in the context of its utterance (see Enos, “Emerging”). The position presented here argues for such a point and that methods of retrieval of such “data” must inevitably turn to archaeological rhetoric and, in that sense, reveal its legitimacy and necessity as a sensitive tool for the analysis of Hellenic discourse. Inherent in this approach to methodology is that all artifacts of the situation within which that discourse was produced constitute—directly or indirectly—evidence of the context for that discourse. Pottery, epigraphy, architectural remnants and even the physical topography of the site are all sources for providing a more sensitive awareness of the rhetorical situation. To be sure, traditional historiographical procedures that draw inferences strictly from textual analysis provide important contributions, but those contributions are limited. Traditional methodologies for research in the history of rhetoric should be viewed as a prologue or means to discover the fundamental processes for the conceptualization of Hellenic discourse. For a thorough understanding of Hellenic rhetoric, epistemic processes need to be considered, and we must recognize these processes both as rhetorical and also situational by providing theories that account for such notions, presumptions, and presuppositions as “evidence” that stands beside physical remains from the past. All such sources, when studied in synthesis, provide a richer interpretation of Hellenic discourse than textual analysis alone can hope to provide. This orientation is the basis for the research presented in this revised and expanded edition of Greek Rhetoric Before Aristotle.
One of the most important observations readers should take from this work is that discussions and definitions of rhetoric should be explanatory but not restrictive. Recent work in cultural rhetoric confirms what is evident through this revised edition: efforts to express thoughts and sentiments are inherent in communities but manifested in a variety of ways. Despite the range of expression exhibited in Hellenic discourse, discursive practices share important features. In order to be effective, communication must become systematic in the sense that symbolic expression can be both understood and shared socially. Long before rhetoric was stabilized into a formal system of study in the Classical Period, nascent, pre-disciplinary “rhetorics” in ancient Greece emerged out of this dynamic, public activity. Despite their variety, all such modes of expression share in the intent of meeting needs specific to their respective communities. These manifestations of rhetoric take on many symbolic forms, some that are neither oral nor literate in the common sense of those terms, but nonetheless meaningful in their intent to communicate. If we understand this general but sensitive starting point we can better understand how Greek communities developed “rhetorics” necessary and desirable to their needs and preferences. A history of Greek rhetoric should be directed toward explaining these early, varied manifestations of rhetoric. This mission, however, presents daunting challenges to the researcher. As this work makes clear, we are in need not only of new primary evidence but also of methods of analysis. Many variations of these early Hellenic rhetorics grew out of oral communities and have been lost; others, whose remains have been discovered and whose histories have been recorded, have survived for study. The most notable of these communities is Athens, and our efforts in Greek rhetoric largely have been devoted to enriching our understanding of this dominant rhetoric community. At the same time, however, our efforts at rhetorical archaeology have sought to recover and thereby bring to light early, lost rhetorics. An understanding of these pre-disciplinary manifestations of rhetoric, in all of their varied forms, enriches both the history and the nature of classical rhetoric as a formalized discipline. From this perspective, this revised edition of Greek Rhetoric Before Aristotle is both (and at the same time) a pre-history or prelude to classical rhetoric, as conventionally known and understood as a formal discipline, as well as a critical part of the history of rhetoric.
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
