The
Placement, Significance, and Methodology of
The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece
David M. Timmerman
@ Wabash College
Edward Schiappa's The
Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece provides a compelling
description of the development of rhetorical theory during the classical period.1
The central focus of the book is the mid-fifth century to the mid-fourth century
though the argument of the text clearly stretches both prior to and after this
time period. The text argues for a revision of our traditional understanding of
the manner in which rhetorical theory and the "discipline" of rhetoric began and
formed into an organized subject matter and theoretical perspective through the
course of the fourth century. The central thrust of this work is that rhetoric,
as a discipline, is a later development than is described in the "standards accounts"
of its birth and development. That is to say that "rhetoric" as an organized,
systematic body of knowledge arose in the early 4th century with the works of
Isocrates, Plato, and Aristotle and not in the mid-fifth century with Corax and
Tisias as has been previously advocated. In fact, Schiappa helpfully delineates
seventeen claims capturing what he describes as the standard account. These range
from the claim that rhetoric began with Corax on the Island of Sicily in 467 B.C.,
to the claim that there were rhetorical handbooks circulating in the late 5th
and early 4th centuries (though they are now lost), to claims that describe the
sophists as relativists who taught their students how to succeed at all costs.
After this delineation, Schiappa lays down the gauntlet by declaring the standard
account "flawed on every point." (p. 10). The pattern of the book then, is both
instructive and engaging. It is instructive because these seventeen claims, and
Schiappa's explanation of them, serve a very helpful role in introducing the dominant
narrative of the progression of classical rhetoric to those new to this field.
It is engaging in that it sets up this narrative for the purpose of arguing for
an alternative one that contrasts it on every point. Many will be persuaded to
adopt a new perspective based on this account either in part or in whole. Others
in the field have, and surely will continue, to disagree with Schiappa's positions
either in part or in whole. All readers will be more informed for the effort.
The means by which Schiappa makes and defends this argument are many. However,
the centerpiece is the fact that the term itself, "rhetorike," does not appear
prior to the writing of Plato's Gorgias in ca. 386 B.C. Those familiar with Schiappa's
work know that he first advanced the argument a decade ago and defended it scholarly
exchanges that appeared in journals such as the Quarterly Journal of Speech,
American Journal of Philology, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Rhetoric
Review, and Rhetoric Society Quarterly. Schiappa identifies and explains
the significance of several other related terms such as logos, peitho, and logon
techne. His premise is not that persuasive discourse, or even discussion about
persuasive discourse, did not exist prior to Plato. The claim centers on rhetoric
as an organized body of knowledge or a "discipline." Schiappa contends: "Prior
to the coining of a term for a distinct art of discourse such as rhetorike, the
subject or discipline of Rhetoric was without form or 'meaning.' The point here
is linguistic, not ontological: without the appropriate category of rhetorike,
the conceptual space for theorizing was limited to the 'predisciplinary' vocabulary"
(p. 25). That vocabulary did not include the term rhetoric and, as Schiappa describes,
lacked the coherence, organization, specificity, and theoretical sophistication
of those works that came after this point, principally that of Plato and Aristotle.
The increasingly technical discourse employed and the ever greater specificity
of treatments of rhetoric also relate to other shifts taking place during the
classical period related to orality/ literacy and mythos/ logos. Understanding
the difference between predisciplinary and disciplinary treatments of rhetoric
is necessary if we are to avoid reading Platonic and Aristotelian understandings
and concepts in to the works of those who came prior to them. This distinction
also helps us make sense out of the more holistic and broad discussions of oratory,
education, and knowledge as seen in fifth century texts such as Aristophanes Clouds
and the Dissoi Logoi fragment.
This is a large and highly significant task and the author is to be commended
for completing it in a highly readable and engaging fashion. In the remainder
of this review I will place this work in relation to other efforts by scholars
of classical rhetoric, delineate the methodological approach of this text, and
finally outline what I believe are the salient research questions that this text
generates.
As many have noted, the last decade or so has witnessed a great resurgence in
scholarship related to classical rhetorical theory and practice. This resurgence
has centered on ancient Greece, though works related to ancient Chinese rhetorical
theory and practice are also now commonplace in our journals and monographs (see
Garrett and Lu). Yet, for all of the resurgence, this text marks one of very few
attempts at providing a comprehensive portrayal of the origins and development
of classical rhetorical theory. The model, of course, is George Kennedy's Classical
Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times.
Kennedy's landmark text has been a touchstone for nearly everything published
in this area since its publication in 1980. It may be argued that Susan Jarratt's
Rereading the Sophists and John Poulakos' Sophistical Rhetoric in Classical
Greece take on similar projects, but a more apt description of these works
places them within a movement within classical rhetoric studies to rehabilitate
and demonstrate the ongoing relevance of the work of the Greek sophists. After
Kennedy, Thomas Cole's The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece is surely
the text most closely allied to Schiappa's work. And, it should be noted, Cole's
book presents a description of rhetoric's beginnings that is compatible with that
of Schiappa. The difference lies in Schiappa's focus on disciplinary terms, which
is to say language, and the way in which these terms develop with Plato's coining
of the term rhetoric as the hinge point between predisciplinary and disciplinary
use.
It is, however, Kennedy's landmark text that Schiappa clearly has in sight with
this work. As he notes, he draws his description of the "standard account" primarily
from the Kennedy text. Kennedy's well-known categorization of ancient Greek rhetorical
theory into three strands (i.e., technical, sophistic, and philosophical) serves
as the frame for three of the primary chapters in Schiappa's delineation of his
perspective. Each one is reconsidered under the rubric of his predisciplinary
vs. disciplinary formulation. The result is a thoroughgoing critique of Kennedy's
description and the construction of an alternate paradigm for the conceptualization
of the origin and rise of rhetoric.
Second, this text models an extremely productive and useful methodological approach
to such study. That methodology involves examining the extant texts themselves,
as much as possible, on their own terms. In contrast, it has been too easy, for
too long, to take Plato's word on the Sophists and their work. It has been too
easy to let the comments and descriptions of rhetoric by Plato and Aristotle color
our reading of the works of Isocrates and Gorgias the fragments of Protagoras
and the other 5th Century sophists. It has been too easy to lump all of the sophists
together, as Plato does, into one homogeneous whole with an implied, and often
articulated, complete theory of rhetoric. Schiappa's method employing close reading
of texts, highlighting the most significant terms, is a much more productive method.
In essence, his work encourages classical scholars to examine the texts of this
period within the entire context of their production. This would include the extensive
writings of Plato and Aristotle on rhetoric but it by no means ends there. It
also includes examining the works of other fifth and fourth century authors in
terms of the historical, political, and social contexts of those writings. No
text arises in a vacuum and to fully understanding the origins of rhetorical theory
in Greece we must bring to these texts a more developed knowledge of their contexts.
In addition, we do well to follow Schiappa's lead in examining the technical vocabulary
of these texts. This is a particularly productive focus of study because it is
the very nature of academic disciplines to produce an ever more technical and
sophisticated set of terms through which the discipline "sees," describes, quantifies,
and characterizes its subjectmatter. This was certainly true for the discipline
of rhetoric in ancient Greece as even a cursory comparison of relevant fifth and
fourth century texts will establish.
I will close by noting a few of what I take to be the central weaknesses of this
work. The text itself divides rather nicely into a theoretical portion in which
Schiappa explains his origins of rhetoric thesis and the implications it has for
our understanding of rhetoric in the classical period. In addition, in these first
five chapters, Schiappa contrasts his perspective with that of the standard account.
This is clearly the strength of this work and it is both highly significant and
greatly persuasive. The second half involves an application of this perspective
to selected works from Gorgias, Isocrates, and Aristotle. While each of these
treatments is enlightening on its own merits, as a whole these later six chapters
lack the coherence of the first five. Each one approaches its subject from a different
angle and lacks consistency with the chapters that proceed or follow it. To be
fair, this is, in fact, consistent with Schiappa's theoretical perspective that
seeks to move away from a master narrative for the classical period. As I have
noted above, the text does a convincing job of breaking down the master narrative
constructed by Kennedy. In its place is not an alternate narrative, but rather
an alternate approach that pursues a more nuanced and accurate account of particular
authors and texts, particularly in light of the origins of rhetoric thesis.
In addition, the scope of Schiappa's claims, it might be said, are large enough
to have warranted the inclusion of a wider range of texts and a larger chronological
frame than what is included here. I would, in particular, note that it does not
address the works of playwrights, such as Aristophanes, and fragments and reported
assertions from some of the minor sophists. Neither does it engage the works of
Plato in any detail. The works of these authors are likewise important for our
understanding of the beginnings of rhetorical theory in Greece and while Schiappa
cannot be expected to take on all extant texts in one work, it is a fair critique
to say that his coverage could have been more comprehensive.
Schiappa's origins of rhetoric thesis, focus on the development of rhetoric's
technical vocabulary, and his characterization of the predisciplinary and disciplinary
stages in the development of rhetorical theory in ancient Greece make for a convincing
and powerful perspective. His contextually sensitive reading of texts models a
powerful means for future examinations of rhetoric in this and other time periods.
The focus of this text on the significance of language, through its focus on disciplinary
vocabulary, is both powerful and true to the moorings of rhetorical studies. Finally,
Schiappa's straightforward critique of the dominant paradigm of the beginning
of rhetorical theory in ancient Greece requires a good deal of consideration and
response from rhetorical scholars focused on this period.
Notes
1. Readers should be aware that I am a co-author of chapter eleven, Aristotle's
Disciplining of Epideictic.
Bibliography
Cole, Thomas. The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1991.
Garrett, Mary. "Asian Challenge."
In Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Ed. By Sonja Foss, Karen Foss,
and Robert Trapp, pp. 295-306. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1991.
Jarratt, Susan C. Rereading the
Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press, 1991.
Kennedy, George. Classical Rhetoric
and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980.
Lu, Xing. Rhetoric in Ancient
China, Fifth to Third Century BCE: A Comparison with Classical Greek Rhetoric.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998.
Poulakos, John. Sophistical Rhetoric
in Classical Greece. Columbia: South Carolina University Press, 1995.