Hellenistic Rhetoric

Hellenistic Rhetoric
facts/ Summary of some key concepts/ Dr. Pullman’s notes
a) introduction:
According to A Companion to Greek Rhetoric edited by Worthington? the empire of Alexander and its Successor kingdoms spread the use of the Greek language far more widely through the eastern Mediterranean world than had been the case previously and engendered the development of a koine(literally “common”) Greek that became the lingua franca in these newly Greek-speaking areas and in some parts of Aisa Minor where Greek had been in use for centuries.

Largely for that reason, the period from Alexander’s death (323) to the incorporation of the last independent Greek-speaking kingdom into the Roman empire with the death of Cleopatra VII (30) is known as the Hellenistic period.

The proliferation of the Greek language encouraged a simultaneous introduction of other aspects of Greek culture, including the study of rhetoric. In consequence, individuals and communities in the eastern Mediterranean world began to contribute to the development of rhetoric in the areas of both theory and practice. Naturally, the successors to the practitioners of rhetoric in Classical Greece, especially at Athens, continued to think and write about their field of study during the Hellenistic period, but these were no longer the sole proprietors of their craft, either in establishing the rules or in delivering the most important speeches. Of course, even in Classical Greece, some of the best orators had not been of Athenian origin (for example, Gorgias of Leontini). Nevertheless, Athens(to our knowledge) was the focal point for rhetorical theory and practice: most extant classical speeches (as well as most theories) are somehow connected to Athens. (124)

b). Theophrastus
Based on A Companion to Greek Rhetoric edited by Worthington, the Peripatetic philosopher Theophrastus of Eresus in some ways stands in both the Classical and Hellenistic worlds. Upon his arrival at Athens, he studied first with Plato, but subsequently transferred to Aristotle’s Lyceum, whose headship he assumed on Aristote’s death. He was a prolific writer on a wide range of topics, but most of his work is not extant. (125)

We cannot leave Theophrastus without brief consideration of his best-known work, the Characters. In it, the philosopher describes a series of characters, for example, the miser, the coward, the loquacious man, the garrulous man, the lover, the slanderer and many others. Though the work may be linked in some way to the rise of New Comedy with its stock characters, one purpose, or even merely a partial impetus, might be rhetoric. An orator could, if he wished to characterize a defendant as a miser, draw upon Theophrastus’ description of just such a man, using in his speech some specific points outlined by the philosopher; he could, if circumstances warranted, employ a selection of elements from more than one character, to depict a cowardly, loquacious, slanderous misers, for example. Theophrastus’ attention to rhetoric and to the details of composing a speech suggests that his Characters were part of the same program and thus a work intended primarily to aid orators. But the correctness of that view does not really matter (though it would be nice to know): whether composed as a rhetorical aid or not, the Characters provided orators with a handy reference guide to the types of human behavior they might wish to include in their speeches. Thus, even in the composition of a work not addressed to orators, Theophrastus is a precursor to the development of oratory in the Hellenistic period. His works on rhetoric including his Characters were widely read and studied in the schools of the Hellenistic world.

(My perspective of reasons why it is crucial:
The Characters of Theophrastus is not only crucial for rhetoric but also very meaningful for people currently to understand people of different characters as their friends, partners, clients, and business partners. For example, the superstitious man was described as the one who has simply cowardice in regard to the supernatural. I once accompanied some Chinese billionaires who were big fans of Fengshui (an ancient Chinese superstition of arranging buildings in an environment to achieve harmony and balance) to buy some wonderful sea view villas in Cyprus. It is because they may know that some fortune they earned did not stem from their hard work. There were more people in the world who were more diligent than they were but could not make ends meet. Thus, they believed their partial money and huge business success probably originated from luck, because some supernatural power from heaven just wanted to help him. Therefore, they could take the money for granted and take full advantage of their fortune. To fall in love with superstition is a way for them to comfort themselves to lead good lives.)

c). New Schools of Rhetoric:
In the book A Companion to Greek Rhetoric edited by Worthington, as Greek became the most important language of communication between the different parts of the Hellenistic world, instruction in the language became a necessity for those who had not known it previously. Since the rulers and administrations of the Successor kingdoms were, initially, Macedonians and Greeks, the ability to communicate with them in their own language and a familiarity with the concepts they would recognize became a political and civic necessity. Naturally, this was a new development primarily in areas that had recently come under Macedonian and Greek control, but the need to communicate effectively with their political masters was equally important in areas that had been Greek-speaking for centuries. At the same time, in order for elites of different regions to be able to communicate with each other, a common educational system began to develop. The goal was to inculcate, in new generations of students, a familiarity with paideia, often defined as the Greek heritage, including its moral, social, and political values, and sometimes simply as Greek “culture.”

In Werner Jaeger’s Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, the Greek concept of paideia means the virtue of intellectual excellence, as the touchstone for understanding both Hellenic mentality and its manifestations in politics, art, literature, and rhetoric.

Paideia was not simply a form of social practice at a more abstract level. It was also a means of constructing and reifying idealized identities for Greeks and Romans, a privileged space of complex cultural interaction… between Roman ideology and Greek identity, a foundation upon which both peoples constructed their own sense of their place in the world.

d) Attic and Asianic Rhetoric
The rise of these two approaches to style is clearly a Hellenistic phenomenon.
The styles are difficult to characterize for the simple reason that even ancient writers do not agree on the precise characteristics.

In general, Attic oratory, which sought its models in the canonical Attic orators, such as Isocrates, Lysias, and Demosthenes, was typically simple and straightforward, while Asianic was the opposite: florid and complex. The matter was not, however, as simple as that. The Attic orators differed greatly among themselves; Demosthenes’ oratory was far more ornate, with its long complex sentences than that of Lysias, and had he not been an Athenian orator some might well have considered his oratory Asianic. Cicero certainly did not think so, for, as noted, he defended himself, and others defended him, against charges of Asianism by stating that he employed Demosthenes as a Cicero in Latin, adopted different stylistic characteristics at different times or as the situation demanded: when straightforward prose was most beneficial, they employed the Attic style? when flourishing and ornateness might accomplish an objective more readily, Asianic oratory was featured in a speech.

The times when they were originated were different. Attic rhetoric originated in ancient Athens in the 5th-4th C BC. This wa'sAssociated with noted orators like Pericles. Lysias and Demosthenes were considered prime exemplars of the Attic tradition. However, Asiatic rhetoric was originated in Aisa Minor and brought to Rome in the 2nd century BC. This was associated with Greek orators Hegesias and Hermagoras. There were some well-known exemplars of the Asiatic tradition. Cicero adopted a more moderate form, as did Quintilian. But some felt it could become too ornamented.

The persuasion techniques were different. Attic rhetoric focused on logical arguments and let facts speak for themselves, while Asiatic rhetoric mainly emphasized on emotional appeals to sway the audience’s passions.

e) Conclusion
In the Hellenistic period, rhetoric became an important part of Greek society and culture. Though the discipline had begun earlier, the peculiar circumstances of the period generated a massive increase in the importance of rhetorical training to the elites and to their sons. In consequence, the number of schools grew dramatically; so did the number of teachers in these schools and the number of rhetores who wrote handbooks on the nature of rhetoric and the techniques that orators could use to accomplish the objectives of their speeches. During the three centuries of the Hellenistic era, these technical treatments grew ever more precise and detailed, as is natural in scholarship. The different disciplines of philosophy and rhetoric continued the debate on some issues that had attended the rise of rhetoric in the late 5th Century with no resolution. Despite all this, the Hellenistic world was filled with students engaging in practice orations during their school years and with adults displaying their oratorical skills on almost every public occasion. Perhaps the most accurate summary is this: in the Hellenistic period, rhetoric came of age.