The Second Sophsitic
3 Questions for Dr. Pullman
(1) Philostratus was said to have recorded the triumphs of the sophists, but not their miseries. What were the miseries? What would become of a failed/disgraced sophist?
(2) Do you see similarities between public perceptions of the sophists and modern-day lawyers? Do these perceptions vary across cultures and regions—particularly America and Greece/Italy?
(3) Is it appropriate to distinguish the original ideas of rhetoric and sophistry in the following way: rhetoric as the STUDY of persuasion through language and sophistry as the PRACTICE of persuasion through language (specifically, language in the form of public speaking)? I don’t feel like this quite accurate because it seems like both early rhetors and sophists were also heavily involved in the TEACHING of both rhetoric and sophistry. Maybe I am trying too hard to make a clean distinction where there isn’t one.
“There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages.” (Benjamin Griffin, Harriet Smith Ed. Autobiography of Mark Twain)
I love that quote. I often think that new knowledge is really just new connections between the old (or known) ideas. I suppose this quote was included because the Second Sophistic was not a new idea. I am curious to see if the prominent figures of the movement did anything to infuse anything new into the movement.
Examples of the philosophic themes the old sophists spoke on (courage, justice, heroes, gods, shaping of universe) and the forensic themes of the new sophists (types of the poor man and the rich, of princes and tyrants, argument concerned with definite and special themes). ***Where does an encomium on baldness fit—special themes, I suppose?
Laundry list of the Second Sophistic: nostalgia for idealized Athenian classical past, purity of language, sophistic performance/contest/display, paideia and erudition, anxieties over Hellenic self-definition/identity. Pagan—so eclipsed and maligned when Christianity came to power. (That part about anxiety over identity makes sense because they were unoriginal so they didn’t have an identity to call their own.)
The Sophist “extemporaneous speaker” GOAT debate: Pericles, Python of Byzantium, Demosthenes, Aeschines (Pullman’s pick), Gorgias was the founder “Do you have a theme?”
***Note to Pullman: I had ChatGPT create a battle rap between Python and Demosthenes. It was very disappointing--even the second try when I prompted the machine to add details related to traits of the Second Sophistic.
“It was Julia who, first as his consort, and later as virtual regent in the reign of her son Caracalla, gave the court that intellectual or pseudo-intellectual tone which has reminded all the commentators of the princely Italian courts of the Renaissance.” (This wavering between viewing sophistry as intellectual and “pseudo-intellectual” is interesting. It seems like that debate may never be resolved.)
“The Athenians when they observed the too great cleverness of the sophists, shut them out of the law¬courts on the ground that they could defeat a just argument by an unjust, and that they used their power to warp men's judgement.” (Pullman) Potential connections between the sophists and modern day lawyers (in how they are viewed)?
“Sophist” was more like “Sorcerer”—"That is the reason wily Aeschines and Demosthenes branded each other with the title of sophist, not because it was a disgrace, but because the very word was suspect in the eyes of the jury.” (Pullman)
Sophistry vs Philosophy: “[Philostratus] is concerned with differentiating sophistry from philosophy while maintaining the superiority of the former, though for many later readers, he fails to establish the hierarchy he prefers.” (Pullman) Does one have to be superior? Can you do either without the other? Do they have some kind of relationship? ChatGPT says, “The interaction between sophistry and philosophy influenced the development of both fields. While philosophy sought to establish objective truths and principles, sophistry's focus on rhetoric and argumentation techniques contributed to the development of the art of persuasive communication.” AND “The study of sophistry and its criticism by philosophers also contributed to the development of critical thinking and the distinction between sound and fallacious arguments.”
Synesius—"That is what the clever fabricators of speeches do to us; at one moment they charm us, at another they astound us.”
Two key concepts: Progymnasmata and Declamation
(ChatGPT) Progymnasmata: a crucial part of the classical educational curriculum and played a role in the development of students' oratory and writing skills.
The Progymnasmata typically consisted of a series of graded exercises, each focusing on a specific aspect of rhetoric and composition. These exercises were designed to build progressively from the basics to more advanced forms of persuasive communication. The specific exercises included in the Progymnasmata varied, but some of the common ones were:
1. Fable: Students would write a short narrative, often involving animals or inanimate objects, to convey a moral or ethical lesson. This exercise helped students develop storytelling and moral argumentation skills.
2. Narrative: In this exercise, students would write a straightforward account of an event or story. It aimed to teach them the structure and organization of a narrative.
3. Chreia: A chreia was a concise statement or anecdote about a famous person. Students would expand upon and discuss the significance or moral lessons associated with the chreia.
4. Maxim: Students would develop a concise, memorable saying or adage, often by paraphrasing a well-known saying or quote. This exercise aimed to teach students how to create pithy and impactful statements.
5. Refutation: This exercise required students to argue against a given statement or position. They had to present counterarguments and evidence to refute the original claim.
6. Confirmation: In contrast to refutation, confirmation exercises required students to defend a statement or position, providing arguments and evidence to support it.
7. Encomium and Vituperation: Students would write speeches either praising or blaming a person or thing, practicing the skills of persuasion and argumentation.
8. Comparison: This exercise involved comparing two individuals, actions, or concepts, highlighting their similarities and differences.
The Progymnasmata exercises were a foundational element of ancient Greek and Roman education, and they were instrumental in teaching students the art of rhetoric and persuasive communication. These exercises provided students with a structured approach to developing their oratory and writing skills, laying the groundwork for their later engagement in public speaking, legal discourse, and philosophical debate. The Progymnasmata continued to be used in various forms throughout the history of classical education and rhetorical training. [End GPT]
I think some adapted form of this could still work as an effective writing program. Many writing teachers use elements from this system already, specifically the narrative form, the persuasive essay that likely combines confirmation and refutation, and the comparison (as an expository genre). I do wonder what the reasoning is behind doing refutation before confirmation—and both of those before comparison. I like an order of narrative, comparison, confirmation, and then refutation, but I can see potential reasons to use different arrangements.
Progymnasmata by Hermogenes: The date of composition is uncertain, possibly in the third or fourth century.
Declamation: (From ChatGPT)
In the context of the Second Sophistic, declamation refers to a highly structured and stylized form of public speaking. It was characterized by the following elements:
1. Performance: Declamation was not merely about delivering a speech; it was a performance. Declamers, often known as sophists, would deliver their speeches in a theatrical manner, using dramatic gestures, vocal intonations, and body language to engage and impress their audiences. The goal was to entertain and persuade, not just to convey information.
2. Formal Exercises: Declamation involved the composition and delivery of speeches on a wide range of topics. These topics could be historical events, mythological narratives, moral dilemmas, or other subjects of interest. It was common for students and aspiring orators to engage in declamatory exercises as part of their training.
3. Eloquence and Style: The speeches were expected to be highly polished and stylized, often characterized by ornate language, sophisticated vocabulary, and complex sentence structures. The emphasis was on eloquence, and the speakers would showcase their mastery of rhetoric.
4. Philosophical Content: Some declaimers incorporated philosophical ideas into their speeches, reflecting the fusion of rhetoric and philosophy that was a hallmark of the Second Sophistic.
5. Social and Educational Significance: Success in declamation was highly regarded in the social and educational contexts of the time. Those who excelled in this practice enjoyed prestige and social status, and many young individuals sought training in rhetoric and oratory to participate in this intellectual and cultural movement.
Notable figures associated with the Second Sophistic, such as Aelius Aristides and Lucian of Samosata, were known for their declamatory skills. They were prolific writers and speakers who contributed to the development and popularity of this form of public speaking.
In essence, declamation in the Second Sophistic was a performative and artistic expression of rhetoric and oratory. It showcased the revival and adaptation of classical Greek rhetorical traditions within the cultural and intellectual landscape of the Roman Empire during the 2nd century CE. [End ChatGPT]