Abstract

This paper poses the question of the place of rhetoric as a discipline. It addresses the topical demand that nature, art, and exercise have to be combined by way of an analysis of Isocrates' Against the Sophists. Its thesis is that the call for a “combination” of art and nature solves the disciplinary problems of rhetoric, even though such a synthesis is in fact inconceivable. Rhetoric is not a science, and does not have access to a methodical correlation of rhetorical strategies and their effects upon the audience. Isocrates' criticism of those rhetoricians who assume that their art could be taught in much the same way as the art of writing is of paramount importance here. The case of Isocrates is instructive because it shows how rhetorical success depends on re‐designing the institutional structure of rhetoric and on the capacity to cope with its lack of methodical knowledge. As a result of its para‐scientific nature, rhetoric refers to various models and metaphors to present itself as a discipline. Of these the orator perfectus, the orator imperfectus, and the sophist model of the art of writing as criticized by Isocrates are discussed. This paper attempts a rhetorical reading of the discourse of rhetoric by exploring the implications of these metaphors. At the same time it argues for a history of science which does not shrink away from an analysis of such para‐sciences as rhetoric. It is precisely the lacking scientificity of rhetoric as a discipline which warrants increased attention from the point of view of the history of science.