Читать книгу Greek Rhetoric Before Aristotle - Richard Leo Enos - Страница 8

Preface

Popular accounts assert that rhetoric emerged as a discipline in the fifth century BCE in Greece. The attention that rhetoric received from Plato and Aristotle, in addition to its malleable utility, assured its preservation for both the intellectually curious and the pragmatic. There is currently debate among historians of ancient rhetoric about the specific time that rhetoric was recognized as a discipline. Legend places that occurrence in Syracuse, Sicily and credits Corax and Tisias with its “founding” in 467 BCE; others argue that rhetoric emerged as a discipline at a much later date (see Schiappa, Portagoras). Attempting to pinpoint a precise moment in history muddles the more important goal of understanding the processes that led to the establishment of rhetoric.

Rhetoric did not originate at a single moment in history. Rather, it was an evolving, developing consciousness about the relationship between thought and expression. This sensitivity about thinking, speaking and (later) writing happened in a variety of ways, at different times, and in a number of different areas of Greece. This awareness of the ancient Greeks resulted from what we now view as a variety of modes of expression and often because of factors that were not exclusively rational but frequently political, social and expedient. We do know that at some point ancient Greeks considered rhetoric to be a discipline, accepted it as a part of their education and—particularly in those cities that were governed by democracies—saw it as practical for the workings of their communities.

Both criticism and praise of rhetoric as a discipline centers on the subject of invention. That is, rhetoric offers systematic methods for creating artful and articulate discourse in both spoken and written forms. Aristotle focused on the ability to create proofs; reasoned discourse could be articulated in an effort to resolve situations that required popular judgment of opinion. Yet the “invention” of discourse is not limited solely to the creation of rational proofs. The task of this book is to illustrate the various types of discourse that developed in Greece and the methods used to refine them. An examination of these various approaches should provide a more expanded—and representative—view of the notion of invention. Such an understanding should help to sharpen our perspective on Plato’s criticism of rhetoric, Aristotle’s characterization of what rhetoric is (and ought to be), the nature and impact of the Sophists, and the use of rhetoric in other genres.

There is one other point that is particularly important to note before reading this book. Current accounts of rhetoric in ancient Greece typically ignore the introduction of written composition to rhetoric or treat it as an after-thought, occurring long after systems of oral communication were firmly established. While there is no argument that speech preceded writing, this volume will make it clear that systems of written expression were in operation and shaping discourse before rhetoric emerged as a popular discipline. Moreover, it will also become apparent that the composition of Homeric literature and the evolution of prose writing through logography (written speech) were integral events in the development of rhetoric. We will see that as rhetoric became specialized into discrete functions—such as historical, legal, political, and ceremonial expression—systems of logography correspondingly moved to specialized modes of writing. Rhetoric became established and popular as a discipline because of the Sophists of the fifth and fourth centuries BCE; their presentation of rhetoric included both oral and written composition. In short, this book will make it apparent to the reader that oral and written systems of composition were in operation long before rhetoric was recognized as a discipline, that they inextricably evolved to establish rhetoric, and that their persistent unity helped secure its popular reception and perpetuation. To study the history of Greek rhetoric without recognizing the inherent relationship of oral and written composition produces an incomplete and imprecise understanding of the forces that developed rhetoric into a discipline.

Examining the confluence of the ideas and events that shaped rhetoric into a discipline is the purpose of this book. From this perspective, the Hellenic recognition of rhetoric as a discipline did not mark its beginning or origin but rather the consequence of a series of occurrences. The evolutionary process of rhetoric has frequently been discussed in broad terms, a generalized sweep of historic events preceding the emergence of rhetoric. Such an overview will happen indirectly, for major events and individuals will be discussed in order to provide a context for understanding topics under discussion. However, it is not the intent of this book to provide such a broad statement. If we are to have a sensitive understanding of the activities that foreshadowed rhetoric’s emergence, it is imperative that we examine discrete occurrences in detail—particularly since they had such a profound impact on the way in which ancient Greeks viewed discourse and its creation. These events established paradigms about the relationship between thought and expression that created attitudes toward discourse that the ancient Greeks eventually assimilated into systems. Some of these paradigms reveal nascent sensitivity to self-created eloquence. Others were shaped by the expediencies of the moment and still others by the influence of technologies such as writing. The rationality of rhetoric is the product of a number of these events, and presenting them in a coherent manner is the objective of this book. If this objective is attained, the reader should be able to begin the study of ancient rhetoric with a context that will promote a better understanding of rhetoric and its place in the societies of ancient Greece.

The bibliography at the end of this volume incorporates a considerable amount of scholarship in the history of rhetoric, particularly over the last few decades. Much of the work about the classical period of rhetoric has sought to refine, elaborate and adjust views of rhetoric that were formed over the last century. This fine-tuning of ideas has come about by a closer reading of texts, such as Aristotle’s Rhetoric, as well as a more substantial integration of standard sources. Some of the most notable contributions have been in general histories of rhetoric, which have helped to produce and to foster this resurgence of interest, particularly in the classical period. A greater sensitivity to social and cultural issues has also refined our ideas about classical rhetoric. As we learn more about the world of ancient Greeks and their worldview, we can posit more perceptive interpretations about their rhetoric. Scholarship over the last century has helped to advance this understanding in a number of ways: our sophistication over philological issues has increased, our understanding of Hellenic culture has likewise deepened, and our notion of the “history” of rhetoric has been more coherent and thorough than the patchwork accounts of our Victorian forefathers.

Yet, for all this scholarly advancement, there are still areas of need. Some of the more recent histories of rhetoric are not so much the result of newly discovered evidence but new perspectives for examining the same sources. While these perspectives are refreshing and often insightful, they do not in themselves provide new material for the study of ancient rhetoric. The attitudes about “doing history” also echo some of the predispositions of our forefathers. We tend—despite some re-orientations of characters and trends—to march through events in roughly the same fashion, forgetting that chronicles are not natural acts but only the perspectives of earlier historians that may or may not accurately reflect reality. Lastly, our work tends to start and finish at about the same time, and these parameters unconsciously set up boundaries that (by default) exclude other periods, topics, issues and individuals that do not fit the format.

This volume seeks to resolve some of these problems in a number of ways. The first is to provide a “pre-history” of classical rhetoric by examining emerging ideas that contributed to the establishment of rhetoric as a discipline in ancient Greece. We would do well to remember, however, that even the notion of “pre-history” is itself a relatively recent concept that was popularized in the mid-nineteenth century by the wave of enthusiasm following the exciting developments and discoveries in the new field of archaeology. Moreover, casting this project as a history of any sort does not mean to impose an orderly flow of events where such order does not actually exist. To do so would be to tell a story at the expense of accuracy rather than represent events that do not always occur in a coherent pattern. Acts are not always causal or rational; forces of political preference, cultural desire and social norms also dictate ideas and systems of rhetoric. Second, much of the scholarship done in or about the origins of rhetoric is general and anecdotal. The effort here is to go into depth about important individuals, ideas and movements which will reveal forces shaping ideas about rhetoric and setting the agenda for what early Hellenic culture thought was (and was not) important about rhetoric, as well as the debates that naturally ensued because of these disagreements. The intent here, then, is not to provide broad, general overviews but rather specific instances that provoke a deeper understanding of phenomena. Lastly, this work will introduce sources that have not been examined, works that are known but typically not included in rhetoric’s history and, consequently, new interpretations as well as the more traditional, literary ones.

This volume should provide the reader with an understanding of the multiplicity of forces that contributed to the shaping of rhetoric’s history, as well as areas of inquiry that can and should continue to be examined. What is presented here as a pre-history is more accurately a preface to the history of rhetoric. As is true with any preface, carefully articulated preliminary statements are intended to provide the reader with a perspective that will maximize the benefits of the subsequent work. Certainly, in a general history of rhetoric many individuals would receive much greater attention. Although Protagoras’s direct contributions to the development of rhetoric are still under discussion, there is little doubt that his contributions to philosophy and “linguistic developments” (Schiappa, Protagoras 198–203) warrant much more attention in a more generalized history. Similarly, the impact of Isocrates would also be a subject for discussion in a work that offered a broader range of topics. Here, however, our attention to prominent thinkers such as Protagoras and Isocrates focuses only on their impact on the evolving notions of discourse as they contribute to the emergence of rhetoric as a discipline. The object is to provide a context which will help readers better appreciate the more specialized studies of individuals as well as the broader, generalized histories. After reading this work, the reader should be able to turn to our current accounts of the history of classical rhetoric with new sources, new methods of analysis and criticism, and a better grounding for understanding and judgment.