Midterm Essays

6) Interpreting Greek Speeches

In an avant-garde, reformist kind of way, I think Pericles’ Funeral Speech should be considered as an epideictic oratory.  The occasion was certainly ceremonial, though even from the outset Pericles does say he does not subscribe to the idea of delivering a commiserating eulogy.  The audience (both ancient and present-day) should take note that in these prefatory remarks of the speech, there is a “breaking of the fourth wall”.  Pericles is essentially saying, “Hey everyone, this custom of a funeral ceremony is great, but I don’t love how we include a speech.  Anyway, since it’s my duty and our tradition, here I go--.”  The narrator took a step back and made it decently clear he was delivering an epideictic speech.

Aside from Pericles’ disapproval of the funeral speech tradition as a whole, there is no other real mention of vice, but there is vivid and constant description of virtue in Athens. (SilvaRhetoricæ – Virtue & Vice)  Pericles thoughtfully weaves in an encomium of Athens’ developed success and exceptional civilization. He refers to values of freedom, democracy, and courage.

For the sake of accuracy, it would be more fitting to say the oration was a hybrid of both epideictic and deliberative speech.  Being a military leader and a respected member of the society, Pericles naturally held an ideal of patriotism was likely self-aware of the nature of his praise.  Slightly shifting gears, Pericles moves on to invoke ideals to the citizens with considering how to usher on Athens’ legacy through an “ethical and philosophical line” (Silva Rhetoricæ – Good & Unworthy) 

1) The Irrational

Before the Age of Enlightenment and the now-ubiquitous Scientific Method, ancient civilizations needed answers to questions ranging anywhere from nature to societal standards.  For the Ancient Greeks, nearly everything knowable was enshrined within even more ancient written and oral accounts.  The Greeks mingled gods and other immortality with humans to design mythically rich dramas.  Bearing little resemblance to truth, human difficulties with no foreseeable solutions were often resolved by deus ex machina—an artificial twist with an immortal hero or heroine.

The takeaway of every drama was different.  Some were simple and settled and merely had useful rules of thumb entrenched as dogmas.  Others were intricate and left open to invite profound discussion.

Euripides, like many other ancient tragedians, likely wanted his audience to be presented with an ethical crisis and feel catharsis for the characters.  In the drama Electra, Euripides used complex devices and strong emotions like misery and triumph to illicitly ask the audience if vengeance can be considered the same as justice.  Are we arbiters of right and wrong?  Matters like this and a slew of others that carry paramount moral and ethical dimensions are difficult to reason though.  Ancient Greek drama was so popular because it offered a chance to feel and reflect and have an attempt at making sense of an irrational life. 

Midterm Essays

Essay #1: The Irrational

Using various forms of media to understand the “irrationality of life” seems to be a fundamental part of human existence. Sure, the Greeks wrote lengthy narrative poems and put on tragedies, but how many of us today spend at least some of our time sunk into a good book or binge watching Netflix? That alternate reality, so easily fed to us, is comfortable. Everything is nicely explained and wrapped up—whether it has a happy ending or one that leads to a good ol’ cathartic cry. Today, the worlds in between pages of books or television scripts may even develop expansive fan-bases.

Quite frankly, life can be difficult to understand. The Greeks were able to use drama as a medium to help them better understand life. As illustrated in the play “Electra”, people often make irrational choices. By mediating these choices through drama, we are able to experiment with results, understand motive, and resolve emotions. Rhetoricians can turn an irrational act, such as sympathizing with a wannabe murderer, into a rational one: “Oh, poor Electra! She’s so loyal, but has gotten such an awful lot in life!”

Additionally, drama was an ideal place for the Greeks to insert and explain their theology. While the version of the play our class attended was a little bit of a stretch, I imagine in other productions it wouldn’t be hard to imagine the gods giving Electra advice and Orestes instructions. As Alec pointed out in his blog post, this allowed the Greeks to accredit events to the supernatural.

Essay #2: Sophists vs. Socratics

During the 5^th-4^th centuries B.C., both the Socratics and Sophists were major thinkers. Socrates, as the first in the Socratic frame of thought (obviously), was focused on the concept of moral philosophy. All of the Socratic thinkers had a desire to acquire absolute truth through thought and observation, as well as dialectic (and some later Socratics left the oral tradition and emphasized writing). They thought of their career choice as pure, elevated, and moral. On the contrary, the contemporaries of that time, the Sophists, found rhetoric to be a fruitful enterprise. They also enjoyed studying the world, but their desire was to be able to explain the world, and, through this understanding, be able to control it: with rhetoric. If they could master rhetoric, then they could gain a degree of control over the political and social situation. Gorgias, specifically, thought of his abilities as a rhetorician as something he could use for amusement (as illustrated in his speech, “The Encomium of Helen”).

It’s easy to see why Socrates would have disagreed with the Sophist/rhetorician point of view. Notably, Socrates had some strong opinions about writing. He felt that writing itself was derogative to what he hoped to accomplish—it limited memory, didn’t allow for customized learning, didn’t result in complete Kairos, and relegated knowledge to the text on a page.  Of course he didn’t approve of the Sophists, who would write speeches and sell them for others to memorize and perform. In addition, Socrates likely felt that the rhetoricians were dirtying the lofty ideals he had with regard to words, learning, and persuasion.

Gorgias, as a rhetorician himself, probably would not have been pleased with Socrates’ accusations and slight mocking tone. I imagine he would have argued that Socrates was himself limiting learning and the power of words! Gorgias certainly found worth in rhetoric and memorization, and would have used his skills as a rhetorician to attempt to persuade Socrates of his point of view.