Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ABSTRACTS
the depiction of their character, the power play and the relationship between them, the
performance of their speeches, and their appeal to logic and/or emotions.
Furthermore, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of rhetorical persuasion in this
scene I will also discuss the following issues: in what way does the nurses rhetoric
affect Clytemnestra? Does the nurse manage to persuade the queen? If not, what are
the reasons for her failure? What is the importance of this rhetorical exchange for the
development of the play? To what extent does the gender of the speakers affect their
rhetoric and their persuasiveness? How does the nurses speech relate to Aegisthus
effort to convince Clytemnestra to stick to their original decision and to further their
plan? Does Aegisthus feel compelled to rebut any of the nurses arguments when he
appears on stage after the exchange between Clytemnestra and the nutrix?
Andreas Serafim (serandreas@outlook.com)
Persuasive conventions: imperative
and questions in Attic oratory
In Rhetoric 1356a1-4, Aristotle lists three means of persuasion: argument, the
character of the speaker, and the disposition created in the hearer. In respect to the last
of these, I will consider the role of two under-studied devices of language register
imperatives and questions. By considering passages in Aeschines 2 and Demosthenes
19 where these devices are present in high concentration, I argue that they serve as a
means for the speaker artfully to construct the audiences frame of mind.
Imperatives are one of the commonest features of speeches. While they may often be
used conventionally (e.g., when the speaker calls the herald to read a decree), there
are instances where their concentration in a limited space (Aeschines 2.8: three;
Demosthenes 19.262: two imperatives reinforced by medical terminology, 97: three,
8, 75: four) indicates that their use is more than merely a matter of convention. The
imperatives demand for the audience to think, listen and act, or react, in a specific
way is an undisguised linguistic gesture of direct authority over the judges. In
Demosthenes 19.75, 97, for example, repetitive imperatives invite the audience to
prevent Aeschines from making his speech by heckling, questioning and shouting at
him.
Questions may also be considered a matter of convention, being ubiquitous in
speeches. With no fewer than thirteen questions, however, Aeschines 2.136-9
represents the highest concentration of questions in the Attic speeches (cf. Aeschines
1.158: four, 3.130-2: seven; Demosthenes 19.303-4: six; Isaeus 8.28: seven, 7.40:
six). This concentration must, I suggest, be considered and artful, with their relentless
succession intended to leave the hearers/viewers with no opportunity to come up with
and vocalise a response and to thereby direct them to the answers Demosthenes wants.
Antonis Petrides (apetrides@ouc.ac.cy)
:
Knemons apologia pro vita sua in
Menanders Dyskolos
Knemon, the titular (cantankerous man) of Menanders play, is a peculiar
case of misanthrope, insomuch as he abandons two fundamental traits of most literary
4
forensic speeches are seen as pieces of literature rather than as pieces of evidence
concerning the history of Athenian law. In this paper, I propose to discuss enargeia,
an important quality that forensic narratives share with other genres of literary
composition, such as historiography and the ancient novel. Although ancient sources
associate enargeia primarily with rhetorical practice, in modern studies of ancient
oratory the notion remains largely under-explored. Usually translated as vividness,
enargeia describes narratives which are so designed as to add visibility to the narrated
events. Ancient discussions of enargeia derive from rhetorical treatises composed
long after the surviving forensic speeches of the Attic orators. However, it has been
suggested that Greek orators were well aware of the notion of enargeia. This
suggestion gains important ground from the fact that as early as the Sophists, Greek
rhetoricians addressed the problem of the representational potentialities of logos. At
the same time, and, perhaps more importantly, ancient theories of enargeia emphasize
vivid narratives ability to elicit emotions. In view of modern theoretical approaches,
showing that narratives are complex cognitive phenomena, the relationship of
enargeia with emotions is hardly surprising. If emotions require complex evaluative
judgments frequently concerning moral, ideological or normative considerations,
vivid narratives are informed by potent cultural understandings that secure
verisimilitude. Hence, vivid narratives must be seen as an effective tool that enabled
speakers to offer jurors a conceptual framework in the context of which they invited
them to endorse appropriate sentiments and, ultimately, decide the cases at hand.
Furthermore, vivid narratives gave speakers the opportunity to simplify the
complexities of their cases. My aim in this paper is to discuss enargeia in the light of
modern advancements in the fields of cognitive psychology and philosophy and show
how narratives contributed to what ancient rhetoricians labeled as pahtopoiia. My
paper will also use case studies from the corpus of the orators in an attempt to show
how speakers employed enargeia as a means of producing narratives that elicited
audiences appropriate emotional responses.
Eleni Volonaki (evolonaki2003@yahoo.co.uk)
Narrative persuasion in forensic oratory
In forensic oratory, narratives are regularly the background to a suit described in the
form of a summarized story. According to Aristotle the narrative is different in nature
and content from the other parts of the speech, though in practice the distinction
between different parts of a speech is not always so clear. The principal purpose of the
speechs narrator is to compile the real events of the case into a story that is
persuasive to his audience and in order to win ones case the narrator is deliberately
using deception. and to that end he deliberately uses deception. The speaker, in a
forensic speech, turns into a primary narrator at the point of the speech where he starts
narrating the events of his case, addressing the jurors as his external audience and
sometimes his opponents as his internal audience.
Various rhetorical strategies are employed by logographers to add vividness and
persuasiveness in the narration of the speakers story and the aim of this paper is to
examine the convergences and divergences of the narrative techniques in forensic
oratory, based on a few samples of narrative composition. In Antiphon, for example,
we can notice a distinct strategy between his sole prosecution speech (Against the
stepmother) and the two defence speeches (On the murder of Herodes, On the chorusboy), concerning the length and the content of the narrative section. Furthermore, he is
8
employing a mixing of narrative and proofs, which is also found in later orators.
Breaking up the narrative into smaller sections and the frequent insertion of metanarrative narratorial interventions is a common technique also found in Andocides (In
the Mysteries). In Lysias speeches the narrative plays a key role in the portrayal of
characters (e.g. On the killing of Eratosthenes). Demosthenes narratives undeniably
present a similar vividness and persuasiveness to that of Lysias but his most
noticeable feature is the vehemence of the personal attacks his narrators make on their
opponents (Against Conon, On the embassy, On the crown). Thus, the present paper
presents a variety of perspectives in the narrative persuasion as derives from the
examination of specific forensic cases, in connection with the ethos (characterization),
the form of composition consisting either of distinct narrative parts or mixing
elements of narration and argumentation, the different extent of details in the
presentation of a case, depending on the side of a litigant, the performance and
physical appearance of the narrator, the pathos in personal attacks and finally the
meta-narrative techniques in a form of intervention and rhetorical strategy.
Flaminia Beneventano (flaminia.beneventano@gmail.com)
Apophainein.
Demonstration
and
performance between forensic oratory
and Herodotus Histories
In this paper I wish to consider the relationship that exists between classical oratory
and historiography, especially Herodotus Histories, focusing my analysis on the use
of apophainein, a verb which appears to be common to both genres and particularly
relevant to forensic speech. In juridical settings apophainein is apparently used to
indicate an authoritative and effective demonstration, either physical based on the
display of material elements of proof (eg. D. XXVII; Is. III; Is. IX) or metaphorical,
thus relying on a powerful discourse and on the influence of the speaker on the
recipient (eg. Antipho VI; D. XXXIII; D. LIX). The shift between a physical and a
metaphorical exhibition (apophainein es opsin, apophainein toi logoi) suggests a
performative efficacy of apophaino. It can be considered as what Austin would call a
speech act which enables the speaker to state a truth as clearly as it were shown and
displayed to the eyes of the audience and to effect reality according to the speakers
expectations.
In Herodotus work, the use of apophaino seems to anticipate the technical specificity
the verb has in fourth century oratory, as it often appears in juridical contexts, forensic
disputes and accompanied by other terms which recall the semantic field of law,
courts and trials and which can be related to rhetorical technique (eg. Hdt. I 82; V
45). My aim is to focus on those elements which enable us to connect the two genres,
especially concentrating on the forensic vocabulary employed, on reference to proof
and on the analysis of the argumentative strategy.
To deal with these issues and to look into the cultural categories which the use of
apophaino implies, a pragmatic perspective is required. In particular, attention must
be paid to what Malinowski refers to as context of situation. Authority and agency of
the speaker, for instance, appear to be essential for the performative effectiveness
apophaino, together with the participation of the audience which has the role of
understanding, certifying and eventually accepting the intentions of the speaker, in
order to make the act successful (eg. Hdt. I 82; Hdt. IV 81; Hdt. V 45; Hdt. VI 65).
9
10
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the way in which Livy builds up each
speakers argumentation encapsulates his own view on the abrogation of the lex
Oppia. More precisely, both speakers appear to draw their arguments from the very
livian narrative. However, while Catos previsions concerning the dangers of the
abrogation are confirmed by Livys account, his understanding of the scope of the law
in the past is shown to be erroneous. Inversely, although Valerius interpretation of
the law as an austerity measure sits in accord with the quasi-absence of luxury in the
third decade, the tribune did not appreciate properly the future perils stressed by Cato
and reinforced in the rest of the extant books. Unlike all scholars who maintain that
Livy gives reason to one of the two speakers, this paper shows that Livy juxtaposes
two strategies for persuasion which equally failed to prevent Romes decline. In other
words, Valerius has persuaded his contemporary audience, but neither him, nor Cato
achieve to persuade Livy (and his readers). This juxtaposition, as shall be argued,
serves to prompt our reflection on the abrogation of the lex Oppia, allowing us thus to
explain and better understand the propagation of luxuria in the next few books, and
offering a prominent example of how persuasion in historiographical discourse can
raise questions of historical and philosophical importance.
Jakob Wisse (jakob.wisse@newcastle.ac.uk)
Left to ones own deliberative devices:
orators, historians, and rhetorical
theory
To what extent did deliberative orators in antiquity follow rhetorical theory when
composing their speeches? And to what extent do deliberative speeches found in the
historians conform to the theory? Do we in fact need theory at all to analyse such
speeches?
The usual answers to these questions are fairly straightforward. Rhetorical theory is
often taken to be a (relatively) unproblematic guide to oratorical practice: orators, in
the speeches they made and published, as well as historians, in the speeches they
(re)present in their work, are supposed to have used the rules found in the ancient
rhetorical handbooks. Accordingly, scholars often analyse speeches deliberative as
well as judicial ones in terms of these rules. However, this is far from
unproblematic, and the fit of such analyses with the actual speeches is often not
particularly good.
In the case of deliberative speeches, the problem is compounded by the nature of the
rhetorical rules: the judicial genre received most attention in the rhetorical handbooks,
and accordingly the rules for judicial speeches were elaborate and complex (often to
the point of caricature); but those for deliberative speeches were underdeveloped.
This paper, mainly on the basis of Roman material, will suggest ways of going
beyond the usual, fairly mechanical picture of the relationship between deliberative
speeches and rhetorical theory. I hope that this will also contribute to a better
understanding of the much-discussed relationship between actual speeches and
speeches found in the ancient historians.
11
which begins with failed erotic persuasion, and recounts another similar tale about
Pausanias. And in its account of Cimons career it vastly privileges the influence of
money over that of words in a rather disconcerting way. Cimons lavish generosity is
seen as a better argument in his favour than any opposing speech. Indeed the narrative
tends to mute voices other than the narrators. The image which Cimon sees in the
dream which portends his death, that of a dog baying and speaking at the same time
(interpreted as referring to the Persians) is also emblematic of a hushing of political
voices in Athens. This may be because Plutarch is also employing Golden age
imagery to characterise the dominance of Cimon, and the Golden Age is monoligual
in Greek thought; but the absence or rather ghostly presence - of persuasion is also
rather disconcerting.
Kathryn Tempest (K.Tempest@roehampton.ac.uk)
The Pseudepigrapha of M. Junius
Brutus: persuading whom, when, how
and why?
The collection of Greek letters attributed to Marcus Junius Brutus consists of seventy
short epistles in total, half of which were allegedly written as he made his
preparations for war in the East. An introductory letter written by the compiler of the
collection, the unidentified Mithridates, explains that he personally composed the
other half, because his nephew had wanted to know how the communities to whom
Brutus had written might have responded to his repeated demands for money and
military support. There is no doubt, then, that the responses from the communities are
imaginary letters, but the letters attributed to Brutus, too, are in all likelihood entirely
fictitious.
It is perhaps unfortunate, however, that modern scholarly discussions have focused
almost exclusively on the question of the authenticity of the Brutus letters; that is, on
one half of the collection. Now almost universally regarded as rhetorical exercises of
the first century AD, there has been a hiatus of almost two decades in their study. And
a large number of questions remain unanswered. What training was provided in the
rhetorical schools for the composition and declamation of military despatches? What
evidence do they provide more generally for the role played by letters in military
envoys? How were written communications conveyed to mass audiences? And what
argumentative techniques worked best in this context? In this paper, I shall aim to
demonstrate how a clearer understanding of the letters audience, authorship, and
function may help us examine the art of persuasion from a new and fruitful
perspective. Indeed, as the only extant collection of letters by, or purporting to be by,
a military commander, these letters offer unique evidence for understanding the role
of letters within rhetorical education; they also attest to the strong connection between
epistolography and ambassadorial rhetoric.
Margot Neger (Margot.Neger@sbg.ac.at)
Plinys Letters and the art of persuasion
Recent scholarship has demonstrated the many ways in which Pliny the Youngers
Letters were influenced by the rhetorical and historiographical (together with the
biographical) tradition and that the epistolary corpus can be read as a form of small
scale prose. Pliny shows profound awareness of the similarities and differences
14
between the genres in question (as e.g. in Ep. 5.8). Thus it might not be too surprising
that the art of persuasion also plays an important role within the context of the lettercollection. Due to the conventions of epistolary writing and the design of the
collection as a whole we can distinguish three different groups of addressees who are
the target of Plinys ars persuadendi: 1. the various addressees of single letters, 2. the
general reader of the published letter-collection and 3. the internal audience of Plinys
speeches which are described in several letters (e.g. Epist. 2.11-12; 4.9; 5.20; 6.5;
6.13; 6.33; 7.33; 9.13).
The paper wants to examine how the art of persuasion is employed on these different
levels of communication: With regard to single letters it asks which rhetorical
techniques Pliny applies in order to influence a particular addressee. On the other
hand, the collection as a whole is designed as a kind of autobiography through
which Pliny tries to create a positive self-image as a statesman and member of the
Roman upper class in the post-Flavian era. The paper discusses how this larger
image-campaign is designed and compares the literary strategies Pliny applies with
instructions in rhetorical treatises such as in Plutarchs De se ipsum citra invidiam
laudando (= Mor. 539 A-547 F). Within this larger project of self-fashioning, Plinys
self-depiction as a successful orator in the senate and the Centumviral Court plays an
important part: Several letters serve as a kind of commentaries to Plinys speeches
(of which only the Panegyricus has survived) and contain vivid descriptions of the
respective trials; in these texts we are also informed about the audiences reactions
both to Plinys own speeches and those held by his opponents. Through the art of
enargeia the reader of these letters is virtually turned into a part of Plinys audience in
court (cf. Epist. 6.33.7).
Maria Kythreotou (kythreotou.maria@ucy.ac.cy)
Persuasion in Thucydidean speeches
Among the speeches of Thucydides some prove completely effective (e.g. Pericles
speeches), others only partially influence the course of the events (e.g. the Corcyrean
Corinthian antilogy), while others do not seem to affect in any way the process of
the war. In this last case, other factors prove more decisive than the persuasiveness of
the speaker. Thus, the impact of these speeches on the narrative seems to be
insignificant. And what is worth noticing is that the historian himself mentions this
insignificance at the very end of the speech. There are nine speeches of this kind: the
tetralogy at Sparta before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war (1.68-86), the speech
of the Corinthians at Sparta (1.120-124), Teutiaplus speech at Embaton (3.30), the
Plataians Thebans antilogy (3.53-67) and the speech of Brasidas at Acanthus
(4.85-87). As a characteristic example, we will mention the speech of Brasidas a
seductive speech according to Thucydides. As the historian points out, the speech
does not play any role in the final decision of the Acanthians to let Brasidas and his
army enter their city walls. On the contrary, the decisive factor seems to be the fear of
the vintage. In this and similar cases fear and other feelings seem to be more
important than persuasion in the decision making process. But what should be noticed
is that the speeches under examination create these feelings due to the use of different
figures of speech (e.g. antitheses, repetition). Is Thucydides in the cases under
examination trying to undermine the power of logos (i.e. persuasion) so much
widespread through the teachings of his contemporary sophists? Taking also into
account that in the majority of these cases the speaker addresses a Doric (mainly
15
Spartan) audience, can we assume that Thucydides is trying to show that this power of
logos is only effective in cases of democratic cities, while in the oligarchic ones only
emotion prevails? Additionally, why does he seem to ignore the fact that the speech
creates this feeling that at last dominates? Does he want his careful readers to notice it
and therefore perceive the power logos has in creating any feeling the speaker thinks
proper for his purposes?
Michael Gagarin (gagarin@austin.utexas.edu)
The Greek art of persuasion and its influence
Persuasion has been a human activity as long as humans have existed. Arguably, even
animals seek to persuade. Those who study or teach about persuasion have always
looked to the Greeks, but what exactly did the Greeks contribute to our understanding
of persuasion, and why are they of continuing interest to us today, as they have been
to the whole Western cultural tradition from the Romans on down? Because they first
made persuasion an Art (techn), something that could and should be studied and
taught. None of this is especially controversial; what is controversial is who first made
persuasion an art (and how did they do it): Corax and Tisias? The Sophists? Plato?
Isocrates, Aristotle? My paper will explore the contributions of all of these, not
necessarily in order to provide a conclusive answer to the question but to better
understand the process leading to the creation of the Art, and in particular the role of
the written word in this process.
Michael Paschalis (michael.paschalis@gmail.com)
The art of ruling an empire: persuasion at point zero
By comparison with Homer in Virgils Aeneid dialogues are greatly reduced, the
speakers are normally only two, while 127 speeches receive no reply at all. Often
dialogues are in essence parallel monologues. The Aeneid differs in these respects
also from the Argonautica, though Apollonius epic contains far fewer speeches than
Homer. On the whole the role of persuasion is drastically reduced in the Aeneid, an
immensely influential epic narrating the beginnings of the Roman Empire. In the
words of T. S. Eliot Aeneas is the symbol of Rome; and, as Aeneas is to Rome, so is
ancient Rome to Europe. Thus Virgil acquires the centrality of the unique classic.
Relevant to any discussion of the character and function of persuasion in the Aeneid
are Anchises words to Aeneas, when the hero descends to the Underworld to meet
his father: others will hammer out bronzes that breathe in more lifelike and gentler/
ways, I suspect, create truer expressions of life out of marble,/ make better speeches
(orabunt causas melius), or plot, with the sweep of their compass, the heavens/
movements, predict the ascent of the skys constellations. Well, let them!/ You, who
are Roman, recall how to govern mankind with your power (tu regere imperio
populos, Romane, memento)./ These will be your special Arts: the enforcement of
peace as a habit,/ mercy for those cast down and relentless war upon proud men.
(6.847-853, tr. by Fred Ahl). In Anchises vision of Rome the art of persuasion is set
completely apart from the task of governing an Empire. Aeneas, the archetypal
Roman emperor, stands practically alone among the characters of the epic and carries
alone the burden of founding an empire. Persuasion is therefore inherently irrelevant
to Aeneas mission and to the course of history as reflected in the epic, and has little
meaning in the world the poet creates around the hero. For about 100 years, from the
times of Tiberius to the age of Trajan, the Romans debated the issue of the decline of
16
oratory. In the Dialogus de oratoribus, the last document in this almost 100-year-long
debate, Tacitus offered a historically determined view, that oratory was suppressed by
the sole government of the Princeps.
Rebecca Van Hove (ecca.van_hove@kcl.ac.uk)
Oracles as tools of persuasion and
sources of authority in Herodotus and
Attic oratory
Recent studies of Herodotus Histories have sparked interest in the techniques the
historian uses to build up the texts argumentative structure, and the tools of
persuasion used to construct the authority of his own voice as narrator. It has been
recognised that Herodotus oracle stories play an important role in this construction of
authorial authority, as vehicles for statements which require a greater authority than
he himself can possess (Barker 2006, Kindt 2006).
This paper will argue that Herodotus presentation of oracles can be used to make
sense of Lykourgos oracle quotations and their marked differentiation from those
found in other orators. It is well-known that quotations of oracular divination in
forensic and deliberative speeches are rare: only three speeches in the Demosthenic
corpus quote an oracle (Dem. 19.297; 21.51; [Dem.] 43.66), as well as Aeschines 3
(107, 130), Dinarchus 1 (78, 98) and Lykourgos 1 (83-88, 93, 98-101, 105-107).
Lykourgos Against Leokrates stands apart; not only does it contain four references
to different oracles, these also differ significantly from those quoted by the other
orators in form, function and purpose. Lykourgos oracles are namely the only ones to
be presented as part of the narrative of the speech, rather than as formal depositions of
evidence to be read out by a clerk. Furthermore, it is particularly in Lykourgos
references that we find the ambiguity of oracles and the need for interpretation
emphasised.
Similar to Herodotus, Lykourgos uses the ambiguity of oracular responses to amplify
their authoritative nature and to present them as sources of evidence for divine will, in
order to attribute to the gods particular actions and attitudes which endorse and
authorise his arguments against Leokrates. Demosthenes, Dinarchus and Aeschines,
on the other hand, present oracles, in format and function, in a manner similar to laws
and other atechnoi pisteis. It will be shown that Lykourgos unique portrayal of
oracles is due to his employment of a different technique of argumentation, which is
comparable to that used by Herodotus. This paper will thus address the cross-generic
use of oracle stories as tools of persuasion in historiography and oratory.
Ricardo Gancz (ricardogancz@gmail.com) & Gabriel Danzig
(Gabriel.Danzig@BIU.AC.IL)
Arousing the emotions by speech: an Aristotelian theory
This paper discusses Aristotles theory of the causes for the arousal of emotions.
While Aristotle does not discuss the arousal of the emotions in his more theoretical
writings, some scholars hold that it is possible to extract such a theory from what
Aristotle writes in the Rhetoric (mainly Rhet. 2.1-11). These scholars argue that for
Aristotle the arousal of emotion is necessarily dependent on belief (as Nussbaum,
1996; Fortenbaugh, 2002; Dow, 2011). However, there are those (as Sihvola, 1996;
Striker, 1996; Cooper, 1996) who deny that emotion is dependent on belief, pointing
17
out that animals (which, according to Aristotle, are incapable of having beliefs)
do have emotions.
I will propose a way of reconciling these two approaches and acknowledging what is
valid in both positions. According to De Anima 3.3, 3.10 and 3.11, phantasia is the
necessary cause of emotions, and both sensations and beliefs participate in the arousal
of emotions by influencing phantasmata (the objects of phantasia). Since
aisthetike and bouletike phantasia (sensitive and deliberative phantasia) influence the
emotions, animals can have emotions too. Their phantasmata are generated through
sensation by means of the aisthetike phantasia. In humans, both sensations and beliefs
can generate phantasmata. These phantasmata are combined and processed in
the phantasia with all other phantasmata generated by previous experiences.
This approach allows me to accept the valid evidence of both positions and create a
theory that is consistent with Aristotles different works. Further, it allows for a more
nuanced reading of the explanations of emotions found in Rhet 2.1-2.11 as the closest
we have to an Aristotles theory of emotion, as far as it applies to rhetoricians. It does
not include either physiological explanations or other explanations for the arousal
of emotions that are unavailable to rhetoricians, limited as they are to the spoken
word. Finally, my explanation gives an underlying reason why some emotions will be
easier or harder for the rhetorician to arouse as it takes account of both the context of
the speech and the existing ideas/beliefs of the audience. The phantasmata that
are generated by the belief the rhetorician is trying to instill will combine with those
from previous beliefs and enhance, change or balance them. This shows the
importance of taking on account the audience's previous experiences for deciding how
to appeal to them and induce the desired reactions.
Robert Sing (rjs234@cam.ac.uk)
Assessing financial power in war in
Thucydides and Demosthenes
Pericles speeches in Thucydides suggest that the dmos was poorly equipped to make
decisions about the financial dimension of warfare without extensive guidance from
orators (Kallet 1994). They indicate that this guidance was based on orators special
access to factual information about Athenian finances and those of the enemy. The
nature of financial discourse in present-day democracies reinforces this Thucydidean
picture of a dmos reliant on its rhtores for guidance in matters beyond the
experience of most citizens. We might expect that this knowledge-based power
disparity between rhtr and dmos became even greater after the financial crisis and
the rise of the Theoric Board in the mid-350s.
I argue that Thucydides has exerted a distorting influence on our picture of Athenian
financial discourse. The fact-driven rhetoric of Pericles is shaped by Athens unique
financial position in 432/1 and Thucydides construction of the ideal democratic
leader as the instructor the people.
Demosthenes self-presentation as an advisor may owe much to Thucydides Pericles
(Yunis 1996), but although Demosthenes and Pericles both share the task of making
persuasive assessments of financial power in war, Demosthenes takes a different
approach. For Demosthenes, facts alone do not enable sound foresight and good
18
policy. His assessment of Athenian and Macedonian financial power in the 340s
stresses the primacy of politics over hard economic facts. The former determines how
well a state can convert wealth into military might. Rather than presenting a dossier of
facts, Demosthenes relates financial power in terms of ideological assumptions and
historical analogy.
Is Demosthenes strategy here simply to mislead? By not quantifying financial power,
it is easier for him to argue that a cash-strapped Athens can fight Philip. I argue that
Demosthenes ideological and historical construction of financial realities render him
more trustworthy and intelligible and hence, more persuasive. More importantly, he
provides the dmos with a broader interpretative framework for deliberating
intelligently on the financial dimension of war. Self-evident, common-sense
understandings are invested with greater interpretative significance than the technical
knowledge wielded by orators. The result is a financial rhetoric which underscores the
limitations of the Periclean model as a representation of the relationship between
instruction and persuasion.
Roger Brock (R.W.Brock@leeds.ac.uk)
Public and private persuasion in the
historical works of Xenophon
Xenophons use of direct speech in his historical works is strikingly varied. As
continuator of Thucydides in the Hellenica, he maintains his predecessors use of
formal speeches in contexts of political decision-making and diplomacy (e.g. the
Peace of 371 BC: VI.3), judicial proceedings (e.g. the trial of Theramenes: II.3)
and military activity. At the same time, he regularly uses OR in a more informal
manner which recalls Herodotus: often these conversational episodes function in the
same way as in the Histories, to illuminate the issues at stake or the causation behind
events, but at times they seem to point a moral lesson, as in the dialogue between
Dercylidas and Meinias (III.1), or to throw light on more informal methods of
persuasion by contact between individuals (e.g. the encounter of Agesilaus and
Pharnabazus: IV.1) and at times come close to the contemporary practice of lobbying
(as before the trial of Sphodrias V.4). Likewise in the Anabasis we sometimes see the
use of public rhetoric to address the Ten Thousand like a polis assembly, but again,
there are more informal speeches which at times (notably in Xenophons encounter
with Seuthes in VII.7) come close to the kind of overt morally didactic agendas which
give rise to passages of outright Socratic dialogue in the Cyropaedia (notably I.6 and
V.5). My paper will consider how Xenophon adapts his characters use of direct
speech according to context, addressee and objectives, in a way that a contemporary
Director of Communications might well recognise.
Sophia Papaioannou (spapaioan@phil.uoa.gr)
The poetics and politics of persuasion
in
Ovids
and
Quintus
reconstructions of the Hoplon Krisis
The Judgement of the Arms (Hoplon Krisis) has been interpreted as an agn
already since Aeschylus original treatment of the episode in his lost Hoplon Krisis
tragedy; there, contrary to the epic tradition (likely depicted in Athenian iconography)
19
the judges of the contesting heroes were not the Achaeans or the Trojan captives but
Thetis and the Nereids (cf. esp. TrGF iii fr. 174 together with scholion at Ar. Acharn.
883). This innovation significantly alters the orientation of the contest from the
perspective of the mortal audiencethe Argives are not judges but an audience: for
them, the agn between Odysseus and Ajax is now a spectacle, perhaps for the first
time ever. As a result, the perspectives of Aeschylus extradamatic spectators and of
the Greek army on stage identify. This metadramatic dimension of the Hoplon Krisis
narrative influences the treatment of the story, first in Ovid and subsequently in
Quintus of Smyrna (who composed his epic independently from Ovid, but was
certainly informed by the same intertexts). Both epic accounts of the agn centre
around two contestants who try to win by combining performance and persuasion for
primarily metaliterary purposes. I propose to examine the persuasiveness of the
argumentation employed by each of the two contestants respectively in the two
different epic narratives of Ovid and Quintus, mindful that both authors tackle the
same epic sources antagonistically.
Both Ovid and Quintus emulate archaic epic as known to us through the surviving
Homeric poems. More specifically, both reproduce the speech contest between
Odysseus and Ajax as conflicted readingsone in favour of the Cyclic version of the
epic order, the other proposing a revised version of traditional epic and so, an
alternative epic system of values. I shall focus on those episodes that are based on
epic material from the Iliad (the only surviving part of the Trojan careers of Odysseus
and Ajax). I shall study the diverse assessments each speaker gives on the same
episodes and I shall appreciate the effectiveness of their accountsin terms of
persuasion as part of an oratorical performance (for the intradramatic audience) and in
terms of proposing an alternative epic reading based on principles of a different heroic
code (for the reading audience of Ovids and Quintus audiences across time).
Sophia Xenophontos (Sophia.Xenofontos@glasgow.ac.uk)
The art of persuasion in Galens
medical and ethical writings
Modern scholars have tended to examine Galens animal dissections not just for their
anatomical significance, but also for the way they operated as public performances
(Von Staden 1995; Gleason 2009). Galen himself was heavily depended on the
rhetorical strategies promoted by the intellectual movement of the Second Sophistic,
and used strong at times highly bombastic language to persuade his audience of
his medical competence. In this paper, I would like to turn mainly to Galens methods
of persuasion in his ethical writings a largely neglected group of texts, and discuss
the rhetorical means he employs in encountering patients with emotional disturbances
or in addressing moral advice to a wider readership. His recently discovered treatise
Avoiding Distress ( ) is a good staring point, as it provides us with
instances in which the autobiographical perspective of Galens narrative and the
intimacy between author and addressee ensure the efficient treatment of anxiety.
Additional persuasive techniques applied in the therapy of emotions involve the
construction of authority on Galens part, the character assassination of
contemporary figures, and the play with his audiences sense of honour () and
ambition (). In a larger project that I currently run, I show that Galens role
20
and
the
language
of
Masinissa, however, sends a message and poison to Sophoniba to allow her to commit
suicide. Livy has Sophoniba use direct speech to define her suicide (30.15.7).
Because historians primarily employ indirect discourse, the instances of direct
statement represent an important shift for the writer and the reader, as well as a
change in tone for the speaker and his/her audience within the narrative. The use of
indirect versus direct speech informs the way that Livy wanted his reader to
understand both the speaker and the results of the speech. For women in particular,
direct speech represents a heightened sense of authority, whereas indirect speech
represents a greater restraint.
Tazuko Angela van Berkel (T.A.van.Berkel@hum.leidenuniv.nl)
Pericles rhetoric of numbers
In Classical Athens, politics was in an important sense conducted through numerical
data, ranging from the publication of financial records to audit procedures and
deliberative speeches shaped as public calculations. However, ancient rhetorical
theory is remarkably silent on the topic of numbers. This paper will offer an analysis
of the rhetoric and ideology of numbers implicit in Thucydides representation of
Pericles Third Speech (2.13). I will argue that the speech offers a problematizing
reflection, not so much on the rhetoric of money, but on the rhetoric of numbers. In
the tension between Thucydides narratorial ex eventu use of figures and the numbers
used by characters in the context of decision making we find an implicit theory of the
rhetoric of numbers.
The following aspects will be discussed: (i) The argumentative power of numbers:
Pericles use of numbers imply preliminary decisions about what to count that are not
accounted for; the audience is provided with an avalanche of data but is withheld
information crucial to assess the meaning of these numbers; by contrast, Thucydides
narrative voice abounds in authorial remarks about the quality and meaning of
numerical data, leaving the audience to draw the inferences from these data (i.e. the
calculations) themselves (e.g. 1.10.3-5, 5.68.1-4).
(ii) The epistemology of numbers: Thucydides authorial use of numbers displays
self-consciousness about the quality of numerical information. The epistemological
quality of these ex eventu-numbers contrasts with the numbers used by characters in
contexts of decision-making where they are part of predictions that are often negated
by the course of events following them. (iii) The authorial framing of number
speeches: the narrative framing of both Pericles speech in 2.13 and its counterpart,
Nicias speech in 6.24-26, suggests that the communicative power of numbers
consists not in promoting collective rationality but in appealing to mass emotions.
Analysis along these lines will shed light on a phenomenon overlooked by ancient
rhetorical theory but abundantly used in practice and reflected upon in historiography.
interpersonal and textual (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004)the speech exemplifies the
interactions between the judicial and the deliberative genres. These aspects of
language are manipulated as the speaker exploits the persuasive resources from both
genres: 1) experientially, how the representation of activities reflects deliberative
formulae in a judicial context; 2) interpersonally, how the use of personal references,
illocutions and registers demonstrates the similarities between this particular judicial
speech and the deliberative corpus; 3) textually, how the transitioning of
argumentation and narratives in this judicial speech resembles a typical deliberative
speech. This paper concludes with a comparison between similar practices in the
classical deliberative corpus (Demosthenes Philippics) and shows how through such
manipulation of generic borders Demosthenes maximises the persuasive potential of
deliberative conventions in the judicial context, turning a personal political enemy
into a national menace.
Victoria Pagan (vepagan@ufl.edu)
Dialogus de Principibus? Tacitus on the art of
persuasion in the Julio-Claudian era
In his recent study on the Dialogus (The World of Tacitus Dialogus de Oratoribus:
Aesthetics and Empire in Ancient Rome, Cambridge 2014), Christopher van den Berg
posits that the work chronicles how changes in the rhetorical arsenal, like the
historical circumstances that led to them, define a new era of modern eloquentia (p.
296), and he proposes a reading of the dialogue that denies the central tenent of the
decline of oratory, to ask instead what might be at stake for Tacitus in choosing to
frame the problem in terms of decline. His conclusions gesture toward Tacitus
historical works: The values which Tacitus documents in the Dialogus can be read as
a programmatic framework for his rhetorical enterprise, be it as advocate or as author
(p. 300). I should like to test the application of van den Bergs conclusions
on Annals 13.3, the report of the funeral oration for Claudius composed by Seneca for
Nero and the comparison of Neros oratorical skills to previous principes. This
paragraph encapsulates the nominal themes of the Dialogus: the decline of oratory,
the periodization of the genre, and the influence of politics on the art. Given these
obvious parallels, how does van den Bergs thesis hold up? Does the Dialogus inform
the Annals, or has Tacitus conception of the art of persuasion, its transmission
through education, and its practice changed in any way? Is oratory as practiced
by principes even the same art as that practiced by the sort of elite who engage in
the Dialogus?
24