order, the chapters address the related topics of ethics, per-
suasion, social harmony frameworks, reflection, postmodern practices,
planning and new media, and education. The book concludes with two
chapters, one offering dissenting voices and the other an Isocratean model
of public relations and a brief summary.
Chapter 2
Sophrosyne and Dikaiosyne: Isocrates’ Concentric Ethics

Throughout his essays, Isocrates worked toward a panhellenic confeder-
acy unified by the twin virtues of moderation and justice. But he believed
that those virtues became global only in a concentric manner: They began
within the individual, then radiated to the household, then to the city-state,
and, fi nally, to realms beyond the city-state—each level informed by its pre-
decessor. In Isocratean rhetoric—as, perhaps, in modern public relations—
the virtuous individual is the indispensable element.
Chapter 3
Peitho: An Isocratean Model of Persuasion

Persuasion is a controversial concept in modern public relations. This chap-
ter charts Isocrates’ extensive use of the word peitho (Greek for persuasion)
and its variants and identifies seven tenets of Isocratean persuasion, includ-
ing the following: Persuasion is neutral and can be used justly or unjustly;
persuasion is a catalyst of civilized society and intellectual development;
and persuasion can offer an alternative to force and the abuses of power.
Ideally, the chapter defi nes an Isocratean model of persuasion that might
contribute to a realizable, normative model for modern public relations.
Chapter 4
Homonoia: Isocratean Rhetoric and Public

Relations’ Social Harmony Frameworks
The broad concept of social harmony and its various synonyms—
“collectivism, collaboration, and societal corporatism” (J. E. Grunig, 2000,
p. 23)—is inherent within several frameworks posited for public relations,
including excellence theory, communitarianism, fully functioning society
theory, and aspects of the reflective paradigm. The intent of this chapter is
to establish Isocratean rhetoric as a substantial antecedent of these mod-
ern social harmony frameworks. Isocratean rhetoric, with its quest for the
common good, its incorporation of boundary spanning, its moral founda-
tion, and its ties to a comprehensive system of education, flourished, setting
the standard for later rhetoricians such as Cicero and Quintilian. Of great
significance is the fact that Isocrates proved the merits of such rhetoric in a
contentious, litigious society “so like our own anguished times,” according
to Marrou (1956/1982, p. 87). The enduring success of his ideas suggests
that Isocratean rhetoric might indeed offer guidance to the social harmony
frameworks within modern public relations.
Chapter 5
Koinos Bios: Isocratean Rhetoric and the Reflective Paradigm

Isocrates’ ideal rhetorician is a microlevel (individual) example, or enactment,
of the reflective paradigm, an emerging philosophy of public relations. The
enactment of a reflective paradigm involves an organization’s “production of
self-understanding in relation to the environment” (Holmström, 2009, p. 191).
Reflective organizations understand that they exist as the conditional fulfill-
ment of evolving social needs; they recognize, therefore, that social legitimacy
is a top priority (van Ruler & Vercic, 2005). Isocrates’ oration Plataicus is but
one instance of his repeated willingness to view Athens from a panhellenic per-
spective. In highly self-analytical addresses to Greek leaders, he advocates, in
words and deeds, specific precepts of nascent reflection, including conducting
thorough research on a diverse society and the encouragement of dissent.
Chapter 6
Logos and Dunamis: Isocratean Rhetoric and Postmodern Public Relations

Postmodern philosophy has presented significant challenges to the prac-
ticality, universality, and justice of modern public relations models. Con-
versely, however, the practical value of postmodern public relations remains
problematic for current practitioners. This chapter seeks to show that the
rhetoric of Isocrates—with its values of moderation, justice, and inclusive
discourse—presents a practical, successful model for the infusion of post-
modern values into twenty-fi rst-century public relations. Significantly, Iso-
crates’ apparent refusal to produce a handbook on rhetoric21—a techne, a
metarhetoric—indicates a rejection of a modernist rhetorical metanarra-
tive, a one-size-fits-all rhetoric based on unchanging laws and logic.
Chapter 7
Syggrammata: Isocratean Planning and New Media

In Areopagiticus, Isocrates observes, “Nothing can turn out well for those
who do not plan well . . .” (11).22 Throughout his discourses and letters, he
recommends a planning process that moves from the identification of goals
to the development of specific strategic tactics. As for the tactical creation
of new media subsumed within a plan, Isocrates may be the most success-
ful innovator in western civilization: He invented or improved the written
essay (Jebb, 1876, pp. 9, 54, 60, 61), the political pamphlet (Jebb, 1876, p.
183; Haskins, 2004, pp. 73, 87), the literary history (Jebb, 1876, p. 49; Jae-
ger, 1944, p. 101), and, essentially, “a new, literary forum for the discussion
of cultural and political issues” (Haskins, 2004, pp. 121–122). In the words
of Lentz (1989), “Isocrates was the fi rst individual who could be termed a
‘writer’ in the modern sense of the term” (p. 123).
Chapter 8
Paideia: Isocrates’ Rhetorical Education

Isocrates’ essay Against the Sophists—“issued as an advertisement of the
principles and methods of his school” (Norlin, 1929/1992, p. 160)—stops
abruptly just as its author seems poised to deliver those principles and
methods. And the later Antidosis, in which Isocrates defends the philoso-
phy he imparted through his school, is scarcely more specific about such
matters as curriculum and methods. Given this dearth of detail, if we wish
to study Isocratean education, we must scour his essays, searching for evi-
dence of curriculum and methods. From that primary source, this chapter
will examine Isocrates’ educational goals, the curriculum and methods he
used to achieve those goals, and the qualities he desired in his students.
Chapter 9
Antilogia: Speaking against Isocrates

Ancient and modern scholars do, for the most part, acknowledge Isocrates as
the most successful teacher of classical rhetoric, the first professional writer,
the founder of our modern approach to higher education, and an early advo-
cate of peaceful intergovernmental relations. Despite that remarkable résumé,
he does not lack critics, both ancient and modern. As Konstan (2004) notes,
Isocrates, within his school and his essays, created “a forum for frank and
honest criticism and the free expression of ideas” (p. 120), including those
that challenged his own beliefs. This chapter seeks to follow Isocrates’ exam-
ple, to seek the opinions of “those who oppose your views” (On the Peace,
10) and “those who criticize your mistakes” (To Nicocles, 28).23
Chapter 10
Mimesis: Rediscovering Isocrates

This chapter offers a brief afterword on the possible rewards of appro-
priating (Welch, 1990) Isocratean rhetoric as a model for modern public
relations. Isocratean rhetoric is summarized in ten basic statements, with
elaborations; those statements include Isocratean rhetoric is the values-
driven discourse of responsible citizenship; Isocratean rhetoric is based on
two core values: moderation and justice; and governed by the values of
moderation and justice, persuasion is a legitimate activity. Much of this
book, of course, emphasizes what public relations might gain from classical
rhetoric. This chapter notes that students of rhetoric might gain enduring
venues of application within public relations and related disciplines such as
advertising. Finally, the chapter includes a discussion of the research meth-
ods used within this book.
THE RELEVANCE OF ISOCRATES
An unavoidable challenge to the merits of this book, a challenge of relevance,

can be encapsulated in the modern pejorative “You’re history”—meaning,
References
Aberle, David F. 1950. “Shared Values in Complex Societies.” American Sociological Review
15: 495–502.
Alcidamas . 1919. On the Writers of Written Discourses. In La Rue Van Hook , “Alcidamas
versus Isocrates: The Spoken Word versus the Written Word.” Classical Weekly 12 (12):
91–94.
Aldoory, Linda. 2009. “Feminist Criticism in Public Relations: How Gender Can Impact Public
Relations Texts and Contexts.” In Robert L. Heath , Elizabeth L. Toth , and Damion Waymer ,
Rhetorical and Critical Approaches II, 110–123.
Aldrich, Howard , and Herker, Diana. 1997. “Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization
Structure.” The Academy of Management Review 2: 17–230.
Andrewes, A. 1975. “Autonomy in Antiquity.” Times Literary Supplement, 28 March 335.
Aristophanes . 1853. The Clouds. Translated by W. J. Hickie . In The Comedies of
Aristophanes, 115–179. London. Henry G. Bohn.
Aristotle . 1934. Physics. Translated by P. H. Wicksteed and F. M. Cornford . Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Aristotle . 1954. The Rhetoric and the Poetics of Aristotle. Translated by W. R. Roberts and I.
Bywater . New York: The Modern Library.
Aristotle . 1984. Sophistical Refutations. Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge . In
Jonathan Barnes , The Complete Works of Aristotle, 278–314.
Aristotle . 2003. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackham . Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press. (Original translation published in 1926.)
Aristotle . 2005. Politics. Translated by H. Rackham . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press. (Original translation published in 1932.)
Aristotle . 2007. Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, 2nd ed. Translated by G.
A. Kennedy . New York: Oxford University Press.
Baker, Sherry. 1999. “Five Baselines for Justification in Persuasion.” Journal of Mass Media
Ethics 14: 69–81.
Baker, Sherry , and Martinson, David L. 2001. “The TARES Test: Five Principles for Ethical
Persuasion.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 16: 148–175.
Bardhan, Nilanjana. 2003. “Rupturing Public Relations Metanarratives: The Example of
India.” Journal of Public Relations Research 15: 225–248.
Barnes, Jonathan. 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle. 2 vols. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
Barney, Ralph , and Black, Jay. 1994. “Ethics and Professional Persuasive Communication.”
Public Relations Review 20: 233–249.
Beck, Frederick A. G. 1964. Greek Education, 450–350 B.C. New York: Barnes & Noble.
Benoit, William L. 1991. “Isocrates and Plato on Rhetoric and Rhetorical Education.” Rhetoric
Society Quarterly 21: 60–71.
Berger, Bruce K. 2007. “Public Relations and Organizational Power.” In Elizabeth L. Toth ,
The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, 221–234.
Berlin, James A. 1994. “Poststructuralism, Cultural Studies, and the Composition Classroom:
Postmodern Theory in Practice.” In Theresa Enos and Stuart C. Brown , Professing the New
Rhetorics, 461–480.
Bernays, Edward L. 1947. “The Engineering of Consent.” Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 250: 113–120.
Best, Steven , and Kellner, Douglas. 1991. Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations. New
York: Guilford Press.
Bizzell, Patricia , and Herzberg, Bruce. 1990. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from
Classical Times to the Present. Boston: Bedford.
Black, Edwin. 1994. “Plato's View of Rhetoric.” In Edward Schiappa , Landmark Essays on
Classical Greek Rhetoric, 83–99. (Reprinted from The Quarterly Journal of Speech 44:
361–374, 1958.)
Blair, Carole. 1992. “Contested Histories of Rhetoric: The Politics of Preservation, Progress,
and Change.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 78: 403–428.
Boswell, James. 1979. The Life of Johnson. New York: Penguin Books.
Botan, Carl H. , and Hazleton, Vincent , eds. 2006. Public Relations Theory II. Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bowen, Shannon A. 2007. “The Extent of Ethics.” In Elizabeth L. Toth , The Future of
Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for the Next
Generation, 275–298.
Brandwood, Leonard. 1990. The Chronology of Plato's Dialogues. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Brockriede, Wayne E. 1971. “Toward a Contemporary Aristotelian Theory of Rhetoric.” In
Richard L. Johannesen , Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings, 39–49.
Broom, Glen. 2012. Cutlip and Center's Effective Public Relations, 10th ed. Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Brown, Robert E. 2006. “The Myth of Symmetry: Public Relations as Cultural Styles.” Public
Relations Review 32: 206–212.
Brown, Robert E. 2010. “Symmetry and Its Critics: Antecedents, Prospects, and Implications
for Symmetry in a Post-Symmetry Era.” In Robert L. Heath , Sage Handbook of Public
Relations, 277–292.
Brummett, Barry. 2010. Techniques of Close Reading. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Burke, Kenneth. 1969. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.
Cahn, Michael. 1989. “Reading Rhetoric Rhetorically: Isocrates and the Marketing of Insight.”
Rhetorica 7: 121–144.
Cameron, Glen T. , Pang, Augustine , and Jin, Yan. 2008. “Contingency Theory: Strategic
Management of Conflict in Public Relations.” In Tricia L. Hansen–Horn and Bonita D. Neff ,
Public Relations: From Theory to Practice, 134–157.
Campbell, Karlyn K. 2001. “Modern Rhetoric.” In Thomas O. Sloane , Encyclopedia of
Rhetoric, 498–508.
Cheney, George , and Christensen, Lars T. 2001. “Public Relations as Contested Terrain.” In
Robert L. Heath , Handbook of Public Relations, 167–182.
Cicero . 1939. Brutus. Translated by G. L. Hendrickson . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Cicero . 1945. De Oratore. Books 2 and 3. Translated by H. Rackham . Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Cicero . 1970. On Oratory and Orators: De Oratore and Brutus. Translated by J. S. Watson .
Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original translation published in 1878.)
Clark, Donald L. 1957. Rhetoric in Greco–Roman Education. New York: Columbia University
Press.
“Classical Education.” 1956. Times Literary Supplement, 19 October, 614.
Cole, Thomas. 1991. The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Connors, Robert J. , ed. 1989. Selected Essays of Edward P.J. Corbett. Dallas, Texas:
Southern Methodist University Press.
Connors, Robert J. , ed. 1990. “Greek Rhetoric and the Transition from Orality.” In Edward P.
J. Corbett , James L. Golden , and Goodwin L. Berquist , Essays on the Rhetoric of the
Western World, 91–109. (Reprinted from Philosophy and Rhetoric 19: 38–65, 1986.)
Connors, Robert J. , Ede, Lisa S. , and Lunsford, Andrea A. , eds. 1984. Essays on Classical
Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press.
Cooper, Thomas , and Kelleher, Tom. 2001. “Better Mousetrap? Of Emerson, Ethics, and
Postmillennium Persuasion.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 16: 176–192.
Corbett, Edward P. J. 1989. “Isocrates’ Legacy: The Humanistic Strand in Classical Rhetoric.”
In R. J. Connors , Selected Essays of Edward P. J. Corbett, 267–277.
Corbett, Edward P. J. 1990a. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, 3rd ed. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Corbett, Edward P. J. 1990b. “Introduction to the Rhetoric and Poetics of Aristotle.” In Edward
P. J. Corbett , James L. Golden , and Goodwin F. Berquist , Essays on the Rhetoric of the
Western World, 162–167. (Reprinted from The Rhetoric and Poetics of Aristotle, v–xxvi, by E.
P. J. Corbett , ed., 1984, New York: Random House.)
Corbett, Edward P. J. , Golden, James L. , and Berquist, Goodwin F. , eds. 1990. Essays on
the Rhetoric of the Western World. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Cozier, Zoraida R. , and Witmer, Diana F. 2001. “The Development of a Structuration
Analysis of New Publics in an Electronic Environment.” In Robert L. Heath , Handbook of
Public Relations, 615–623.
Culbertson, Hugh M. , and Chen, Ni. 1997. “Communitarianism: A Foundation for
Communication Symmetry.” Public Relations Quarterly 42(2): 36–42.
Culler, Jonathan. 1975. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of
Literature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Curtin, Patricia A. 2012. “Public Relations and Philosophy: Parsing Paradigms.” Public
Relations Inquiry 1: 31–47.
Curtin, Patricia A. , and Gaither, T. Kenn. 2005. “Privileging Identity, Difference, and Power:
The Circuit of Culture as a Basis for Public Relations Theory.” Journal of Public Relations
Research 17: 91–115.
Deleuze, Gilles , and Guattari, Félix. 1983. Anti–Oedipus. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Depew, David , and Poulakos, Takis. 2004. “Introduction.” In Takis Poulakos and David
Depew , Isocrates and Civic Education, 1–18.
de Romilly, Jacqueline. 1992. “Isocrates and Europe.” Greece and Rome 39: 2–13.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus . 1974. Dionysius of Halicarnassus: The Critical Essays in Two
Volumes. Translated by S. Usher . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Duffy, Margaret E. 2000. “There's No Two-Way Symmetric About It: A Postmodern
Examination of Public Relations Textbooks.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 17:
294–315.
Durham, Frank. 2005. “Public Relations as Structuration: A Prescriptive Critique of the
StarLink Global Food Contamination Case.” Journal of Public Relations Research 17: 29–47.
Eadie, William F. , ed. 2009. 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook. Los
Angeles: Sage.
Edgett, Ruth. 2002. “Toward an Ethical Framework for Advocacy in Public Relations.” Journal
of Mass Media Ethics 14: 1–26.
Edwards, Lee. 2006. “Rethinking Power in Public Relations.” Public Relations Review 32:
229–231.
Enos, Richard Leo. 2006. “The Emergence of a Literate Rhetoric in Greece.” Rhetoric Society
Quarterly 36: 223–241.
Enos, Theresa , ed. 1993. Learning from the Histories of Rhetoric: Essays in Honor of
Winifred Bryan Horner. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press.
Enos, Theresa , ed. 1996. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication from
Ancient Times to the Information Age. New York: Garland.
Enos, Theresa , and Brown, Stuart C. , eds. 1994. Professing the New Rhetorics: A
Sourcebook. Boston: Blair Press.
Eribon, Didier. 1991. Michel Foucault. Translated by B. Wing . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Eucken, Christoph. 1983. Isokrates. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Faulkner, William. 1951. Requiem for a Nun. New York: Random House.
Ferguson, Sherry D. 1999. Communication Planning: An Integrated Approach. Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Finley, M.I. 1987. The Use and Abuse of History. New York: Peregrine.
Fitzpatrick, Kathy R. 2006. “Baselines for Ethical Advocacy in the Marketplace of Ideas.” In
Kathy Fitzpatrick and Carolyn Bronstein , Ethics in Public Relations: Responsible Advocacy,
1–18.
Fitzpatrick, Kathy R. , and Bronstein, Carolyn , eds. 2006. Ethics in Public Relations:
Responsible Advocacy. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Fleming, David. 1998. “Rhetoric as a Course of Study.” College English 61: 169–191.
Flynn, Terence. 2006. “A Delicate Equilibrium: Balancing Theory, Practice, and Outcomes.”
Journal of Public Relations Research 18: 191–201.
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language.
Translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith . New York: Pantheon.
Freeman, Kenneth J. 1907. Schools of Hellas: An Essay on the Practice and Theory of
Ancient Greek Education. London: Macmillan.
Frost, Robert. 1969. The Poetry of Robert Frost. Edited by E. C. Lathem . New York: Henry
Holt and Company.
Gagarin, Michael. 2004. “Series Introduction: Greek Oratory.” In T. L. Papillon (trans.),
Isocrates II. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Gaither, T. Kenn , and Curtin, Patricia A. 2008. “International Public Relations: Toward an
Integrated Theoretical Base.” In Tricia L. Hansen–Horn and Bonita D. Neff , Public Relations:
From Theory to Practice, 281–299.
Gaonkar, Dilip P. 1989. “The Oratorical Text: The Enigma of Arrival.” In Michael C. Leffand
Fred J. Kauffeld , Texts in Context: Critical Dialogues on Significant Episodes in American
Political Rhetoric, 255–276.
Gaonkar, Dilip P. 1993. “The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science.” Southern
Communication Journal 58: 258–295.
Garver, Eugene. 1994. Aristotle's Rhetoric : An Art of Character. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Garver, Eugene. 2004. “Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Civic Education in Aristotle and Isocrates.”
In Takis Poulakos and David Depew , Isocrates and Civic Education, 186–213.
Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management . 2012. “Code of
Ethics.” Available at www.globalalliancepr.org. Access date: 23 November 2011 .
Gower, Karla K. 2006. “Public Relations Research at the Crossroads.” Journal of Public
Relations Research 18: 177–190.
Grube, G.M.A. 1965. The Greek and Roman Critics. London: Methuen.
Grunig, James E. 1992a. “Communication, Public Relations, and Effective Organizations: An
Overview of the Book.” In J. E. Grunig , Excellence in Public Relations and Communication
Management, 1–28.
Grunig, James E. ed. 1992b. Excellence in Public Relations and Communication
Management. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, James E. 2000. “Collectivism, Collaboration, and Societal Corporatism as Core
Professional Values in Public Relations.” Journal of Public Relations Research 12: 23–48.
Grunig, James E. 2001. “Two–Way Symmetrical Public Relations: Past, Present, and Future.”
In Robert L. Heath , Handbook of Public Relations, 11–30.
Grunig, James E. 2006. “Furnishing the Edifice: Ongoing Research on Public Relations as a
Strategic Management Function.” Journal of Public Relations Research 18: 151–176.
Grunig, James E. , and Grunig, Larissa A. 1992. “Models of Public Relations and
Communication.” In J. E. Grunig , Excellence in Public Relations and Communication
Management, 285–325.
Grunig, James E. , and Hunt, Todd. 1984. Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Grunig, James E. , and White, Jon. 1992. “The Effect of Worldviews on Public Relations
Theory and Practice.” In J. E. Grunig , Excellence in Public Relations and Communication
Management, 31–64.
Grunig, Larissa A. 1990. “Power in the Public Relations Department.” Public Relations
Research Annual 2: 115–155.
Grunig, Larissa A. 1992a. “Toward the Philosophy of Public Relations.” In Elizabeth L. Toth
and Robert L. Heath , Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations, 65–91.
Grunig, Larissa A. 1992b. “How Public Relations/Communication Departments Should Adapt
to the Structure and Environment of an Organization … and What They Actually Do.” In J. E.
Grunig , Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, 467–481.
Grunig, Larissa A. , and Toth, Elizabeth. 2000. “Feminist Values in Public Relations.” Journal
of Public Relations Research 72: 49–68.
Guth, David W. , and Marsh, Charles. 2012. Public Relations: A Values-Driven Approach, 5th
ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gwynn, Aubrey O. 1966. Roman Education from Cicero to Quintilian. New York: Teachers
College Press. (Original work published in 1926.)
Halloran, S. Michael. 1994. “On the End of Rhetoric, Classical and Modern.” In Theresa Enos
and Stuart C. Brown , Professing the New Rhetorics, 331–343.
Hamilton, Edith , and Cairns, Huntington , eds. 1999. The Collected Dialogues of Plato.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Hansen–Horn, Tricia L. , and Neff, Bonita D. , eds. 2007. Public Relations: From Theory to
Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hariman, Robert. 2004. “Civic Education, Classical Imitation, and Democratic Polity.” In Takis
Poulakos and David Depew , Isocrates and Civic Education, 217–234.
Harlow, Rex. 1976. “Building a Public Relations Definition.” Public Relations Review, 2(4),
34–42.
Haskins, Ekaterina V. 2004. Logos and Power in Isocrates and Aristotle. Columbia, S.C.:
University of South Carolina Press.
Havelock, Eric A. 1982. The Literate Revolution in Greece and its Cultural Consequences.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Havelock, Eric A. 1986. The Muse Learns to Write. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press.
Heath, Malcolm. 1995. Hermogenes on Issues: Strategies of Argument in Later Greek
Rhetoric. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Heath, Robert L. 2000. “A Rhetorical Perspective on the Values of Public Relations:
Crossroads and Pathways Toward Concurrence.” Journal of Public Relations Research 12:
69–91.
Heath, Robert L. 2001a. “A Rhetorical Enactment Rationale for Public Relations: The Good
Organization Communicating Well.” In Robert L. Heath , Handbook of Public Relations,
31–50.
Heath, Robert L. ed. 2001b. Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Heath, Robert L. ed. 2005. Encyclopedia of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Heath, Robert L. 2006a. “Management through Advocacy: Reflection Rather than
Domination.” In Elizabeth L. Toth , The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and
Communication Management, 41–65.
Heath, Robert L. 2006b. “Onward into More Fog: Thoughts on Public Relations’ Research
Directions.” Journal of Public Relations Research 18: 93–114.
Heath, Robert L. ed. 2008. “Rhetorical Theory, Public Relations, and Meaning: Giving Voice
to Ideas.” In Tricia L. Hansen–Horn and Bonita D. Neff , Public Relations: From Theory to
Practice, 208–226.
Heath, Robert L. ed. 2009. “The Rhetorical Tradition: Wrangle in the Marketplace.” In Robert
L. Heath , Elizabeth L. Toth , and Damion Waymer , Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to
Public Relations II, 17–47.
Heath, Robert L. ed. 2010. The Sage Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Sage.
Heath, Robert L. , Toth, Elizabeth L. , and Waymer, Damion , eds. 2009. Rhetorical and
Critical Approaches to Public Relations II. New York: Routledge.
Heilbrunn, Gunter. 1975. “Isocrates on Rhetoric and Power,” Hermes 103: 154–178.
Holmström, Susanne. 2004. “The Reflective Paradigm of Public Relations.” In Betteke van
Ruler and Dejan Vercic , Public Relations and Communication Management in Europe,
121–133.
Holmström, Susanne. 2005. “Reframing Public Relations: The Evolution of a Reflective
Paradigm for Organizational Legitimization.” Public Relations Review 31: 497–504.
Holmström, Susanne. 2009. “On Luhmann: Contingency, Risk, Trust, and Reflection.” In
Øyvind Ihlen , Betteke van Ruler , and Magnus Fredriksson , Public Relations and Social
Theory, 187–211.
Holtzhausen, Derina R. 2000. “Postmodern Values in Public Relations.” Journal of Public
Relations Research 12: 93–114.
Holtzhausen, Derina R. 2002. “Towards a Postmodern Research Agenda for Public
Relations.” Public Relations Review 28: 251–264.
Holtzhausen, Derina R. 2007. “Activism.” In Elizabeth L. Toth , The Future of Excellence in
Public Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for the Next Generation,
357–379.
Hon, Linda Childers , and Grunig, James E. 1999. “Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in
Public Relations.” Institute for Public Relations. Available at www.instituteforpr.org. Access
date: 23 November 2011 .
Horner, Winifred B. 1988. Rhetoric in the Classical Tradition. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Howland, R. L. 1937. “The Attack on Isocrates in the Phaedrus.” The Classical Quarterly 31
(3/4): 151–159.
Hubbell, Harry M. 1913. The Influence of Isocrates on Cicero, Dionysius, and Aristides. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Hunt, Everett L. 1990. “Plato and Aristotle on Rhetoric and Rhetoricians.” In Edward P. J.
Corbett , James L. Golden , and Goodwin F. Berquist , Essays on the Rhetoric of the
Western World, 129–161. (Reprinted from A. M. Drummond , ed., Studies in Rhetoric and
Public Speaking in Honor of James Albert Winans, 19–70. New York: Century Company,
1925.)
Hunt, Todd , and Grunig, James E. 1994. Public Relations Techniques. Fort Worth, Texas:
Harcourt Brace.
Ihlen, Øyvind. 2002. “Rhetoric and Resources: Notes for a New Approach to Public Relations
and Issues Management.” Journal of Public Affairs 2: 259–269.
Ihlen, Øyvind. 2010. “The Cursed Sisters: Public Relations and Rhetoric.” In Robert L. Heath ,
The Sage Handbook of Public Relations, 59–70.
Ihlen, Øyvind , and van Ruler, Betteke. 2009. “Introduction: Applying Social Theory to Public
Relations.” In Øyvind Ihlen , Betteke van Ruler , and Magnus Fredriksson , Public Relations
and Social Theory, 1–20.
Ihlen, Øyvind , van Ruler, Betteke , and Fredriksson, Magnus , eds. 2009. Public Relations
and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge.
Irwin, Terence. 1989. Classical Thought. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Isocrates . 1928, 1929, 1945. Isocrates. 3 vols. Translated by G. Norlin (vols. 1–2) and L. van
Hook (vol. 3). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Isocrates . 2000. Isocrates I. Translated by D. Mirhady and Y.L. Too . Austin, Texas:
University of Texas Press.
Isocrates . 2004. Isocrates II. Translated by T. L. Papillon . Austin, Texas: University of Texas
Press.
Jaeger, Werner. 1944. Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture (Vol. 3: The Conflict of Cultural
Ideals in the Age of Plato). Translated by G. Highet . New York: Oxford University Press.
Jaeger, Werner. 1962. Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development. Translated
by R. Robinson . London: Oxford University Press.
Jasinski, James. 2001. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical
Studies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Jebb, Richard C. 1876. The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos. London: Macmillan and
Company.
Johannesen, Richard L. , ed. 1971. Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings.
New York: Harper & Row.
Johnson, Michael. 1996. “Strategy ‘Off the Shelf.’” Long Range Planning 29: 405–411.
Johnson, R. 1959. “Isocrates’ Methods of Teaching.” American Journal of Philology 80:
25–36.
Johnstone, Christopher L. , ed. 1996. Theory, Text, Context: Issues in Greek Rhetoric and
Oratory. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
Kalbfleisch, Pamela J. , ed. 2005. Communication Yearbook 29. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Kane, Francis I. 1986. “Peitho and the Polis.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 19: 99–124.
Kant, Immanuel. 1997. Lectures on Ethics. Translated by P. Heath . Edited by J. B.
Schneewind and P. Heath . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Karlberg, Michael. 1996. “Remembering the Publics in Public Relations Research: From
Theoretical to Operational Symmetry.” Journal of Public Relations Research 8: 263–278.
Katula, Richard , and Murphy, James J. 1994. “The Sophists and Rhetorical Consciousness.”
In James J. Murphy and Richard Katula , eds., A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric,
17–50.
Kauffman, Charles. 1994. “The Axiological Foundations of Plato's Theory of Rhetoric.” In
Edward Schiappa , Landmark Essays on Classical Greek Rhetoric, 101–116. (Reprinted from
Central States Speech Journal 33: 353–366, 1982.)
Kennedy, George A. 1963. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
Kennedy, George A. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
Kennedy, George A. 1996. “Reworking Aristotle's Rhetoric.” In Christopher L. Johnstone ,
Theory, Text, Context: Issues in Greek Rhetoric and Oratory, 169–184.
Kennedy, George A. 1999. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition, 2nd ed.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.
Kennedy, George A. ed. 2007. Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, 2nd ed.
Translated by G. A. Kennedy . New York: Oxford University Press.
Kirby, John T. 1994. “The ‘Great Triangle’ in Early Greek Rhetoric and Politics.” In Edward
Schiappa , Landmark Essays on Classical Greek Rhetoric, 3–15. (Reprinted from Rhetorica
8: 213–228, 1990.)
Konstan, David. 2004. “Isocrates’ ‘Republic.’” In Takis Poulakos and David Depew , Isocrates
and Civic Education, 107–124.
Kruckeberg, Dean. 1993. “Universal Ethics Code: Both Possible and Feasible.” Public
Kruckeberg, Dean , and Starck, Kenneth. 1988. Public Relations and Community: A
Reconstructed Theory. New York: Praeger.
Kruckeberg, Dean , Starck, Kenneth , and Vujnovic, Marina. 2006. “The Role and Ethics of
Community-Building for Consumer Products and Services: With Some Recommendations for
New-Marketplace Economies in Emerging Democracies.” In Carl H. Botan and Vincent
Hazleton , Public Relations Theory II, 485–497.
Küng, Hans , and Kuschel, Karl-Josef , eds. 1993. A Global Ethic: The Declaration of the
Parliament of the World's Religions. Translated by J. Bowden . New York: Continuum
Publishing.
Lauzen, Martha M. 1997. “Understanding the Relation between Public Relations and Issues
Management.” Journal of Public Relations Research 9: 65–82.
Ledingham, John A. , and Bruning, Stephen D. , eds. 2000. Public Relations as Relationship
Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations. Mahwah,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leeper, Roy V. 2001. “In Search of a Metatheory for Public Relations: An Argument for
Communitarianism.” In Robert L. Heath , Handbook of Public Relations, 93–104.
Leeper, Roy V. , and Leeper, Kathie A. 2001. “Public Relations as ‘Practice’: Applying the
Theory of Alasdair MacIntyre.” Public Relations Review 27: 461–473.
Leff, Michael C. 2004. “Isocrates, Tradition, and the Rhetorical Version of Civic Education.” In
Takis Poulakos and David Depew , Isocrates and Civic Education, 235–254.
Leff, Michael C. , and Kauffeld, Fred J. 1989. Texts in Context: Critical Dialogues on
Significant Episodes in American Political Rhetoric. Davis, Calif.: Hermagoras.
Leitch, Shirley , and Neilson, David. 2001. “Bringing Publics into Public Relations: New
Theoretical Frameworks for Practice.” In Robert L. Heath , Handbook of Public Relations,
127–138.
Lentz, Tony. 1989. Orality and Literacy in Hellenic Greece. Carbondale, III.: Southern Illinois
University Press.
L'Etang, Jacquie. 1996. “Public Relations and Rhetoric.” In Jacquie L'Etang and Magda
Pieczka , Critical Perspectives in Public Relations, 106–123.
L'Etang, Jacquie. 2006. “Public Relations as Diplomacy.” In Jacquie L'Etang and Magda
Pieczka , Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice, 373–388.
L'Etang, Jacquie , and Pieczka, Magda , eds. 1996. Critical Perspectives in Public Relations.
London: International Thomson Business Press.
L'Etang, Jacquie , and Pieczka, Magda , eds. 2006. Public Relations: Critical Debates and
Contemporary Practice. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liddell, Henry G. , and Scott, Robert. 1889. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford,
U.K.: Clarendon Press.
Livingstone, Richard W. 1916. A Defence of Classical Education. London: Macmillan.
Lord, Carnes. 1994. “The Intention of Aristotle's Rhetoric.” In Edward Schiappa , Landmark
Essays on Classical Greek Rhetoric, 157–168. (Reprinted from Hermes 109: 326–339,
1981.)
Lunsford, Andrea A. , and Ede, Lisa S. 1994. “On Distinctions between Classical and Modern
Rhetoric.” In Theresa Enos and Stuart C. Brown , Professing the New Rhetorics, 397–411.
Lyotard, Jean–François , and Thébaud, Jean–Loup . 1985. Just Gaming. Translated by W.
Godzich . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Marrou, Henri I. 1950 Histoire de L 'Education dans L ’Antiquité, 5th ed. Paris: Editions du
Seuil.
Marrou, Henri I. . 1982. A History of Education in Antiquity. Translated by G. Lamb . Madison,
Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. (Original translation published in 1956.)
Marsh, Charles. 2001. “Public Relations Ethics: Contrasting Models from the Rhetorics of
Plato, Aristotle, and Isocrates.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 16: 78–98.
Marsh, Charles. . 2003. “Antecedents of Two-Way Symmetry in Classical Greek Rhetoric:
The Rhetoric of Isocrates.” Public Relations Review 29: 351–367.
Marsh, Charles. . 2006. “Aristotelian Ethos and the New Orality: Implications for Media
Literacy and Media Ethics.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 21: 338–352.
Marsh, Charles. 2009. “Ethics in Public Relations.” In William F. Eadie , 21st Century
Communication, 715–773.
Marsh, Charles. . 2011. “Social Harmony Frameworks and Natural Selection: Darwin,
Kropotkin, and the Metatheory of Mutual Aid.” Paper presented to the International
Communication Association Annual Conference, Boston.
McBride, Genevieve. 1989. “Ethical Thought in Public Relations History: Seeking a Relevant
Perspective.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 4: 5–20.
McKie, David. 2001. “Updating Public Relations: ‘New Science,’ Research Paradigms, and
Uneven Developments.” In Robert L. Heath , Handbook of Public Relations, 75–91.
McKie, David , and Munshi, Debashish. 2007. Reconfiguring Public Relations: Ecology,
Equity, and Enterprise. New York: Routledge.
Mickey, Thomas J. 1997. “A Postmodern View of Public Relations: Sign and Reality.” Public
Mill, John Stuart. 1957. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc.
Miller, Thomas P. 1993. “Reinventing Rhetorical Traditions.” In Theresa Enos , Learning from
the Histories of Rhetoric, 26–41.
Milton, John. 1855. The Poetical Works of John Milton. Edited by Egerton Brydges . Boston:
Phillips, Sampson, and Company.
Milton, John. . 1962. Paradise Lost. Edited by M. Y. Hughes . Indianapolis, Ind.: Odyssey
Press.
Moffitt, Mary Anne. 2005. “Comments on Special Issue: Public Relations from the Margins.”
Journal of Public Relations Research 17: 3–4.
Molleda, Juan-Carlos , and Ferguson, Mary Ann . 2004. “Public Relations Roles in Brazil:
Hierarchy Eclipses Gender Differences.” Journal of Public Relations Research 16: 327–351
Morgan, Kathryn. 2004. “The Education of Athens: Politics and Rhetoric in Isocrates and
Plato.” In Takis Poulakos and David Depew , Isocrates and Civic Education, 125–154.
Moss, Danny , Vercic, Dejan , and Warnaby, Gary , eds. 2000. Perspectives on Public
Relations Research. London: Routledge.
Muir, James R. 2005. “Is Our History of Educational Philosophy Mostly Wrong? The Case of
Isocrates.” Theory and Research in Education 3: 165–195.
Murphy, Charles T. 1938. “Aristophanes and the Art of Rhetoric.” Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology 49 : 69–113.
Murphy, James J. , and Katula, Richard A. 1994. A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric,
2nd ed. Davis, Calif.: Hermagoras.
Norlin, George , ed. 1928, 1929. Isocrates. 3 vols. Translated by G. Norlin (vols. 1–2).
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
North, Helen. 1966. Sophrosyne: Self–knowledge and Self–restraint in Greek Literature.
Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Ober, Josiah. 2004. “I, Socrates … The Performative Audacity of Isocrates’ Anti-dosis.” In
Okay, Aydemir , and Okay, Alya. 2008. “The Place of Theory in Public Relations Practice.” In
Tricia L. Hansen–Horn and Bonita D. Neff , Public Relations: From Theory to Practice,
300–316.
Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London:
Routledge.
Pal, Mahuya , and Dutta, Mohan J. 2008. “Public Relations in a Global Context: The
Relevance of Critical Modernism as a Theoretical Lens.” Journal of Public Relations
Research 20, 159–179.
Pearson, Ron. 2009. “Perspectives on Public Relations History.” In Robert L. Heath ,
Elizabeth L. Toth , and Damion Waymer , Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public
Relations II, 92–109.
Perschbacher, Wesley J. 1990. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson Publishers.
Plato . 1914. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. Translated by H. N. Fowler .
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Plato . 1925. Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias. Translated by W.R.M. Lamb . Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Plato . 1999. The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington
Cairns . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Plowman, Kenneth D. , Briggs, William G. , and Huang, Yi–Hui. 2001. “Public Relations and
Conflict Resolution.” In Robert L. Heath , Handbook of Public Relations, 301–310.
Pojman, Louis P. , and Fieser, James. 2009. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Belmont,
Calif.: Wadsworth.
Porter, Lance. 2010. “Communicating for the Good of the State: A Post-Symmetrical Polemic
on Persuasion in Ethical Public Relations.” Public Relations Review 36: 127–133.
Poulakos, John. 1983. “Toward a Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric.” Philosophy and Rhetoric
16: 35–48.
Poulakos, John. . 2004. “Rhetoric and Civic Education: From the Sophists to Isocrates.” In
Poulakos, Takis. 1997. Speaking for the Polis: Isocrates’ Rhetorical Education. Columbia,
S.C.: University of South Carolina Press.
Poulakos, Takis. . 2001. “Isocrates’ Use of Doxa.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 34: 61–78.
Poulakos, Takis. . 2004. “Isocrates’ Civic Education and the Question of Doxa.” In Takis
Poulakos and David Depew , Isocrates and Civic Education, 44–65.
Poulakos, Takis , and Depew, David , eds. 2004. Isocrates and Civic Education. Austin,
Texas: University of Texas Press.
Pseudo-Plutarch . 1969. Plutarch's Moralia in Sixteen Volumes: Volume X. Translated by H.
N. Fowler . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Public Relations Society of America . 2000. “Member Code of Ethics 2000.” Available at
www.prsa.org. Access date: 23 November 2011 .
Quintilian . 1980. The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian. Translated by H. E. Butler . Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Rackham, H. , ed. 2003. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackham . Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Original translation published in 1926.)
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.
Rorty, Amélie O. , ed. 1996. Essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric. Berkeley, Calif.: University of
California Press.
Ross, W.D. 1962. Aristotle: A Complete Exposition of His Works and Thought. New York:
Meridian Books.
Rummel, Erika. 1994. “Isocrates' Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation.” In Edward
Schiappa , Landmark Essays on Classical Greek Rhetoric, 143–154. (Reprinted from
Classical Journal 75: 25–35, 1979.)
Russell-Loretz, Theresa. 2008. “Working the System: The Evolution of Feminist Perspectives
in Public Relations Scholarship.” In Tricia L. Hansen–Horn and Bonita D. Neff , Public
Relations: From Theory to Practice, 317–342.
Sallot, Lynne M. , Lyon, Lisa J. , Acosta–Alzuru, Carolina , and Jones, Karyn Ogata. 2008.
“From Aardvark to Zebra Redux: An Analysis of Theory Development in Public Relations
Academic Journals into the 21st Century.” In Tricia L. Hansen–Horn and Bonita D. Neff ,
Public Relations: From Theory to Practice, 343–387.
Sattler, William M. 1947. “Conceptions of Ethos in Ancient Rhetoric.” Speech Monographs 14
: 55–65.
Schiappa, Edward. 1990. “Did Plato Coin Rhetorike?” American Journal of Philology 111:
457–470.
Schiappa, Edward. . 1994a. “Sophistic Rhetoric: Oasis or Mirage?” in Edward Schiappa ,
Landmark Essays on Classical Greek Rhetoric, 67–80.
Schiappa, Edward. . ed. 1994b. Landmark Essays on Classical Greek Rhetoric. Davis, Calif.:
Hermagoras.
Schoenberger–Orgad, Michèle , and McKie, David. 2005. “Sustaining Edges: CSR,
Postmodern Play, and SMEs.” Public Relations Review 31: 578–583.
Seib, Philip M. , and Fitzpatrick, Kathy. 1995. Public Relations Ethics. New York: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers.
Shakespeare, William. 1969. The Complete Works. Edited by Alfred Harbage . New York:
The Viking Press.
Sidgwick, Henry. 1988. Outlines of the History of Ethics, 5th ed. Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett.
(Original fifth edition published in 1902.)
Simmons, Tracy Lee. 2002. Climbing Parnassus. Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books.
Simons, Herbert W. 1971. “Toward a New Rhetoric.” In Richard L. Johannesen ,
Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings, 50–62.
Sloane, Thomas O. , ed. 2001. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University
Press.
Smith, Nicholas D. 2001. “Some Thoughts about the Origins of ‘Greek Ethics.’” The Journal
of Ethics 5: 3–20.
Stacks, Don W. 2005. “Qualitative Research.” In Robert L. Heath , Encyclopedia of Public
Relations, 725–728.
Starck, Kenneth , and Kruckeberg, Dean. 2001. “Public Relations and Community: A
Reconstructed Theory Revisited.” In Robert L. Heath , Handbook of Public Relations, 51–60.
Ströh, Ursula. 2007. “An Alternative Postmodern Approach to Corporate Communication
Strategy.” In Elizabeth L. Toth , The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and
Communication Management, 199–220.
Stuart, Joseph T. 2008. “The Question of Human Progress in Britain after the Great War.”
British Scholar 1: 53–78.
Sutton, Jane. 1999. “Negation, Subjectivity, and the History of Rhetoric by Victor J. Vitanza.”
Philosophy and Rhetoric 32: 180–184.
Taylor, Maureen. 2010. “Public Relations in the Enactment of Civil Society.” In Robert L.
Heath , The Sage Handbook of Public Relations, 5–15.
Thomas, Rosalind. 1992. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Timmerman, David M. , and Schiappa, Edward. 2010. Classical Greek Rhetorical Theory and
the Disciplining of Discourse. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Too, Yun Lee. 1995. The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates: Text, Power, Pedagogy.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Too, Yun Lee. . 1996. “A New History of Classical Rhetoric by G. A. Kennedy.” Classical
Review 46: 60–61.
Too, Yun Lee. . 2008. A Commentary on Isocrates' Antidosis. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University
Press.
Toth, Elizabeth L. 1992. “The Case for Pluralistic Studies of Public Relations: Rhetorical,
Critical, and Systems Perspectives.” In Elizabeth L. Toth and Robert L. Heath , Rhetorical
and Critical Approaches to Public Relations, 3–15.
Toth, Elizabeth L. . 2000. “Public Relations and Rhetoric: History, Concepts and Future.” In
Danny Moss , Dejan Vercic , and Gary Warnaby , Perspectives on Public Relations
Research, 121–144.
Toth, Elizabeth L. . 2002. “Postmodernism for Modernist Public Relations: The Cash Value
and Application of Critical Research in Public Relations.” Public Relations Review 28:
243–250.
Toth, Elizabeth L. . ed. 2007. The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and
Communication Management: Challenges for the Next Generation. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Toth, Elizabeth L. , and Heath, Robert L. 1992. Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public
Relations. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Toth, Elizabeth L. , and Pavlik, John V. 2000. “Public Relations Values in the New
Millennium.” Journal of Public Relations Research 12: 1–2.
Toth, Elizabeth L. , Serini, Shirley A. , Wright, Donald K. , and Emig, Arthur G. 1998. “Trends
in Public Relations Roles: 1990–1995.” Public Relations Review 24: 145–163.
Tyler, Lisa. 2005. “Towards a Postmodern Understanding of Crisis Communication.” Public
Usener, Sylvia. 1994. Isokrates, Platon und Ihr Publikum: Hörer und Leser von Literature im
4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. ScriptOralia 63.
van Hook, La Rue. 1919. “Alcidamas versus Isocrates: The Spoken Word versus the Written
Word.” Classical Weekly 12 (12): 89–94.
van Hook, La Rue. , ed. 1986. Isocrates. 3 vols. Translated by L. van Hook (vol. 3).
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Original translation published in 1945.)
van Ruler, Betteke , and Vercic, Dejan. 2004a. “Overview of Public Relations and
Communication Management in Europe.” In Betteke van Ruler and Dejan Vercic , Public
Relations and Communication Management in Europe, 1–11.
van Ruler, Betteke , and Vercic, Dejan. , eds. 2004b. Public Relations and Communication
Management in Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
van Ruler, Betteke , and Vercic, Dejan. . 2005. “Reflective Communication Management,
Future Ways for Public Relations Research.” In Pamela J. Kalbfleisch , Communication
Yearbook 29: 238–273.
Vardeman–Winter, Jennifer , and Tindall, Natalie T.J. 2010. “Toward an Intersectionality
Theory of Public Relations.” In Robert L. Heath , The Sage Handbook of Public Relations,
223–235.
Vasquez, Gabriel M. 1996. “Public Relations as Negotiation: An Issue Development
Perspective.” Journal of Public Relations Research 8: 57–77.
Vitanza, Victor J. 1997. Negation, Subjectivity, and the History of Rhetoric. Albany, N.Y.:
State University of New York Press.
Vlastos, Gregory. 1991. Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press.
Wardy, Robert. 1996. “Mighty Is the Truth and It Shall Prevail?” In Amélie O. Rorty , Essays
on Aristotle's Rhetoric, 56–87.
Watson, J. S. , ed. 1970. On Oratory and Orators. Translated by J. S. Watson . Carbondale,
Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original translation published in 1878.)
Welch, Kathleen E. 1990. The Contemporary Reception of Classical Rhetoric: Appropriations
of Ancient Discourse. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Welch, Kathleen E. . 1996. “Isocrates.” In Theresa Enos , Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and
Composition, 358–363.
White, John. 2004. “Reply to James Muir.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 36: 455–458.
White, Jon , and Dozier, David M. 1992. “Public Relations and Management Decision
Making.” In J. E. Grunig , Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management,
91–108.
Wilcox, Dennis L. , and Cameron, Glen T. 2009. Public Relations: Strategies and Tactics, 9th
ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Wilcox, Stanley. 1943. “Criticisms of Isocrates and His Filosophia.” Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association 74: 113–133.
Yoos, George E. 1984. “Rational Appeal and the Ethics of Advocacy.” In Robert J. Connors ,
Lisa S. Ede , and Andrea A. Lunsford , Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse,
82–97.
Yunis, Harvey. 2003a. “Introduction: Why Written Texts?” In Harvey Yunis , Written Texts and
the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece, 1–14.
Yunis, Harvey. . 2003b. “Writing for Reading.” In Harvey Yunis , Written Texts and the Rise of
Literate Culture in Ancient Greece, 189–212.
Yunis, Harvey. . 2003c. Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROUTLEDGE RESEARCH IN PUBLIC RELATIONS

Classical Rhetoric and

1 Classical Rhetoric and Modern

NEW YORK LONDON

“Let critics of the classics produce any other civilisation so complete,

“Isocrates’ opinions on rhetoric underscored how citizens need to pre-

1 Isocrates and Modern Public Relations: An Overview 1

2 Sophrosyne and Dikaiosyne: Isocrates’ Concentric Ethics 18

3 Peitho: An Isocratean Model of Persuasion 36

4 Homonoia: Isocratean Rhetoric and Public

5 Koinos Bios: Isocratean Rhetoric and the Reﬂective Paradigm 70

6 Logos and Dunamis: Isocratean Rhetoric

7 Syggrammata: Isocratean Planning and New Media 101

8 Paideia: Isocrates’ Rhetorical Education 118

9 Antilogia: Speaking against Isocrates 141

10 Mimesis: Rediscovering Isocrates 151

For the ideas contained in this book, I am indebted to so many scholars

Material is reprinted by permission of the publishers and the Trustees of the

Portions of Chapter 1 of this book originally appeared in “Public Rela-

“Contemporary philosophy, especially with respect to the theory of

Aesthetics. Analysis. Apologia. Asymmetry. Autonomy. Axiology. Chaos.

In another direction is contingency theory, which posits a spectrum of

[C]ontingency theory offers a perspective to examine how one party

A further enrichment of the ontological debate involves the importa-

THE RHETORIC OF PLATO

THE RHETORIC OF ARISTOTLE

Aristotle (384–322 bce) remains the best-known of the classical Greek

Aristotle’s scientiﬁc focus on what will persuade, as opposed to what is in

THE RHETORIC OF ISOCRATES

“What raises Isocrates above the crowd of unscrupulous teachers of rheto-

• A school with, consequently, a reputation

Ample critical commentary supports Clark’s judgment. Freeman (1907)

Reputation among Classical Roman Rhetoricians

Inﬂuence on Subsequent Education

OUTLINE OF THIS BOOK

Seven of the nine following chapters relate particular aspects of Isocratean

Sophrosyne and Dikaiosyne: Isocrates’ Concentric Ethics

Peitho: An Isocratean Model of Persuasion

Homonoia: Isocratean Rhetoric and Public

Koinos Bios: Isocratean Rhetoric and the Reﬂective Paradigm

Logos and Dunamis: Isocratean Rhetoric and Postmodern Public Relations

Syggrammata: Isocratean Planning and New Media

Paideia: Isocrates’ Rhetorical Education

Antilogia: Speaking against Isocrates

Mimesis: Rediscovering Isocrates

THE RELEVANCE OF ISOCRATES

An unavoidable challenge to the merits of this book, a challenge of relevance,

You might also like