Hellenistic Rhetoric
*Note on Week 9 Reading Journal: While this week’s journal does not include as much as I might have liked in the way of original reflective musings, I did still find the compilation of information from the readings and from my AI assistants to be profitable. I leaned more on Claude than ChatGPT this week, and I don’t see much difference between the two as functional research helpers yet aside from a slightly more (subjectively) pleasing interface offered by Claude.
The problem with defining literary, artistic, cultural periods with hard and fast dates: military victories/defeats and deaths of leaders do not magically change everything about the arts and ideas produced by a culture. Specific dates are often very important to understanding cultural artifacts, but they should not operate as sole determiners of classification.
So how do the Hellenistic period and Second Sophistic fit into our scope? It looks like the Second Sophistic generally follows the end of the Hellenic period. Claude says, “the Second Sophistic revived, imitated and drew heavily upon the Greek cultural legacy that had been established centuries earlier during the Hellenistic period after the time of Alexander the Great. So the Hellenistic period provided a foundation and model for the Second Sophistic.”
Hellenistic period: from the Death of Alexander (323 BC) to the death of Cleopatra (30 BC)
Second Sophistic: Second Sophistic is the term regularly applied in modern scholarship to the period c. 60–230 ce when *declamation [dramatic oration] became the most prestigious literary activity in the Greek world. (Oxford Classical Dictionary)
More on Second Sophistic from Wikipedia: Unlike the original Sophistic movement of the 5th century BC, the Second Sophistic was little concerned with politics. But it was, to a large degree, to meet the everyday needs and respond to the practical problems of Greco-Roman society. It came to dominate higher education and left its mark on many forms of literature. The period from around AD 50 to 100 was a period when oratorical elements dealing with the first sophists of Greece were reintroduced to the Roman Empire. The province of Asia embraced the Second Sophistic the most.
Paideia referred to the rearing and education of the ideal member of the ancient Greek polis or state. These educational ideals later spread to the Greco-Roman world at large, and were called humanitas in Latin. Paideia was meant to instill aristocratic virtues in the young citizen men who were trained in this way. An ideal man within the polis would be well-rounded, refined in intellect, morals, and physicality, so training of both the body and mind was important. Both practical, subject-based schooling as well as a focus upon the socialization of individuals within the aristocratic order of the polis were a part of this training. The practical aspects of paideia included subjects within the modern designation of the liberal arts (e.g. rhetoric, grammar, and philosophy), as well as scientific disciplines like arithmetic and medicine. Gymnastics and wrestling were valued for their effect on the body alongside the moral education which was imparted by the study of music, poetry, and philosophy. This approach to the rearing of a well-rounded Greek male was common to the Greek-speaking world, with the exception of Sparta where agoge was practiced.(Wikipedia)---Also seen as refering more simply to Greek culture (by the Romans)
How to build your brand: Calling out an enemy and creating rivalry gives one the chance to elevate their intellectual profile/rhetorical status. Example: East/West rap feuds
What has social media done to this type of practice of brand building? The short-form nature of social media hurts one’s chance to succeed at raising one’s intellectual profile because the medium just doesn’t support longer rhetorical efforts. And the closely related short attention span of the modern audience doesn’t promote any lengthy example of one’s rhetorical power. Does a modern audience value intellectual/rhetorical prowess packaged in bite sized, short form communications? Does the popularity of some longer form podcasts show us that people still have a need or desire for extended rhetorical explorations and arguments? What can gauge from the increasing/declining(?) popularity of books and ebooks?
A major schism in style: A clear division of style came about between a simple style [Attic rhetoric—from the epitome of the 4th/5th century BC Athenians, Pericles] focused more on logos and a more ornate Asian [east of Rome?] style given more to pathos. “Those Romans who liked to mythologize themselves as having come from the land, hard working agrarians who preferred practical skill to refinement and politics, preferred the plain style to the grand style. They were carefully on guard against sounding too Greek, Eastern or Asiatic” (Pullman). This reminds me of the Puritan plain style that was popular in early American literature, although for different reasons: the Puritans wanted the focus of their (almost exclusively religious) writings to be on God, whereas the rhetors of the Hellenistic period who favored the plain style seem to do so because it places the audience’s focus more on the logic of the argument.
Rhetorica ad Herennium (creating the memory palace)
The two types of memory: “The natural memory is that memory which is imbedded in our minds, born simultaneously with thought. The artificial memory is that memory which is strengthened by a kind of training and system of discipline.” (Book III, Rhetorica ad Herennium)
Purpose: “So, since a ready memory is a useful thing, you see clearly with what great pains we must strive to acquire so useful a faculty. Once you know its uses you will be able to appreciate this advice.” (Book III, RAH)
I don’t know how much relevance this kind of training and concept has for us today since we offload so much of our thinking, memories (pictures/videos), to-do/to-buy lists, etc. to technology. Perhaps we need a return to it as an antidote to shortening attention spans and dwindling imaginative powers?
Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (For Alexander the Great, possibly from one of his tutors, but not Aristotle)
This work looks very similar to Aristotle’s, so where does it differ significantly and/or what does it offer us that Aristotle’s work does not?
Theophrastus: The Characters
This work reminds me a bit of how Aristotle explores the many different types of people in On Rhetoric. The purpose for doing so, I think is the same: know your audience and know your opposition. The Art of War tells one to know the enemy—and to know the enemy better than the enemy knows himself.
Outline from Claude:
• Written around 319 BCE
• One of earliest surviving works of character writing
• Includes 30 short character sketches of moral types
II. Key Character Types
• The Flatterer
• The Garrulous Man
• The Boastful Man
• The Stingy Man
• The Coward
• The Oligarch
• The Late Learner
• The Shameless Man
• The Offensive Man
• The Superstitious Man
III. Features of the Sketches
• Each focuses on a dominant moral or intellectual vice
• Uses exaggerated features and mannerisms
• Depicts characters through words, actions, behaviors
• Mocking and satirical tone exposing human weaknesses
• Characters are archetypes rather than fully developed individuals
IV.Significance
• Provides insights into Greek society and culture
• Influenced later Western character writing and comedy
• Reveals Theophrastus' interest in ethics and human nature
So in summary, Theophrastus pioneered the character sketch genre by mocking and analyzing common human flaws and behaviors through exaggerated stock characters that became models for later generations of writers and social observers.
Stasis Theory and Asystatis Theory (from Claude)
Stasis theory and Asystasis theory are two rhetorical frameworks used for analyzing and generating arguments:
Stasis Theory:
• Originated with Hermagoras in the 2nd century BCE.
• It involves determining the "stasis" or main issue in dispute in an argument.
• There are four stases:
1. Conjectural - Establishing the facts
2. Definitional - Defining key terms
3. Qualitative - Evaluating moral rightness
4. Translative - Questioning jurisdiction/process
• By identifying which stasis the issue falls under, it clarifies the point of conflict.
• This helps the rhetor focus the argument and pick the best persuasive strategies.
Asystasis Theory:
• Proposed by Anaximenes in the 4th century BCE.
• "Asystasis" means lack of stasis or instability.
• It classifies arguments according to levels of increasing complexity:
1. Concession - Agree on facts
2. Objection - Dispute facts
3. Contrariety - Oppose on principles
4. Counterplea - Introduce counterargument
• The higher the level, the harder it is to persuade.
• Asystasis guides rhetorical strategy based on amount of disagreement.
So in summary, stasis theory identifies the core issue, while asystasis theory categorizes level of disagreement to tailor rhetorical strategy. Both provide frameworks for analyzing and constructing arguments.
Cicero (106BC-43BC)
Wrote ~75% of surviving Latin literature of his adult life. Influenced almost all Latin literature that followed him—either as a return to his style or reaction against.
He and his works shaped reality and ideas of truth that followed because the world wasn’t left with enough writings from his challengers. His works became part of the educational system.
Offers good practical ideas for amplifiying the enormity of a situation (feeding indignation) and evoking pity.
“The rhetoric of history is the history of rhetoric.” (Pullman) Good point and what sounds sweetest and most eloquent certainly has the power to displace the plain truth as it happened. It is hard to not become cynical about all of history when reflecting on this.