Against the Sophists

But the greatest proof of the difference between these two arts is that oratory is good only if it has the qualities of fitness for the occasion,[*](A fundamental requisite. See Isoc. 4.9; Isoc. 10.11.) propriety of style, and originality of treatment, while in the case of letters there is no such need whatsoever. So that those who make use of such analogies ought more justly to pay out than to accept fees, since they attempt to teach others when they are themselves in great need of instruction.

However, if it is my duty not only to rebuke others, but also to set forth my own views, I think all intelligent people will agree with me that while many of those who have pursued philosophy have remained in private life,[*](Isocrates himself.) others, on the other hand, who have never taken lessons from any one of the sophists have become able orators and statesmen. For ability, whether in speech or in any other activity, is found in those who are well endowed by nature and have been schooled by practical experience.[*](Isocrates insists that the requisites of a good orator are first natural ability, second practical experience, and third formal training. See Isoc. 15.186-188 and General Introd. p. xxvii, Vol. I., L.C.L.)