Introduction ‘The classical period in rhetoric begins with the Sophistic Movement in Greece during the fifth century 8.c. and ends with Saint Augustine (d. 430 C-E.). Rhetoric ‘became a major cultural force in this period, its development closely tied to the de ‘velopment of new forms of government and social organization, ‘Around the tenth century 8.C.. in the mountainous country of Greece, the palace ‘centers of tribal groups were developing into small city-states. Each city-state was isolated from its neighbors and commanded just enough teritory to support a small ‘population at a barely comfortable level. Raids against neighboring city-states pro- ‘cured relatively lite in the way of spoils or territory, but even this was enough to raise the victors’ standard of living substantially. Hence military prowess was highly valued. A few families in each city-state were slightly more wel off than the rest by virtue of holding more land, and they could afford heavy weapons and the leisure to train in using them. These families occupied a powerful position in the city-state, and the ety-state king had to defer to them as counselors. Oligarchy thus ‘became the typical form of government in the early city-states. The city-states usually were notable to conquer or ally with one another. As the population gradually grew, then, they had to turn to the sea to look for room to ex and. City-states established colonies in Asia Minor to nd in southern Italy and Sicily to the west, and trade gradually increased. With trade, wealth began 0 grow, and the oligarchie form of government became unstable. On the one hand. as Some families became significantly more well off than the rest, it was now possible for one man to have enough wealth to buy support that would make him the sole ruler, of tyrant. On the other hand, the larger populations of prosperous, if not ‘wealthy, men in the cities sometimes took the politcal power that numbers gave them and ereated another new form of government, the democracy As these changes were occurring, it became increasingly difficult to rely for pub Tic order on 2 common understanding of “how things are done” and on the oli Barchs’ personal judgment to settle difficult disputes. Written law codes were ‘introduced, such as Solon's reforms in Athens ca. 593 B.C. At this time only a few People were literate. Literacy slowly increased during the sixth century B.c.E 920 however, and with it came written works such as the lytic poetry of Sappho and the philosophy of Pythagoras. ‘Classicist Eric Havelock has argued that the advent of alphabetic literacy in Greece was a crucial catalyst in the cultural changes occurring throughout the ps riod from the sixth to the fourth century v.C.e. He sees prelterate Greece immersed in what he calls a culture of “orality." According to Havelock, when speech is th sole medium of verbal communication, bath verbal style and thought processes are characterized by parataxis, the simple juxtaposition of ideas; by concrete im: that appeals to the senses and the emotions: by ritualized references to authority in the form of proverbs, epithets, incantations, and other formulas: and by an agonistic posture in disputation, But Havelock argues that alphabetic literacy wworke sive change: into an artefact [sie thereby separating thats, an objet availabe for inspec bt to produce “The alphabet converted the Greek spoken t itfrom the speaker and making it into a “language tion, reflection, analysis... I could be rearanged, reordered, and ret forms of statement and types of discourse not previously available be rmemorizabe.... The syntax of Gresk began to adapt to an inreasing opportunity offered to state proposition in place of deseribing evens dually took on the stylistic and Hence, according to Havelock, Greek culture cognitive characteristics of literacy, as opposed to oralty: hypotaxs, the subordina tion of one idea to another in logical hierarchies; generalizations that appeal to son and text-assisted memory for validation; a questioning relationship to authority and custom, encouraging the disinterested criticism of ideas; and, overall 2 ability to think abstractly Havelock has suggested that the spread of literacy inthe fifth century a.c.. led ence. Consideration of language as an eater to.2 more instrumental approach to all exp fact that could be examined and molded, he argues, brought about an upsurge in philosophical activity, that of the Pre-Socratics. Although scholars dispute the avm in Havelock’s argument, there is no doubt that the causal relationships changes he describes did occur, especially in Athens Athens was unusual among city-states in that when it conquered its m adopted them into the Athenian way of life rather than simply despoiling practice was made possible partly by the Athenians’ sophisticated understanding of the stabilizing power of checks and balances in statecraft. After $10 B.C, the gov cemment of Athens was a democracy in which members ofthe old oligarchie fami lies were encouraged to play leading roles asa check it noted that in Athenian democracy, politcal participation was restricted to free, born men. Women, slaves, and “metics” (foreigners) held lower status. zainst the rise of tyrants. Be In 478 Athens organized the Delian League of Greek city-states for pr from Persia. Athens controlled the milita and was by far its strongest member. In effect, the League became Athens’s smal Greek empire, and Athens grew rich. In 449 Pericles, the new leader of the demo- ry and financial resources of the League "Bade Havelock, The Literate Revolution in Greece and ts Cultural Consequences (Piceon Pincton University Pres, 198) PP 1-8cratic party in Athens, made peace with Persia, and there followed a great lowering of culture, represented by Gorgias, Socrates, and other philosophers, the sculptor Phidias, the poet Pindar, the playwrights Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes, the historians Herodotus and Thucydides, and the scientists Hippocrates and Democritus. Work on the Parthenon began in 447 B.C. ‘Athenian prosperity and expanding political hegemony aroused hostility among neighboring city-states, and the Peloponnesian War broke out among the Greeks in 431 BCE, continuing intermittently until 404. This war destroyed the Delian League and decimated Athens. The first half of the fourth century B.c.E. saw the city-states struggling among themselves, with none the clear victor. Athens man- aged to retain its democracy and its cultural leadership, however, and the period produced the philosophers Isocrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Greek unity was achieved by force when Philip Il, king of the Macedonians, defeated Athens and Thebes at CChaeronea in 338 and subjugated all of Greece. His son Alexander, who succeeded him in 336, continued his empire-bulding activities and began a massive political reorganization of the Mediterranean and Near East, which would ultimately provi the bass forthe power of Rome. art ofthe intellectual flowering of Greece from the sixth to be fourth century BE, was an interest inthe study of rhetoric. As classical rhetorical scholar Richard Leo Enos has shown, Greek culture was highly rhetorical even before this time Lengthy speeches figured largely inthe oral poetry of Homer and other thapsodes. Written texts by historians such as Herodotus attempted to sway readers toa partic ular viewpoint on history. But the fist study of how language achieves such rhetori- cal effects is often credited to the Pre-Socratic philosopher Empedocles (d. ca. 44 1G). He was interested in the power of language, and rhetoric in its ealiest mani festation might be understood to designate the self-conscious study of the power of language, a opposed tothe self-forgetful submission to its power induced by poetry mpedocles experimented with the ability of such study to appropriate poctic language—he wrote his philosophy in hexameters, for example. Also, tenets of Empedoctes’ philosophy became important for other early philosophers interested in rhetoric, specifically his view that human knowledge must come from sense percep: tion only, and is therefore necessarily imited and flawed, but is capable of being re fined toward probable trith through the exploration of opposing positions. ‘The first “rhetoricians” in the Greek tradition, however, were interested in using this kind of language study for practical ends. Several classical historical accounts name Corax and Tisias as the first practitioners of a schematized rhetoric. They Worked in the Greek colony of Syracuse in Sicily after 467 8.C., when Syracuse ‘overthrew its tyrant and became a democracy. One account suggests that Corax ex: celled as a deliberative speaker in the new democratic assemblies and taught his f low citizens, among them Tisias, the effective tripatte speech structure that he had evised. Another account identities Corax as an outstanding forensic orator and Tisias as a logographer—or writer of forensic speeches for litigants to deliver— who compiled Corax’s practices in handbook form. Such a handbook would be ‘eed because the Greek legal system had no professional lawyers. People brought ‘charges and defended themselves in person, and in a litigious society, people 21right easily become embroiled in lawsuits. Tisias may also ha q Empedocles, as was Gor 380 B.C..), Gorgias excelled in ceremonial oratory, as shown by his “Encomium of jelen” (ca. 415; p. 44). When he and Tisias were sent to Athe 27, the performances of Go The skilful use of lang rapidly changing, The spread of tance, and the upper classes eagerly sought politcal ca changes gave rise to a new middle elass whose money allowed them to climb sc as, the most famous of the Sicilian orators (ea. 480-ca, on an embassy in age became increasingly important in a society that was democracy gave oral deliberations a new impor 1. Moreaver, economic cially by purchasing linguistic and philosophical training for their children. Many istocrats bitterly prote elopments and maintained that leadership ‘qualities were conferred primarily by noble bith and that education should focus on athletic and military this cultural ferment sd such d ning, as it had traditionally done, Athens ‘THE SOPHIS' 1¢ MOVEMENT. ‘The Sophists were a diverse group of early philosophers who were interested in ex plocing all branches of knowledge. They wandered from city to city, expoundin, their views to those who could pay forthe privilege of lst ting their ideas to writing, These early literates fostered the spread of literacy and of standard written form, or grapholect, of the Greek language. Unfortunately, few of their texts have survived, in part because of the scorn heaped on their work by thos who came after, especially Plato, For many of these me nts. Classical scholarship has attempted to reconstruct their thinking from k thinkers who all we have are a few fragn the fragments and from what was Said about the Sophists by the Gr came after them and built on their work, often while denouncing th Following Empedocles, the Sophists believed that human know! eel sarily flawed, Certainty or absolute ued, but pr ined by pitting opposing positions against one another and examining the ar solely on sense perception and is therefore nec truth is not available to humans, the S be guments thus brought forward. A mod: trial system in th best revealed by the jury's rational judgment arguing opposing sides of the case. This view of knowledge was highly controversial in it hand, it appeared to destabilize traditional society by can know anything about the transcendent or even thatthe transcen e United States, which assumes that the truth of a doubtful matters the presentations of skilled speakers pwn day. On the one beings exists. In the absence of transcendent so of law, it was feared, civil order would disin ‘young people that they could imp ‘ot need to defer tothe wisdom of their elders or social betters —self-improvement ‘was open to anyone who could pay for it, and anyone, no matter what his or her nat- tural endowments, could make some progress under Sophistic teachit \raditional privileges ofthe aristocracy were undermined. 22s of values such as respect for justice and the rate. Moreover, the Sophists taught cave themselves via Sophistic teaching. They did Hence theAt the same time, the Sophistic view of knowledge was exciting precisely be- cause it celebrated human potential. If people ean achieve knowledge only by at- tempting to discriminate rationally among the flawed input of their senses, yet, even so, as demonstrated in the work of the Sophists and their followers, they can achieve more than earlier societies were able to produce, in the areas of science, medicine, and the arts, for example. Whatever area of knowledge the Sophiss explored, it was clear that language—in which Greek culture was deeply inter ested —was crucial to the exploration. Not all the Sophists were equally engaged ‘with rhetoric: judging by the surviving fragments, Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Antiphon, Critias, and Thrasymachas seem to have had the most t0 say about it Protagoras, the fist, most famous, and most influential of the Sophists, advise te great political orator Pericles. Mast scholars agree that Plato and Aristotle took Protagoras seriously a8 a philosopher and rhetorician, no matter how much they may have disagreed with him, Protagoras encouraged the study ofthe precise mean ing of words —a further instance of the objectification of language that comes with literacy, as Havelock explains. Protagoras also developed the technique of explor ing probable truth via opposing arguments, o “dissoi logoi.” The anonymous trea- tise Dissoi Logoi (ca. 400 8.c.e; p. 48) is very Protagoran in approach, Protagoras even went so far as to say that opposing arguers should strive to make the weaker ‘ease appear the stronger. But most classical scholars agree that this directive was not intended to pervert justice but rather to make sure that all possible avenues are explored, In the Sophists’ view, because the exploration of opposing views has to be con: duced through longuage, whichis aught with emotional and ultra Baga cairnever Be “Objective” in the modem sense. The Sophists sought to call attention to the function of language in inducing belief, rather than encouraging audiences to give themselves up uncritically to its power to move and persuade. Gorgias (ca. 480-380 v.cr.) is a primary exponent of this critical view of language. His ‘own elaborately musical prose at once incorporates the devices of the poets and points out how these devices can manipulate listeners (see his “Encomium of Helen,” p, 44). We can be said to be “deceived” when we are convinced of a prob- able truth by the power of crafted language. But there need be no moral turpitude in this deception, if probable knowledge, based in our deceptive, limited sensory or: anism, is all that humans can achieve anyway. Gorgias with his eloquence persuaded Athens to come to the aid of his home- town, Leontini in Sicily, against its aggressive neighbor Syracuse — precipitating the war that eventually debilitated Athens. Pethaps this linkage of Sophistic rhetoric With dangerous statecraft helped to discredit it inthe eyes of later thinkers such as Pato Isocrates, and Aristotle, who lived amid the social and politcal turmoil that followed Athens’s golden age, in which the Sophists had dominated. Plato encour- aged the view thatthe Sophists were concerned merely with the manipulative as- ects of how humans acquire knowledge—that is, with how people could be Persuaded that they had learned the truth, whether or not truth was in fact conveyed, Plato's condemnation of the Sophists became authoritative for centuries and24 contributed to the Joss of Sophistic texts and neglect of the remaining fragments The scholarly tradition depicts only Plato and Aristotle as concerned with truth meaning absolute truth that can be dem ino divinely instilled ideals. Moder re not disputed that the Sophists thought absolute know have preferred the Sophists’ views for that reason, as more congruent with modern ideas about knowledge. The Sophists, like many contemporary theorists, believe that only provisional or probable knowledge is available to human beings. Does the Sophist view of the function of language in persuasion actually destroy social order? Historian of rhetoric John Poulakos has argued that, as cosmc intellectuals, the Sophists were well equipped to launch criticism ofall things tradi tional. In so doing, they adapted the customary Athenian interest in public athletic ‘competitions and theatrical performances to their own public battles among i al competitions the idea that nstrated by empirical evidence or insight abilitative readings of the Sophists have ledge impossible to attain but ‘couched in technically dazzling language. In their vet the stronger and better would prevail—a main tenet of traditional competition— was undermined by the playfulness of theit & 2s. Similarly, they overthrow the idea that philosophical discussion should aim to measure the actual by the ideal they preferred (0 suggest possibilities —simply simi ‘hat has always been so does not necessarily have to of action to pursue, then, the Sophists suggested that, rather than agonizing over ‘hat is proper or improper according to unchanging social rules, people should con: sider their immediate circumstances and what would be expedient at the moment. This isthe Sophistic doctrine of kairos, that is, the idea thatthe elements of a situs tion, its cultural and politcal contexts, rather than will produce both the best solutions to problems and the be senting them persuasively But as French classicst Jacqueline de Romilly has pointed out, the Sophists by no means advoc: ‘mans, or even that it does not exist. Prodicus, for example, sound) ‘em anthropologist, suggests in one fragment that people denominated as natural forces that were beneficial to them, and “persons who first invented shelters found new means of obtaining Food or hit upon use were called names Dionysus, and the like."* If society's laws for human behavior do not sume ther to be id to make people see that ntinue, As for What course ident unchanging laws, t verbal means of pre snarchy. They did say thatthe transcendent is inaccessible to hu- rch like like Demete ‘come from some godly source, then one cannot p lly designed to suit human nature. Antiphon pointed out that human laws and natural laws are often antithetical, in that human law m that go against their natural appetites. Nevertheless, it is often to people's advantag Jaw, even if doin some natural instincts. Protagors, for in stance, advocated the vol mate self-interest —an early require people to do t so requires suppressn ary commitment to obey human laws in one's own ult sion of what later political theorists would term the “social contract.” Pow that induces people to take on this commitment, then, is actually an instrument for social stability Rossmood Kent ees, 1972) 9-83 36, The Older Sopits (Columbia, SC: Univesity of Sout Carolina‘Moreover, the Sophists’ ability to sce many sides ofan issue encouraged cultural tolerance, which would be a stabilizing factor in a diverse society, as Athe creasingly was because of the influx of foreigners seeking to enjoy Athenian cul tural and political advantages or to avoid the ravages of war elsewhere. The Sophists traveled widely and thus eame to know that customs varied greatly from place to place, This cross-cultural perspective is reflected in the Dissoi Logoi, for example, when the author observes that Spartan women have more freedom to en- gage in athletic exercises than Tonian women do. These insights, derived from ‘2 comparison of customs and politcal goals, may have contributed to the pan Hellenism frequently advocated by Sophists. They saw the possibility of communi ties uniting, not on grounds of a common (Greek) culture, but on grounds of a com mon recognition that humanity could express itself in many ways and was not subject to an absolute standard that could mark some ways for annihilation. ISOCRATES AND EDUCATION IN RHETORIC Tsocrates and Plato, who were close in age, reacted in two ways to the earlier Sophists. Both attempted to distinguish themselves from these men who had been their teachers, Plato was concerned with what human beings can know, but he wanted to find pathways to absolute truth, He rejected the Sophists’ view that hu- ‘mans are not capable of achieving this truth, Isoerates, on the other hand, empha- sized the active rather than the contemplative side of Sophism. He studied with Tisias, Prodicus, Socrates, and Gorgias, and eventually saw himself primarily as an educator. In his school, the frst ofits kind, his main purpose was to train talented men to become ethical and effective politcal leaders. Isoerates, to0, wanted to claim that he taught philosophy, but for him the word meant a sort of applied intet- lectualism, something like modern political science, as he explains in his “Against the Sophist” (ca. 390 w.C.;p. 72) and Antidosis (353 8.8. p. 75). By becoming a professional educator, Isocrates aligned himself firmly with the Sophistc idea that education could improve the natural talents of all comers—and that it should useful tothe state. He also placed himself in direct competition with Plato when t latter opened his Academy a few years after Isocrates opened his school Until recently, ocrates (436-338 8...) has been known to modern scholars mainly as one of the Ten Attic Orators. The Ten comprised a canon of the best ora tors ofthe lively era 450-350 &.C£., a canon well established by the time of Quin- ‘lian, a rhetorician in Imperial Rome (discussed below). Some, such as Demosthenes, were noted for their brilliant and effective politcal oratory, and some, such as Lysias, for their limpid prose style. The speech by Demosthenes in {efense of his political career, “On The Crown,” i still widely regarded as the most Impressive speech of the clasical era, Isocrates was also noted for his prose style, best exemplified in speeches composed to be read rather than heard, and for his Vi ‘ous advocacy of pan-Hellenism during the confusion that followed the Pelopon. Aesian War. After a brief period as a logographer, however, Isocrates built his career around his role as an educator in Athens. As Plato emphasizes in his dialogues attacking them, many Sophists charged26 fees for teaching thetoric as they moved from tawn fo town. Isocrates also charged for his instruction, but he was the firs 1o setle in his own school, whieh was orga nized for advanced pupils and had entrance requirements and a course of study last. adors. Isocrates ing several years, His aim, as noted above, was to prepare civic never claimed to impart wisdom in his school, thereby distinguishing himself not ‘only from Sophists as characterized in Plato’s attacks but also perhaps from Pla himself with his quest for absolute knowledge. Isocrates argues that public busines won't wait while the philosopher pursues abstruse studies. Truth is not ailable finite humans in any transcendent, absolute form, Thus its the philosopher's higher duty t0 6 sions in the face of limited knowledge, and to use chetoric to unify people in support of these decisions. By all accounts Isocrates was tremendously successful at per forming this duty of the philosopher. Not only did he educate many famous Greek orators and politcal leaders, but his school became the model for the Roman world and ultimately for Christendom. His influence is still visible in modern conceptions of liberal education. Isocrates saw natural talent, practice in varied sitwations, and instruction ing ucate men for their current affairs, to help them learn to make wise deci eral principles as the three elements of rhetorical and philosophical success — that is, asthe three elements requisite to becoming a valuable citizen, He ranked their {importance in the order listed, weighing the student's contribution much more heav ily dhan the teacher's. Nevertheless, talent could be developed by skilled instruction. If this included moral instruction, rhetoric could be rescued from Platonic charges that it was merely manipulative. Isocrates never claimed that a virtuous teacher could impart his virtue directly to his students. But such a teacher could influ them by being a virtuous audience for their rhetorical efforts. Even if the student is ‘motivated at first only by the desire for personal triumph, if he seeks to move a vir al that will appe tuous audience he must choose mat. is, he must concem himself with the noble. Isocrates hoped that prolong with the noble would inspire the pupil. Such an educationa emulation Isocrates was not the only thinker to link education with philosophy and rhetoric Almost any man practicing philosophy cational setting; if he was not the head of a school, his social circle likely included the sons of friends given over t grounded the personal element in knowing and persuading, Intense homoerotic rela Uonships often developed between mentor and pupil, which apparently were ounded on 1d rhetoric in this petiod did so in an edu n for informal instruction. This context fore considered appropriate aids to emulation. Homosexuality was an accepted form of sexual expression in ancient Greece and usually to tween a mature man and a young boy or adolescent. In the most socially approved version of such a relationship, the younger partuer accepted a passive sexual role cout of gratitude for the older part tellectual, artistic, or atl imiration for his accomplish ‘ments in these areas, Such relationships were encouraged by the fact that like the rest of ancient Greek society, was usually strictly segregated by he Form of an attachment be rs kindnesses to him, which often included in ie instruction, and out of x. Al:though Plato did admit some women to his Academy, the school of Isocrates, like most others, was for men only ASPASIA AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOME? Did women receive higher education elsewhere than in the schools dominated by men? There is much scholarly debate on the position of women in classical Grecee. ‘Women were supposed to remain sequestered within the home and to be concerned solely with domestic matters, Greek literature contains many contemptuous refer ences fo women and often praises homosexual relationships as a far beter source of ‘emotional sustenance than marriage. Women generally received less education than men, had far fewer legal rights, and were greatly restricted in their public roles. All this suggests that women would have been unable to contribute much to the devel ‘opment of classical philosophy or rhetoric, and indeed, no theoretical texts on these subjects by Greek (or Roman) women have survived. (On the other hand, women did not appear to be totally oppressed. Even a woman ‘who did nothing but tend her home might have considerable responsibilities, for she right be in charge of numerous servants and slaves engaged in domestic and handi craft activities. Also, women participated in some public religious ceremonies. By the second and first centuries 1.c-x., women with great advantages of wealth or birth might even hold public office, as surviving inscriptions indicate. Henri-Irénée Mar: rou, @ historian of classical education, says that a few schools existed for upper class Greek girls that were very similar to the schools for their brothers.» Sappho, ‘one of the first Greek lyric poets, headed such a school. Gils attended in their teenage years, before marriage, and studied poetry, music, dance, and athletics. Ad vanced students studied rhetoric, philosophy, and political theory. Accordi Marrou, by the second and first centuries i... it was not unusual for girls of the upper classes to attend such schools, Cities sponsored competitions for them in recitation, music, and athletics. A few leamed women appear in classical history such as Diotima, whom Plato depicts in the Symposium a8 teaching philosophy (0 Socrates (although she may be a fictional character), Aspasia, mistress of Pericles (p. 6), is mentioned in Plato's “Menexenus” and other classical sources as being a much-sought-after teacher of rhetoric and political theory. The persistent tradition concerning Aspasia’s rhetorical skills suggests that here was one woman, atleast, who had an impact on the public thetoric of her day Some sources suggest that she taught the so-called Socratic method to Socrates. If some women were receiving advanced education and producing work in phi- losophy and shetorie themselves, then it becomes moze difficult ro explain the ab. sence of any surviving texts by them. No doubt in classical times the occasions for a woman to use chetoric in public were very few —perhaps only on family ceremo- nial occasions, if there were no male relative to deliver a eulogy, for example. Yet Hear née Marra, A History of Eduction in Antguty, tans. Ge snd Wad, 1956, 983). pp. 33-38 ye Lamb (New York: Sheed 2728 many examples suggest that some women at Ieast knew about shetoric, even if they didn't usually practice it, These include the examples mentioned above, as well as the playwright Aristophanes" creation in Eeclesiazusae (ca. 302 w.c.) of a female character who delivers a speech of over a hundred lines ina political assembly, be fore men, Classicist G. B. Kerferd has suggested that, although women certainly ‘were oppressed in classical Greece, one important strand of Sophistic social tho argued for greater equality for them. This strand influenced even that enemy of Sophism, Plato, as seen by the equality between the sexes that he recommended for the oligarchy of his ideal state (in Republic). The position of women became atopic for debate, with the literature reflecting extreme views both for and against. Con: flicting evide 31 record thus reflects the social ferment of the times. But, Kerferd speculates, because change stopped far short of a modem feminist po- sition, works of the losing party of women were neglected and lost just as the works of the male Sophists were + ein the histories PLATO: TRUE AND FALSE RHETORIC Plato (ca. 428-347 .C.., p. 8o) is not usually characterized as an edueator a is his rival Isocrates, but rather as a philosopher in the modem sense of the word, even though he wrote all of his important works while head of his Academy. At the end of Plato's Phaedrus his own teacher Socrates says that he wishes to plant seeds of knowledge in well-disposed young minds and perpetuate himself inthis way rather than through biological reproduction, If Plato held such seminal aspirations for his ‘own work, they have certainly been richly fulilled by his eminent position in the history of Western thou Rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke has suggested that Socrates’ homosexuality, as described by Plato, may be taken as a symbol of Socrates’ —and by extension Plato’s— philosophical projet. Refusal to reproduce the tribe biologically symbol izes refusal to reproduce tribal wisdom culturally. Rather, for Plato, education must be based in a relationship between essentially distinct individuals —not two who cleave together as one flesh—who come together with the aim of transcending his- tory, not leaving offspring to cary it on. In this relationship, discourse should be used as a means to uncover absolute truth, not merely to induce belief in probable truth or received wisdom.> Rhetoric thus becomes a key subject for Plato, for true and false rh be distinguished. His two most important works on rhetoric attack the Gorgias (ca. 386 v.c.k.; p. §7)—and define the true—the Phaedrus (ca. 370 8. . 138). For Plato, false rhetoric is precisely that of the Sophists,rnetoric that relies ‘on Kairos othe situation in order to determine provisional truth or probable knowl edge. Plato faults the Sophists for not using rhetoric to try to discover absolute truth He ignores the fact that they do not do so because they do not believe that absolute ‘ruth is accessible to humans and suggests that the Sophists 1B. Keser, The Sophie ‘Keath Bake, A Grammar offrom a frivolous, or worse, malicious intent simply to entertain and manipulate their audiences. In the Gorgias, Plato shows the severe political consequences of Soph tic rhetoric as he depicts it in the brutality of Callicles. Perhaps this example lends some support to the idea that Plato condemns Sophistic hetoric at least in part be- cause he blames it for the politieal chaos in Athens. John Poulakos points out, at ‘any rate, that Plato seems to need this version of Sophistc rhetoric in order to define his own philosophical positions against it. Without Sophism, says Poulakos, Plato's rhetoric would have been very different. “True thetoric, as displayed in the Phaedrus, becomes the method whereby the philosopher and his pupil free themselves from conventional beliefs and all worldly encumbrances in the pursuit and eventual attainment of transcendent absolute truth Pilato sanctions two uses of rhetoric to reach truth. One use is to convey truth that is already in the thetor's possession to an ignorant audience—by any effective means, so long as the virtuous thetor keeps the audience's best interests at heart. An ex: ample of this use of rhetoric in the Phaedrus might be Socrates’ speech on the soul 1 a charioteer with two batting horses, a speech that aims to manipulate Phaedrus with spicitually uplifting ethical and pathetical appeals ‘The second use of rhetoric is more methodological. This use is illustrated in the Phaedrus by the lengthy passages of give-and-take between the older and younger man. Here Socrates does not simply seek to convey a preconceived truth t Phaedus, but he actually works out the tuth in his own mind by talking to Phacdrus about it and correcting the less experienced thinker's misconceptions. This process right be likened to clearing away the conventional underbrush so thatthe truth ean be seen. Whereas Plato's fist use of rhetoric might be regarded as manipulative, even if in a good cause, the second is more truly collaborative, requiring the in: formed participation of all partis. This is the highest form of rhetoric, in Plato’s ‘The way Plato practices philosophy is rhetorical in the sense that he frames his treatises as conversations among a few interlocutors. This format allows him to model the face-to-face questioning that seeks truth, while atthe same time using @ full range of dramatic and literary devices to persuade his readers to accept his own View of the truth. (Richard Leo Enos points out, for example, that in the Gorgias Plato stacks the deck rhetorically by compelling Gorgias to assent to a discussion of abstract terms that Gorgias would never have tied to define out of context, and to limit himself to short replies instead of the extended speeches at which he ex- celled.” With its deft characterizations, this format also allows Plato to imply that the absolute truth he secks is not to be uncovered by people's rational abilities, or logos, alone; ethical and pathetical elements necessarily aceompany conversations ‘among teal people. Indeed, by using Socrates a literary persona through which to express his own philosophical views (whether or not these views were learned from Socrates) Pato supplements the logical appeal of his argumen with the ethical 1 isha Polaks, Sophia! Rhetoric in Clasical Greece (Columbia, SC: Univesiy of Soeth (Carina ree, 1995) 9 "Ricard Leo ao meor99 Greek Rhetoric before Aristo CProspest Heights I: Waveland Pest, 1998 29and reputed wisdom and the pathetical appeal of appeal of Socrates" advanced ag atthe same time that Plato stresses the importanc his well-known martyrdom. ¥ of oral questioning, he frames his philosophy in written form, whieh, as he point out in the Phaedrus, is distinguished precisely by is unresponsiveness to question in speech, for a nuance can always be ques ing. Irony eannot operate undetected tioned; but what isto prevent the writen text from deceivin ARISTOTLE: SYSTEMATIC RHETORIC Plato's school for Hic, He Aristotle (384-322 B.C), originally Plato's pupil, taught ‘many years and conducted his own Peripatetic School in Athens, 334-3 apparently began working on his Rhetoric (p. 179) while serving as tutor to the young Alexander the Great, and stopped working on it around 330. Scholars dis: agree about whether the text should be regarded as completed) Aristotle was its chief author; The existing text may be no mo compiled by students in Aristotle's classes on rh Aristotle was perhaps a more “academic” thinker on ecessors. He had no public role as a thetorician; no specches written by him are extant. He appears to have been totally absorbed by his activit scholar. He founded what came to be known as the Peripatetic Seh tempted to place all branches of human knowledge in systematic onder. He wrote ancient world, inch or even whether ic than any of his pr extensively in almost every area of knowledge known to th ing thetoric. Aristotle did not appear to agonize over the rhetoric, as his predecessors had done, especially Isocrates and Plato. He seemingly did not feel particularly hostile to the Sophists or need to devote much time to rut ing their ideas. John Poulakos suggests that he evaluated them simply on the basi of their contributions to Hellenic thought: important, but now outmoded.® What i Aristotle was how to sort through what was known about rhetoric in his ‘own day and to put what was useful in usable order. Aristode defines rhetoric asthe art of discovering the means of persuasion avail able for any occasion. This art of discovery requires that the rhetor investigate systematically both the situation with which he (almost always he) is presented and his own inner resources for handling it. Aristotle classifies speech into three cate ‘gories, determined by the situation in which each would be used: deliberative or po- litical oratory, intended to recommend a future course of action; epideictic or ‘ceremonial oratory, intended to praise or blame a curent state of affairs; and 1 oratory, intended to provoke judgment conceming a past action. These the three main types used in Greek life, and after Aristotle the three dominant study Is with the process of spe categories forall oratric Aristotle's Rhetoric d books focus on the rhetor's attempts to organize what be know: arguments. This invention process can be guided by formal procedures called heuristics, such as the “common topies" of topo. Aristotle conceptualized these as and to structure his ‘Poulos p52“places to ook” for arguments; we would think of them more as structural devices. For example, atopic might be comparison (“Here is how A is like B or unlike B”) or ‘greater and lesser” (“Here is how A is greater than B or less than B"). The thetor should also consider his audience, in terms of both their particular cultural predilec: tions and their individual emotions, which are conditioned by age and social class “To this end, Aristotle pioneered the study of what we would call psychology, of individual and of the group. Book Ill of the Rhetoric considers how to place the content of the speech in effective order—which argument to make first, and 50 on. ‘Then the rhetor polishes his style and prepares to deliver the speech, planning his gestures, dress, and other nonverbal means of enhancing his message. Although ‘Aristotle does not mention the need to commit the speech to memory, classical rhetoric was replete with memorizing techniques, often involving spatial metaphors, ‘The composing process that Aristotle teats in his Rhetoric, plus attention to mem. ‘ry, would become formalized into five “canons” or stages by the time of Cicero (Gee below). ‘The arguments that one discovers or “invents” should appeal to reason (logos) emotion about the subject under discussion (pathos), and trust in the speaker's char acter (ethos). For Aristotle, the appeal to reason was by far the most important. In emphasizing it, he dtferentiated himself from earlier rhetoricians, sometimes even ‘conveying the idea that he would prefer to conduct persuasion by reason alone. His treatment of pathos and ethos, however, shows that he realized that these more ‘emotional elements were also usually necessary for persuasion. The pathetic appeal seeks 10 align the audience's emotions with the speaker's position (for example, arousing the audience's anger against an enemy nation one wishes to attack). The ‘ethical appeal evokes the speaker's moral authority ("I am old and wise and of a noble family”) or the shared concerns of speaker and audience, Even rational ap. peals are not devoid of ethical and pathetic elements, for they rely upon either the centhymeme, 2 syllogism that takes its major premise from received wisdom, which the audience has been conditioned to respect, or the example, an illustration that ‘must be recognizable and meaningful to audience members as a part of their own cultural history. Thus assent is gained to truths that must be only provisional or probable, not certain, such truths being the usual domain of rhetoric. Aristotle differentiates among kinds of knowledge more rigidly than any of his predecessors. For him, absolute truth is available only through scientific demonstra- tion. It is thus more materialist or scientific than the idealist or transcendent ab Solute truth sought by Plato. Dialectic, a rigorous form of argumentative dialogue between experts, can test whether absolute truth has been achieved; dialectic does not, however, play any role in the discovery of absolute truth. Neither does thetori in Aristote’s scheme, but that does not mean that rhetoric is useless to Aistole far from it It may be used to convey absolute truth tothe ignorant. It may also be Used to amive at probable truth in situations where demonstration is not possible. Like Isocrates, Aristotle values rhetoric as an aid to reaching agreement on ques- tions of value or preference that demand immediate action in everyday life. If for Tsocrates this study has a political bent, and a philosophical angle for Plato, for Avistotle the interest seems to be psychological 3H32 The manuscript of Aristotle's treatise on rhetoric was lost after the desth of ‘Theophrastus, who took over his school, and it was not recopied and circulated until Cicero's day (see below). Perhaps for this reason, Aristotle was less influential on the Romans than were Plato or Isocrates. Several classificatory schemes derived from Aristole’s work, such as the three kinds of speech and the five canons of com posing, were widely used, but otherwise his rhetorical theory was less influential than tha of either of his eminent predecessors until the twentieth century ‘THE RISE OF ROME AND THE RHETORIC OF CICERO pupil Alexander conquered an enormous territory. By the time he died i Aristo 323 RCE, Alexander the Great's domain stretched from the eastern Mediterranean including Greece and Egypt, o the Indus River valley in Pakistan. No one could hold this empire together. Alexander's generals divided it up, eventually establish ing three dynasties: the Antigonids in Greece; the Ptolemies in Egypt and Palestine and the Seleacids in Turkey and in the territories further east. These imperial states shared a Hellenistic culture, with Greek as the common tongue and Greek customs matter what one's of prevailing among the aristocratic and educated classes. N gins, one could be accepted as “Greck” by adopting Hellenistic culture The Hellenistic world was dominated by great cities, much larger and more s cially complex than the old Greek city-states, Th cities grew up around the cen: ters of imperial government and were cosmopolitan on a scale never seen before, as trade mingled the various Hellenized peoples. Greck-influenced art and learning flourished throughout the area Alexander had conguered, and learned professions Ck, the city of such as medicine and engineering developed. By the third century Alexandria atthe mouth of the Nile had become the center of Hellenistic scholar ship, with a huge library under royal patrons Rhetoric continued to flourish in the two hundred years followis Aristotle. Although despotic governments did not always allow the fr deliberative thetoric, forensic and epideicticshetorie were always required. Even deliberative rhetoric found a place in the diplomatic and trade negotiations that linked the Hellenistic Mediterranean, Aristotle's heir Theophrastus wrote many treatises on rhetoric (all now lost) and thus ensured the tra etic view of rhetoric. Another strand was added with the found philosophy by Zeno at Athens around 300 p.c.e, The Stoics valued simplicity brevity, and correctness in discourse. They also greatly extended and ramified the classification of tropes and figures. ‘The most significant development in rhetoric in this period sis” of the Greek thetorician Hermagoras in the second century 8.c.£. None of his writings survive, but modern scholars have reconstructed his ideas, relying in part ‘on their extensive treatment in the work of Cicero, Quintin, and other later writ ers. Stasis theory guides forensic orators in defining estions in any case Aristotle had suggested in the Rhetoric (Book Ill) that there are four key questions: Did something happen? If so, was harm done? If so, was it great harm? If s the great harm justified? Hermagoras built upon th. the death of exercise of he keyfour questions. First, conjecture: What are the signs that X committed an act? This derives from Aristotle's first question. Second, definition: IF X committed an act, «was it eriminal? This combines Aristotle's second and third questions, on the nature of the harm done. Third, quality: If X committed a crime, were there extenuating circumstances? This derives from Aristotle's fourth question. Finally, objection: If X does deserve to be tried for committing this act, is the tial being conducted prop- erly? In modifying Aristotle's questions, Hermagoras gives them a more legalistic focus, pechaps appropriate to the more complex social order of his day. By the first century 2.c.e, instruction in rhetoric had become a regular feature of the education of upper-class young men, whether in schools or with tutor, through ‘atthe territory Alexander had conquered, Instruction in precepts was accompanied by composition of the progymnasmata, writing exercises in various modes, such as the fable, and by dectamation of practice speeches, often in response to imaginary legal or political situations. These exercises were valued for their practicality, as they prepared for the kinds of rhetoric used in adult life, and atthe same time for their ability to inculcate social values. The Greek language was often the medium of this training, because the best teachers of rhetoric continued to be Greek and be cause the language was deemed to have a beautifying influence on young people's use oftheir native tongues. Meanwhile, a new power was emerging in Rome, on the western hinterlands of the Hellenistic world. Originally an oligarchic city-state but enjoying more fertile and open terrain than its Greek counterparts, Rome was able to ally with the sur rounding settlements it conquered, offering the freemen Roman citizenship and in- termarrying with local oligarchies. Greek ideas about rhetoric entered Roman culture via the Greek colonies in southern Italy that Rome absorbed, as Richard Enos his shown (in Roman Rhetoric) By the middle of the thd century 8.c.e., the Roman alliance controlled the entire Italian peninsula, and by the begint second century BCE., having beaten Carthage and the Antigonid and Sel rulers, Rome became the dominant political force in the old Hellenistic empire Rome had been governed by a system that supposedly balanced democrac oligarchy. Democratic assemblies voted on laws and holders of civie offices. But ‘most of the officeholders were from the aristocratic or “patrician” class, and the final legislative authority rested with a senate composed of former officeholders. Economic changes resulting from Rome's military success unbalanced this system. During the second century #.c.e., Roman conquests all around the Mediterranean basin brought great wealth through the new provinces" tax payments to the Roman generals and senators. Gradually the democratic assemblies’ power diminished to mere formalities, and the senate controlled the empire, Displaced farmers and land less soldiers became an impoverished, disenfranchised mob in Rome, Rome's growing middle class, called the “equestrian” class, was made up of families who had achieved wealth through managing military supply contracts and ‘ax-collecting enterprises. They competed with the patricians for a share of the loot from the provinces but were usually unable to break into the patrician-controlled Senate. This bourgeoisie began to vie with the aristocrats for influence over the dan {Serously large mob. The patricians offered the poor siate-supported of the cid and fare, free InTRopucTIONood, and brutal entertainment. The equestrians offered them positions as soldiers to ht, aot for Rome, but for a general who would ensure that shares ofthe spoils. The first century Re, the time of Cicere general after another added to Rome's conquests and then attempted to set himself essful of these was saw Rome wracked by conflict as one up as a tyrant and destroy the senate’s power. The most suc Julius Caesar. By 50 2.C., he had conquered much of northern Europ attacked those in Rome opposed to his taking complete power. He rmy and his principal military opposition, General Pompey. But in 44 #.C.P nd he then at torial he was assassinated. A struggle for power ensued, involving, among others, Cees (Octavius. Cicero died in a last-ditch effort to prevent Mark Antony from becoming tyrant. But the eventual victor was Octavius, or Caesar Octavian, who defeated Antony and his new wife, the Egyptian queen Cleopatra in 31 B.c:F. Octavian con: solidated is power by reducing the senate to a powerle ing from it the ttle of Augustus, which made him officially a den Imperial Rome—Rome governed by a tyrant or, more politely, an emper from this time. Cicero (106-43 8.€.£. p. 283) was born well before these dramatic chang: "s subordinate officer, Mark Antony, and Caesar's nephew and chosen heir ss advisory body and accept The reign of be said to begi took generally regarded place, and he spent the last years of his life resisting them, He i asthe next great hetorician in the lassical tradition after Aristotle, The anonymous Rhetorica ad Herennivun (p. 243) was thought to be his work until the Renaissance Its the oldest surviving Cicero's youthful work, De Inventione (ca, 86 n.c.e.). Nume tween the two works suggest the standardization of education in Ro century 8.C.E.—that is, education in rhetoric following Greek mod works were by far the most widely read classical rhetories until the Renaissance In De nventione Cicero summarizes the categories for shnetorical study that were Hhetoric manual in Latin, roughly contemporary with ous similarities be e by the frst Js. These two apparently commonplace at the time of his schooling. One set of eat Aristotle's kinds of discourse, with which rhetoric is properly concerned: deliber tive, forensie, and from Aristotle for composing a speech: Step one is invention, when heuristics ar used to generate arguments; step two is arrangement, when the best a selected and plac words are used to convey the arguments; step four is memory, that is, the use of remonial. Another set delineates the five-part process derived J in effective order; step three is style, ensuring that the best ‘mnemonic devices to earn a written speech by hear; and step five is delivery of the speech, attending to effective use of th bal aids to persuasion. These five canons of rhetorie—invention, arrangemeat, voice, gesture, costume, and other nonver- style, memory, and delivery —became standard from classical times forward, even influencing modem studies of composition, De Inven tion only on invention (evidently the complete text has not survived, or else it never was completed); consequently, durin mented with the Rheroriea ad Herennium, which t ‘The upper-class men who received the training reflected in these handbooks Would use it to argue legal its long reading history it was usualy supple 8, to participate in politcal life, and to perform aprivate entertainments and family occasions such as funerals. Cicero used his train ing in all these ways, beginning his career as a lawyer. His family, though wealthy, was equestrian, not patrician, and so could not launeh him into polities from the first. But Cicero always aspired to public service. He achieved a series of political offices, culminating in the very high rank of consul, before being assassinated by Mark Antony's agents in 43 8.C-. Cicero is pethaps the most variously accomplished of all the classical rhetori cians. He was the most brilliant lawyer in Rome, and many of his forensic speeches, such as the “Pro Milone,” are still regarded as exemplary oratory. Moreover, he was potent political fore, defending Roman law from the threats of both popular dema- ‘goguery and tyranny, asin his series of speeches attacking Antony, known as the Phillipics. His prose style atracted admiration from his own tothe present ay. Itis a style characterized by amplification and heightened emotion. Yet he deplored the ex cessive ornamentation of the Asianists, whose style had developed in the Greek colonies from the earlier Sophistic Movement. At the same time, he defended Latin against the purism of the Neo-Attcists, who wished to regularize the language in ight of ancient models. Cicero argued thatthe usage of the well-educated men and ‘women of any era should set the era’s linguistic standards, even if this meant thatthe language would change over time. Cicero also argued that the skilful rhetorician should vary hs style depending on the effect he wants to produce: plain for exposi tioa, middle for engaging atention, and high or grand for arousing noble emotion Th addition to leading a varied and demanding public life, Cicero was a prolific writer, producing seven main treatises on thetoric, among other works. The most important of these for its theory is his dialogue De Oratore (Of Oratory; $5 B.C: p. 289), in which the character Crassus is generally believed to express Cicero's views while the opposition of Antonius helps to draw them out, Although Cicero never conducted a school or taught formally, his treatises suggest that he was a ‘mentor to younger public servants. His works circulated privately among his friends and became tremendously influential in Western culture through late classical, me- dieval, and Renaissance times up to the present. Cicero's style in Latin has come to be regarded as a model of excellence. Moreover, his rhetorical treatises arc valued not only for the knowledge they convey about earlier rhetoricians but also for the ay they fuse the earlier tradition into a new vision of rhetoric for public service In composing De Oratore, Cicero had the benefit of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, newly aarived in Rome. While showing Aristotle's influence, the treatise also combines the views of Isoerates and Plato. Like Isacrates, Crassus argues that natural abil is by far the most important requisite for success in public speaking, and that rules of thumb are of limited assistance. Frequent practice, particularly in real-life situa tions, can go far toward developing natural ability, but in spite of what Antonius says in De Oratore, practice alone does not suffice to reach the level of excellence to which Cicero aspires. Broad learning in history, literature, and law is essential says Crassus, implicitly nodding toward Plato's idea thatthe rhetar must discover the truth elsewhere before conveying it to the audience. The orator must bring con- siderable knowledge to the rhetorical situation, even knowledge well beyond what the particular situation calls for. neTRoDUCTION36 and Plato in his aspirations for the orator Cicero goes beyond both Isocrat beneficial social power. Isoerates depicted the orator as taking moral tone from the ducing corrupt or als, Plato so his orator from any low seeker for absolute truth: The life of the audience. Inthe Antidoss, Isocrates be ators by responding only to base app audience at all, except perhaps a ‘mind is more important than worldly affairs and ultimately seeks to transcend them. Cicero implies thatthe audience will take its moral one ftom the orator. Hence the orator must be broadly learned so as to elevate the audience, to make it prefer the ‘most moral solutions to common problems. Ifthe o {quately present noble models for emulation, such models must be found in books, for itis the orator’s duty not only to prove the ease and to engage the hearers’ attr tion, but also to move them Co right action. In other words, the best orator is one ‘who can fulfill three offices: teaching, pleasing, and mov IMPERIAL ROME AND THE RHETORIC OF QUINTILIAN Cicero's noble aspirations for rhetoric in the Roman Republic were eclipsed by the political exigencies of the Empire. Over the next three hundred years, the goven ‘ment fluctuated as popular generals toppled “dynasties” of a few decades” standing and as the emperor's personality influenced everyone's lives. Rome was declinin in political dominance and internal stability, albeit slowly, and the decisive fall f nally came in 476 C:E. when the Visigoths sacked the city From 96 to 180 C.k., however, the so-called period of Five Good Emperors Roman society was relatively stable and culture flourished. Monumental arc ture and roads were built throughout the Empire. The comfortable upper classes, ‘now culturally enriched by citizens from the provin. aly Spain and Gaul, produced the literary artists Mactial, Juvenal, Lucian, and Apuleius and the histor ‘ans Tacitus, Suetonius, and the Greek Plutarch. Stoic philosophy promoted detach ‘ment from what seemed a hopelessly corrupt world, and Christianity, pointing to better life after death, spread in spite of intermittent but violent persecution, Ar 250, Plotinus introduced Neoplatonism, a competitor with Christianity th Pato and Aristotle as mystical allegories, ‘Tacitus wrote a dialogue on oratory (ca. 100 ct. that imitates Cicero's De Ore ‘ore while lamenting the decline ofthe art in his own day. The young wasted their time in decadent pleasures, he claimed, while education was ineffectual and polit cal repression emasculating, Nevertheless, the historical accounts of Suetonius, h contemporary, show a wide variety of orators and rhetoric teachers functionin Rome. Even if one could not criticize the imperial government, deliberative rhetoric ‘was still needed in local politics and diplomacy; forensic chetoric was still impor tant; and epideietic rhetoric reached new heights of display as a popular form of en tertainment Hence rhetorical training still remained the basis of Roman education, w undertaken with private tutors or in small schools. Boys and girls ofthe p ‘lasses might attend grammar school together, and according to H.-L Marrou, the emperor Trajan even provided for some indigent boys and girls to receive grammar Ss, espe hor ilegedschool education.® Two grammar handbooks produced near the end of this period (by Donatus, ca, 350 C.t.) became the standard texts used in Europe until the Re- naissance. The study of grammar was regarded as an important prerequisite to the acquisition ofthe elaborate declamatory styl taught in the secondary-level schools, such as Quintilian’s, which were schools of thetoric ‘Young women as well as young men sometimes pursued these higher-level stu: ies in thetoric, and also in philosophy, Indeed, classicist Robert W. Cape has argued that women had mote opportunities for education in Rome than in Greece, and that their cultivated abilities in “sermo,” or private conversation, which was regarded rhetorically, were highly valued. As noted in Quintlian (see below), a mother’s ver bal abilities provided an elevating early influence on her children, particularly the boys, who were much more likely to become public speakers. But women might o°- casionally speak in public as wel, ata family occasion such asa funeral or even in a court of law, where they had the legal right to defend themselves. Cape cites records of afew women who actually did so, and also mentions the name of Hortensi, who engaged in political oratory when sbe protested a nev tax on women to the ruling triumvirs. Although no extant Roman text discusses women’s rhetorie specifically and few written remains of these women orators exist, further research on Roman women seems promising ‘The form of oratory perhaps most characteristic of this imperial period was 2 highly alos cetemonlT esc cle staan, Dearafons were wsaly «Yor of private entertainment in which the orator might portray a parich Sy a ae YaST), or extravagantly praise at ables, a brie, or a wife: Historia Gyn, 8. cites the following example ofa controversi: ‘The law requires that children should suppor their parents or be imprisoned. A man has slain one of his brothers as a tyrant and another because he was tke insulery, hough his father begged for merey. The man is captured by pirates, who write to the father for 2 ransom, The father answers that he will pay them double if they will cutoff his son's hands. Te son is release by the pirates, snd refuses to suppor his father. In declamations, traditional values were lauded, sometimes ironically, since these speeches could be used to express dangerous political views covery. Stylistic em bellishment was the mark of a good declamation This declamatory shetorie developed from the work of the Asianists of Cicero's time, so called because they originated in Asia Minor (Turkey) among Greek colonists who had preserved and developed the fifth century B.c.£. Sophistic Move ment. The eastern Mediterranean produced many famous orators and thetorie teach rs who strongly influenced education in and performance of rhetoric at Rom Hence Graeco-Roman rhetoric from around the time of Quintilian to the sack of Micon. 0 aber W Cape, "Ramee Women inthe sory of Rei ad ery in Leng Tl Yocer: Te Pht hts of Hort Women cs Maly Mase Were (Coun, wal of Sah Cla es rp "Aatey Ojo, 8, Ramen Econ fom Cicero to Quelin (Ofor,Geat Bei: Cae ‘dos Press, 1926), pp. 159-60. a ° IstopueTIoN sepsis38 Rome in 476 was, and is, commonly termed the “Second Sophistc:” The label was invented by a Sophist ofthe thied century Cx, Philostrats, o ch tors he describes in his Lives of the Sophiss (ca. 230 C..). Participants in the Sec ‘ond Sophistic shared with the earliest Gree grammar, and the power of stylistic variety and ab antiquarian nostalgia for earlier Greek culture, regardless of their own ethnic ori gins, They were, however, more likely to be associated with home cities than to be ‘wanderers, and they often held important civie positions, sometimes under imperial patronage. They might be involved in local government or diplomatic ventures, but their greatest fame came from their masterful displays of elaborate declamator hists an interest in etymolog wdance, to which they added an thetoric. ‘One of the leading lights of the Second Sophistic was the Greek ehetorician Hermogenes, who began his career as a child prodigy at declamation. Later he ‘wrote a treatise on style in which he attempted to characterize the one ideal style ‘based on qualities found primarily in Demosthenes, a project implicitly oppos Cicero's definition of three major types of good style (plain, middle, grand). An ‘other work that pushed considerations of literary style in the direction of philosoph: ical questions was On the Sublime (p. 346), written in Greek by an unknown author in the first century C.E. (the author is sometimes called Pscudo-Longinus because the essay was once thought to be the work of a Greek rhetorician, Longinus, of th first century 2.8). These works show the tendency of the Second Sophistic to pro- with more literary than political implications. Indeed, throughout the duce thetor in th classical period, rhetoric and literatu modern period. The study of literature was thou tor, and writers often showed their rhetorical training in their literary works, Quintiian (ca. 35-96 C.), the last great rhetorician of the classical period, lived atthe beginning of the Second Sophistie but alte surviving work, the massive Instiues of Oratory (Insts p. 364). He called for students to emulate the style of Cicero, which was less om mented than that ofthe latter-day Sophists, and he urged that aetorical skill be used only for moral ends. Like Cicero, Quintilian began his career as stead of moving on to fame in polities, he made his name as a teacher in 2 school subsidized by the emperor. Unlike Cicero, Quintilian retired with honor and wealth ‘Among his pupils were many famous writers, perhaps including Tacitus, who waxed cynical about the moral standards of Roman rhetorical schools such as Quintilian’s, arguing that young men were emasculated by the focus on declam tion, «pointless exercise, while tyranny raged unchecked Quintitian did not attempt wholesale reform of Roman education, let alone Roman politics. His resistance to prevailing standards emerges in various ways, hhowever. Although his students did concentrate on performing declamations, (Quintlian used his own experience as a lawyer to make their subjects closer to real life. He condemned brutal punishment in education, instead calling for teacher and student to be inspired by familial love. In place of pettifogging stylistic exercise (Quintitian insisted thatthe student read widely in the great works of earlicr Greek and Latin, as the surest way to develop his own mastery of language, Cicero Were not separated as they have be to provide resources for the or to resist its values in his one io Oratoria, 95 Cxis continually held up as a stylistic model against the elaborate ornamentation then fashionable. Throughout, the Institutes is infused with the sprit of a kindly and leamed teacher, unequaled in any ther classical treatise. Quintlian’s projet for rhetorical education is the most ambitious of any class cal writer. He wants to produce the “good man speaking well” one who combines 2 Platonic commitment to virtue and absolute truth wth the Isocratean and Ciceron- ian focus on effective public service. To produce this min, parents and teachers ‘mis begin at Bi fo GAW OUT WHT hoy's natural abilities and equip im with broad teaming. The Institutes is organized by the order in which a man would study and tice rhetoric from childhood to old age. The first books deal with fundamentals Such as grammar; the middle books sith the five parts ofthe thetorcal comp ca aren rangement (eon and delivery) and the Binal books withthe adult orators publi earBer including advice on how to leave it gracefully. (Quintilian is seeking @ moral leader, and he goes into far greater detail that other writers on how such a paragon can be produced —even in a corrupt age ‘Whether Quintilian added anything new to thetorical theory is open to debate. He depicts himself asa mere compiler and synthesizer and downplays any contrib tion of his own. Yet the moder reader may be struck by two special features of Quintilian’s work. One of these is his developmental understanding of learning More than anyother classical educator, he Seems to realize that leaning isa complex and lengthy process. Its strongly infuenced by social surroundings and proceeds in stages reflecting the ages and natural talents of the students, stages that pedagogy rust take into account. The other feature is his moral eamestness, in & way mor in tense than Plato's. It seems tha, for Quiatilian, we must have thetorie to save the World: The good man speaking well is almost messianic ‘The man who became Saint Augustine (see Part Two) began life very much as Cicero and Quintlian had begun it, eceiving rhetorical training from his well-to-do family s0 as to become a lawyer. Like Quintlian, too, he became a chetorc teacher tomake money, though he tells us that Cicero's love of leaming inspired him to keep ‘resting with the Christianity his mother hoped be would embrace. Augustine's baptism in 387 CE. might be imagined as the appesrance, a last, of the good man speaking well Given the changes inthe political climate since Cicero, the speaker's goodness had tobe ratified by religion rather than civic virtue, The medieval trans- formation of rhetoric, following Augustine, tothe service of Christian preach sored a meaningful content to an art enervated by political oppression. Selected Bibliography Helpful bibliographic essays are Richard Leo Enos and Ann M. Blakeslee, “The Clasicl Peso” Gn The Present State of Scholarship in Historical and Contemporary Rhetoric, ed Homer, rev. ed. 1950), which discusses primary and secondary sources; and John C. Br “Philosophy and Rhetoric” (in Research in Composition and Rhetoric: A Bibliographic Sourcebook, ed, Moran and Lunsford, 1984), which discusses mainly secondary sources. See ‘ko George Kennedy, "Review Article: The Present State ofthe Study of Ancient Rhetoric’ meropucrion 3940 (Classical Philology 70 1975]: 278-82), and Fifty Years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholar ship, Platnaver (1968). ‘Sources ofthe works included below are cited in the headnotes James J. Murphys A Syn pc History of Classical Rhetoric (2nd ed, 1990) summarizes the major works ofthe pe riod. A number of major and minoe works hctori, ed. Benson and Prosser (L969, rt 1988). excerpted bre The standard general historical source forte eae classical period is ely" trilogy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (1963), The Art of Rhetoric inthe Roman We (1972), and Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (1983); Kennedy has revised and abridged these thee volumes in a single work, A New History of Classical Rheroric (1994). See also his Classical Rhetoric and its Christi om Ancient 1 Mod: ‘ern Times (1980, 1990), which ranges from Homeric rhetoric tothe end ofthe eighteenth century Als, Charles Seas Baldwin's Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic (1924) still useful. E pecially accessible to undergraduate students is Thomas Conley, Rhetoric inthe European Tradition (1990). A collection of major essays on the entice Greek period, including some cited in headnotes in this volume, is Landmark Essays on Classical Greek Rhetoric (ed. Sch ‘and Secular Trt appa, 1994). A revisionist view is found in Samuel Usseling's Rhetoric and Philosophy Conflict (1976), which ranges from the Sophists to Nictsche ‘On cultural roots ofthe Athenian flowering of metric, see Greek Rhetoric be by Richard Leo Enos (1993). Taking a somewhat di rent view, Thomas Cole argues in The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (1991) that both shetoric and philosophy were inven tions of Plato and Aristotle, owing litle to earlier thinkers. For histories of the Sophisic ‘movement, se the headnote on Gorgas, and John Poulakes, Sophstcal Rketorie cal Athens (1998). A good source of biographical information on Greek tetoricians is R. C Jebb’s The Attic Orators from Antphon to Isaeos (2 vos, 1962). On the transition from GGreck to Roman shetorie, see Richard Leo Enos, Roman Rhetoric: Revolution and the Greek Influence (1995). On the Second Sophistic, see Graham Anderson, The Second Sophistc: A Cultural Phenamenon in the Roman Empire (1093) ‘An introduction to philosophical issues in thetric from classical to modem times is Mortimer Adler's “Dialectic” (in The Great Ideas: A Synopticon ofthe Great Books Western World, ed. Adler and Gorman, vo. I, 1971). The definitive essay on philosophical issues in classical setoric i Richard MeKeon’s “The Hellenistic and Roman Foundations of the Tradition of Aristotle in the West” (Review of Metaphysics 32 (19701: 677-715) nearly Greece tothe carly Middle Ages 5 (1956; ep. 1982), similarly A magisterial history of education that anges f is Henr-rénge Marrou’s History of Education in commanding work that concentrates more upon the medieval period asthe conduit between classical times and the Renaissance is RR. Bolgar's Tu ciaries (194). Focusing more specifically on classical rhetoric education are David 1 Clark's Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education (1957), Stanley F. Bonner’s Education in An cient Rome from the Elder Cato tothe Younger Pliny (1977). Aubrey Guynn's Ronan Ed ation from Cicero 10 Quintilian (1936), and Martin Clarke's Rhetoric at Rome (1953). See also Kathleen E. Welch, “Writing Instruction in Ancient Athens after 450 8.” and James J Murphy, “Roman Writing Insrstion as Deseribed by Quinilian” Gin A Short History « Writing Instruction: From Ancient Greece 10 Twonteth-Century America, . James J “Murphy, 1990). A contemporary textbook that is sso a compendium of information of te period is Edward P. J. Cotbet's Classical Rhetoric forthe M nt (9 ed, wih Robert J. Connors, 1999) Ray Nadeau's “Classical Systems of States” (Greek, Roman, and Byzantine S atsical Heritage and ls Beneh {19591 51-71) surveys the stasis theories of Hermagoras, Hermogenes, anda few others CLASSICAL RHETORICWilliam Satler’s “Conceptions of Ethos” (Speech Monographs 14 [1947 55-65) su tne treatment of ethos in all the major nhetoricians ofthe period, except Gorgias. souree on syle from Homer to Longinus is G. M. A. Grube, The Greet an Ro (1965) ric Havelock’s major work on orality and literacy in classical Greece is The Literate Revolution in Greece and Jes Cultural Consequences (1982). Fora summary, see Robet J ‘Connors, “Greek Rhetoric and the Transition from Oralty” (Philosophy and Rhetoric 19 [1986]: 38-63). Curent developments from his work include Kevin Robb's Literacy and Peideia in Ancient Greece (1994). For atematives to Havelock's view, see Jacqueline de Romilly’s Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (1975) and C- Jan Swearingen's Rhetoric and Irony: Western Literacy and Westen Lies (1991), which ranges from the Sophists (0 Augustin. ‘Beatrice Zedler has translated seventeenth-century classicist Gilles Ménage's com. pendium, The History of Women Philosophers (1984), which surveys sources on classical ‘women. See also A. W. Gomme, “The Position of Women in Athens inthe Fifth and Fourth Centuries” (Classical Phifology 20 (1925). 1-25); Sarah Pomeroy's Goddesses, Whores Wives and Slaves (1975); Mary Lefkowitz's Women in Greek Myth (1986); Eve Cantarella's Pandora's Daughters: The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antigty (1981; tran, 1987); and Sue Blundell's Women in Ancient Greece (199) Cheryl Glen discusses possibiles and obstacles for classical women's rhetorical practice in Rhetoric Retold: Re [gendering the Tradition from Antiquity through the Renaissance (1997). Robert W. Cape Sr in “Roman Women inthe History of Rhetoric and Oratory” (in Listening to Ther Voices, ed Molly Meijer Wertheimer, 1997), argues that Roman women were better educated than Greck women end had mote opportunities for rhetorical taining and peformnce. Fo ei tional references. on women in antiquity, see Cape's bibliography and the Aspasia(p. 56) Fora careful and thorough discussion of Greek homosexuality, sce K. J. Dover's Greek Homosexuality (1978) In Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civiieatin (2 vols. 1987, 1991) Marin Bernal argues thatthe elements of Greek culture were derived from lack African el an Cres eadnole on ture in Egypt via Semitic cultures of Palestine, a geneology concealed by racist and ant Semitic nineteenh-century clasiciss. For eniques of Bemal's hypotheses by contemporary lassicsts, linguists, and anthropologists, see Black Athena Revisited, ed. Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogets (1996). A sampling of recent scholarship primarily by shetriians within English studies can be found in Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modem Discourse, ed. Connors, Ese, and Lansford (1984), and Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of Classical Rhetoric to Pract cal Reasoning, ed. Moss (1986). On relations between classical rhetoric and contemporary composition stadies, see Kathleen Welch's The Contemporary Reception of Classical Rhetoric: Appropriations of Ancien Discourse (1950) a