Читать книгу Greek Rhetoric Before Aristotle - Richard Leo Enos - Страница 12

I. Emerging Notions of Rhetoric

Figure 2. Ancient Greece. Map © 2010, Ancient World Mapping Center (www.unc.edu/awmc). Used by permission.

The Homeric Mentality and the Invention of Discourse

According to the eighth century BCE epic poet Hesiod (Erga 90–105), man lost his divine inspiration for eloquence when Pandora lifted the lid of the jar containing the gods’ gifts to men. The righteousness of this act was justified as retribution for Prometheus’s hubris in giving man the “technical” knowledge of fire. More importantly, the result of Zeus’s revenge was that man had to rely on the creation of his own “techne” or art and replace eloquence with a rationally construed imitation of the divine act of effective expression. For Pietro Pucci, author of Hesiod and the Language of Poetry, “Pandora introduces the exclusivity of human language. She speaks only human language and, therefore is the first human who can no longer speak the language of the gods, of which Homer knows some words and to which Hesiod alludes in Th. 837” (91). Pucci’s phrase, “of which Homer knows some words,” is provocative for it hints at both the relationship and distinctions between god-breathed and human-created discourse.

To say that Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey are paradigms in the history of literature is to utter a commonplace, but their contributions to the history and development of writing and rhetorical theory have received far less attention. Although preceding the canonization of rhetoric as a formal discipline by centuries, the composing techniques of Homer were admired by such famous rhetoricians as Quintilian (10.1.46). However, they were pointedly contested by other ancient rhetoricians as appropriate for the study of rhetoric (Kennedy, “Ancient” 23–35), principally because Homer predated rhetoric as a discipline and because Homeric discourse was thought to be a nonrational approach to expression. That is, those ancient rhetoricians who opposed using Homer as a model did so because Homeric compositions were thought to have been produced by the impulse of intuitive genius rather than the systematic study of the composition of discourse. This opposition to viewing Homer in relation to rhetoric in any way other than anecdotal is also shared by some contemporary rhetoricians. D.A.G. Hinks, in his essay “Tisias and Corax and the Invention of Rhetoric,” claims that not only did the art or techne of rhetoric emerge in fifth century BCE Greece, but also any examination prior to this period is “irrelevant to the proper history of rhetoric” (61). Yet, the composition of the Iliad and Odyssey has much to reveal about the epistemic development of rhetoric.

When the Iliad and Odyssey were composed in the latter half of the eighth century BCE, Greece was in a twilight period of true oral literature. Although early Greeks rarely read silently—in fact it is virtually unheard of in Antiquity—the techniques of composing discourse exclusively for an oral medium were beginning to be replaced by developing scripts by the end of the seventh century BCE (see Kirk, Songs 314; Kirk, Epic 1–32; Stanford 1n4ff.; Kennedy, Art 4; Kirk, Oral 19–39). I. J. Gelb claims, “the development of a full Greek alphabet, expressing single sounds of language by means of consonant and vowel signs, is the last important step in the history of writing” (Study 184). Gelb’s emphasis, however, is on the development of sign-systems and in that sense, not much new has evolved in “the inner structural” development of writing (Study 184). Yet, if we consider the notions of discourse evidenced in Homer’s work and if we examine what the characters in the Iliad and Odyssey say and think about discourse, we may consider the Iliad and Odyssey the first important steps in the history of writing and rhetoric. This is a point which Otto Jespersen immediately establishes in his classic treatise, Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin (7) and one which has prompted other scholars of rhetoric’s history to recognize the possibility of such early beginnings (see Kennedy, “Ancient;” Kennedy, “Review;” and Murphy, “Corax”).

In brief, even the earliest Greek writing indicates an emerging awareness of the relationship between human thought and the processes by which such thoughts and sentiments can be symbolically expressed. Three terms help to express the relationship between thought and expression: heuristic, eristic and protreptic discourse. Heuristic discourse is seen as a generative (helping to discover or learn) capacity to construe and apply some structuring of language. Heuristics has been a major concern not only of Aristotle’s Rhetoric (see Enos and Lauer, “Meaning”) but also throughout the history of Greek rhetoric, as even a cursory reading of George Kennedy’s The Art of Persuasion in Greece will reveal (e.g., 10). The importance of this notion was clearly apparent to Latin rhetoricians, such as the unknown Roman author of the Rhetorica Ad Herennium (1.3ff.) and Cicero (De Inventione ff.), both of whom labeled it “inventio” and gave it primacy among the canons of rhetoric. In fact, Kennedy’s 1980 article in Philosophy and Rhetoric (185–89) demonstrates that the concept of heuristics was a central component to the Byzantine canons of rhetoric with Hermogenes’s On Invention receiving great attention (see also Kustas 42, note). Eristic discourse is the advocacy for a particular point of view. The term “eristic” came to be synonymous with argumentative discourse and received commentary from both Plato (Euthydemus 272C; Lysis 211B) and Aristotle (Rhetoric 1371a, 1402a). Eristics was not only considered the “art of disputation” but was used to label philosophers of the Megarian school who were noted for their argumentative mode of discussion (Diogenes Laertius 2.134). Plato eventually labeled the techne of eristic discourse as Sophistry (Sophista 231E, 225C). Protreptic discourse is both directive and didactic but also associated with rational inquiry. Contrary to the notion of wrangling associated with eristics, protreptic discourse is seen as a didactic process whereby minds are “directed” for some instructive purpose (Skousgaard 379–80; Kustas 49, note). Protreptic discourse was strongly encouraged for philosophy by Plato (Euthydemus 278C, D; 288D, E; 282D) because it provides direction for thought leading to knowledge.

Plato characterized the instruction of Sophists as misdirection. He believed that they taught eristic methods to subvert the truth in order to succeed at any cost, and thus had nothing to do with the more noble ends of protreptic discourse. Plato mercilessly lampooned Sophists in his Euthydemus as not caring if they “talk nonsense” (288B, see also 277D–E, 278 B–C) and was very clear in his belief that speechwriters who do not know the distinct technai (techniques or skills) of generating and employing philosophical argument, or dialectic, will be severely constrained in their knowledge of the composing processes of discourse (Euthydemus 289 D–E). Their Sophistic “art,” Plato went on to say, is like a “wizard’s art”; that is, sorcery “involves a wizard’s charming venomous spiders and scorpions and other wild beasts and evil things,” while Sophistry “involves charming and persuading the ears of juries, assemblies and other mobs” (Euthydemus 289E, 290A). Plato’s point clearly drives a wedge between the charm—and almost sensual enrapturement—of Sophistic discourse and the philosophical inquiry toward knowledge characteristic of protreptic discourse. In brief, rhetoricians who engage in bantering eristic argument only provide a “ridiculous display of their particular effort” and should be overlooked when seeking didactic discourse associated with protreptic procedures (Euthydemus 307B, see also 307A–C).

This chapter examines the dominant modes of Homeric discourse—heuristic, eristic and protreptic—and relates them to the notion of the divine “gift” of eloquence. This examination will show that conceptual processes of discourse synonymous with the formalization of rhetoric in the fifth century BCE were already emerging three hundred years earlier. Awareness of the evolution of these conceptual processes will provide a more accurate understanding of both the history of rhetoric and an enriched understanding of the foundation of our discipline.

The concept of “heuristic” is present throughout the Iliad and Odyssey and is used to express some process of discovery. Homer freely uses the concept to indicate the discovery of persons, places, and gods (Iliad 5.169; Odyssey 10.252; Iliad 24.98). Frequently this is done by an individual such as Athena “discovering” the proud suitors, or Odysseus “discovering” the house of Circe, or Hector “finding” Archeptolemus (Odyssey 10.210; Iliad 8.127). In this sense, a heuristic capacity that expresses the notion of discovering a physical event or entity does not discriminate between god or man. In fact, the notion of heuristics as discovered is refined to the extent that there is even a collective capacity to discover, such as in the statement “if we find a herd of oxen or a great flock,” and personification as a lion would “discover” a deer or a wild goat (Odyssey 12.300; Iliad 3.24).

Homer also attributes a psychological capacity for heuristic discovery not confined to sensory awareness and uses the term “heuristic” to discuss the capacity of subjective self-awareness. Often, this discovery is in terms of projected emotive responses not associated with “rational” self-consciousness, such as “and they discovered Myrmidons delighting his heart with a clear-toned phorminx [lyre]” or Odysseus, who “discovered” himself sitting in the front hall of his home (Iliad 9.185–186; Odyssey 14.5). The use of “heuristic” in self-awareness and discovery is not limited to reflective self-consciousness. Homer often uses the term “heuristic” to indicate a potential capacity for joy or sorrow and even a concept of the negative as when they “did not find the gates boarded” (Odyssey 9.535; Odyssey 13.43; Iliad 12.120–121). Evidence of the bridge between the physical and psychological sense of “heuristic” is evident in Homer’s passage where the suitors “found the spirit of Achilles” in the sense of its representation as a physical form (Odyssey 24.15).

All of the examples mentioned indicate mortal heuristic capacity for a range of power that extends from its use in the most physical sense to the most esoteric, futuristic modalities of subjective expression. This human techne for heuristics is central to understanding the inventive processes of the discovery and relationship of thought and discourse—that is, the human techne to discover and express complex thought and sentiments. Homer frequently discussed the power or human faculty of heuristics for discourse (heuremena dunamai), and several general modalities of heuristic processes are revealed (Odyssey 4.374, 467; Odyssey 19.157–158). Specifically, Homer discusses the human power to discover and contrive through words. Clearly evident is the idea of appropriate or suitable expression that can be “discovered.” Nestor is characterized as being particularly sensitive to effective schemes for discourse and quick to point out shortcomings, as when he says, “For some time do we quarrel, nor do we have any capacity to discover any contrivance, for all our time here” (Iliad 2.342–343). Nestor’s criticism is a revealing one, for he expects his colleagues to demonstrate a faculty to discover some ability to devise a sign or technique through deliberation to resolve strife (Odyssey 12.393; Odyssey 19.157–158; Iliad 16.472). Language is viewed as an awareness to discover a solution to a problem. This discovery process can not only occur collectively among individuals but even in a self-dialogue, as when Odysseus “took counsel with myself” so that he could invent a solution to outwit the Cyclops (Odyssey 9.421–423).

There is a clear association in Homer with the notion of discovery and the translation of the findings into wily language. Odysseus, with his epithet of “many wiles” stands as an illustration of the human capacity to invent techniques to compose language. Examples of his conniving abound throughout Book Nine of the Odyssey, but particularly revealing is the passage when Odysseus tries to discover some way to “compose all sorts of cunning [plots] and contrivances” when trying to deceive the Cyclops Polyphemus (Odyssey 9.421–423; see also, Odyssey 9.19–20, 33). Odysseus is, in fact, lauded by Homer and proud of his ability to invent and compose devious discourse and is even told explicitly by his colleagues not to “conceal with crafty cunning what you really think but to speak up” (Odyssey 8.548–49). The notion of inventional language as deception would be a central grounding for Gorgias’s Sophistic rhetoric. Here we see the notion of language as a deception of reality invented through human capacity centuries earlier in Homer (see DK 82.B.11. 6, 8, 11, 14).

Homer’s writing reveals a sensitivity to the human capacity to invent discourse and to compose or weave such language for effect. The modalities of this human capacity are present in two types of discourse, eristic and protreptic. The Homeric notion of eristic discourse is taken to be more than the mere symbolization of thought and sentiment but rather the inherent power of the language itself. Eris or strife is a personification and can be god-induced (Iliad 4.440; Iliad 5.518, 740; Iliad 11.3, 73; Iliad 18.535; Iliad 20.48; Odyssey 3.136, 16l). It can also come into being as a result of discord or disagreement, particularly when induced by wine (Iliad 20.55, Odyssey 6.92, 3.136, 20.267, 19.11). It is the human power to create strife through discourse that is particularly revealing here because Homer conjoins the notion of eristics with wrangling. The association of “strife and wrangling” occurs so frequently in Homer that it can almost be classified as formulaic (Iliad 2.376; Odyssey 20.267). According to Ben Edwin Perry, the frequency of such coordinating notions is not only characteristic of Homeric language but is a paratactic structure encouraging the “spontaneous absorption” of notions through a “strung-along style” (4l0–418, especially 412).

The relationship of “strife and wrangling” is important to understand. Homer often combined strife and wrangling. On some occasions, strife provoked wrangling, while in other instances, the opposite happened. Yet, just as Greeks later bonded concepts of the true and the beautiful together, so also did Homer equate strife and wrangling. This coexistence of strife and wrangling forged a unity of reciprocal relationships. Strife, particularly when mixed with wine, induced wrangling, but wrangling also produced strife, as when Athena characterizes taunting words as a “reproachful attack,” or when the suitors are told to “restrain your spirit from rebuke and blows, so that no strife or wrangling may appear”—and they all “bit their lips “(Iliad 1.210–211; Odyssey 20.266–268). In such moments of passion “winged words” are sent to the gods so that no violence can be caused when one is “burning on fire” with rage (Iliad 21.359–361, 368; see also, Odyssey 2.269). For Homer, the concept of wrangling holds no great esteem; in fact, his clearest view of the term is when he has Aeneas say, “to forcibly quarrel with strife and wrangling between us” is “like women who engage in bitter wrangling” (Iliad 20.251–255). While such lowly prattle has no place in a Homeric man’s world, it is clear that manly argument rarely occurs in a climate of quiet, dispassionate reason. In fact, Telemachus tells his own mother the queen that, despite her well-reasoned views, it is not her function but his—and that of men in general—to be the spokesperson of the home (Odyssey 1.356–359).

For Homer, the eristic power of language is bonded with emotion and the possibility of violence. The clearest association with “strife and wrangling” is that violent thoughts lead to violent words and, eventually, violent deeds. Individuals are often told to curb their violent words so that strife and wrangling do not lead to blows (Iliad 1.210; Odyssey 19.11; Odyssey 18.13; Odyssey 20.266–267). Conversely, strife would continue if not for the power of words to thwart it as when Homer writes that “strife would have [protreptically] gone forward . . . had not Achilles spoken” (Iliad 23.490–491). In brief, man has the power to generate strife though discourse, as do gods. Man has the power to resolve strife through discourse, as do gods, and man, like the gods, has the capacity to generate discourse which will create and mitigate violent words and create and mitigate violent acts of “strife and wrangling.” Words can sting or be sweet and their power is often seen in terms of emotive and sensory responses, as when Odysseus says, “your speech has bit my heart” (Iliad 1.247–249; see also Odyssey 8.183–185). To this point we can see that Homeric characters had some concept of an inventional capacity to generate discourse but that this self-consciousness of their “heuristic” capacity produced discourse that was eristic, or emotive-based as well as emotive-directed, by arousing some sort of attitudinal disposition. Odysseus frequently mentions that an individual could or could not “persuade the heart within my breast” (Odyssey 9.33).

Yet, discourse can have the capacity to check a “strong-hearted spirit” and induce “kindliness” (Iliad 9.255–256). Words can have the capacity to “turn” or direct human thought (Odyssey 11.18; 12.381) in a way approaching rationalism rather than in strictly sensual terms, which leads to the Homeric notion of protreptic (instructionally directive) discourse. We know that when rhetoric was established as a formal discipline it not only gave treatment to ethos and pathos but also to logos, the rational capacity to persuade other minds (Aristotle, Rhetorica 1356a). Certainly, any position which argues for an emerging notion of rhetoric must inquire into the human capacity to structure discourse toward the “reasonable.” There is, in fact, evidence to indicate that notions of reasonable discourse are to be found in Homer.

As indicated earlier, Plato strongly opposed Sophists who practiced eristic discourse but would not engage in the rational didactic techniques of protreptic discourse (Euthydemus 288B–D, 272B–C, 289E, 290A, 278C, D). We know from Pucci, that Hesiod had discussed the concept of false and true discourse, which he called respectively “crooked” and “straight” (45–49). Homer also has a directional concept of protreptic discourse and refers to yielding or betaking oneself willingly to do something (Iliad 5.700; Iliad 6.336). Moreover, there is present in Homer the notion of a human capacity to generate “gentle” words to soothe the mind. Perhaps the most sensitive illustration of this phenomenon of protreptic discourse occurs in the Iliad when Alexander says “I had a desire to direct my [thought] to sadness. And even now my wife sought to persuade me with gentle words” (Iliad 6.336–38). By our present standards it is somewhat ironic that women, who are seen here as having nothing whatsoever to do with the real power of discourse beyond “wrangling,” are used to illustrate a capacity for rationality in time of stress!

Although the human heuristic capacity to discover discourse is evident in Homer as well as the potential to manufacture powerful eristic and reasonable protreptic discourse, it should not be forgotten that these are emerging, and even primitive, notions of discourse. To appreciate this perspective, we should reflect on the ability to produce genuine eloquence. There is little doubt that in Homer, eloquence is god-produced and god-given. As is evidenced in Hesiod’s account of Pandora, Zeus gave, and later took away, divine speech (Erga 90–105; see also Solmsen, “Gift”). Yet, to say that Zeus completely took away divine speech would be imprecise and not account for Hesiod’s statement that both he and Homer knew “a few” divine words (Theogenia 837; Pucci 91). Despite man’s limitations to struggle with the development of his own techne, there is evidence of what E. R. Dodds calls “psychic intervention” (5). Individuals who are eloquent are seen as having a gift from the gods and are considered to be “god-like” (Homer, Odyssey 8.165–185).

This divine gift from the gods is reserved for two categories of humans. The first group is royal or god-descended and god-blessed. Nestor, the King of Pylos, is the model of eloquence in Homer (Iliad 1.247–249). Yet, Odysseus, the King of Ithaka, is viewed not only as wily but eloquent, as is indicated in the Iliad when Homer says, “But when he [Odysseus] put forth his great voice from his breast, as like a snow storm in the winter, then indeed could no mortal man quarrel with Odysseus and then indeed did we wonder to behold his image” (Iliad 3.221–224). Lastly, the “hero” of the Iliad, Achilles, is not only god-born but has been raised in a kingly fashion so that he can be “a rhetor of speech and a doer of deeds” (Iliad 9.443). Of great importance here is the use of the term rhetor, for it is the earliest and only known instance in which Homer used the term throughout the entire Iliad and Odyssey. It is a provocative point to historians of rhetoric that this earliest notion of the term which would be the basis for the founding of the discipline of rhetoric centuries later is now clearly associated with the god-blessed hero Achilles.

The other group of individuals in the Iliad and Odyssey who have the capacity for eloquence are the aoidoi, the bards who “weave” together or compose chants of heroic tales to honor the gods. Demodocus and Phemius are two examples from the Odyssey (1.154; 8.65–67; 13.27–28). Aoidoi are invariably given the epithet “divine” or “god-like” aoidoi who receive their power of eloquence from Zeus (Odyssey 1.325–349; Odyssey 8.43, 47, 87, 539; Odyssey, 13.27; Odyssey 9.3, 4). The sixth century BCE lyric poet Pindar considered “aoidoi” to be “weavers of chants” (Nemean Odes 2.1, 2). These composers of discourse were the pioneers of the techniques of oral literature and evolved into the formal guild of Rhapsodes who are discussed in Plato’s Ion. Both the aoidoi, and their later descendents the Rhapsodes, orally composed and preserved texts of heroic tales, of which the Iliad and Odyssey are the most famous. During the sixth century BCE, the Rhapsodes developed written compositional techniques to preserve by script the collection of Homeric words and grammar which was becoming increasingly rare and, consequently, difficult to pronounce. These compositional techniques became so established that by the fifth century BCE private texts of Homer were known to have existed in Athens (Xenophon Symposium 3.6; Memorabilia 4.2.10).

In review, this chapter addressed several issues. First, the earliest Greek literature known indicates that there was an awareness among the characters of the Iliad and Odyssey of heuristic processes that could be used to develop human technai to produce discourse. Secondly, this discourse had power. The power was man-made, but it could produce emotive effects and resolve discord and strife through conceptual, eristic discourse. Third, there is some evidence that a gentler structuring of discourse to turn or direct the mind and soothe emotions was the precursor to protreptic discourse. Lastly, man has some potential to be eloquent but the gift was god-given inspiration and available to only a chosen few. Although women could wrangle and produce strife, they could not be eloquent or even wily in their discourse; they had to content themselves with being reasonable!

The implications of these points are important for the history of rhetoric. It is clear by Homer’s tales of a proto-literate, Bronze Age culture that conceptual processes were being formulated for the structuring and understanding of discourse. There is an awareness of the potential of this power and even an indication of the relationship of thought and discourse. Even at this early stage of development, human technai (i.e., strategies or heuristics) for the structuring of discourse were being developed. More importantly, with this consciousness there is an emerging shift from a theocentric notion to more of an anthropocentric notion of discourse. The supremacy of the gods as the generating force of effective expression would be challenged to the extent that words and arguments could be composed by Sophists so powerful that they could defy the very existence of the gods who had once been credited with giving them the divine power of speech. To Zeus, it may have been better if Pandora had not opened the lid of that jar in the first place.

The Evolution of the Hellenic Rhapsode

A good song, I think. The end’s good—that came to me in one piece—and the rest will do. The boy will need to write it, I suppose, as well as hear it. Trusting to the pen; a disgrace, and he with his own name made. But write he will, never keep it in the place between his ears. And even then he won’t get it right alone. I still do better after one hearing of something new than he can after three. I doubt he’d keep even his own songs for long, if he didn’t write them. So what can I do, unless I’m to be remembered only by what’s carved in marble?

—Mary Renault, The Praise Singer

Traditionally, Corax and Tisias of Sicily (fifth century BCE) are acknowledged as the inventors of rhetoric. However, Rhapsodes (the individuals largely responsible for the transmission of Homeric literature) were developing techniques for the theory and practice of oral literature at least three centuries earlier and were a link between Homer and the systematized rhetoric that emerged centuries later in classical Athens. Milman Parry’s discovery that the Iliad and Odyssey were oral documents was an extremely important contribution to the study of the prehistory of rhetoric. Parry’s exhaustive efforts and evidence clearly reveal that Homeric compositions were recorded so that they could be recited aloud (Milman Parry 1928 and 1932; Adam Parry 1–50; Dodds 1968; cf. Davidson 216–18, 224). The implications of this discovery not only indicate a shared interest in oral technique between Rhapsodes and ancient rhetoricians, but also compel an examination of the role of Rhapsodes in codifying, transmitting, and even composing this oral literature. More importantly, research done by Parry, Albert B. Lord, and Berkley Peabody demonstrates that early oral compositions reveal an ancient oral tradition functioning as a “highly sophisticated sociolinguistic institution that plays a central role in maintaining the continuities of the culture in which it occurs” (Peabody 1). Rhapsodes were composers of epic poetry who continued from the formation of Homeric literature through the evolution of rhetoric into a discipline. Yet the relationship between the Rhapsodes and the development of rhetoric was far from autonomous, for in the period prior to rhetoric’s emergence as a discipline, Rhapsodes developed compositional techniques that laid a foundation that contributed to rhetoric’s development.

Some of the more valuable contributions about Rhapsodes came from the German philologist Harald Patzer, who made commendable efforts to explain the etymology and nature of the term “rhapsode” (‘ρaψωdόs), and Carolo Odo Pavese, who made a thorough study of the epic tradition of rhapsodic literature. Both Patzer and Pavese, however, concentrated on linguistic issues of composition and not on the evolution of the tradition itself. In the field of communication, Eugene and Margaret Bahn deserve recognition for calling attention to the importance of Rhapsodes in the development of Greek literature. Donald E. Hargis improved on the efforts of the Bahns by synthesizing and focusing earlier research.

Despite these efforts, contemporary research on the origin and role of Rhapsodes, particularly prior to and during the establishment of rhetorical theory, is slight. Moreover, several incompatible notions about Rhapsodes persist in the few studies that have been conducted. First, the origin and development of a rhapsodic tradition is unclear. Likewise, the relationship between a group of Homeric experts, called “Homeridae” (e.g., Pindar Nemean Odes 2.1, 2), and Rhapsodes has not been thoroughly explained. Second, the importance of Rhapsodes to the history of Greek literature is still an issue of dispute. Writers such as G.S. Kirk regard Rhapsodes as “decadent and moribund” entertainers who were guilty of “straining” for “rhetorical effects” which corrupted the text of Homer (Kirk, Epic 29). Eugene and Margaret Bahn do imply that Rhapsodes played significant roles in the development of Greek thought, but they do not specify either the nature or impact of such a role (13). Finally, there is no agreement concerning the date of the demise of Rhapsodes nor why it occurred. Hargis, for example, argues that Rhapsodes reached their zenith at the time of Plato but persisted until the time of Christ (397). Martin Litchfield West claims that Rhapsodes practiced their art down to the third century after Christ (920). This chapter attempts to resolve the uncertainties noted above by tracing the development of a rhapsodic tradition prior to and throughout the period of Hellenic classical rhetoric.

A. Etymological Issues Concerning the Homeric “Rhapsode.”

As the preceding section reveals, a casual reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey inaccurately suggests that such characters as Phemius and Demodocus could be stereotyped as illiterate improvisers chanting Homeric verse. If ancient terminology is properly understood, however, these predecessors to Rhapsodes were developing and employing systems of oral discourse even before the Homeric age. The origin and relationship of Homeric interpreters with Rhapsodes, moreover, is best understood through etymology, for the literal meaning of such terms as “bard” and “rhapsode” has been a source of misunderstanding. The term “bard” is particularly confusing since it has no Greek equivalent and implies a distinction from the term “rhapsode” which is essentially arbitrary. The closest cognate to a “bard” is the Latin bardus, which means a poet, singer or minstrel (usually in reference to Gauls). Individuals such as Phemius and Demodocus, who are commonly labeled by translators as “bards” or “minstrels,” are consistently called an “aoidoi” (άoiδoί) in Homeric literature. Yet Plato, who lived over three centuries after Homer, specifically refers to Phemius in the Ion as a “rhapsode” (Ion 533C). Plato would seem to be mistaken, for he should have called Phemius an “aoidos,” as did Homer. What Plato was doing, however, was substituting a contemporary Attic Greek term for an outdated Homeric Greek term and providing an important clue to the development of the term “rhapsode” and an indication of the need to examine its Homeric origin.

In Homeric literature, an aoidos could represent any entertainer who chanted out a tale and who often kept rhythm with a lyre or staff. Both Homer and Hesiod provide several examples throughout their works (Homer, Iliad 9.186–89; Odyssey 8.65–67, 105, 254, 261–62; 13.28–30; 17.260–63; 22.330–33. Hesiod, Theogonia 29–32). In fact, the primary distinction of an aoidos from a musician seems to be only that the accompaniment is secondary to the oral work. Hesiod, for instance, distinguished an “aoidos” from an individual who specialized or limited himself only to playing an instrument such as the kithara (Hesiod, Incertae Sedes Fragmenta 1; Diogenes Laertius 8.1.25). In ancient lyric poetry, the common practice was for the aoidos to accompany his lay to a musical beat; virtually every form of Greek poetry was associated with music (Plato, Ion 530A; OCD 705). When translators arbitrarily distinguish among the Homeric bard, minstrel, and rhapsode, they obscure the unity that enabled an individual to blend song, music and poetry. Moreover, to impose the notion of specialization is to imply a refinement that had not yet occurred. Initially, Homeric aoidoi such as Phemius did not credit their oral ability to any systematic technique, as did later Rhapsodes such as Ion. Rather, as E.R. Dodds indicates, they attributed their ability to the “psychic intervention” of divine inspiration (10–11). In brief, it would be more precise to consider these Homeric chanters as “pre-Rhapsodes”; we should qualify the meaning within the context rather than obscure what is essentially the same phenomenon with various labels. There is little doubt, however, that Rhapsodes eventually took on a very specialized role as interpreters of Homeric literature, but such distinctions cannot reasonably be drawn in the Homeric age.

Even ancient scholars were in a quandary over the etymology of the term “rhapsode.” This uncertainty is illustrated in the writings of the second century BCE grammarian Dionysius Thrax: “Rhapsody is the aspect of poetry embracing some proposed subject. Moreover, rhapsody is [derived] from the [term] ‘rod,’ from the fact that men traveled around with a baywood rod singing the poems of Homer” (Τέχνη γραμματική 5; see also, Pfeiffer 269). For Dionysius, the meaning of rhapsody (ῥαψῳδία) is derived from two words: “rod” (ῥάβδος), and “chant” (ᾠδή). Hence, for Dionysius, the term “rhapsode” came from the combined term “rodchanter,” one who beats out the metre of his chant with a staff. This interpretation is supported by archaeological evidence, for among the British Museum collection of Greek pottery is an early fifth century BCE Attic red-figure amphora (E. 27) which shows a rhapsode with a staff (ῥάβδος) chanting a poem (Kirk, Songs plate 76; Callimachus, Fragmenta 138; cf. Pausanius 9.30.3).

Although Dionysius’s interpretation differs from the concept of Rhapsodes as “weavers of chants,” its etymology is not incompatible with the earlier explanations of Hesiod and Pindar, both of whom were closer in time to the Homeric age than was Dionysius (Hesiod, Fragmenta Dubia 3; scholia on Pindar, Nemean Odes 2.1, 2). In fact, annotators of Dionysius’s writing posit both of the above interpretations: early Rhapsodes not only wove together swatches of heroic verse but also often used a staff or lyre for rhythmic accompaniment (5, accompanying scholia 8, 9). Pindar even used a term for rod (ῥάβδος, see below) in a metaphorical sense to indicate the “standard” for measuring verse, and Homer indicated that divine inspiration (μένος) could be transmitted through a staff (Isthmian Odes 4.36–39). In the Homeric sense, a “ῥάβδος” is usually taken to be a sort of magic wand, such as those used by Circe, Athena and Hermes (Iliad 13.59ff.; 24.343. Odyssey 10.238, 319; 16.172; E. R. Dodds p.9.n.52).

Etymological perspectives from such ancient authors as Dionysius Thrax provide important information for the interpretation of oral literature. With these terms in mind, Homer may be considered the father of Rhapsodes, for he was the first known aoidos to present a formal codification and canonization of heroic oral literature. The Homeric term “aoidos” first became associated with a conscious, rational system of oral discourse when, in the eighth century BCE, Hesiod called himself and Homer “ἀoidόi” who weave their compositions together (ῥάψατες ἀoiδήν) in order to compose (Hesiod Fragmenta Dubia 3; scholia on Pindar Nemean Odes 2.1, 2). Evidence cited above indicates that aoidoi such as Homer and Hesiod were the first Hellenic thinkers to advance formalized systems for both presenting and understanding oral literature–an activity that ought to be recognized as contributing to the evolution of rhetoric as a discipline.

B. The Stabilization of the Rhapsodic Tradition.

Two factors marked the rhapsodic tradition: the modification of the Greek language and the introduction of written literature. The Phoenician alphabet was introduced in Greece as early as the thirteenth century BCE, but the earliest extant “literature” is from the eighth century BCE and was used as an aid in storytelling (Ullman 22; Kirk, Epic 10; Pfeiffer 269; Kirk, Oral 19–39). Although types of script called Linear B and Linear A existed during the Bronze Age, Greece lapsed back into a preliterate level by the eleventh century BCE and lost the art of writing for several centuries. During this preliterate dark age, storytellers chanted heroic adventures similar to those in Homer but preserved and conveyed their tales orally. Homer thus wrote about other aoidoi like Demodocus and Phemius, who lived during the oral, preliterate period.

Throughout the rise of Greek literature, the works of Homer maintained their popularity. The desire of listeners to hear the ancient, correct pronunciation of Homer’s works also endured—despite the influence of several dialects and foreign languages (Pfeiffer 11). Classical Greeks saw writing as a means to facilitate oral communication, and the fifth century BCE Pre-Socratic philosopher Kritias even claimed that the “Phoenicians invented writing as an aid to speaking” (Kritias, DK 88.B.2). This is a point of no small significance, for as the rest of the language went through the natural process of simplifying its structure, numerous Homeric terms became increasingly rare and obsolete (γλῶσσαι) and needed to be recorded so that their “proper” meaning and pronunciation would be insured for future listeners. Consequently, an everwidening gap emerged between the fixed language preserved in the works of Homer and the constantly changing Greek tongue.

Despite the linguistic changes that took place in the Greek language from the eighth to the fourth centuries BCE (Maas 1), the desire to preserve the euphony of the Homeric tongue encouraged individual Rhapsodes to record, and thus preserve, the almost sacrosanct interpretation (Plato Ion 530C, D ff.; Pfeiffer 10–11). Pindar claimed that even in his time audiences required individuals who could explain and preserve literature (Olympian Odes 2.83–85; Pythian Odes 1.93–94; Isthmian Odes 7.16–19). In the twilight of this oral, preliterate period, Homeric interpreters relied strongly on memory, and their reputation for reciting entire sections of Homer was widespread (Pindar Nemean Odes 7.14–16; Isthmian Odes 6.98–110; Plato Ion 537A, B). Rudolf Pfeiffer argues that there is “no evidence for book production on a large scale, for the circulation of copies, or for a reading public in the lyric age. The power of memory was unchallenged, and the tradition of poetry and early philosophy remained oral” (25). Even the term rhapsody, in its earliest sense, came to mean the chanting of an entire book of Homer—or about five hundred lines at a single session (Liddell and Scott 1566; Kirk, Songs 306–307n2). In this respect, the Iliad and Odyssey are actually stories woven together with formulaic transitions. Moreover, the emergence of writing facilitated attempts to preserve Homeric literature and pronunciation, for interpreters were able to use texts or copies of passages to aid their memories.

The efforts to stabilize the Homeric tongue, particularly through writing, enable us to view Rhapsodes with more precision. During the purely oral period, aoidoi entertained listeners and related heroic stories with an emphasis on creative improvisation as well as the transmission of familiar stories. Rhapsodes began to appear during the literate period. Herodotus was the first known writer of the fifth century BCE to use the term “rhapsode” (ῥaψῳδόus) as an individual who chanted Homeric poems (5.67; cf. Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus 391). Thus, somewhere between the late sixth and early fifth centuries BCE the term came into common usage. By the late fifth and early fourth centuries BCE of Plato’s Athens, it meant a professional interpreter who recited almost exclusively the works of Homer (Plato, Ion 530C; Leges 658B). In fact, a work in the corpus of Homerica, which is dated as early as the fourth century BCE, even refers to Homer as a “ῥaψῳδοὑτα” or “sort of rhapsode” ([Homerica], Of the Origin of Homer and Hesiod, and Their Contest 315; Hesiod Fragmenta Dubia 3; Plato Leges 658B). In brief, G.S. Kirk claims that somewhere between 625575 BCE there was a “progressive eclipse of the aoidos with his kitharis [κἱθαρις], and the firm establishment of the trained reciter, the rhapsode” (Kirk, Epic 314; cf. Hayman 150; Patzer 324). During the seventh and sixth centuries BCE the alphabet and writing became more pervasive; appreciation for literature became more widespread; the Iliad and Odyssey were popular, but the pronunciation of Homeric Greek was virtually lost. At this time, Rhapsodes began to establish themselves as professionals who not only claimed expertise as Homeric scholars but also as Homeric philologists and phoneticians who functioned as linguistic “guardians” of Homeric pronunciation.

Although the specific time during which the evolution from aoidos to rhapsode occurred is uncertain, there can be little doubt that the change from a preliterate to a literate Hellenic culture was a dominant force influencing the development of a rhapsodic tradition. Prior to the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, individuals relied upon their memories as the primary means for transmitting literature. Even a cursory reading of the Iliad and Odyssey reveals numerous formulae that were mnemonic aids in recalling passages. With the emergence of writing, however, Rhapsodes began to construct texts of Homeric literature to aid their oral presentations (Xenophon, Memorabilia 4.2.10; Symposium 3.6). A series of passages cited from ancient sources that support the notion of writing being used to aid memory can be found in Pfeiffer (26). Frederic George Kenyon and Colin Henderson Roberts explain: “Long after poems and other literary works were written down as a matter of course, the normal method of publication was oral. Books were essentially aides-memoire for the author or performer, not a primary means of communication to an audience. This view of the book as a hypomnema or substitute for recital persists until Plato, if not later” (OCD 173). Similarly, George Miller Calhoun offers a very informative presentation on the relationship between oral and written litigation (177–93).

Rhapsodes played an important part in the development of oral and written expression, for their texts of Homer not only facilitated memory but also codified and thus stabilized the literature (Kirk, Songs 309). Clearly, divergent copies existed, and corrected copies were undoubtedly numerous. During the dawning of the literary period, Rhapsodes shifted from preliterate improvisers to experts at codifying, preserving, and orally interpreting Homerica for listeners. Athens became the leader in booktrade, but up to the sixth century BCE no single authoritative text was compiled. On the contrary, considerable confusion must have resulted because of the numerous swatches and variant rhapsodic texts that existed (Pfeiffer 25). To resolve this confusion, a single text presenting the “entire” Iliad and Odyssey was needed and the Rhapsodes played a leading role in this ambitious project.

The opportunity for Rhapsodes to canonize Homer’s works came in the sixth century BCE during a Panathenaic contest under Pisistratus. Contests were an integral aspect of Greek life; they included athletic events as well as cultural performances. At the Pythian Games, for example, crowds of musicians actively competed for honors alongside athletes. These festivals, which were centered on religious themes, were a natural arena in which Rhapsodes practiced their art. By the eighth century BCE, the concept of Pan-Hellenic festivals drew competitors from major Greek states (Pfeiffer 5). Hellenic interest in art and athletics may account for the frequency of such contests (Isocrates, Panegyricus 43–46), and the deference that all Greeks shared toward the Iliad and Odyssey offered a universal bond.

Until the sixth century BCE, there was not a suitable Pan-Hellenic text that could function as a standard, authorized copy. By this time, Homeric readings were a recognized part of Panathenaic festivals (Kirk, Songs 302–03). In an attempt to resolve textual difficulties, the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus ordered the scattered readings of Homeric literature to be collected and assembled. The orator Lycurgus adds support to the contention that Rhapsodes were individuals chosen to stabilize the works of Homer when he said to the Athenians: “Your fathers held the poet [Homer] in such regard that they established a law so that at every five-yearly Panathenaea his epic works alone, of all the poets, would be chanted by the Rhapsodes” (Contra Leocratem 102). Plato argues that Hipparchus, not Pisistratus, ordered the canonization of the Iliad and Odyssey by Rhapsodes (Hipparchus 228B) while Diogenes Laertius (1.57) claims that the codification took place under Solon, a position supported by Hayman (144). T. W. Allen argues for a different date and locale for the canonization of Homer’s works but does not attack ancient references that credit Rhapsodes for their efforts (40, 48–49). Lastly, Josephus reinforced the testimony of Lycurgus by claiming that up to the time of Pisistratus such works were transmitted only orally (Contra Apionem 1.12).

While it is clear that arguments about locale, time and authority exist concerning the literate standardization of the Iliad and Odyssey, there is no disagreement that the Rhapsodes were the composers and consequently the sources for literate compositional techniques and form. The construction of a standardized Homeric text may have meant that one rhapsode had to begin his interpretation where the preceding rhapsode had finished; the process continued until the entire work was completed. Whether this phenomenon, called the “Pisistratean recension,” actually took place during the rule of Pisistratus has been contested (Kirk, Songs 312, 317; Pfeiffer 6, 7). By the fifth century BCE, private texts of Homer were not uncommon, and Rhapsodes who knew Homer by heart were common in Athens (Xenophon, Symposium 3.6; Memorabilia 4.2.10).

With the codification of the Iliad and Odyssey came the formation of the Homeridae, the most prestigious members of the rhapsodic guild who may well have functioned as judges in interpretative contests (Plato, Ion 530D; Hargis, “Socrates” 1–12). The exact date the Homeridae guild was formed and their relationship to Rhapsodes in general has neither been thoroughly examined nor completely understood (Oxford 526). Homeridae prospered on the island of Chios, the legendary birthplace of Homer, and claimed to be his descendants (OCD 526). The reference to Homeridae as types of Rhapsodes is made by Pindar, who describes these “sons of Homer” as “weavers of chants” (Nemean Odes 2.1–2; [Plutarch], Homeri Vita 2.2). In scholia referring to Pindar (Nemean Odes 2.1, 2) Athenaeus (22B) indicates that the most famous of these Homeridae at his time was Cynaethus of Chios, who flourished about 504 BCE. The influence of the Homeridae spread as Rhapsodes such as Xenophanes of Colophron (b. 570 BCE) traveled throughout Greece reciting his own poetry and critiquing both Homer and Hesiod (DK 21.A.1). Theagenes of Rhegium (fl. circa 525 BCE) was the author of On Homer. In it, he argued that the gods of Homeric literature were actually personifications of natural elements and abstract entities. His interpretation of Homer included comments on linguistics as well as literary and grammatical criticism (DK 8.2, 1, 1a; Pfeiffer 10–11). Although Theagenes cannot be considered one of the Homeridae with absolute certainty, there is little doubt that he represents the essence of rhapsodic scholarship—that is, an interpreter of both literary meaning and linguistic accuracy. Eventually, Rhapsodes other than those who came from Chios were admitted to the Homeric guild, and by Plato’s time Homeridae were highly esteemed throughout Athens (Ion 530D; Phaedrus 252B). In short, Homeridae were a distinguished guild of itinerant Rhapsodes who consciously attempted to illuminate meaning in Homer and to preserve written collections of words which were becoming increasingly rare, obsolete, and therefore difficult to pronounce (Pfeiffer 12; Aristotle, Poetica 1459a9ff.; Isocrates, Helen 65).

The recognition Rhapsodes had received under Pisistratus continued. As festivals and games gained popularity, so did the contests for Rhapsodes. Musicians and poets, who shared honors equally with athletes, were encouraged to compete at the Pythian, Nemean, Isthmian, and Olympian games—as Pindar’s lyric poems reveal. As the intellectual center for the Hellenic world, Athens also encouraged Rhapsodes to participate in her contests. Pericles established by decree not only a general contest for music and poetry, but also an odeion, or concert/lecture hall, to house such displays (Plutarch, Vita Parallelae: Pericles 13; Pausanias 1.8.6 and 7.20.6; Philostratus, Vita Sophistarum 571, 579). By Plato’s time, rhapsodic contests at the Panathenaea held great prestige. Plato’s dialogue-character Ion proudly referred to his competition in the event (Ion 530B; Leges 658B). By Plato’s time, Rhapsodes commonly dressed in conspicuous apparel and declaimed from a dais (Ion 530B, 535D, E). Contrary to Plato’s implications, respect for Rhapsodes was widespread, particularly among Sophists such as Protagoras, who admired Rhapsodes for their attempts to use Homer as a means of providing a practical education (DK 80.A.5; Plato, Protagoras 317B; Pfeiffer 16).

Over the centuries, Rhapsodes continued to evolve into a professional guild of individuals who were not only educators in Homeric oratory but also active participants in contests. Recognition of their success in such contests spans centuries and indicates the prestige they enjoyed. Moreover, the extant epigraphical fragments containing lists of contest participants provide vital evidence indicating their influence and fame. These fragments survive primarily as chronicles of victors at literary and oratorical festivals. Evidence from these sources indicates a number of noteworthy facts. Rhapsodes did not fall into disrepute after Plato but continued to thrive as recognized artists. Records from Amphiareion, for example, clearly show that Rhapsodes shared honors with tragic and comic actors as well as musicians during the Roman domination of Greece (see Enos, “Art”; Petracos 13, 36–41, 65). Training in the rhapsodic art as a formal study is evident through the third Christian century (SIG vol. one, no. 389 [8] duo, no. 424 [10], no. 489 [12], no. 509 [6]; vol. two, no. 711L[32], no. 736 [42.150.165]; vol. three, no. 958[36], no. 959 [9]; OCD 920). There are even indications at this late date that rhapsodic contests were offered at a wide range of places, varying from contests for children to events held on Chios (SIG, vol. three, nos. 958, 959).

Although Rhapsodes continued to participate in contests, their function as linguistic guardians of Homeric pronunciation and scholarship diminished. As centuries passed, the Greek language continued to develop, alter, and be influenced by numerous dialects which gradually eroded the oral characteristics of the language from Homeric Greek and made reconstruction increasingly more difficult (Maas 3–4). Efforts by Rhapsodes to maintain the “correct” pronunciation, intonation, accent, and rhythm of Homeric Greek were doomed to failure. From the first century BCE onward, the quantitative metre that characterized Homeric oral interpretation became further removed from the rhythmical structure of the language. In addition, for some unknown reason, no Greek writer of any importance seems to have concerned himself with metric studies (Maas 3–5).

In a futile attempt to preserve the pronunciation of Homeric Greek, scholars eventually adopted a written system of diacritical notations (stress symbols) to indicate vocal quality and quantity. In spite of these efforts, W. Sidney Allen claims that by “Alexandrian times, as knowledge of the earlier language declined, and as Greek came to be taught as a foreign language, the need was felt for marking such features in classical texts in cases where ambiguity might otherwise result” (Accent and Rhythm 4). Second century BCE Alexandrian scholars, such as Zenodotus of Ephesus, and even Byzantine scholars, such as Aristophanes, undertook lexicographical studies to codify and thereby preserve Homeric pronunciation with markings and grammatical explanations (see Pfeiffer 174–82; Kindstrand). Written explanations, however, failed to preserve phonetic vocal qualities between vowels—a distinction which is the essence of precise interpretation of the Homeric tongue. Moreover, as quantitative distinctions between vowels continued to become increasingly uncertain, the placing of word accents at regular positions in lines began to occur (Maas 15). Even into the early Christian centuries, Rhapsodes persisted in their use of the ancient Homeric tongue, but their pronunciation was far removed from the original Greek vernacular that had been altered by centuries of use and modification. By 400 BCE, “correct” pronunciation was all but nonexistent, and the rhapsodic tradition had deteriorated to such an extent that individuals no longer read according to sounds intuitively familiar to listeners but rather according to artificially contrived stress accents on each written word (Maas 13–15).

Eventually, Homeric metre was dictated by structure not tonal quality. The beneficiaries of the rhapsodic tradition were left with only the form of their language and not the quantitative (syllables based on duration of sound rather than stress) sound that produced it. Efforts of Rhapsodes to preserve the oral nature of Homeric Greek, both in practice and also in the theoretical development of notational systems, justifies their association with the history of rhetoric—even if that association reveals nothing more than the historical evolution of thought which preceded the “discovery” of rhetoric so frequently credited to Corax and Tisias.